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

/hobby/ - Hobby

Password (For file deletion.)

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

 No.1505[Last 50 Posts]

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.


File: 1608525558941.jpeg (68.61 KB, 405x525, 2C2ABBF3-A265-4C53-B7E0-C….jpeg)

Let’s talk about the scud missile systems and how despite being an old weapon from the 70s still managed to shot down imperialist over-designed garbage which would really affect how the US go around with the recent assassination of the Quds general.
When did the Soviet extensive air defense system come about? How is it still so reliable that most of the world’s ballistic missile systems, vehicle and personnel AA is still based on it?


>scud missile systems
>Used as SAMs
Fucking what? Scud missiles are short range ballistic missiles, they can't feasibly be used for SAM use unless you reconstruct the entirety of its internal structure and add a shit-ton of rudders on it.

Regardless the article you posted was a Global Hawk shot down by either an S-125 or Raad/Buk missile.

As for how the Scud so reliable? Lots of study of rockets and the prior combat experience of using MRLS' prompting short-range tactical ballistic strikes to deliver heavy strikes. Frankly its less a case of the Scud being that good - (it's an adequate missile for today) - and more a case that US air defense has been weak ever since the weapon's race moved on from AAA to missiles.
More modern soviet short/medium-range BMs like the Oka or Iskander are much better.

TL;DR: The missiles were built to be functional and simple, without fancy bullshit.


i wish i had saved the old thread :(


I heard Soviet technology is so good, some of it still gets used. Is that true?


File: 1608525571426-0.jpg (24.23 KB, 330x497, Soyuz_TMA-9_launch.jpg)

File: 1608525571426-1.mp4 (9.65 MB, 320x180, BasedOldPoland.mp4)

Search about the Soyuz program dude. It's still the most widely used rocket out there while most US programs are trashed and put in storage in only a decade.
Not to mention their pioneering unmanned probes, space stations, air defense, computer network, smart homes, and even mobile phones.
On tank technology and anti-air, the red army dotrine is designed so that any division can take down western air forrce which weapons being the basis of most non imperialist air defense.
At least we still have the wayback machine.


BTR-60s, t-55s, t-72s, SA-3 and a the every famous AK-47 are just a few systems of the USSR used today regularly.


File: 1608525581554-0.jpeg (115.39 KB, 1024x649, Voltaire_in_Toulon-Agence….jpeg)

File: 1608525581554-1.jpg (17.78 KB, 395x250, e7d7cc8faa768d984220dcdfb8….jpg)

File: 1608525581554-2.png (1.03 MB, 1000x593, Cuirassé_Liberté_1911_draw.png)

*opens Jane's warships 1908*
Lemme tell you about how the french built French pre-dreadnoughts after the HMS Dreadnought had already outmoded them 2 years earlier


File: 1608525581945.jpg (293.17 KB, 1200x900, frogs.jpg)

The French are notorious for spending shit tons of money on useless outdated garbage. Most notable is their tank force. During the period from 1933-1939 France was renowned for having the "best" armoured force in the world, its tanks were on paper simply the best, the Infantry tank Char B1 was the best and most numerous heavy tank in Europe, its size also meant that it carried a two-way radio. Supplementing this was the Sa35, regarded as the best tank in the entire world, mostly due to its very good 47mm gun combined with its good armour and mobility, it was the best all-around tank, and the pinnacle of pre-war medium tank design that mid-war medium tanks would try and embody and would be furthered by MBTs. The problem with the French tanks is that although they were the best on paper, the French lacked any real practical experience in designing them. As a result French tanks were complete rubbish in an actual battle. Their guns, although very good, were slow to reload due to ALL french tanks having one man turrets, this meant that the commander was also the radio operator, the loader, and the gunner and could do none of those very well. As well French tanks had terrible off-road suspension, small ground clearance, and awkward hull shapes that tended to get them stuck in ditches or tip over on sharp inclines. As well they lacked radios beyond the B1, meaning that French tanks had to often communicate using signal flags or morse lamp. The Germans by 1939 were almost the complete opposite, their tanks were on paper dreadful, they were heavier, slower, and more lightly armed than the Allies's counterparts, with the best in service gun being the 3.7cm on the Panzer IIIs and Panzer 35(t)s/38(t)s with the 5cm universal gun being too expensive too see production at the time. However the Germans had built their tanks in cooperation with the Soviets and as such had extensive field experience with tanks, leading both the Soviets and Germans to prioritize ergonomics, off-road maneuverability, communication, and ruggedness. This meant that German tanks had 5 crewmen per tank compared to the French's 2-3. As well the brand new suspension created by Porsche allowed German tanks to travel over rough ground over large distances without needing replacement, something that French tanks found impossible due to their fragile suspension and low ground clearance. In 1940 France had 1240 "modern" tanks at its disposal with around 2000 slightly outdated tanks that could still pierce the armour of any German tank, while the German could muster only 570 modern tanks after Poland and 600 Czech models, bringing their practical strength to around 1100 tanks, the Panzer IIs and Is being redundant. However in reality the Germans had more tanks, entirely due to how divisional organization worked in both armies. In France tanks were not their own separate force, but integrated into the various arms of the army. Infantry and Cavalry tanks were not just monikers but quite literal descriptors, they were part of the Infantry and Calvary corps respectively. And they were in every single French division in the entire French army, working the same as any artillery or support division. In effect the French could muster anywhere from 20-80 tanks per division, with an experimental "Heavy" tank division mustering 200 tanks with 100 Char B1s, but only 2 of these every existed. What this meant was that the French, despite having more tanks than the Germans, were always outnumbered tanks wise. The Germans had concentrated their tanks into independent Panzer Corps, with supporting infantry and integrated aerial support to make up for heavy artillery, they were basically their own micro-army that could meet and overtake any opposing equivalent force with focus being on staying mobile. This meant that the Germans had 200 tanks per division against France's max 80 tanks per division, the French would have had to field at least 3 division for every German division, while more often they would have had to field, and coordinate 5 division to properly outmatch a single German division, and given the French's terrible communication system meant that was nearly impossible.


