[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/hobby/ - Hobby

"Our hands pass down the skills of the last generation to the next"
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1608525558836.jpg (129.36 KB, 1024x629, fzwq934d9maz.jpg)

 No.1505[View All]

Haven't seen this thread revived anywhere so I thought I'd bring it back myself

ITT: Discussions about stats of Soviet military hardware, tactics etc. Not strictly limited to Soviet stuff despite name.
92 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1608526939972.jpg (321.62 KB, 1260x840, Avia-B-534_08.jpg)

The B-534's reputation is mixed. To most people, the Avia was a national pride, a modern plane for its time with sleek design, and with a looming German threat, a fair match against the Bf-109s (original models). And while it certainly is a looker, and it did show everyone in the 1937 Zurich Air Races that it was a capable biplane around - getting all second places, behind the 109 - the story behind it is a bit darker. When the plane was being tested during trials, Avia and its owner company, Škoda, were competing against 3 other design bureaus. While at first glance it might have seemed like a fair fight that the superior design won, reality is that the B-534 was quite flawed, and Škoda utilized its monopoly over most branches of industry to get the contract for themselves. This included bribing material suppliers to cut their deliveries to competitors, and what's worse, signing a contract with Hispano-Suiza, making Škoda officially the only legal licensed producers of their powerplants in the country. The competing bureaus that already counted on receiving the French engines now got kicked in the shin and had to do with inferior domestic engines, offering only 60% of the horsepower of the HS12 Ybrs. Nevertheless, the trial results were pretty close, and had the other companies have access to the same engine, the B-534 would likely be forgotten by history. It's reputation also isn't helped by the fact that it had a tendency to deform its upper wing during high speeds that would cause it to enter a lethal dive. When the army announced the B-534 would now also serve as a "battleplane" (CAS), which would include dive bombing, in a typical Czech fashion, Avia's engineers would sneak in under the cover of the night, fix the faulty wings, and then act like nothing happened.


>The USA also lacks decent cruise missile systems
This is a blatent lie, the is has more cruse missiles then any other country on Earth.


carriers aren't a meme, the USSR built them, and planed to build supercarriers before Gorby fucked evreything up


Why are Russian AA missiles failing so hard in Syria? Whenever Israel attacks, they always get away with no casualties, despite syria having the most advanced Tor, s-400, etc. Systems. Same thing when turkey attacked, most Syrian air defences were knocked out through conventional bombing, which is supposed to be impossible against a SAM net.


the armenian-azeri war proved that sams are useless without interceptor aircraft


Maybe, but it's not certain. Sending manned aircraft up against drone is a cost losing proposal. A drone requires far less fuel and maintenance compared to manned aircraft. Sending up interceptors means bleeding fuel and potentially losing a pilot. However, it might be possible that with a few sorties of aircraft, the other side will be discouraged from using drones, thus reducing the future number of sorties required.




Quality of us cruse missiles isn't as good as Russian ones, but its not that much worse, also their is a huge difference in the amount of missiles the US has compared to Russia or China.
I though you were talking about Israeli strikes using F-16s and F-35s. Against drones massive amounts of AA guns should be sued because AA is cheap and drones fly low. SAMs are very poor against low flying targets. As for strikes done by Isreli F-16s and F-35s, Syria should deploy interceptor aircraft in coordination with SAMs in an integrated air defense. This is what North Vietnam did and if North Vietnam only used SAM then US bombing runs would have been much more effective.


Different anon.
>Against drones massive amounts of AA guns should be sued because AA is cheap and drones fly low.

This is one of those theories that I agree with and find plausible, but I've not seen evidence of it working. I've only seen examples of air attack (with ground attack aircraft) wiping out ground formations.


AA is less effective against conventional manned aircraft, especial if said aircraft are flying at high altitudes. But in those conditions SAMs are more effective. The truth is that their is no silver bullet in air defense. Relying on a single system will leave you extremely vulnerable when (not if) enemy forces attack you in way that said system is not optimized to defend from. The S-300 isn't meant to defend against low-flying low mass aircraft, so thats what the Azeris used. North Vietnam understood this and had AA, SAMs, and interceptors. Serbia also had this, but Serbia lost because the US thought that the loses they were facing while significant were replenishable. Syria and Armenia don't have proper multilayered air defense systems and as a result it is extremely easy to bomb them.


From some casual wiki skimming (not sure how reliable that info is) typical ranges of cannons with calibers of 20mm to 90mm is between 5km and 10km. Man-portable anti-tank missiles have around 5km range but air launched anti-tank missiles have 10km to 20km range which puts them outside of gun engagement range for ground based AA. This means ground AA can effectively prevent drones from carrying cheaper, lighter, short-ranged AT missiles and also deny airspace to smaller drones that cannot carry longer-ranged/heavier missiles. However larger drones that can carry missiles like AGM-114 can attack ground targets from outside of gun range of ground AA. So an effective drone defense will require both a gun and missile system, and the missile must have an effective range of 10km to 20km along with a radar with even greater range for finding and tracking targets.

