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

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

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Arrow's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

I want a Pony!

@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]

up
0 users have voted.
SpamNunn's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

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

dervish's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

Bisbonian's picture

@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....

up
0 users have voted.

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

CB's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

@CB
bring all the Sherman tank crews home either.

up
0 users have voted.
dervish's picture

@FuturePassed What was that tank even in production for?

up
0 users have voted.

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

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@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!

up
0 users have voted.

"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

snoopydawg's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Bisbonian's picture

@snoopydawg

up
0 users have voted.

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

CB's picture

@SpamNunn

up
0 users have voted.
dervish's picture

@CB are difficult to watch. Yikes.

up
0 users have voted.

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

CB's picture

@dervish

up
0 users have voted.

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
dervish's picture

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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

CB's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

snoopydawg's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Azazello's picture

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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

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.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

...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

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Bisbonian's picture

@Pluto's Republic , good points Smile

up
0 users have voted.

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

Pluto's Republic's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

Pluto's Republic's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
snoopydawg's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Alligator Ed's picture

@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?

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Pluto's Republic's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
thanatokephaloides's picture

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.....

up
0 users have voted.

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

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

boriscleto's picture

Seems to have similar problems.

It's just a lot more expensive.

up
0 users have voted.

" 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 "

k9disc's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

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

Alligator Ed's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

boriscleto's picture

@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...

up
0 users have voted.

" 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 "

k9disc's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

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

Alligator Ed's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

detroitmechworks's picture

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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

Pluto's Republic's picture

@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."

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
CB's picture

@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

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@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?

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
CB's picture

@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:

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@CB

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.
Ravensword's picture

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

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

11/10, would bang.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Ravensword

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

Superior electronics, I hear.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Ravensword's picture

@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.


up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

@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.
up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Pluto's Republic

up
0 users have voted.
Bollox Ref's picture

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):

Preussen2.jpg

up
0 users have voted.

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Bisbonian's picture

That jet has the maneuverability of a WWI fighter.

up
0 users have voted.

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

is a lack of self-confidence.

up
0 users have voted.

native

dervish's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

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

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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

CB's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

up
0 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

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

up
0 users have voted.

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Alligator Ed's picture

@orlbucfan I like butter.

up
0 users have voted.

@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?

up
0 users have voted.

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

CB's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

CB's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.

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

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

CB's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@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! Smile

up
0 users have voted.

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

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

CB's picture

@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.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@CB

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

I thought you used this to make yellow cake at home:

Smile

up
0 users have voted.

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

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

CB's picture

View of her inside cockpit while doing aerobatics. Gives you an idea of what's involved.

up
0 users have voted.