The START treaty accountability office has proven that Venik has misrepresented Allied losses over the FRY, for one, as every B-2 produced still exists to this day. Had the Russians, who were also propagating tales of B-2 losses, found out that they were right, they surely would have reported it as START numbers are not state secrets. There’s your proof that Venik reports false information when he sees fit, which is called deliberately lying when done for nothing more than purely nationalistic reasons. Factual errors are one thing, promoting nationalism as your basis of thought is another entirely.

Venik is like Yefim Gordon. He has some interesting and often worthwhile data to present, but his objectivity is clearly clouded by a large and obvious anti-Western bias. Go read the bit in Gordon’s MiG-23 Aerofax volume about the F-14 vs MiG-23 incident for an example. Or for a Western example, go read some of the things by Carlo Kopp, who has to have some real anti-Chinese sentiment (or fear?) running through his veins to come up with his stories of Chinese Backfires invading Australia’s shipping lanes to justify Raptor purchases! Even Jane’s is not immune to being loaded with errors, but they aren’t making it their business to fabricate stories based on some nationalistic fervor like Venik, Gordon, and Kopp (Hutchinson, I have no idea about, I’m pretty sure I haven’t read anything of his, although I do think he sounds familiar as part of the idiotic American “OMG China is evil” crowd).

Nobody is saying that every word of Venik’s site is trash, but that since he has been proven wrong (without any signs of retraction, EVER, I might add, as that would not support his anti-NATO campaign) on various points, you have to take anything he posts with a grain of salt. There are far more objective sources to use. Venik’s credibility is somewhere near that of Wikipedia, the only major difference being that the general public can’t sign in and type whatever they see fit on Venik’s page!

Plus, come on, the site hasn’t been updated for almost a decade. How can you honestly rely on it as a source for current information?

Wikipedia is sourced from other sources, obviously, so the credibility of the articles varies according to where they were sourced from.

The Su-27SM to be superior to the F-15I, needs a Python V equivalent and a missile better than the Meteor, i do not know but up to what i know Russia has not deployed yet an equivalent to the Python V, IRIS-T and AIM-132, Israel, Germany and Britan have alredy deployed the Python V, IRIS-T and AIM-132.

You do not need thrust vectoring if you have Python Vs, now if the current Su-27SM is equivalent to the Su-35BM then the aircraft still needs a weapon like the Python V.

If the Su-27SM has supercruising ability then the aircrat is slightly close to the Eurofighter, but still the Eurofighter is more agile if the Su-27SM has not thrust vectoring and with AIM-132 the Eurofighter will rule.

In fact the Su-30MKI is not as capable as the Eurofighter or even JAS-39, weaponry is very important and the Russia has not deployed a weapon as good as the Python V
however up to what i have read the Su-27SM is not an equivalent of the Su-35, yeah it is better than the average Su-27 but is not a Su-35BM equivalent

В связи с тяжёлым финансовым положением в российских ВВС, было принято решение не закупать новые Су-35, а ограничиться модернизацией Су-27 приблизительно до уровня Су-35. Опять же, из-за недостатка средств, Су-27СМ уступал по характеристикам Су-35, но значительно превосходил исходный Су-27.
Here they say the aircraft due to economic limitations still is not a Su-35BM equivalent even despite they originally wanted that, they say it is better than the older Su-27 but still is not a Su-35 equivalent and because of lack of money they could not buy Su-35 niether upgrade the Su-27s to Su-35 level

http://forum.boinaslava.net/showthread.php?t=9231&page=3
http://rusarmy.ru/unit.php?id=49

You can make what you want of the link/info I provided, but according to Russian official sources the Su-27SM will outperform the Su-30MKI (all export models, rather), so the Russians are clearly not spilling the beans on what exactly they are installing aboard the upgraded home Flankers.

Do you know what Torpedo is?:rolleyes:

More importantly, do you know the limited range of a torpedo and its rocket based delivery systems? :rolleyes:

But that doesn’t matter right, the US subs and ships can roll right past all the shorter ranged Russian/Soviet weapons because they have force fields . . .

Like I said, it goes back to need. I mean they had antiship Tomahawks and got rid of them. Many ships today don’t even bother with a full load of Harpoons, and even that one has morphed into something they might actually use (SLAM). Does anybody here truly believe the US couldn’t develope a supersonic antiship missile if they felt they needed one? Look at RATTLRS and HyFly. Both of them for notional land attack missiles with no mention anywhere of some desire to use them in the antiship role. Fasthawk? Land attack.

So the US didn’t need to reliably destroy Soviet, or now the “evil” Iranian or Chinese navies?

Yes it is.:rolleyes:

As for armschair general abilities, I am not the one who claimed that Kh-22 firing Tu-95’s are still in service, that the Kh-65 entered service or used Veniks page as a source.:rolleyes:

Kinda funny, that aeronautics source doesn’t actually say the K22 variants are out of service either. Not that you provided a single source that every last one is dismantled either, which is possible.

So once again you have no sources just vain hopes.

Maybe the US has not tried to produce supersonic AShMs.:rolleyes:

Sources for what lol? I don’t have to provide a single source for anything if I don’t want to, you’ve posted 0 sources here so your credibility is as low as anything, not to mention your typical ignorance. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15

300Km

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kh15.htm

More ranges higher than 150Km, which is typically as seen on many sources.

http://www.deagel.com/Land-Attack-Cruise-Missiles/Kh-15_a000869001.aspx

More confusion to the mix.

Just seeing this, I can guarantee you that you know far less than you think you know about the missiles in service with the Russian Armed Forces atm.

No its not, it proves that someone in Russia can use a camera and flt a plane.:rolleyes:

You are never going to be taken seriously here with nonsense like that.

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/bombers/bombers.htm

The link that you replied to quickly for.

Again, how often do they go to sea and what is their operational readiness, how well are they maitained, etc etc…..

You’ll say probably not very good.

I’ll say probably pretty good since the economy has been growing steadily for 8 years now.

The reality ? Who knows, go ask some high up in the Navy . . .

Just because the Russian armed forces don’t announce every little detail of what they acquire, does not mean they don’t have it or it doesn’t work very well.