Chief of the Russian Air Force Viktor Bondarev, ‘Unlike the Americans, we are really hitting ISIL’

This should definitely be “Unlike the Americans, we are really targeting ISIL”… “Hitting” is a bit ambitious considering what we’ve seen so far.

EDIT: for emphasis

Russians obvious not limit themselves just to unguided bombs, as you can see in this very thread, SVP-24 just allow them not to be forced to convert, or better to substitute, their existing stocks while having both a good precision and an enhanced security for their planes at a infinitesimal fraction of cost.

The problem with a CEP of 10m+ is that it may result in failing to neutralise the target – remember the CEP is the radius within which 50% of munitions are expected to end up. If a target is entrenched or otherwise in a fortified position anything other than a near miss may not be good enough. In the best case scenario this will mean a fresh sortie (which isn’t so great as it exposes the pilots to increased risk). In other scenarios it could result in the target moving and hiding (and evading destruction) or continuing to fire on friendly troops/aircraft. So, for the expense NATO forces invest* in precision munitions they buy a reduced risk to their own pilots and increase the likelihood that a target will be eliminated on the first pass – a significant improvement in combat performance over a miss by an unguided munition.

Pilots being forced to release at a lower altitude in order to increase the CEP of the munitions they are delivering results in an increased risk to their safety (not to mention the mission itself).

* I used the term ‘invest’ deliberately because in most cases the money spent funds domestic industries/R&D … it isn’t simply thrown down range.

Also, RE: forward swept wings, there are IIRC super-sonic manoeuvrability issues. One of the reasons the S-37 was never developed further.

Three things for those people still arguing about British vs. French military prowess:

1. WWI – it was the most recent (Dunkirk aside) and you guys worked pretty well together. Why not remember that?

2. It was the Russians who chased Napoleon all the way back to Paris. The Brits only took him down in the much less entertaining sequel.

3. Britain and France both gave up a lot of colonies post-WWII. Call it a draw?

The deal, whoever they sign it with, had better come with a high degree of tech transfer. If I was Iranian, I would also want co-development of a light trainer type (to be built in Iran), co-development of a light attach helicopter and a light utility helicopter (both to be built in Iran), licences for a whole host of other kit…

Also, whatever fighter they choose, it’s got to have a lot of potential for growth… Gen 4 is dying, by the time a new Iranian fighter is delivered and in service it will need to run with the big dogs.

Ultimately, nobody’s to be trusted. If I was Iranian, I’d probably go with the Chinese (unless I could get in on the FGFA!!).

As you can see in the video, they fight individual fighters on foot… how many ATGM’s would you need to clear the area? Rockets and 30mm allow to cover larger areas and “spray” iron on the bad guys… that’s also why these helos are virtually flying tanks… maybe with 23mm you might get one down here and there, but anything smaller won’t probably even be noticed

Covering large areas is what your artillery should be doing. There’s no reason to put your artillery up in the air where it can be shot at… Unless you don’t have enough artillery and you’re getting desperate. The Russians should not be in this position yet.

What you really need is to be taking out entrenched positions, fortifications, and you really really need to be plinking those TOW launchers as and when they reveal their positions. Ideally you would also want to take the fight to the enemy at night and really crumple his morale.

The Russians have the capability to do this, I don’t see why they didn’t bring it along. Instead they chose a much less useful solution that is more likely to result in embarrassing losses.

Why? I just don’t get it.

It is amusing how all the mainstream, non-specialist outlets have jumped on the cruise missile failures. The real question is to what extent we’re looking at an official propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting Russia (clearly the answer is “some”) and to what extent the coverage is organic, reflecting the widespread Russophobia of the audience. Of course, trying to disentangle one from the other is a difficult and unrewarding endeavour. After nearly a hundred years of anti-Russian propaganda, the people think what they are told to think. I doubt there is any subject on which US public opinion and the (bipartisan) political establishment are so aligned. Of course we should not give Washington too much credit — encouraging and directing the people’s ire towards a demonised other has always been a simple and reliable game.

You should read Manufacturing Consent, you’ll like it.