*teleports behind you* >eh, nothing personal kid

File: f35lemon.jpg (32KB, 420x421px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 420x421px

>>31779840
It's a turkey.

It looks awesome from that angle.

File: F-35 2.jpg (429KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1024x683px

>>31780364
I'm fond of this angle, personally

>>31780484
I want to stick my dick in it

>>31780484

Naww, it's like when a Kitty lies on it's back with it's paws up

I wanna pet it

>>31780484
Where did the pilot go ??

It's official, f35 most kawaii next gen fighter.

File: 20160304_151412.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5312x2988px

>>31780506
You're not the only one. Look at the slut, they even wrote their names there when they were done.

File: F35-chan.png (718KB, 702x1920px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 702x1920px

>>31780669
Of course.

File: BOI.gif (603KB, 255x199px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 255x199px

>>31780345

File: best plane F-35 flight high school.png (377KB, 1198x800px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1198x800px

>>31780683
F-35 is the cutest planefu.

>>31780345
This picture accurately describes how sour vatniks and chinks are about the F-35.

>>31780484
Arsenal Gear?!?!?!?!

File: sprey.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>31780345

>>31780671
As some background, this is the X-35 prototype's front wheel well. Getting into a position to take this picture was a bit odd, but well worth having it. I'm betting few people have noticed that, considering I was literally lying on the ground to see it.

>>31781547
You should see what people write in the cargo bays of airliners...

>>31781563
A cargo bay is just like the john. I'm well aware.

>>31781378
Holy fucking kek

>>31781378
Could use subtitles, but awesome.

File: f35qt.jpg (687KB, 1754x1754px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1754x1754px

>>31781378
Very nice.

>>31783068
i want to overflow her exhaust ports.

>>31783068
I want to lubricate her lift fan.

>>31780484
>no bombs
>no missiles

and they call it a fighter. what kind of shit plane is this

>>31783408
So, you don't know what an internal weapons bay is.

>>31783422
>p... put your big missile inside me, senpai

>>31783436
>tie down the airframe

>oil up the bird

>fill her with a full combat load

n-not the sidewinders too

>the sidewinders too...

File: An oper9r to surpass cheeki breeki.png (94KB, 318x307px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 318x307px

>>31779840
*transcends this mortal plane*

[high-pitched voice draws out as light envelopes his figure] BRRrrrEEEEEEEEKKIIIIIIII

>>31780484
>>31779840
I got to see one of these fly on Saturday, pretty sexy jet but that bitch is really loud

File: maxresdefault.jpg (106KB, 1417x904px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1417x904px

>>31779840
Make a cobra*
Heh kid

File: su35manuver.webm (864KB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 718x404px

>>31783559
the forbidden technique!

File: Begone foul demons.jpg (74KB, 500x312px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x312px

>>31783068
>>31783436
>>31783456

>>31783334
>>31783243
>>31783068
>>31783436
>>31783456
wtf is wrong with you people?

>>31783674
>this pleb wouldn't fuck an airplane

kek

>>31783674
I've spent the last 10 years of my life on this website for Chinese cartoons

>>31783674

You obviously don't belong here

>>31779840
*personnel

File: 1458434153544.gif (3MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 291x300px

>>31783559
>>31783570
>thinking it does this with combat loads
>thinking Russian airshow stunt fighters aren't modified, slick and carrying less than half fuel
>thinking the Cobra/other ridiculous AOA maneuvers are viable in a modern furball
>thinking WVR combat is anywhere close to as relevant as BVR

>>31785199
It's about superior avionic

>>31785202

Show me doing it in an actual fight then we'll talk.

It's like having a Natural immunity to SmallPox. Sure it's impressive, but in this day and age it's utterly superfluous

>>31785202
>superior avionic
>Russian military aviation

The last time the Russians had any kind of qualitative leg up in avionics was the mid-late 80's HOBS capability on MiG-29s, and even that was a WVR leg up, not BVR.

The rest of the avionics in both the MiG-29 and Su-27 were mostly a pilot workload and information flow nightmare.

File: All the other kids.jpg (152KB, 680x650px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 680x650px

>>31785216
ur super flous

>>31785229
>The rest of the avionics in both the MiG-29 and Su-27 were mostly a pilot workload and information flow nightmare.

Can you elaborate?

File: b6f237f8e4f7cf6f1a973babd68a536b[1].jpg (152KB, 980x636px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 980x636px

>>31785893
Mig-29 Cockpit.

>>31785953
Aand? Only burgers need everything on 1 screen, that's simply retarded

File: f15c cockpit.jpg (198KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 800x600px

>>31785953
Not being a pilot, it seems just as busy as this

>>31779840
Pixy tried in a better plane and I am still here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp41XvdB_o4

File: Cockpit_of_Sukhoi_Su-27_2[1].jpg (3MB, 2250x1430px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1430px

>>31785893
Su-27

>>31785984
For primary flight systems, maybe. For sensors and weapons systems, very much no. Consider how cleanly the MFD communicates radar information at a glance. Meanwhile both the MiG-29 and Su-27 are designed for GCI (ground controlled intercept), which means the Soviets didn't think the pilots needed all the situational awareness information which western pilots take for a given. This philosophy carried over to cockpit design.

Read the following articles (yes, I know, foxtrot alpha, but this is one of the direct interview good ones), and note what they say about the sensors, nav and pilot workload for the MiG-29:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
>FWS/aggressor pilot of F-15s, F-16s and MiG-29s. Fascinating article.

http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm
>Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilot discusses cost/benefit points for the aircraft

>>31781547
When did you get the chance to see that?

>>31786049
>>31785984
>>31785953
Notice how the F-15 has key differences in its HUD, MFD, RWR and radar display. (Side note, that F-15 photo is not entirely accurate as it looks like a screenshot from the Falcon 4.0, the information displayed on the radar screen especially reflects F-16 rather than F-15 avionics)

First of all, F-15's radar display and HUD are entirely separate. A Su-27 or MiG-29 pilot has to designate targets using his radar on the HUD whereas an F-15 pilot can view, select and target using his radar on an entirely separate display to his HUD. This means that the f-15 pilot has more access to flight information than a Su-27 or MiG-29 pilot while he is designating a target. It's a minor increase in situational awareness, but everything counts. Secondly, the F-15 has a far more advanced, and therefore, simpler to understand RWR display. It sounds counterintuitive but hear me out. The f-15s RWR is a single cathode ray scope and it contains information on the spike's range, azimouth, source and whether its a search or a targeting radar at a single point. On the su-27/MiG-29 RWR, range is not displayed at all. Azimouth, source, and whether it is a track or search radar are all displayed on different sets of mechanical lights, and the pilot does a lot more work interpreting this infirmation as his eyes are darting between different points if the RWR and he must interpret each display in an entirely different manner. Again, the f-15 pilot saves vital time and is given a whole lot more information about precisely who is lighting him up, and whether they're a threat or not.
Finally, the MFD. A Su-27/MiG-29 MFD only display basic navigation information. An f-15s MFD displays navigation, weapons systems information, and a whole lot more on the same display. If a MiG-29 pilot wants to know the status of his missiles he must look to an entirely different part of his cockpit.Across the board, an f-15 pilot saves time and sees far more info.

File: PGM_Hecate.jpg (240KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1280x853px

*teleports behind you*

It was a Deathclaw kid, heh....

File: pdlmf001 (1).jpg (289KB, 1325x884px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1325x884px

Soviet air combat was based around ground control telling the pilots where to go and where the targets were. I'm sure they have tried to adjust their newer models to better avionics once they were able to buy from the west, but now that they can't again.......

>>31788134
comfy 10/10 would live here

>>31788141
this is the italian designed one right?

>>31788155
No

>>31788175
Can they even get avionics and engines for it anymore? The Avionics were imports, not blocked by sanctions, and the engines were made in Ukraine, now blocked by Ukraine.

File: yak-130 camo.jpg (304KB, 1452x913px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1452x913px

>>31788155
No, it is Russian designed.

>>31788196
Nope turns out Italy helped design the airframe ivan.

>he Yakovlev Yak-130 (NATO reporting name: Mitten)[7] is a subsonic two-seat advanced jet trainer or lead-in fighter trainer originally developed by Yakovlev and Aermacchi.

>>31788195
>The Avionics were imports
Nope.
>and the engines were made in Ukraine
Saturn engines definitely arent from Ukraine.

>>31788195
http://vpk-news.ru/news/24874
They do not need Ukrainians to produce the engines and I'm pretty sure the same goes for avionics.

>>31788218
Yep. Looks like they were developed by KRET.

>The aircraft performed a flight with advanced digital avionics suite developed by KRET in June 2014.

Engine is a Ukrainian design, looks like Saturn was able to reproduce them just last year, so they are back in production. I wonder if they are now buying chinese avionics for it?

File: yak-130 red.jpg (174KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1500x1013px

>>31788205
No, it did not, Eugene. They completed the design before Italy got involved in the project.
>Development of Yak-UTS started in 1991 and the design was completed in September 1993.
>The same year, Yakovlev entered an agreement with the Italian company Aermacchi to work together on the plane, which now became Yak/AEM-130.

>>31788229
Woops my bad, KRET is russian.

>>31780484

THIS IS TOO LEWD

MODS

>>31780484
B-belka strong?

>>31788243
Oh, but KRET used western made avonics and it's built using 1553 databus, a USA developed avionic protocol. PROBLEM!

>>31788267
>Oh, but KRET used western made avonics
Not necessary specifically western made.
>using 1553 databus, a USA developed avionic protocol.
Its a protocol, mang. And it is necessary for potential export.

>>31786201
Foxtrot Alpha actually had a few decent articles. Tyler did some good work. But now that he's left, its gone to shit

>>31788229
Engine is both Ukrainian and Russian, it was developed as a joint venture of Progress and Salut. Salut just started to produce it without Progress after shit hit the fan.

File: 1452871092587.jpg (24KB, 486x571px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 486x571px

>>31783456

>>31788294
Well no. Progress designed the engine and licences production out to Salut to help meet demand.

File: 1360838054019.jpg (22KB, 311x311px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 311x311px

>>31783674

File: su-34.jpg (257KB, 1400x946px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1400x946px

>>31788152

>>31788305
Yep, looks like you're right. However it is based on AI-22 engine for Tu-324 project, development of which in turn involved Kazan Aircraft Production Association.

