Marcellogo

Actually they seems to have the reverse problem a they lack small size guided weaponss to be used in close proximity of friend forces or for avoid case of overkill (Iran-made drones have them instead).
They have made a big use of OFAB 250/270, only in rare cases however you would see the Cold War era 6 bombs racks.
That’s because they operate in an opposite way to the JDAM inflation spoiled coalition.
While they start(ed) from faraway bases, pass all over Iraq and attack pre-designated locations as their fighters were B-17 in disguise, Russians start from close locations (for Palmyra Deir-el-Zour operations they relocated choppers and relatively short legged Su-25 in Homs governatorate airbases) and usually keep their planes over SAA operation zones ready to answer to aid calls by ground troops or to engage “on the run” targets discovered in the meanwhile by their (or their allies) UAV/SF.
Given that their aiming devices give them now enough precision to engage a target with a single bomb instead of a whole rack, better for them to carry more fuel possible and stay on operation zone more time than to have more bombs for with they have no use and above all leaving troops without air cover.

Even in this way there are several footages of Su-24 and Flankers landing back with an odd bomb still on their pylons, meaning it was an half empty day and they doesn’t had need to use all their weaponry.
Last edited by Marcellogo; 19th January 2018 at 15:18.

You are aware that US airpower uses a lot of in-flight refueling in its operations: I always thought US aircraft spent a lot of time in the air loitering, wait for a ground controller to call in an airstrike. A-10s can spend literally hours flying circles above the battle zone waiting for the call.

When is F-16 and A-10 1960s era?. They operationally deployed in 1980s. A little later than Su-24 .

Reading comprehension? I never said they were 60s aircraft – I had the A-7 Corsair in mind.

It’s not a whole lot is it? Compared to say an F-105 in the Vietnam War era – or even an F-100?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]258422[/ATTACH]

actually ive been wondering if its fair to consider the F-4 a 60s fighter.
Sure the A and B versions were in the US Navy at that time
but most of its exports were done at the very end of the 60s, and mostly the 70s.

it always felt to me more like a 70s fighter.

The F-4 is definitely a Sixties fighter, being in service for as long as the MiG-21 or Mirage III. As to when it was first made available for export – if their were any export restrictions at all – I’m not so sure.

Yes Deinosaur is a well known chino-fanboy (almost all of them don’t even live in China). and yeah we know he denied the su-35 sale to the very end (like most chinboys).
But I give our brontosaurus friend credit, he has a healthy interest in non-Chinese stuff too. He posts in Russian, Middle-eastern sections, etc.

I don’t think Deino ever completely denied the Chinese Su-35 deal, he just remained skeptical, as he has every right to do so. China buying the Su-35 doesn’t seem to make sense to many people (myself included) and there very good reasons for this.

I doubt if there are many Mirage III still flying. There are certainly many F-5s still flying, or at least its derivative: the F-5E. Classic design.

One advantage was that Il-76 could operate from more airfields than Soviet airliners.

The only airfields that and A-50 (or E-3) AWACS aircraft can operate from are those airfields which are equipped to handle such an aircraft. Mostly big airfields, with long smooth runways.

The F-16 in the Norwegian air force also regularly operates from 800 metre runways as well as the F-35 following it. I should think any tactical combat aircraft can fly from an 800 m field if its lightly loaded enough. Su-27, armed with 4 missiles can take off with a 450 metre run.