How exactly does a Kh-25ML count as a ‘new smart weapon’?

all I meant was weapons that are newer than the design of the plane. Not sure if i even said new. I just said smart.

Uh what? Complexity doesn’t get more reliable this many decades later, even if the overall plane is well mastered. It is still based on 1960s hardware and design, 1970s avionics. I don’t know of any new hydraulics.
The Gefest upgrade was cheapo, doesn’t change the situation overall.

Su-24 has not used any new smart weapons in Syria.

As opposed to…a fixed wing Su-34, which can linger even longer because of its far superior range/payload capabilities.
Also, Su-24 flies mostly short missions with limited payload. When have you seen them “lingering” like a UAV? That is not why swing-wings were adopted for it.
Again, I am looking for some specifics as to why the middle east, and Syria in particular somehow makes the swings wings advantageous.

Well that is interesting, since variable wings were utilized specifically to get high performance in various flight regimes.

Complexity doesn’t get more reliable this many decades later..I don’t know of any new hydraulics

Yes it does. It gets way more reliable. I am in industries that use hydraulics and electronics. A hydraulic cylinder, even if its off an older machine, gets rebuilt with better stuff. Better alloys. Better seal material. Better everything. Same with cars. If you buy new replacement suspension bushings for an 80’s Corvette, they will be neoprene. Even though the factory material from the 80’s will be plain old rubber. Neoprene is resistant to oil, heat, and weathering.

1970s avionics

Avionics has been upgraded.

Su-24 has not used any new smart weapons in Syria.

Russian servicemen attach a Kh-25L high-precision missile to a Su-24 aircraft at the Khmeimim airbase in Syria. © Dmitriy Vinogradov / RIA Novosti

As opposed to…a fixed wing Su-34, which can linger even longer because of its far superior range/payload capabilities.

The su 34 is totally overkill to fly against an enemy without an airforce. I specifically said that the su 24 could linger more efficiently because it doesn’t have to fly as fast.

When have you seen them “lingering” like a UAV?

That is not why swing-wings were adopted for it.
Again, I am looking for some specifics as to why the middle east, and Syria in particular somehow makes the swings wings advantageous.

If you are going to be flying slow anyway, then its more efficient to fly slow with straight wings. That is why drones have straight wings. So for these simple targeted munitions drops on terrorists with no airforce, it is more efficient, and thus more advantageous to have straighter wings which the su 24 does. Taking off requires less speed, landing requires less speed ect. Less speed=less fuel consumption. Lower risk landings.

su 24’s are underrated. For the type of work that is being done in the middle east, swing wings can be fully exploited.

LOL

so much confidence over nothing,
all the information you posted is not new or revealing. everyone else posted the same thing, or better information

you even posted an old picture of BOEING’s TX render. that’s not Turkish
[img]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz0P5_KX

I suspect you’re not even Turkish

I was wondering… that trainer sure looked familiar:eagerness:

maybe he’s got the inside scoop. They are going to copy the Tx. Or maybe he got the Tx’s mixed up

that can only ever be as a function of support structure,
if support is equal, f-16 is cheaper to operate.

i think the abnormality noted in poland was down to a worked in support of mig-29
but not f-16, there is no logic at all in 2 russian engines being cheaper vs 1 american to operate,
when fuel consumption is roughly equal

What is the thrust/weight ? 2 small vs one bigger doesn’t change much.

Russia simply has lower overhead than its western counterparts. So it stands to reason that they should be more competitive price wise.

With the Mosul operation nearing an end, I was looking back and wondering if Iraq made a serious mistake in buying the F-16IQ. This because:

– High cost, $4+ billion for 38 aicraft + parts and training (I’m guessing) is a lot of money not spent on COIN equipment.
– Delayed delivery, especially painful as these might have put a dent in ISIS’s advance early on.
– Limited weapon outfit, seems the US is selling Iraq only outdated weapons like the Sparrow, greatly reducing the effectiveness of the platform.

All this makes me wonder if Iraq could not have spent its money better elsewhere. Russia especially has been very supportive in the fight against ISIS, some might say more so than the Coalition.

For example the Su-30MKK would have been an interesting alternative:

– Costs about the same.
– Two engines. At about double the flight cost per hour, but then you have a greatly reduced chance of losing such an expensive aircraft to engine failure, so I’d say that evens things out.
– About double the operational range.
– Second pilot, who can operate weapons and act as a C&C node, although the F-16D probably has similar capabilities.
– Bigger and more powerful radar, an important advantage in scanning the air since Iraq has no AWACS, but also to map ISIS movement on the ground.
– I would say superior WVR capabilities compared to the F-16, because of TVC and HMS. Plus access to more advanced WVR missiles.
– Superior BVR capabilities, thanks to bigger radar, more advanced missiles and the weapons operator.
– I understand the underwing payload capacity is about the same, but I imagine the F-16 will need to some of this space for drop tanks (by contrast I’ve never even seen an Su-30 carry drop tanks).
– The US is known to block maintenance of weapon systems for political reasons.
– Growth potential, Russia is buying and operating the type and still developing it further, so future upgrade programs are ensured (if not China might develop them). Plus it’s physically a bigger aircraft in general, meaning it will be easier to incorporate changes without rebuilding the entire aircraft.
– Finally there are no other operators of the type in the region, giving it a serious cool factor, and also a possible advantage since potential adversaries might be less familiar with the type.

Essentially the Su-30 is an F-15C/E for the price of an F-16.

It was ridiculous for Iraq to buy so many of them to begin with.

They should have bought 8 su 35’s for air patrol

And filled out the rest of their requirements with Russian helicopters, drones and light attack aircraft.

Light attack aircraft could hang around at 5-10,000 feet , delivering targeted munitions for way less than any jet.

Useless morons! If they are copying the western way of unvieling a new product, copy it fully or just don’t bother.

Have you guys ever seen in recent (or not too distant) time any western fighter being unvielied with just air-to-air armaments?? …its an eye sore looking at those very “light” and “negligible” payload on a new frontline fighter.

The dumbos should have gone with a mix of air-air/strike weapons package. They could have also installed (or showcased) the proposed Zhuk-AhE for the demo. But the stupids never learn.

Consider the case of Isreali’s, they showcased a “brick” ELT-2052 AESA @ AeroIndia and the clueless fanboys (the usual anti-Russian teams in Indian fora) were having orgasm just seeing/hearing it, which at that time probably was not even in its real physical form and also started testing probably around/only after Zhuk-AE was already airborne. The stupid Russians only displayed their first AESA only much later after 10s of real flight test has been completed even though NIIR Phazotron was working on their AESA in 2004-2005 period.

Now Russia is copying aircraft unveils ? Ha.

It is the US that is way far behind in the PR department. Where is the 360 panoramic video of the US side of the Intl space station ? Where is the HD on-board video of an F 15 flying on the edge of space ?