>MOSCOW — The Russian air force is expanding its Sukhoi-35S fleet with a 100 billion rubles ($1.4 billion) order for 50 more of the twin-engine fighters, according to a Russian industry ...
http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/russia-places-new-order-50-su-35s-fighters?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160114_AW-05_807&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_7_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001478899&utm_campaign=4697&utm_medium=email&elq2=30dd13b492f94fb29cbbfc1d3acb283b
The long awaited order is finally here.
>>28543203
PAK-FA is BTFO?
>PESA radar
already outdated
>$28m a pop
Why are other countries not buying any?
>>28543203
>The Russian air force is expanding its Sukhoi-35S fleet with a 100 billion rubles ($1.4 billion) order for 50 more of the twin-engine fighters
>Russian air force is expanding
>order for 50 more of the twin-engine fighters
>100 billion rubles ($1.4billion)
>>28543592
You realize currency valuations are just numbers. They have little effect on real life.
>>28543385
This order was in the works for three years.
>>28543541
China and Indonesia are. Vietnam likely will as well.
>>28543541
Because they're already outdated, would cost far more at export prices while also being nerfed and India's recent experiences with Russian quality control/customer service has been absolutely shite.
>>28544252
Russian engines are just bad.
Soviets preferred to just mass produce engines and replace them when they went bad rather than service them. As this is what WW2 experience taught them.
Russians are still using Soviet derived engines.
TFW America could make better Flankers than the Russians who invented them.
>>28546249
Americans don't care about mobility as much.
Flanker design is the way it is to accommodate poor quality Russian engines that need high and direct airflow. And then accommodate dogfight-first doctrine.
Russians built their planes defensively. Their planned invasions into Europe all involved mostly ground troops and AA batteries, with bombers over controlled airspace and fighters only engaging defensively against NATO aircraft. Hence the desire for dogfighters, because they assumed engagements would be much closer.
Vietnam is a good example of what Russians wanted with Vietnamese shooting down hordes of American aircraft using AA batteries and only using their precious fighters defensively in dogfights over their own airspace to attack bombers. Leaving the real fight over the ground, which they could win.
>>28546307
I'm just saying from a technological standpoint, we could assemble and upgrade them better.
>>28546307
>Vietnamese shooting down hordes of American aircraft using AA batteries
Never happened.
guys sorry if I hijack this thread asking for the T-10M or old Su-35 with canards,but I do remember seeing in this forum a picture of one of those old Su-35 prototypes parked somewhere in a public place,next to a road or something alike.All I remember was a concrete surface,surrounded with a lawn field,a road next to it and aircraft painted with grey and blue splinter camouflage
I'm asking this cause on some modeling forums there is a debate regarding the front portion of the aircraft in terms of radome length and front fuselage width.
I have some russian magazines but in the blueprints there are no fuselage and radome sections and because someone in the future will probably make a scale model of this prototypes we/they are looking for some measurements.
Spent couple of days searching on most common russian modelling forums with no avails,so if someone has some sources and maybe said picture I'll be in debt with him
They do like that airframe design.
>>28546249
>>28546341
yeah, it would cost two times as much for a 20% increase in capability.
say what you will but the fact is russian engineers are good at value for money.
>>28546490
Check the numbers.
US lost 10,000 aircraft and helicopters, and South Vietnam another 2,500.
Vietnam lost 200. Because they didnt challenege America in airspace, only denied and defended and let their ground troops win the war.
Classic Soviet doctrine for European invasion strategy. They never planned to win at sea or in the air, but just deny and defens for the ground forces to win.
>>28547930
>Vietnam lost 200. Because they didnt challenege America in airspace, only denied and defended and let their ground troops win the war.
Except the NVA would have lost once Nixon took the kid gloves off. The thing you're forgetting here is that that the Air Force and Navy were hobbled by restrictive ROEs that didn't allow them to hit the NVA where it really hurt.
>>28547930
>let their ground troops win the war
The NVA didn't win the war though.
Hippies did.
>>28547930
I hate to burst your bubble, but Vietnam lost the military side of the conflict.
North Vietnam really lucked out with watergate.
>>28546179
Wasn't their ww2 experience to replace the aircraft after the germans shot it down?
Not much need for long term repairs there.
>>28547930
Only 200 of those were shot down by SAM. Despite having some 7000 plus SAM, of which 5000 were launched.
So they spent more on launching SAMs then they would have lost if they let those 200 aircraft destroyed their target.
>>28547963
>>28547973
>>28547978
>What could have been
Irrelevant.
>>28547963
also, germany would have won ww2 if hitler wasn't a crazy motherfucker
>>28548078
Hitler didn't force the Allies to come to the negotiating table.
>>28547963
>>28548002
The SAMs denied airspace. US had already lost so many aircraft trying to 'hut NVA where it hurt'. It is why Rolling Thunder was so ineffective, except at killing civillians in Cambodia who were running the supply lines. Which of course only led to more international outrage, more South Vietnamese joining the Vietcong, and led to the further collapse of the propaganda the US military was trying to propagate, so even that was a political failure.
>>28547973
>>28547978
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khe_Sanh
Khe Sanh was the first time since WW2, that US lost a major military combat base to the enemy. 8 artillery shells per NVA soldier and 100,000 aerial bombs. Despite this NVA only lost 5500 troops to America's 3800.
US Army admitted that they could no longer hold their own against the NVA, and that they had effectively been routed the enemy. The Tet Offensive came along shortly after and US realized that they could not hold the citites either and that Public support in South Vietnam and America had reached all time lows. They had no win condition, all options had been exhausted. Soviets put too much pressure for a nuclear option, which wasnt reallistic option either way.
>>28548216
Dude, are you serious?
I'm not sure if you're shitposting now, but trying to say K/D is the deciding factor is retarded. If it were the case, America definitely "won" Vietnam, hands down.
Don't cherry pick and obfuscate.
>>28548216
>The SAMs denied airspace. US had already lost so many aircraft trying to 'hut NVA where it hurt'. It is why Rolling Thunder was so ineffective, except at killing civillians in Cambodia who were running the supply lines. Which of course only led to more international outrage, more South Vietnamese joining the Vietcong, and led to the further collapse of the propaganda the US military was trying to propagate, so even that was a political failure.
And then Operation Linbacker, which actually hit the North directly, devastated them so much that that the North came begging the US for a peace deal.
>Khe Sanh
This one is a bit iffy. Yes, the US was force to abandon the base, but they did so after the current garrison was relieved and they staged an orderly withdrawal, salvaging what they could an destroying what they couldn't. It was far from a decisive victory for the NVA.
>Tet Offensive
Except the Viet Cong practically destroyed themselves in what was ultimately a failed offensive. It just happend to create the perception the war could not be won.
>>28548303
>The SAMs denied airspace.
No it most certainly did not.
>>28548491
You wouldn't know, man. You weren't there.
>>28548629
Except for known numerous deep air bombing campaign with huge slow B52 campaign that happened, which the NVA was ineffective at stopping.
>>28548247
Reread what I wrote.
K/D was one of the biggest US Army propaganda factors for support of the War. Insisting that they were scoring +10:1 ratios, and that they just needed more men. This is how the Army insisted it was winning the war and that it would be over in 'just a few more months' or with 'just some more men and firepower', a myth /k propagates even today, despite not achieving any major strategic objectives.
Then Khe Sanh comes along, one of the largest and most strategically important battles at that time and the K/D ratios suddenly aren't anything to brag about. Hence it, in part, shattered the propaganda campaign of the Army 'winning' the War. It was a huge blow for anyone in the know. The army did everything 'right' with major artillery and air strikes, defensive positions, etc. Yet they still lost their ground, without any major enemy casualties.
>>28548303
>Except the Viet Cong practically destroyed themselves in what was ultimately a failed offensive. It just happened to create the perception the war could not be won.
