The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
New Weapons and the New Tactics Which They Make Possible: Three Examples
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Heavy Strike UAV S-70 Hunter

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There are probably hundreds of books out there about the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs”, some of them pretty good, most of them very bad, and a few very good ones (especially this one). For a rather dull and mainstream discussion, you can check the Wikipedia article on the RMA. Today I don’t really want to talk this or similar buzzwords (like “hybrid warfare” for example). Frankly, in my experience, these buzzwords serve two purposes:

  1. to sell (books, articles, interviews, etc.)
  2. to hide a person’s lack of understanding of tactics, operational art and strategy.

This being said, there are new things happening in the realm of warfare, new technologies are being developed, tested and deployed, some extremely successfully.

In his now famous speech, Putin revealed some of these new weapons systems, although he did not say much about how they would be engaged (which is quite logical, since he was making a political speech, not a military-technical report). For those would be interested in this topic, you can check here, here, here, here, here and here.

The recent Houthi drone and missile strike on the Saudi oil installations has shown to the world something which the Russians have known for several years: that even rather primitive drones can be a real threat. Sophisticated drones are a major threat to every military out there, though Russia has developed truly effective (including cost-effective, which is absolutely crucial, more about that later) anti-drone capabilities.

First, lets look at the very low-cost end of the spectrum: drones

Let’s begin with the primitive drones. These are devices which, according to one Russian military expert, roughly need a 486 CPU, about 1MB of RAM, 1GB of harddisk space and some (now extremely cheap) sensors to capture the signals from the US GPS, the Russian GLONASS or both (called “GNSS”). In fact, the “good terrorists” in Syria, financed, assisted and trained by the “Axis of Kindness” (USA/KSA/Israel) have been attacking the Russian base in Khmeimim with swarms of such drones for years. According to the commander of the air defenses of Khmeimin, over 120(!) drones were shot down or disabled by Russian air defenses in just the last two years. Obviously, the Russians know something that some “Axis of Kindness” does not.

The biggest problem: missile systems should not be used against drones

Some self-described “specialists” have wondered why Patriot missiles did not shoot down the Houthi drones. This is asking the wrong question because missiles are completely ineffective in engaging attacking drone swarms. And, for once, this is not about the poor performance of Patriot SAMs. Even Russian S-400s are the wrong systems to use on individual drones or drone swarms. Why? Because of the following characteristics of drones:

  1. they are typically small, with a very special low profile, extremely light and made up of materials which minimally reflect radar signals;
  2. they are very slow, which does not make it easier to shoot them down, but much harder, especially since most radars are designed to track and engage very fast targets (aircraft, ballistic missiles, etc.);
  3. they can fly extremely low, which allows them to hide; even lower than cruise missiles flying NOE;
  4. they are extremely cheap, thus wasting multi-million dollar missiles on drones costing maybe 10-20 dollars (or even say, 30,000 dollars for the very high end) makes no sense whatsoever;
  5. they can come in swarms with huge numbers; much larger than the number of missiles a battery can fire.

From the above, it is obvious how drones should be engaged: either with AA cannons or by EW systems.

In theory, they could also be destroyed by lasers, but these would require a lot of power, thus engaging cheapo drones with them is possible, but not optimal.

It just so happens that the Russians have both, hence their success in Khmeimim.

One ideal anti-drone weapon would be the formidable Pantsir which combines multi-channel detection and tracking (optoelectronics, radar, IR, visual, third-party datalinks, etc.) and a powerful cannon. And, even better, the Pantsir also has powerful medium range missiles which can engage targets supporting the drone attack.

The other no less formidable anti-drone system would be the various Russian EW systems deployed in Syria.

Why are they so effective?

Let’s look at the major weaknesses of drones

First, drones are either remotely controlled, or have onboard navigation systems. Obviously, just like any signal, the remote signal can be jammed and since jammers are typically closer to the intended target than the remote control station, it is easier for it to produce a much stronger signal since the strength of a signal diminishes according to the so-called “inverse square law“. Thus in terms of raw emission power, even a powerful signal transmitted far away is likely to lose to a smaller, weaker, signal if that one is closer to the drone (i.e. near the intended target along the likely axis of attack). Oh sure, in theory one could use all sorts of fancy techniques to try to avoid that (for example frequency-hopping, etc.) but these very quickly dramatically raise the weight and cost of the drone. You also need to consider that the stronger the signal from the drone, the bigger and heavier the onboard power cells need to be, and the heavier the drone is.

Second, some drones rely on either satellite signals (GPS/GLONASS) or inertial guidance. Problem #1: satellite signals can be spoofed. Problem #2 inertial guidance is either not that accurate or, again, heavier and more costly.

Some very expensive and advanced cruise missiles use TERCOM, terrain contour matching, but that is too expensive for light and cheap drones (such advanced cruise missiles and their launchers is what the S-3/400s were designed to engage, and that at least makes sense financially). There are even more fancy and extremely expensive cruise missile guidance technologies out there, but these are simply not applicable to weapons like drones with their biggest advantage being simple technology and low costs.

The truth is that even a non-tech guy like me could build a drone ordering all the parts from online stores such as Amazon, AliBaba, Banggood and tons of others and build pretty effective drones to, say, drop a hand grenade or some other explosive on an enemy position. Somebody with an engineering background could easily build the kind of drones the “good terrorists” have used against the Russians in Syria. A country, even a poor one and devastated by a genocidal war, like Yemen, could very easily build the kind of drones used by the Houthis, especially with Iranian and Hezbollah help (the latter two have already successfully taken remote control of US and Israeli drones respectively).

ORDER IT NOW

Finally, I can promise you that right now, in countries like the DPRK, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, etc, there are teams of engineers working on the development of very low cost drones just like there are teams of military analysts developing new tactics of engagement.

This is, I submit, the first not-so-noticed (yet) kinda-revolution in military affairs.

Second, lets look at the very high end: 5th+ generation aircraft and 5-6th generation UAVs

While some in India have declared (for political reasons and to please the USA) that the Su-57 was not “really” a 5th generation aircraft (on the pretext that the first ones were deployed with 4th gen engines and because the Su-57 did not have the same kind of all-aspect RCS which the F-22 has), in Russia and China the debate is now whether the Su-57 is really only a 5th generation aircraft or really a 5th + or even 6th generation one. Why?

For one thing, rumors coming out of the Sukhoi KB and the Russian military is that the pilot in the Su-57 is really an “option”, meaning that the Su-57 was designed from the start to operate without any pilot at all. My personal belief is that the Su-57 has an extremely modular design which currently does require a human pilot and that the first batch of S-57s will probably not fly all alone, but that the capability to remove the human pilot to be replaced by a number of advanced systems has been built-in, and that the Russians will deploy pilot-less Su-57’s in the future.

This 3rd, 4th, 5th and now even 6th generation business is a little too fuzzy for my taste, so I rather avoid these categories and I don’t see a point in dwelling on them. What is important is what weapons systems can do, not how we define them, especially for a non-technical article like this one.

In the meantime, the Russians have for the first time shown this:

What you are seeing here is the following:

A Su-57 flies together with the new long range Russian strike drone: the Heavy Strike UAV S-70 Hunter and here is what the Russian MoD has recently revealed about this drone:

  • Range: 6,000km (3,700 miles)
  • Ceiling: 18,000m (60,000 feet)
  • Max speed: 1,400km/h (1,000mph)
  • Max load: 6,000kg (12,000lbs)

Furthermore, Russian experts are now saying that this UAV can fly alone, or in a swarm, or in a joint flight with a manned Su-57. I also believe that in the future, one Su-57 will probably control several such heavy strike drones.

Flag-waving patriots will immediately declare that the S-70 is a copy of the B-2. In appearance that is quite true. But consider this: the max speed of the B-2 is, according to Wikipedia, 900km/h (560 mph). Compare that with the 1,400km/h (1,000mph) and realize that a flying wing design and a supersonic flying wing design are completely different platforms (the supersonic stresses require a completely different structural design)

What can a Su-57 do when flying together with the S-70?

Well, for one thing since the S-70 has a lower RCS than the Su-57 (this according to Russian sources) the Su-57 uses the S-70 as a long range hostile air defense penetrator tasked with collecting signals intelligence and relaying those back to the Su-57. But that is not all. The Su-57 can also use the S-70 to attack ground targets (including SEAD) and even execute air-to-air attacks. Here the formidable speed and huge 6 tons max load of the S-70 offer truly formidable capabilities, including the deployment of heavy Russian air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-ship capabilities.

Some Russian analysts have speculated that in order to operate with the S-70 the Su-57 has to be modified into a two-seater with a WSO operating the S-70 from the back seat. Well, nobody knows yet, this is all top secret right now, but I think that this idea clashes with the Sukhoi philosophy of maximally reduce the workload of the pilot. True, the formidable MiG-31 has a WSO, even the new MiG-31BM, but the design philosophy at the MiG bureau is often very different from what the folks at Sukhoi develop and, besides, 4 decades stand between the MiG-31 and the Su-57. My personal guess is that the operations of the S-70 will be mostly full automated and even distributed along the network connecting all integrated air and ground based air defense systems. If an engineer reads these lines, I would appreciate any comments or corrections! After all, this is just my best guess.

The usual gang of trolls will probably object that the Russian computer/chip industry is so far behind the supposedly much superior western solid-state electronics that this is all nonsense; there was a human sitting inside the S-70; this thing don’t fly; the Su-57 is a 4th gen aircraft much inferior to the amazingly superb F-22/F-35; and all the rest of it. Especially for them, I want to remind everybody that Russia was the first country to deploy airborne phased array radars on her MiG-31s which, to boot, were capable of exchanging targeting data by encrypted datalinks with FOUR (!) other aircraft maintaining EM silence (while using their optoelectronics and relaying that data back). Furthermore, these MiG-31s could also exchange data with airborne (AWACS) and ground-based (SAMs) radars. And that was in the early 1980s, almost 40 years ago!

The truth is that the Soviet armed forces deployed plenty of network-centric systems long before the West, especially in the Soviet Air Force and Navy (while the Soviet Ground-Forces pioneered the use of so-called RSC “reconnaissance-strike complexes” which were the nightmare of NATO during the Cold War). Nowadays, all we need to do is parse the NATO whining about Russian Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities to see that the Russians are still pioneering advanced military-technical capabilities which the West can only dream of.

Now let’s revisit some of the recent criticisms of the Su-57

So what about the fact that the Su-57 does not have all-around very low RCS? What if the Su-57 was never intended to spearhead the penetration of advanced and integrated air defense systems? What if from day 1 the Sukhoi designers were warned by their colleagues at Almaz-Antey, Novator, KRET or even the good folks at the OSNAZ (SIGINT) and the 6th Directorate of the GRU that “stealth” is vastly over-rated? What if it was clear to the Russians from day 1 that a low frontal-RCS did not compromise other capabilities as much as a quasi-total reliance on all-aspect low-RCS never to be detected in the first place?

The crucial thing to keep in mind is that new technological capabilities also generate new tactics. By the way, western analysts understand that, hence the new network-centric capabilities of the F-35. This is especially true since the F-35 will be a pathetic dogfighter whereas the Su-57 might well be the most capable one out there: did you know that the Su-57 has several radars besides the main one, that they cover different bands and that they give the Su-57 a 360 degree vision of the battlefield, even without using the signals from the S-70, AWACS or ground based SAM radars?). And in terms of maneuverability, I will just show this and rest my case:

Lastly, the case of the invisible missile container 🙂

Remember the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commercial container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video which explains this:

Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4,000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, and nobody would even see it coming. In fact, the Russians could deploy such a system on any civilian merchant ship, sailing under any imaginable flag, and station it not only anywhere off the US coastline, but even in a US port since most containers are never examined anyways (and when they are, it is typically for drugs or contraband). Once we realize this, all the stupid scaremongering about Russian subs off the coast of Florida become plain silly, don’t they?

Now let’s look at some very interesting recent footage from the recent maneuvers in Russia:

Here is what the person who posted that (Max Fisher, here is his YT channel) video wrote about this coastal defense system, explaining it very well:

For the first time, during the tactical exercises of the tactical group of the Northern Fleet, carrying combat duty on the island of Kotelny, the coastal missile system “Bastion” was used The BRK was successful in firing a supersonic Onyx anti-ship cruise missile at a sea target located over 60 kilometers in the Laptev Sea, which confirmed its readiness to effectively carry out combat duty in the Arctic and perform tasks to protect the island zone and the Russian coast. Onyx is a universal anti-ship cruise missile. It is designed to combat surface naval groups and single ships in the face of strong fire and electronic countermeasures. On the basis of the rocket, there are two seemingly absolutely identical export options: the Russian Yakhont and the Indian BrahMos, but with significantly reduced combat characteristics. These vehicles are capable of starting from under water: they have a flight speed of 750 meters per second and carry the crushing high-explosive warhead with a weight of half a ton. The range of their flight is more than 600 kilometers. Previously, Rubezh BRK was used as the main coastal missile system of the tactical group of the Northern Fleet. At the end of August, he successfully hit two targets “Termit” missiles installed in the Laptev Sea at a distance of more than 50 kilometers from the coast.

