Likely because Tu-22M3 is upgrade with SVP-24 like Su-24 and unguided bombs are proven to be accurate enough to do their job upper CEP ~ 24m

Seems to me that the CEP is actually proven not to be enough to do the job seeing as the Backfires regularly dump their entire payload on a single target. Imagine if, instead of flying all that way to take out a single target, they could drop single bombs on, say, six different targets but with a much higher likelihood of success.

The only explanation I can think of that explains the way things are done now is that the Russians are keen to get rid of old stocks of dumb bombs… So, less to do with combat efficiency and pilot safety and more to do with keeping the operation cheap as chips. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, just pointing out that Glonass-guided bombs are also a neat way to get things done and I’m surprised they haven’t at least played around/demonstrated/experimented with that as an option.

Full video. Apparently some Russian UAV acting as the laser designation for guided artillery rounds of some kind.

A proper UCAV is now just one step away.

Can we all PLEASE agree to do one of two things:

1. Stop referring to “kamikaze drones” as “kamikaze drones”

or

2. Start referring to all guided missiles as “kamikaze drones”

And only because of the MC-21 hater on the last page, here’s SSJ100 in the special flight squadron:

Just for the record, I’m not a MC-21 hater, I find all airliners equally mind-numbing. That’s why Key Publishing were kind enough to set up a separate forum for the takes-off-flies-in-a-straight-line-then-lands geeks.

Tomahawk cruise missiles proved to be difficult targets for Russian electronic warfare systems

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5112-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-proved-to-be-difficult-targets-for-russian-electronic-warfare-system.html

A good read but nothing spectacularly new there.

There have been videos of lots of RuAF aircraft carrying out rocket attacks past few days, some firsts too- Su-30SM and Su-35.

Now what could possibly be the point of that?

Yep. Simply priority and money has not gone into UAVs, but traditional war fighting means. If a measure of comfort due to new air-frames, or experience in Syria proves to influence VKS decision making, we will find out soon.

Well, it seems like a massive error from where I’m sitting. If only because golden opportunities to gain experience and start working UCAVs into doctrine are being missed. Even a small, experimental unit would go a long way to changing this and yet no efforts appear to be expended in this direction.

Perhaps the experiences of allies (the Iranians and Iraqis) might shift things along a bit… perhaps.

For me, it sits right shoulder to shoulder with reliance on dumb munitions – i.e. what appears, falsely, to be a short-term saving that will have knock on effects in the long-term.

Simple & perfectly valid rule: continuing with an unpleasant status quo, accepted as legitimate by a large proportion (possibly a majority, except in Bahrain) of the citizenry because it’s been the rule for a very long time, they’re used to it, & it fits their ideas of state legitimacy, is far less wicked than imposing the same regime where there was previously something better & no history which would legitimise it.

Or do you think that leaving the Saudi system in place is equal to forcibly imposing it on your homeland?

Note that the Saudi state has internal opponents who wish to set up something worse, along the lines of Daesh, with the reintroduction of slavery, etc., & who’ve tried starting armed rebellions.

I actually think that legitimacy is a little more complicated than that… And Saudi rule a little less defensible.