Iskander E - Искандер E - Rocket Raketa

[c0mmando96]

Greece is going to take some of these rockets!

[YppolitKorrektny]

500 кг полезной нагрузки, которая прилетит куда надо! Незаменимая вещь в походе!

[sukoy999]

el temido misil al que la otan no quiere enfrentarse incluso en la gerra del caucaso rusia amenazo a los estados unidos con instalarlos en la fronterasi estos llevaban a cabo el escudo antimisiles en polonia y efectivamente no paso bush se acobardo

[us79er]

А музон то какой...

[MrLGpaul]

RUSSIA POWER ! ! ! C O O L !!!!

[luisgecarr]

is it a dumb missile or it has any kind on guidance

[gazakind]

@luisgecarr

"dumb missal"

i tell you why you americans need you intelligent bombs

you are to lazy to calculate the balistics

if you calculate it right you will have the same hit ratio like a guided one, if not better

you can allso hit a target with calculated balisitic in 40km distance.. if you dont do a mistake in calculation

thats why the crew is not just relying on thair computer which do it,

but they allso get trained to calculate the balistic on thair own, even without using a calculator

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind I don't think a bomb is guided by the same principals as a missile. As from the ballistics calculation point of view, the US missiles were always much more accurate than the Russian ones. This is valid from tactical missiles to ICBMs. As for a bomb, to calculate a bomb's trajectory on yr own, without a computer is impossible. That's why the Americans rely on GPS to guide their bombs. It's impossible for a pilot to do it on its own, without a calculator.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1

i think you dont know what balistic is

balistic is same for everything

if it is a stone you throw, a rocket you fire, or a granade which is fired out of a gun -> physics

and calculating the balistic way is not impossible

maybe your soldiers are to dumb

"pilot"? nobody is talking about aircrafts

in russia there is championchip in military each year

discipline for artillery officers

they must hit a target in 20 km distance with the first shot using a howitzer just using a calculator

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind "Nobody' is talking about aircrafts". Go read yr comment again. U were the one that talked about "smart bombs". Those r not the same with missiles. And the trajectory of a bomb is very different from the one of a missile. So, like I said, it's impossible 4 a pilot 2 calculate a bomb's trajectory by its own. That's why the Americans use smart bombs. As 4 missiles & artillery shells, yeah, every1 saw how good the Russians r at calculating the ballistics of their missiles & shells in

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind Chechnya, where they were hitting anything else but the designated targets. They were hitting only houses, hospitals, anything but those rebels hideouts. So stop kissing the Russians ass so much, will u? The Russian bombs, missiles, or any other weapons, do not achieve the same accuracy as their Americans counterparts. Go check the Tochka U's accuracy, which doesn't use any type of guiding system, it relies only on calculated ballistics. 50m circular error probable. Now, I would really

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind like 2 see yr supertrained Russians, reducing that missile's CEP even by half, using only a calculator 2 calculate its ballistics. Now, Tochka is using an inertial guidance systems, but check out the Smerch system, which does not use any type of guidance system, it really relies only on calculated ballistics trajectory. 150m CER is the accuracy 4 that system. Compare this 2 the guided MLRS rockets from the M270, which can hit with pitch point accuracy. Now, I would really like 2 see

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind u're super Russian officers achieving the same accuracy by only calculating the ballistics. & BTW, that 20km range is nothing. Any well trained soldier in the world can do that, including the US soldiers, which, despite of what u think, do get a lot of normal training. The fact that the Americans rely ONLY on technology & don't train their soldiers in the traditional ways as well, is a well documented bullshit. Simply propaganda & cliches.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 listen shithead stop writing novels.. as i saw your comments i dont even read a single one calculating the balistic is nothing hard its physics 9th grade how do you think the people shot their guns in the second world war? if you shoot a modern riffle you aim a little bit higher, because you know the bullet will lose altitude THATS balistic and the officers of the iskander are able to hit a target in the max range of the iskaders rockets if you dont beleave that i dont give a crap

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind No, u listen fuckhead, u r the 1 that's writing only bullshits in here. Yeah, that's how they used guns in WW2, but were they as accurate as they r now? Not even by far. As 4 yr Iskander, yeah, they can hit a target that's in the missile's max range, but with what accuracy? This was the topic from the beginning. A projectile that is aimed by only calculating the ballistics manually will never be as accurate as a projectile that has will never achieve the accuracy of a projectile that

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind has its ballistics calculated by sophisticated computers. Computers can make these calculations better than Einstein himself. Only a moron like u can claim that by calculating the projectile's ballistics manually will give the projectile the same accuracy as if its ballistics would be calculated by a sophisticated computer. & this is in specially valid 4 bombs, which u compared with ballistic missiles idiot. U were the 1 that made this comparison, not me. Now go fuck your self!

