Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Xaxxon t1_ite0lo5 wrote

> According to him (Denis Manturov, the Deputy Prime Minister and Head of Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia.)

Yeah, I'm not going to choose to believe that.

Right now anything that starts with "russia says..." makes the paper it's printed on less valuable.

207

pseudopad t1_ite1ong wrote

Each satellite will include a massive tungsten cylinder and can be strategically de-orbited to hit kindergardens anywhere on the planet

83

Xaxxon t1_ite1y6l wrote

Reporting it as fact is a stretch right now even if it does somehow happen.

They lie way more than they tell the truth these days. "it's more than 0.00% possible" is not a meaningful claim to me.

10

5kyl3r t1_ite3zgf wrote

they can't even make tanks. literally. they turned on production of their world war 1 OLD AF* tanks because they're literally incapable of making anything newer.

same with cars. they can't even make their cheap econobox Ladas. they're literally restarting production of the moskvich, a soviet era car.

so.... getting to orbit is probably low on their list. they can't even make weapons for their terrorism they're waging in ukraine. they're literally having to buy weapons from iran.

22

WaffleBlues t1_ite67vd wrote

Russia has new projects every other day:

Hypersonic missiles, their own space station, advanced tanks and jets, etc. The problem is, they never seem to materialize, or they turn out to be junk.

118

mischanif t1_ite7lc9 wrote

So long putler is not dead. There will be no space projects in Russia.

4

blood_kite t1_ite7p7a wrote

Yes, but all of those tanks were designed and produced AFTER WW2. Saying they’re turning on WW1 tank production is like saying Ford is turning on its Model T factory to build more NASCAR race cars.

18

OopsyDoopsyMan t1_ite7tsd wrote

I think they mean 600 failed launches

Or 600 floating garnage cans in space

−1

AurumArgenteus t1_ite826i wrote

But they'll only be able to ship enough fuel for 50 of them

1

GoodPastor t1_ite9arl wrote

LOL

Stop parroting stupid Russian propaganda. They will not achieve shit! That country is gonna be back to Bronze Age before the conflict with Ukraine ends.

16

Gnosticbastard t1_ite9n36 wrote

Good luck with that you 2nd world country wanna be!

−1

NewDad907 t1_itea1ik wrote

Launching old microwaves in to LEO doesn’t count, Russia.

1

No-Cardiologist-8146 t1_itea4p5 wrote

One step closer to the nightmare of Kessler Syndrome, which will seal mankind's fate by preventing us from ever leaving this planet.

−2

Worried-Day5505 t1_iteawz1 wrote

They forgot the part where Russia won’t exist soon so it doesn’t matter 🙃

4

internet_spy t1_iteb5dj wrote

They added a couple zeros to this number, silly russian mistake

1

mysticalfruit t1_itebxrm wrote

Great, they've launched 4 satellites.. only 597 more to go.. let's see.. at 4 per launch.. only a 150 launches to go.. What does a Soyuz cost per launch?

They're also talking about this whole thing costing billions of rubles, per year for a couple of years..

I suspect they'll get enough satellites launched to get themselves some secure communications and high(er) speed data and then suddenly all mention of this will be scrubbed from the official websites.

5

MonkeySafari79 t1_itedutn wrote

And 40% will fail cause of crappy black market chips.

10

5kyl3r t1_itegsma wrote

is it? because i literally watched a video of them touring a factory they brought back online. they're bringing tanks in from belarus nonstop for weeks now. you think that's without reason? they need more tanks and they can't build anything remotely new because of sanctions

−7

evilpercy t1_itegu83 wrote

They are bankrupted they can not afford any of this.

2

Goyteamsix t1_itehj86 wrote

Dude, WW1 was a long time ago. Tanks didn't even exist when the war started.

This is what Russia came up with during WW1. Russia is not making these to fight a modern war. They're retrofitting some old soviet T62s made through the 60s and 70s with new parts.

The arrogance is a nice touch, though. Keep it up.

4

GhostOfSkeletor t1_itek4ps wrote

These MFers out here trying to pay for this shit in Bison Bucks

2

5kyl3r t1_itekw5y wrote

ww1 era maybe would be better to say, they looked ancient

but even their latest stuff is still mostly running on old platforms. they really screwed themselves into a corner using western tech for their armament

−8

DolphinWings25 t1_itelzje wrote

But who controls the space outside of our space

1

Capital-Giraffe-4122 t1_iteou8m wrote

Russia couldn't spend it's way out of a wet paper bag. They're a broken, corrupt country

14

AreYouOKAni t1_itep7ct wrote

Of you are talking about Kinzhal, it is a hypersonic missile only in the loosest definition of the term. It only becomes hypersonic if launched off an already supersonic plane, and only for a very limited amount of time.

0

ugottabekiddingmee t1_itequv5 wrote

You know when your grampa or uncle gets some brain wasting disease and starts wanting to fight everyone, or goes out to the garage to build a giant blender out of grape skins? Looking at you Russia.

2

GLnoG t1_iterl3u wrote

But can they pay for it though? Doesn't seems like it tbh.

1

EclecticKant t1_itetc5t wrote

The iskander missle reaches hypersonic speeds, making it extremely difficult to intercept, and Russia already used a lot of them in Ukraine, they seem to have problems not known before the war but speed doesn't look like it's one of them. Just trying to state facts, correct me if I'm wrong.

0

AreYouOKAni t1_iteum2s wrote

Nope. Iskander is Mach 7 at its absolute best, which is about 1000 mph less than what is generally considered "hypersonic".

The reason why our army is unable to shoot down every missile launched at Ukraine is that a) we are using semiantiqur S300 anti-air missile and b) we don't have enough. And even then AFU shoots down like 60-70% of Iskander launches. With IRIS-T finally arriving, we might be able to do better.

The bigger issue is Russian bombings using MLRS Uragan and the ground variant of S300. They are still supersonic but due to very short range (100-ish miles) they are much harder if not impossible to intercept. Also the Shahed drones have been an unpleasant surprise, but at least there's some progress on that direction already.

6

EclecticKant t1_itexd4t wrote

Where are you taking your definition of hypersonic from? In aerospace subjects I've always used the threshold of mach 5, and a quick Google search confirms it, but maybe there are other standards that I'm not familiar with.

Russia launched 776 iskander missiles, according to Ukraine (idk if they would benefit from lying on this number, but it's probably in the same order of magnitude as the true number), but i can't find any reputable source stating that Ukraine can reliable intercept any significant number of those missiles (you are stating a 50/70% success rate, stopping some 400 missiles has to leave some indisputable proofs).

I'm not trying to give any opinion on Russia's use of missiles, i just think that underestimating the level of the Russian military technology is not something that will help us, in a war industrial might is a lot more important than the specification of a rocket (if you can't produce them, they won't have an impact anyway), and Russia proved to be extremely underwhelming in that aspect, but a nuclear warhead needs just one missile to do unimaginable damage...

6

toodroot t1_itf086f wrote

I know it wasn't you who said it, but the discussion started with:

> quite a few hypersonic missiles with good track records.

... and it's not really interesting to discuss only the first half. Russia has a lot of weapons that supposedly have the right features, and they suck when you try to use them.

1

toodroot t1_itf0pu9 wrote

Belarus is giving Russia T-72A tanks, which were built up to 1985, and some T-62 tanks, produced up to 1975, and which Belarus retired by the year 2000.

2

WilliamMorris420 t1_itf2bek wrote

What are thry going to build them from or launch them with? Silly vatnik, washing machine parts won't work in space and you can't launch satelites with trampolines.

2

MrMaverickMoore t1_itfcr1i wrote

Russia couldn’t launch a potato into the air, let alone this. 😂😂😂

0

a_bit_curious_mind t1_itfe84a wrote

Ha-ha, any real achievements from ruzzia for the last years except grand promises? For now they're on a fast track to country disintegration.

1

Ritari_Assa-arpa t1_itfeey8 wrote

I wonder if they have looted enough washing machines from Ukraine to make this plan possible?

4

dodoligma t1_itfi3o8 wrote

they wont have enough money to open a stationary shop after all this war is over

2

seanflyon t1_itfj92o wrote

The patent system is so broken when you can add something trivial like "on a website" or "to hit kindergarteners" to the end of an existing idea and get a patent.

2

CMDRStodgy t1_itflnf4 wrote

No it wont. Kessler Syndrome at it's hypothetical worst will make some orbits unusable because the risk of a collision over the lifetime of a satellite will be too high. But even at it's worst the risk of a collision for the few minutes it would take a rocket to fly through the 'danger zone' to a higher orbit is still practically zero.

6

RedBaret t1_itg3y31 wrote

That’s a nice way of repurposing all those tank turrets yeeted into the heavens.

2

joeker13 t1_itghkl0 wrote

Theyjust yesterday cracked their „rainy day fund of 16bln roubles(?)“ (lol?). How tf can they do anything at this point.. oh wait.. the answer starts with C…

2

EclecticKant t1_itgouf1 wrote

The iskander is an effective hypersonic missle, i focused on the hypersonic part because it's the technically harder one. They are precise enough to hit a specific part of a building, powerful enough to destroy it completely (I'm sure some military bunkers could withstand its impact, but surely not many of them), and since they are hypersonic they are extremely hard to intercept. As expected it's the precision guided missile that Russia used the most, and that it has the least left in stock (probably, infos about Russia armament are hard to confirm). As i said the missle is technically impressive, but not being able to produce them in sufficient quantity reduces its impact on the battlefield, but that is an industrial problem, the discussion was started on the technical capabilities of Russia.

1

D1N0F7Y t1_ith6xfe wrote

Islander missiles are quite good honestly, third party commentators name it as one of the best short range ballistic missile. The others are shit, the x-101 in particular. The kalibr, is a family of missiles, with mixed performances.

The so well regarded HIMARS are getting intercepted too, lately like 90% of the salvoes.

0

D1N0F7Y t1_ithdn2q wrote

You guys know that Atlas V rockets were using Russian engine as they are still probably the best rocket engines around. It seems to me that everyone is falling to west propaganda. Russia has an economy the size of Italy, and they are still quite a powerhouse in space and military technologies.

−1

D1N0F7Y t1_ithezs2 wrote

They have one of the highest rate of population with tertiary degrees. That's why. They are almost on par with South Korea. An impressive achievement for a country with 150 million citizens. If they weren't that corrupt they would be really a powerful country

0

D1N0F7Y t1_ithgxb9 wrote

You clearly don't know what you talking about, just acting out of propaganda fueled fanboyism. Please read what Musk himself says about Russian Engines. Raptor engines are supposedly better, but still not operational.

−1

Alternative-Dirt9054 t1_iti66nq wrote

Lol yeah, Russia copied the the first satellite and space ship from the west and made it worse. Oh wait, the literally went to space before the entire world while their entire economy was bombed to rubble by the Germans years earlier.

0

awaniwono t1_itiixdu wrote

I'm still waiting for the T-14 Armata that was going to dominate the battlefield both present and future.

Oh, and the hypersonic missile capable of destroying any target anywhere in the world in less than 30 minutes while being immune to all present, past and furture forms of missile defense, both physical and metaphysical.

1

seanflyon t1_itop7yh wrote

I never met Sergei Korolev, he died before I was born. The fact remains he was Ukrainian, born in Zhytomyr about 140 km west of Kyiv. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, but Ukraine was not part of Russia. Being Ukrainian when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union does not make someone Russian.

1