Now let me ask you this: how hard would you think it would be for Russia to develop a container size version coastal defense system using the technologies used in the Bastion/Yakhont/BrahMos missile systems? Since the AngloZionists have now reneged on The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Russians have already developed a land-based version of their Kalibr missile which is ready to deploy as soon as the US deploys any such missile in Europe.

The fact is that Russia has perfected an entire family of ballistic and cruise missiles which can be completely hidden from detection and which can be deployed literally anywhere on the planet. Even with nuclear warheads.

This capability completely changes all the previous US deterrence/containment strategies (which are still halfway stuck in the Cold War and halfway stuck with low-intensity/counter-insurgency operations like what they have been doing (with no success whatsoever!) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and in Latin America and Africa).

In the light of the above, what do you make of the steady flow of NATO ships deployed in the Black Sea to “deter” Russia? If you find it completely suicidal, I agree. In fact, all these ships are doing is allowing the Russians to train their crews on the “real thing”. But should it ever come to a shooting war, the life span of any and every NATO ship in the Black Sea would be measured in minutes. Literally!

ORDER IT NOW

Now lets think of Iran. As I said many, many times, Russia will not enter a full-scale war against the combined powers of the “Axis of Kindness” on behalf of Iran (or any other country on the planet). But Russia very much might get seriously fed up with the “Axis of Kindness” and sell Iran any missile the Iranians would be willing to acquire. In the past I have often written that the real sign that Iran is about to be attacked would not be the presence of USN ships in the Strait of Hormuz or along the Iranian coast, but the opposite: a flushing out of all ships from the Strait itself and a careful repositioning of the bulk of the USN ships inside sea and land based US air defenses “umbrella” available at that moment. I can only imagine the nightmare for CENTCOM if Iran begins to acquire even a small number of Bastions or Kalibers or Yakhont or BrahMos missiles 🙂

Conclusion: the “Axis of Kindness” countries are in big, big trouble!

The US and Israel have tremendous technological capabilities, and in normal times US specialists could gradually deploy systems capable of countering the kind of capabilities (not only necessarily Russian ones) we now see deployed in various areas of operations. And there sure is enough money, considering that the US alone spends more on the “promotion of kindness” than the rest of the planet combined! So what is the problem?

Simple, the US Congress, which might well be the most corrupt parliament on the planet, is in the business of:

  1. Hysterically flag-waving and declaring any naysayers “un-American”
  2. Making billions for the US ruling nomenklatura

Thus, to admit that the “shining city on the hill” and its “best armed forces in history” are rapidly falling behind foes which the US propaganda has described as “primitive” and “inferior” for decades is quite literally unthinkable for US politicians. After all, the US public might wonder why all these multi-billion dollar toys the US MIC has been producing in the last decades have not yielded a single success, never-mind a meaningful victory! Trump in his campaign tried to make that point. He was instantly attacked by the Dems for not supporting the “best military in history” and he quickly changed his tune. Now even the weapons the US does not even have yet are better than those already being tested and, possibly, deployed by Russia.

This “feel good” approach to military issues is very nice, warm and fuzzy. But it sure does not make it possible to even identify present, or even less so, future dangers.

Then, of course, there is the issue of money. The US, in its short history, has deployed some absolutely world class weapons systems in technologies. My personal favorites: the Willys MBm, also known as a Jeep, and the superb F-16. But there are many, many more. The problem with these, at least from the point of view of the US nomenklatura, is that they were designed for warfare, for the many and very different real-world battlefields out there. They were never designed to enrich the already fantastically rich!

Hence the country which produced the Jeep now mostly produces massive hulks of metal which drive like crap, which constantly break, but which give the narcissistic and baseball cum sunglasses hat wearing left-lane male drivers a delightful feeling of macho superiority. And, of course, the country which created and deployed the formidable, yet economic, F-16 in the thousands (well over 4000 I think) now produces the F-35 (good thing that the US colonies like Poland or Japan are willing to buy them to please their beloved Uncle Shmuel).

From the point of view of the US nomenklatura, the F-35 is a stunning, amazing, success, not a high-tech flying brick! The costs of this system are not the proof of the incompetence of US engineers, or the cluelessness of US military analysts. Rather, these costs are proof of the combined effects of infinite greed and self-worship of the US ruling class.

Sadly, one of the best ways to learn the important lessons, is by means of a painful or catastrophic defeat. The Russia of today would not have been possible without the horrors of the “democratic rule” of Eltsin in the 1990s. Think of it: during the first Chechen war, the Russians had a hard time even finding one complete combat capable regiment and they had to use “combined battalions” (сводный батальон) instead. This will probably also happen to the USA.

 
Hide 142 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Kiza says:

    The human ability and mindset to destroy far exceed the ability to create for real human needs.

    There are several inaccurate and wrongful interpretations in this article. Especially regarding drones. First, the drone designers are not prevented from improving the drones by some huge increase in weight (for example to add frequency hopping). The correct way to look at the problem is: measures and countermeasures, the same as for all other military technology. For the sake of plausible deniability, the drones sent against Khmeimim airbase had to be without the advanced measures and counter measures. More sophisticated drones would have been much harder to spoof and shoot down. Drones are a numbers game in measures and countermeasures.

    Regarding Su-57 versus F35, it is really not a fair comparison because they are of a different design philosophy. In the briefest, F35 puts all its eggs in only one basket of stealth, that is low RCS. I call it no-Plan-B plane, huge compromises made on performance to keep very low RCS. It is a difficult to detect flying brick (but importantly – not impossible). The concept is that F35 shoots from a long distance even before the opponent detects its presence, by getting info about the opponent from other sources, that is passively. This can really work under favorable conditions. But if not that then nothing else, a dead duck, a parachute is the pilot’s PlanB at $120M a pop.

    Su-57 puts less emphasis on stealth to keep flight characteristics of a superior military plane, improved by the 5th generation motors and avionics. In other words, a plane with both PlanA and PlanB and also PlanC and who knows. It does not count on ideal conditions. Carries many some very long range missiles (just like F35). In a tough situations, it could outmaneuver and outrun opponent.

    Besides, stealth can be overcome by an integrated air-defense system with multiple types of sensors in various locations.

    Of course, the philosophy of the two designs is strongly influenced by the philosophy of the two MICs: defense of profit versus defense of nation. Yes, the only defensive thing in US Defense is the defense of profit.

    • LOL: FB
  2. Kiza says:

    One more thing, I do agree that the Jeep and the F16 were amazing products from some other, good times of US, probably the peak of Empire. Downhill from F16, slowly and then faster and faster.

  3. der einzige says: • Website

    For us ordinary people it only means that it will be difficult for us to fight these types of weapons. Whether it will be USrAel, Russrael or Chinrael NWO is coming. Western policy will lead to people accepting it with open hands from the east.

    Chabad – Ordinary Fascism

    Maybe Saker will translate it for you, when he finds some time when he’s not promoting Chabad Trump or Chabad Putin or Kissinger Xi

    “The mainstream are framing the rise of China as a competitor to the US in the same terms as they did the Cold War with the Soviet Union. And, just as the Cold War was a charade facilitated by lend lease and technology transfers, so, too, is the New Cold War facilitated by technology transfers to China that are framed as “IP theft.” James Corbett joins Jim Goddard on This Week in Money to set the record straight on how the Clash of Civilizations 2.0 is being used to justify domestic clampdowns, social credit surveillance, and military build up.” – The Corbett Report

    The China Deception

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Troll: Rabbitnexus
  4. FB says: • Website

    No the S70 ‘Okhotnik’ heavy drone is NOT supersonic-capable…any competent aeronautical engineer can tell you that, just by its shape…

    Specifically the wing sweep angle is not sufficient to get out of the way of the oblique shock wave that envelopes the aircraft in a V shape, as seen below…

    Even at its stated 60,000 ft ceiling where Mach number is lower relative to actual flying speed, due to the much lower temperature…1,400 km/hr is still Mach 1.32…which gives a Mch angle of 50 degrees…

    That means the wing sweep must be considerably greater, since it is necessary to put as much distance as possible between the shock wave and the wing leading edge…a wing sweep greater than 60 degrees would be required, as a minimum…

    We see from pictures o the Okhotnik that its wing sweep isn’t anywhere near that…

    About 45 degrees by eyeball…thus it is impossible for this craft to reach supersonic speed…

    We also see that its thick wing leading edge is clearly NOT designed for supersonic…which requires thin, knife-like leading edge profile…

    Fighter aircraft that must operate at both subsonic [the majority of the time]…with short bursts to supersonic, employ leading edge flaps that, when turned down, provide the equivalent of a thick rounded leading edge for subsonic flight…

    When retracted the leading edge is thinner and sharper to allow supersonic excursions…

    The wing need not be swept back because the pointy nose of the fuselage is far ahead of the wing, and this is where the shockwave starts…so the wing is still kept out of the wave…

    Once again, the ‘analyst’ Saker relies on unsubstantiated ‘media’ reporting, instead of ascertaining information from expert sources…

  5. Logan says:

    RE: cost effectiveness.

    A scrimmage in a Border Station-
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

  6. Surely anyone can camouflage weapons systems in containers and not just Russians. Now if the Houthis were to send some such into a Saudi port disguised as a regular container ship under a Liberian flag … and then open up …

    • Replies: @FB
  7. FB says: • Website

    On the positive side, Saker does get some important technical facts right…

    Russia was the first country to deploy airborne phased array radars on her MiG-31s which, to boot, were capable of exchanging targeting data by encrypted datalinks with FOUR (!) other aircraft maintaining EM silence (while using their optoelectronics and relaying that data back).

    Furthermore, these MiG-31s could also exchange data with airborne (AWACS) and ground-based (SAMs) radars. And that was in the early 1980s, almost 40 years ago!

    Correct…and very significant advances…ie airborne phased array radar…and even more important in-flight coordination by means of datalink with other aircraft plus ground radar…

    Here’s the Massive Zaslon radar on the Mikoyan 31…

    Also note here the razor sharp wing leading edges, in regard to my earlier comment about shapes required for supersonic flight…

    I will also add a further clarifying note as to why it’s not possible to fly supersonically if your wing is in the shockwave…it’s because of tremendous drag…even pointing say a passenger jet straight down, it will not break the sound barrier, despite the constant acceleration of gravity…which can’t overcome the massive drag caused by these shockwaves…

    Also on the MiG31…it’s the ONLY aircraft designed to fly its full mission at a cruise speed of Mach 2.4 [up to M 2.8 is possible but at the cost of decreased range]…

    This aircraft has a fuel fraction of 45 percent…meaning nearly half its takeoff weight is fuel…this is a remarkable achievement in itself for a 40 ton airplane that also has to carry several tons of munitions…no other airplane of this size comes close…it takes a much bigger, subsonic airplane to approach this kind of fuel fraction like super-long range wide-body passenger jets…[the F22 fuel fraction is only 29 percent…]

    Saker is also right about the nonsensical 5’th ‘generation’ buzzwords which are completely meaningless…this is truly kids stuff that is dreamed up by corporate propaganda bozos and spread far and wide in the mainstream media who wouldn’t know an airplane from a artichoke…

    Another good point made here is about so-called ‘stealth’ another propaganda invention designed to enrich the MIC…but which makes for overweight, overpriced airplanes that need completely unworkable levels of maintenance…

    What if from day 1 the Sukhoi designers were warned by their colleagues at Almaz-Antey, Novator, KRET or even the good folks at the OSNAZ (SIGINT) and the 6th Directorate of the GRU that “stealth” is vastly over-rated?

    Absolutely correct…

    Here’s the deal on the Su-57…it’s primarily an evolution of the aerodynamics of the ‘Flanker’ [Su27 and derivatives] which has been the gold standard since its introduction in the 1980s…

    The ’57’ has a much bigger wing and hence lower wing loading for simply unrivaled maneuverability…[I have to smile when I think of what ‘fifty-seven’ pilots must be thinking about the chances of ANY air to air missile ever actually catching up to them…]

    Here is one example of a unique aerodynamics innovation on the ’57’…the LEVCON…

    We see here the highlighted area shows a hinged leading edge that acts like a canard [small wing or ‘foreplane’ mounted ahead of the main wing]…

    The LEVCON, which stands for leading edge vortex control is an evolution of the widely used LEX [leading edge extension] used on many fighters, both US and Russian…

    The LEX [or a canard] creates a powerful vortex of air [think of a mini-tornado] that allows the airplane to fly at much higher angles of attack [alpha]…

    Here we see an Su30 in high alpha…the vortices are visible as vapor because their intense spinning has lowered the air pressure inside them to the point where the moisture in the air just vaporizes…

    That strong low pressure ABOVE the wing, literally sucks the wing up and allows the airplane to fly with its nose pointed ridiculously high…

    The Levcon allows precise control of this strong vortex phenomenon…and importantly can be controlled asymmetrically…ie one side down the other up…like ailerons…

    This is incredibly powerful aerodynamics…no other combat aircraft [or any aircraft of any kind that I am aware of] has this advanced aerodynamic technology…

    Another key point is the Su57 engines…they are fully thrust vectoring in both up and down and left to right [3D], unlike the @D up and down vectoring on the F22…

    These engines [Izdeliye 30] may also be of a new type that is known as variable bypass…or variable cycle…this was the original goal of the engine development that started more than 20 years ago…if so this is again a huge leap forward and a first…[at this point the particulars are a highly guarded secret…]

    The Su57 also carries 1,000 kg more fuel than the Flanker…two TONS more fuel than the F22 and nearly twice the fuel capacity of the F15…

    It’s easy to see the comparison with the F35 leading edge aerodynamics in the picture above…this is like mickey mouse going up against Mike Tyson in terms of aerodynamic capability…

    The simple fact is that the main goal of a combat aircraft is to AVOID BEING HIT…not to avoid being seen

    You will be seen anyway, because stealth doesn’t actually work in the real world [for many reasons of actual physics, as I’ve explained many times before]…so you better hope you can’t be hit…

    With the F35 not able to turn even as tight as the Vietnam era F4 Phantom [4.6 g sustained versus nearly 6]…the F35 pilot had better hope his stealth actually works and he can fly around unnoticed…

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Krollchem
  8. nickels says:

    All the US needs to do is throw a few more $Trillion at the silicon volley fags to crate new weapons and then these Putin Mongols will be quaking in their pants.

