Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Will Russians be enraged by F-35 firing a BrahMos??
+78
limb
TMA1
Swgman_BK
andalusia
thegopnik
miketheterrible
Stefane
kvs
PhSt
JohninMK
gmsmith1985
Cheetah
mnztr
KeMac
Hole
AMCXXL
FulcrumPL
ZoA
The-thing-next-door
HM1199
Rmf
A1RMAN
Flanky
par far
13th_Warrior
kopyo-21
Svyatoslavich
franco
Benya
Zivo
archangelski
Isos
kiskertlugas
headshot69
NationalRus
Project Canada
User2245
zackyx
higurashihougi
RTN
nemrod
jhelb
Honesroc
victor1985
calripson
d_taddei2
Alex555
Morpheus Eberhardt
George1
GarryB
Giulio
redgiacomo
magnumcromagnon
Mike E
Werewolf
Mamut
Vann7
sepheronx
Diego-9
indochina
collegeboy16
Stealthflanker
KomissarBojanchev
TR1
Sujoy
Russian Patriot
SOC
Mindstorm
ASHRAF
ahmad_elsharkawy
Admin
IronsightSniper
psg
Austin
medo
mandeb48
havok
nightcrawler
82 posters
General Questions Thread:
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 35
Location : Pakistan
IronsightSniper- Posts : 414
Points : 418
Join date : 2010-09-25
Location : California, USA
I don't see any reason why Russia would be?
If India is looking for a good combat capabilities over good politics than whatever they choose to be their line of aircraft is the right choice.
If India is looking for a good combat capabilities over good politics than whatever they choose to be their line of aircraft is the right choice.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Will Russians be enraged by F-35 firing a BrahMos??
It would kill Brahmos in Russian military service.
You don't buy an F-35, you rent it, and any missile you want integrated into the F-35 system requires handing the electronic side of the system over to the US. Not even the UK or Australia or Israel are allowed the software for the F-35 so I rather doubt India or Russia would be allowed to integrate the BrahMos themselves.
From Indias perspective the market within NATO F-35 users might be more lucrative than the Russian market and it might make financial sense, but it will likely strike a lethal blow to Brahmos, which Russia will simply update the new bits that improved it and apply that to the Oniks which was a higher performing version regarding hardware anyway. (Longer range and heavier warhead).
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
nightcrawler wrote:Will Russians be enraged by F-35 firing a BrahMos??
US would never give us the source code to install it. Nor would it fit in the weapons bay.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
nightcrawler wrote:
Name of middle missile??
That is for MiG-35? It would never hold that configuration.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Likely an example of the range of what can be carried rather than what would be carried.
I find it interesting that the inner pylon carries a 1.5 ton bomb, but then I believe they have developed a 1,800ltr fuel tank so it would have to be able to support over 1.5 tons to carry that.
I find it interesting that the inner pylon carries a 1.5 ton bomb, but then I believe they have developed a 1,800ltr fuel tank so it would have to be able to support over 1.5 tons to carry that.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Vladimir79 wrote:That is for MiG-35? It would never hold that configuration.
Why not ? The production Mig-35 will have 11 HP and can carry a total weapon load of 6.5T.
The above weapon load is possible , I estimate each wings carries not more then 2.5T of weapons , so that weapon is doable with a 2000L Central Drop tank.
Ofcourse a fully loaded weapons has bearing can stress the aircraft and reduce its service life if its done often.
The thumb rule for most mission will be half payload and half fuel , you can tank it up on way/return from mission.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Why not ? The production Mig-35 will have 11 HP and can carry a total weapon load of 6.5T.
I think he means that the variety of weapons would be unlikely to be carried... the air to air missiles would be useful for self defence on any surface attack mission but the mixture of (from left) two AAMs, a TV guided missile, either an anti radiation missile or anti ship missile, a heavy laser guided bomb and an either antiship or land attack cruise missile, and anti ship missile, a smaller laser guided bomb, and two AAMs... it is a very strange mix.
