/k/ - Weapons

SLAV TECH BEST TECH SLAV TECH GO SPACE FUCK YOU NIGGER SHILL

XAXAXAAXAXAXAXAXAAAXA

Matsimus is pretty good, pretty sure he's fairly redpilled as well

>F-16 vs MiG-29

Actually when they came out the MiG-29 was light years superior in terms of performance, it was actually a short ranged competitor with F-15. When East Germany was reunified, they had war exercises where MiG-29 downed dozens of F-16 without a single loss. During its early period the F-16 was reckoned by Soviets to be more similar to MiG-21.

Those wargames forced America to build completely new missiles and upgrade the F-16 so it isn't shit. This upgraded block 40 F-16 had parity with the MiG as long as it had the appropriate pods. Then the block 50 upgrade came out, which put the MiG-29 into second spot.

The MiG-35 is the Russian move to out-edge the block 50 F-16 upgrade, especially in range and BVR. But none of these subsequent upgrades in either aircraft were like the huge technological difference in the 90s. Pilot skill matters a lot now.

MiG-29 is superior in terms of price, it comes with naval variants as well, and reduces cost of your aifrield construction from billions to millions. So in many way it had a few loveable features throughout the tete-a-tete it had with F-16 in terms of pure fighter performance.

>RPG-7

Again for the longest time it could BTFO anything, PG7VR was a threat to Western Tankers in a few wars as well. There's a reason the TUSK kit was introduced. Abrams has about 620mm RHA on the sides and PG7VR penetrates 750mm RHA.

tl;dr if you use dumb strawman arguments it just makes you dumber, in your own head. doesn't affect anyone else.

>>531975

When will Sam be stopped?

>>531995

The Fulcrum still has massive advantage in knife fighting range due to its nose authority and HMCS+HOBS missile capability and according to some articles that I read current USAF doctrine is still to engage them from BVR.

>MiG-29 is superior in terms of price, it comes with naval variants as well

The Indian Navy MiG-29Ks are considered the least reliable aircraft in the Indian inventory (partly due to the poor Russian after sale parts supply).

>>531972

> using the argument that mig-29 is better than F-15 and eurofighters because they are cheaper

No. "MiG-35" MiG-29s are better than F-15SE and Eurofighter because they have nearly the same capabilities for literally one third of their unit cost.

>>531995

>>532050

What the martians said.

The Fulcrums' only glaring disadvantage WAS that it was intentionally made as a point defense fighter with consequently shitty range, and that has been much less of an issue since the SMT upgrade.

Along with the Flankers they are still by far the indisputable champions of AoA.

>>532050

> (partly due to the poor Russian after sale parts supply).

Yeah it's funny how every plane the Poo Airforce has have "foreign supplier parts issue" dixit the Indian "press"…

It's totally not because the poos are perfectly incapable of making proper maintenance on their aircraft. The MiG-29K are the most complex they have = it's the least available because they literally have to fly in Russians techs to come and do the basic maintenance for them.

>>532062

The newest MiG-35 has like 1000km combat range and AESA, it's pretty great.

>>532120

>The newest MiG-35 has like 1000km combat range

I bet for the same reason F-15 models had double the combat range than contemporary Su-27 models which is implementing combat/ferry range with external tanks in your specifications' manual for marketing purposes, the airframe is not modified enough to implement significantly more fuel.

>and AESA

To be fair it's probably the shittiest AESA in service since the nips' F-2, and has less than half the range against aerial targets than Su-35's PESA; still puts it in quite advantageous position compared to older (aka all currently operational) Eurofighter trances though.

>>531995

>Again for the longest time it could BTFO anything, PG7VR was a threat to Western Tankers in a few wars as well. There's a reason the TUSK kit was introduced. Abrams has about 620mm RHA on the sides and PG7VR penetrates 750mm RHA.

The spec data shows it'll penetrate, but there wasn't enough released into the wild to show it was a widespread threat. We've only seen one Abrams taken in a mobility kill, but that certainly was enough to have caused concern.

https://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/solved2.aspx

>>532146

Yes but F-16 already did that for years, so its a fair comparison.

>>532239

The issue with PG7VR isn't that it couldn't penetrate (it most certainly could), the issue is that it had a 300m effective combat range. Often to ensure a kill the gunner approached at night, in bad weather, dust, or smoky conditions to closer than 150m, because frankly hands shake. Anyone who's seen the MGs on top an Abrams knows that's a suicide mission. It packs, what, three pintle and a coax? Absolutely insane.

RPG-28 chews through 1000mm RHA after ERA, so even if a TUSK kit was 360 degree applied, it could still kill an Abrams from the front. Despite this no one is going to use it against tanks, because (despite memes) Russians actually like their soldiers to survive, so it's only going to be used on bunkers. All ruchnoy protivtankovni granatomet were ostensibily designed as anti-tank but always a suicide weapon against tanks, this rather than any technical reason is why RPG-7 is not a threat.

tl;dr RPG-7 can kill tank, but shouldn't

>>532247

>because (despite memes) Russians actually like their soldiers to survive'

[citation needed]

>>532050

>Implying it isn't because they are trying to replace parts with poo