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.

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.

No, you express your disappointment and complain that whoever designs and whoever procures weapons doesn’t do what you wish they did.
I have no misconceptions beyond what is logical for my place, you on the other hand seem to have a somewhat different perception of the topic in discussion.

No one is arguing that a F&F missile is not superior to a LOS missile. What is being argued is that one may not necessarily need one to be effective at what their mission is!

Saw old CG’s of air launched kalibr from MiG-29. I wonder how far the program now.

MiG 29? really? source?

You’re wrong, again.

Sorry, but the fact that you have seen something, have nothing to do with your knowledge about it. For example, you were really sure that main role our attack-choppers isn’t anti-tank role. But you’re wrong – that’s an obvious fact, supported by historical documents and pretty well described in our technical literature. So, how can you seriously be discussing this subject if you weren’t aware of that well-known fact?! It clearly shows how little you know about our doctrine, helicopters, history of their development, their tasks and tactics. And this fact has nothing to do with my attitude. That’s just a fact.

Just as the fact that you think people thought the earth was flat? You failed to read the actual content of your link! Is that supposed to show how you surmise things?

That’s why helicopters designed under it were described as ‘protivotankoviy vertolet'(anti-tank helicopter) and both of them were equipped with a cheap but numerous Vikhr and Ataka ATGMs, unlike Mi-24 that was described as ‘shturmovoy vertolet'(assault helicopter).

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.

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?

Pure nonsense.

Why?

if vehicle is fast moving it means it is not in action to fire. rockets and cannon from individual helicopter can deal with it. 80km/hr in rough train nearly impossible.
MLRS/Cruise missiles/TBM with big blast radius are for saturated attack when there is large formation of Armour supported by airdefence.
You need fighters with big radars like Su-34/Su-35 to spot it at safe distance.
putting expensive electronics and missiles will not make attack helo more effective as they have limited range (itself inviting danger to the base), payload, speed, sensors. thats the point Scar not understanding. there is real example of Yemen.

I don’t want to be the Monday morning quarterback in this, but people seem to forget that attack helos were designed and supposed to be used differently by the two sides.

Given the superiority in numbers (but perhaps also usability) of USSR tanks, the Apache and its variants were designed. In its incarnation with the longbow radar it is meant to hover in appropriate locations where only its mast is protruding and pick up fast battlefield snapshots so it can guide its hellfires taking essentially pot shots at enemy tanks.

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.

as such, the EM guided missiles are not essential. They will eventually be incorporated, if not for any other reason, perhaps because as time goes by, it is easier and perhaps cheaper to do so.

Though gaining operational experience on the Sukhoi Su-30SM and Su-34 is likely an important aspect of the Russian deployment, the Russians might have another objective in deploying their latest jets to the theatre. “It may be a way for them to ‘characterize’ the F-22’s radar emissions on their radar warning receivers (RWR) in a real-world environment,” the senior Air Force intelligence official said. “Not traditional intelligence collection per se, but could be a way to see how their RWRs receive and display an F-22’s radar emissions.”

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-air-war-syria-chance-spy-americas-f-22-fighter-13987

More disturbing is the Kremlin’s deployment of aircraft to Syria allows it to observe advanced U.S. aircraft operating in Syria such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Kremlin aircraft can track the stealth jet’s radar emissions. Russia is using its air campaign in Syria as an opportunity to gather intelligence on U.S. forces. According to one U.S. Air Force official, Russia is using its newer air-to-air assets as a form of “operational testing” in an actual combat environment. Russia wants to do this with the Su-34 (NATO reporting name: “Fullback”) and Flanker-C while the U.S. is doing the same with the F-22. These Russian aircraft characterize the F-22’s radar emissions on their radar warning receivers (RWRs). Russia’s Flanker-Cs and other air superiority fighters (ASFs) may also be present to ward off Western intelligence assets from spying on Russian forces.

http://www.leksika.org/tacticalanalysis/2016/4/6/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick-ii-russian-and-us-duplicity-in-syria

All of this sounds like wishful thinking!

Thank you for the vote of confidence. 🙂 Believe me, between T-50-6-2 and Tesla Model 3 unveil i am sitting on pins for the last few days.

Since day one i always thought IR was the weak point in T-50 ‘s design. I think with cowlings + the aerosol system (in a way similar and yet very different from YF-23’s solution) will get them there.

Yes, just between T-50-1 and -2 there are solid half dozen changes or so. You might not find it important that T-50-2 has actuators for sidebays while -1 doesnt, but i do. Or a more progressed canopy design. Etc etc. Don’t take it the wrong way – but i cant pay attention to detail for you. So yes, dozens of changes. Thinking that the first 8 prototypes are (ie from KNS to 5+5R/6) are all basically the same is silly because they are not.

It is one thing not to expect the “changes” as you demonstrated with your pictures. And no sane person on here expects anything like that i am sure. But it is another thing to claim that;

I guess I can see where you are coming from. I am not sure which one of us is more pedantic but it is OK. I will retract my statement about no changes in the future.