>>31780484
I want to FUCK that plane

>>31788030
>>31788041
>>31788053
>>31788060
>>31788060
>>31788074
>>31788086
>>31788095
>>31788114
>>31788122
Good. Now go look up when each of those variants was actually produced, and if earlier in the timeline (pre 2005, say), how many of them were actually built or upgraded from earlier airframes.

Not a single one of those was built or designed in the 1980's, which is the time period we are discussing.

>>31783068
>tfw I forgot to save the ahegao F-35 logo

File: detailed briefing, comrade colonel.jpg (239KB, 1179x786px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1179x786px

>>31788570
>MiG-29M
>MiG-29K
>Su-30
>Su-34
>Not designed and built in the 80s
Okay, mate.

>>31788661

>hurr durr planes don't receive upgrades.

File: su-27sm.jpg (172KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1920x1080px

>>31789203
That's an absolute opposite of what I was saying.

File: >DIGITAL_SPO-15.jpg (120KB, 640x453px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 640x453px

No matter how many screens you slap on those Sukhois, it's still fucking SPO-15. Pic related:
>D I G I T A L SPO-15

File: 1459803404214.jpg (202KB, 1434x993px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1434x993px

>>31790102
But seriously, I really hope they aren't still using that shitty RWR on newly made planes.

>>31779840
>personal

>>31788661
>Okay, mate.
Jesus Christ. Do we really need to do this? Why are you fucking morons such low info cunts?

When the birds in those pics received the cockpit upgrades/version:
>MiG-29M
First appeared Farnsboro Airshow 1994 (unclear how complete it was at this time), didn't enter service anywhere until the mid 2000s, only 40 total SMT/UBT models in Russian service, practically a new bird for the number of upgrades and new multirole mission.

>MiG-29M2
See above, later model. Didn't start entering service until the very late 2000s.

>MiG-29SMT
The upgrade package for MiG-29 to MiG-29M (ish) standards designed for export birds. Again, mid-late 2000s.

>MiG-35
An even later development from the MiG-29M base model, first flew 2007

>MiG-31BM/BSM
Work didn't even begin on the BM upgrades until 1997. First "public" reveal in 1999. Flight testing concluded 2006. Didn't enter service until 2012, with the first 15 upgraded MiG-31 baseline airframes (yes. That's right. 15 fucking years for an upgrade package).

>Su-27SM
Not received by the VVS before 2006.

>Su-30M2
Russia recieved the first four in 2009 (basically evaluator/prototypes/trainers) and then another 8 in 2012. Not sure how many they have to date, but not more than 20 or so if more than 12. Mostly trainers now.

As for these four you posted:
>MiG-29M
>MiG-29K
>Su-30
>Su-34
look at my fucking post again. I listed none of them except the MiG-29M, and you can see above on that. Saying that was built in the 80's is fucking retarded. All the rest are specifically noted in the photograph filenames and cockpit features to clearly be later variants. But since you bring them up:

>MiG-29K
Technically first flew in 1988, first serial production in 2005, but didn't enter service until 2010 (India ordered 2004, weren't delivered until Dec. 2009) and what entered service then didn't look much like what first flew in '88, especially where the cockpit was concerned.

CONT

>>31788661
>>31790978
>Su-30
First flew new years eve 1989 as the Su-27PU. Not introduced until 1996. When it was introduced, it certainly didn't have the Su-30MKI cockpit bells and whistles.

>Su-34
First flew 1990. Finally introduced to service in 2014. If you think the 2014 cockpit looks anything like the 1990 cockpit, you're a fucking moron.

Someday I will understand why you Vatniks pretend with this bullshit, but today is not that day.

File: ka-52 cockpit.jpg (167KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x694px

>>31790978
>>31790993
>Being this rectum annihilated over pictures
Firstly, MiG-29M upgrade was initiated in 1982 and resulted in a first flight in 1984. Secondly, MiG-29K development was initiated in 1984 based on technologies implemented in MiG-29M and resulted in a first flight in 1988. Thirdly, the development of Su-30 as a command aircraft based on Su-27UB with upgraded avionics and CRT installed in the cockpit was initiated in the mid 80s and resulted in a first flight in 1988. Fourthly, Su-34 development as Su-27IB with upgraded avionics and cockpit was initiated in 1986 and resulted in a first flight in 1990. All these were developed and built in the 80s no matter how hard you cry.
Next, I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
And finally, stay mad.

>>31791881
>Early tech demo and prototypes = operational aircraft

File: 1424031137101.png (536KB, 800x801px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 800x801px

>>31788622
This isn't ahegao.

>>31790102
>it's still fucking SPO-15
No, it's not.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/529/530/

File: detailed briefing, comrade colonel2.jpg (71KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 900x600px

>>31791963
>Various aircraft developed and built in the 80s were actually not developed and built in the 80s because a mad shitposter on /k feels like that
Okay mate.

File: 1477104609144.png (632KB, 1006x1007px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1006x1007px

>>31788622
Here friend

The Su-27 is actually quite a bit easier on a pilot than the F-15c

You don't need to look down at another screen to use the radar as targets are also displayed on the main HUD as well as the targeting pipper.
Another other nice thing is the HMD targeting unit, shame the engine and fuel systems are shit or it would be a much more capable dogfighter.
It also has better autopilot and the systems between all the Russian planes are very similar if not the same in most cases

>>31792645
Lightning's face when you give her your AMRAAM up her exhaust port

>>31793502
Meanwhile in the real world the F-15 is 105.5:0, and the Flanker has barely seen any combat, and even then it only killed Mig-29s.

>Thinks look-down shoot-down is a negative point in 4th Gen

>>31791881
>MiG-29M upgrade was initiated in 1982 and resulted in a first flight in 1984
And of course you have proof that the prototype cockpits featured the same cockpits that eventually made it into service 12 YEARS LATER, right? Right?

>Secondly, MiG-29K development was initiated in 1984 based on technologies implemented in MiG-29M and resulted in a first flight in 1988
Once more, a single shred of proof that the prototype even had working sensors much less the full MFD cockpit seen in the last decade in 19-fucking-88?

>the development of Su-30 as a command aircraft based on Su-27UB with upgraded avionics and CRT installed in the cockpit was initiated in the mid 80s and resulted in a first flight in 1988.
Why are you so insistent on pretending any of these aircraft were operational in the 1980s? The Su-27PU didn't even have its first prototype flight until the very last day of 1989 and wasn't operational until 1996. Fuck outta here with this bullshit.

>All these were developed and built in the 80s no matter how hard you cry.
Not a single one was operational until well into the 1990s, and for the most part none of the cockpit pictures you show were current before the mid to late 2000's. Vatnik denial does not change these simple facts.

>Next, I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
So I guess we'll just go ahead and ignore the evidence of every single pilot who flew both Western and Soviet aircraft from the 50's to 90's, then? Ok. Go fuck yourself.

>>31793502
Easier to pilot =/= easier to win fights in

File: mig-29k 9.31.jpg (48KB, 620x429px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x429px

>>31794259
>MiG-29M
>made it into service
MiG-29M never made it into service, retard. The proof it had the cockpit it had is the picture of the cockpit.
>a single shred of proof that the prototype even had working sensors
The original MiG-29K had technologies of MiG-29M. The proof it had the cockpit it had is once again the picture of the cockpit. As well as the fact that it vastly differs from the current operational MiG-29K variant cockpit.
>Why are you so insistent on pretending any of these aircraft were operational in the 1980s?
Where did I say they were in service in the 80s?
>Not a single one was operational until well into the 1990s
Every single one was developed and built in the 80s.
>none of the cockpit pictures you show were current before the mid to late 2000's
>Various aircraft developed and built in the 80s were actually not developed and built in the 80s because a mad shitposter on /k feels like that
Okay mate.
>the evidence of every single pilot who flew both Western and Soviet aircraft from the 50's to 90's
As in East German MiG monkey model and that would be about it. No, anon. You go fuck yourself, you pretentious aggressive shitposting piece of shit.

>>31795954
>As in East German MiG monkey model and that would be about it.
So the Polish MiG-29s, the 17 Moldovian MiG-29s the US purchased in 1997, the dozen countries who are NATO members or friendly now, none of those exist, right?

Do you actually know anything? At all?

>>31795954
>Every single one was developed and built in the 80s.
Saying the MiG-35 was built in the '80s is retarded.
Saying the Su-34 was built in the 80's, considering how changed it was from prototype to operational aircraft, is retarded.
Saying the MiG-31BM was designed and built in the 80's is retarded.
Saying the MiG-29M2 was designed or built in the 80's is fucking retarded.
Saying the Su-30M2 was designed or built in the 80's is completely fucking retarded.

Remember, my delusional vatnik friend, saying it over and over again does not automatically make it less retarded. The interwebs isn't your fairy fucking godmother, and pretending that basic facts are otherwise rightfully only earns you ridicule.

>>31783486
if you saw it, that means it turned off its stealth and put the engines on loud mode too probably

File: THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-–-Air-to-air-losses-–-Losses-to-ground-fire.png (2MB, 2473x4847px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2473x4847px

>>31795954
>As in East German MiG monkey model and that would be about it. No, anon. You go fuck yourself, you pretentious aggressive shitposting piece of shit.
>>31791881
>Next, I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
Daily reminder that the only Soviet/Russian jet fighter EVER BUILT with a kill loss ratio over 1 (more kills than losses) is the Su-27, and only then because it was killing MiG-29s, not up against western fighters.

Meanwhile, you have to go back to jets which were obsolete in Korea to find US built fighter jets with a kill/loss A2A ratio less than 1 (more losses than kills) with the sole exception of the F-104, which saw almost no A2A combat. Even the F-100 and F-105 hold even or better in A2A.

This myth that the Soviet Air Force was somehow superior to the USAF much less all of NATO is ridiculous. The proof is there for all to see.

File: mig 21 professzor.jpg (126KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x581px

>>31796661
So the Polish MiG-29s, the 17 Moldovian MiG-29s the US purchased in 1997, the dozen countries who are NATO members or friendly now, none of those exist, right?

The fact that you don't know basically all of those fulcrums are 9.12a export versions speaks volumes about your understanding of soviet air tech. They were the same aircraft with different flags, you mongoloid.

>>31796870
The Indians have taken their Su-30MKIs TO THE US to fly at Red Flag, jackass.

Also, we were discussing aircraft actually operational before the mid to late 90s. You're bringing up prototypes with no proof the avionics and sensors were actually fully operational for planes which weren't operational for, in some cases, DECADES later.

What the fuck, anon?

Fine. Find a SINGLE SOURCE for an actual pilot who flew both US and Soviet jets suggesting Soviet pilot workload, cockpit design or pilot situational awareness was anywhere close to as good as it was in US jets. Just a single direct, primary source.

As I said all the way up here, WHERE I ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOURCES, the only example is the MiG-29 HOBS capability, and even then it needs a miracle to make it to WVR combat. See >>31785229 >>31786201

Provide a source or fuck directly off.

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>31796870
>basically all of those fulcrums are 9.12a export versions
14 of those Moldavian MiG-29s were 9.13 MiG-29S "Fulcrum C" models, dumbass.

>The MiG-29S, given the NATO reporting code "Fulcrum-C", features flight control system improvements; a total of four new computers provide better stability augmentation and controllability with an increase of 2° in angle of attack (AoA). An improved mechanical-hydraulic flight control system allows for greater control surface deflections. The MiG-29S has a dorsal hump, which led to its nickname "Fatback", houses the L-203BE Gardenyia-1 ECM system. The MiG-29S can carry 1,150 liter (304 US gallon, 2,000 lb) under wing drop tanks and a centerline tank. The inboard underwing hardpoints allow a tandem pylon arrangement for carrying a larger payload of 4,000 kg (8,820 lb). Overall maximum gross weight has been raised to 20,000 kg (44,000 lb). Built only for domestic use. Early MiG-29S featured an IRST sighting system; the MiG-29S improvement kit includes the Phazotron N019M radar and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) to reduce dependence on ground support equipment; MiG MAPO designates this as MiG-29SD. Improvements to software and processing capabilities enables the tracking of up to 10 targets and the simultaneous engagement of two with the R-77 missile. The MiG-29S also has a limited ground-attack capability.

What was that you were saying about understanding of Soviet air tech?

File: 12369178_906880129388249_6943077809698755703_n.jpg (68KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x960px

>>31796862
>Daily reminder that the only Soviet/Russian jet fighter EVER BUILT with a kill loss ratio over 1 (more kills than losses) is the Su-27, and only then because it was killing MiG-29s, not up against western fighters.

>soviet export aircraft exclusively flown by sandniggers or real niggers against either eachother or against the US Air force/Navy/Marines

>figthing without proper support assets against better trained and supported pilots (mainly talking about sit. awarenes due to AWACS presence)

Every time I see victories against sand people, niggers or gooks used as legitimate arguments on how a war (air or ground) between NATO and the WP would have went down, I die a little inside.

For real get your heads out of your asses.

>>31796870
>9.12a export versions
Holy shit, anon. Taking muh monkey model delusions to new heights, I see.

>>31796958
>Durr, it doesn't count because...
No, stop right there and go fuck yourself.

RUSSIAN TECH BTFO
It doesn't surprise me really when you see the Kutz smoking like a crackhead in a backalley

>>31796958
>Every time I see victories against sand people, niggers or gooks used as legitimate arguments on how a war (air or ground) between NATO and the WP would have went down, I die a little inside.
>For real get your heads out of your asses.
The last time Soviets pilots went up against the USAF, it was Korea. The Soviets sent their best pilots. The USAF sent their regular pilots. Between the F-86 and MiG-15 flown by Soviet pilots, the US still maintained a positive kill ratio. Period.

Finally, if it was just about "sand people" then the export F-16s, F-15s, F-4s, F-14s etc. would have been much worse outside US service. Instead, the majority of the A2A kills for the F-14 were made by "sand people" Iranian pilots. The majority of F-15 kills were made by "sand people" Israeli pilots. The F-4s performed very well through their whole service life. Etc.

In fact, looking at India-Pakistan we see equal pilots on both sides flying similar tactics, but the only Western-Soviet matchup which was not an overwhelming US advantage was the F-104 VS MiG-21 fight. Even that was most a draw.

You can scream "monkey models" all you want, but until you provide a single REAL WORLD EXAMPLE of this supposed Soviet superiority, you're just trying to fart upwind. The combat records more than speak for themselves.

File: 1477079135877.jpg (445KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1920x1200px

Why are MIGs so beautiful?

I just want to look into her sensors and tell her that everything is all right, that she is the best warbird in the sky and we will crush the capitalists together.

;_;

>>31797004
Let's not forget
>Soviets send their own squadrons down to face off against Israeli's
>get shrekt by US tech and sand people

>>31783674
Newfags get out REEEEE

File: naval su34 prototype.jpg (166KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1280x848px

>>31796915
>The Indians have taken their Su-30MKIs TO THE US to fly at Red Flag, jackass.

you mean the same red flag where they mentioned during a debrief that the Su30MKI was superior to contemporary F15s and 16s in terms of armament, radar, manuverability and only surpassed by the Raptor (and Lightnig), and that when given enough training, pilots flying the 30 will be able to beat the eagle and viper on a regular basis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKBi66g6nOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w91FEykjlUg

Also, I'm not the same guy you've been arguing with before.

>>31797004
>You can scream "monkey models" all you want
The thing I always love about that argument is that they think it somehow makes things look any better. That the Russians only ever give their allies bottom-of-the-barrel equipment incapable of actually performing well.

Of course there's a degree of downgrading equipment (the US does it too), but if your monkey models aren't actually useful in combat, you've got a pretty shitty plane. Because let's face it - the "real" models Russia operates aren't ever going to see combat.

>>31797246
>the US does it too
Not necessarily. The most advanced F-16s in service right now belong to the UAE and their E/F Block 60 Desert Falcons.

>>31779840
i don't get it what am i looking at

it's just a blank picture

>>31797281
You've still got ITAR restrictions on what we can export, as well as past instances where we've restricted even the aircraft we were handing out to people (like Ethiopia getting F-5s instead of the F-4s they wanted)

>>31797127
>contemporary F15s and 16s
Are you kidding right now? The first Su-30MKI entered service in 2004. The LAST USAF F-15C was built in 1985. Yes, it's been upgraded over time, but that's nothing compared to the differences between the Su-27 and Su-30MKI. Similarly, the LAST USAF F-16C Block 50/52 was built in 1998.

If there's a contemporary for the Su-30MKI, it's the F-22, which entered service only one year after it. Do you really want to make that comparison?

>>31780484
thick

>>31783243
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/25/back_end_flameout_roasts_f35_on_runway/

>>31797764
>last build dates of eagle/vipers
Are you retarded?
They're contemporaries in the sense that F15 and 16 still make up the majority of USAF, inventory regardless of their age.
And besides, the flanker and fulcrum airframe has basically not changed since the late 80s. The only thing relevant here is the internals, radar, avionics, software, weapons.

File: 1477023413594.gif (50KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 633x758px

>>31797081
T-that doesn't count! The pilots themselves were monkey models!

>>31797923
please stop shitposting you lost faggot

>>31785984
>squawking 9830

>>31796661
No, so you should learn the differences between Fulcrum models and stop bringing up monkey models in the discussion about Soviet modifications.
>>31796686
I'm talking about the ones developed and built int he 80s, which is the point that you are desperately trying to argue for whatever reason. You can't even imagine how pathetic your whining it, faggot. MiG-29M, MiG-29K, Su-30 and Su-34 all were designed and built in the 80s. Deal with it. Like I have already said, I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad. Bringing them up in this context only further proves how much of a pathetic little mad demagogue cunt you are.
>>31796862
Daily reminder that US lost 10000 aircraft in Vietnam.
>>31797081
>Mirage
>US tech
It's called an ambush. Daily reminder that in the Yom Kippur War towelheads slaughtered yid air force that was using actual US tech.

>>31797906
>They're contemporaries in the sense that F15 and 16 still make up the majority of USAF, inventory regardless of their age.
Compare actual operational numbers of advanced Su-27 family airframes within the Russian air force or Indian air force to operational numbers of F-22s.

What was that you were saying?

>>31797906
>And besides, the flanker and fulcrum airframe has basically not changed since the late 80s.
This is retarded and you should feel bad. Major engine upgrades, avionics redesigns, control system redesigns, mission focus priorities and retrofits, significant external additions/adjustments and pylon compatibility changes have all occurred. Are you completely ignorant on this topic?

>The only thing relevant here is the internals, radar, avionics, software, weapons.
Which are all completely redesigned and updated in the Su-30MKI. The F-15C today compared to the ones built in 1985 are nowhere near as comprehensively updated, especially in flight control and processing power. This is partially because the F-15C was so much superior in most of the areas you listed in 1985, but also because the F-22 and now F-35 came out. There's no need for the kind of complete airframe redesign/update that the Su-30MKI represents.

File: Eagle shit.jpg (181KB, 1842x1074px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1842x1074px

>>31798419
>No, so you should learn the differences between Fulcrum models and stop bringing up monkey models in the discussion about Soviet modifications.
9.13 MiG-29S. Monkey Model. Ok.

>I'm talking about the ones developed and built int he 80s
No, you're not. See >>31788570. You posted an entire set of pictures of aircraft or cockpit upgrades which weren't complete before well into the 2000's/2010's, and then argued that very early prototypes with no operational capability were somehow the same thing as basic standard aircraft in Western service.

>You can't even imagine how pathetic your whining it, faggot.
I'm sorry the facts disagree with your self-worth.

>MiG-29M, MiG-29K, Su-30 and Su-34 all were designed and built in the 80s.
See >>31790978 >>31790993. Once again, for the complete retard:
Su-34 didn't enter service until 2014. Yes, a prototype flew in 1990, but you arguing as if that basic prototype cockpit looked anything like the pic you posted here >>31788316 is pants on head retarded.

MiG-29K first entered serial production in 2005, and didn't enter service until 2010. Again, arguing first flight prototype in '88 as if it were at all relevant is retarded.

Su-30 wasn't in service until 1996. Again, the cockpit of the Su-27PU which flew on the very last day of the '80s was a significant step down from what eventually entered service.

The MiG-29M didn't enter service as the MiG-29SMT/UBT until the mid 2000s, and the first basic prototype wasn't even seen until Farnsboro '94.

Maybe instead of continuing to scream and cry like an autist you can actually provide sources that ANY of these aircraft were operational before the dates stated above?

>I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
Including the Su-34, MiG-29K or MiG-29M is just as retarded. You posted the rest as if they were valid criticism. Now you cry because you got facefucked for it. Delicious.

CONT

File: Fuck you Checkov.jpg (28KB, 490x371px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 490x371px

>>31798559
>>31798419
>Bringing them up in this context only further proves how much of a pathetic little mad demagogue cunt you are.
I'm sorry, have we struck a nerve my little delusional shitbasket?

>Daily reminder that US lost 10000 aircraft in Vietnam.
Daily reminder that Soviet aircraft have NEVER been able to achieve air superiority over US built aircraft with the sole exception of a couple weeks between India-Pakistan. Neither Soviet aircraft nor A2AD systems have ever stopped the USAF from imposing its will. Keep crying, keep trying to revise history, Vatnik.

>Daily reminder that in the Yom Kippur War towelheads slaughtered yid air force that was using actual US tech.
Daily reminder that it worked once. The very first time they ever saw what would become modern A2AD systems and doctrine, they got hammered. It never worked again. Not once.

Keep trying, my assmad vodka-pickled friend.

>>31798419
By this argument the F-22 was completely designed and built in the 1980s, and the first prototype YF-22/YF-23 cockpit operated just like the first IOC birds.

By this argument the B-2 was completely designed and built by 1981.

This argument should be taken out back and shot in the head. Repeatedly.

None of the cockpits you posted were in operational use until the late 90s, most of them the late 2000s.

Stop being autistic.

>>31797906
>They're contemporaries in the sense that F15 and 16 still make up the majority of USAF, inventory regardless of their age.
>USAF
187 operational F-22s

>IAF
241 Su-30MKI

>Russian Air Force/VVS
48 Su-35
321 Su-27/30

Seem pretty contemporary to me. They're all the top tier aircraft of their respective air forces, and all only a portion of their total respective air forces.

Your argument sucks.

>>31798559
>>31798566
9.12 is the monkey model that every single "evidence of every single pilot who flew both Western and Soviet aircraft" references to.
>No, you're not.
Yes, I am. See >>31788661 and >>31791881.
>See
Once again, for a complete imbecile. MiG-29M, MiG-29K, Su-30 and Su-34 all were designed and built in the 80s. Su-34 did have different cockpit, but it was glass cockpit with 3 MFD nevertheless. MiG-29K uses technology from MiG-29M. Both had MFD. Su-30 had CRT.
>The MiG-29M didn't enter service as the MiG-29SMT/UBT until the mid 2000s
MiG-29M never entered service, retard.
>Including the Su-34, MiG-29K or MiG-29M is just as retarded.
Your pitiful attempts to deny they all were developed and built in the 80s in just retarded. No matter how hard you squeal the opposite, the objective reality will not change.
>You posted the rest as if they were valid criticism
Once again for a complete idiot like you, I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
>Daily reminder that Soviet aircraft
didn't suffer 5 digit number losses.
>Daily reminder that it worked once
Daily reminder that it worked because for once the US or its lapdogs attacked someone with contemporary equipment. And got fucking butchered.
>>31798598
This is not an argument about F-22 or B-2, my little silly demagogue. Try harder.

File: my fucking face when.jpg (91KB, 400x461px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 400x461px

>>31798566

>Neither Soviet aircraft nor A2AD systems have ever stopped the USAF from imposing its will.
>small countries with various degrees of soviet support can't stop a superpower with complete information/situational superiority from imposing its will
Gee fucking wizz what a surprise.


>daily reminder that it worked once

2 conventional armies go at eachother in proper combined arms combat, and even the arabs manage to fuck israel up hard before they're idiotic enough to outrun their own fucking air cover.

so yes, soviet air defence doctrine actually worked when you were not a complete fucking retard with the operational art knowlege of a 5 year old autistic child.

>>31798867
>9.12 is the monkey model that every single "evidence of every single pilot who flew both Western and Soviet aircraft" references to.
That's a nice blanket statement with zero sources. Especially when the US had several flyable 9.13 models working as aggressors and testers for over a decade.

>Su-34 did have different cockpit, but it was glass cockpit with 3 MFD nevertheless
Which were completely dead and useless. It didn't even have rudimentary fire control systems installed and connected until the first "production standard" model flew in December 1994. This was two complete prototypes in, by the way: Su-27IB or T-10V, which flew Dec. 31, 1989 and T-10V2 on Dec. 18, 1993 were both earlier and little more than flight demonstrators. Between these three models there were massive changes across the board. WHICH BY THE WAY HIGHLIGHTS THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR THINKING ON THIS MATTER. None of these aircraft were remotely complete in the 80s.

>MiG-29K uses technology from MiG-29M
And wasn't produced until 2005. Why are we completely ignoring this?

>MiG-29M never entered service, retard.
Reading comprehension, dipshit. The MiG-29SMT and UBT both did. There are 40 of them currently in the VVS.

>developed and built in the 80s in just retarded.
Sure. In the same way the F-22 was complete and totally functional in Sept. 1990 when the YF-22 first flew. Your argument makes the same sort of sense, which is not a fucking bit.

>I posted the rest just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
This is fact. They've always been behing the West overall. There's not a single serious historian or military historian who would remotely argue this point. The fact that you do just shows your ass. Maybe you should actually try providing sources to back your bullshit?

>And got fucking butchered.
Gotta love this argument. This retarded Vatnik can literally only find ONE conflict over the last 70 years to crow about.

>>31798867
>This is not an argument about F-22 or B-2, my little silly demagogue. Try harder.
You are literally arguing that first flight prototypes were somehow completely operational war machines with the full capabilities of the aircraft they became, in one case, 24 years later.

This argument isn't about anything. Logic and rational analysis left it a long time ago.

>>31798867

> didn't suffer 5 digit number losses.

Never operated in a high intensity environment for a prolonged period against an opponent with IADS.

You have to actually use things in combat in order to lose them.

> Your pitiful attempts to deny they all were developed and built in the 80s in just retarded. No matter how hard you squeal the opposite, the objective reality will not change.

The airframe was designed and tested in the 80's the avionics were not. This is completely normal, since avionics take longer to develop, and you can retrofit avionics much more easily than making changes to the airframe.

A much better indication of Soviet avionics is comparing the top of the line fighters in 1985; Su-27S and F-15C. Everyone has pretty prototypes ready way before they are ready to be fielded.

That said, Soviet Avionics did lag, and it lagged throughout the entire cold war.

Compare
F-86 vs Mig 15 bis
F-104 vs Mig 21
F-4 vs Mig 23
F-15A vs Mig 23 MLD
F-15C vs Su-27S

>>31798983
>Gee fucking wizz what a surprise.
Keep rolling those excuses out, junior. If you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will eventually stick.

>so yes, soviet air defence doctrine actually worked when you were not a complete fucking retard with the operational art knowlege of a 5 year old autistic child.
It worked once. And then the world developed SEAD tactics and equipment. And it's never stopped an air force again.

How are you still arguing this?

>>31799064
>This argument isn't about anything. Logic and rational analysis left it a long time ago.
There's no point in continuing, really. This particular vatnik will argue a thread to its bump limit and beyond because victory to him is getting the last word in even if it's little more than NO U or some inane shitpost.

>>31779840
CAN'T TURN

>>31799083
It didn't even stop the Israelis for long. The Shrike turned out to be at least comparatively shit, but the AGM-78 was very effective, and by the end of the war most Egyptian and Syrian SAM batteries were destroyed. Most Israeli casualties to ground fire only came in the first couple of days.

>>31779840
CAN'T CLIMB

>>31779840
CAN'T RUN

File: 20 shilkas.jpg (151KB, 455x300px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 455x300px

>>31799083
>excuses
Last time I checked its you desperately trying to validate your favorite air force's superiority based on experiences fighting vastly inferior foes. Its also you who dismisses the only military experience that is in any way relevant to how large scale conventional, combined arms war would have played out in europe as a "singular incident"

>And then the world developed SEAD tactics and equipment. And it's never stopped an air force again.

Oh yes, because wild weasels totally didn't exists before or during 1973.

SEAD has been a thing since the mid 60s, and has only ever managed to shut down any air defence system partially, and those air defence systems were nowhere near the levels of sophistication or complexity you would have seen the soviets employ in a relevant war.

>>31799167
>>31799183
>>31799192
Go back to your soaps, Sprey.

File: F-16A cockpit operational 1979.jpg (550KB, 1200x912px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1200x912px

>>31799207
>Last time I checked its you desperately trying to validate your favorite air force's superiority based on experiences fighting vastly inferior foes.
No. The discussion started with a simple statement of the absolute, verifiable fact that Russian avionics, pilot workload and pilot situational awareness were behind US standard. To that end, pic related.

1/4

File: F-15C cockpit operational 1979.jpg (203KB, 800x925px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 800x925px

>>31799227
2/4

File: just better.jpg (60KB, 440x438px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 440x438px

>>31799225
Whatchu call me?

File: MiG-29 cockpit operational 1982.jpg (218KB, 1000x689px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1000x689px

>>31799248
3/4

>>31799207
>Implying the US hasn't had constant development in IADS systems for naval use
>Implying US systems aren't superior and give better insight in how to fight them
>Implying it isn't trivial for the US to get second-hand Russian systems
>Implying Vatnik sperging about "muh S-400" isn't an act of desperation to try to hold onto their weak, easily bruised ultramasculinity

>>31799260
I called you an old wannabe liar who has never been right or as involved in US aircraft as he claims.

>>31799289
Hehe, that's probably true.

>>31799261
4/4
Pic actually already posted here >>31786049
from a baseline Su-27 operational starting 1985.

Now. Look at the two US aircraft. Then look at the two Soviet aircraft. Then realize the Soviet aircraft were years later. These are the ACTUAL OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT the two powers were using in the 1980s.

>>31799207
>>31799227
>>31799248
>>31799261
>>31799306
Notice how far behind the Soviets were in just about everything. Information flow, task flow, sensor displays, comms operation simplicity, even visual horizon.

You can keep saying all you like about supposed Soviet parity or even superiority, but the proof is in the pudding.

>>31788316
Damn that looks comfy, just cruising with your bro

Why are you assholes still arguing this? This >>31787222 anon already completely broke it down, correctly and clearly.

Only a moron would argue that Soviet avionics were somehow equal or superior to western equivalents, especially in the 80s.

>>31799329
Don't forget about the absolutely craptastic soviet manufacturing processes.

File: fulcrum cockpit.jpg (616KB, 2400x3344px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 2400x3344px

>>31799227
>>31799306
>pilot workload/sit awareness

I won't argue that pilot workload was higher in soviet planes, but nowhere near to the extent you claim it to be. The Beryoza was inferior to american RWR, but when you understand how the system works, you can employ it effectively.
AWACS was a thing in the mid 80s and before that GCI was providing picture.

Flankers and Fulcrums also had datalink capability in the 80s, Flankers having AWACS/Fighter-Fighter with a proper tactical display on the MFD and Fulcrum having GCI-Fighter datalink.

>>31799261
you could at least put in more effort than a 2 second google search to verify what you're uploading.
Thats a mig-23 cockpit.

File: B-2 cockpit.jpg (474KB, 1582x1229px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1582x1229px

>>31788316
Hilarious how the vatnik thinks this is somehow impressive, considering this aircraft didn't enter service until 2014. Meanwhile, back on first flight 1989, in service in 1997, pic related was going on in the USAF.

>>31799517
>Flankers and Fulcrums also had datalink capability in the 80s, Flankers having AWACS/Fighter-Fighter with a proper tactical display on the MFD and Fulcrum having GCI-Fighter datalink.
Anon. Are you suggesting the US did not have these features, and at greater bandwidth?

>Thats a mig-23 cockpit.
Hu. So it is. Should have looked closer before posting it. Still, compare your pic to >>31799227. Point very much still stands.

>>31799517
>but when you understand how the system works, you can employ it effectively.
How does this argument make any sense when US systems were easier to understand at a glance AND their pilots got much more/better training?

File: su33_zenit.gif (76KB, 960x378px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 960x378px

*rockets into space*

>psh... too easy

File: 12657867_10153686842254760_2166472319224760571_o.jpg (203KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 2048x1365px

>>31799555
>Anon. Are you suggesting the US did not have these features, and at greater bandwidth?

Precisely. F15 and 16 didn't get proper AWACS-Fighter and Fighter-Fighter datalinks until Link16 rolled in in the 2000s.

File: B-52.jpg (134KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x768px

>>31788661
>hurr durr
>US had pic related in 1952

>>31799692
Jesus Christ, Vatnik. Read a fucking book. The US and NATO in general had Link4A since the late 50s, for fucks sake.

>>31799692
....what.

Link 4C. Link 11.

File: cant be this retarded.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>31799762
>>31799737
>aircraft in question are F15 and 16
>fatniks respond with US Navy datalink

*sigh*

>>31799849
>US Navy datalink
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Anon. Read a fucking book. LINK-4A. FITTED ACROSS THE US MILITARY SINCE THE 1950s. The Link-4C systems were F-14 only. Link-4A was on everything.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

>>31799849
>link 4
>navy

Lel

>>31799849
Why is russia so perfect?

>>31799692
>Precisely. F15 and 16 didn't get proper AWACS-Fighter and Fighter-Fighter datalinks until Link16 rolled in in the 2000s.
The Link-11/Link-4A tactical network was around decades before that. You should do some basic research before you post.

>>31799895

I inow you have to be very patriotic to fit into American society so I dont mran to offend but this is all derived extraterrestrial tech, you know

>>31799849
And the sheer irony of the vatnik's picture flies right over his vodka-addled head.

I actually looked it up, the F-16 was given data transfer capabilitys in the mid 80s, with block 25.

>>31799998
Check on when the F-4s and F-15s received the capability. Those were the primary air superiority platforms through the 70s and 80s for the USAF. Early in its service life, the F-16 was little more than a dayfighter/strike aircraft, not primary air superiority. The F-16 more than most was a case of capability expansion while in service.

>>31783570
Cool

>>31785231
No you

>>31799935
>Why is russia so perfect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrU1hZxSEXQ

File: MIDS.png (376KB, 1214x1640px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1214x1640px

>>31799895
>>31799917
>>31799962
>Link4A being relevant

Of the Link4s, only 4C was a useful datalink as we know it today. It gave the ability of radar picture transmission from E-2 to Tomcats. Link4A was a basic command type VECTOR datalink only meant to replace voice comms. This is old shit.

The soviets however in the 80s introduced FULL datalink on their modern aircraft. I'm talking Su27 and MiG31 integration with AWACS and other radars. Top down tactical situation view on the MFD provided by secondary sources. In flight targeting information ie: who is supposed to fire at which enemy.

They also provided engagement over datalink, which is full on Link16+ territory.
And this was in the mid 80s, you fucking retards.

The soviets really pioneered 2 things in aviation in the 80s. Thats aircraft mounted PESA and datalink integration.

>TL:DR the soviets had link 16 in the 80s

>>31800722
MiG-31's datalink is nowhere near the capability of Link16.

>>31800722
>Of the Link4s, only 4C was a useful datalink as we know it today.
We're talking about datalinks used back in the 1950s, anon. They didn't even have screens for radar sensor data on tactical aircraft the way we have them today.

>Link4A was a basic command type VECTOR datalink only meant to replace voice comms.
Not by the late 70's. It was upgraded many to many standards over the years. Also, Link-11 handled ship-AWACS-land installation datalink at a much, much higher bandwidth.

>This is old shit.
1950s, anon. The Soviets didn't have anything like it.

>The soviets however in the 80s introduced FULL datalink on their modern aircraft. I'm talking Su27 and MiG31 integration with AWACS and other radars.
Just like the F-16s, F-15s and F-4s had with Link-4A by the early-mid 80's? Yeah. The only reason Link-16 took so long was upping ENCRYPTED bandwidth and processing for automatic sensor picture distribution.

>Top down tactical situation view on the MFD provided by secondary sources.
This was complete on neither Soviet nor US aircraft in the 1980s beyond basic symobology indicating range and bearing with some altitude data. No heading/vectors, no localized weapons grade track like you seem to be implying.

>In flight targeting information ie: who is supposed to fire at which enemy.
The US was, again, here first. Processed through ship/AWACS CIC and distributed through Link-4A as early as 1977.

>They also provided engagement over datalink, which is full on Link16+ territory.
Only the MiG-31BM/BSM (first flew late-90s IIRC) with the RK-RLDN and APD-518, and only in very limited fashion compared to modern systems like MADL and most recent Link-16 updates. Once again, you are claiming upgrades and capabilities only present on much later airframes, in the Su-27 family's case not until much, much later.

CONT

>>31800722
>>31801755
>And this was in the mid 80s, you fucking retards.
No, it was not.

>Thats aircraft mounted PESA and datalink integration.
No. High Off Bore Sight capability for sure. Datalink was equal to or behind NATO at certain points in the Link-4A/Link-11 and Link-16 upgrade cycles, never really ahead. As for PESA, while the MiG-31 was certainly the first to mount it on a fighter, the US was the first to mount it on an aircraft and had been operating them on E-3s since 1977. The US also maintained an overall vast advantage in radar hardware and processing across all tactical platforms throughout the 1980's. Consider the F-14 and F-15 radar capabilities VS the Su-27; it's not even close.

>TL:DR the soviets had link 16 in the 80s
No, my Vatnik friend, they most certainly did not. Do your homework better.

>>31801755
>>31801762
>>31800029
>>31799962
>>31799329
>>31799081
>>31799055
>>31798813
>>31798559
>>31798566
>>31798436
>>31797764
>>31797004
>>31796947
>>31794259
>>31790978
>>31790993

Sometimes, /k/, you actually argue from a place of knowledge. As a USAFfag, it's times like these that I almost love you.

I really get tired of seeing the flood of revisionist/reductionist slavphile bullshit on here sometimes. Just blatant bullshit no one seems willing to call them on.

>lelelel WVR is dead
Yeah they said that in 60's too. Shut the fuck up. Real experts outside of this board full of retarded fatniks agree that with improved countermeasures WVR will become relevant again.

Russian RWR does display range in the form of signal strength. It's biggest down side is not being able to differentiate between specific threats, only the category (fighter, search radar, short/med/long range Sam's, etc)

MiG29 is basically an interceptor and relies on GCI. It is an extremely simple aircraft that performs well as a simple multirole aircraft.

Su-27 is the first Russian fighter where the pilot was 'trusted' to operate and make decisions. It's MFD displays all known threats detected by AWACS and other wingman, giving it exceptional situational awareness, arguably more than the F-15.

Just wanted to throw some of that out there.

>>31799055
>with zero sources
So far I saw zero sources from you.
>Which were completely dead and useless
>I say
Bitch, please.
>And wasn't produced until 2005
It was developed and produced in the 80s. Deal with it.
>The MiG-29SMT and UBT both did
Which doesn't have anything to do with when MiG-29M was developed and built. Which is in the 80s.
>Bringing up F-22
This is not an argument about F-22 or B-2, my little silly demagogue. Try harder.
>They've always been behing the West overall
You will now provide us with an example of western aircraft that had digital computers allowing to bomb strategic targets with dumb bombs from stratosphere at Mach 2+ in fully automatic mode while preforming reconnaissance.
>Gotta love this argument
Are you one of those godless perverted fetishist faggots Putin was warning me about? If IAF getting demolished gets you off so much I bet you are jerking off to the thought that the US lost 10000 aircraft in Vietnam. I bet you're gonna go to a pride parade with some sign about that. Something like 'Shot down pride world wide". You sick fuck.

>>31801936
>real experts
[citation required]

No one said WVR is irrelevant. Just far, far less important that see-first shoot-first BVR optimization.

>>31801952
>Russian RWR
Keep in mind that modernized Russian RWR even as recently as last year is a huge operational question mark, with lower demonstrated capabilities than those claimed. See: Su-24 shootdown over Syria/Turkey for a recent example.

They've never fought a remotely sophisticated opponent operating a serious IADS or modern A2A capability. If slavs wish to use the incessant and ubiquitous "never been tested" argument against US capabilities, then surely turnabout applies here if it does anywhere.

