â„–3079204[Quote]
>>>3079170 (You)
>What's better than being out of range? That a shaped charge can't burn a hole through
i doubt missiles use shaped charges
â„–3079211[Quote]
>>>3079184
>what makes you think im a jeet saar?
why are you using vpn then
â„–3079222[Quote]
>>3079211Im Israeli, not indian
â„–3079224[Quote]
>>>3079211 (You)
>Im Israeli, not indian
geeeg
â„–3079229[Quote]
>>3079222Yep he's definitely Indian
â„–3079235[Quote]
why does this place look like 4cuck
â„–3079239[Quote]
>>3079204Well what's the better armor
â„–3079244[Quote]
>>3079180That'd be kinda costly compared to just using a variety of missiles and glide bombs. Designing a bomb to withstand reentry and making it precise would be a challenge.
â„–3079245[Quote]
>>3079235Aging. Soiteens from 2019 are racing into their thirties, gen z is already old
â„–3079248[Quote]
>>3079244In US military philosophy, costlier is better
â„–3079250[Quote]
>>3079229reminder your VP is married to an indian
â„–3079251[Quote]
>>3079250It's okay we already know you're an Indian, you don't have to prove it further
â„–3079253[Quote]
>>>3079229
>reminder your VP is married to an indian
curse vishnu dalit
â„–3079257[Quote]
>>>3079244
>In US military philosophy, costlier is better
costlier and more useless
â„–3079262[Quote]
>>3079244That's kinda what I had in mind. Just planes dropping glide bombs from forever away. I think that's what Russia does now on a micro scale. Only problem would be stopping AA from shooting down the bombs.
â„–3079272[Quote]
>>3079262I wonder how much better hypersonics are going to get before they hit diminishing returns..
â„–3079287[Quote]
>>3079262Yeah you're right. Fun fact: Modern glide bombs were invented by South Africa, of course there were glide bombs ever since WW2 but the SANDF made them what they are today.
â„–3079292[Quote]
The solution is stealth glide bombs.
â„–3079309[Quote]
>>3079304this all look so goofy and stupid
â„–3079320[Quote]
>>3079292The glide bombs don't need to be stealth since they're dirt cheap and annoying to shoot down. A Russian UMPK kit costs ~25K$.
â„–3079335[Quote]
>>3079080Propaganda reasons.
â„–3079359[Quote]
>>3079156Flares aren't magic in real life. Especially since a crappy AI algorithm run on a 10 tear old smartphone tier computer can use the video feed to discern between a flare and an aircraft in a tenth of a second.
â„–3079370[Quote]
>>3079292Have you ever heard of the "international torpedo" concept? Was a concept to have second-strike that wasn't ICBM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_vehicle) â„–3079372[Quote]
>>3079292More like guided artillery for most, and edge-of-space stealth weapons for countries with money.
â„–3079381[Quote]
>>3079359laser pod pointing towards the camera?
â„–3079404[Quote]
>>30793701.7 km detection range with a 2 Mt warhead is scary as fuck, probably the premier weapon for actually sinking a carrier.
â„–3079414[Quote]
>>3079381That's the idea, but it's not infallible. Especially if the missile decides it's a good idea to trade energy to fly erratically when it gets close to the target. And then there's also the idea that multiple cheaper missiles could also be launched and overwhelm the laser system. As it is, it's pretty standard to launch 2 missiles at 1 aircraft.
â„–3079431[Quote]
Okay final guess on the missile. It's Qaem-118, basically a reverse-engineered TOW ATGM converted to a SAM. Explains the amount of damage it did as it's designed to shoot down helis and medium sized drones.
â„–3079443[Quote]
>>3079414why cant planes have 20 tiny missiles to act like a tanks APS. FUCK aerial warfare
â„–3079581[Quote]
>>3079320How accurate are they? Like could you hit a moving tank or only stationary targets.
>>3079370It's a neat concept but 99% of the power in nukes is their existence, not them actually being used.
â„–3079595[Quote]
Idk maybe glide bombs laser guided by a satellite or something to completely replace artillery and traditional strikes. Of course military satellites are a whole separate thing.
â„–3079658[Quote]
>>3079581They are GPS/GLONASS guided, so only stationary targets. Though theoretically they can be modified to be guided via laser designation from a drone. Similar to how Krasnopol guided artillery shells work.
â„–3079672[Quote]
>>3079658That's probably better than a satellite but how do you stop the drone from being fucked with?
â„–3079691[Quote]
>>3079672True autonomy. One of the real reasons the US and China are tying to create AGI.
â„–3079698[Quote]
>>3079691I was thinking drones like those the ones we use to drone strike. Artillery could be replaced pretty easy now but aviation strikes not so much.
â„–3079706[Quote]
Maybe weather balloons with laser pointers bolted onto them? I've heard those things are ungodly annoying to take down.
â„–3079776[Quote]
>>3079721Apparently they're rather stealthy too. One was about to fly past a Nimitz strike group.
â„–3079800[Quote]
>>3079672Well you don't, it's more that in the modern battlefield recon drones are treated basically as disposable because of their cheapness.
â„–3079833[Quote]
>>3079800Cost is fine I was thinking that you could deny laser guided strikes if you just swat all the drones out of the air.
â„–3079865[Quote]
>>3079833That's easier said then done, they're quite small so most air defense is suited for shooting them down. Now FPV drones are used against recon drones.
â„–3079940[Quote]
>>3079865So send out like 3 4 million dollar recon drones to laser point targets while in allied safe space essentially a cargo plane just shits out a guided bomb whenever they get the order? It should be cheaper as long as you aren't losing too many drones.