← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 63914047

44 posts 14 images /k/
Anonymous No.63914047 [Report] >>63914214 >>63914222 >>63914224 >>63914233 >>63914280 >>63914328 >>63914346 >>63914421 >>63914687 >>63914827 >>63916712 >>63916792 >>63916816
India develops missile-mountable GBU-57 copy
https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1939163507519549875
Knower No.63914214 [Report] >>63914668
>>63914047 (OP)
Honestly it could work, pajeet incompetence notwithstanding.
I wonder though if the penetrator could survive the forces involved in a mach 3-5 impact. As far as I know MOPs are already skirting the engineering limits of the alloy they use while going subsonic
Anonymous No.63914222 [Report] >>63914252 >>63915768 >>63916738
>>63914047 (OP)
How effective are bunker buster warheads when mated with ballistic missiles?
Anonymous No.63914224 [Report] >>63914239
>>63914047 (OP)
It’s so funny seeing third worlders consistently treat LLM output as if it was the bible
>hold on I need to consult grok on this tweet
Anonymous No.63914233 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
a mouthbreather made this thread
Anonymous No.63914239 [Report] >>63914271
>>63914224
>implying first worlders aren't doing the same
Anonymous No.63914252 [Report] >>63914377
>>63914222
More kinetic energy is always better, but you'll face diminishing returns and need exponentially more speed to get much further.
Anonymous No.63914271 [Report] >>63914279
>>63914239
Ok provide 95 examples of first worlders doing that, I’ll wait. Yeah that’s what I thought
Anonymous No.63914279 [Report] >>63914291
>>63914271
The US government. That includes DOGE and the DoD
Anonymous No.63914280 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
>GBU-57 on steroids
>Half the weight
yeah
Anonymous No.63914291 [Report] >>63914302
>>63914279
maybe consult grok next time ranjeet
Anonymous No.63914302 [Report]
>>63914291
I accept your concession.
Anonymous No.63914318 [Report] >>63914408
Does this classify as a biological weapon since it's made by poojeets?
Anonymous No.63914328 [Report] >>63914350
>>63914047 (OP)
>GBU-57 on steroids
>half the mass of the GBU-57
Sure.
>We don't have a bomber that can carry our bunker buster so we're gonna attach it to a fucking ballistic missile
Kek, I guess that works. Not sure about the accuracy though, unless there's some kind of terminal guidance system attached to the penetrator.
Anonymous No.63914346 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
>Literally half the mass
>"""copy"""

It's a fucking Tallboy with a body kit.
Knower No.63914350 [Report] >>63914353 >>63914368 >>63914371 >>63914388
>>63914328
There's something that looks like grid find at the back, I assume it is meant to maneuver at low supersonic speeds
Knower No.63914353 [Report]
>>63914350
Grid fins*
Anonymous No.63914368 [Report]
>>63914350
>There's something that looks like grid find at the back
Just like the MOP
Anonymous No.63914371 [Report] >>63914390
>>63914350
>low subsonic
grid fins are great for subsonic and supersonic control, they are draggy at transonic speed.
Anonymous No.63914377 [Report] >>63914552
>>63914252
>More kinetic energy is always better
Big Burger Bunker Busters hit at subsonic speeds.

Because the best material for borrowing through earth, stone and reinforced concrete isn't always that good at either staying a solid at ICBM speeds or at not shattering pointlessly when striking anything at those speeds.
Anonymous No.63914388 [Report]
>>63914350
>There's something that looks like grid find at the back
Yeah, because it's a picture of the US MOP, brainlet.
Anonymous No.63914390 [Report]
>>63914371
Read the post again, it says low supersonic.
Anonymous No.63914408 [Report] >>63914889 >>63916796 >>63916818
>>63914318
Hey! I remember posting the original like 3 years ago!
Anonymous No.63914421 [Report] >>63914430 >>63914808
>>63914047 (OP)
We just saw what a war between stealth fighters and ballistic missiles looks like... the ballistic missile side got WIPED
Anonymous No.63914430 [Report]
>>63914421
>stealth fighterers
they were dabbing on them with 4th gen fighters
Anonymous No.63914552 [Report]
>>63914377
How about tungsten rods from god?
Anonymous No.63914668 [Report] >>63914859
>>63914214
It is trivial for ballistic missiles to go that fast. They actually slow the MOP down to Mach 1 because it would have negative impact on penetration
Anonymous No.63914687 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
>designation: GPU-57(Guided Poo Unit 57)
Wonder how many giftcards you have to redeem for one of these
Anonymous No.63914808 [Report] >>63914865 >>63915776
>>63914421
Pretty sure Iran claimed victory. A side that got actually wiped doesn't claim victory.
Anonymous No.63914827 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
AGNI!!
Anonymous No.63914859 [Report]
>>63914668
I want you to read what he wrote afain.
Anonymous No.63914865 [Report]
>>63914808
Anon they don't have a functioning air defense system or air force anymore, plus hits to other capabilities like nuclear program and the spending/losses of a decent part of their ballistic missile stockpile. Your enemy retaining the ability to defend against your attacks while you lose yours is no measure of success.
Anonymous No.63914889 [Report]
>>63914408
Why are indians even more disgusting than blacks?
Anonymous No.63915768 [Report]
>>63914222
That REALLY depends on the missile's CEP
Anonymous No.63915776 [Report]
>>63914808
>A side that got actually wiped doesn't claim victory.
Your first Muslims vs. Israel war, huh?
Anonymous No.63916407 [Report]
launched from an icbm, you'd end up with an impact velocity of about mach 4-5 if you want accuracy (he; you'd use artificial means to slow it down), or about mach ~13 if you don't care about accuracy (nuke).

you wouldn't gain much if you want to hit a point target with he/ke.
Anonymous No.63916712 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
Anonymous No.63916738 [Report]
>>63914222
Fairly decent but you sort of end up in a mad mix of finding the heavy lift rocket, making it hit something that's not 'about couple of suburbs' accuracy. The design of the warhead sort of factors in a lot of fairly complicated physics to get the big heavy lump of metal into the dirt, while figuring out when it goes off or turns into a crushed mess dozens of metres underground.
Anonymous No.63916792 [Report] >>63916839
>>63914047 (OP)
>Using nuke carriers to launch HE warheads
So what about the strategic equation?

They're not WMDs. But pakistan doesn't know that. It sees an ICBM coming at it, launches nukes?
How does this even work?
Anonymous No.63916796 [Report]
>>63914408
Nothing like taking a morning india after a fresh coffee
Anonymous No.63916816 [Report]
>>63914047 (OP)
AI is alright sometimes

> Until more technical details or independent verification emerges, it's safer to assume that while the Agni-V will likely be a potent conventional missile with a large warhead, its bunker-busting penetration claims may be more aspirational than currently achievable with a simple large explosive fill.
Anonymous No.63916818 [Report]
>>63914408
This doesn't make any sense.
There's spike around South Georgia Islands, a stretch of Antarctican coast, and NE Australia.

Map is sourced from NOAA tsunami website. This is most likely ocean wave height from some tsunami that occurred in the area.
Anonymous No.63916839 [Report] >>63916843
>>63916792
You went a bit too fat there - they are not trying to actually build one to use it, it's to show off that they have the bigger toys. Which is a win in their world.

It's somewhat similar to their domestic tank and fighter programs - they are less about domestically produced tanks and fighters, they are about being able to say that they have a domestic tank/fighter program.

As we've seen recently, if it comes to real fighting that is done by both sides with proven weapons they bought somewhere else. Which is convenient for the face saving aspects of their cultures: If they lose (with) them it was because they had to use inferior weapons made by other people, if they win with them it shows their (as a people, not the weapons) superiority.
Concepts like "a tool is as useful as the user is skilled in its use" are completely foreign to them. Which paradoxically prevents them from seeing those tools as just tools.
Anonymous No.63916843 [Report]
>>63916839
>*far, not fat
I'm a spellinglet today.