Isn't that a copy+paste from the old thread? Cause I'm pretty sure I remember making that one lol.


is it true that soviets only got to space because of nazi rocket technology


File: 1608525586412.jpeg (166.62 KB, 564x387, 863E492E-DA47-4B85-AE9A-6….jpeg)

This is proven false by just a simple google search. Before ww2 the basis for multistage rockets and space flight has already been planned out by Tsiolkovsky and Korolev with even a few working prototypes in the GIRD series and later project 05 in 1933 pioneered by the same guy that designed Sputnik.
On the whole Nazi science myth is pretty much a meme made of by Cold War warriors with not much evidence behind it. The R-1 was a V-2 but the rest of the designs look NOTHING like projected nazi rocket designs.
The USA got almost all Nazi rocket scientists and tech from Peenmunde such as the nazi-sympathizing Wernher von Braun. The USSR got what were essentially lab assistants in the rocket science area.


not military, but related to the previous topic about stolen tech
>In 1988 if you wanted to buy a factory-made 8-bit home computer, it would cost several monthly wages of a young engineer.
>And it would be made mostly from outdated stolen western parts made with outdated stolen western equipment and plenty of manual labor.
>If you study what goods USSR produced you will see that almost everything was stolen(rarely licensed) from the west and just copied.
i'm guessing this is not true


That might have some basis in reality as in 1988, Gorbashit was a huge fan Amerimutt shit so his reforms always try to emulate American trash products.



This reminds me that they reverse engineered gig tiger videogames to make their own with characters like the wolf and the rabbit from nu pogodi


File: 1608525620165.png (223.09 KB, 494x590, 3C8294A1-7955-411A-942A-D4….png)

How effective was the Yugoslav AA systems fair against NATO during its breakup?


The Soviet Union did reverse engineer some western tech, but most of their stuff they made/developed themselves. Their computers weren’t made of old western parts. They were designed in the USSR. Some of the design choices were influenced by stuff from the west, but most wasn’t.


Fairly effective. The number of HARM missiles and other SEAD/AWACS based counter-systems was roughly 3x higher in expenditure than used by those same NATO forces in Iraq a few years earlier. Their airforce was fairly crippled unfortunately (old MiG-21s and export MiG-29s facing USAF F-15Es and F-16Cs with full AWACS and outnumbering them 5-1) however their SAMs were used to full potential.
SA-3s and SA-6s were the main batteries used, they would get a long-distance scan, turn off as soon as a signal as caught and launch a missle blindly in the calculated trajectory, when the missle was roughly at intersect, the RADAR was flashed on and the missile guided the final dozen meters towards targets, nullifying any RADAR dazzler systems and preventing anti-radiation missiles from finding them. On top of that an old trick use was taking a microwave and with a generator turning it on in a field. This tricked HARMs into going after it instead.
AAA was also used successfully against strike aircraft. Other than the A-10 ( I don't remember it operating there) no NATO strike craft had proper armor, meaning they were forced to do total indiscriminate strikes or inaccurate high-altitude drops.


File: 1608525621614.png (277.69 KB, 557x605, C0119D98-6C6B-4161-8BFC-93….png)

Ah so very similar to the AA during Nam. NATO probably fudged the numbers again just like they did during Linebacker.
>According to Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau, the number of aircraft lost by the USAF is unconfirmed since the USAF figures are also suspect. If a plane was badly damaged, but managed to land, the USAF did not count as a loss, even if it was too damaged to fly again. During the operation, the USAF told the press that 17 B-52s were lost. But later, the USAF told Congress that only 13 B-52s were lost. Nine B-52s that returned to U-Tapao airfield were too badly damaged to fly again. The number of B-52s that managed to return to Guam but were combat losses remains unknown. The overall B-52 loss is probably between 22 and 27


File: 1608525633416.jpg (43.83 KB, 600x606, ZPU-1 Vietnam.jpg)

> the AA during Nam
Yep. Both the Yugos and the Vietnamese got very creative with their Air Defense systems during the war, as did the Syrians.
A really good example I found was this: In 1972, on December 22, a Vietnamese anti-aircraft unitshot down an F-111 with a single-barrel 14.5 mm ZPU-1. On top of that, the anti-aircraft gun had only 19 shells left when they spotted the American aircraft.


