I can’t imagine the average Su-24M in the fleet today would have many (if any) more hours than the Su-27. There are still plenty of late production Su-27s that could get SM3ed or whatever. If the ground attack capability is as good as advertised, it might be even more useful than a Su-24M2.

They are bigger, have a bigger payload, and let’s not even talk about armor levels.

Just look at the engine power, it is not higher randomly.

I still do not understand why they are going ahead with both Mi-28 and Ka-52, they may have some slight advantage and disadvantage in some areas, but its not good enough reason to justify two attack helicopters unless Russia was trying to subsidize both companies to keep them busy. Just like how the US doesn’t really need both AH-1Z and AH-64

1.) They are both cool, don’t complain. 😉
2.) Factory production capability per year. Easier to produce both than set up another line for either chopper.
3.) Factory employment and future stability
4.) I suspected they would order a number of both and see which does better in service, I guess so much for that.
5.) I don’t think the Zulu Cobra comparison is really analogous here, because the Cobra/Apache split has to do with different service branch requirements, deployment specifics, and funding.

Brah….RuAF is ordering two seated Su-34 (ok, you want to call it a theater bomber? how about:), Su-30SM, Su-25UBM…all two seater mud movers. So apparently another big AF is OK with 2 seats, even in 2010.

EDIT: Fk, I responded to the bait.

Still waiting for JH-7 internal fuel figures, guys, hook a brother up.

And just ignore teh trolls.

Also I would take the Spey202/WS-9 over the inefficiant leaky RD-33 any day of the week.

Care to back up how it is inefficient and leaky?

EDIT: I think JSR master trolled you all. Just move on.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2011/10/19/590/

“The naval version of Ка-52 requires long range of acquisition and capability of using anti-ship missiles of Х-31 and Х-35 type.”
😮