Rant away, I see nothing wrong with airing your concerns. I will ask people to refrain from naming names, as contrailjj has clearly done; if you have a problem with a specific member then PM a moderator. To the issue you raised, we are aware of a lot of the problems and are working on solutions, literally as we speak (er…post). I’ve been here since 1999; this place has at times been a lot better and a lot worse. We’re trying to make it better, I do feel like stating that I think this place is currently in better shape than it was, say, six months ago. Progress is slow but we’re looking at speeding it up.

There’s really nothing you can do.

Either you delete anything that has an argument (which will always be around, prejudices, biases, etc) – which would defeat a purpose of a forum (to discuss issues, preferably ones that aren’t so crystal clear)

or

You personally edit every “out of line” post – which would take up way too much of your time, and so is out of the question.

So what do you propose?

And several model Kh-25s too.

Yeah, but that’s irrelevant I guess since they are still relatively short range ARMs for the situation he’s talking about – more like something to use against short range SAMs.

Still, the F-111 achieves better radius for similar mission profile.

Yeah really? It is larger. . . yet doesn’t have the rough field useful capability of the Su-24.

It’s like Backfire? F-111? Range comparison? Pointless.

Not to mention, compare how many of each aircraft were built – compare their cost of production.

After the assessments I did I find the ~2800km ferry range with two drop tanks quite realistic. The mission radius for lo-lo-lo seems very realistic, too. Data-wise, the Wikipedia article on the Su-24MK looks as one of the better ones.

The most unreliable information source is normally the operator of an aircraft.
Most reliable are normally “merged” information sources, like Wikipedia and some other web resources (quite OK is vectorsite).
In general, most “sources” copy from each other. Some include wishful thinking. Sometimes people cannot see the difference between a mission radius and a range, and often the values given are “best” values. A real mission includes lots of reserves and allowances. The 330nm for the Suchoi 24MK in a lo-lo-lo mission profile are not a bad figure, by the way.

A 600KM low level intrusion mission seems exactly what it was designed for, parked near the enemy territory flying missions from rough fields. Designed for real use, not being parked on a runway.

Should point out that the Shturm (AT-6) and ATAKA (AT-9) are radio command guided and are flown to the target by a computer. The missiles are aimed by the gunner/weapons officer placing their crosshair on the target and maintaining it there. The computer tracks the coded flares in the tail of the missiles and measures the distance between the coded flares and the position of the crosshairs. The computer then sends a radio signal through the black antenna I keep mentioning to command the missile to perform a manouver in flight to centre it within the crosshair so that it will eventually hit the target.

The Hermes and Vikhr on the other hand use an electrooptic system with a coded laser beam. Basically the gunner/weapon operation place a crosshair over a target in a digital TV image or IR view of the scene in front of them. The system will lock onto the target and automatically track it. On firing the missile within the 1st km or so the booster rocket is burning so nothing happens except the EO continues to track the target (like the TV seeker of a Maverick tracks moving targets itself). Once the booster is dumped the rear of the missile is exposed which has a laser seeker which looks back at the launch aircraft. At this time the launch system will activate a very weak laser beam that is directed to a point 5m above the target. Unlike a normal target marker where the laser has to hit the target and is reflected back and the missile flys towards the reflected energy this system requires a laser 10,000 times less powerful. Also the colour or camouflage of the target does not effect the performance of the system… you don’t have to find a shiny object to point the laser at. The laser itself forms a grid pattern and the missile manouvers itself within the grid pattern to fly down the centre of the beam to the target. When the missile is within 1km of a ground target the laser will drop down onto the target and the missile will close in and kill the target. The CEP for accuracy of the beam is 0.8m over 8km. If the target is airborne then the same missile is used but as the missile gets to within 1km of the target its proximity fuse is armed. This proximity fuse is used only for aerial targets.

As far as the gunner/weapon officer is concerned the latter is easier to use, but the ATAKA/Shturm missile is much cheaper as it uses a simple radio receiver rather than a laser optic seeker.

So you think the Hermes will be rated as high for armor penetration as the Vikhr?

Seems like a lot of places online think they are the same missile?!

Was the Hermes a development of the Vikhr?

The Russian Fleet Will Receive New Ships in 2008

The latest tests of the Shchuka Project (Akula 2) SSN at the Amur Shipyard at Komsomol’sk na Amur have been successful.

According to the Ministry of Defense, the boat will be commissioned into the fleet in 2008. According to experts, it will be the fastest and quietest multi-purpose submarine in the fleet.

In addition, the Caspian Sea Flotilla will receive the newest escort ship “Dagestan” and two small landing craft. This is according to the Commander in Chief of the Caspian Sea Flotilla Vice Admiral Vikto Kravchuk, speaking on front of the Makhachkala Brigade of Maritime Security for the Caspian Flotilla region on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

Is this a brand new Akula-II? Wonder what the name of the vessel is.

What the hell are they doing with the Severodvinsk for so long?

Edit: http://shipbuilding.ru/eng/news/2007/09/11/2009/

Forgot bout that. Looks like next year we’ll be hopefully seeing both a next gen attack sub and fighter 🙂

Anyone recall the “new” cruise missiles they’ve tested for the sub? Yakhonts or Klubs? Something larger?

Because it is beyond the financial ability of most of the world it makes sense to make a cheaper option that can be made in large numbers. The USAF is getting 189 F-22s and about 1,200 F-35s Do you think 400 PAK-FAs would suffice against that… even ignoring the NATO F-35s added to that number, plus the Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, etc etc.

Yes… I know you will say there is no need to take on everyone at once, but what is the point of large numbers of very very expensive 5th gen fighters if you are not going to go to war with them?

Buying all top of the line is a nice concept, but unreasonable for anyone to adopt as policy. No one can afford to do that.

It’s questionable whether the US would truly acquire over 1,000 F-35s.

Seems like all numbers are being cut down, just as with the F-22.

In either case, if Russia is really worried about the US in conventional terms, the end result numbers are irrelevant. Other than some surrogate skirmishes NATO or the US and Russia can’t afford a war with one another.