Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
If the maximum take-off weight of the Su-75 was 18 tons, it would be the same as for the MiG-29.
MiG-29 family aircraft max out at 22 to 24 tons MTOW... with a modern fighter having thrust vectoring engine nozzles means ability to manouver is astounding...
Most of the time modern aircraft are going to be flying high and fast and launching missiles at max range.
Flight speed and altitude count there and thrust to weight ratio indicates acceleration only... the MiG-25 has two 11 ton thrust engines so it has less power than a Su-27... guess which is fastest?
And this also means that one "izdeliye-30" engine would have to power the Su-75 aircraft, which has a nearly 50% lower maximum allowable take-off mass than the Su-57.
What is the truth, time will tell.
The Su-75 seems to have a 3,000km flight range and a max payload of 7 tons.... both of which are vastly higher than a light fighter would normally use on a normal combat mission, so normally it will not be operating at anywhere near it MTOW.
When launched to intercept a threat it will likely have half fuel and 4-6 AAMs so it would probably be 13 tons or less on takeoff.
It may be better to spend resources on the cheaper Su-75s over the Baltics and the Black Sea than on the Su-57s, since the NATO countries in that area will have nothing but single-engine F-35 fighters.
Honestly I actually believe that by the time the F-35 is in widespread service in Europe that Russia could have MiG-35s in service in large numbers and while not an astounding design, its radar could be state of the art for the time and its new air to air missiles are going to be the same missiles as fitted to newer types.
The job of the fighter is to get missiles to where you need them and launch them at the enemy planes and I think the MiG-35 can do that cheaper and easier than any F-35.
I absolutely believe the F-35 is going to destroy HATO because its costs are horrendous... I mean the EU knows how badly they work together on military projects and yet many have said instead of getting the F-35 they will work with their neighbours to make their own new 5th gen light stealth fighter.
I don't think they could agree on the colour to paint it let alone a name they all like.
Why would nuclear iskander be needed? Noone is threatening Russia with nuclear weapons
Europe is HATO now so rather than fight them with planes Russia should just accept it is a closed border and nothing of interest is there.
Rather than having lots of planes and tanks to defend the border I think he is suggesting a hard border where if you try to attack us to cross it we wont send planes to stop you, we will use nukes to destroy the threat to our country. It is simpler and cheaper.
So rather than moving large numbers of men to the Fin border which costs money and raises tensions... remember HATO is a peaceful organisation that spreads love and friendship, so we now have US listening posts and air bases so why are you (Russia) increasing your military strength near our border.
Well you joined a gang whose entire purpose was to fight us and kill us so when you allow the US to put bases on your territory... all of which should have violated the CFE treaty if it existed any more, so Russia needs to change its defense posture to cater to the new level of hostility coming from Finland.
And the Americans will not trade their own cities for Helsinki or any other NATO state
They don't give a shit about their european meat shields, but that is not to say Finland is now anti Russian and Russia needs to change its military posture in response to the open change to being HATO friendly like they have always been... they fought with German Nazis in WWII.. why not American nazis to start the next one.
This is why France has its own independent nuclear deterrent, its well known in Europe that Washington will not use nuclear weapons on Russia for eastern European countries
And yet they trample their own rules and laws to scamper under the hem of Americas big dress...
So conventional weapons are sufficient to beat limitrophe states , against F35, Su35 and s400 with AWACS is enough
I suspect he means that if war starts with HATO then the enormous border with finland is a big area to cover... actually destroying all their major cities might be a quicker and easier way of nullifying the threat they pose rather than having to send troops in to deal with the threat.
There is no new territory Russia needs to conquer or to add to the Russian Federation so destroying it quickly and efficiently with nukes would be rather easier than having to send in large amounts of conventional forces, which would free conventional forces up to take parts of the Baltics that would allow a land route to Kaliningrad after the conflict.
