Want me to find you some pictures of A-10s with dumb bombs and rockets? Are we really going to play that game? Yes, the A-10 can use the Maverick… more recently it has gained the ability to use a wide variety of smart weapons.

If you want to see the main weapon that will be replacing the Maverick you will find it is a glide bomb…

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/02/25/small-diameter-bomb-ii-completes-live-fire-test-destroying-t-72-tank/

The best picture is a moving picture. Some cluster bombs from A-10, anyone?))

Could someone pls translate the following image.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]245348[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245349[/ATTACH]

Hi, and thx for your words.

This thing, on the picture, is a unified self-guided submunition meant to be used with various platforms: MLRS, choppers, airplanes and tactical missile systems.

Look, it is quite evident by now that you are just arguing for argument’s sake.

I expressed my opinion. You started to argue with it and brought a lot of misconceptions and even obvious misinformation as “arguments”. That’s how it was in reality. At first, i thought you sincerely are mistaken, but later, after all these nonsense about missiles, their working principles, our doctrine, tactics and helicopters primary tasks, it became obvious for me that you have little or even no knowledge but much butthurt.

You keep twisting and turning. That is not constructive or is it ever going to lead anywhere.

No, you. Better, find English versions of the “Military Parade” journal(issues 5.1996, 6.1996, 1.1999 and 4.1999) where the history of our attack-helicopters, their ATGMs and reasons why KBP has started to work on Hermes were explained pretty well by Hermes and Vikhr designers. This will help you much in the getting rid of all your misconceptions.

24s were designed to carry troops-hence assault- the other two can’t carry troops, and they are not light scout helicopters. That makes them anti tank gunships by favour of the focus of their armaments. Of course they are meant to kill tanks. What else would they be made to kill?

you will find that the the way US doctrine uses AH-64’s is as ambush predators of opportunity, not as front line attackers. Desert combat was a bit different and skewed people’s perception of how a helicopter fights.

Once more, Mi-24 was described as assault helicopter, while Mi-28 and Ka-50 were anti-TANK helicopters. Coz their primary role was in the killing of tanks and other armour. Your abstract words won’t change this fact.

By allowing russian 30 year old missiles riding someone else’s laser beam, negates the need for a radar and still reduces helo exposure to AA threats. Why don’t you bring this up instead?

Wait. WHAT? Do i understand it correct that now you’re implying that our beam-riders can be(even in theory) guided by external units??? Oh…say, please say that i misunderstood you! Coz otherwise – this means that you COMPLETELY don’t understand how Ataka and Vikhr work, as well as any other beam rider, be it Kornet or our tank guided-missiles.

Sh!t. I knew it’s bad, but i couldn’t imagine that it’s SO bad…I’m quiting this dispute, enough of this nonsense.

You start to remind me of a driver riding in a wrong lane, claiming that everyone is an idiot driving in a wrong lane, except him..if there are so many people who obviously “don’t understand your simple facts”, then maybe it’s time to reconsider…

Or may be you should read something on subject, coz all what i see ATM is a few people with many misconceptions and without even basic knowledge, so i was forced to explain how things work in reality – for example, how Longbow weapons-system works. After all, I heard that many years ago many people were 100% sure that Earth is flat and lies on elephants. But their number didn’t change the fact that they were wrong.

It has nothing to do with present day developments. infact by over investing in small expensive missiles for attack helicopter. the critcal resources from longer ranged standoff weopons for fighter aircraft can decrease. only fighter aircraft has the engine power for jamming and strike weopons to saturate battlefield.

It has ALL to do with it, coz it was, and IS, the MAIN task of our attack helicopters since the Mi-28 and Ka-50 families birth, that were designed according with that Resolution. Especially in the light of the fact that we’re NOT USSR and we don’t have all these tank hordes that USSR used to have. As well as the fact that since 1976, AD systems didn’t stand still and progressed greatly. Especially Western ones.

That’s why in 1990’s KBP started to work on Hermes but failed to find the funding from the MoD that couldn’t afford even the fuel for regular training flights in 1990’s, and still can’t find the money for many needed things, even today. This is reality of my country – we faced economical collapse, aggravated by our traditional technological lag in the field of electronics and electro-optics.

Russian attack helos are designed as support platforms to the armoured columns. They were meant to assist the armoured advancement, not take out the opposing armoured forces.

Wrong. According to the Soviet Minister’s Council Resolution, released on 16 December 1976, that gave a start to development of Ka-50 and Mi-28 – the main objective of the new helicopter was described as “destroying tanks and armoured vehicles in the front-line”.

This is hictorical fact.