The 'perception' that war could not be won was a view that the Army and Intelligence held themselves. There was no 'win condition' anymore, the NVA had just effectively broken US strategy to win the war, then demonstrated that they were several steps ahead of the US. Intelligence utterly failed at preventing the surprise of the Tet Offensive, and recognizing how popular the Vietcong was becoming among the South Vietnamese.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_Line
There was no military strategy beyond this. Just college-aged kids getting blown to bits at checkpoints and jungles for the next few years.
>>28548303
>North came begging the US for a peace deal.
>>28548247
>America definitely "won" Vietnam, hands down.
Primary objective not accomplished.
> won
With the same logic Soviets won in Afghanistan and British won the independence war.
>>28543203
28 million each... They are selling them that cheap and they can't find anyone that will buy them outside of Russia?
>>28550246
>Primary objective not accomplished.
With the same logic Soviets won. Their primary objective was accomplished.
>>28550145
They really did. It was only after Nixon got booted out and Congress outlawed any more military assistance to South Vietnam that the NVA knew they could get away with breaking the treaty.
>>28550246
>Vietnam
Americans secured a peace agreement with North Vietnam with North Vietnam promising not to invade the South or the US would come back to bomb them more. Then the democrats came into power after Watergate and basically told North Vietnam they had no intention of enforcing the treaty, which gave them free reign to invade.
>Afghanistan
The Soviets could never really decisively force the mujahideen to make an agreement. They basically just trained a token Afghan army and left behind a puppet government to "run" the country and basically left them at the mercy of the mujahideen as they pulled out.
>War of Independence
Britain couldn't afford to keep fighting a distant colonial war when they had bigger problems closer to home, so they basically gave the Americans what they wanted.
>>28550305
When do you learn that they make plane in Russia. His cost is constant in Russian currency. Price of ruble changes - prise in dollars changes too. Anyway, it is price for Russian ministry of defense. For other countries price will be different.
>>28550452
Good thing too. The North turned out to be better at governance than the south and now they are our ally in the region.
>>28547373
Is gud plane. Give it homosexual Western electronics and will defeat 4.5 Gen planes any day of the week.
>>28550645
>Giant RCS
>Defeating planes with smaller RCS with the same radars.
Naw brah.
>>28550665
>same radars.
You have no idea, bro
>>28543507
Meh... not really. AESA is certainly the best but in practice it doesn't really offer all that much more advantage over PESA. Both are head-and-shoulders above mechanically-steered antennas.
>>28550665
>>28550645
it's half the RCS of Su-27
and it already got gud radars
>Irbis-E
>>28550776
>doesn't really offer all that much more advantage over PESA
For those not aware, both AESA and PESA radars both have a heap of little antennas that broadcast a microwave signal. Each antenna has a device attached to it which controls the phase of the microwaves (think of the microwave as a sine wave on a graph; these phase shifters move the waves left or right on the graph). When you sync and shift the signals correctly, they interfere with each other, amplifying their signal in a certain direction and mostly cancelling it everywhere else.
The difference between an AESA and a PESA is that while a PESA has a big microwave emitter (like a magnetron in a microwave oven) that gets piped out to each phase shifter / antenna, the AESA has a little microwave emitter for every antenna.
Imagine if instead of microwaves, it was lasers - the PESA is one big laser getting focused through a thousand little lenses, the AESA is a thousand little lasers.
Benefits of an AESA:
1. It's more energy efficient - you can operate it at a higher power level without producing as much heat as a PESA.
2. You get less noise, because there's less "piping" where microwaves can leak out and into the receivers. That means it can detect signal returns better.
3. You can operate the AESA across a heap of frequencies at the same time; that means you can make your signal more unique (so it's easier for you to see it's reflection) and at the same time, harder to detect (because you spread your signal out over the spectrum; if you're emitting gently, your radar signals are more likely to be filtered out as noise by enemy radar / radar warning receivers).
4. Because you can transmit multiple frequencies and multiple radar beams, you can do even more advanced top secret electronic warfare / deception jamming, etc.
>>28547817
>it would cost two times as much for a 20% increase in capability.
You mean an increase of 150% in technology and durability
>>28546179
>Russian engines are just bad.
>largest and most powerful engine ever fitted on a supersonic combat aircraft
>most powerful turboprop ever built
>RD-180s and NK-33s all over US spess program.
Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov frowns upon your lowly shenanigans
>>28555818
>Incapable of selling their engines on the commercial market
>Known for horrible reliability and fuel consumption
Russian jet engines are garbage, and there's a reason the private sector, even in Russia, doesn't use them.
>>28555818
Russian engines so good that you need to buy 6 of the fucking things when only one American engine is needed.
>>28556276
But then again, the Russians are known to bork their sales partners with cheap prices to lure them in, and then screw them with heavy maintenance fees.
On top of that it might be a case of Slavs doing business the Slav way. When you buy new shit, its easy to secure bribes if you are the one in charge of that.
I am not denying that they are inferior when it comes to Engine quality. But it being THAT inferior is kind of hard to believe.
>>28557484
No, it really is. Their new engines, they hype about how long they last, as in it's a big deal that they last 3000 hours with the AL-31.
In comparison for the F414 you don't even need to have the first overhaul until 5k hours.
>>28556276
The RD-33's lifespan is under 1k hours of flight time. It's literal garbage.
>>28543203
100 billion rubles is 1.3 billion USD, not 1.4
till 2020:
150+ Su-34
200+ Su-30SM
100+ Su-35
55+ PAK-FA
+
several hundreds of modernized combat aircrafts such as Su-27SM and Mi-31, Su-25 and so one.
Looks like Russia going to dominate the world sky.
>>28555818
>RD-180
Isn't technically impressive. It's just cheap as fuck and good enough. Russian assembly is cheaper then US because you can get rocket engineers fabrication engineers to work for 20k a year.
>NK-33
Are literally used because there was a stockpile of dirt cheap Soviet built ones that old men kept in good storage. When they are gone, they are gone forever.
>>28557802
In what fantasy world do you live in where Russia can build more than 10 jets a year?
Plus the PAK-Fa is all but cancelled until it's new engine is done, which may never happen due to the price of oil dropping.
>>28557821
Oil prices don't affect the Russian military industrial complex.
>>28557868
>Being this fucking stupid
>http://news.yahoo.com/russia-announces-budget-cuts-amid-oil-slide-105539186.html
Russia hasn't shown it is capable of developing a true 4th gen engine yet, let alone a 5th gen. It will be really interesting to see how they will make a brand new engine before 2020 as they make massive budget cuts due to an extended period of low oil prices.
>>28557868
cant effect something don't exist ...
>>28557821
After 2020 there will be anorher order for about 200-300 PAK-FA to replace all of Su-27 fleet.
and new interceptor is currently under development - it's a replacement for Mig-31.
btw, new engine is already done and start land testing.
>>28557802
>55+ PAK-FA
>>28544029
>You realize currency valuations are just numbers. They have little effect on real life.
Go ahead and tell that to your banker when you want to convert some roubles to dollars to buy foreign goods. "It's just numbers man just give me 1 to 1!"
>>28557926
Right now there is an order for 12 PAK-FAs, and they don't even expect the engines ready for it for another decade.
India won't touch the fucking thing. It's dead. The Russian military jet industry is close to shutting it's doors forever. They can't export anything, and they haven't been able to develop a new engine, let alone a new airframe, in a generation.
>>28544029
>>28557945
This. A lot of this.
When a Russian company needs to buy computer memory, hard drives, processors and server blades they have to pay 50% more then they would have a few years ago.
It's not like you need computer hardware for anything in a modern economy though.
>>28558005
All that semiconductor production the Russians have should help miti...... Oh wait.
>T-50 in developement hell
>all variants of the F-35 enter service in the next years
>LRIP of the J-20 this year
RIP Russia.
>>28558063
Those great Russian operating systems run just as well as their Russian microprocessors!
>>28557972
> Right now there is an order for 12 PAK-FAs
the first contract for 55. In general plans 250-300.
and first squadron will enter in service in 2017.
India is a poor shithole without toilets. Who care about those monkeys?
Also, the engine which is currently instaled on PAK-FA is far ahead of anything america made.
