Non-sense on russian military equipment

Backman wrote:Now over all the su 57 thread , someone questioned the smoke on a newly posted pic. It's like every freaking picture of the su 57 we have to answer for. Yet the F-22 can be posted like the above , and they have to answer for nothing.

And no word for the potential hundreds (perhaps even thousands including all versions of the F-35) cases of hypoxia in F-22A/35B's in the last 6 years alone.

The western defense media has outdone itself. I assumed that some articles would come out about the first su 57 being officially delivered to the Russian air force. But their cowardice and butthurt can never be under estimated. They know this happened. But they chose just not to not report it at all.

A new J-20 puff piece came out in the meantime though. And here is what it says

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38655/ten-years-ago-today-chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-first-flew-a-two-seater-could-be-next

While the J-20 prototypes and early production batches were powered by Russian-supplied AL-31 turbofans, more recent J-20A aircraft use the indigenous WS-10.

Really ? Has there been any official statement to this effect ?

Today, Western sources estimate the number of J-20s built by the end of 2019 as around 50,

Western sources estimate ? Unlike Russia, there is no official numbers on this from China. None. Zilch. Nada.

Unconfirmed Chinese reports suggest that a production capacity of 48 aircraft annually, but there is no evidence that that figure has been attained

Its 2021 now. So they are sorta kinda implying that there could be 80 to 100 of them now. All with the WS-10 engine.

Equally importantly, the J-20 has been incrementally improved while production continued. In a paper released last October, the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, think tank claimed that “subsequent developments are likely to increase its LO [low-observable] characteristics and sensor capabilities.”

Looks like the think tank racket is also in the business of hyping up the J-20. Even to the point where they are over estimating the whisper numbers that come out of China.

A

s for a two-seat version of the J-20, this would further set the aircraft apart from its closest counterparts, the American F-22 and F-35, and from the Russian Su-57 Felon, the latter of which is not yet in frontline service.

"Frontline" service now. So they know that the first su 57 has been officially and verifiably delivered to the Russian airforce. But its not doing sorties in Syria so I guess they will pretend that its not in service until then. Pathetic.

The achievements so far in China’s first stealth fighter program are impressive by any measure, but especially when one recalls that, when it first appeared, there was much Western skepticism that the J-20 was a credible design

Yeah. Especially when you believe everything the Chinese say, which isn't much. And also go out of your way to over estimate give topspin to the little that is actually known about the jet. Its all just hype to bury the su 57. Because there is something about the su 57 that they really gets them flustered.

Backman wrote:Now over all the su 57 thread , someone questioned the smoke on a newly posted pic. It's like every freaking picture of the su 57 we have to answer for. Yet the F-22 can be posted like the above , and they have to answer for nothing.

Yeah, smoke does not come out of the F-22 engines because they work on different physics. Exceptional yanqui physics.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/59227/why-western-fighters-afterburner-glow-is-reddish-orange-while-eastern-bloc-figh

Someone noticing a difference and not getting any serious answers. Russian jet engines are more efficient and operate at higher
temperatures. The blue flame is not some chemical bond feature as if Russian kerosene is not the same as western kerosene. It
is directly related to the exhaust temperature. We are seeing full combustion colours in the blue hues. And all sorts of claims that
the colour difference is due to geometry or injection is patent BS. Combustion is combustion.

https://www.elgas.com.au/blog/1585-why-does-a-gas-flame-burn-blue-lpg-gas-natural-propane-methane

Recall that the USA did not know about oxygen rich staged combustion in rocket engines until 1991 because it failed to develop the alloys
needed to survive such a regime. The USSR did the impossible as far as the real ability of the USA was concerned. You can bet your
last penny that Soviet and now Russian applied materials science is being leveraged to optimize combustion in military jet engines. The
exhaust colour reflects this technological capacity. There is no BS smoke "issue".

US trying to bullshit everyone with their new "F1-style" engineering by which they can design a new wonderfighter in one year

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35193710/air-force-secret-new-fighter-jet-digital-engineering/

I have not read it and would not encourage anyone to do it unless for laughs...

And it will just take 20 years to eliminate all the failures.

Someone at F-16 dot net started a topic called "su 57 shown for the first time at Maks.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=57962

This would all be hilarious but for the fact that it deadly serious. Such retard fanboi thinking afflicts NATzO deciders who drink the
same propaganda koolaid. This makes them extremely dangerous since they will start a war on Russia under the terminal delusion that
they are guaranteed to win. Any such war will cost everyone dearly.

Most of the population are morons
Why do you behave like heard this fact for the first time?

I put "Checkmate fighter" into my podcast app just for the hell of it. A few came up. Clearly Rostecs promo strategy worked. These guys are just casual fanboys though. It's only the real defense analysts who have to be called out.


Here's one episode descriptions

So we saw all kinds of scary scary articles about Russia's new fighter called the Checkmate this week only it turns out its a paper shell that may never actually get MADE because Russia might not be able to afford to build it.  This kind of scheming makes me realize that Putin is secretly the Disney cartoon villain from Ducktales, Flintheart Glomgold.

---------------------

Another one. Not as bad but ain't it funny that they can't ignore it. This clown actually plays the unveil in the background and mocks it like a jackass. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy82MGQyZWEwMC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw/episode/YzBlNzIxOTEtODgxNC00ZDc2LWIxNjAtZWM4Yjc1YTljZjg1?ep=14

Since the late 1980s, the Sukhoi Bureau has designed the most advanced and combat capable aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russian Federation.  Aircraft like the SU-27, the SU-25, and the new SU-57 began to replace the venerable Migs that once populated the Russian fighter ranks.  But lately the Russians have seen their foreign sales sink to their foreign counterparts.  With aircraft like the Saab Gripen, the Dassault Rafale, and the Lockheed F-35 being bought up as fast they can be built, it was only a matter of time before the Russians tried to tap into the market of light fighters.  Their answer is this...the Checkmate.  Well if anyone is in danger of being outmaneuvered in the game of chess for fighter sales...I think Russia may be seriously in check!

They did not figure that shit up.
Too stupid for it.
They have read it somewhere, in a mind-blowing, centralized effort.
They just repeat it, like a horse "counting" to get more carrtots.

Well, Russia isn't building it..they have nothing to do with the funding.

Whether it gets made or not is no fault of the Russian Gov.

So yes that's very stupid on his part to say.

Western (social) media circles just act like everything outside of the U.S and E.U does not exist.

trough my own social media Rheinmetall praised this gigantic remote unarmed and unarmoured toaster on tracks like it was the next leap in millitary drone technology.
I mean, do not mind the Uran-Series right?.

same for the NH-90 helicopter at the time. "the next flawless NATO ASW helicopter".
Turned out during trails its engines could not handle sea-conditions and wore its engines out during the trails itself.

"Israeli Spike/Gill, next thing in defeating russian armor in top-down attacks".
They just failed to mention the damn missiles can not re-aquire their targets on the way down in an enviroment when the target is colder than the surrounding environment, or go after the wrong targets if they are hotter than their original target.
We actually pulled the damn things from Afhanistan as we where afraid of hitting our own APC or Tanks that where in combat.
We intened to use them to attack urban buildings in pin-point attacks but they are just useless.

"JDAM's, turn your dumb bombs into smart weapons with these packages".
And they are notoriously sensitive to solar interference with their GPS targeting data.
They are more likely to miss their target than to hit.

My only good experience was with the company Krauss-maffei, and in another case Raytheon.

Krauss-Maffei: They dont boast and just want the weapon to work like it was designed.
In Afghanistan, they send their designer's themselves as we where the first to use the PZH-2000 to fix what was causing failures (at first) to the automated firing system and the firing/ballistic computer. Bringing loads of replacement parts and they updated the software continously until the weapon was exactly as advertised. They are not afraid to admit mistakes either. They stand behind their products.

Raytheon: Their bombs actually are safe to use and work as intended.
they manufacture primarily the Paveway-series. Laser-guided bombs, they got their own diagnostic software too. When an pilot preps the bomb for engagement on the wing the bomb runs trough its own software pre-release check. If it encounters anything that hinders it from striking its target it reports back.

An pilot has to over-ride the warning of the bomb to use it.
If it confirms its pre-check, its guidance system hits it dead-on target. every time.


But for the rest of Western Weapons?. over-promised and exceedingly expensive and not at all durable.
An "next-gen" Stinger system mounted on Fennek vehicles was promoted as the next generation in anti-air warfare.

I think we all know this was not "next gen", as short-range air defenses where since the cold war mounted on fast-light armoured vehicles.
Except, .....this "next gen" vehicles need to first set up in an BMS (Battlefield Management Network) to be able to acuire and air target and fire.
It has to stop, set up an strong stationary antenna to receive and transmit data on an network...

Congratulations NATO, how to turn an stand-alone short-range AA weapon of the cold war in an useless piece of hardware.

Its not like NATO personell are all retarded, there are often crew that point to russian equipment and point out the weakness from their position.
Arms manufacturers and Western Millitary's often write these opinions off as these soldiers are too pessimistic, lost their will to fight or be victims to russian propaganda.

yours truly here included .

I think when i say here i have to explain to an NATO intell officer what an old ZSU-23-4 that was on the loose between KAF and TK is capable off says enough.
They assumed it could only attack C-130's that where fully loaded at close range that took-off from KAF. As their slow speed was the only oppertunity to attack. that it was not an threat to us as ground forces.
He was clueless as i explained it was able to depress its cannons low enough to engage our convoy if it was able to set up in an optimal firing position as we pressed our convoy to TK through their lines. It would out-gun and outrange us as the heaviest we had was .50 call. And as we brought munitions and fuel, and we had plenty of logistical soft-targets they just might try it. There was nowhere for us to go once this system opened up on us untill its munitions ran dry.

You really would think these people's jobs would be total-weapon freaks and learn everything to know there is about these weapons.
Fucking google-generation of idiots. nobody has passion anymore in their jobs in intelligence.

I consider myself an proffesional, and i know there are others out there in NATO too. but we are an very small minority.

Mostly we become Pariah's by Western media and governments because we voice our objections to the path chosen by millitary's and politicians.
We find an weapon unsuitable, we discover the deal has already been done by politicians.
Us testing it is just window-dressing to confirm it. Our opinion does not matter.

We find lowering recruitment demands is unnaceptable. that it will affect our combat effectiveness.
Government pushed the inclusive agenda and tells us to shut up.
Advertising over the social media our army is stronger because of "DIVERSITY!!!!".

We, the ones that actually read history books, visit our predecessors memorials and serve with an actual spine and with respect to the job tried to explain it.
As an Millitary, you have to adhere to an image. social standards as expected by any millitary.
Putting scrawny girls in front-line service is asking for trouble. So is putting an transgender in Command of an German infantry squad that does not share these woke-values. and send them to meet an Serbian elite combat unit for exercises.

Are you out of your freaking mind!?!. You know how absolutely humiliating this is to the German Troops?.

But sure, lets put the whole german airborne unit under the train because they dared to spray Erwin Rommel's Afrika Corps Emblem on their vehicles in Afghanistan.
And just ignore they where the best combat troops you had out there that did not know the word "retreat".
They where "toxic" according to politicians.
Talk about not honoring your country's warriors.

Western Media?. They are pure propaganda tools of their governments. Nothing they say is the truth.
And sadly there are loads and loads of Western NATO-fanboys living in basements that like to regurgitate the propaganda without having any first hand experience or knowledge themselves on the matter.

Heres some comedy gold from everyones favorite fat croatian





Apart from the general AESA fetishism and vapid assumptions, In the 2nd video he say something  especially dumb with the claim that the Su-30 is terrible because its an 80s aircraft, but he doesnt compare it to 80s NATO aircraft.

^ Yeah **** Binkov and his BS. He got his followers by bashing Russia while sounding Russian. All these Americans were like ooohhh yeah. Follow.

He didn't totally say that its a mockup but his commenting retards believe that's what they heard anyway.

The top rated comment is "Russia started a gofundme for a fighter"

 Except they didn't. But nobody cares about reality. Just whatever comforts their delusions. Let's see what the retards say after it flies I guess

To be fair, I often find him wrong and ignorant on things but he is a mere armchair expert much like everyone on this site. Your are all armchair experts and are no more wrong or right than others such as him.

That said he has always said the SU-30 is comparable to 80's figthers

That said he has always said the SU-30 is comparable to 80's figthers.

But the US is putting the F-15 back into production and that was not an 80s aircraft...

Maybe Russia should respond by bringing the MiG-25 back into production... it was so important the US copied its design to create the F-15, so it must be even better I guess.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:To be fair, I often find him wrong and ignorant on things but he is a mere armchair expert much like everyone on this site. Your are all armchair experts and are no more wrong or right than others such as him.

That said he has always said the SU-30 is comparable to 80's figthers

And youre a troll who claims to know so much more and to have good moral judgement.

He implies its technologically behind the EF or rafale which is BS.

I have been watching The Duran livestream:



When the subject of the T-14 tank is brought up Mercouris claims that the 2015 variant presented was a "mockup".
This plywood prop BS is like a reflex for westerners, even "based" ones.   The 2015 variant was no mockup
and the final revision is not much different.   This BS gets under my skin.   Nothing about the 2015 version
was non-functional.   It's gun, shell cassette, armour, engine, drive train, tracks and the electrical and electronic
components were all fully functional and usable in the field.

The question is also fielded by a fanboi who is pimping a Japanese tank as if it was superior.   The Japanese tank
is no big innovation and is the usual disco on tracks with an oversized manned turret.  It also appears to lack
any reactive armour.

Just like the Type-90 was "inspired" by the Leopard 2 the Type-10 was "inspired" by the Leclerc. The Leclerc was somewhat revolutionary at the time (late 80's) and the Japanese tank is no slouch, but nothing revolutionary when compared to the T-14. Fanboys will be fanboys

Any new development from Russia would either be knocked as terrible or called out as a copy of US super tech. I think they still refer to the R-77 as the Amraamski!

kvs wrote:I have been watching The Duran livestream:



When the subject of the T-14 tank is brought up Mercouris claims that the 2015 variant presented was a "mockup".
This plywood prop BS is like a reflex for westerners, even "based" ones.   The 2015 variant was no mockup
and the final revision is not much different.   This BS gets under my skin.   Nothing about the 2015 version
was non-functional.   It's gun, shell cassette, armour, engine, drive train, tracks and the electrical and electronic
components were all fully functional and usable in the field.

The question is also fielded by a fanboi who is pimping a Japanese tank as if it was superior.   The Japanese tank
is no big innovation and is the usual disco on tracks with an oversized manned turret.  It also appears to lack
any reactive armour.

With all respect to Mercouris and the Duran in General.
That opinion is untrue,

various sources, also from NATO said it was real. and an finished product no longer in development stage.

and for arguement sakes, It sure looks to me on this 2015 video this T-14 armata has suffered mechanical failure on the red square.
It does not look like that salvage tank is trying to move an cartboard cutout:


https://www.rt.com/news/256437-armata-stuck-moscow-parade/

And yes, all new weaponry has teething problems here and there.
The T-14 here has had its brakes adjusted too tight. at some point they expand too much because of friction and the tank's brake's get stuck.
same can happen to cars/trucks.

It is why after 15 minutes of idling the brakes where cool enough so the T-14 could move again under own power.

The Type 10 and T-14 are different tanks for different purposes. The Type 10 is a lighter tank designed to be mobile for the center and southern Japanese islands. It is pretty much state of the art but the most advanced feature of it is probably the CVT transmission which means the tank can move as fast backwards as forward. The T-14 is beyond state of the art with the robotic turret, crew capsule, extra thick armor, APS, etc.

It is bollocks that that T-14 was a mockup. These are initial production prototypes and they had to test all the systems to see if the tank design was combat ready or not. Just because it has all the relevant systems in it does not mean it is suitable for combat. The crew combat information system is all brand new so I would not be surprised if it had usability issues. Right now they are doing the initial series production batch which should be delivered to the troops for further testing soon.

The electronics in Russian tanks are not like the ones in modern cars. The tank is fully functional without them. That is a
decades old design philosophy.

As KVS said, skepticism from people with 0 engineering prowess and usually flawed logic is now a reflex, no matter what system it is.
There are people right now still claiming that the T-14's fire control system is yet to be "proven" to be up to par with the one on abrams, that was designed like 10 years ago. This is delusion, it's more of a pre canned argument to whip out at anything russian, rather than something serious, therefore it is inherently wrong to ever give it any attention to begin with.

Airbornewolf wrote:
And yes, all new weaponry has teething problems here and there.
The T-14 here has had its brakes adjusted too tight. at some point they expand too much because of friction and the tank's brake's get stuck.
same can happen to cars/trucks.

It is why after 15 minutes of idling the brakes where cool enough so the T-14 could move again under own power.

No, that wasn't it. The driver (who was a conscript, i must add) mistakenly put the E-brake on, and thought he stalled the tank and panicked, forgetting his training. His colleagues assumed it was a legit stoppage and tried to recover the vehicle which wouldn't have been possible since the brakes were engaged. Once UVZ's specialist were on the scene they were able to remove the E-brake and the tank was able to continue on its power again.

lancelot wrote:The Type 10 and T-14 are different tanks for different purposes. The Type 10 is a lighter tank designed to be mobile for the center and southern Japanese islands. It is pretty much state of the art but the most advanced feature of it is probably the CVT transmission which means the tank can move as fast backwards as forward. The T-14 is beyond state of the art with the robotic turret, crew capsule, extra thick armor, APS, etc.

There's nothing state of the art about the Type 10. Its a gucci piece of hardware sure, boasting rather high quality components especially its rather complex automotive systems but ultimately its just a much more expensive 3rd gen tank. It doesn't even stand out among its much older peers, being outgunned, and outarmoured by most upgraded third gen MBTs, with T-80B/V/Ms giving it a run for its money in forward mobility.