Russia shit thread

You have no sense of beauty if you think this is not beautiful by every definition.

Attached: tu-22m3 (22).jpg (3179x2045, 347K)

>It looks cool in its own, shitty, thrown-together way.
That's all russian military tech

Attached: 1411351643836.jpg (618x800, 477K)

>Remind me, how many cruise missiles fit into F-22 weapons bay?

>Comparing a pure air superiority fighter to a multi purpose fighter

KEK. Vatniks are retarded.

Remind me, can the Su-57 even detect an F-22 that has a stealth equivalent of a flying golf ball?

The F-22 isn’t designed to carry cruise missiles, it’s an air superiority platform. Stealth strike missions are tasked to F-35s and B-2s, not F-22s.

Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that, in 2028, after 2 decades of the F-22 being in active service, Russia will still be unable to achieve even half the number of Su-57s as the US has of F-22s. This also ignores the something like 2000
F-35s that the US plans on buying by then.

The YF-22 is a different aircraft than the production F-22, but 1999 is the production start year for the service model Raptor. I'm just going to ignore your stupid non-sequitur about cruise missiles.

I think then, his point was that 5th gen fighters take time to procure and develop, and he's right.
But no one gives a shit about development times. All that matters is the final product. Our final product is the greatest air superiority fighter on this planet. The PAK-FA/T-50/Su-57/whatever they're calling it these days isn't. I'm not convinced it's an air superiority fighter at all.
The true purpose is as an airshow demonstrator, so Gabon or Mali can get something that's "just as good" as the Americans, for half the price. Russia's military is just one big ad campaign for Rosboronexport.

It can, with it's QUANTUM EYES

I really don't get the purpose of the thread.

Russians, or Soviets, has always focused on their ground units in their doctrine. The air force is mostly tasked to escort the Army. Their jets are probably used under SAM umbrellas, with the occasional standoff strike. Their SEAD involves fast ground units taking or holding the enemy air fields. They don't need 2000+ F-35's, they have more tanks, more artillery, more ground based EW units and more SAM systems. Also more nukes.

Difference in doctrines.

Calling it now, after another 5 year delay, Sukhoi caps production at like 10 more models on top of the 12 current ones, and the Russians buy J-20s or J-31s to fill the glaring capability gap that’s forming between their Air Force and the USAF.

>Thinking that you can't combine two
>Muh 0.000000000001m2 RCS
Lol. I love it how zoomers buy this 90s press release crap. You're as pathetic as Russian commie zoomers.
>Stealth strike missions are tasked to F-35s and B-2s
Imagine flying a heavy bomber that costs like half of an aircraft carrier to drop drandpa's freefall bombs at some towelhead huts. Remind me, how many cruise missile fit into F-35's weapons bay?
>2028, after 2 decades of the F-22 being in active service, Russia will still be unable to achieve even half the number of Su-57s as the US has of F-22s
Oh boy, it's almost like they buy what they require and don't want to get into another pointless weapons race when all you need for keeping Americans in check is pic related.
>2000 F-35s that the US plans on buying
Sure, just like it had plans buying 750 F-22.

Attached: 15a18m r-36m2 voevoda (2).jpg (1200x1101, 110K)

>The YF-22 is a different aircraft than the production F-22
And T-50-1 is different aircraft than the production Su-57, the prototype of which first flew in 2017, 7 years after T-50-1's first flight, just like F-22 first flew in 1997, 7 years after YF-22's first flight.

Well, pretty much every major engagement post-1980 has demonstrated the complete dominance that air power holds over ground forces. If US experience with SAMs is considered reliable, ground-based air defense can only ever hope to delay the acquisition of air superiority, not prevent it.

Does it really matter when both the F-22 and SU-57 is never gonna see a lot of operation due to their low numbers?

>no one gives a shit about development times
You're making a mistake thinking some shitty internet forum users' opinions matter.

>And T-50-1 is different aircraft
How so?

Well, for over 10 years, the US has had double the amount of F-22s compared to what Russia plans on acquiring over the next decade. On top of that, by 2028, the US 6th gen programs will likely start bearing fruit. I think the Navy’s F/A-XX is supposed to start replacing Super Hornets by the late 2020’s.

>The air force is mostly tasked to escort the Army
You realize the SU had the largest air force on the planet operating a gargantuan fleet of fighters and interceptors, right?
>Their SEAD involves fast ground units taking or holding the enemy air fields
Must be the reason they had dedicated SEAD beasts like MiG-25, MiG-27 and Su-24 and have put jamming equipment an a range of aircraft varying from Yak-28 to Tu-22 and An-12.
>Also more nukes.
It depends, the US had more nukes for quite a while.
>Difference in doctrines.
True tho.

>MiG-25
>Dedicated SEAD
Since when? I thought it was more or less exclusively used as a high-performance interceptor.

>How many cruise missile[s]
None, okay? None. Do you know why?
I'll tell you why.
The role of launching a standoff weapon is, in our arsenal, filled by other platforms; B2's, B-52's, etc. We do not rely on cramming as many features as possible onto a Swiss-Army-Plane, features which, as discussed, only serve a purpose on the back of the arms show brochure.
>Pic related
So the only lever of power your government wants to pull is the nuclear one? What? That's like bringing a gun to every dispute, no matter how small dispute. You keep waving that thing around, everyone knows you'll never pull the trigger, and some begin to question if it's even loaded.
>750 F-22
Yeah, we wanted to, right up until the only country that could possibly challenge American air superiority fell in on itself, and we figured we could spend to money on something else.

I like how his argument went from "It doesn't matter that we only have 12 SU-57's, the U.S. didn't have F-22's for years!" to "We don't need SU-57's any way."

It's other uses include F-16 Target and Communism Escape Pod.

>Ninth flyable prototype, first flight on 6 August 2017.[7] Testing version of the airframe intended for serial production.[6]
From the blueprints that I saw at the very least it got the full radar blocker set.

Attached: t-50-11 (5).jpg (1400x945, 695K)

His whole comment is bullshit cope.

We know the Russian intended more than this because they have explicitly said as such. In fact I remember articles back in like 2010 talking about one of the great concerns for the air force was that we would have very few F22 compared to the amount of Su57 that Russian were saying they were going to build.

They are not building so few because is their doctrine. They are building so few because Russia is third world shithole than can't compete, with little modern engineering resources.

Since 1977. MiG-25 has always been much more than a brilliant interceptor.

Attached: mig-25bm (1).jpg (800x375, 113K)

See

It’s worth noting that an increased reliance on nuclear deterrence at the expense of conventional forces will only weaken Russia’s overall ability to project power. Unless they plan on threatening nuclear war for every possible transgression, they’re rapidly losing the ability to enforce their will on the world stage. Nukes are a great solution for defending territory, but without a similarly-capable conventional military, there isn’t enough flexibility to respond to conflicts which don’t warrant the use of nuclear warheads.

>Communism escape pod
kek

>None, okay?
Okay.
>The role of launching a standoff weapon is, in our arsenal, filled by other platforms; B2's, B-52's, etc.
So that about all those F-18 armed with Harpoons and LRASM that you plan to replace with F-35?
>We do not rely on cramming as many features as possible onto a Swiss-Army-Plane
This is a really ironic thnig to say seeing how the US absolutely felt the need to buy the development of F-35 instead of modifying F-22.
>So the only lever of power your government wants to pull is the nuclear one?
The only lever of power that Russian government needs to pull in response to American Air Force attacking Russia is nuclear weapons. Yes. this is exactly what nukes are for. Russian military doctrine literally says that if anyone attacks the country with an overwhelming force, they will get glassed.
>and we figured we could spend to money on something else
And it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you expect Russia to compete with American 5th gen aircraft procurement for no good reason whatsoever.
>"We don't need SU-57's any way."
I never said that. What I said is that Russian MoD orders what it requires. And it does it in continuous orders, not one big contract like the US.

I like the lower shade of blue, it’s almost periwinkle or something.

Too bad in real life it made Israeli military shit their pants flying recon over Sinai, was able to easily outrun F-15 and its missiles and shoot down F-18.

Attached: mig-25 (7).jpg (1200x1160, 515K)

>at the expense of conventional forces
Whatever floats an oil tanker into your destroyer.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-26 Russian Air Force - Wikipedia.png (786x980, 53K)

Yeah, love that colour too.

Attached: su-57 rf-81775.jpg (1500x1013, 588K)

Strategic nuclear weapons aren’t helpful in proxy wars, though. As long as Russian territorial integrity isn’t at risk, threatening a nuclear response is unlikely. If the US decides to be reckless and drop some JDAMs in Russian contractors in Syria again, or something similar, Russia’s lack of conventional capability leads to serious implications for their ability to influence global events.

Attached: 1558037910054.png (800x600, 28K)

Fun fact, the F-18 shoot down incident remains the only example of a Russian-built aircraft shooting down an American fighter after Vietnam.

Proxy wars do not result in air battles between Russian and American air forces, not anymore.
>If the US decides to be reckless and drop some JDAMs in Russian contractors in Syria again
>again
You mean that time when bombing some Syrians when 3.5 PMC members happened to be around that western propaganda turned into a coolstory about USAF bombing a Russian armoured column with 600 dead? Ok, lol.
>Russia’s lack of conventional capability
Russia is anything but lacking in conventional capability.

>Russian-built
Wow it's almost like after the catastrophe that Vietnam was the US didn't ever dare to attack any country with a potent military not consisting of 50s and 70s scrap metal or without 74:1 numbers superiority. Good tactic for preserving servicemen lives, but doesn't say jack shit about "Russian-built aircraft" capability.

They currently operate 12 5th gen fighter aircraft while their main geopolitical adversary operates hundreds. In a decade, they’ll still be operating less than 100 while the US will be flying thousands. Meanwhile, their strengthening neighbor to the south will likely be operating hundreds of 5th gens as well, along with most of Europe. This would imply that Russia is extremely lacking in conventional capability at the moment.

I mean, Iraqi air defense was comparatively advanced compared to Vietnam’s in the 60’s, and the US had few issues in the Gulf War. Also, pretty much all Russian aircraft have a relatively shitty combat record against their western counterparts. The issues in Vietnam were mainly a lack of SEAD tactics due to the relative novelty of SAMs, not the quality of MiGs.

>F-35.
Are we talking about the F-35 or F-22?
I'd imagine the F-35 will just launch cruise missiles, probably mounted externally.
This external mounting will increase the RCS of the aircraft. That's just how it is. Ya got me. The American Air Forces can't compete with the dozen or so Su-57's and their reduced RCS due to the internal mounting of not just one but several cruise missiles. America is truly doomed the moment the doors close on the internal mounting points.
>Felt the need to buy the development of F-35
As the Lo portion of the Hi-Lo mix. The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter, and the F-35 is an inexpensive second-string aircraft used for ground-attack, combat air patrol, etc. If there's ever a real threat, the F-35-chan runs to the skirts of the F-22-sama.
>Expect Russia to compete for no good reason
When the technology to produce 5th gen aircraft has been around for twenty years, I don't expect Russia to have parity, but at least do better. If I came up to a tech show and proudly proclaimed that I could build 12 computers a year that had slightly less processing power than an Intel Pentium III (release date August 2, 1999), I'd be laughed out of the room.

I hate to break out such a provocative picture, but the air to air kill ratios don’t lie. Russian aircraft are generally inferior.

Attached: F13F6FC4-D82D-4F62-B6C6-5371697739BD.jpg (1024x791, 138K)

>Engines fall apart at 1500 hours
k.

Or .05 hours if they decide to fly it at its advertised top speed.

>They currently operate 12 5th gen fighter aircraft
Saying this just shows how you rely on shitty memes as a source of information. They operate one at the very least, the one I posted above. The rest are prototypes. Read about the subject and the difference between the airframes before posting.
>while their main geopolitical adversary operates hundreds
And? What are they going to do with them, attack Russia? They will get glassed. Attack Russians in Syria? They didn't. Put them in some limitrophe state on Russian border. Russians don't give a shit because they know it hasn't yet come to a point when the US is ruled by someone retarded enough to start a nuclear war.
>their strengthening neighbor to the south
Lol, what? Who? Turks don't give a fuck about NATO and American interests, China prefers to cooperate rather than make pathetic military attempts like in the 60s and Japan knows better than dickwaving for a bunch of rocks that they have to right to claim.

>Iraqi air defense was comparatively advanced compared to Vietnam’s in the 60’s
You realize that in 1991 Iraqi relied on the same SAMs Vietnam did in the 60s, right?

>1000+ MiG-25 produced and maintained without a hiccup
>The US only ever managed to build 32 SR-71, 12 of which crashed
Ok.

Attached: mig-25rbk.jpg (1000x1011, 133K)

>Also, pretty much all Russian aircraft have a relatively shitty combat record against their western counterparts
Well, if you consider MiG-21/23 a counterpart to F-15...

The Iraqis were running an integrated ADS as opposed to Vietnam’s isolated SAM batteries. It was absolutely more effective than Vietnam’s air defense. Turns out the US got a lot better at SEAD in the meantime, though.

>You realize that in 1991 Iraqi relied on the same SAMs Vietnam did in the 60s, right?
This is completely untrue, Iraq had an IADS with French technology and SAM systems supplementing their Russian hardware.

>they have more tanks, more artillery, more ground based EW units and more SAM systems
Unfortunately for them, they can't do that right either.

Attached: armata.png (890x677, 645K)

>It was absolutely more effective than Vietnam’s air defense.
Vietnam has IADS too, and fairly good one for the time. Iraqi one however relied on 50s stationary SAMs. They didn't even operate S-200 or Buk for Christ's sake, not even talking about S-300 or Tor. Yom Kippur War has shown how even short to mid range contemporary systems can absolutely decimate an attacking air force, given that Arabs being traditionally ineducable failed to use it to their advantage.

Attached: 2k12 kub low res.jpg (2500x2500, 2.71M)

The F-35 is intended to carry cruise missiles internally, namely an adaptation of the Naval Strike Missile.

At ground ideal exhaust gas really isn't that big a deal no worse than someone pointing a big hair dyer in your face.

Attached: enginespecs-001b[1].jpg (800x600, 115K)

Remind me, how did that M1A3 thingy went that was supposed to be delivered by 2014 and introduced by 2017?

The Syrians have been operating an allegedly modern IADS for quite some time, and it’s so far proven completely ineffective at stopping Israeli incursions into their territory. For the time being, it seems like competent SEAD is a very effective counter for air defenses.

>air to air kill ratios don’t lie
Except for when you don't mention how these ratios are achieved by fighting 50s and 70s scrap metal or with 74:1 numbers superiority

>Remind me, how did that M1A3 thingy went that was supposed to be delivered by 2014 and introduced by 2017?
>The Vatnegroid can only come up with a non-sequitur
The M1A3 was a project from the late 80's early 90's that was cancelled when the cold war ended.

Attached: blk3.png (781x850, 111K)

Hello Armatard

Attached: 1541678516329.jpg (397x567, 105K)

Literally who cares how many F-22s the US has? Are they EVER going to be used against a peer adversary?

The answer is no. America is pumping money down the drain, making weapons that have no use scenario. The existence of nuclear weapons makes them completely redundant. F-22s are worthless, what's needed is boots on the ground in proxy wars and that's the US's key deficiency. They can't into little green men, they can't keep their Kurdish allies afloat with airpower alone.

How does it feel to have the strongest military in the world and consistantly fail to achieve objectives. Assad is still there. The taliban remain. Iran remains.

The US may be able to destroy Libya, Syria and Iran, yet they cannot actually do it because they lack the will to fight. Never in human history has such an overwhelmingly strong hegemon been so feckless and unwilling to use force.

The British, the French, the Romans all did more with less. The US does nothing with more.

Oh shit, Armatard is here.

You act like the main objective of the US military is to start unending wars so the MIC can keep selling weapons. If they wanted to win and end wars, they could but it isn't in their interest.

fuck commies, fuck gopniks, and FUCK YOU RUSSIA

>is
isn't*

The US generally lacks the will to commit to foreign policy decisions simply because it doesn’t have to. They haven’t fought a “necessary” war since 1945. The only country that’s ever threatened US global supremacy was the USSR, and they collapsed, partially due to intentional decisions made by the US. If China becomes an existential threat to America’s hegemony, it’ll likely convince policy makers to give a shit again.

based

>Are we talking about the F-35 or F-22?
OP posted both.
>America is truly doomed the moment the doors close on the internal mounting points.
Unnecessary sarcasm is not an argument.
>As the Lo portion of the Hi-Lo mix.
Ok, so what's with that sequester of ATF program and ordering F-35 as if you're about to war the entire world? If you were so concerned with the USSR dissolution to cut ATF, why all the JSF thingy is still going? It's not like you plan to replace F-15 with F-35 and it's not like F-22 will be ever produced in high enough numbers to do it.
>When the technology to produce 5th gen aircraft has been around for twenty years
Oh, boy, wow, it only we ever knew what happened in Russia in the last 30 years that could've ever caused as sort of delays in military R&D.

Attached: mig-1.44 (3).jpg (1183x687, 106K)

M1A3 was stated to be in development in 2009 with prototypes expected to be delivered by 2014. All Americans got instead was another overweight SEP variant.

The fact that the 1.44 was considered an acceptable counter to the F-22 by Russian planners makes me glad I’m not from there.

The MIC doesn't even need to have unending wars, though they get them anyway. They're already taking the US for a ride, selling overpriced toys that have no reason to exist.

Look at Afghanistan. Defeat, not through technology or expense but through lack of willpower.

Syria is the same story. The US chose not to get rid of Assad, despite that being the obvious objective and now he's going to win.

Air power is totally irrelevant if you aren't willing to fight on the ground.

Israel prefers to conduct operations from their own air space, and even there they're not safe. Arab militaries are incompetent and these Israeli air strikes don't seem to affect the Syrian apparent victory over terrorists.

Attached: 5a7e9febdda4c8533a8b4633.jpg (900x506, 249K)

Russia couldn’t build 1 SR-71

The lack of willpower is a symptom of a lack of any clear foreign policy objectives. As long as the US remains unchallenged as the global leader, I doubt that will change. It’s like playing a game of Civ after you’ve more or less won.

>consistantly fail to achieve objectives
You named three. That's it, in your entire desperate deflection about the sad state of Russia's "Defense industry", but let's go over them.
>Assad is still there
And he still doesn't have control over the entire country, likely never will, and is looking towards the gulf countries (i.e. US allies) for reconstruction funds.
>The taliban remain
Probably the only sort-of accurate point on your list, but Afghanistan is irrelevant besides the strategic location and the Taliban have no real ability to take that away from the US.
>Iran remains
They're under more international pressure than ever before and are starting to have food riots because of the sanctions. Not a loss.
I literally showed you a source on what the M1A3 actually is and you respond with wikipedia quotes. Nice.

Technically, they helped build all of them, because the Slavs were dumb enough to sell vast amounts of titanium to a CIA front company.

This is just as retarded as vatnik and chink posting

The fact that you compare roughly YF-22 equivalent finished by sheer CB enthusiasm on nano-fiber budget to F-22 block whatever is showing your incompetence. It had engines better than anything the US could come up with in years.

Attached: mig-1.44.jpg (710x958, 87K)

Indeed, instead they've built 1000+ aircraft that didn't cost their weight in gold per unit to produce, were not limited to one sole and single role and didn't have almost 40% crash rate.

Attached: mig-25 (6).jpg (1024x693, 120K)

>wikipedia quotes
What?

>Russia
>Good engines
Nice try, Ivan.

Name a contemporary American variable-bypass turbofan with 180 kN of thrust.

Attached: mig-1.44 (2).jpg (2394x1674, 804K)

Because that is the only mention of this mythical "M1A3" you seem to think exists outside of the cold war. Not that it's even a good example of failed US armor projects even if it did exist...

That’s why we have the F15. It’s better than the 25. The SR-71 does something no russian plane can match

>mythical "M1A3"
armytimes.com/news/2009/09/SATURDAY_army_tanks_092609w/
>example of failed US armor projects
I didn't say it failed, I'm saying it's delayed.

Okay, this thread is getting crazy.
From here on out, the contested point shall be:
>1. Modern (1990-Onward) Russian air superiority aircraft are markedly inferior to their Western counterparts.

Any deviation from this point, on either side (examples include references to AIDS/S-P-A-C-E/TIGERS/Armata), shall be seen as the action of a shill, moving the goalposts or twisting the topic of discussion.

>That’s why we have the F15. It’s better than the 25.
Remind me, what was F-15's range at Mach 2.4+ and what was the range of its missiles? F-15 is not an interceptor, the comparison is pointless.

Attached: mig-25p.jpg (700x512, 23K)

F15 excelled at intercepting. It also excelles at fighting and ground strike. It’s worthless to try and argue that the 25 is better than the 15

I don’t think there’s really any way to argue against that point.

I’m still convinced Russia will start buying Chinese combat aircraft within 5 decades. They simply don’t have enough money to fund their own competitive platforms anymore, and without constant aircraft development, the institutional experience needed to build them will evaporate.

>(1990-Onward) Russian air superiority aircraft are markedly inferior to their Western counterparts
Flanker is second only to F-22, which has been introduced in 2005, and even that is kinda arguable with the lack of IRST on the latter.

Attached: H-I-V.jpg (1280x904, 276K)

Ok :(

>armytimes.com/news/2009/09/SATURDAY_army_tanks_092609w/
That link is 404'd and it isn't on the wayback machine.
>I didn't say it failed, I'm saying it's delayed.
How can some fictional figment of your imagination be "delayed"?

Mig-25s held their own against F-15s during the gulf war.