Why is that? Russia retained the USSR’s production capabilities, remember that.
So theoretically if it was shot down, does anyone have any ideas or explanation on how? Did the Patriot pick it up at a lower speed that allowed it to be tracked by radar and then launched a missile towards its flight path to intercept it at a lower speed. Has the PAC-2 GEM T or the PAC-3 been updated to the point it can pick up the missile at hypersonic speeds and just launched a missile with the correct intercepting trajectory? Did Russia just not figure out the best way to use the missile, or are they exaggerating the missiles capabilities?
1 Like
It’s not biased friend it’s critical thinking. Russia are just getting the Su-57 in meaningful numbers. Most experts would agree F-22 is still the premier A2A aircraft, would you agree with that?
As a point USA has 143 F-22s in various stages of upgrades so we can say conservatively 80-100 airframes available. Russia has 36 Su-57 and we haven’t even approached the F-35 numbers, B-21 and even systems like F-15EX.
It’s not a conventional war that Russia can win.
S-500 looks great on paper but so did S-400 and S-350V they have failed to live up to expectations.
1 Like
Heh not really
Production isn’t just a building and some pattents, it’s first and foremost people and know-hows
If you don’t take care of those because of other priorities (say unstability or economical issues) it can be very difficult to start it again later down the line.
One can also look at a simple map and realize russia and USSR are different, or even the workforce and demographics
Spoiler
On a more personnal opinion, i think USSR was Russia at its peak like french or british colonial empires. But just like these 2 it would, imo, be better for it to let it go and focus on what they already have.
Russia has resources and all the people they need, but for some reason they seem to think their best course of action is to go on their own version of Vietnam.
From an external POV, it looks like shooting yourself in the foot and it’s genuinely quite confusing
And the US can’t even produce the F22 anymore.
3 Likes
It’s a potent missile but PAC 3 is designed to shoot down missiles, but honestly we do not know Ukraine reported it shot down and stated PAC 3 missile. USA echoed that because Hypersonics are seen as the new wonder weapon which they are to an extent. Issue with Kinzhal is it cannot manoeuvre, which makes it path predictable. The launch vehicle also doesn’t help being as they will have known when the 31 took off it had that payload they would be prepared for it.
Did the missile get intercepted or did it malfunction we will never know.
They have produced them already, the cost per unit is largely irrelevant when they have been manufactured combat tested and in the process of being upgraded.
Sure, if you say so.
3 Likes
Russia retained most of its skilled workers post break up I believe
90s to early 2000’s were a tumultuous period for Russia AND their ex-SSR’s.
Theres no denying that, but Russia’s and most of the USSR’s industry was in the Urals, and still is.
1 Like
Buddy the USAF operate the F-22, what’s to debate here?
Yes Boeing stupidly destroyed the jigs and tooling so to restart the process would cost too much and now the F-22 is reserved for special tasks and the F-35 supports it. It’s why the US built the F-15EX using a 5th gen for mundane air policing is a massive waste.
“combat tested”
they dropped a few jdams
i wouldnt say shooting down a baloon is combat
2 Likes
I am not your buddy and what are you even talking about, are you making things up again ?
If you can’t see how costs and the ability to actively produce something matters, i wont argue with you.
They have operated within combat zones, I agree it yet to see real combat on a technicality it is combat tested.
And I would add on that point that the Russian Federations VKS/VVS are the most combat experienced and that does count for something.
Explain how Ka-52 and AH-1Z are or were “sub-par”.
They do not need to produce more they have 140+ airframes.
So the cost to produce said airframe has already been spent 15 odd years ago.
A better comparison would be a Su-57 cost per unit to an F-35A
Sorry, i forgot that you think it is an untouchable plane which cannot be shot down.
Right, because money you spent on your car yesterday doesn’t matter anymore.
Or in this case just a few billions on top of trillions of dept.
You were the one bringing up F22.
3 Likes
IIRC the critical tooling was preserved, so it wouldnt be that hard to restart production, just more expensive than congress sees as worth it
1 Like
They were sub-par because AH-60 and others were the same BR, then were only 0.3 higher.
The new SPAA came in at 12.0 which made them flat out unplayable outside specific maps.
Rooivalk was and still is 11.7 while being better than both.
So while there’s a superior helicopter 0.3 below them, AH-1Z and Ka-52 are usable again.
AH-1Z can even be part of a stacked 12.0 lineup while Ka-52 is stuck with T-80Us and T-72B3.
Not when I factor in my spend for that year it doesn’t, F-22 can and will be shot down in a peer 2 peer combat there is always the potential for failures it would be naïve to believe otherwise. It’s what the airframe achieves before that point.
Because we are talking about the capability differences between the West and Russia
Ah I thought they were destroyed, good to know