Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

Oh I am sure of that, that is why I deliberately haven't bought a single bottle of French wine for a decade

Only if fooled

Aside from a moment when I was visiting Colmar and there was no other wine in a store

A human being must drink something, especially in a hostile environment, right?

But that was back in 2017, and I still remember this sad experience

Mir wrote:
No no only Châteauneuf-du-Pape monseur!

Je posseblemon prestidigitateur

So go and tell Israel that the F-35 they bought sucks for not doing a deep strike in Syria, F-35 that beat the Rafale in Switzerland, Finland...

They fly them off Latakia where Russia has a S-400. What are you talking about. They smash iranian targets deep into syria on a daily bases.

RBE-2 PESA (Rafale F1/F2/F3)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 7~9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 13~15 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 41~49 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 73~87 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 130~154 km+

RBE-2 AESA (Rafale F4, post-2012)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11~13 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20~23 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62~73 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165~195 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195~230 km+
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/radar-ranges-of-different-fighters.94948/

Being able to detect a fighter with 3-5m2 of RCS at 120km implies that the Su-34 has a detection range comparable to all Rafales except the F4, and the Su-34's focus is not even aerial combat.

Look at your source

Only official source in France about the Rafale with aesa radar was that it could track an airliner going away from him at more than 200km. Targets that are going away from a radar and not head on are way harder to track if you don't know about it.

Moreover su-34 RCS is huge like su-27/33. Some 15m2 clean. Rafale is 0.5. Dassault said they reduced its rcs 10 times compare to mirage 2000 which was quoted at 5m2.

Jammer protect ore the rafale with its smaller rcs than su-34 with its big rcs.

The problem is that the video of Iskander directly hitting a Buk tells a different story.

Yes. It hit it. I said it doesn't work as advertized. Not that it doesn't work. Missing a runway is a big issue. No matter if it hit a vehicle.

It was supposed to destroy the enemy, and judging by the fact that Ukraine spent the last 7 months begging for no-fly-zone and AD I would say the flanker has been working well.

Not really. They asked for AD since 2 days ago mostly to counter russian cruise missiles.

Russian artillery is doing the job on the front. Even their chopper and su-25 mostly use rockets in an artillery mode by launching upward.

Ukros complained mostly about russian artillery advantage. They never complained about su-34.

In the graph above, the radar of the aircraft on the left flying at 30m high could detect the ship on the right at 40km away, if its mast is 30m high.
I have seen videos of the Su-34 flying "low" at 100-200m altitude, this will not prevent it from being detected tens of kilometers by a radar at 5m from the ground.

That's for a flat ground with very good signal propagation air and with wonderful radars. In reality it's not flat, full of parasite signals coming from building and trees and radars never work as on the add flayer you see on air shows.

If that were the case Ukraine would not have lost 380 S-300,Buk and Osa and would not be asking the West for AD

It never operated that many systems. Get real. The operational systems they had shouldn't exceed 50 or 60. S-300 can be maintained only by russia or China. Ukraine never had the money or infrastructure to keep them in a good state.

That's why you see lot of destroyed s-300 in their base with launchers not even deployed.

Ironically this is a good description of yourself that talks about range and ground mapping every time someone criticizes you for saying that the Su-34 has a mechanical scanning radar, when in fact it has a PESA radar...

Yeah I was wrong on the type but not on numbers.

Ground mapping is the most important thing for a bomber's radar. Even irbis has a 3m resolution in ground mode which is really bad. Su-34 radar is older and is inferior to irbis. I couldn't find any data on su-34 though. Zhuk M from mig 29m has also 3m resolution in the best mode.

Western radars reach 0.3m resoltion. They see targets much better.

I don't see Su-34 armed with Kh-59, but with Kh-29, in the attack on the train station in Kramatorsk the Ukrainians were unable to distinguish a Tochka from an Iskander, you trust that the Ukrainians know how to
distinguish a Kh-59 from any other missile?
I don`t.

You said it used a kh-59. Ukrainian know how to distinguish a kh-59 from a kh-29. If su-34 were flying above cities there would ve recording of it. They manage to record kalibrs flying so su-34 would be also recorded.

Now again you try to change your argument with no proof so that it suits your idea.