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 you're a moron

a computer makes the same calculation like a human if he has the same information

a more precise calculation cannot be reached just by using computers

precise calculation can just be reached by more precise information

you dont have a clue how balistic is calculated and you talk bullshit

it is not hard to hit a target in 20, 30 even 40 km range by first shot

if you have good information

and that is what russian arltillerie officers learn

GETTING BETTER INFORMATION!

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind It doesn't matter how good that "information" is. A man will never be able 2 calculate the ballistics like a computer does. Simple as that. & for those ranges that u talk abt, 20, 30, 40km I never saw the Americans using any GPS systems. Oh yeah, the latest M777 howitzer does have a computer that calculates the ballistics of a projectile & that's why that howitzer is much more accurate than any howitzer the Russians have. That's why the Abrams' gun is so accurate. Because its gun's

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind barrel is adjusted by a computer. So is the missiles' container from the M270 MLRS & that's why is more accurate than any MLRS system the Russians have. Without a GPS guided rocket, the Smerch will never be able 2 achieve a less than 150m CEP, no matter how good the man that's operating it calculates the ballistics. & there's another aspect: at 20, 30, or 40km range, is not that hard 2 achieve a very good accuracy, even without a ballistic computer. Most American cannons & howitzers

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind don't have a ballistic computer, but they hit the targets with great accuracy. Of course, they will never be able 2 achieve the accuracy of the Excalibur, which guided by a GPS system. I'd like 2 see your very well trained officers achieving the same accuracy the Excalibur achieves, by only calculating the ballistics. & BTW, since u r so fucking smart & keep talking abt ballistics calculation, why don't u tell me how those ballistics r calculated. Enlighten me.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 what the hell are you talking? again accuracy is no question about computers and its guidance.. its a question about the incomming information ONLY the information counts in ANY CASE even you excalibur gets informations by its GPS a soldier having the same informations like the excalishit has have the same accuracy... its not a question about thecnique... by far not.. but a question of maths and if you want to know how balistic is calcualted.. ok.. 'll tell you

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 its NOT DIFFICULT

its all 9th grade physics

imagine a parabola..

the flying way of a shot bullet, granade or non guided missile is always a parabola or a part of it

how far the projectile fly depends on its speed and on its angle

a 45° angle gives the farthes range, because this is the optimal balance between the gain of altitude and gain of wide

gradient = 1;

now you know ho it flies...

to get sure you hit the point you aimed for you you have to take the other forces into account

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1

with forces i mean forces like air resistance, hight specific gravitational acceleration, and wind forces

if you know the wind strengh and the wind direction you can turn your cun (or rocekt in case of iskander) contrary direction to compensate the drift of the projectile

if your prijectile would drift + 2 meter to the right direction

you just turn your gun to the left, that the projectile (including the drift) hits the point you expected

this is balistic

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind Answer 2 one question: why r the US made weapons, in specially bombs & missiles, form short tactical ballistic missiles to ICBMS, always more accurate than the Russian ones? & I want u 2 go read some facts abt Iskander. The Iskander E, the export version, the 1 that doesn't have the electro-optical guidance system has a 30m CEP, whereas the M version that has the eletro-optical guidance systems has a CEP of 7m. The 1 that is aimed only by using ballistics has a much poorer accuracy

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind than the one that has sophisticated guidance systems. & that's why the American missiles & bombs r more accurate than the Russian ones: because the Americans were always superior 2 the Russians in sophisticated guidance systems technology. What the Russians have now, in this area, is nothing more than technology that the Americans have put on the market. That's where the Russians get these type of technologies from.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1

america is always superior than russian..

russians had first object in space 4th oct. 1957

russians had first life in space 3rd nov 1957

russians reached moon first lunik 2 13th sep. 1959

what the us did in that time?

first time in cosmos--> parabola flight

russians had first human in space, juri gagarin 12 apr. 1962

russians were first who landed on moon were the russians 3rd feb 1966

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind 1st of all, what u r saying here were "achievements" in the space industry, not in military industry. As 4 the ICBM technology, yeah, the Russians were the 1st 2 build an ICBM, the R-7. But by 1962, when the Cuban missiles started, the Americans had a clear advantage over the Russians in strategic nuclear deterrence. This mean 1 thing: the Americans knew how 2 build an ICBM, it's just that the congress didn't approve the development if such weapons until the Russians developed theirs

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 you god damn moron

in soviet union there was no difference between the civil and military

there WAS NO DIFFERENCE

a example for that that russians are superior the us

thair s400 system can shoot down balistic rockets as well as stealth fighters and drones

united states have nothing that can be even compared to the s400

in a nuclear attack of united states russia could defend it self and its most important areas

the united states not..