File: 1608525633541-0.jpeg (94.93 KB, 768x512, 17EBFAD5-EF06-4420-8B6A-7….jpeg)

File: 1608525633541-1.jpeg (126.13 KB, 768x512, A67BBF03-3D69-43E0-89FA-E….jpeg)

Funnily enough there were interviews regarding this. When asked to how they did it, the gunners nonchalantly answer that the Americans on their sorties alway fly on the same path. All they had to do was timing the trajectory of the planes using their watch and shoot where the planes going to be.
Also another good example would be that time where an entire air attack got lured into a trap and get destroyed during Spring High.


File: 1608525639940.jpg (145.3 KB, 700x471, cruise missile doctrine so….jpg)

>Aircraft carriers
Their only real use is to act as transport and launch pads for imperialist fleets to park off the coast of a smaller country and bomb it to shit. When face with an opponent of equal technological advancement or even slightly comparable technology these carriers are sitting ducks to cruise-missiles.


Most modern US strategy is for asymmetrical warfare. Anything more advanced than even Iran can easily beat them to a pulp in a pitch fight.


Well yeah, the Soviets specifically made the KH-22 to be able to sink US carriers in 2 hits max, doctrine usually called for firing in salvos but with the KH-22 they were supposed to fire only one at a time since it was guaranteed to hit its target since even modern US CRAM systems have a had time hitting supersonic munitions, plus if by some miracle the KH-22 was shot down it was designed so its fragments after destruction would continue travelling and likely either blind or damage the defence system that shot them down.


Why does most new Russian military projects are just reboots of old Soviet ones? Like the Kirov rearmament, focus on anti-air weapons and the new shitty armata being clearly based on old Soviet object series like the 490.
Are there any hope that they’ll revive the weaponized Ekranoplan projects?


Those large ekranoplans look cool but they're probably really expensive to operated considering they had 6 jet engines. A missile truck like the old Tu-95 is probably a better option.

The Armata has good ideas in it like simplifying logistics with the same hull for Tank, IFV, and SP artillery, but they don't have the funds to get many Armatas and they decided to cheap out and stick with using T-90 hulls for the SP artillery. Kind of defeats the purpose. War is unlikely between Russia and NATO so we'll likely never learn how good or bad the Armata design is.


File: 1608525900465.gif (4.35 MB, 370x296, zapusk_satanyi.gif)

Introducing the SS-18/Р-36M Воевода Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile.
To get a real understanding of the power wielded by the SS 18 this comparison gives a perspective; the Hiroshima bomb (Gun-shot type fission reaction of Ur 235) had an explosive yield of approximately 15 kilo-tonnes (KT) or 15,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent, and killed 70,000 people (at least) and affected the population of the area for decades. In comparison, a single SS-18 carries up to 10 separate thermonuclear warheads of around 750-1000 Kilotons each. Some missiles are armed with a single, humongous 20,000 KT warhead. During the early years of the missile age, the United States led in technology and numbers but by the early 1970s when the SS-18 started entering service in significant numbers, Moscow had closed the missile gap and pulled ahead. In 1990 Moscow had a stockpile of around 40,000 nuclear warheads (vs 28,000 for the US) but by just using the 3,000 warheads on its SS-18s it could wipe out all human life in the continental United States in 30 minutes or less. Codenamed Satan by NATO, the SS-18 weighs a gargantuan 209,000 kg. The highly accurate Russian missile can not only penetrate and destroy American missile silos, which are hardened to 300 psi, but its own silos are hardened to a stupendous 6000 psi, making the missile all but impregnable to a first strike. Amazingly, for a missile of its weight and length (102 feet) it can sidewind (move in a series of S-shaped curves) to evade anti-missile defenses and its micro-electronics are hardened to function even during the event of a nuclear attack, meaning even a nuclear bomb’s EMP wave won’t knock its systems out.

A short history of its creation: https://pikabu.ru/story/mikhail_kuzmich_yangel__raketnyiy_akademik_sozdatel_r36msatana_6490436

The US equivalent ICBM to these missiles are the Minuteman series and the later Peacekeeper
The former had no MIRV warheads in the first 2 models and its monoblock warhead had 1.2 Megatons. The 3-part MIRVs of the Minuteman III have only 171 Kilotons. The Minuteman is the only land-based ICBMs used today by the USA.
The latter has 10-12 MIRV warheads, each having 300 Kiloton warheads with the undeployed W78 warhead increasing it to roughly 335kT, roughly 1/2-1/3 the capability of the SS-18.


>Some missiles are armed with a single, humongous 20,000 KT warhead.
This is awesome and all but holy fuck how did they cover the cost for making one of these babies?


It's not that expensive considering the technologies. Currently the same explosive yield of the Tsar Bomba (for example) would be very easy to replicate with a much smaller (physically) unit.


Shouldn't this thread be in /tech/?


wait nvm im retarded


File: 1608526063385.jpg (103.19 KB, 1200x800, 865qirkj1pq21.jpg)

I found this pro-US army site called Wearethemighty and holy fuck is it a bucket of laughs.

The Sukhoi Su-25 is now apparently a copy of the Northrop A-9 and therefore loses to the A-10 warthog because it carries less weapons. (despite not presenting any feats on the Su-25 and some vague shit on the A-10)

The idea that the Su-25 is a YA-9 ripoff is hilarious considering how they are only superficially similar. The Su-25 was the winner of a competition between Illyushin and Sukhoi based on their experience with the soviet pioneered shturmovik concept.

The 2 aircraft are honestly incomparable to one another:


Anyone have the info on how the Greeks constantly shoot-down Turkish military planes that invade their airspace? At least some of the kills were with Soviet tech or older American tech vs the new F-16s of the Truks.


File: 1608526395369.png (397.02 KB, 960x720, 1597763867045.png)



File: 1608526400352.jpg (162.36 KB, 1509x894, UlyanovskClass.jpg)

Which explains why China is build carriers and the soviets built a lot of carriers and were planning on building nuclear powers supercarriers with similar capabilities to the Nimitz class before dissolution.


If this is implying "Muh Soviet Imperialism" you're plumb stupid. I can agree on China however, though their current goals are more likely to secure their Seas with mobile airbases for now.


>before the dissolution
Yeah, most of their projects by that point are just trying to one up the US with no other goals in mind. Military spending must go up and what better way to do it than building more carriers.
Most of their history the Soviets never focused their entire battle plans and fleets around the carriers like the US.
Modern China is imperialist. No shit.


>Anything more advanced than even Iran can easily beat them to a pulp in a pitch fight.
>This is what Iranians actually believe


This is easily proven with Yugoslavian Air Defense compared to Saddam's. Despite using outdated SA-3s and SA-6s, through superior training, improvisation and mildly effective tech, the Yugoslavians shot down more planes and forced NATO to use triple the number of SEAD and HARM systems compared to Iraq.

While not comparable in a fully modern context, the Japanese Navy, despite being smaller than the USA, caused major damage to it, and held out against it for 4 years straight despite resource limitations and technological inferiority mid-way into the war.


>soviet imperalism
No one is saying that. All that I am saying is that carriers are more then imperialist death machines, they are a weapon of war. And one that is useful.
>Yeah, most of their projects by that point are just trying to one up the US with no other goals in mind.
Not true, Soviet Carriers would allow the USSR to intervene to support Communist factions in civil Wars as well as significantly reduce American Naval Superiority in a hypothetical WW3, potentially evening gaining full control of the seas.
>Most of their history the Soviets never focused their entire battle plans and fleets around the carriers like the US.
No, but for most of Soviet history the USSR planned on building carriers or had acquired carriers. Their were plans to build carriers in the 1920s.http://www.avalanchepress.com/SovietCarriers.php
The Helicarrier Moskva was laid down in 1962. The fist Soviet carrier with fixed wing aircraft was laid down in 1970 and completed in 1975. During the dissolution of the USSR the Soviet Navy had 7 carriers.


>they are a weapon of war. And one that is useful.
See the quora post in >>2384. Until CIWS is good enough to be 99% guaranteed to take out Air-Surface strikes and submerged strikes, they're only useful for beating down smaller countries, and as proven with Vietnam and Iraq, if you don't have land forces ready to back it up it's just wanton destruction.
>Soviet Carriers would allow the USSR to intervene to support Communist factions in civil Wars as well as significantly reduce American Naval Superiority in a hypothetical WW3, potentially evening gaining full control of the seas.
A fair point, BUT as pointed out before it is a questionable point and not worth the resources it would require.


>Not true, Soviet Carriers would allow the USSR to intervene to support Communist factions in civil Wars as well as significantly reduce American Naval Superiority in a hypothetical WW3, potentially evening gaining full control of the seas.
Just give the beleagued country shit loads of anti ship missiles and anti air vehicles. A 10% chance of hitting is good enough as a single successful strike can permanently crippled a ship. Plus it's extremely easy to mass produce for a country like Iran for example.
But that would make the country much less reliant on the USSR which is incompatible with the Soviet realpolitik in the late 80s. Not to mention the multitude of ways the US can attack a small country other than just outright invasion.


>Until CIWS is good enough to be 99% guaranteed to take out Air-Surface strikes and submerged strikes
CIWS aren't the only anti-missile systems on a ship though. Thier are also SAMs that can be used in anti-missile roles as well as duel purpose main guns. Both of those systems are of long enough range enough that a system on one ship can defend another. Which is why carrier groups are a thing. Also a single CWIS system can be inaccurate but when you put multiple systems on a ship they are more effective.


>main guns
useless against anything that is supersonic
Long distance defense that - unless in large numbers like on the Kirov - are unable to cope with the sheer volume of fire they would be receiving
> a single CWIS system can be inaccurate but when you put multiple systems on a ship they are more effective.
I know, I was specific with the 99%. Unless we know with such certainty that not a single missile will impact, such huge RADAR reflectors are just sitting ducks to a proper deployment.


DDG-51 type destroyers have 96 VLS cells, suppose half are carrying ESSM. Each cell can hold 4 ESSM so you're looking at 48*4 = 192 medium ranged SAMs per ship. A typical carrier battle group will have 5-6 ships (both destroyers and cruisers) carrying this many SAMs so the whole fleet will have about ~1000 SAMs for air defense. I heard that the engagement doctrine is to fire 2 SAMs at each incoming missile. So the a carrier battle group has enough missiles to shoot against an attack by 500 missiles. This is not counting the aircraft in the fleet which can also contribute to anti-missile defense.

The limitation is not number of missiles, it is the capabilities of the radar systems. How many targets they can track, and how many targets they can engage. I've heard the older versions of ESSM required the ship illuminate the target using radar, and DDG-51 has 4? target illuminators so each ship can only engage 4 targets at a time. Given the speed of anti-ship missiles, the combat time for each ship is limited. The newer ESSM have active radar homing so they do not rely on the ship to keep the target illuminated, this in theory should greatly increase the number of targets one ship can engage. Still, the quantity of missiles is not the problem here. The problem is how many incoming missiles can be engaged and the limited time in which this engagement can happen. A saturation attack does not require 500 missiles, but it's not as easy as you say to overwhelm fleet air defense.

I'm going to leave out the long range missiles but keep in mind carrier escorts will have long range SAMs that can also contribute to anti-missile defense.


>forced NATO to use triple the number of SEAD and HARM systems compared to Iraq.
Here's the thing, though, the US can easily afford to do that. The amount of money, training, and materiel they have is simply unparalleled by any military organization in the world. No one is going to beat the US in combat anytime soon.


>the US can easily afford to do that
Against Yugoslavia, but not against a larger country with BETTER systems. countries at Iran's level or higher would be far too much trouble to strike without the full support of the UN and NATO.


>Against Yugoslavia, but not against a larger country
I think you underestimate the sheer size of the US arsenal and the quality of the hardware involved. The US has about 1400 more combat aircraft than its next biggest rival, Russia. They receive more pilot flight time, maintenance, and can be replaced at a much faster rate. It has more aircraft carriers, 11 and more being built compared to its closest rival, China, which has two. The carriers are also newer, better-equipped and have better-trained crews.
I mean, in every single sense, the US is a behemoth. This idea that the US is going to lose against any single nation is just silly. Would it cost more? Yes, but militarily, there is no defending a nation against the US. If they are determined in toppling your government they will do it as long as it's politically expedient. This is why a lot of nations cozy up to nuclear powers like Russia, because they know the Russians and the US won't fight each other directly. Realistically speaking, there is no way anyone is going to stave off a US invasion, even if they had no allies, and they have plenty of those.


I love ICBMs because they are completely useless, since nuclear bombs aren't real. Beautiful megatoys.


Your description lacks important details.
Air superiority is meaningless in the face of proper Air Defense as has been proven in modern times. The USA was actively waging war with North Vietnam yet its progress was terrible and losses even more so, and this was a Vietnam that had old SAMs from Soviet stockpiles alongside WW-2 weapons and stolen US equipment. They had no cruise-missiles or mobile SAMs or large ships, yet the USA suffered enormous losses to little gain. Iraq was easy because there was no organization or proper training.

Stop hyping up the US army. Outside of the special forces and groups like the Marines, the majority aren't much to look at. The majority are literal college-students who entered the force for G.I. benefits.

>carriers are also newer, better-equipped and have better-trained crews.

Again read the fucking quora post. They address ALL of this. 45 minutes is how long those carriers survive against any country with cruise missiles and a sufficiently sized and armed navy/army/airforce. The majority of Iraq tank and air-plane kills were literally abandoned vehicles who's crew wasn't even battle ready or willing to fight. Compare this to the VIetnamese or Yugos.

Unlike with the USSR where the numbers of aircraft and tanks mattered, since they covered the majority of Eurasia, the USA is isolated on a continent it controls and has to send its troops and forces out, which means transport and supply considerations. Why do you think they were so adamant on Japanese, Hawaiian and Korean military bases? That is the only reason they need carriers to "forward-deploy". Against China those carriers are fodder and so are their AEGIS cruisers. The same goes for Russia and to an extent India. Iran having only 1 border with the shallow and narrow Gulf of Arabia/Red Sea has a very good chance of defending itself against Carrier deployments, as its land-based cruise-missile systems can pick them off.


