According to top brass at NATO, latest Russian Sukhoi Su-35R is a complete failure

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 3:31pm

After viewing its performance at the MAKS 2017 Moscow Air Show the generals took note that the latest Russian fighter jet appears to be incapable of straight forward flight unlike the Lockheed Martin F-35. One general stated, "At 1/3rd the cost of the F-35, I suppose you get what you pay for. The Russians are obviously now so far behind they will never catch up to our advanced technological expertise."

PS I've never seen a fighter jet with a handbrake before. Enjoy.

BTW, I had a similar discussion with one of the "generals" at TOP along this very line just a few months ago.

Edit: Changed video to shorter, more detailed

Tags:

Russia

Su-35

F-35

Snark

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Arrow on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:02pm

Huberis

Pure and simple.
F-35 is the dog. All it has going for it is the electronics.
Electronic counter measures are the key. I think the SU-35 is more than capable of out maneuvering US weapons fired at it.

Added note: The SU-35's latest engine/intake system is a leap forward. No generation of jet engine could keep running through those manuvers

—

I want a Pony!

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:34pm

Hubris. Nazis thought the Soviet T-34 tank was utter crap.

@Arrow Hubris will lose wars. Here is short video on what some people claim critically helped in the defeat of the Nazis.

[video::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE]

One of the fathers of the Warthog and F-16 talking about the F-35. Not pretty.

[video::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_p7HTDhm0]

Submitted by SpamNunn on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:37pm

@Arrow

@Arrow
The ability to fly low speed corkscrews in combat is highly overrated.

—

It's just my opinion. It can't hurt you

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:50pm

The ability to produce

@SpamNunn large quantities of inexpensive yet adequate aircraft is what should impress. If it's true that they are no match for ours, it's one thing, but if three of theirs get parity with one of ours even some of the time, their model is better.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 6:54pm

During WWII

@dervish , the Germans built magnificent, complicated engineering marvels, tanks, and aircraft. The Russians built simple, reliable, and effective ones, at a fraction of the cost, time, and materials. And they won. We copied that idea for a while. The Tiger tank was better than ten Shermans. So we built 11. Or 12. And we helped the Russians win (a bit). Then we brought home a bunch of Germans....

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 7:20pm

We didn't bring them all home

@Bisbonian
Under a secret NATO operation we allowed hundreds to "stay-behind".

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 11:33am

We didn't . . .

@CB
bring all the Sherman tank crews home either.

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 5:20pm

Or the Stuart crews

@FuturePassed What was that tank even in production for?

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by FuturePassed on Fri, 07/28/2017 - 9:59am

It was designed . . .

@dervish
to be mass produced. In that, the design was successful. It also had reasonable success against German tanks in North Africa. It was obsolete by D-Day. There is an ongoing debate over why the U.S. chose to keep producing Sherman tanks instead of converting more production over to the more expensive, slower to produce, but much more capable Pershing tanks.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 6:50pm

The 'Ronson' of tanks

@FuturePassed
"It lights up the first time, every time."

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 8:40pm

@Bisbonian Why, why, why did

@Bisbonian Why, why, why did we bring home Nazis and install them in our military intelligence agencies? And why did the Brits do that as well? FFS, find another goddamned way to deal with Stalin!

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 2:33am

My question is about the Nazi scientists that we brought here

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
is why hasn't Israel had a problem with this? They are still prosecuting the Nazis who were complicit in the holocaust, so why were the ones that we brought here not prosecuted by the Israelis?
With the power Israel has over our government, this would have been easy for them to do.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Bisbonian on Mon, 07/24/2017 - 6:18pm

because Israeli leadership are Nazis.

@snoopydawg

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:56pm

The impressive thing is its ability to recover

@SpamNunn

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:00pm

Those mid-air stalls

@CB are difficult to watch. Yikes.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:17pm

The maneuvers also demonstrate the skill of the pilots

@dervish

Submitted by gustogirl on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:14pm

The f35 is a/ cash cow for multiple corps and subcontractors,

@Arrow that's why it is such a dog.

In fact, the f35 is the perfect subject for a case study of waste, fraud, kickbacks and other abuses by the MIC.

Nothing is exempt from the almighty profit motive - including our national security.

