U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

Speaking of Russian technology, after the Russian Navy floating drydock sank last year while their only aircraft carrier was in it the admiralty had to take a stark assessment of their ugly reality. Either tow the sucker halfway around the world to the only other Naval drydock near Vladivostok or junk the thing. While the Russians continue to agonize over the decision the world awaits with a big yawn.


Because in order to reach the Far East dry dock from where the carrier currently rots, er, sits, it would need to sail out of the Kola Bay and through the Norwegian Sea, the North and South Atlantic, around the southern tip of Africa, across the Indian Ocean and then through both the North and South Pacific. Only then could the massive ship be hoisted back up out of the water where repairs could once again commence. There’s just one problem: the carrier’s propellers were removed before the last dry dock sank, meaning the ship cannot travel anywhere under its own power.


Russia may scrap its only aircraft carrier to avoid the embarrassment of towing it around the globe

2 days ago


Pictured in this file image dated August 7, 2010, is the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov at the PD-50 floating dry dock of Shipyard 82. The PD-50 floating dry dock of the shipyard sank while the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was leaving it on the night of October 29 to 30, 2018. Several people were injured in the accident. (Photo by Lev Fedoseyev\TASS via Getty Images)


Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the long-troubled Admiral Kuznetsov, has long been seen as a bit of an embarrassment for the Kremlin, which fancies itself the world’s alternative to America’s brand of Western geopolitical leadership.

Last October, the dry dock holding the Admiral Kuznetsov caught fire, eventually sinking into the sea and leaving the immobile carrier stranded where it was floating. A large crane that had been attached to the dry dock collapsed onto the carrier’s flight deck during the fire, tearing a large hole and adding to the extensive list of updates and repairs that had already seen repeated delays, thanks to Russia’s struggling economy and recent emphasis on the development of new missile technologies.

Russian Floating Smoke Bomb


The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov passes through the English Channel on October 21, 2016 near Dover, England. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)


Doing so would mean Russia, a nation that purports to be a global military power, would have no aircraft carriers to speak of. While this would dramatically limit the nation’s theoretical force projection capabilities, the truth is, losing the carrier would do little in terms of changing what Russia is actually capable of doing.

The carrier last saw action in 2016 in support of Pro-Assad forces in Syria. That deployment proved embarrassing for the Russian military, with its support mission marred by losing two aircraft as they attempted to land on the ship’s flight deck. When its rotation was over, the Admiral skulked back to Russian waters, spewing black smoke and accompanied by an ocean-going tugboat — just in case the old carrier couldn’t manage the trip under its own power.

So the question really boils down to this — which would be more embarrassing to the Russian government: parading their zombie carrier around the globe for repairs, or putting it down for good and losing their status among nations with formidable sea-based force projection capabilities?

Russia may scrap its only aircraft carrier to avoid the embarrassment of towing it around the globe | NEWSREP



I myself neither underestimate Russian military capacity and capability nor do I overestimate it. What I do do is to present a counter weight to the unrelenting and unbelievable Kremlin propaganda that only presents the Russian military as invincible under all conditions and circumstances while simultaneously trying absolutely and unsuccessfully to denegrate US military capacity and capability. Only fools would try to present the Russian armed forces as superior to the US armed forces while simultaneously trying against all hope and reality to say the US military are a bunch of incompetent bunglers who imagine they are superior in all things. And when the trashtalk comes from a guy who's way in above his pay grade it becomes a joke, sad and sorry as the joke is.

beerftw said:

You can gripe all you want, but russia does have many thing superior to the us and the us has many things superior to russia, only a fool thinks too highly of themselves and assumes it brings superiority.

During ww2 the us was deemed inferior to britain, and germany, and japan militarily, they all had better tech than the us,

Click to expand...

No they didn't.

but britain was on americas side and america went from being an underdog to winning that war without any technological superiority.

Click to expand...

The first country to invent the atomic bomb didn't have any kind of technological superiority. Right.

Germany however made the mistake

Click to expand...