  9. JamesD says:

    First where I agree. Those gamma America haters screaming about how the Patriot system failed, etc… have no idea what they are talking about. As the Saker points out, even the S-400 would fail. And also as he points out the defense would be the Pantsir system, i.e. cannon fire.

    Where I disagree is that the damage caused to the 4 heavy walled light naphtha tanks was done by “drones”. Those are precision hits done by a Harpoon type missile, likely the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Furthermore even if this was a “drone” strike, they were similar to cruise missiles (what’s the difference?) and not the cheap drone the ZOG terrorists are using against Russia.

    One last thing, Russia and the US should be Christian allies. China and ZOG are the threat. Trump is working with Russia, have some hope.

  10. FB says: • Website
    @Commentator Mike

    Surely anyone can camouflage weapons systems in containers and not just Russians.

    In principle this sounds reasonable…but the devil, as always, is in the details…

    The discussion here is specifically about the Kalibr cruise missile being able to fit into a standard shipping container…

    Thus it is the size of the entire launch tube system that is the issue here…

    The Tomahawk VLS [vertical launch system] is too big for a standard container…this cruise missile was designed more than 40 years ago to fit into large warships of the destroyer and missile cruiser class [about 8,000 tons]…

    The much newer Kalibr employs advances in ‘art’ since that time…and the goal was to fit these into small ships, including corvettes of about 1,000 tons…big difference…

    Apparently the Oniks supersonic cruise missile fits in the same containers as the Kalibr…as does the amazing new Zirkon hypersonic cruise missile, which is the first use of scramjet propulsion in a production flight vehicle…it flies at over Mach 8…

    This whole idea of shipping container missiles fits in neatly with the strong historical emphasis on ‘Maskirovka’ [concealment] with the Russian military…

    In the wider context, the issue of concealment has become very important due to advances in surveillance technologies…including spy sats and airborne reconnaissance platforms…

    The US hasn’t payed much attention to concealment, which is a strictly defensive doctrine…the US has been all about offense, not defense…

  11. anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @FB

    @FB
    The report the sacker cited was based on official Russian MoD sources, but ignore this.
    Instead, and since you are such an expert, could you share with us a list of things the Soviet/Russian engineers could achieve which the Americans declared “impossible”. I will give you two, just to encourage you: super-cavitating torpedoes and hypersonic guidance of missiles.
    So, care to share your expertise with the rest of us? What other “impossible” things have the Russians actually done?

    • Replies: @FB
  12. FB says: • Website
    @anonymous

    Well…I usually don’t respond to ‘anonymice’…but since you seem so genuinely bereft of knowledge, my sense of charity compels me to oblige…

    ‘Third’ example of ‘impossible’ technologies fielded by the Russians…the NK33 rocket engine…

    Dating from the 1960s moon race, it was the first to incorporate an advanced engine design known as oxygen rich staged cycle…which is more efficient and thus provides greater rocket performance…

    The NK-33 closed-cycle technology works by sending the auxiliary engines’ exhaust into the main combustion chamber. This made the engine design unique.

    This technology was believed to be impossible by Western rocket engineers.

    Now the reason that the NK33 was considered ‘impossible’ was for reasons of engineering, not basic physics…the engineering challenge being that oxygen rich combustion cuts through any known metal alloy like a knife through butter…[think of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, if you’ve ever used one…]

    This is a metallurgical technology challenge…not anything counter to basic physical laws…[The US still has not been able to master this metallurgy, even after buying the technology to make the RD180 engine…]

    The supercavitating torpedo was never considered an impossibility…it was actively researched by western powers, but never brought to fruition…

    I have no idea what you mean by hypersonic ‘guidance’…presumably you are referring to the Avangard boost glide vehicle, which is an amazing breakthrough…but this too has been sought for more than 70 years and the concept of a flight vehicle that skips across the top surface of the atmosphere…think of a flat pebble skipping across a pond…

    First proposed by German engineer Eugene Sanger during WW2…this does not violate any laws of physics…

    An airplane that does not have a shape that is going to keep its wings out of the massive drag that comes with supersonic shockwaves is in fact a physical impossibility, unlike those others…

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
    , @Rabbitnexus
  13. Tom Verso says:
    @FB

    Good input. You seem to have very expert knowledge. I really appreciated your dialogue.

    However, a point of interest: Just wondering? How is ‘FB’ less an ‘anonymice’ than ‘anonymous’

    • Replies: @FB
  14. peterAUS says:

    Now lets think of Iran. As I said many, many times, Russia will not enter a full-scale war against the combined powers of the “Axis of Kindness” on behalf of Iran (or any other country on the planet).

    We know that.

    …a flushing out of all ships from the Strait itself ….

    Redeploy. Position.

    Oh, BTW, what happened to multipolar world? How come that sanctions, imposed by “weak etc…” Empire hurt so much? Russia and China can’t offset those sanctions?
    Ah, yes, that’s some multidimensional chess mere mortals simply can’t comprehend. Sorry I’ve asked.

    Back to dick measurement; US F this versus Russian Mig that.

  15. FB says: • Website
    @Tom Verso

    I just clicked on your handle…it took me to all your comments on this site posted in reverse chronological order…I see you commented on the Ron Paul piece, the Cockburn piece etc…

    Having a handle here means you have an identity and a track record that anyone can look at…this is not the case with the anonymice…

    I [and many others] don’t bother with them because there is no reason not to have a handle…your real identity is still anonymous as you pointed out…they are an irritant and many have voiced their displeasure…which is why Ron Unz took the step fairly recently of assigning each one a number at least…

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
  16. Tom Verso says:
    @FB

    OMG!!! My Red Face!

    I had no idea that there was this ‘Handle’ thing at this site. You know more about what I have posted than I do.

    I still don’t know how to use it. Frankly, I’d rather not know what I have posted in the past because I’m sure I will be embarrassed.

    Now that I know about ‘Handles’ I guess I will consider becoming an anonyMOUSE!

    Thank you for you very interesting lessons in aerodynamics and the ‘Handle’.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Jim Christian
  17. FB says: • Website
    @Tom Verso

    Don’t worry…just having glanced quickly at your recent comments, you have nothing to be embarrassed about…you come across as sincere and thoughtful…

    Some others not so much…but they don’t seem to care either way…

  18. Armanen says:

    Good article.

    I think Russia would go to war with the axis of kindness in case they attacked any member of the CSTO, particularly Armenia or Belarus.

  19. If Russia deploys Kalibre missiles in containers off the Oz coast, tell them not to forget Exmouth and Leeuwin Base here in Perth. The big base at Pine Gap is not the whole story. The yank subs use Exmouth for communication at least and it is not shut down as is commonly asserted. It is very busy but the staff there do not mix with the towns people at Exmouth.

    • LOL: Parfois1
    • Replies: @Antares
  20. Dear Sir Saker you asked what would happen if Iran got hold of various Russian missiles like the Kalibre and Yakhont. The Islamic Republic already has Yakhont missiles, and Sunburn missiles also. They have had these for some years now.

  21. @Kiza

    Really I don’t understand why you wrote anything here except your first sentence.

    The drones used against Khmeimim air base have been fairly sophisticated just built and assembled crudely. The level of technology is why they have been identified as being supplied by the USA and allies. The Russian Pantsir systems are designed to tackle much more sophisticated drones than these of course, and in swarms if need be they simply have not yet been subjected to such an attack. The somewhat more sophisticated Iranian type drones which were built by and fired by Houthis in Yemen were however deployed and in a fairly small swarm really against Saudi Aramco and as expected the US air defences were incapable of even detecting them, let alone stopping any. Of course the Patriot is not meant to detect and destroy drones, the USA does not have any defences against either their own drones or those of anybody else, of any technology level. Which was the point I believe.

    I’d have to say you only restated what The Saker said about the SU57 and F-35 albeit it more clumsily and much truncated. Perhaps you can suggest which US jet can be compared with the SU57? I’d say none, so he took the supposedly best multi-role fighter the US has. Nobody suggested they were the same creature. The Saker’s point once again really.

    The USA does not have a successful integrated air defence system I believe the Saker spoke about certain terms used by people without real knowledge, better to talk about the actual systems and their capabilities. The Russian systems have proven to work very well and are deeply and effectively integrated, right across the board. Using more and varied types of systems than the US and allies can even deploy. The US systems such as they are, have proved not only basically useless against any tests thrown at them and so far quite minimalist, they are also easily ‘switched off’ by Rusian ECW countermeasures as has also been proven. The Aegis system is useless if it has an off switch in every Russian jet fitted with an interesting little device. Ask the crew of the USS Donald Cook.

    Finally you summarised The Saker’s summary, once again merely restating his point. Yes as was concluded the difference is the US MIC exists for profit and the Russian one for defence. Voila. One truly is left wondering at the point of any of this when it literally began by asserting some inaccuracies or wrongful interpretations existed and then merely proceeded to restate everything in summary in less polished prose. Hardly helps you were first in line either. Kind of begs the question why?

  22. @FB

    That sounds like an American. Totally cocky about something he really does not know about. Surely his side is the greatest and best and even if Russians say they have something which fly’s 1400 kmh, just because Mr America cannot make such a jet he asserts Russia must be lying. Have you absolutely no sense of self awareness? The author already answered you at the start of that discussion and along you come with one more reason it cannot be true that wasn’t listed by him as your likely angle. I remember how many of you were cackling like loons when Putin first described those systems in his speech, no way was he telling the truth you said. Within a few months the smiles must have faded as these weapons were seen and deployed one after another.

    Instead of going into denial to protect your well embedded sense of superiority, how about either forgetting war as your national speciality or at least get it in your heads what war is. For example it is NOT meant to be a business and does not have as its main purpose to kill as many as possible and destroy as much of a country as possible.. If you go to war always under estimating your opponent and overestimating your own weapons and prowess, is it any wonder you’re historically losers in any war you start? You never have ANY goals at the outset beyond teaching some newly discovered Hitler a lesson or stealing some reluctant victim state’s resources. You suck at war and every time I see an American talk about war I see why. Whether yank civilians or military you all think in the worst way possible if starting wars…and losing them are not your intentions.

    • Replies: @FB
  23. @FB

    So you have internet and a search engine. 🙂 Good for you. I can do that too but why bother? I’d only point out what matters, not why. The USA doesn’t have half the weapons technology Russia does. Including some like super-cavitating torpedoes which I know the USA experimented with. Russia and Iran also happened to have perfected them and now they do have them. The USA made the wrong decision. This is what matters. What you can do and what you have done are not the same. When you have something that works, then maybe you can claim to be experts but if Russia does something you cannot, listening to you explaining why it cannot be done, is utterly farcical. Obviously if Russia has developed something you have not, then you do not know how they did it, any more than you can assert they did not do it.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  24. Mulegino1 says:

    The US military will always maintain total spectrum dominance and superiority because of diversity. Neither the Russians, nor the Chinese or Iranians can hope to defeat armed forces which incarnate the virtues of the Rainbow. Do the Russians conduct “walk in her shoes” marches with cadets in red high heels? Do the Chinese have “LGBTQ- ad infinitum” sensitivity training?

    The fact is that the US military establishment is akin to a corrupt and wealthy man’s overweight mistress who has been gorging itself on bonbons- as is evinced by the “super carrier mentality.” News to the neocons: the presence of a US carrier no longer carries the dreadful connotations of yore to the adversary; quite to the contrary, it presents, if need be, a target of opportunity to the “upstarts” like Iran. And keep in mind that America is no longer Admiral Yamamoto’s sleeping giant. A fitter analogy would be E. Michael Jones’ “gay disco.”

    The ultimate humiliation and negation (God forbid) of this kosher, Dumbmerican hubris would be a 14,000,000,000 dollar carrier sent to the bottom by a vastly cheaper cruise missile or drone attack. Again, God forbid. Who was it- Plato perhaps?- who observed that the soldier (and by logical extension the sailor) prays for peace more fervently than all others, because it is they who must bear the risk when the war tocsin sounds.

    There are many fine rank and file members of our military who are excellent and courageous fighting men, but grasping that diversity brass ring (in the service of Antichrist) will only lead to their defeat.

