[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/hobby/ - Hobby

"Our hands pass down the skills of the last generation to the next"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1608525558836.jpg ( 129.36 KB , 1024x629 , fzwq934d9maz.jpg )

 No.1505[View All]

Haven't seen this thread revived anywhere so I thought I'd bring it back myself

ITT: Discussions about stats of Soviet military hardware, tactics etc. Not strictly limited to Soviet stuff despite name.
123 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.14983

>>14982
Why is the Su-57 geometry bad for stealth? If you are concerned about the engine duct, they could simply put a metal mesh in the engine duct to deflect radar. A metal mesh could easily be designed to block radar of specific bandwidth such as those used in air search radars. No doubt Russia has collected signals intelligence on search and fire control radars of many foreign countries (both friendly and hostile).

As for the J20, canards are no worse for stealth than traditional tail horizontal stabilizers. Assuming a frontal approach a deflected canard and a deflected tail would both spike up RCS. Proper use of composites and geometry of the metal components can further increase stealth of canards or tails. Also the J20 is only 1m (5%) longer than the F22 which allegedly has a smaller RCS than the F35 so size is not the only factor in determining stealth. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the ventral stakes, if anything, those are the main problems on the J20 when it comes to stealth.

I'll give you that Russian radars might be worse than US or Chinese radars and the Chinese engines might be worse than US or Russian ones. Still there's not enough evidence to say the F35 is superior to either competitor or superior to the F22. Other factors like maintenance and sortie rate also need to be considered when deciding which aircraft is superior.
>>

 No.14984

>>14983
This is China and Russia’s first attempt at building a stealth aircraft, the f 35 had a DAS system which allows the pilot to see through the floor of the aircraft with his/her helmet, thats is amazing. It’s radar can be used to make images which a computer will automatically scan and designate targets. The infrared system was apparently so good it was able to sense a tank firing from a 100 miles away. I just can’t see Russia and China building a good stealth aircraft with Russians shotty build quality and engines, and China with borrowed Russian engines and shitty indigenous ones.
>>

 No.14985

>>14984
These are claims made in sales brochures(aka manufacturer's propaganda). I'm sure you can find similar claims made in Russian and Chinese brochures as well. It's up to you if you want to believe them or not. We are lucky to live in a time where there is no need to evaluate these claims in real battle. IMO the F35's largest tangible advantage over the Su57 and J20 is that the F35 is manufactured in large numbers which allows for more opportunity to correct mistakes and develop manufacturing shortcuts. Quantity, after all, has its own quality.
>>

 No.14986

>>14985
The thing that leads me to believe that the f 35 is the best is also the pilots comments, they all generally say that the information it’s able to supply the pilot is incredible, data can be fed through aerial radars, naval radars, and ground radars seemlessly, the situational awareness is incredible. It’s also not supposed to be a slouch on dogfighting either, as it can likely turn better than a loaded f 16, because it carries its weapons internally.
>>

 No.14987

>>14986
That's because you've only read testimony from F35 pilots and not Su57 or J20 pilots.
>>

 No.14989

>>14987
I’m not talking about those right now, it’s just the f 35 is by their testimony incredible, and both Russian and Chinese planes aren’t being produced much. IMO Russia wont be building many su 57s, they’re just too poor to support that kind of fleet. In terms of the j 20, it’s engines are going to be a major limiting factor and it’s likely it’s avionics aren’t at the f 35s level based on previous indigenous designs.
>>

 No.14998

>>14986
>>14987
>>14989
The F-35 started provurment five years before the J-20 and Su-57 did. Five years ago the F-35 was extremely shit, it was unalienable, stealth didn't work, it could use most air launched missiles the US had. Most of those issues have been fixed, in five years the J-20 and Su-57 will work a lot better.
>>

 No.15018

>>14998
What do you mean the stealth didn’t work? They install radar reflectors so air traffic control can see them. That’s what you’re thinking of.
>>

 No.15020

>>

 No.15039

File: 1617769920978-0.png ( 417.13 KB , 900x676 , ClipboardImage.png )

File: 1617769920978-1.png ( 567.73 KB , 900x600 , ClipboardImage.png )

File: 1617769920978-2.png ( 799.57 KB , 900x600 , ClipboardImage.png )

File: 1617769920978-3.png ( 445.73 KB , 900x600 , ClipboardImage.png )

Will girls get weirded out if I put up a poster of pic related in my room?
I like planes, but I like getting laid more.
Which one is better?
>>

 No.15040

>>15039
>Will girls get weirded out if I put up a poster of pic related in my room?
no
>Which one is better?
any of them is good but I think 3>4>2>1
>>

 No.15045

>>15039
>Will girls get weirded out if I put up a poster of pic related in my room?
Well that would depend on the girl in question, wouldn't it? If you like planes then have a plane on your wall, simple as. Just don't sperg out and start listing its stats or whatever. :^)
>>

 No.15054

File: 1617863605896-1.jpg ( 306.5 KB , 1220x900 , f06e34ce446e54f98ef106a592….jpg )

File: 1617863605896-2.jpg ( 1.21 MB , 3623x2505 , 319778.jpg )

File: 1617863605896-3.jpg ( 1.12 MB , 3158x2352 , CHAIKA.jpg )

>>15039
Why photos instead of art?
>>

 No.15055

>>11652
Why did the soviets use two engines just for vtol, and not position them like harriers?
>>

 No.15057

>>15054
Don't like the idea of having war scenes in my living space.

Is that a german F2B on the fourth picture?
>>

 No.15066

File: 1617980761535.jpg ( 180.89 KB , 1280x960 , PERKELE.jpg )

>>15057
It's Finnish
>>

 No.15068

File: 1617987613337.png ( 12.16 KB , 384x461 , gomrad sburdo.png )

>>15066
FINLAN MENDIONED :-DDDDDDDDDD :-D :-D
>>

 No.15146

hon hon hon salut
>>

 No.16583

https://youtu.be/kr0s2t9uG5A
How accurate is this?
>>

 No.16584

>>16583
Within a year? One week is enough.
>>

 No.16600

>>1505
Why does Americans get so triggered when someone say that they contributed close to nothing in WW2? Their gay autism with lend - lease is so tiring.
>>

 No.16669

>>16600
They did have some contributions, but it wasn’t as much as the USSR. The strat bombings of Germany had a big effect on Germany Industry. Without the burgers the USSR would have won, but the war would have lasted longer, and more Russians would be dead. D day though would’ve been impossible without the USSR destroying the German army.
>>

 No.16670

>>16584
Naval invasions are hard. Hardest part of warfare.
>>

 No.16799

File: 1624285784417.mp4 ( 6.71 MB , 1280x720 , 1624209872432.mp4 )

US Navy released the footage of the 40,000-pound bomb explosion that triggered a M3.9 quake during a "shock trial" on the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford.
>>

 No.16855

>>16799
this was so fucked up man
makes my blood boil

our labor and blood wasted to kill each other and destroy our planet even more

capitalists destroy everything they touch
ghouls
>>

 No.16917

File: 1624477707153.jpg ( 27.48 KB , 278x358 , Monte_Melkonian.jpg )

Does anyone know which jacket this is? I'm assuming it's of Soviet origin but I actually don't know.
>>

 No.17303

>>14972
>from an objective standpoint, the f 35 is the best fighter jet in the worl
No it isn't except from a propaganda standpoint.
>>

 No.17304

>>14922
>Were there any plans before the union collapsed to try and upgrade these babies
Yes but Gorbachev canceled it.
>>

 No.17305

>>14507
Because the Syrian systems were off when Israel struck and Russians did not engage them because of their close relations to Israel. They took a dive for public relations.
>>

