Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I usually don´t follow the weapons systems of 3rd tier countries. Does the newest version of the Ratfall still got these stupid fixed IFR probe?
+46
Krepost
GarryB
Isos
Tsavo Lion
AMCXXL
mnztr
Kiko
mack8
George1
Scorpius
Odin of Ossetia
sepheronx
AlfaT8
lancelot
Robert.V
zepia
Department Of Defense
Sujoy
RTN
Werewolf
lyle6
Arrow
Rodion_Romanovic
Belisarius
caveat emptor
Backman
Podlodka77
magnumcromagnon
gmsmith1985
Mir
ALAMO
miketheterrible
Arkanghelsk
PhSt
LMFS
franco
flamming_python
limb
Cyberspec
x_54_u43
Hole
medo
JohninMK
bandit6
PapaDragon
Russian_Patriot_
50 posters
Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2
Hole- Posts : 10841
Points : 10819
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
Belisarius likes this post
Isos- Posts : 11326
Points : 11296
Join date : 2015-11-06
Podlodka77 wrote:Isos, the area of France is large, and with 200 tanks and 100 howitzers, I don't think that's enough even for a guerrilla.
Helicopters ? Sadness.. If there was no US pressure on Russian aircraft exports, that Rafale would not have experienced the sales success it has experienced in the last few years.
Rafale is just a plane, not a space shuttle..
Who's going to attack france with 2000 tanks ? Swiss ? Germany? Spain ? China ?
France doesn't need 2000 tanks. Since it has nuks it is pretty safe from invasions.
owais.usmani likes this post
Podlodka77- Posts : 2589
Points : 2591
Join date : 2022-01-06
Location : Z
France has nuclear weapons? So ?
Will the West defeat Russia if it has already acquired the Ka-52, Khibiny, etc.? How many nuclear warheads does Russia have; MZKT trucks, strategic bombers, strategic submarines and ICBMs in silos ?
Isos, how many migrants and Muslims live in France? Are you sure that they are all well-intentioned towards the French? I am not so sure that the French army is up to the challenges that might arise.
These are mostly not Muslims like in Russia who have been living with Russians for centuries; Tatars, Chechens, Dagestan, Ingushetia..
I think Isos is just overreacting in treating the Rafale as if it were a space shuttle, because it is not, it is an aircraft whose design documentation is over 40 years old. It is enough to mention that the Rafale flew for the first time in 1986. That was long time ago.
Will the West defeat Russia if it has already acquired the Ka-52, Khibiny, etc.? How many nuclear warheads does Russia have; MZKT trucks, strategic bombers, strategic submarines and ICBMs in silos ?
Isos, how many migrants and Muslims live in France? Are you sure that they are all well-intentioned towards the French? I am not so sure that the French army is up to the challenges that might arise.
These are mostly not Muslims like in Russia who have been living with Russians for centuries; Tatars, Chechens, Dagestan, Ingushetia..
I think Isos is just overreacting in treating the Rafale as if it were a space shuttle, because it is not, it is an aircraft whose design documentation is over 40 years old. It is enough to mention that the Rafale flew for the first time in 1986. That was long time ago.
Isos- Posts : 11326
Points : 11296
Join date : 2015-11-06
If you have no argument don't go off topic please.
I said Rafale, su-35, typhoon are the only 4th geb fighter worth their money and having the best chances in a convebtional fight.
Su-57, su-75 are better a better investement than keeping buying su-34 and su-30 that get destroyed by system designed by russian themselves in the 80s.
China has already 150+ j-20. USA is producing f-35 like little breads even if it is not a finished program. Both will export them.
I rather be in a su-75 than a su-30 when facing a f-35 armed with meteors.
I said Rafale, su-35, typhoon are the only 4th geb fighter worth their money and having the best chances in a convebtional fight.
Su-57, su-75 are better a better investement than keeping buying su-34 and su-30 that get destroyed by system designed by russian themselves in the 80s.
China has already 150+ j-20. USA is producing f-35 like little breads even if it is not a finished program. Both will export them.