And yet you want to criticize others for never bothering to be serious

Well, the plane is getting shot down easily, doesn't even do the job of a bomber and you call it the vest fighter bomber.

Su-35 is the only good jet in the flanker family left. Su-30, su-34, mig-29 and mig-35 are outdated and they should switch to su-75 and su-57. That's the reality and even more bow that everyone is buying 5th gen f-35 and chinese producing j-20 and j-35 for export soon.

ALAMO wrote:

Isos wrote:

Russian nuks are not better than french.

Holly fuc#k, this is getting the meme

Why do the russian go crazy about the US missile defence their missiles are the best and western stuff suck so much ?

Why do they care about ukraine joining nato ?

French missiles do the job. And russians are not the only one that can make new missiles. French have their newest m51 in production which is not any worse than the bulava that failed half of its tests.

And they don't need m51. Russian AD is overhyped. Ukrainian drones have succesfully attacked russian towns and even HQ of the black sea with drones and missiles. It is supposed to be the most defended place against air threat in the world.

I rememver pro russian trolls here saying they can track any drones 200km away with their OTH radars. Reallity is they can't track them even with s-400.

Isos, you really are a fool...

- Among the U.S. fighter planes, the 4G F-15 has an RCS of 25m2, not very impressive and bigger than the older Russian MIG fighters. The 4G F16 has an RCS of 5m2, better but still not great. The 4.5G F/A-18 Hornet Navy fighter jet has an RCS of 1m2, about the same as the Russian SU-34/35 and the Chinese J-20. The 5G F-35 has an RCS of 0.005m2, about the size of a golf ball.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiUhtPModv6AhVWh_0HHdJbDj8QFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmilitaryembedded.com%2Fradar-ew%2Fsignal-processing%2Fradar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth&usg=AOvVaw06I2kKp0x6a6dkr-PCiDEt

and more... Rafale goes up to 1.25 m2...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiUhtPModv6AhVWh_0HHdJbDj8QFnoECCYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthedtechind.wordpress.com%2F2020%2F06%2F10%2Frcs-of-4th-generation-fighter-jets%2F&usg=AOvVaw0vFLKEPW7XsbcRpWVV0R4C

1m2 the rcs of su-35 and su-34

Even sukhoi said su-57 rcs is 0.1-1m2. Su-34 is just a two seat su-27. Su-35 has a reduced rcs and it's only on the frontal aspect which reach some 2-3m2 clean.

And next time bring better sources. Wordpress website made by random dudes are not sources. It's a forum rule.

Isos wrote:1m2 the rcs of su-35 and su-34

Even sukhoi said su-57 rcs is 0.1-1m2. Su-34 is just a two seat su-27. Su-35 has a reduced rcs abd it's only on the frontal aspect which reach some 2-3m2 clean.

And next time bring better sources. Wordpress website made by random dudes are not sources. It's a forum rule.

So everyone lies and everyone is a fool, only you are right. The difference between the planes can't be as large as you want to make it out to be. The bucket that carries missiles and bombs under the wing suspension supports (Rafale) has a smaller RCS than the Su-57 ?      
It's not about the sources, the problem is with you, son.

Podlodka77 wrote:Isos, you really are a fool...

But of course, he is.
And too stupid to realize
You troll, you have not contributed to this forum, saying that the Frogs are a tasty meal!

I don't even know why some people love to wank off to RCS fictional figures that are not existent in real life. Those numbers are advertisement numbers in optimal conditions under the least radar relfective angles. Any Ground based Radar or non head-on-head aircraft radar will have a much higher surface of enemies aircraft where radar waves will reflect back. They are not even designed to deflect radar waves. All involved technologies are just lowering the reflected radar waves due to material and structural elements used.

Wanking off to the clinical optimum is like believing in War you will have all the supplies, chill and time to aim at your enemy and he won't hide and just stand in an open field.

This is some ridiculous thing to wank over. That's the reason you won't see me in any stealth fighter thread.

The Rafael is a great fighter, however you Lsos are just masturbating about one of the PR shenanigans rather than over relevant things. Stealth technologies work only if the enemy pretends the aircraft is John Cena and acts like he is invisible.
I am out.

Podlodka77 wrote:

Isos wrote:1m2 the rcs of su-35 and su-34

Even sukhoi said su-57 rcs is 0.1-1m2. Su-34 is just a two seat su-27. Su-35 has a reduced rcs abd it's only on the frontal aspect which reach some 2-3m2 clean.

And next time bring better sources. Wordpress website made by random dudes are not sources. It's a forum rule.

So everyone lies and everyone is a fool, only you are right. The difference between the planes can't be as large as you want to make it out to be. The bucket that carries missiles and bombs under the wing suspension supports (Rafale) has a smaller RCS than the Su-57 ?      
It's not about the sources, the problem is with you, son.

Not my words contrary to you who try to make real your own thoughts.

Sukhoi officialy said rcs of su-57 is 0.1 to 1m2.

Dassault officially said it wzs something like 10 times smaller than mirage rcs.

Go ask them for more data if you don't trust them.

They fly them off Latakia where Russia has a S-400. What are you talking about.

What are you talking about! The S-400s are there to protect the Russian base and I have never seen Israel attack Russian positions in Syria. It is rare for an Israeli plane to enter Syrian airspace, they always attack from Lebanon, the Mediterranean or from their own territory.
Your deep strike fixation is pointless.

They smash iranian targets deep into syria on a daily bases.

Most of the bombs and missiles launched by Israel are intercepted, which is why even after years of Israeli attacks the Iranian presence in Syria has not diminished

Only official source in France about the Rafale with aesa radar was that it could track an airliner going away from him at more than 200km.

What is the RCS of a airliner? 50m2? 100m2?
It seems my source is more optimistic than the manufacturer itself...

Moreover su-34 RCS is huge like su-27/33. Some 15m2 clean

The Su-34 has RCS reduction treatments that the Su-27/33 does not, its estimated RCS is 1m2 clean.

Rafale is 0.5

Yes, but without bombs, missiles, pods and hardpoints, only internal fuel and the cannon that way it will need to get less than 1km from the target to make an attack...

Missing a runway is a big issue. No matter if it hit a vehicle.

Is it so hard to understand that a vehicle is a much harder target to hit than a runway?!
If he is able to hit a vehicle then the idea that he failed to hit a runway is questionable, as I said before nothing in the photo you posted proved that it was the result of an Iskander attack.

They asked for AD since 2 days ago mostly to counter russian cruise missiles.

The Biden administration went to Turkey to ask them to send their S-400s to Ukraine before the conflict completed 1 month.

They never complained about su-34.

If they ask for a no-fly-zone then it's obvious they fear Russian aviation and I don't see in that request that they excluded the Su-34.

full of parasite signals coming from building and trees

Looking from the bottom up, all you see behind a plane is sky and clouds, unless the plane is flying between mountains, which is not the case here.

It never operated that many systems. Get real.

380 is the number of individual vehicles, an S-300 air defense battery can hold 15 vehicles, Buk up to 12 vehicles.
And when I say vehicles I mean everything:
Vehicles with search radar.
Vehicles with tracking radar.
Command vehicles.
Missile launch vehicles.
Recharge vehicle.

Even irbis has a 3m resolution in ground mode which is really bad

All Russian official sources claim that 3m2 is the RCS of an air target that can be detected at 200-350km distance, which is excellent, and not the resolution in SAR mode.

Ukrainian know how to distinguish a kh-59 from a kh-29.

The same way they distinguished Tochka from Iskander in Kramatorsk?

Well, the plane is getting shot down easily, doesn't even do the job of a bomber and you call it the vest fighter bomber.

Russia has lost an average of one Su-34 per month, I wouldn't call it being "easy shot down", and a bomber's job is to launch weapons to the surface and blow up ground targets and that he has done well.

If su-34 were flying above cities there would ve recording of it. They manage to record kalibrs flying so su-34 would be also recorded.

Kalibrs always fly low, a Su-34 can fly over 15000m in altitude.
What if the Su-34 is making deep strike Ukrainian territory at high altitude to maximize the kinetic energy/range of its weapons?
A random guy on the ground would never be able to record this with his cell phone.

The Russian patent says that the Su-57 has an AVERAGE RCS of 0.1-1.0m2, in contrast the most commonly presented RCS values are minimum values obtained at very specific angles, it is not fair nor unbiased to compare average RCS vs. Minimum RCS, if you want to make comparisons taking into account the Rafale's minimum RCS then you also have to consider the Su-57's minimum RCS, in this case less than 0.01m2:

And if France can reduce the RCS by 10 times, from 5m2 on the Mirage to 0.5m2 on the Rafale, why can't Russia also reduce the RCS by 10 times, from 10-15m2 on the Su-27 to 1-1, 5m2 on Su -34?

