>Israel on Sunday fired missiles toward an unmanned drone that entered Israeli-controlled airspace from Syria and it turned back, the military said in a statement.
>"Two Patriot air defense missiles were fired toward a drone which infiltrated Israeli airspace in the central Golan Heights. The drone returned to Syria," the Israeli army said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-syria-interception-idUSKCN0ZX0OR?il=0
It doesn't say whether it was PAC-2 or PAC-3, but either way, Patriot failed to shoot down a slow-moving target. When will Amerilards make an air-defence system that's not shit?
>>30656224
The Air Defense Artillery branch is the red-headed stepchild of the Army. No one actually cares about making a new SAM that isn't designed for anti-ballistic missile defense.
>>30656224
Why the hell are they using an anti ballistic missle system on a fucking UAV?
>>30656248
because they know U.S taxpayers can afford it
>>30656248
It's a long-range AA system capable of engaging planes and missiles, senpai.
>inb4 but it didn't do that anon!
>>30656268
>capable of engaging planes and missiles, senpai.
Apparently not though
>>30656224
t. lockheed marketer
>>30656268
Isreal operates Pac-2 GEMs. Those be ABMs.
>>30656224
I wouldn't trust Israel's word on the Patriot, as they are trying to sell a competing system.
>>30656268
>long-range
>(((capable of engaging)))
>>30656224
>It doesn't say whether it was PAC-2 or PAC-3, but either way, Patriot failed to shoot down a slow-moving target. When will Amerilards make an air-defence system that's not shit?
Did the possibility that the SAMs were rendered inert in flight and self destructed because the drone reentered Syria before they could intercept cross your mind? Nope? That's because you're retarded.
>>30656324
Classic jew tactics.
>>30656337
nah, it appears they just failed
>>30656324
Except they shot down Hamas drones before with it you dumb nigger.
>>30656328
That's some 1st year CS major tier shitty programming.
>>30656360
That's proof that they weren't self destructed how?
Meanwhile Saudi's have a 100% success rate shooting down Houthi Scuds with their Patriots.
It begs the question wtf is Israel doing?
>>30656400
What about the one that hit an airbase, blew up some F-15s and killed a Saudi AF General?
>>30656328
>1991
>>30656432
Was a Patriot fired at it?
>firing PAC-2/GEM at a quadrotor
Israel wtf
>>30656248
> an anti ballistic missile system
The Patriot was made to shoot down aircraft. It was repurposed to shoot down missiles in Iraq and it didn't do a great job of it.
>>30656224
>Shittriot PAC-Shit has proven itself to be shit once again
More news at 11.
>>30656268
>long-range
>>30656478
This is what I assume it was too lol. Probably pinged the radar but the signature wasn't large enough to accurately track. But who knows? Maybe it was a chink or Russian predator type knockoff.
>>30657022
>doesn't know what a Patriots range is
Missile defense is the biggest con in the history of MIC.
Isn't this what the Arrow and Iron Dome systems were intended to deal with?
>>30657649
non sequitur?
>>30657674
Arrow is for ICBMs and Iron dome is for short range rockets and mortars.
>>30657626
>Patriot "range"
>>30657708
>doesn't know what a Patriots range is
>>30657725
>Patriot "range"
>>30656224
There's absolutely no incentive for the US to build good, long-range SAM systems.
It's called geographic isolation.
>>30657773
>doesn't know what a Patriots range is
>can only greentext "range"
>>30656361
That's what that anon is implying. They are underselling it so their proprietary program seems better.
>>30656446
I hope for the love of god they fired a patriot at it.
Unless they aren't using them to guard airbases anymore.
Besides, 100% success is bullshit.
>>30657828
Except there is an incentive, the US's air defense interests are not limited to the continental US.
>>30657964
>Besides, 100% success is bullshit.
I am sorry that reality conflicts with your worldview.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/farnborough/2016/07/12/raytheon-touts-patriot-anti-missile-performance-yemen-war/86998912/
>>30657833
>Patriot "range"
>>30657968
Name a single place where the US has bases where it doesn't also have total air superiority in one form or another.
>>30656224
Daily reminder the Pentagon Wars was a documentary
>>30658018
What happened to your geographic location stance?
>>30657968
Air superiority totally negates that.
>>30657994
>I will repeat my acknowledgement that I do not know what a Patriot missiles range is
>>30658064
>Patriot "range"
Strange considering the Saudis have used it to defend themselves against SCUDs from Yemen
>>30658032
It hasn't changed at all you dunce. It's a fact that the US doesn't have air bases anywhere in the world where it doesn't already have air superiority or the ability to quickly establish it. And why the fuck waste tons of effort on developing an S-300/400 counterpart that wouldn't even have any application to 99% of the military's footprint.
>>30657991
All I see is a baseless producer claim that can't be verified at all. No parametres, no review, no nothing.
Did you know that S-400 also has a .97 chance of intercepting a F-22 at 150 km with one missile ? Vityaz said so.
>>30658032
In what way were the goalposts moved? The entire line of conversation has been about geography. You're the only one who thinks it hasn't been.
>>30658072
Thank you for the concession.
>>30658136
>>30658090
>>30658050
>claim the US has no need for SAM's because the US is geographically isolated
>get reminded the US has interests outside of the US
>AIR SUPERIORITY!!!
That is a textbook goalpost move.
>>30658144
>Patriot "range"
>>30658179
So you're saying we should spend huge amounts of time and money developing a long-range SAM system to protect the 1% of the military footprint even remotely near a potential adversary, and which is already protected by air cover?
Good idea champ...
>>30658097
The irony being if Vityaz made such a claim you would not question it, meanwhile Raytheon can back up what it says with what has actually happened in Saudi Arabia/Yemen.
>>30658210
>the 1% of the military footprint even remotely near a potential adversary
You have given up trying to actually defend your geographic location claim.
>>30658186
You going to answer him or what?
>>30658244
It's cute you think you're talking to one person.
Speaking of Patriots
Anyone here own a jeep patriot? I'm thinking of buying one because it seems very capable off road while also not bring shit on the highway.
Plus it's very cheap even fully loaded.
>>30658210
>we should spend huge amounts of time and money developing a long-range SAM system
We already have.
>>30658244
Answer the question. Is that what you're advocating for?
>>30658254
What is there to answer? The didn't ask any question, keeps insisting Patrishit PAC-Shit is a long range SAM system and at the same time claims anyone else but him doesn't know its range.
>>30658258
It's cute that you are trying to change the topic.
>>30658294
S-300/400 long range (i.e. what most militaries in the world consider long range), not Patriot/US standards long range. And the amount of effort put into the Patriot as an anti-aircraft system is miniscule compared to the effort put into S-300/400 and similar systems -- and rightly so -- because such functions have extremely limited utility for the US military.
>>30658302
You claimed the Patriot isn't a "long range" SAM, which implies you know what the Patriots range is.
All of your posts since have been an attempt to avoid backing up your position with facts.
>>30658323
what are the ranges in question, bonus points for citations
>>30658314
You are explicitly saying that 1% overrides 99%, which is nonsensical at best. And all you've done is speak in vague truisms that add nothing of value to anything.
>>30658302
>keeps insisting Patrishit PAC-Shit is a long range SAM system
>being this rectal ravaged
Tell me what you consider long ranged, nigger.
>>30658350
I explicitly laughed at the idea that the US overseas interests comprises 1% of it's air defense needs.
>>30658338
Is this proofposting?
>>30658383
>>30658383
Where did you even find that? PAC-3 has a range of 160km against non-ballistic targets.
>>30658347
The Patriot's publically stated anti-aircraft range is maybe 100 miles if you believe the absolute theoretical maximum given. The maximum theoretical for the S-300/400 using the 40N6 missile is ~250 miles.
>>30658383
A chart whose citations are a Russian blog?
>>30658355
Something that Patrishit PAC-Shit is not, i.e. a SAM system with over 200km range.
>>30658374
Go ahead and list off all the overseas bases where there is a legitimate aerial threat and no air support.
>>30658462
>and no air support
There is that goalpost again.
>>30658415
>PAC-3 has a range of 160km against non-ballistic targets
That's not true. PAC-3 is meant for point defense of ballistic targets.
>>30658383
>Wrong ranges for S-300, PAC-2, PAC-3 and S-300VM
>max target speed of the PAC-3 is 1,600m/s, lower than the PAC-2
>When it's primary target is TBMs
>Setup times for all of them are well over what can actually be achieved
Oh Wikipedia.
At least the 300PMU1 is close to being right. A breakdown by actual missile would be preferable though.
>>30658374
The military disagrees and doesn't think that most (almost any) overseas interests require long range anti-air defenses.
>>30658442
>The Patriot's publically stated anti-aircraft range is maybe 100 miles
Where was this publically stated?
>>30658460
>>30658482
The US has no PAC missiles stationed overseas? Good to know.
>>30658479
So now you're saying aircraft are incapable of providing defense against aerial threats. Neato.
If the US was that worried about very long range ground based AA they could just slap some VLS cells on a truck and would have done so ages ago.
Raytheon already has some pretty long ass range stuff for the navy.
>>30658415
>Patrishit PAC-Shit has 160 km range
>160km is long range
Kek.
>>30658447
>"Russian blog"
Finest amerilard proofposting.
>With a maximum speed of over 3,500 mph, it operates between 1.5 and 20 miles altitude and a range in excess of 60 miles
http://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_pac2.html
>The new rocket motor and other new or redesigned components boost the PAC-3s range to over 35 kilometers and altitude to over 36,000 meters (112,000 feet, nearly 50 percent more than earlier PAC-3s).
>Patriot launcher, loaded with PAC-3 missiles, can only defend against ballistic missiles approaching within its shorter range (20-35 kilometers)
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20130618.aspx
>>30658537
There is not going to be much straw left in the world at the rate you are going.
>>30658553
>in excess
Are you ESL?
>>30658565
You're the only one who has misunderstood in this entire thread. That's pretty telling.
>>30658589
The only thing that is telling is your inability to defend your original claim.
>>30658512
How many of those are really meant to be anti-aircraft rather than anti-missile?
>>30658481
>Wrong ranges
Lol.
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1218/1221/1223/1226
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1218/1221/1223/1227
Patrishit links are in my post above.
>>30658582
>"In excess of 60 miles" means 100 miles
You can do better than that, proofster.
>>30658609
The original claim is self-evident both in terms of looking at a map and in terms of how the military actually acts in observable reality.
There are very few places where the US military has bases that legitimately require anti-aircraft SAMs and as such, there are very few places where any such capability is deployed.
>>30656324
They've been using them in this role for years you turbonigger. Today one got away.
I wouldn't trust Russian claims about their systems anyway.
They have only been proven against passenger aircraft and their own planes. lul
>>30658756
I wouldn't believe any claim about any anti-aircraft or BMD missile from any country.
>Russian "air defense"
>>30658756
>I wouldn't trust Russian claims about their systems anyway.
This. I can't think of a single instance where they've actually shown competence at or above their claimed performance across the board.
Not a single one of their modern jet fighters since the MiG-15 with more than 6 kills has a positive kill to loss ratio in combat (Su-27 being that one at 6-0, 5 in Ethiopia and one in Chechnya). Meanwhile, you have to go back to fighters that were obsolete in the Korean war to find a US built fighter with a negative one, save the single exception of the F-104.
I can't think of a single conflict fought since WWII in which their armor has performed well against western armor.
Their navy is and pretty much always has been suspect; trading an emphasis on sonar hardware/processing development and sound radiation reduction technologies for high speed and deep diving properties within their submarine force is just one of many, many examples of fucked up design priorities.
I'm just not buying the bullshit until I see real world proof of competence, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be waiting quite a while.
In the meantime:
>MiG-21 240-501
>MiG-23 25-102
>MiG-25 8-8
>MiG-29 6-18
>Su-27 6-0
That pretty much says it all.
>inb4 muh monkey model/non-soviet pilots
Don't make me dig up the MiG-15 Korea numbers for Soviet air units.
>>30658884
Welp. That's pretty fucking brutal.
>>30658912
>photos
Stupid hillbillies
>BTFO amerilards squealing "lies" & "ur proofs pruv nuffin" all over the thread
Amerilards on suicide watch, my job here is done.
>>30658884
I'm sorry, how many people in that image did you think were Russian? Were you aware of how many Americans there were?
>>30659072
No. I'd just like any proof of Russian equipment actually living up to the hype. The sad thing is, I can't think of a single system which actually performed well in combat.
>>30659107
>performed well in combat.
*against western equivalents.
Oops. Almost forgot to absolutely specify lest the Vatnik have an attack of autism.
>>30659089
meant for >>30659072
don't know why it quoted that post.
>>30658884
>I can't think of a single conflict fought since WWII in which their armor has performed well against western armor.
How many conflicts have there been with similar era armor and similar training? Pretty sure there have been none.
>>30659089
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-14M
Sorry, are you trying to imply these Americans have anything in common with mad BTFO amerilard manchildren ITT?
>>30659222
>similar era armor and similar training
And so the excuses begin rolling in.
Armor. Aircraft. Vehicles. Navy. Whatever. Take your pic. To say that you can't think of a single example over the last 70 fucking years is pretty goddamn pathetic.
The only area where Russian equipment held a clear advantage would probably be small arms from WWII to the mid-70's, and even that was relatively slim as margins go.
>>30659260
That might be valid if your space program weren't still flying relics from almost 40 years ago which have been "modernized". Like most of your airforce. And army. And Navy.
Meanwhile, at NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html
Thanks for covering basic transport so we could sink research dollars into actually building cool new shit.
>>30659260
Pic related. Don't forget to read the filename.
>>30657697
>firing missile at mortar
And this is how you lose a war of attrition
>>30659292
>Moving goalposts this hard
Kek. Though it sure is nice to see Americans scrapped their Shuttle retardation and are finally canting up on 80s Soviet design.
>>30658884
>Don't make me dig up the MiG-15 Korea numbers for Soviet air units.
The ones that Americans made up the same way as Soviets? I'd ask, why you trust western sources more than Soviet/Russian ones? For some magic reason they can't be made up the same Russians do it?
Only the niggerest of Wargame players and russians actually believe that SAMs are a viable air defense strategy.
Compared to airborne forces, ground forces are hopelessly immobile and will be outmaneuvered handily every time. Between stealth, jamming and decoys, the only way to keep air power from grinding you to dust is to have your planes up there to drive them away, to rely on air defense systems is planning to fail from the start.
Systems like the S-400, easily deceived by stealth, jamming and decoys, shows that the russians have given up the thought of winning a war against NATO.
A historical similarity would be the barrage balloon of WWII, while totally obsolete during the blitz of London, they where deployed mainly as a psychological effort to keep the populace calm.
pic related, the nails in the coffin of russias chance of winning a war against NATO
Russian ambition with heavy SAM is similarly a false security, a propaganda tool that only fools and drunks could possibly believe would help secure victory in a war.
>>30659337
>Kek. Though it sure is nice to see Americans scrapped their Shuttle retardation and are finally canting up on 80s Soviet design.
>catching up
>to Energia
Wow. 2 total launches. Expensive as all fuck. To absolutely no scientific benefit. Epic, russbros.
Also,
>space shuttle retardation
if what we did was retardation (nevermind the ISS never would have gotten built without it), then pic related is surely the bizzaro land beyond full potato.
>>30659292
>That might be valid if your space program weren't still flying relics from almost 40 years ago which have been "modernized". Like most of your airforce. And army. And Navy.
>Space Shuttle: 1986
>Abrams: 1970s
Etc, etc. You are no different, hillbilly.
>>30659368
>The ones that Americans made up the same way as Soviets? I'd ask, why you trust western sources more than Soviet/Russian ones? For some magic reason they can't be made up the same Russians do it?
There are zero SERIOUS (no Sputnik news or RT, dipshit) post-Glasnost Soviet sources that give the Soviet air regiments fighting over Korea a postive K/D ratio.
Prove me wrong.
>>30659368
Soviet kill claims were highly exaggerated, based upon inherent flaws in their film grading procedures. For instance, the S-13 gun camera was not aligned with either the gunsight or either cannons' ballistics. It ran only while the firing buttons were depressed. Film graders commonly included unit commanders and political commisars who would confirm a "kill"—sometimes even if one had not been claimed by a pilot—when the camera's crosshairs touched the target for two movie frames. During the first 16 months of combat Soviet V-VS units claimed 218 F-86s destroyed when only 36 (35 to the two elite IADs and one to the 50th IAD) had been lost. This results in a 600 per cent inflation rate in victory credits over actual Sabres destroyed.
So there's that. At least US reported K/D results jive pretty closely with Soviet losses.
>>30659391
>if what we did was retardation
Yes, it was. You should look at the planned amount of launches for it to be cost-effective in comparison to regular expendable rockets.
>(nevermind the ISS never would have gotten built without it)
Any rocket with ~20t to NEO payload would make it, but US was busy jerking off to its only post-Apollo manned spacecraft.
>then pic related is surely the bizzaro land beyond full potato
Yeah, but this was mostly a political project, a more cost-effective "Spiral" shuttle was cancelled because Politburo was scared that they are falling behind. The same way they even copied the bullet-holes when reverse-engineered the B-29.
>>30658323
SM-3 is longer ranged than S-400, the difference is where they put it.
The US doesn't need super duper long range missiles on ground, the USAF has a hilarious advantage over the next couple of air forces combined.
A CSG off the coast of a hostile country has a lot less blue air nearby, and long range is indeed very useful.
>>30659292
SA-6 slaughtered IAF in the Yom Kippur War. T-72 butchered every single western tank it met in combat up until 1991. SS-N-2 cleaved yid and paki destroyers.
>>30659391
Yep, how does it feel finally catching up on 80s Soviet design?
>Expensive as all fuck
Nope, you just pulled this out of your fat amerilard rectum. Energia costed 210mln roubles per launch.
>To absolutely no scientific benefit
Amerilard talking about "scientific benefit" forgetting that his country was incapable of developing and building a modular space station and was instead forced to launch "scientific modules" to orbit via Space Shuttle and then bring them back to Earth at the cost of $1.5 billion per launch. Then again, seeing these examples of "superiour American ergonomics" it is really no wonder Americans are only now catching up on 80s Soviet design.
>>30659516
SM-3 is an dedicated anti-ballistic missile. S-400 is a SAM system with anti-ballistic capability.
>>30659402
>You are no different, hillbilly.
New materiel classes commissioned or IOC since the fall of the Soviet Union which isn't simply a slightly modified or upgraded pre-fall platform:
US
>Burke class destroyer
>B-2 Spirit
>F-22 Raptor
>F-35B
>Seawolf class SSN
>Virginia class SSN
>America class LHA
>San Antonio class LPD
>Independence class LCS
>Freedom class LCS
>Spearhead class JHSV
>MQ-1 Predator
>MQ-9 Reaper
>RQ-7 Shadow
>RQ-11 Raven
>RQ-14 Dragon Eye
>RQ-20 Puma
>RQ-21 Blackjack
>RQ-16A T-Hawk
>MQM-170 Outlaw
>RQ-170 Sentinel
>MQ-8 Fire Scout
>MQ-8C Fire Scout (different platform)
>RQ-4 Global Hawk
>RQ-180
>M-ATV
>Stryker
>MaxxPro
>M1117
>M142 HIMARS
All that shit off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll find a lot more if I actually start digging.
Now, shall we do the Russian side of things, or will you save the trouble of explicitly embarrassing you?
>>30659311
It's worth it because if that mortar shell lands in Israel, and kills a single person, that's over 1 million lost for Israel.
Don't think of it as spending a 50k missile to protect against a 10 dollar mortar shell, it's using 50k missile to protect multi-million dollar assets.
It's like bullets and vests. Oh you spent $3000 on a vest to protect against a 25 cent 9mm? losing proposition, unless you think about the million dollar person it's protecting.
>>30659489
>~20t to NEO payload would make it
It would take TWO rockets. Every single launch. And the EVA work would be far, far hard. Did you forget that the Space Shuttle carried astronauts, living space, living necessities, EVA gear and airlocks as part of its payload? How the fuck else do you expect the first dozen modules of the ISS get built? Out of a Soyuz capsule?
This meme needs to die.
>>30659402
>Abrams: 1970s
I thought it entered service in the 80s?
Also, the reason why all these NATO MBTs are still around is because Russia has yet to present a credible threat to them.
>>30659614
SM-6 also has longer range than S-400, with an active radar seeker for OTH shots too.
>>30659567
I think I remember this vatnik, his favorite phrase is
> T-72 butchered every western tank until 1991
seen that come up a ton.
>>30659747
it's the same one that still says M111 is a meme as well. You can tell by his love of thinking everyone is american and using 'yid'
>>30657991
Sandnegos are good at using it than kikes... Welp
>>30659716
Meanwhile in real life, outside of wet amerilard fantasies that CNN feeds them, Space Shuttles only carried 5-16 tonnes for ISS assembly. At the cost of $1.5 fucking billion per launch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#Assembly_sequence
>>30659567
>SA-6
Was effective initially. I give you that. However, once proper RWR were installed in Israeli jets and tactics were developed, they failed to deny the airspace to Israeli jets. They inflicted losses, yes, but they failed to protect their rear areas from strike and losses.
>T-72 butchered every single western tank it met in combat up until 1991
Source, or specific examples.
>SS-N-2
Destroyed a single Jewish operated WWII British-built Z-class destroyer with no CIWS, ECM/EW or defensive SAMs. Same with the Paki destroyer, except it was a Battle class and a C-class. During the Yom Kippur war, several dozen SS-N-2s were launched with zero hits due to rudimentary radar jamming and chaff. I'd give it a passing to underwhelming grade as a weapons system; it was useless once contemporary countermeasures were in place less than 5 years after its first combat usage.
Next.
>>30659567
>Nope, you just pulled this out of your fat amerilard rectum. Energia costed 210mln roubles per launch.
Then why were only 2 ever launched? Either because they couldn't afford them, they were deeply flawed or they brought nothing useful to the table. Take your pick. Hint: the correct answer is money.
>>30659567
>it is really no wonder Americans are only now catching up on 80s Soviet design.
This gets funnier every time I read it. Tell me, where is the 1980's Soviet equivalent to operational manned VLO fighter-bombers? Because say hi to the F-117. How about universal VLS systems? Tico says hello. Intra-solar system probes that actually survive to collect scientific data? You can't see it, but JPL is waving. I can do this all day.
>>30659829
Plus the astronauts to assemble it. Again, let's not forget that. Because you clearly can't be fucked to remember it.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#Assembly_sequence
From your own source:
>Russian Vehicles accounted for 8 of the construction payload deliveries to the ISS
>the Space Shuttles alone accounted for 27.
What was your argument again?
>>30659831
>they failed to deny the airspace to Israeli jets
They didn't fail to butcher over a hundred IAF aircraft.
>Source, or specific examples.
History.
>The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s destroying many Israeli tanks in the process while sustaining no casualties in return
>The Iraqi T-72Ms performed spectacularly against opposing Iranian tanks, such as Pattons and Chieftain, in the Iran–Iraq war. In the early stages of the war, an Iraqi battalion of T-72 tanks faced an Iranian battalion of Chieftain tanks. The 105mm M68 tank guns and TOW missiles proved ineffective against the frontal armor of Iraqi T-72s. According to both Iranians and Iraqis,the T-72 was the most feared tank in the war.
There you go.
>no CIWS, ECM/EW or defensive SAMs
Sucks to be them.
>During the Yom Kippur war
It was already obsolete with the introduction of more capable AShMs.
>>30659829
And yet, Slavshits only did 6 flights for it. Interesting for such superiority.
>>30659964
Funny how M60A1RISE's armed with M774s took out 72M1s without any issue :3
>>30659964
>They didn't fail to butcher over a hundred IAF aircraft.
So did the SAM systems in the Vietnam war. Didn't stop the US from bombing the shit out of them at will plus providing CAS and support at will.
>History.
Fine. However, there is also plenty of contrary evidence. Also, the Israeli losses during the Yom Kippur war can be attributed more to the AT-3 Stagger than the T-72. Also, if you're going to count the Iran-Iraq war and then cry "monkey model/arabs driving" over Desert Storm, that seems pretty ridiculous. But fine, I'll confine the T-72 bashing in Desert Storm to only that delivered by M60s.
>In early February 1991, US Marines used 200 M60A1s of the 2nd Battalion drove north from Khafji, Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. In Kuwait, they encountered an Iraqi force of T-54/55, Type 69, and T-72 tanks at Kuwait City International Airport. The Marines won this battle, destroying some 100 Iraqi tanks with only one M60A1 lost.[42]
>In the 1982 Lebanon War (Israeli Operation Peace in Galilee), M60 Pattons (locally named Magach 6) encountered Syrian T-54/55 and T-72s as well as PLO T-34s. The Magach 6 proved successful against all types of Syrian armor. Some were destroyed by Syrian infantry hunter-killer teams with ATGMs and supplemented by RPG-7s. Several other M60s were damaged by HOT missiles fired from Syrian Gazelle helicopters. One Magach 6 was destroyed by a T-72 and another was abandoned by its crew after taking damage.[42]
At best, the legacy of the T-72 is mixed.
However, even if I give you those two just because, we still have a several dozen other Soviet/Russian systems which saw combat in the last 70 years against western counterparts. What about all those? If you can only find 2-3 examples of Soviet gear actually performing as advertised, that seems pretty damn pathetic.
>>30659871
>Then why were only 2 ever launched?
Because the USSR collapsed.
>they were deeply flawed or they brought nothing useful to the table
Must be the reason the US right now is catching up this 80s Soviet design.
>This gets funnier every time I read it.
Yeah, it really is funny watching how you are desperately moving goalposts.
>>30659918
>Plus the astronauts to assemble it
Yeah, for the cost of $1.5 billion per launch. Literally any rocket would to that cheaper. But Americans were stuck with Shuttle crap.
>What was your argument again?
That brainwashed amerilards think that ISS could not be constructed without Shuttles while in real life Shuttles only carried basically the payload equivalent of Soyuz to Zenit and on a couple occasions Proton.
>>30659968
And yet burgershits never used full Space Shuttle payload capacity for ISS assembly.
>>30660096
>Didn't stop the US
Good example of how "valuable" is the life of a US soldier.
>Also, if you're going to count the Iran-Iraq war and then cry "monkey model/arabs driving" over Desert Storm
T-72 in Iran-Iraq war were monkey models.
>up until 1991
>B-but muh Desert Storm
After the whole decade of T-72 monkey models operated by Arabs slaughtering every western tank here and there on every occasion Americans got so butthurt they had to personally hop in with their new shiny M1A1's and new ammunition to get a bunch of kills on outflanked tanks and then propagandise it for literal decades as a great success. Kinda same as how they still repeat that propaganda about great victory over "sophisticated Iraqi IADS" that consisted of rusted scrap from 50s.
>we still have a several dozen other Soviet/Russian systems which saw combat in the last 70 years against western counterparts
And still no examples of engagements between contemporary equipment. Not even talking about non-Arab operators.
>>30660098
>Because the USSR collapsed.
So... They couldn't afford it? Just like I said.
>That brainwashed amerilards think that ISS could not be constructed without Shuttles while in real life Shuttles only carried basically the payload equivalent of Soyuz to Zenit and on a couple occasions Proton.
Well, it wasn't building itself and you lazy fucks were barely managing to get your dicks up much less 30+ heavy lift rockets, even with NASA subsidies. Fucking EXCUSE us for building and paying for most of an international space station that fucking everyone is more or less free to use.
Jesus Christ. You're like a little 16 year old bitch getting pissy with her dad because you don't like the model car he just bought you.
>>30659292
>excuses
>Abrams can curbstop T-55s crewed by incompetent arabs, this means the T-55 is a shit tank
Its not an excuse anon, its trying to make a fair comparison. No need to jump the gun and act like a tool.
>>30659964
>The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s destroying many Israeli tanks in the process while sustaining no casualties in return
According to Syrians, Israeli's (who won that war) say otherwise.
>>30657022
>>30657626
>>30657708
>>30657725
>>30657773
>>30657833
>>30657994
>>30658064
>>30658072
>>30658144
>>30658186
>>30658186
>best exchange in the thread
>>30660301
>And yet burgershits never used full Space Shuttle payload capacity for ISS assembly.
So why didn't Slavniggers ever do it? :3
>>30660301
>After the whole decade of T-72 monkey models operated by Arabs slaughtering every western tank
Except the Israelis buttfucked them in Lebanon '82.
>on every occasion
Not even close. The combat record of the T-72 even during Iran-Iraq is mixed.
>with their new shiny M1A1's
Nope. See >>30660096. I specifically chose to post an example of M60A1s facefucking T-72s.
>And still no examples of engagements between contemporary equipment. Not even talking about non-Arab operators.
F-86 VS MiG-15, Korea. MiG-15 lost big.
MiG-17 and MiG-21 in Vietnam. Also lost big.
MiG-21 in '67 syrian border clash, Six Day war, War of Attrition, Yom Kippur war, Egypt-Libya border war, 74-81 Syrian border clashes, Lebanon War, Iran-Iraq war? ALL BIG FUCKING LOSSES.
MiG-23 in Lebanon war (1-30!!!!), Iran-Iraq (16-56), Gulf War, etc. All big fucking losses.
MiG-29 in Lebanon, Kosovo, Ethiopian-Eritrean War. All big losses.
And that's just the aircraft shit off the top of my head.
>>30660391
>Its not an excuse anon, its trying to make a fair comparison. No need to jump the gun and act like a tool.
You claimed that no Soviet equipment ever met equivalent NATO equipment in the field at similar training levels. This is flat untrue. Any of the Israeli wars of the 60's-80's, plus MiG-15s vs F-86s in Korea, and then there's Iran-Iraq and many more.
Don't want to get mocked on 4chan? Don't say dumb shit.
>>30660455
Don't forget Rimon 20
>>30660410
>According to Syrians, Israeli's (who won that war) say otherwise.
I think he was talking about the Egyptians. Even then, the AT-3 was getting most of the kills, not the T-72.
>>30660455
>Except the Israelis buttfucked them in Lebanon '82.
And against Syria. The Egyptian T-72s were really the only ones that can be considered successful for that one conflict.
>>30660506
Oooo. That's a good one. Right up against Soviet pilots, and the Israelis facefucked them with Mirages and F-4s.
>>30656248
because they don't pay for it
>>30660354
No, so the USSR collapsed.
>Amerilards think they've built the ISS
The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s. It was not until the Russians kindly shared their experience and technology when Americans could finally manage to serve as shitty overpriced taxi service for what was basically a slightly changed Mir-2 adapted for overweights. The US was literally spending billions to do what two Soyuz rockets could do. That is especially funny in the light of how that retard above squealed about the "expensiveness of Energia" and how "ISS would not have been constructed without Shuttles".
>You're like a little 16 year old bitch getting pissy
You're like an amerilard that got BTFO on Patrishit range and then went full damage control.
>>30660559
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
What's it like being a retard?
>>30659371
>easily deceived by stealth
kek, yeah right
>>30660451
I don't know why amerilard niggers never did that, but unlike them, Russians actually used full Proton capacity for the ISS assembly to deliver payloads heavier than what Shuttles ever delivered for the same purpose. And unlike amerilard niggers, Russians did not pay $1.5 billion for that.
>>30660455
>Israelis buttfucked them in Lebanon '82.
>The combat record of the T-72 even during Iran-Iraq is mixed.
This is what yids actually believe.
>Nope.
>and new ammunition to get a bunch of kills on outflanked tanks
Nice out of context quote, faggot. Are you a yid, perchance?
>And that's just the amerilard propaganda shit off the top of my head.
Ftfy.
>>30660490
>Any of the Israeli wars
>similar training levels
Lol.
>>30660506
Ambush.
>>30660301
> Muh Monkey Models
> Muh Sand Monkey Operators
>>30660677
>all these excuses
>>30660670
MULTI-MODULAR space station, retard.
>>30660705
>moving the goalposts like this
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
>>30660696
>All this amerilard damage control and goalposts moving after getting BTFO on a number of occasions
>>30660724
>implying I'm even American, let alone from the western hemisphere
How can you possibly be this rectal ravaged?
Tell me more about how ambushes don't count :3
>>30660679
>Muh monkey models
You Americans use the same excuse when someone brings up all the Saudi/Iraqi M1 Abrams easily getting BTFO'd.
>>30660722
>Discussion is about the assembly of the ISS
>He brings up a literal flying tin can with a single port
>>30658232
You're putting words into his mouth anon.
Unless a third party validates Raytheon's or Vityaz's claims it is all bullshit otherwise.
>>30660766
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
>>30660760
Here we see a vatnik in it's natural habitat. When confronted by a threat, it's natural instant is to squat down and respond with Whataboutism.
> The Soviet Union is an oppressive state
> But you are lynching Negros
> The Russian economy is smaller than that of italy
> But American and Western Europe engage in much homosex
> Soviet pilots flying Soviet planes get BTFO by Israelis
> You Americans use the same excuse when someone brings up all the Saudi/Iraqi M1 Abrams easily getting BTFO'd.
>>30660744
>I-it's not like I'm a BTFO amerilard
So back to my question, are you perchance a yid?
>ambushes don't count
Sure they do. That's why when amerishit gets fried up by a towelhead with Soviet ATGM all /k squeals "LIES MONKI MODIL DOSNT COUNT FROM BEHIND".
>>30660760
Most Iraqi T-72's were not actually monkey models though.
>>30660798
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s. It was not until the Russians kindly shared their experience and technology when Americans could finally manage to serve as shitty overpriced taxi service for what was basically a slightly changed Mir-2 adapted for overweights.
>>30659489
> ny rocket with ~20t to NEO payload would make it
Fucking false. Such rockets didn't have the proper faring size or the ability to simultaneously carry astronauts.
>>30660831
>T-72M and T-72M1 are not monkey models
Lol.
>>30659516
The SM-3 is a dedicated anti-ballistic missile.
>>30659731
It isn't used with land-based at all.
>>30658884
Jesus fuck read a book you stupid nigger. The level of stupidity of your post is beyond retarded.
>I can't think of a single conflict fought since WWII in which their armor has performed well against western armor.
Iran-Iraq War? Indian-Pakistan Wars?
>>30659829
You're a really shitty, really unsubtle troll and you're definitely underaged.
Put more effort into your nigger bullshit.
>>30660847
Except that the largest and the heaviest ISS modules were delivered by Proton.
>or the ability to simultaneously carry astronauts
Or the cost of $1.5 billion per launch.
>>30660832
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
>Skylab
>In orbit in the 70s
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
>>30659371
>Only the niggerest of Wargame players and russians actually believe that SAMs are a viable air defense strategy.
>He doesn't know of the South African vs. Cuban battles
>He doesn't know about Israeli-Arab Wars
$0.50 to you my good Lockmark shill
>>30660559
The US launched and assembled the overwhelming majority of the ISS. That a really basic fact you can't dance around.
>>30660863
>T-72M1 isn't a T-72A minus NBC gear
>the difference in hull armor between a T-72M and T-72M1/T-72A meant anything
>>30660897
>When confronted with facts aberilard resorts to damage control
Stay BTFO, amerinigger.
>>30660813
...asked the Nazi faggot.
Kill yourself.
>>30660906
>Skylab
>Multi-modular
>>30660925
> this third worlder thinks he's talking to one person
Unsurprisingly illiterate of you.
>>30660802
Not even going to read your post. You literally are acting the same as a Vatnik shit poster.
Are we at 5 yet?
>>30660944
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
>ctrl+f
>multi-modular
>0 returns
>ctrl+f
>multi
>0 returns
>ctrl+f
>modular
>0 returns
>>30660677
Well, isn't this a fine bouquet of delusion, dissembling and outright damage control. I can smell the vodka all the way in the Rockies.
>>30660559
There literally wasn't an orbital launch system that could have facilitated the construction of the ISS other than the Shuttle. All the ones that could have were at of use by that point in time.
>beetniggers shit up another thread
Why am I even remotely surprised?
>>30660977
*out of use
>>30660920
Of the ISS that was not possible without Russian technology that Russians kindly shared. And that's not the point anyway, the point is that that nigger's squeals about the "expensiveness of Energia" and how "ISS would not have been constructed without Shuttles" are retarded.
>>30660796
>Unless a third party validates Raytheon's
But that's easily verifiable. It has performed well in Yemen, and it's public record.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/02/14/saudi-says-intercepted-scud-missile-yemen/80379918/
>>30660949
>He thinks he is any different from any other brainwashed amerilard drone
Kek.
>>30660964
>Discussion is about the assembly of the ISS
>L-lies, you never specified multi-modular!
Amerilards, everyone.
>>30660977
This is literally false, since in real life Shuttles only carried basically the payload equivalent of Soyuz to Zenit and on a couple occasions Proton.
>>30660996
There wasn't a single orbital launch system in service at the time of the ISS's main construction that could have facilitated the launch and assembly of its major components. Period, end of fucking story.
All you're doing is talking about shit that was retired when the ISS was built, which is fucking useless you shitposting nigger.
>>30661016
>Literally say that the US didn't have a space station and was struggling to make one in the 80s
>The US was struggling to build its own station since 80s.
>ctrl+f
>multi-modular
>0 returns
>ctrl+f
>multi
>0 returns
>ctrl+f
>modular
>0 returns
>>30661027
So why didn't the Russians bother doing that?
>>30661027
> what is fairing size
dude lol it missed
Pk = Phit * Pd * Rsys * Rw
>>30661027
Nope. Soyuz and Zenit couldn't match the payload diameter of the Shuttle.
>>30660880
>Iran-Iraq War? Indian-Pakistan Wars?
Mixed in Iran-Iraq and India-Paki was one tank battle in 71 (Basantar). All the '65 battles were before India bought T-55s.
But that's fine. I'll give them to you. You've now got 2 or maybe 3 if we include the Egyptian T-72s out of how many conflicts and battles? Oh. That's right.
>>30660954
Still mostly at 1-2. I don't think this particular Vatnik ever actually gets to 3. He's the worst of all worlds: Vodka addled, autistic and delusional.
>>30661027
Uh what? The Shuttle had a higher payload than any Soyuz, Zenit, or Proton rocket ever did.
>>30661036
>Discussion is about the assembly of the ISS
>L-lies, you never specified multi-modular!
Amerilards, everyone.
>So why didn't the Russians bother doing that?
Because it was financed by Americans who had to justify keeping Shuttles operational.
>>30661049
>>30661077
>They think payload diameter has to be the same as rocket diameter
>The still ignore the fact that most Shuttle missions were heavily under Shuttle maximum cargo capacity
Kek.
Man, this thread's been fun to read.
>Vatnik tries to shitpost about Patriot
>gets corrected
>goes full fucking Vatnik
>this exchange happens >>30657994 >>30657833 >>30657773 >>30657725 >>30657708 >>30657626 >>30657022 which was hilarious
>then the main event: we get gravy fucking posts like >>30658884 and >>30659292 and >>30659309 and >>30659371 and >>30659678 and >>30659918 and >>30660096 and let's not forget >>30660455 and >>30660506 and >>30660679 and >>30660802
I just made popcorn. Let the tears, asshurt and vodka-fueled rage continue to flow. Been a while since we've had one this brutal.
>>30661144
Look up the actual fairing diameter on the different variants nigger. Soyuz and Zenit never used one as wide as the Shuttle did.
>>30661166
>gets corrected
Meanwhile in real life amerilards got BTFO: >>30658553
>>30658644
>>30661180
Oi, stahp it mate, ur givin me da giggles.
>>30661144
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/soyuz.html
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/zenit.html
Neither maximum is as wide as the Shuttle's fairing.
>>30661160
Address the point. No Soyuz, Zenit, or Proton rocket has ever has a payload mass capacity that matched the Shuttle's.
I'll just leave all this here, since we're discussing glorious Russian space exploration.
Soviet VS US space program numbers
So lately on /k/ and 4Chan in general, I've been noticing a lot of heckling from Slavbros about the glorious successes of the USSR/Russian space program in comparison to the shamefur dispray of NASA. It got me curious, so I did some research. I compiled a list of the respective "first achievements" of both programs, and then collated the data on all unmanned solar system probes ever launched by country. I may do the same for manned missions later on, but I'm going to post this and take a break. Should be about 9 or 10 posts, so please hold your comments until the dump is done.
>>30661144
You don't understand the concept of capacity. Capacity is a maximum capability. You are not required to use all available of that available capability.
>>30661222
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Solar_System_exploration
USSR:
>Sputnik 1 1957 First Earth Orbiter
>Sputnik 2 1957 First Animal in Orbit, Dog Laika
>Luna 1 1959 First Lunar Flyby
>Luna 2 1959 First Lunar Impact
>Luna 3 1959 First Images of the Far Side of the Moon
>Vostok 1 1961 First Manned Earth Orbiter
>Venera 3 1965 First Spacecraft to Reach Another Planet's Surface (no data returned), First Venus Impact
>Luna 9 1966 First Lunar Lander
>Luna 10 1966 First Lunar Orbiter
>Venera 4 1967 First Venus Atmospheric Probe
>Zond 5 1968 First Lunar Flyby and Return to Earth
>Venera 7 1970 First Interplanetary Lander, First Venus Lander (returned signal for 23s)*
>Luna 16 1970 First Robotic Lunar Sample Return (but not first returned moon samples)
>Luna 17/Lunokhod 1 1970 First Lunar Rover
>Salyut 1 1971 First Space Station, No Crew Survived to Man It and Return To Earth (Soyuz 10 unable to dock, Soyuz 11 docked, manned it for 23 days, burned up in re-entry)
>Mars 2 1971 First Mars Impact (fragged lander attempt)
>Mars 3 1971 First Mars Lander (returned signal for 14.5s)*, First Mars Atmospheric Probe
>Venera 9 1975 First Venus Orbiter, First Image Returned from Venutian Surface
>Vega 1 1984 First Venutian Atmospheric weather balloon
*While the Soviets hold the titles for first landers on both Venus and Mars, neither of those landers returned more than carrier signal for more than half a minute. Neither returned usable data.
>>30661235
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Solar_System_exploration
NASA/USA:
>Explorer 1 1 1958 Discovered Van Allen Radiation Belts Around Earth
>Pioneer 5 1960 First Interplanetary Space Probe
>Mariner 2 1962 First Successful Interplanetary Flyby, First Successful Venus Flyby
>Mariner 4 1964 First Mars Flyby
>Pioneer 6 1965 First Observations of Space "Weather" Conditions
>Apollo 8 1968 First Manned Lunar Orbiter
>Apollo 11 1969 First Manned Lunar Landing and First Lunar Sample Return
>Apollo 13 1970 First Safe Return of Crew and Vehicle After Catastrophic Manned Vehicle Failure
>Apollo 15 1971 First Manned Lunar Rover
>Pioneer 10 1972 First Jupiter Flyby
>Pioneer 12 1973 First Saturn Flyby
>Skylab 1973 First Space Station to be Manned and Have Crew Return to Earth Safely with Data, 171 Days Manned Over 4 Years
>Mariner 10 1973 First Mercury Flyby
>Helios-A 1974 First Solar Probe, Joint Project with German Space Agency
>Viking 1 1975 First Mars Lander Returning Data, First Pictures from the Surface of Mars
>Helios-B 1976 Closest Solar Approach, .29AU, Joint Project with German Space Agency
>Voyager 2 1977 First Uranus and First Neptune Flybys
>Voyager 1 1977 Farthest Flying Human Made Space Object - 130AU in 2014
>ISEE 3/ICE 1978 First Comet Flyby, Joint with Euro Union
>Galileo 1989 First Asteroid Flyby, First Asteroid Moon Discovery, First Jupiter Orbiter and First Jupiter Atmospheric Probe
>Hubble Space Telescope 1990 First Remotely Operated Persistent Orbital Space Telescope, Joint with EU
>NEAR Shoemaker 1996 First Near Earth Asteroid Flyby, First Asteroid Orbiter, First Asteroid Lander
>Cassini-Huygens 1997 First Saturn Orbiter, First Outer Planet Lander, Joint with EU and Italy
>Stardust 1999 First Comet Coma Sample Return
>Genesis 2001 First Solar Wind Sample Return
>MESSENGER 2004 First Mercury Orbiter
>Deep Impact 2005 First Comet Impacter
>New Horizons 2006 First Pluto/Charon and Kuiper Belt Flyby
>>30661247
As a note on context:
*While the Soviets hold the titles for first landers on both Venus and Mars, neither of those landers returned more than carrier signal for more than half a minute. Neither returned usable data.
All of the Russian achievements up to 1970, save the Venus exploration and Salut space station, were matched by the US within 14 months, often within 2 months.
Many of the NASA probes of 1960-1980 are still contactable/still returning data. None of the Soviet vehicles are. This is probably due to more extensive NASA studies on interplanetary space conditions, and building missions to last as long as possible in that environment. While often garnering "first honors" in orbiters and landers early on, Soviet probes almost always carried fewer scientific instruments and lasted a very short while in their intended duties. This is not to detract from their achievements, but it underlines the American philosophy of pursuing "more bang for the buck" type mission plans and vehicles. Multiple planet flyby mission plans, for instance, allowed NASA to return data on every major body in the solar system plus most moons, and several comets and asteroids. The Soviets and Russians to date have only sent successful probes to Venus, Luna, Mars and Halley's Comet.
The Us has performed many joint solar system probe missions with other national space agencies. The USSR/Russia never did.
>>30661256
The following tables will sum up the data on
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes
as to unmanned solar system probe missions.
I've broken it down by decade, and included a total all time summation in the last table.
>OTHER includes: German Space Agency, EU, Italy, Japan, Canada, China, Great Britain, etc.
>Joint missions between NASA and another space agency are counted both in the NASA and OTHER columns. There are about 15 of these.
>On missions which included a lander and orbiter, or lander, atmospheric probe and orbiter, all aspects are counted seperately, to account both for the disparate data collected by each phase of the mission and to account for successful orbiters with failed landers, etc.
>The EARTH FLYBY row denotes missions which flew by earth for gravity/course assist from another solar system body on the way to a third solar system body.
>Missions which performed multiple flybys (Galileo, for instance, performed flybys on Venus, an Asteroid and ended up in Jupiter Orbit with a Lander launched) are counted as a mission for each body passed in close flyby, as data is still gathered and returned.
>Probes which remain in Earth Orbit are not counted. Lunar probes are counted, despite technically still being in Earth's gravity well.
>>30661169
Now go and look them up yourself, imbecile. Literally all of them except for the Truss Structure are beyond 5 metres.
>>30661267
Final tally for solar system probes launched in the 1960's (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes), landers counted as separate missions (to account for missions in which orbiter succeeded but lander failed):
>>30661268
Learn the difference between total diameter and payload diameter you dumb fucking illiterate inbred nigger.
>>30661275
Final tally for solar system probes launched in the 1970's (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes), landers counted as separate missions (to account for missions in which orbiter succeeded but lander failed), multiply body flybys counted as seperate missions (for instance, Mariner 10 conducted successful flybys on both Mercury and Venus, which is just good mission planning and resource use):
>>30661283
>>30661280
So you're saying those rockets could have accommodated those modules? It literally says otherwise. There's a difference between external dimensions and payload volume VS total payload weight, dumbass.
>>30661297
>>30661309
The final numbers (see >>30659309) are pretty interesting. NASA comes out looking pretty good, even after all the bad press in the late 90's early 2000's, at least as far as solar system exploration is concerned. Also of note is the fact that the Russians have not launched a successful solar system probe since the fall of the Soviet Union, despite 6 attempts. Further, you can see, even though many of the missions in the "OTHER" column are joint missions with NASA, the rest of the world has really started to pick up some slack on solar system exploration, which is a great thing. Finally, I didn't separately collate the Chinese probe numbers, because they've been pretty low key to date; they've only launched 7 probes total, 5 of those at the moon, still far fewer than the Japanese or EU.
>>30661275
>>30661283
>beet niggers on suicide watch
>>30661268
There were 15 different launches that had payload diameters exceeding the maximum any Soyuz or Zenit could handle.
>>30661222
>>30661235
>>30661247
>>30661256
>>30661267
>>30661275
>>30661283
>>30661297
>>30661309
>>30661317
Jesus Christ. Brutal. My favorite thread on /k/ for a while.
>>30661297
You're not even disagreeing with him. You know that, right?
>>30661341
I thought he was suggesting with that statement that those payloads would have somehow fit on those vehicles. My bad. Poe's Law strikes again.
>>30656224
>When will Amerilards make an air-defence system that's not shit?
When we have the need. Right now air superiority is guaranteed against whoever we're fighitng.
>>30661309
>a failure rate of 100%
I know it was the 90s but holy shit
>>30661235
>>Salyut 1 1971 First Space Station, No Crew Survived to Man It and Return To Earth (Soyuz 10 unable to dock, Soyuz 11 docked, manned it for 23 days, burned up in re-entry)
Ah. That "Soviet space station tech".
>>30661275
1960s failure rates:
US
>28%
USSR
>78%
>>30661283
1970's
US
>4%
USSR
>42%
>>30661297
1980's
US
>0%
USSR
>37%
>>30661309
1990's
US
>16%
Russia
>100%
>>30661317
2000-present
US
>5%
Russia
>100%
>>30659309
All time
US
>15%
USSR/Russia
>63%
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
>>30661426
>tfw almost 2/3 of your unmanned solar system probes are failures
Goddamnit. I'm Russian, and this shit makes me mad. Yeah. I mad.
>>30661222
>>30661235
>>30661247
>>30661256
>>30661267
>>30661275
>>30661283
>>30661297
>>30661309
>>30661317
Jesus fucking christ, even at their zenith, russians are worthless garbage! Why are people afraid of these inbred troglodytes again?
>>30661193
I did address the point. Shuttle never used its full cargo capacity for ISS assembly and modules it delivered were all under 5 metres, which is well in the capacity of Proton, proved by it actually delivering almost 20 tonne modules with up to 4.15m diameter without even expanding the fairing.
>>30661227
See above.
>>30661280
Payload diameter can be well above rocket body diameter, nigger.
>>30661297
Look at the dimensions of the modules delivered by Proton, dumbass. This didn't even require fairing expansion.
>>30661328
>Wtf is Proton
>1 failure, woo, 100% failure rating
Kek, amerilards and their propaganda.
>>30661222
>>30661235
>>30661247
>>30661256
>>30661267
>>30661275
>>30661283
>>30661297
>>30661309
>>30661317
Someone need to archive this thoroughly savage and yet factual destruction of the myth that russians can into space.
This triggers the amerishit.
>>30661540
Frankly, I think an American would do a better job at shitposting.
>This triggers the amerishit
>Amerishits are triggered by this
>>30661529
What is this chart showing? Most of us don't speak sub-human.
>>30661488
The maximum payload diameter ever used on a Soyuz or Zenit was 4.15 meters, smaller than the required diameter for 15 different ISS launches.
Literally that simple you dumb, syphilitic cunt.
>>30661488
> Payload diameter can be well above rocket body diameter, nigger.
And yet they still weren't large enough. You're making up shit that nobody ever said. Get with the fucking program.
>>30661540
>>30661554
>>30661567
Why would burgers be triggered by charts mapping the past and projected space progress of a country that no longer exists?
>>30661567
38 years out of date
>>30661554
28 years out of date
>>30661540
11+ years out of date
Wonderful.
>>30661570
>Most of us don't speak sub-human.
Amerilards don't speak amerilard speech? That's new.
>>30661573
>Wtf is Proton?
Imbecile.
>>30661554
>>30661540
>>30661554
>>30661567
Not that impressive tbqh, the soviets mostly shot junk into space and over all 2/3 of their efforts failed.
Just chucking an ungodly amount of shit into space just shows how many times they had to try to get anything to work.
>>30661613
Go ahead and cite the maximum payload fairing diameter ever used on a Proton rocket. We'll all wait.
>>30661567
>posting projections from DOD material that hasn't been printed since the early 90s
>>30661599
Shuttle never used its full cargo capacity for ISS assembly and modules it delivered were all under 5 metres, which is well in the capacity of Proton, proved by it actually delivering almost 20 tonne modules with up to 4.15m diameter without even expanding the fairing.
>>30661613
>Amerilards don't speak amerilard speech? That's new
>the vatnik says in lingua franca of the world; English
Toppest of fucking kek.
>>30661553
Damn straight we would, we did invent the internet after all.
All russia ever invented were new levels of alcoholism.
>>30661488
>Look at the dimensions of the modules delivered by Proton, dumbass. This didn't even require fairing expansion.
Proton maximum fairing diameter: 4.1m
Space shuttle payload bay diameter capacity: 4.6m
Modules which would fit in the Space shuttle but not Proton:
Unity 4.57m
Z1 Truss & PMA-3 4.2m
P6 Truss & Solar Arrays 4.9m (Endeavor had to be specially modified)
Destiny 4.27m
S0 Truss 4.6m
S1 Truss 4.6m
P1 Truss 4.6m
ESP-2 4.9m (Discovery modified)
P3/P4 Truss & Solar Arrays 4.9m (Atlantis modified)
P5 Truss 4.6m
S3/S4 Truss & Solar Arrays 4.9m (Atlantis)
Harmony 4.48m
Columbus 4.5m
Dextre/Japanese Logistics Module 4.4m
Japanese Pressurized Module/JEM Robotic Arm 4.4m
Cupola and Tranquility 4.25m
>Amerishits are triggered ITT
>>30661488
> Payload diameter can be well above rocket body diameter
Nobody ever said differently you fucking retard.
>>30661537
I've got it. I wrote and saved it about a year ago.