Not to mention that there will be new engine better at 30%
>>28558092
working pretty hard for your 50 rubles, tovarish
>>28558005
> When a Russian company needs to buy computer memory, hard drives, processors and server blades they have to pay 50% more then they would have a few years ago.
Russia has its own computers and servers for state companies to avoid American NSA.
>>28558063
Wow. What a fucking shitty image. Most college kids can't even tell me what the interest rate does to the economy. Telling people that they should pretend to act like they're experts is how dumbasses like Bernie get popular.
>>28558092
The first production model was supposed to be out this year. It won't be. India was supposed to buy the PAK-Fa, they won't be. The engine was supposed to be ready, it will probably never be made.
The AL-41 has a life span of about 2k hours before it needs to be replaced, if you are lucky. It's literal garbage.
Russia can't build more than 5-10 new jets a year. Get your head out of your ass. Their entire industry is falling apart.
>>28558107
let's compare those two engines?
>>28558108
That use chips bought from american companies. Don't be foolish. Russia has no computer industry.
>>28558135
http://www.mcst.ru/mikroprocessory-i-sbis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3lBJt478l8
Nope.
Russian electronic industry developing pretty fast, actually.
>>28558108
>Russia buys it's own computers..
There is literally no domestic source of memory, sever blades or hard drives.
For processors, you'd be spending 3 times as much for a exceptionally shit processor. Even with the depressed ruble, Russian microprocessors are not competitive.
None of that changes the economics that Russian companies need to spend more for capacity then they did two years ago and that hurts the bottom line.
>>28558196
>http://www.pcworld.com/article/2920988/russias-homegrown-elbrus-processor-and-pc-would-be-fantastic-in-1999.html
Jesus christ that is absolute dog shit.
Russia is so fucked.
>>28558123
> The first production model was supposed to be out this year.
production model of what? PAK-FA?
> India was supposed to buy the PAK-Fa, they won't be.
So what? As i said, it's a problem of curry niggers. If they want to operate F-35 which is inferior to Chinese jets so its their problems.
>The AL-41 has a life span of about 2k hours before it needs to be replaced
lol. AL-41F already installed at 50 of Su-35 and in serial production. Claiming about life span is ridiculous.
>Russia can't build more than 5-10 new jets a year.
Russia build more jets per year then USA.
>>28558275
The AL-31's lifespan is 3k hours. What do you think the AL-41's lifespan is?
Russia only produces 5-10 new jets a year. Russia is incapable of out producing the USA in anything.
>>28558238
It's not as bad as all that. It's intended purely for a market legally required to buy them, so MCST makes a steady profit despite being 20 years behind the time.
Their ruggedized portable terminals are also neat in a way. It's shit compared to a modern ruggedized computer, but not that bad for the military/extraction market in Russia.
>>28558123
>It won't be.
The final protoypes (i.e. production) are nearing completion, all are likely to fly before july. 2017 is more likely though for the first Su-xx.
>India was supposed to buy the PAK-Fa
India is buying the FGFA, not the PAK-FA.
>The engine was supposed to be ready
By 2020.
>Russia can't build more than 5-10 new jets a year
Oh wow, really showing your expertise here.
>>28558217
> There is literally no domestic source of memory, sever blades or hard drives.
There is.
> you'd be spending 3 times as much for a exceptionally shit processor.
Russian processors had different architecture compare to shitty x86 and has much more TFLOPS power.
>>28558238
what retard wrote that article?
comparing CPUs by clock speeds?
>>28558300
> The AL-31's lifespan is 3k hours. What do you think the AL-41's lifespan is?
I think, that you are imbecile with empty claims.
> Russia only produces 5-10 new jets a year. Russia is incapable of out producing the USA in anything.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/12/17/russia-produces-more-combat-planes/
>>28558341
It took 10 years for Russia to build 80 SU-34s. It took just as long to get 30 SU-35s. In what magic fairy tale land do you live in where Russia's fighter jet industry isn't a cottage industry?
>>28558343
>Still relies 100 percent on x86 software
>Still isn't as good as a modern ARM CPU
Keep imagining bullshit.
>>28558350
The fact that it's made at 65nm shows how far behind Russia is.
>>28558365
>The Mean Time Between Overhaul (MTBO) for the AL-31F is given at 1000 hours with a full-life span of 3000 hours.
Sorry Ivan, but what the Kremlin says isn't true. They didn't receive 100 new fighters last year. What's the breakdown? Where are the delivery rates for each type? They are bullshitting.
Russia claimed it would produce 30 SU-35s a year in 2009. It took them 7 years to build 30.
>>28558375
>It took 10 years for Russia to build 80 SU-34s.
The vast majority delivered since 2010. The RuAF and Navy has been receiving ~30 Su-30/34/35s a year since 2010, add onto that orders of Su-30s which is another 12 or so per year.
>>28558423
Cool, so at best they are getting 30 new jets a year. Around 10 or so of each type.
California 1 2,424,033
Texas 2 1,648,007
New York 3 1,444,406
Russia 4 1,235,000
Florida 5 883,735
Illinois 6 764,817
Pennsylvania 7 677,582
Ohio 8 592,899
New Jersey 9 573,947
North Carolina 10 496,180
>>28558375
and this year there will be 100 operational Su-34 in service.
and this is already combat proven aircraft unlike F-22 and F-35 hangar queens.
>>28558343
>Core i7 5960X 380 GFlops
>Elbrus-8S 200 GFlops
And the Elburs-8S cost 8 times more* and while normally I'd call foul on someone comparing a workstation chip to desktop one, MCST chips incorporate none of the features expected of a modern workstation ship.
There is a reason nobody buys Russian,
*Except they missed the release and have been very slow to get to market. Nobody's waiting for them, however, as it's a shitty chip.
>>28558397
the architecture is pretty interesting
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/205463-shadows-of-itanium-russian-firm-debuts-vliw-elbrus-4-cpu-with-onboard-x86-emulation
and they're catching up. 28nm chip next year:
http://rostec.ru/en/news/4516582
i'm not a rusaboo, but it's good to have some competition on the market.
>>28558445
and still can't win a war against Iraq\Afghanistan\IS
>>28558447
Doubtful. They only have 85 or so in service. I don't see them delivering more than 10 this year.
The Su-34 is a fighter/bomber comparable to an F/A-18 or f-16. Which are battle proven and which we have a few thousand.
>>28558466
No modern military is capable of invading and occupying a nation. It just isn't possible, and hasn't happened in decades.
>>28558454
Elbrus-8S is assembled in Russia but it comes from the foundries in Taiwan like every other microprocessor.
>>28558466
None of those ventures have been enough to catastrophically weaken them either.
>>28558482
Those were stupid wars to begin with, but with better leadership they could have managed.
>>28558435
>Russia can't build more than 5-10 new jets a year
Nice back tracking.
>>28558423
>and Navy
I was wrong, it was another 22 Su-30s and MiG-29Ks for the navy in 2013 and 2014 ontop of the airforce totals.
>>28558511
>2013 and 2014
2014/15
>>28548303
>It just happend to create the perception the war could not be won.
A war is not lost until you consider it lost
And the USA considered it lost
And thus the USA lost.
>>28558511
Either way Russia isn't producing 100 new fighters a year. That's just a bullshit number.
If the USA wants to scale up production, just look at what Boeing can do. They produce 54 737s per month. Per month.
>>28558538
>I'm just going to ignore facts and go with my FEELINGS
>>28558467
>I don't see them delivering more than 10 this year.
It was 18 last year, and 18 the year before, why not 10 this year.
It probably will be less than last year due to the Algierian order, but easily 12.
>>28558482
Well, Russia slowly but keep winning in Syria.
>>28558547
>That's just a bullshit number.
Its including rebuilds, such as Su-27P to Su-27SM3, or MiG-31B to BM.
For Flanker, Fullback and Fulcrum new builds its about 50 a year. So 10-5 times your learned estimate.
>>28557926
>and new interceptor is currently under development
My MiG, but Russia hasn't even asked them to develop one yet. They're doing it on their own
>>28558579
Mainly because the Syrians are their allies and they actually WELCOME the Russian presence, so they don't have to devote a lot of military resources to ground operations. It's not a true occupation to the extent of Iraq or Afghantistan.
>>28558629
>but Russia hasn't even asked them to develop one yet.
They are 'working' on a PAK-DA design and a 5th gen as well, before any specifications are been defined by the air force.
Sukhoi should of bought them 10 years ago.
>>28558613
> Its including rebuilds, such as Su-27P to Su-27SM3, or MiG-31B to BM.
Nope.
Only new build jets included. They are included Su-34, Su-35, Su-30, Mig-29SMT and Mig-29K.
The mass production of Su-35 started in 2012 and it's about 20+ jets per year.
>>28558629
PAK-DP - is a state founded project.
>>28558705
> They are 'working' on a PAK-DA design and a 5th gen as well, before any specifications are been defined by the air force.
Tupolev working at PAK-DA and all specification were given already. You also should know that some specification may change during design.
Tupolev also working at Tu-160M.
>>28546307
Nothing wrong with hedging their bets. They taught the NVAF pilots (or just flew themselves) to use hit and run tactics against US aviators with their MiG-21s when they had only one squadron in country at the time Operation Bolo took place. They have about that many SU-30s in Syria right now. Probably use them the same way.
>oil at 12-year low
>buy more hangar queens guise!
>>28558574
The vast majority of the population does not arrive at their opinions objectively, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
It's very difficult to sustain a war in a republic if most of the population is opposed to it.
>>28555818
there's a video [s]clip[/s] magazine out there of one of the head guys at sukhoi backing up someone from NPO shitting all over rocket scientists for rocket engines being piss simple compared to jet engines
Vietnam was lost due to American doctrine favoring light infantry & helicopter bullshit
If they had had tanks at khe sanh, they would have won easily.
>>28558482
It's easily possible
You just can't expect to "win their hearts and minds" by killing hundreds of thousands of them, and teaching them fags are ok
But that's just the retardation of modern liberal thinking.
>>28550605
and thus under Marx there is no drive to create new business if it result in no benefit relative to the effort extended to create it.
People who spout the Marxist B/S need to realize Capitalism isn't the cause, we have moved from capitalism to corporatism.
On another note, that pic of Marx looks like a horrible shop of a classic american on to and a snackbar below
>>28560004
Are you the glider guy?
>>28560409
maybe
>>28548216
Where are you coming up with 3800 American dead?
I have a question for you radar experts here.
Phased arrays are expensive to build because each element requires an individual analog phase shifter module.
So why doesn't someone design an integrated circuit with many digital phase shifters on one chip? It seems like this would drastically cut the cost of production for PESA/AESA.
>>28557735
Considering oil prices and exchange rates, soon it will be even less.
>>28561071
You'd get inferior performance due to the quantization, especially with electronic warfare applications.
![89a45f7e_obama_laughing[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xG3PfCL.jpg "89a45f7e_obama_laughing[1].jpg")
>>28558350
>Check out this video Elbrus made of the chip running Doom 3, a game that was released in 2004. Zoom in close. Unfortunately, according to the Elbrus video, a 720MHz version of the Elbrus-4C chip paired with an AMD Radeon HD 6970 can barely crack 20 frames per second in places.
>20fps on Doom 3
50 more Su-35S's for the VKS, i like the sound of that!
That means more Su-27's can be replaced and it keeps production lines open.
>>28561744
>That means more Su-27's can be replaced
There are less than 150 Su-27s active (in flying squadrons), this order will form new squadrons and fill out old ones rather than replace any aircraft.
>>28561914
Thats even better on the condition that more pilots can be found or older ones can come back from retirement.
>>28562008
>more pilots
Thats the difficult part.
>>28561744
>VKS
Fag
>>28558350
>>28558464
>And the Elbrus chip, built upon ancient 65nm technology (current Intel chips are at 14nm), can’t even execute the code natively, but must interpret it.
Jesus that's like starting a telegraph service and saying "Well it's good the ISPs have some competition"
Doesnt matter. They dont have money lol