I rather be in a su-75 than a su-30 when facing a f-35 armed with meteors.
owais.usmani likes this post
Podlodka77- Posts : 2589
Points : 2591
Join date : 2022-01-06
Location : Z
Isos wrote:If you have no argument don't go off topic please.
I said Rafale, su-35, typhoon are the only 4th geb fighter worth their money and having the best chances in a convebtional fight.
Su-57, su-75 are better a better investement than keeping buying su-34 and su-30 that get destroyed by system designed by russian themselves in the 80s.
China has already 150+ j-20. USA is producing f-35 like little breads even if it is not a finished program. Both will export them.
I rather be in a su-75 than a su-30 when facing a f-35 armed with meteors.
Maybe I don't have an argument, but neither do you, because Rafale was not in this conflict.
ALAMO
ALAMO- Posts : 6842
Points : 6934
Join date : 2014-11-25
Podlodka77 wrote:France has nuclear weapons?
They do.
Some 80s level of the SU.
Why do you asking?
Podlodka77 likes this post
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2446
Points : 2613
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
They are quite different aircrafts.
The rafale is a overexpensive (more than 150 million dollars each) multirole fighter, equipped with the most expensive electronics the french could use.
The su 34 is a fighter bomber, much cheaper (probably it cost 1/5 of the rafale, with higher range and payload
and with only secondary air to air capabilities.
And because of the role probably it has been equipped with different kind of electronics than what is typically in multirole or air superiority aircrafts.
It is more similar in role to the old panavia tornado than to a su27 or a f16 or a rafale, of course.
And it is more than one and half time larger than the rafale
No need for it to do anything on its own anyway.
If there have been issues in operating in an environment full of air defences, maybe there could be some lessons learnt for improvement or modernisation.
I cannot understand how the aircrafts can be even compared, and i would be curious to know what actually the superexpensive rafale could do in such an environment (and not just in exercises)..
Now next time someone will say that tu95 and b52 are useless aircrafts because the rafale is much faster and more agile
The rafale is a overexpensive (more than 150 million dollars each) multirole fighter, equipped with the most expensive electronics the french could use.
The su 34 is a fighter bomber, much cheaper (probably it cost 1/5 of the rafale, with higher range and payload
and with only secondary air to air capabilities.
And because of the role probably it has been equipped with different kind of electronics than what is typically in multirole or air superiority aircrafts.
It is more similar in role to the old panavia tornado than to a su27 or a f16 or a rafale, of course.
And it is more than one and half time larger than the rafale
No need for it to do anything on its own anyway.
If there have been issues in operating in an environment full of air defences, maybe there could be some lessons learnt for improvement or modernisation.
I cannot understand how the aircrafts can be even compared, and i would be curious to know what actually the superexpensive rafale could do in such an environment (and not just in exercises)..
Now next time someone will say that tu95 and b52 are useless aircrafts because the rafale is much faster and more agile
sepheronx, GarryB, flamming_python, Werewolf, Hole, lyle6, Mir and like this post
Belisarius- Posts : 760
Points : 760
Join date : 2022-01-04
According to Pentagon officials Russia makes on average 250-300 missions a day in Ukraine. After 226 days of combat this brings us to a total of 67800 sorties during the conflict, in contrast Ukraine claims to have shot down 498 fixed and rotary wing aircraft.
This number of downed aircraft, 498, corresponds to only 0.73% of the total number of sorties that Russia has made so far.
So Ukrainian/Western propaganda is so dumb that it doesn't realize the fact that their own numbers show that every time a Russian pilot takes off there is only 0.7% chance of him being shot down and 99.3% of the time VKS does whatever it wants in Ukrainian airspace without having a downed aircraft.
Now add the fact that most of the numbers listed by Ukraine are inflated by propaganda and that there is no conclusive evidence that Russia has lost more than 50-60 aircraft, and we will see that actually 99.9% of the time the VKS does what it wants in Ukrainian airspace without losing an aircraft.
At the end of the day, all Isos claim that Russian aircraft are suffering "this" or "that" and cannot do "this" or "that" is just bullshit.
This number of downed aircraft, 498, corresponds to only 0.73% of the total number of sorties that Russia has made so far.
So Ukrainian/Western propaganda is so dumb that it doesn't realize the fact that their own numbers show that every time a Russian pilot takes off there is only 0.7% chance of him being shot down and 99.3% of the time VKS does whatever it wants in Ukrainian airspace without having a downed aircraft.
Now add the fact that most of the numbers listed by Ukraine are inflated by propaganda and that there is no conclusive evidence that Russia has lost more than 50-60 aircraft, and we will see that actually 99.9% of the time the VKS does what it wants in Ukrainian airspace without losing an aircraft.
At the end of the day, all Isos claim that Russian aircraft are suffering "this" or "that" and cannot do "this" or "that" is just bullshit.
GarryB, ALAMO, Hole, lyle6, Broski and Podlodka77 like this post
AMCXXL- Posts : 987
Points : 987
Join date : 2017-08-08
Belisarius wrote: Ukraine claims to have shot down 498 fixed and rotary wing aircraft.
GarryB, flamming_python, Big_Gazza, Hole, lyle6 and Podlodka77 like this post
Belisarius- Posts : 760
Points : 760
Join date : 2022-01-04
As I said most of the numbers listed by Ukraine are inflated by propaganda and that there is no conclusive evidence that Russia has lost more than 50-60 aircraft.AMCXXL wrote:Belisarius wrote: Ukraine claims to have shot down 498 fixed and rotary wing aircraft.
ALAMO- Posts : 6842
Points : 6934
Join date : 2014-11-25
Belisarius wrote:
As I said most of the numbers listed by Ukraine are inflated by propaganda and that there is no conclusive evidence that Russia has lost more than 50-60 aircraft.
I highly doubt even to this number, maybe if we will calculate all the planes that has been hit&returned etc.
This is an outstanding performance, considering the fact that Ukrs has more AD assets than the whole of EU combined.
Not to mention it's quality.
Losing 50, yet a 100 aircrafts to demolish the biggest European country, with the second-to-Russia-only AD network, is mindblowing and scary.
People are really lacking perspective.
This is the very same method as "half of the regiment was shot down!" spreading bullshit&panic.
When fact-checked, it turns out that not half but 25%, and that applies to 6 planes, in 7 months, and with no human losses - what brings a conclusion that the plane guarantees extreme survivability to the crew.
And the question is if "podbity" corresponds to shoot down, or just hit&returned to base because it is not clear with this Russian word.
Yes, planes are being shot down at war. How bizarre!
They can't respawn?!? Worked in a game!
Pussies!
GarryB, franco, flamming_python, Rodion_Romanovic, Hole, lyle6, Mir and like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It can't jamm a old Osa system, aesa radar + meteor will destroy it anytime.
OSA is command guided as far as I know so jamming the radar does not help if they optically track you they can still hit you.
OSA actually had a rather good record of shooting down American cruise missiles during the Gulf War...
The radar in a meteor missile is relatively small and probably relatively easy to fool.
It can't do deep strike in Ukraine abd you think it will be a good plateform agaibst a pear adversary ?
We have nothing but your claims it has not been used.
Rafale does it to. Its specially design to do such attacks for nuclear strikes...
Over a much shorter distance and likely lower flight speed I am guessing.
Now NATO has a full set of Khabiniy jammers to study. Sukhois will be even less dangerous now.
Such things get compromised all the time... I would say knowing the enemy has them is good reason for massive upgrades... oh no... that sounds... fantastic.
Have you ever provided something interesting in this forum.
I am giving him some slack because you are pulling opinions from your arse... how can we discuss this properly?
Show me the list of these 16 Su-34s you claim are shot down and was that from 16 missions flown or perhaps was it 20 missions flown because they weren't all shot down crossing into Orc airspace.
The model of the army now is to be strong against guerillas or low intensity conflicts and for nuclear strikes.
No it is not, you are confusing the situation in the west with the situation in Russia... the Russians expect to fight all types of war with their military, and prepare their equipment and aircraft accordingly, so in COIN ops like Syria they operate safely at 10km but still hit targets on the ground super cheaply with Iron bombs and precision bomb aiming systems that are actually accurate and effective.
Anyway that's not the point here. It's just that su-34 proved to be a shitty aircraft and need a replacement.
You have brought no evidence except your opinion.
Who's going to attack france with 2000 tanks ? Swiss ? Germany? Spain ? China ?
Honestly.... the US Marine Corps...
I rather be in a su-75 than a su-30 when facing a f-35 armed with meteors.
Actually the 14 odd weapon pylons of the Su-30, plus the upgrade to essentially two seat Su-35 standard (for fleet wide commonality) which presumably includes the radar and wing root mounted L band radar, I would be happy to be in either Russian plane fighting an F-35.
It is more similar in role to the old panavia tornado than to a su27 or a f16 or a rafale, of course.
And it is more than one and half time larger than the rafale
As you know it is a replacement for the Su-24 and an F-15E class aircraft that is a medium range strike aircraft... long range strike would be the B-1B and Tu-22M3.
Some sad posts in this thread, but it has picked up in quality.
A critical point mentioned by Alamo... if something sucks because it can be shot down... well guess what... everything sucks... there is nothing in war that cannot be destroyed or shot down.
The west is very aware of the records of its aircraft in combat and simply will not use platforms in situations where they might be lost and their amazing (some would say made up) combat record tarnished.
Weapons and aircraft are tools to do jobs and if you want to protect your pilots by not sending them in to take on targets then that will cost your ground forces or your navy depending on which targets you wont hit.
Of course the Russian military is different from the West... the West are all air force centric so an enemy target in war will be hit by air power in situations where Russian might use Iskander or artillery (including heavy artillery like Tulip).
Rodion_Romanovic, Hole, lyle6, Broski, Belisarius and Podlodka77 like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 6842
Points : 6934
Join date : 2014-11-25
GarryB wrote:
OSA is command guided as far as I know so jamming the radar does not help if they optically track you they can still hit you.
OSA actually had a rather good record of shooting down American cruise missiles during the Gulf War...
Osa is still one of the best systems in its class and was an outstanding one for 20 years until the Russkie fielded its successor.
It is still being modernized, as both the hull and the missile have huge potential.
New versions are very potent, so de facto placing it as an example of how shitty the Su-34 is supposed to be prove the total lack of competence only.
Aside from the fact that this is a kind of opinion taken out from arse only, there is no serious point to discuss it.
GarryB, flamming_python and Belisarius like this post
Hole- Posts : 10841
Points : 10819
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
Osas are shooting down stuff everywhere in 404 on a daily bases. Even very small drones. There are tens of thousands of missiles for it stored and to use the system is very cheap. 
ALAMO, Broski and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 6842
Points : 6934
Join date : 2014-11-25
The interesting part is, that they have taken down some Tochka, too.
Considering the specs, most probably the separated warhead, but still impressive.
Considering the specs, most probably the separated warhead, but still impressive.
GarryB, Hole, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post
flamming_python- Posts : 9056
Points : 9118
Join date : 2012-01-30
Isos wrote:If you have no argument don't go off topic please.
I said Rafale, su-35, typhoon are the only 4th geb fighter worth their money and having the best chances in a convebtional fight.
Su-57, su-75 are better a better investement than keeping buying su-34 and su-30 that get destroyed by system designed by russian themselves in the 80s.
China has already 150+ j-20. USA is producing f-35 like little breads even if it is not a finished program. Both will export them.
I rather be in a su-75 than a su-30 when facing a f-35 armed with meteors.
Is your argument against the F-15E as well?
And all the modifications the Israelis use?
Because the Su-34 is a very valuable aircraft. Tactical bomber, cruise missile carrier, anti-ship, recon, EW, air-to-air - it's incredibly versatile.
It's about how you use it not the plane itself. It's not stealthy enough to fly over enemy airspace that's covered by capable air-defense systems while for low-altitude penetration bombing you might as well use a Su-24 which was expressly designed for such.
But for everything else its far game
Broski and Belisarius like this post
Isos- Posts : 11326
Points : 11296
Join date : 2015-11-06
F-15 is a trash plateform too. Even bigger rcs than su-27. Against su-75+r77M or rafale+meteor it is just a big target in the sky.
Su-35 or su-57 do it better. Any of those missions.
Because the Su-34 is a very valuable aircraft. Tactical bomber, cruise missile carrier, anti-ship, recon, EW, air-to-air - it's incredibly versatile.
Su-35 or su-57 do it better. Any of those missions.
flamming_python- Posts : 9056
Points : 9118
Join date : 2012-01-30
Isos wrote:F-15 is a trash plateform too. Even bigger rcs than su-27. Against su-75+r77M or rafale+meteor it is just a big target in the sky.
Because the Su-34 is a very valuable aircraft. Tactical bomber, cruise missile carrier, anti-ship, recon, EW, air-to-air - it's incredibly versatile.
Su-35 or su-57 do it better. Any of those missions.
They don't match its endurance, nor its payload. They also only have 1 pilot instead of 1 pilot and 1 weapons system officer, which you know, is kind of important for all that jazz such as anti-ship, anti-ground sorties, recon equipment and so on.
It would be most correct to compare the Su-34 to the Su-30SM2 in that case. Yet what advantage in any of those roles does the Su-30SM2 have bar air-to-air capability, and how would it be any less vulnerable?
Belisarius likes this post
Isos- Posts : 11326
Points : 11296
Join date : 2015-11-06
flamming_python wrote:Isos wrote:F-15 is a trash plateform too. Even bigger rcs than su-27. Against su-75+r77M or rafale+meteor it is just a big target in the sky.
Because the Su-34 is a very valuable aircraft. Tactical bomber, cruise missile carrier, anti-ship, recon, EW, air-to-air - it's incredibly versatile.
Su-35 or su-57 do it better. Any of those missions.
They don't have the endurance, nor the effective payload. They also only have 1 pilot instead of 1 pilot and 1 weapons system officer, which you know, is kind of important for all that jazz such as anti-ship, anti-ground sorties, recon equipment and so on.
Was important.
Modern missiles are more reliable.
Modern jet need only 1 pilot since much of the work is done by the computer. Only need to press button to launch missiles. Pilots are costly.
A foremr french navy pilot opened a youtube chanel. He already stated that he doesn't understand why french air force is buying the two seats Rafale because he said he can do easily everything alone.
flamming_python- Posts : 9056
Points : 9118
Join date : 2012-01-30
Isos wrote:flamming_python wrote:Isos wrote:F-15 is a trash plateform too. Even bigger rcs than su-27. Against su-75+r77M or rafale+meteor it is just a big target in the sky.
Because the Su-34 is a very valuable aircraft. Tactical bomber, cruise missile carrier, anti-ship, recon, EW, air-to-air - it's incredibly versatile.
Su-35 or su-57 do it better. Any of those missions.
They don't have the endurance, nor the effective payload. They also only have 1 pilot instead of 1 pilot and 1 weapons system officer, which you know, is kind of important for all that jazz such as anti-ship, anti-ground sorties, recon equipment and so on.
Was important.
Modern missiles are more reliable.
Modern jet need only 1 pilot since much of the work is done by the computer. Only need to press button to launch missiles. Pilots are costly.
A foremr french navy pilot opened a youtube chanel. He already stated that he doesn't understand why french air force is buying the two seats Rafale because he said he can do easily everything alone.
I have a hard time believing that
One dip into a modern flight simulator is enough to befuddle one completely, as to how someone should operate anything the lines of a Su-27, A-10, F-15, Su-25 alone - and that's without any specialized equipment such as recon/jamming/targeting pods who have their own interfaces, or missiles that can be re-targeted or set with different flight profiles, and sometimes terminal guidance that can be monitored or adjusted.
Werewolf, Broski and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
F-15 is a trash plateform too. Even bigger rcs than su-27. Against su-75+r77M or rafale+meteor it is just a big target in the sky.
You are defeating your own argument... you keep saying the Su-34 is junk because F-35s or Rafales with Meteors can shoot it down... obviously because Ukrainian air power has been so decisive in this conflict as ISIS air power was effective in Syria.
Meteor is completely untested against a peer enemy.... you sound like the British government last century... no point in designing fighter aircraft because SAMs will mean all aircraft are dead... before the Vietnam war the US though the gun was useless in combat and just extra weight and extra maintenance for a fighter that makes it less effective.
I agree lessons are learned in conflict, but I also know the wrong lesson can be learned from the wrong war that can lead to catastrophe in the next rather different war.
But OK. You think Su-34 is rubbish... that is fine.
Broski and Podlodka77 like this post
Mir- Posts : 3222
Points : 3224
Join date : 2021-06-10
Well I think all of us agree that the Rafale is a pretty awesome 4th gen fighter, but to say that the Su-34 is shitty just because Forbes/Oryx says that the Russians lost 15 of them during the SMO is actually the shitty part. Why? Because both Forbes and Oryx fully rely on Ukrainian "sources". These same "very reliable" sources claims that the [F]Ukrs lost 5 Su-27's so far - quite impressive!
These very same "sources" claim that all in all the [F]Ukrs lost 145 aircraft including UAV's - against exactly the same number of claimed Russian losses (145)
Back to the Rafale >> for all we know the Rafale may just be the last obstacle to US dominance/monopoly in western fighter design?
These very same "sources" claim that all in all the [F]Ukrs lost 145 aircraft including UAV's - against exactly the same number of claimed Russian losses (145)
Back to the Rafale >> for all we know the Rafale may just be the last obstacle to US dominance/monopoly in western fighter design?
GarryB and Belisarius like this post
Isos- Posts : 11326
Points : 11296
Join date : 2015-11-06
Ukrainian AD is clearly decisive since after 7 months russian can fly their planes only on the front line at very low altitude and they keep being downed.
Ukraine has an airpower. It's su-27 keep being shot down by su-35 equiped with long range radars and longer range R-77 than r-27, because with its big RCS the su 27 can be detected by su-35 at max range and r-77 be used at max effective range.
Result of su-34 vs rafale would be the same as ukro su-27 vs ru su-35. Rafale would see it first and launch meteors at long range while the su-34 wouldn't know what's going on. Against a su-75 the rafale would see him to launch its missiles at mong range while su-75 would fire first.
Meteor isn't combat tested, sure. But they have tested it in plenty of configuration including in heavy jamming... it is the best missile today. Everyone agree on that too but some fanboys.
Ukraine has an airpower. It's su-27 keep being shot down by su-35 equiped with long range radars and longer range R-77 than r-27, because with its big RCS the su 27 can be detected by su-35 at max range and r-77 be used at max effective range.
Result of su-34 vs rafale would be the same as ukro su-27 vs ru su-35. Rafale would see it first and launch meteors at long range while the su-34 wouldn't know what's going on. Against a su-75 the rafale would see him to launch its missiles at mong range while su-75 would fire first.
Meteor isn't combat tested, sure. But they have tested it in plenty of configuration including in heavy jamming... it is the best missile today. Everyone agree on that too but some fanboys.
Isos- Posts : 11326
Points : 11296
Join date : 2015-11-06
Mir wrote:Well I think all of us agree that the Rafale is a pretty awesome 4th gen fighter, but to say that the Su-34 is shitty just because Forbes/Oryx says that the Russians lost 15 of them during the SMO is actually the shitty part. Why? Because both Forbes and Oryx fully rely on Ukrainian "sources". These same "very reliable" sources claims that the [F]Ukrs lost 5 Su-27's so far - quite impressive!
These very same "sources" claim that all in all the [F]Ukrs lost 145 aircraft including UAV's - against exactly the same number of claimed Russian losses (145)
Back to the Rafale >> for all we know the Rafale may just be the last obstacle to US dominance/monopoly in western fighter design?
It is a shitty aircraft because it can't do what it was designed to do against against a convenional enemy.
Its deep strike capability are non existant because it is downed by ukrainian AD that consist in soviet tech from the 80s.
Its jammers can't even hide its big RCS to enemy radars.
The sooner they replace it with su-57 bomber version the better.
Mir- Posts : 3222
Points : 3224
Join date : 2021-06-10
Use copy and paste it saves a lot of time.
Belisarius likes this post
|
|
|