 No.17431

>>14980
The F-35 is a pretty mixed bag, so lets review all of its charteristics.
<Stealth
The F-35's stealth is pretty powerful, it can be detected by radar but at much shorter range then the F-35 can detect non stealthy missiles and aircraft, this allows it to fire before being seen.
<Sensors, Situational Awareness, and Communications
The F-35 has very good sensors and radar, which it can pick up other planes and missiles from long ranges and it can also communicate very well with other planes and help them find targets to attack, these senors also provide very good situational awareness of what is occurring in the air and ground. The F-35 also has good tacking of ground objects such as Tanks and SAMs.
<Electronic Warfare
Arguably the category that the F-35 excels best in, it can use flares, chaff, jamming, etc very well. Thier are plans for it to begin using anti-radiation missiles as well. Its electronic warfare capabilities are similar to the dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, the E-18.
<Armaments
The F-35 can only carry internal weapons without sacrificing stealth, this heavily limits its armaments and what it can carry
<Speed
The F-35 can't fly at or above Mach 2, oftentimes F-35 fighter groups don't train at supersonic speeds.
Keep in mind that the USAAF uses an air doctrine that minimizes its weakness and maximizes its strength, The F-35, for a stealth plane, has relatively lower maintenance and is easier to produce then other stealth planes. It is a good plane, is it better then the J-20 or Su-57, probably not, but it doesn't have to be because it is produced in much larger numbers then both those planes combined. Also another mystery factor is training and doctrine, we don't know if China and Russia have better doctrine and training then the US or if they are worse at these categories. If your training and doctrine for an advanced weapons is bad, then that weapon is useless.
>>

 No.18114

File: 1626794893861.jpeg ( 151.65 KB , 800x435 , B001BCD6-29FD-4D79-9CB8-6….jpeg )

Are armor for warships as well as stealth systems for them completely redundant? It seems that nowadays naval weapons and rockets of even old Soviet era platforms can easily take out entire fleets if fired en masse. In special cases even a huge amount of speedboats with high explosives can do it as well.
This lead to my other question, does ground effect vehicle’s speed and maneuverability be a good solution to this problem? Or is the size will always make ships sitting ducks regardless of a different form of propulsion through water?
>>

 No.18122

>>18114
>ekrano-carrier
unfathomably based
>Are armor for warships as well as stealth systems for them completely redundant?
For fighting battles, yes , but for economic reasons, it might make sense to force your enemies to spend more on heavier ammunition, if you armor up.
>my other question, ground effect vehicle
There are hyper-sonic anti ship missals, everything else is almost stationary in comparison. Ground effect vehicles are still worth it because they are much faster deployed, which means you need fewer and that makes them more economical. They also are invulnerable to torpedos and mines. Ground effect vehicles can fly over land and use a regular air port as well. And when they become useless to the military, they could have more potential for conversion to civilian use.
>>

 No.18124

>>17431
The F-35's stealth is already redundant. An S-500 radar has locked onto F-35s in Syria. Every plane is vulnerable to radar, stealth just makes it invisible to older radars.
>>

 No.18137

>>17431
>F-35 stealth is powerful
Reportedly its worse than the F-22 and only applies to RADAR stealth against short-wave RADAR
The rest I agree with.

>>18124
Actually older RADARs from the 60s and 70s are more likely to sense it than RADARS from the 80s-2000s due to old systems like the SA-2 and SA-3 using longwave RADAR. the USSR and Russians realized this and combined shortwave and longwave systems to pinpoint stealth targets - this with the IR trackers on their fighters would nullify most of the stealth on the F-35

>>17304
>>14922
Russia however is doing modernizations of their remaining Kirovs to a modern standard.

>>14982
>they still aren’t going to be nearly as stealthy as the f 35 based on its geometry
That's untrue, the F-35's genoetry isn't that stellar, and it's only advantage in stealth would be the turbine exits, however that is a moot point given the Su-57 was using prototype engines until recently.
>doubtful the radar is too good based on past Russian radars
Based on past RADARs and the stated layout of the aircraft, the Su-57 blows the F-35 out of the water in Air-Air sensing capability.
>>14984
>China and Russia’s first attempt at building a stealth aircraft
Russia was experimenting with stealth tech since th 80s, the F-117 was created based on tech and calculations that the USSR correctly deemed too costly for exploitation against any modern enemy, and the Su-57 was preceded by the MiG 1.44 and Su-47 which were built with stealth technologies as test vehicles.
>DAS system
So do most 5th gen aircraft including the Su-57
> The infrared system
created last year and with no actual information on its capabilities, and given the experience in IR trackers by the USSR and Russia, it is unlikey to be better than Russia.
>Russians shotty build quality and engines
Kek, Russians build planes specifically to be able to land and take off on broken down runways and areas where there can be aerial debris, they're built like tanks. The F-22 and F-35 literally have to be constantly maintained for their stealth coatings to not lose their properties.
American aircraft today are known for frailty, with the exception of the F-15.
>>

