• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SU-50. Not a Joke.


Yeah that re-armement program will make the Russian military very strong in equipment. Considering how much of their current equipment is from the soviet era and just not any good. Numbers was a good thing for fighting in WW2 but now its the 21st century. A whole other type of warfare. The training is what matters the most. And I don't know too much about Russian training methods and the stuff I do know. Simply make me smile because I know the Russian soldier is willing to die for his country but he can't really put up a fight.
 
Awesome! I wonder where they got the idea? BTW, I think the Russians are more concerned about the Chinese than us. We don't share a 3500 KM border with the former "Evil Empire".

sukhoi-t-50-pak-fa.jpg
 
Them dying makes u smile?

No. Its just that the Russian's still have poor training for the soldiers. Until they can teach them how to fight in a battlefield they would not win against an enemy like that of France, Uk, USA or even China. China has the numbers to send many of its men to death. Russia does not anymore. So they need better training which is comparable to the USA. Which I don't see in the near future that happening.
 
No. Its just that the Russian's still have poor training for the soldiers. Until they can teach them how to fight in a battlefield they would not win against an enemy like that of France, Uk, USA or even China. China has the numbers to send many of its men to death. Russia does not anymore. So they need better training which is comparable to the USA. Which I don't see in the near future that happening.

I think it's less about training than it is about employing technology to coordinate the battle and involve the chain of command - live.

I don't see whats so brilliant about basic. :shrug:
 
Wait...is the T-50 supposed to be any different from the PAK FA?

Edit: nvm, a simple wiki search reveals the two to be the same thing. In that case this is pretty old news.
 
Last edited:
Awesome! I wonder where they got the idea? BTW, I think the Russians are more concerned about the Chinese than us. We don't share a 3500 KM border with the former "Evil Empire".

sukhoi-t-50-pak-fa.jpg

Of course, there is no way those Ruskies could come up with anything on their own. All that vodka has rendered half of the country clinically brain dead after all. :roll:
 
I don't see whats so brilliant about basic. :shrug:

You do realize that basic training is called "basic" for a reason, right? its not as if you learn all there is about warfighting, or even being an infantryman in basic training.
 
You do realize that basic training is called "basic" for a reason, right? its not as if you learn all there is about warfighting, or even being an infantryman in basic training.

But it helps greatly that was my point.
 
Big thing to understand about most warplanes: they are simply a platform to carry and deploy weapons. The key is in the avionics and the weapons, and to the best of my knowledge in both areas the US has significant advantages. The F-14 used to be the key naval air superiority aircraft due to it being the only aircraft capable of carrying pheonix missiles with their > 100 mile range, but when AAMRAAM started getting ranges of over 100 km, it was disposable and quickly retired.
 
Big thing to understand about most warplanes: they are simply a platform to carry and deploy weapons. The key is in the avionics and the weapons, and to the best of my knowledge in both areas the US has significant advantages. The F-14 used to be the key naval air superiority aircraft due to it being the only aircraft capable of carrying pheonix missiles with their > 100 mile range, but when AAMRAAM started getting ranges of over 100 km, it was disposable and quickly retired.

Hmm I hadn't known that...learn something new every day! Then again, to my knowledge many people think the Hornets/Super Hornets that we use now have short legs.
 
Hmm I hadn't known that...learn something new every day! Then again, to my knowledge many people think the Hornets/Super Hornets that we use now have short legs.

They used to have short legs when I worked on them. Triple drop tank to do anything, and then still needing a K-6. I understand the E/F is better, but no personal experience.
 
They used to have short legs when I worked on them. Triple drop tank to do anything, and then still needing a K-6. I understand the E/F is better, but no personal experience.

The 1 seaters have a greater range due to the fact that one of the internal fuel cells is taken out to give a back seat on the B/D/F models. I know the E/F has 2 more weapons stations than the C/D, but I don't think they carry any extra drop tanks. I would imagine that the range is better, but not sure on that.
 
Now if they could only just invest a tiny, tiny bit in the speed of commercial aircraft. I'm tired of 5 hours flights to and fro. :)
 
Who has the fastest warplane?

Simple speed is not always going to beat agility, low radar profile and the systems backing them up. In the 1980's the Mig-25 was known for its speed but I don't remember it rating highly for its agility and ability in dogfights.
 
Simple speed is not always going to beat agility, low radar profile and the systems backing them up. In the 1980's the Mig-25 was known for its speed but I don't remember it rating highly for its agility and ability in dogfights.

The Mig 25 was amazing for its time. It was not meant for real dogfights but just firing its long range missiles and then retreating, hoping that one of the missiles would hit its target some 50 miles away.
 
Did you read the post I quoted? :roll:

My mistake, I stand corrected.

I'm not sure however if Divine Wind was referring to the idea of a tactical stealth fighter itself, or if he was referring to the design and that it might have been stolen. Given the picture he posted it might be entirely probably that he was suggesting the latter, so you're probably right, I concede your point.
 
You do realize that basic training is called "basic" for a reason, right? its not as if you learn all there is about warfighting, or even being an infantryman in basic training.

And Russians have some sort-of deficit in training? I know things aren't the peachiest in their military but nobody is crashing tanks or planes into each-other by accident as far as I know. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom