Non-sense on russian military equipment

GarryB wrote:Which just goes to show there is not much on the national interest website worth reading.

Not to defend that typical bit of tripe but browsing around there I ran into this actually brilliant take on US foreign policy insanity https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/understanding-failure-us-foreign-policy-albright-doctrine-60477
They do have some superb bits like that from time to time, why on such an otherwise complete trash site I do not understand

Would be nice if they upgrade one of the t-50 prototypes to naval variant. And test it in Crimea before Kuznetsov comes back anf then test from the carrier.

Isos wrote:Would be nice if they upgrade one of the t-50 prototypes to naval variant. And test it in Crimea before Kuznetsov comes back anf then test from the carrier.

Construction changes for naval aircraft are far more serious! They need different materials, rust proof from the influence of seawater and spray, much strenghtened undercarriage, etc.

kumbor wrote:

Isos wrote:Would be nice if they upgrade one of the t-50 prototypes to naval variant. And test it in Crimea before Kuznetsov comes back anf then test from the carrier.

Construction changes for naval aircraft are far more serious! They need different materials, rust proof from the influence of seawater and spray, much strenghtened undercarriage, etc.

I was saying to turn it into a naval variant prototype. Not a serial fighter. That would underline the needs for a naval variant and speed up the development.

They don't need big changes apart the landing gears. Everything else is already strong enough or protected against rust.

This is an interesting article: SU 57

That is pathetic...

First of all you could replace the designation Su-57 with F-35 and it would actually make more sense... the F-35 is doomed...

But trying to claim that they were testing the old engine hard before handing it over and because it may have failed then that means the entire programme is a failure and all doomed is amusing... wouldn't it be more of a problem if it was the new replacement engine that failed?

National Interest is to have ones head up ones own ass and pretend it smells of roses... that might work in the US of Gay, By, and Buy, and Transform into something new but it just doesn't cut it in the rest of the world.

Seems the US is getting left behind again.

BTW did anyone else notice the warning regarding cookies on the NI site... warning we will steal your personal information and use it to help Trump win the next US election while blaming Russian hackers for it... how refreshingly honest of them...

The west continually blames Russian troll farms for various things.

This pretty much essentially guarantees that the west has been actively funding their own troll farms likely for the last decade or so, and this sort of thing is the result... all those people paid to post shit... means you have to expect more shit to be posted.

Their main problem is that there are westerners with some integrity and brains that post things complaining about the shit in the west... not because they are paid to do so, but because they are part of the west and they want to see it fixed and working properly... there is no point for the west to destroy Russia and China to then collapse itself when it has no more big power enemies to fight... what would american politicians complain about if they couldn't mention Russia or China... wow they would have to deal with their own problems... and people would see they are just as shit at dealing with those as they are with dealing with Russia and China who are both developing and getting stronger despite and sometimes because of western actions...

Views on this article. Hmmmmm
"Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat"

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2020/05/russian-su-35-lost-against-j-16-and-j.html?m=1

Then buy j-10 and j16 if they are so good.

It is a new tactic for chinese to try to steal russian market. They "compare" with their own stuff and say they have better stuff. But keeps buying russian.

JohninMK wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Views on this article. Hmmmmm
"Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat"

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2020/05/russian-su-35-lost-against-j-16-and-j.html?m=1

Love it. The F-35 performs badly compared to our jets but if the price was right we'd buy some more.

Exactly. Su-35 I think meant lol. I'd say let them buy their own aircraft if they think they are better. It's not as if China had any intention of buying more anyway.

d_taddei2 wrote:Views on this article. Hmmmmm
"Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat"

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2020/05/russian-su-35-lost-against-j-16-and-j.html?m=1

No sources in this "article", so no evidence that any of these claims are genuine, and one of the last places I would go to to find honest appraisal of the Su-35 would be some non-descript Indonesian website. Pfftt...

"However, the fighter has flaws, and its avionics system is not very developed, so it is completely devoid of perspectives."

Dafuq?  Seriously?  

Big_Gazza wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Views on this article. Hmmmmm
"Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat"

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2020/05/russian-su-35-lost-against-j-16-and-j.html?m=1

No sources in this "article", so no evidence that any of these claims are genuine, and one of the last places I would go to to find honest appraisal of the Su-35 would be some non-descript Indonesian website. Pfftt...

"However, the fighter has flaws, and its avionics system is not very developed, so it is completely devoid of perspectives."

Dafuq?  Seriously?  

Not even an Indonesia site. It's a blogspot. Only blogspots I trust are from real individuals who provides sources.

If let's say the Chinese are telling the truth, it's a joke. Cause China's Airforce tech is like ground force tech - shit quality where they rely on stealing other people's tech. Plus no one is eager to buy their jets which gives good indication of lack of quality.


That part you quote doesn't even make sense, especially since there is a video online showing Irbis E use and actual performance of about 400km range while it's onboard systems actually work. What has China proven? Nothing. The Russians use these jets in other countries. What has China used? They are afraid to even go into Syria

Please note they are not my comments. The article came up as suggested article. And I thought I'd share the article on the grounds to show everyone the crap that's being said about su-35 I like many others totally agree against what is said in the article.

A note to take into account, right now Russia is trying to sell some su-35 to Indonesia and US want them to buy their own fighters instead... this guy was probably paid to say some shit about the su-35 because the contract seem to be happening.

Also it is funny that some Indonesian support China when we know that right now chinese are looking at their islands like their are chinese. When they will be sending them in their concentration camps in the north with the uighurs, j-10 won't help them.

U.S propaganda has ensured that several gullible leaders across Asia, Europe and Africa believe that US weapons are the very best available. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OTOH U.S government and it media spends billions to showcase Russian military H/W in poor light the world over.

Ergo, we can start a thread where we identify the technological issues with western military hardware. So that at least the people who visit this forum realizes that U.S military H/W is anything but invincible.

I don't really think Russia would see any RED if the Finns buy Gripens.

They will if they then join HATO... as the swedes and other HATO countries want...

They already have 55 F-18s. A country like Finland cannot realisticly counter Russia on its own. They buy weapons to form alliances. While Finland is not a member of NATO, they have not joined "officially" out of respect to Russia not wanting a NATO nation on its borders.

Don't you see that a neutral Finland is much safer than one that is part of HATO... how long after they join will they be sending Finnish troops to Afghanistan or Libya?

Finland joined Germany in attacking the USSR in WWII. There were clearly some difficult conditions negotiated that allowed Finland to not be occupied by Russia after WWII, including some significant reparitions.

The Finns joined with Germany to take back land Stalin had seized in the winter war before Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Finns took back their land but did not cross into Soviet territory with the Germans and did not directly assist the seige of Leningrad or other German attacks.
I think that earned them Stalins respect if anything.

The Finns I would say are an unofficial NATO member and have co-opertion agreements with NATO, but the red line is official membership. Finland cannot purchase any non-nuclear weapons that can actually counter Russia.

The only reason they would need to "counter" Russia would be if they were a threat and they would only be a threat if they were part of HATO.

That is the reality, similar to Canada NZ and Oz. If these relatively advanced nations really wanted independant security, the only option would be nuclear weapons.

Bullshit. If we wanted real security we would have conscription and every adult male and female would be trained to shoot and fight. There is no realistic threat on the horizon that we would need fighter planes for. We couldn't afford more than one F-35 and even then we would buy it on a plan where we paid it over 10 years... we could not afford to use it, so it would stay in its wrapper anyway.

As for Gripen, I still say its very low cost to operate. "Only" $4700 per flight hour according to Janes. Also the Czechs are extending the lease when they are pretty broke.

It is not a cheap aircraft at all... I would not believe that figure for flight hours.

Finland does not have 55 F-18s to counter Russia, they are for the alliance with USA. Maybe they will buy the SAAB-Boeing fighter based on the Tx...of F-18 Superhornets like Germany because alignment with Germany is also desirable.

Any alliance with the US in that part of the world is all about countering Russia. The tactical nukes pointed at Finland will be aimed at the bases that operate F-18s.... any new fighters no matter where they come from will just add to the number of nuclear weapons pointed at Finland.

Russia isn't going to invade Europe.... it doesn't need extra land... Europe is a threat and you deal with threats by destroying them before they can harm you. Getting in to bed with HATO will just mean Finland will be destroyed too. From a Russian perspective it just means nuclear detonations closer to their border but less guesses as to are they or aren't they. For Finland it means a much quicker death in WWIII which will likely be a relief, and for HATO it is another buffer state they can fight in where they don't risk their own cities for the conventional conflict... they just don't realise there is not going to be a conventional conflict.

With this reasoning no country with a smaller armed forces then Russia should spend any money on its defence.

Not at all... there are plenty of countries that need armed forces for national defence, but the whole idea of a group of small countries forming a group for collective defence so they can stand up to big countries is pretty dumb. What you effectively get is the war mongering colonial countries leading the organisation and using it for their own personal needs... HATO forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and soon Iran and perhaps Libya and Syria if they can manage it... WTF does that have to do with Finland?

Sure it suits US and French and British interests, but how does Georgia benefit sending its troops to fight and die in wars that have nothing at all to do with them?

Collective security my ass... more like cannon fodder for the big guys.

The idea of Finland and Swedens defence during the cold war was to have such large defence that it would not be worth attacking them. A modern fighter a large part of that.

Finlands security is better served by avoiding joining HATO.... an organisation designed to bait the Bear.

And yes why should Russia care about Finland buying Gripens from semi-neutral Sweden when they are flying US made F-18s today.

Russia wont care... it will just allocate the necessary tactical nuclear missiles to target their bases and things will carry on as normal.

Views on this article. Hmmmmm
"Chinese military experts praised the Russian Su-35, but said it was unsuitable for air combat"

Wow... that is Amazing.... your plane is shit so we will only buy it if it is the right price...

More amusing the advanced radar it is fitted with detects the position of the target but cannot quickly determine the distance to that target... how can you call such a radar advanced then?

This guy is not even using sensible aircraft terms so I suspect he is being paid to ride down the Su-35... being Indonesian, I suspect a contract must be due there soon...

Sujoy wrote:U.S propaganda has ensured that several gullible leaders across Asia, Europe and Africa believe that US weapons are the very best available. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OTOH U.S government and it media spends billions to showcase Russian military H/W in poor light the world over.  

Ergo, we can start a thread where we identify the technological issues with western military hardware. So that at least the people who visit this forum realizes that U.S military H/W is anything but invincible.

And then the Western weapons come with a lot of red tape and restrictions and a massive ongoing cost along with political conditions.

Most forget each country has their own specific needs and threats and a budget as well. If a country has a low air threat buying expensive fighter jets would be pointless if you can get away using a light fighter. Russia actually has a great inventory of equipment to suit all budgets, the west only has expensive weapons to offer, their idea of cheap is old secondhand equipment that's still expensive for what it is. While Russia has tanks AFV APC ATGW aircraft helicopters air defence etc etc all at varying prices and needs that's something West will never have. I always believe if it's fit for purpose buy it no need to go over that just to enter cock measuring contest at the expense of the public purse

d_taddei2 wrote: And then the Western weapons come with a lot of red tape and restrictions and a massive ongoing cost along with political conditions.

True. Everything that you said.

Moreover, if a country purchases weapons from the U.S it's not the purchaser who has leverage over the US, it's the US that now has leverage over the country that purchases its hardware.

They can raise cost of supplying components whenever they want to. They can also stop the supply of components altogether. Reducing those US made H/W into expensive paper weights.

Furthermore, as they claim themselves their hardware always have in built back doors

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/23/nsa-director-defends-backdoors-into-technology-companies

It’s entirely possible that there is code in the seeker software in the missile that can be trigger to ignore a target, it would be next to impossible to find if done well.

https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf

Well, a country like Egypt that has access to all weapon systems (Rafale as example) is also now buying Su-35. Mix in the tests seen in Syria, the actual video of the Irbis-E tested, and China buying it (obviously to test it and reverse engineer its engines and avionics) and others showing interest is an indication it is a great jet. China, who could be building more J-20's instead, isn't. They are slowly going at it while calling Su-57 a failure when their shitty J-20 was spotted by Su-30MKI Bars radar from 180km away. Mix in with their crappy engines that forces them to purchase Russian engines instead.

It is easy to trash talk Russian jets, but they get the shit done. And everyone creates new articles about how either Su-35 is shit or its magnificent (both west and east articles) gives indication people are afraid of the system itself. Only other jet I could actually say is as good as it is the Rafale in terms of overall performance.

It is easy to trash talk Russian jets, but they get the shit done.

Not that easy. They have provided 0 proof till today.

Russia has provided images of a f-22 being intercepted, stories about su-35 harrassing f-18 in WVR "fight" in the east, cideo of the radar working at 400km. They use it in syria for about 5 years now and incident with the engines.

Where are chinese proofs that their shit is worth something ? They even buy su-35 for patroling the hotest zones (in terms of tension) where they face japan and US. Where are the j16 and j10 ? They use them to watch their own population. Their missiles use r-77 technology. J16 is a total copy of su-27UB using copies of russian missiles. They have nothing to be proud of.

J-10 exists thanks to israeli who sold them their own design of the Lavi. Their IR missile is just a copy of israeli missile which is a copy of US missile.



I could keep like that for all day long.

Isos wrote:

It is easy to trash talk Russian jets, but they get the shit done.

Not that easy. They have provided 0 proof till today.

Russia has provided images of a f-22 being intercepted, stories about su-35 harrassing f-18 in WVR "fight" in the east, cideo of the radar working at 400km. They use it in syria for about 5 years now and incident with the engines.

Where are chinese proofs that their shit is worth something ? They even buy su-35 for patroling the hotest zones (in terms of tension) where they face japan and US. Where are the j16 and j10 ? They use them to watch their own population. Their missiles use r-77 technology. J16 is a total copy of su-27UB using copies of russian missiles. They have nothing to be proud of.

J-10 exists thanks to israeli who sold them their own design of the Lavi. Their IR missile is just a copy of israeli missile which is a copy of US missile.



I could keep like that for all day long.  

I think you might have misunderstood me.  I mean, they (the bullshitters) talk trash as its easy to make all these claims without providing proof (as you said).  But you are fully correct, there has been not a single proof provided of the Chinese jets being used.  And we have seen experience of Chinese tanks where they are sent elsewhere and tested in competitions where either their turret falls off or the tracks fall off.  As you said, all they did was copy everything.  They love to talk about how they have AESA and what not.  Well, I question its quality.  You can have AESA but if they operate at 5W modules each and with a total of what, 1000 modules and about 10% of them fail (since its Chinese I would wager its about 20% or more due to piss poor quality) they would have ranges at best 200km against a fighter sized target while Russias Su-35 has about 300km+ for fighter sized target.

China of all people are the last to talk about what is good and what isn't.  Yes, we get it, they are good at manufacturing shit fast and cheap.  They are good at copying technology and producing microelectronics en mass.  But that doesn't mean they actually make quality stuff.

What is funny about your picture is that Israel has done so much shit like this (handing out western tech to China) yet they dont even get a peep of shit.