@blinky123abc the government is canceling almost all of the prototypes that were suppost to replace aging equipment to save money. our soldier are going to suffer with obselete weaponry. a complete waste is right
@jmantheburninator oh the M808B Main Battle Tank. Na again against a FCS combat net work she fall easy.As yes her advance tech would beat any tank 1 on 1. the XM1203 or p1 here would fire from 18 km (11 miles) away with 155mm guided rounds. The Scorpion would be stuck to horizon ranges being 5km for a tank she sits high(easy target) so she get about 6 to 6.5km range with a strait fire gun. Her M512 90mm Smooth Bore High Velocity Cannon. So till she got into range she never get a shot even.
@jmantheburninator though she could shot or engage the first line scouts seeing for the xm1203. M982 Excalibur rounds would not miss with good scout info and the scouts would hide most likely.Lets say it survives the hits and scouts are taken out by your cybernetically-enhanced supersoldiers.The next line in the FCS would be MBT to hold them up as soon as they see them the xm1203 fires again not missing with intel from the net-worked front line MBT(originally the 40ton MBT concept now the m1a3).
@jmantheburninator So some how lets say you got a few heroes 3 or 4 hell a squad of them. your nomal troops are dead by now and you got a few heroes left. your M808B Main Battle Tank lived some how and some cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldiers. Now it get interesting you get ambushed just when you think your home free by troops but not normal troops 1s like your cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldier.But these i just wherein suits like iron man--> watch?v=S7HKD-FWKkE&feature=related
@jmantheburninator the heavy ones or heavy armor would have thicker armor then a cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldier but no shields.Their weapons also would be much heavier like javelin missiles or what i was working on that puts the snip rifle from halo to shame.If they killed the power armor and it IFV that moved them most likely a xm1204 or xm1206 maybe even aM3Bradly as we were looking into how too carry them into combat.When you finly get too the xm1203 it still can fight in close.
I think that the FCS vehicles were not suited for future army. They didn't provide enough firepower. In fact, they provided very small firepower. A future tank 4 instance should have a gun that had at least 140 mm diameter bore. At least. The FCS manned ground combat vehicles were not good. & they were expensive as hell. The only 2 vehicles that worth the effort r the NLOS cannon & the MULE. Other than these 2, all the other systems were pretty much useless.
@StiviGun1 expensive as hell is the major problem today as u.s. corps basically steel the tax payer money and give back half of what they took. Though lacking firepower are you high? a 155mm the xm1203 or p1 as it called here is better then a 140mm and then attacks top armor or the weakest armor and any armor units. Direct hits from a 155mm guided round will kill any MBT our even the changer 2 heaviest armor. so the EFV was useless it finally get the u.s. a bit caught up to the Zubar.
@starknight97 I didn't know the NLOS cannon would've been used in anti-rank role... From what I know, it was an artillery weapon used for bombardment of targets, not against tanks. What kind of ammo would've been developed for that 155 mm gun if it had been used in anti-tank role? The best anti-tank rounds are the armored piercing rounds, not explosive rounds. So would have they developed such a round for that 155 mm gun? As for the EFV, why do you say it was useless?
@StiviGun1 It was both it was everything that why their was a big deal about it. like i said before it is given 3 new rounds vs standard artys, bombletts(DPICM), harden shell for hard targets & SADARM's. though even a standard 155mm arty round right on top of a challenger 2 would end it. Also a even cheaper round are being made and a extended range round up to 72km(rocket accessed). I didn't that was a sarcastic reply to some one said ALL fcs were useless go ask yourself for that one.
@starknight97 Using the XM1203 in anti-tank role is good. But you can't use it to completely replace tanks. It was a versatile weapons system, but it couldn't replace tanks. It had a too weaker armor for that.
As for my remark, I said that MOST FCS vehicles were useless, not all of them... The NLOS cannon, the EFV,. the dragon fire mortar, the MULE vehicle were pretty good. But a new longer range tactical missile systems should've also been developed. Like Is said, the Iskander must be have a
@StiviGun1 with your reason scrap all but the MBT then let f35C kill everything they range is longest when carrier based. You need feet on the ground and if they can't touch you but you can them you win. you just said most of the FCS system so what armor troop is useless. the medical unit is? the IFV is? XM501 is? Say which ones are cause i just burned your commit FCS is under firepower on the modern field. Then do you ever get sick of being burned.
@starknight97 The FCS vehicles didn't provide enough firepower because they didn't have any MLRS or new tactical ballistic missile system. A tactical ballistic missile system, in particular, with a bigger range and larger payload than the ATACMS, must be developed. My reasoning is that ground troops should have their own systems to engage targets at long ranges, not to depend on other branches to provide that fire for them. Before an aircraft could get to them, they could be dead. As for the
@StiviGun1 dude just shut up i told you they work with new better systems yes MLRS was good for it time but xm501 is better from FCS. this like the 5th time i told you it works with them. Yet 1 xm1203 is better then 1 MLRS system 12 dumb fire rockets vs 6 Excalibur SADARM. or 6 vs 2. the f35B is a marine aircraft not reason it can't be army too. It better then any missile system and longer range.
@starknight97 You just don't get it, do you? How can a 1.5m long and 180mm in diameter XM501 rocket provide more firepower than a 4m long and 227mm in diameter MLRS rocket? The XM501 was good, but not good to replace the M270.
As for aerial support, how many times do I have to explain you? The soldiers need their own long range engagement system, they can't always wait for an airplane which may take some time to arrive. They need their own long range system, like a ballistic or cruise missile,
@StiviGun1 simple both will kill a MBT though it top armor that how. that fact you could have say 3 am501 hit the same target and have rounds left over after all it 15 round for a single box of xm501 will you have only 2 wo ATACMS missiles. then the rockets are dumb fires and about the same warhead as the zm501. yes the f35b retard is that just like the marines have their own f35b that are VTOL the army could too. then the rockets, ATACMS missiles xm501 will all be shot down by Pantsir-S1's
@starknight97 You're an idiot. F-35B for the army? That would be better than a much cheaper ballistic missiles? You're an idiot.
As for the PAM missile, it doesn't compare with the M270, stupid. M270 is also used for bombing targets, not just in anti-tank role... And tactical missiles are used to hit targets at much longer ranges. No, the PAM don't have the same warhead as the M270 rockets, they have a much smaller warhead and they can't be used ot bomb targets like the MLRS can be. They have
@StiviGun1 nope that the only way you get long range missiles to work now minus ICBMs and even they are limited. you want cheap mid range that can't be shot down easy then the xm1203 is what you want. missile are getting out dated do too the Pantsir, s400 systems. yes and the xm1204 is using the same tech 65 bomb lets per shell.to kill soft target ground troops. then they are useless ver tanks.
@starknight97 Why are you lying? How the hell can so many bomblets fit into a 155 mm shell? Missiles "outdated"? You're joking. If they were, Russia and other countries wouldn't develop them. Missiles can reach where normal artillery can't and they produce damage normal artillery can't produce. That's why the US has to develop them.
ICBMs, "useless"? You make me laugh... No, they're the most powerful weapon and they're the weapon, you Russians fear the most. That's why you're trying to convince
@StiviGun1 67 of them can fit look it up it can have a salvo of 3 shells reach the target at the same time look it up. though bombletts fit in the palm of your hand and fast explosive gives it the pen power. yes when you can shot them all down missile lose their effect. you can make them faster and faster but all this will cost more and more. who care if they go over a mountain and just get shot down. yes they pack the most single target punch bombs being more yet no good if they get shot down.
@starknight97 Listen idiot, missiles are needed in order to be able to reach far more distant targets that can't be reached with any regular artillery shell, even the Excalibur. Get this through your stupid head. And your statement that the XM1203 can destroy a Pantsir S1 is bullshit. Iskander missile is meant precisely to attack artillery systems like the XM11203. So the XM1203 would need to go very close to the Pantsir S1 in order to destroy it. And it can't do this. So you need missiles.
@starknight97 to convince me here that they're useless an that the US shouldn't develop them while Russia is developing 3 new more ICBMs. Nice try, Russian shit. The US must develop a new ICBM to replace its very old Minuteman, The BGM-75 Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles program must be restarted. Go read about it.
And I don't wan cheap, mid-range, I want, long range, advanced means to attack targets. At hundreds of km away. You can't do that with regular artillery.
@StiviGun1 yes they making though too get though the us. missiles defenses system as it it now fully active and 3 systems deep.We shouldn't waist money on ICBMS but the New MKV system too counter any missile threat. fast update for the minuteman III be ok but they don't need them yet as the s400 is not as good as 2 of our systems and = to the THAAD. who care if you can hit a target from 1500km if it gets shot down. she what your missile is the u.s. is about too have money problems we can't spend
@starknight97 None of the US anti-missile systems can defend against the Russian ICBMs and a 1972 treaty prevents the development and deployment of such systems. And even if it could, you can't base your protection on just defensive systems which are never 100% successful. You must also have very powerful offensive capabilities so the enemy would know that if he attacks you, he will be attacked back with devastating force.
As for the S-400, no, it can't defend against the Minuteman, I never even
@starknight97 claimed that. The A-135 ABM system that the Russians have around Moscow can do that. The US doesn't have such a system.
And stop the bullshit about missiles being shot down. Missiles are the hardest to shoot down and they're needed because they can strike at longer distances than any reg artillery shell and at a much lower cost than aircraft and that's why they're needed for the army. And an idiot that says F-35s should be purchased for the Army and not a new tactical ballistic
@starknight97 ballistic missile system, which is much cheaper, shouldn't talk about how expensive a certain weapons system is. You say that missiles shouldn't be developed because they're too expensive, but then you say the F-35, which is much more expensive than a missile, should be adopted by the Army. You contradict yourself, you idiot...
@starknight97 have other uses, but they can't take the role of an MLRS system. A new MLRS, with more missiles that have longer ranges must be developed if you want to replace the current M270 MLRS, but the XM501 is not nearly suited for that.
@starknight97 for long range engagements. Tactical ballistic missiles are used in a way that no other land system can be used. And that's why they're needed. The soldiers on the ground can't rely just on airplanes from marines, navy or air force. They must be able to engage at longer ranges with their own systems. Such systems would be useful for the marines as well. In specially if they're placed on the EFV platform.
@StiviGun1 f35b could be army too. yet if we had the FCs the #1 thing about it is the network they all be on the same network and the commander in the xm1209 somewhere safe would order a f35b, xm501, or ATACMS missile or xm1203 too kill target who closest and best to do the job. that his job. case in point a platoon of t90ms is guarded by 2 Pantsir-S1.Then the f35b is you best choice. will a group of just t90ms the xm1203 be choice yet 50+ t72's.bmps and softs would be the job of good old MLRS.
@starknight97 Stop talking about the F-35B! That is an expensive aircraft that shouldn't have even been developed. It's strange how you're against expensive systems, but you say the F-35, which is the most expensive of all, should be bought by the army. No, tactical ballistic missiles, which are cheaper, are a much better solution. Air support has its role, but ground troops must have their own long range engagement capability. Get this through you head, fucktart!
@StiviGun1 is lock head over chargeing us yes like everything else but it's a very good attack craft though not so good fighter. does it cost too much like everything we make build yes. including the MLRS 2.3mill each. the f35b has a chance too get by the Pantsir-S1 you long and mid range rockets don't Archaea microbe. As i see this can't sink though your head. the s300,400 and Pantsir-S1 systems have render missile and rocket tech obsolete.
@starknight97 The Russians claim that the Pantsir can detect stealth planes a well. So that would make the F-35 development useless. At least a ballistic missile is faster, much harder to intercept and much cheaper than a ballistic missile. The MLRS may cost 2.3 mil but the F-35 costs 140 mil. Furthermore, the Army doesn't use airplanes. So it must have a land based, long range missile system. One that would comply with the INF treaty, of course. Unless the Russians violate it. But it would be
@starknight97 it would be much better for the army to develop a ballistic missile or/and cruise missile system that can strike a long ranges. 500 km max, of course. Building more F-35B to also equip the army with it would be much more expensive than developing missiles which are, but their nature, much harder to intercept and shoot down than an airplane. So developing F-35B for the army is the most moronic idea I've ever heard... I wonder why you suggest such an expensive and useless initiative
@StiviGun1 then f35 could be used over and over again with cheap ammo like the SDB. with a range of 1090km plus it munition range. then a 2000lbs JDam pack more punch then any missile minus a nuke. yes it can anything fired at it it have no problems with. flying over head would be a bit hard for it. yet you seen our CWIS kill any missile right it has 2 and it missile can intercept anything at it. slow rockets and missile it can launch it own too down. anything under 1300 meter/second
@starknight97 The F-35 could be used over and over again? And that would be cheaper for the army than a missiles system? Missiles are inherently much cheaper than airplanes, you fucktart. That's why countries that can't afford to build an air force build them. And the JDAM doesn't offer better capabilities than a missile. A JDAM must be flown by an aircraft to its target and that aircraft can be shot down and its pilot killed. A missile doesn't have this disadvantage and it also costs far less
@StiviGun1 yes most likely about 10 full loads of JDAM and SDB would pay for its self. missile blow themselves up you limp brain tard jets don't. yes a JDAM is about 1/10 the cost of a guided missile. yet that JDAM now has stealth, very good range, a sweet radar too see targets before they fly though, counter measures, smarter then any smart missile pilot, and he can avoid trouble. you fire a missile it hit or get shot down or don't fly around sam site or radar systems it don't know are there.
@starknight97 JDAM is carried by an aircraft, which is much more expensive than a missile, you moron. An aircraft is also much more expensive to operate. And what tactical aircraft can carry 10 full loads of JDAM and SDB?
And JDAM is just A BOMB you idiot! What range can a bomb have, you pathetic tart? And no, that bomb doesn't have better countermeasures than a missile, it doesn't have room for them. So no, aircraft are not preferable to missiles for the army because they're too expensive. A
@starknight97 new, tactical ballistic missile system must be developed to augment the ATACMS. It's the simplest and cheapest solution for providing a long range strike systems for the Army. Your idea of adopting even more F-35s, which already costs a lot, for the army, is just DUMB. No, a new tactical ballistic missile system must be developed.
@starknight97 to operate than a fighter plane, in specially one as expensive as the F-35. Longer range tactical ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are the way to go for the army. Airplanes are for navy, marines and air force. But even those branches need missiles in order to increase their effectiveness. The marines also need ground launched ones. In fact, they would need the same systems as the army does. Plus the aircraft so they would have even more firepower to their disposal.
@starknight97 this is clearly an act of sabotage. What are you idiot? A Russian agent? You're idea of making such huge and useless expenditures shows one thing: you're a saboteur. You should be put into jail.
@StiviGun1 and easy too intercept if you shot at the Pantsir just a waist of money. wow your a retard i said like 10 times now we pay too much to corps like lock rip off heed . We get back about 50% of what we pay for will they pocket the rest. then yes your War monger u.s. of the banks would want me in jail cause i speak against them. my u.s. of the people don't cause i'm trying to get them the best bang for their buck. yet they never want too fight anyway.
@starknight97 What the fuck are you praising that Pantsir S1 so much, ha? How do you know it's effective, the Russians haven't released any info on it. So what makes you sure it's so effective?
As for your bullshits, you can't fool me, moron. I live near Russia... I know how Russian think much better than the Americans, so you may fool the Americans, but you can't fool me.
And BTW, stop saying that you lived during WW2. How old are you now? 100 and chatting on YT...? Stupid...
@StiviGun1 lol what so your saying your a Russian spy now lol? wow lol you fuck tard get some lithium you a bit bipolar today lol. wow i never said i live during ww2 i might have had report from then or data but i never said i live during ww2. i think you lost it lol. it you take 10 boxs of the XM501 system that 150 missiles and they take up the same room and only need a 6 wheeler too move around. 150 bets 12 any day. then yet go though the top of a tank just as easy have shaped charge to.
@starknight97 No, I leave near Russia, I'm not a Russian, you dipshit. You're a Russian living in America. And probably a spy. Get out of America you dipshit!
A for your example with that 150 missile, well if you take 10 M270s, then their 120 rockets can do much more damage than the much smaller XM501 missiles. So 120 rockets to destroy more is better than having to use 500 missiles to do what you can do with just 120 rockets, which are also much cheaper.
@starknight97 FCS systems, not all of them were useless. But none of them could've been used to replace MBTs and MLRS systems. The XM501 was a good system, no doubt about it, but it didn't provide even 10% of the firepower the M279 MLRS provides so no, it wouldn't have been good to replace the M270, as you suggest. The XM1203 was suited to replace the Paladin, that's it. Others, like those IFVs and EFV would've been good to replace the current IFVs and EFV. But neither would've been suited to
@StiviGun1 once again your a retard the XM501 is box you drop anywhere much smaller missile not rocket and 15 are in a box the xm1209 can control them they have 40 km or 70km ranges. though vs new Russian tech all missiles and rockets are coming to a end Pantsir-S1 just shot them down and least a arty round smaller and the SADARM have a chance to hit the Pantsir-S1 before it hit them with gun fire. a ATACMS will just be shot down by the 57E6 missiles.
@starknight97 Again, with your bullshits. You're talking about Russian tech. Well, that's one of the reasons America must develop its own, analogue tech. Sure, the XM501 has advantages and is useful in many situations, but saying it's better than the MLRS is dumb. Like I said, it can't cause even 10% of the destruction the MLRS can cause. So stop your bullshit. And long range tactical ballistic missiles are needed for long range engagements, how many times do I have to tell you this, you retard?
@StiviGun1 15 guided vs 12 dumb or 2 guided you decided which is better i say Russian tech because you want to compare yours vs the best retard. we have version of that it called the patriot system. if all 12 missiles hit but vs MBT the MLRS is junk with out the ATACMS. then the Pantsir-S1 just shot down every missile you have retard. yes they are called the f22 f35 and f15se. They made the s500 to kill stealth fighters. The f35b is for ground troop built for marines that operate interdependent
@starknight97 The 12 rockets of the MLRS carry hundreds of submunitions you moron, that can destroy a very large area. The XM510 doesn't even come close to that power.
As for the Russian tech, well, if they're so advanced, then idiots like Obama, who cut military programs should be charged for treason. America must invest heavily in its weapons development so that it will catch up with the Russians. America has the industrial and technological capacity to do this, all it needs is political will.
@StiviGun1 65 of them per round or 195 of them it uses retard same tech.195 of them cover a huge area. yes he should the bank should and the military contractors that over charge should. yes we need to invest heavily if we want too stay the world empire we are or we could just be peaceful that save allot money. Nope we shiped all too china i know i live in Mi we built all the tank, bomber and munition of ww2 tey all empty buildings now Gm truck bus got ore down a few years ago + so many others.
@starknight97 What bomblets are those? Certainly not like the ones used by the M270 rockets. And a larger tactical ballistic missile can carry over a 1000 of those bomblets and can attack at much longer ranges with them.
Yes, the US has to invest heavily in its military in order to stay ahead of everyone else in military technology. That's the only way it can remain safe. Look what new ICBMs and nuclear weapons are Russia and China developing. So the US must develop weapons in order to remain
@starknight97 safe. It must get ahead of everyone else, in specially Russia and China. As long as Russia and China develop weapons, the US must do it too. New ICBMs and SLBMs are needed for the US, among other things.
@starknight97 And if the Pantsir is as good as you say it is, then America must really develop a new tactical ballistic missile that would be capable of penetrating the Russian air defense systems. An analogue to Iskander M. And also, more advanced missile defense systems that could defeat threats like Iskander M.
@starknight97 The XM501 may have 15 missiles in its box, but it has far less firepower than the MLRS. Its small missiles deliver a much smaller warhead. This system is good for use in urban warfare to avoid civilian casualties, but for large engagements for which US must be prepared giving the way Russia and China are arming themselves), the large MLRS systems must be built. And of course, tactical ballistic missiles with longer range and payload than the ATACMS and with much better anti-
@starknight97 take the role of multiple rocket launchers, tactical ballistic missiles or tanks. Also, more powerful anti-tank missiles, with longer ranges should've also been developed. Some sort of an equivalent to the Khrizantema systems should've been developed. So yeah, the FCS vehicles wouldn't have provided enough firepower and capabilities.
@starknight97 counterpart. As for what you say, that normal artillery can perform the same role as regular artillery, not it can't. It can never match the rocket artillery firepower. Its cheaper, yes, but it can never match the fire power of rocket artillery. That's why both systems must be used and that's why the Russians developed both systems.
@StiviGun1 the 1204 was a anti personnel unit with a 120mm motor. in sort she kill enemy platoons before they even know what was going on. This goes on and on so i have no idea what you saying under firepower about. then the xm12XX units only play 1 important role.
@starknight97 "120mm motor"? What is that? Did you mean 12mm mortar?
What I meant when I said most of those systems were underpowered, I was talking about the fact that no missile and artillery rocket systems were developed as part of the FCS. New MLRS and longer range tactical ballistic missiles should've been developed as well. An analogue to Iskander must be developed.
@StiviGun1 Non-line-of-sight mortar 120mm not 12mm. hmm the xm1204 has a powerful 120mm motar that works like arty the xm1203 has a 155mm arty with up to a 40km range. The the IFV Xm1206 was too get anti-tank guided missile system. Though what use are missiles and artillery rocket systems when you have the 40km range 155mm M982 Excalibur rounds? you can bring 3 plus too het the target or targets at one time from a single xm1203 unit. It be top down attack in addition to that.
@starknight97 And 40 km range is a long range for you. The tactical ballistic missiles and artillery rockets can reach up to hundreds of km. The cannons are good, as they provide a cheaper capability to bombard targets, but missiles and artillery rockets are needed to hit targets at distances where regular artillery can't. Mortars, cannons, rocket artillery and tactical missiles, they're all needed.
And since you talk about that top attack capability of the XM1203, I'm asking you again: what
@StiviGun1 the XM1203 has modern light weight armor to engage MBT in a Tow to tow fight. If you are talking large scale rockets(unguided& lucky hits), Missiles large and costly systems, and all with limit ammo and a higher cost. Yes they work with each other yet the xm1203 brings it to a tank level engagements with pinpoint hits of missiles for much cheaper yet can still do the old roles as well of a MBT. what top attack all arty is top attack wake up or were referencing it was canned?
@starknight97 I was talking about MLRS systems and ballistic missiles (which are guided). Such systems are needed to hit at ranges far above those normal artillery can hit. 40 km is nothing. You need to be able to hit the enemy hundreds of km away. You can't rely just on regular artillery. And again, using a self propelled cannon as a tank is just ridiculous. Tanks have to be used. You're saying that a 155 mm explosive shell can destroy any tank. How? You need specialized anti-tank rounds to do
@StiviGun1 they are large systems big and bulky no real armor huge cost and limited ammo. tomahawk need a huge launcher and is 1+ million a pop. it cost you more then what your killing. 70 km (43 mi) is the upper limit too MLRS which most are unguided. MGM-140 ATACMS(100 miles) is much better then M270+ MLRS. Anyway same limit cost limited ammo can't fight the front line. the p1 can at a much lower cost and can take a hit which the M109 Paladin can't.
@starknight97 They don't cost as much as you want to imply. MLRS systems are needed because of their firepower. You can't replace MLRS systems with regular artillery. Each has its role and advantages and disadvantages. The regular artillery is cheaper, but i doesn't provide the same firepower. The MLRS systems are more expensive, but they provide much more firepower. So both systems must be used in conjunction.
@StiviGun1 yes you can very easy true the mllrs can have a hug amount of fire for about 10 sec then it junk the the xm1203 can keep it up with the first salvo bringing 3 rounds for each unit. Then the XM501 is way better then the old ass MLRS even the MGM-140 ATACMS is much better. $725000 for 1 ATACMS $80,000 for 1 M982 Excalibur with cheaper ones being built already 1/10 the cost. unless you meant the dumb fire rockets lol.
@starknight97 The advantage of regular artillery is that it cheaper and that you can keep a constant bombing on the target. But the MLRS can cause in those 10 seconds more damage than a reg artillery piece can cause in 30 minutes. So it's worth it.
As for the XM501, it's good, but again, it can't provide the same firepower as an MLRS. It would be great as just another acquisition, but not to replace a systems like the MLRS. A much more powerful systems should be developed for that.
@starknight97 And the MLRS, after it fires its missiles, it's not "junk". Such systems can be made very mobile, so after they fire their missiles, they can retreat to a safe place and reload. Not that they need to because, let's get serious, what's gonna be left from their targets after they discard their missiles on them. There would be no one left to counterattack. So no, it wouldn't be "junk". It's actually a very useful weapons system, that's why the Russians are using these systems for such
@StiviGun1 MLRS has 12 dumb fire rockets or two ATACMS missiles. the dumb fire rockets will mostly miss and the 2 ATACMS missiles will kill a hole 2 targets. the xm1203 can kill 6 mbt in a single first attack salvo and has 24 rounds before she needs to reload. is much cheaper can fight close can shot and scoot and reload even. will after half it's rockets hit nothing allot if it a full blown war. and only direct hit MBT will be killed and MBT like the t9ms just shot it down with arena.
@starknight97 You're full of shit. Ask the Iraqis in the 1st Gulf War what they think about those "dumb rockets". Those "dumb rockets" inflicted more damage on Sadadm's ground troops than even the air force. The air force can't be used just to support soldiers on the ground, it must take care of many other objectives. So it may not always be available for the soldiers. That's why soldiers need long range engagement capability. And you can't do this with your regular artillery, you need a missile
@StiviGun1 oh yes export version of cold war tank hmm that's what they were designed to kill then not evven that good with age steel practice rounds and under trained. Pantsir-S1 would laugh if a MLRS fired on it. yes and it only 2 of the guided kind if you what the 12 though are dumb fires. what the hell are bomb-lets going to do too a MBT that right nothing. again retard 12 rockets vs 3 rounds each with 2 SADARM for 6 mbt kills or if you like it has 195 bomb-lets in the DPICM.
@starknight97 The Pantsir can't destroy tactical ballistic missile or artillery rockets, idiot... The S-300 may be capable of intercepting the ATACMS, but not the Pantsir, which is a close range defense system. Either way, the US army needs missile and multiple rocket systems with which it can engage targets at long ranges. Such systems are a must. If the Russians develop new anti-air defense systems, then America must build better missiles. Or they can use artillery to destroy systems like
@starknight97 like Panntsir or S-300 and use the tactical ballistic missiles to destroy other, critical targets at much longer ranges than Excalibur can.
The MLRS rockets carry hundreds of submunitions. So 12 of those rockets offer hundreds o times more firepower than 3 Excaliburs... Also, a new, guided rocket for the MLRS has been developed, which can hit with a much better accuracy than the Excalibur and with a larger warhead. So again, you failed.
@StiviGun1 tech is getting too a good point or stalemate. basically if your the attack it the hardest role now. if they send their stuff cruise missile icmb, bomber our THAD, patriots and SM3 kill them. we send our stuff their s300/400/500 and Pantsir kill it.
@starknight97 You;re wrong. The THAAD, SM-3 and Patriot missiles can't defend against the Russian ICBMs. In specially Patriot...The Russians are the only ones that have an active ICBM defense system around Moscow, the A-135 system, with some 60 missiles. So Moscow could be saved by a nuclear attack, but Washington won't.
As for S-300, S-400, and Pantsir, they can't intercept ICBMs, you idiot... And stop praising that Pantsir system, 'cause you're laughable.
@StiviGun1 then for the 1th time they do no gun say if a Pantsir S1 sherd them out the sky on the way there. no Ageis(sm-3) and THAAD protect all the u.s. right now today. the patriot 3 are placed at any area of high important but now have a increased range of 240km so they now protect a larger area. we have 2 systems NORAD and aegis for most of the world and mainly the oceans and North America. NORAD though far away protects DC with all 3 systems and allot of them.Only the s400 and get warheads
@starknight97 The Pantsir can't shoot a powerful tactical ballistic missile, like you try to imply. And your XM1203 couldn't destroy the Pantsir because it would have to go too close to it and it won't manage to do that because it would be destroyed from a much longer distance by the Iskander M.
As for Aegis, Thaad and in specially PAC-3, no stupid, neither of these can protect against ICBMs.
And NORAD is a command and control facility stupid... And when has the PAC-3's range been increased to
@StiviGun1 Pantsir S1 can only shot down a tactical missile if it or what it protecting is the target of a non nuke warhead. it's missiles would surely destroy even the biggest tactical missiles. t5hey have nor armor and if hit just die. hen the Iskander M would be shot down by a MIM-104 Patriot just like scuds were yet the pac 3 hit even better. you they hit the warheads at finally course in case of Russian ones their be too many but they would.
@starknight97 A missile like Iskander M would actually be extremely hard, if not impossible to destroy. Firstly, it's also impossible to detect. Second, it can perform anti ABM maneuvers. Such a missile would actually be impossible to destroy. And that's the kind of missile the US army needs. Its much cheaper than an aircraft, much simpler and cheaper to operate and you don't risk a pilot's life either. Advanced tactical ballistic missiles are the best solution for the army for a long range
@StiviGun1 that's the point of the air-force yet the marines had the same problem hence they got the harrier. a jet can fight targets at 0 km bombs. so yes they can't fight in close. missiles are used up in 1 shot and are very costly per shot. that's if they hit the target or not. arty too has no max range too. Paris Gun 130km, Babylon devices the small one 350 mm 750 km range. 1000 mm the large had a possible range of 1,000km. much cheaper then cruise missiles. but we though that away too.
@starknight97 A cannon of 1000 mm is very unpractical you idiot. It's too heavy and it would take too long to operate it. All the cannons that you've mentioned were too difficult to operate. They're not practical on a battlefield, but a much lighter and much more mobile ballistic missile system is a very good tactical asset. The aircraft, again, are too expensive, much more expensive and more expensive to operate than a missile. So stop lying about this. The aircraft also uses fuel that
@StiviGun1 Depends on your automated systems if she was built like Badger 288 their be few people needed and few time problems. Though you don't need that big but why not it the gun was placed in D.C. Why do they need too be on the battlefield when they have that range. you can send rounds into sort orbits to hit anywhere you like. Then make them guided too hit pinpoint targets. You could have a 280mm still have that huge range too. Rockets also use fuel so do missiles lol.
@starknight97 Stop your bullshit. An artillery round can never hit a target anywhere in the world from D.C. For that, you need ballistic missiles, which are basically artillery projectiles but with their own incorporated propulsion system which gives them much bigger range, MUCH higher speed and much higher accuracy than a regular artillery shell. Even a 2000 mm shell can't hit at 10000 km, let alone a 280 mm one, you imbecile...
@starknight97 Any of those extremely large, bulky and heavy systems would be useless when much lighter and faster to deploy missiles can be built.Why the hell would you use such a large, heavy and bulky cannon, when there are much lighter and more mobile missile systems that can be developed? And it's funny how you argued that the Tomahawk's launcher was too "bulky" and now you come up with this idea for a REALLY large and bulky cannon, that can't even be transported by ship, let alone by air...
@starknight97 Why exact;y are you so against America developing missile systems, that you would come up with the most ridiculous and laughable proposals as replacements, ha? Why are you so determined to convince people that much newer and much more capable missile system must be developed, ha? What's you game here?
@starknight97 240 km range? It only has a 20 km range. So how could they increase that to 240 km? Your lies are so pathetic and laughable. Your exaggerations are just laughable... None of the current US ABM systems can defend against any type of ICBM. They can only defend against missiles with 3000 km range max. And the US doesn't have systems with multiple kill vehicles (MKV). That project has been rejected by the Congress.
@starknight97 I'm talking about their infantry, you idiot... The MLRS caused such personnel and material damage that regular artillery would never manage to cause. The Excalibur may carry 195 bomblets, which I doubt, but a M270 rocket carries up to 518 bomblets and it can attack at longer ranges. So there's still no comparison. Multiple rocket launchers must be kept and developed by the US army. Just like Russia and China are developing such systems.
@StiviGun1 1 shell can carry 67 it can fire a salvo of 3 to hit the target at the same time. they can can carry up too 644 for the sort range 34km rocket. then back too my original point the xm1203 is much cheaper for arty rounds then rockets. the Russians have released info cause they sell it. Everything that's release info is the export version meaning most times theirs is better.We have no systems like Pantsir S1 though if you combine a cwis gun and missile system put it on tracks you do then
@starknight97 Give me a proof that that shell can contain 644 submunitions and that it can strike at 32 km with them, you lying piece of shit. And even if it could, and MLRS can strike at twice that range with the same payload. So it's much better.
You keep throwing that "cheaper bullshit"... Like I said, an idiot that thinks a much more expensive aircraft should be developed instead of a ballistic missile doesn't know what cheap is. A new tactical ballistic missile system must be developed for
@StiviGun1 hello dork if fuel less fuel for the 32km range more payload the missiles don't change sizes. that's what i was say the the MLRS rocket can carry 644 of them the arty 155mm round carry's 67 max man your dumb. after 10 sorties the f35 is cheaper then guided missiles that just get shot down. retard. Patriot PAC - 1 :70 km PAC - 3 :240 km i have no idea where you got 20km from tard. no Obama championed the kill of the MKV system. wow you can't get anything right you retarded.
@starknight97 The PAC-3 has a 20 km range, you pathetic liar. As for the rest, I don't even know what you wanted to say.
As for F-35, how the hell can such an expensive aircraft can be cheaper after 10 sorties, in which also a lot of fuel is used that costs money? Are you really that stupid or are you just doing this on purpose...?
As for the MKV, show me a system that has this capability, you lying tart.
@StiviGun1 wrong the MIM-104F (PAC-3) has a 240km range now as of
Operational range
PAC - 1 :70 km
PAC - 2 :160 km
PAC - 3 :30 km new missiles old system extended range 240km ^
jet fuel don't cost much lol $3.13 per gallon for jp8. like the rocket propellent don't coast dork lol. as for the MKV it was caned like everything else under Obama that what we should work on instead of new ICBM moron. what 350km up yeah space retard lol.
@starknight97 The PAC-3 has a 20 km range, you lying piece of shit and its improvement, the Missile Segment enhancement will have a 30 km range. The PAC-3 missiles are much smaller than PAC-1 and PAC-2's missiles. So they can't have such a huge range, idiot. The THAAD, which uses a larger missile, has a 200 km range. You really are a moron.
Regarding ICBMs, you idiot, you can't rely just on defensive systems that don't have 100% success rate anyway. You need offensive capabilities as well, so
@StiviGun1 for the high manure missile that shots down things like rockets which the Russian Pantsir-S1 can. but for jets and cruise missiles it uses the old pac-2 housing and missile with a better ball propellent for up too 240 km. no duh you fucking Archaea microbe. That what i been telling you if you had questioned the how a patriot would have shot down a rocket then i talked about the pac III smaller missile system tard. then yes we have offensive capabilities retard.
@starknight97 No, idiot, you said that PAC-3 has a 240 km range, so don't try to switch it now. You're an idiot, period. And give me a proof that the PAC-2 has been given a range of 240 km. Even you said that PAC-2 has a range of 160 km and that PAC-3 has a range of 240 km. So don't try to switch it, 'cause you can't. A lot of people have already seen what an idiot you are and that you don't know what you're talking about.
@StiviGun1 yes it part of the extended range which is pac-3 as the pac-2 has a 160km range. i would but you can't link here. if you asked about hitting Russian new rockets systems i'd told you about the new small missiles. What you talking about they seen you get 90% of you say wrong R tard. Missiles cost almost the same regardless the type yet a offensive would need speed and stealth now to be effective much more pricey and 10 time the price per shot.
@starknight97 The PAC-3 has a 20 km range, you idiot. It's a much smaller missile than the PAC-2 so it has a smaller engine so it can't have the range you're saying.... Are you really retarded?
Missile are always much cheaper than aircrfaft, you idiot. A missile may cost 2 million, while the F-35 costs 140 mil $. So how are arcraft cheaper, you moron? And not to mention that integrating aircraft with the Army would cost a lot. You're a dumbass.
@starknight97 There's no SM-6 missile is a totally different system than the Patriot... That's a naval system that's used by the US navy, not by the US army. The US army only uses the Patriot system, which has a max range of 160 km. It could've had much bigger range, but the idiot politicians didn't let it evolve like it should have evolved. But SM-6 has nothing to do with the Patriot system. To me, it looks like you're mistaking the PAC-3 with SM-3 which is very strange for someone who pretends
@starknight97 the enemy will know that if he attacks you, he will be destroyed. ABM only insure that the damage you will cause on him will be far greater than the damage he will inflict on you. But basing your national defense on defensive systems alone is retarded. Just like you... The Minuteman III and Trident II must be replaced by much more capable missiles to counter Russia's and China's newest ICBMs and SLBMs. They already have a replacement for the Trident II D5, they must build one for
@starknight97 the Minuteman III as well. In my opinion, the BGM-75 Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program must be restarted. With today's technologies, it will be a missile that can't be intercepted. If you build 50 of them and equip them with 10 MIRVs each, it will be enough.
@StiviGun1 when we down size too the new treaty yes maybe we should though our money be better spent on the MKV project again. See you bitch about my spending yet your so way over priced in what you want. the us.s can't afford that spending anymore as their no tax revue any more. yes and l-band radar can't lock shit it a old wide radar like ww2 that just says your thier and then the new bands have too lock you.Yet even l band radar is still reduced meaning it will see a missiles before the f35.
@starknight97 It's much cheaper to develop offensive ballistic missiles than anti-missile systems, you idiot. That's why the Russians prefer to develop new ICBMs as a response to the US anti-missile system. So if we talk about money, then the US should definitely invest in developing new ballistic missiles, not ABM system.
Regarding the F-35, no, a radar won't see the ballistic missile sooner than it will see the F-35. Furthermore, the F-35 is waaay too expensive. It's not worth it for the Army.
@starknight97 After 10 sorties, the fuel that that aircraft will use will be 10x more expensive than any missile. The bombs and missiles that it will use will also cost more than any tactical or cruise missile system. Besides all of these, aircraft can't be deployed as fast as a land mobile ballistic/cruise missile system. So an aircraft can't be used instead of a missile system and it also can't be used to do the same things.
@starknight97 the army because that's the cheapest and most effective way to provide the ground troops with a system that can strike at several hundreds of km away.
As for Pantsir S1, show me where it says it can intercept the ATACMS. Not to mention a more advanced tactical ballistic missile. You're full of shit.
@starknight97 you need a missile for that. As for MLRS, again, you're an idiot. The regular artillery, including the NLOS-C can't provide eve half of the firepower of the MLRS. The MLRS can cause far more damage with its rockets and it only takes about 5 minutes to reload thanks to its built in crane. So stop your bullshit and misinformation. Missile and rocket systems must be developed as they offer capabilities regular artillery will never be able to. Also, since you speak about those "dumb
@starknight97 rockets", they've already developed a guided rocket for the MLRS. And the regular rockets use submunitions, which spread over a large area,so they won't miss their target. So this is just another one of your bullshits.
@starknight97 No, multiple rocket launchers are not too heavy ad too bulky. That's just your bullshit. I wonder why did you give the ground launched Tomahawk example... Like I said, regular artillery is cheaper, but you can never achieve with reg artillery what you achieve with missiles and MLRS systems. Period.
@starknight97 That Tomahawk that "needed" (in fact it could've been put on a much more mobile launcher) could strike targets at 2500 km away. The Pershing II could also strike targets at 1770 km away. That's something you can't do with any regular artillery shell. Damn, you're an imbecile...
@StiviGun1 M982 Excalibur block III with a rocket boast will get a 72km ranger better then MLRS when complete and for only slightly more and allot less then a ATACMS missile. Arty in every modern war has level tanks when direct hit happens. So stop your tartness. now with a guided round M982 Excalibur they are guided. Mean though 155mm land right on though tanks. the p1 is a tank and arty system that right it has armor Duh! So it's both. All of the XM1203 rounds are anti tank are you just dumb?
@starknight97 No, the Exaclibur may have 72 km range, when rocket assisted, but the xm1203 can't provide the same firepower as an MLRS. Simple as that. You'll never here about regular artillery achieving the same kind of destruction as an MLRS. Just read the reports from the 1st Gulf War. You can't achieve that with regular artillery, no matter what type of rounds you use, so stop your pathetic bullshit and go back in your country. From what I see, you're useless in America. It's obvious that
@StiviGun1 You have no idea of the bill of rights or what real freedom is. Over time its a greater fire power and most of the junk dumb MLRS rockets miss. all 3 of the Excalibur rounds hit or all 6 of the Excalibur SADARM. which give it a better first round salvo better then the MLRS. yes cause that kinda of destruction is obsolete. a b52 or b17 carpet bomber is bigger and better but never seen anymore. Cause if you do you kill innocent targets even your own.
@starknight97 I know more than you on what liberty rights are. They don't include strangers coming in the US, working in the arms industry and sabotaging it, putting America at risk. So fuck off!
And again, you just don't understand that ground forces must have their own systems to engage at long ranges. And no, that kind of destruction is not at all obsolete. Not when Russia, China, India ad other countries are developing systems that can cause such destruction. America must develop such
@starknight97 systems too. America won't fight just urban warfare against small paramilitary organizations. Look at what new weapons Russia and China and India are developing. Also Brazil. So no, that kind of destruction is not obsolete. Hell, America doesn't have enough of it. If it had, idiots like you wouldn't have the balls to talk about America like you do.
@StiviGun1 dude your a retard what you think the Pantsir-S1 is yes a new system that if we wasted money and built up a missiles system they just shot it down Russian sams are the best in the world. even a f22 will have a hard time with a s500 system. dude get out of my country the white man not from here that right i was first so that right get out of the us.s. and go back to you white brother in Germany. so retard has sunk in yet you need to go home to Europe. only the 4th time tard.
@starknight97 No, you're a retard. The US could develop much better anti-missile systems and tactical missiles systems. The reason why it hasn't done it before is because of traitors and saboteurs like you. You should be put to jail. Yes, the US should develop a new ballistic missile that could penetrate the Russian air defense systems and new anti-missile systems to deal with the Iskander M. Ballistic missiles are the most effective weapons, that's why Russia, China, India, develop them and
@StiviGun1 we could have once not with Obama and not now. we don't even take in the tax money too pay for our debat too the federal bank now as of this month. How are we gonna build shit with most u.s. people not working real or high pay jobs like i lost. Then the rest in china like electronics, and production. Nope we either destroy the federal bank or we fall as a empire we are now. lol i know i know you worship your banker master and they would like me in jail and all other true u.s. patriots
@starknight97 and that's why the US must do it too. The US needs yet another tactical ballistic missile system with longer range and payload than the ATACMS and if the Russian systems are as good as you say they are, then there's an even bigger reason for America to counter that threat and develop systems that can defeat the Russian air defense systems. Simple as that.
@StiviGun1 will that be a new tech and Russia has never trailed the u.s. but for a sort time after the fall of the soviet union. they now have the most billionaires of any city in Moscow and have more oil then the middle east in Siberia, north pole and black sea. So no their no way the u.s. can keep like we us too. if we had a teddy Roosevelt in office he killed the backs, back money in gold, and stomped corp corruption like in his day we might have a chance too stay the leading world power.
@starknight97 America has many resources too, it's just that they're not exploiting them because they're not stupid. America has a lot of oil reserves that are not declared, in specially in hard reaching places. The new technologies to drill for oil have recently made reaching for oil in places that were inaccessible so far possible. So Russia and the Middle east won't maintain their oil supremacy for long as huge resources have been discovered recently in N America, Canada, all the way to S
@starknight97 South America. It's just that they're much harder to reach at than the arab oil. So the US will maintain its supremacy as new technologies for drilling for oil appear. Although, the best thing would be for America to lose its dependence to oil and go on alternative energy sources. Nuclear would be one of them. But even if it doesn't, it still doesn't lose its status as a superpower.
@StiviGun1 Yeah the navajo is right here so get you white ass back to euro where you belong round eye lol. From what i see your a dumb-ass red neck that inbreed a bit too much.
@starknight97 You're a navajo? That's bullshit. You're not a native American. You're probably some Indian or other idiot that's come from a country that can't even feed him. You work in the US' arms industry, but you hate America. So you try to sabotage its military development. It's obvious that's what you're doing. And you alos get payed for it, you parasite. They should lock you up for treason.
@StiviGun1 dam right by us.s federal laws i am more then 1/8 native blood so get your ass out 5th time now whitey. lol look whitey can't handle someone more native here then him lol. oh tough on i hate what it become after ww2 more so in my life time when i was young the us.s was good most right up held now. not a single right is not stepped on we are not longer a democratic republic but a Corporatocracy or a cyberpunk nation. leader are just puppets. then you know what.
@starknight97 I don't care you're a native. You're a saboteur and a traitor. You attitude is unacceptable. You should be put in jail or sent back into your reservation. That is, if you are a native-American. Which I serioulsy doubt that you are. I think you're a liar.
@StiviGun1 mine is the fact i want my bill of right back and want the fed destroyed. yes you love your cyber punk nation don't you? will i love the democratic republic that it was made as. Minus their attack on and genocide of my people. So when you fight for the feral bank i'll be sure too aim for you. What theories is the the 1 where we are moving toward the second civil war or the one of our real history of the real feral bank look it up jack ass. Do you know what freedoms is?
@starknight97 Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit. You're a Russian. The way you talk against America's military proves it. Only Russians speak like that against America's military. You're a lying piece of shit.
And to answer your question, yeah, I know what freedoms is much better than you, who lived in a country who never had it. Go back to Russia asshole before you get caught like those other 10 stooges and have your pathetic ass thrown to jail.
@StiviGun1 I put a bullet in your brain or any ones just to get back too a democratic republic we were built on though i guess it why the second civil wars getting so close. watch?v=hdkX5Zsqjmk&list=FLJVptIawHfdzH8I41ss5bxQ&index=41&feature=plpp_video.No my enemy and support of our current cyber punk nation you should be for defending the current corruption of these corp that you worship so much.Here's a simple version watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&list=FLJVptIawHfdzH8I41ss5bxQ&index=23&feature=plpp_video
@starknight97 I don't "worship" those corporations, you moron. And don't send me vids with conspiracy theories, I've seen enough of them to see what full of shit they are. But people like you who get a lot of money by working in America's arms industry and sabotaging it like you do, should be put to jail. As long as Russia, China and other countries develop weapons against the US, than the US must develop its military as well.
@starknight97 you're one of those foreigners working in America in the arms industry but you actually sabotage the weapons development for America. That's the only reason why you say America shouldn't develop MLRS systems and longer range tactical ballistic missiles, while everybody else is developing them. Go back into your won country (and starve) or stay in America and do what you're told.
@StiviGun1 LOL i got laid off in Obama cuts like every one else 1st. second he the one killing the u.s military strength yet not being peaceful in the world either (a cheaper solution). Before him it was corps that plane out steal money from the us.s people then only give about 50% of the cost in arms back. The f22 a great example. great jet but they never even fixed the bugs. I'm not saying don't develop it what you think the xm501 and MGM-140 ATACMS are but better MLRS systems.
@starknight97 So you're not working in the arms industry in America anymore? Well, I can't say that's a big loss for them... As for Obama, I agree, he's an idiot that's ruining the military but in the same time keeping those hostile foreign policies, making America much more vulnerable.
As for the ATACMS, that's not an MLRS, that's a short range ballistic missile system. You're right about the XM501 though, it shouldn't have been canceled. But they should've put it on an armored platform.
@StiviGun1 though missiles systems cost more even with honest corps. Look at you i agree get out of the my country and go back too Europe white man as i was here first. Until you used bio warfare(blankets with Amherst and Smallpox) on my people and killed millions of innocent women & children. Oh that right your war mongers will Obama just gonna give you best fight ever when your using old junk vs pak-fa,pak-da, j20 fighters and armada MBT's, Mi-28, Kamov Ka-52 gunships.
@starknight97 If you're in America just to sabotage its military development, for which you work and you get paid a lot of money for it, then yeah, get out. Don't take the money and do what you want, do what you're told, get it? And when the hell did America use bio warfare on your people, what nationality are you, ha? Look at the way you talk about America. You hate it. So why are you staying there? Get back to your country.
@starknight97 Regarding missiles, even though they're more expensive, they offer much better capability, I told you a million times. They can do what regular artillery can't and that's why they must be developed. Just like Russia, China, India and other countries develop such systems.
@starknight97 ... It's funny how you cite the "expensive" argument here, but, in the same time, you say that even more of those very expensive F-35s must be developed for the US Army... Almost everything you do and say shows that you're a Russian, but in specially the way you react when you hear about the possibility of America developing missiles. Only Russians get so agitated when they hear abut this. You're so pathetic...
@StiviGun1 Pantsir is a great hybrid SAM system vs cruise missiles and air-born targets. yet can do nothing against nukes and i never said it could. then like THAAD the s-400 can get warheads on final approach before they reach their alt. the s400 is the longest range system the Russian have for jets or ICBMS and is part of the A-135 system. once again for the 4th time we over pay for them f35 can meet the army's role better then the harrier is the main old point. the f15se maybe be a better op
@starknight97 Pantsir is a short range air defense system. It can't protect against powerful tactical ballistic missiles which travel at high speeds, but it can defend against an artillery shell. It has been developed for this. So no, Excalibur can't replace a tactical ballistic missile with a much longer range.
The S-400 is not at all a part of the A-135, you idiot. There are 2 other interceptor missiles for that system, one called SH-11 Gorgon, which is for exoatmospheric interception and one
@starknight97 called SH-08 Gazelle, which is for interception inside the Earth's atmosphere if the Gorgon fails to intercept in space. So besides being retarded, you're also very poorly informed. The S-400 is not and it will never be a part of the A-135. It doesn't have the speed, range and altitude required for that. So claiming that it can defend against ICBMs, if just DUMB. God' you're stupid... Go back to your country shithead!
@StiviGun1 Gorgon only has a 350 kilometers range no deep space hits their. the sm-3 has a much better range 500 km. all current active s400 system are deployed right around Moscow just like the a-135 systems. has a better range and speed then Gorgon of Mach 12.0 and 400km. vs gorgons 350km. though nuke warheads going off so low too the ground will do good too hit but massive emps from them and the nukes they hit if close enough. Will cause it own damage
@starknight97 It's impossible that Gorgon only has a range of 350 km, you lying piece of shit. it was meant as the fist line of defense against ICBMs, so giving it such a short range that it simply can't defend against ICBMs would be dumb.
regarding the US Nike missile, that evolved into Spartan, the only reason why it was canceled was the stupid McNamara.
Regarding S-400, yes it is around Moscow, but it can't defend against ICBMs. Only against aircraft and 3500 km max range missiles. Stupid.
@StiviGun1 ths why the u.s. got rid of Nike missiles basically the opposite of the Gorgon. you fucking retard. yes like told it rated too inception a very high speed at targets it protect in sort missiles flying at it. no it can do shit for a high fly over or a missile flying away. /watch?v=AdGZ5y8aEyI thier for of the basics of the Pantsir S1 as ATACMS are under 1000m/s it can engage and destroy them.
@starknight97 The Nike was a very good missile system. That's why the Russians included it in the 1972 ABM treaty. Too bad Americans were too stupid to cancel the Sentinel program.
As for Pantsir, no, it can't shoot down the ATACMS, let alone a more advanced tactical ballistic missile which would be conceived from the start to defeat ABM systems. But Pantsir doesn't have this capability anyway. It's not designed for this, its missiles travel at too slower speeds and have to smaller warheads for
NLOS was cancelled when it was almost completed. Complete waste of money that could have been spent on civil funds.
blinky123abc 8 months ago
@blinky123abc the government is canceling almost all of the prototypes that were suppost to replace aging equipment to save money. our soldier are going to suffer with obselete weaponry. a complete waste is right
frightner24 8 months ago
@frightner24 true
midgetman2142 7 months ago
The Scorpion is better
jmantheburninator 1 year ago
@jmantheburninator FV101 Scorpion a recon vehicle are you high. sure it better for recon tasks that it.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 LOL Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant the Scorpion from the halo videogame. Yah this FCS is incredible (and real)
jmantheburninator 3 months ago
@jmantheburninator oh the M808B Main Battle Tank. Na again against a FCS combat net work she fall easy.As yes her advance tech would beat any tank 1 on 1. the XM1203 or p1 here would fire from 18 km (11 miles) away with 155mm guided rounds. The Scorpion would be stuck to horizon ranges being 5km for a tank she sits high(easy target) so she get about 6 to 6.5km range with a strait fire gun. Her M512 90mm Smooth Bore High Velocity Cannon. So till she got into range she never get a shot even.
starknight97 3 months ago
@jmantheburninator though she could shot or engage the first line scouts seeing for the xm1203. M982 Excalibur rounds would not miss with good scout info and the scouts would hide most likely.Lets say it survives the hits and scouts are taken out by your cybernetically-enhanced supersoldiers.The next line in the FCS would be MBT to hold them up as soon as they see them the xm1203 fires again not missing with intel from the net-worked front line MBT(originally the 40ton MBT concept now the m1a3).
starknight97 3 months ago
@jmantheburninator So some how lets say you got a few heroes 3 or 4 hell a squad of them. your nomal troops are dead by now and you got a few heroes left. your M808B Main Battle Tank lived some how and some cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldiers. Now it get interesting you get ambushed just when you think your home free by troops but not normal troops 1s like your cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldier.But these i just wherein suits like iron man--> watch?v=S7HKD-FWKkE&feature=related
starknight97 3 months ago
@jmantheburninator the heavy ones or heavy armor would have thicker armor then a cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldier but no shields.Their weapons also would be much heavier like javelin missiles or what i was working on that puts the snip rifle from halo to shame.If they killed the power armor and it IFV that moved them most likely a xm1204 or xm1206 maybe even aM3Bradly as we were looking into how too carry them into combat.When you finly get too the xm1203 it still can fight in close.
starknight97 3 months ago
holy shit it is ugly!
TheBoggieman5 1 year ago
@TheBoggieman5 ugly is good in the world of armor though.
starknight97 3 months ago
I think that the FCS vehicles were not suited for future army. They didn't provide enough firepower. In fact, they provided very small firepower. A future tank 4 instance should have a gun that had at least 140 mm diameter bore. At least. The FCS manned ground combat vehicles were not good. & they were expensive as hell. The only 2 vehicles that worth the effort r the NLOS cannon & the MULE. Other than these 2, all the other systems were pretty much useless.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 expensive as hell is the major problem today as u.s. corps basically steel the tax payer money and give back half of what they took. Though lacking firepower are you high? a 155mm the xm1203 or p1 as it called here is better then a 140mm and then attacks top armor or the weakest armor and any armor units. Direct hits from a 155mm guided round will kill any MBT our even the changer 2 heaviest armor. so the EFV was useless it finally get the u.s. a bit caught up to the Zubar.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 I didn't know the NLOS cannon would've been used in anti-rank role... From what I know, it was an artillery weapon used for bombardment of targets, not against tanks. What kind of ammo would've been developed for that 155 mm gun if it had been used in anti-tank role? The best anti-tank rounds are the armored piercing rounds, not explosive rounds. So would have they developed such a round for that 155 mm gun? As for the EFV, why do you say it was useless?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 It was both it was everything that why their was a big deal about it. like i said before it is given 3 new rounds vs standard artys, bombletts(DPICM), harden shell for hard targets & SADARM's. though even a standard 155mm arty round right on top of a challenger 2 would end it. Also a even cheaper round are being made and a extended range round up to 72km(rocket accessed). I didn't that was a sarcastic reply to some one said ALL fcs were useless go ask yourself for that one.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Using the XM1203 in anti-tank role is good. But you can't use it to completely replace tanks. It was a versatile weapons system, but it couldn't replace tanks. It had a too weaker armor for that.
As for my remark, I said that MOST FCS vehicles were useless, not all of them... The NLOS cannon, the EFV,. the dragon fire mortar, the MULE vehicle were pretty good. But a new longer range tactical missile systems should've also been developed. Like Is said, the Iskander must be have a
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 with your reason scrap all but the MBT then let f35C kill everything they range is longest when carrier based. You need feet on the ground and if they can't touch you but you can them you win. you just said most of the FCS system so what armor troop is useless. the medical unit is? the IFV is? XM501 is? Say which ones are cause i just burned your commit FCS is under firepower on the modern field. Then do you ever get sick of being burned.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The FCS vehicles didn't provide enough firepower because they didn't have any MLRS or new tactical ballistic missile system. A tactical ballistic missile system, in particular, with a bigger range and larger payload than the ATACMS, must be developed. My reasoning is that ground troops should have their own systems to engage targets at long ranges, not to depend on other branches to provide that fire for them. Before an aircraft could get to them, they could be dead. As for the
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 dude just shut up i told you they work with new better systems yes MLRS was good for it time but xm501 is better from FCS. this like the 5th time i told you it works with them. Yet 1 xm1203 is better then 1 MLRS system 12 dumb fire rockets vs 6 Excalibur SADARM. or 6 vs 2. the f35B is a marine aircraft not reason it can't be army too. It better then any missile system and longer range.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 You just don't get it, do you? How can a 1.5m long and 180mm in diameter XM501 rocket provide more firepower than a 4m long and 227mm in diameter MLRS rocket? The XM501 was good, but not good to replace the M270.
As for aerial support, how many times do I have to explain you? The soldiers need their own long range engagement system, they can't always wait for an airplane which may take some time to arrive. They need their own long range system, like a ballistic or cruise missile,
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 simple both will kill a MBT though it top armor that how. that fact you could have say 3 am501 hit the same target and have rounds left over after all it 15 round for a single box of xm501 will you have only 2 wo ATACMS missiles. then the rockets are dumb fires and about the same warhead as the zm501. yes the f35b retard is that just like the marines have their own f35b that are VTOL the army could too. then the rockets, ATACMS missiles xm501 will all be shot down by Pantsir-S1's
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 You're an idiot. F-35B for the army? That would be better than a much cheaper ballistic missiles? You're an idiot.
As for the PAM missile, it doesn't compare with the M270, stupid. M270 is also used for bombing targets, not just in anti-tank role... And tactical missiles are used to hit targets at much longer ranges. No, the PAM don't have the same warhead as the M270 rockets, they have a much smaller warhead and they can't be used ot bomb targets like the MLRS can be. They have
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 nope that the only way you get long range missiles to work now minus ICBMs and even they are limited. you want cheap mid range that can't be shot down easy then the xm1203 is what you want. missile are getting out dated do too the Pantsir, s400 systems. yes and the xm1204 is using the same tech 65 bomb lets per shell.to kill soft target ground troops. then they are useless ver tanks.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Why are you lying? How the hell can so many bomblets fit into a 155 mm shell? Missiles "outdated"? You're joking. If they were, Russia and other countries wouldn't develop them. Missiles can reach where normal artillery can't and they produce damage normal artillery can't produce. That's why the US has to develop them.
ICBMs, "useless"? You make me laugh... No, they're the most powerful weapon and they're the weapon, you Russians fear the most. That's why you're trying to convince
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 67 of them can fit look it up it can have a salvo of 3 shells reach the target at the same time look it up. though bombletts fit in the palm of your hand and fast explosive gives it the pen power. yes when you can shot them all down missile lose their effect. you can make them faster and faster but all this will cost more and more. who care if they go over a mountain and just get shot down. yes they pack the most single target punch bombs being more yet no good if they get shot down.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Listen idiot, missiles are needed in order to be able to reach far more distant targets that can't be reached with any regular artillery shell, even the Excalibur. Get this through your stupid head. And your statement that the XM1203 can destroy a Pantsir S1 is bullshit. Iskander missile is meant precisely to attack artillery systems like the XM11203. So the XM1203 would need to go very close to the Pantsir S1 in order to destroy it. And it can't do this. So you need missiles.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 to convince me here that they're useless an that the US shouldn't develop them while Russia is developing 3 new more ICBMs. Nice try, Russian shit. The US must develop a new ICBM to replace its very old Minuteman, The BGM-75 Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles program must be restarted. Go read about it.
And I don't wan cheap, mid-range, I want, long range, advanced means to attack targets. At hundreds of km away. You can't do that with regular artillery.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 yes they making though too get though the us. missiles defenses system as it it now fully active and 3 systems deep.We shouldn't waist money on ICBMS but the New MKV system too counter any missile threat. fast update for the minuteman III be ok but they don't need them yet as the s400 is not as good as 2 of our systems and = to the THAAD. who care if you can hit a target from 1500km if it gets shot down. she what your missile is the u.s. is about too have money problems we can't spend
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 None of the US anti-missile systems can defend against the Russian ICBMs and a 1972 treaty prevents the development and deployment of such systems. And even if it could, you can't base your protection on just defensive systems which are never 100% successful. You must also have very powerful offensive capabilities so the enemy would know that if he attacks you, he will be attacked back with devastating force.
As for the S-400, no, it can't defend against the Minuteman, I never even
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 claimed that. The A-135 ABM system that the Russians have around Moscow can do that. The US doesn't have such a system.
And stop the bullshit about missiles being shot down. Missiles are the hardest to shoot down and they're needed because they can strike at longer distances than any reg artillery shell and at a much lower cost than aircraft and that's why they're needed for the army. And an idiot that says F-35s should be purchased for the Army and not a new tactical ballistic
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 ballistic missile system, which is much cheaper, shouldn't talk about how expensive a certain weapons system is. You say that missiles shouldn't be developed because they're too expensive, but then you say the F-35, which is much more expensive than a missile, should be adopted by the Army. You contradict yourself, you idiot...
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 have other uses, but they can't take the role of an MLRS system. A new MLRS, with more missiles that have longer ranges must be developed if you want to replace the current M270 MLRS, but the XM501 is not nearly suited for that.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 for long range engagements. Tactical ballistic missiles are used in a way that no other land system can be used. And that's why they're needed. The soldiers on the ground can't rely just on airplanes from marines, navy or air force. They must be able to engage at longer ranges with their own systems. Such systems would be useful for the marines as well. In specially if they're placed on the EFV platform.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 f35b could be army too. yet if we had the FCs the #1 thing about it is the network they all be on the same network and the commander in the xm1209 somewhere safe would order a f35b, xm501, or ATACMS missile or xm1203 too kill target who closest and best to do the job. that his job. case in point a platoon of t90ms is guarded by 2 Pantsir-S1.Then the f35b is you best choice. will a group of just t90ms the xm1203 be choice yet 50+ t72's.bmps and softs would be the job of good old MLRS.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Stop talking about the F-35B! That is an expensive aircraft that shouldn't have even been developed. It's strange how you're against expensive systems, but you say the F-35, which is the most expensive of all, should be bought by the army. No, tactical ballistic missiles, which are cheaper, are a much better solution. Air support has its role, but ground troops must have their own long range engagement capability. Get this through you head, fucktart!
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 is lock head over chargeing us yes like everything else but it's a very good attack craft though not so good fighter. does it cost too much like everything we make build yes. including the MLRS 2.3mill each. the f35b has a chance too get by the Pantsir-S1 you long and mid range rockets don't Archaea microbe. As i see this can't sink though your head. the s300,400 and Pantsir-S1 systems have render missile and rocket tech obsolete.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The Russians claim that the Pantsir can detect stealth planes a well. So that would make the F-35 development useless. At least a ballistic missile is faster, much harder to intercept and much cheaper than a ballistic missile. The MLRS may cost 2.3 mil but the F-35 costs 140 mil. Furthermore, the Army doesn't use airplanes. So it must have a land based, long range missile system. One that would comply with the INF treaty, of course. Unless the Russians violate it. But it would be
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 it would be much better for the army to develop a ballistic missile or/and cruise missile system that can strike a long ranges. 500 km max, of course. Building more F-35B to also equip the army with it would be much more expensive than developing missiles which are, but their nature, much harder to intercept and shoot down than an airplane. So developing F-35B for the army is the most moronic idea I've ever heard... I wonder why you suggest such an expensive and useless initiative
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 then f35 could be used over and over again with cheap ammo like the SDB. with a range of 1090km plus it munition range. then a 2000lbs JDam pack more punch then any missile minus a nuke. yes it can anything fired at it it have no problems with. flying over head would be a bit hard for it. yet you seen our CWIS kill any missile right it has 2 and it missile can intercept anything at it. slow rockets and missile it can launch it own too down. anything under 1300 meter/second
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The F-35 could be used over and over again? And that would be cheaper for the army than a missiles system? Missiles are inherently much cheaper than airplanes, you fucktart. That's why countries that can't afford to build an air force build them. And the JDAM doesn't offer better capabilities than a missile. A JDAM must be flown by an aircraft to its target and that aircraft can be shot down and its pilot killed. A missile doesn't have this disadvantage and it also costs far less
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 yes most likely about 10 full loads of JDAM and SDB would pay for its self. missile blow themselves up you limp brain tard jets don't. yes a JDAM is about 1/10 the cost of a guided missile. yet that JDAM now has stealth, very good range, a sweet radar too see targets before they fly though, counter measures, smarter then any smart missile pilot, and he can avoid trouble. you fire a missile it hit or get shot down or don't fly around sam site or radar systems it don't know are there.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 JDAM is carried by an aircraft, which is much more expensive than a missile, you moron. An aircraft is also much more expensive to operate. And what tactical aircraft can carry 10 full loads of JDAM and SDB?
And JDAM is just A BOMB you idiot! What range can a bomb have, you pathetic tart? And no, that bomb doesn't have better countermeasures than a missile, it doesn't have room for them. So no, aircraft are not preferable to missiles for the army because they're too expensive. A
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 new, tactical ballistic missile system must be developed to augment the ATACMS. It's the simplest and cheapest solution for providing a long range strike systems for the Army. Your idea of adopting even more F-35s, which already costs a lot, for the army, is just DUMB. No, a new tactical ballistic missile system must be developed.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 to operate than a fighter plane, in specially one as expensive as the F-35. Longer range tactical ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are the way to go for the army. Airplanes are for navy, marines and air force. But even those branches need missiles in order to increase their effectiveness. The marines also need ground launched ones. In fact, they would need the same systems as the army does. Plus the aircraft so they would have even more firepower to their disposal.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 this is clearly an act of sabotage. What are you idiot? A Russian agent? You're idea of making such huge and useless expenditures shows one thing: you're a saboteur. You should be put into jail.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 and easy too intercept if you shot at the Pantsir just a waist of money. wow your a retard i said like 10 times now we pay too much to corps like lock rip off heed . We get back about 50% of what we pay for will they pocket the rest. then yes your War monger u.s. of the banks would want me in jail cause i speak against them. my u.s. of the people don't cause i'm trying to get them the best bang for their buck. yet they never want too fight anyway.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 What the fuck are you praising that Pantsir S1 so much, ha? How do you know it's effective, the Russians haven't released any info on it. So what makes you sure it's so effective?
As for your bullshits, you can't fool me, moron. I live near Russia... I know how Russian think much better than the Americans, so you may fool the Americans, but you can't fool me.
And BTW, stop saying that you lived during WW2. How old are you now? 100 and chatting on YT...? Stupid...
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 lol what so your saying your a Russian spy now lol? wow lol you fuck tard get some lithium you a bit bipolar today lol. wow i never said i live during ww2 i might have had report from then or data but i never said i live during ww2. i think you lost it lol. it you take 10 boxs of the XM501 system that 150 missiles and they take up the same room and only need a 6 wheeler too move around. 150 bets 12 any day. then yet go though the top of a tank just as easy have shaped charge to.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 No, I leave near Russia, I'm not a Russian, you dipshit. You're a Russian living in America. And probably a spy. Get out of America you dipshit!
A for your example with that 150 missile, well if you take 10 M270s, then their 120 rockets can do much more damage than the much smaller XM501 missiles. So 120 rockets to destroy more is better than having to use 500 missiles to do what you can do with just 120 rockets, which are also much cheaper.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 FCS systems, not all of them were useless. But none of them could've been used to replace MBTs and MLRS systems. The XM501 was a good system, no doubt about it, but it didn't provide even 10% of the firepower the M279 MLRS provides so no, it wouldn't have been good to replace the M270, as you suggest. The XM1203 was suited to replace the Paladin, that's it. Others, like those IFVs and EFV would've been good to replace the current IFVs and EFV. But neither would've been suited to
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 once again your a retard the XM501 is box you drop anywhere much smaller missile not rocket and 15 are in a box the xm1209 can control them they have 40 km or 70km ranges. though vs new Russian tech all missiles and rockets are coming to a end Pantsir-S1 just shot them down and least a arty round smaller and the SADARM have a chance to hit the Pantsir-S1 before it hit them with gun fire. a ATACMS will just be shot down by the 57E6 missiles.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Again, with your bullshits. You're talking about Russian tech. Well, that's one of the reasons America must develop its own, analogue tech. Sure, the XM501 has advantages and is useful in many situations, but saying it's better than the MLRS is dumb. Like I said, it can't cause even 10% of the destruction the MLRS can cause. So stop your bullshit. And long range tactical ballistic missiles are needed for long range engagements, how many times do I have to tell you this, you retard?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 15 guided vs 12 dumb or 2 guided you decided which is better i say Russian tech because you want to compare yours vs the best retard. we have version of that it called the patriot system. if all 12 missiles hit but vs MBT the MLRS is junk with out the ATACMS. then the Pantsir-S1 just shot down every missile you have retard. yes they are called the f22 f35 and f15se. They made the s500 to kill stealth fighters. The f35b is for ground troop built for marines that operate interdependent
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The 12 rockets of the MLRS carry hundreds of submunitions you moron, that can destroy a very large area. The XM510 doesn't even come close to that power.
As for the Russian tech, well, if they're so advanced, then idiots like Obama, who cut military programs should be charged for treason. America must invest heavily in its weapons development so that it will catch up with the Russians. America has the industrial and technological capacity to do this, all it needs is political will.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 65 of them per round or 195 of them it uses retard same tech.195 of them cover a huge area. yes he should the bank should and the military contractors that over charge should. yes we need to invest heavily if we want too stay the world empire we are or we could just be peaceful that save allot money. Nope we shiped all too china i know i live in Mi we built all the tank, bomber and munition of ww2 tey all empty buildings now Gm truck bus got ore down a few years ago + so many others.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 What bomblets are those? Certainly not like the ones used by the M270 rockets. And a larger tactical ballistic missile can carry over a 1000 of those bomblets and can attack at much longer ranges with them.
Yes, the US has to invest heavily in its military in order to stay ahead of everyone else in military technology. That's the only way it can remain safe. Look what new ICBMs and nuclear weapons are Russia and China developing. So the US must develop weapons in order to remain
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 safe. It must get ahead of everyone else, in specially Russia and China. As long as Russia and China develop weapons, the US must do it too. New ICBMs and SLBMs are needed for the US, among other things.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 And if the Pantsir is as good as you say it is, then America must really develop a new tactical ballistic missile that would be capable of penetrating the Russian air defense systems. An analogue to Iskander M. And also, more advanced missile defense systems that could defeat threats like Iskander M.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 The XM501 may have 15 missiles in its box, but it has far less firepower than the MLRS. Its small missiles deliver a much smaller warhead. This system is good for use in urban warfare to avoid civilian casualties, but for large engagements for which US must be prepared giving the way Russia and China are arming themselves), the large MLRS systems must be built. And of course, tactical ballistic missiles with longer range and payload than the ATACMS and with much better anti-
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 ballistic missiles systems penetrating capability. Just like the Iskander M. If Russia develops such systems, America must do it too.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 take the role of multiple rocket launchers, tactical ballistic missiles or tanks. Also, more powerful anti-tank missiles, with longer ranges should've also been developed. Some sort of an equivalent to the Khrizantema systems should've been developed. So yeah, the FCS vehicles wouldn't have provided enough firepower and capabilities.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 counterpart. As for what you say, that normal artillery can perform the same role as regular artillery, not it can't. It can never match the rocket artillery firepower. Its cheaper, yes, but it can never match the fire power of rocket artillery. That's why both systems must be used and that's why the Russians developed both systems.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 the 1204 was a anti personnel unit with a 120mm motor. in sort she kill enemy platoons before they even know what was going on. This goes on and on so i have no idea what you saying under firepower about. then the xm12XX units only play 1 important role.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 "120mm motor"? What is that? Did you mean 12mm mortar?
What I meant when I said most of those systems were underpowered, I was talking about the fact that no missile and artillery rocket systems were developed as part of the FCS. New MLRS and longer range tactical ballistic missiles should've been developed as well. An analogue to Iskander must be developed.
BTW, what is "1204" and "xm12XX"?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Non-line-of-sight mortar 120mm not 12mm. hmm the xm1204 has a powerful 120mm motar that works like arty the xm1203 has a 155mm arty with up to a 40km range. The the IFV Xm1206 was too get anti-tank guided missile system. Though what use are missiles and artillery rocket systems when you have the 40km range 155mm M982 Excalibur rounds? you can bring 3 plus too het the target or targets at one time from a single xm1203 unit. It be top down attack in addition to that.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 And 40 km range is a long range for you. The tactical ballistic missiles and artillery rockets can reach up to hundreds of km. The cannons are good, as they provide a cheaper capability to bombard targets, but missiles and artillery rockets are needed to hit targets at distances where regular artillery can't. Mortars, cannons, rocket artillery and tactical missiles, they're all needed.
And since you talk about that top attack capability of the XM1203, I'm asking you again: what
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 the XM1203 has modern light weight armor to engage MBT in a Tow to tow fight. If you are talking large scale rockets(unguided& lucky hits), Missiles large and costly systems, and all with limit ammo and a higher cost. Yes they work with each other yet the xm1203 brings it to a tank level engagements with pinpoint hits of missiles for much cheaper yet can still do the old roles as well of a MBT. what top attack all arty is top attack wake up or were referencing it was canned?
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 I was talking about MLRS systems and ballistic missiles (which are guided). Such systems are needed to hit at ranges far above those normal artillery can hit. 40 km is nothing. You need to be able to hit the enemy hundreds of km away. You can't rely just on regular artillery. And again, using a self propelled cannon as a tank is just ridiculous. Tanks have to be used. You're saying that a 155 mm explosive shell can destroy any tank. How? You need specialized anti-tank rounds to do
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 they are large systems big and bulky no real armor huge cost and limited ammo. tomahawk need a huge launcher and is 1+ million a pop. it cost you more then what your killing. 70 km (43 mi) is the upper limit too MLRS which most are unguided. MGM-140 ATACMS(100 miles) is much better then M270+ MLRS. Anyway same limit cost limited ammo can't fight the front line. the p1 can at a much lower cost and can take a hit which the M109 Paladin can't.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 They don't cost as much as you want to imply. MLRS systems are needed because of their firepower. You can't replace MLRS systems with regular artillery. Each has its role and advantages and disadvantages. The regular artillery is cheaper, but i doesn't provide the same firepower. The MLRS systems are more expensive, but they provide much more firepower. So both systems must be used in conjunction.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 yes you can very easy true the mllrs can have a hug amount of fire for about 10 sec then it junk the the xm1203 can keep it up with the first salvo bringing 3 rounds for each unit. Then the XM501 is way better then the old ass MLRS even the MGM-140 ATACMS is much better. $725000 for 1 ATACMS $80,000 for 1 M982 Excalibur with cheaper ones being built already 1/10 the cost. unless you meant the dumb fire rockets lol.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The advantage of regular artillery is that it cheaper and that you can keep a constant bombing on the target. But the MLRS can cause in those 10 seconds more damage than a reg artillery piece can cause in 30 minutes. So it's worth it.
As for the XM501, it's good, but again, it can't provide the same firepower as an MLRS. It would be great as just another acquisition, but not to replace a systems like the MLRS. A much more powerful systems should be developed for that.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 And the MLRS, after it fires its missiles, it's not "junk". Such systems can be made very mobile, so after they fire their missiles, they can retreat to a safe place and reload. Not that they need to because, let's get serious, what's gonna be left from their targets after they discard their missiles on them. There would be no one left to counterattack. So no, it wouldn't be "junk". It's actually a very useful weapons system, that's why the Russians are using these systems for such
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 MLRS has 12 dumb fire rockets or two ATACMS missiles. the dumb fire rockets will mostly miss and the 2 ATACMS missiles will kill a hole 2 targets. the xm1203 can kill 6 mbt in a single first attack salvo and has 24 rounds before she needs to reload. is much cheaper can fight close can shot and scoot and reload even. will after half it's rockets hit nothing allot if it a full blown war. and only direct hit MBT will be killed and MBT like the t9ms just shot it down with arena.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 You're full of shit. Ask the Iraqis in the 1st Gulf War what they think about those "dumb rockets". Those "dumb rockets" inflicted more damage on Sadadm's ground troops than even the air force. The air force can't be used just to support soldiers on the ground, it must take care of many other objectives. So it may not always be available for the soldiers. That's why soldiers need long range engagement capability. And you can't do this with your regular artillery, you need a missile
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 oh yes export version of cold war tank hmm that's what they were designed to kill then not evven that good with age steel practice rounds and under trained. Pantsir-S1 would laugh if a MLRS fired on it. yes and it only 2 of the guided kind if you what the 12 though are dumb fires. what the hell are bomb-lets going to do too a MBT that right nothing. again retard 12 rockets vs 3 rounds each with 2 SADARM for 6 mbt kills or if you like it has 195 bomb-lets in the DPICM.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The Pantsir can't destroy tactical ballistic missile or artillery rockets, idiot... The S-300 may be capable of intercepting the ATACMS, but not the Pantsir, which is a close range defense system. Either way, the US army needs missile and multiple rocket systems with which it can engage targets at long ranges. Such systems are a must. If the Russians develop new anti-air defense systems, then America must build better missiles. Or they can use artillery to destroy systems like
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 like Panntsir or S-300 and use the tactical ballistic missiles to destroy other, critical targets at much longer ranges than Excalibur can.
The MLRS rockets carry hundreds of submunitions. So 12 of those rockets offer hundreds o times more firepower than 3 Excaliburs... Also, a new, guided rocket for the MLRS has been developed, which can hit with a much better accuracy than the Excalibur and with a larger warhead. So again, you failed.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 tech is getting too a good point or stalemate. basically if your the attack it the hardest role now. if they send their stuff cruise missile icmb, bomber our THAD, patriots and SM3 kill them. we send our stuff their s300/400/500 and Pantsir kill it.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 You;re wrong. The THAAD, SM-3 and Patriot missiles can't defend against the Russian ICBMs. In specially Patriot...The Russians are the only ones that have an active ICBM defense system around Moscow, the A-135 system, with some 60 missiles. So Moscow could be saved by a nuclear attack, but Washington won't.
As for S-300, S-400, and Pantsir, they can't intercept ICBMs, you idiot... And stop praising that Pantsir system, 'cause you're laughable.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 then for the 1th time they do no gun say if a Pantsir S1 sherd them out the sky on the way there. no Ageis(sm-3) and THAAD protect all the u.s. right now today. the patriot 3 are placed at any area of high important but now have a increased range of 240km so they now protect a larger area. we have 2 systems NORAD and aegis for most of the world and mainly the oceans and North America. NORAD though far away protects DC with all 3 systems and allot of them.Only the s400 and get warheads
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The Pantsir can't shoot a powerful tactical ballistic missile, like you try to imply. And your XM1203 couldn't destroy the Pantsir because it would have to go too close to it and it won't manage to do that because it would be destroyed from a much longer distance by the Iskander M.
As for Aegis, Thaad and in specially PAC-3, no stupid, neither of these can protect against ICBMs.
And NORAD is a command and control facility stupid... And when has the PAC-3's range been increased to
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Pantsir S1 can only shot down a tactical missile if it or what it protecting is the target of a non nuke warhead. it's missiles would surely destroy even the biggest tactical missiles. t5hey have nor armor and if hit just die. hen the Iskander M would be shot down by a MIM-104 Patriot just like scuds were yet the pac 3 hit even better. you they hit the warheads at finally course in case of Russian ones their be too many but they would.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 A missile like Iskander M would actually be extremely hard, if not impossible to destroy. Firstly, it's also impossible to detect. Second, it can perform anti ABM maneuvers. Such a missile would actually be impossible to destroy. And that's the kind of missile the US army needs. Its much cheaper than an aircraft, much simpler and cheaper to operate and you don't risk a pilot's life either. Advanced tactical ballistic missiles are the best solution for the army for a long range
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 strike system. Integrating aircraft in the army's structures would be too costly.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 that's the point of the air-force yet the marines had the same problem hence they got the harrier. a jet can fight targets at 0 km bombs. so yes they can't fight in close. missiles are used up in 1 shot and are very costly per shot. that's if they hit the target or not. arty too has no max range too. Paris Gun 130km, Babylon devices the small one 350 mm 750 km range. 1000 mm the large had a possible range of 1,000km. much cheaper then cruise missiles. but we though that away too.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 A cannon of 1000 mm is very unpractical you idiot. It's too heavy and it would take too long to operate it. All the cannons that you've mentioned were too difficult to operate. They're not practical on a battlefield, but a much lighter and much more mobile ballistic missile system is a very good tactical asset. The aircraft, again, are too expensive, much more expensive and more expensive to operate than a missile. So stop lying about this. The aircraft also uses fuel that
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Depends on your automated systems if she was built like Badger 288 their be few people needed and few time problems. Though you don't need that big but why not it the gun was placed in D.C. Why do they need too be on the battlefield when they have that range. you can send rounds into sort orbits to hit anywhere you like. Then make them guided too hit pinpoint targets. You could have a 280mm still have that huge range too. Rockets also use fuel so do missiles lol.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Stop your bullshit. An artillery round can never hit a target anywhere in the world from D.C. For that, you need ballistic missiles, which are basically artillery projectiles but with their own incorporated propulsion system which gives them much bigger range, MUCH higher speed and much higher accuracy than a regular artillery shell. Even a 2000 mm shell can't hit at 10000 km, let alone a 280 mm one, you imbecile...
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 What the hell is a "badger 288"...?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 increases costs.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 Any of those extremely large, bulky and heavy systems would be useless when much lighter and faster to deploy missiles can be built.Why the hell would you use such a large, heavy and bulky cannon, when there are much lighter and more mobile missile systems that can be developed? And it's funny how you argued that the Tomahawk's launcher was too "bulky" and now you come up with this idea for a REALLY large and bulky cannon, that can't even be transported by ship, let alone by air...
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 Why exact;y are you so against America developing missile systems, that you would come up with the most ridiculous and laughable proposals as replacements, ha? Why are you so determined to convince people that much newer and much more capable missile system must be developed, ha? What's you game here?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 240 km range? It only has a 20 km range. So how could they increase that to 240 km? Your lies are so pathetic and laughable. Your exaggerations are just laughable... None of the current US ABM systems can defend against any type of ICBM. They can only defend against missiles with 3000 km range max. And the US doesn't have systems with multiple kill vehicles (MKV). That project has been rejected by the Congress.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 I'm talking about their infantry, you idiot... The MLRS caused such personnel and material damage that regular artillery would never manage to cause. The Excalibur may carry 195 bomblets, which I doubt, but a M270 rocket carries up to 518 bomblets and it can attack at longer ranges. So there's still no comparison. Multiple rocket launchers must be kept and developed by the US army. Just like Russia and China are developing such systems.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 1 shell can carry 67 it can fire a salvo of 3 to hit the target at the same time. they can can carry up too 644 for the sort range 34km rocket. then back too my original point the xm1203 is much cheaper for arty rounds then rockets. the Russians have released info cause they sell it. Everything that's release info is the export version meaning most times theirs is better.We have no systems like Pantsir S1 though if you combine a cwis gun and missile system put it on tracks you do then
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Give me a proof that that shell can contain 644 submunitions and that it can strike at 32 km with them, you lying piece of shit. And even if it could, and MLRS can strike at twice that range with the same payload. So it's much better.
You keep throwing that "cheaper bullshit"... Like I said, an idiot that thinks a much more expensive aircraft should be developed instead of a ballistic missile doesn't know what cheap is. A new tactical ballistic missile system must be developed for
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 hello dork if fuel less fuel for the 32km range more payload the missiles don't change sizes. that's what i was say the the MLRS rocket can carry 644 of them the arty 155mm round carry's 67 max man your dumb. after 10 sorties the f35 is cheaper then guided missiles that just get shot down. retard. Patriot PAC - 1 :70 km PAC - 3 :240 km i have no idea where you got 20km from tard. no Obama championed the kill of the MKV system. wow you can't get anything right you retarded.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The PAC-3 has a 20 km range, you pathetic liar. As for the rest, I don't even know what you wanted to say.
As for F-35, how the hell can such an expensive aircraft can be cheaper after 10 sorties, in which also a lot of fuel is used that costs money? Are you really that stupid or are you just doing this on purpose...?
As for the MKV, show me a system that has this capability, you lying tart.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 wrong the MIM-104F (PAC-3) has a 240km range now as of
Operational range
PAC - 1 :70 km
PAC - 2 :160 km
PAC - 3 :30 km new missiles old system extended range 240km ^
jet fuel don't cost much lol $3.13 per gallon for jp8. like the rocket propellent don't coast dork lol. as for the MKV it was caned like everything else under Obama that what we should work on instead of new ICBM moron. what 350km up yeah space retard lol.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The PAC-3 has a 20 km range, you lying piece of shit and its improvement, the Missile Segment enhancement will have a 30 km range. The PAC-3 missiles are much smaller than PAC-1 and PAC-2's missiles. So they can't have such a huge range, idiot. The THAAD, which uses a larger missile, has a 200 km range. You really are a moron.
Regarding ICBMs, you idiot, you can't rely just on defensive systems that don't have 100% success rate anyway. You need offensive capabilities as well, so
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 for the high manure missile that shots down things like rockets which the Russian Pantsir-S1 can. but for jets and cruise missiles it uses the old pac-2 housing and missile with a better ball propellent for up too 240 km. no duh you fucking Archaea microbe. That what i been telling you if you had questioned the how a patriot would have shot down a rocket then i talked about the pac III smaller missile system tard. then yes we have offensive capabilities retard.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 No, idiot, you said that PAC-3 has a 240 km range, so don't try to switch it now. You're an idiot, period. And give me a proof that the PAC-2 has been given a range of 240 km. Even you said that PAC-2 has a range of 160 km and that PAC-3 has a range of 240 km. So don't try to switch it, 'cause you can't. A lot of people have already seen what an idiot you are and that you don't know what you're talking about.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 yes it part of the extended range which is pac-3 as the pac-2 has a 160km range. i would but you can't link here. if you asked about hitting Russian new rockets systems i'd told you about the new small missiles. What you talking about they seen you get 90% of you say wrong R tard. Missiles cost almost the same regardless the type yet a offensive would need speed and stealth now to be effective much more pricey and 10 time the price per shot.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The PAC-3 has a 20 km range, you idiot. It's a much smaller missile than the PAC-2 so it has a smaller engine so it can't have the range you're saying.... Are you really retarded?
Missile are always much cheaper than aircrfaft, you idiot. A missile may cost 2 million, while the F-35 costs 140 mil $. So how are arcraft cheaper, you moron? And not to mention that integrating aircraft with the Army would cost a lot. You're a dumbass.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 look up the sm-6 missile it's the same used as the extended range version.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 There's no SM-6 missile is a totally different system than the Patriot... That's a naval system that's used by the US navy, not by the US army. The US army only uses the Patriot system, which has a max range of 160 km. It could've had much bigger range, but the idiot politicians didn't let it evolve like it should have evolved. But SM-6 has nothing to do with the Patriot system. To me, it looks like you're mistaking the PAC-3 with SM-3 which is very strange for someone who pretends
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 he worked for the US military industry.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 the enemy will know that if he attacks you, he will be destroyed. ABM only insure that the damage you will cause on him will be far greater than the damage he will inflict on you. But basing your national defense on defensive systems alone is retarded. Just like you... The Minuteman III and Trident II must be replaced by much more capable missiles to counter Russia's and China's newest ICBMs and SLBMs. They already have a replacement for the Trident II D5, they must build one for
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 the Minuteman III as well. In my opinion, the BGM-75 Advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program must be restarted. With today's technologies, it will be a missile that can't be intercepted. If you build 50 of them and equip them with 10 MIRVs each, it will be enough.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 when we down size too the new treaty yes maybe we should though our money be better spent on the MKV project again. See you bitch about my spending yet your so way over priced in what you want. the us.s can't afford that spending anymore as their no tax revue any more. yes and l-band radar can't lock shit it a old wide radar like ww2 that just says your thier and then the new bands have too lock you.Yet even l band radar is still reduced meaning it will see a missiles before the f35.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 It's much cheaper to develop offensive ballistic missiles than anti-missile systems, you idiot. That's why the Russians prefer to develop new ICBMs as a response to the US anti-missile system. So if we talk about money, then the US should definitely invest in developing new ballistic missiles, not ABM system.
Regarding the F-35, no, a radar won't see the ballistic missile sooner than it will see the F-35. Furthermore, the F-35 is waaay too expensive. It's not worth it for the Army.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 After 10 sorties, the fuel that that aircraft will use will be 10x more expensive than any missile. The bombs and missiles that it will use will also cost more than any tactical or cruise missile system. Besides all of these, aircraft can't be deployed as fast as a land mobile ballistic/cruise missile system. So an aircraft can't be used instead of a missile system and it also can't be used to do the same things.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 the army because that's the cheapest and most effective way to provide the ground troops with a system that can strike at several hundreds of km away.
As for Pantsir S1, show me where it says it can intercept the ATACMS. Not to mention a more advanced tactical ballistic missile. You're full of shit.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 you need a missile for that. As for MLRS, again, you're an idiot. The regular artillery, including the NLOS-C can't provide eve half of the firepower of the MLRS. The MLRS can cause far more damage with its rockets and it only takes about 5 minutes to reload thanks to its built in crane. So stop your bullshit and misinformation. Missile and rocket systems must be developed as they offer capabilities regular artillery will never be able to. Also, since you speak about those "dumb
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 rockets", they've already developed a guided rocket for the MLRS. And the regular rockets use submunitions, which spread over a large area,so they won't miss their target. So this is just another one of your bullshits.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 for such a long time. They offer firepower that no other land based system can offer. Except nuclear missiles.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 No, multiple rocket launchers are not too heavy ad too bulky. That's just your bullshit. I wonder why did you give the ground launched Tomahawk example... Like I said, regular artillery is cheaper, but you can never achieve with reg artillery what you achieve with missiles and MLRS systems. Period.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 That Tomahawk that "needed" (in fact it could've been put on a much more mobile launcher) could strike targets at 2500 km away. The Pershing II could also strike targets at 1770 km away. That's something you can't do with any regular artillery shell. Damn, you're an imbecile...
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 M982 Excalibur block III with a rocket boast will get a 72km ranger better then MLRS when complete and for only slightly more and allot less then a ATACMS missile. Arty in every modern war has level tanks when direct hit happens. So stop your tartness. now with a guided round M982 Excalibur they are guided. Mean though 155mm land right on though tanks. the p1 is a tank and arty system that right it has armor Duh! So it's both. All of the XM1203 rounds are anti tank are you just dumb?
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 No, the Exaclibur may have 72 km range, when rocket assisted, but the xm1203 can't provide the same firepower as an MLRS. Simple as that. You'll never here about regular artillery achieving the same kind of destruction as an MLRS. Just read the reports from the 1st Gulf War. You can't achieve that with regular artillery, no matter what type of rounds you use, so stop your pathetic bullshit and go back in your country. From what I see, you're useless in America. It's obvious that
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 You have no idea of the bill of rights or what real freedom is. Over time its a greater fire power and most of the junk dumb MLRS rockets miss. all 3 of the Excalibur rounds hit or all 6 of the Excalibur SADARM. which give it a better first round salvo better then the MLRS. yes cause that kinda of destruction is obsolete. a b52 or b17 carpet bomber is bigger and better but never seen anymore. Cause if you do you kill innocent targets even your own.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 I know more than you on what liberty rights are. They don't include strangers coming in the US, working in the arms industry and sabotaging it, putting America at risk. So fuck off!
And again, you just don't understand that ground forces must have their own systems to engage at long ranges. And no, that kind of destruction is not at all obsolete. Not when Russia, China, India ad other countries are developing systems that can cause such destruction. America must develop such
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 systems too. America won't fight just urban warfare against small paramilitary organizations. Look at what new weapons Russia and China and India are developing. Also Brazil. So no, that kind of destruction is not obsolete. Hell, America doesn't have enough of it. If it had, idiots like you wouldn't have the balls to talk about America like you do.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 dude your a retard what you think the Pantsir-S1 is yes a new system that if we wasted money and built up a missiles system they just shot it down Russian sams are the best in the world. even a f22 will have a hard time with a s500 system. dude get out of my country the white man not from here that right i was first so that right get out of the us.s. and go back to you white brother in Germany. so retard has sunk in yet you need to go home to Europe. only the 4th time tard.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 No, you're a retard. The US could develop much better anti-missile systems and tactical missiles systems. The reason why it hasn't done it before is because of traitors and saboteurs like you. You should be put to jail. Yes, the US should develop a new ballistic missile that could penetrate the Russian air defense systems and new anti-missile systems to deal with the Iskander M. Ballistic missiles are the most effective weapons, that's why Russia, China, India, develop them and
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 we could have once not with Obama and not now. we don't even take in the tax money too pay for our debat too the federal bank now as of this month. How are we gonna build shit with most u.s. people not working real or high pay jobs like i lost. Then the rest in china like electronics, and production. Nope we either destroy the federal bank or we fall as a empire we are now. lol i know i know you worship your banker master and they would like me in jail and all other true u.s. patriots
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Yes, America could've had and could have a much more powerful military if it didn't have so many traitors and saboteurs like you in it.
As for the economy, go learn real economics and don't come to me with this socialist crap. You don't know a damn thing about economics.
As for you, it's obvious that you're a Russian agent, so you must be put to jail.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 and that's why the US must do it too. The US needs yet another tactical ballistic missile system with longer range and payload than the ATACMS and if the Russian systems are as good as you say they are, then there's an even bigger reason for America to counter that threat and develop systems that can defeat the Russian air defense systems. Simple as that.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 will that be a new tech and Russia has never trailed the u.s. but for a sort time after the fall of the soviet union. they now have the most billionaires of any city in Moscow and have more oil then the middle east in Siberia, north pole and black sea. So no their no way the u.s. can keep like we us too. if we had a teddy Roosevelt in office he killed the backs, back money in gold, and stomped corp corruption like in his day we might have a chance too stay the leading world power.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 America has many resources too, it's just that they're not exploiting them because they're not stupid. America has a lot of oil reserves that are not declared, in specially in hard reaching places. The new technologies to drill for oil have recently made reaching for oil in places that were inaccessible so far possible. So Russia and the Middle east won't maintain their oil supremacy for long as huge resources have been discovered recently in N America, Canada, all the way to S
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 South America. It's just that they're much harder to reach at than the arab oil. So the US will maintain its supremacy as new technologies for drilling for oil appear. Although, the best thing would be for America to lose its dependence to oil and go on alternative energy sources. Nuclear would be one of them. But even if it doesn't, it still doesn't lose its status as a superpower.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yeah the navajo is right here so get you white ass back to euro where you belong round eye lol. From what i see your a dumb-ass red neck that inbreed a bit too much.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 You're a navajo? That's bullshit. You're not a native American. You're probably some Indian or other idiot that's come from a country that can't even feed him. You work in the US' arms industry, but you hate America. So you try to sabotage its military development. It's obvious that's what you're doing. And you alos get payed for it, you parasite. They should lock you up for treason.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 dam right by us.s federal laws i am more then 1/8 native blood so get your ass out 5th time now whitey. lol look whitey can't handle someone more native here then him lol. oh tough on i hate what it become after ww2 more so in my life time when i was young the us.s was good most right up held now. not a single right is not stepped on we are not longer a democratic republic but a Corporatocracy or a cyberpunk nation. leader are just puppets. then you know what.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 I don't care you're a native. You're a saboteur and a traitor. You attitude is unacceptable. You should be put in jail or sent back into your reservation. That is, if you are a native-American. Which I serioulsy doubt that you are. I think you're a liar.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 mine is the fact i want my bill of right back and want the fed destroyed. yes you love your cyber punk nation don't you? will i love the democratic republic that it was made as. Minus their attack on and genocide of my people. So when you fight for the feral bank i'll be sure too aim for you. What theories is the the 1 where we are moving toward the second civil war or the one of our real history of the real feral bank look it up jack ass. Do you know what freedoms is?
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit. You're a Russian. The way you talk against America's military proves it. Only Russians speak like that against America's military. You're a lying piece of shit.
And to answer your question, yeah, I know what freedoms is much better than you, who lived in a country who never had it. Go back to Russia asshole before you get caught like those other 10 stooges and have your pathetic ass thrown to jail.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 I put a bullet in your brain or any ones just to get back too a democratic republic we were built on though i guess it why the second civil wars getting so close. watch?v=hdkX5Zsqjmk&list=FLJVptIawHfdzH8I41ss5bxQ&index=41&feature=plpp_video.No my enemy and support of our current cyber punk nation you should be for defending the current corruption of these corp that you worship so much.Here's a simple version watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&list=FLJVptIawHfdzH8I41ss5bxQ&index=23&feature=plpp_video
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 I don't "worship" those corporations, you moron. And don't send me vids with conspiracy theories, I've seen enough of them to see what full of shit they are. But people like you who get a lot of money by working in America's arms industry and sabotaging it like you do, should be put to jail. As long as Russia, China and other countries develop weapons against the US, than the US must develop its military as well.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 you're one of those foreigners working in America in the arms industry but you actually sabotage the weapons development for America. That's the only reason why you say America shouldn't develop MLRS systems and longer range tactical ballistic missiles, while everybody else is developing them. Go back into your won country (and starve) or stay in America and do what you're told.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 LOL i got laid off in Obama cuts like every one else 1st. second he the one killing the u.s military strength yet not being peaceful in the world either (a cheaper solution). Before him it was corps that plane out steal money from the us.s people then only give about 50% of the cost in arms back. The f22 a great example. great jet but they never even fixed the bugs. I'm not saying don't develop it what you think the xm501 and MGM-140 ATACMS are but better MLRS systems.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 So you're not working in the arms industry in America anymore? Well, I can't say that's a big loss for them... As for Obama, I agree, he's an idiot that's ruining the military but in the same time keeping those hostile foreign policies, making America much more vulnerable.
As for the ATACMS, that's not an MLRS, that's a short range ballistic missile system. You're right about the XM501 though, it shouldn't have been canceled. But they should've put it on an armored platform.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 though missiles systems cost more even with honest corps. Look at you i agree get out of the my country and go back too Europe white man as i was here first. Until you used bio warfare(blankets with Amherst and Smallpox) on my people and killed millions of innocent women & children. Oh that right your war mongers will Obama just gonna give you best fight ever when your using old junk vs pak-fa,pak-da, j20 fighters and armada MBT's, Mi-28, Kamov Ka-52 gunships.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 If you're in America just to sabotage its military development, for which you work and you get paid a lot of money for it, then yeah, get out. Don't take the money and do what you want, do what you're told, get it? And when the hell did America use bio warfare on your people, what nationality are you, ha? Look at the way you talk about America. You hate it. So why are you staying there? Get back to your country.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 Regarding missiles, even though they're more expensive, they offer much better capability, I told you a million times. They can do what regular artillery can't and that's why they must be developed. Just like Russia, China, India and other countries develop such systems.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 ... It's funny how you cite the "expensive" argument here, but, in the same time, you say that even more of those very expensive F-35s must be developed for the US Army... Almost everything you do and say shows that you're a Russian, but in specially the way you react when you hear about the possibility of America developing missiles. Only Russians get so agitated when they hear abut this. You're so pathetic...
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Pantsir is a great hybrid SAM system vs cruise missiles and air-born targets. yet can do nothing against nukes and i never said it could. then like THAAD the s-400 can get warheads on final approach before they reach their alt. the s400 is the longest range system the Russian have for jets or ICBMS and is part of the A-135 system. once again for the 4th time we over pay for them f35 can meet the army's role better then the harrier is the main old point. the f15se maybe be a better op
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 Pantsir is a short range air defense system. It can't protect against powerful tactical ballistic missiles which travel at high speeds, but it can defend against an artillery shell. It has been developed for this. So no, Excalibur can't replace a tactical ballistic missile with a much longer range.
The S-400 is not at all a part of the A-135, you idiot. There are 2 other interceptor missiles for that system, one called SH-11 Gorgon, which is for exoatmospheric interception and one
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@starknight97 called SH-08 Gazelle, which is for interception inside the Earth's atmosphere if the Gorgon fails to intercept in space. So besides being retarded, you're also very poorly informed. The S-400 is not and it will never be a part of the A-135. It doesn't have the speed, range and altitude required for that. So claiming that it can defend against ICBMs, if just DUMB. God' you're stupid... Go back to your country shithead!
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Gorgon only has a 350 kilometers range no deep space hits their. the sm-3 has a much better range 500 km. all current active s400 system are deployed right around Moscow just like the a-135 systems. has a better range and speed then Gorgon of Mach 12.0 and 400km. vs gorgons 350km. though nuke warheads going off so low too the ground will do good too hit but massive emps from them and the nukes they hit if close enough. Will cause it own damage
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 It's impossible that Gorgon only has a range of 350 km, you lying piece of shit. it was meant as the fist line of defense against ICBMs, so giving it such a short range that it simply can't defend against ICBMs would be dumb.
regarding the US Nike missile, that evolved into Spartan, the only reason why it was canceled was the stupid McNamara.
Regarding S-400, yes it is around Moscow, but it can't defend against ICBMs. Only against aircraft and 3500 km max range missiles. Stupid.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 ths why the u.s. got rid of Nike missiles basically the opposite of the Gorgon. you fucking retard. yes like told it rated too inception a very high speed at targets it protect in sort missiles flying at it. no it can do shit for a high fly over or a missile flying away. /watch?v=AdGZ5y8aEyI thier for of the basics of the Pantsir S1 as ATACMS are under 1000m/s it can engage and destroy them.
starknight97 3 months ago
@starknight97 The Nike was a very good missile system. That's why the Russians included it in the 1972 ABM treaty. Too bad Americans were too stupid to cancel the Sentinel program.
As for Pantsir, no, it can't shoot down the ATACMS, let alone a more advanced tactical ballistic missile which would be conceived from the start to defeat ABM systems. But Pantsir doesn't have this capability anyway. It's not designed for this, its missiles travel at too slower speeds and have to smaller warheads for
StiviGun1 3 months ago