Several of these hybrid gun/missile AA systems already exist like 2K22 and PGZ09. But I'm not aware of any being used in action. Interestingly, there are many AA systems with about 10km engagement range (which is less than the range of several air launched AT missiles) still in service. I don't know if this is because the ground forces of most countries are low priority for receiving equipment upgrade, or if a 10km range can offer some degree of protection against air threats. I can see how even if the AA system cannot attack the launch platform at 20km, it can still prevent the attacker from getting closer than 10km, forcing it to launch for further away. This gives time for ground units to evade or for AA to try and shoot down the missile.


AA is very good to defend against drones, also it forces conventional aircraft to fly high where they have to rely on guided bombs or use inaccurate dumb bombs. Unless your going up against a superpower AA is pretty useful, but still not a silver bullet. The F-16 and F-35 have an altitude ceiling of 15 km and the U-2 has an altitude ceiling of 21 km while the Mig-29 has an altitude ceiling of 18 km, and the Su-57 and J-20 both have an altitude ceiling of 20km. That said, most of the time these aircraft are flying at lower altitude to avoid radar detection. Its very rare that these aircraft fly at their ceiling.


File: 1615347839779.jpg (27.72 KB, 800x410, KIROB2.JPG)





best looking modern ship


File: 1617370126960.jpg (930.67 KB, 3300x2550, 1617340360404.jpg)

Can someone debunk this please, tired of seeing it spamed on 4/k/


File: 1617370584549.jpeg (41.18 KB, 288x288, 1BA76ACB-F27B-4B80-813F-3….jpeg)

Were there any plans before the union collapsed to try and upgrade these babies? Seeing most of them being dismantled and the last one leaking radioactive waste everywhere is just disheartening.
Wish that some of Russia’s allies can buy them up just for study and make smaller non nuclear versions.


MiG mostly saw action when used by third world countries with subpar pilots. Guess against who they fought?


iirc it was debunked through many effortpost demonstrating that US basically hide all its air casualties making them seem like "maintenance problems", and every time competent pilots fought during the day soviets had the advantage


The US could simply just make better planes than the soviets could afford to do, the us was almost always ahead in radar, and it’s planes were more reliable and had better engines that needed to be replaced much less often.


File: 1617588125102.jpeg (136.52 KB, 800x958, EBFA8FA5-EB46-441F-BE5D-4….jpeg)

You just can’t make this shit up. Lmao.
An F-35B Accidentally Shot Itself With A Gatling Gun
>March didn’t start well for the U.S air force when a much costly air incident took place. F-35B stealth, the most expensive fighter jet ever built to date, accidentally shot itself while flying over Arizona’s skies.

>A single unit of an F-35B costs around $135.8 million, so at first, an aircraft’s accident doesn’t sound appealing at all. The aircraft had an externally mounted Gatling gun discharge a 25mm armor cutting explosive round into itself, leaving the aircraft with damage of approximately $2.5 million, as confirmed by the military officials.

>The F-35B stealth aircraft was performing a nigh time air support mission, while during its flight, the aircraft exploded a round of fire in a self-attack scenario. Fortunately, the pilot managed to land the super-costly aircraft to the ground, but the damage done isn’t at low either.

>It was a Class-A accident, as termed by the officials, directing towards a minimum of $2.5 million of loss or the aircraft’s complete inability to make it to the skies ever again.

Such superior American engineering. Just imagine a scenario of these scrap heaps doing an air attack on Iran or The DPRK and just get their Gatling guns hacked to shoot itself.


This is clickbait for radlibs without an ounce of military knowledge. The aircraft did not shoot itself, the round exploded in the gunpod, it was an ammunition quality control issue. Let's not fall for sensationalism aimed at liberal laymen.


Do you know how many Soviet aircraft have exploded over the past 20 years? Shit fails, from an objective standpoint, the f 35 is the best fighter jet in the world, and it’s comparatively cheap when you compare it to the Eurofighter and French Rafael.


Stupid faggot. Have some nuance like >>14971 instead of sucking US DoD cock.


As I said I’m being objective, I’m just saying that you can’t write off an aircraft because of a technical failure.


<the f 35 is the best fighter jet in the world
April 1st was 4 days ago.


There really is nothing to compete with it, Russia can hardly get the su 57 to fly and China has like 10 j-20s which have terrible stealth characteristics.


This is like saying there's nothing to compete w/ the 737 MAX


>Russia can hardly get the su 57 to fly and China has like 10 j-20s which have terrible stealth characteristics.
Citation needed, but that is besides the point. You can't make any claims about the F35 being the best fighter. Maybe you could say it is the best ground attack aircraft since Israel bombed Syria using F35s. Also those alleged faults against Su57 and J20 are also examples of sensationalism aimed at people ignorant of military aircraft just like the F35 "shooting itself" nonsense.


Ironically the 737 MAX was built in response to competition from Airbus.


Russia genuinely has like 10 su-57s, and they still aren’t going to be nearly as stealthy as the f 35 based on its geometry, it’s also doubtful the radar is too good based on past Russian radars. The j-20 on the other hand is massive and has canards, which would further reduce stealth. Also, Chinese jet engines are still not that great.


Why is the Su-57 geometry bad for stealth? If you are concerned about the engine duct, they could simply put a metal mesh in the engine duct to deflect radar. A metal mesh could easily be designed to block radar of specific bandwidth such as those used in air search radars. No doubt Russia has collected signals intelligence on search and fire control radars of many foreign countries (both friendly and hostile).

As for the J20, canards are no worse for stealth than traditional tail horizontal stabilizers. Assuming a frontal approach a deflected canard and a deflected tail would both spike up RCS. Proper use of composites and geometry of the metal components can further increase stealth of canards or tails. Also the J20 is only 1m (5%) longer than the F22 which allegedly has a smaller RCS than the F35 so size is not the only factor in determining stealth. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the ventral stakes, if anything, those are the main problems on the J20 when it comes to stealth.

I'll give you that Russian radars might be worse than US or Chinese radars and the Chinese engines might be worse than US or Russian ones. Still there's not enough evidence to say the F35 is superior to either competitor or superior to the F22. Other factors like maintenance and sortie rate also need to be considered when deciding which aircraft is superior.


This is China and Russia’s first attempt at building a stealth aircraft, the f 35 had a DAS system which allows the pilot to see through the floor of the aircraft with his/her helmet, thats is amazing. It’s radar can be used to make images which a computer will automatically scan and designate targets. The infrared system was apparently so good it was able to sense a tank firing from a 100 miles away. I just can’t see Russia and China building a good stealth aircraft with Russians shotty build quality and engines, and China with borrowed Russian engines and shitty indigenous ones.


These are claims made in sales brochures(aka manufacturer's propaganda). I'm sure you can find similar claims made in Russian and Chinese brochures as well. It's up to you if you want to believe them or not. We are lucky to live in a time where there is no need to evaluate these claims in real battle. IMO the F35's largest tangible advantage over the Su57 and J20 is that the F35 is manufactured in large numbers which allows for more opportunity to correct mistakes and develop manufacturing shortcuts. Quantity, after all, has its own quality.


The thing that leads me to believe that the f 35 is the best is also the pilots comments, they all generally say that the information it’s able to supply the pilot is incredible, data can be fed through aerial radars, naval radars, and ground radars seemlessly, the situational awareness is incredible. It’s also not supposed to be a slouch on dogfighting either, as it can likely turn better than a loaded f 16, because it carries its weapons internally.


That's because you've only read testimony from F35 pilots and not Su57 or J20 pilots.


I’m not talking about those right now, it’s just the f 35 is by their testimony incredible, and both Russian and Chinese planes aren’t being produced much. IMO Russia wont be building many su 57s, they’re just too poor to support that kind of fleet. In terms of the j 20, it’s engines are going to be a major limiting factor and it’s likely it’s avionics aren’t at the f 35s level based on previous indigenous designs.


The F-35 started provurment five years before the J-20 and Su-57 did. Five years ago the F-35 was extremely shit, it was unalienable, stealth didn't work, it could use most air launched missiles the US had. Most of those issues have been fixed, in five years the J-20 and Su-57 will work a lot better.


What do you mean the stealth didn’t work? They install radar reflectors so air traffic control can see them. That’s what you’re thinking of.




File: 1617769920978-0.png (417.13 KB, 900x676, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1617769920978-1.png (567.73 KB, 900x600, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1617769920978-2.png (799.57 KB, 900x600, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1617769920978-3.png (445.73 KB, 900x600, ClipboardImage.png)

Will girls get weirded out if I put up a poster of pic related in my room?
I like planes, but I like getting laid more.
Which one is better?


>Will girls get weirded out if I put up a poster of pic related in my room?
>Which one is better?
any of them is good but I think 3>4>2>1


>Will girls get weirded out if I put up a poster of pic related in my room?
Well that would depend on the girl in question, wouldn't it? If you like planes then have a plane on your wall, simple as. Just don't sperg out and start listing its stats or whatever. :^)


File: 1617863605896-0.png (1.06 MB, 709x822, 3db1fe4da2f923f65f79cbfafb….png)

File: 1617863605896-1.jpg (306.5 KB, 1220x900, f06e34ce446e54f98ef106a592….jpg)

File: 1617863605896-2.jpg (1.21 MB, 3623x2505, 319778.jpg)

File: 1617863605896-3.jpg (1.12 MB, 3158x2352, CHAIKA.jpg)

Why photos instead of art?


Why did the soviets use two engines just for vtol, and not position them like harriers?


Don't like the idea of having war scenes in my living space.

Is that a german F2B on the fourth picture?


File: 1617980761535.jpg (180.89 KB, 1280x960, PERKELE.jpg)

It's Finnish


File: 1617987613337.png (12.16 KB, 384x461, gomrad sburdo.png)



File: 1618501164519-0.jpg (48.74 KB, 720x450, 13667168_normandii-neman-w….jpg)

File: 1618501164519-1.jpg (44.17 KB, 470x314, normandie niemen belarus.jpg)

File: 1618501164519-2.jpg (79.6 KB, 1100x618, Yak-3 Normandie Niemen dou….jpg)

hon hon hon salut

Unique IPs: 26

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]