If the target was a defended ship or SAM site or what ever it was would require a narrower range of weapons and likely more of them. For example attacking a SAM site would likely involve more ARMs and LACMs. Attacking a heavy bridge would mean more TV guided missiles and/or LGBs. Etc etc.
Of course having said all that I remember a photo of an F-16 with 7 tons worth of bombs on it... it never took off and during its entire service life would never have needed or wanted such a load out... the handling performance with such a load would have been terrible. It was purely for a publicity shot. Any mission that required that sort of load out they would have sent an F-15E instead.
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 35
Location : Pakistan
Which is the third missile [relative to wing tip] is it Israeli or Russian??
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The aircraft is an Su-34 and none of the weapons on it are Israeli.
From the top wing tip the missiles are:
R-73 (black stripes indicate it is a dummy training missile representing the weight and drag of a real missile but with no warhead, seeker, or rocket motor).
R-77 white
R-27ER or EP Red
Kh-31 Red
Kh-31 Red
Kh-31 Red
R-27ET1 Red
R-77 White
R-73 white with black stripes.
The R-27ER or EP has a pointed nose and either a SARH seeker or a passive anti radiation seeker.
The R-27ET has a rounded optical port nose and an IR seeker (based on that fitted to the R-73).
From the top wing tip the missiles are:
R-73 (black stripes indicate it is a dummy training missile representing the weight and drag of a real missile but with no warhead, seeker, or rocket motor).
R-77 white
R-27ER or EP Red
Kh-31 Red
Kh-31 Red
Kh-31 Red
R-27ET1 Red
R-77 White
R-73 white with black stripes.
The R-27ER or EP has a pointed nose and either a SARH seeker or a passive anti radiation seeker.
The R-27ET has a rounded optical port nose and an IR seeker (based on that fitted to the R-73).
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Anyone know, how project of Su-25UBM is going on? It was said, Ulan Ude will build new planes, but nothing is heard that Su-25UBM are ordered.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Anyone know, how project of Su-25UBM is going on? It was said, Ulan Ude will build new planes, but nothing is heard that Su-25UBM are ordered.
I have read an article that has confused me on the issue.
Here is the article... with the relevant section in red
source: http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/what-will-gpv-2011-2020-buy/Now this suggests to me that they are going to spend the extra money and pay for Su-25TM aircraft instead of the cheaper but lower performing Su-25SM upgraded aircraft.I certainly hope so, though with improvements in electronics since the Su-25TM was first offered and improvements in optics and night vision and mmw radar should allow for a Su-25TMM upgrade that is not too expensive... perhaps with the Mantra DIRCMs system as fitted to their Ka-52s to protect them from the only thing really threatening them on a modern battlefield (MANPADS).
What Will GPV 2011-2020 Buy?
Posted on October 4, 2010 by Russian Defense Policy| Leave a comment
Russian military procurement policy is an obvious focus of what you read here, and there’s lots to write about on this score lately – the GPV, defense budget, OPK modernization and innovation, etc. It’s not possible to capture it all at once. Here’s a start, and hopefully it will lead to broader insights later.
Writing for his latest project – the Center for the Analysis of the World Arms Trade (TsAMTO or ЦАМТО), Igor Korotchenko addressed what the new GPV might buy. His article was picked up by VPK.name, and then a somewhat truncated version ran in Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye.
He uses the 22 trillion ruble figure rather than the 19 trillion for the armed forces specifically. Not that it matters since it’s a wag at best anyway.
In his first broad swipe, Korotchenko forecasts that Russia will buy 500 new aircraft, 1,000 helicopters, and 200 air defense systems among other arms and equipment over the 2011-2020 period. He admits, even with a fairly generous procurement budget [if approved and fully disbursed every year], it will be impossible to buy everything each
service and branch will need after 20 years of very small-scale procurement.
And this is exactly, of course, the point that Popovkin’s deputy, General-Lieutenant Oleg Frolov was making when he argued for 36 trillion . . . .
So, they can’t have everything and will have to prioritize.
Korotchenko gives it a whack, maybe not satisfactory, but it’s a start:
- Strategic nuclear forces;
- Precision-guided weapons;
- Automated command and control systems (ASU);
- Aircraft;
- Air and missile defense (PVO / PRO).
Korotchenko doesn’t talk specifics about his first two priorities. On the third, he calls for a unitary military C2 system to enable Russian netcentric warfare. On aircraft, he somewhat surprisingly emphasizes transport aircraft to move Russia’s million-man army between strategic axes as needed. And Korotchenko lists PVO / PRO without further
commentary.
He supports efforts to overcome Russia’s lag in UAVs, ships, individual protective equipment and soldier systems, and armored vehicles through cooperation with Israel, France, Germany, and Italy.
Then Korotchenko turns back to aircraft, saying they are the thing that will indicate what kind of armed forces Russia will have in 2020.
Based on what’s been said publicly, he counts:
- An-124 Ruslan — 20
- An-70 — 50
- Il-476 — 50
- Il-112B — ??
- Su-35S — 48
- Su-27SM — 12
- Su-30MK2 — 4
- PAK FA — 60
- Su-34 — 32, possibly 60-80 more
- Su-25UBM / Su-25TM — 10, possibly 20 more
- MiG-35 — 30
- MiG-29SMT / MiG-29UB — 20-30
- MiG-29K / MiG-29KUB –26, possibly 22 more
- Yak-130UBS — 120
- New airborne early warning aircraft — 2-3
- Be-200PS — 8-10
In all, he summarizes, about 500-600 aircraft by 2020.
Korotchenko doesn’t talk money, so we’ll have to think about what this would cost. In terms of what’s covered, he’s only talked only about RVSN and Air Forces’ requirements. You can be sure the Ground Troops, Navy, VDV, and Space Troops have their own lists. Maybe Korotchenko will address them.
Beyond what they say they need, there are two issues. Can they buy it all, or at least how much of it? And, second, can the OPK produce it? Korotchenko doesn’t get us too far into any of this.
What makes you think the Igla-S is not digital? The only countermeasures likely to be effective against the Igla-S would be DIRCMS and they are really not that wide spread in use these days.There is a reason NATO aircraft stay as high over Libya as they did over Kosovo...Interesting I didnt knew Igla-S has side thrusters , I hope they bring a digital version of Igla-S soon while the expensive Verba keeps getting inducted.
A digital version would allow them to reprogram for newer countermeasures on the field , beyond the only weakness Igla-S
seems pretty good.
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 35
Location : Pakistan
This is an image Garry posted; but something is weird here the nozzle perforations aren't symmetrical?? or these perforations aren't what they seem to be
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It is just perspective.
When I first posted it I thought the visible engine rocket nozzles were of the front two missiles but looking down the centre of the two missiles visible you can see two sets of control surfaces so this is the rear pair of four missiles.
Basically the alignment of the missiles is more important relative to the pair of missiles in front of them than it is to each other as they are like cyclists in a bike race... as long as they are inside the disturbed air from the one in front they will have much less drag (and RCS).
The noses of the missiles look like they come together because of distance perspective, while the centres of the rocket nozzles are where they should be... when you look into a cone from one side then the centre of that cone seems to be closer to the side you are looking from because the angle means that the cone side you are looking from the cone is seen at a steeper angle and appears to be the shorter distance to the centre.
When I first posted it I thought the visible engine rocket nozzles were of the front two missiles but looking down the centre of the two missiles visible you can see two sets of control surfaces so this is the rear pair of four missiles.
Basically the alignment of the missiles is more important relative to the pair of missiles in front of them than it is to each other as they are like cyclists in a bike race... as long as they are inside the disturbed air from the one in front they will have much less drag (and RCS).
The noses of the missiles look like they come together because of distance perspective, while the centres of the rocket nozzles are where they should be... when you look into a cone from one side then the centre of that cone seems to be closer to the side you are looking from because the angle means that the cone side you are looking from the cone is seen at a steeper angle and appears to be the shorter distance to the centre.
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 35
Location : Pakistan
Perspective of T-50 air to air launch of BrahMos:
brahmos length is 8.4 m (27.64 ft.)
width is 0.67 m (2.20 ft.)
Now where is a missile that size going to be fitted? it doesn't fit in the internal bays. and if it goes in between the engine intakes then the T-50 losses access to it's internal missile bays. Which I suppose they could do but then the T-50 becomes defensless along with a larger radar cross section. It defeats the purpose of the T-50 design. An air launched Brahmos is better suited for Su-30
Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know. Please prove me wrong though I am always open to learning something new.
brahmos length is 8.4 m (27.64 ft.)
width is 0.67 m (2.20 ft.)
Now where is a missile that size going to be fitted? it doesn't fit in the internal bays. and if it goes in between the engine intakes then the T-50 losses access to it's internal missile bays. Which I suppose they could do but then the T-50 becomes defensless along with a larger radar cross section. It defeats the purpose of the T-50 design. An air launched Brahmos is better suited for Su-30
Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know. Please prove me wrong though I am always open to learning something new.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Brahmos is Yakhont with new electronics.
Both are short range models derived from the Onix design that replaced the Moskit in Russian service. (Moskit being the air launched version of the SS-N-22 Sunburn).
The Moskit is a 4.5 ton missile that was tested with the Su-34 and Su-27M and was to be carried centrally.
The Onix is a much smaller missile that is 2 tons lighter but of similar speed and longer range... the Su-35 should be able to carry 3 Onix or Brahmos or Yakhont type missiles, and I agree it makes rather more sense for them to carry them than a stealth aircraft.
However on a heavy strike mission carrying one large missile centrally it can still use four external weapons pylons and of course the suspected wing mounted short range IR missile bays.
The main weapon will be launched up to 300km from the target which means internal bays can then be used by the now stealthy aircraft to engage any threats and thwart any attempts to deal with the incoming missile.
Personally I would think two or three Su-35s with 3 large missiles each plus long range AAMs like KS-172 and R-77 and R-73 with a flight of 3-4 PAK FAs with internal weapons only in full stealth mode makes more sense with the Flankers firing from max range and the Pak Fas getting in closer and taking advantage of aircraft dodging missiles to fire close range shots with more terminal energy...
I rather suspect the ability to fire Brahmos is an Indian requirement so that it can if it needs to.
Both are short range models derived from the Onix design that replaced the Moskit in Russian service. (Moskit being the air launched version of the SS-N-22 Sunburn).
The Moskit is a 4.5 ton missile that was tested with the Su-34 and Su-27M and was to be carried centrally.
The Onix is a much smaller missile that is 2 tons lighter but of similar speed and longer range... the Su-35 should be able to carry 3 Onix or Brahmos or Yakhont type missiles, and I agree it makes rather more sense for them to carry them than a stealth aircraft.
However on a heavy strike mission carrying one large missile centrally it can still use four external weapons pylons and of course the suspected wing mounted short range IR missile bays.
The main weapon will be launched up to 300km from the target which means internal bays can then be used by the now stealthy aircraft to engage any threats and thwart any attempts to deal with the incoming missile.
Personally I would think two or three Su-35s with 3 large missiles each plus long range AAMs like KS-172 and R-77 and R-73 with a flight of 3-4 PAK FAs with internal weapons only in full stealth mode makes more sense with the Flankers firing from max range and the Pak Fas getting in closer and taking advantage of aircraft dodging missiles to fire close range shots with more terminal energy...
I rather suspect the ability to fire Brahmos is an Indian requirement so that it can if it needs to.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
nightcrawler wrote: Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know. Please prove me wrong though I am always open to learning something new.
That one should be tested soon , IAF has sent 2 MKI to Irkut to be modified and strengthened for Air Launch Brahmos , they were initially suppose to carry 3 but was settled for one as it needed lots of strengthning of Wings and central carriage.
So now they settled for just one brahmos on the centerline , compared to ground launched Brahmos Airlaunched with be 500 kg lighter as they need to carry shorter booster.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know.
Air to air Brahmos?
No.
Brahmos is optimised for ground and sea targets, not aerial targets.
For very long range air to air it makes more sense to go for two stage missiles to make the missile low drag.
ahmad_elsharkawy- Posts : 7
Points : 14
Join date : 2011-06-02
[b] is there is adifference between su-35 and mig 35
and why algerian government returned their fighters back to russia ?
and why algerian government returned their fighters back to russia ?
IronsightSniper- Posts : 414
Points : 418
Join date : 2010-09-25
Location : California, USA
There's a big difference between Su-35s and MiG-35s, the biggest being, in simple words, "The Su-35 is better".
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
In many ways the Mig-35 and Su-35 are comparable to the F-16C and F-15C.
The bigger aircraft on paper appears better in every measure because it can carry more weapons, it can carry heavier weapons, it has a larger radar, it has longer flight range.
When you get offered both for the same price then it simply makes sense to buy the bigger aircraft... especially when you have already ordered some of them.
In the case of Algeria however they already had 50 odd Mig-29S aircraft and ordered about 34 more Migs in the shape of Mig-29SMTs. About 6 of those were two seaters.
At the time they also ordered some Su-30s and the Sukhoi design bureau basically offered to sell Su-30s at the price of the Mig-29SMTs they had ordered.
Algeria decided that was too good an opportunity to miss and took it.
The Mig-29 is highly underrated by most people and would be an excellent multirole fighter bomber.
The bigger aircraft on paper appears better in every measure because it can carry more weapons, it can carry heavier weapons, it has a larger radar, it has longer flight range.
When you get offered both for the same price then it simply makes sense to buy the bigger aircraft... especially when you have already ordered some of them.
In the case of Algeria however they already had 50 odd Mig-29S aircraft and ordered about 34 more Migs in the shape of Mig-29SMTs. About 6 of those were two seaters.
At the time they also ordered some Su-30s and the Sukhoi design bureau basically offered to sell Su-30s at the price of the Mig-29SMTs they had ordered.
Algeria decided that was too good an opportunity to miss and took it.
The Mig-29 is highly underrated by most people and would be an excellent multirole fighter bomber.
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=96098&cid=44
Russian air force unit in Russian Far east receive two Su-30 planes and it they plan to receive at least one squadron of Su-30 planes. From photo it seems, that they receive Su-30MKI type of Su-30 with canards and trust vectoring system. I wonder which radar it have in nose, Bars-M or maybe Irbis?
Russian air force unit in Russian Far east receive two Su-30 planes and it they plan to receive at least one squadron of Su-30 planes. From photo it seems, that they receive Su-30MKI type of Su-30 with canards and trust vectoring system. I wonder which radar it have in nose, Bars-M or maybe Irbis?
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Su-30 in Russian air force service should not be confused with export Su-30s.
Exported Su-30s are multirole aircraft used as interceptors, fighters, and medium strike aircraft.
Domestic Su-30s were based on the two seat Su-27UB operational fighter trainer, but were intended for the role of mini AWACS type operations with other aircraft.
The purpose of the Su-30 is to use its larger more expensive and more powerful radar (ie larger and more powerful than the standard radar fitted to Mig-29 and Su-27 base aircraft) and to direct other aircraft to intercept threats. The aircraft they control generally are smaller and operate closer to the enemy and do not turn on their radars though they will use passive sensors like IRST and helmet mounted sights.
The purpose is to allow the aircraft to take full advantage of the powerful radars of the Su-30 while at the same time using the weapon capacity and small aircraft advantages of the smaller aircraft.
For the enemy to find the smaller aircraft they will need to use their own radars which will give away their position and allow their engagement.
In many ways it is a shift from using ground controllers looking at radar screens from ground based radars sitting in vans on the ground to sitting behind the pilot and moving with the air formation. It makes it much more mobile and flexible and of course makes low flying targets more visible too.
The Russians didn't ignore the Su-30MKI technology and development... a lot of that stuff likely aided the development of the Su-35 and Su-34 as well as the Su-27SM and Su-27SM2 upgrades.
Exported Su-30s are multirole aircraft used as interceptors, fighters, and medium strike aircraft.
Domestic Su-30s were based on the two seat Su-27UB operational fighter trainer, but were intended for the role of mini AWACS type operations with other aircraft.
The purpose of the Su-30 is to use its larger more expensive and more powerful radar (ie larger and more powerful than the standard radar fitted to Mig-29 and Su-27 base aircraft) and to direct other aircraft to intercept threats. The aircraft they control generally are smaller and operate closer to the enemy and do not turn on their radars though they will use passive sensors like IRST and helmet mounted sights.
The purpose is to allow the aircraft to take full advantage of the powerful radars of the Su-30 while at the same time using the weapon capacity and small aircraft advantages of the smaller aircraft.
For the enemy to find the smaller aircraft they will need to use their own radars which will give away their position and allow their engagement.
In many ways it is a shift from using ground controllers looking at radar screens from ground based radars sitting in vans on the ground to sitting behind the pilot and moving with the air formation. It makes it much more mobile and flexible and of course makes low flying targets more visible too.
The Russians didn't ignore the Su-30MKI technology and development... a lot of that stuff likely aided the development of the Su-35 and Su-34 as well as the Su-27SM and Su-27SM2 upgrades.
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
The Su-30 in Russian air force service should not be confused with export Su-30s.
You are correct, but this is the easiest way to explain differences between Su-30 which are now based in Kaukasus region and are without canards and trust vectoring system and Su-30, which are now in units in Rassian Far East and are equipped with canards and trust vectoring system.
Domestic Su-30s were based on the two seat Su-27UB operational fighter trainer, but were intended for the role of mini AWACS type operations with other aircraft.
As I know all Su-30 are based on Su-27UB. The rule, that you mention was dedicated for Su-30 in nineties era. The new Su-30 from this time is for sure multirole fighter the same as Su-27SM is. Maybe they will be used only as fighters and interceptors, but modern radars and electronics give them those capabilities. At least for SEAD missions with their new RWRs, which could work with anti-radar missiles.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Oops... I made the error I was trying to point out.... 
These new Russian AF Su-30s will likely be Su-30MKK like aircraft.
Very simply the Su-30MKK is a Su-30MKI but with all the foreign stuff replaced with Russian stuff and simplified a bit.
There will be no Israeli or Thales stuff in these aircraft though they will likely have improved stuff over that which was sold to China in some areas the Su-30MKI will have superior components.
A PVO, which is now air and space defence force Su-30 would be operated and fitted out for the Mini AWACs role. For the Russian AF I suspect this is a swing role fighter bomber to supplement the Mig-35s and increase the number of in service Russian aircraft able to carry new guided weapons against air and ground targets.
These new Russian AF Su-30s will likely be Su-30MKK like aircraft.
Very simply the Su-30MKK is a Su-30MKI but with all the foreign stuff replaced with Russian stuff and simplified a bit.
There will be no Israeli or Thales stuff in these aircraft though they will likely have improved stuff over that which was sold to China in some areas the Su-30MKI will have superior components.
A PVO, which is now air and space defence force Su-30 would be operated and fitted out for the Mini AWACs role. For the Russian AF I suspect this is a swing role fighter bomber to supplement the Mig-35s and increase the number of in service Russian aircraft able to carry new guided weapons against air and ground targets.