3 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

One more time for the mentally challenged. 

A citizen, by definition, owes an allegiance to a government or potentate. Allegiance, by definition, involves a commitment by a subject or inferior to a superior. Therefore, a citizen cannot be sovereign. 

As a reminder, in the American form of government, the people are sovereign. The War of Independence won our freedom from any government, King or Pope. Try reading the Declaration of Independence. The people delegate their authority to form a government which is employed to perform certain duties on behalf of the people. The employees of the government take an oath to serve faithfully- that is a citizen.

The people are not subjects of any government. The people are the employers, not the employees. I am one of the people. 

 

🤡

 

 

 

 

 

Derp\

How is backward ass Russia cleaning your clock in advanced weapons, Commoners?

4 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

 

Derp\

How is backward ass Russia cleaning your clock in advanced weapons, Commoners?

They should come in handy if you need to hit a daycare. 

5 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

 

Derp\

How is backward ass Russia cleaning your clock in advanced weapons, Commoners?

Just a reality check here my dude.

Russian hypersonic missiles are old technology. They’re just ballistic missiles. They claim to have glide vehicles, but Russia usually overstates their capabilities, so who knows how effective it is. 

This technology is useful to them as a counter to US aircraft carriers because our defenses can handle lower speed weapons but probably can’t counter such high speeds. Thus, spending a ton of money on Lowe tech hypersonic weapons makes sense for them (spend $100 million to take out ~$15 billion worth of aircraft carrier, aircraft, munitions, personnel, etc).

What the US is focused on isn’t ballistic missiles or glide vehicles (which the test you referenced was), but air breathing hypersonic propulsion which is a totally different animal that is orders of magnitude more complex. Russia and (for at least the time being) China don’t have any such ultra high value targets like a super carrier that we can’t hit with conventional weapons, so the cost/benefit of a glide vehicle doesn’t make as much sense for the US. Much better to have 50 conventional cruise missiles than one silver bullet. We can hit any capital ship of Russia or China with a few $1M missiles and have ~47 in reserve for the same price.

What the air breathing missiles (which the US IS focused on and recently successfully tested) do is act as an operational technology demonstrator for hypersonic aircraft, specifically bombers. And in the mean time, we get a low flying hypersonic weapon that is even harder to detect, track, and shoot down than a ballistic missile or glide vehicle.

Again, this boils down to a dollars and cents issue. The US can’t justify a $100 million missile when we can utterly obliterate Russian/Chinese capital ships with a couple million worth of munitions. So 50 Patriot missiles makes a lot more sense than 1 hypersonic missile.

The air breathing hypersonic propulsion that the US focuses on is a different animal though, because once conquered, it makes hypersonic weapon delivery economical from our perspective once it’s translated to aircraft. Why spend $100M per shot when you can use the same technology to build a $2B aircraft that can drop $1M bombs on our enemies for the next 25-50 years? It’s just a more economical use of money if you have the budget that we do.

This is actually a mind shift from the pentagon that makes a lot of sense. Same with our new aircraft procurement programs where we plan to order fewer aircraft that are easier to bring to production, maintain and upgrade while also decreasing the turnover time from programs. For example, the new 6th generation air superiority fighter program is already underway to replace the F-22, and the F-22 is already an unparalleled fighter that debuted in the late 90’s. It looks like the turnaround on this is going to be 10-15 years, which is absolutely remarkable.

This shift in approach is going to allow technology to be more evolutionary and less revolutionary within our fleet. It’s going to allow technology to actually be proven in the real world and then simply improved upon for the next generations which get churned out quickly. And it will decrease the cost of programs over their operational lifetime. So the US gets the best of all worlds: a newer, more technologically advanced fleet at lower overall costs.

Also, for what it’s worth, the US had hypersonic platforms way back in 1961 (see X-15 and Robert White). We had scramjets back in 2004. The technology focused on by the US really is totally different here despite all being "hypersonic.”

What Russia and China are doing makes sense for them. Lower cost with a deterrent against super carriers. What the US is doing makes sense for us. Higher development cost for more complicated technology with a greater economic benefit in the long run.

All that said, I’d be pretty surprised if there weren’t some things flying around in the southwest deserts which aren’t already hypersonic and well proven. Hell, Lockheed even came out and publicly said hypersonic aircraft technology has already matured to the point where we can make operational aircraft. Anyone who has looked at their history knows this means they’ve probably already done it in a black program.

The rule of thumb for black programs is that the technology that exists within them is about thirty years ahead of what we currently know exists now. 

1 hour ago, Bill said:

The rule of thumb for black programs is that the technology that exists within them is about thirty years ahead of what we currently know exists now. 

Right. And there’s lots of little bits of evidence that the US has had a hypersonic aircraft since the early 2000’s. Everything from radar, to seismic data from sonic booms to pictures. Then we had a bunch of unclassified scramjet tests as well in the mid 2000’s.

Then a few years ago Skunkworks says they have the tech to build a new blackbird. Seems that it’s not too far of a leap to think there is at least a tech demonstrator that’s been operational for the last two decades.

 

9 hours ago, TEW said:

Just a reality check here my dude.

 

What Russia and China are doing makes sense for them. Lower cost with a deterrent against super carriers. What the US is doing makes sense for us. Higher development cost for more complicated technology with a greater economic benefit in the long run.

 

This is what it really boils down to. The U.S. puts so much emphasis on advanced technology and trying to build the next best, do it all thing, all of which leads to cost overruns and overly complicated junk, that they are barely able to maintain operational levels for systems. The MIC makes tons of cash while delivering marginal benefits. The Russians, on the other hand, just build what works for a particular job at the cheapest cost. 

Take, for example, the U.S. approach to bombs. There's laser guided, TV guided and GPS guided- all of which have the guiding tech built into the missile. All very effective against third world armies without any ability to jam signals, btw. The problem is that the expensive gadgets used to make these "smart" bombs smart gets blown up every time the missile hits it's target. That gets really expensive.

The Russians took a different approach. They built the extremely sophisticated SVP- 24 system based around the GLONASS GPS. This doohickey is loaded onto the plane and provides such high accuracy in targeting data that exact times are determined when to release the payload to hit the target within a few feet. It's the same old WW2 approach but taken to another level. Now, all of their bombs are smart bombs, even the old cheap bombs in storage by the millions. A much more simple and elegant approach. 

17 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

This is what it really boils down to. The U.S. puts so much emphasis on advanced technology and trying to build the next best, do it all thing, all of which leads to cost overruns and overly complicated junk, that they are barely able to maintain operational levels for systems. The MIC makes tons of cash while delivering marginal benefits. The Russians, on the other hand, just build what works for a particular job at the cheapest cost. 

Take, for example, the U.S. approach to bombs. There's laser guided, TV guided and GPS guided- all of which have the guiding tech built into the missile. All very effective against third world armies without any ability to jam signals, btw. The problem is that the expensive gadgets used to make these "smart" bombs smart gets blown up every time the missile hits it's target. That gets really expensive.

The Russians took a different approach. They built the extremely sophisticated SVP- 24 system based around the GLONASS GPS. This doohickey is loaded onto the plane and provides such high accuracy in targeting data that exact times are determined when to release the payload to hit the target within a few feet. It's the same old WW2 approach but taken to another level. Now, all of their bombs are smart bombs, even the old cheap bombs in storage by the millions. A much more simple and elegant approach. 

So killing civilians is on purpose ?

12 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

So killing civilians is on purpose ?

well, uh, Azov was hiding behind that market. 

The thing is that the market was close to a rail and road bridge across the Dnipro. The last two weeks that's what the Russians have been trying to hit. The problem with the super duper guidance systems that Abracadabra raved about is that Russian cruise missiles and bombs have minute of square kilometer accuracy. 

 

Whereas a GPS guided system, like the rockets that the MLRS system has, accurately hit the target, like say every Russian emplacement on Snake Island. 

 

Also hilarious that he talks about how GPS can be jammed, but then talks about how using a GLONASS based system is so much better. Newsflash, it's the same kind of system. If GPS can be jammed, so can GLONASS. jagsfan.gif

 

So while US systems can launch a rocket 70km and put it into the roof of a specific building, the Russians put their missiles through the roof of a grocery store a couple thousand meters north of where they were aiming. 

3 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

This is what it really boils down to. The U.S. puts so much emphasis on advanced technology and trying to build the next best, do it all thing, all of which leads to cost overruns and overly complicated junk, that they are barely able to maintain operational levels for systems. The MIC makes tons of cash while delivering marginal benefits. The Russians, on the other hand, just build what works for a particular job at the cheapest cost. 

Take, for example, the U.S. approach to bombs. There's laser guided, TV guided and GPS guided- all of which have the guiding tech built into the missile. All very effective against third world armies without any ability to jam signals, btw. The problem is that the expensive gadgets used to make these "smart" bombs smart gets blown up every time the missile hits it's target. That gets really expensive.

The Russians took a different approach. They built the extremely sophisticated SVP- 24 system based around the GLONASS GPS. This doohickey is loaded onto the plane and provides such high accuracy in targeting data that exact times are determined when to release the payload to hit the target within a few feet. It's the same old WW2 approach but taken to another level. Now, all of their bombs are smart bombs, even the old cheap bombs in storage by the millions. A much more simple and elegant approach. 

The US puts emphasis on tech for a reason. It’s because having our level of tech in the numbers we have it gives the US air supremacy. Calling our aircraft "overcomplicated junk” is like calling an F1 car over complicated junk because you can buy a Ford Focus. Minor detail here — you’re in a car race!

As far as Russian guided bombs, do you not see how having your entire munitions stockpile GPS dependent is an Achilles heel? You talk about jamming… who do you think is going to better be able to disrupt a GPS signal?

Russia does what it can within its own budget, which is build cheap equipment that is less effective in smaller numbers. The US does what it can within its budget — set the pace of cutting edge aerospace technology and bring it to production in mass numbers.

If Russia could afford it, they would do what the US is doing. But they can’t so they won’t. China is trying to make that leap because they might have the budget to do it in the future, but they’re still playing catch-up on a broad scale.

The bottom line is that head to head the US would kick the crap out of a near peer adversary like Russia precisely because of our "overcomplicated junk.”

7 hours ago, TEW said:

The US puts emphasis on tech for a reason. It’s because having our level of tech in the numbers we have it gives the US air supremacy. Calling our aircraft "overcomplicated junk” is like calling an F1 car over complicated junk because you can buy a Ford Focus. Minor detail here — you’re in a car race!

As far as Russian guided bombs, do you not see how having your entire munitions stockpile GPS dependent is an Achilles heel? You talk about jamming… who do you think is going to better be able to disrupt a GPS signal?

Russia does what it can within its own budget, which is build cheap equipment that is less effective in smaller numbers. The US does what it can within its budget — set the pace of cutting edge aerospace technology and bring it to production in mass numbers.

If Russia could afford it, they would do what the US is doing. But they can’t so they won’t. China is trying to make that leap because they might have the budget to do it in the future, but they’re still playing catch-up on a broad scale.

The bottom line is that head to head the US would kick the crap out of a near peer adversary like Russia precisely because of our "overcomplicated junk.”

The U.S. may have air supremacy over Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia and it's environ is a completely different story. Going up against the S-400, S-500 and soon S-550 air-defense missile systems will wreak havoc. 

Once Russian bombs are released by the plane, they no longer rely on GPS. No ground based jamming will work. You'd have to go directly for the satellites to defeat the system.

Russian equipment seems to be working pretty well in 404, cheap or not. Their hypersonic weapons have taken out hundreds of targets with pinpoint accuracy. The U.S. has nothing which comes close. 

I doubt Russia would mass produce techno-junk the way the U.S. does because they are not an imperial power trying to dominate the world while feeding their pals arms corporations. You need a huge arms budget if you want to project power. If you're more interested in your own neighborhood, things can be accomplished much cheaper. Instead of building a ton of hugely expensive F-35s, which barely stay airborne, you build a much cheaper air defense system that shoots down the golden trash can.

There's a reason why NATO is sitting this one out. They see what Russia is capable of and they want no part of it. The high tech, small arms stuff sent 404 has made zero difference. Sink a few aircraft carriers and the myth of U.S. superiority evaporates.

14 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

 U.S. has nothing which comes close. 

You'd never know if we did or didn't. If we do we certainly wouldn't be using it in that theater. 

The entire cold war build up on behalf of the US was predicated on the false story they were selling about Russian arms superiority. Was a boon for the US military complex. Go ahead and believe they'd F with a winning formula.

 

Behold! Russian targeting superiority!

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/vp97iu/oryx_you_know_this_is_the_russian_air_force/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

 

25% hit rate. Lol. 

 

Abra - Are you a dual citizen or just Russian?

 

 

 

Anyone supporting Russia is embracing pure evil.

 

 

It would appear that one side of this conflict knows how to accurately hit military targets:

 

 

16 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

The U.S. may have air supremacy over Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia and it's environ is a completely different story. Going up against the S-400, S-500 and soon S-550 air-defense missile systems will wreak havoc. 

Once Russian bombs are released by the plane, they no longer rely on GPS. No ground based jamming will work. You'd have to go directly for the satellites to defeat the system.

Russian equipment seems to be working pretty well in 404, cheap or not. Their hypersonic weapons have taken out hundreds of targets with pinpoint accuracy. The U.S. has nothing which comes close. 

I doubt Russia would mass produce techno-junk the way the U.S. does because they are not an imperial power trying to dominate the world while feeding their pals arms corporations. You need a huge arms budget if you want to project power. If you're more interested in your own neighborhood, things can be accomplished much cheaper. Instead of building a ton of hugely expensive F-35s, which barely stay airborne, you build a much cheaper air defense system that shoots down the golden trash can.

There's a reason why NATO is sitting this one out. They see what Russia is capable of and they want no part of it. The high tech, small arms stuff sent 404 has made zero difference. Sink a few aircraft carriers and the myth of U.S. superiority evaporates.

Dude, Russia is having difficulty controlling the air space of Ukraine. They stand absolutely no chance in a direct head to head confrontation with the US.

 

20 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

The U.S. may have air supremacy over Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia and it's environ is a completely different story. Going up against the S-400, S-500 and soon S-550 air-defense missile systems will wreak havoc. 

Once Russian bombs are released by the plane, they no longer rely on GPS. No ground based jamming will work. You'd have to go directly for the satellites to defeat the system.

Russian equipment seems to be working pretty well in 404, cheap or not. Their hypersonic weapons have taken out hundreds of targets with pinpoint accuracy. The U.S. has nothing which comes close. 

I doubt Russia would mass produce techno-junk the way the U.S. does because they are not an imperial power trying to dominate the world while feeding their pals arms corporations. You need a huge arms budget if you want to project power. If you're more interested in your own neighborhood, things can be accomplished much cheaper. Instead of building a ton of hugely expensive F-35s, which barely stay airborne, you build a much cheaper air defense system that shoots down the golden trash can.

There's a reason why NATO is sitting this one out. They see what Russia is capable of and they want no part of it. The high tech, small arms stuff sent 404 has made zero difference. Sink a few aircraft carriers and the myth of U.S. superiority evaporates.

Now that I have a little more time to respond, let’s have a reality check:

The S-500 isn’t even in service yet. And it’s procurement is being delayed because Russia can’t win in Ukraine — an exercise even the US military thought Russia would win easily. So your stuck with S-400’s which have only been tested against a RCS of 0.4 meters. For comparison, the F-35 and B-2 have a RCS of less than 0.005 meters.
 

This idea that US stealth aircraft are going to magically be falling out of the sky is pure fantasy. Yes, it is a legitimate air defense system, but your dreams of an impervious SAM shield doesn’t stand up to Russia’s own reported abilities. Russia can’t even control the skies of Ukraine against legacy Russian garbage. The S-400 has how many kills again? 
 

So now we’re on to an air war. Russia has a grand total of 6 SU-57’s in operation, which is the only "modern” fighter in their inventory. That’s compared to 187 operational F-22’s, all of which are far superior to anything Russia is even capable of producing.

And then you want to talk about the F-35 and crashes? There are a total of over 700 F-35’s among multiple air forces across the globe. They have something like 350,000 hours flown, many from aircraft carriers, and there have been a total of what, 5 crashes of the F-35? With no fatalities? It’s literally the most successful military fighter in history to this point as far as safety is concerned. And, oh yeah, it would absolutely smoke anything in Russia’s Air Force.

But perhaps funniest of all, you want to level accusations about imperialism.  

Putin is literally an imperialist who is literally trying to cobble together the former Soviet Union into a neo-Russian empire. JFC, read your own side’s books. They aren’t shy about telling people this!