All Russian official sources claim that 3m2 is the RCS of an air target that can be detected at 200-350km distance, which is excellent, and not the resolution in SAR mode.

I was talking about resolution in SAR mode. It is 3m.

What are you talking about! The S-400s are there to protect the Russian base and I have never seen Israel attack Russian positions in Syria. It is rare for an Israeli plane to enter Syrian airspace, they always attack from Lebanon, the Mediterranean or from their own territory.
Your deep strike fixation is pointless.

No it's not pointless. It is why they made the su-34. Israeli planes enter Syria easily.

By the way russia llst 1 plane and 20 guys because of israeli playing with syrian AD in front of latakia.

Most of the bombs and missiles launched by Israel are intercepted, which is why even after years of Israeli attacks the Iranian presence in Syria has not diminished

All their targets are destroyed.

What is the RCS of a airliner? 50m2? 100m2?
It seems my source is more optimistic than the manufacturer itself...

No matter the rcs. At 200km a target that is in tracked while going away is an impressive achievement.

The Su-34 has RCS reduction treatments that the Su-27/33 does not, its estimated RCS is 1m2 clean.

Keep dreaming. There was never such thing. Only flanker that had reduction treatement was the su-35 and it gave it a 3m2 rcs. Su-34 has no rcs treatement and its rcs is at least the same as su-33.

Yes, but without bombs, missiles, pods and hardpoints, only internal fuel and the cannon that way it will need to get less than 1km from the target to make an attack...

Way better than what su-34 is.

If they ask for a no-fly-zone then it's obvious they fear Russian aviation and I don't see in that request that they excluded the Su-34.

Nope. They asked because of kh-101 and kalibr. Su-34 are easily downed. They have no problem with them.

380 is the number of individual vehicles, an S-300 air defense battery can hold 15 vehicles, Buk up to 12 vehicles.
And when I say vehicles I mean everything:
Vehicles with search radar.
Vehicles with tracking radar.
Command vehicles.
Missile launch vehicles.
Recharge vehicle.

And they keep flying very low. I guess there are still plenty of systems there.

And russian numbers are hust as fake as ukrainian. They destroyed far more ukrainian su-25 than ukraine operates. Propaganda numbers from both side.

Russia has lost an average of one Su-34 per month, I wouldn't call it being "easy shot down", and a bomber's job is to launch weapons to the surface and blow up ground targets and that he has done well.

Well ? Not really. Russian air force was missing since the 2nd week after suffering terrible loses.

Targets are destroyed by cruise misssiles from stand off position or artillery for most of them.

Kalibrs always fly low, a Su-34 can fly over 15000m in altitude.
What if the Su-34 is making deep strike Ukrainian territory at high altitude to maximize the kinetic energy/range of its weapons?
A random guy on the ground would never be able to record this with his cell phone.

Fair enough but there would be signs of bombs being used. Everytime they record kalibr missiles for targets deep into ukraine. So yeah their aviation isn't going inside ukraine.




Anyway, I stop replying for this. It's getting borring to hear claims with nothing to back them. The 1m2 for a clean su-34 was funny.

Su-34 launching Kh-29 at high altitude:
https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/1314
https://t.me/mod_russia_en/2051
https://t.me/mod_russia_en/2806

Taking a look at Telegram I noticed that more than half of the videos of the Su-34 he is launching missiles at high altitude, which kills the argument that he only flies low to avoid AD.

All of your concerns have been replied to and yet still you are in denial.

Yeah replied but nothing to back those claims. Meanwhile my claims are backed by plenty of sources. Only thing I was replied is "russian better than nato" for every point... and some insults.

Isos wrote:

All of your concerns have been replied to and yet still you are in denial.

Yeah replied but nothing to back those claims. Meanwhile my claims are backed by plenty of sources. Only thing I was replied is "russian better than nato" for every point... and some insults.

The issue is, you haven't backed up your claims with sources. That is the whole plothole in your argumentation.

You made a bunch of claims which wasn't supported by sources to indicate or solidify claims made by you.

Most here agree that Rafael is a great aircraft and while you are calling Su-34 trash, while jerking off to RCS figures non-existent in the real world.

Iskander claims are pale as we have vast majority of video evidence that Iskander destroyed all it's targets and a 10m CEP is nothing for a warhead of that size. I have not seen a single dud Iskander or not hitting it's target. The only thing you tried to show are some NATO created satellite picks and pretended it was several Iskander hits somewhere around an airfield. Which makes no sense once someone would use his brain. You skipped that part totally.

I have not read here anything that would suggest Russia good and NATO all shit. Most here have told you that Rafael is probably the best euro fighter to some extend better than US/RUS but you are the only one spreading пиздёж about Su-34 and other Flankers.

Werewolf wrote:You made a bunch of claims which wasn't supported by sources to indicate or solidify claims made by you

And who has made a bunch of claims which was supported by sources? That drunk queer podolvodka? That queer's multiple sources include the multiple accounts that thing has created on this forum along with that Indian fraud.

It's the Ukr.AF that flies at low altitudes, not VKS, which has to avoid MANPADS.
Some modernized Su-34Ms r aready there.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/07/08/russia-upgraded-su-34-bombers/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-russian-su30s-and-su35s-fight-putins-war-over-ukraine-2022-9

GarryB wrote:Your claims have no sources... where are your sources to say the Su-34 is not being used?

Where are your sources that the Su-34 has been shot down in enormous numbers?

All we have are your claims that it has failed.

Your main claim for it being rubbish is its RCS, which is ridiculous... the main threat to it would be BUK which would be being used in optical mode so RCS means nothing at all.

Go check pro russian accounts. All are criticizing the air force being non existant in ukraine since the begining.

Su-34 footages over ukraine doesn't exist despite all the ukrainians filming everything related to the war. They even filmed fucking cruise missiles and tactical supersonic missiles few days ago. If su-34 was there thry would film it.

So yeah it is not used. It launches some missiles missiles from stand off position but that's nothing impressive.

Ukraine uses unupgarded first versions of soviet SAM. Forget about modern upgrades with optical guidance. Their S-300 doesn't even work. Buks are stand alone with 0 integration into a proper IADS yet they pose a huge problem to the russian air force.

Most here agree that Rafael is a great aircraft and while you are calling Su-34 trash, while jerking off to RCS figures non-existent in the real world.

Yep it's trash when it doesn't do what it was design for and gets destroyed so easily. Number of FAB dropped by this plane in ukraine is patheticaly low.

RCS matter since radars are everywhere and ARH missiles are mostly used.

Iskander claims are pale as we have vast majority of video evidence that Iskander destroyed all it's targets and a 10m CEP is nothing for a warhead of that size. I have not seen a single dud Iskander or not hitting it's target. The only thing you tried to show are some NATO created satellite picks and pretended it was several Iskander hits somewhere around an airfield. Which makes no sense once someone would use his brain. You skipped that part totally.

So how do you know this is fake ? It doesn't suits you so it's fake ? Nice world you live in. Guess what it is a true map and iskanders missed all the target. Some times it is very precise sometimes it is not. Which is bad when you sell it as the best ballistic missile in the world. Frankly I've more impressed by Iranian BM that attack an US base. And they are cheaper with the same result at the end and same precision.

It's the Ukr.AF that flies at low altitudes, not VKS, which has to avoid MANPADS.
Some modernized Su-34Ms r aready there.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/07/08/russia-upgraded-su-34-bombers/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-russian-su30s-and-su35s-fight-putins-war-over-ukraine-2022-9

After 8 months of war against a country that has 100+ su-35, 140+su-30, 140+ su-34, mig-31 launchin r-33S and a shitton of S-400, buk m2/3, pantsir, tor, OTH radars... and even some su-57 they still fly mission on the front with outdated mig-29A/B.

Either ukrainian air force is mighty or russian air force is bad. Ukrainian outdated migs and sukhois aren't mighty.

If we were to beleive some people here, Garry in particular, russian OTH radar can track tomahawks launched in france
and Great Britain all the way to russia. And S-400 can destroy b2 400km away.

Yet they can't track mig-29 and destroy them 200km from their border that easily with all the stuff they have. 8 months and they are still surviving in the air even if they are totally blind.

So yeah russian overhyped their weapon by a great margin. Su-34 in particular is total junk.

Still not bad for a ground/surface attack role, better than all those Su-24/27/30/35s, & they can free up Tu-22Ms & help MiG-31s as interceptors!
There were a lot more Ukr. AF Su-24/25/27s & MiG-29s shot down than Su-34s since 2/24th.
Later there will be Su-34M2s as well & perhaps a navalized variant too.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Still not bad for a ground/surface attack role, better than all those Su-24/27/30/35s, & they can free up Tu-22Ms & help MiG-31s as interceptors!
There were a lot more Ukr. AF Su-24/25/27s & MiG-29s shot down than Su-34s since 2/24th.
Later there will be Su-34M2s as well & perhaps a navalized variant too.

Well that's true. My opinion is they need to order more su-57 and speed up su-75.

Their situation would have been far better if mig made a single enging 5th gen fighter in the 00s.

Isos wrote: So yeah russian overhyped their weapon by a great margin. Su-34 in particular is total junk.

And remember these are domestic variant of the aircraft not some watered down export variant.

Recall that a few months ago I had clarified to you why:

India chose the Rafale; and

Chose indigenous, foreign sub components for their fleet of Russian aircraft

Isos wrote:

Most here agree that Rafael is a great aircraft and while you are calling Su-34 trash, while jerking off to RCS figures non-existent in the real world.

Yep it's trash when it doesn't do what it was design for and gets destroyed so easily. Number of FAB dropped by this plane in ukraine is patheticaly low.

RCS matter since radars are everywhere and ARH missiles are mostly used.

That is exactly the issue with people who only evaluate on sources that are not even a fraction of the entirety of sorties these planes are flying.
Weapons by themselves are never useless unless you want to measure Mi-24 by Ukrainian standards. Shot down everywhere with no front line support for troops whatsoever and then you have this one masterfully conducted deep strike mission on a russian oil refinery in Belgorod. A Military target, avoided enemy troops, destroyed the target and immediately headed back without committing atrocities despite having the chance to unload UR on civilians. Proof of this mission was precise and great intel from NATO.

Lack of video evidence does not mean they are not used, but such words will always fall on deaf ears. FP already told you, however it is for you no argument whatsoever.

Listening to front line troops they also never have drones always complain about something, but we see like thousands over thousands of videos drones being used by the hundreds daily.
Russian bloggers and locals donating quadrocopters weekly to their boys at the front. Companies are also donating stuff like drones, thermal imagers, clothing and food frequently.

RCS does matter, however it is just an element which might give an advantage in specific cases or might not. In high intensity environments with no established Air superiority by neither side you will have dozens of sources emitting radar waves. The figures of RCS of 0.5m² are figures in head-on-head (least reflective angles) which will not be the case for ground based radars. They will see you, they are more powerful and have an advantage as launching platform for SAMs and Radars are separated and might even be redundant. Jerking off to Fighter vs Frontline-Bomber is like the useless discussions West Tank vs East Tank, in the end they meet Artillery in 80% of the time with a fatal end. The same thing goes for aircrafts.
Maybe Mindstorm will come back and read your comments and provide you with enough detail that might change your mind, however that is hard to achieve for someone who already decided that something is "trash".

Isos wrote:
So how do you know this is fake ? It doesn't suits you so it's fake ? Nice world you live in. Guess what it is a true map and iskanders missed all the target. Some times it is very precise sometimes it is not. Which is bad when you sell it as the best ballistic missile in the world. Frankly I've more impressed by Iranian BM that attack an US base. And they are cheaper with the same result at the end and same precision.

Your claim that Iskander isn´t precise as advertized is one NATO satellite picture of an airfield with multiple potholes with the size of maybe 10 meters. Looks to me more like Artillery or MRLS systems have been firing there. Iskander was never designed to use it´s HE warhead against airfields but immobile objects. Back in the Soviet times enough anti-airfield submunitions have been designed to achieve this goal with much lower cost involved. MRLS systems have enough submunition warheads that will create so many potholes that even a LADA will fall apart trying to drive over such runway. There is absolutely no indication that this was half a dozen Iskanders.

What is even your source that those were potholes created by Iskander?
Show me the source and claims that those little holes were from a PGM with a 500kg warhead.