>>65081831
>3kkm vs 2.5kkm
>Double the explosive filler
>Fost 1/5th than a tomahawk
>doesnt work
yes

>>65081831
kilo-kilometers?

>>65081884
1000km

>>65081831
tomahawk
>is old
>is designed to be usable for decades
>has to be launchable from VLS cells and submarines
flamingo
>just has to go

>>65081886
Were you looking for Mm, the megametre? (Not to be confused with mm, the millimetre)

>>65081831
The Flamingo's main disadvantages seem to be that it doesn't have any fancy TERFCOM guidance and it's just using some combination of inertial + gps which isn't pinpoint accurate under jamming, and it seems like it has a longer prep time before launch in the 40-50 minute range instead of 5 minutes. It also flies relatively high in the air instead of hugging the ground which again goes back to the lack of some sort of terrain map or radar. I think the Ukies are working on a low altitude engine for it.

If they can improve the guidance, it'll absolutely mog the tomahawk. Way cheaper, more flexible launching options and double the payload is kind of insane. Really impressive craters and damage for when they hit

>>65081831
>no TERCOM
>no DSMAC
>no anti jam GNSS receiver
>no navigation grade IMU
>no datalink
>refurbed engine in the open acting as a retroreflector
>no LO features in the airframe
>ardupilot with PID that does not allow for aggressive terminal maneuvers and high impact angles
>lower speed higher minimum altitude
1/5 capability for 1/5 the price, sounds fair to me

>>65081962
I hate how smug non americans are about how excellent metric is but they refuse to use metric prefixes outside of kilometers and kilograms, and they use fractions or multiples of those instead of higher or lower prefixes of meters and grams.
You have this wonderful tool and you just don't use it.

>>65081831
A tomahawk can navigate by sampling the ground below it, loiter for hours over a target, and destroy a HVT while it's playing peek-a-boo underground.

>>65081831
good threads die when you use 4chan like twitter

>>65082112
It's also basically impossible to navalize because of the form factor, so it's a complete non-starter as a TLAM competitor regardless of its features and performance.

>>65082112
it does in fact have tercom, the issue is also about having terrain data, that's why US missiles can fly lower without having to be as careful about hitting the ground
the engine also isn't that big of a factor in detection

>>65081831
>cost 1/5th than a tomahawk
99% of the materials being made and/or recycled in-house, from within a warehouse/factory as a country fights for its own survival. As opposed to a corrupt glorified jobs program taking advantage of war economies to shill their own shit to themselves and their allies using heavily overbuilt and untested nippon steel engine crystals they don't need from Taiwan and guided by a fork of Grok coded by a group of men who don't speak English.

>>65082235
30m digital elevation maps are free or commercially available as non ITAR products, it should be enough since that's what the early tomahawks used, if something does not work it's because the implementation is shit not because of lack of data
the altitude is likely a combination of multiple factors including navigation and control
engine is a significant RCS contributor from the front that's why all modern missiles have an internal engine with an s-duct, even russians dropped the drop-down engine design and just copied the tomahawk

>>65082134
It's just a familiarity thing outside scientific circles
The average normoid learns that shit by grade 3 and apart from common use stuff it's long forgotten by adulthood. Just my two Euro cents. Still superior to medieval feet and bushels btw

>>65082328
I want to spit blood every time I hear "thousand kilometers" or "million kilograms/thousand tons"

>>65082410
It's ultimately pretty common to do so across different languages I guess, or you could be like India with their lakhs and crores

>>65081831
>Are the americans getting jewed
Always have been.

>>65081899
This. Worst case scenario Ukraine needs something cheap, easy to build, and that will work 'just about well enough' to burn Russians today. America needs something that can be produced reliably in large numbers, stored without issue for decades, and will still work very well after sitting on a warehouse shelf for those decades and being transported several times around the world (and that can be relatively easily upgraded too) - and America can afford to pay for that capability.

I am absolutely sure that Lockmart et al are doing everything that they can to jack up the price without losing the contract (they have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder return), but it's a lot more complicated than 'big company bad'.

>>65081831
Tomahawk has better navigation, and can be launched from shiops and subs.

These two things are just not the same type of weapon.

>>65081831
Wiki says the V2 unit cost was about 80,000 reichsmarks, or $32,000 USD, which would be around $580,000 today.
V1 was much cheaper tho, 5k rm per unit, cheaper than a fucking shaheed.

>>65081831
We really shouldn't have to put up with this level of ESL.

>>65081831
It's the American MIC so the price for a Tomahawk is definitely inflated, as is everything else

>>65082134
I get you. But it's also about ease of use.
The length of anything one might want to describe in everyday life (so excluding specific niches like academic or industrial stuff) can be handily described in kilometers, meters, centimeters and millimeters. There isn't really any situation where it would be more useful to measure in dekameters or decimeters, instead of multiples of meters or centimeters.
Similar situation exists in American customary units. Miles, feet, inches, and their fractions already cover all everyday needs of describing length. No one bothers messing around with barleycorns, rods and chains.
t. europoor

>>65081962
>>65081834
It's a slavic way to shorthand zeros
>1k
1000
>1kk
10000
Nigga you never played runescape?

>>65082235
>the engine also isn't that big of a factor in detection
look for the air intakes on an AGM-158

and remember all the discussion about air intakes on non-stealth jets vs the F-35?
you would, if you weren't a tourist

>>65082299
>30m digital elevation maps are free or commercially available as non ITAR products, it should be enough since that's what the early tomahawks used, if something does not work it's because the implementation is shit not because of lack of data
available maps aren't as precise or as up to date as you might expect, this is unironically why some ukie drones have hit high-rise buildings in russia btw - geo data says the route is okay, but a few years ago a new high-rise commie block was built there leading to fucked up strikes, the stuff available to the us military is orders of magnitude better and is always up to date

>that's why all modern missiles have an internal engine with an s-duct
nah, the main reason why almost nobody is doing big offset engines is the volume/geometry side of things, i.e. being able to efficiently fit into a VLS launch tube and such, and also overall aerodynamics, so that once the volume/shape thing stops being an issue, e.g. for air launch cruise missiles, you can routinely see ducts sticking out, just loo at AGM-86, Kh-101 and so on

>even russians dropped the drop-down engine design and just copied the tomahawk
and that happened specifically when they've realized that they want VLS capabilities

>>65082796
>and remember all the discussion about air intakes on non-stealth jets vs the F-35
my nigga, planes are a bit different because the engines are places below the fuselage and thus easier to spot using ground based radars - if those engines were places above the fuselage (which has its own series of issues, yes) it wouldn't be as bad in terms of detection

>>65081831
I'd assume the tomahawk is full of funny stuff that makes it more precise and harder to jam/shoot down.

>>65082867
Yep, it's also why it takes like 2 years to build one

>>65082871
Damn, really gotta plan ahead then.

>>65082873
>Government faggots
>Planning ahead
pick one

>>65082890
Oh I know, it's just that if it takes two years to build your one size fits all munition that you'll sometimes suddenly have to shoot a whole bunch of, you're gonna wanna plan ahead so you aren't found lacking at a bad time.

>>65082914
Or at least don't waste a ton of ammunition for a bullshit campaign with no actual results

>>65082865
>using ground based radars
leaving aside the matter of airborne radars, you're assuming the FP-5 constantly flies at an altitude above that of an intercepting radar
>inb4 yes
then that's another advantage a weapon like the JASSM has; it can retain its low-obs characteristics while hugging terrain and flying behind hills and buildings

>65082918
there it is, found the Iranian

>>65081831
>Are the americans getting jewed
Yes. Welcome to the MIC.

But also, the Tomahawk has terrain-following and decoys and a bunch of other features. Also, it's nuclear-capable, whatever that means (I guess additional command circuitry that can send the right signals to detonate a nuke).

>>65081834
>doesnt work
Seems to have worked well against Russia, LOL.

>>65082176
>Ukraine is well known for its enormous Navy
Umm, about that. . . .

>>65082235
>the engine also isn't that big of a factor in detection
Holy shitballs, are you even capable of breathing through your nose?

>>65082681
>V1 was much cheaper tho, 5k rm per unit, cheaper than a fucking shaheed.
That would be $2,000 or around $37,000 "in today's dollars". But you can build one a hell of a lot cheaper than that now, mostly because guidance is now a $80 Pixhawk instead of a precision gyroscope. Only real problem is the engine.

>>65082860
obstacle avoidance should be done during mission planning based on multiple data sources, not only elevation map but also ortho and off nadir imagery, those are also commercial products
if a drone crashes into a building it most likely malfunctioned or it was due to enemy action

File: 1774554595762619m.jpg (81.5 KB)

81.5 KB JPG

>>65082951

>>65082971
>Shitskin Martinez calling someone brown
bruh

>>65082931
>Seems to have worked well against Russia, LOL.

taking the word of ukranians or russians about their systems without verified video is just naive anon

>>65082986
My brown friend, there are successful missile strikes 600+ miles deep into russia, ukies literally have no other missile capable of doing that either than FP-5

>>65083007
prove it
and yes they do they use civilian an 22 ultralights since 2023

>>65083019
Prove that the damage was done by a long range missile launched from Ukraine? How?

>>65082112
Most of the electronics stuff can be bodged in. Performance is going to be worse than bespoke milspec solutions, but, if it kinda-sorta works NOW, it's goodenuff. Those missiles are needed NOW+1 week, not in 9 years' time.

>>65083026
exactly nobody fucking knows because there isnt any practical way to prove any of the shit they all claim

just like how they captured russians for the first time with drones few weeks ago

tho
https://kyivindependent.com/ukrainian-assault-brigade-captures-russian-troops-using-only-drones-and-robots-in-historic-operation-military-says-06-2025/

it also happened for the first time in july 2025
im sure iremember something close to this in 2024 too

>>65081831
Everything america does is virtuous and smart and strong. Everything foreign countries do is depraved and stupid and weak. Therefore, if a foreign country does a thing, the answer is america is #1.

If you have any problem with this reasoning you are literally a terrorist.

>>65082761
I don't know if they put something in your water to make you dumb in there, but there's surely something

>>65082761
Are you fucking retarded or something?

>>65083061
Okay, so what's your point? Don't believe they used asset A, because they maybe used asset B?
Have you seen the moskva wreckage, btw? Maybe it really did return under its own power?

>>65083145
did we saw moskva sinking? yes