Why does nobody make submarine kinos anymore?
Mishter vashily... one ping only pleashe.
All the good ones have been made
For me it’s le champ du loup
Because it's fucking lame. Boatkino is kino because it's men against the elements with the sky above and wind whipping their faces.Subs are basically floating bunkers. It's claustrophobic (but not in a tense way) and boring.
>>216934973>Boatkino is kino because it's men against the elements with the sky above and wind whipping their faces.what the fuck are you talking about>>216934875this, also das boot/thread
>>216934875>there are a few good sub movies therefore no good one can ever be made in the futureWhat retard logic is that?
>>216935255Ok smart guy, come up with a sub movie plot that hasn't been done before?
>>216934875>All the good ones have been madeThisI think black sea was the last submakino
>>216934806There's no interesting story to justify the expense of a submarine movie. Cameron still includes submersible stuff in his movies and it's great. Just rewatched The Abyss and the Sub scenes were kino
>>216934806Because the only country capable of making good Submarines that could stand against US submarines was Russia (or the Soviet Union).Chinese submarines suck, cheaply made and can't travel the ocean. They don't know how to make nuclear submarines. North Korea is so tiny. Indian submarines are.... Lmao rust buckets.
>>216935280A proper adaptation of any of the numerous horrific soviet submarine disasters and not hollywood bullshit like K-19
>>216934806Dead reckoning wasn't submarine kino, but it had submarine kino, even though the movie itself was just on
>>216935280das boot but it's april 1945 and newest shiniest XXII type U-Boot has to escape countless allied search parties while it desperately tries to navigate to south america with priceless cargo at the end when they finally reach some argentinian port captain makes every marine exit the sub, files them up along the vessel on a port deck but forgets about the last guy that was left in the infirmary. He gets to see that the special cargo they were hauling was actually a contenerized living quarter and someone in a long light brown coat and a rimmed hat exits the container and proceeds to the escape ladder. The last frame of the movie is a 50ish years old man's hand grabbing the last rung of the ladder and he has a signet with golden swastika on it
>>216934806Here's my idea of a submarine film from the soviet perspective. Their technology and manufacturing quality is dogshit and it's borderline homicidal to assign crew to operate the vessels. The political officer is a horrible bastard who threatens people that report problems. He cares more about image than the safety of the crew. The sonar operators would get into arguments about the helmsmen turning the rudder and planes too noisily. The helmsmen are doing the best they possibly can and nothing is good enough. They are punching bags. Operational communication is disorganized and some of the crew barely understand Russian. One of the sonarmen gets tinnitus but doesn't feel safe telling anyone. He can't do his job effectively but no one notices. He is paranoid the whole time but only of his superiors finding out about his injury rather than an enemy submarine. Cut to americans, shadowing them with ease.These segments are shot like a horror film. Every action they take is eerie, cold and calculated. They speak professionally and procedurally. Show the crew at noise discipline, basically doing the mannequin challenge unless they are on watch. All you would hear is the pulsing of the reactor and shafts turning. It ends with the soviet crew in a prison camp. They see black people for the first time.
>>216934806Because it has been shown that they are useless in war scenarios.
>>2169374099/10Would watch.
>>216934806um because submarines are full of mediocre white men
>>216937455modern or classic war?
>>216937455The opposite. They're extremely useful. But none of their work is exciting for a movie and very boring to an unfamiliar audience. They sit and stare at highly technical screens for long periods of time with no windows or laser guns.
>>216937455Yeah what we need are REALLY big ships that use diesel for propulsion
>>216934806Zoomers aren't interested in anything that's not gay
>>216936668ThisIt was the best part of the movie
>>216937821You could make a good movie about the sinking of the shinano from both the submarine and the carrier's perspective.
>>216935280High budget implosion kino
Stockton Rush biopic will revive the genre
>>216937855Gae submarine: Where light doesnt reach.
>>216935280Adaptation of the Oceangate story.>Drama following the arrogance and selfishness of stockton rush pushing away everyone who dares to disagree >Scenes with some of the wacky hijinks that should have killed someone before the final dive like the various accidents launching and retrieving the sub or the dive they did after the first hull had a giant crack in it where the whole interior shifted into the hole they ground out and nearly broke open the high pressure air bottles>Every scene with the sub under construction or in use is shot like a Final Destination movie showing all the mistakes and flaws that get overlooked>Movie ends on a Sopranos style instant cut to blackDirected by James Cameron ofc
>Analysts concluded that 23 sailors took refuge in the small ninth compartment and survived for more than six hours. When oxygen ran low, they attempted to replace a potassium superoxide chemical oxygen cartridge, but it fell into the oily seawater and exploded on contact. The resulting fire killed several crew members and triggered a flash fire that consumed the remaining oxygen, asphyxiating the remaining survivors.
>>216936462In WW2 Germs and Japs made subs that were completely on par with US subs
>>216937455>Because it has been shown that they are useless in war scenarios.They prevent nuclear combat
>>216934875correct.There was a one-off miniseries of TWD, called Dead in the Water, which was pretty good submarine zombie kino. Only like six episodes but worth watching. Totally separate from the other series.
>>216937855submarines are pretty gay though
>>216939016Horrors like this were pretty normal in Russian subshttps://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000078940.pdf
>>216939084The U-boats were better. Their tanks were better. We won because we could outproduce them 10:1
>>216939016>Ay blyat!*goofy aaaah cartoon noises*Ivan pauses and slowly turns head to look at camera*BOOM*
kino
>>216935280Sub chasing after an underwater unidentified object. Whole movie is them fighting against this object. Finale is a giant woman finally grabbing the submarine and using it as a dildo .
>>216939200>watch movie>the gigasubmarine aircraft carrier that launches F15s never makes an appearanceDishonest marketing.
>>216939155The Americans won because they made a shitton of destroyers and put sonar and radar on themThe point is that there was submarine parity in WW2 to make for good submarine kino, plus it was a real shooting war do you don't have to totally invent a scenario for subs to be duelling like you would post-1945
>>216939260Submarines are like fighter jets nowThere would be nothing to film or milk for dramaA sub fight would be blips on a screen and then one group would cease to exist as they were liquefied from hull decompression.
>>216939215destroyer kino> sub kino.
>>216939328Same movie but with destroyer.
>>216937409>Here's my idea of a submarine film from the soviet perspective. >Their technology and manufacturing quality is dogshitThe Soviets actually made very good Submarines. They weren't as quite good as US submarines but they were still a solid opponent. Their problem with the Soviets submarines was maintenence. The Soviets did not invest much money in repairs and maintenance. They would do only the barest minimum to keep their subs running.US submarine sonar operators said that newly built Soviet submarines were actually pretty quiet. But as they got older, the sound dampening technology was not maintained. The Soviets didn't care about maintenance. So the same Soviet submarine would get louder and louder as they got older. It's actually quite funny.The Soviets would rather have 3 noisy submarines than have 1 quiet and well maintained submarine. They valued quantity over quality.
>>216938553
>>216935280Russian sub carrying top secret weapon sinks in international waters close to the Bering strait. US sub immediately dispatched to locate the wreck and extract the weapon. They approach and they suddenly get a radio signal with an American voice identifying itself as some Navy lieutenant. As they struggle to decide what to do, Russian subs are approaching and they have orders to attack on sight since the weapon is a matter of utmost national security
>>216939909>Their problem with the Soviets submarines was maintenenceManufacturing quality, rushed construction, and design flaws were a huge problem.The book "Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines" goes into unbelievable detail about this
>>216939909Isn't that the same issue they have now? That shitty aircraft carrier they have seems like a fucking nightmare to be stationed on. As shit as the military is, and as overbearing as they can be about maintenance and tasking, it serves a clear purpose.
>>216934875
>>216939137Any men gathering is gay by definition, zoomtard logic
>>216935280The Hunt for Red October, but the captain actually does want to nuke the United States.
>>216940156>That shitty aircraft carrier they have seems like a fucking nightmare to be stationed onFun facts:1: It's finally being scrapped after a decade of getting damaged during refit2: The crew has been sent to Ukraine
they should make a film about Unsinkable Sam
>>216934806
>>216940156>Isn't that the same issue they have now?Not really. Also, most myths about Soviet and Russian subs come from Tom Clancy. Soviet subs had more advanced reactors, better metallurgy, more durable hulls, were often faster, and had a much more versatile array of weapons than American subs. Additionally, on more than one occasion, Soviet subs managed to conduct close surveillance of American shore facilities undetected, so even SOSUS and American superiority in acoustic analysis failed on occasion. American subs were more conventional and quieter, but often lacked in other areas due to cost concerns. By the mid-80s, the Soviets had caught up to the U.S. in quieting with subs like the Akula and Sierra so in many cases they held both a numerical advantage and technological parity at the same time. I think a lot of the maintenance stuff comes from what happened to some of the oldest subs in the Soviet fleet, like the November class, and the complete lack of funding that occurred during the 90s.
>>216934973you're literally gay
>>216939251did they get in any trouble for that?
>>216934806germany lost
>>216935280Soviet and American sub hallucinate multiple blips on sonar, each thinks its a new weapon being used by the other side. Figure out its not a trick, they are being pursued. Both subs get cracked open and three crewmen apiece are abducted by underwater ayy lmaos who are never properly seen. Four men get dissected before two Soviet survivors are returned to their country naked and in peak physical health. The USSR collapses and as a result the incident is never investigated.
>>216940784>more advanced reactorsAre you talking about the Alfa or their PWRs?Outside of the Alfa what I've read makes it sound like the reactors weren't more advanced so much as they were built for maximum performance without compromising for things like safety and longevity
>>216940951the Abyss did this
>>216934806Das Boot, Enemy Below and Red October were too good. Everyone knows they can never reach their depths.
>>216941005The Abyss has some pretty great submarine scenes.
>>216939909Yeah, no. It really seems like you're taking this as an opportunity to be a know-it-all.>>216938553>>216940056Use slow-motion.
>>216940992>Are you talking about the Alfa or their PWRs?While the Alfa-class reactors were innovative, I'm talking about their PWRs. They were more compact and produced more power for a given size than American PWRs. Of course, the consequence of this was more vibration. Eventually, though, Soviet designs went to using natural circulation reactors like the Royal Navy, which are naturally quieter and which the U.S. Navy doesn't use because they don't adhere to subsafe requirements. Whether this compensates for the higher vibrations, I don't know, but I think it's safe to assume they've probably dealt with that issue on the Yasen and Borei classes.>for things like safety and longevityWell, as far as I know, their reactors needed refueling at about the same interval as American reactors, and they never experienced any reactor safety issues with any of their subs past the 2nd gen, if you don't count the Alfa's reactor bricking itself if allowed to cool down. Safety issues occurred with the November and Hotel classes since they were rushed to close the gap with the U.S., but this was rectified later.
>>216939016An average day in a Russian sub.
>>216940784>SOVIET SUBS SUPREMEOk Ivan
>>216941155>be an American submariner>explode
>>216935280A white captain and a black officer clash over orders related to the launching or nuclear missiles against a break-away Russian state.
>>216941169>ivanOpinion discarded. Come back when you can talk technical about subs.
>>216934806Too expensive. Any production company that tried would soon be underwater on their investment.
>>216941276All you need is some dingy-looking industrial sets and some miniature models/CGI for the subs, it could be done for a pittance.
>>216941266Gene was kino in that
>>216940119Too much like mission impossible 19
>>216941271Your subs were always shit compared to US/UK designs, Ivan
>>216941367Lmao, sure. Why do you Eglin Chair Force retards even care about the Navy?
>>216941276
>>216941391But what is the captain's tax policy?
I think its for some drone kino
>>216940122>Manufacturing quality, rushed construction, and design flaws were a huge problem. >The book "Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines" goes into unbelievable detail about thisYes and no. The book does bring up good points.The Soviets were capable of building good quality subs....IF they wanted to, and built a few good quality subs. But the Soviet mentality was always quantity first, rush the production because of politics (some military Admiral wanting to show off), don't do enough testing, and don't put money into maintenence. They wanted to compete with the Americans on who could have the most subs. Then by the late 1980s, the Soviets ran out of money. The Soviet Union lasted 60 years but they finally couldnt hide the numbers anymore and they were in deep debt. Ironically because they massively overspent on their military instead of their economy.>>216940156>Isn't that the same issue they have now? That shitty aircraft carrier they have seems like a fucking nightmare to be stationed on. Not anymore. The Russians build good quality equipment (when they want to do it). The problem these days is that the Russian economy can't support a massive 500 ship navy anymore like the Soviet Union did. So modern Russian decided to focus heavily on a smaller number of decent quality Submarines. Their surface navy is mostly missiles cruisers, Destroyers, and frigates.Russians can't built aircraft carriers for some reason. I don't know why. They seem to be cursed lmao. Although some Russian military officials have said they are better off without an aircraft carrier because it's too expensive to run and maintain an aircraft carrier. They said submarines (with nuclear missiles) and cruisers (that spam missiles) are better value that a vulnerable aircraft carrier. They are just one big target. They said Aircraft carriers are mostly a prestige thing. Not really necessary for the modern Russian navy.
Idk, but I want to see what monstrosity they would come up with if they had infinite funding.
>>216941138>which the U.S. Navy doesn't use because they don't adhere to subsafe requirementsYou're confusing a bit of trivia about the USS Narwhal for the entire US sub fleet. The US uses natural circulation plants in the Ohio, Seawolf, and Virginia classes. US sub reactors also were getting lifetime cores since I think the late 80s but you'd have to make a thread on /k/ and hope the guy who posts about fuel compositions shows up to get a better answer.>>216941197>Thresher>Exploding
>>216941276They would be overflowing with dept.
>>216941391>Soviet aircraft were shittier than ours>Soviet rockets were shittier than ours>Soviet armor was shittier than ours>Soviet nuclear weapons were shittier than ours>Soviet warships were shittier than ours>N-NOT THE S-SUBS THOUGH!!!The only thing the Soviets excelled at was spying so they could reverse engineer our shit and even then the only time they got that right was the Tu-4
>>216941454>The US uses natural circulation plants in the Ohio, Seawolf, and Virginia classesOh yeah, you're right. I can't remember where I heard they didn't, but I guess that source was wrong.
>>216941276But they would flood the box office
>>216941367>UKI'm english and I think you're a fucking retard. This country was a communist shit hole in the cold war.
>>216941303Then make it already.
>>216941489>Soviet aircraft were shittier than oursWhat's America's Mig-31?>Soviet rockets were shittier than oursWhat's America's SS-18 equivalent?>Soviet armor was shittier than oursWhat's America's T-64 equivalent?>Soviet nuclear weapons were shittier than oursWhat's America's Tsar Bomba equivalent?>Soviet warships were shittier than oursWhat's America's Kriov battlecruiser equivalent?>N-NOT THE S-SUBS THOUGH!!!The subs least of all other weapon systems you could have chosen.>The only thing the Soviets excelled at was spying so they could reverse engineer our shitYou don't need to project. The U.S. definitely wanted to know how the Soviets managed to build Titanium sub hulls. Of course, I like both U.S. and Soviet subs, so your shilling is falling on deaf ears.
>>216941443Why do you add so many spaces? Who told you to format this way?
>>216941623>so your shilling is falling on deaf earsVery ironic, Ivan. I give you points for that but none of the other make-believe bullshit you keep posting. Soviet military hardware is proven junk.
>>216941623/tv/?maybe you should take a chill pill or talk to someone about your issues
>>216941760They really need to school you guys on military hardware; it's embarrassing when you can only repeat propaganda without actually being able to argue for anything.
>>216941808>make dumb claims>get btfo>erm... this is /tv/Kek.
>>216941837i'm not even the same guy you are derailing the thread with your melty as a brother in christ, I have to believe you're better than this
>>216941811>you can only repeat propagandaOk doing the same ironic bit 2 times in a row diminishes the appeal; you're back to square one.
>>216941870So, in your mind, the one calling everyone he dislikes "Ivan" and literally shilling for American MIC is not having a melty, but the one with actual proof is? No, I was absolutely right assuming you're him samefagging.
>>216941623>What's America's Mig-31?No equivalent because the mission of shooting down low altitude cruise missiles and bombers over giant unpopulated parts of siberia where you can't station interceptors was unique to the USSR.The closest analogue is the F-14 which flew much earlier and was produced in greater numbers>What's America's SS-18 equivalent?None because the US was able to produce smaller warheads and more accurate missiles earlier and didn't need huge warheads and a gigantic liquid fueled missile to carry them after the Minuteman 2 came around in the mid 60s.>What's America's Tsar Bomba equivalent?None because it was a demonstration bomb. Similar and even crazier US proposals existed from the 50s through the 60s and were never built because there was no point. >What's America's Kriov(sic) battlecruiser equivalent?None because the US Navy had completely different missions from the Soviet navyYour argument can easily be turned around, especially when you ask when any answers came online and how they compared to US systems in service at the same time.What's the USSR's equivalents to the F-4, F-106, F-14, F-15, F-16, E-3, F-117, F-111, B-1, B-2What was the USSR's equivalent to the Minuteman, Polaris, Posideon, and especially Trident series?What was the USSR's equivalent to the W25, W54/72, W66 etc?
>>216941913i don't think you're capable of holding an honest debate at this pointgod help you
>>216941913One of the interesting things about the end of the Cold War was finding out that the USSR's hardware was without exception complete shit compared to the West
>>216941489Ejection seats
>>216941973And I say all this as someone who appreciates what the USSR was able to do well within their constraints such as the MiG-25 and that their equipment gets unfairly derided and oversimplified in discussions as a reaction to people like you.I also didn't ask about space systems like the Keyhole series and MIDAS or DSP and I want to know what your answers to those are.
>>216941623>What's America's Tsar Bomba equivalent?the USA had the superior nuclear arsenal, the delivery systems especially. The Tsar Bomba was created just to show how the staged thermonuclear weapon technology could be scaled up arbitrarily, it was never meant to be a practical weapon.
>>216942099bro you're genuinely responding to a russian analogue of JIDFdo you seriously expect honest discourse?
>>216941973>No equivalent>None>None>NoneSo, claiming the Soviets were only good at copying U.S. tech is objectively incorrect if there was nothing to copy these systems from?>especially when you ask when any answers came online and how they compared to US systems in service at the same time.>What's the USSR's equivalents to the F-4, F-106, F-14, F-15, F-16, E-3, F-117, F-111, B-1, B-2Well in order, Mig-23, Su-15, Mig-25/31, Su-27, Mig-29, A-50, no equivalent, Su-24, Tu-160, PAK DA (if it ever gets built)>What was the USSR's equivalent to the Minuteman, Polaris, Posideon, and especially Trident series?In order, the R-27, R-29, R-39, and Bulava missiles.>What was the USSR's equivalent to the W25, W54/72, W66 etc?I couldn't name actual warhead model numbers, but we know they had warheads in that class since they tested them and equipped them on P-700 and Kh-32 cruise missiles.
>>216942135I do because he responded honestly to my post here >>216940992 and I like to think he's just underinformed instead of a shill or completely unreasonable
>>216942046Good thing the Russians learned the same, just a bit earlier.
>>216942184Oh it's that Brazilian schizo from /int/
>>216942131>the USA had the superior nuclear arsenal, the delivery systems especially.In the 50s and early 60s yes, but that was only until the SS-18 arrived and created strategic parity.>it was never meant to be a practical weapon.Not entirely true, it was intended to be mounted to a Vostok rocket, and a modern derivative is in the Poseidon torpedo.
>>216942184
>>216942158Why would the US want equivalents of dog turds? Makes no sense
>>216942251
>>216942319What of the three day military operation are they at?
>>216934806>brownoids ruin another threadmany such cases
>>216942319The soviet empire is dead but the US one still exists -- this is a soviet win how?
>>216934806I wrote one with Lovecraftian monster getting inside while the crew tries silently to get out from Chinese waters.Almost got produced too.
>>216942423I thought you were posting embarrassing moments from their history? The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, not 1989.
>>216942431Wasn't there a doctor who episode like that?
>>216942460There's one where a Martian ice warrior is being transported on a Soviet ballistic missile sub for some reason, escapes, and tries to genocide humanity. Inaccuracies aside, it's a cool episode.
>>216942460No idea.>>216942491Can you name the episode? Might watch it for research.
>>216942457>He doesn't even know cursory Soviet history but dickrides themSad!
>>216942531It's called Cold War from Series 7 of the revived Doctor Who.
>>216934806Women
>>216939215That would make a good ending to a sub comedy.Has a sub comedy ever been done before?
>>216942648>Has a sub comedy ever been done before?Yes, here: >>216939200
>>216941489NTA but if soviets were good at one thing it was submarines, their entire navy more or less standed on submarines, since they had no chance of building stronger navy than US.Soviet tanks also were great, T-64/72 outpreformed western designs untill M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 arrived.>>216941623>Mig-31F-15 and F-22, have strong radar high celling high speed and interception was part of design, F-15 was build with idea of intercepting Mig-25 and F-22 have stronger radar than 31>SS-18 First off it's called R-36M second LGM-118 Peacekeeper>T-64 M1 Abrams>Tsar Bomba Demonstration weapon, they had to modify plane to even carry it.>Kriov battlecruiser 10 aircraft carriers>>216941973A lot of it wrong. Also>F-15Su-27>F-16Mig-29>F-111Tu-22M>MinutemanTopol/Yars>Trident R-39(Typhoon's missile)>W25, W54/72, W66 Well soviet nukes are kinda problematic because not much is known about their classification, so no warhead names are publicly known.
>>216942648Oh, and also Operation Petticoat I guess.
>>216942233>Not entirely true, it was intended to be mounted to a Vostok rocketThat was useless as ICBM as it was 1500 tons heavy space rocket that had to be fueled first and launched from pad instead of sitting in silo for decade ready to launch.So still not practical weapon.>SS-18 arrived and created strategic parityPeacekeeper had same capabilities as R-36
>>216942687>F-15 was build with idea of intercepting Mig-25That's because they thought the Mig-25 was a fighter and not an interceptor. Technically, it still couldn't do that since its max speed is nowhere near Mach 3.>F-22I don't think you understand what "equivalent" means. I'm not going to bring up the Su-57 and say it's superior to the F-15 even though it is, because they're from different gens.>second LGM-118 PeacekeeperWhich was cancelled in favor of keeping the Minuteman 3. Secondly, the SS-18/R-36 could carry 10 warheads and up to 40 penetration aids, while the Peacekeeper could carry 11 warheads but no penetration aids, far as I can tell. Of course, the R-36 was built in massive numbers while the Peacekeeper wasn't and the R-36 was upgraded into the Sarmat, which the U.S. absolutely has no answer for.>M1 AbramsUhm, the M1 Abrams entered service in the 80s while the T-64 entered service in the mid-60s. An actual equivalent would be the T-80U.>Demonstration weaponAgain, designed to be launched on a Vostok rocket, and the modern Poseidon torpedo carries a similar weapon.>10 aircraft carriersVs. 14 Oscar-class subs carrying 24 supersonic P-700s each. Again, that's not an equivalent; that's just dick measuring. An equivalent to the Kirovs would be the reactivated battleships.>F-15 = Su-27>F-16 = Mig-29>F-111 = Tu-22Uh, I already said the first two, but the Su-24 is much closer to the F-111 than the larger and heavier Tu-22, which America's closest equivalent would be something like the B-58.
>>216942890>So still not practical weaponDid you miss the second part? The same class of warhead is mounted on the Poseidon torpedo? I would say that validates the existence of 50-100 megaton warheads.
>>216934827kek
>>216942158>So, claiming the Soviets were only good at copying U.S. tech is objectively incorrect if there was nothing to copy these systems from?I never claimed that. You were replying to someone saying their aircraft were shittier which is a generally true statement even if the MiG-31 was a decent aircraft.>Mig-23First flew much later than the F-4 and had inferior avionics, pilot workload, and ergonomics to contemporary F-4 variants like the J and later S. It also had major structural and handling issues until the M variant came around a half decade later by the time which the US was flying the F-14 and F-15.>Su-15First flight was a decade after the F-106's, and by that time the US had better interceptors like the F-4>Mig-25The MiG-25 was its own thing more comparable to the YF-12 and XF-108, both of which were canceled once SAMs made high speed high altitude bombers obsolete. While the MiG-25 was impressive for the time it was hamstrung in its role by its lack of look down shoot down capability until midway through its service life>MiG-31Entered service almost a decade after the F-14>Su-27Entered service almost a decade after the F-15 and even then had to have the kinks worked out for another five years until it was officially accepted>MiG-29Entered service five years after the F-16 with notably bad ergonomics and pilot workload, plus the avionics were downright terrible with issues such as having to choose between using the radar or RWR. Also has infamously short range and short engine/airframe life compared to the F-16, which was a common feature of soviet planes. I think even the latest Russian revisions of the Flanker have around half the lifetime of a new build F-15>A-50Introduced 8 years later. I don't know how initial variants compared to contemporary E-3s >Su-24Entered service 7 years later than the F-111 and was nowhere near as capable until the M variant came around in the early 80s.TBC
>>216942890>Peacekeeper had the same capabilities as R-36But there were something like 300 R-36s in service in comparison to 50 peacekeepers. Hence, parity. Of course, the R-36 entered service in like 1968, so comparing it to a missile from 1986 is a bit disingenuous.
Hunter Killer was kinoAlso one of the last films with Michael Nyqvist
>>216942998why put city-obliterating firepower in a torpedo? what exactly are you shooting the torpedo at. the thing was too large for a ballistic missile.
>>216942715great premise
>>216934806we need spooky submarine kino
>>216942998Poseidon is not a torpedo, it's an unmanned submarine. I think they are just planning it, it's not operational, and no one knows what the armament would be.
>eco-terrorist captain goes rougue and hunts down fishing vessels and oil rigs
>>216943041>had inferior avionics, pilot workload, and ergonomicsHuh, "ergonomics" really? For a fighter jet? I'm comparing performance, not totally subjective qualities. Also, the MiG-23 got pulse doppler radar while Air Force F-4s didn't, so the avionics were superior on the MiG-23.>by that time the US had better interceptors like the F-4Yeah, and the Soviets had the MiG-25, there's literally no comparison.>The MiG-25 was its own thing more comparable to the YF-12 and XF-108It weighed much less and was cheaper. The Soviets had a use for a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor.>Entered service almost a decade after the F-14It entered service in like 1981, so only about 6 years.>Entered service almost a decade after the F-15True, but it is an aerodynamically superior design with longer range and larger radar as originally delivered. F-15 doesn't have an IRST, does it?>even then had to have the kinks worked out for another five years until it was officially acceptedWhat? It entered service between 87 and 89. Let's not talk about the "kinks" in American aircraft shall we, because entire books have been written about them. Let us all remember the F-111.>having to choose between using the radar or RWRAnd your source is? That seems silly considering the MiG-29 has separate instrument panels for radar and RWR. RWR is also a passive system.>short engine/airframe lifeThe planes are still in service even now, just like the F-16. Engine life was short, but this was mitigated by having a good spares supply and logistics chain.>Entered service 7 years later than the F-111Yet the F-111 took years to enter service due to having so many design flaws.I don't understand why you guys always have to argue so passive aggressively. No, American planes weren't more ergonomic, well-designed, had better vibes, or were made with love, they are just tools. Hundreds of pilots died flying F-4s, F-100s, B-52s, and I'm sure the same is true of Soviet planes.
>>216942158>Tu-160First flight a few years later than the B-1A, accepted into service a year later than the much different B-1B but off the top of my head I forget how long it took for them to finally be able to fly them operationally without the tailplanes delaminating and a two day long startup procedure. It also has a significantly smaller payload compared to the B-1 despite being a much much larger aircraft>R-27Liquid fueled while also being less accurate and shorter ranged than the Polaris A-3 which entered service at the same time>R29Still liquid fueled while being less accurate and carrying less warheads than the Posideon>R39Comparable accuracy and payload to a Trident 1 but it's 2.5 times larger and entered service five years later>BulavaEntered service 30 years after the Trident 2 with less accuracy and payload>I couldn't name actual warhead model numbers, but we know they had warheads in that class since they tested them and equipped them on P-700 and Kh-32 cruise missiles.Neat, I'll look into this
>>216943319>why put city-obliterating firepower in a torpedo? To inundate and irradiate coastal areas, i.e., ports, harbors, inlets, etc. Since the torpedo is nuclear-powered, it can circle a target for months before attacking. With such a large torpedo, there is much less of a weight concern, so you can have warheads vastly larger than ones on missiles or carried by bombers.
>>216943629You know what's 1000x more effective than that? An air burstCan't believe it's almost 2026 and retards still tout the nooculur torpeeedo meme
>>216943629I don't see the point when you can achieve the same result with missiles. I guess the only advantage it has is reaching the target undetected.
>>216942967>I don't think you understand what "equivalent" means. I'm not going to bring up the Su-57 and say it's superior to the F-15 even though it is, because they're from different gens.Mig-31 is big platform with big radar for launching long range radar guided missile. F-22 have even stronger radar than Mig-31. Su-57 is a joke.>Which was cancelled Was in service for 20 years untill big ICBM was no longer needed because USSR was no more. Russia is still trying to replace it's 40 yers old R36M they have problem renovating since 2014 because missiles were maintained by ukrainian company. R36 is in service because Russia have problems with deploying Sarmat, still no sucessful test so they have to stay with old missile that might not launch because of poor maintanance.>which the U.S. absolutely has no answer for.Trident lol. simlar range same payload but submarine launched since US have 2 big oceans as it's borders.>M1 Abrams entered service in the 80s And T-64 had engine problems for decade.>An actual equivalent would be the T-80U.With exeption of abrams having better armor and thermals.>Vostok rocketNot functional weapon, war would be over before it would be even fueled. >and the modern Poseidon torpedo carries a similar weaponIf 2 MT is simlar to Tsar Bomb then ok.>An equivalent to the Kirovs would be the reactivated battleshipsSee answered it yourself. Also 10 aircraft carriers have much bigger capabilities than oscar class sub or kirov. they can only launch rockets while aircraft carrier can launch asw, awacs, air superiority, airstrike etc.>Uh, I already said the first two, but the Su-24 is much closer to the F-111My bad, Tu-22M was supposed to be B1.>>216943056>Of course, the R-36 entered service in like 1968, so comparing it to a missile from 1986 is a bit disingenuous.You are mistaking R-36(SS-9) to R-36M(SS-18 Satan) R-36 equivalent was Titan II.Also soviets had need for larger warheads(and missiles) because of poorer accuracy.
>>216943568NTA>The Soviets had a use for a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor.Yes because USA build Blackbird while soviets didn't had anything that could fly over USA.
>>216943319It have 2Mt warhead. 100Mt was first announced propaganda piece for sabre rattling.
>>216943598Can you stop with the dick measuring? They are equivalent; they don't need to be objectively superior to one another because at the end of the day, if they are used, the world is ending. Let's do this again.>accepted into service a year later than the much different B-1BSo not that much later, really? Also, the Tu-160 is Mach 2 capable, unlike the B-1B, and holds 99,000 pounds of ordnance as opposed to 75,000 pounds of ordnance. That is a lot more.>Liquid fueled while also being less accurate and shorter ranged than the Polaris A-3Again, it's an equivalent. The later R-27U had longer range and 3 warheads just like Polaris A-3.>Still liquid fueled while being less accurate and carrying less warheads than the PosideonUhm... The modern-day R-29 Layner has a range of 11,000 km as opposed to 12,000 km for the Trident 2, with both carrying 4 warheads. Launch time is the same as the Russians have long since perfected liquid fuel SLBMs. If you're comparing just the models in service in the 70s, then 6500 km range with 7 warheads.>Comparable accuracy and payload to a Trident 1 but it's 2.5 times larger and entered service five years laterI mean, I named it just as a rough equivalent, the R-39 carries 10 warheads instead of 6, and has 8300 km range instead of 7500.>Entered service 30 years after the Trident 2 with less accuracy and payloadActually, with Trident 2 can only exceed 10,000 KM with 4 warheads while Bulava can carry 6 to 10,000 km.
>>216943734>You know what's 1000x more effective than that? An air burstAn air burst everyone knows you are launching at them and can potentially intercept? Try intercepting a stealthy torpedo that was launched 3 months prior to detonation. With geniuses like you, the Russians could save billions.
>>216943802The point is to create strategic uncertainty in the mind of an aggressor, which the fundamental purpose of deterrence. Trump's golden dome meme or Reagan's Star Wars project sought to end MAD, so this is maintains it. ICBMS are more practical but that's not the point.
>>216935280The outbreak of an actual all-out nuclear war, and what the various subs would get up to during the first couple of days after the bombs dropped.
>>216940141desu this seems kinda questionable - a soviet sub would need to cross over the SINGLE line within range of one of the sensors
>>216942967>Peacekeeper>No penetration aidsThis can't possibly be right as it came around long after the fancy british polarises and after the US and USSR had tested multiple different ABM systems>SarmatKeeps exploding and is still liquid fueled unlike the ICBMs of every other country>>216943568Ergonomics is very important for a fighter jet as it frees up the pilot's concentration to focus on fighting. Soviet aircraft's terrible ergonomics making it harder to fight were a constant complaint from every country who flew their planes. How can you post this confidently without knowing that?>MiG-23 got pulse doppler radar while Air Force F-4s didn'tThe APQ-120 in the F-4E was pulse doppler and by the time the MiG-23 had look down shoot down capability the F-15 was in service>True, but it is an aerodynamically superior design with longer range and larger radar as originally delivered. F-15 doesn't have an IRST, does it?True there>What? It entered service between 87 and 89. Let's not talk about the "kinks" in American aircraft shall we, because entire books have been written about them. Let us all remember the F-111I mention that because there's a difference between a plane entering service and it actually being useful. If I wanted to dickwave about advanced systems that entered service before their kinks were worked out I could have brought up the A-6A or F-111E which were both far beyond anything the USSR was building at the time.>Engines and airframe lifeA plane that lasts half as long and needs engine replacements four times as often as its contemporaries is objectively shittier>Yet the F-111 took years to enter service due to having so many design flaws.It started development several years earlier than the Su-24>And your source is?Wargames between the UK and ex east german MiG-29s where it's mentioned using the radar blinds the RWR due to interference. >No, American planes weren't more ergonomic, well-designedObjectively false
>>216935280>US Navy tests new Phil-exper tier weapon>Sub disappear from the blinker>Success >It's not in the designated (shitting) area that was supposed to be though >Sub ends up somewhere between earf and moon floating in space>Crew is alright and alive because oxygen >US tries to find a way to bring them boys back asap >While captain tries to find a way to steer propel and navigate the sub on zero grav and no water I want all the money from my intellectual property rights after the movie is done to go to any -Fight Against Zionism- foundation of /tv/'s choosing. Thanks
>>216944137>Try intercepting a stealthy torpedo that was launched 3 months prior to detonation. With geniuses like you, the Russians could save billions.Then why doesn't it exist?
>>216944170you're not destroying much with a torpedo, assets at sea or right at the coast. not sure what this adds to the deterrence that existing weapons already provide, it's not overcoming MAD that's for sure.
>>216943809>Trident lol. simlar range same payloadUhm. No? Sarmat carries 16 warheads to 18,000 km and not 4 to 10,000.>And T-64 had engine problems for decade.So what did the U.S. have in 70s to compete with it then? It entered service in 1965.>With exeption of abrams having better armor and thermals.T-80 has composite and kinetic ERA, the commander variant had thermals. The question is why you compared the T-64 from 1965 to the M1 Abrams.>Not functional weapon, war would be over before it would be even fueled. You know, or they could just fuel it prior to commencing a nuclear strike because wars don't start instantly?>If 2 MT is simlar to Tsar Bomb then ok.The 2 MT figure you're citing is based on shit analysis. It's a nuclear torpedo that weighs 100 tons; a 2 MT warhead only weighs like 1 ton. If the Russians say it has a 100 mt warhead, I'd believe them.>Also 10 aircraft carriers have much bigger capabilities than oscar class sub or kirovNot the point, the point is who'd win in a war. I'd put my money on the Kirov's and Oscars because fighter jets can't touch Oscars and Kirovs had S-300 SAMS.>ou are mistaking R-36(SS-9) to R-36M(SS-18 Satan) R-36 equivalent was Titan II.I just said R-36. They have the same designation because they are the same missile with upgrades. The R-36 is just a monster that is far in excess of Minuteman and Titan missiles. Neither are FOBS capable. There are more equivalent missiles the Soviets had, I just named the R-36 off the top of my head.>Also soviets had need for larger warheads(and missiles) because of poorer accuracy.I mean, I know people say this? How do you know, though? They never fired one in anger? Early Polaris and Atlas missiles had poor accuracy now, because we have the documents, but when did the Soviets spill the secrets about the weapons that are, by nature, the most accurate in an arsenal?
>>216943874The Soviets didn't bother overflying the U.S. as they developed spy satellites, as we did. The SR-71 couldn't fly over the mainland Soviet Union because it would be shot down either by SAMs or by MiG-25s.
>>216944295>Then why doesn't it exist?Lol wut? They literally have them in service right now. They've been testing them on the Khabarovsk for the last 3 years. It's not a good idea to pretend that your enemy doesn't really have a weapon they've shown and said you have and have spent billions building subs for.
>>216944536>in service right now>They've been testing themOh ok lol
>Solved submarine kinos while submarines were still barely functional gimmicks>Still hasn't been topped>Still no good adaptationHow'd he do it lads?
>>216944290>This can't possibly be rightWell, if you can find a source for it, I'd change my mind but far as I know, U.S. ICBMs don't use them.>Keeps exploding and is still liquid fueled unlike the ICBMs of every other countryIt's in service and if you think some won't be able to hit you, that's just cope. Liquid fuel is efficient and allows for more precise missile control. The soviet's had both liquid-fueled and solid-fueled rockets but often went with liquid-fuel, I'm sure it's still as dangerous and unstable as it was when America used it in the 1950s.>Ergonomics is very important for a fighter jet as it frees up the pilot's concentration to focus on fightingAnd how exactly do you measure ergonomics? Hmm? You can measure, range, radar power output, service ceiling, top speed, etc, but ergonomics?>The APQ-120 in the F-4E was pulse dopplerNot according to what I've seen. Only Navy F-4s had pulse-doppler radar.>If I wanted to dickwave about advanced systems that entered service before their kinks were worked out I could have brought up the A-6A or F-111E which were both far beyond anything the USSR was building at the time.The Soviets were building the MiG-25, which, regardless of your feelings about it, was a very advanced aircraft. The Soviets were confident enough about it to overly Sinai and Israel in combat and didn't lose a single one.>A plane that lasts half as long and needs engine replacements four times as often as its contemporaries is objectively shittierBut is that going to matter when they're flying at you in combat? It's like comparing the M-16 and AK, one is cheaper, more rugged, and simpler, while the other is superior in controllability, ergonomics, and accuracy, yet the AK isn't going away. In any case, my point isn't that Soviet tech is better, just that they had rough parity with one another, hence why the Cold War was a serious issue and not America playing nice with kid gloves as it is portrayed.
>>216944290>It started development several years earlier than the Su-24But it was only able to fully enter service in the 70s, and the Su-24 entered service in 1974. They're just equivalents and would never actually battle one another. If you want to talk about other attributes, you can compare the numbers built.>Wargames between the UK and ex east german MiG-29s where it's mentioned using the radar blinds the RWR due to interference.Pretty sure export Mig-29s had reduced radar capabilities. I could've brought up how the R-30 mogs the Aim-9 in every single way but that wouldn't technically have to do with the planes.>Objectively falseIn what way? Soviet and American planes were built to the same high standards anyone would expect. Soviet planes weren't falling apart mid-flight. I can look at the appallingly high accident rate the U.S. Air Force and Navy suffered and know that the Soviets were probably having the same issues. There's not some secret sauce that makes everything American better. The Mig-25, Mig-31, and Su-27 were all top of the line and definitely superior to their equivalents of the era, but the F-14/15/16 were also better than the equivalent Soviet planes of the same decade.
>>216944305>you're not destroying much with a torpedo, assets at sea or right at the coastSo you're saying detonating a 100 mt warhead in New York harbor wouldn't destroy anything important? How about sailing it up the Potomac river? I'm sure there are no important naval bases or shipyards or anything we wouldn't want destroyed now, is there?
>>216944443>Uhm. No? Sarmat carries 16 warheads to 18,000 km and not 4 to 10,000.So far it only explodes shortly after launch. It have total of 0 sucessful launches.>So what did the U.S. have in 70s to compete with it then?New munition for M60 that was capable of penetrating T-64 and T-72A while M60 got thermal optics(only soviet tank with thermals was T-80UK in late 80's). All M1 Abrams had thermals and so did M2 Bradley.>80 has composite and kinetic ERAAnd it was still worse than Abrams, hell it was even worse than T-72B with kontakt-5>the commander variant had thermalsSo rarest soviet mbt in rarest configuration had thermals while on western tanks it has became standard with Leo 2 and Abrams>You know, or they could just fuel it prior to commencing a nuclear strike because wars don't start instantly?So unshielded launchpad that had to fuel rocket for hour before launch? Great target for missile launched from submarine. ICBM sit in hardened silos ready to launch within minute for good reason.>If the Russians say it has a 100 mt warhead, I'd believe them.Yes because Russia is always saying the truth and not lying about their power...>I'd put my money on the Kirov's and Oscars because fighter jets can't touch OscarsThen you disagree with Soviet Navy who believed biggest threat to submarines to be enemy planes and build Kiev class carriers to protect it's nuclear subs from muurcian planes. It would have done poor job cuz Yak-38 sucked balls anyway. Harpoons launched from plane have longer range than S-300.>I just said R-36. They have the same designation because they are the same missile with upgrades30t heavier and same missile? Damm. While it's not same situation as Tu-22 and Tu-22M R-36 and R-36M are quite diferent especially in preformance. Besides you were using SS-18 name before I corrected to R-36M. R-36 is SS-9.>>216944504>The SR-71 couldn't fly over the mainland Soviet Union It flew over Soviet submarine bases, so not true.
>>216944577>weapons in service can't be testedRetard alert. I guess Trident 2 isn't in service yet? Or does it not exist?
>>216934806theyre 2deep4u, or at least for the modern audiance
>>216945292So far Sarmat in service since 2023 has failed all 5 tests it took since 2022. It isn't single failed test, it's all since supposed introduction most recent month ago.
>>216945229>>216945292The NOOOOCULURR TORPEEEDO isn't in service because there are better ways to knock out coastal targets. Only retards and shills believe >it's real, which one are you?
>>216940141>no, we never found any nazi gold to return to the jews
>>216945229there's nothing special about the nuclear torpedo, you could do the job more effectively with missiles. either way, you get nuked back with hundreds of missiles.
Same plot but underwater.
>>216935280The Blind Man's Bluff has some amazing stories that could be adapted.The one where a sub crew has to rescue and transport another sub's crew in the arctic waters from one submarine to the other would be amazing.
>>216945243>So far it only explodes shortly after launch. It have total of 0 sucessful launches.>In late December 2017, the first successful launch test of the missile was carried out at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Arkhangelsk Oblast. According to the report, the missile flew several dozen kilometers and fell within the test range.Just keep believing that, bro, America's 50-year-old Minuteman missiles are still just as good.>New munition for M60 that was capable of penetrating T-64 and T-72AOh, so it's better to have an M60 with zero armor that can be cut through effortlessly by the T-64's autoloading gun while you maybe can penetrate it? The T-64 was also faster, smaller, and required fewer crew members. Also, the T-80 entered service in 1976 so you'd have bigger issues than just T-64s.>And it was still worse than Abrams, hell it was even worse than T-72B with kontakt-5Based on what? The effective thickness with T-80U ERA was roughly equivalent to the first gen Abrams.>So rarest soviet mbt in rarest configuration had thermals while on western tanks it has became standard with Leo 2 and AbramsYou realize the Abrams and Leo 2 made up a small portion of NATOs mbts right? I'd take 20,000 T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s in a fight over M60s, Chieftans, Leopard 1s, and some Abrams and Leo 2s any day.>Great target for missile launched from submarineGreat idea genius, let's force the Soviet's to launch all their ICBMs and SLBMs at us so we can take out a single missile on a pad. You are extremely intelligent.>Yes because Russia is always saying the truth and not lying about their power.That's cope and you know it, we've literally seen it being built, successful tests were reported, and the launch vehicles are in the ocean right now. Why would the Russians need to lie about a warhead they tested 50 years ago?
>>216944291Kino
>>216935280Top secret sub goes missing in the bermuda triangle. A bunch of salvage and submarine guys attempt to raise it, but have to fight off russians in the process.Old sub is found trapped in an iceberg. They discover that it has been looted and had once held some secret cold war weapon. adventures abound. Red October but the rogue sub captain wants to destroy both washington and moscow, so both usa and russia have to team up. bonus if they create a super sub team made up of americans and soviets. humour abound. Terrorists hijack a nuclear sub, but they forgot about one man. Casey Ryback may appear just a cook but.......yah under siege but with submarine
>>216945243>Then you disagree with Soviet Navy who believed biggest threat to submarines to be enemy planesF-14s can't hit submarines. Sure, ASW helis and bombers can, but Oscars don't have that problem since P-700s have a very long range. Only thing that will threaten them is another sub.>Harpoons launched from plane have longer range than S-300.Lol wut? You mean the air defense system with 90km range? Harpoons aren't launchable by plane far as I know and their range is maybe 100km, but Kirovs have CIWS and escorts.>30t heavier and same missile?It literally is, lmao. Sure, the payload and systems changed, but it's literally the same missile, hence why they share the R-36 designation.>It flew over Soviet submarine bases, so not true.For 5 minutes, overflying Murmansk by hopping the border from Finland. If they'd tried to go to say Moscow, they wouldn't have made it, which is why they never tried it even once. You may not remember but there was this whole U-2 shootdown incident.
>>216945461>isn't in service because there are better ways to knock out coastal targets>literally is>nuh uhh urr stupid I'm da smartistOof.
>>216945639>either way, you get nuked back with hundreds of missilesThe Russians have more missiles and more modern missiles FYI, Poseidon is so America doesn't get any funny ideas about developing missile shields.
>>216945684>The T-64 was also faster, smaller, and required fewer crew membersAnd it lack thermals and better armor means nothing if enemy main tank still can penetrate it. USSR had very short time with superior armor, but west had the same before T-64 was introduced since M60 was superior to T-55 and T-62.>Also, the T-80 entered service in 1976 so you'd have bigger issues than just T-64s.T-80 was just T-64 with turbine. Later version got better that that, but by that time M60 had thermals and Abrams entered service.>You realize the Abrams and Leo 2 made up a small portion of NATOs mbts right? Still more than T-80UK and M60 and Leo 1 were completly capable of penetrating of most variants of T-64/72/80 on combat distances while being equipped with thermals and superior fire controll.>Great idea genius, let's force the Soviet's to launch all their ICBMs and SLBMs That's idea of first strike, if you believe that enemy is preparing nuclear war just eliminate his nuclear arsenal. Soviet subs on patrol were tailed by US attack subs.>so we can take out a single missile on a pad. If they are fueling it then they are preparing to use it. Reminder that cold war almost went hot because USSR put MRBM on Cuba(as response to US putting it's missiles in Turkey).>Why would the Russians need to lie about a warhead they tested 50 years ago?Propaganda? Both internal and international, projecting image of strong Russia. Reminder that Russia is telling it's people they are fighting NATO armies in Ukraine, when all NATO did for Ukraine was give some old junk from storage and provide some training, while manpower is entirely ukrainian.
>>216943568>Huh, "ergonomics" really? For a fighter jet? I'm comparing performance, not totally subjective qualities.MiG-23 is fighter that flies nicely and has decent weapon system. There is slight problem that one guy can't both fly the plane and operate weapon system at same time. That is why ergonomics are kinda relevant with fighters and why MiG-23 doesn't have stellar combat record.>Also, the MiG-23 got pulse doppler radar while Air Force F-4s didn't, so the avionics were superior on the MiG-23.Safir is superior to AN/APG-65YG (F/A-18A's radar adapted to Kraut and Greek Phantoms), AN/APG-66 (F-16's radar adapted to Jap and Worst Korean Phantoms) and ELTA EL/M-2032 (Kikes and Roaches)?
>>216945715>but Oscars don't have that problem since P-700s have a very long rangeIt first require to get near enough so it can target carrier group at all. This put them in range of asw planes.>Only thing that will threaten them is another subOne thing that is patroling around carrier group you mean?>Harpoons aren't launchable by plane far as I know They are by F/A-18 Hornet(in service since 70's) and have range of 200km. Also can be launched by F-16, F-111 and P-3>but Kirovs have CIWS and escortsCarrier also have CIWS and escort that have CIWS and air wing with AA missiles but somehow P-700 is muh threat.>For 5 minutesConsidering it's speed that was all that was needed.>If they'd tried to go to say Moscow, they wouldn't have made itIt didn't have to fly over Moscow, embassy was there, aerial photos of sub bases and production facilities were far more interesting.Mig-25 had all chances to intercept and shoot down over baltic but it never did.
>>216941098>launch the emergency buuwee
>>216945819>Uhhh trust me bro this round thing is definitely the NOOOCULUR TORPEEEEEEDOIt doesn't exist
>>216946221>There is slight problem that one guy can't both fly the plane and operate weapon system at same timeThat's not true of the F-4 either, which is why there are two crewman.>and why MiG-23 doesn't have stellar combat recordExcept when it was flown competently and wasn't outnumbered like in Angola against South African Mirages.>Safir is superiorWhat?
>>216946761>It doesn't existIt certainly has more evidence for its existence than you do.
>>216946816>Trust me bro this photo of a round object is definitive proof! What more do you need?I need more than that
>>216946106>And it lack thermals and better armor means nothing if enemy main tank still can penetrate itThe M60 also lacked thermals. The T80U can penetrate the Abrams in multiple areas frontally.>T-80 was just T-64 with turbineAnd better armor.>but by that time M60 had thermalsLol no, the M60 didn't get thermals until recently.>M60 and Leo 1 were completly capable of penetrating of most variants of T-64/72/80 on combat distances while being equipped with thermals and superior fire control.Are you retarded? The Leo 1 and M60 have literally zero protection against anything. A bmp-1 could take them out. Cope all you want but the T-72 and T-64 will bounce rounds of their upper front plate and turret.>That's idea of first strikeYes, and when you try that the Soviets would have done the same thing because they have this wonderful concept called launch on warning.>If they are fueling it then they are preparing to use it.And they'd be fueling it only if war were imminent, in which case initiating a first strike would be really stupid.>Reminder that Russia is telling it's people they are fighting NATO armies in Ukraine, when all NATO did for Ukraine was give some old junk from storage and provide some training, while manpower is entirely ukrainian.You know, except NATO personnel keep dying in accidents.>It first require to get near enough so it can target carrier group at all.P-700s have a 500km range, well outside any carrier's protection radius.>One thing that is patroling around carrier group you mean?From 500km away? Those are some long range torpedoes.>They are by F/A-18 Hornet(in service since 70's) and have range of 200kmNo, Harpoons are ship launched missiles. I think you've gotten them mixed up with AGM-84s which are not the same weapon.>but somehow P-700 is muh threatYes, because they are data-linked supersonic missiles with multi ton warheads that execute a terminal attack approach. Much different than a subsonic air-launched missile.
>>216941760Typical “America stronk” /k/tard
>>216946396>Considering it's speed that was all that was needed.Oh yeah, I'm sure they loved getting photographs of 1/100th of the Soviet Union.>Mig-25 had all chances to intercept and shoot down over baltic but it never did.Yeah, bro, just shoot down the enemy over international waters. Fucking genius.Anyways, you seemingly don't know enough about American hardware, let alone Soviet hardware, to even have an argument about this stuff. I'm good. I've made my point.
any movies that express the unhinged retardation of these faggots arguing?
I heard that submarines are where the Navy stations all the homos and that it's pretty much an unhinged smelly gay fuckfest in that confined space down there.
>>216946842>sure our own analysts admit its real but say it must suck>sure the Russians leaked it early on purpose>sure the Russians showed us it being built>sure we know the latest Russian subs are being loaded with it>it's not real thoughI can only hope there are more geniuses like you in the Pentagon.
>>216939215And the ocean is actually a giant bathtub
>>216945186>There's not some secret sauce that makes everything American better.The trvke these tards are incapable of grasping
>>216947151>No evidence, just "I said it's real so it's real">Pic is some round object that doesn't even look like a torpedoYou showed us, Ivan
>>216935280The Odyssey but the cold war went hot and the Captain and her crew have to get back home and find their families.
>>216947074>Yes, and when you try that the Soviets would have done the same thingWith their literal handful of ICBMs in this context that can't be kept fueled have a long launch sequence and require ground stations for course corrections?
>>216936462>Indian submarines are.... Lmao rust buckets.Das Poop
>>216936462What does this have to do with being able to make movies?
>>216947363Rub your little braincells together and think it through for a bit. You'll get it, big guy, I believe in you. We'll wait.
>>216947203>No evidence, just "I said it's real so it's real"Lmao. Kill yourself.
>>216947215>require ground stations for course corrections?Lol wut. It's an icbm, what happens when it passes over the horizon? I like how you're moving goalposts from "nuh uh it was just a demonstration" to "well it doesn't matter because soviet missiles bad."
>>216947405I think you're just unwilling to admit you made an off topic post. Man the fuck up anon. Don't be a bitch about it. That shit was like 8 hours ago. You're a different person now.
>>216947506kek seething jeet lol
>>216947468>Trust me it's a Russian noooculur torpeeedo bro. 100 no 1000 megatons!!!!!!! Be scared America!Keep trying Ivan
>>216947074>The M60 also lacked thermalsLate M60 had thermals, so did M2 bradley and M1 Abrams, as did Leo 2 and Leo 1. West was way ahead in quality equipment for it's tanks, when 99% of soviet tanks still used IR searchlight.>The T80U can penetrate the Abrams in multiple areas frontallyAnd Abrams can penetrate T-80U from front and he can also see it at night or duirng day since you know thermals and supperior optics.>Lol no, the M60 didn't get thermals until recently.If by recently you mean 1979 then yes. It was stop gap before Abrams was introduced. Think of it as T-62 of US but with thermals instead of bigger gun.>Cope all you want but the T-72 and T-64 will bounce rounds of their upper front plate and turretYou know US and Israel developed rounds to penetrate T-64/72 right? It was tested against Syrian T-72 and it worked. M2 Bradley could and did take on T-72 during desert storm...>same thing because they have this wonderful concept called launch on warning.Unless submarine sneak up to soviet coast and launch it's missiles at Soviet command before it can react and give orders to launch.>You know, except NATO personnel keep dying in accidents.1 guy in almost 4 years of war of attrition with hundreds of thousand causalties on each side?It would be terrible if NATO send full platoon instead of 1 guy.>P-700s have a 500km range, well outside any carrier's protection radius.But can Oscar sub detect carrier group from 500km?>From 500km away? Those are some long range torpedoes.And how will submerged submarine know where carrier group 500km away is?>No, Harpoons are ship launched missilesThey are ship, submarine, aircraft and land launched. Air launched have longer range than ship launched.>which are not the same weaponAccording to Boeing(producer) they are the same weapon system.>Yes, because they are data-linked supersonic missiles with multi ton warheads that execute a terminal attack approachCIWS and other AA countermeasures.
>>216947560>YO LIL IVAN I JUST SHIT MY PANTS, HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?
>>216947104>Oh yeah, I'm sure they loved getting photographs of 1/100th of the Soviet Union.If it's nuclear submarine base?>Yeah, bro, just shoot down the enemy over international watersYou could always shoot it down over soviet airspace when it was above soviet submarine bases. Unless soviet airspace was international airspace, but then why shoot down civilian passanger planes?
I think Ivan is cool. Seethe.
>>216947688Chernobyl meltdown redux?
>>216947644>doesn't know what equipment 1980s U.S. tanks had>doesn't know when M60 got thermals>doesn't know the difference between harpoons and tomahawks>doesn't know how Soviet early warning radar worked>spouts generic lies about NATO not being on the ground in Ukraine despite NATO troops dying there>doesn't know how Oscar's guide missiles to the target>doesn't know that CIWS doesn't work well against supersonic targetsAnd you want me to bother replying? I'm good.
>>216934806Submarine movies are inherently gay. And our gay creators aren't in the closet anymore so they don't have to make allegories to tension bubbling under the surface because they don't experience it.
>>216947737>YO LIL IVAN I WAS JUST PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED! HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!
>>216947793MELTDOWN
Cameron should make a sequel to The Abyss using the original cast.I'm sure they'd love it.
>>216947771>no argumentI accept your concession.
>>216947860There's no point, lmao. You're so confidently incorrect that it's pointless. If you don't even know that American subs can't launch Harpoon missiles, there's no point because you need to go back to school.
>>216945656That would be awesome.
>>216945214>hateful jews>niggersno thx.
