U.S. Altered Himars Rocket Launchers to Keep Ukraine From Firing Missiles Into Russia

The are old. loud, and slow aircraft easy to target and unable to defend themselves and detectable by everything including subs

Can't be fueled in a silo. Takes 60-90 minutes to fuel while alerting every ally on the planet of their intent.
Easy to target before launch

MIGHT be deployable by 2025. Very doubtful. There are no unlimited range cruise missiles.

Nope, not going through that with you again. Its easy information for anyone who can simply Google.
Its been major media news now for months.

And he represents the weakest Russia in history. So weak in fact they have huge losses against just Ukraine and a dwindling budget.

 

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Might want to look at the following,
The first in the list that is being upgraded (9 SS-27 Mod 2 TEL) http://wikiredia.ru/wiki/SS-27_Mod_2?ysclid=lbldmrilpv498733900 Take note of the type of fuel used.

Not in service yet. Don't nuclear-powered submarines have an "unlimited" range, why not a missile?

No. It's common courtesy to cite what you claim, particularly when asked. Or is that beyond you?

You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/russia
Don't forget BRICS.
When Russia sells oil for gold only and not the US dollar monopoly money, there'll be a new perspective reached.

 

No one is claiming that "their nukes are biggest". That isn't even an issue any more.

 

1) You do know there is a difference between a submarine and a missile don't you?

2) Nuclear powered submarines do not actually have "unlimited" range.

 

That doesn't mean if your weak, appear weak. lol
You should really understand quotes before you try and use them.

Thats a mobile launched single war head which I already covered.
Not a multi warhead ICBM
Try again

No sub has unlimited range
Do you have a missile that has a nuclear reactor on board? lol

So your admitting you know nothing of Russian men leaving Russia on droves to avoid military service
You know nothing of the current soldiers defecting
And you know nothing of Russian officers being jailed by Putin.
If you want to admit to that, I will educate you. Hows that

Do you even bother to read your own links?

Growth slowed significantly in Q1, on weaker domestic demand due to the fallout from the war in Ukraine. Turning to Q2, the economy is heading into a deep recession as Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine’s Donbas region drags on and sanctions bite. Economic activity contracted in April, seemingly driven by a plunge in private spending as retail sales tumbled. Similarly, investment activity should be feeling the impact of sanctions and capital outflows. Meanwhile, although soaring energy prices have helped the external sector hold up relatively well so far, the EU’s decision in late May to largely ban Russian oil imports by end-2022 will hit the sector hard in the coming months. Meanwhile, to prop up the ailing economy, the government announced double digit hikes to pensions and the minimum wage, and slashed interest rate again in May. However, this will be insufficient to prevent a recession.

 

It was a metaphorical analogy.

 

Clearly it is you who doesn't know how to interpret the quote. For example, you bank on the fact Russia has soviet era bombers, yet thy have more advanced ones that have flown under your radar. Can you work out the Art of war quote now? "if your weak, appear weak" “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

It's clear you didn't look at the table with all active and upgrading nuclear systems be it 9 SS-27 Mod 2 TEL & 10 (mobile units) ASWELL AS SILOS. Get back to me when you've looked at it more closely.

Really? You might want to take that argument up with the US Navy. Tell them there's no way the nuclear sub's range isn't unlimited.
"Since they are nuclear-powered, they have unlimited range. They are limited only by their food supply." https://www.businessinsider.com/the...-they-are-limited-only-by-their-food-supply-7
As for the missile, it's still under development, but even Wikipedia acknowledges the fact of its UNLIMITED RANGE!!!!!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

No, I am asking you to prove what you prattle on about. So you're still finding it difficult to discern the difference between me asking you to cite your info because that's WHAT A GOOD RESEARCHER DOES, right?

This is the part that I know you have trouble dealing with. The first link is to prove their economy is not great based on a fiat currency system. Secondly, BRICS will be the game changer for all involved. I wonder why all the world's central banks are buying up gold like it's going out of production. See, you'll get it one day, (hold my breath).
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

 

Nothing has "unlimited" range. But ranges are all relative. A nonnuclear submarine might have 1,000 miles between refueling range while a nuclear one has 100,000 mile (or more) range. Thus it is "unlimited" by comparison.

As for bombers the lady is right. While most Russian bombers are indeed ancient TU-95 Bears (turboprop driven) they do have some relatively advanced swing wing TU-160 Blackjack bombers. Larger knockoffs of the B-1B Lancer (U.S.).

 

Will you take that up with the US navy, and tell them they're full ofshit.
Now, what do you suppose limits them, not to have unlimited range?
Do you think they'll need to do a drive-by of a 7-11 and fill up on premium uranium?
"A nuclear reactor allows the submarine to be less reliant on external supplies. Diesel-electric subs need to refuel regularly, while a nuclear submarine – particularly one based on UK and US designs – might never need to refuel." https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/how-do-nuclear-submarines-work/
It's about halfway down the page.