>Air superiority is meaningless in the face of proper Air Defense
You clearly do not understand electronic warfare or SEAD and DEAD missions.


>You clearly do not understand electronic warfare or SEAD and DEAD missions.
Except I do. Electronic Warfare can only do so much. SEAD and HARMs were used extensively in Vietnam. They reduced losses BUT, considering they faced outdated systems and hurriedly trained crews, these loss reductions are not enough. In Iraq they lacked proper air defenses and air-defense tactics and were picked off easily despite an only slight numerical superiority in terms of aircraft. In Yugoslavia, a country much smaller than Iraq and with similar military tech but better training and set-up, the SEAD systems were much less effective, despite NATO air forces being numerically superior by several times and severe infighting in the country.


The idea "the bomber will always get through" was disproven in WW-2. Without full air-support by fighters and electronic warfare, a manned strike aircraft has little chance of getting into airspace defended by even a moderately technological military force. On the water however, air-defenses are no enough because they're all centrally located. AEGIS Cruisers specifically turn into huge RADAR reflectors when a carrier formation is under attack to confuse and attract missiles to target them. The Carrier itself lacks anything above rudimentary air defenses and an armored deck, which is useless against any Soviet/Chinese/Iranian cruise missile which are all heavy enough to break through with kinetic force alone (let alone the warhead).

The US navy lacks such anti-ship missiles, with the Tomohawk being its only real cruise missile of major use and that's fodder.


>North Vietnam
This isn't the 60s. The tech gap has only grown, and it isn't as if the US doesn't have plans to counter air defenses. Military science is something they pursue relentlessly. Nothing will ever be like Vietnam again.

>. Outside of the special forces and groups like the Marines

Marines aren't special operations. Please read more on this.

>The majority are literal college-students who entered the force for G.I. benefits.

I take it you've literally never been involved with the US military. Even if this were the case, and it's not. The average US soldier and marine receives more, better-funded, training than anyone outside NATO and maybe inside. The exercises are bigger, the equipment is better, and the NCO corps, the ones that actually carry out training set by the officers, has about 18 years of combat experience. There is no comparison.

>Again read the fucking quora post. They address ALL of this. 45 minutes is how long those carriers survive against any country with cruise missiles and a sufficiently sized and armed navy/army/airforce. The majority of Iraq tank and air-plane kills were literally abandoned vehicles who's crew wasn't even battle ready or willing to fight. Compare this to the VIetnamese or Yugos.

This is very optimistic, and relies on the US risking carriers to begin with. This scenario is simply not going to happen.

>Iran having only 1 border with the shallow and narrow Gulf of Arabia/Red Sea has a very good chance of defending itself against Carrier deployments, as its land-based cruise-missile systems can pick them off.

Again, I think you overestimate the ability of Iranian defenses, and seem to think a US invasion would start with them showing up in the gulf, and not deploying forward elements specifically to facilitate movement in the gulf.


>The tech gap has only grown
No it hasn't SAM tech has not stopped improving and neither have counter-counter-measures. FFS Yugoslavia shot down an F-117 with an SA-3 and damaged 2 others. This was the 90s and they faced F-15s, F-16s, F-18s and other aircraft of the new generation against SA-3 and SA-6 units primarily.
>Marines aren't special operations
You read more I said, special forces AND groups like Marines. The Marines are not standard military, I know the difference between their training and army training is enormous.
>Military science is something they pursue relentlessly
And their opponents are just sitting with their asses in the air waiting and not preparing against it?
>you've literally never been involved with the US military
As a soldier? God no. However I do know or knew people who have served in the US military and am well aware of its basic functionality, its not secret after all. Hell the most secrecy is usually around covering up failures and unsavory missions.
>The average US soldier and marine receives more, better-funded, training than anyone outside NATO
Better funded? Yes, mostly because everything is overpriced
More? Not much more than any comparable country, like Israel, Russia or China.
Throwing money at something does not equal better, the F-35 is evidence of that.
>exercises are bigger
Russia did several gigantic exercises in the past few years, parallel to NATO, as has China and India. The USSR's exercises were so vast that they were the world's largest even today.
>equipment better
Hah, no. Only frontline troops going overseas or specialized groups like Marines, tank-crewmen and motorized infantry get proper equipment from the get-go.
>very optimistic, and relies on the US risking carriers
FFS you're just shifting goal posts. The US cannot feasibly project its power without carrier transport or large permanent bases. Given that we are discussing carriers, that is the focus. Those carriers, by approaching an enemy with sufficient fire-power are sitting ducks. It's that simple
>I think you overestimate the ability of Iranian defenses
Hardly. They're no super-power, but they have plenty of modern tech and large armed forces
>seem to think a US invasion would start with them showing up in the gulf
Hardly, but they would have to enter the Gulf at some point if they were to be useful, thus Carriers are near useless in the conflict until after land-based subjugation, which was my entire point.
>deploying forward elements specifically to facilitate movement in the gulf
Bud, I've studied the Gulf-Wars, I'm aware of how this shit works. You're not the only one who lived through the 90s.