>>31799064
No, I am saying that they were developed and built in the 80s and that avionics were essential parts of these upgrades and modifications. Arguing this won't get you anywhere.
>>31799081
Not their problem the enemy never bothered to develop IADS.
>the avionics were not
The avionics were essential parts of these upgrades and modifications. This is completely normal, since avionics are much easier to upgrade than the entire airframe and so you can retrofit the slightly altered airframes with new avionics much more easy than developing an entirely new airframe. Which is exactly what happened.
>A much better indication of Soviet avionics is comparing the top of the line fighters in 1985; Su-27S and F-15C
Su-27 shits on F-15. The former doesn't even have FBW to this very day.
>Everyone has pretty prototypes
Economical crisis and the lack of money to actually deploy said aircraft developed and built in the 80s doesn't make them or their avionics any worse as well as doesn't make them any less developed and built in the 80s.

>>31801954
>It was developed and produced in the 80s. Deal with it.

Not him, but prove it.

>>31788088
Had no idea this was a real gun, I want one so fucking bad.

>>31802099
>F-15 does not have fly by wire

It basically does.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1IL51G-jSJUJ:www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hydro_mech.html+f-15+fly-by-wire&hl=en

File: liberating syria.jpg (115KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1080x720px

>>31802060
>russian RWR and Turkish shootdown

The fencer was nailed by an aim9 fired by a viper from rear aspect. RWR has nothing to do with this, and at that range it would have been well in the NEZ of basically anything semi modern.

>>31802190
I find it hard to belive the F-16 would not have been lighting him up with radar.

>>31802060

The Su24 was shot down by an AIM9X, an IR missile that would give no RWR warning.

I also don't know if the Su24 has the new RWR, I'm pretty sure they still have SPO-15s. Even if it DoD have the new one it wouldn't help it detect IR missiles.

>>31802208
See
>>31802195

At least to vector himself in.

File: turkish embassy.jpg (84KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x370px

>>31802216
>Vector himself in
He had both awacs and ground radar available, he was on station already waiting for the incursion to happen.

>>31802060
>Bringing up Su-24 shootdown as an example of RWR capabilities, ever
Way to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Su-24 was shot down with an IR missile from the back, while its IR radar is aimed upwards.

>>31802160
It basically doesn't.

>>31801954
>So far I saw zero sources from you.
I've give specific dates and quotes directly from dozens of sources or my notes. If you think any are actually in error, feel free to provide a counter source. Also, I provided two very detailed, direct accounts relevant to the discussion here >>31786201. I'm not going to footnote every single basic fact, especially when you're only advancing misdirection and vague handwaving.

>Bitch, please.
Didn't even have a radar installed until the Leninets OKB-designed V004 was dropped into the third major model in 1994. Feel free to contradict this with an actual source, if you can.

>It was developed and produced in the 80s. Deal with it.
Only for the 1980s competition which the Su-33 eventually won. The actually fielded MiG-29K of today is completely redesigned from that starting point, and the 1982/1988 vintage MiG-29KVP/K cockpit looked nothing like the ones of today. By the time the Indian Navy purchased the first production MiG-29Ks, they'd been upgraded to fly by wire, brand new engines and glass cockpit, none of which were present on the MiG-29KVP/K prototypes. As for when it actually entered service as the definitive variant:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/naval-aviation/2016/08/10/india-mig-29k-aircraft-navy-defects/88510782/
>India ordered 45 MiG-29K aircraft and equipment worth $2.2 billion in two separate orders — in 2004 and 2010 — from Russia.

>Which doesn't have anything to do with when MiG-29M was developed and built.
Anon, the RD-33MK engines weren't even built until 2001. How the fuck was the MiG-29M completed and in service as the MiG-29SMT/UBT variants without any fucking engines?

>This is not an argument about F-22 or B-2, my little silly demagogue. Try harder.
Oh? If we're talking about aircraft developed, tested and then produced within the same timeframe, we most certainly are talking about the F-22 and B-2 if we're talking about the Su-34, MiG-29K and Su-30MKI.

CONT

>>31802246
>>31802208
>>31802190
Holy butthurt Vatniks
You know its disputed if it was an AIM9 or AMRAAM right?

>>31802259
It litterally does in the longitudinal and directional control systems, allowing full flight control for emergency landings if total linkage failure occurs.

>>31801954
>>31802282
>You will now provide us with an example of western aircraft that had digital computers allowing to bomb strategic targets with dumb bombs from stratosphere at Mach 2+ in fully automatic mode while preforming reconnaissance.
If you're referencing the MiG-25RB of 1970, well, the combination of the SR-71 and F-111 more than equals the capabilities represented. It should also be noted that the RB was notoriously inaccurate (no PGMs yet) and could only actually drop bombs while subsonic.

>I bet you are jerking off to the thought that the US lost 10000 aircraft in Vietnam
Why hello, Captain Strawman. You keep returning to this argument, even though you know that over 2/3 of those losses were rotary wing, and the Soviets never ever faced any sort of IADS in real combat with any serious portion of their airforce. Arguing US losses when every single A2A ratio between Soviet and US built aircraft comes out well to the US advantage is ridiculous.

File: su-24 camo.jpg (171KB, 1280x862px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1280x862px

>>31802208
Even if it had new RWR, the thing is aimed upwards (the little bimb on its back), because this aircraft was meant to penetrate air defense at treetop heights, not bomb kebab from altitude and defend against F-16 aiming IR missiles from the rear.

>>31802099
>No, I am saying that they were developed and built in the 80s and that avionics were essential parts of these upgrades and modifications.
The discussion was regarding cockpit sensor displays, avionics and pilot situational awareness and workload on operational tactical aircraft between the USSR and US in the 1980s. You promptly showed pics of aircraft with late-2000s upgrades and claimed them as 1980s operational aircraft. In short, you're a fucking idiot.

>Arguing this won't get you anywhere.
Apparently not, as simple, hard facts and even pictures which have been provided multiple times ITT do not in any way change your shrieking.

>>31802099
>Not their problem the enemy never bothered to develop IADS.
What is Aegis? What are the SM series? What is ESSM? What are Patriot batteries? What conflict did the Soviets EVER fly against any of this? Why are you so ignorant?

>The avionics were essential parts of these upgrades and modifications.
And not present until well after the time period in question. As has been noted multiple times ITT. See the basic pics here comparing actual operational aircraft cockpits of the time period:
>>31799227
>>31799248
>>31799517
>>31786049
The evidence is clear and irrefutable.

>Su-27 shits on F-15.
Highly debatable. Even Soviet sources from the 1980s suggest deep doubt the Su-27 would be competitive BVR with the F-15, and this was repeated in honest assessments through the 1990s. Find a single pilot who actually claims the Su-27 carried a clear BVR advantage over the F-15C. Also, the F-15A was in service in 1976, the F-15C was in service in 1979. The Su-27 baseline model wasn't in service until the middle of 1985. The Soviets didn't even HAVE the Su-27 for over half the 1980s.

>The former doesn't even have FBW to this very day.
That's an extremely reductionist description of the hybrid electro-mechanical CAS system in the original F-15s. The F-15, in fact, had the father of all fly-by-wire systems installed on it when introduced in 1976.

>Economical crisis and the lack of money to actually deploy said aircraft developed and built in the 80s doesn't make them or their avionics any worse as well as doesn't make them any less developed and built in the 80s.
Still implying they had 2005-2014 glass cockpits actually installed and fully operational in the 1980s. Such bullshit.

>>31802246
>Way to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Su-24 was shot down with an IR missile from the back, while its IR radar is aimed upwards.
So 360 degree spherical launch warning is NOT now considered basic RWR/countermeasures warning on all modern fighter aircraft? News to me.

This argument is ridiculous.

>>31802304
It also has two wing root forward facing, two aft facing on either side of the vertical stab and one belly bulb. Why are you commenting if you don't know what you're talking about?

>>31802484
Because its desperate damage control.

>>31798867
>Daily reminder that it worked because for once the US or its lapdogs attacked someone with contemporary equipment
IAF had comparatively little experience with IADS up until that point.
Once they realized what they were up against, they SEAD-ed it out of existence with only a drone loss.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

>>31802435
I think they're confused because we looked at complex ground IADS and decided it was pointless because we'd have their Air Force fucked within hours and have bombed the shit out of critical infrastructure on night 0 with stealth.

File: 17223_900.jpg (93KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 900x675px

>>31802460
What?
>>31802484
It has only one IR radar and it is pointed upwards. It is called Mak and it is visible from every single photo of every single Su-24 ever since Su-24M model, when it received the thing. Stop being retarded.

File: b952f26586f4c90de8575a3fe96a301e.jpg (28KB, 564x412px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 564x412px

>>31802289

I don't see any butthurt. Discussing isn't butthurt.

>>31802298

MiG-25RB's would drop FAB's from 20,000 meters while going 2500km/h (Mach 2.3)

The bombs would be dropped 40km away, and would hit the target still going supersonic.

This is all from a documentary on the MiG-25, during interviews with Foxbat pilots.

>>31802195

I'm sure he was, but how would this matter?

You know an F-16 is there, but you don't know that he has fired an IR missile, if it was infact a Sidewinder or not, I guess thats disputed.

>>31802435

>The Soviets didn't even HAVE the Su-27 for over half the 1980s.

This right here. Comparisons of the F-15 and Su-27 tend to forget that the Flanker came into the picture over a decade after the F-15 Eagle. During the inter-meaning time, the Soviets were at a clear disadvantage.

>>31802721
That pic clearly shows hemispherical IR top coverage, including aft barring occlusions. Not just "up". It also has 6 separate RWR sensors spread about the airframe.

>>31802721
>>31802785

I am unfamiliar with IR sensors at all, why would it be put on the top only?

Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be on the bottom for an aircraft designed for ground attack?

Wouldn't you want one on both sides?

>>31802766
>MiG-25RB's would drop FAB's from 20,000 meters while going 2500km/h (Mach 2.3)
>The bombs would be dropped 40km away, and would hit the target still going supersonic.
>This is all from a documentary on the MiG-25, during interviews with Foxbat pilots.
Are you unaware that they lost two airframes before they realized they couldn't drop bombs at supersonic speeds on that airframe? Are you also unaware that the FOAB wasn't produced until 2007? Are you similarly unaware that the FOAB weighs 15,650lbs, or over three times the max pylon capacity for a MiG-25RB?

Are you aware of how retarded you are?

>>31802833
FABs. Not FOAB.

File: 1477215911947.jpg (539KB, 1600x1070px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 1600x1070px

>>31802833

FAB, not FOAB you fucking tardo. Learn to read dumb fuck.

