Su-30 SM. Best naval aviation fighter jet in the world.

[JohnWick]

F-35B is mainly built as an attack plane, not as a fighter plane.

It was mainly tailor tailor built navy air superiority airctaft after F-14 Tomcat.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

It was mainly tailor tailor built navy air superiority airctaft after F-14 Tomcat.

Su-30 is better than F-35 in the air superiority role.

 

[JohnWick]

Su-30 is better than F-35 in the air superiority role.

Bro although it looks small but it doesn't mean it's not the most modern aircraft.
What's it look outside is not the what it looks inside.US spending Trillion dollars on it.Do you consider them fool?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

US spending Trillion dollars on it.Do you consider them fool?

So? They can spend trillions but Russia put the first man in space. Americans can't. Russia put lander on Venus. Americans can't.

 

[Ultima Thule]

So? It still isn't a looker.

Fighter jet is build upon mission not for beauty/aesthetic, and F-35 world best electronically advance jet of the world @undertakerwwefan

So? They can spend trillions but Russia put the first man in space. Americans can't. Russia put lander on Venus. Americans can't.

Does Russia lander on Mars, Saturn's moon Titan , and don't bring Soviet/Russian past glories @undertakerwwefan

F-35B is mainly built as an attack plane, not as a fighter plane.

You know its a multi role jet, that mean its has air defense capability too @undertakerwwefan

Su-30 is better than F-35 in the air superiority role.

World most electronically advance jet @undertakerwwefan

 

[nahtanbob]

So? They can spend trillions but Russia put the first man in space. Americans can't. Russia put lander on Venus. Americans can't.

americans landed first on the moon

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

americans landed first on the moon

So what? Russia had the first rover. Rover is much safer than putting a man on there.

https://www.space.com/35090-lunokhod-1.html

 

[nahtanbob]

So what? Russia had the first rover. Rover is much safer than putting a man on there.

https://www.space.com/35090-lunokhod-1.html

russians have not demonstrated that they can put a man on the moon. it is 49 years since Neil Amstrong stepped on the moon.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

russians have not demonstrated that they can put a man on the moon. it is 49 years since Neil Amstrong stepped on the moon.

What's the point of putting a man on the moon? Without food and water, he cannot last a day. A rover, now, THAT can last years.

 

[airmarshal]

russians have not demonstrated that they can put a man on the moon. it is 49 years since Neil Amstrong stepped on the moon.

Dont know if its true though. The counter argument is that the landing on moon was a Stanley Kubrick movie and it was a stunt to win propaganda war.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

russians have not demonstrated that they can put a man on the moon. it is 49 years since Neil Amstrong stepped on the moon.

Same can be said of the Americans. They have not demonstrated they can put a lander on Venus. It has been 49 years since Russia landed on another planet.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Same can be said of the Americans. They have not demonstrated they can put a lander on Venus. It has been 49 years since Russia landed on another planet.

And man landing on moon is a bigger achievement than lander on Venus @undertakerwwefan

 

[Awan68]

Fck man this dude undertaken fan needs to be hospitalized.

 

[Arsalan 345]

fantastic fighter jet.

 

[JohnWick]

Hey dude you need to be immediately hopitilized.