yoiu make no sense what so ever. yes hitting the same target with half the ammo equals twice the accuracy. furthermore what you're saying is that this russian gun is designed to waste ammunition. that is a sin. Russia did not win anything. putting a ball in orbit is not anywhere near as complicated as landing men on the moon and you know it. Russia CANNOT GO TO THE MOON, or MARS. When Obama is gone the American space program will continue. America went to the moon in the 1960's. We won.
@NCC1701zulu Nop, twice the ammo doesnt equal half the accuracy if you are comparing weapons using entirely different principles. Twice the ammo flying around at ant given moment also means twice the hit probability.
Yes Russia did win the space race, they got into space FIRST in every area, from fist object in space to man to space station.
@Buuub08 some principles are more efficient then others. Russia cannot go any further then low orbit because her technology is stolen and incomplete. You are a brainwashed pathetic peasant who thinks everyone is as ignorant as you. Try reading a book that is not written by your government.
@NCC1701zulu Russia went to Venus and to Mars. They were the FIRST ones to send a probe to a foreign planet and get color images, sound and meteorological data from it. Everything we know about Venus today comes from the Russian probes.
Sorry but you really are a retard, you deliberately ignore facts like the entire US ballistic missile and space program being led by GERMANS not Americans and yet call other thieves. Pathetic, i thought you were better than that.
@NCC1701zulu Well i dont see how 1 4200rpm gun is better than 2 guns (6000rpm each) + 8 missiles. Sorry, i just dont see your logic there. Care to elaborate?
@Buuub08 sure but only because you have such an open mind. western technology is twice as accurate. I'm sure you wont understand why i say that but try.
@NCC1701zulu I do have an open mind but rather than taking your word for it id prefer solid evidence of western technology being twice as accurate. Honestly, during countless test trails and demos (such as the Abu Dhabi expo) there have been noted NO significant differences in comparable weapon systems in such parameters as accuracy. Russian missile and rocket tech is rated as the most advanced world wide, including the US where they use Russian rocket engines for space programs.
As far as this goes: Kashatan vs Goalkeeper or GAU-8 vs GSh-30-6. Yes the GAU-8 should technically be more accurate (longer barrel, higher MV). But the GSh-30-6 is like half its weight, fully independent from any external power supply and hydraulics, having virtually no spin-up time and about 40% higher rate of fire.
@Buuub08 its not hard math, half the ammo equals twice the accuracy. Believe it or not. As for the USA's space program i am not at all happy with our governments choice to depend on inferior russian equipment and politics to get into space. Has russia walked on the moon? The UNITED STATES has, several times, we are very capable of orbit. The politicians are to blame, that is one thing we share in common sir. Noble causes and worthy men are often sacrificed at the whim of politics.
@NCC1701zulu Half the ammo doesnt equal twice the accuracy if you have a weapon that functions in a significantly different manner.
There is no governments choice, NASA simply has no comparable engines to use. Inferior? The RD-180 is rated as the MOST RELIABLE and MOST POWERFUL engine of its type.
Russia didnt walk on the moon (not far off though). They got first satellite, first oribtal unit, first man in space, first orbital station, first probe on a foreign planet (Venus), etc.
Anyone with an IQ higher than the room temperature will admit that Russia won the space race. The ONLY reason they didnt go to the moon was the risk it posed and the financial aspect of the whole program. The US space program had the entire nation kicking in, the Russian space program was funded by left-over principle seeing like 1/50th the funding the US did and yet they still won in everything but the moon. Besides the repeated moon missions are questioned by most experts.
You obviously havent realized but a very very big part of the US military is foreign. The standard issue sidearm - M9 = Italian Beretta 92. M1 Abrams tank = German MTB-70 wire off, still uses German gun and British armor. F-35 had Russians working on it too, from the Yakovlev crew emphasizing on VTOL - in turn its the same as on Yak-141. And this goes on and on. You need to have an open mind buddy and look at things objectively. Patriotism is a good thing until it turns into idiocy.
@Buuub08 the AK was stolen from the germans, as well as russia's first jet engine, and heavy bomber, and nuclear bomb, the list goes on forever of the things russia has stolen. You have no room to talk. Russia is the biggest technology thief in history. You now copy the nato 5.56mm round vs. the 7.62x39mm. HAHA YOU ARE JOKE and you are BRAINWASHED FOOL.
@NCC1701zulu AK wasnt stolen from Germans. The AK uses an entirely different operation mechanism from the STG-44.
Well America got a lot more from Germans than Russians did. The US space program was led by no other than von Braun himself and a crew of DOZENS of other German specialists. You are really as biased as they come.
Russians dont copy the 5.56. Why would they? Its actually the US that manufactures 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 on a massive scale for itself. Russians dont make 5.56.
@NCC1701zulu Once again dipshit - pick up a book. STG-44 and AK-47 share NO similar elements in terms of operation, even the bolt lock (tilting vs rotating) is different.
I have no hate towards anything or anyone, although i do dislike ignorant twats with an IQ lower than that of a block of cheese. Tell me about uneducated, you dont even know what and why America uses. Or that it was a Von Braun a GERMAN who got America into space and to the moon not an "American".
@Buuub08 RUSSIA is NOT SMART ENOUGH TO GO THE MOON. America went many times over 40 years ago and Russia still cannot go. Russia is afraid because she knows her cosmonauts will die if they try. Russia should steal more western technology so she can reverse engineer it. Maybe she can go to the moon then instead of sending a baby's stroller. America gave every country's scientists moon rocks to study, including russia's scientist. RUSSIA LOST THE SPACE RACE TERRIBLY.
They were very close, they intended to go like 5 years later or so but after the US got the there programs was seen as pointless and the resources were redirected into other fields. There is no point in going to the moon, which is why the US itself doesnt go there.
Russians got their own rocks from Moon from the probes they sent. Dont make shit up kiddo.
The space race ended with one nation gaining the capability to effectively deliver stuff into orbit, Russia did that first.
I dont want to start a comment war, but seriously kiddo - get off the crack pipe and pick up a book. Your "America invented everything" attitude is fundamentally flawed to begin with as there is no nationality as "American". The American nation is predominantly made up of people with German, English and Irish ancestry, also Russians, Chinese and pretty much every other nationality there is. This includes you, unless you are pure blood Apache you are not really American in any way.
@Buuub08 Oh listen to how arrogant you sound. It was pointless for Russia to go because she CAN’T GO You pig, you think you’re fooling anyone by saying you won the space race by not going to the moon? you sound like an idiot. Why don’t you read a book sometime. You cannot stay focused can you retard? How did America’s immigrant status become a topic? You are a moron Follow the bouncing ball. Russia is a technology thief and you act like she is superior to everyone else she's a whore.
@NCC1701zulu You really need to get off the crack pipe.
The space race isnt about the moon, it was about space exploration with the moon being merely a milestone in it.
Oh wow, you dont even know that there are a whole bunch of companies manufacturing AKs and 7.62x39/5.45x39, you even manufacture RPG-7s. Pick up a book for fucks sake.
@Buuub08 You have the America invented everything attitude, not me. Your hate has you unbalanced. You would rather show how stupid you are then admit russia stole most of her technology from the west. You know nothing about the Native American, not the Apache, soui, crow, chippawa, navajo, aztec, myan or countless other tribes that roamed the american continents, both north and south America, you smart smart person. you blame the spanish, the french and the english? You are very uneducated
Tell me about stealing when you take credit for going to the moon what it was ENTIRELY the work German scientists captured by the US at the end of WW2. YOU, as Americans, didnt do squat about it. So in all objectiveness, going your way about stealing, America didnt even get into space but GERMANS did.
btw, your local gun sore sells AK-47 and ammo MADE IN USA. Pathetic that you dont know that.
@Buuub08 very close doesn't win the race you idiot, she lost. America and the shit head soviets raced to the moon and America won. End of story you sore loser. You braiswashed twit. There was no race when sputnik was launched you fool. sputnik STARTED the race. America caught up and passed the russia and beat her sorry ass to the moon. Russia still cant do it. You say its pointless so you wont go. You sound like a little kid making excuses for getting his ass kicked. LOL go home boy
@Buuub08 the AK was stolen from the germans, as well as russia's first jet engine, and heavy bomber, and nuclear bomb, the list goes on forever of the things russia has stolen. You have no room to talk. Russia is the biggest technology thief in history. You now copy the nato 5.56mm round vs. the 7.62x39mm. HAHA YOU ARE JOKE and you are BRAINWASHED FOOL. The space race isn't over. you could not even fly your own space shuttle. russian technology is weak like her military, like your brain
@xXxJaspiexXx Pffff... you are a moron. 99.5% of the shots miss. In general it takes in excess of 200 rounds to take out a target. Thats why you use guns like these that can spray those 200 rounds in like 2-3 seconds maximizing effectiveness.
You dont see them in the vid because they are not tracers, the gun still fired like 200+ rounds. You can see one hit the water, take the missile as the aim point you have like an 8m radius of spray at that close. Pretty weak actually.
@Buuub08 I was just joking about the splashing in the water.. Anyway for info: Assuming not talking about hypersonic but subsonic targets like Exocet or Harpoon. The goalkeeper system uses a burst of 1 second, which consists of 70-75 shots, giving a >96% change of destroying the target. So that's NOT 99.5% miss and NOT spraying 200 rond in 2-3 sec. Also the inacc is 1 mrad: that is not 8m radius. If not destroyd it uses a second burst. But I would say for >96% that is not likely.
@xXxJaspiexXx That highly depends on the target, conditions and distance.
The 1mrad part is bullshit. The GAU-8 (the gun used in the Goalkeeper) is rated at smth like 5mrad by itself, which translates into ~5m radius at 1000m WITHOUT accounting for varying conditions and movement. 1mrad is physically impossible for this type of gun. While 70 rounds might be enough to take out a missile the system by default continues fire (at least it should) until it confirms the target destroyed.
And that is exactly what you see in the video. Just look at the point where it hit the water and how it relates to the position to the missile itself, thats quite a bit off. Given that the missile is the CENTER point of aim that does turn out into smth like 8m radius - which is considerably acceptable in terms of accuracy all things accounted. Hard to tell the distance from gun to target though, doesnt look like more than 500-600m though.
The accuracy drop mostly comes from the fact that the gun doesnt fire at the missile but at a predicted point of interception being continuously corrected and adjusting for conditions at the same time.
@Buuub08 Sorry, i have no idea where you got that info from but the goalkeeper is defo 1 for dutch war vessels. Even for the A-10 thunderbolt it's rated 5mil 80%. Without the heavy stabilizing stuff around it on the warships.
@xXxJaspiexXx Its not 1 mrad. Even this video itself shows that it is FAR FAR more than that, so cut the crap already. The GAU-8 is rated at 5mrad or so, which is fully comparable to other gun. Its actually slightly better than the GSh-6-30. May I ask where did you get its accuracy being rated at 1 mil and having actual proof of it? There are videos strongly contradicting that claim, including this one.
@Buuub08 Yeah right, so first you were stating 8, and now its suddenly 5? (but thats what stated in my previous post aswel for the normal GAU-8 used in USAF) And please give me the time (min:sec) where you can see the inaccuracy of the goalkeeper then in this vid, i cant find it, and please give my other vids becaus i have been searching but can't find them.... And if you can read dutch page 12 for info and tests for 1mr. kvmo.nl/pdf/marineblad_aug11_volledig.pdf
@xXxJaspiexXx I was estimating 8m purely based upon how the impact below the missile stacks up to the missile size and altitude. You should learn how to read, i didnt change from 8 to 5. 8 METERS is MY rough estimate given the video at 4:10-4:12, 5 MRAD is the accuracy given my General Electric for the GAU-8. This video is not a good example, there is a better one covering this test, which also shows the gun actually firing for like 3 seconds til target destruction not 1.
I dont mean to step on your national pride (calling an American gun Dutch) or anything but this type of gun simply physically cant be the laser beam you want it to be first off due to basic ballistics. Having spread is inherently actually a part of the design and a crucial element that allows it to do its job effectively.
I dont know why you cant find anything, probably because you werent even looking. The first vid that pops up when you search Goalkeeper CIWS:
watch?v=3C2_hfrPkDg
Average duration of fire per Exocet missile ~3 seconds (~200 rounds). NOT 1 second (~70 rounds) as you claimed. Given that it shoots until the target registers are destroyed (needing ONE hit) it means that pretty much 200 rounds MISS before ONE hits = ~99% MISS = the SAME as most other CIWS.
@xXxJaspiexXx Good that we came to a conclusion on this lol. Actually you are a pretty rare case of a person not arguing for the sake of argument and I truly respect you for that. Kudos.
@Buuub08 Same for you! It's indeed once the true evidence is given, it can't be denied :). Only those stupid idiots who just like to swear against everybody keep arguing at that point. Cheers!
Germany never gave up the fight for world control. With the US stuck in Afghanistan and Irak wasting its wealth making new enemies, Germany made a large leap forward. Having lost two open wars to become the dominating power on earth, Germany reverted to the tactics used before 1914 and between1918-1939: Infiltrating other countries with snitchers, manipulating them and draw as much wealth as possible from these victims of German greed. My brother Markus Bott was murdered because of our homepage
Germany today is the most left wing liberal country in the world besides maybe norway and sweden. Anyway, it is surly the most antinational/antipatriotic and multinational/inmternationalist country in the world, which pays billions every year to the EU, to singular EU countries like bancrupt greece, or to the third world, wasting even more billions for "green" ecology, it recently closed down all nuclear plants in favor of windmills, more and more people r vegans etc-
I liked the Goalkeeper better than the Phalanx CIWS because of its bigger 30mm gun (the same one used on the A-10 Thunderbolt II. But, now I like the Kashtan-M much better.
Soy apasionado de la tecnologia y especialmente la area, y si son unas bellezas pero al final, son unos monstruos diabolicos, segadoras de vida, el f22, el f35, todos los misiles y rifles son para matar. Puedo ver sus videos pero tengan en mente que seria mejor que jamas hubieran existido.
What a lame comparison. Of course the Kashtan M is better. Its cannons provide more firepower and it also has missiles. Kashtan M is the most powerful CIWS in the world.
@StiviGun1 The Kasthan is an awesome defensive and offensive weapon system. The only problem that I can see is the guns and missiles are all in on. You can knockout both with one hit. This is the reason why the US Navy Goalkeeper is a separate with the missiles. Both are awesome weapons just different ways of design.
@StiviGun1 LOL! seriously. It's like saying the Panzer and the Tiger tanks of WWII cannot be destroyed. Guess what it can be destroyed. There is no such thing as indestructable even the hardest metal can be destroyed.
I'm taking about not putting your eggs in one basket. Let just say what if the Kashtan-M malfunctioned or lost power. Both of your guns and missiles are out of commisioned.
@quickzilver333 "what if the Kashtan-M malfunctioned or lost power" These are hypothetical situations that are very unlikely to happen. But a system that is designed to defend against missiles and aircraft is very hard to destroy. Also, there more than just one Kashtan-M systems installed on each ship. So even if you do manage to destroy one of them, you can't destroy all of them. But of course, in order to destroy them, you have to get passed by the long range defense systems.
@StiviGun1 Are you serious maybe you live in a fairy tale land. LOL! The F22 Raptor and the Sukhoi 35 are 4th generation fighter planes and not meant to crash. Guess what they both crash. There is no such thing as a 100 percent system. If you believe in that theory then you are a fool. Why do you think the Navy has battle groups or fleet? Why do you think an aircraft carrier needs all other warship such as destroyers for support? This is real-life not hypothetical bullshit.
@quickzilver333 So your basing your victory on the hypothesis that the enemy's equipment would fail. That's great strategy. Anyway, to get to Kashtan-M which is a CIWS, you need to get passed by the other long range defense systems and I'd like to see how you do that.
@StiviGun1 Your right it's a 5th generation then again don't believe in all the technological hype. They is a reason why even the most sophisticated aircraft needs maintenace. I like doulble redundancy because I don't like to relly everything on a machine or computers.
@quickzilver333 Well, the more technologically advanced a weapons system is, the more maintenance it is. That makes sense. It's logical that something that is so technologically advanced would need maintenance. But as for F-22, I believe it was the wrong choice. I believe the YF-23 was better. It was faster, stealthier and had twice the range. And despite what it is claimed, it was also cheaper to maintain.
@StiviGun1 The F-22 is cheaper than the YF-23. This is the reason why congress approved it's production. Don't keep out the YF-23 just yet. It's design and technology will be introduce to the next genaration fighters.
@quickzilver333 How do you know the F-22 is cheaper? The Congress approved it not because it was cheaper, but because it was built by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin has more government connections than any other weapons manufacturer. But there's actually no proof that the YF-23 was more expensive.
BTW, do you know any project that would include features from the YF-23?
@StiviGun1 Here we go again. Since you open up the topic of YF-23 vs F22. Guess what I did? I research. Please do the same as a matter of fact search on youtube. I found a documentary when the YF-23 and F22 where being tested back in the 80's. The documentary even stated that the YF-23 is better but cost more.
@StiviGun1 Here is the Video stating that the F-22(YF-22) is cheaper. Watch (YF-22 and YF-23-Stealth Technology). This is no Hypotesis and Hypothetical Bullshit.
@quickzilver333 I've already seen that video. And it is a bullshit. There is no proof that the YF-23 was more expensive. In fact, from maintenance point of view, it was cheaper to maintain, at least in two areas. The YF-23 was more aerodynamic so the heat stresses on its RAM materials were minimized and its nozzles section was much easier to maintain than the F-22's moving nozzles. The YF-23 was better and from what we know it might have been even cheaper.
@StiviGun1 Then there no point trying to convince you because your just gonna call bullshit. The video even stated that the YF-23 is more expensive then again it's bullshit according to you. I still prefer the YF-23 but it never went on production for cost reasons (stated on the video).
@quickzilver333 You can't convince me because I know certain things. And just one short video is certainly not something that can convince me. I I already showed you two areas where the YF-23 was cheaper to maintain despite what that guy said, that the F-22 was cheaper to maintain. The F-22 is not cheaper to maintain.
@StiviGun1 There is another video that show the YF-23 is expensive than YF-22. Since you gonna call Bullshit on it anyway. Whats the point? The video is also a documentary between the two. You want me to believe you instead of the documentary. LOL!
You certainly live in fantasy land where everything is prefect. Just like when you said the Kashtam-M cannot be destroyed. LOL!!!
Welcome to "REALITY" and not the world of Hypotesis and Hypothetical thinking.
@quickzilver333 The problem with these YT videos is that they only present some statements without any proofs to back them up. What I told you about the YF-23 and F-22's maintenance is also logical.
As for the Kashtan-M, if you put it that way, then the Phalanx and all other USN defensive systems can be destroyed. But Kashtan-M, a system designed to defend against the weapons it could be destroyed with, is very hard to destroy. In fact, your first statement was that it can be destroyed. Then,
@StiviGun1 LOL! do you have Military experience? Have you been in the Military? Things do break down it's not a myth or fiction. My point is I would rather have two seperate operating systems. Then again since you live in WonderLand where things are perfect you would rather put everything in one system.
Why do you need a fleet of ships to defend each other? Like you said the Kashtan-M cannot be destroyed. What the hell we should watch a fight Superman VS Kashtan-M. LOL!
@quickzilver333 No, I've never been into military, but neither were you. But I did read more about weapons than you did. As for the Kashtan-M, if it's so inefficient to put missiles and cannons in the same system, then why is the USN developing the SeaRAM system, which combines the Phalanx and the RIM-116 RAM system? Which, BTW, will still not be as powerful as the Kashtan-M.
@StiviGun1 The SeaRAM is a separate system than the Goalkeeper. It does not combine both missiles and guns in one platform. In your world it doesn't matter any because you live in Wonder Land. There is no such thing as a perfect defensive or offensive weapons system. In your world you don't need and Airforce, Navy or Army if the Kashtan-M cannot be destroyed. Let me guess you believe that the T-90, T-95 cannot be destroyed either. LOL!!!! your a fool. I'm an Army veteran joined when I was 17.
@quickzilver333 I know what the SeaRAM is. And it seems like I know it better than you do. It actually does combine missiles and a 20 mm cannon in one platform. Go read about it.
As for my original point, that was that Kashtan-M is a a more powerful CIWS than the Goal Keeper, which is what this video is all about, not that it can't be destroyed. Anything can be destroyed. But the probability to destroy a system with weapons it was designed to defend against, is highly unlikely.
@StiviGun1 Bullshit LOL!....I never argue with you that the Kashtan-M is not a good system. I'm arguing about your statement "HOW CAN YOU DESTROY IT". It seems like you can't believe that a system like that cant be destroyed. Well guess what it CAN be destroyed so as the Goal keeper and Phalanx system. They also claim that the M1 Abrams and the T-72, T-80 is highly unlikely to get destroyed well guess what PETER PAN. It was destroyed. STOP LIVING IN FANTASY LAND. Welcome to the REAL WORLD...LOL!
@quickzilver333 Like I said, if you put it this way, everything can be destroyed. But what I said is that is VERY HARD. The Kashtan-M is designed to defend against the very weapons it could be destroyed with. And for this, it has two 30mm cannons with a combined rate of fire of 10 000 rounds/min and 8 missiles ready to fire with another 32 missiles in the autoloader. The Kashtan-M is definitely the most powerful CIWS in the world.
@quickzilver333 And you still didn't answered to that question. You're just assuming some things that you don't know shit about. You're just ASSUMING that it can be destroyed, but you can't tell how, you're just ASSUMING that it would break down... Tell me, how can you destroy the Kashtan-M?
@StiviGun1 I'm not assuming it can be destroyed. Just like when the Stealth plane got shot down. Just like the Russian tanks and planes got destroyed by Georgian artillery and aircraft. Just like the f22 and the sukhoi crashed. Just like the mighty Rusian military got beaten by the rat tag Afghan soldiers.
The Kashtan-M relly on radar ans it's vunerable to radar jaming. Russian radar system is inferior to NATO radars.
@quickzilver333 Actually, the Kashtan-M doesn't rely only on radar, it can also use an electro-optronic system to track its targets. But the Phalanx and the RIM-116 also rely on radar to detect their targets. So then what makes them better than the Kashtan-M?
@StiviGun1 I didn't say the Phalanx is better I just stated the flaw that I saw on the Kashtan-M. It looks like you are trying to turn this into USA vs Russia arguement. I look outside the box unlike you who only see it in one direction. The Kashtan-M is simillar to Tunguska mobile air defense. Guess what happend when a group of Russian Tanks and APC got attack by Georgian planes and artillery. There were destroyed and the Tunguska can "HARDLY DEFEND" it.
@quickzilver333 Now when exactly did that incident with Tunguska happened because I never heard of it?
As for Kashtan-M, no matter what its flaws are, it is still the most powerful CIWS in the world. It is more powerful than the Phalanx, the Goalkeeper or the RIM-116 RAM.
@StiviGun1 You are delusional. Where were you in 2008 during the Russian invasion of Georgia? Russian Military lost a bunch of T-80's, APC and support vehicles during the initial Phase of the invasion including Migs and bomber panes. The Armored column was protected by the Tunguska which failed misserably.
As far as the Kashtan-M it is powerful but then your weapon is only as good as the person behind it. It's electronic system is a prey for the Wild Weasel Jamming devices...LOL!
@quickzilver333 Actually, I was much closer to that conflict than you. But I never heard of such incidents. I think you got this from Fox Channel... The Russians absolutely destroyed the Georgian army. The Georgians were simply running away from their path, leaving the Russian tanks and artillery to bomb as they pleased.
As for the Kashtan-M and the Wild Weasel, the Kashtan-M is designed to defend against anti-radar missiles as well. So again, it's very hard to destroy it.
@StiviGun1 The Russian loses during the conflict was alot if you compare that to the US initial attack in Iraq. The Russian T-80 and Migs are the top of the line and not export model. Which they claim to have thicker armor and Migs that are hard to destroy. Well guess what PETTER PAN it was destroyed.
You have no idea about the capability of the Wild Weasel. It also jams the enemies electronic system. The Kashtan-M is blind just like the Tunguska....LOL!
@StiviGun1 You are delusional. You are asking me to support my claim just like you did about the Y-23 and Y-22. Then you are gonna call bulshit on it even though the video was a documentary and it stated my claim.
Do your own search "PETTER PAN" and welcome to the world of grown ups.
I'm not falling for your Wonderland Games...........LOL!!!
@quickzilver333 Well, if your sources are just some Fox News videos, then of course it's bullshit. I live right here, next to the Russians and Georgians. I watched how the Georgians were simply fleeing from the advancing Russian army's way.
Now, you're talking about some specific events that I never heard of. You say that the Russian tanks and APCs were destroyed by the Georgian air force. What air force? They didn't even have an air force. And I never saw a single Tunguska-M system on the news.
@StiviGun1 I know! its funny when people talk of "Georgian Airforce" WHAT AIRFORCE??? THEIR 13 SU24'????? LOL!!! They are strike aircraft.. Designed to deliver air to ground munitions.. There was no contest to the Russian airforce. They gained air supremacy the first hour. All that was needed was to destroy ground based anti air assets at standoff distance. The Russians lacked (at that time) a widely employed and very effective presicion anti radar missile system. Now, this is not the case.
@mattmatt115 Yeah, I know all about that. That guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He said that Tunguska-M was used in that conflict, but it wasn't. There was no need to be used, since the Georgians don't have cruise missiles or fighters. He's clearly a jerk off who has no clue what he's talking about.
@quickzilver333 That's because the Georgians didn't have an air force, so the Russians didn't have to use anti-aircraft systems. The Tunguska was not even used in that conflict. You can check this on wiki. Wiki says very clearly what equipment was used by either side.
@StiviGun1 LOL! you are hilarious. Seriously though I like Russian weaponry. I would take an AK-47 over M16 anyday of the week and twice on sunday. The Georgian conflict was the catalyst to gain more funding in Russian military. Most of the weapons use in combat proved ineffective. Modernization of Russian Military is in full swing after the conflict.
Nato is already using Lazers to defend against missiles and artillery. Welcome to the Real World. :-)
@quickzilver333 If you think the Russians used their state of the art weapons systems in that conflict, then you're the one leaving in the fairy land. They used only their outdated equipment. Most of the tanks used in that conflict were old T-72a and T-62s. And of course, Tunguska was never used, as you initially claimed.
As for the laser systems used by the US to destroy missiles and artillery shells, that technology is only in the initial phases of development. It'll take years before that
@quickzilver333 And please do me a favour, and refrain from calling Stivigun delusional? I have had a good conversation with him before, and he is far from delusional. He knows what he is talking about alright? So please save your burger breath for your fat wife, because nobody else enjoys it you blindly patriotic fools. You may gain an erection from your talk, but to everyone else, TALK IS CHEAP!!!!
@mattmatt115 He is delusional you idiot. He can't even have a straight conversation. He believes that the Kashtan-M is indestructable. There is no such thing as indestructable you idiot. If you believe in that then both of you live in Wonderland where things are perfect. I didn't say USA weapons are perfect and better than anyone. That would be stupid because I like Russian weapons also. We are talking about the difference in design but he went off somewhere else. You are a "RETARD"...LOL!
@quickzilver333 Listen here, the main topic here is Kashtan-M vs Goalkeeper. And Kashtan-M is definitely superior to the Goalkeeper or to any other CIWS in the world for that matter. Its combination of missiles and powerful, high rate of fire 30 mm cannons, provide a much better air defense than any other CIWS in the world. This is what the topic was all about. The fact that the Kashtan-M is the most powerful CIWS in the world. And please show me a weapon that is specifically designed to destroy
@StiviGun1 I never said that the Kashtan-M is inferior to Goalkeeper. I even said that the Kashtan-M is an "AWESOME" defenssive and offensive system. What the hell is wrong with you. Read carefully what I wrote so that you won't ebarrass yourself. Read my first comment!!!!
I just notice and stated a flaw in the Kashtan-M system. Just like every weapon systems in the world they have a flaw. It's not perfect. Please read carefully!!!
@quickzilver333 That "flaw" is not really a flaw. The fact that the system combines missiles and cannons in one system gives it a much more comprehensive defensive capability. It's that combination of missiles and cannons that makes it the most powerful CIWS in the world. However, the American ships are also protected by CIWS that use both missiles and cannons so they are just as well protected, but as far as the systems themselves are concerned, the Kashtan-M is the most powerful.
@StiviGun1 The Goalkeeper is not mounted together with the missile system in the US Navy. This is not land warfare were it's better to have two systems in one platform. It's different when it comes to Navy. It's not only the American Navy that has a seperate gun and missile platform. You are right the Kashtan-M is powerful but I would rather have the "DUET" gun system which is seperate from the missile platform.
Maybe because I was in the Military and I look at things different than you.
@quickzilver333 And why is it better to have combined missiles and cannons on land systems but not on naval systems? The land systems are actually much easier to destroy than the naval systems.
@StiviGun1 There is something you won't understand unless you have been in the military or have good knowledge of how the armed forces fuction. Look at the difference in size a war ship vs a amored air defense vehicle. It is better to have missiles and guns in one platform on land. Unless you wanna drive both missiles and guns in seperate vehicle.
@quickzilver333 Well, the ship is bigger than a land based anti-aircraft system duuuuh, but the anti-aircraft system installed on the ship, in this case, the Kashtan-M is actually smaller than the land based anti-aircraft system, in this case Tunguska. So it's actually harder to destroy.
@quickzilver333 If you're aiming for the magazine that feeds the Kashtan-M with missiles, then you're basically aiming for the ship itself. So you're not hitting the system itself, you're hitting the ship. No matter how you try to twist it, you're still wrong.
@quickzilver333 "It's part of the system"... That's not the same with hitting the system ITSELF and that's what you were claiming. There's no anti-ship missile that can target a certain part of the ship. These missiles target the ship itself, as whole. So you're the idiot. You said that the Kashtan-M can be taken out, now you say that the ship it's mounted on can be taken out... You're just a big mouth who doesn't have clue what he's talking about.
@StiviGun1 You are a dumbass. The Kashtan-M is blind as the Tunguska and it doesn't have the countermeasures against the wild weasels eletronic jamming and radar jamming capabilities. You are saying something that I didn't even said. You are an idiot.
@StiviGun1 I will give you this chance to look at my "FIRST COMMENT" so that you won't look bad. I never said anything you are accusing me of on my "FIRST COMMENT" let me say that again "FIRST COMMENT".
Please read it again. I will get back with you in two days so that you will have time to slap yourself...lol!
@quickzilver333 You said it can be taken out, you idiot. It's the same thing. Now run away and stop replying to me. You're getting really boring. Get lost!
@quickzilver333 I thought that you would want to spread the command-center, guns and missiles on land so the system cannot be killed by one hit? On a ship this is not much of a concern.
@DreadX10 I agree with you but the idiot Stivigun said it's hard to destroy and indestructable. There is no such thing as indestructble. This is the reason why the USA Navy did not put the Phalanx and the missile system together.
Don't listen to Stivigun he can't even get his arguement straight. He will jump from one topic to another as soon as you figureout his bullshit. He tried that on me twice and I busted him...LOL!!!
@StiviGun1 How does the kashtan give more defense then the goalkeeper what does it matter it has rockets? What can you destroy with rockets what you cant destroy with goalkeeper
@Samiosamio111 Well, the missiles can defend at much longer ranges than the gun. With just a gun, you have to wait until the target gets dangerously close. That's why Kashtan-M has missiles. The guns are just in case the target manages to evade the missiles (which is highly unlikely) and they're used as a last resort.
What this music has to do with this type of video?
rotomotionbrasil 4 days ago
нада будет себе на крышу такой поставить)
HightVoltage550 5 days ago
See big russian gun fires twice as much ammo so we win twice as fast. first one with no bullets wins! right comrade?
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
yoiu make no sense what so ever. yes hitting the same target with half the ammo equals twice the accuracy. furthermore what you're saying is that this russian gun is designed to waste ammunition. that is a sin. Russia did not win anything. putting a ball in orbit is not anywhere near as complicated as landing men on the moon and you know it. Russia CANNOT GO TO THE MOON, or MARS. When Obama is gone the American space program will continue. America went to the moon in the 1960's. We won.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@NCC1701zulu Nop, twice the ammo doesnt equal half the accuracy if you are comparing weapons using entirely different principles. Twice the ammo flying around at ant given moment also means twice the hit probability.
Yes Russia did win the space race, they got into space FIRST in every area, from fist object in space to man to space station.
Buuub08 6 days ago
@Buuub08 LOL you dont know anything.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@Buuub08 some principles are more efficient then others. Russia cannot go any further then low orbit because her technology is stolen and incomplete. You are a brainwashed pathetic peasant who thinks everyone is as ignorant as you. Try reading a book that is not written by your government.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@NCC1701zulu Russia went to Venus and to Mars. They were the FIRST ones to send a probe to a foreign planet and get color images, sound and meteorological data from it. Everything we know about Venus today comes from the Russian probes.
Sorry but you really are a retard, you deliberately ignore facts like the entire US ballistic missile and space program being led by GERMANS not Americans and yet call other thieves. Pathetic, i thought you were better than that.
Buuub08 5 days ago
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS FUCKIN MUSIC MOTHER FUCKER
uselessfagget 1 week ago
which one is better? the phalanx, the kashtan or the CIWS???
jeproks28 1 week ago
Comment removed
jeproks28 1 week ago
Nice music.
reactordeplasma 1 week ago
music sucks
Ikn0wJack 2 weeks ago
could you honestly have put a less manly song on this video? what the fuck
FreeTh1nk3r 2 weeks ago
GOALKEEPER IS A MUCH BETTER WEAPON.
NCC1701zulu 3 weeks ago
@NCC1701zulu Well i dont see how 1 4200rpm gun is better than 2 guns (6000rpm each) + 8 missiles. Sorry, i just dont see your logic there. Care to elaborate?
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 sure but only because you have such an open mind. western technology is twice as accurate. I'm sure you wont understand why i say that but try.
NCC1701zulu 1 week ago
@NCC1701zulu I do have an open mind but rather than taking your word for it id prefer solid evidence of western technology being twice as accurate. Honestly, during countless test trails and demos (such as the Abu Dhabi expo) there have been noted NO significant differences in comparable weapon systems in such parameters as accuracy. Russian missile and rocket tech is rated as the most advanced world wide, including the US where they use Russian rocket engines for space programs.
Buuub08 1 week ago
As far as this goes: Kashatan vs Goalkeeper or GAU-8 vs GSh-30-6. Yes the GAU-8 should technically be more accurate (longer barrel, higher MV). But the GSh-30-6 is like half its weight, fully independent from any external power supply and hydraulics, having virtually no spin-up time and about 40% higher rate of fire.
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 its not hard math, half the ammo equals twice the accuracy. Believe it or not. As for the USA's space program i am not at all happy with our governments choice to depend on inferior russian equipment and politics to get into space. Has russia walked on the moon? The UNITED STATES has, several times, we are very capable of orbit. The politicians are to blame, that is one thing we share in common sir. Noble causes and worthy men are often sacrificed at the whim of politics.
NCC1701zulu 1 week ago
@NCC1701zulu Half the ammo doesnt equal twice the accuracy if you have a weapon that functions in a significantly different manner.
There is no governments choice, NASA simply has no comparable engines to use. Inferior? The RD-180 is rated as the MOST RELIABLE and MOST POWERFUL engine of its type.
Russia didnt walk on the moon (not far off though). They got first satellite, first oribtal unit, first man in space, first orbital station, first probe on a foreign planet (Venus), etc.
Buuub08 6 days ago
Anyone with an IQ higher than the room temperature will admit that Russia won the space race. The ONLY reason they didnt go to the moon was the risk it posed and the financial aspect of the whole program. The US space program had the entire nation kicking in, the Russian space program was funded by left-over principle seeing like 1/50th the funding the US did and yet they still won in everything but the moon. Besides the repeated moon missions are questioned by most experts.
Buuub08 6 days ago
You obviously havent realized but a very very big part of the US military is foreign. The standard issue sidearm - M9 = Italian Beretta 92. M1 Abrams tank = German MTB-70 wire off, still uses German gun and British armor. F-35 had Russians working on it too, from the Yakovlev crew emphasizing on VTOL - in turn its the same as on Yak-141. And this goes on and on. You need to have an open mind buddy and look at things objectively. Patriotism is a good thing until it turns into idiocy.
Buuub08 6 days ago
@Buuub08 the AK was stolen from the germans, as well as russia's first jet engine, and heavy bomber, and nuclear bomb, the list goes on forever of the things russia has stolen. You have no room to talk. Russia is the biggest technology thief in history. You now copy the nato 5.56mm round vs. the 7.62x39mm. HAHA YOU ARE JOKE and you are BRAINWASHED FOOL.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@NCC1701zulu AK wasnt stolen from Germans. The AK uses an entirely different operation mechanism from the STG-44.
Well America got a lot more from Germans than Russians did. The US space program was led by no other than von Braun himself and a crew of DOZENS of other German specialists. You are really as biased as they come.
Russians dont copy the 5.56. Why would they? Its actually the US that manufactures 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 on a massive scale for itself. Russians dont make 5.56.
Buuub08 6 days ago
@Buuub08 the us is 7.62x51, you dont know anything. you act like an arrogant peasant. You are probably from canada.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@Buuub08 LOL I did not mention the STG-44, YOU DID! MORE RUSSIAN THIEVERY. MORE RUSSIA TAKING CREDIT FOR ANOTHER COUNTRYS WORK.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@NCC1701zulu Once again dipshit - pick up a book. STG-44 and AK-47 share NO similar elements in terms of operation, even the bolt lock (tilting vs rotating) is different.
I have no hate towards anything or anyone, although i do dislike ignorant twats with an IQ lower than that of a block of cheese. Tell me about uneducated, you dont even know what and why America uses. Or that it was a Von Braun a GERMAN who got America into space and to the moon not an "American".
Buuub08 5 days ago
@Buuub08 RUSSIA is NOT SMART ENOUGH TO GO THE MOON. America went many times over 40 years ago and Russia still cannot go. Russia is afraid because she knows her cosmonauts will die if they try. Russia should steal more western technology so she can reverse engineer it. Maybe she can go to the moon then instead of sending a baby's stroller. America gave every country's scientists moon rocks to study, including russia's scientist. RUSSIA LOST THE SPACE RACE TERRIBLY.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
They were very close, they intended to go like 5 years later or so but after the US got the there programs was seen as pointless and the resources were redirected into other fields. There is no point in going to the moon, which is why the US itself doesnt go there.
Russians got their own rocks from Moon from the probes they sent. Dont make shit up kiddo.
The space race ended with one nation gaining the capability to effectively deliver stuff into orbit, Russia did that first.
Buuub08 6 days ago
I dont want to start a comment war, but seriously kiddo - get off the crack pipe and pick up a book. Your "America invented everything" attitude is fundamentally flawed to begin with as there is no nationality as "American". The American nation is predominantly made up of people with German, English and Irish ancestry, also Russians, Chinese and pretty much every other nationality there is. This includes you, unless you are pure blood Apache you are not really American in any way.
Buuub08 6 days ago
@Buuub08 Oh listen to how arrogant you sound. It was pointless for Russia to go because she CAN’T GO You pig, you think you’re fooling anyone by saying you won the space race by not going to the moon? you sound like an idiot. Why don’t you read a book sometime. You cannot stay focused can you retard? How did America’s immigrant status become a topic? You are a moron Follow the bouncing ball. Russia is a technology thief and you act like she is superior to everyone else she's a whore.
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
@NCC1701zulu You really need to get off the crack pipe.
The space race isnt about the moon, it was about space exploration with the moon being merely a milestone in it.
Oh wow, you dont even know that there are a whole bunch of companies manufacturing AKs and 7.62x39/5.45x39, you even manufacture RPG-7s. Pick up a book for fucks sake.
Buuub08 5 days ago
@Buuub08 You have the America invented everything attitude, not me. Your hate has you unbalanced. You would rather show how stupid you are then admit russia stole most of her technology from the west. You know nothing about the Native American, not the Apache, soui, crow, chippawa, navajo, aztec, myan or countless other tribes that roamed the american continents, both north and south America, you smart smart person. you blame the spanish, the french and the english? You are very uneducated
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
Tell me about stealing when you take credit for going to the moon what it was ENTIRELY the work German scientists captured by the US at the end of WW2. YOU, as Americans, didnt do squat about it. So in all objectiveness, going your way about stealing, America didnt even get into space but GERMANS did.
btw, your local gun sore sells AK-47 and ammo MADE IN USA. Pathetic that you dont know that.
Buuub08 5 days ago
@Buuub08 very close doesn't win the race you idiot, she lost. America and the shit head soviets raced to the moon and America won. End of story you sore loser. You braiswashed twit. There was no race when sputnik was launched you fool. sputnik STARTED the race. America caught up and passed the russia and beat her sorry ass to the moon. Russia still cant do it. You say its pointless so you wont go. You sound like a little kid making excuses for getting his ass kicked. LOL go home boy
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buuub08 the AK was stolen from the germans, as well as russia's first jet engine, and heavy bomber, and nuclear bomb, the list goes on forever of the things russia has stolen. You have no room to talk. Russia is the biggest technology thief in history. You now copy the nato 5.56mm round vs. the 7.62x39mm. HAHA YOU ARE JOKE and you are BRAINWASHED FOOL. The space race isn't over. you could not even fly your own space shuttle. russian technology is weak like her military, like your brain
NCC1701zulu 6 days ago
Soundtrack FAIL!
SuhkaSlayer 2 months ago
Woohoo, dutch navy :) At least we dont shoot 90% of the ammo directly into the water!
xXxJaspiexXx 2 months ago
@xXxJaspiexXx Pffff... you are a moron. 99.5% of the shots miss. In general it takes in excess of 200 rounds to take out a target. Thats why you use guns like these that can spray those 200 rounds in like 2-3 seconds maximizing effectiveness.
You dont see them in the vid because they are not tracers, the gun still fired like 200+ rounds. You can see one hit the water, take the missile as the aim point you have like an 8m radius of spray at that close. Pretty weak actually.
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 I was just joking about the splashing in the water.. Anyway for info: Assuming not talking about hypersonic but subsonic targets like Exocet or Harpoon. The goalkeeper system uses a burst of 1 second, which consists of 70-75 shots, giving a >96% change of destroying the target. So that's NOT 99.5% miss and NOT spraying 200 rond in 2-3 sec. Also the inacc is 1 mrad: that is not 8m radius. If not destroyd it uses a second burst. But I would say for >96% that is not likely.
xXxJaspiexXx 1 week ago
@xXxJaspiexXx That highly depends on the target, conditions and distance.
The 1mrad part is bullshit. The GAU-8 (the gun used in the Goalkeeper) is rated at smth like 5mrad by itself, which translates into ~5m radius at 1000m WITHOUT accounting for varying conditions and movement. 1mrad is physically impossible for this type of gun. While 70 rounds might be enough to take out a missile the system by default continues fire (at least it should) until it confirms the target destroyed.
Buuub08 1 week ago
And that is exactly what you see in the video. Just look at the point where it hit the water and how it relates to the position to the missile itself, thats quite a bit off. Given that the missile is the CENTER point of aim that does turn out into smth like 8m radius - which is considerably acceptable in terms of accuracy all things accounted. Hard to tell the distance from gun to target though, doesnt look like more than 500-600m though.
Buuub08 1 week ago
The accuracy drop mostly comes from the fact that the gun doesnt fire at the missile but at a predicted point of interception being continuously corrected and adjusting for conditions at the same time.
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 Sorry, i have no idea where you got that info from but the goalkeeper is defo 1 for dutch war vessels. Even for the A-10 thunderbolt it's rated 5mil 80%. Without the heavy stabilizing stuff around it on the warships.
xXxJaspiexXx 1 week ago
@xXxJaspiexXx Its not 1 mrad. Even this video itself shows that it is FAR FAR more than that, so cut the crap already. The GAU-8 is rated at 5mrad or so, which is fully comparable to other gun. Its actually slightly better than the GSh-6-30. May I ask where did you get its accuracy being rated at 1 mil and having actual proof of it? There are videos strongly contradicting that claim, including this one.
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 Yeah right, so first you were stating 8, and now its suddenly 5? (but thats what stated in my previous post aswel for the normal GAU-8 used in USAF) And please give me the time (min:sec) where you can see the inaccuracy of the goalkeeper then in this vid, i cant find it, and please give my other vids becaus i have been searching but can't find them.... And if you can read dutch page 12 for info and tests for 1mr. kvmo.nl/pdf/marineblad_aug11_volledig.pdf
xXxJaspiexXx 1 week ago
@xXxJaspiexXx I was estimating 8m purely based upon how the impact below the missile stacks up to the missile size and altitude. You should learn how to read, i didnt change from 8 to 5. 8 METERS is MY rough estimate given the video at 4:10-4:12, 5 MRAD is the accuracy given my General Electric for the GAU-8. This video is not a good example, there is a better one covering this test, which also shows the gun actually firing for like 3 seconds til target destruction not 1.
Buuub08 1 week ago
I dont mean to step on your national pride (calling an American gun Dutch) or anything but this type of gun simply physically cant be the laser beam you want it to be first off due to basic ballistics. Having spread is inherently actually a part of the design and a crucial element that allows it to do its job effectively.
Buuub08 1 week ago
I dont know why you cant find anything, probably because you werent even looking. The first vid that pops up when you search Goalkeeper CIWS:
watch?v=3C2_hfrPkDg
Average duration of fire per Exocet missile ~3 seconds (~200 rounds). NOT 1 second (~70 rounds) as you claimed. Given that it shoots until the target registers are destroyed (needing ONE hit) it means that pretty much 200 rounds MISS before ONE hits = ~99% MISS = the SAME as most other CIWS.
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 haha no pride involved. I havnt come across this vid, only saw an edited and shorter version But i have to admit your right there.
xXxJaspiexXx 1 week ago
@xXxJaspiexXx Good that we came to a conclusion on this lol. Actually you are a pretty rare case of a person not arguing for the sake of argument and I truly respect you for that. Kudos.
Buuub08 1 week ago
@Buuub08 Same for you! It's indeed once the true evidence is given, it can't be denied :). Only those stupid idiots who just like to swear against everybody keep arguing at that point. Cheers!
xXxJaspiexXx 1 week ago
2:00 = true robotics movement feel (the kind im afraid)
drbelli 2 months ago
музыка говно
SHNEKOROTOR 3 months ago
fuck you uploader with this gay music!!!!!!!!!
TheDenisdezan 3 months ago
mijn god,.. waar gaan we naar toe!?!?!?
Thawolf70 3 months ago
tribute to high-tech anti-aircraft weapons :D
Michel445 4 months ago
Kashtan-M WINNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
serij4ever 4 months ago 4
WAZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
music is pretty relevant :)
poyanator 4 months ago 15
@kiiiro Yes, the gun used is the same, in a different configuration. The Kashtan is also 30mm but uses two rotary guns.
EggFooYung 4 months ago
@kiiiro They are both 30mm
Nickael7 5 months ago
go for it goalkeeper! dutch made ^^
dutchman139 5 months ago 2
20mm or 30mm any aircraft have chance
TATARSTAN59500 5 months ago
и что я должен был заметить?))) ну я конечно сравнил обе системы своим скоростным зрением ))
zigamatik 5 months ago
ХЗ РОБОТЕГИ . ОШИБКА ВВОДА....
wasiks2011 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
НЕ МЫ НАЧАЛИ !!! СКАЙНЕТ ВИДИТ!!!
wasiks2011 5 months ago
НЕ МЫ НАЧАЛИ !!! СКАНЕТ ВИДИТ!!!
wasiks2011 5 months ago 3
Kashtan-M : ) nr. 1
SelbstDenker100 5 months ago 14
Goalkeeper! :D
elimx1 5 months ago
@TehCodeMonkey Where did you get that Kashtan-data?
DreadX10 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kashtan is a little heavy but a much better system. There is a version of goalkeeper that has short-range missiles.
scannernut 6 months ago
Germany never gave up the fight for world control. With the US stuck in Afghanistan and Irak wasting its wealth making new enemies, Germany made a large leap forward. Having lost two open wars to become the dominating power on earth, Germany reverted to the tactics used before 1914 and between1918-1939: Infiltrating other countries with snitchers, manipulating them and draw as much wealth as possible from these victims of German greed. My brother Markus Bott was murdered because of our homepage
wwwtotalitaerde 6 months ago
@wwwtotalitaerde
Germany today is the most left wing liberal country in the world besides maybe norway and sweden. Anyway, it is surly the most antinational/antipatriotic and multinational/inmternationalist country in the world, which pays billions every year to the EU, to singular EU countries like bancrupt greece, or to the third world, wasting even more billions for "green" ecology, it recently closed down all nuclear plants in favor of windmills, more and more people r vegans etc-
TheMagi12 6 months ago
DUTCH PRIDE
:D
rabbie121 7 months ago
The music just make the video awesome.
Minh1110 7 months ago
Flame wars below me. Anti-Americans above me. Does anyone really care about this shit. Go start a WWIII people. You'll all be dead next week.
Marks1157 7 months ago
Such a peaceful song for a video of artillery weapons
adtrhasfaithinme 7 months ago
@adtrhasfaithinme Its a defence weapon you idiot... It's not offensive weapons
romthink 7 months ago
Comment removed
jm13colombiano 7 months ago
I liked the Goalkeeper better than the Phalanx CIWS because of its bigger 30mm gun (the same one used on the A-10 Thunderbolt II. But, now I like the Kashtan-M much better.
kempmt1 8 months ago
Both are very good,but Kasthan is more advanced and it have missles and double guns.
gabrielooss 9 months ago
Not this song again!!!!!!!!!!!!!
seriousninja 9 months ago
Es una simple gatling nada del otro mundo.
texao2011 10 months ago
anime become real..you should make gundam next time
ericsantiago011 11 months ago
Soy apasionado de la tecnologia y especialmente la area, y si son unas bellezas pero al final, son unos monstruos diabolicos, segadoras de vida, el f22, el f35, todos los misiles y rifles son para matar. Puedo ver sus videos pero tengan en mente que seria mejor que jamas hubieran existido.
RAVENSTAR1973 1 year ago
sucks music.
kashtan win
coolglock19 1 year ago
Tell me plese what the music is used in this video?
MrProstokepka 1 year ago
@MrProstokepka My inmortal, Evanescence. watch?v=MGNgodBkJZY
otakuplay 1 year ago
@otakuplay Than you very much! By the way I like Kashtan's missiles but Goalkeeper's gun!
MrProstokepka 1 year ago
@otakuplay better question is why? Wouldn't Metallica or something along those lines be more appropriate?
ERAUsnow 6 months ago
What a lame comparison. Of course the Kashtan M is better. Its cannons provide more firepower and it also has missiles. Kashtan M is the most powerful CIWS in the world.
StiviGun1 1 year ago 18
@StiviGun1 The Kasthan is an awesome defensive and offensive weapon system. The only problem that I can see is the guns and missiles are all in on. You can knockout both with one hit. This is the reason why the US Navy Goalkeeper is a separate with the missiles. Both are awesome weapons just different ways of design.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 The Kashtan-M is designed to protect against all types of threats, from missiles to various aircraft. How can you destroy it?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 LOL! seriously. It's like saying the Panzer and the Tiger tanks of WWII cannot be destroyed. Guess what it can be destroyed. There is no such thing as indestructable even the hardest metal can be destroyed.
I'm taking about not putting your eggs in one basket. Let just say what if the Kashtan-M malfunctioned or lost power. Both of your guns and missiles are out of commisioned.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 "what if the Kashtan-M malfunctioned or lost power" These are hypothetical situations that are very unlikely to happen. But a system that is designed to defend against missiles and aircraft is very hard to destroy. Also, there more than just one Kashtan-M systems installed on each ship. So even if you do manage to destroy one of them, you can't destroy all of them. But of course, in order to destroy them, you have to get passed by the long range defense systems.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Are you serious maybe you live in a fairy tale land. LOL! The F22 Raptor and the Sukhoi 35 are 4th generation fighter planes and not meant to crash. Guess what they both crash. There is no such thing as a 100 percent system. If you believe in that theory then you are a fool. Why do you think the Navy has battle groups or fleet? Why do you think an aircraft carrier needs all other warship such as destroyers for support? This is real-life not hypothetical bullshit.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 So your basing your victory on the hypothesis that the enemy's equipment would fail. That's great strategy. Anyway, to get to Kashtan-M which is a CIWS, you need to get passed by the other long range defense systems and I'd like to see how you do that.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 And BTW, the F-22 is a 5th gen fighter, not 4th.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Your right it's a 5th generation then again don't believe in all the technological hype. They is a reason why even the most sophisticated aircraft needs maintenace. I like doulble redundancy because I don't like to relly everything on a machine or computers.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 Well, the more technologically advanced a weapons system is, the more maintenance it is. That makes sense. It's logical that something that is so technologically advanced would need maintenance. But as for F-22, I believe it was the wrong choice. I believe the YF-23 was better. It was faster, stealthier and had twice the range. And despite what it is claimed, it was also cheaper to maintain.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 The F-22 is cheaper than the YF-23. This is the reason why congress approved it's production. Don't keep out the YF-23 just yet. It's design and technology will be introduce to the next genaration fighters.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 How do you know the F-22 is cheaper? The Congress approved it not because it was cheaper, but because it was built by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin has more government connections than any other weapons manufacturer. But there's actually no proof that the YF-23 was more expensive.
BTW, do you know any project that would include features from the YF-23?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Here we go again. Since you open up the topic of YF-23 vs F22. Guess what I did? I research. Please do the same as a matter of fact search on youtube. I found a documentary when the YF-23 and F22 where being tested back in the 80's. The documentary even stated that the YF-23 is better but cost more.
You know what let me send you that video.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Here is the Video stating that the F-22(YF-22) is cheaper. Watch (YF-22 and YF-23-Stealth Technology). This is no Hypotesis and Hypothetical Bullshit.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 I've already seen that video. And it is a bullshit. There is no proof that the YF-23 was more expensive. In fact, from maintenance point of view, it was cheaper to maintain, at least in two areas. The YF-23 was more aerodynamic so the heat stresses on its RAM materials were minimized and its nozzles section was much easier to maintain than the F-22's moving nozzles. The YF-23 was better and from what we know it might have been even cheaper.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Then there no point trying to convince you because your just gonna call bullshit. The video even stated that the YF-23 is more expensive then again it's bullshit according to you. I still prefer the YF-23 but it never went on production for cost reasons (stated on the video).
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 You can't convince me because I know certain things. And just one short video is certainly not something that can convince me. I I already showed you two areas where the YF-23 was cheaper to maintain despite what that guy said, that the F-22 was cheaper to maintain. The F-22 is not cheaper to maintain.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 There is another video that show the YF-23 is expensive than YF-22. Since you gonna call Bullshit on it anyway. Whats the point? The video is also a documentary between the two. You want me to believe you instead of the documentary. LOL!
You certainly live in fantasy land where everything is prefect. Just like when you said the Kashtam-M cannot be destroyed. LOL!!!
Welcome to "REALITY" and not the world of Hypotesis and Hypothetical thinking.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 The problem with these YT videos is that they only present some statements without any proofs to back them up. What I told you about the YF-23 and F-22's maintenance is also logical.
As for the Kashtan-M, if you put it that way, then the Phalanx and all other USN defensive systems can be destroyed. But Kashtan-M, a system designed to defend against the weapons it could be destroyed with, is very hard to destroy. In fact, your first statement was that it can be destroyed. Then,
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 you moved on to saying that it COULD break down. So you don't sound like someone who should be taken very seriously.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 LOL! do you have Military experience? Have you been in the Military? Things do break down it's not a myth or fiction. My point is I would rather have two seperate operating systems. Then again since you live in WonderLand where things are perfect you would rather put everything in one system.
Why do you need a fleet of ships to defend each other? Like you said the Kashtan-M cannot be destroyed. What the hell we should watch a fight Superman VS Kashtan-M. LOL!
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 No, I've never been into military, but neither were you. But I did read more about weapons than you did. As for the Kashtan-M, if it's so inefficient to put missiles and cannons in the same system, then why is the USN developing the SeaRAM system, which combines the Phalanx and the RIM-116 RAM system? Which, BTW, will still not be as powerful as the Kashtan-M.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 The SeaRAM is a separate system than the Goalkeeper. It does not combine both missiles and guns in one platform. In your world it doesn't matter any because you live in Wonder Land. There is no such thing as a perfect defensive or offensive weapons system. In your world you don't need and Airforce, Navy or Army if the Kashtan-M cannot be destroyed. Let me guess you believe that the T-90, T-95 cannot be destroyed either. LOL!!!! your a fool. I'm an Army veteran joined when I was 17.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 I know what the SeaRAM is. And it seems like I know it better than you do. It actually does combine missiles and a 20 mm cannon in one platform. Go read about it.
As for my original point, that was that Kashtan-M is a a more powerful CIWS than the Goal Keeper, which is what this video is all about, not that it can't be destroyed. Anything can be destroyed. But the probability to destroy a system with weapons it was designed to defend against, is highly unlikely.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Bullshit LOL!....I never argue with you that the Kashtan-M is not a good system. I'm arguing about your statement "HOW CAN YOU DESTROY IT". It seems like you can't believe that a system like that cant be destroyed. Well guess what it CAN be destroyed so as the Goal keeper and Phalanx system. They also claim that the M1 Abrams and the T-72, T-80 is highly unlikely to get destroyed well guess what PETER PAN. It was destroyed. STOP LIVING IN FANTASY LAND. Welcome to the REAL WORLD...LOL!
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 Like I said, if you put it this way, everything can be destroyed. But what I said is that is VERY HARD. The Kashtan-M is designed to defend against the very weapons it could be destroyed with. And for this, it has two 30mm cannons with a combined rate of fire of 10 000 rounds/min and 8 missiles ready to fire with another 32 missiles in the autoloader. The Kashtan-M is definitely the most powerful CIWS in the world.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 This was your firts response to me:
The Kasthan-M is designed to protect against all types of threats, from missiles to various aircraft.
How can you destroy it?
That was your exact words. It's not Hypotesis. It's not Hypotetical bullshit. "HOW CAN YOU DESTROY IT" is not the same as is "VERY HARD".
Wake up from your world or imagination and face the real world. Stop pretending to be or to know because you don't. LOL!
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 And you still didn't answered to that question. You're just assuming some things that you don't know shit about. You're just ASSUMING that it can be destroyed, but you can't tell how, you're just ASSUMING that it would break down... Tell me, how can you destroy the Kashtan-M?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'm not assuming it can be destroyed. Just like when the Stealth plane got shot down. Just like the Russian tanks and planes got destroyed by Georgian artillery and aircraft. Just like the f22 and the sukhoi crashed. Just like the mighty Rusian military got beaten by the rat tag Afghan soldiers.
The Kashtan-M relly on radar ans it's vunerable to radar jaming. Russian radar system is inferior to NATO radars.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 Actually, the Kashtan-M doesn't rely only on radar, it can also use an electro-optronic system to track its targets. But the Phalanx and the RIM-116 also rely on radar to detect their targets. So then what makes them better than the Kashtan-M?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 I didn't say the Phalanx is better I just stated the flaw that I saw on the Kashtan-M. It looks like you are trying to turn this into USA vs Russia arguement. I look outside the box unlike you who only see it in one direction. The Kashtan-M is simillar to Tunguska mobile air defense. Guess what happend when a group of Russian Tanks and APC got attack by Georgian planes and artillery. There were destroyed and the Tunguska can "HARDLY DEFEND" it.
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 Now when exactly did that incident with Tunguska happened because I never heard of it?
As for Kashtan-M, no matter what its flaws are, it is still the most powerful CIWS in the world. It is more powerful than the Phalanx, the Goalkeeper or the RIM-116 RAM.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are delusional. Where were you in 2008 during the Russian invasion of Georgia? Russian Military lost a bunch of T-80's, APC and support vehicles during the initial Phase of the invasion including Migs and bomber panes. The Armored column was protected by the Tunguska which failed misserably.
As far as the Kashtan-M it is powerful but then your weapon is only as good as the person behind it. It's electronic system is a prey for the Wild Weasel Jamming devices...LOL!
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 Actually, I was much closer to that conflict than you. But I never heard of such incidents. I think you got this from Fox Channel... The Russians absolutely destroyed the Georgian army. The Georgians were simply running away from their path, leaving the Russian tanks and artillery to bomb as they pleased.
As for the Kashtan-M and the Wild Weasel, the Kashtan-M is designed to defend against anti-radar missiles as well. So again, it's very hard to destroy it.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 The Russian loses during the conflict was alot if you compare that to the US initial attack in Iraq. The Russian T-80 and Migs are the top of the line and not export model. Which they claim to have thicker armor and Migs that are hard to destroy. Well guess what PETTER PAN it was destroyed.
You have no idea about the capability of the Wild Weasel. It also jams the enemies electronic system. The Kashtan-M is blind just like the Tunguska....LOL!
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 You keep talking about the Russian losses. Do you have any source to prove your claims?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are delusional. You are asking me to support my claim just like you did about the Y-23 and Y-22. Then you are gonna call bulshit on it even though the video was a documentary and it stated my claim.
Do your own search "PETTER PAN" and welcome to the world of grown ups.
I'm not falling for your Wonderland Games...........LOL!!!
quickzilver333 9 months ago
@quickzilver333 Well, if your sources are just some Fox News videos, then of course it's bullshit. I live right here, next to the Russians and Georgians. I watched how the Georgians were simply fleeing from the advancing Russian army's way.
Now, you're talking about some specific events that I never heard of. You say that the Russian tanks and APCs were destroyed by the Georgian air force. What air force? They didn't even have an air force. And I never saw a single Tunguska-M system on the news.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 I know! its funny when people talk of "Georgian Airforce" WHAT AIRFORCE??? THEIR 13 SU24'????? LOL!!! They are strike aircraft.. Designed to deliver air to ground munitions.. There was no contest to the Russian airforce. They gained air supremacy the first hour. All that was needed was to destroy ground based anti air assets at standoff distance. The Russians lacked (at that time) a widely employed and very effective presicion anti radar missile system. Now, this is not the case.
mattmatt115 8 months ago
@mattmatt115 Yeah, I know all about that. That guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He said that Tunguska-M was used in that conflict, but it wasn't. There was no need to be used, since the Georgians don't have cruise missiles or fighters. He's clearly a jerk off who has no clue what he's talking about.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 That's because the Georgians didn't have an air force, so the Russians didn't have to use anti-aircraft systems. The Tunguska was not even used in that conflict. You can check this on wiki. Wiki says very clearly what equipment was used by either side.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 LOL! you are hilarious. Seriously though I like Russian weaponry. I would take an AK-47 over M16 anyday of the week and twice on sunday. The Georgian conflict was the catalyst to gain more funding in Russian military. Most of the weapons use in combat proved ineffective. Modernization of Russian Military is in full swing after the conflict.
Nato is already using Lazers to defend against missiles and artillery. Welcome to the Real World. :-)
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 If you think the Russians used their state of the art weapons systems in that conflict, then you're the one leaving in the fairy land. They used only their outdated equipment. Most of the tanks used in that conflict were old T-72a and T-62s. And of course, Tunguska was never used, as you initially claimed.
As for the laser systems used by the US to destroy missiles and artillery shells, that technology is only in the initial phases of development. It'll take years before that
StiviGun1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quickzilver333 technology will be given to the troops.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 yes this gun is for air deffence of the ship,unique Georgian air problem is flys
SlavaSvarogu 8 months ago
@SlavaSvarogu I didn't understand the last part of your statement. What is the Georgian air problem?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 And please do me a favour, and refrain from calling Stivigun delusional? I have had a good conversation with him before, and he is far from delusional. He knows what he is talking about alright? So please save your burger breath for your fat wife, because nobody else enjoys it you blindly patriotic fools. You may gain an erection from your talk, but to everyone else, TALK IS CHEAP!!!!
mattmatt115 8 months ago
@mattmatt115 He is delusional you idiot. He can't even have a straight conversation. He believes that the Kashtan-M is indestructable. There is no such thing as indestructable you idiot. If you believe in that then both of you live in Wonderland where things are perfect. I didn't say USA weapons are perfect and better than anyone. That would be stupid because I like Russian weapons also. We are talking about the difference in design but he went off somewhere else. You are a "RETARD"...LOL!
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 Listen here, the main topic here is Kashtan-M vs Goalkeeper. And Kashtan-M is definitely superior to the Goalkeeper or to any other CIWS in the world for that matter. Its combination of missiles and powerful, high rate of fire 30 mm cannons, provide a much better air defense than any other CIWS in the world. This is what the topic was all about. The fact that the Kashtan-M is the most powerful CIWS in the world. And please show me a weapon that is specifically designed to destroy
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 I never said that the Kashtan-M is inferior to Goalkeeper. I even said that the Kashtan-M is an "AWESOME" defenssive and offensive system. What the hell is wrong with you. Read carefully what I wrote so that you won't ebarrass yourself. Read my first comment!!!!
I just notice and stated a flaw in the Kashtan-M system. Just like every weapon systems in the world they have a flaw. It's not perfect. Please read carefully!!!
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 That "flaw" is not really a flaw. The fact that the system combines missiles and cannons in one system gives it a much more comprehensive defensive capability. It's that combination of missiles and cannons that makes it the most powerful CIWS in the world. However, the American ships are also protected by CIWS that use both missiles and cannons so they are just as well protected, but as far as the systems themselves are concerned, the Kashtan-M is the most powerful.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 The Goalkeeper is not mounted together with the missile system in the US Navy. This is not land warfare were it's better to have two systems in one platform. It's different when it comes to Navy. It's not only the American Navy that has a seperate gun and missile platform. You are right the Kashtan-M is powerful but I would rather have the "DUET" gun system which is seperate from the missile platform.
Maybe because I was in the Military and I look at things different than you.
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 And why is it better to have combined missiles and cannons on land systems but not on naval systems? The land systems are actually much easier to destroy than the naval systems.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 There is something you won't understand unless you have been in the military or have good knowledge of how the armed forces fuction. Look at the difference in size a war ship vs a amored air defense vehicle. It is better to have missiles and guns in one platform on land. Unless you wanna drive both missiles and guns in seperate vehicle.
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 Well, the ship is bigger than a land based anti-aircraft system duuuuh, but the anti-aircraft system installed on the ship, in this case, the Kashtan-M is actually smaller than the land based anti-aircraft system, in this case Tunguska. So it's actually harder to destroy.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Here we go again. Please think first before you post. Where do you think the Kashtan-M gets it's missiles to reload?
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 If you're aiming for the magazine that feeds the Kashtan-M with missiles, then you're basically aiming for the ship itself. So you're not hitting the system itself, you're hitting the ship. No matter how you try to twist it, you're still wrong.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 It's part of the system you are an idiot and the Tunguska doesn't have that much bigger size than the Kashtan-M.
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 "It's part of the system"... That's not the same with hitting the system ITSELF and that's what you were claiming. There's no anti-ship missile that can target a certain part of the ship. These missiles target the ship itself, as whole. So you're the idiot. You said that the Kashtan-M can be taken out, now you say that the ship it's mounted on can be taken out... You're just a big mouth who doesn't have clue what he's talking about.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are a dumbass. The Kashtan-M is blind as the Tunguska and it doesn't have the countermeasures against the wild weasels eletronic jamming and radar jamming capabilities. You are saying something that I didn't even said. You are an idiot.
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 Read your first comments moron. First you said it can be destroyed, then you said it can be jammed.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 I will give you this chance to look at my "FIRST COMMENT" so that you won't look bad. I never said anything you are accusing me of on my "FIRST COMMENT" let me say that again "FIRST COMMENT".
Please read it again. I will get back with you in two days so that you will have time to slap yourself...lol!
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 Yeah, in your FIRST COMMENT, you said it can be DESTROYED.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'm back PETTER PAN look again on my first comment you retard. I didn't even mention a word DESTROYED. You are delusional!...LOL!!
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 You said it can be taken out, you idiot. It's the same thing. Now run away and stop replying to me. You're getting really boring. Get lost!
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 It's not the same thing you retard. Did I hurt your feelings....LOL!
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 :)))) It's not the same thing? Then what is it, you idiot? You really are stupid, you know that?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 I thought that you would want to spread the command-center, guns and missiles on land so the system cannot be killed by one hit? On a ship this is not much of a concern.
DreadX10 6 months ago
@DreadX10 I agree with you but the idiot Stivigun said it's hard to destroy and indestructable. There is no such thing as indestructble. This is the reason why the USA Navy did not put the Phalanx and the missile system together.
Don't listen to Stivigun he can't even get his arguement straight. He will jump from one topic to another as soon as you figureout his bullshit. He tried that on me twice and I busted him...LOL!!!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 How does the kashtan give more defense then the goalkeeper what does it matter it has rockets? What can you destroy with rockets what you cant destroy with goalkeeper
Samiosamio111 7 months ago
@Samiosamio111 Well, the missiles can defend at much longer ranges than the gun. With just a gun, you have to wait until the target gets dangerously close. That's why Kashtan-M has missiles. The guns are just in case the target manages to evade the missiles (which is highly unlikely) and they're used as a last resort.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 NOTHING will hit the ship with a goalkeeper on it lol
Samiosamio111 7 months ago