  25. This article focuses on longer range weaponry. At the tactical level video guided missiles are revolutionary, but the USA has none! This because they make tanks and big attack helicopters obsolete. I explain this and many other RMA things in my free on-line book.

    http://www.g2mil.com/war.htm

    Drones and guided missiles can be countered with SPAAGs, but the USA has none! Neither do the Saudis, hence their recent problems. The South Koreans have jumped ahead with their own video guided missile system.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  26. FB says: • Website
    @Rabbitnexus

    Oh my…what an amazingly entertaining little tree monkey…

    Do you have a dance routine to go with that…?

    • Replies: @Kiza
    , @Parfois1
  27. bluedog says:
    @JamesD

    Forget the christian bullshit for this country is just about as christian as the devil can make it,the 1% and their servants in the intelligence groups (as if they had any intelligence),which consist of the military, think tanks,secret societies,merchants of death,etc see China as as a rising power that can and will replace the U.S. in world affairs.

    As far as driving a wedge between China and Russia forget it ain’t going to happen, Russia has learned its lesson well never believe anything that comes of of Washington,their word is no good and any agreement they make is broken before the ink gets dry.No one HATES America but they do hate what its become,simply a rouge nation with the old line from Bush(love it or leave it) who lied the nation into two wars costing us trillions and creating those in other countries who do hate us.!!!

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  28. @Mulegino1

    Recruits fueling up for the Great American War Machine…

  29. Russian roads have not improved since the 1940s, I see. Guderian, in Panzer Leader, complains of the appalling dust in dry weather and the bottomless mud as soon as it began to rain. Looks much the same in this video!

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  30. JamesD says:

    @bluedog,

    Trump and Putin are buds. Trump is trying to unf**k the mess left him by ZOG. So far he has held off invasions over (2) false flag chemical attacks and the drone shoot down, among others.

    I’m hopeful if he gets reelected in 2020 we’ll see an alliance between the US and Russia.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  31. @Rabbitnexus

    US MIC, as is, exists for various egos. The Russian military exists for an effective defense.

    And a not too shabby offense.

  32. Vendetta says:
    @Rabbitnexus

    The F-22 would be the relevant plane to compare it to, both being top-end, twin-engine air superiority fighters. The F-35 is a lighter, single-engine multirole fighter, to which the MiG-35 would make for a better peer comparison, as a fighter with a similar role and weight class (although it has twin engines).

    The F-22 was the successor for the F-15 as the Su-57 is the successor for the Su-27 family, while the F-35 is supposed to succeed the F-16, as the MiG-35 is to succeed the MiG-29.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  33. Vendetta says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I’ve read through your site before, many sensible suggestions there but the idea that “the tank is dead” is not one of them. I think it comes from a place of focusing too myopically on the United States and it’s shortcomings. Certainly the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans and others who generally do things more sensibly than America these days do not think the tank is a dead end, as they continue to invest their efforts into new designs.

    The tank’s great virtue on the battlefield is versatility, not invincibility (your argument claims that because it is not invincible it is obsolete). A tank can engage a greater variety of targets than any other ground vehicle (in contrast with vehicles too lightly armed to take out heavy armor, or with specialized ATGM carriers that cannot effectively engage infantry), can do so at long or short range, and can be sent into places too hazardous for a lightly armored vehicle to survive.

    Your “Helltank” suggestion would make for a fine tank destroyer, but not a replacement for a tank. Most tank missions do not involve engaging enemy tanks, but rather of providing fire support to the infantry against soft targets or structures. Yes, you can blow a hole in a building with a Hellfire missile, but a 120mm shell will do it for a much lower price per shot. And then there’s the issue of ammo capacity. A Hellfire missile is more than twice as long as a 120mm shell and much thicker in diameter well. Instead of being able to carry dozens and dozens of rounds, you end up with a vehicle that carries less than a dozen. Those refueling trucks you complain about get replaced by a bunch of ammo trucks carrying reloads.

    You dismiss active protection systems but at the same time lament of our lack of investment in air defense systems. This seems contradictory. The same technological advances that produce improvements in anti-aircraft defenses also lead to improvements for active protection systems. The Russians, masters in the field of air defense systems, are showing a great deal of confidence in active protection systems on the T-14 and their other new-generation vehicles.

    A tank is one component of a combined arms system, not intended to operate on its own. It should be working alongside reconnaissance elements and supporting infantry to spot and then clear out ATGM teams before they can strike, and anti-aircraft and electronic warfare systems for protection from drones and other aerial threats. Only when they are misused without these supporting elements, on account of arrogance (like the Israelis in 2006), incompetence (like the Syrians in early 2012), or arrogance and incompetence (like the Saudis in Yemen right now), do the tanks end up being massacred by light infantry.

    • Replies: @Kiza
    , @Carlton Meyer
  34. @FB

    The LEVCONs do a number of things, like ensuring adequate airflow over other control surfaces at high angles of attack and directing lift in a number of directions, as desired, to enhance the super-manouverability while reducing reliance on vectored thrust to achieve it.

  35. Saker

    I wish the Russians would build a Panstir System that was Pantsir minus the missiles +a tripling of the amo rounds Pandtirs’ guns…..6-10 thousand round capacity…perhaps instead of one set of guns…two three sets of guns…..total of 6 guns….PANSTIR DRONE KILLER ON STEROIDS!!!!

    • Replies: @aleksandar
  36. Of course, if the US(CIA-US MILITARY) is behind the drone attacks of the Russian Airforce Base in Syria….in any way….wouldn’t this be more evidence that the Trump Administration is aiding and abetting ISIS and Al QUEDA in Syria…and wouldn’t this be both a WAR CRIME against Syria…and TREASON against America?

    • Replies: @Alfred
  37. Chinese 70th Anniversary Parade with Highlights of Latest Weapons

    These include hypersonic cruise missiles and gliders, medium-range “Guam killers,” ballistic missiles, UAVs and submarine drones. Also upgraded bombers and advanced 4th gen fighters.

    Message to ‘Murka: “Hands off!”

  38. Smith says:

    I’m not interested in all the hi-tech shit because it’s just posturing. When the big powers go nuclear, these matter jack.

    What I’m really interested is cheap cruise missiles that the Houthi/Iran are building, that would serve as good immediate weapons against chinese aggression in our sea.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  39. @bluedog

    It would appear that the US is now both a rogue and a rouge nation.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @bluedog
  40. @Smith

    Excuse me but which sea is yours? And what specific Chinese aggression are you referring to? Thanks

    • Replies: @Smith
  41. Krollchem says:
    @FB

    “The Su57 also carries 1,000 kg more fuel than the Flanker…two TONS more fuel than the F22 and nearly twice the fuel capacity of the F15…”

    From what I understand the F22 was built when electronics were more bulkier and thus took up more space. Consequently, the electronics were packed into available space including the wings, leaving less space for fuel. The tooling for the F22 was destroyed and the “stealth skin” cannot be easily opened up the install more modern electronics.

    Your technical comments on my understanding will be appreciated…

    • Replies: @FB
  42. Kiza says:
    @FB

    Ha, ha, I left it to you to rip this monkey apart. I knew that you would go into your usual routine. Internet is full of self-centered know-it-alls who rubbish others in the hope that this would prop them up (from their inferiority complex). This cretin disqualified himself from getting my response when he wrote that the drones attacking Khmeimim were sophisticated (probably because they had Radio-Shack GPS inside of them). Then he also called you a US person, LOL.

    Finally, our Internet self-declared genius of an armchair general grossly exaggerates the general capacity of EW. All forms of EW are very important but on their own they cannot win battles or wars, superior EW can give an edge (forget the legend about Donald Cooked Duck). The relevant situation here is that US has generally fallen behind Russia and China thanks to fighting/cooperating with terrorists and thanks to the general decline in US engineering, research & development.

    In aviation, F16 and Boeing 747 were the pinnacle of US engineering.

    Otherwise, we are all just repeating ourselves in comments. As things progress on their well established path, I have nothing new to add. This is why I now do less commenting and more reading and skipping (of rubbish). It is just wonderful how some alternative media have become the only valuable source of info and this zine is one of top five in articles, not so in comments.

    • Replies: @FB
  43. Smith says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    I’m talking about the East Sea (the sea east of Vietnam), and the fact chinese are building artificial islands and sending ships to occupy it for fishing and oil extraction purpose.

    • Replies: @tomgreg
  44. Kiza says:
    @Vendetta

    Very sensible comment about tanks. If US were to declare tanks obsolete, for any of the usual internal political reasons (more pork for other electoral districts), it will lose one more important component/option on the battlefield.

    As a parallel example, it is terrible how US lost decent air defense capability whilst spending so much on ABM instead. Patriot system started well but then US started paying Israel to develop better, as if.

    In US they believe that they just need to dedicate a cool trillion or two to any military system and they will become the best in the World again. But US is so deeply in debt, that even if they had all the engineering resource (they buy engineers instead of nurturing them), they cannot afford to spend any more borrowed trillions.

  45. tomgreg says:
    @Smith

    It’s called the South China Sea.

    • Replies: @Smith
  46. FB says: • Website
    @Krollchem

    Look at the empty weights of the two aircraft…F22 is 4,000 lb heavier…two tons…which is why it has exactly that much less fuel capacity…

    F22 Specs

    Su57 Specs

    The difference is not electronics…it’s the HEAVY stealth skins…have you ever handled that stealth skin…?

    I have…It’s not paint…it’s a rubber-type skin that’s glued on and you can actually tear it off…in places it’s up to 1/8’th inch thick…you could use it as a floor mat…this stuff is incredibly heavy…

    This does nothing except enrich the parasites that make this crap and sell it to the USG at exorbitant prices…it has no place on any combat aircraft as legendary USAF test pilot Col Riccioni concluded in his report on the Raptor…

    Because of this two tons of useless weight, this airplane is ruined…in the aerospace industry we have an old saw that says, if you pick up an airplane part and let go…if it falls to the floor it’s too heavy…because of this extra weight the Raptor has less fuel, less range and higher wing loading so it can’t turn as well as the Sukhoi…and on and on…

    The SU57 is a remarkable airplane…Bill Sweetman has a pretty good brief writeup in Aviation Week from 2013 that summarizes some of the Su57 design approaches…

    Notice how huge the Sukhoi’s enclosed weapons bay is…because its engines are spaced wide apart…this also allows lateral thrust vectoring which the Raptor can’t do because its engines are close together…

    Notice also the huge width of the ‘centroplane’ the blended wing-body where the entire fuselage is a big wing…this was first pioneered on the Flanker and is the main reason for its world beating aerodynamics and maneuverability…

    Here’s the view of the belly…

    Notice those huge Levcons deployed down [relative to the wing] as well as the wing leading edge flaps…

    That huge centroplane is the entire area between those two strakes on each side outboard the engines…it makes up by far the majority of the wing area…which is huge at 848 square feet…the outboard wing pieces are quite small [but included obviously in that figure]…

    That centroplane concept took many years of development on the Flanker…literally thousands of hours of work in the wind tunnel and flight testing of countless prototypes…this is the Russian approach…they just keep working on it until it’s right…no shortcuts…

    I won’t go into aerodynamic details here as to why the centroplane concept is so powerful…

    But this is the key to a super-maneuverable aircraft that that can do things that seem impossible…again the key is in the strong vortex flow over the top of that centroplane…This is literally creating and then harnessing the power of a tornado…

    The Su57 is a masterpiece…

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Krollchem
    , @Bill Jones
  47. Smith says:
    @tomgreg

    Not in our language, no.

    The sea is more accurately to be called the South East (Asia) Sea, internationally. The fact China is included in the naming implies to naive readers that China owns it, while the sea is shared by SEA countries, with only a small part of China.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  48. Krollchem says:
    @FB

    thanks for the great reply.

    My game was metallurgical chemistry so your background is a real education for me.

  49. bluedog says:
    @JamesD

    Never happen because of the MIC and the 1% which Trump is a player in,now without a doubt Trump will be re-elected for that’s the scam in the game, and by that time we will be in a depression and I’m sure that neither Russia nor China will be in any rush to join us there!!.

  50. Begemot says:
    @Smith

    The name for this sea in English is the South China Sea. All English language maps label it as such.

    I note that the name you claim as an international usage, South East (Asia) Sea, is bogus. On the website https://www.change.org/p/change-the-name-south-china-sea-to-southeast-asia-sea there is a petition to change the name from South China Sea to what you claim is the internationally used term. This page also pops up with a message from the Nguyen Thai Hoc Foundation: NGUYEN THAI HOC FOUNDATION needs your help with “Change the name “South China Sea” to “Southeast Asia Sea””. So what you claim is a fact is not and is part of an ongoing campaign by the Vietnamese government to change the English language usage, which goes back to the 16th century.

    There are many places on this planet which have different names depending on the language being used. I don’t care what the Vietnamese prefer to call this body of water. We English speakers have our own name. Leave it be.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  51. FB says: • Website
    @Kiza

    In aviation, F16 and Boeing 747 were the pinnacle of US engineering.

    Well…the triple seven is to my mind the best passenger jet flying right now…it has been trouble free and really the queen of the skies since her intro in 1995…

    If you ask people working at Boeing assembly they will tell you that every piece just snaps together like lego blocks…unlike later models where nothing fits properly due to Boeing’s Wall Street ‘management’ that took over and decided to outsource components far and wide in order to make money…and that’s just the tip of the iceberg in corner-cutting…

    It’s important to note the timeline here…when the triple seven concept and engineering work began we were still in the Soviet era…this had the effect of keeping the worst capitalist instincts [read corruption] in check…since then it’s been all downhill…engineering capability…financialization…massive greed and corruption…debt slavery…the extinction of the middle class etc…

    But back to airplanes…the F16 is certainly the most successful US combat aircraft ever…it’s the US MiG21…produced in huge numbers and used by air forces far and wide very effectively…

    Little sidebar here about the ageless MiG 21…in 2004 the USAF held a friendly tactical air exercise with their Indian counterparts, COPE India 2004…now these air exercises really in the end do not mean a whole heck of a lot in terms of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’…but they do serve as a measure of pilot and aircraft capability…

    The USAF brought six F15Cs, the single seat air superiority version…here’s what Col Mike Snodgrass commander of the USAF’s 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska said…

    The two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MiG 21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia…

    Now if we play the goofy media-invented terminology of fighter ‘generations’ we note that the MiG21 is a 2’nd generation jet…yet here it is impressing the heck out of a guy who drives a ‘fourth generation’ F15 [widely hailed as invincible]…and he puts it in basically the same capability as the ‘fourth generation’ Su30…

    So much for silly talk about ‘generations’…

    This writeup is a bit on hoopla side from the Indians…but the quotes from the Col are from Aviation Week…

    So back to the F16…the US version of the MiG21 success story…

    Now the F16 would never have come about if it wasn’t forced down the throats of the MIC by an incredible group of fighter pilots and engineers knows as the Fighter Mafia…

    Leading this group was legendary USAF fighter pilot Col John Boyd, who flew combat missions in Korea in the North American F86 ‘Sabre’…and who left a legacy as one of the great theoreticians of air combat…see the energy-maneuverability theory…[he was affectionately known as ‘Genghis John’…but not to his face LOL…]

    Also the great test pilot and Academy instructor Col Riccioni…whose legacy is also huge, having pushed through the two-ship fighter jet tactic that is now standard in every air force…

    The aeronautical engineer Pierre Sprey…and Franklin ‘Chuck’ Spinney, a mechanical engineer and USAF captain who later worked at the Pentagon…he eventually landed on the cover of Time

    Long story short…this is how the F16 came to be…over the shrill cries of the MIC…here’s a somewhat decent overview, but the author gets a lot of things wrong…

    Now today the Mafia is dissed by various brown-nosers in the USAF because Pierre Sprey is still fighting the good fight…calling out the incredibly dreadful F35 for the turkey that it is…

    This is of course picked up by the idiotic media who of course lap up the complete BS propaganda coming out of the MIC…the so-called F35 defenders point to various ‘combat exercises’ which are nothing but kabuki theater…these are carefully stage managed exercises where the outcome is predetermined…as long as everyone sticks to the script…

    The late Col Riccioni surrounded by his Mafia…he flew south on his final mission in 2015…

    Back to the F22…in the fighter game between the Russians and the US there has been a kind of leapfrogging going on…after the US fielded the tremendously capable heavy fighter the McDonnell Douglas F15 in the mid ’70s…the Russians got to work on the Su27 ‘Flanker’…

    As noted earlier, it took many years of effort to make the aerodynamics breakthrough with that centroplane a reality…but when it was fielded in the mid ’80s it was a significant leap ahead of the ‘Eagle’…

    The ‘Raptor’ was supposed to leap forward again over the Flanker…it was in fact on the right track in terms of aerodynamics…ie a very big wing, 840 square feet…[previously speed was considered more important than maneuvering so earlier fighters had smaller wings…now we’re going back to maneuverability and bigger wings with both the F22 and Su57]…

    But like I said, and as Col Riccioni has meticulously analyzed…btw the report I linked to is just a brief summary of a much bigger very technical report that runs over 50 pages…[the Col has the equivalent of a PhD in aeronautical engineering and taught the first astronautics course at the Academy]…the Raptor was literally killed by the ‘stealth’ nonsense…and the weight that it brought…

    Now of course we saw in 1999 when the Serbs killed TWO F117 Nighthawk ‘stealth’ aircraft with Vietnam era air defense equipment…that this is a dead end…but the MIC doesn’t care about anything other than filling their pockets with money…and, combined with the pliant propaganda machine of the useless media…they have been able to keep this stealth nonsense going…

    So the F22 could have been a very good airplane…it’s still nothing to sneeze at to be sure…but it’s really not much more capable than the F15 as Col Riccioni apprises…

    So I would certainly put the F15 up there too…but the F22 has been ruined with the ridiculous ‘stealth’ dead weight…the Russians have not fallen into that trap with the amazing ‘fifty-seven’…

  52. @Tom Verso

    OMG!!! My Red Face!

    That’s right Tom, as your principal said many years back, “This is going into your permanent record”.

    50 years hence (last time a principal threatened me with that anyway), it’s finally true.

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
  53. El Dato says:
    @FB

    Agree with this. Physics is physics.

    Wikipedia also says “620 mph” … not supersonic.

    It doesn’t make much sense to make this baby go fast either; it would need a lot of fuel, and a heftier tube. If you want to go fast, there are “needle shaped bodies” in the form of cruise missiles or rockets.

  54. TKK says:

    Every time someone buys a Jeep, a mechanic smiles.

    • Replies: @Biff
  55. @Vendetta

    For readers, the link to which he refers is here:

    The Tank is Dead
    http://www.g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm

    Note that I did not declare armored vehicles are dead, but that ultra-expensive ($20 million for a current M-1 Abrams with a single shot cannon that is ultra-heavy and requires 3 gallons of fuel per mile) is dead, compared to a much needed armored 40-mm autocannon vehicle for $4 million. I do see value in a 120mm direct fire gun as a form of stand-off artillery, as the Syrians learned.

    Heavy tanks charging forth are much like horse mounted armored cavalry when longbows and muskets appeared. Modern ATGMs will pound them from all directions.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Sam J.
    , @Vendetta
  56. Biff says:
    @TKK

    Every time someone buys a Jeep, a mechanic smiles.

    Throw in a Harley too, or anything AMC.

    • Agree: TKK, Johnny Walker Read
  57. renfro says:

    I am awaiting the perfection of the invisibility cloak for weapons purposes .
    The perfect antidote for war….all weapons will be cloaked and invisible to the enemy….no one including radar will be able to see them.

    Duke Researchers Perfect The Original Invisibility Cloak
    https://www.forbes.com › sites › alexknapp › 2012/11/14 › duke-researche…
    Nov 14, 2012 – In 2006, researchers at Duke unveiled the world’s first “invisibility cloak,” which used metamaterials to hide a small object from microwaves.

    Of course it was promptly stolen by a Chinese student and wisked off to China, so they are working on it to.

    Education or espionage? A Chinese student takes his
    https://www.nbcnews.com › news › china › education-or-espionage-chines…
    Jul 24, 2018 – Ruopeng Liu believes his work at a Duke lab was simply … Dr. Smith’s nvisibility cloak …

    I think I will also invest in rat brain research. Just think of the war and espinoge possibilites of one rat being able to read or share another rat’s brain and thoughts. It could lead to the same thing in humans. Just think if I could broadcast my brain waves via the internet to politicians as they sit in session looking at their computers….I could brain broadcast….”Go to the roof immediately and jump off”.

    Brain-to-brain interface lets rats share information via internet
    https://www.theguardian.com › science › feb › brains-rats-connected-share…
    Mar 1, 2013 – Scientists have connected the brains of a pair of animals and allowed … with one in the researchers’ lab at Duke University in Durham, North …

  58. @Rabbitnexus

    OK, you’re cheerleading for Russia. Check.

    Counterinsurgency

  59. @Begemot

    Which has nothing to do with his original comment.

    You’re using pilpul [1] in the sense of endless argumentation and quibbling in an effort to tire your opponent out. Trouble is, you tire out everybody else, _and_ it looks like you are beating up a non-native speaker for being a non-native speaker.

    Please stop

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pilpul

  60. Antares says:
    @Rabbitnexus

    When a commenter suggested that China will be the next Zio-project (#3) and when you used the troll button for this, it really made me wonder about your opinion on American sales of technology, especially military technology, and manufacturing plants to China. Was that done by Americans? Or by Zionists?

    If it were Zionists, than what could they expect in return? How did this work out with the US that was handed over world hegemony after WO2 on a silver plate by Zionists? What was the price for American independency?

    I wouldn’t say that I support the suggestion immediately, but brushing it off as nonsense is too simple. Chinese are known for building up relations over time. IF they are helped by zionists, they WILL keep their word.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  61. Tom Welsh says:
    @JamesD

    ‘Where I disagree is that the damage caused to the 4 heavy walled light naphtha tanks was done by “drones”. Those are precision hits done by a Harpoon type missile, likely the Russian or Chinese equivalent’.

    Why could such missiles not have been like the Klubs seen in the video mentioned by the Saker? They could have originated almost anywhere – on a merchant ship, in a port, or from a concealed location in a village or even in the desert.

  62. Tom Welsh says:
    @Mulegino1

    “The ultimate humiliation and negation (God forbid) of this kosher, Dumbmerican hubris would be a 14,000,000,000 dollar carrier sent to the bottom by a vastly cheaper cruise missile or drone attack”.

    Together with – let’s not forget – more Americans than died at Pearl Harbor or on 9/11.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  63. Tom Welsh says:
    @traducteur

    Guderian also acknowledged that the terrible Russian roads were one of the main reasons for the German defeat. Stalin was told about this problem long before, and ordered that the roads NOT be improved for precisely that reason. (Having a different railway gauge was another brilliant defensive measure).

    However, the implied slur is wholly unwarranted. Those roads in the Arctic Circle are not to be compared with the superb roads in the urbanized areas of Russia, or even between major cities. The roads shown in the video might be rough, but they are serviceable – as we can see from the ease with which the huge military vehicles traverse them.

    Incidentally, it is unbecoming today for an American to criticize Russian roads. All over the USA roads are breaking up from sheer lack of maintenance.

    • Agree: Parfois1
  64. Tom Welsh says:
    @Vendetta

    “The F-22 would be the relevant plane to compare it to…”

    Very true, but for the fact that the last F-22 was delivered in 2012 and there will be no more. Whereas the Su-57 is still being improved today, and will no doubt be produced for many years to come.

    As the Saker observed, the F-16 was also an excellent fighter in its day – and is still serviceable now, except against world-class opposition.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  65. Parfois1 says:
    @FB

    I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere about Rabbitnexus’s comments. It seems out of character, incongruous and even off-topic. Unless there is some bad blood from a previous encounter.

    He’s addressing someone who resembles the “Ugly American” (the boasting image many display outside the US) and, for the life of me, I don’t think you (BF) qualify as such.

    I might be wrong, apologies if so; it just struck me as odd.

    Cheers

  66. Sean says:

    Once you go nuclear you go nuclear for good and you know it, which is why major
    nuclear powers won’t ever risk fighting each other conventionally.

    The Chinese One Belt Road is the primary worry of American strategists. What can they do about it is … not a thing.

  67. Tom Verso says:
    @Jim Christian

    Thanks for the memories. I to am old enough to remember being told about my “permanent record.”

  68. mikemikev says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Heavy tanks charging forth are much like horse mounted armored cavalry when longbows and muskets appeared. Modern ATGMs will pound them from all directions.

    What’s stopping putting CIWS on tanks? Network them maybe with separate sensor vehicles. Seems pretty trivial from a technical standpoint.

    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
  69. The military hasn’t won a war since WWII and today exists only for its own purpose – paying corporations for vasty overpriced weapons that don’t even get delivered and paying for generals to live in luxury like Roman emperors. Wake up. The military serves no purpose but to steal from the taxpayers and give to the very rich.

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
  70. anonymous[348] • Disclaimer says:
    @JamesD

    One last thing, Russia and the US should be Christian allies.

    “Christian” stands for Pagan Polytheist Mangods-worshipper, aka the Godless.

    One last thing, Russia and the US should be Godless allies.

    Conveys reality better, doesn’t it?

  71. Mulegino1 says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Exactly. And unfortunately, our “super carriers” play the exact same role as our obsolete “battle wagons” did on Battleship Row.

  72. denk says:
    @JamesD

    One last thing, Russia and the US should be Christian allies. China and ZOG are the threat. Trump is working with Russia, have some hope.

    From the murikkan Webster Merriam…..

    Definition of enemy

    1 : one that is antagonistic to another especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
    2 : something harmful or deadly alcohol was his greatest enemy
    3a : a military adversary
    b : a hostile unit or force
    Synonyms & Antonym
    —————
    murikka has been seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound practically every country in the world since ww2.

    IM being charitable here drawing a line at ww2, if we go right back to the sinking of Maine the picture is even uglier.
    https://sites.evergreen.edu/zoltan/interventions/

    By your own def., muriika is the gawd damned public enemy of the entire world, never mind China.

    YOur are just another brainwashed murikkano asshole who embarrass himself infront of the entire world.

  73. Parfois1 says:
    @Antares

    Was that done by Americans? Or by Zionists?

