Retard here.

Retard here. What's the point of spending big money on advanced warplanes if you're too scared to actually use them in war?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Deterrence.

    Fpbp, /thread, verification not required, OP is gay

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Deterrence only works if you're actually willing to use it

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Didn’t they, from time to time at least? Deterrence is still valid, binding in being.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >from time to time at least?
          Then deterrence will only work from time to time.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia was supposed to have more of these jets than they do, and they were supposed to be more functional, and Ukraine's air defense was supposed to have been SEADed and DEADed into minimal relevance. So they don't have enough planes, they aren't working right, and the environment is extremely hostile - under those conditions, playing with what they do have carefully is a smart move.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fucking Russians, I...
      It's supposed to be a fifth-generation Low Observable fighter, correct?
      Why the actual fuck is it incapable of operating in a contested environment? In a SEAD/DEAD role? Can it not into Penetrating Counter-Air roles, eg. taking advantage of LO to get in outer regions of enemy AD spheres and whack opposition with slightly less risk than with legacy platforms?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's radar cross section is possibly even worse than the J-20. It barely qualifies as low observable/stealth. Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters are probably closer to 4th gen fighters built to reduce radar cross section like the rafale than the F35, F22, or probably even the old F-117.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't forget the literal exposed philips head wing screws on the Russia24 SU-57 flight footage. I mean holy shit wtf kind of stealth is that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Export, anon. If you have a big, scary jet, you can sell them. If you have a small, pitiful crater, nobody wants to buy it. So long as they don't have any confirmed shootdowns, they can sucker BRICS retards into buying them. Pajeets in particular love Russian/Chinese trash. Mostly because the resupply chain is easier to manage.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Surely even those BRICS mongs aren't dumb enough to fall for it? They're all scammers themselves so they know a scam when they see it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You overestimate thirdies, all their scams are invented by garden gnomes, they just follow a script and target boomers, they get btfo by many millenials, and then the video of that failed scam gets on YouTube, further embarassing the shitskin. You don't know about redeeming the coupon, sir?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brazil and SA bought JAS-39 and poos bought Rafales. Chinks make their own jets.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one wants Russian trash. According to an Indonesian pilots I was talking to recently even before Ukraine it was a nightmare to try and keep their Sukhoi's serviceable to the point of having to go to India for spare parts and maintenance. Which is why they're going to Rafales.

      Even Argentina would rather have no jets then but Russian/chink trash.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wonderwaffles shilled by shitholes aren't real war fighting weapons, they're prestige psyops to show they're not behind the HATO/Wect.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Jug

    Welcome to the potential future of warfare, where our weapons are SO good we can't use them because they're SO expensive loosing them would be a huge blow.

    I believe Archcast made a video on this a while ago. It's an intriguing video.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not for the US, only a problem for thirdies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even the US is a shadow of its WW2-era past. Today, we've got 450 F-35s, 122 F-22s, 76 B-52s, and 20 B-2s, and about 1,500 previous-generation fighters as our primary striking and fighting fleet.

        For comparison, by the end of 1945, the US military was operating a fleet of *300,000* aircraft. We built 15,000 P-51 Mustangs alone.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Where do you propose to find 150000 students good enough to turn into fighter pilots

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            America had no problems finding 10s of thousands of pilots in WW2 with a much smaller population where the average person didn't even finish high school.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The country was 90% white back then.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They didn't consider italians or irishmen to be "white" back then.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Irish and Italians
                Anon that was the 1940's, not the 1840's.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, evem during WW2, anybody from Germany, italy and ireland were not considered white in American standards.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're a certified retard
                A turbo tard of the highest order
                You disgust people wherever you go with your incredible black hole esque concentration of tard

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah but they were also actively drafting people for everything.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This. People don't seem to understand just how much more advanced and therefore expensive modern jets are compared to their ancestors.

          The US had more military aircraft in 1945 than aircraft exist worldwide today. The US military as a whole has around 15,000 aircraft of all types today. They lost over 21,000 just to training/transport accidents within the US during ww2 with another 43,000 lost in combat.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >wartime vs peacetime
          >ignoring the sheer difference in capability of a fighter from late ww2 vs one from the 70s or god forbid one a modern one(aka late 90s-2000s)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          America had no problems finding 10s of thousands of pilots in WW2 with a much smaller population where the average person didn't even finish high school.

          ITT:fighters were much simple to make and train. The more advanced technology gets, the more complications the procurements get. Its not rocket science to figure out that ita more simple to train/make a WW2 plane and its pilot than to make/train a modern day aircraft. You retards keep making these false comparisons without realizing that as technological advances were made, it gets more complex to produce it. The U.S. right now can make thousands of WW2 era planes, but whats the point if they are severely outdated against modern air defenses? The same thing happens regarding to every vehicle and personnel. The more complex it is, the more harder it gets to procure them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >He doesn't understand why it's harder to build a 5th gen stealth fighter than a WW2 canvas prop plane
          Please leave this board and never come back.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Archcast
      looks fat

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      F-22s were flying over Syria which had basically the same IADs threats. Russia is just a shithole now.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >future of warfare
      I'll take naval warfare of WWI for 1917 dollars anon.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Archcast
      Is he some kind of combat pro?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not very operational at these low airframe numbers.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its better to keep them parked and possibly threatening than to lose them and be definitely weakened. a good example of this would be the tirpitz which was more arguably more useful sitting in a fjord than it ever could be actually raiding

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doubt it's fear. You don't see Fulcrums or Flankers over Ukrainian airspsace that often either; They're employing them just like the MiG-31s and carry the same missile as the latter. MiG-31s thanks to their standoff capability have proven to be one of the few things in the Russian arsenal that are actually effective and it's likely we will see continued developments along this line since the "sooper manoover dogfucker" mentality finally appears to be leaving the Russian mind. One day they'll be able to match NATO... in the 80s. It's no contender to the F-35 and associated supports that enable very long range air dominance.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because in no particular order of importance
    1) They can't make very many of them, each one is an absurdly valuable commedity that is husbanded dearly because if one of them goes down it could be years before the absolutely gimped 5th Generation production facilities that make the Felon can replace it
    2) deep down they realize how utterly dogshit the Felon is, and if one gets shot down as in destroyed by enemy weapons fire, not by mechanical failure, that it would basically confirm what everyone with two braincells has already assumed, that the Felon isn't nearly as good as they make out to be, to say nothing about the humiliation of being the first nation with a '5th Generation Fighter" program to lose one in an actual war, against an enemy that doesn't even have their own 5th Generation Fighter at that.
    and 3), if it does get shot down, than there's a chance the enemy will be able to recover its remains, and if THAT happens then the enemy will understand if only partially at best their capabilities are, god help the poor bastards if they somehow manage to recover enough to get a full understanding of it, which is just extra humiliation and a massive secrets leak.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean it makes sense, the reason for that initial missile barrage was to destroy Ukrainian AA capabilities
    It failed miserably
    So now they...I don't know what they are doing, they certainly aren't sending missiles and drones after those

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At the minute the Su-57 is Schrodinger's fighter probably shit but maybe not. If they deploy one and it gets shot down or crashes then NATO is going to have every recoverable part in a lab within 24 hrs. Even if they can't recover anything the radar data from blowing it out of the sky will reveal significant details about the limits of Russian technology.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the second army of the world cannot gain air superiority from the poorest country in Europe.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is saving them if NATO (openly) interferes, if Russia was sure that NATO wouldn't pull a Yugoslavia or Libya on them they'd be using them.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't see how the, what, 10? SU-57's would make much difference against NATO who'd be rocking many times more aircraft.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's the other aircraft they've been saving along with their scary as fuck hypersonic AAM's.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Again, there are 900 F-35's in action and many more other variants of aircraft. Russia doesn't have the numbers for the SU-57 to make a difference.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can't use hypersonic AAM's on planes you can't track on radar.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They don't trust the plane enough to actually have one near a contested zone, but they want it to donate a token effort so they can run PR about the thing being "combat tested" and maybe collect some real world data in the process.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember when fighter fleets were in the hundreds of thousands and you could afford to lose a hundred a week and if wouldn't majorly affect your strategy?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats when fighters were pess advanced and when air defenses were just flak guns and shitty radars.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Could one not replicate the effect with drones? Even if those airframes are AA bait in the modern day, having 100,000+ guns in the sky allows one to cover much more ground then a 100 fighters made to counter the cutting-edge threats.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, because drones are slow and are vulnerable to low-mid range anti air. If you have a thousand of them, they can all be shot down by EW equipment or AA guns. EW equipment can jam drones and make them crash.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They built it in an attempt to scam pajeets, but the pajeets didn't fall for it

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they were only able to afford to make enough of them to dick wave with. They only have a small handful of Su-57s, they are now effectively irreplaceable, and it would be an absolute embarrassment if one got downed by some jackass with an old Igla. If Russia sends them in it's a sign they're truly desperate and don't really have much else to send. Things like Su-57s and T-14s getting used in Ukraine basically mean the same thing as things like IL-2s and T-34s being used, absolute desperation. They're normally all parade queens meant specifically for fooling their own people into thinking their military is powerful while also attempting to signal to the rest of the world that they're still a threat and totes have a bunch of effective modern stuff.

    The one thing the Su-57 has going for it is lobbing long range missiles might allow it to never actually enter Ukraine's AA zones.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If it was advanced it would be all over Ukraine.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *