Talking bollocks thread #4

Azi wrote:The problem is they use the Su-34 in the wrong role! Since April they haven't really taken out any ukranian AD systems anymore...I don't know why. Maybe complete incompetence?! Or most likely the russian anti-radiation-missiles suck extreme? Most likely!
This is amazing. Actually, no system should exist anymore and Russia should have pure air dominance!!! The had many An-2 prepared as fake targets for AD...never used them.

That sounds nice in theory, but it is very hard in practice. NATO tried and failed that in Serbia in '99. What really saved their ass was that our AD system were largely obsolete at that point, that couldn't engage anything flying over 5-6 km. Early export models of KUB, Strela-1 and Strela-10M.

caveat emptor wrote:
I knew that you would post that. Did you have to exaggerate to prove your point?

I saw that few days ago and mistakenly said half. But still 1/4th getting downed is too much for the few sorties they make at low altitude and not deep into enemy territory.

Rafale, su-57, Checkmate, f-35 have far greater chances to be used as a tactical bomber than this outdated su-34.

It lights up on radar like a private jet. It is so easy to destroy by AD that even the soviet systems can't be counter with it eventhough they know them from A to Z and also operate them.

And let's not even talk about the pathetic use of their air force. They have planned any importabt attack or coordinated attack. They just send randomly send a pair to go here and there. Not even do they do some simple stuff like attracting AD with dumb drones and attacking with kh-31.

Even the Azeri managed to do this with dumb TB2. Actually they made better use of their tb2 than russia with its all airforce.

The sooner they admit it's a shitty aircraft the sooner they replace it with a bomber version of su-57. But again they eat their own propaganda just like most members here. They needed 7 months to admit their attack drone programs suck and had to buy iranian drones. Same will be with this shitty su-34. They will admit it in maybe 3 or 4 years when they will be spending money on it for nothing.[/quote]

Isos wrote:
I saw that few days ago and mistakenly said half. But still 1/4th getting downed is too much for the few sorties they make at low altitude and not deep into enemy territory.

Rafale, su-57, Checkmate, f-35 have far greater chances to be used as a tactical bomber than this outdated su-34.

It lights up on radar like a private jet. It is so easy to destroy by AD that even the soviet systems can't be counter with it eventhough they know them from A to Z and also operate them.

And let's not even talk about the pathetic use of their air force. They have planned any importabt attack or coordinated attack. They just send randomly send a pair to go here and there. Not even do they do some simple stuff like attracting AD with dumb drones and attacking with kh-31.

Even the Azeri managed to do this with dumb TB2. Actually they made better use of their tb2 than russia with its all airforce.

The sooner they admit it's a shitty aircraft the sooner they replace it with a bomber version of su-57. But again they eat their own propaganda just like most members here. They needed 7 months to admit their attack drone programs suck and had to buy iranian drones. Same will be with this shitty su-34. They will admit it in maybe 3 or 4 years when they will be spending money on it for nothing.

Well Russia did mess up by not making cheap cruise missiles aka suicide drones, I suppose, yes. They are truck launched so it makes their launch timing highly unpredictable, like Iskander-K I suppose (vs. the Kalibr or Kh-101 platforms which NATO can monitor better).

On the other hand, what makes you think that an S-300PS or Buk-M1 can't engage a combat loaded Rafale at maximum range? Rafale isn't a stealthy plane by a long shot even if its RCS is smaller than the Su-34. Or even the wunderwaffe F-35 with external load?

Isos wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:
I knew that you would post that. Did you have to exaggerate to prove your point?

I saw that few days ago and mistakenly said half. But still 1/4th getting downed is too much for the few sorties they make at low altitude and not deep into enemy territory.

Rafale, su-57, Checkmate, f-35 have far greater chances to be used as a tactical bomber than this outdated su-34.

It lights up on radar like a private jet. It is so easy to destroy by AD that even the soviet systems can't be counter with it eventhough they know them from A to Z and also operate them.

And let's not even talk about the pathetic use of their air force. They have planned any importabt attack or coordinated attack. They just send randomly send a pair to go here and there. Not even do they do some simple stuff like attracting AD with dumb drones and attacking with kh-31.

Even the Azeri managed to do this with dumb TB2. Actually they made better use of their tb2 than russia with its all airforce.

The sooner they admit it's a shitty aircraft the sooner they replace it with a bomber version of su-57. But again they eat their own propaganda just like most members here. They needed 7 months to admit their attack drone programs suck and had to buy iranian drones. Same will be with this shitty su-34. They will admit it in maybe 3 or 4 years when they will be spending money on it for nothing.

[/quote]

I cant believe you are hating on a fighter-bomber that has a built-in toilet. What more do you want?

P.S. i know its just a tube

On the other hand, what makes you think that an S-300PS or Buk-M1 can't engage a combat loaded Rafale at maximum range? Rafale isn't a stealthy plane by a long shot even if its RCS is smaller than the Su-34. Or even the wunderwaffe F-35 with external load?

I said they have better survivability. Rafale's spectra is the best. Everyone knows that.

Su-34 isn't adapted for modern air wars. You need a reduced RCS. Su-34 has the size of a private jet and a RCS probably bigger than it with weapons. In a space protected by Rafale or typhoons equiped with radar that can detect it at more than 200km and meteors it has no chance to reach its target. Even with stand off tactical missiles it will have hard time, unless they use 500-1000km range missiles but then you can just use an il-76.

Comparing Rafale aircraft with Su-57 and Su-75 is like comparing VW Beetle with Golf Mark7 or 8, especially with Su-57. The Su-57 has a nose radar, one radar on each side on the side, as well as radars in the wings. Let's add the "Himalayas", a much higher cruising speed and range, a higher flight ceiling, climbing speed and a deadly arsenal inside the centerplane. What is the RCS of Rafale with missiles, Isos ? We know it's not the same as without missiles...

to call the Su-34, objectively the best fighter-bomber on the planet, obsolete is a very bold statement.

Isos wrote:

On the other  the Su-34. Or even the wunderwaffe F-35 with external load?

I said they have better survivability. Rafale's spectra is the best. Everyone knows that.

Su-34 isn't l missiles it will have hard time, unless they use 500-1000km range missiles but then you can just use an il-76.

Syria. Most expensive CIA program of all time. su 34 active in theatre for 7 years. Losses - zero.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

In September 2015, six Su-34s arrived at Latakia airport in Syria, for attacks against rebel and ISIL forces.[79] Russian air attacks in Syria started on 30 September, in the Homs region.[80] On 1 October, the Su-34 was used to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria.[citation needed] The Russian Air Force Su-34 fighter-bombers destroyed an Islamic State command center and training camp

Russian Su-34 and Su-25 attack aircraft carried out air strikes the next day against Islamic State targets in Syria's Hama province using precision bombs. According to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, Su-34s hit an ISIL fortified bunker in the Hama province with guided bombs

Following the downing of a Su-24 by Turkey, Russia announced on 30 November 2015 that Su-34s in Syria had begun flying combat missions while armed with air-to-air missiles.[82] On 16 August 2016, Tu-22M3 long-range bombers and Su-34 bombers, having taken off from their base in Hamadan Islamic Republic of Iran, carried out group airstrikes against targets belonging to ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist groups in the provinces of Aleppo

On 3 October 2017, Russian Su-34s and Su-35s were deployed to strike "the place of the Al-Nusra leadership meeting" whose location was discovered by Russian military intelligence in Syria subsequently eliminating 12 Al-Nusra field commanders

On 28 May 2018, it was reported that Russian Su-34s intercepted two Israeli Air Force F-16s over Tripoli, Lebanon, forcing them to retreat

On 27 February 2020, two Russian Su-34s allegedly carried out an airstrike on a Turkish military convoy killing up to 36 soldiers and injuring at least 60 more in Balyun,

On 6 October 2020, two Russian Su-34s conducted air strikes against underground structures in the Eastern bank of Euphrates, Deir Ez-Zor province allegedly inside Rojava territory resulting in the death of ISIL field commander Abu Qatada,

Isos wrote:

On the other hand, what makes you think that an S-300PS or Buk-M1 can't engage a combat loaded Rafale at maximum range? Rafale isn't a stealthy plane by a long shot even if its RCS is smaller than the Su-34. Or even the wunderwaffe F-35 with external load?

I said they have better survivability. Rafale's spectra is the best. Everyone knows that.

Su-34 isn't adapted for modern air wars. You need a reduced RCS. Su-34 has the size of a private jet and a RCS probably bigger than it with weapons. In a space protected by Rafale or typhoons equiped with radar that can detect it at more than 200km and meteors it has no chance to reach its target. Even with stand off tactical missiles it will have hard time, unless they use 500-1000km range missiles but then you can just use an il-76.

"Everyone knows that" = everyone chose to believe it without it being combat tested against... anything SAM-related really? Hah.

Your Rafale/Meteor vs. Su-34 example is very conveniently contrived in a vacuum... (and totally changing the subject) what about Su-34 escorts, friendly SAMs, and all of the things that could destroy the Rafale on the ground? Pointless speculation.

And an Su-34 costs what, 1/3 of a Rafale?

dionis wrote:

Isos wrote:

On the other hand, what makes you think that an S-300PS or Buk-M1 can't engage a combat loaded Rafale at maximum range? Rafale isn't a stealthy plane by a long shot even if its RCS is smaller than the Su-34. Or even the wunderwaffe F-35 with external load?

I said they have better survivability. Rafale's spectra is the best. Everyone knows that.

Su-34 isn't adapted for modern air wars. You need a reduced RCS. Su-34 has the size of a private jet and a RCS probably bigger than it with weapons. In a space protected by Rafale or typhoons equiped with radar that can detect it at more than 200km and meteors it has no chance to reach its target. Even with stand off tactical missiles it will have hard time, unless they use 500-1000km range missiles but then you can just use an il-76.

"Everyone knows that" = everyone chose to believe it without it being combat tested against... anything SAM-related really? Hah.

Your Rafale/Meteor vs. Su-34 example is very conveniently contrived in a vacuum... (and totally changing the subject) what about Su-34 escorts, friendly SAMs, and all of the things that could destroy the Rafale on the ground? Pointless speculation.

And an Su-34 costs what, 1/3 of a Rafale?

Rafale totally jammed Slovak S-300. Today there is the f4 upgrade that is better in terms of everything but stealth than su-57 tech.

Come up with all the shit you want french stuff is very very good. Thales has no competitor. Even the US don't bother with their own product and just buy from them.

Russian wonder weapons prove to not work as advertized. Plenty of time. Su-34 more than the other. They are not all bad but far from the description that russians make about them.

This is Iskander stikes:

Even iranian missiles are more precise.

Werewolf wrote:
The Ka-52 is armored. Has the same non-transparent armor layout as Mi-28. Double fuselage layers of aluminium-alloy that can withstand 14.5mm and to some degree 20mm HE-Frag ammunition. Followed by aramid/kevlar liner to reduce the fragmentation and structural damage to the second non-transparent layer, which is the titanium-alloy "bathtub" which can withstand 30mm HE-FRAG rounds. The only disadvantage the Ka-52 has is the round canopy as it can not be armored for the simple fact that it needs to shatter in event of ejection of both pilots. The frontal flat panels are "bulletproof glass" sheets with the same thickness as the Mi-28 (45mm).

Saying that the Ka-52 isn't armored while all western attack helicopters would dream to have even half the armor rating the Ka-52 to has is laughable. Does the Mi-28 provide overall better armor protection than Ka-52? Yes!  Ka-50 and Mi-28 are the only Attack Helicopters with fully armored crew compartment in the world. The Mi-24 and Ka-52 provide more or less same level of armor.

.

Ka-52 is ofc not at the same level as Mi-28 (It’s a flying tank)
I remember the video of Ka-52 being damaged by small arms and they had to land it in the field like a plane… on a belly with landing gear retracted. But then again, chances are Mi-28 would get shot down too. Both helicopters can attack targets beyond visual range so heavy armour becomes irrelevant and all it matters are the sensors. Not to mention that Ka-52 is super roomy for the crew, ergonomics that can be compared to Su-34 not a helicopters where pilots sit like in bathtub. Seen videos of pilots having full sized AK-74Ms and body armour with them flying Ka-52. It’s a helicopter in league of it’s own.

Isos wrote:

Rafale totally jammed Slovak S-300. Today there is the f4 upgrade that is better in terms of everything but stealth than su-57 tech.

Come up with all the shit you want french stuff is very very good. Thales has no competitor. Even the US don't bother with their own product and just buy from them.

You're the one coming up with shit arguments, hence why I'm pointing it out.

Cool exercise jamming story, though. Thanks for reminding us.

Scorpius wrote:to call the Su-34, objectively the best fighter-bomber on the planet, obsolete is a very bold statement.

Well it is very difficult (actually impossible) for the French to admit that there are other countries in the world that can produce better wines than the French. It is just unthinkable - pure blasphemy!

In your defense Isos - for me the Mirage III remains one of the most beautiful fighter aircraft ever designed.

Werewolf wrote:

Isos wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:
Post a link or shut up. Since, i also follow his channel, I'm pretty sure that he never said it. 
How far can a person go to prove that they are right?

Su-34 are falling from the skies like moskitos in Ukraine. I don't understand how you can be that dumb and blinded to say it is a good aircraft. It's all recorded.
They even lost a su-35 equiped with "state of art" jammer. At least the Rafale manage to jamm a s-300. Flankers can't even escape some old buk and osa.

Ukraine doesn't even have an IADS, just some system here and there and they still manage to destroy them everytime they enter Ukraine.

Your only arguments are insults.

Pretty funny .

Isos, give us the information about the RCS of the Rafale aircraft with a suspended lethal arsenal ? The Iskander is inaccurate, the Su-30 and Su-34 are rubbish, but the French crap Rafale is first class. Bro, if your French were that capable they would still be selling their cars in the US. I would rather walk than drive a French car.

Mir wrote:

Scorpius wrote:to call the Su-34, objectively the best fighter-bomber on the planet, obsolete is a very bold statement.

Well it is very difficult (actually impossible) for the French to admit that there are other countries in the world that can produce better wines than the French. It is just unthinkable - pure blasphemy!

In your defense Isos - for me the Mirage III remains one of the most beautiful fighter aircraft ever designed.

Objectivity ? Its radar is shittier than mig-29SMT's. Its rcs is at least 40m2 with dumb bombs.

Its EO systems are prehistorical compare to what Thales's recco and targeting pods are.

Its manoeuvrability is not the same as su-35's as some here thinks.

Its air to air capabilities are shitty since its radar is shitty. A mechanical doppler antenna with a pathetic range of not even 100km. Against a rafale or typhoon with 1m2 it should fall to 60km. With jamming it won't see anything.

Its not a good fighter and just a normal bomber.

You confuse objectivity with your russian cock sucking ability.

Podlodka77 wrote:Isos, give us the information about the RCS of the Rafale aircraft with a suspended lethal arsenal ? The Iskander is inaccurate, the Su-30 and Su-34 are rubbish, but the French crap Rafale is first class. Bro, if your French were that capable they would still be selling their cars in the US. I would rather walk than drive a French car.

Those aren't my word but reality. I provided you images of that failed iskander attacks. Su-34 are getting anilhated in Ukraine, plenty of pictures. Su-30 is also getting destroyed once it enter ukraine.

Rafale managed to launch guided bombs from 50km away in Libya. It managed to jamm a s-300. Its spectra is recognized as the best by all the military people. In the swiss tests, it came in first place in all the aspect be it air to air, bombing or jamming.

Any other more constructive arguments ? Show us how good the su-34 is.

Podlodka77 wrote:Isos, give us the information about the RCS of the Rafale aircraft with a suspended lethal arsenal ? The Iskander is inaccurate, the Su-30 and Su-34 are rubbish, but the French crap Rafale is first class. Bro, if your French were that capable they would still be selling their cars in the US. I would rather walk than drive a French car.

Using a car analogy to support Russian manufacturing/technological prowess? Ever drive a Lada?

calripson wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:Isos, give us the information about the RCS of the Rafale aircraft with a suspended lethal arsenal ? The Iskander is inaccurate, the Su-30 and Su-34 are rubbish, but the French crap Rafale is first class. Bro, if your French were that capable they would still be selling their cars in the US. I would rather walk than drive a French car.

Using a car analogy to support Russian manufacturing/technological prowess? Ever drive a Lada?

Actually Lada was making renault copies in the last years.

Isos wrote:

dionis wrote:

Isos wrote:

On the other hand, what makes you think that an S-300PS or Buk-M1 can't engage a combat loaded Rafale at maximum range? Rafale isn't a stealthy plane by a long shot even if its RCS is smaller than the Su-34. Or even the wunderwaffe F-35 with external load?

I said they have better survivability. Rafale's spectra is the best. Everyone knows that.

Su-34 isn't adapted for modern air wars. You need a reduced RCS. Su-34 has the size of a private jet and a RCS probably bigger than it with weapons. In a space protected by Rafale or typhoons equiped with radar that can detect it at more than 200km and meteors it has no chance to reach its target. Even with stand off tactical missiles it will have hard time, unless they use 500-1000km range missiles but then you can just use an il-76.

"Everyone knows that" = everyone chose to believe it without it being combat tested against... anything SAM-related really? Hah.

Your Rafale/Meteor vs. Su-34 example is very conveniently contrived in a vacuum... (and totally changing the subject) what about Su-34 escorts, friendly SAMs, and all of the things that could destroy the Rafale on the ground? Pointless speculation.

And an Su-34 costs what, 1/3 of a Rafale?

Rafale totally jammed Slovak S-300. Today there is the f4 upgrade that is better in terms of everything but stealth than su-57 tech.

Come up with all the shit you want french stuff is very very good. Thales has no competitor. Even the US don't bother with their own product and just buy from them.

Russian wonder weapons prove to not work as advertized. Plenty of time. Su-34 more than the other. They are not all bad but far from the description that russians make about them.

This is Iskander stikes:

Even iranian missiles are more precise.

How old is the Slovak S300? When is the last time they upgraded it? before they joined NATO? lol

How old is the Slovak S300? When is the last time they upgraded it? before they joined NATO? lol

Newer than ukrainian systems that keep destroying su-34. System that were designed by russians 50-60 years ago against which 2012 russian EW can't jamm properly.

Sounds like the Ukranians could really use those Rafales...