PAK-FA is kill
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
![1024px-PAK_FA_T_50_compressor_stall_on_MAKS_2011[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2aQaSWY.jpg "1024px-PAK_FA_T_50_compressor_stall_on_MAKS_2011[1].jpg")
http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/Indias-Biggest-25-Billion-Defence-Deal-to-Crash-Land/2016/04/24/article3396450.ece
>IAF claims developed engine of FGFA was not reliable
>Inadequate radar and stealth features
>Huge cost over-run
>India’s reduced share. Lack of participation by IAF in the design phase
>IAF apprehensive that Russia will not share technology
If India pulls out, the production volume will pretty much halve, driving up costs for Russia.
>>29742305
POO
>>29742305
still cheaper than the stealth lemons in MURRICA
>>29742581
oh sick burn
>>29742305
One of the Indian comments on the article:
>Such articles are part of the GREAT GAME at which many countries are very good at. However now with Modi , Sushma and Parikker trio India too has entered the A LEAGUE and becoming good at it.
Why are Indians so insecure? Why do they always fish for reasons to feel big and important? It's pretentious.
>>29742741
I notice this too. Titles in Indian news sites are always extremely hyperbolic about Indian 'achievements'.
Such as:
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/indian-tejas-jets-success-leaves-western-arms-contractors-worried_1878908.html
>>29742305
They probably shit in the engine.
>>29742741
Probably the same reason white people feel high and mighty when they come back from a vacation in India.
>>29742305
HAHAHAHAHA
>>29742741
When 60% of your populace poos in the street, you need everything possible to distract you from the fact that you're a bunch of disgusting, smelly savages.
>>29742305
>dealing with indians
Poos gonna poo.
Slavs aren't very smart. But neither are Indians.
So what's next for Russia? Flanker-4ever?
>>29742581
Better to be a rich winner than a poor loser.
Cant even sell the fighter to poo in loos.
>>29742305
desu, I saw a lot of russians shitting in the streets on my trip to Arbat. I think they were drunk, but...
>Be Pajeet
>2020 and still no next gen fighter
>Meanwhile getting swarmed by Paki J-31s and chink J-20s
>FGFA when Ivan?
>FGFA when Ivan?
>fgfaaaaaaaahhhhhh.............
>>29742823
Uh well, PAK-FA is a Russian project, made by Russian designers for the Russian airforce and it's nearing completion.
Businessmen who lose an investor don't simply go "oh shit, close down all business!", it simply moves on a smaller scale.
>>29742741
Its literally the basis of all Indian culture; status.
>>29742305
You'd think that they have a 5th gen lined up or something with how they're acting. Hell, it looks like the Rafale deal is going to breakdown too.
>>29742741
They're the Brazilians of Asia.
>If India pulls out, the production volume will pretty much halve, driving up costs for Russia.
Except Indian contract for FGFA bears no impact on domestic procurement of PAK-FA T-50, it's Russian MoD who's paying for the contract, not the curry niggers. It appears 20+ years of F-35 nightmare have convinced our american friends here that every defense contract have to be multinational and must fully rely on foreign funds for further development. They consider it a norm when program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet, that it's constantly delayed, entangled in decades long corporate fraud, plagued with mounting volumes of terminal flaws, and performs worse than the aircrafts it's supposed to replace in every conceivable way.
My obese friend, I assure you it doesn't have to be like that. It's just that international projects are always bound to failure. By the time PAK-FA will become fully operational and fly on combat missions Lockheed will be still leeching funds to figure out new glitches and USAF will be still using A-10s and F-16 for the actual job while trying to find application for overpriced toy outside the hangar.
How many times have they done this? I keep hearing the same story: Indians messing with the contract all the time only to accept a new one.
>>29743091
>Except Indian contract for FGFA bears no impact on domestic procurement of PAK-FA T-50, it's Russian MoD who's paying for the contract
Doesn't matter; economy of scale means that if the Indians do pull out, the production line and the supply chain behind that will never reach it's full efficiency / potential.
>>29743091
>by the time the SU-47 becomes fully operational and flying combat missions Lockheed will be still leeching funds to figure out new glitches for the F-22 and USAF will be still using F-4s for the actual job while trying to find application for overpriced toy outside the hangar.
Enjoy your 12 PAK-FAs.
>>29743114
Production tools are used for both T-50 and a commercial jet
>>29742751
Apparently this is better than a Gripen? Someone on /k/ was saying this
>>29743119
Like?
>>29742799
They feel more dirty than mighty.
Comments from two leftists friends of mine, married couple, just back from a trip in India :
>"India, well, it smells like shit, people are super rude and the guys, man, they kept catcalling my wife"
>"yes it was super awkward and disgusting as hell I didn't even wore revealing clothes, no cleavage, no butt, legs, nothing, I was pretty much covered in ample clothes but they kept being hyper aggressive and insulting like a bunch of horny pigs !"
>"so finally we stood in the hotel and only went out to touristic places".
>"like the taj mahal".
>"yeah, in fact we only went to the taj mahal and some natural reserve"
>"we wanted to visit the real countryside, the historic districts and so on, but it was super shit".
>"would you go back there or recommend the destination ?"
>"oh fuck no"
>"India : never again"
This was coming from people who welcome cultural enrichment. A testimony to how shitty India is : even the brain damaged whites can smell the distinctive indian poo stench.
>>29742910
>status.
Funny place.
Few years ago they made these cut-price cars so people could drive a family around without doing some ooga-booga trapeze act on a motorscooter deathtrap. What they didn't factor in was that Indians would rather crash, die and kill all their immediate family on a motorscooter vs truck fuckup- than be seen in the cheapest car on the market.
>>29742305
>IAF claims
Curryniggers be like: reeeee give us more technology or else!
>>29742751
>the comments in that article
India doesn't even have to pay them 50c, they are that stupid.
>>29743121
Absolutely not, Tejas is a tier below the Gripen in capability.
It's peers are the Korean FA-50 and the "Super Duper Skyhawks" that Singapore has.
The Gripen's peers are F-16 Block 50, J-10, F-18C, and Nip/Chink F-16 ripoffs.
>>29743118
underrated post
>>29742799
>>29743144
The fact that anybody would ever consider going to India for a vacation amazes me.