Don't you think Russia might be holding their cards close to its chest, making us think that's all they have?
New Patent May Reveal Russia's Next-Generation Bomber Design https://www.zerohedge.com/military/new-patent-may-reveal-russias-next-generation-bomber-design
Soon the propped bombers will be mothballed.

 

1) Some secrets are difficult to actually keep.
2) You've fallen back on the "oh I can't prove the Russians have anything sophisticated so I'll just speculate about hardware they may or may not have".

3) You know they've been saying that "soon the propped bombers will be mothballed" for about as long as the U.S. has had B-52s?

 

Spys everywhere

Is that your perspective? No. it's not that. I am pointing out that they have the next generation of bombers/aircraft in their midst. That's all.

We are talking about Russian bombers, right? Where did the US ones come into this?

 

Simply to show you how long the Russians have been making claims about their bombers.

 

Prove it. With unquestionable evidence.

 

How many more links do you want? I have provided some earlier.

 

Holding their cards closely. Just because we haven't heard a peep from intelligence services, doesn't mean they don't have or are not working on anything, right?

 

Without evidence to the contrary that is indeed right.

 

Do you have any idea how long that "potential design" for a new Russian bomber has been floating around out there?

Decades at least.

 

Date of article, June 17 2020
"According to Russian media, currently, engineers have already completed the construction of the pilot cabin, while the whole plane will be completed as soon as in mid 2021. And the coronavirus pandemic has not slowed down the construction timeline." https://www.rbth.com/science-and-te...kda-stealth-bomber?ysclid=lblsda06t6505872517
This suggests that the project is complete.

 

FALSE
I said the BULK of their bombers are propeller driven.
I even listed their other bombers for you
You have way too many comprehension problems.

Again, it goes back to comprehension

63 are mobile. Only 10 are silo-based and only carries 3 warheads
Not the bulk of their ICBMs and I even told you about them
Again, comprehension problem

In the United States Navy, Refueling and Overhaul (ROH) refers to a lengthy refitting process or procedure performed on nuclear-powered naval ships, which involves replacement of expended nuclear fuel with new fuel and a general maintenance fix-up, renovation, and often modernization of the entire ship. In theory, such a process could simply involve only refueling or only an overhaul, but in practice, nuclear refueling is always combined with an overhaul. An ROH usually takes one to two years for submarines and up to almost three years for an aircraft carrier, performed at a naval shipyard.
Again, comprehension problem

It doesn't exist and there is nothing to show it ever will. Your imaginary cruise missile doesn't mean there are cruise missiles with unlimited range.
Again, comprehension problem

Nope, you can admit you have no idea about it and I will provide it for you.
Are you now admitting you are not a good researcher and need me to find it for you?

Again, another imaginary what if has no bearing on Russia's current economy, their military budget, their outdated defense systems, the losses in Ukraine, or their soldiers defecting. Moving to an alternative currency for international trade doesn't magically fix Russia's economy. lol Where do you even come up with this garbage. lol
Yet another comprehension problem
So in conclusion,
You provided aircraft other than the prop driven aircraft like you were disputing something, when those were already provided to you and have nothing to do with my claim.
You provided missiles other than the current ICBM strike force like you were disputing something, when those mobile based missiles were already provided to you and dispute nothing.
You thought nuclear powered subs have no refueling needs or process, just food. I can't even imagine how you could fall for that garbage
You thought providing an imaginary cruise missile means their are unlimited range cruise missiles when no such technology even exist. But you have a cartoon? lol
You can't find anything on Russians leaving Russia in droves because you have no clue how to find it and claim you never even heard of it
You can't find anything on Russians defecting from the battlefield because you have no clue how to find it and claim you never even heard of it
You think Russia issuing new currency as an alternative for international payments will magically reverse Russia's failing economy and military standing
On top of which, you can't find a single poster who agrees with anything you regurgitate about Russia on these boards
Ever wonder why? I bet it doesn't even ring a bell for you. lol

 

The design proposal for a "next generation Russian bomber" appeared in International Air Power Review in the MID 1990s!!

https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...&ved=0ahUKEwj38diC9Pb7AhXckWoFHcO3AqkQ9pwGCAU

 

It's clear you don't read. Who has problems? Denialism must be your strongest suit.

Don't try to pin your inadequacies on me. It's not difficult to understand, but I guess some like yourself do.

So you're comparing what the US has to what Russia does, and if Russia doesn't have the same then it's null and void hey, rrrright. Do you care to know how I found the info? I searched Russia's nuclear capabilities. Now why do suppose I posted the link I did? Because it has Russia's nuclear capabilities. I also provided a Wiki link that shows they all burn a SOLID FUEL MIX AND NOT LIQUID FUEL. Don't be too hard on yourself because you failed in "GOOD RESEARCH".

How often do regular diesel, depending on their task, days or weeks? So a nuclear-powered vessel 1-2 years for a sub and up to 3 years for a carrier. So between the time, these vessels are re-fuelled they run non-stop. But you want to claim they don't. Maybe it's because you are confused about the difference between infinite perpetual motion and perpetual motion between 1-3 years when refuelled. Am I right? That's why you can't get your head around it.

So Wikipedia is full of sh!t, hey? Just so you can save face because you've been proven wrong.
You're so in denial of its existence hey?
Burevestnik Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile
The Burevestnik cruise missile is one of Russia’s six strategic weapons, also known as ‘Super Weapons’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled during a speech in 2018 at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall near the Kremlin. Other super weapons include the Sarmat Inter-continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), Avangard Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), and the Poseidon nuclear-armed underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV), the Kinzhal air-launched hypersonic missile, and the Tsirkon ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not much is known about the Burevestnik missile, as it is shrouded in mystery, but there are a host of speculations about it. https://eurasiantimes.com/russias-nuclear-powered-burevestnik-cruise-missile-flying-chernobyl/

So you're full of sh!t then? That's understandable because normal people having a debate would cite the sh!t they claim. Where does that put you?

Proven, but you're in denial of its existence.

No. I've proven you're claim of liquid-fuelled ICBMs is rubbish. A combination of denialism and lack of comprehension on your part. What, because it doesn't fit your argument it's false and rubbish?

No. You thought that nuclear-powered subs need refuelling like diesel-electric.

You don't read much do you?

No. It's been proven https://eurasiantimes.com/russias-nuclear-powered-burevestnik-cruise-missile-flying-chernobyl/
Don't get ahead of yourself. Just because you don't or won't acknowledge its existence, doesn't mean it's not real

Normal people having a debate would cite the sh!t they claim. Where does that put you? Full of it.

It's not about me. I found plenty on it. I JUST WANT YOU TO OWN WHAT YOU PREACH, is it that hard? For you yes. Because you keep bringing us back here.

Hmm, I wonder why 12 other countries want to join BRICS? Must all have Russian guns to their heads and a really sh!t deal. You don't do much homework before you start typing, do you?
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/12-more-countries-want-to-join-brics/
"Russia announces 12 more countries want to join BRICS… if all are accepted BRICS will have 50% of the world population… and an even larger share of commodities such as oil, gas, metals etc…"

Yes, I can. Destroyer of Illusions, Bill Carson, Jeanette comes to mind. Once again, proven wrong.
Why don't you just concede that your argument has holes in it the size of the Pacific Ocean?

 

There you have it, unfortunately, the link you've provided doesn't work for me.

 

You should know that this PROPOSED nuclear powered cruise missile is a mere copy of the proposed Pluto missile by the United States from about fifty years ago.

When the Russians start touting copies of 50 year old American weapons concepts as their own revolutionary super weapons it shows just how behind they are (and probably always will be.

 

Now I don't personally like using Wiki, but I will for this. Wiki acknowledges its existence, experimental or operational. It exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

Some more links found on it.
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2021/02/burevestnik-russia-cruise-missile
https://www.rt.com/russia/451659-burevestnik-missiles-reactor-tests/?ysclid=lbms9mmfja558463561
https://sofrep.com/news/the-9m730-b...missile-and-its-effect-on-russia-ukraine-war/
https://www.military-today.com/missiles/burevestnik.htm
https://gunsfriend.ru/kr-burevestni...aktika-primenenia/?ysclid=lbmsc8mu8r341642734 ( This page is in Russian, you'll need a page translater).
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/krnd.htm
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...ssia-new-test-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile/

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you'll let me know but isn't The Economist your bible? Even they acknowledge its existence.
https://www.economist.com/science-a...russia-points-to-the-risks-of-atomic-aviation
The article was written in Aug 2019.
"America’s experience has not, however, deterred Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president. In March 2018 he announced the development of a Pluto-like missile called Burevestnik (“petrel”, a bird regarded by sailors of old as a harbinger of storms). This has since been tested in Novaya Zemlya, and has crashed several times."

There you have it. "Unquestionable" evidence, your beloved Economist knows of it.

 

The Economist is a very useful source but it is far from perfect. Especially on this topic.

You do know there is one hell of a difference between "existence, experimental, and operational" don't you?

Just why do you believe that this weapon actually exists or will soon exist in an operational form?