Also the info is from this:
https://youtu.be/npSvKmXslpg?t=28m21s
28:21 if link doesn't work.

>>31802808
>I am unfamiliar with IR sensors at all, why would it be put on the top only?
For a primarily nap of the earth penetration strike mission profile, all launching aircraft would be above it. However, it's pretty retarded to have ZERO IR launch sensors on the belly. It's just asking to get zipped just like the Su-24 in Syria did. The "didn't have sensors there" argument is only compelling for the five seconds it takes to realize what a retarded design decision that is on a modern combat aircraft.

>>31802833
Not him and not saying anything about your other points, but he wrote FAB, not FOAB

>>31802766
>getting lit up by F-16 radar
>not at least altering course to increase distance or uncover RWR/launch warning sensors

I simply don't understand anyone defending those Su-24 pilots or the Su-24 countermeasures design.

File: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT.jpg (2MB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3008x1960px

>>31779840
*teleports behind you*
>BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT

>>31802282
>>31802298
>I provided two very detailed, direct accounts relevant to the discussion here
German monkey models. Next.
>Didn't even have a radar installed
Didn't have its own serial radar installed. Doesn't change the fact that it had glass cockpit.
>1982/1988 vintage MiG-29KVP/K cockpit looked nothing like the ones of today
Indeed, and yet it was a glass cockpit as it is visible from the photo.
>RD-33MK engines weren't even built until 2001
MiG-29M was powered by RD-33K, not RD-33MK. you are really hilarious with your wikipedia grade knowledge.
>Oh?
Yeah.
>SR-71 and F-111 more than equals the capabilities represented
Neither of them could do that.
>every single A2A ratio between Soviet and US built aircraft comes out well to the US advantage
You mean like that time when brainwashed by McCarthyist propaganda Americans claimed laughable ratio in the Korea that turned out to be more like 1:1? Or when rusted arab MiG-25 shot down F-18?
>>31802326
>You promptly showed pics of aircraft with late-2000s upgrades and claimed them as 1980s operational aircraft
No, I showed the pics of aircraft developed and build in the 80s, as well as modern aircraft just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
>simple, hard facts and even pictures which have been provided multiple times ITT do not in any way change your shrieking
The irony of you posing this is indeed overwhelming.
>>31802435
>What is Aegis? What is ESSM?
Irrelevant naval based piece of crap that was not operational during the Cold War.
>What are the SM series?
Not IADS.
>What are Patriot batteries?
>Mentioning Patriot
Lol. Somewhere around being a shitty Buk equivalent, I give you that.
>And not present until well after the time period in question. I say
Bitch, please. I posted the pictures. You posted denial and butthurt.
>Highly debatable
For you.
>Such bullshit.
Bullshit is how you imply aircraft developed and built in the 80s were not developed and built in the 80s.

>>31802531
It took them so long that it is basically safe to say they just waited until the next generation of aircraft was introduced to even try to contest cute little old Kub SAMs.

>>31802833
>Confusing FABs for FOAB
Motherfucking kek, who am I even talking to.

>>31802785
I didn't say up, I said pointed upwards. It has neither downwards nor rear IR coverage, which is where the missile came from. RWR sensors you are referring to are not IR.
>>31802867
>Su-24
>Modern
Anon, first you imply it has more than one IR sensor, then this. Stop being retarded, please.

>>31803088
>glass cockpit
>80s

I dont even need to know a damn thing about what the arguement is about, you are full of shit.

>>31803113
>Every excuse

>>31803231
>Glass cockpits originated in military aircraft in the late 1960s and early 1970s; an early example is the Mark II avionics of the F-111D (first ordered in 1967, delivered from 1970–73), which featured a multi-function display.
First FABs get confused for FOAB, then this. What is this imbecilic shitfest circlejerk? It is afternoon in the US and all the pistolfag kids are back from school?

>>31780484
>hottest pic in existence
>obviously taken with a high quality camera
>resolution is fucking 1024x683
>larger apparently doesn't exist

What the fuck is this, 2001?

File: Ncg4ngs.jpg (312KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1920x1200px

>>31803337
>Wtf is google image search: the post

>>31803303
>one mfd
>glass cockpit

Lel

Why dont you look at the actual definition, instead of the historical origins of the word.

File: tunguska & shilka.jpg (168KB, 1200x943px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1200x943px

>>31802970
*teleports under you*
>BRRRRTTT

>>31803432
>one mfd
Three.

>>31803473
Pray tell, what airframe?

>>31803400

I tried like five times and got a bunch of 400x266 thumbnails and "this picture isn't available in other resolutions" every time.
But thanks.

File: Su-27KUB_cockpit.jpg (43KB, 384x308px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 384x308px

>>31803088
>German monkey models. Next.
Moldovian 9.13 Fulcrum Cs. As noted at least four times ITT.

>Doesn't change the fact that it had glass cockpit.
Pic related is a still from a video about the Su-27KUB, the initial Su-34 prototype which first flew in Dec 1989. The video is from 1999. It didn't receive its glass cockpit until the Saratov-based 'Volga' research institute worked on it after 2001, according to Yefim Gordon's Sukhoi book.

You are wrong. Deal with it.

>Indeed, and yet it was a glass cockpit as it is visible from the photo.
I would LOVE to see a picture of the MiG-29KVP/K cockpit from the original naval fighter competition. Find me a single one from before 2000. Go on. I dare you.

>MiG-29M was powered by RD-33K, not RD-33MK.
Flat fucking wrong. Every single source lists either RD-33MK or RD-33 Series 3I, neither of which existed before 1999. Feel free to provide a single source to the contrary.

http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-29m-mig-29m2
>The power plant includes RD-33MK engines with increased thrust power,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29m.htm
>Engine type RD-33 ser.3Ì

CONT

>>31803088
>>31803792
>You mean like that time when brainwashed by McCarthyist propaganda Americans claimed laughable ratio in the Korea that turned out to be more like 1:1?
Simple examination of primary source records reveals the following:
>US lost 224 F-86 Sabres in Korea: 40 to non-operational accidents, 61 to non-enemy causes during operations, 18 to AAA, 1 to bombing and a remainder maximum 104 in A2A combat
>The USSR lost a total of 335 MiG-15s in Korea, PLAF lost 399 and the KPAF losses are estimated at no less than 100 (though accurate Nork loss totals are understandably hard to pin down). That's at least 834 MiG-15s lost, 734 absolutely confirmed by Chinese and Soviet records. If they had the same rate of non-A2A losses as the US (not the case, due to a number of factors, but benefit of the doubt, etc.), that's 341 of those 734 absolute minimum lost to A2A combat.
Anon, take five goddamn minutes and read a fucking history book. Better yet, put the effort in to actually research and understand your own country's history.

>No, I showed the pics of aircraft developed and build in the 80s
I gave specific dates for each of those variants. Multiple times. In this very thread. You've yet to provide proof of your assertions.

>The irony of you posing this is indeed overwhelming.
No sources from you yet. Not even any actual hard dates. Go fuck yourself.

>Irrelevant naval based piece of crap that was not operational during the Cold War.
You fucking moron. Aegis was commissioned with the first Ticonderga class cruiser in 19-fucking-83, two years before the fucking Su-27. It was tested on the Norton Sound starting in 1973 for fucks sake. Just how goddamn stupid are you?

>Not IADS.
Aegis with SM and ESSM are the very definition of IADS. Goddamn, but you are one dumb fucking slav.

>I posted the pictures
From the late 2000s, for the most part. As I have proven. Multiple times.

>>31803487
He's claiming the original Su-34 prototype, the Su-27KUB (or the next three for that matter) had the same full glass cockpit setup that the eventual operational Su-34 cockpit displayed when it was introduced in 2014.

Yes. He's that fucking retarded.

File: 1473819638787.jpg (69KB, 640x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x795px

>>31803088
Does dis niggah really think the original 1980s Su-34 cockpit was a full glass cockpit? Holy fucking shit.

> assuming modern technology is any match for handforged genki steel

Can someone cap this thread? Just started reading, and I've never seen a clearer example of Slav delusion, shitposting and complete disconnection from reality.

Holy shit, /k/. Why?

>>31802867
>>31802531
>>31802435


To everyone in this thread: who the fuck are you?

>>31803916
Asshurt slavs are mad /k/ wont let them circlejerk like they do on 2ch.

>>31803926
Im the cook.

>>31803835
>>31803810
You know he's not going to stop until the thread archives. He gets BTFO in every thread but he'll keep going until people stop giving him (you)s.

>>31803916
It's nothing out of the ordinary. Just in the past week I've seen over a thread a day ruined by the delusional slav nitpicking down to meaningless details and the autist "BTFO"ing someone that everyone already knows to just ignore.

>>31796862

So you are telling me they make an airplane just to get <20 kills?

>>31803926
Posted a few times ITT. USAF O-3. Also squadron historian. It's a huge pain in the ass trying to find open source proofs on clear info I've seen several times in various feature/capability reports on Soviet airframes from the glut of info and physical examples we got in the 90's.

I flat do not understand the thinking of the anon in this thread insisting on the patently silly.

>>31803978
Im the autistic fuck you are referring to, sir.

The other gu clearly forgot more than i know.

>>31804002
He enjoys pretending to be retarded to rile up Americans on an online FEMA camp for autists. Alternatively he really is that retarded but his ego refuses to let him concede once he's said something breathtakingly stupid.

Well that was fun AND educational. Thanks for the good show /k/omrads.

>>31780345
Whenever I see this pic I always see it as a ball of yellow fat surrounding the F-35 rather than a lemon-shaped body.

Like the plane is running on fat or something.

>>31802144
>Had no idea this was a real gun, I want one so fucking bad.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM_H%C3%A9cate_II

http://www.pgmprecision.com/fr/fusils-de-precision/9-hecate-2.html

Ask them nicely, be prepared to pay a shitload of money, and maybe you will get one.

>>31799329

>proof is in the pudding

in the putting, you stupid fuck

>>31779840
I know it eternally chaps your ass, but the F-35 is a good plane.

File: black-pudding-and-pear-pies.jpg (56KB, 705x397px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 705x397px

>>31804747
>in the putting, you stupid fuck
It is a corruption of the British proverb dated to before 1743, which was originally
>The proof of the pudding is in the eating
which is to day, one can only know what it tastes like by eating it. It should be further noted that traditional British puddings look like pic related, not a Jello pudding cup.

