epic fail
military funny
stupid human

Comment on this Motifake


Kicking America's Arse Since 1902

Creator: dylan

 Comment using Facebook

Dude - August 11, 2008, 11:41 pm,
Fail! They've never fought directly.
Ur Retarded - December 24, 2008, 5:49 pm,
1. That's an anti-tank rocket 2. That's a WWII german helmet 3. Russians and Americans have never fought directly 4. American military technology surpases the Russians in every single way. Ever. 5. Its a frickin ground squirrel
HurHur... - January 26, 2009, 3:37 pm,
Point 4: FAIL! The Mig 44 has OPTICAL stealth coating using ionised plasma, funny... America's jets are all visible... plus, all it would take to destroy a whole US carrier group is one Russian bomber and a half-dozen Sunburn Missiles. Suck on that.
LogicDude - January 26, 2009, 4:11 pm, fail. Try s****** on an SM-3 from an Aegis-class Cruiser (found in every carrier group). You'll go down faster than any Russki SS-N-22.
HurHur... - January 28, 2009, 1:56 pm,
One bomber costs a lot less than a whole carrier group, and besides your anti-missile defence systems SUCK beyond belief. Plus any bomber that can launch a missile travelling at Mach 3 doesn't have to get close. So, who fails? Yep. The US-not-so-au-fAit.
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 3:36 pm,
You're right...I mean a missile like the SM-3 that can (and has) shoot down a satellite in low orbit would have no chance against an antiship missile. We may as well just scrap our Navy and go home and cry. Do your research next time Timmy.
HurHur... - January 28, 2009, 3:55 pm,
Actually the sunburn is that fast and that capable that your anti-missile defence systems have a 1/100 chance of taking it down. And that's if you reply fast enough.
HurHur... - January 28, 2009, 3:58 pm,
Of course, a**uming that the Ruskies only send one bomber and one missile on that bomber...which, beingthe Russians, they wouldn't.
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:31 pm,
The air-launched version of the Sunburn is designed for launch from the naval-variant Flanker, which can only carry 1 at a time. a**uming the Carrier Air Group hasn't already launched against the enemy carrier, these guys still have to get past a gauntlet
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:33 pm,
of Fighters guided by Hawkeye AEW aircraft (possibly an E-3) and the Aegis radar on the Aegis Cruiser and Burke Destroyers. They both carry SM2 & SM3 missiles which are very capable of shooting down the Sunburn. Then, of course, they can also depl
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:35 pm,
to confuse the missile's active radar guidance system. Too many ways to stop these things before they get in close - then they can be defeated by the Phalanx (although there would likely be fragmentary damage from the close-in explosion) or shorter range
Sean - January 28, 2009, 4:35 pm,
commetus interruptus. gotcha!
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:36 pm,
missiles like the Sea Sparrow or SRAM systems. It would take an extremely lucky 1-in-a-million sh** to get through to the Carrier.
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:36 pm,
d*** you Sean...d*** you to hell!!!
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:37 pm,
Wait, you already live in Canada.
Sean - January 28, 2009, 4:38 pm,
Oh, Not Cool. Not!
LogicDude - January 28, 2009, 4:40 pm,
Oh come on! Your milk is in bags fer cryin' out loud! And killing baby seals with clubs is like a national sport or something...or is that hockey? I get them confused.
Sean - January 28, 2009, 4:45 pm,
While it's true that hockey evolved from the "sport" of clubbing baby seals, or so I'm led to believe, the clubbing of baby seals is widely regarded as the most disgraceful thing about Canada ... with bags of milk being a distant second.
Sean - January 28, 2009, 4:47 pm,
Oh, and it's not all of the milk that comes in bags, that merely an abominable option ....
Culos - January 28, 2009, 4:57 pm,
Unless of course it comes in fun-bags?
HurHur... - January 30, 2009, 5:26 pm,
1) SM-3 is anti-ballistic, pretty much useless against a sea skimming missile. 2) The Russians carry far more and largely more powerful jammers in said Su-33's than you'll get in a US CVBG Air Wing. 3) SM-2 Missiles would have a very short time to respond
HurHur... - January 30, 2009, 5:29 pm,
since the Sunburns come in at 15ft above sea level, the curvature of the Earth limits your detection range at that point. 4) The Su-33 can carry the Sunburn, plus enough AAM's to match a fully loaded F/A-18F, so the fighter issue is solved.
HurHur... - January 30, 2009, 5:31 pm,
5) Hawkeye's will have their range knocked back by jamming, plus the Russians have a specialised long range anti-radar missile specifically to deal with E-2's and E-3's. 6) Phalanx is not strong enough to down a Sunburn reliably. 7) The speed of Sunburn
HurHur... - January 30, 2009, 5:33 pm,
means you have very limited time to respond with short range defences due to the Mach 3 speed. Even with those defences operating at 100% efficiency, it's a simple matter of maths, around 3 dozen missiles and several are GOING to get through, because
HurHur... - January 30, 2009, 5:34 pm,
the survivors will close in, whilst you're destroying the others, too quickly for you. At that point, a single hit to a ship and 1/3rd ton of explosive is Bad News (TM).
Sean - January 30, 2009, 5:36 pm,
Ya cupple a noobs. "Victory in battle belongs to the side who best commands and utilises the prairie dog (or ground squirrel -- same dif)." Sun Tzu
Anonymous - January 30, 2009, 6:06 pm,
Well played Sean, but I think the winner here is HurHur, besides, there's a reason, or more of an excuse, why the Americans wanted to set up a missile base in Poland. They're afraid of everyone.
Start new comment thread
Register in seconds...
Log In