using NATOID hardware to demonstrate the superiority of mass over quality in modern warfare goes crazy, imagine being this willfully clueless
using NATOID hardware to demonstrate the superiority of mass over quality in modern warfare goes crazy, imagine being this willfully clueless
I was really confused by this Skyfork. Like, Russia is specifically known for having military hardware that’s the equivalent of a Honda. Cheap, reliable, and far from flashy.
Sure, but most of it is 50+ years old. NATO has a much larger stock of aircraft manufactured in the past 20 years.
The Russian “equivalent of a honda” aircraft have seen their NATO equivalents like the F-14 and Harrier sold off to developing nations or retired.
Upgraded gen 3 fighters are not comparable to upgraded gen 4 or gen 5 fighters, and NATO has massively more gen 4s in service than Russia does.
Russian aircraft doesn’t need to be that good to be completely honest. Russian doctrine has put much more effort into its ANTI-air capabilities, which is being shown to be much more important.
Su-35, Mig-35, Mig-29, and Su-27 don’t real I guess
Like what the fuck are you even talking about? The vast majority of Russian aircraft are equivalent to the vast majority of NATOid aircraft in service, calling them upgraded 3rd generation fighters is absurd
The Su-35 is the Su-27 with a few upgrades and a new pick of paint for the export market. It’s a 50 year old design , as is the Mig-29/35.
The three most commonly fielded aircraft in the US are the F-15, F-16, and F-18, and all of them are contemporaries of the Mig-29 and Su-27
One of the only near new 4th gen fighters in service is the Eurofighter Typhoon. Everyone fields predominately 80s era aircraft kept updated, with slow movement towards 5th gen
But yeah go off on how the F-16 could wack an Su-35 in combat
Which is all well and good but you need to stage that shit somewhere.