    Do you see any difference?

    Of course we are talking about the higher echelons of the US Establishment where no discernible distinction is apparent regarding matters of strategic significance. The Project for a New American Century and similar grandiose slogans merge US policies with the Zionist ambitions as a single undertaking.

    As to your suggestion that the Zionists are like rats jumping off a sinking ship, my bob’s worth opinion is that of an implausible hypothesis because China – the oldest continuing civilization – is impervious to any Zionist dream of mining it for the greater profit of Israel and international Jewry.

    There are commenters here whose understanding of history is based on the premise that everything is subject to the controlling mind of occult worshipers, satanists, freemasons and, of course, Jewry. Their ultimate proof is that the mighty US has been taken over by an alliance of Freemasonry and Jewry, hence all past and future events must necessarily be their work.

    Such a simplistic view of humanity and history in their infinite complexity and evolution where chance and nature also combine to affect the course of the human journey through time negates the nature of man as a being capable of thinking and acting to improve his condition: he’s seen as a mere puppet controlled by those few lodgers who make funny hand signs for passwords. No wonder the Jews took advantage of such simple-mindedness when they set up shop in the US.

    • Replies: @Where-Wolf
  74. @Mulegino1

    Well said sir, me fears we are becoming nothing more than a paper tiger at supersonic speed.

  75. @mikemikev

    I address that in my book, which is free on-line. Here are two parts:

    After most of the Iraqi army was demolished by airpower in 1991, most armies became serious about air defense. Even armies that expect to fight with air superiority must improve their mobile air defense to deal with UAVs, small helicopters, and long-range indirect fire guided missiles like EFOGM. The US Army has little interest in short-range air defense, preferring larger systems like Patriot missiles, which should be controlled at the theater level. It refuses to procure modern Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns (SPAAGs). These are key weapons on the modern battlefield to destroy threats like: attack aircraft and helicopters, incoming ATGMs, UAV, and infantry with shoulder-fired rockets. SPAAGs are armed with one or two 20-40mm autocannon and some have a few anti-aircraft missiles. Here is a good video overview of modern SPAAGs around the world.

    ————-

    A valuable new weapon is the Centurion C-RAM anti-missile system. (pictured) This is a mobile ground-based version of the proven ship-based CIWS system that fires a radar-guided 20mm gatling gun. These have proven successful at shooting down small rockets and mortars in Iraq. It also has an optical/IR site for manual firing at any target. The US Army deployed these to forward bases but they should become part of mobile combat units. In addition, the 12.7mm (50 cal.) machine guns mounted on tanks and APC must be upgraded to multi-role M-197 20mm lightweight gatling guns to provide the range, rate of fire, and penetrating power to engage aerial threats.

    One ignored topic is final defense against incoming sensor guided munitions. A simple step is to install a Steel Canopy atop armored vehicles to shield them. Several Munition Countermeasures vehicles must be organic to all battalions. Finally, an infrared communications system may be installed on armored vehicles to evade RF sensor guided munitions and to prevent targeting by distant RF directional finding equipment. These are important topics, yet there is little discussion or research. Everything is focused on making multi-million dollar vehicles more potent but no effort is made to hide or protect them from sensor guided munitions. This is a mistake since powerful armored forces may become ducks in a shooting gallery during a war with a modern army.

    More here: https://www.g2mil.com/Ground.htm

  76. So the basic point is: both the West and the East have enough non-nuke rockets/missiles/drones/weapons to swarm the military infrastructure of their rivals.. OK, maybe the US needs to catch up here, but we are pretty close to this situation.

    Unlike WWII, there is no real need to firebomb the ants in their cities because the weapons are good enough to surgically remove the military element of nations. Question is – will the nations stick to military targets next time?

  77. If war breaks out with China, our Navy should keep carriers east of Hawaii. Keeping them far from Iran is also wise. They are valuable to feed aircraft to land bases in a combat zone, and to beat up defenseless nations, but they have become too costly and eat up funds needed elsewhere in our Navy. The US Navy should downsize by two carriers, leaving eight. We have access to dozens of airbases in the Middle East and Western Pacific and don’t need aircraft carriers in those regions.

    The Navy may be forced to reduce carriers as the result of the biggest procurement scandal in US military history. The USS Ford was built with lots of new high-tech (untested) components, and some don’t’ work reliably , like the EMALS aircraft launcher. The USS Ford cost $14 billion (twice as much as the previous class), was commissioned in 2013 and is still far from ready to deploy. The planned date has been pushed back several times, now they hope for 2022. Meanwhile, the second in this class is almost complete, and last year they began construction of two more!

    Some people dismiss this disaster by saying all new tech has teething problems. Yes, and some never work so the idea is dropped in the R&D stage. However, corrupt US Navy Admirals okayed EMALS for the Ford before the system was even tested ashore! Now they can’t fix it because its doing the best it can, and they’ve been developing it since 1995. Trump tried to sound the alarm two years ago when insiders told him, but was ridiculed by the hostile press who refuse to report on the EMALS disaster.

    http://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm

    Here is part from my book that explains aircraft carriers are floating powder kegs:

    Sinking Aircraft Carriers

    The US Navy pretends that it can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles with its SM-3 missiles, but those only work well in tests where the missile launch time and flight path are known. In a real war, China could launch two dozen anti-ship ballistic missiles at the same time with different guidance systems: heat seeking, radar emission seeking, radio wave emission seeking, radar image seeking, image contrast seeking, and even video controlled. By the time the SM-3s are launched, the ballistic missiles would be zooming downward at Mach 5 and our Navy would be lucky to hit any of them head on. A single hit may explode an aircraft carrier filled with aviation fuel, missiles, and bombs, alongside 6000 sailors.

    One hit below deck and the ship may blow up like an ammo ship – killing everyone! Or carriers may be sunk by a single lurking submarine, or a volley of long-range cruise missiles, or any commercial ship whose captain decides to ram a carrier in a harbor, which would cause fires and likely set off that floating powder keg. In 1969, a small rocket fired off an aircraft aboard the supercarrier USS Enterprise. This set off a series of 18 explosions, blowing eight holes into the flight deck and beyond and killing 28 sailors, with 314 injured and 15 aircraft destroyed. (pictured) Accidents happen, but amid tightly packed fuel and munitions any minor explosion caused by an attack can be catastrophic.

    https://www.g2mil.com/navwar.htm

    • Replies: @denk
  78. Much of the article was good, except for repeating the BIG LIE. There are no nukes. NO one has nukes. See NUKE Lies books and vids. They firebombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The damage was identical to all the other firebombed cities. Nukes lies are to scare the masses and steal money from them. The internet really exposed how fake those 1940’s and 1950’s “nuke” test were. Horrible fakery easily exposed. But then, they could not foresee the invention of the internet.

  79. Anti-ship missiles carry a warhead with hundreds of pounds of explosive. Read about what happened when a 5-inch Zuni rocket with a 15 pound warhead hit the USS Enterprise.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1969-freak-accident-nearly-destroyed-navy-aircraft-carrier-25227?page=0%2C1

    At 8:18 the exhaust heat triggered the fifteen-pound warhead of one of the Zuni rockets. The resulting blast ruptured the Phantom’s fuel tank, which poured burning JP-5 jet fuel onto the deck, catching three more Phantoms on fire. Amongst the first victims of the conflagration were two operators of the huffer unit and the F-4 pilot. A horrible chain reaction unfolded, similar to that which had occurred on the USS Forrestal. The heat from the burning fuel caused three more Zuni rockets to explode after two minutes, blasting a hole into the aircraft hangar below—allowing burning jet fuel to pour in.

    The devastation had only just begun. The growing blaze then caused a 500 pound bomb mounted on the Phantom to detonate, gouging an eight-foot diameter hole into the deck, setting off secondary fires three decks below. As ordnance detonations rippled across the ship, a rack of three Mark 82 bombs detonated all at once, blowing out a giant eighteen by twenty-two foot hole in the deck and causing a large KA-3 tanker to ignite with thousands of gallons of fuel onboard, sending a massive fireball scything into damage control crews. More than eighteen explosions would tear open the Enterprise’s deck in eight places. Fortunately, her crew reacted efficiently to combat the blaze.

  80. Mike85 says:

    The newer generation iPhones use laser terrain comparison to unlock based on the face in front of them but using terrain comparison on drones would be much too expensive and technologically difficult to do. Ok

  81. denk says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    If war breaks out with China…………..

    iff USA pick a fight at China’s doorstep and cross the RED LINE.

  82. I visualize this as as me and wifey sitting in a cozy kitchen and having the following conversation.

    Me– So how do you think the bomber drones will come? I got them all small rockets from Amazon.com to knock them out and the CIA, Mossad et al are 200 kms or more from here. Drones that can travel 200 to 300 kms are expensive, It’s a loosing proposition for them.

    Wify–A FedEx airplane will release a thousand drones above our village with our address and Amazon will let us refund us our money for the faulty anti-drone rockets.

    Me– Lets go visit grandma.

  83. melpol says:

    Wars without nuclear weapons can only be fought with a trade of conventional explosives. There are warehoused in the US enough bombs to destroy most cities. The rest of the world has only a limited amount of bombs. Forget high tech knowledge. No nation can beat the US in a war. They have the bombs.

  84. FB says: • Website
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Thanks for that great article…

    Simplicate and Add Lightness!’ — Designing the F-45 Mustang II

    It advocates scrapping the dreadful F35, which is of course the only sensible course of action…but also outlines what a new fighter aircraft should look like…

    …The characteristics of which could have been written by the Colonels Boyd and Riccioni and their Fighter Mafia…

    It hits all the major points…stealth doesn’t work…it just adds useless weight…

    Keep it light and simple…

    Range is crucial…so is sortie rate…which needs to to be two or three per day, per airplane…[the F22 and F35 need so much maintenance that one sortie per two or three days is the reality…]

    I would add one more requirement and that is super maneuverability…

    Here’s what I will add on that subject…I have already talked here about the Su57’s amazing aerodynamics, which, in turn, is an evolution of the Su27 Flanker…let’s get into a little more detail on that…

    I mentioned the ‘centroplane’ concept which is a blended wing-body that is designed to work with leading edge extensions [LEX] or LEVCONs as on the Su57…

    The best way to visualize this is to see the Su57 in action…here at MAKS 2019 with Sergey Bogdan performing post-stall maneuvers [more on that in a bit, but watch for the many displays of the ‘mini-tornadoes’ that form as swirling condensation clouds on the top surface of the wing…]

    Now for those who like this technical kind of stuff, here’s what’s going on with these so-called post-stall maneuvers and why this is important for fighter tactics…

    First a little basic background…

    An aerodynamic stall is where the airflow over the wing has separated from the wing surface due to high angle of attack [alpha]…and the airplane nose will drop since lift is curtailed…

    This is what happens in a ‘normal’ airplane…and the stall means at least a temporary loss of control…so this is not what we want in a fighter, which is pushing the envelope in terms of alpha in violent maneuvering…

    For those unfamiliar with basic piloting, a good way to visualize alpha is by holding your arm straight out in front of you with your palm facing down…now if you tilt just the back of your hand back toward you, and imagine that your hand is the airplane and your direction of flight is defined by your arm pointing straight out…then you see that the airplane is nosing up while continuing to fly straight forward…this is alpha…

    As that angle of attack reaches at most 20 degrees the flow over the top of the wing cannot follow that steep stepdown over the back of the wing and will literally lift off the surface of the wing…the result is a loss of lift and the airplane basically stops flying…until the alpha is lowered and normal flow over the wing resumes…

    Now high alpha is necessary in turning flight…this is because the lift decreases in the turn because the airplane is banked…we see in the illustration below that the lift vector is always perpendicular to the wing…as the aircraft banks, the lift vector also banks, and only a component of the total lift is in the up direction…

    We see this in the basic illustration here…

    With less lift available in the turn, we must pull back on the stick and pitch up the nose angle and alpha…since lift is a function of alpha [nearly linear]…in order to keep the craft aloft against the force of gravity…

    With very extreme turning maneuvers, you can stall the wing and then you’re in trouble…so this is why the LEX [leading edge extension] aerodynamics was developed…we see this on all modern fighters…here’s the F/A18 ‘Hornet’…

    That little surface out front crates that fast spinning vortex that not only makes lift on its own [the low pressure inside the vortex pulls the wing up]…but it also serves to push down the rest of the flow back towards the wing surface so it doesn’t separate and cause a stall…Here’s the F/A18 in a high g pullup creating those vortices…

    Now back to the Su57…we see how that centroplane has been widened compared to earlier Flanker and of course the Levcons have been added…

    Just by looking at that frontal aspect you can tell this thing is an aerodynamic beast…

    The F22 has much less centroplane width…and smaller LEX that don’t move…

    So I fully agree that a replacement for the F35 needs to have those characteristics outlined in the article…but the aerodynamics needs to step up its game also…

    I will get into that in more detail in my next post…

  85. @Mulegino1

    If the Big Red One marching in doesn’t get it done they’ll just sashay in the Lightfooted Lilac Two.

  86. @FB

    From my position of ignorance it would seem that having so much lift inboard, closer to the center of gravity would be a good thing.

    • Replies: @FB
  87. @Parfois1

    Of course there’s a difference between Zios and Amercans. You can’t argue for nuance then discount it when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

    The confusion springs from a faulty Globalist vs. Nationist dialectic fostered by both sides. Psychopathic elites care not which marketing gimmick is used to further their objectives of domination, subjugation and full spectrum dominance. They will switch sides in a heartbeat if it suits their own narrow purposes. Were not the supposedly Nationalist Kochs just making a deal with Zionist Soros, to make yet another think tank foundation just a few months ago?

    But there is indeed a conflict between cap stone Zionists and the up and comer Lubavitcher-Chabadniks; whatever your preffered description of them might be.

    The conflict is not one ideologies but of social class. The multitrillionaire Zionists control up to 80% of all assets in existence, by some estimates. Second tier elite ‘Jews’ are merely multi trillionaires. They are specifically responsible for doing most of the dirty work for Zionists, for centuries actually, but now the latter need scapegoats and it just so happens these wily people clipping at their heels are also the primary threat to the aforementioned Zionist capstone crowd.

    As for the Third Estate, the French Revolution can reliably predict Our Collective Fate with respect to the two topmost social classes. They care not a whiff for us and in most instances prefer we be destroyed.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  88. Vendetta says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Very true, although with Russia’s order for the Su-57 presently standing at 76, they will be available in similarly low numbers for the time being. Further orders for the Su-57 are to be expected but numbers in service are unlikely to surpass those of the F-22 until the 2030s.

    In the long run, the fact that the production line is closed for the F-22 and open for the Su-57 and the J-20 will have the latter two far more potential to receive major upgrades (as does the fact that both of them have a computer architecture a couple of decades newer).

    The F-35 has a great software package but it’s encased in a very poor airframe. In the long run it will be far easier for Russia and China to upgrade the software on their own fighters than for the US to make any improvements to the F-35’s dismal flying characteristics.

  89. FB says: • Website
    @Bill Jones

    …it would seem that having so much lift inboard, closer to the center of gravity would be a good thing.

    I assume you’re talking about the F22 with its smaller centroplane…

    …which contradicts your assumption about ‘so much lift’…since lift is a function of surface area…the smaller F22 centroplane means LESS LIFT from these strong vortex effects…

    As for the center of gravity…the sum total of the wing lift produced [from wingtip to wingtip] acts through the center of gravity…just as the aircraft weight does in in the down direction…

    If the lift is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis…ie both wing halves are making the same amount of lift…the sum total of all lift acts through the center of gravity…look at this illustration again…

    The lift is centered right on the longitudinal axis…EVEN IN A TURN…

    It is only when we have asymmetrical lift on the wing halves…for instance a rolling maneuver, where we then consider the lateral distance from the CG to the respective lift forces on each wing…

    Ie the upgoing wing with strong lift farther from the CG [in the lateral direction, ie along the wingspan length] will cause a more rapid roll rate…due to the longer moment arm from the more outboard center of lift to the CG…

    This is in fact a good thing…as it results in a quicker roll rate, which is measured in degrees per second…an important parameter of aircraft agility…

    A similar effect is at play in the yaw axis…which is the airplane’s vertical axis that passes through the CG…

    We see the yaw axis on the right…the deflection of the vertical tail[s] aka ‘rudder[s]’ causes the airplane to turn about the yaw axis…

    Now you will notice that the Su57’s all-moving vertical tails are spaced much farther apart than the F22’s…this again creates a greater moment arm and brings faster and more forceful response in yawing maneuvers…

    Another aspect to yaw performance is the spacing of the engines…the wide spacing of the engines on the SU57 allows thrust vectoring in the lateral plane…this is like deflecting the rudders and produces a yaw…

    The F22’s closely spaced engines do not permit this, so the thrust vectoring is limited only to up and down and not side to side…ie 2D vs 3D…

    Thanks for your question…

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  90. @FB

    Shark Sukhoi 57 tearing up the sky
    Puts everyone on notice: Russia is no lie.

  91. @melpol

    This is the exact reason nuclear bombs, missiles, and torpedoes will be used on all sides. But they’ll keep it limited, right?

  92. @FB

    You are are doing damage control. I know for a fact that the S70 can fly supersonic, because I helped to develop the air ionisation concept that enables it to fly at Mach 1 or even Mach 5. The S70 uses plasma actuators to fracture the surrounding air, reducing drag on its wings and allowing it to travel that fast. Your crude explanation for why the S70 can’t fly supersonic is a telling display of the stagnation of the American military’s technical know-how; wide aircraft are no longer limited by the geometry of their wings. The United States and its military is basically a dollar store at this point.

    • LOL: FB, AWM
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @The Scalpel
  93. sally says:

    There is new kind of weapon one that operates in economic space.. .. according to an army manual published by Wikileaks some time back link was published on another blog.

    it involves using the international financial structure to force unwilling or reluctant coalitions to either join or suffer financial warfare.. such as manipulating within the appropriate economic space: interest rates, tax policy, and bureaucratic measures in ways that overwhelm the weaker or dependent target victim so that it cannot refuse to conform its behaviors to the desired norm.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  94. Arnieus says:
    @Rabbitnexus

    I wondered about the ECW countermeasures deployed against the USS Donald Cook. I didn’t know if it was real or not. If surface ships are sitting ducks I don’t see how any super power can invade another. No more D-days without ships.

  95. peterAUS says:

    The United States and its military is basically a dollar store at this point.

    Ah, that’s good. I thought some trouble was brewing in/around Iran.

    Would you be so kind as to call somebody in China’s embassy in your country of residence and advise them accordingly?

    It appears they, at the moment, don’t quite share your opinion, as:
    https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-10-06/iran-says-chinese-state-oil-firm-withdraws-from-5b-deal

    Iran’s oil minister says China’s state oil company has pulled out of a $5 billion deal to develop its massive offshore natural gas field….

    You could even get some remuneration; I mean, Chinks do appear to be careful about their money/investment/stuff like that.
    Just tell them there is nothing to worry about. That “dollar store” etc.

    • Replies: @FB
  96. FB says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    Iran’s oil minister says China’s state oil company has pulled out of a $5 billion deal to develop its massive offshore natural gas field….

    I guess when you’re a fucking POTATOHEAD…it would stand to reason you have mash for brains…

    Forbes Sept 19…

    China’s Giant $400 Billion Iran Investment Complicates U.S. Options

    Amidst historic U.S. – Iran tensions, Beijing is doubling-down on its strategic partnership with Tehran, ignoring U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic from global markets.

    Following an August visit by Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Beijing, the two countries agreed to update a 25-year program signed in 2016, to include an unprecedented $400 billion of investment in the Iranian economy – sanctions be damned.

    I guess the $5 billion pullout from one particular project…for whatever business related reason…still leaves 395 billion…

    • LOL: Parfois1
  97. SafeNow says:

    “the U.S. in its history has deployed some first-class weapons systems”

    D-Day Cricket clicker-clacker signaling device. Used by paratroopers to locate each other without exposing themselves.

    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
  98. wayfarer says:

    F-22 vs Su-57.

    Doesn’t Matter Who Wins, It Only Matters Who’s Having the Most Fun.

    Boogie ‘Til You Puke!

    • Replies: @Biff
  99. Parfois1 says:
    @Where-Wolf

    Of course there’s a difference between Zios and Amercans. You can’t argue for nuance then discount it when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

    Agree, of course there are differences, even within “Americans” – a heterogeneous society – in its wider meaning of “society”. Sorry, but it is very hard to define sociologically what the US is.

    I was referring merely to the congruency and interdependency of geopolitical positions taken by the US ruling class and the aims of Zionism by virtue of the Jewish dominance of the US’s levers of power in all its branches: executive, legislative, judiciary, financial, academia, public opinion and on and on…

    Whether it is a marriage of convenience liable to be ditched for convenience’s sake or an enduring relationship, my bet is on the latter given the depth of penetration of the Jewish ethos and political narrative and it has been consistently and progressively reinforced for, roughly, a century. Ideologically, I would call the US ruling class Zionist (Jewish sectarian nationalism) regardless of their professed political persuasion.

    I find it telling and ironic that the US Jewry was very supportive of Communism in the early years of the USSR and up to the end of WWII, during which period the US ruling class was also friendly. As soon as Stalin completed his purges of Jewish cadres, the US Jewry turned on him and on the USSR. On cue, the US rulers followed suit in hostility in spite of Stalin’s overtures to keep on good terms with the US, even hinting of joining NATO. Coincidence or just toeing the line?

  100. MarkinPNW says:
    @SafeNow

    Isn’t that the device that sounds very much like a German soldier on sentry duty operating the bolt of his Mauser 98 rifle when said soldier loads a round into his rifle’s chamber because he hears a suspicious noise in the night, causing the American paratrooper to mistakenly think the German sentry to be a fellow American paratrooper with disastrous consequences for the American?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @SafeNow
  101. peterAUS says:
    @MarkinPNW

    Yes…………………………………

    even semiauto…double tap…..on top of it.

  102. @melpol

    No nation can beat the US in a war.

    LOL! The Vietnamese never got the news.

  103. Biff says:
    @wayfarer

    The Su-57 simply looks more Rad.

    • Replies: @wayfarer
  104. SafeNow says:
    @MarkinPNW

    I saw that scene of the Cricket’s mistaken sound in The Longest Day. I don’t know if it was the creation of the screenwriter, or was based on fact.

  105. melpol says:

    Inventory of US bombs which can be carried by over 4 thousand American bombers is over 10 million. China and Russia can never accept such massive conventional weapon destruction. Both can drop no more than one thousand bombe in retaliation. China and Russia must capitulate or commit suicide by going nuclear. Doomsday can soon arrive.

    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @Begemot
  106. @Open Demagoguery

    I am a patriotic critic of the US MIC, but do Generals really live in luxury ? Again , I would like to see a major retrenchment and refocusing of the military ..:

  107. wayfarer says:
    @Biff

    Sukhoi SU-57 courtship display w/ Russian fighter pilot DUI.

  108. Antares says:
    @FB

    I am not American and I have to tell you something. The only reason why the rest of the world develops superweapons is because of you and the endless list of wars that you have started against us. So every time when you write “we need this” or “we need that” the truth is that you don’t need any fucking thing at all!

  109. Call me when any of these guys do anything that doesn’t look like an American copy.

    • Replies: @John Q Public
  110. @John Q Public

    America will not be punished. America is the punishment.

  111. denk says:
    @JamesD

    One last thing, Russia and the US should be Christian allies. China and ZOG are the threat. Trump is working with Russia, have some hope.

    Well I got news for you honey,,

    YOur so-called ‘leaders’ are gawdless mofo, they’d sell
    their own mothers for 2 cents worth, never mind your gawd damned jeezus christ.

    The Russians would remember…..

    YOur ptb had no qualm bombing Russia’s xtian buddy, Serbia, back to stone age in 1999.

    The Trumps, Clintons, BUshes, Pompeo,,,would sup with the devil itself for the right price.

    so fuck your xtian allies wet dream. !

    ———————

  112. @FB

    You misread my point. I thought the width of the fuselage area in the Su57 would be advantageous,

    • Replies: @FB
  113. In case of war production capacity will account for very little. The reserves will count for everything.
    The speed of evens will be so high, and losses will be so high that production capacity for replacement
    will play no roll.

  114. wraith67 says:

    With the Army fudging women through Ranger school and the Commandant of JFKSWC making all the tests passable by women (Navy and Air Farce gay pride celebrations, Army welcome of transgenders, etc), it’s pretty clear that the US DoD isn’t concerned with winning wars any more. Too many senior commanders have been able to accomplish nothing in Afghanistan and Iraq and retain their stars and retirements, and worse, going on to dictate policy at the Pentagon level. US military officers cease to be military commanders after the rank of colonel, something that’s been becoming more apparent year by year over the last 20+ years.

  115. FB says: • Website
    @FB

    So to wrap up this discussion on fighter jet supermaneuverability…and why it’s important…

    First let’s watch another splendid Su57 display from MAKS 2019…

    We see again here a few instances of those strong vortices over that huge centroplane, manifesting as swirling clouds of condensation…[which happens because the intense swirling lowers the air pressure inside the vortices, dropping the air moisture out of suspension…]

    Also note starting at about the four minute mark where the airplane appears to be standing still, hanging in midair…if you look closely you will see those Levcons flapping asymmetrically as the pilot [and flight control computer] keep the airplane in the desired attitude…amazing…

    Now here is where you will often hear some uninformed critics talking about how these post-stall maneuvers are useless because the airplane is moving at very slow speed, or even momentarily standing still…thus having very little kinetic energy…

    So let’s look at this question because it ties in to my discussion of the great Col Boyd who developed the seminal energy-maneuverability theory back in the early 1960s…

    Now the E-M concept as it relates to fighter tactics is often misunderstood [especially by the layman]…interpreting it to mean that keeping aircraft energy is always advantageous [ie kinetic or speed energy, plus the potential or height energy of the aircraft]…

    But this is not actually the case…so we often hear criticism relating to these amazing air displays from Russian supermaneuverable fighters that this really doesn’t apply to the real world of air combat…

    A good example of this is a 2013 interview with Sukhoi chief test pilot Sergey Bogdan, by noted aviation writer Bill Sweetman…

    The emphasis in “supermaneuverability” runs counter to much Western air combat doctrine, which stresses high speed, the avoidance of the slower “merge” and tactics that do not lose the aircraft’s energy.

    Bogdan, however, says supermaneuverability can be essential.

    This is in fact a gross oversimplification by Sweetman who is a writer, not a fighter pilot…

    To clear this up, let’s turn to Col Boyd himself…we pick up the story where Boyd and his Fighter Mafia associates had pushed through the Pentagon bureaucracy the concept and design characteristics, based on his E-M theory, for a lightweight fighter that became the General Dynamics F16 ‘Fighting Falcon’…

    The final competition was a fly-off between the two prototype finalists, the YF16 from GD and the YF17 from Northrop, which eventually became the Navy’s F/A18…

    The YF16 won that competition quite handily, but Col Boyd was bothered by the fact that his E-M theory predicted a different outcome…

    The paradoxical results of the flyoff between the YF-16 and YF-17 continued to bother Boyd after he retired.

    The energy-maneuverability calculations predicted a much closer outcome, with the YF-17 theoretically superior in some portions of the flight envelope. But the pilots were unanimous — the F-16 won hands down. To a man of Boyd’s mental discipline, test results in the real world had to be the final authority.

    So something was missing from his theory, but he did not know what.

    Col Boyd questioned the pilots closely to find out what was going on…it turns out the YF16 pilots improvised a tight-turn tactic known as the ‘buttonhook’…similar to the football play of the same name, where the receiver dashes forward and then quickly turns back to the quarterback to make the catch…

    When a YF-16 pilot pulled into an increasingly tight turn, the aircraft lost energy faster than did the YF-17. Normally, this would have been a disadvantage.

    Since the dawn of fighter aviation in 1914, power limitations made this kind of energy-dumping maneuver a desperation tactic.

    Once the energy was lost, it was difficult, if not impossible, to regain energy quickly enough to continue the dogfight if one was facing a competent adversary.

    But the high thrust-to-weight ratios of the new fighters changed the tactical nature of energy dumping in a very fundamental way.

    This was an example of ‘fast-transient maneuvers’ that the new high-power engines and superior aerodynamics made possible…

    As Chuck Spinney, a longtime Boyd protege and Fighter Mafia alumnus writes in his insightful 1997 piece in Proceeding of the US Naval Institute… shortly after Boyd’s passing…

    …it is a tribute to Boyd’s iron discipline and integrity that he uncovered the limitations of the very theory that made him a world-renowned designer.

    Since that time 40 years ago, when Col Boyd discovered the limitations of his own groundbreaking theory, engine power and aerodynamics have progressed hugely…making these ‘fast-transient’ maneuvers more relevant than ever…

    As Sukhoi’s famed test pilot Sergey Bogdan notes in the above Aviation Week interview…

    The theory of air combat has always evolved. In the 1940s and 1950s, the first priority was height, then speed, then maneuver and then firepower. Then with the third and fourth generation, it was speed, then height and then maneuver.

    Supermaneuverability adds to this. It’s the knife in the soldier’s pocket.

    PS…the Spinney article linked to above is highly recommended reading…the contribution of Boyd and his Fighter Mafia is directly responsible for not only the F16, but also the F15 and F/A 18…ie the very foundation of American air power for nearly the last half century…

    It is yet another manifestation of ‘American Pravda’ if you will that these hugely influential people are being swept down the memory hole…in order to promote more MIC corruption as embodied in the F35 disaster…

    A few surviving members of the Fighter Mafia at a 2013 reunion…

    PPS: I would prefer not to hear from people here who have a political axe to grind about how these air power weapons and tactics have been used…we all agree that American policy of senseless military aggression has been a disaster for the world and for ordinary folks in the US itself…

    But that is a political question…we are here talking about the science and intellect that is behind the march of progress in fighter aircraft and tactics…

  116. FB says: • Website
    @Bill Jones

    My mistake Bill…in that case you are entirely correct…

  117. @War for Blair Mountain

    NNotnecessary, each Pantsir come with 2 short range ( SHORAD) 30 mm 2А38M or2A42M radar guided.
    Such precision is enough
    Same for SA-19 Grison or Tunguska.
    Never waste ammo………….

  118. Anonymous[172] • Disclaimer says:
    @S. M. Coulton

    This is interesting, where can I read more about this?
    Could you recommend some sources explaining how these plasma actuators and the air ionisation work?

  119. melpol says:

    Electric generating Facilities in China keep their lights on and their lives bright. All can be lost in one night of US bombs. China must respect Trump and open up their land to US merchandise. No light, No Tickee, No Washee. All will be only Coolies.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  120. Vidi says:
    @melpol

    Inventory of US bombs which can be carried by over 4 thousand American bombers is over 10 million. China and Russia can never accept such massive conventional weapon destruction. Both can drop no more than one thousand bombe in retaliation. China and Russia must capitulate or commit suicide by going nuclear. Doomsday can soon arrive.

    How long do you think a big, slow U.S. bomber will survive over any part of China or especially Russia?

  121. Sam J. says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Hezbollah’s defeat of Israeli tanks using a machine gunner to ward off infantry combined with RPG’s to attack the tank is a prime example of tanks being outclassed.

    Also it should be noted that using active exploding armor to protect the tank means infantry can’t be used around the tank making it more vulnerable. Vicious circle.

    The war in Syria is another example.

    • Agree: Alfred
  122. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @S. M. Coulton

    Do a google search for UFO + gimbal video

  123. Begemot says:
    @melpol

    The stockpile of bombs the US has may be somewhat smaller than you believe. While these articles are from 2016 and 2018, respectively, they point to problems both in stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, problems which aren’t quickly rectified.

    From Defense One, the May 26, 2016 (https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/05/us-raiding-its-global-bomb-stockpiles-fight-isis/128646/):

    The U.S. military is raiding its smart-bomb stockpiles around the world to continue its nearly two-year-old airstrike campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Pentagon officials said.

    Defense Department officials are trying to figure out “how we balance the weapons we have,” U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Brown, the man overseeing the airstrikes, said Thursday.

    The bomb shortfalls extend beyond U.S. Central Command. Adm. Harry Harris, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told Congress that he was also concerned about depletion of bomb stockpiles.

    From Defense news, May 22, 2018 (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/05/22/the-us-is-running-out-of-bombs-and-it-may-soon-struggle-to-make-more/):

    The Pentagon plans to invest more than $20 billion in munitions in its next budget. But whether the industrial base will be there to support such massive buys in the future is up in the air — at a time when America is expending munitions at increasingly intense rates.

  124. Alfred says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    You assumption is that Trump is in control of every arm of government. If that were the case, his current detractors would have been imprisoned a long time ago. 🙂

  125. Alfred says:
    @sally

    There is new kind of weapon one that operates in economic space

    There is nothing new about it. How do you think the British and French got hold of the shares of the Suez Canal?

    That is what they are currently doing against Denmark – to prevent them from approving the Russian gas pipeline. It must be stopped or Ukraine will be finished when their current gas transport contract with Russia ends on 01/01/20

    Former Danske Bank chief in Estonia found dead

    The share price of Danske is 65% below where it was 4 years ago. The timing of this scandal about money laundering is fortuitous. 🙂

    A Banker Reveals the Bonus Culture Behind a $220 Billion Scandal

    Are we seriously expected to believe that $220 Billion left Russia through Estonia using Denmark’s largest bank without the US knowing about for years?

  126. How could this have happened? The U.S. has deployed its best women and minorities, yet we keep falling behind in technology. Quite the conundrum. Maybe we should tip our warheads with even more enriched diversity.

  127. JamesinNM says:
    @Kiza

    Old Russian radars in Iraq could see the F-22 during the Iraq war, causing the F-22 pilots to have to fly missions upside down to reduce detectable cross section.

  128. anon[863] • Disclaimer says:

    stealth aircraft have been known to be tracked effectively by radars for some time

    firing solutions are more difficult but tracking is easy now

    the Pantsir S1 was almost completely ineffective at the kamikaze drone problem. It is presently being redesigned and tested as we speak. TOR systems proved to be more effective- it was a matter of radars not being up to finding and targeting these drones.

    Drone swarm defense will come down to effective sensor fusion

  129. @FB
    I really appreciate your detailed technical insight into the variety of weapons systems that you have commented on (this site and others). You have a knack of being able to explain complicated concepts in a manner that non-specialists can easily understand.

    • Agree: Simpleguest, Vendetta
    • Replies: @FB
  130. Vendetta says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Worth remembering is that no army dispensed with its cavalry until the 20th century. Cavalry continued to play a significant role in war long after technological advances had restored primacy to the infantry.

    I do agree insofar as the Abrams is somewhat of a dinosaur and does not represent the future of main battle tank design. As a design it is both too heavy as well as excessively optimized around tank-on-tank fighting (think of the glorious knightly jousts back in the day) at the expense of its utility for the workhorse tasks that constitute the vast majority of tank missions, like supporting the infantry.

    Russia’s BMPT offers a fine example of the type of auto cannon support vehicle you are advocating, and I think just about anybody in uniform would feel jealous about not having something like that of our own.

    The Russians didn’t replace their entire tank force with it however; rather they are deployed together to provide complementary support to one another (and to the infantry).

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  131. peterAUS says:
    @Vendetta

    …excessively optimized around tank-on-tank fighting (think of the glorious knightly jousts back in the day)

    That’s one way to look at it.
    Another is that the best anti-tank weapon is the tank itself.

    ….its utility for the workhorse tasks that constitute the vast majority of tank missions, like supporting the infantry.

    Some people believe that. It was what French and British believed at the beginning of WW2. Germans believed in something else.
    As of today, some other people still believe that German thing. Soviets were good at it, especially in the last phases of the war. I just have a feeling that Russians still feel/think the same. Some examples from Georgia and Ukraine point there. In open/rural terrain. In MOUT, yes. Tank is a part of assault team with the main role to support the infantry there.

    Or…in rural, a smart Commander will mass his armor, support it with all he has and push at the Schwerpunkt. The tank is the basic block.
    In MOUT, he will form assault teams. The infantry squad is the basic block.
    Anyway.

    ….feel jealous about not having something like that of our own.

    Yes. ………………………..
    As Bradley, Warrior, Marder etc.

    I am sure that some people here are just itching to start debating the above. I’ll pass.
    To each his own.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  132. FB says: • Website
    @retiredmecheng

    Thanks for your kind words…glad to be of some use…

    Regards,

    FB

  133. Vendetta says:
    @peterAUS

    You are not understanding the discussion. It isn’t about whether tanks are dispersed or concentrated, it’s about what types of targets they’re engaging – most of the time, it’s actually not other tanks (the same is true even during World War II). 90% of the time, your target is going to be something a lighter and cheaper tank like a T-72 will be just as capable of destroying as a heavyweight like the Abrams.

    A more sensible force mix would be to have a cheaper medium tank as your workhorse and a smaller corps of the heavyweight as your elite for when you do have to fight other tanks. This is how China’s armor is set up with the Type 96 and the Type 99 respectively, and how Russia’s is likely to look in the future with the T-90 and the T-14 (or as it did in the past with the T-72 and the T-64 or T-80).

    And the BMPT is not in the same class at all as the IFV’s you’re comparing it to (or the standard BMP series).

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  134. peterAUS says:
    @Vendetta

    Civil comment with some thought put into it.

    Let’s agree to disagree and move on.

  135. bluedog says:
    @melpol

    Give it up for China doesen’t have to do jack shit ,if you doubt it just look at Nam where we bombed them with everything we had including the kitchen sink, and still got out our ass handed to us on a platter,and if you think even for one of your insane moments that China will permit this country into their affairs,then your beyond hope.!!

  136. zowl says:

    It is time that we all turn our backs on the nomenklatura (I love that word) and walk away, go into the fields and grow food live in villages and vacate the cities. As long as we play along they have power.

  137. bt11 says:

    awesome commentary fb.

    any insight / background on the control systems on these types of jets (specific to flying and maneuvers)? what is going on between pilot, sensors, and controls (auto / manual, digital / analog, safety, architecture, software)?

    also can you give an insight to the pilot / team skill and training to fly something like the SU-57?

  138. Scruff says:

    why would our adversaries let us lick our wounds and regroup after inflicting a serious beat down? Smart money is on a coup de gras and end it.

  139. The F16 has an interesting back story. Back in the 60’s the Air Force was looking to replace the F4 Phantom II. The fat cat Generals in the Pentagon favored another complex, heavy fighter similar to the F4 only more expensive. A guy named John Boyd was a fighter pilot with experience in combat in the Korean war was stationed at the Pentagon at that time with involvement in that project. Boyd was an excellent fighter pilot renowned for his dogfighting skills. He gathered a small cadre of like minded officers and some great math guys and basically came up with the specifications that matched the F16. Light, cheap, single engine, with outstanding flight characteristics. Google “Button Hook Turn”. On the sly General Dynamics designed the airplane. Pilots loved it. Most generals in the Pentagon hated it.
    I don’t know that we have the capability to ever do something like that again. I think the ultimate goal of the industry is to have one fighter cost what our national GDP is. Then they can rest in peace from having destroyed the country.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS