Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
Beautiful but trash
to be fair most military aircraft engineers do not take into account being shot at by friendly AA
Honestly it's the most common issue for the US too. I got locked on to by friendly SAMs 6 weeks after the invasion in to Iraq but never once had an enemy radar do it on the first day of the air war
What was your reaction at the time?
Don’t SAM radar facilities have IFF capability?
Ouch. Did you know at the time about the two planes that *did* get shot down, or the F-16 pilot who put a HARM through a Patriot's radar in self-defense?
>what is IFF
They are fine planes the russian air force just doesn't have enough money to use them effectively.
Is there a comparison between Russian jets and western jets in terms of per hour flight cost? I assume the Russian ones have to be cheaper or else all those poor countries wouldn't buy Russian.
Depends, with or without corruption?
>implying there is any military or MIC on the planet free from corruption
It's probably similar if truthful numbers were divulged. Third world militaries just don't upkeep their jets very well.
in Poland with all costs combined (fuel service replacement parts) those costs were similar between mig29 and f16 block 52.
About the same due to higher consumption of parts. Upfront cost is cheaper thou. If you have an air force that you want a lot of planes to dickwave, then "save money" by not letting your pilots have enough practice hours to get proficient, Soviet planes are perfect for you.
In 92 Finland were in progress of procuring new fighters, MIG-29 was among the ones offered. It had the most expensive unit cost(~30% more than F-16), airframe life expectancy was half of the western counterparts and it was also disqualified due to "not fulfilling operational requirements" ie. inferior avionics/weapons etc.
What was the verdict on the Gripen?
It was deemed capable, but considered risky because it had significant delays during development and was still not ready in 92.
Wouldn't this mean most Russian fighters are decades over their expected airframe life expectancy?
>Wouldn't this mean most Russian [aircraft] are decades over their expected airframe life expectancy?
the front fell off
To be fair it slammed in to the ground at the same speed that would damage a non carrier based aircraft, add the fact that its a huge ass bomber and its not surprising that it broke up.
This is especially damning for the vatnik-compromised governments of Eastern European countries still flying MiGs.
In at least one case, the Americans even offered them "free" F-16s at the low price of "let us clean up your intelligence and army of Russian assets" but were of course refused because the rot existed on all levels of government.
is there any english summary of the performance from that trial? would be interesting to know why did they choose f18 over f16 and gripen
I think it was due to having 2 engines and the f/a-18 having more multi role capability at the time. In 1992 F16S were still pretty bare bones lightweight low cost fighters
much cheaper if you stick to the russian way of just not doing the maintenance or letting the pilots train.
There was a study, many years back--Poland, I think?--and the killer was the far shorter lifespan of Russian engines. A Mig-29 was estimated to need something like 3 pairs of engines over its lifespan, whereas the F-16 only needed one replacement engine over the same timeframe/flight hours. The rest of the costs were almost incidental compared to the difference in engine costs.
I dno man i think I recognize that picture from early parts of the war. It sure doesnt seem to be the supposed plane in question at least.
that is an older picture, but the story is recent
Thats its least problems
su-35 is just as capable as western 4th gen planes, the russian air force is just incompetent
Objectively not, because the Russian Air Force sold the godamn avionics.
>vatnik air force is corrupt and incompetent
yeah. The planes that haven't been cannibalized for parts to sell are still decent. Of course they would still get wrecked by F35s but that's a different question
Shouldn't the nose burn down as much as the central fuselage, considering how much plastic is supposed to be in those? I get it, the jet fuel burns a shitton hotter than plastic can, but it seems strange to me that the cone seems so relatively intact.
Jet fuel can't melt plastic.
>powerful dog fighter
It's literally the best they have, barring their three Su-57's that are too precious to lose. If an Su-57 got shot down Russia wouldn't be able to live it down for at least 50 years.
I think he means it isn't a dogfighting aircraft
why didn't they just cobra away from the missiles?
Source: Ukrainian government
You know what's easier than defeating a military many times the size of your own? Buying a few cans of white spray paint, putting a "Z" on some nondescript wreckage, and sending the photos off to Mr. Rothelbergblatt for a front page spread. Big fucking doubt. The Ukrainian capitulation will be the end of what's left of western media credibility.
The very fact it's taking so long is an inescapable reality that no amount of mental gymnastics can dance you out of. A military many times the size of an opposing force NOT steamrolling them and taking their capital in at most 2 weeks time is inexcusable.
No one outside of Putin and his inner circle know what the end goal is. If Russia wanted to wage war like ZOG complete with Iraqi highways of death and weddings being droned they could.
If the plan was to start a long war of attrition over the Donbas then it was a shit plan. And if you think Russia is fighting with more restraint than US then I have a Buratino to sell you.
>blyat we didn't move the goalposts, comrade, there never were any goalposts
Yes brother, the ways of God and the Russian military are inscrutable. No one can know the day or the hour Russia will declare its glorious complete success which went exactly the way they planned it from the start. Ours is not to question but to simply believe
2 more weeks
Versus the online Russia simps whose credibility consists of:
>Denying Russia was going to invade
>Claiming Russia would take Kyiv in 3 days
>Oh actually Kyiv was a feint for the real target in Azovstal
>Pocket everything east of Dnipro
>Pocket everything east of Irpin
>Well Sverodonetsk has fallen, Ukraine is done!
The biggest fault in western coverage is giving too much importance to the recent fighting, IE they’re actually portraying Russia as too successful.
>You know what's easier than defeating a military many times the size of your own?
Defeating one smaller and weaker and poorer than yours? So why haven't you done it yet?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.