 No.18138

>>

 No.18139

>>16799
The amount of fish and whales that must of injured and killed is going to be high as fuck.
>>

 No.18140

>>15055
Because it wasn't enough reliable thrust, and the harriers had the same problem until the later variants.
>>

 No.18143

File: 1626830813171.jpeg ( 275.66 KB , 1076x568 , 9EA80C3F-7230-47F8-B739-F….jpeg )

Late Soviet Union’s military industrial complex is just so bloated. Seriously why in God’s name did they even attempt to build something like the Buran? Yes, it’s superior to the US shuttle with more economical rocket engines, better safety, and autopilot. But it’s still have all the bad qualities of a spaceplane model and costs way too much compared to the Soyuz.

What were they thinking developing such a money sink when they’ve been falling behind the US in funding for decades? Not to mention that the competing US shuttle literally have no military application outside of a propaganda tool and a way to embezzle loads of money.
>>18140
VTOL outside of transport craft was a mistake. Costing way too much fuel for what little space saving it might offer.
>>

 No.18148

>>18143
>VTOL outside of transport craft was a mistake. Costing way too much fuel for what little space saving it might offer.
Yak-141 shows otherwise. Early VTOL was simply unreliable because it was unfamiliar territory,
>>

 No.18154

>>18148
VTOL is too expensive
To launch fighter planes without an airfield, make a toed sled catapult. The plane is launched from the sled by a small solid fuel rocket booster, that it drops 3 seconds after launch. To land the plane with out an airfield you add a fabric para-glider wing that it deploys during landing approach maneuvers to allow for super slow flying without aerodynamic stall. Any grassfield will do as landing strip, you won't even need wheels, the sled skis will be good enough. Once the plane is landed, a new or recycled solid fuel booster is re-attached, the para-glider wing is folded back into the ejection compartment, and the refueled plane is hoisted back onto the catapult trailer.

If you are very adventurous you can replace the landing glider wing with a breaking booster rocket that fires the moment the jet touches ground during landing.

This is functionally the same as a vtol system except for the ability to hover and it's much cheaper.
>>

 No.18156

File: 1626851062558.jpg ( 334.49 KB , 1116x1753 , TlqAA.jpg )

>>18143
>Seriously why in God’s name did they even attempt to build something like the Buran?
The story is actually hilarious:
The US space shuttle was such an inane and compromised delivery on the idea of a reusable spaceplane that the soviets couldn't believe it was anything but a cover story. Here the Americans were risking 7 astronauts and a billion dollar piece of equipment to toss up a few communication or spy satellites a year? Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Obviously that's a flimsy cover story for a military vehicle, perhaps a bomber that could directly attack Moscow. So how do you figure out the capabilities of such a bomber? Well, you've got to build one yourself.

Soviet designers even wanted to differ more from the general configuration of the Shuttle because they figured they could do a better job, but they were overruled because the whole point was to figure out what the American one could do. It's the perfect combination of the late Soviet gerontocracy's terror at the increasingly bellicose Americans, and America just doing plain stupid things.
>>

 No.18159

>>18148
It’s not even about being reliable or not. It’s more about fuel consumption and maintenance. The Yak-141 and F-35 were designed by a lot of the same people and still consumed a ton of fuel. Same reason that the US had to force F-35s into its allies throat because they know that it’s something that countries like Japan can’t really maintain.
>>

 No.18173

File: 1626889699335.jpg ( 66.28 KB , 1440x810 , s.jpg )

So what do people think about the "Su-75" 'Checkmate'? (Russian name is Razgrom meaning Utter Destruction.)
https://www.rt.com/russia/529762-check-mate-fighter-stealth-jet/

It's clearly a response to the F-35A fighter - a single engine stealth plane for cheap export supplementing the Su 57 PAK FA air superiority, All-purpose fighter. The plane's under-scoop is reminiscent of the Boeing X-32 but the similarity is superficial, in the way the similarity between the F-22 and Su-57 exists.