File: 1608526723301.jpg (174.75 KB, 1143x795, Yak-38 forger A.jpg)

Post defending the Yak 38 in response to BlackTailDefense's video on it.


>lessons from amerinian-azeri war


Armenian you arse. It's not that hard to spell
You mean like the last dozen local conflicts through out the world? The lesson is old. Moreover drones only made an impact by having numbers and the Armenians lacking them because of spiteful Israeli suppliers and negligent Russian ones.


This was the first large scale use of drones in a symmetrical conventional war. Also is showed the failure of modern SAM systems to deal with them.


>showed the failure of modern SAM systems to deal with them.
Modern SAMs like the Pantsir system handled them fine, the problems were with older, larger systems, created to take on fighter jets, large cruise missiles and bombers.


These systems were unable to stop drone attacks from occurring only slow them down. Clearly SAM systems aren’t the silver bullit that they were thought to be. New air defense systems such as AA artillery, lasers and interceptor drones will need to be developed, until then air superiority will determine the fate of the ground war.




Why are e-celebs on miltech so fucking biased? Any videos on any vehicles use only one source that they found that justified their beliefs.
Take that faggot spookton for example. One terrible book that somehow he represented as the end all be all consensus.


>Air superiority is meaningless in the face of proper Air Defense
Oh boy did the Azeris end this meme


File: 1608526806354.bmp (330.52 KB, 450x188, zch6dvqa.bmp)

>"the bomber will always get through" was disproven in WW-2
but it was reproven in 2020


File: 1608526806489.bmp (3.99 MB, 1002x1044, yzeuhctn.bmp)

>meaning they were forced to do total indiscriminate strikes or inaccurate high-altitude drops.
it was clearly enough


e-celebs care about maximizing their popularity while minimizing their work


the Armenians def didn't have a proper air defense though


they had over 50 S-300s


Artesh had a non-integrated air defense network using AD systems from the 80s
aside from one maybe hit on an S300 Armenia didn't even deploy them because they were trying not to escalate the conflict, in the same fashion that Armenia didn't deploy their army proper to NK


File: 1608526811644.png (803.18 KB, 768x768, 0b5b605e-8b5e-11ea-8a72-3b….png)

Thougts on the H-20. It looks like its gonna be a serious march for the B-2.


Pretty much going to be an exact copy since the thing was built from a crashed B-2 China bought a few years ago. Bombers especially tactical ones are overrated.


I'm pretty sure China didn't buy the crashed B-2


Not bought from the US themselves that for sure ;)


any new stealth bomber is gonna look lime the B-2, the new US bomber is just the B-2 but smaller to make it cheaper.


File: 1608526813581.jpg (20.33 KB, 510x321, berniejets.jpg)

>to make it cheaper
Hah, keep dreaming.


File: 1608526813748-0.png (131.68 KB, 376x444, Screenshot_2020-11-13 Nort….png)

File: 1608526813748-1.png (116.65 KB, 374x611, Screenshot_2020-11-13 Nort….png)

compared to the B-2 anything is cheaper


It's going to be more expensive as it goes through "development"


>The entire force of NATO is bombing you 24/7.
Yeah no shit, that's a forgone conclusion, and not the point at all.
No it wasn't. Drones weren't hit because there were no air defenses to speak of.

There was no integrated Air Defense system and S-300s are built for targeting things like ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and manned aircraft, not some tiny-ass drone. Not to mention teams from the Armenian side literally sat on their ass after launching missiles and got hit back by remaining drones and artillery in the area.


>S-300s are built for targeting things like ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and manned aircraft, not some tiny-ass drone.
They can still be neutralized with information warfare. Israeli spies were caught red handed when they tried to spy on the coastal S-300 defense line of Vietnam (they got away however). This experience later gave them an edge in making the S-300 systems in Syria almost useless.


>They can still be neutralized with information warfare.
Right, with the computer hardware they don't have? Armenia is a poor country with little resources. People are still using laptops that are archaic and 10+ years old. A Mercedes=Benz or Lexus car is considered a luxury item for the rich and a smartphone is cherished and carefully cared for.
>Israeli spies were caught red handed when they tried to spy on the coastal S-300 defense line of Vietnam
Vietnam has a much bigger infrastructure, military and resources, Armenia is the opposite.
>This experience later gave them an edge in making the S-300 systems in Syria almost useless
True, but that's SEAD and electronic counter-counter-measures being used, not a cast-iron argument against Air Defense being effective. As I posted before, a PROPER Air Defense is far more effective than any individual SAM system. The Armenians did well, but they lacked the infrastructure and resources for a proper defense against the richer Azeri.


the most important lesson from the Azeri-Armenian war that no picked up because "muh drones" is that artillery is still the king of conventional warfare. Most of the major Azeri breakthroughs and pushes were due to focused artillery rather that drone actions


File: 1608526892689.jpg (87.34 KB, 1300x696, 120.jpg)

Combat weight - 27 tons; crew - 4; Weapon: smoothbore 152.4 mm M69 gun, 14.5 mm HMG;

The ammunition for the cannon consisted of 22 rounds with armor p iercing sabot rounds and HE-f ragmentation and HEAT shells.

armor protection - vs HMGs and 57 mm gun for turret

diesel - 353 kW (480 hp); maximum speed - 63 km / h .

Due to the increased length of the gun barrel (9045 mm), the initial velocity of the armor-piercing-sabot non-rotating projectile was 1710 m/s, and the direct shot range at the target with a height of 2.0 m reached 2050 m. The maximum pressure in the barrel was 392 MPa (4000 kgs/sm2) . An APFSDS projectile weighing 11.66 kg at a distance of 3000 m punched vertically positioned armor plate with a thickness of 310 mm. The gun had an ejection system for purging the bore after the shot and a slit-type muzzle bra ke, thanks to which the maximum recoil length was only 300 mm. To ensure high rate of fire, shots were placed in a drum ammorack, and the barrel was automatically brought to the loading angle for the period of loading.

A drawing and details (rus) - https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2019/06/152-120.html


File: 1608526892810.jpg (123.58 KB, 800x533, modern-ships-of-the-ussr-n….jpg)

Damn, checked


File: 1608526893202.pdf (45.19 MB, KGB Alpha team training ma….pdf)

not exactly tech, but I thought this was interesting


Nice m8. Thanks! I had a similar one for Soviet reconnaissance troops but I lost it.


Air defence can decrees an enemy's air power, but it is no substitute for air superiority and while it will (is utilized properly) shoot down some planes, most planes will make it through the defense, then they will bomb the SAM systems and then your air defense is much weaker. SAM systems can only properly work if combined interceptor aircraft. Otherwise SAM systems will be bombed.


>ost planes will make it through the defense, then they will bomb the SAM systems
No they won't - not when facing proper training and tech.
In Iraq the lack of training made any and all tech very meager and therefore open for NATO forces despite a comparatively large numbers.
In Yugoslavia the problem was that they were compromised on the ground and were overwhelmed with sheer numbers. That's not an issue in an even fight.

MANPADS and short range missiles paired with AAA kept low-flying and small targets unable to penetrate airspace ad were positioned on the frontlines. Medium range ones handled both and were slightly behind lines and Long range ones were comfortably out of reach. Yugoslavia had only MANPADS, manual AAA and some long range antiques like the SA-6 and SA-3. the S-300 is a strategic SAM designed to hit large long range targets or large numbers of smaller targets.

Obviously if you send units out without the appropriate support there will be gaps.
>SAM systems can only properly work if combined interceptor aircraft
Not exactly true, but Interceptors are important.


Without interceptor aircraft SAM systems can be bombed with anti-radiation missiles, forcing the defender to turn off their radar (making SAMs useless) or have their systems bombed. Once SAMs are destroyed high and medium flying aircraft will obliterate the rest of an enemy's defense. Air-defence networks without interceptor aircraft are no substitute for air superiority.


>antiradiation missiles
Which as seen in Yugoslavia can be negated and countered.
>have their systems bombed
You assume they'll be allowed to. Can't get a firing solution when you can't get in range without being blown out of the sky.
>Air-defence networks without interceptor aircraft are no substitute for air superiority
Read CIA data on Soviet air defense, the entire reason the USA has to have AWACs, and massive numbers of auxillary aircraft is because even mediocre foes would pulverize their forces without any backup.


>Which as seen in Yugoslavia can be negated and countered.
Except that they worked well enough.
>You assume they'll be allowed to. Can't get a firing solution when you can't get in range without being blown out of the sky.
Some bombers will get shot down but some will make it through, and those that make it through will destroy the SAM systems.


If Aircraft carriers are a meme, why is China planning to build at least 6 of them, and basically copying US carrier doctrine down to the trim?

Also what does any of this have to do with the worker struggle?


>workd well enough
&ltmodern HARMS and AWACS facing a broken up air defense made up of decades old SA-6 and SA-3 units and microwave ovens were used 3 ties over compared to a much larger defense network like in Iraq
It was a fucking embarrassment.
>bomber will get through
Debunked decades ago in WW-2. The only way it gets through is through overwhelming numbers, which outside of the USA and USSR no-one really had. The USA also lacked he numbers to pull that tactic on the USSR head-on. That's why airdefenses are stacked and layered.

Aircraft Carriers are tools of spreading imperial force. China seeks to build them so that its airforce will have greater spread across the globe, counter US imperialism. The USA also lacks decent cruise missile systems that would damage an aircraft carrier, while China does have cruise-missles capable of sinking a carrier.
>copying US carrier doctrine down to the trim
Because they're attempting symmetrical response to the USA.

This doesn't stop making carriers a meme however.

>what does any of this have to do with the worker struggle

It's a thread about Soviet military technology and their wartime use (obviously by proletarians).


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)


Unique IPs: 25

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