So now Ruskies own complete Syrian airspace? How good is SU-34 compared to F-16?
https://www.rt.com/news/323992-russia-syria-air-missile/
>>28041717
Good news.
Even obama, a traitor and a moderate terrorists supporter, it's fucking tired of turkey pro-isis bullshit now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339297/Get-ISIS-border-crossings-Turkey-warned-Obama-demands-action-tighten-security-Syrian-crossing-points-EU-promises-2bn-fight-migrant-crisis.html
>>28041717
Depends on the f16 model. Turks have old and new ones. Overall i think they are evenly matched, due to the su34 being specifically designed to be able to defend itself against same and older Generation aircraft. I am however curious on why they carry r27s instead of r77s
>>28041717
>So now Ruskies own complete Syrian airspace?
Someone better tell that to everyone else that's been flying missions in Syria.
Also
>Fullback
>being used in the anti air role
Full fucking retard.
>>28041824
Better than just junk flying now it can defend itself
>>28041824
that's not what they are being used for. they will have bombs on their center pylon and aa missiles on the outer pylon.
>>28041744
Kill yourself.
>>28041862
>that's not what they are being used for
>>28041717
>Su-34 deployed in Syria with air to air missles
>So now Ruskies own complete Syrian airspace? How good is SU-34 compared to F-16?
Directly implies that OP thinks it's being used for it. Don't even try to deny it.
>>28041866
Thats your thing, Ahmed.
Russkies don't own anything. The only news is that Turks can't enter Syria anymore. Everyone else continues bombing as usual. Russians would be dumb to shoot down an American aircraft.
>>28041882
I stated that because Su34 is known as a bomber, not air superiority fighter. That is why im asking how does it fare against other fighters such as F16.
>>28041909
You cited a tabloid you illiterate nigger. And the article didn't even say what you claim it does.
Again, kill yourself.
>>28041819
>Depends on the f16 model. Turks have old and new ones.
IIRC the majority of Turkish F-16s are Block 50s now
>>28041824
>Someone better tell that to everyone else that's been flying missions in Syria.
USA stopped flying in Syrian airspace after the S-400 was put in place.
>>28041819
>I am however curious on why they carry r27s instead of r77s
It's for self-defense. Su-30s will probably be using R-77.
>>28042599
>>28042599
>stopped flying
Hah sure as far as the Russians know.
We're very likely prodding and testing their defenses, measuring the signals coming from it, search patterns, frequency hopping algorithms, etc. In an effort to defeat it in the future.
But the Russians know this and are probably set to "export" mode. But we probably know that.
Games upon games.
>>28041909
>>28041744
Glenn Beck plz
>>28041819
R77 is probably not in service, or they don't have enough etc.
It's russia, they will opt for the cheapest option available.
>>28041717
I wonder how maneuverable the Hellduck (at least I think that's the proper nickname for the Su-34) is in comparison to the flanker it is based on. It's definitely slower.
>>28041717
>>>28041717
How good is SU-34 compared to F-16?
It's a strike aircraft not meant to go toe to toe with real fighers. The F-16 outclasses even the Su-27, so think about that
>>28044747
maneuverability doesn't matter. Avionics and missile load outs do.
>>28044753
On top of that, they have R-27s. If the F-16s want to fire off AIM-120s, the SU-34 can't do anything but try and run and dump chaff.
forget about return fire.
>>28044762
>maneuverability doesn't matter.
It does when the question was specifically about maneuverability.
>>28044784
It's probably shit compared to the SU-27. Who knows what the g-load is with that extra forward cabin.
>>28041717
Don't forget, Su-30SM's are also in the air whenever bombers are in the air. Su-30SM's are true fighters.
Personally, I think if Russians decide to take down one of the Turkish planes, they'll use S-400 to show it off... it will generate more sales.
>>28044875
I think they will be more afraid of turning on the S-400 than worry about generating sales.
The last thing they want is for the thing to either
a) fuck up when firing at an old F-16
b) NATO dissecting it's radar when active.
>>28044894
Or c) mistaking an American plane or another airliner as a Turkish plane.
>>28044875
>Su-30s are true fighters
>>28044904
Imagine if the missile switched to it's onboard radar, and locks onto an airliner instead of the initial target. Like what happened to Ukraine Siberia airlines 1812.
its weird.
when reagan was president i remember growing up real young and my dad hated commies and they were kind of tough and scary. they were always bad guys - but worthy adversary
now with obama president, its like i'm cheering for the russians. fucked up
>>28044916
Airshows, the #1 killer of the RuAF
>>28041717
>How good is SU-34 compared to F-16?
2 words:THRUST VECTORING
https://youtu.be/CGbOs0vgYOA
>>28044916
is that Su-30 problem or shitty piloting
>>28044930
That's because you hate Democrats more than you love America. Time to get your priorities in order.
>>28044940
How does Thurst Vectoring do anything but fuck you in the ass?
Let's do a power slide!!!
>kills airspeed
>mach 4 missile shoved up your ass
>>28044942
Shitty piloting, that's the first prototype of Su-30MKI crashing at Paris Air Show Le Bourget in 1999.
>>28044940
Those aren't even Su-34s in the videos.
>>28044964
The best uses for thrust vectoring are improving AoA, recovering from stalls, and shortening minimum takeoff distance.
>>28044964
>muh cobra maneuver
>>28044875
So why does Russia use both single- and twin- seat Flanker fighters? I am curious. Not talking about Fullback, only the fighter versions.
>>28044930
In a fight between Russia and Turkey, the best possible outcome is that they both kill a ton of each other. Let's pray that casualties become enormous.
Indian Su-30 loaded for strike
>>28045018
Their avionics are pretty poor. The best stuff they can buy are all older THALES French gear.
>>28044951
i hate isis and the migrant crisis caused by destabilizing syria.
stopping these two things benefits america. russia wants to stop them and obama strarted them.
so priorities are followed if we considerwhich world leader and group will benefit my country
Are Su-34 and Su-35 combat proven at all, or just airshow acrobatics and sims? I have the feeling that the pilots play biggest role in Russian planes.
>>28041819
because russia doesn't use r77s
>>28041968
no they're not
>>28044875
su30s are gimped by their shitty r-27s
>>28044964
you don't need TVC to pull a cobra moron
>hurr durr slavshits gimmicks
>oh wait f22 has TVC too
>>28044951
>You have to support the government even when it does retarded bullshit that doesn't benefit you or the world at all.
>>28045018
>So why does Russia use both single- and twin- seat Flanker fighters?
In the old days, twin-seat Su-27UB used to be for squadron commanders, as well as for line unit training.
Today, the twin-seaters are used in Su-30SM to add a navigator/WSO for A/G roles.
Line Su-27 used to be purely air superiority fighter, now it's a multi-role, so they added a second seat.
>>28045035
>bad avionics
What does that have to do with them using singles and twins at the same time?
What does -30SM do that -27 and -35 don't? And vice versa?
gratuitous Su-24 pic
>>28045064
Syria was the first time Su-34 was deployed anywhere, but I wouldn't call bombing sandniggers "combat proven".
Su-35 has seen no action outside of being stationed at Komsomolsk-on-Amur.
>>28041717
SU34 is better than everything in the region minus F22. People forget that the F16, F15 are old as fuck even if they are upgraded.
>>28045108
Ahh, thank you for the explanation.
So -
>Su-27: older fighter with limited A/G capability
>Su-30SM: improved multirole fighter
>Su-35: top of the line fighter (with limited A/G capability?)
>Su-34: striker that can defend itself somewhat
Do I have that correct?
Su30s should manage to take out an F-16 assuming they get an actually good BVR missile, the closest being R-77
>>28041819
>I am however curious on why they carry r27s instead of r77s
Long story.
The plant that manufactured R-77 was located in Soviet Ukraine. Before 1991, it was able to manufacture only several hundred units of R-77 and after 1991 no more for produced for Russian Air Force.
Since then Russia has been building several factories to manufacture R-77 for export (under the names RVV-AE and RVV-SD). In addition to that, they have recently started manufacturing an upgraded version of R-77 called K-77M.
Russia Air Force decided several years ago that they do not want the original R-77 or it's export version (RVV-AE) and they would rather wait for production of K-77M to start.
There is already K-77M stocks in some line units in Russia, but not every unit uses it still and the fighters deployed to Syria only use R-27.
>>28044894
Do the Turks not have Anti-Radiation missiles? Seems like they'd have deployed those to counter in the event the thing switches on. Would be an amusing fuck-you if they lost a plane but also blew up the S-400s radar truck
>>28045132
>but I wouldn't call bombing sandniggers "combat proven"
That's what most combat is these days.
>>28045137
It's not really all that much better than a Strike Eagle.
>>28044951
More like it's nice to see someone taking decisive action against a pack of murderous lunatics. It's easy to get behind that kind of thing. We're a warlike bunch.
Not that intervention doesn't have it's own problems, too. It's just a little galling that we blew our wad on Saddam who wasn't doing shit and a bunch of goat-fuckers in A-stan who got a lucky hail Mary, instead of using it against these people who are perfecting the art of the high-quality mass murder video
>>28045065
>>oh wait f22 has TVC too
Yes, and the US clearly states what it's for, better fuel economy/less drag past mach. And more control during a stall/safer stall recovery.
It's only slavboos and slav wanabees that claim cobras and TVC is for kewl tail sliding killer moves
>>28045152
Original Su-27P had no A/G capability all.
Both Su-35 and Su-30SM have A/G capability, but only with a FLIR pod. They can launch A/G missiles, but they cannot independently drop precision bombs without an external pod (like LANTIRN, Damocles or Sapsan). It's the same as US fighters like F-15E or F-16.
Su-24 and Su-34, on the other hand, have a built-in FLIR pod, so they can drop PGMs, launch A/G missiles, and obviously launch A/A missiles at other aircraft.
>>28045182
It's a newer bird, I would expect it to be at least somewhat better than a Strike Eagle especially in shaping for low observability
>>28045171
They have HARMs but those are outranged by S-400
The only missile that can take out a S400 is JASSM
>>28045220
Notwithstanding stuff like Cruise Missiles.
I meant JASSM is the only aircraft launched missile in the NATO arsenal that can destroy an S-400
>>28045220
>The only missile that can take out a S400 is JASSM
S-400 doesn't need to be able to target the platform. It works perfectly well against cruise missiles too. Especially sub-sonic ones like JASSM.
Real world P/K against a stealthy cruise missile is a matter of debate, but it's not like JASSM's range makes it invulnerable. Hitting an aerodynamic target like a cruise missile is not much different that hitting an aircraft like F-16.
Not to mention that every battery of S-400 is in itself protected by a Pantsir-S1 unit, so the air defense is layered and integrated with multiple protective envelopes.
>>28045247
>>28045220
The airbase the S-400 is deployed at is something like 40-50 km from Turkey. It would not be impossible to launch a saturation attack from that distance with HARMs or other stand off weapons. Nap of the earth flying could increase Pk through the Russian defenses.
Good way to start WWIII
>>28045137
Nope. F-15C with AESA will eat SU34's for breakfast. F-15C is a dedicated air superiority fighter, SU34 is a light bomber.
>>28045299
Russian ain't going to war with Turkey. The saber rattling would be epic, but that's about it.
>>28045299
harms are only good for defeating primitive cold war radars and sams. they can't touch an ultra modern system like the s400 especially with integrated point defenses
that's why we have stealth and extended stand-off weapons, neither of which turks have
>>28045220
>They have HARMs but those are outranged by S-400
>radar horizon with NO ground clutter at all is approximately 25km for an antenna mast that's 30m in the air
>First gen HARM range: 100+km
Radar Horizon is and always will be king when it comes to going after ground based SAMs
>>28045351
>what is a proxy war
there's already rumors of russia arming kurdish groups in syria
>>28045190
>decisive action against murderous lunatics
>>have to pick which murderous lunatics you mean
>>have to decide which murderous lunatics are left to take over
>>all secondary to the power void created when GW invaded Iraq because reasons
>>blames the democrats and obama...
>>28045351
Yeah, I'm not a betting man but I'd put down the 401k that nothing comes out of this other than tensions and flexing.
>>28045358
planes are affected by radar horizon as much as sams are, genius
>>28045389
In this case though the SAMs are "static" and the planes are faster movers. Good intel on the ground could support a strike with a very short pop up attack. Of course ground spotters can also spoil the cover of the attack run.
>>28045389
You'd have a point if you didn't realize that you can detect radar energy before the transmitter can get a solid return on you. By that first detection you can triangulate an approximate position, then dive to the deck and launch an ARM to do the work.
Surface based ADS is always at a distinct disadvantage, genius.
>>28045220
The S-400 is probably the least important aspect of the Russian/Syrian IADS considering that as far as we know just a single battalion. I'd wager the vast majority of the missiles it's got are 9M96E2 since those are the ones designed to intercept high speed, maneuverable aircraft.
>>28045299
I think we ran a CMANO scenario which tried to do exactly what you're saying and it ended with Turkish planes getting destroyed before the pilot could eject
>>28045854
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Russian base located well within the range of several Turkish artillery and missile systems? Wouldn't it be smarter, faster, and cheaper to just barrage the base?
>>28041744
Daily reminder that turkey supplied al-Qaeda in Syria with Sarin Gas last year
And supplied them with intelligence on American trained 'moderate' forces
>>28042599
>USA stopped flying in Syrian airspace after the S-400 was put in place.
The same claim was made when Russia starting doing airstrikes, and we know how bullshit that was.
>>28046089
You mean Saudi Arabia.
>>28044650
>calling Obama a traitor and general asshole is now no longer a /k/ thing
>>28046110
>defending using tabloids as a source
>>28046149
I wasn't.
>>28042599
lol'd hard. quality bullshit.
>>28046006
The Russians would notice, and maybe for the longest range artillery and cruise missiles. Most would not.
>>28045065
>oh wait f22 has TVC too
And they stopped using them in combat exercises because every time they did it sucked and got them killed.
This shits on all the other planes.
Radar jammar so no radar lock.
Flares so heat seeking is less effective.
Heads up HUD, the flyboy looks at the target and the missles lock and go. It has beat F16's in 12 on 2 matches.
How can this not escalate into WW3 at this point? Jesus
>>28048937
When you grow old enough to move out of your parents house you will learn real life is not like the movies.
>>28046738
>Radar jammar so no radar lock.
Burn-through is a thing.
>Flares so heat seeking is less effective.
Acknowledging it's not foolproof, very good.
>Heads up HUD, the flyboy looks at the target and the missles lock and go.
You mean HMD? No, it doesn't.
>>28045010
>improving AoA
Irrelevant, modern combat aircraft are perfectly capable of reaching critical AoA just fine without it.
>recovering from stalls
Probably the only valid advantage of thrust vectoring that remains. You don't have to worry as much about a low-speed departure if you can just power your way out of it with TVC, meaning limitations can be loosened and the jet can be pushed harder with less risk.
>and shortening minimum takeoff distance.
Lolno, not unless you're talking about V/STOL jump-jets.
>>28046738
They still don't have HMD actually. Nor IRST.
>>28049053
The F-22 maybe not be as good as the F-35, but it can still vector its thrust to reduce the amount of runway it needs to take off.
>>28049143
No, it can't. That's not how it works, at all. Vectoring the nozzle down will just put the nosewheel on the ground again and lengthen the takeoff roll. The F-35 works only because the lift fan is there to counter the pitching moment of the nozzle. And if you try vectoring the nozzles up, you may be able to rotate sooner but it won't help you get off the ground any quicker (downforce on the tail is downforce on the tail, regardless of whether it comes from the nozzle or the stabilizers).
>Inb4 F-15STOL/MTD
The nozzles were for the "MTD" half of that. The canards and thrust reversing are what helped with STOL capabilities.
>>28041717
Two different pieces of kit, no comparisons in terms of performance can be made unless you designate them to perform the same role. Do you mean the Su-32?
>>28046108
Nah, it was Turkey but it could easily of been KSA.
>>28045474
Then why not put the ADS on a radio tower, or put the radar in separate places to the missiles. Did you not think of that, genius?
>>28049295
I hope you choke on a dick, because that post is so wrong I want you to die. As a long time proponent of aircraft threads on /k/, I now see why people want to have them banned, and they are right, because retards like you come along and post the most dumbass of shit, evidently without thinking about it.
When you pull back on the stick, the nozzles angle up to push the tail down and the noze up. This force is normally achieved through control surfaces, but the thrust vectoring allows this to be accomplished at speeds where control surfaces have little to no effect, allowing the jet to pull of some crazy maneuvers, such as pugachev's cobra and short take offs, like that seen at RIAT in 2010.
>>28046738
>Radar jammar so no radar lock.
By your standards pretty much every fighter plane and half of all the other military aircraft can't be locked onto by radar.
>>28049311
links?
>>28041717
Goddamn that is one sexy plane
>>28049588
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-2013-east-ghouta-chemical-weapons-attack-turkeys-alleged-role-in-supplying-toxic-sarin-gas-to-terrorists/5486973
Haha sectors of their own government have raised suspicion over whether they supplied IS with the chemicals for the attack.
Is it really hard to believe though? After discovering that ErDOGan has been propping up opposition forces, inclusive of IS, via funds, military and logistical support.
>>28049351
They do. A SAM battery will have dedicated radar trucks. Some launchers will have integrated radar as to be able to function autonomously, they're called TELAR, but the integrated radar will not be as powerful or effective.
>>28045165
Thanks anon.
>>28049394
>This force is normally achieved through control surfaces, but the thrust vectoring allows this to be accomplished at speeds where control surfaces have little to no effect
Yes, but the jet can't break ground at those speeds. All these jets are already capable of lifting the nose before they reach takeoff speed, nozzles or not (but they leave the nose on the ground anyways until Vr because the jet accelerates faster that way).
>short take offs
Except no. Aircraft performing airshow demonstrations are usually lightly-loaded for improved performance; if an airshow takeoff seemed particularly short to you, I guarantee you that's why.
Also, perhaps consider comparing the TVC-equipped SU-30MKI with the standard SU-30 in terms of takeoff distance. Here's a source: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm
Go ahead, look.
>>28049610
>www.globalresearch.ca
Into the trash it goes.
>>28041717
Nope, russia doesn't have enough SU-34's to handle turkish F-16 spam regardless of aeroplane capabilities.
They're not made for Air Supremacy anyway, and as such they lack off-boresite aiming unlike Turkish block 50 F-16s.
Also Russians have been known to kill each other over fairly trifling issues so the possibility of a Su-34 aerial engagement ending with the Su-34 crashing due to both the pilot and RCO having attacked and killed each other with broken smirnoff bottles over the honor of who gets to actually FIRE the A2A missiles would be a potential problem.
>>28044951
How ironic
Spot the fucking moron devoid of any critical thinking abilities
>>28044916
Oh wow, actually, it is impressive because both pilots ejected and survived.
>>28045299
> or other stand off weapons
SOM would destroy S-400 Radars and TELs
assuming Pantsir don't shoot them down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WnJ96qdCcE
>>28050574
Are those LRASMs they're dropping?
>>28050658
>SOM
Right there, man
>>28044717
>probably not in service, or they don't have enough etc.
Same stories were about KH-101 and Club-K. We are unable to reliably know what they have or have not.
>>28044894
>NATO dissecting it's radar when active.
The S-400 already deployed in numbers at Russian borders. 152 launchers according Wikipedia. It is not a secret weapon anymore.
>>28041744
>>28046089
>implying the US didnt want the islamists to fight the Syrian regime
>implying the US didnt want the Al Nusra to gas Syrian people so the US could march in in Syria
US shill gtfo
>>28042599
>USA stopped flying in Syrian airspace after the S-400 was put in place.
Why? France still flies their rafales there without any issue.
>>28044762
Fun fact: Su-34 radar based on the Buk radar.
>>28045018
Because Russia has 3 plants producing Su military crafts. Every plant produces his own special snowflake versions of Su to justify its existence. Otherwise they are risking to be merged into one (aka 2 plants closed). This is why there are so many Su versions around.
>>28044964
The maneuvers you see at airshows are just to show how capable the system is.
In combat applications they greatly increase maneuverability and energy retention.
F-22 uses vertical plane thrust vectoring to increase its combat effectiveness, for example.
>>28044916
If jump out of plane, plane lands self.
>>28045165
Posts like these are why /k/ is the best board.
>>28045854
Yes anon launched a CMANO scenario where the F16 got away and the S400 fired like 16 missiles to try and stop 4 HARM.
>>28041744
Turkey is far from being pro isis.
>>28044942
that my friend is shitty piloting.
>>28044930
is it because the Russians have more balls than our president does? I mean Reagan would have taken a huge shit on ISIS no questions asked.
>>28052833
>Reagan would have taken a huge shit on ISIS
And probably caused massive consequences in the process. Obama is actually capable of thinking for five seconds about implications beyond the immediate future. What does invading ISIS do for us strategically?
