Video of Russia’s Top-Secret Tank Leaked On The Internet

Same generation equipment fought in the Arab conflicts, west against east and western equipment always triumphed. Also at the end of the cold war countries such as Germany had Russian equipment left such as the Mig 29 and was thoroughly tested against Western, again complete junk by comparison. Russias tactics boil down to weight of numbers and the odious threat of nukes to follow. They didn't even invent their own nukes, stolen technology again.

a reply to: biggilo
And western tech wasn't "stolen" from German engineering?
most if not all modern inventions and design are built on the foundations from the past, from somebody else

a reply to: biggilo

No. It didn't.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about, but if you want to carry on beleiving the propaganda that is ultimately your perogative.

Have you ever heard of the Six-Day war? It is very well documented what equipment was used, I just double checked and I am right, sorry.
The Luftwaffe DID have Mig 29s also, they were tested and were crap by comparison. Please note too not all Western equipment is made in America.
Last time I checked Germany was classed as a Western country, still is in fact. Sure America got some rocketry engineers from them but it is not the same thing I am talking about...like Russia sending spies to literally steal the technology, numerous examples of this!
What propaganda am I falling for? I am looking at real world examples and outcomes.

a reply to: biggilo

cite a source, mig 29 vs what?

anyway.
Russian tanks have a problem of always-needing a larger diameter than their western counterparts.

when NATO began to adopt the 105mm, the Soviets dropped their 100mm (used on the t-55) adopted a 115mm (used on the t-62)

when NATO began to adopt 120mm, the Soviets/Russians adopted the 125mm.

this had the added disadvantage of beginning to add autoloaders they lacked to quality control to acceptably manufacture.

Quality Control is the only major problem with soviet equipment, otherwise I'd argue they're slightly more functional than western fighters (mostly because they're built to take off grass-airfields as paved airfields would be prime targets)

a reply to: biggilo

Russian equipment, just like Western equipment, that is sold is not the same as what is used by their own military. It's customized for whoever buys it.

As for the MiG-29, actually the pilots that tested it were rather impressed by it. It didn't have the avionics, or situational awareness, but in experienced hands, routinely humbled everything thrown against it in a knife fight.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

The Fulcrum was tested against F16, F15, F5, F18 and even the Tornado. The AA11 was good but that was about all.
In its own environment, close to airbase with ground cover, yes it was good. That's not a good plane.

a reply to: biggilo

That's not what they said at all.

It soon turned out that claims of the MiG-29 being superior to Western fighter jets in some areas were right – for example the Helmet Mounted Weapons Sight (HMS) – a technology the US Air Force and Navy didn’t have operational before 2003 – or the dogfight capability and manoeuvrability, especially at slow speed. The MiG-29 demonstrated it’s ability impressively during joint US – German dissimilar air combat training. But we’ll have a closer look at that below.

www.migflug.com...

Plenty of the Fulcrum’s smug “show us what you got” adversaries—F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle, and U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet jocks among them—became humbled, and often bloodied, after their first Fulcrum tangle. “With some experience, you could outmaneuver any jet, even Vipers [F-16s]and [high-angle-of-attack] Hornets,” says Steiniger. “The nice airframe in combination with one weapon was the killer: The Archer in [sensor lock] mode.” Introduced in the mid-1980s, the Archer AA-11 is a very capable heat-seeker with a greater range than the U.S. Sidewinder. “A simple monocular lens in front of my right eye enabled me to slew the seeker head of the missile onto my adversary at high angle off [target].” The Fulcrum’s ability to lock a missile even though its nose was pointed far away from its target “watered many eyes,” says Steiniger

www.airspacemag.com...

A highly experienced Luftwaffe pilot said, "Inside 10km, the combination of maneuverability, IRST, and the AA-11 made the MiG-29 unbeatable by anything out there". And this was the export version of the early A model.

The Fulcrum in knife fighting range, even without the Archer was nearly unbeatable. It could out turn almost anything fighting against it. Yes, it was better with the Archer, but even without it, it was a damn good knife fighter.

And when asked what plane they would chose to go to war with didn't they say the F16? A good airframe and manouverability alone doesn't make a good plane. Point being it is inferior. The Mig also had severe reliability problems.
Just a point of note, in West anyway, sometimes the export models can actually be better.

a reply to: biggilo

The Fulcrum did the mission that it was designed for superbly. They preferred Western fighters because they were designed for a different way of fighting, that for someone already trained that way was more used to.

Funny that you keep repeating that it was inferior, but the pilots that flew both the Fulcrum and Western fighters said it was superior in many ways.

Designed to fight in a different way =/= inferior.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But the ways it was inferior are truely killer in a real life combat scenario. In the first gulf war 2 F15s engaged 2 Fulcrums and won. I know training etc counts but combat results count too and the Fulcrum fails on that front. As a display plane the Fulcrum would do nicely.

a reply to: biggilo

And the Fulcrum has nowhere near the combat time that Western fighters do. Not to mention that no Russian versions have fought a Western fighter. Yay makes a difference.

I would fully expect two Eagles to beat two iraqi Fulcrums. An Eagle pilot got more flight time in one month than an Iraqi pilot got in almost a year. During exercises, with pilots that had similar experience and time in type, the Fulcrum frequently handed Western fighters their heads until they figured out its weaknesses and adjusted tactics, and even then they had their hands full.

In a real life scenario the Mig wouldn't have gotten within range of an equivalent generation Western fighter. In a close in fight possibly the Mig I can concede that, though I would give our pilots that one. Still doesn't address woeful reliability and parts problems.

a reply to: biggilo

They did in Desert Storm every time. Pilots were required to visually ID their targets.

Have you ever really looked at BVR numbers? I have.

Not long after Desert Storm there was a discussion about air to air combat. At the time the IAF was one of the top air forces in terms of combat time. IIRC, they had fired somewhere around 100 missiles under BVR conditions. They had a kill rate around 16%. The US was second on the list at 12%.

Sensors and missiles have improved since then, but missiles haven't improved THAT much.

According to the reports by the Luftwaffe the aircraft averaged a Mission Capable rate similar to many Western aircraft. It suffered from a navigation system that required constant updating, and several systems weren't line repairable, and required a hangar, where Western aircraft could be fixed on the ramp.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know your very knowledgeable on these matters so I don't doubt your BVR figures.
The problems you mention are war losers though and with a combat range of nearly half that of an F16 its not IMO really comparable.
If you were eqiping a brand new air force would you look at MIGs or would you not just buy a load of Falcons and Typhoons and maybe a few juicier 5th gens if allowed. My feelings are you wouldn't even look at Russian equipment.

a reply to: biggilo

It depends on how I planned to fight. The Soviet Union and others that bought the MiGs didn't want a lot of independence from their pilots. It was both easier to train them, and made the aircraft cheaper.

That's not the case now. The newer MiG aircraft are much more like Western fighters. They still don't have the sensor fusion that the West has, but it's far improved over the Soviet days. The new MiG-35 already impresses the hell out of people and it's not even active yet.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: grey580

Lol that can't have enough armor to stop an Abrams.

Top secret because if suck factor?

Looks like an older T series.

You know lose 30 to 1 vs abrams.

Who cares honestly?

Russian tech tech is crap and has been for decades.

I am not so sure about that. It's known that russians have many of the top engineers working on their paycheck.
I'm sure it can't be that bad compairingto abrams....otherwise russians wouldn't produce these tanks...
They are not as stupid you think ....Just my 2 cents

Seems it is not so secret now.

Russian Defense Ministry Reveals First Photo of New Armata T-14 Tank

Moscow Times

RT News: T-14 Armata unveiled

www.youtube.com...