It's universally known that India is a vile place.
>>29742305
India is literally the worst customer ever.
> russia doesn't wanna share tech with india
> india constantly chimping out and shitting themselves
What else is new.
In any case, PAK FA is definitely not kill.
>>29742305
>Engine doesn't work
>poor RCS
It's almost like /k/ has been right this whole time.
>>29742741
>>29742751
Indians feel the need compensate for having been a puppet for so long and because the world still does not respect them despite being a nuclear power and having the largest population.
>>29742823
Pretty much. Maybe MiG will pull their head out of their asses and give Sukhoi a run for their money now.
>>29743625
> /k/ has been right
/k/ is never right about slavshit weapons. The butthurt clouds the senses.
>>29743625
Does it even get AESA?
>>29743642
post more S-ducts. Oh wait.
>>29743105
They did get a massive deal a while back when they managed to negotiate their cost down considerably and get more tech transfers, citing lack of performance goals being met by the PAK-FA program and the extremely weak Ruble at the time. It's not too surprising that they'd look into a domestic production craft now that they've got some tech under their belt and they're disappointed with the PAK-FA (serves them right after their experiences with the Kilos and Klubs they bought that had serious problems).
Expect any domestic design to be Arjun-tier though.
>>29743646
S-ducts make the engines more difficult to remove.
and if you know anything about slavshit you'll know why that's bad.
>>29743625
The only board to always be right is /pol/ tough.
>>29743656
I see what you did there.
Nicely done.
>>29743656
> shill about russians having s-ducts on one of the first prototypes
> s-ducts are gone
> oh yeah, well you see russian engines are shit anyways
Forever bac/k/pedaling.
>>29743666
>Russian engines
>not shit
3 overhauls.
2 replacements.
>>29743673
You've got anything to say about the AL41 or are you just gonna shit yourself?
>>29743680
What, the one that still isn't finished?
>>29743687
The one that broke the climb record.
>>29743656
>>29743666
>>29743673
>>29743680
I like You guys skating, however
>5th gen
>not even stealth
Come on, explain the marvelous russhit engineering and RAM coated fan blades.
>>29743695
>literally the only sources for it are slavsites
>AL41 STILL not in production or out of testing
Impressive how an engine still in design phase can do something like that when every PAK-FA so far has had a AL31
>>29743711
>stealth
a shit
>>29743711
> stealth
Nice meme. Care to fly that meme next to a russhit radar?
>>29742305
In two months, they'll be back in.
>>29743711
> implying ameriburgers don't coat the whole plane
Where are the guys who bitch about bolts again?
>>29743725
>doesn't know the difference between hex nuts that align with the skin and fucking rivets that the PAK-FA has
I love it, I really do.
>>29743718
>>29743721
So why then did Russia try to sell the PAK-FA as stealthy?
>>29743757
>>So why then did Russia try to sell the PAK-FA as stealthy?
because marketing, political BS and posturing.
If people perceive stealth as essential then you have to try and placate them.
>>29743091
>Except Indian contract for FGFA bears no impact on domestic procurement of PAK-FA T-50, it's Russian MoD who's paying for the contract, not the curry niggers
So Russia will be able to afford ~40 PAK FA's.
>>29743639
Sukhoi and MiG were eaten up / joined into UAC about 10 years ago.
>>29743783
Why would they need more than 30? Don't really see Russia spending themselves into gorillions of debt so some jews get richer.
>>29743757
> d-deez nuts are stealthier than rivets on this prototype, t-trust me
>>29743800
>Why would they need more than 30?
Proliferation of the f-35
>>29743845
>>Proliferation of the f-35
kek how many f-35 orders have been downsized?
>>29743807
>one thing is flush with the airframe
>the other sticks out
>IT'S ALL THE SAME!!
>>29743881
About 2 I think?
>>29743778
>stealth is a meme
>that's why we tried to make lower our RCS!
God, I love vatniks so much
>>29743881
None.
>>29743881
The downsized orders (2) are larger than current pak-fa orders.
>>29743899
Lower RCS isn't the same as Lockheed Approved Stealth(TM)
>>29743959
>anything .1m^2 or below is a meme, that's why the PAK-FAs low end is .4m^2 as said by their lead designer
I absolutely love it
>>29743845
A Flanker variant or Mig-29 from the 70s wipes the floor F-35, PAK-FA is an air-superiority fighter intended to outmatch F-22.
>>29743972
Hyperbole?
>>29743959
Yes, one is lower, one is higher.
>>29743972
Lol pls walk through a scenario where any of those aircraft could kill an F-35 or F-22
>>29744027
Where the mig 31 teleports behind the f-35 point blank )))))))))XAXAXXAAXAXAXAXXAXAXAXAXAX
>>29742305
>>29743643
The Su-T50 has the N036 which is an AESA.
>>29744095
Babis very first ayesa
>>29744027
The scenario where a F35 squadron doesn't have enough missiles to ensure wiping a Flanker squadron. Same can't be said for the "more dakker" flanker
>>29742305
WHY ARE ALL INDIAN PURCHASES OF WEAPONS SUCH BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARES????
>>29744143
Indians are Jews
>>29743757
I don't know anything about this stupid debate, but I do know riveting. That looks like flush riveting from the picture. I can see how the lighting might make someone think they are standard rivets.
>>29744135
lol.
The T50 also has cheek arrays to augment the main radar.
>>29743091
>It appears 20+ years of F-35 nightmare have convinced our american friends here that every defense contract have to be multinational and must fully rely on foreign funds for further development.
>International sales are only about 1/6th of total production
Or it's because we want tighter, easier integration with our allies and everyone benefits from having an advanced 5th gen at far less than buying one of the eurocanards or domestic development.
>My obese friend, I assure you it doesn't have to be like that. It's just that international projects are always bound to failure. By the time PAK-FA will become fully operational and fly on combat missions Lockheed will be still leeching funds to figure out new glitches and USAF will be still using A-10s and F-16 for the actual job while trying to find application for overpriced toy outside the hangar.
Spotted the delusional Vatnik. You'll never make more PAK-FAs than even a third of our F-22 fleet.
>>29744135
>moving the goalposts
>>29744141
F-35s carrys more payload than the flanker.
>>29743656
>S-ducts make the engines more difficult to remove.
>F-35 engine easily slid out the back as part of maintenance even with S-ducts
>>29744170
>You'll never make more PAK-FAs than even a third of our F-22 fleet.
Don't have to. Don't have a world to police.
>>29744213
Policing the world also makes you quite a few friends (counter-intuitively). Russia's few PAK-FAs would be dealing with a dozen different air forces attacking simultaneously.
>>29744233
>Policing the world also makes you quite a few friends (counter-intuitively).
This. How safe would international waters be for commerce without Carrier Battle Groups enforcing the Pax Americana?
T-50-5 was fixed with parts from T-50-6, have they made anything after that? Pretty much all the pictures you can find are just 055 or older.
>>29742305
Hy и хyй c ним.
>>29744233
It also overstretches logistics and spreads resources all over. In a multi-polar world, it eventually comes to a moment when global police has to multitask between several simultaneous threats at a time. And then you realize that vassals don't make for reliable friends.
>>29744302
>I am wrong in every way: the post
>>29744302
>It also overstretches logistics and spreads resources all over.
As it does for your enemy / Russia - they have to stretch their logistics and forces fighting against forces coming in every direction, as well as trying to spread out in every direction to get at the sources of their attacking forces.
>>29743118
I like this post
>>29744328
The difference there is that Russia doesn't have the money or logistics net in place to be able to project power at all.
>>29744135
Baby's first "banter".
>>29744366
>doesn't have the money
They no need to, Money is not the point in Russia when it comes to such things
>>29744401
>They no need to, Money is not the point in Russia when it comes to such things
It's a kleptocracy, money is everything there. How else did they manage to spend five times as much as everyone else on winter Olympics and still have garbage quality, unfinished facilities?
>>29744410
>How else did they manage to spend five times as much as everyone else on winter Olympics and still have garbage quality, unfinished facilities?
holy shit the fucking Vatnik damage control in this thread hahahaha
>>29744410
>garbage quality, unfinished facilities
My-my, it's like #SochiProblems all over again.
>>29744512
Don't pretend that Sochi was ready or not insanely over budget.
>>29744543
Don't pretend that you're on /pol of fuck off in its general direction.
>>29744561
Awwww, is da poor widdle vatnik mad dat his country's failings are being pointed out?
>>29744328
Current state of Russian military ensures everyone in her strategic vicinity is outmathced, outgunned and outranged. Best AA in the world makes it impossible for the enemy to secure air superiority over its territory. Best artillery systems in the world denying enemy ability to mount formidable invading contingent. Indisputable naval dominance in the Arctic leaves no chances to corner or blockade it. Constant drills have proven than Russia has the ability to move and deploy theatre-sized force to the other end of the country in the matter of 2 days. Better logistics, troops cohesion and operational mobility than anyone has in Eurasia.
That's the difference, Russia has to focus on nothing but own immediate surroundings, the US has to spread thin all over the globe because americans have massive manifest destiny up their asses about upholding the world order. The US just can't conduct several large scale operations on simultaneous theatres, not in its current state anyway.
>>29742305
So the source is just an opinion piece?
Into the trash.
>>29744788
Opinion piece of the Indian Air Force
>>29744770
>Maginot line against a force that's designed to dismantle it
>>29744796
Indian Air Force who are known to whine like babies every time someone doesn't give them what they want. Into the trash.
>>29744770
>shilling this hard
>>29744796
So, trash.
>>29744828
>Russian Air Force
trash
>USAF
trash
>RAF
trash
>>29744843
>this butthurt
IAF have been known to lie and exaggerate on numerous occasions.
>>29744797
Silly me, I actually genuinely forgot about best ICBMs and the largest nuclear stockpile on Earth
>>29742741
They're subhumans at this shit, it's like the Chinese. The Russians manage to keep out of this category because despite making a lot of stuff that is categorically inferior to US kit, it's their own design and made by their own hands.
>>29744883
Countered by a similar stockpile in the west, but you're still clearly mad about your country's failings being pointed out.
>>29744796
So not representative of what the government will buy.
>>29744902
'West' is not a nation, and unity of powers covered under this umbrella term is entirely questionable in an all out war scenario. Nevertheless, the assets at disposal are enough to annihilate western civilization several times over.
>>29742556
IN THE LOO
>>29742865
>it's nearing completion.
It still doesn't even have its production engine
>>29744964
The Russians becoming that aggressive pretty much guarantees unity.
>>29743972
t. Vatnik supreme
>>29744964
>Nevertheless, the assets at disposal are enough to annihilate all life on earth several times over.
FTFY. There are no winners if war goes nuclear.
>>29745072
I'll be a winner because I'll be inna woods and all the liberal commies will be dead
>>29744770
>Indisputable naval dominance in the Arctic leaves no chances to corner or blockade it.
Against NATO... top kek.
>Constant drills have proven than Russia has the ability to move and deploy theatre-sized force to the other end of the country in the matter of 2 days.
That is why they started a major exercise on Georgian border months in advance before invading back in 2008
>>29745133
>I'll be a winner because I'll be inna woods and all the liberal commies will be dead
No, you'll be dead too, dumbass.
This generation of planes is really having trouble.
>>29745261
Every generation has had their problems, but it feels like costs and development difficulties are getting exponentially worse with every generation as well.
>>29744213
Except the f-22 isn't for policing, since there's literally no one except China and Russia who could even pose a reasonable threat to the swarms of F-35s being built, let alone the angel of death that is the f-22
>>29745325
>but it feels like costs and development difficulties are getting exponentially worse with every generation as well.
Considering that the F-35 is the first fighter with zero crashes and only one no-injury ground incident in history at the 150+ produced point in development I kind of have to disagree with you.
>>29745047
Not really. It beyond the old Warsaw Pact, the countries in the West are more interested in counter-terrorism and have no fear of being invaded by Russia.
>>29745072
War WILL go nuclear, no matter what. You don't invest to have supremacy on nuclear tactical nukes, if you are not going to use them in case of war. Else, you would have invested that money on conventional forces.
>>29744141
>
>>29745504
And yet Pakistan and India had never went nuclear on each other.
>>29745563
Hi where is the stealth?
>>29745592
It will be the usual painted camouflage.
>>29745592
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/08/the-usaf-wants-to-use-the-f-35-as-a-stealth-scout-plane/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/dod-aims-to-back-up-underarmed-fighters-with-networked-arsenal-planes/
>>29744883
>best icbms
>most accurate russian icbm has a larger CEP than western missiles made in the 60s
>>29745592
>Stealth is an on/off switch.
>>29745493
>Not really. It beyond the old Warsaw Pact, the countries in the West are more interested in counter-terrorism and have no fear of being invaded by Russia.
Well, yeah, because at this point they have a paper tiger military.
>>29745504
>War WILL go nuclear, no matter what. You don't invest to have supremacy on nuclear tactical nukes, if you are not going to use them in case of war. Else, you would have invested that money on conventional forces.
And yet it has not, because MAD maintains the balance.
>>29745592
It's already killed anything that could detect it with external load.
>>29745679
>posts links as if a multi-role having greater flexibility is bad
While I know it has lolslav engineering, you can't deny PAKFA is a sweet looking airframe. Would love to someday see super awesome PAKFA/F22 mixed formation, which I know will never happen. But wouldn't it be so cool? Just don't understand why the US and Russia can't be super-bros
Pic related - last time US and Russia truly worked together
>>29742741
>>29742751
Shitposting transfers to real life as well.
>>29745325
You just hear about it more because of greater freedoms of information and better dissemination of it.
Clickbait works far better as online articles than it ever did in print.
>>29743105
Could be a case that they are shady or it might be that when there are failures to deliver in full on contracts they rightfully walk on them.
Perhaps the Russians were going to include a toilet in the new plane and that was a dealbreaker.
Who do Russians keep upgrading the Flanker airframe and pretending it's a new airplane? Just make more Su-35s.
>>29745072
Both of your statements are incorrect.
>>29742305
But I thought Russian engines were reliable?
>>29745807
Incompatible goals right at the onset of the Yalta Conference.
Soviets wanted hegemony of the east and"death to capitalist imperial pigdog" and America and England wanted a free west and to "get rid of pinko commie bastard fifth-columnists".
Then the dick waving of the Cold War and threats of nuclear annihilation.
No one ever really forgot after that. It just became an unbroken chain of circular logic. "That guy is evil, so we best build up and try to undermine him. Oh no, he thinks we are evil and is trying to undermine us! We better build up...."
>>29746776
OPpehnheimer speaks truth.
Who does win in a US-Russo nuclear holocaust?
>>29742305
> Russia gib tech plox, I repot u
>>29746837
The nation who is able to recover to a functioning economy and government.
>>29746889
lel russia barely has one now, let alone after nukes
>>29746889
So Russia? Because I really don't see obese middle America pulling its shit together...
>>29746776
>>29746837
>>29746889
>>29746904
>Possible for anyone to win nuclear war
You fucksticks have never been right.
>>29746904
American economy has a better chance of recovery because of the diversity of targets and the limited number of warheads available.
>>29746926
You are welcome to your opinion, but it is possible to win a nuclear war, despite what you have seen in movies and video games.
>>29746938
I know, but at the same time it is way more integrated, with superspecialization, JIT manufacturing, road network instead of rail and many other kinds of efficient but not resilient bullshit
>>29746938
>You are welcome to your opinion, but it is possible to win a nuclear war, despite what you have seen in movies and video games.
It's reality. Such a war would cause massive devastation to planetary ecology, wreck the infrastructure needed to recover, and plunge mankind into a new dark ages. "Victory" in such a conflict is Pyrrhic at best, which is why it's always been a deterrent against direct warfare between the major powers, and likely why smaller conflicts like India/Pakistan and Israel/Everyone else in the region stay as minor clashes.
>>29745047
Then you play on current crises and individual ambitions to fragment enemy's alliance into a conflicting set of national concerns that leads each national leader to actions based upon his own parochical perspective. Britain and France would be essential here, everyone else in Europe is a midget from military standpoint. Drive a wedge between those and the rest of NATO in order to prevent the nuclear issue from becoming an attractive option.
>>29747044
That would take some pretty serious gamesmanship to drive the US, Britain, and France apart in the face of Russian aggression in Europe. And assumes that Germany would look the other way.
>>29746983
The diversity of targets works towards the US advantage. You may be able to disrupt economic activity, but not to destroy it. The number of warheads available is much too small.
>>29747036
>Such a war would cause massive devastation to planetary ecology,
False
>wreck the infrastructure needed to recover,
Large numbers will be untouched. As an example, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service did a study of two hypothetical nuclear attacks with 1200 warheads. One attack was split between industrial and military targets, and the other was focused only on economic targets.
In the Military and industrial attack, 77% of all food processing facilities were intact.
In the other attack focused on only economic targets, 74% of food processing facilities were intact.
There will be more infrastructure intact that you might think.
>and plunge mankind into a new dark ages.
Fallout is not a good source on the effects of nuclear weapons.
>"Victory" in such a conflict is Pyrrhic at best,
Subjective. A victory in a nuclear conflict will not look like victory in other types of warfare, but this does not change the fact that it is still a victory.
>which is why it's always been a deterrent against direct warfare between the major powers, and likely why smaller conflicts like India/Pakistan and Israel/Everyone else in the region stay as minor clashes.
To be accurate, it is because the costs of victory in a war are higher than the costs of peace.
This is not unique to nuclear conflict, and is the basic risk/reward analysis done in conventional conflicts.
Do you think it is ISILs vast nuclear arms that keep the US from sending large numbers of conventional troops, or the fact that sending those forces would entail costs, political and real, that make it unattractive to the alternative (maintaining the status quo)?
Deterrence takes many forms. Your mom threatening to spank you if you misbehave is deterrence.
>>29742305
>PAK-FA is kill
>Again
B L Y A T
L
Y
A
T
>>29747156
>that your mom deterrance comment at the end.
lol.
Anyways how does ballistic defense help out with this equation if you will? Could current and ongoing ABM developments force nuclear assets to be reallocated or concentrated to 'break' through ever increasing missile defenses?
>>29747246
>Anyways how does ballistic defense help out with this equation if you will?
The current US ABM capabilities are limited. They are not capable of stopping or even really blunting a concerted attack by Russia or China.
What it does do is change the number of targets they can hit.
When you are selecting a target, you have a goal to reach that is a measure of the certainty of its destruction. An example is a missile silo. In a given attack option, that silo must be destroyed with a 90% confidence.
So there is a formula that you use. It factors in the accuracy of the weapon, the yield of the weapon, the systems reliability, its survivability, and finally, its probability of penetrating defenses.
Without an active ABM system, the Probability of penetrating defenses for an ICBM RV will be 1. That is it will penetrate them, with 100% probability because they dont exist.
But even if there is a slight possibility that the RV could be intercepted, it lowers this. It could be .9 or even lower, depending on the make up of the rest of the attack option.
This means that to reach the 90% confidence to destroy the target in question, you might have to send another warhead.
For every warhead that you have to send in because of the presence of an ABM system, is one that is not hitting another target.
This means that you can reduce the total number of targets the Russians can hit without asking for a reduction on their total warhead numbers.
![2000px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/jwAfymM.png "2000px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg[1].png")
>>29747156
>The number of warheads available is much too small.
Because politicians realized that brinksmanship was the dumbest fucking game ever and have been working to minimize total global nuclear arms count. At the peak of the cold war both nations would've been rendered non-existant.
>False
Maybe an exaggeration now that SALT treaties have reduced warhead counts, but not entirely wrong, either.
>Large numbers will be untouched. As an example, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service did a study of two hypothetical nuclear attacks with 1200 warheads. One attack was split between industrial and military targets, and the other was focused only on economic targets.
>In the Military and industrial attack, 77% of all food processing facilities were intact.
>In the other attack focused on only economic targets, 74% of food processing facilities were intact.
>There will be more infrastructure intact that you might think.
It's not just about being able to produce food, but also getting it where it needs to be, and I doubt there'll be fuel refineries left, or major power plants, or as much safe water sources.
>Fallout is not a good source on the effects of nuclear weapons.
Neither is whatever you're smoking. Fallout's awful because it assumes nothing recovers for 200 years.
>Subjective. A victory in a nuclear conflict will not look like victory in other types of warfare, but this does not change the fact that it is still a victory.
"Some of the people are still alive" isn't really a victory if so much of what was being fought to protect is gone.
>>29747339
>Some of the people are still alive" isn't really a victory if so much of what was being fought to protect is gone.
It is when their enemies are gone.
Fresh start.
>>29747383
>It is when their enemies are gone.
Replaced by irradiated craters on the other side of the world, and you can't exploit the resources, people, or land.
>>29747339
>SALT treaties
NewSTART
>but not entirely wrong
Yes it is.
>It's not just about being able to produce food, but also getting it where it needs to be, and I doubt there'll be fuel refineries left, or major power plants, or as much safe water sources.
You would be incorrect.
The Russians have 1600 warheads.
If they are striking first, they would need to attrit our own nuclear forces, or else the US response will obliterate their own economy.
The US has 500 silos. Depending on the weapon being employed, thats about 2.5 warheads per silo on average. 1250 warheads gone.
Now you have to hit air bases. Barksdale, Whiteman, Minot, Offut, and one or two others. Figure 10 warheads per on average. 40 more warheads gone.
Now lets look and command and control targets. Probably about 100. These are hardened, and with the most accurate missiles being expended on the silos, you are looking at 3 warheads per. 300 more used up.
So that leaves about a dozen or so warheads, and the Russians still haven't hit a single SSBN base, let alone any industrial target.
>"Some of the people are still alive" isn't really a victory if so much of what was being fought to protect is gone.
You are fighting to preserve the nation. If the Nation exists, and is functional, you have won.
>>29747339
>Because politicians realized that brinksmanship was the dumbest fucking game ever
No its because they are edgy fucking globalist vermin an the international jew has told them to reduce nuclear arms counts
>>29747452
Sup /pol/.
>>29747339
>At the peak of the cold war both nations would've been rendered non-existant.
This is also false. The Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff produced a list of about 80,000 targets that would be worth a nuclear weapon in the United States.
The Soviets would have need the United States to own goal to even have a hope of rendering the nation "Non-existent"
Again, pop-culture is not a reliable source on the effects of nuclear war.
>>29747439
Oppenheimer! What is your opinion eliminating ICBM's from the Triad?
Hell yeah or hell no?
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/why-we-still-need-those-nuclear-missile-silos/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20BreakingDefense%20(Breaking%20Defense)
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/18/former-secdef-remove-icbms-from-nuclear-triad.html
Tell us what you think!
>>29747523
>What is your opinion eliminating ICBM's from the Triad?
Terrible idea.
>>29747532
But why? It could reduce the risk of an accidental launch!
>>29747523
Remove triad, convert to orbital arsenal for blowing up errant asteroids and the ayylmaos.
>>29747439
>>29747487
>>29747559
So can reducing readiness levels. Doesn't mean its a good idea.
>>29747523
>eliminating ICBM's from the Triad
>all warheads are now at AF bases and hidden deep underwater
>thus freeing up more Russian warheads to do countervalue
>>29747439
....what if we struck first and ramped up our abms?
Just curious.
>>29747336
Oh, hey Oppenheimer.
I was watching a playthrough of the Northern Inferno campaign for C:MANO and was wondering of your opinions on the possibilities and limitations of a limited nuclear exchange being possible while still suppressed from escalating to a full nuclear exchange due to MAD.
In the situation of the first mission, the commander of STANAVFORLANT gets put on a war footing in 1975 after a soviet sub sinks a RN frigate near Gibraltar a couple of weeks before the scenario begins. A few minutes after the start a US P-3 on ASW work gets shot down in international waters near Norway. The scenario then gives you authorization to use nuclear depth charges in order to stop penetration of the GUIK by USSR subs.
So in a case like this, would a small nuclear exchange in international waters against known combatants and with smaller weapons (10-20kt depth charges and a Juliett class sub on OPFOR carrying SS-N-3 that may have been loaded with a 350kt warhead) be enough impetus on its own for escalation to a full nuclear exchange or would another source of escalation be needed?
>>29747439
>>29747523
>>29747532
The Minuteman-III ICBM's are going to rendered obselete anyway once the S-500 is in service with its ABM's (77N6-N & 77N6-N1).
>>29747568
What do you think you are proving here? Just curious.
>>29747583
Ramped up our ABMs in an hour?
>>29747585
>would a small nuclear exchange in international waters against known combatants and with smaller weapons (10-20kt depth charges and a Juliett class sub on OPFOR carrying SS-N-3 that may have been loaded with a 350kt warhead) be enough impetus on its own for escalation to a full nuclear exchange or would another source of escalation be needed?
Probably not. You would need several more rounds of escalation before you get to a full exchange.
>>29747568
> yfw the wind blows a bit more to the West on the day and there's rain over des Moines
>>29747603
>S-500
The max target speed is 7 km/s.
Mk21 and Mk 12 RV reentry speeds are between 8 to 10 Km/s.
S-500 isn't shooting down Minuteman RVs.
>>29747523
Those 1250 warheads dedicated to small, (relatively) lightly-populated patches of the upper Great Plains? They now get freed up for all kinds of other targets.
Presenting the enemy with targets they *must* hit, at great effort, is a good thing.
>>29747634
>Mk21 and Mk 12 RV reentry speeds are between 8 to 10 Km/s.
I am gonna need a sauce for those numbers.
Are you sure those arent numbers for RV's that have been put on a depressed trajectory, trading of distance for speed?
>>29747659
What's a Minuteman going to hit on a depressed trajectory? Canada?
>>29747659
>I am gonna need a sauce for those numbers.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3475.pdf
1963 RAND study puts the velocity for ICBM RVs at 7.5 to 9.5 km/s.
>Are you sure those arent numbers for RV's that have been put on a depressed trajectory, trading of distance for speed?
Yes, because Mk12 and Mk21s on a depressed trajectory will be landing in the Arctic Ocean.
If you want even more bad news, consider that in many MAOs, the SLBMs are used on depressed trajectories for SEAD. Thats an even more challenging intercept for the S-500.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
>>29747604
I figured as much. The other question I was going to ask (I've been reading a few C:MANO playthroughs lately) and the player of a modern scenario was ranting about how stupid the DF-21. To be specific he referred to it as the 'God-damned Ding-Dong.'
Could the Chinese actually launch one of these without it being considered on par with a nuclear IRBM/ICBM and essentially risk a counterforce strike even if it's only being used in a conventional ASM strike?
>>29747604
Errr I mean work on like tripling or quadrupling our ABM systems in response to some made up and exaggerated North Korean or Islamic threat and once we get our defenses to maximum we sucker punch the Russians with a full premeptive nuclear strike.
>>29744181
...to their graves
>>29747737
>Could the Chinese actually launch one of these without it being considered on par with a nuclear IRBM/ICBM and essentially risk a counterforce strike even if it's only being used in a conventional ASM strike?
Sure, as long as the US lets them.
Consider the precedent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US President states that "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States"
So even if a single rocket was used against a target not in the US, the US would regard it as an attack on the US, and respond massively.
If the US issues a similar policy for the DF-21D "Any ballistic missile launched by Chinese forces against US Military assets, will be regarded as a nuclear attack on the United States, and requiring a response ensured to prevent any further attacks (i.e. massive counterforce strikes)" it could shift the US deterrence "envelope" to include weapons like the DF-21D.
It is not without its risks, and those would need to be considered, but it is possible that the use of DF-21Ds could provoke a nuclear response from the US.
>>29747767
>Errr I mean work on like tripling or quadrupling our ABM systems in response to some made up and exaggerated North Korean or Islamic threat and once we get our defenses to maximum we sucker punch the Russians with a full premeptive nuclear strike.
>A simple way to turn the world against you
>>29747782
>...to their graves
>Implying flankers can detect F-35s
>Implying US joint air doctrine isn't vastly superior to Russian Ground Control
>Implying Russian gear doesn't get BTFO every time proxy conflicts occur
>>29747767
>Errr I mean work on like tripling or quadrupling our ABM systems in response to some made up and exaggerated North Korean or Islamic threat and once we get our defenses to maximum we sucker punch the Russians with a full premeptive nuclear strike.
The rapid increasing of our ABM capabilities would likely trigger a nuclear attack before they are ready.
The Russians and the Chinese would never willingly accept a US ABM system that renders their nuclear forces powerless.
>>29747703
Perhaps Cuba? I dunno but untill i've seen Oppen's pdf, i thought the only way RV's could attain those kinds of speeds would've been by depressing the trajectories.
>>29747723
>http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3475.pdf
Thanks! Gonna bookmark it for a later read.
>If you want even more bad news, consider that in many MAOs, the SLBMs are used on depressed trajectories for SEAD. Thats an even more challenging intercept for the S-500.
I didnt mention the Trident II SLBM for a reason. They can get much closer and DT their SLBM's and get speeds for their RV's which are definitely going way to fast for the S-500's ABM's.
>Sorry to burst your bubble.
Dont be. If it is the truth, it is the truth.
>>29747807
Would they really though?
I mean by that logic how come we haven't just nuked Iran or North Korea already in case they get powerful weapons.
>>29747737
>Could the Chinese actually launch one of these without it being considered on par with a nuclear IRBM/ICBM and essentially risk a counterforce strike even if it's only being used in a conventional ASM strike?
Yes. Nobody's going to start nuking things over a tactical missile being fired.
A DF-21D is going to be going in a completely different direction than China's nuclear-armed ICBMs. It will be going slower and reaching a much lower apogee. It will be headed out to sea right around where a US CSG is, instead of flying to a target in the United States.
Keep in mind there have been many Scud, FROG-7, and Tochka strikes in various parts of the world over the last few years. Nobody "pushed the button", Russia and USA have not nuked each other.
>>29747786
So the description of 'making their deployment tantamount to a game of Nuclear Chicken' was pretty accurate then.
Considering >>29747807 do you think the US was risking such a pre-emptive strike with the development of the SDI/Star Wars originally?
>>29747832
If they felt certain that the ABM developments were preperation for a nuclear strike, a pre-emptive nuclear strike would likely be on the table.
>>29747703
>MFW the US fires its missiles north at Russia and they accidentally all of western Canada
>>29747832
>Would they really though?
>I mean by that logic how come we haven't just nuked Iran or North Korea already in case they get powerful weapons.
The US pre-emptively attacked Iraq because they thought were trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
>>29747862
>Nobody's going to start nuking things over a tactical missile being fired.
DF-21D is a strategic weapon.
>A DF-21D is going to be going in a completely different direction than China's nuclear-armed ICBMs.
That's not the point.
>It will be going slower and reaching a much lower apogee. It will be headed out to sea right around where a US CSG is, instead of flying to a target in the United States.
Which doesn't matter. The weapon will fly the same whether it has a nuclear or conventional warhead.
That is the point. The US is expanding what it considers to be a nuclear threat to include the DF-21D because they know that the DF-21 series can carry a nuclear weapon. By seizing that ambiguity, the US can make a case for not wanting to wait to see if the warhead is conventional or not, and deciding that, time being of the essence, it's better to be safe than sorry.
>Keep in mind there have been many Scud, FROG-7, and Tochka strikes in various parts of the world over the last few years. Nobody "pushed the button", Russia and USA have not nuked each other.
How many times has Russia fired Nuclear Capable ballistic missiles at US strategic targets?
None?
Then thats the difference here.
>>29747933
>>29747884
Fine.
What if we just built a shitload of ABMs in the future just to keep the russians politically blockaded but still trade resources and invest in their own country?
>>29747871
>'making their deployment tantamount to a game of Nuclear Chicken'
No. They are deployed right now and neither their deployment nor their potential use is a nuclear anything.
Opp was giving you a hypothetical, that the US could hypothetically make such a declaration like the one during Cuba. I think this is extremely unlikely to ever actually happen, since said declaration would be unnecessary escalation over a conventional weapon system. DF-21D will not be treated as part of the strategic nuclear deterrence math. It is just a novel sort of anti-ship missile.
>>29747871
>US was risking such a pre-emptive strike with the development of the SDI/Star Wars originally?
To some degree.
It was escalatory. The Soviets did not want to see the US develop the shield.
The US intention was to develop the systems rapidly, and to make a quick jump to "fully capable" (think about how shocking it was when the Death Star fired during the Battle of Endor) that would close the window on the Soviets being able to attack at the same time doing everything to ensure they didn't feel backed into a corner.
The ultimate goal was to create a defensive system that would allow the US to reduce its own nuclear arsenal to zero or near zero. In that context, (Increasing ABM capability with drawdown of nuclear capability) the Soviets might not feel as though they had no choice but to attack as the ABM system neared completion.
>>29747967
the minute the Russians start believing there will be enough ABMs to blunt a first strike, is the minute they launch a first strike
why is that so hard to understand
>>29747967
You would have to reduce your own nuclear arsenal to zero or near zero.
>>29747993
>since said declaration would be unnecessary escalation over a conventional weapon system.
It allows the US to move a Chinese advantage into an area of US advantage.
This is all predicated on there being an existing major crisis between the two countries. You would have to be shooting at each other or at least aiming down the sights for such a declaration to make sense.
>>29747933
>DF-21D is a strategic weapon.
DF-21D is a tactical weapon. It is intended for use against high-value shipping targets such as Aircraft Carriers. Is someone faking Oppenheimer? He wouldn't make a mistake this basic. If it can't reach out and touch the enemy country, it's not a strategic weapon. Basic non-D DF-21 is strategic with regards to China's immediate neighbors, but not the USA. DF-21D specifically is not a strategic weapon in any regard.
>The US is expanding what it considers to be a nuclear threat to include the DF-21D
Only in the hypothetical you presented. Actually doing so would be engaging in "nuclear chicken" as you put it.
>>29748047
>DF-21D is a tactical weapon. It is intended for use against high-value shipping targets such as Aircraft Carriers.
Aircraft carriers are strategic assets.
>Is someone faking Oppenheimer? He wouldn't make a mistake this basic.
>If it can't reach out and touch the enemy country, it's not a strategic weapon.
False. Strategic assets exist outside of your borders.
>Basic non-D DF-21 is strategic with regards to China's immediate neighbors, but not the USA. DF-21D specifically is not a strategic weapon in any regard.
It is designed for deployment against a strategic asset. It is a strategic weapon.
>>29748047
Is a Russian SS-18 not a strategic weapon because it is aimed at Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Australia?
That is a strategic target outside the borders of the United States.
>>29748095
>Aircraft carriers are strategic assets.
Only in the vague non-military sense of the word. If you are trying to fight reality, go ahead and label all kinds of things strategic. For those of us that deal in reality, the Russians long ago defined what "tactical" "operational" and "strategic" mean, and any form of anti-shipping weapon falls in the tactical category.
>>29748128
would you call nuking Okinawa strategic?
because that's what sinking a carrier in the South China Sea is like, only worse
>>29748143
I would call nuking Okinawa a good start. Yokosuka and Zama can stay, but screw Okies and Murreens
>>29748128
>Only in the vague non-military sense of the word.
The Department of the Navy (which seems like a military organization to me) calls them "Strategic Assets"
https://books.google.com/books?id=8DYLh-7ppVQC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=Aircraft+carriers+strategic+assets&source=bl&ots=PNgQnDyMro&sig=vOTFOhS9CgbTVBddvgX1fqoV8U4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXrryOpq3MAhUDWSYKHQBsByUQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=Aircraft%20carriers%20strategic%20assets&f=false
>If you are trying to fight reality, go ahead and label all kinds of things strategic.
I'm just explaining to you that Aircraft carriers are strategic assets.
>For those of us that deal in reality, the Russians long ago defined what "tactical" "operational" and "strategic" mean, and any form of anti-shipping weapon falls in the tactical category.
So the Russians are the final arbiter of what the US considers a strategic asset? Interesting position you have there.
Let me help you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Aircraft+carriers+strategic+assets
>>29748128
Aircraft carriers have been strategic targets ever since they started carrying nukes. I don't get how the hell you could think otherwise.
Uninformed tool here, what is the difference between a strategic and tactical target?
>>29743642
Wow, so pretty!
>>29748214
If it used in one battle like a tank, or an airplane, or a rocket, it is tactical.
If it is used on mutiple battlefields, it is strategic.
A fighter launched from a carrier to perform CAS is tactical. The carrier, which is launching multiple fighters to multiple battlefields is strategic.