We've been displaying our military incompetence for decades now. One of these days someone might take full advantage of that.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:03pm

$12 Billion aircraft carriers are an issue as well

what happens when others can build a $1 million dollar weapon that knocks out an F-35, or a navy ship? Cheap and disposable weapons are likely the way to go these days.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:17pm

Aircraft carriers will eventually go the way of the battleship.

@dervish
They are rapidly becoming holes in the water waiting to be filled.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:36am

EMP and other electronic counter-measures

@CB have already proven the relative worthlessness of a surface fleet. Thee adventures of the Donald Cook and the Fitzgerald have proven how vulnerable the surface navy is to EMP. This is likely the reason that the Fitz investigation is so tightly bottled up. Once the realization spreads into the public--and eventually in to Congress--righteous fear will emerge. Secrecy of Khibiny and other counter-measures are the only thing saving this country from a massive revolt "of the colonels". It's always the colonels that lead insurrections. Deprived of official power, they know exactly how things work and how to make things work better. At Company levels the sergeants usually know more than the lieutenants but especially the captains.

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 10:23pm

After inflation they are not really more expensive

@dervish than the $1.1 billion dollar price of the early '70s.

The million dollar missile argument is old too. There is a screen of cruisers, destroyers and submarines to keep that million dollar missile far away.

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 2:37am

The newest one is chock full of electronics

@dervish
and they can be operated with less crew members than the older ones.
A localized EMP can knock them out of commission very easily.
Then they are just a huge floating ship that's dead in the water.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Azazello on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:14pm

I believe the Su-35

is the latest iteration of the insanely maneuverable Su-27. Just looking through the YouTube vids of MAKS 2017 it looks the new MiG-35 is the one the Russians are raving about. The Sukhoi T-50 was there too, of course, and it seems they've restored an IL-2 to flying condition. I believe this is one of only two airworthy examples of the type.

—

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:16pm

Even if true, the response should be threat inflation, not brag

The way to pad the defense budget is to claim that the Russians (Soviets in previous times) have out-distanced the US in some strategic area. So therefore, and with all due speed, money must be appropriated immediately to counter the threat.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:35pm

Hahahaha!

...the generals took note that the latest Russian fighter jet appears to be incapable of straight forward flight unlike the Lockheed Martin F-35.

I heard there was some concern that the Russians might have got a technology transfer from the Klingons.

They had superior air power for most of a decade, now. We can't even get to space unless we buy a Russian rocket to fly us there. And it's no secret that they have full second strike capability and beyond, with larger payloads. But all they want is to be treated with respect and be friends and partners with the US going forward. They want to help build a better world.

We should have never imported all those nazis into the US during and after WWII, even if Germans were the largest ethnic group in the US. We let the camel stick his nose in the tent; they've been actively at war with Russia for more than a century. That's why we can't have nice things like the SU-35. No wonder the F-35 flies like a Panzer.

/rant

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 6:51pm

Haha!

@Pluto's Republic , good points

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 8:21pm

The title of this essay inspires truth-telling

@Bisbonian

Once you find out that both NATO and the CIA are Nazi-run organizations, it's easy to understand US policy toward Russia. The Nazis are still out for Russian blood, even if they have to kill us all.

It's no longer a head scratcher, is it?

Let's never forget it.

Haha. Trump did a quick 180 on NATO when he found out. Next day the NaziCons let him fire off some Tomahawks.

Trumps strange cabinet is an object lesson in how the Nazis managed to embed themselves in the permanent US government. They all recommended each other. They ran the same number on Reagan, while filling his addled brain with the Fascist Economics of Hayak and Buchanan.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 8:49pm

@Pluto's Republic Yes, a lot of this is

@Pluto's Republic Yes, a lot of this is about revenge.

The Nazis and their cultural descendants have set about destroying Russia, who was the key to beating them militarily in World War II, by embroiling Russia in a war with a superior military power (more nukes, if nothing else). That's why they're aiming to start WWIII with Russia. They have also (so far with more success) set about turning the United States and Britain (the shining good guy heroes who destroyed their reputation in World War II and turned them into a synonym for monster) into monsters themselves. Ditto for the Jews, who, more than anyone, sealed the deal on making sure nobody ever forgot that the Nazis were monsters. So Israel, the United States, and Britain need to be linked inextricably together and encouraged in all ways possible to cover themselves with moral filth. Mission accomplished, on that front, and it's mostly been done through the petrochemical economy, which makes me wonder how many Nazis inhabit the petroleum industry.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 9:16pm

Interesting how the NaziCons and Israel extremists

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

…share the same ideology. Worth a peek under the hood, I'd say. As long as the American people are picking up their entire tab, they're entitled to full disclosure of who, exactly, their Overlords really are.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:00am

This is what pisses me off Israel has been setting our foreign

@Pluto's Republic
policies for decades and yet, when was the last time they used their own troops and their money to fight in the wars they wanted?
Much of PNAC's goals have been the same as Israel's, but it's our troops and our money that pay for the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria. We are told that our troops in those countries are just military advisers, yet they have been fighting alongside the Syrian terrorists rebels and training them.
The Saudis told Kerry that they would pay for us if we helped them overthrow Assad so they could build their pipelines in Syria. And where are the Saudi troops in Syria? Or Yemen?

How many of our troops know what they are risking their lives for? They may have joined the military because they truly believe that they are fighting to defend our freedoms and our country, but they have to have opened their eyes by now and seen what the truth really is.

As on the cusp stated, the military is recruiting kids right out of high school and sending them to military institutions.
It's past time for those countries to put their troops in harm's way instead of ours.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:48am

Makes me wonder if the ME troops knew the so-called "moderate"

@snoopydawg rebels were al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc, would they mutiny and refuse to fight? How much more can this continually lying persist before the general population and enlisted military are no long prepared to participate in these needless meat-grinders?

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 11:25am

some did know that they were training Al Qaida

@Alligator Ed
and one soldier said that the group was upset about it because if they attacked our troops or attacked the US, they know that they will be responsible for what happens.
I have posted photos of McCain at meetings with AQ and ISIS leaders, and apparently he did this behind Obama's back at first. The article that I read this in is one of the Jewish websites (electronic infada?) and the author stated that what McCain did amounted to treason. Yeah, I would think meeting with the leaders of our so called enemies adds up to treason, but you know that this was just McCain being mavericky or some other nonsense that will excuse what he did.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 5:36pm

School kids know more military than you do.

@snoopydawg

the military is recruiting kids right out of high school

The recruiters work inside the High Schools with kids of all ages.

Public officials are unaware of the extent of the military's presence in education settings and the ways in which the Pentagon can access private data about high school students.

October 27, 2015

The United States stands alone among Western nations in allowing military recruiters to work inside its educational system. Section 9528 of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act requires that public high schools give the military as much access to campuses and student contact information as is given to any other recruiter. However, University of Kansas anthropologist Brian Lagotte finds that school officials do not fully understand this policy and often provide military recruiters unrestricted access to their campuses. Many schools allow military recruiters to coach sports, serve as substitute teachers, chaperone school dances, and engage in other activities. In some cases, recruiters are such a regular presence in high schools that students and staff regard them as school employees.

For the military, access to high schools is all-important because, in the words of its own officer corps, youths represent their "target market" and high schools "the primary source of Army applicants." School access is essential to military recruiters precisely because that's where young people can be found five days a week. In fact, the Army's recruiter handbook notes that among key community institutions—churches, civic organizations, businesses—schools have the most significant "impact on recruiting."

Given the way military recruiters rely on unfettered access to public schools and students, it would be unreasonable to expect them to voluntarily scale back their activities.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 4:27pm

straight forward flight

the latest Russian fighter jet appears to be incapable of straight forward flight

As in: at takeoff and landing!

Sounds like a complete failure to me.....

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by boriscleto on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:00pm

The F-22

Seems to have similar problems.

It's just a lot more expensive.

—

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Submitted by k9disc on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 12:52am

The F22 Seems to Take Much More Time to Engage a Stall

With the F22 I can see the idea mentioned above that corkscrews and whatnot are not super valuable in combat. The F22 takes too long to enter and exit the skills.

The Russian jet above freaked me out with it's aerobatics, and it could have just been the perspective of the camera, but I have to say it really really looked to be super fast and agile in those maneuvers and did a terrific job of reorienting the front of the plane in a quick and efficient manner.

I could see these corkscrew maneuvers working quite well in combat, due to the speed in and out and the apparent ease of nose orientation.

I don't think the F22 moved like that. All it did was slow down to a crawl.

@boriscleto

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:56am

The Su-35 did not appear to lose power

@k9disc during any of its maneuvers, whereas the F22 certainly did. Without knowledge of film speed, on the whole the Su looked much faster.

Submitted by k9disc on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 4:41am

Hit the Brakes and He'll Fly Right By...

@Alligator Ed [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp4cy2NXblc]

I agree, @Alligator Ed .

This might sound kind of funny, but i throw a lot of discs, and am pretty familiar with how wings fly as a result -- I bounce discs off cushions of air, curve them, skip them off the ground. My job is to compute the impacts from wind and deliver an intercepted toss to a dog in all conditions.

The stalling and spinning that the f22 did were of a kind and a sort that I understood -- the wing stayed stable, switched orientation, then moved on in another direction.

The Russian plane did not match my expectations and understanding of a wing. The wing stayed stable while it was switching orientation and moving into another direction. The plane looked and acted more like a boat (or the air was more like water to the plane, not sure which) than it did a fixed wing aircraft.

The easing time into and out of the spins and stalls was much shorter with the Russian Plane than the F22 as well.

It was pretty startling to me.

So the Top gun video... my dogs fly by stalled discs all the time. The wind can do some funny things to light plastic. When that disc stalls unexpected with the dog moving quickly and aggressively on an interception trajectory, the end result is a spectacular whiffing miss.

Seems to me that at the speed of modern dogfights that the Russian plane would have a HUGE advantage, not only stopping on a dime, but stopping on a dime and orienting the nose to a target.

And of course, I'm no pilot, so what do I know... I have flown a plane, though. Pretty sweet.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by boriscleto on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 8:23am

Nobody is going to be engaging in Top Gun dogfight anymore

@k9disc The SU-35 can undoubtedly outmaneuver a F-22 in low level slow speed airshow aerobatics. But that isn't modern air combat. The F-22 has super cruise and stealth. The F-22 would be launching its missiles at a SU-35 before the SU-35 even knew the F-22 was doing it.

The F-35 on the other hand won't be engaging a SU-35 if it can help it. It would simply be shot down...The Air Force wants it to replace the F-16 and A-10 and it can't really do either. The F-35 is probably the biggest bust since the F-111...

—

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Submitted by k9disc on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 11:07am

The Pro Aeronautics Guy Above Doesn't Put Too Much Stock

in stealth.

Pierre Sprey seems to think it's a scam, and only works with modern radar. He believes the Rooskies got the low frequency radar dialed in to light up stealth.

I could totally see that being the case. Typical technological and business oversight when the focus is on growth alone. And the Russians would be fools to trumpet it. Like the codebreakers back in WWII, they would sit on that shit in order to protect the secret.

Beancounters and bureaucrats that get their gravy out of the F35 trough, generals and admirals included, would be hard pressed to acknowledge the scuttlebutt. And don't forget about the Millennium Challenge fiasco...

The guy also spoke to the F35 being about making money, and not about making a good plane. I can see that, in spades, as well.

I do not think we are equipped to fight a real war against an enemy with any kind of military parity. We're too complex and tech dependent. Way too many achilles heels out there, I think.
@boriscleto

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 11:23am

As far as low speed maneuvers, these are exactly what is needed

@boriscleto for close ground support missions. The A-10 does this admirably--none better at it except for perhaps the Su-35. The US does not possess an equal to the A-10 and the Airforce knows this. Which might explain why there is now a push to develop an updated "super A-10".

The US military, Neocons, and other war-mongers need to adjust to the fact that for far too long, the US military has been receiving progressively less "bang for the buck" ratio. So while MIC gets richer, US military gets weaker. This is like trying to be a Sumo wrestler but with fat only--no muscle.

Vladimir needs only to drop one of our planes from the sky in a non-contested airspace for the Government to wake up (if they are not already) and realize that we have lots of shiny objects on sea and in the air which superior Russian technology has/will render useless easily, without firing a shot.

Two reasons for Russian military success lately:

1. The Russians know war, unlike the Neocon pussies

2. Russia nationalized its MIC, hence eliminating needless duplication, graft (for the most part), and centrally planned military expenses. The US with its usual no-bid contracting and little concern for cost and cost-overruns is incapable of such efficiency.

Submitted by arendt on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 1:34pm

A lot of military observers disagree about BVR

@boriscleto

Most US-Western analysts assert these maneuvers have no tactical purpose. With the failure of an American AIM-9X over Syria Western experts should be reminded that "more advanced technology" often doesn't work as advertised. Something the Russians appear to be counting on.

This is why you can't ditch highly maneuverable aircraft for things like "Stealth." We would also remind Western observers that super-maneuverability was built into the F-22 and it appears to some degree into a $1 trillion dollar F-35 program as well.

The American made AIM-9X missile - according to US-Western experts "the most advanced IR dogfight missile in the world" fails to hit a 1960 era Su-22 at point-blank range from a perfect 6 o'clock firing position. A truly shocking performance?

To be honest we have discussed at length (at length) about missile hit probabilities under actual combat condition not exceeding 50%. We almost chuckle when the American weapon fails to hit the Syrian Fitter. The only predictable thing in combat is - the unpredictable.

Assume nothing. Assume none of your own equipment works properly.

Sukhoi in our view has correctly assessed that in a peer adversary environment - nothing else will work. and you will need to maneuver your aircraft into firing position to use your cannon.

It is a smart and pragmatic assessment. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Look for a major push by Russia to attempt to disrupt/neutrlize the West's investment in Beyond Visual Range (BVR).

The Boresight

Many points of rebuttal:

1) Stealth can be defeated by low-frequency radars.
2) BVR can be spoofed, jammed, EMP'd etc.
3) Readiness rates for exotic aircraft like the F-35 are crap. Always down for something.
4) Fifth generation stuff is very expensive, so few are built. Couple that with low readiness, and you find the 5th gen stuff will probably always be outnumbered by 4th gen Russian planes. Given the low hit rates mentioned by boresight, 4th gen planes will be able to close with 5th gen, and the 5th gens will be sitting ducks.
5) F-35 has poor range, poor maneuverability, very small payload (due to avoidance of pylons). Except for BVR, it is a complete dog, outfought by ancient planes like the F-16.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 9:07am

These weird maneuvers are due to thrust-vectored engines

@k9disc
The F-22 can only vector their engines for pitch while the Su-35 can independently vector each engine nozzle differently to also produce roll and yaw. That is why the Su-35 can actually rotate on its axis despite having next to zero airspeed.

Russian pilot training must be phenomenal to do this stuff.

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 10:58am

If they want to fly in space, they better damn well

know how to fly on/over earth. Didn't the Brits have a jet plane that went straight up and down in takeoff and landing? I still see those shuttered never flown Russian space shuttles. Too much! Rec'd!! @CB

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:17pm

I will continue to reference this until the US gets defeated...

By our refusal to listen to our own goddamn generals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

WE LOST to our own side using cold war era equipment. Then we changed the rules to show that we could win... with the rules changed.

We will not get to call "Do-over" if we continue on this self destructive path. War is stupid, but treating it as a game where schoolyard rules apply is beyond idiotic. If you're going to fight a war, you fight it to goddamn win it. I understand that is not the ideal of our MIC of course.

The Russian plane is a failure... if your goal is to bleed the society that manufactures it of all their wealth.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:39pm

The goal is

@detroitmechworks

...to force the US to bleed the American people of all their wealth and transfer it to the oligarchs, who won't have to pay taxes on it.

The Russian plane is a failure... if your goal is to bleed the society that manufactures it of all their wealth.

I'm not sure whose goal it is, but I call "mission accomplished."

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:54pm

The US response will be to add another ten percent to

@detroitmechworks
the ~~War~~ Defense Department. That increase alone is more than the entire Russian defense spending.

Every dollar spent on war making means one dollar less spending on schools, hospitals, roads and bridges. It's cheaper for Russia to destroy US infrastructure this way. It saves them a tremendous amount on fuel, bombs and wear and tear on their aircraft. /s

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 6:03pm

It's a shame when Empire fails

@CB

…and all the US has to show for it is some lousy tee-shirts and a completely crumbled infrastructure.

Just watch… we'll end up applying for one of those soul-sucking IMF loans to keep the lights on. I hear China is already planning on building a modern railroad system for us. (Truth.) Didn't they do that once before?

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 7:13pm

Back then the rail magnates could afford to pay (cheap) wages

@Pluto's Republic
to the Chinese workers using the money they got from selling land they had obtained by cheating the indigenous peoples.

This time the Chinese will have to lend America the money. But the Chinese investors won't mind. Their money originally came from the American consumer in the first place. I'm sure their fare pricing will be reasonable.

Here's what to expect:

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:58am

Your comment is not as snarky as you indicate.

@CB

Submitted by CB on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 10:52am

Yes. It's how the Roman Empire eventually destroyed itself

@Alligator Ed
I understand Putin has a masterful knowledge of history.

Submitted by Ravensword on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:22pm

Hooray for Russian militarism!!!

I am, however, disappointed they cancelled the Su-47.

Look at that shit; straight out of a mecha anime series:

11/10, would bang.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 5:54pm

Which one has the EMP onboard

@Ravensword

…that took out the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea?

Superior electronics, I hear.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by Ravensword on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 10:03pm

That was the Su-24.

@Pluto's Republic However, it wasn't equipped with any sort of EMP device but an ECM system. Russian state-run media claimed that it was able to disable the USS Donald Cook's Aegis combat system.

Never mind that, though. The Su-47 is so awesome, that it looks like it can transform into a giant robot, not unlike the Transformers, but more like anime.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 9:44am

Taking out the Donald Cook was a hoax.

@Ravensword

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/12/fakeew.aspx
According to no less than the manufacturer of the Russian EW system, known as the Concern of Radio-Electronic Technology, which is part of state enterprise Rostech, the system is only installed on Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35 aircraft.

"The Khibiny manufacturer itself had already debunked the story," the U.S. researchers concluded. "This is either a disastrous failure of due diligence, or deliberate deception." Most experts agree it was the latter.

The Khibiny system works by confusing and distorting radar signals. With today's high speed aircraft and missiles, even delays of milliseconds can degrade accuracy considerably. The anti-GPS systems work by inserting noise into the receiver making it miss a micro-second timing 'tick' or two from a satellite. This can put it out hundreds of feet and even miles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khibiny_(electronic_countermeasures_system)

Khibiny (L-175V) (Хибины) (Л-175В) is Soviet / Russian aircraft electronic countermeasures (ECM) system.

The system is designed for radio direction-finding and probing signal source irradiation allowing it to distort reflected signal parameters. This helps to

Delay aircraft detection;

Mask the true subject against false reflections;

Cause range finding difficulties, namely in speed and angular positions;

Degrading Maintenance Mode "on the aisle" when scanning antenna beam radar;

Increase the time and difficulty of capturing an object during real-time active scanning.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 4:01am

Almost certainly the Fitz was disabled by EMP

@Pluto's Republic

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 6:06pm

Me...

I just use software and a printer to create my armaments. Perhaps 'world leaders' could just wargame themselves into oblivion, and leave the rest of us alone.

Fiddling around with SMS Preussen (bit more basic detail):

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 6:48pm

What's old is new again.

That jet has the maneuverability of a WWI fighter.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by native on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 10:04pm

One thing you can't fault American generals for,

is a lack of self-confidence.

—

native

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 1:04am

Confidence isn't always a good thing

@native British generals in the RevWar were confident too, and for good reasons.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by The Wizard on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 6:38am

The SU35 is a masterpiece of engineering

The SU35 is an inspired work of art. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has been staffed by extremely talented and creative engineers for decades. Wings and control surfaces function over narrow regions of airflow, angle of attack, direction, and speed. These surfaces, referred to as "foils", normally can operate only over a narrow AOA, angle of attack. Outside of that range they suffer detached flow and the surface refuses to generate lift. The SU27 through SU35 designs manage to provide stable control way outside of normal limits. The SU35 can fly perpendicular to the air-stream, can rotate around a vertical axis while flying, and can stop in space and stand on its tail. The US has nothing equivalent. The F22 comes closest, but still no cigar. Talking about cigars, the F35 is a flying cigar, a fat body and insufficient wing area. The SU35 has thrust vectoring nozzles, in two dimension, vertical and horizontal. The F22 has one dimension thrust vectoring and the F35 has zero dimension thrust vectoring.

The US airforce's response has always been that the dog-fight is dead. That all combat will be BVR, beyond visual range. The Russian airforce has always maintained that close-in combat will always be necessary. Much of this difference is that Russia maintains its military force for defense of Russia, and the US has its military for offense, the ability to attack anyone, anywhere at any time. The strategy is to use stealth aircraft to disable air defenses of the enemy at the start of a conflict. This is unworkable against a first-world military defense. The Tomahawk cruise missile is a much better instrument, but if the recent example of US aggression against a Syrian airbase is any example even that tactic is a disaster. 60 missiles were fired, only 23 reached their target and the airfield was operational the next day, at a cost of some $200 million dollars to the US taxpayer. Can you imagine if those were F35s? 37 dead or captured pilots and $7 billion dollars of lost hardware. It would be presidential ending event, just ask Jimmy Carter.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 10:45am

About a year and a half ago I got into an extended

@The Wizard
discussion at DKos with a half dozen posters who said Russia was nothing but a decrepit gas station and the country's military had nothing but rusted out junk from the 80's. They said the country had old, outdated technology and would never be a threat to the advanced US military might. Half the people there still believe this.

The SU35 is an inspired work of art. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has been staffed by extremely talented and creative engineers for decades. Wings and control surfaces function over narrow regions of airflow, angle of attack, direction, and speed. These surfaces, referred to as "foils", normally can operate only over a narrow AOA, angle of attack. Outside of that range they suffer detached flow and the surface refuses to generate lift. The SU27 through SU35 designs manage to provide stable control way outside of normal limits. The SU35 can fly perpendicular to the air-stream, can rotate around a vertical axis while flying, and can stop in space and stand on its tail. The US has nothing equivalent. The F22 comes closest, but still no cigar. Talking about cigars, the F35 is a flying cigar, a fat body and insufficient wing area. The SU35 has thrust vectoring nozzles, in two dimension, vertical and horizontal. The F22 has one dimension thrust vectoring and the F35 has zero dimension thrust vectoring. The US airforce's response has always been that the dog-fight is dead. That all combat will be BVR, beyond visual range. The Russian airforce has always maintained that close-in combat will always be necessary. Much of this difference is that Russia maintains its military force for defense of Russia, and the US has its military for offense, the ability to attack anyone, anywhere at any time. The strategy is to use stealth aircraft to disable air defenses of the enemy at the start of a conflict. This is unworkable against a first-world military defense. The Tomahawk cruise missile is a much better instrument, but if the recent example of US aggression against a Syrian airbase is any example even that tactic is a disaster. 60 missiles were fired, only 23 reached their target and the airfield was operational the next day, at a cost of some $200 million dollars to the US taxpayer. Can you imagine if those were F35s? 37 dead or captured pilots and $7 billion dollars of lost hardware. It would be presidential ending event, just ask Jimmy Carter.

Submitted by SancheLlewellyn on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 10:28am

Does the SU-35 fly?

If so, it already has a leg up on the pipe organ known as the F-35.

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 11:15am

Can you imagine what kind of world we would have

if all that brainpower was harnessed for positive, peaceful innovation? It's mind boggling(not to mention all the coin thrown away). @SancheLlewellyn

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 11:29am

Guns or butter

@orlbucfan I like butter.

Submitted by The Wizard on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 3:57pm

Many of those pilots agree

@Alligator Ed
They say that it's too bad that the fighter jets are instruments of war, but they sure make incredible areal acrobatics machines. They are an example of what we can do in engineering when we put our minds too it. The decision of where those R&D dollars go is a political one. It's really easy to make something happen if it's for "defense", really "war" in our case. I give the Russians some slack in this because the US spends close to a Trillion dollars a year for war and Russia spends about $60 billion, around 6% of the US, primarily to provide for defense of their huge country. You have to ask yourself: "Is the US dangerous?". OK you can stop laughing now, the question really answers itself. Russia would gladly give up military capability in a safer world. After all, they agreed to decommission nuclear warheads and send the fissionable material to the US to be reprocessed into fuel for nuclear power. That was then, when Russophobia was at its minimum, this is now. The US reneged on this deal as usual, by the way. The US was supposed to build a reactor to process the fuel into a form which could not later be refined back into weapons grade. Guess what, yet another agreement dishonored. How did we ever get to the point where so many in power consider the US an ethical country above others?

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 4:40pm

The Russians still remember and fear war.

@The Wizard
They experienced it on a personal level - not just from watching movies. As Putin has said many times, "The next war will not be fought on Russian soil." I believe he means it.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 10:37pm

weapons grade

@The Wizard

The US was supposed to build a reactor to process the fuel into a form which could not later be refined back into weapons grade. Guess what, yet another agreement dishonored.

That whole clause was bogus anyway. If a material is fissile, it can be refined back into weapons grade. Period. No reactor can change that. If it can't be rendered weapons grade, it's not fissile enough to provide electricity, either.

A material either supports chain-reaction fission or it doesn't. The only way to make it "less than weapons grade" but still usable in a power reactor is to introduce impurities, which can always be processed back out.

The "weapons grade" distinction is strictly a human one, and has nothing to do with the physics or chemistry of the matter.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by CB on Mon, 07/24/2017 - 1:25am

The idea is to covert the HEU into LEU for storage and

@thanatokephaloides
commercial use by re-combining with U238 to bring the U235 content down to less than 20%. The only way to then get it highly enriched enough to make weapons grade would be the normal and costly enrichment process which only an advanced state funded actor could do.

The following document describes this:

http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/heu-medical-fact-sheet.pdf

The bulk of the radioisotopes used in diagnostic medical procedures are currently derived from highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is also used to fuel plutonium and tritium production for nuclear weapons and for propulsion reactors in nuclear submarines and other naval vessels. Hans Blix, the Chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and others have urged the phasing out of HEU from civil commerce and research facilities. They rightly reason that the use of HEU in the production of radioisotopes needlessly heightens the risk of theft of weapons-grade nuclear fuel and its diversion into the much-feared "terrorist bomb."
...
Converting to LEU

Low-enriched uranium (LEU), containing less than 20 per cent U-235, is perfectly suitable for Mo-99/Tc-99m production and cannot be diverted to weapons use. Technical experts have reached consensus that conversion from HEU to LEU fuels and targets is possible in most instances; no future needs for HEU have been identified; and current conversion programs have been quite successful.
...

BTW, the vast majority of reactors use 5% to 7% U-235 enrichment in their fuel. Only research reactors go to 20% enrichment. A fissionable bomb requires 90% plus enrichment. Otherwise it would just be a dirty bomb.

If the US government wants more weapons grade uranium it can readily produce it from scratch. Money and equipment is not a problem. They probably have more of the shit than they know what to do with.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Mon, 07/24/2017 - 3:34am

it can be done

@CB

The idea is to covert the HEU into LEU for storage and commercial use by re-combining with U238 to bring the U235 content down to less than 20%. The only way to then get it highly enriched enough to make weapons grade would be the normal and costly enrichment process which only an advanced state funded actor could do.

My point was: if anyone can do it under any circumstances whatsoever, it can be done. Anything one engineer can do, another can un-do. And when the nuclear power establishment asks me to have faith, the red flags just go up.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by CB on Mon, 07/24/2017 - 11:03am

The equipment required to convert LEU to bomb grade HEU

@thanatokephaloides
would be the very same as required to make bomb grade uranium from yellowcake. I can buy yellowcake on Amazon.

It takes thousands of engineers and billions of dollars to set up a processing line to enrich uranium.

The following video explains the difficulty in enriching LEU to bomb grade.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Mon, 07/24/2017 - 5:32pm

weapons video

@CB

I can buy yellowcake on Amazon.

Actually, that's uranium ore, not yellowcake. Probably pitchblende. Yellowcake is what you'd get from refining (first stage) what I think Amazon's selling. I will admit my principal clue here is the price; I don't think $39.95 would buy a worthwhile quantity of yellowcake, while it would cover a pretty decent-sized pitchblende sample and the radiation-resistant packaging necessary to ship it.

It takes thousands of engineers and billions of dollars to set up a processing line to enrich uranium.

The following video explains the difficulty in enriching LEU to bomb grade.

It cost us roughly 1 trillion of today's dollars to do it the first time, if I recall correctly.

And thank you for the video!

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by CB on Mon, 07/24/2017 - 7:00pm

You are correct about the uranium ore.

@thanatokephaloides
Actually, yellowcake is less dangerous than uranium ore because it is pure uranium oxide. The current market price for yellowcake is $20.00/lb. You'd need about 4,000 tons to process enough U235 to make a crude bomb like the one used over Hiroshima. You could use a quarter of that but the bomb would then be very, very complex.

Here's how you can make your own yellowcake at home.

Isolation of Uranium Yellowcake from Ore
The uranium produced by this procedure could in no way be considered weapons-grade or enriched. The enrichment process requires millions of dollars in investment and is impossible for any entity short of a national government to produce. This uranium maintains the isotopic ratio found within the earth's crust and is actually less radioactive than the ore from which it was processed due to the absence of more radioactive decay products of uranium, such as radium, protactinium, and other unstable nuclei produced by the spontaneous fission of U238.