Military Issues

User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Faster Than Light: China's Hypersonic WU-14 Getting on Pentagon's Nerves
21:11 14.06.2015
http://sputniknews.com/military/2015061 ... 58426.html

China's new hypersonic weaponry may have the potential to neutralize US strategic missile defenses due to its unparalleled capability of maneuvering to avoid tracking by radars and interceptors, military expert Franz-Stefan Gady emphasized.

Beijing has recently conducted a fourth test of its hypersonic glider vehicle (HGV), called WU-14 by the Pentagon, which is purportedly aimed at overcoming US missile defense; the distinguishing feature of this test is that the WU-14 has performed so-called "extreme maneuvers," US expert in civil-military relations and cyber diplomacy Franz-Stefan Gady elaborated.

The WU-14, which is capable of delivering either conventional or nuclear warheads, was launched into space by an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) booster, and then returned to Earth's atmosphere, gliding at up to Mach 10 speed (around 7,680 miles per hour).

Image

During the gliding phase the WU-14 HGV is conducting "extreme maneuvers" in order to evade interception and at the same time extending the range of the missile.

Unlike conventional "reentry vehicles" which go down through the atmosphere "on a predictable ballistic trajectory," a hypersonic glider is virtually impossible to intercept by conventional missile defense systems, the expert explained.

Citing US defense and national security reporter Bill Gertz, the expert suggested that the WU-14 "threatens to neutralize US strategic missile defenses with the unique capability of flying at ultra-high speeds and maneuvering to avoid detection and tracking by radar and missile defense interceptors."

However, US high-ranking military officials have yet neither confirmed nor denied that the W-14 HGV pose a threat to US domestic missile defense systems.

According to the expert, the WU-14 is likely to be carried by China's famous "carrier killer" — the DF-21 intermediate range ballistic missile. A DF-21 equipped by a WU-14 HGV ("rumored to be called the DF-26") may extend the missile's range to over 3,000 km (2,485 miles).

"I suspect that the HGV is intended more for anti-ship or other tactical purposes than as a strategic bombardment system against American cities," Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation remarked as cited by the expert, "An HGV might help resolve difficulties of hitting maneuvering targets with a ballistic missile."

Still, Franz-Stefan Gady underscored that the development of such an anti-ship HGV by China could take up to 20 years, due to a number of technical challenges.

"For now, this is good news for the United States Navy which apparently will have difficulties fielding one of the most effective countermeasures to HGVs — directed energy weapons systems — for some time," the expert pointed out.
Those damned Chinese!... First they invented gun powder and fireworks, and now this!... :D
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

China's HGV project

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:"I suspect that the HGV is intended more for anti-ship or other tactical purposes than as a strategic bombardment system against American cities," Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation remarked as cited by the expert, "An HGV might help resolve difficulties of hitting maneuvering targets with a ballistic missile."

Still, Franz-Stefan Gady underscored that the development of such an anti-ship HGV by China could take up to 20 years, due to a number of technical challenges.
Interesting. China is certainly investing in its "carrier killer" ballistic missile projects. Time to fruition of these projects is however unclear, the only certainty being that they aren't anywhere near operational status. Simpler "carrier killer" ballistic missiles may exist -not sure- but they shouldn't be too hard to intercept.

If anti-carrier ballistic missiles impervious to Navy missile defense become operational, it could prompt the US to rely more in Asia on advanced bases in allied countries. Not that the political equivalents of PM Abe in that time could be expected to be too much saddened...

That, and / or more emphasis on long range bombers. US project of their future bomber should become operational at a date not very different than China's anti-ship HGV.

Regarding counters to so-called "strategic missile defense", HGV could or could not be a next generation, but there is already enough counter-measures in present-day intercontinental ballistic missiles to comprehensively kill any hope that defenses could succeed.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Russian military modernization

Post by Alexis »

NATO report on Russian military modernization (PDF document)

Those 16 pages are interesting.

Take out the few lines of political narrative, the remainder and overwhelming majority of document is fact-based military-industrial evaluation, produced by specialists not political ideologues.

Cannot summarize the content. But the general tone is consistent with what I've been saying about Russian military power and modernization:
- that grand overly ambitious projects will be only partly completed given economic, organizational and corruption issues, not counting the fact that many objectives are irrealistic
- that during the 1990s and 2000s badly neglected Russian forces sorely needed such modernization, hence most of what will be actually done will go towards maintaining Rusisan military power and preventing it from sinking precipitously, not towards increasing it
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

NATO-Russia Collision Ahead?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
http://buchanan.org/blog/nato-russia-co ... head-16176

“U.S. Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in East Europe: A Message to Russia,” ran the headline in The New York Times.

“In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is poised to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries,” said the Times. The sources cited were “American and allied officials.”

The Pentagon’s message received a reply June 16. Russian Gen. Yuri Yakubov called the U.S. move “the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War.” When Moscow detects U.S. heavy weapons moving into the Baltic, said Yakubov, Russia will “bolster its forces and resources on the western strategic theater of operations.”

Specifically, Moscow will outfit its missile brigade in Kaliningrad, bordering Lithuania and Poland, “with new Iskander tactical missile systems.” The Iskander can fire nuclear warheads.

The Pentagon and Congress apparently think Vladimir Putin is a bluffer and, faced by U.S. toughness, will back down.

For the House has passed and Sen. John McCain is moving a bill to provide Ukraine with anti-armor weapons, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition. The administration could not spend more than half of the $300 million budgeted, unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons.

Congress is voting to give Kiev a green light and the weaponry to attempt a recapture of Donetsk and Luhansk from pro-Russian rebels, who have split off from Ukraine, and Crimea, annexed by Moscow.

If the Pentagon is indeed moving U.S. troops and heavy weapons into Poland and the Baltic States, and is about to provide arms to Kiev to attack the rebels in East Ukraine, we are headed for a U.S.-Russian confrontation unlike any seen since the Cold War.

And reconsider the outcome of those confrontations.

Lest we forget, while it was Khrushchev who backed down in the Cuban missile crisis, President Eisenhower did nothing to halt the crushing of the Hungarian rebels, Kennedy accepted the Berlin Wall, and Lyndon Johnson refused to lift a finger to save the Czechs when their “Prague Spring” was snuffed out by Warsaw Pact tank armies.

Even Reagan’s response to the crushing of Solidarity was with words not military action.

None of these presidents was an appeaser, but all respected the geostrategic reality that any military challenge to Moscow on the other side of NATO’s Red Line in Germany carried the risk of a calamitous war for causes not justifying such a risk.

Yet we are today risking a collision with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, where no vital U.S.
interest has ever existed and where our adversary enjoys military superiority.

As Les Gelb writes in The National Interest, “the West’s limp hand” in the Baltic and “Russia’s military superiority over NATO on its Western borders,” is “painfully evident to all.”

“If NATO ups the military ante, Moscow can readily trump it. Moscow has significant advantages in conventional forces — backed by potent tactical nuclear weapons and a stated willingness to use them to sustain advantages or avoid defeat. The last thing NATO wants is to look weak or lose a confrontation.”

And NATO losing any such confrontation is the likely outcome of the collision provoked by the Pentagon and John McCain.

For if Kiev moves with U.S. arms against the rebels in the east, and Moscow sends planes, tanks and artillery to annihilate them, Kiev will be routed. And what we do then?

Send carriers into the Black Sea to attack the Russian fleet at Sevastopol, and battle Russian missiles and air attacks?

Before we schedule a NATO confrontation with Russia, we had best look behind us to see who is following America’s lead.

According to a new survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, fewer than half of the respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain thought NATO should fight if its Baltic allies were attacked by Russia. Germans, by a 58-38 margin, did not think military force should be used by NATO to defend Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, though that is what Article 5 of the NATO charter requires of Germany.

Americans, by 56-37, favor using force to defend the Baltic States. On military aid to Ukraine, America is divided, 46 percent in favor, 43 percent opposed. However, only 1 in 5 Germans and Italians favor arming Ukraine, and in not a single major NATO nation does the arming of Ukraine enjoy clear majority support.

In Washington, Congressional hawks are primed to show Putin who is truly tough. But in shipping weapons to Ukraine and sending U.S. troops and armor into the Baltic States, they have behind them a divided nation and a NATO alliance that wants no part of this confrontation.

Unlike the Cuban missile crisis, it is Russia that has regional military superiority here, and a leader seemingly prepared to ride the escalator up right alongside us.

Are we sure it will be the Russians who blink this time?
I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew our countries were ruled by intelligent people. But they aren't...
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by noddy »

I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew our countries were ruled by intelligent people. But they aren't...
nice. your catching up with my worldview now :P
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Military Issues

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew our countries were ruled by intelligent people. But they aren't...
nice. your catching up with my worldview now :P
If that doesn't shake Endo's self-confidence to the core, and cause him to doubt everything he has ever thought....., nothing will.......

I thought that "They" will never be as intelligent as "us." was everybody's world view..... :?
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote: If that doesn't shake Endo's self-confidence to the core, and cause him to doubt everything he has ever thought....., nothing will.......
awww, how flattering.
Simple Minded wrote:I thought that "They" will never be as intelligent as "us." was everybody's world view..... :?
"you" seem to have mistakenly used "us" instead of "me" :)


-----------------------------------------------------

as for nato and the us and russia all going to war and whos to blame im not convinced countries go to war over the petty politics of action and reaction so much.

I think the greater picture of pressures in the economy and local political scene create the real environment for war, the other crap is just excuses.

the west is in bad way and getting worse and russia is hardly booming - its not much of exaggeration to say the entire world rests on asias growth right now if war is to be avoided.
Last edited by noddy on Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Military Issues

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: If that doesn't shake Endo's self-confidence to the core, and cause him to doubt everything he has ever thought....., nothing will.......
awww, how flattering.
Simple Minded wrote:I thought that "They" will never be as intelligent as "us." was everybody's world view..... :?
"you" seem to have mistakenly used "us" instead of "me" :)
which proves your point, right? ;)

I'm putting a gold star with your name on it up on my refrigerator as soon as I get off the computer..... :D
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

The Pentagon goes nuclear on Russia
by Pepe Escobar - June 23, 2015 17:01
http://rt.com/op-edge/269176-pentagon-n ... -missiles/

We all remember how, in early June, President Putin announced that Russia would deploy more than 40 new ICBMs “able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defense systems.”

Oh dear; the Pentagon and their European minions have been freaking out on overdrive ever since.

First was NATO Secretary-General, Norwegian figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, who condemned it as “nuclear saber rattling.”

Then there’s Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, the head of US Global Air Strike Command – as in the man responsible for US ICBMs and nuclear bombers – at a recent briefing in London; “[They’ve] annexed a country, changing international borders, raising rhetoric unlike we’ve heard since the cold war times…”

That set up the stage for the required Nazi parallel; “Some of the actions by Russia recently we haven’t seen since the 1930s, when whole countries were annexed and borders were changed by decree.”

At His Masters Voice’s command, the EU duly extended economic sanctions against Russia.And right on cue, Pentagon supremo Ashton Carter, out of Berlin, declared that NATO must stand up against – what else – “Russian aggression” and “their attempts to re-establish a Soviet-era sphere of influence.”

Bets are off on what this huffin’ and puffin’ is all about. It could be about Russia daring to build a whole country close to so many NATO bases. It could be about a bunch of nutters itching to start a war on European soil to ultimately “liberate” all that precious oil, gas and minerals from Russia and the Central Asian “stans”.

Unfortunately, the whole thing is deadly serious.

Get your tickets for the next NATO movie

Vast desolate tracts of US ‘Think Tankland’ at least admit that this is partly about the exceptionalist imperative to prevent “the rise of a hegemon in Eurasia.” Well, they’re not only “partly” but totally wrong, because for Russia – and China – the name of the game is Eurasia integration through trade and commerce.

That condemns the “pivoting to Asia”, for the moment, to the rhetorical dustbin. For the self-described “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration – and the Pentagon - the name of the game is to solidify a New Iron Curtain from the Baltics to the Black Sea and cut off Russia from Europe.

So it’s no surprise that in early June, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, in itself a think tank, hired another think tank, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) to churn out – what else – a bunch of war games.

CEPA happens to be directed by A. Wess Mitchell, a former adviser to former Republican presidential candidate and master of vapidity Mitt Romney. Mitchell – who sounds like he flunked history in third grade – qualifies Russia as a new Carthage; “a sullen, punitive power determined to wage a vengeful foreign policy to overturn the system that it blames for the loss of its former greatness.”

Russian intelligence is very much aware of all these US maneuvers.So it’s absolutely no wonder Putin keeps coming back to NATO’s obsession in building a missile defense system in Europe right at Russia’s western borderlands; “It is NATO that is moving towards our border and we aren’t moving anywhere.”

NATO, meanwhile, gets ready for its next super production; Trident Juncture 2015, the largest NATO exercise after the end of the Cold War, to happen in Italy, Spain and Portugal from September 28 to November 6, with land, air and naval and special forces units of 33 countries (28 NATO plus five allies).

NATO spins it as a “high visibility and credibility” show testing its “Response Force” of 30,000 troops. And this is not only about Russia, or as a rehearsal in pre-positioning enough heavy weapons for 5,000 soldiers in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.

It’s also about Africa, and the symbiosis NATO/AFRICOM (remember the “liberation” of Libya?) NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Breedhate, sorry, Breedlove, bragged, on the record, that, “the members of NATO will play a big role in North Africa, the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa.”

Feel the love of my S-500

As far as Russia is concerned, all this warmongering hysteria is pathetic.

Facts: under Putin, Russia has actively rebuilt its strategic nuclear missile force. The stars of the show are the Topol M – an ICBM which zooms by at 16,000 miles an hour - and the S-500 defensive missile system, which zooms by at 15,400 miles an hour and effectively seals off Russian airspace.

Russian intelligence identified as early as the dawn of the new millennium that the weapons of the future would be missiles; not clumsy aircraft carriers or a surface fleet which can easily be smashed by top-class missiles (as the new SS-NX-26 anti-ship, Yakhont missile which zooms by at 2.9 Mach).

The Pentagon knows it – but hubris dictates the “we’re invincible” posing. No, you’re not invincible; silent Russian submarines offshore the US could engage in a nuclear turkey shoot knocking out every major American city in a few minutes with total impunity. In only fifteen years Russia has jumped two generations ahead of the US on missiles and may be on the verge of a first strike nuclear capacity, while the US can’t retaliate because the Pentagon can’t get through the S-500s.

Public opinion in the US doesn’t know any of this – so what’s left is posturing. We’re back to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey spinning the US is “considering” deploying land-based missiles - with nuclear warheads - that could reach Russian cities across Eurasia.

This does not even qualify as a childish – and unbelievably dangerous - provocation. These missiles will be useless. The US has submarine-based missiles available, and they cannot get through Russian defenses either; the S-500s will do the job. So if the Pentagon and NATO really want war, wait until next year or 2017 max – with ‘The Hillarator’ or Jeb “I’m not Bush” at the White House - when the S-500 deployment will be completed.

Putin knows extremely well how dangerous is this posturing. That’s why he emphasized that the US unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty – which established that neither the US nor the USSR would try to neutralize each other’s nuclear deterrence by building an anti-missile shield – is pushing the world towards a new Cold War; “This in fact pushes us to a new round of the arms race, because it changes the global security system.”

Washington unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty during the “axis of evil” Dubya era, in 2002. The pretext was that the US needed “protection” from rogue states, at the time identified as Iran and North Korea. The fact is this cleared the Pentagon to build a global anti-missile system directed against – who else – the only true “threats” against the hegemon; BRICS members Russia and China.

Terminator Ash on a roll

Under neocon Ash Carter – compared to whom Donald Rumsfeld barely qualifies as Cinderella – the Pentagon wants to go Terminator all the way.

“Options” being considered against Russia are an offensive missile shield across Europe to shoot Russian missiles (totally useless against the Topol M); a “counterforce” (in ‘Pentagonese’) that implies pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes against Russian military sites; and “countervailing strike capabilities”, which in ‘Pentagonese’ means pre-emptive deployment of nuclear missiles against targets – and cities – inside Russia.

So we’re talking about the unthinkable here; a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia. There’s only one scenario if that happens; a full-scale nuclear war. The mere fact that this is considered an “option on the table” reveals everything one needs to know about what passes for “foreign policy” in the heart of the Indispensable Nation.

In Iraq, a pre-emptive strike – although non-nuclear - was “authorized” based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). So the whole planet knows the ‘Empire of Chaos’ is capable of fabricating any pretext. In the case of Russia, the Pentagon may play ‘Ultimate Terminator’ all they want, but it won't be a walk in the park; after all in less than two years Russian airspace will be effectively sealed by the S-500s.

Beware of the ‘Shock and Awe’ you want. Still, no chance the Pentagon will take Putin seriously (Ash Carter, on the record, is a sucker for regime change.) Recently, the Russian President couldn’t be more explicit; “This is no dialogue. It's an ultimatum. Don't speak the language of ultimatums with us.”

MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – is way over. It kept a somewhat uneasy peace during seven decades of Cold War. Cold War 2.0 is as hardcore as it gets. And with all those Breedhate Strangeloves on the loose, nuclear madness is now at five seconds to midnight.
Seeing where I live, should I buy a load of popcorn or build myself a nuclear shelter?... :twisted:
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Military Issues

Post by YMix »

Excerpt from the movie "A MiG for Endo".

VCWjByenDsM
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:Seeing where I live, should I buy a load of popcorn or build myself a nuclear shelter?... :twisted:
You should first and foremost read proper military analysts since you seem to be interested in these matters :)

On everything military, Pepe Escobar does not even qualify as a amateur. He just doesn't know the most basic facts and is worse than useless.

The short version:
- No nuclear war will take place
- Other military risks are limited to those countries unfortunate enough to sport a plurality of people willing to start civil warfare. To date, the only such country is Ukraine. Risks for other countries may be discussed, however I think you will agree that for Portugal it is exceedingly small
- Posturing, spitting, angry poodle pronouncements and other stupidities are rife. They are only for show, and they are the real means used with objective of splitting Europeans, isolating Russians from the others
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Military Issues

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Alexis wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Seeing where I live, should I buy a load of popcorn or build myself a nuclear shelter?... :twisted:
You should first and foremost read proper military analysts since you seem to be interested in these matters :)

On everything military, Pepe Escobar does not even qualify as a amateur. He just doesn't know the most basic facts and is worse than useless.

The short version:
- No nuclear war will take place
- Other military risks are limited to those countries unfortunate enough to sport a plurality of people willing to start civil warfare. To date, the only such country is Ukraine. Risks for other countries may be discussed, however I think you will agree that for Portugal it is exceedingly small
- Posturing, spitting, angry poodle pronouncements and other stupidities are rife. They are only for show, and they are the real means used with objective of splitting Europeans, isolating Russians from the others
Alexis, your recommendations on proper military analysts would be most welcome.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Alexis wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Seeing where I live, should I buy a load of popcorn or build myself a nuclear shelter?... :twisted:
You should first and foremost read proper military analysts since you seem to be interested in these matters :)

On everything military, Pepe Escobar does not even qualify as a amateur. He just doesn't know the most basic facts and is worse than useless.

The short version:
- No nuclear war will take place
- Other military risks are limited to those countries unfortunate enough to sport a plurality of people willing to start civil warfare. To date, the only such country is Ukraine. Risks for other countries may be discussed, however I think you will agree that for Portugal it is exceedingly small
- Posturing, spitting, angry poodle pronouncements and other stupidities are rife. They are only for show, and they are the real means used with objective of splitting Europeans, isolating Russians from the others
You seem to be under the impression that humans belong to a rational species... If that were the case, there wouldn't have been any WW I, and probably not even a WW II... The US doesn't want to find itself ever again in the vulnerable position it was in respect of the Soviet Union. If ever another country - Russia or China - looks like becoming strong enough to be able to destroy most of the US, the US will find an excuse to attack that country before it reaches that point. Any excuse will do, whether the Ukraine, Taiwan or some islands in the South China Sea. And Europeans are being groomed to become cannon fodder in such a war. I don't need to be a military expert to realize that...
Simple Minded

Re: Military Issues

Post by Simple Minded »

Endovelico wrote:
....I don't need to be a ________ expert to realize that...
Again, I often find myself thinking the same......

Endo & I are like two peas in a pod! :)
Simple Minded

Re: Military Issues

Post by Simple Minded »

YMix wrote:Excerpt from the movie "A MiG for Endo".

VCWjByenDsM
which is a much better military strategy than "Two Mules for Sister Sara...."
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

A Saudi-led ground operation in Yemen, involving US-made Abrams M1 tanks, immediately resulted in the loss of armored vehicles.

The video below shows what are said to be Houthi rebels in Yemen using old Soviet-designed Fagot anti-tank guided missiles to destroy American-made, Saudi Arabian-owned and operated Abrams M1 main battle tanks.

a2GR-g9777k

A direct hit by a Fagot missile at the M1’s turret led to the detonation of the tank’s ordnance payload stored in the turret’s back.

This is the weakest spot of America’s main battle tank, which leaves the crew with virtually no chance of survival.

It was with this possibility in mind that Russia’ new Armata tank features an uninhabited turret.

The Fagot antitank missile system entered operational service in 1970.

Its missile uses a 2.5 kg High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead which can penetrate up to 600 mm of conventional steel armor and has an effective range of up to 2,500 m through the use of an improved solid propellant sustainer rocket motor and lengthened guidance wire.

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150 ... ssile.html
Worth taking into account when considering poking the bear...
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Military Issues

Post by YMix »

The new Russian tank, Armata.

TQLG0bOy7SY
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Military Issues

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

YMix wrote:The new Russian tank, Armata.

TQLG0bOy7SY
"Hello Muddah, hello Faddah, . . ."
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Military Issues

Post by Typhoon »

Here I am in Tank Armata.

Armata is very entertaining,

And they say we might survive if the Yanks stop their nailing!
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Post Reply