Of starting a war they had no chance of winning.

Case and point germany then had superior tech

Click to expand...

No they didn't.

beerftw said:

There are advantages to stealth, the delusions are the idea it makes them invulnerable to sam sites through disrupting kill chains.

Click to expand...

Every major power is trying to or currently pursuing a stealth fighter. The idea that stealth is somehow not a major advantage in terms of aerial combat is stupid.

You also have these same wizkids wanting to replace the a-10 every year, and every time it came down to it the a-10 proved to be extremely valuable and replacements proposed by the air force like the f-16 and f-35 proved to be vastly inferior for the task. This leads me to believe actual mission effectiveness was a second thought for the air force over marketing and hype.

Click to expand...

People want to get rid of the A-10 because it's old, slow, and incredibly vulnerable to modern air defense systems. The only reason the A-10 lasted so long because it never fought the war it was designed to fight.

Jredbaron96 said:

Every major power is trying to or currently pursuing a stealth fighter. The idea that stealth is somehow not a major advantage in terms of aerial combat is stupid.




People want to get rid of the A-10 because it's old, slow, and incredibly vulnerable to modern air defense systems. The only reason the A-10 lasted so long because it never fought the war it was designed to fight.

Click to expand...

It is funny to see random internet posters try and pretend that they know more then all of the major air forces in the world combined.

braindrain said:

It is funny to see random internet posters try and pretend that they know more then all of the major air forces in the world combined.

Click to expand...

But I read an article once where some Russian general I've never heard of say that they had "defeated American stealth"! It must be true!

Jredbaron96 said:

Every major power is trying to or currently pursuing a stealth fighter. The idea that stealth is somehow not a major advantage in terms of aerial combat is stupid.




People want to get rid of the A-10 because it's old, slow, and incredibly vulnerable to modern air defense systems. The only reason the A-10 lasted so long because it never fought the war it was designed to fight.

Click to expand...

You would be surprised at how well the A-10 would do in modern warfare. Especially do the missions it was designed to do which is tactical level interdiction. In fact it's mission profile for that sort of mission hasn't really changed because it would be going up against the same kinds of things it was designed to, which are IFV's, Anti Air units, Tanks, logistical train elements. To do that mission it does what its always had to do, fly between the trees. The A-10's can get deeper faster than the AH-64's can and bring more pain when they do get deep. The A-10 can do wild weasel missions with the best of them, as that was one of their missions. The A-10 is NOT obsolete by any means. A couple of flights of A-10's can decimate an amour battalion of tanks in seconds.

Jredbaron96 said:

No they didn't.



The first country to invent the atomic bomb didn't have any kind of technological superiority. Right.



Of starting a war they had no chance of winning.



No they didn't.

Click to expand...

Do I need to pull out a history book on you? Germany had jet fighters, ballistic missiles, synthetic oils, and numerous other things american tech at the time could not touch. Japan too had persued jet fighters in ww2 but were unable to get them out in time, britain had advanced radar systems and computers far more than america had at the time.

The germans and other nations beat the united states on tech into ww2, heck even the american bolt action rifles then were copied off the mauser design which they paid royalties for until ww1. America was then the sleeping giant and did not really make a massive push until ww2, and many of those pushes in tech were not seen until post war.


Infact germany was so far advanced that after germany surrendered america and the soviet union raced to aquire their tech, both the american sabre and the russian mig15 were made off the german jet fighter design of ww2.

Jredbaron96 said:

Every major power is trying to or currently pursuing a stealth fighter. The idea that stealth is somehow not a major advantage in terms of aerial combat is stupid.




People want to get rid of the A-10 because it's old, slow, and incredibly vulnerable to modern air defense systems. The only reason the A-10 lasted so long because it never fought the war it was designed to fight.

Click to expand...