A strike aircraft dropping bombs on a tank company is tactical. A strike aircraft dropping bombs on a rail bridge is strategic.
Things that can are designed to attack strategic targets are themselves strategic. So a nuclear missile aimed at another nuclear missile is strategic, because the other nuclear missile is aimed at a strategic target like a factory whose products go to mutiple different battlefields.
>>29748350
Thank you.
>>29747439
>>29747156
based on the information you've provided, a nuclear strike by Russia seems pretty much fruitless, since they can barely take out our own nuclear arsenal. Would this mean that conventional forces would have to follow up in place, or what would such a strike create instead? also, what is the actual potential for environmental damage in a nuclear exchange of this size?
>>29742937
That "future superpower" burden is heavy, specially when it's increasingly unlikely for both.
>>29748494
>based on the information you've provided, a nuclear strike by Russia seems pretty much fruitless
Its only counterforce strikes that are useless, wiping out vital infrastructure supporting society is still viable - and effective.
>. Would this mean that conventional forces would have to follow up in place, or what would such a strike create instead?
Can't exactly send and support armies to invade half the world away when your economy and population is wrecked six ways to sunday.
>what is the actual potential for environmental damage in a nuclear exchange of this size?
Airbursts for generally soft targets like civvie infrastructure or cities won't release that much fallout. OTOH groundbursts made for busting hardened military targets irradiate a lot of ground matter but they don't get dispersed as much. I'd imagine though they have a couple salted nukes to render important strategic areas like waterways, breadbaskets and the like unusable for generations like that status-6 torp.
>>29749985
>wiping out vital infrastructure supporting society is still viable - and effective.
Not really.
If you aim at the other guys economic targets and ignore his weapons, then his response will put you in as bad, if not worse situation than him. There is no advantage to be gained.
Almost any conceivable first strike is focused on nuclear weapons of the opponent first.
You can attempt to fight a limited war, which is somewhat more likely that a initial massive exchange, but even then, some part of your strike will be counterforce in nature, even if you are going out of your way to try to not provoke a massive retaliation.
>>29748128
Wew lad.
Its like this shitposter arguing against Oppenheimer is getting BTFO and desperate to change the subject or be boneheaded.
Please continue Oppenheimer and dispense the justice that is knowledge.
>>29742581
Jesus Fuck motherfucker. WHY IS THAT IMAGE SO FUCKING BIG!!!
>>29745039
He's not wrong. It's just about done.
Not a functional aircraft, but the project is about done.
>>29748002
>>29748002
Because then the Russians die from MAD.
Why would they guarantee their destruction rather then risk it later or just build their own ABMs?
>>29749985
>Enough nukes to make the central US agriculturally unproductive.
Yeah, no. The Continental interior is too fucking big and there's endless redundancy with US food production. Even if you wiped out every city over a million people there's still be lots and lots of Americans around, eating fine.
>>29744181
>F-35s carrys more payload than the flanker.
made me laff
>>29751212
It dose. Fuel is payload too.
>>29751212
Su-27 payload is like half an F-35's at 10,000lbs, and the Su-35 is just shy of 18,000.
They say the F-35 loads 18,000, but the actual station ratings come out to 23,000.
>NEW DELHI: India has a record of sour defence deals. While the Rafael deal with France...
lol article discredited in the first line
>>29751359
guess i was wrong, but when you compare there roles it is not even a fair comparison (even tho the Russians use flankers for everything)
>>29751407
Please kill yourself
>>29751493
>Please kill yourself
why?
>>29742741
>>29742751
Another very typical Indian comment on the article
>Yeah, Indian companies are useless, that's why they were able to launch a probe to Mars on their FIRST try at half the cost Hollywood takes to make a "movie" about going to space.
>>29751407
The F-35's purpose is to do pretty much everything, and better than most single roles.
>>29751542
yes but that was not the intended role of the flankers, they were not built to do "everything"
>>29751538
>half the cost Hollywood takes to make a "movie" about going to space
BUT HOW MANY BOLLYWOOD MOVIES WOULD THAT MONEY MAKE?
>>29743119
Yes, there as SO many commonalities between fighter jets and commercial jets
>>29743119
Russia isn't exactly a world leader in the commercial jet industry
>>29742816
>dealing with indians
Makes me think the frogs must be real zen masters (and awfully tempted by the subsequent 90 planes order) to put up with indian bullshit on the Rafale contract. That thing is -still- not signed. Seriously i don't envy them on this one.
>>29745679
>the "F-35 is under-armed because it is restricted to internal weapons carriage if it needs to maintain stealth" meme
Oh boy.
>>29751820
That, or they're really desperate to get anybody to actually want the Rafale.
>>29743666
>Stea... Slav nigger stealth
>glorified barrel bombs
Ivan what are you of doing?
>>29745563
why would they even bother putting side winders on the outside pylons?
>>29751557
>Su-35 is a multirole
>F-35 is a multirole
F-35 is better at both AtG and AtA operations. VLO and kickass sensors will dominate everything these days.
I love when I get to post this image. I hope you guys haven't forgotten about the INSAS debacle yet!
>>29742305
Let me guess, poo in the loo's are going to try to design a domestic design but it will me a major shit flop like everything else they make.
>>29753798
>>29753721
En.m.wikipedia.org/insas
>>29744410
>It's a kleptocracy, money is everything there. How else did they manage to spend five times as much as everyone else on winter Olympics and still have garbage quality, unfinished facilities?
You mean journos were fucking hacks? The bigass number frequently touted is actually for the development of the whole region, not just Sochi.
>>29745166
>Against NATO... top kek.
The Arctic is pretty much baltic/black sea 2.0 actually in terms of antiship asset the Russians can muster in theater and danger to any naval presence. Several large bases capable of housing bombers that could fling fckhuge missiles (some are even nuke tipped for max fun) and even tac. aircraft nowadays can join in on the fun with those bases protected by the latest IADS(usually as it happens whenver there is a new system they give it to the northern bases then cascade the replaced systems downstream.). Then there is the largest and most capable naval fleet making its home there...
>>29743159
But doesn't the scooter have even less status?
>>29753422
Why not?
Also those things could potentially increase fuel economy (as a sort of winglet / vortex blocker)
