By: JSR
- 5th January 2017 at 01:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is reason why Russia only need $1b to support 20,000 sorties and full fledged air and sea defence system in Syria. All other firms belong to bankrupt countries. They need at least $300b a year to have much less capability. Coalition in Irak is example. You simply don't have understanding basics of costs .
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 5th January 2017 at 01:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember reading it a few months back. So I just googled it to get a refresh. Skipped over the Sputnik and RT versions and clicked on the link below. The gist of what I am getting at here is, that the aircraft performed well. The su 35 is an argument for another day. And I think that guy got the su 34 mixed up with it. B/c the su 34 is something that nato doesn't exactly have.
By: MSphere
- 5th January 2017 at 03:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, very first Su-30's were basically somewhat modified Su-27UB's...of course especially MKI-standard planes are quite different.
You're talking about early Su-30s (based on Su-27PU). Those were long-range interceptors, weren't structurally beefed up as they were not meant to be multirole. Today's Su-30MK2s are quite different..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 5th January 2017 at 03:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow, a picture of Europeans in Africa, that totally settles it then...
...and this is not a question of Lockheed versus Russia. This is an issue of Lockheed, Saab, Boeing, Eurofighter, Dassault, etc, (all world-leaders in their field) against clearly impossible numbers.
What we are observing in this discussion is the difference between people who can think rationally and those who refuse to.
Look, it's simple, really.. provide your own numbers and sources which disprove these "impossible" figures or STFU..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 5th January 2017 at 03:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Indians have been operating Russian jets in general and Mig-29s in particular for decades. If they think they are crap... well... they are crap.
That's why they have the Su-30MKI as their backbone, have cut down Rafales, ordered additional MKIs, rejected the F-35 several times and opted for the FGFA as their future mainstay fighter.. Uhm, that makes sense..
There are also big differences between a jet that might not be 100% mission capable because it has some avionics issue that degrades its ability to perform its mission (or is undergoing refurbishment, etc) and a jet that is non-operable because it literally can't fly because its brand new engines have defects.
.. or a jet that is non-operable because it literally can't fly because its brand new weapon system resets every few hours of flight.. Sounds familiar?
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 5th January 2017 at 04:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You could have spent about 3 seconds to research that before posting. Stop embarrassing yourself.
SE has more thrust. Weight is lower.
Su-34 is more heavily configured as a striker, and RuAF did not go for higher thrust engines.
It would have been more like a 2 minutes. :D Whatever though. I dont recall but there is something that the su 34 does markedly better than the Strike eagle. And I don't think they are a direct comparison either. Some people say that the F 111 Arvdark is the comparo. But you say its the eagle
By: JSR
- 5th January 2017 at 04:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You could have spent about 3 seconds to research that before posting. Stop embarrassing yourself.
SE has more thrust. Weight is lower.
Su-34 is more heavily configured as a striker, and RuAF did not go for higher thrust engines.
how do you know weight and drag of new built F-15 and its internal fuel capacity. to make an opinion.
drag means weopons and fuel carrying drag.
there is so much space under wings. high efficient design.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 5th January 2017 at 05:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You skipped over RT and Sputnik and went to "the Strategic Culture Institute?" Seriously? :stupid:
WASHINGTON — Two weeks of air and missile strikes in Syria have given Western intelligence and military officials a deeper appreciation of the transformation that Russia’s military has undergone under President Vladimir V. Putin, showcasing its ability to conduct operations beyond its borders and providing a public demonstration of new weaponry, tactics and strategy.
The strikes have involved aircraft never before tested in combat, including the Sukhoi Su-34 strike fighter, which NATO calls the Fullback, and a ship-based cruise missile fired more than 900 miles from the Caspian Sea, which, according to some analysts, surpasses the American equivalent in technological capability.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 5th January 2017 at 11:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't answer I know what you read "Russia-insider" or similar article about it. Please point out where "NATO experts believe the Su-35 is superior" in that article from focus. Does he state what experts? There was some serious editorializing going on in the Russian version.
Actually, the article says : Die Su-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus westlicher Produktion überlegen.
By: FBW
- 5th January 2017 at 13:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, the article says : Die Su-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus westlicher Produktion überlegen.
Yes, "according to experts". Which leads to the question which experts? Which western aircraft? Superior at what? DCA? Interdiction? SEAD? It is a throwaway comment without context, and far different from what KGB quoted.
Mind you, I'm not looking to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the Su-35 vis a vis "Western types". I'm sure the Su-35 meets the needs of the VKS very well. My point was specific to some news sources allegedly quoting the "Focus" article, but actually editorializing far beyond what the article actually says to the point of absurdity.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 5th January 2017 at 15:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, "according to experts". Which leads to the question which experts?...
:confused: Why ask me? I haven't written the article..
The problem isn't the claim by itself, I think, the problem is you and similar guys taking extreme effort put into disintegration of such claims. Who? Where? When? How? Source? Another source? Yet another source? Yet yet another source? Still don't believe it !
It's getting tiresome at times but that alone would still be allright if you treated a claim "Die F-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus russischer Produktion überlegen" with the same outbreak of sudden objectivity.. But for superiority of the F-35 one does not need any source, right? :cool:
By: FBW
- 5th January 2017 at 15:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Read what KGB wrote, read the article from which he got it. Re-read the Focus article. I'm not interested in your tirade against the F-35, or "you guys", or the rest. Read what I said about the Su-35. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the Su-35 vis a vis western aircraft. We can have that boring, unproductive arguement all day without resolution.
It have everything to do with unsubstantiated claims made by the OP of the article and the Russian version of the article itself. Yet you throw a tantrum. In trying to point out some extreme effort to discredit the Su-35 (which there wasn't one in the first place), you exposed your usual (yes tiresome), lack of objectivity.
It has nothing to do with asking for a source, I posted the original source. What it says, and what KGB posted are two very different things. Had you actually read the posts, you would have understood the point. Again, not interested in your personal crusade against the F-35, this was specifically about using B.S. articles that claimed to be quoting an article from Focus magazine.
Last point, not to turn this into the usual F-35 vs. blah blah crap that EVERYONE is sick of reading on every thread, but let's look at the opposite perspective. I could easily post an article where experts claim that the F-35 is superior to every possible enemy. Does that make it true? Don't you think that there would be some qualifiers in that statement? That wouldn't raise some questions in your mind?
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 5th January 2017 at 15:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, "according to experts". Which leads to the question which experts? Which western aircraft? Superior at what? DCA? Interdiction? SEAD? It is a throwaway comment without context, and far different from what KGB quoted.
Mind you, I'm not looking to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the Su-35 vis a vis "Western types". I'm sure the Su-35 meets the needs of the VKS very well. My point was specific to some news sources allegedly quoting the "Focus" article, but actually editorializing far beyond what the article actually says to the point of absurdity.
Which is all beside the point because as I said, the only reason I quoted any of the article was not to get into the merits of the Su-35 or not. I pointed to the article to counter with some reality, the claims that the India hit piece was making about so called quality control and serviceability issues of Russian equipment. And its not the Russians themselves who make the observation in the article, but Nato.
By: FBW
- 5th January 2017 at 15:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
. And its not the Russians themselves who make the observation in the article, but Nato.
No it wasn't. Go to the orginial article and point out where it states that NATO made any comparison about the Su-35
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 5th January 2017 at 23:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You could have spent about 3 seconds to research that before posting. Stop embarrassing yourself.
SE has more thrust. Weight is lower.
Su-34 is more heavily configured as a striker, and RuAF did not go for higher thrust engines.
Well, this list says the opposite.. Su-34s are listed with Al-31F-M1 engines.. But nothing is certain..
Су-27СМ , двигатели АЛ-31Ф , слегка модернизированное БРЭО;
Су-27СМ3 , двигатели АЛ-31Ф-М1 , серьезней модернизированное БРЭО ;
Су-30М2 , двигатели АЛ-31Ф , слегка модернизированное БРЭО близкое к 27СМ;
Су-30СМ , двигатели АЛ-31ФП , современное БРЭО с импортными элементами;
Су-35С , двигатели АЛ-41Ф1 , современное БРЭО , почти поколение 5.
Су-34 , двигатели АЛ-31Ф-М1 , БРЭО уровня 90-х годов.
By: KGB
- 6th January 2017 at 00:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No it wasn't. Go to the orginial article and point out where it states that NATO made any comparison about the Su-35
Not about the su 35 BUT about the serviceability and effectiveness of the Russian airforce in Syria.
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”
The chief of US Air Force operations in Europe and Africa, Lieutenant General Frank Gorenc, has disclosed that Moscow is now deploying anti-aircraft systems in Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine last year, and in Kaliningrad, an enclave between Lithuania and Poland. It is doing so, he says, in a way that makes it “very, very difficult” for Nato planes to gain access safely to areas including parts of Poland.
By: MadRat
- 6th January 2017 at 04:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 6th January 2017 at 13:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm. A surprisingly high number of spare radars (9), especially considering it's an AESA, which is not supposed to be maintenance intensive..
Almost all equipment is very abundant, but at the same time, only eight CFTs.. This listing is kind of illogical, IMHO.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 6th January 2017 at 13:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another quote for domestic order for the VKS I have omited..
37x MiG-35 fighters for 37 billion RUB in 2013 - $622 mil in FY2016, makes equivalent of $17 mil a pop
16x MiG-29SMT fighters of 9.19R standard for "over 17 billion RUB" in 2014 - ~$290 mil in FY2016, makes equivalent of $18 mil a pop - stopgap order
For hopsalot, the order only includes tailfins, cockpit canopies and wing pylons, you can sleep well..
For all others, it's for complete aircraft, recurring flyaway..
By: Levsha
- 6th January 2017 at 15:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm. A surprisingly high number of spare radars (9), especially considering it's an AESA, which is not supposed to be maintenance intensive..
Almost all equipment is very abundant, but at the same time, only eight CFTs.. This listing is kind of illogical, IMHO.
The order is for 32 F/A-18E and 8 F/A-18F - so just I spare radar set.
BTW, MiG-35s do not cost 17 million USD a pop - not on this planet anyway.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 5th January 2017 at 01:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is reason why Russia only need $1b to support 20,000 sorties and full fledged air and sea defence system in Syria. All other firms belong to bankrupt countries. They need at least $300b a year to have much less capability. Coalition in Irak is example. You simply don't have understanding basics of costs .
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 5th January 2017 at 01:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You skipped over RT and Sputnik and went to "the Strategic Culture Institute?" Seriously? :stupid:
Some of their top headlines:
"US-Qatar Deal Threatens Russia: Reading News Between the Lines"
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/28/us-qatar-deal-threatens-russia-reading-news-between-lines.html
"Obama’s Halloween Scare: Temperamentally Unfit President Threatened War with Russia"
"America’s Lynch Mob ‘Democracy’"
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/03/america-lynch-mob-democracy.html
"New York Times Continues Lying About Ukraine"
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/02/new-york-times-continues-lying-about-ukraine.html
"How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World - For the Better"
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/01/how-united-iran-russia-china-changing-world-better.html
"Obama’s Failed Presidency"
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/31/obama-failed-presidency.html
"Buoyant Putin and Sinking Western Mis-Leaders"
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/30/buoyant-putin-and-sinking-western-mis-leaders.html
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250496[/ATTACH]
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th January 2017 at 03:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're talking about early Su-30s (based on Su-27PU). Those were long-range interceptors, weren't structurally beefed up as they were not meant to be multirole. Today's Su-30MK2s are quite different..
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th January 2017 at 03:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Look, it's simple, really.. provide your own numbers and sources which disprove these "impossible" figures or STFU..
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th January 2017 at 03:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's why they have the Su-30MKI as their backbone, have cut down Rafales, ordered additional MKIs, rejected the F-35 several times and opted for the FGFA as their future mainstay fighter.. Uhm, that makes sense.... or a jet that is non-operable because it literally can't fly because its brand new weapon system resets every few hours of flight.. Sounds familiar?
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 5th January 2017 at 04:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would have been more like a 2 minutes. :D Whatever though. I dont recall but there is something that the su 34 does markedly better than the Strike eagle. And I don't think they are a direct comparison either. Some people say that the F 111 Arvdark is the comparo. But you say its the eagle
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 5th January 2017 at 04:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how do you know weight and drag of new built F-15 and its internal fuel capacity. to make an opinion.
drag means weopons and fuel carrying drag.
there is so much space under wings. high efficient design.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 5th January 2017 at 05:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So you think that the actual report is a complete fabrication just because of the corridor that I used to present it ?
How about the New York Times ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/middleeast/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice.html
WASHINGTON — Two weeks of air and missile strikes in Syria have given Western intelligence and military officials a deeper appreciation of the transformation that Russia’s military has undergone under President Vladimir V. Putin, showcasing its ability to conduct operations beyond its borders and providing a public demonstration of new weaponry, tactics and strategy.
The strikes have involved aircraft never before tested in combat, including the Sukhoi Su-34 strike fighter, which NATO calls the Fullback, and a ship-based cruise missile fired more than 900 miles from the Caspian Sea, which, according to some analysts, surpasses the American equivalent in technological capability.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th January 2017 at 11:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, the article says : Die Su-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus westlicher Produktion überlegen.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 5th January 2017 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, "according to experts". Which leads to the question which experts? Which western aircraft? Superior at what? DCA? Interdiction? SEAD? It is a throwaway comment without context, and far different from what KGB quoted.
Mind you, I'm not looking to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the Su-35 vis a vis "Western types". I'm sure the Su-35 meets the needs of the VKS very well. My point was specific to some news sources allegedly quoting the "Focus" article, but actually editorializing far beyond what the article actually says to the point of absurdity.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th January 2017 at 15:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:confused: Why ask me? I haven't written the article..
The problem isn't the claim by itself, I think, the problem is you and similar guys taking extreme effort put into disintegration of such claims. Who? Where? When? How? Source? Another source? Yet another source? Yet yet another source? Still don't believe it !
It's getting tiresome at times but that alone would still be allright if you treated a claim "Die F-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus russischer Produktion überlegen" with the same outbreak of sudden objectivity.. But for superiority of the F-35 one does not need any source, right? :cool:
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 5th January 2017 at 15:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Read what KGB wrote, read the article from which he got it. Re-read the Focus article. I'm not interested in your tirade against the F-35, or "you guys", or the rest. Read what I said about the Su-35. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the Su-35 vis a vis western aircraft. We can have that boring, unproductive arguement all day without resolution.
It have everything to do with unsubstantiated claims made by the OP of the article and the Russian version of the article itself. Yet you throw a tantrum. In trying to point out some extreme effort to discredit the Su-35 (which there wasn't one in the first place), you exposed your usual (yes tiresome), lack of objectivity.
It has nothing to do with asking for a source, I posted the original source. What it says, and what KGB posted are two very different things. Had you actually read the posts, you would have understood the point. Again, not interested in your personal crusade against the F-35, this was specifically about using B.S. articles that claimed to be quoting an article from Focus magazine.
Last point, not to turn this into the usual F-35 vs. blah blah crap that EVERYONE is sick of reading on every thread, but let's look at the opposite perspective. I could easily post an article where experts claim that the F-35 is superior to every possible enemy. Does that make it true? Don't you think that there would be some qualifiers in that statement? That wouldn't raise some questions in your mind?
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 5th January 2017 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which is all beside the point because as I said, the only reason I quoted any of the article was not to get into the merits of the Su-35 or not. I pointed to the article to counter with some reality, the claims that the India hit piece was making about so called quality control and serviceability issues of Russian equipment. And its not the Russians themselves who make the observation in the article, but Nato.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 5th January 2017 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No it wasn't. Go to the orginial article and point out where it states that NATO made any comparison about the Su-35
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th January 2017 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, this list says the opposite.. Su-34s are listed with Al-31F-M1 engines.. But nothing is certain..
Су-27СМ , двигатели АЛ-31Ф , слегка модернизированное БРЭО;
Су-27СМ3 , двигатели АЛ-31Ф-М1 , серьезней модернизированное БРЭО ;
Су-30М2 , двигатели АЛ-31Ф , слегка модернизированное БРЭО близкое к 27СМ;
Су-30СМ , двигатели АЛ-31ФП , современное БРЭО с импортными элементами;
Су-35С , двигатели АЛ-41Ф1 , современное БРЭО , почти поколение 5.
Су-34 , двигатели АЛ-31Ф-М1 , БРЭО уровня 90-х годов.
http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/5040-su-30-istoriya-serii-116/
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 6th January 2017 at 00:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not about the su 35 BUT about the serviceability and effectiveness of the Russian airforce in Syria.
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”
The chief of US Air Force operations in Europe and Africa, Lieutenant General Frank Gorenc, has disclosed that Moscow is now deploying anti-aircraft systems in Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine last year, and in Kaliningrad, an enclave between Lithuania and Poland. It is doing so, he says, in a way that makes it “very, very difficult” for Nato planes to gain access safely to areas including parts of Poland.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 6th January 2017 at 04:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 6th January 2017 at 13:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm. A surprisingly high number of spare radars (9), especially considering it's an AESA, which is not supposed to be maintenance intensive..
Almost all equipment is very abundant, but at the same time, only eight CFTs.. This listing is kind of illogical, IMHO.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 6th January 2017 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another quote for domestic order for the VKS I have omited..
37x MiG-35 fighters for 37 billion RUB in 2013 - $622 mil in FY2016, makes equivalent of $17 mil a pop
16x MiG-29SMT fighters of 9.19R standard for "over 17 billion RUB" in 2014 - ~$290 mil in FY2016, makes equivalent of $18 mil a pop - stopgap order
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=497436
http://www.brahmand.com/news/Russian-MoD-defers-MiG35-fighter-procurement/11119/1/10.html
For hopsalot, the order only includes tailfins, cockpit canopies and wing pylons, you can sleep well..
For all others, it's for complete aircraft, recurring flyaway..
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 6th January 2017 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The order is for 32 F/A-18E and 8 F/A-18F - so just I spare radar set.
BTW, MiG-35s do not cost 17 million USD a pop - not on this planet anyway.