Stealth is not a major advantage at all unless used right. Multiple detection methods are available, and the current f-35 is only stealthy from the front, it diminishes from the side and greatly more from the rear. Older gen stealth were designed from the ground up to be stealth first, and to only perfom a single function, for example the b-2 and b-117 are not immune to L band but are resistant to it due to their wing design, while the f-22 is much more vulnerable as is the f-35. The f-35 focused almost entirely on the x band and higher frequencies, which leaves them vulnerable to s band and lower, and yes the russians can target with lower bands, the fricken sa-2 which racked numerous kills in vietnam used what is now called s band in thje upper and lower ranges to guide missiles.

The usual defense of stealth is that anything lower than x band is too innacurate to guide a missile, while russia proved that wrong in the 1950's. Beyond that the b-2 and f-117 use input from ground plus sensors but can not comunicate back or use radar, as radar can give away position as can jet's comunicating back and forth(the f-35 specializes in comunicating with other jets) can easily expose position, it is very hard to track where an analog or digital signal is being read but very easy to track where it came from.


The a-10 is not old, it is newer than some jets we fly today, slow was the game, it was designed to fly low, be highly armored, and have high loiter time. The f-35 slated to replace it needs fuelers for loiter time even close(yeah that is gonna survive sam attacks for sure slow moving giant fuelers) has a tiny amount of weapons at it's disposal at a time unless they remove stealth by mounting them underwing, and the gun on everything but the marine version can not hit the broadside of a barn which they still have not fixed, which is most likely from frame flex causing the gun to shift around.

The a-10 replaced the common a-1 skyraider which was a prop plane, and the a-1 skyraider did quite well at it's task in vietnam, just like the a-10 does quite well now. The a-10 can go low and slow for precision surgical cas strikes, the kind where you need to save you guys rather than blow them up in the process, often dropping bombs is out of the picture for cas and the pitiful amount of ammo and poor accuracy of the f-35 cannon makes them a no go to replace them. If the a-10 needs replacing they simply need to design a new cas aircraft to fill the role, cas may be a limited role but it is one that can not be replaced by multi role aircraft but rather needs a dedicated cas aircraft around.

braindrain said:

Trying to make the argument that stealth doesn't make a plane invisible is nothing more then a strawman as I have yet to see anyone here and for sure not people who design planes for the air force claim it does. You should probably stick to arguing against things people are actually saying.

As far as the SR71 being stealth by today's standards it has a considerable larger RCS then the F35 or F22.


And Russia invested a lot of time and money in the SU57 for something you claim they think is not worth the effort.


Finally while I love the A10s as much as anyone I also understand thier limitations. They are great against an enemy like Afghanistan or Iraq but would be all but useless against a peer or near peer enemy.

In the end I think your claims of the Air Force being delusional are little more then you thinking you know more then people who have vast amounts of education and experience doing their job. And you not want to state how your background gives you the knowledge to make such a claim is rather telling.

Click to expand...

The sr-71 rcs was large only when compared on the ground to other aircraft, when at altitude the sr-71 actually had a very small radar signature that radars could see. It's big weakness was thermal imaging which the russians were pushing early on, and that even x band could see the areal distortions on radar even when the aircraft itse;f did not show up on radar.

For the su57 russia invested time and money, india also invested time and money, when india decided they were not going to scrap the project but also not aquire the jet but rather try and convert their older su-30mki's with the stealth coatings of the su57, russia pretty much halted aquisition and nearly put it on hold looking for new buyers, which says obviously the system was meant from the getgo for export, because if it was something they deemed for national security they would not be seeking buyers for it and just building it for themselves.


The a-10 works well when used as intended, the russians fear them and in the past it is probably the only fixed wing aircraft they admitted to being afraid of, they designed their anti aircraft systems to move with armor to stop them, but helicopters can one up stealth and just fly under the radar and sneak attack the sams, so the russians devised systems like the s-1 to take out helicopters and cruise missiles to protect the sams that protect the armor. It has always been a vicious cycle of every time a new system is made, a counter follows, however with stealth the russians have known how to beat it since the 1960's and never made an attempt to hide it, they put that info in public domain.

The russians literally learned from studying the nazi stealth bomber, which was actually not intended to be stealth but they experiments with wood composites etc to try and extend it's range, and discovered different materials and angles affected radar signature.

Jredbaron96 said:

But I read an article once where some Russian general I've never heard of say that they had "defeated American stealth"! It must be true!

Click to expand...

You play games mocking, but you of all people should know they had in public domain since the 1960's how to defeat stealth, before any us stealth projects became public. The mere fact the newest generations of stealth run on the idea that bands lower than x can not target is so stupid because the sam with the highest kill count ran on s band which except the highest of ranges detects stealth fine, that is literally how they had no issue targetting the sr-71 even though in higher bands at operating altitude it had a radar signature similar to a small bird, because to x band that is what it was, but to mid and lower range s band it looked like an sr-71.

Major hubris is thinking that russia was not able to ever improve their targeting since the 1950's, besides s band they also use irst, which has a short range and a narrow picture, usually around 60-90 km and like looking through a straw to find a target, however l band s band etc can guide them to target and let the irst internal guidance take over.

The even bigger hubris would be anyone stupid enough to run aircraft where L band operates, you can literally detect L band long before it detects you and know it is time to redirect rather than chancing it thinking stealth will somehow bypass almost 60 years of anti stealth research especially when you can avoid sam sites altogether in many cases.

beerftw said:

The sr-71 rcs was large only when compared on the ground to other aircraft, when at altitude the sr-71 actually had a very small radar signature that radars could see. It's big weakness was thermal imaging which the russians were pushing early on, and that even x band could see the areal distortions on radar even when the aircraft itse;f did not show up on radar.

For the su57 russia invested time and money, india also invested time and money, when india decided they were not going to scrap the project but also not aquire the jet but rather try and convert their older su-30mki's with the stealth coatings of the su57, russia pretty much halted aquisition and nearly put it on hold looking for new buyers, which says obviously the system was meant from the getgo for export, because if it was something they deemed for national security they would not be seeking buyers for it and just building it for themselves.


The a-10 works well when used as intended, the russians fear them and in the past it is probably the only fixed wing aircraft they admitted to being afraid of, they designed their anti aircraft systems to move with armor to stop them, but helicopters can one up stealth and just fly under the radar and sneak attack the sams, so the russians devised systems like the s-1 to take out helicopters and cruise missiles to protect the sams that protect the armor. It has always been a vicious cycle of every time a new system is made, a counter follows, however with stealth the russians have known how to beat it since the 1960's and never made an attempt to hide it, they put that info in public domain.

The russians literally learned from studying the nazi stealth bomber, which was actually not intended to be stealth but they experiments with wood composites etc to try and extend it's range, and discovered different materials and angles affected radar signature.

Click to expand...

The SR71s RCS was small for planes of its age, not compared to modern stealth planes which was your claim.

Yes Russia did spend a lot of time and money on the SU57 which contradicts your claims that Russia doesn't see any use in stealth. A country as pit as Russia is not going to waste money on a project they see a useless. And Russia not making more SU57s more likely had more to do with them being broke than anything else.
You keep claiming Russia can beat stealth since the 60s yet real world events and Russias own actions point out that silliness of that claim.

Again why won't you tell us what your background is that gives you more knowledge on this topic them the Air Forces of every other major military out their to include Russia.

To pretend a cash strapped Russia is going to spend millions of dollars to develop a plane they feel is pointless should indicate to you just how out of touch your claims are.

braindrain said:

The SR71s RCS was small for planes of its age, not compared to modern stealth planes which was your claim.

Yes Russia did spend a lot of time and money on the SU57 which contradicts your claims that Russia doesn't see any use in stealth. A country as pit as Russia is not going to waste money on a project they see a useless. And Russia not making more SU57s more likely had more to do with them being broke than anything else.
You keep claiming Russia can beat stealth since the 60s yet real world events and Russias own actions point out that silliness of that claim.

Again why won't you tell us what your background is that gives you more knowledge on this topic them the Air Forces of every other major military out their to include Russia.

To pretend a cash strapped Russia is going to spend millions of dollars to develop a plane they feel is pointless should indicate to you just how out of touch your claims are.

Click to expand...

The sr-71 had a small signature at operating altitude, let me put it this way the sr-71 could go at a much higher altitude that the f-35 could, and it's operating radar signature is different from it's grounded signature, which is extremely small by todays standards.

Russia only has less than 10 billion in the su-57 project, and much of the developement was funded by india. Russia being broke is not the case, they keep aquisition up at a high rate of many of their systems, plus russia is probably the closest on earth to being a debt free nation, they hold more reserves than debt. In any case russia has recently cut their budget but their aquisitions still go up, they are playing voodoo magic with they budget numbers, so do not for a second think they are broke.


The knowledge is simple research, again the soviets posted this crap before america ever announced anything stealth, this crap is in the open realm unhidden, but to be fair those same airforce generals ****ed up vietnam, constantly tried to take away our best cas jet, and are now pushing the most over bloated project in the history of the world as a jack of all trades master of none solution. The f-35 is like handing a gerber or a leatherman out as a replacement for a whole toolbox, sure it can probably do all taks, but it is terrible at them vs actual tools designed for the job. Besides that they still can not hit the broad side of a barn with their cannon except the external mounted cannons, they have a tiny payload in their internal bays, and literally the air force refused to do a cas competition with the a-10 unless the test was designed in favor of the f-35 rather than being a test of cas support.

beerftw said:

You play games mocking, but you of all people should know they had in public domain since the 1960's how to defeat stealth, before any us stealth projects became public. The mere fact the newest generations of stealth run on the idea that bands lower than x can not target is so stupid because the sam with the highest kill count ran on s band which except the highest of ranges detects stealth fine, that is literally how they had no issue targetting the sr-71 even though in higher bands at operating altitude it had a radar signature similar to a small bird, because to x band that is what it was, but to mid and lower range s band it looked like an sr-71.

Major hubris is thinking that russia was not able to ever improve their targeting since the 1950's, besides s band they also use irst, which has a short range and a narrow picture, usually around 60-90 km and like looking through a straw to find a target, however l band s band etc can guide them to target and let the irst internal guidance take over.

The even bigger hubris would be anyone stupid enough to run aircraft where L band operates, you can literally detect L band long before it detects you and know it is time to redirect rather than chancing it thinking stealth will somehow bypass almost 60 years of anti stealth research especially when you can avoid sam sites altogether in many cases.

Click to expand...

Funny how according to you stealth is easy to defeat yet every major military is try to include stealth features into everything from planes to ships to tanks. You should probably tell them they are wasting their time and money.

Or how Russia has been working on and off again on stealth aircraft for decades.

Or how the F22 is the world's most dominant air superiority fighter with a large part of that reason being stealth.


I wonder why so many countries want to buy the F35 seeing as its stealth is so easily defeated.

beerftw said:

The sr-71 had a small signature at operating altitude, let me put it this way the sr-71 could go at a much higher altitude that the f-35 could, and it's operating radar signature is different from it's grounded signature, which is extremely small by todays standards.

Russia only has less than 10 billion in the su-57 project, and much of the developement was funded by india. Russia being broke is not the case, they keep aquisition up at a high rate of many of their systems, plus russia is probably the closest on earth to being a debt free nation, they hold more reserves than debt. In any case russia has recently cut their budget but their aquisitions still go up, they are playing voodoo magic with they budget numbers, so do not for a second think they are broke.


The knowledge is simple research, again the soviets posted this crap before america ever announced anything stealth, this crap is in the open realm unhidden, but to be fair those same airforce generals ****ed up vietnam, constantly tried to take away our best cas jet, and are now pushing the most over bloated project in the history of the world as a jack of all trades master of none solution. The f-35 is like handing a gerber or a leatherman out as a replacement for a whole toolbox, sure it can probably do all taks, but it is terrible at them vs actual tools designed for the job. Besides that they still can not hit the broad side of a barn with their cannon except the external mounted cannons, they have a tiny payload in their internal bays, and literally the air force refused to do a cas competition with the a-10 unless the test was designed in favor of the f-35 rather than being a test of cas support.

Click to expand...

No Russia is quite broke. It's why they are not buying SU57s or T14 tanks. I think your bias is making you not see reality.

So you are just going to stick with the claim that you know more then pretty much the entirety of the major air forces of the world. To include Russia. Interesting claim. Forgive me if I don't take it very seriously.

beerftw said:

Do I need to pull out a history book on you? Germany had jet fighters, ballistic missiles,

Click to expand...

Both of which had no impact on the war and did nothing but soak up German resources at a time when they desperately needed them for more economical projects. Having cool gizmos doesn't mean **** if they're actually useless.

synthetic oils,

Click to expand...

The actual story behind this is Germany started a war which required massive oil reserves that they didn't have, so they had to resort to synthetic versions because otherwise their mechanized and armored forces would've ground to a halt. If they had been really smart they would have either a( secured oil reserves before hand, or b) not center their entire doctrine around using armored forces.

beerftw said:

You play games mocking, but you of all people should know they had in public domain since the 1960's how to defeat stealth, before any us stealth projects became public. The mere fact the newest generations of stealth run on the idea that bands lower than x can not target is so stupid because the sam with the highest kill count ran on s band which except the highest of ranges detects stealth fine, that is literally how they had no issue targetting the sr-71 even though in higher bands at operating altitude it had a radar signature similar to a small bird, because to x band that is what it was, but to mid and lower range s band it looked like an sr-71.

Major hubris is thinking that russia was not able to ever improve their targeting since the 1950's, besides s band they also use irst, which has a short range and a narrow picture, usually around 60-90 km and like looking through a straw to find a target, however l band s band etc can guide them to target and let the irst internal guidance take over.

The even bigger hubris would be anyone stupid enough to run aircraft where L band operates, you can literally detect L band long before it detects you and know it is time to redirect rather than chancing it thinking stealth will somehow bypass almost 60 years of anti stealth research especially when you can avoid sam sites altogether in many cases.

Click to expand...

I don't know what nonsense you've been reading, but L band is not some magical stealth killer. L Band's actually pretty useless for most things, because the resolution is so low you can't track targets with it, even get a good estimate for direction and distance. And since the resolution is so low, even detecting the plane isn't that easy; you would have to have multiple arrays and well trained technicians just to be able to get a positive ID.

PirateMk1 said:

You would be surprised at how well the A-10 would do in modern warfare.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many would get shot down.

The A-10 was built with the purpose of whittling down columns of Soviet armor as it rolled across the West German border. Except the Soviets supplied numerous air defense systems to their tactical elements in the form SPAAGs or SHOARD systems. The Air Force knew this, which is why they built hundreds of A-10s, because they expected to lose hundreds. It was well established just a few years after the A-10 was introduced that Soviet air defense systems could blow them out of the sky.

The A-10 did fine in Iraq because Iraqi crews were notoriously poorly trained when it came to handling their equipment, and even then they managed to down a handful. The A-10 operates well in COIN ops where there's no real concentrated anti-air to shoot back, and it would be good to keep it around for those kinds of wars, but it's stupid to pretend there's no valid reason to retire it.

Especially do the missions it was designed to do which is tactical level interdiction. In fact it's mission profile for that sort of mission hasn't really changed because it would be going up against the same kinds of things it was designed to, which are IFV's, Anti Air units, Tanks, logistical train elements. To do that mission it does what its always had to do, fly between the trees. The A-10's can get deeper faster than the AH-64's can and bring more pain when they do get deep. The A-10 can do wild weasel missions with the best of them, as that was one of their missions. The A-10 is NOT obsolete by any means. A couple of flights of A-10's can decimate an amour battalion of tanks in seconds.[/QUOTE]

Jredbaron96 said:

I don't know what nonsense you've been reading, but L band is not some magical stealth killer. L Band's actually pretty useless for most things, because the resolution is so low you can't track targets with it, even get a good estimate for direction and distance. And since the resolution is so low, even detecting the plane isn't that easy; you would have to have multiple arrays and well trained technicians just to be able to get a positive ID.

Click to expand...

L band is actually very good at tracking targets, not sure what nonsense you have read but nearly everything on the internet says otherwise basing off information modern going back to ww2. L band is not accurate enough to guide but it is plenty enought to track. Also he literal same is said about s band which holds the record for sam kills, you say it is impossible but the russians had it working in the 1950's with s and l bands used together.

All bands have progressed since ww2 and the 1950's, however the most modern stealth like the f-22 and f-35 makes no effort to resist l or s band, and focuses on x band like that is the only thing available, even though the ancient sa-2 can literally track them and fire at them with little issue. The only stealth optimised to counter such are ones like the b-117 and b-2 which use a delta wing design which L and s bands can still see but at a much reduced range.

Jredbaron96 said:

Both of which had no impact on the war and did nothing but soak up German resources at a time when they desperately needed them for more economical projects. Having cool gizmos doesn't mean **** if they're actually useless.




The actual story behind this is Germany started a war which required massive oil reserves that they didn't have, so they had to resort to synthetic versions because otherwise their mechanized and armored forces would've ground to a halt. If they had been really smart they would have either a( secured oil reserves before hand, or b) not center their entire doctrine around using armored forces.

Click to expand...

Whether they had an impact or not, they were vastly ahead of the us in tech and lost, the us focused on practicality while nazi germany pushed tech to overcome shortcomings they had like lack of oil reserves . Their v-2 rocket design was used by both the us and the soviet union to fist enter space, and was also the first ballistic missile as well as the first ever hypersonic missile which britain deemed so hard to stop it was easier to get hit than waste the anti aircraft ammo trying to stop them, the number they estimated it would take with a wall of lead to stop that missile was absurd.

braindrain said:

No Russia is quite broke. It's why they are not buying SU57s or T14 tanks. I think your bias is making you not see reality.

So you are just going to stick with the claim that you know more then pretty much the entirety of the major air forces of the world. To include Russia. Interesting claim. Forgive me if I don't take it very seriously.

Click to expand...

Russia is not as broke as you think, since 2008 they have modernized their military at a rapid rate, their nation is nearly debt free as well, that sounds like the literal opposite of broke since they can pay off their debt tonight if they literally wished. Look at their aquisition rates, they are impossible given their stated budget, they are just doing what they do, they always find money in their budget for more no matter how much they trim down, it is vodoo budgeting, or simply they are lying about their own defense expenditures.

braindrain said:

Funny how according to you stealth is easy to defeat yet every major military is try to include stealth features into everything from planes to ships to tanks. You should probably tell them they are wasting their time and money.

Or how Russia has been working on and off again on stealth aircraft for decades.

Or how the F22 is the world's most dominant air superiority fighter with a large part of that reason being stealth.


I wonder why so many countries want to buy the F35 seeing as its stealth is so easily defeated.

Click to expand...

For one russia has not worked on and off for decades on stealth, they stopped in the 1960's and did not restart until not to long ago. Other nations are trying to buy stealth not develope it, very few actually try and develope it.

The f-22 was intercepted twice over syria by su-35 aircraft and also lost in air comp[etition against the eurofighter, it literally is only the best in terms of that it will only compete where it has no competition, the us withdrew them from syria after the su35 intercepted the f-22 and refuse to do any competitions against any nations except with nato only aircraft, for such a badass aircraft the us is sure scared to let it out of it's cage, heck I do not recall them using them in competitions against even nato aircraft after it lost to the eurofighter.


It is like saying you have the fastest car on earth but when challenged demand the race only include yugo's as competition, and even banning any yugo's that beat you.

Also to note the f-22 took multiple missiles to down a soviet dinosaur in syria, the aim9x missile failed badly to down the aircraft and they had to resort to older radar guided missiles to down it, which later they admitted they never tested the missile against russian flares and it is highly likely they never figured maneuvers inter their testing of the missile either.

beerftw said:

For one russia has not worked on and off for decades on stealth, they stopped in the 1960's and did not restart until not to long ago. Other nations are trying to buy stealth not develope it, very few actually try and develope it.

The f-22 was intercepted twice over syria by su-35 aircraft and also lost in air comp[etition against the eurofighter, it literally is only the best in terms of that it will only compete where it has no competition, the us withdrew them from syria after the su35 intercepted the f-22 and refuse to do any competitions against any nations except with nato only aircraft, for such a badass aircraft the us is sure scared to let it out of it's cage, heck I do not recall them using them in competitions against even nato aircraft after it lost to the eurofighter.


It is like saying you have the fastest car on earth but when challenged demand the race only include yugo's as competition, and even banning any yugo's that beat you.

Also to note the f-22 took multiple missiles to down a soviet dinosaur in syria, the aim9x missile failed badly to down the aircraft and they had to resort to older radar guided missiles to down it, which later they admitted they never tested the missile against russian flares and it is highly likely they never figured maneuvers inter their testing of the missile either.

Click to expand...

Planes like the Sukhoi T-60S, Sukhoi T-4, Yak 43 and the SU35 indicate you don't know quite as much as you think they do. Russia obviously felt stealth was not a waste of time.
And no plenty of country's at trying to develop fur own stealth aircraft. China, South Korea, Great Britain Germany and of course Russia are all trying to develop thier own stealth aircraft. Proving you wrong one again. Furthermore I am not sure how you think countries wanting to buy instead of develop thier own stealth aircraft helps your claim other countries would not be trying to develop our but it if it was such a waste of time.

I think you need to read some sources other then Russian state media about that "intercept".
And just because something is the best doesn't mean it is unbeatable. There is a very real reason that when ever the F22 loses it is major news. And that's not even getting into the fact that most of those mock air battles are set to test a certain aspect and do not represent actual combat.

And finally that you are trying to use the failure of a missile as a knock against the F22 shows just how silly you are willing to get in order to try and hold on to your obvious pro Russian bias.you really should stop a you are only making yourself look all the more silly.

beerftw said:

L band is actually very good at tracking targets,

Click to expand...

Do you not understand how radars work?

L band is low frequency and therefore low resolution. The supposed reason you've listed that it "works" against stealth is because most stealth planes are designed to be obscured from the higher frequency X band radar systems. But your repeated insistence that L band is somehow a stealth killer is stupid.

L band radar may be able to detect it but it can't give height, and it's ability to determine direction is exceptionally limited. This has nothing to do with "post WWII upgrades" because that's the very nature of low frequency bands. More importantly L band can't target or lock on, which makes it useless for actually destroying the aircraft. You need a higher frequency radar to do that, and guess what frequencies modern stealth aircrafts are designed to beat?

beerftw said:

Whether they had an impact or not,

Click to expand...

Whether or not the military hardware you're building is actually helping win the war is probably the biggest question you should be asking of your production capacity. Quit trying to pretend that making rockets somehow translates to complete technological supremacy.

80% of the German Army was never mechanized. That means 4/5 German soldiers had to have horses transport their equipment. What were you saying about technology?

Jredbaron96 said:

Whether or not the military hardware you're building is actually helping win the war is probably the biggest question you should be asking of your production capacity. Quit trying to pretend that making rockets somehow translates to complete technological supremacy.

80% of the German Army was never mechanized. That means 4/5 German soldiers had to have horses transport their equipment. What were you saying about technology?

Click to expand...

But the argument was more advanced, in which germany quite well was, the us built more practical, as 100 jetfighters did no good against countless thousands of conventional prop powered aircraft, and their advances ate up too much of their recources to be an advantage.

But the tech was there, you would be correct that it never won the war, which is why I never rely on how advanced something is but rather how practical it is and how easy it is to field effectively to the troops and replace when needed.