Even the F-16 looks like it was built by the Soviets from that angle, look at all the ugly, have no effect on combat performance, dimples and rivets! 🙂

All hail the mighty B-52, eh Arthur? 🙂

Now for Col. Toon, the guy simply does not exist. Try checking the list of Vietnamese aces, and there is no Toon there. As a matter of fact, most of the Vietnamese aces survived the war including the top scoring ones. There is no doubt that Randy Cunningham met one hot NVAF pilot one day, but the personage of Mr. Toon is a fabrication of the media. Toon is probably a collage of different Vietanamese aces.

It’s Tomb, not Toon.

I’m surprised KBP hasn’t fitted the new missiles used on the Pantsyr-S1 system (the full standard, Tunguska-style system, not Pantsyr-S1-O) to the Kashtan (double the range)- after all, the systems share similarity in fire control configuration.

Originally posted by SD-10
[B]10 years in not optimistic but an understatement.

You think China can have F-22 level technology in less than 10 years then ? :rolleyes:

I can only see Russian arms exports to China only for next 3 or 4 years at best. After that nothing worth while is left

Totally seperate issue.

Yes but it is fast lossing it’s edge. It has great width of technology in that it makes every thing from aircrafts to spaceships. But once it comes to vertical depth i.e. quality it has probelms, Su-27 is a great concept implemented poorly. e.g poor avionics, huge RCS, poor MMI, low engine life, all metallic build. Imagine what this aircarft may have turned out to be if built by west.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with an all-metallic build. ‘Composite’ might sound sexy but it’s not a magic word denoting inherent superiority. Regardless, the Su-27 is not a Russian aircraft, it’s Soviet. Development programs carried on by Russia from the Soviet Union (Su-30MK, Su-35, MiG-29M1/MiG-29M2) do not have poor avionics, poor MMI, or low engine life.

Furthermore, it ain’t like any Western aircraft besides the F-22, F-117, and B-2 can seriously claim to not have a ‘huge RCS’. In other news, the Russians recently reduced the RCS of an Su-35 by half through application of RAM.

China is exponentially improving, while Russia/west linearly, I’d say with in 10 years there will almost be a parity.

It’s easy to exponentiallly expand in comparison with more developed players, because you had nothing special to begin with, anything you do is an improvement. Regardless, in 10 years time the USAF will have the F-22 in established service, with the PAK FA probably in flight tests (the Russians are hoping to have it ready sooner, but really, let’s be realistic). To think that China can reach that technology level in a decade is *way* too optimisitic (it also presupposes that China’s economic honeymoon will continue indefinitely which is not guaranteed, though I’d say it was a guarantee until at least 2008, for obvious reasons).

The Russian equivalent to the American ATACMS?

ATACMS doesn’t seem to have a direct Russian equivalent- it seems to sit in between Tochka-U and Tender on the range scale (Block 1: 165km, Block 1A: 300km) and doesn’t have the same sophistication in guidance system (Block 1A is INS/GPS only, vs the combined INS/GPS and IIR/radar targeting of Tender).

The ATACMS missile weighs ~1670kg, Tender weighs between 3,800-4,200kg.

Block 1 carries 950 APAM bomblets, unguided, while Block 1A carries 300 (hence the range increase in Block 1A). Only recently has a unitary penetrator version been introduced, with only 220km range.

Tender can deploys up to 72 guided submunitions (“assault breakers”), or area denial submunitions, HE unitary, Fuel Air Explosive, earth penetrator for bunker busting, EMP, and an anti-radar fragmentation warhead. Nuclear is a possibility at this stage. Tender’s more a universal ‘what do you need’ system.

The improved Block II which would’ve used ‘BAT’ (Brilliant something or other- another bloody stupid acronym and a clear case of the US thinking up the acronym first and then shoving words into it) was cancelled early last year.

Yeah, it’s the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) that limits the range of missile weapons countries can sell- hence why all the missiles Russia sells have less than 300km range and less than 500kg payload.

The Russians are limited to 400km due to the terms of INF Treaty which saw the prohibition of the 500km Oka/SS-23 SPIDER- 400km is the range given for the Tender system (depending on payload- Jane’s says that with maximum 700kg payload, Tender range is closer to 300km).

In general, the Iskander-E has

– less range (280km vs 400km)
– less payload (580kg vs 700kg= 54 vs 72 submunitions, if it’s carrything them)
– lacks the radar seeker head of the Tender
– probably has scaled back ECM suite
– certainly none of the radar absorbent material that equips the Tender

Tender is also probably nuclear capable. In all liklihood, Tender is a continuation of the Oka-U (related to the Tochka-U i.e. SS-21 SCARAB-B program) program, merely tailored to meet INF Treaty demands.

Tender is damn impressive. Accuracy of 10-20m CEP is claimed by the use of the combined imaging infrared/ radar seeker, in addition to GPS/INS guidance. The ballistic trajectory also makes it a hard target to kill: climbs to 50km altitude, levels out, and in the terminal stage of flight, does hard 20-30g maneuvers (similar to Tochka flight path). The imaginging infrared seeker performs the terminal engagement (able to kill static and moving targets).