all they have now is science fiction

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind first. Go read abt the US ICBMs program status in 1962 & compare that with the soviet ICBMs program at that time. The Americans were far ahead of the Russians in ICBM technology. & BTW, US bombs & missiles being more accurate than the Russians ones, is a historical fact. The Americans always put more emphasis on accuracy rather than power. The Russians did the opposite, precisely because they were never very good at building accurate weapons. Now, after all yr theories abt how a

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind missile that is aimed by only calculating the ballistics can be just as accurate as a missile that has sophisticated guidance systems, u still failed 2 answer me why the American bombs and missiles always were (and are) more accurate than the Russian ones?

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 its fiction and propaganda that russia has no accurate bombs and thair accurate tech could never reached the american one

thats bullshit

and you know that

there is simply no reasony why they have no equal stuff

and i say again you DONT need that much electroic shit in your stuff

aegyptians also had no hightech and their buildings stand since several thousend years

your world trade center with its steel and concrete jsut stood 28 year

low tech is more reliable than high tech

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind I know how cannons are aimed. I don't need these type of lessons from a guy that thinks a man and just an ordinary calculator can make the same calculations as a very sophisticated computer. Adjusting the gun or the rocket pod in an extremely accurate manner, without any sort of error requires a very sophisticated computer 2 make those calculations very precise. There is no simple tool or calculator that can make those calculations like a sophisticated computer like the 1 that is used

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind on the Americans M270 MLRS, for instance. That's why the M270 always was more accurate than any Russian MRL, even when it's not using guided rockets.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 american wet dreams

russian tech is more accurate if it is need

an ak47 hits easialy a human in 400 meters distance

same with iskander

it hits a building in 40 km distance without any problems

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind The Americans proved time and again that their missiles and bombs are very accurate, MUCH more accurate than the Russian bombs and missiles. The Russians never proved that they can make accurate weapons. Powerful, that make a lot of collateral damage, yes, but not accurate.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 you dont know a shit of russian military

they are not that self-loving bastards like the us military

they know what a military secret is

russian tech ias very accuracy.. like you can see it at georgian conflict

and us is doing collateral dmg too

they killed "accidentally" 1.7 million people in iraq from 2001

reeealy great accuracy

however... all information you have are from wikipedia or some comments made by others in youtube

read russian sites

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind I don't have 2 read the Russian sites. Those r full of propaganda. Their propaganda is much more ridiculous & pathetic than the American propaganda. I watched a lot of Russian vid subtitled in English & they made me sick.

Georgia? WTF was accurate in that conflict? The Russians only used unguided bombs that missed their targets. The only accurate weapon was the Iskander M which is so accurate because it's guided by an electro-optical guidance system developed using US technologies,

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind not because the Russian soldiers know how 2 calculate the ballistics.

As 4 Iraq, don't be a moron. 1.7mil is the figure of dead people AS A RESULT OF THAT WAR, not killed by US troops. The number of civilians killed by US troops was actually small compared with the victims made by those radical islamists. Hunger, diseases & suicide attacks were the main cause of civilian deaths in Iraq, just like they r in Afghanistan, not US troops.

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind & us say that my information is from Wikipedia. I read a lot more than that but where r yr information from? Russian sites? An idiot who said that the guidance system has nothing 2 with accuracy is not in the position 2 tell me abt weapons.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 ...

what do you think the programmers did that 500 chars max at comments?

however

if you put a guidance system without any sensors the guidance is completely useless

you can put the best system on at, but if you use bad sensors.. its useless

for example

if you have numbers like this 1.2

you cant calculate it right on fifth decimal place

if you have same information

a howizer can reach same accuracy like the computer guided

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind OK, 1st of all, I didn't even understood your first question...

2ndly, WTF r u talking abt there? WTF is that "a guidance systems without sensors is useless" statement? The Americans were always better than the Russians in this type of technology. Do u even know what a GPS guidance system is? Or any type of guidance system? Or how they work? These systems use the same "information" that u obsessively talk abt, it's just that they can do with MUCH bigger precision that any human with a

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind simple calculator can. And it does much, much faster too. And you still didn't gave an explanation how calculating ballistics would help a pilot that's dropping smart bombs. You know, the bombs that you compared with ballistic missiles...

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 listen... read always your last comment because i dont want to read the former a calculator, computer ... whatever does NOT do better calculation than a human it do it just faster the difference is that a computer cant think and cant use its experiences for example if you fire several times at the same coordinates.. a human just use the same a computer would calculate it again and what will you do if your computer wont work anymore people need lowtech its more reliable

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind Again, I didn't understood yr 1st phrase...

& there is a difference between a computer & a calculator. A computer can do much more than just some mathematical calculations. & there's no way in hell that a human with a hand calculator will be able 2 do the same calculations a sophisticated computer can. 4 instance, a gunner on the Abrams tank will never be able 2 calculate the projectile's trajectory like the ballistic computer can. Why do u think the Abrams' gun is so accurate. I'd

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind really like 2 see the Russian tank gunners achieving the same accuracy on the 1st shot by only calculating the ballistics with a hand calculator r other tool.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 and again i did not read you first comment

try to write just one, then i will read it

russian tanks have guiance systems..

i dont said that they are completely useless..

thats what you interpreted in my words

i just say it works without that hightech stuff very well too

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind I don't know what the fuck is that "first" comment that you talk about. What "first comment"?

As 4 Russian tank guns having guidance systems, of course they do. But there r 2 things 2 be said here: they have them because relying only the crew 2 calculate the ballistics would be a certiain death 4 the crew & 2nd, their ballistic computers r not that advanced as the American ones. The Russian tank guns will never achieve the same accuracy the Abrams' gun. They r more powerful though.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 you always write several comments and i take more time to read your shit, than to write a answer thats quite nasty and oh my fuckin god whats your problem with balistic calculation i never said guidance is useless you moron and i never talked about TANKS but about ARLTILLERIE which has more time to aim and fire than a tank in combat understand the problem? its all about TIME if you can use the analogue method (calculating by your own) or using guidance-systems!!!

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind Yeah well, the bullshits that u write in here r so fucking big, that I can't give u a proper answer only in 500 characters, get it?

& I wasn't talking abt speed in tanks guns, I was talking abt accuracy. The Abrams' gun would never be able 2 achieve the same accuracy that it does using its ballistic computer if its crew would calculate manually the projectile's ballistics.

& in artillery speed is also important. U can't afford 2 take 2 much time 2 fire a projectile. The more

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind projectiles u can put on a target in a smallest time possible, the better. Even in artillery, u can't afford 2 take too much fucking time 2 fire the gun. The computer helps by calculating the projectile's ballistics much faster & much more accurate. This gives u the capability 2 put a bigger volume of fire power over yr enemy much faster & much more accurate than u could do if u would calculate the ballistics manually. WTF is hard 4 u 2 understand such a simple thing?

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 and again i did not read your comment before that

try to write just one

artillery can afford it to take time

with artillerie you dont fire an small groups of moving infantry, thats stupid even with guidance systems

you fire at static objects

and a ballistic calculation will never take more than 10 seconds if you are trained in calculating it

and again the quality of calculation depends only on the quality of your information

if you have bad info. your guidance wont help a shit

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind & WTF is so hard 2 read all comments? WTF is wrong with u? R u a fucking retarded?

& as 4 the artillery, calculating ballistics, guidance systems, go fucking do real research on the topic. I'm tired explaining time & again a very simple thing in a very simple manner 2 a moron like you. I explained in 1000 ways & u still keep maintaining your bullshits. U r either stubborn, or u r dumb as the fucking night! My guess is that's the second variant. U can't be that stubborn.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 BECAUSE ITS FUCKIN ANNOYING!

i need far more time to read your mental bullshit, than writing an own answer

guidandance systems are working good, but not better than a human

it simply cant, because people programmed that systems

a computer may be faster but faaaar more expencive too

if you buy a normal gun and fire with the same accuracy like a gun with a guidance system, which is 3 time more expencive

what the fuck do you need it for?

think about that

welcome to ignore, retard

[StiviGun1]

@gazakind Yeah, u're a moron. It's because of yr bullshits that I write more than 1 comment. Yr stupidity is so big that it can't be answered in just 500 characters.

As 4 guidance systems, they DO work a lot more better than a human can. That's why the humans invented them. Because they can do the job much better & quicker than a human can. & gun that is operated only by manually calculating the ballistics will never achieve even half the performances a computer operated one.

[gazakind]

@StiviGun1 if you want to have any formulas..

sorry but you can find them on your own

just look about newtons laws

excpecialy "lex tertia"

[Scrat335]

The Russians got very good performance from these in the Russia Georgia war. They demolished the naval base in Poti and were accurate enough that only one of 10 fired hit outside the perimeter. It fell apart and landed on some guys house.

[pi3detsNosorogam]

In Poti there was US military base and russians have destroyed it. That's why americans started barking with this bullshit as they felt how weak and how great loosers they are!

[gosciu555]

@Scrat335

Actually it looks like the remains were placed there.

[Goldrag]

@Scrat335 Та, которая упала в дом - она вроде бы не взорвалась. Это так и предусмотрено или это была бракованная ракета?

[exprok]

cool!!