So. It is you who is the stupid fuck. Kindly remove yourself and apply your energies to improving your deficient intellect and education.

>>31804826
"Pudding" is a pretty broad term in England, for both desserts and stuff like blood pudding, which is more of a breakfast sausage.

>>31804871
True. However, the phrase in question most directly refers to puddings with hidden fillings like the pic, as the proverb and subsequent modern phrase both refer to tempering bias and hypothesis in the heat of actual physical observation and proof.

>>31788250
b-buddy

>>31780909
I see no problems with Americans purposefully handicapping their own air force. By all means, please build more F-35s.

>>31806207
As an American, all I have to say is
>plz don' tro us in dat der briar patch

>>31806207
>By all means, please build more F-35s
Sure thing, just remember we're still going to be doing this monkey model dance in 20 years.

>>31788134
One of the most versatile planes ever, can carry out so many roles that are not a traditional fighter-bomber style like isr, maritime patrol, and SAR work. You could even make it a tanker aircraft with minor modification.

Small island nations should buy them up as multiroles but they get the big no from daddy Nato/UN and forced to buy shit like the P8/F35/C27/G550 instead which are all expensive and less versatile.

>>31803792
>>31803810
>Moldovian 9.13 Fulcrum Cs
Both links you posted refer to German 9.12 monkey models. Try harder.
>Su-27KUB
>the initial Su-34 prototype
>which first flew in Dec 1989
Su-27KUB made its maiden flight in 1999, imbecile with wikipedia grade knowledge. It is not a Su-34 prototype.
>I would LOVE to see a picture of the MiG-29KVP/K cockpit
It was posted. Use Ctrl+F.
>Every single source
As in wikipedia, lol.
>Feel free to provide a single source to the contrary.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig29m.html
your own fucking source says that "The MiG-29M/M2 fighters belong to the new unified combat aircraft family designed on the basis of MiG-29K/KUB carrier-based fighters". That is because the MiG-29M2 which nowadays also goes by the name MiG-35 received its engines from the modernized MiG-29K, which in turn was initially based on MiG-29M and used its RD-33K engines. Iliterate fucking faggot, Jesus Christ.
>Simple examination of primary source records
>[citation needed]
It's really amusing to see brainwashed amerishits following rancid McCarthyist propaganda from the middle of the past century.
>I gave specific dates for each of those variants
You claimed Su-27KUB first flew in 1989 and was a prototype of Su-34. You words worth nothing. Get the fuck out, scum.
>No sources from you yet
I posted the pictures of the actual cockpits. You replied with denial and butthurt.
>Aegis was commissioned with the first Ticonderga class cruiser in 19-fucking-83
With Mark-26 missile launchers. That is some SA-N-3 tier shit right here. That is especially amusing knowing that Soviet Navy had VLS SAMs since 1977, faggot. But i was wrong, it's not "the 90s", it's on the very verge of the Cold war in 1986 when the US has finally managed to catch up and put VLS SAMs on their rusted bathtubs.
>Aegis with SM and ESSM are the very definition of IADS
ESSM is in service since 2004 and SM alone is just an irrelevant naval based SAM. Hell, it took you 9 years to simply catch up.

>>31803810
>From the late 2000s
Bitch, please. I showed the pics of aircraft developed and build in the 80s, as well as modern aircraft just to shit on your imbecilic implication of Russian avionics being bad.
>>31803835
>Su-34 prototype, the Su-27KUB
The more you repeat this, the more of an imbecile you show yourself to be. Once again, Su-27KUB first flew in 1999 and is not relevant to Su-34.
>>31803861
I never said it was full glass cockpit, nigger. It had 3 MFDs.

>>31807476
>it had 3 MFDs

Not in the 1980s, fukboi.

Production of the su-34 began in 2003

File: CJRZxt_WEAAzULw[1].jpg (31KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x380px

>>31806643
>Slow, outdated concept Russian A-type aircraft
>Only 8,000 pounds of ordinance
>Russian avionics

>better than US gear
Pfffffffttttttt

File: mars-exploration-family-portrait-version3.jpg (67KB, 984x191px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 984x191px

>>31808232
It just keeps happening.

>>31808232
You do realize Su-34 is being discussed?

>>31808232
try 8-12 tons....metrics are not that hard man

File: 7552624006_99f1bcbc22_o.jpg (2MB, 2183x1455px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2183x1455px

>>31803337
Original resolution:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/7552624006/in/set-72157601438420763

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8004/7552624006_99f1bcbc22_o_d.jpg

>>31780484
Blue board
BLUE BOARD

>>31808290
>In production since 2006
>Only 112
>Only foreign buyer is Algeria
>Only another 28 on foreign order in a "maybe" status

>>31783559

Am I alone in thinking an improperly timed cobra would just make you an easy target for a gun kill?

Maybe I've played too much Ace Combat.

>>31808447
>In production since 2006
2008.
>Only 112
>Only foreign buyer is Algeria
>Only another 28 on foreign order in a "maybe" status
So what? And how is that related to ">Only 8,000 pounds of ordinance"?

>>31808522
Pretty much every fighter pilot in the world thinks that, which is why cobras and kulbits generally aren't part of ACM training around the world.

>>31808541

Seems like I've read too many comments on 4chan hyping the maneuverability of Russian planes as a means of discrediting the F-35. Not necessarily on /k/.

Can't really tell when people are serious about shitting on the plane anymore.

>>31808623
Well such manouvers are fucking epic to watch, but at the same time, bleeding of so much energy while in a turning fight is pure suicide.
Still makes my dick into diamonds when I watch it though

>>31808623
>>31808764
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI

File: su34_panel_02 (1).jpg (54KB, 550x374px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 550x374px

>>31807464
>Both links you posted refer to German 9.12 monkey models.
Five seconds on google. Jesus christ, you're one dumb Vatnik.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/?no-ist
>Between October 20 and 27, 1997, the Fulcrums—14 frontline C models, six older A’s, and a single B two-seater—were disassembled in Moldova and the parts flown by C-17s to the national intelligence center in Dayton

https://www.armscontrol.org/print/267
>Under an agreement finalized on October 10, the United States acquired 14 MiG 29Cs, described by U.S. officials as wired to permit delivery of nuclear weapons, six MiG 29As, one MiG 29B, 500 air to air missiles and all the spare parts and diagnostic equipment present at the Moldovan air base where the aircraft were stationed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/05/world/us-is-buying-mig-s-to-stop-iran-deal.html
>Fourteen of them, officials said, were the most advanced model made -- MIG-29C's -- capable of carrying and launching nuclear missiles.

>Su-27KUB made its maiden flight in 1999, imbecile with wikipedia grade knowledge. It is not a Su-34 prototype.
I always get the KUB and IB turned around. Fine. Then produce a cockpit pic of the Su-27IB. Prove your point, once and for all. I'll eat my fucking shorts, especially considering just how close the Su-KUB is to the Su-27IB, was built a decade later, and lacked a single MFD. Shit, for that matter, find a single picture of the cockpit of the Su-32FN from the 1990s.

>inb4 pic related
That's from Zhukovsky Air Show 2001, clearly labeled Su-34 in every single source and after the prototype upgrade in 1999-2000 which lead to the initial acceptance testing batch in 2003-2004 which FINALLY started fully integrating weapons systems and doing the work of actually making the aircraft combat capable (remember, it wouldn't actually enter service for another decade after 2004). Sukhoi didn't stop calling it the Su-32FN or Su-32MF in marketing until 1999.

>>31808623
Isn't the F 35 just less manoeuvrable than pretty much every other jet around, though?

File: peak k.jpg (38KB, 601x186px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 601x186px

>>31779840
This is so /k/ it hurts

File: Su-27UB cockpit1.jpg (198KB, 1024x780px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1024x780px

>>31807464
>Use Ctrl+F.
Are you really trying to claim this >>31795954 isn't a mid-2000s vintage pre-production model for the Indian sale? Really anon? You're claiming THIS FUCKING COCKPIT existed in 1988? Jesus christ. For reference, pic related was the most advanced cockpit in service at that time for the Soviets. MFDs weren't introduced into service in the Su-27 family until the Su-30M/MKI series a decade after this.

>That is because the MiG-29M2 which nowadays also goes by the name MiG-35 received its engines from the modernized MiG-29K, which in turn was initially based on MiG-29M and used its RD-33K engines. Iliterate fucking faggot, Jesus Christ.
Are you shit at reading comprehension or just trying to be a cunt at this point? At no point, anywhere in that source, is that explicitly stated or implied. FIND. A. SOURCE. It shouldn't be that hard. Just a single goddamn source.

>It's really amusing to see brainwashed amerishits following rancid McCarthyist propaganda from the middle of the past century.
A simple google search turns up tons of direct support for those numbers. Literally six results on the first page. Provide a source to the contrary.

>You claimed Su-27KUB first flew in 1989 and was a prototype of Su-34. You words worth nothing. Get the fuck out, scum.
I clearly mixed the KUB up with the IB. Are you really crying about a mixup at this point? Who the fuck can keep all these ridiculous designations straight 100% of the time?

If you want to prove the info worthless, prove the T-10V (Su-27IB) and T-10V2 weren't exactly as I noted. Prove they even had basic FC or radars before the T-10V3 prototype (late Dec 1994, what was later marketed as the Su-32FN/MF). Prove they had a cockpit that looked anything like what you imply in the 1990s (remember, kids, just a single goddamn picture from a source would do it).

>>31807476
>>31809203
>I posted the pictures of the actual cockpits.
From late 2000s upgrades. Not a single source dating a single one of those cockpits.

>With Mark-26 missile launchers
Just look at those goalposts roll along the field. This doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with Aegis and whether it constituted an IADS.

>SM alone is just an irrelevant naval based SAM
Wow. He's really this stupid. He cannot fathom what the first point of contact between Russian and US forces would be. He doesn't even understand basic historical realities like REFORGER. Jesus fucking christ.

>I showed the pics of aircraft developed and build in the 80s
You keep saying this. Point out which specific pics. Go on. Which specific pics are from the 1980s. I dare you. I will shit in your cereal, Ivan.

>I never said it was full glass cockpit, nigger. It had 3 MFDs.
I would love, at some fucking point, for you to produce the source, the reason why you believe the Su-34 cockpit looked like that in 1989. For the love of christ, just give us a goddamn source.