The plane's significance is more than just a change in military doctrine (Soviet/Russian fighters have remained reliable 2-engine planes for decades from the 4th generation onward). Advanced, cheap weapons systems are going to be for sale to non-Western countries by Russia and China. This is significant, because this means the US military will not be able to impose their will on places like Iran, which will mean that the USA's technological superiority is being nullified.
>>

 No.18176

File: 1626896227049.jpg ( 269.52 KB , 1600x1063 , Brown_Mustard_Seed_(Close).jpg )

thoughts on mustard?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ZBQ-F-yktYD4m5AzM6pww

Here are some of his USSR-oriented vids:

>Did The Soviets Build A Better Space Shuttle? The Buran Story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwLx4L5NRU0


>The Strangest Aircraft Ever Built: The Soviet Union's VVA-14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD7xiWWs-bs

>What Happened To Giant Ekranoplans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVdH_dYlVB8
>>

 No.18178

>>18173
Every time Russia or the USSR try to one-up the US they always make a decent product with less funding. However trying to follow the US’ idiotic and profit driven designs is a stupid gambit destined to wasted resources that can be allocated somewhere else.
Hell, we’ve seen them failed at this already. In the 80s, the US under Reagan pumped out so many shit projects that forced the USSR’ R&D to go into overdrive. However the US can afford such a sink in funding but the USSR can’t, do they got ground to dust.
A better strategy is to just do what the PRC is doing now. Just have their spies steal US designs wholesale, skipping development entirely and make a few hundred copies with a fraction of the original price tag.
>>

 No.18183

>>18178
>the US can afford such a sink in funding
Ironically it couldn't, the USA itself has been feeling the impacts of this military spending for decades at this point.
>USSR
Ah but Russia isn't the USSR, it's capitalist and makes good profit off of a private military-industrial complex, so a light stealth fighter half the price of an F-35 is a perfect opportunity to have mass produced contenders on the market to disrupt the USA's sales.
>have their spies steal US designs wholesale, skipping development entirely and make a few hundred copies with a fraction of the original price tag.
I find it funny how salty /pol/ can be about these kinds of things, given that China is being smart about this.
In regards to spending in the 80s, the percentage of the GNP that the USSR used was remarkably lower than that of the USA throughout the Cold War and even the 80s. The reasn Soviet R&D suddenly went off budget was because of Gorbachev's inane decisions that essentially threw money down the drain (such as the destruction of the Train ICBMs or selling of the navy to South Korean scrapyards.
>>

 No.18185

>>18183
>Ironically it couldn't, the USA itself has been feeling the impacts of this military spending for decades at this point.
Feeding it to the crumbling infrastructure, resolving healthcare and garbage public education yes. However the Soviet back then even during the reign of pizzaman still had the government resources towards welfare, housing and the myriad of other aspects. This made them stalled and petered out much faster than the US. It’s one of the things that makes the Brezhnev administration the stagnant one. The west knows that they can have leeway in shoving shit down their people’s throat because any meaningful resistance got destroyed to even the the unions.
>it's capitalist and makes good profit off of a private military-industrial complex
True, the modern Russian oligarchy makes money hand over fist buy producing recycled Soviet designs. Like the Armata. But like selling a car, you have to have good PR or an army of shills to uncritically buy your stuff. So it’s better for them to produce new products to arm the army and sell the surplus old customers like MENA, India, DPRK, Belarus, Central Asia and Vietnam.
>I find it funny how salty /pol/ can be about these kinds of things, given that China is being smart about this.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. Didn’t they remember that the rise of the US as an industrial powerhouse was due to them stealing European inventions and selling them at a lower price as well. It’s literally how their beloved free market works.
>such as the destruction of the Train ICBMs or selling of the navy to South Korean scrapyards
Didn’t he also sell a warship to fucking Pepsi at one point or was that Brezhnev?
>>

 No.18196

>>18185
>petered out much faster than the US
Frankly, I think if they actually applied cybersyn (which was rising up in the 80s only for Gorbachev to crush it yet again, they might have won out in that regard.
>better for them to produce new products to arm the army and sell the surplus old customers
True, but they're running out of surplus and beginning to imitate the USA's policies of creating export models en masse for the market overall.
> US as an industrial powerhouse was due to them stealing European inventions
The most hilarious part is that capitalist countries continued to do so to one another throughout the 20th century
- https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=8111
- https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=10045
>Pepsi ship
That was Khruschev, as part of Pepsi's bid to be the only accepted source of foreign pop-soda for the USSR.
>>

 No.19146

bump

Unique IPs: 29

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome