123 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

Since this forum can be rather inactive, I thought I'd start a thread where I post all the cool technology I find on my daily browsings of the Interwebs, or that I have stored away on my hard drive. Not too unlike Dauth's thread in the Science forum, or Bob's Firefox Plugins/POTP's XP software guide in Computer Hardware/Software and what have you. Some of what I find won't be strictly military related, but I'll try to keep it to the point as much as I can. I'd request that people don't post their own stuff in here; and while the whole point of this is to promote discussion, if I see particularly heated debate on any single thing in particular I'll split it off into a separate thread, as it's easy for the thread to go way off course with something like this.

So, what do I feel like showing you today? How about the Sukhoi Su-35BM?

This is probably my favourite fighter aircraft on the planet, and ties for top spot with the B-1B for overall favourite. Like a lot of Russian projects, the Su-35BM has a long and tortuous development history, its roots (obviously) in the venerable Su-27 'Flanker' that was Russia's answer to the F-16 and F-15 in the Cold War race for air superiority in Europe. The -35BM, however, has been modified out of all relation to its predecessor. It has two direct 'parent' aircraft that are often confused with it; the base Su-35 and the Su-37. The former is in service in very limited numbers (c. 1 squadron - evidently the Russian Knights aerobatic team) with the Russian Air Force, and is effectively a highly updated Su-27. The Su-37 was a demonstration aircraft, of which only two models were built, and incorporated avionic upgrades from Western companies such as Thales. The -35BM differs from them both in that every nut, bolt and computer is entirely of Russian origin, and also modifies the airframe by cutting the canard foreplanes, resulting in ever-so-slightly decreased manoeuvrability (offset by the engines, discussed later) (this is incidentally virtually the only way to tell the three planes apart - though to confuse matters, canards can technically be fitted on the -35BM if the customer desires. It's not intended though), has a new powerplant, and is generally updated in virtually every area of the design as opposed to being a simple upgrade package.
Considered to be the most advanced non-fifth-generation fighter in the world, it's a big plane. This huge wing area gives it superb kinematic performance and control at virtually any angle of attack and speed. It can also carry a lot of fuel - significantly more fuel than any of its contemporaries, plus it has a probe-and-drogue system for in-flight refuelling and can be fitted with a kit to allow it do a buddy-buddy refuel (with one fighter in a flight acting as a mini-tanker for the rest of the group if need be). With 11 hardpoints and a 30mm cannon, it has excellent combat persistence and can carry virtually any weapon cranked out by the Russian MIC in the last twenty years. The -35BM is a multi-role fighter, but for once it actually outclasses most if not all of its contemporaries in all categories instead of being a 'jack of all trades, master of none'; its large size, power and lift allow it to carry a heavy weapon load for almost any imaginable role, with short-range missiles, anti-radiation missiles, medium and long-range radar or IR-homing weapons, rocket pods, TV, laser or IR-guided air-to ground munitions, dumb bombs, standoff weapons, air-launched cruise missiles and even huge anti-ship weapons such as the P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 'Sunburn') or 3M54E/E1 Klub (SS-N-27 'Sizzler') cruise missiles fitting comfortably under its belly.
In terms of engines, it currently uses the NPO Saturn 117S powerplant, which is actually a derivative of the AL-31 family that have powered all Su-27 variants. It's the most powerful version of the engine to date, with the ability to supercruise and a much better service life and time between services than its predecessors. It also has three-dimensional thrust vectoring, which means the fighter can simply flip in any direction it likes at any point in flight. For an example, look at this video (I'm not actually sure whether the Su-37 - yes, I know it's a 37, but 35 is capable of all this - has 3D TVC enabled in this video, it may be only 2D. So you can imagine what 3D would be like!) Future production Su-35BMs will probably use the AL-41F1A, which is an AL-31 model up-rated to approximate the performance of the new AL-41Fs that will power the PAK FA (the first flight of which, scheduled for next year, I await with great interest).
Lastly, sensors and jamming. The current radar offered on the -35BM is the Irbis-E, which is fully mechanically mobile, giving it the ability to scan up to 120 degrees off-axis. To show how this compares, I direct you to this page by Air Power Australia. (If you want answers to debates, this is where you go, just set aside half an hour to read the page. I prefer to look at the nice simple graphs myself. The relevant ones are at the bottom.) It's claimed to be able to track an 0.01 square metre cross section target at 90km, and larger targets at up to four hundred kilometres. It has both air-search and ground-search modes, tracking 30 targets and engaging eight simultaneously in the sky, and four targets with two engaged simultaneously against objects on the ground. It also has an engagement radar in its tail; typically it will launch AAMs at the longest possible range, then do a quick about-turn and put its tail to the enemy, allowing it to engage enemies from long range even while keeping out of their missile range. Also useful for finding someone on your tail.
The -35BM also supports the latest in Russian jamming and electronic warfare pods; typically these will occupy the two wingtip stations, and provide far enhanced capabilities over current Russian hardware, bringing them, if not quite up to par with the most modern Western designs, certainly into the same category. The Su-35BM also incorporates composites and radar absorbent material which supposedly make it 'low-observable' but I don't seriously believe that they'd reduce the ability to track it by more than a few dozen kilometres at best. It's a big plane, and the turbine intakes would bounce radar waves straight back to the emitter no problem.
It's my solid belief that given equivalent levels of pilot skill, a Su-35BM will outbest any fighter in the world today save the F-22A Raptor. The latter's stealth gives it a clear advantage over any other aircraft ever built, and I don't imagine that unless the threat ratio was ridiculous, the Su-35BM would stand a chance. But any other opponent would be up for a hard fight indeed. One which, I think, they'd probably lose. It has a powerful radar, engines with an astonishing amount of thrust, fuel to burn, a superbly agile design, modern missiles, avionics and electronics, true multi-role capability and a feature set which sets it apart from all other 4/4.5th generation aircraft. Feel free to disagree, but there's no doubting it's an ultra-modern aircraft with a rich tradition and many successful designs behind it.
And it looks damn cool.

More information:
http://www.aviapedia.com/fighters/su-35bmt...he-last-flanker (where most of the pics and info people get when they look at the Su-35BM come from. Slightly old, but I don't think it's out of date. Good, readable info.)
http://en.wikipedia..../Sukhoi_Su-35BM (Wiki. Make up your own mind, I'm not going to argue about that here.)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...sia/su-35bm.htm (Loads of info, but it's obviously been translated from Russian, so it's very hard to read.)

Edited by CommanderJB, 27 September 2008 - 13:42.

[The Wandering Jew]

It was the replacement for Sukhoi Su-25.

And India has purchased some. So does Malaysia.

[CommanderJB]

Nope, sorry to contradict you, but you're actually wrong on all counts. The Su-35BM is not a replacement for the Su-25; the Su-25 is a dedicated ground-attack aircraft and has no direct replacement in sight, though upgrade packages to bring them to Su-25K standard, optimised for the anti-tank role and equipping the lethal 9K123 Vikhr supersonic ATGM are in progress. The aircraft I think you're thinking of is the Su-34 'Fullback' (also known as the Su-27IB, Su-32 or Su-32FN) developed off the Su-27 as a dedicated strike bomber which is intended to replace Su-24 'Fencer' tactical bombers and replace some of the capability lost with the retirement of the MiG-27 'Floggers' in the late 1990s. It's quite distinguishable by its flat nose; leading to it being nicknamed the 'platypus' by some NATO analysts, it seats two crew members side-by-side and is heavily optimised for long-range strike missiles, with a mini cabin, bunk space, galley and toilet. They're being purchased in large numbers by the VVS, with up to 100 scheduled for purchase by this time next year. Also very good at maritime strike.
As for export, the Su-35BM only had its first flight in early March this year, meaning it hasn't been exported anywhere. It's also yet to be purchased by the VVS, and as such is being heavily marketed abroad, though it's fairly likely the VVS will end up buying a few dozen to cover gaps as they take the older elements of their fleet out of service in the lead-up to the mass production of the PAK FA.

There's a lot of versions out there, so I'd better give a brief list of the main variants (there are a hundred or more in total) for clarity:
Su-27: Inaugural air-superiority version, first constructed in the 80's.
Su-27SM: Modernisation package for the 27 to bring it up to Su-35 standard in terms of weapons diversity and some avionic/radar modifications.
Su-27SK: Su-27 export version.
Su-27SKM: Modernisation package for export. Slightly less advanced than the SM.
Su-27UB: Two-seat trainer version.
Su-30: Upgraded Su-27UB with modernised radar and avionics, two seater (all variants two seater), modified airframe forward. New multi-role capability, new enhanced capability AL-31F engines, new in-flight refuelling. Never entered full production as a stand-alone type.
Su-30MK: Base export version of Su-30.
Su-30MKI: Indian export version. A joint project by Sukhoi/KNAAPO and Hindustan Aerospace Limited, featuring canards and much upgraded internal systems, including both Indian, Russian and Israeli avionics and sensor technology, that actually puts it significantly ahead of the base Su-35 in terms of capability, almost on a par with the Su-35BM, but not quite. Also has further upgraded AL-31FP engines with 2D TVC. Being built in both India and Russia, and entering service in large numbers with the Indian Air Force. Performed extremely well in mock dogfights with F-15C, Eurofighter Typhoon, Panavia Tornado and F-16 aircraft during the 'Cope India' exercises.
Su-30MKK: Chinese export version. Two-seater. No canards or TVC. General avionics, electronic warfare and weapons upgrades. Not typically considered as capable as the MKI, but in service in significant numbers.
Su-30MK2: Upgraded variant of MKK with TVC and some other miscellaneous upgrades, including a better radar and Chinese electronics. 24 all delivered to Venezuelan Air Force also.
Su-30MK3: MK2 with better radar. Not so far produced as its engines can only provide half of the power needed by the Irbis-E, limiting most of the gains.
Su-30MKM: Malaysian export version. Similar to the MKI but with a mixture of French, South African and Russian avionics instead of the Russian/Indian/Israeli ones.
Su-33: Single-seat naval strike fighter, ruggedised, folding wings, for operation off Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. Engine changes give up-rated power. As an older design (produced beginning 1982) it's not very good when compared to almost all of the models on this list in terms of avionics and radar performance.
Su-27KUB: Su-27 two-seat carrier fighter. Some modernisations from Su-33, but generally a less capable airframe.
Su-35: Essentially a modernised land version of the -33. Close cousin of Su-30MKI, but somewhat worse avionics performance due to older design, and single seat. New radar when compared to older -27 and -30 variants. Canards. The AL-31F engine provides more thrust than the basic model, but no TVC. Some models have been upgraded with the 117S engine, however, which has TVC.
Su-37: Upgraded Su-35 demonstrator with French avionic and sensor technologies, one of the first Russian fighters to have a digital cockpit. Also sports AL-31FU engines with 2D TVC. Only one upgraded but was later converted back into Su-35.
Su-35BM: See above (Literally 'Big Modernisation'). Heavily upgraded Su-35. (Note Sukhoi's site does not differentiate between the Su-35 and -35BM. I believe all future Su-35s will be constructed to -BM standard, thus they have decided to call them all the same thing, with the fifteen or so base -35's built to date eventually converted, but I've got nothing to confirm this).

As you can see it's all utterly confusing. However, that covers most of the designations you'll see popping up.

Edited by CommanderJB, 27 September 2008 - 13:38.

[Waris]

CommanderJB, on 27 Sep 2008, 21:48, said:

Su-30MKI: A joint project by Sukhoi/KNAAPO and Hindustan Aerospace Limited, featuring canards and much upgraded internal systems, including both Indian, Russian and Western avionics and sensor technology, that actually puts it significantly ahead of the base Su-35 in terms of capability, almost on a par with the Su-35BM, but not quite. Also has 2D TVC. Being built in both India and Russia, and entering service in large numbers with the Indian Air Force. Performed extremely well in mock dogfights with F-15C, Eurofighter

Indian export version.

CommanderJB, on 27 Sep 2008, 21:48, said:

Su-30MKM: Similar to the MKI but with a mixture of French, South African and Russian avionics in place of HAL's offerings.

Malaysian export version. Also lacking Israeli electronics/avionics (in place of French IIRC)

[CommanderJB]

Oops, did I really forget to state that? *Hits head* Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the -35BM has yet to find a customer.

Edited by CommanderJB, 27 September 2008 - 13:21.

[BeefJeRKy]

Your military knowledge astounds me JB. Good luck on maintaining interest in this thread. I will try to check in every once in a while.

[CommanderJB]

And now for today's entry. This would have to be one of the most astonishing pictures I've ever seen, but the thing is that I don't even know anything at all about it, not even where or when it is, or what the ships in the image are. You see, I just found it on the hard drive of our old computer when we were sifting through it just before we threw it out. Ironically I was probably the one who saved it there, but I've since forgotten all about it. Here's what I'm talking about:

I would guess that this was taken in the 50's given that they're all gun destroyers of approximately WWII vintage, but have radar and other apparent modernisations. I'd have hazarded the American Gearing class, but I don't think they look like that. Any ideas?
Whatever the case, I think you can agree that's an awful lot of ships.

[Sicarius]

The four with the large (readable) HIN's on the side are all fletcher class destroyers, of which 175 were commisioned between 1942-44. The picture itself had to have been taken before 1944, because the USS Johnston (DD-577 in the picture) was sunk in october of that year.

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 28 September 2008 - 06:26.

[Waris]

Holly Molly those are fucktons of ships :wow:

MOAR!

[CommanderJB]

~Doomsday~, on 28 Sep 2008, 16:25, said:

The four with the large (readable) HIN's on the side are all fletcher class destroyers, of which 175 were commisioned between 1942-44. The picture itself had to have been taken before 1944, because the USS Johnston (DD-577 in the picture) was sunk in october of that year.

Ah, thankyou for the information. By the looks of it there are also a few of their replacements, the Allen M. Sumner class, and the rest of them are probably Benson or Gleaves-class vessels (now that I know what to look for, Wiki has very helpful links to all the preceding and succeeding classes). I don't think that anyone can really match the USA when it comes to cranking out stuff en masse, that's for sure.

[General Kirkov]

The new Russian Flagship:

The Missile Cruiser Moskva

[Eddy01741]

Nice damn first post, the Su-35BM is pretty much also my favorite fighter ever since the Su-37 program was cancelled. The Su-37, Su-30MKI, and Su-35BM are my favorite trio of fighters (and you obviously know why, all of them are improved Su-27s, all of which include TVC).

The one thing I did learn is that the Su-35BM can supercruise.... damn, that thing is better than i thought.

EDIT:, Just one question, since i'm kind of on a tight schedule and can't research this myself, do you have any idea to why they took the canards off the Su-35BM?

Edited by Eddy01741, 28 September 2008 - 15:29.

[CommanderJB]

Two main reasons: firstly, it helps decrease the radar signature (as I said the gains wouldn't amount to much, though because the airframe is so clean it's actually not as big a target as you might be forgiven for imagining, unless of course you're flying right down the radar's throat. They did coat the compressor blades in RAM, which is an achievement in itself, but realistically there's no way it would make a huge difference I wouldn't have thought. Otherwise they'd be spruiking it), and secondly it optimises the airframe better for supersonic cruise and transonic manoeuvre. They're really only useful for dogfighting anyway, and if you can get the same performance by using TVC, it helps with the rest of the flight profile.

[Dauth]

While I appreciate this is very cool. The Cold War and post doesn't do it for me.

Something about the lifespan of battleships would be nice, (C19 onward really) or perhaps the tech war in WW2. Since I'd like an outside view.

[CommanderJB]

Hmm, it's pretty much the opposite for me - I don't know a lot about weaponry much before the 1980s, though as I was at one stage a complete battleship nut I have a fair understanding of their history and development of such vessels. Not a whole lot else though. Having said that I have a fantastic visual encyclopaedia of WWII aircraft, so I might post a few up from there. Depends really. Anyway, I'll do my best, but don't expect today's update for a few hours until I get home.

[Sicarius]

Arrgh I made a mistake JB.

The Johnston is actually DD-557. DD-577 is the USS Sproston, another Fletcher class. After doing some more searches, I found this page, which can explain your picture. Turns out It was taken in San Diego in June of 1950, so your original guess was correct. Most, if not all of these destroyers were re-activated for the Korean War as Escort destroyers.

Here's a clearer, cropped version of the same image.


An interesting tidbit I found:

The USS Sproston (DDE-577), USS O'Bannon (DDE-450), USS Walker (DDE-517), and USS Killen (DD-593), all in the picture, took part in the Operation Greenhouse A-bomb tests at Eniwetok Atoll.

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 29 September 2008 - 06:01.

[CommanderJB]

WHAT?!?!? A MISTAKE!?!?!
(J/K, as I believe they say)
Thanks a lot for the info! Admittedly I'm not especially diligent at searching for these things, so my gratitude for turning it up for me. An interesting page, though the image link seems to have thrown a hissy fit.

[The Wandering Jew]

Sukhoi Su-34:
I stand corrected (and why in the world they have too many designations?)

1950's escort pics:
Did some of them still commissioned? Or not? I forgot the site I googled that mentioned that some were converted into Coastguard use. (Perhaps patrolling the seas to block tons of shipment of high-grade cocaine).

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 29 September 2008 - 04:14.

[TWPC920]

most if not all of those ships are probably scrapped, the united states mainly use guided missile destroyers now days, instead of the good old huge gun destroyers

[CommanderJB]

No, none of those ships will be in service any more, and unless someone saw fit to turn one into a museum ship, they would have ended up in the breaker's yards long ago. Even the Coastguard get better equipment than WWII vintage.

[Sicarius]

@ CommanderJB: The pic should be working now.
I enjoyed looking this stuff up; it was like solving a mystery.

@TPAM: Indeed, I have yet to hear of WWII ship (of any type) that is still in service today, at least in modern navies. Although IIRC the united states were using battleships up to the first gulf war, though they were nothing more than glorified, expensive missile platforms by then.

A few have escaped the scrapyard to be training vessels, historic sites, museums etc.

If I may post a little article of my own, on one such ship, The HMCS Haida:

HMCS Haida is without a doubt the most famous Canadian naval vessel in our history, being credited with attacking and sinking more surface tonnage than any other Canadian ship.
It was part of the Tenth destroyer flotilla, which operated around the north sea, English channel, and the bay of Biscay. It is the only Tribal class destroyer left( out of 27), having escaped the scrapyard through the help of some determined fans. It also served during the cold war,and it is now a national historic site in Hamilton, Ontario. In July of 2006, It was twinned with ORP Błyskawica, a Grom class destroyer of the Polish navy, and the oldest preserved destroyer in the world. The two museum ships, Haida and Błyskawica, served together in the 10th.


Haida in it's current mooring in Hamilton.


Haida in it's wartime colors.
Note the paint scheme was not standard, but was common in the 10th Destroyer Flotilla. It is designed to trick the enemy into thinking that they are actually seeing multiple ships IIRC.

Wiki on the Haida:
clicky
Wiki on The tribal class:
clicky

edit: ninja'd

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 29 September 2008 - 06:54.

[CommanderJB]

I apologise for the lateness of today's entry, but I've been a bit occupied. Anyway, it's here, and you probably wouldn't have noticed the time if I hadn't pointed it out to you, so I might as well just get on with it and show it to you, mightn't I?

Some of you might already be familiar with this one from FutureWeapons, but let's cut the machismo, propaganda and sanitisation-so-heavy-I-can-practically-smell-the-antiseptic-from-here approach.
The Starstreak Hypervelocity Missile is a platform as interesting as it is lethal. Developed by multi-national weapons and technology giant Thales, it entered service with the British Army at the turn of the century as a missile which pretty much defies classifications. You see, it's good against almost anything. The missile is laser-guided and is (mostly) a Semi-Automatic-Command-Line-Of-Sight (SACLOS) weapon, which means the operator keeps the sights on the target and the missile will do its best to connect with the dot in the middle (just like the missile emplacements in BF2, for example, or the basic Engineer weapons in BF2142). The sights are a sophisticated mix of optical and infra-red detectors which can pick out targets with astonishing clarity even through smoke or haze. I say 'mostly' because the larger vehicle-mounted systems such as the Thor model seen in FutureWeapons actually feature such a high degree of operator assistance that they're effectively fully automatic command guided, but most other variants of the weapon require the operator's sharp eye and quick hand.
The missile itself consists of five main parts. The first is the booster charge that shoots it free of its launch tube; this extremely powerful but extremely brief impulse makes the weapon clear the launcher literally within milliseconds. Then the second stage, the main missile body, takes over, with another high-power rocket motor that accelerates it to Mach 3.5 within four hundred metres, at which point this motor burns out and falls away. Put on the right track by the spinning main body, it's now that the final three parts come into play: the warhead. How can a warhead be three bits? Like this:

Each of the submunitions on the front is a forty-centimetre-long 'dart' each with its own guidance package and explosive charge of about half a kilogram. They are independently tracked and guided by the launch unit, which uses a wide 'grid' of lasers for the submunitions to lock onto. They are claimed to be able to independently manoeuvre to hit a target which is pulling a 9G evasive turn within seven kilometres using kinetic energy alone. While 7 ks is actually quite a long way, the operational range of the missile in fact, the extraordinary thing is that at their speed of Mach 3.5 this distance will be covered in about six seconds.
As the darts home in on the lasers projected by the command unit, they start a small delay impact fuse. They won't actually go off until they're buried in their target, allowing the blast to shred an aeroplane or helicopter with even one of these projectiles as the pressure simply bursts the fuselage open. Given this hyper-complex guidance system, and the fact that it applies individually for each of the three submunitions on the missile, it's no wonder there are kill probabilities claimed of up to 95%. The main weakness of this system is that as an impact fuse, even if one of the projectiles brushes the target it won't go off; it must hit it square-on.
But the real reason the missile defies classification is that it's not restricted to attacking aerial targets. It can be used against vehicles too; tests have shown that each submunition has approximately the energy of a round from a 40mm Bofors gun, and can penetrate the frontal armour of almost any APC or IFV in service today. It's not as good as an ATGM, admittedly, but it's certainly better than nothing, especially when an ATGM doesn't keep you safe from helicopters and any jet that gets too close. It's also touted to be able to defend against 'terrorist platforms', whatever that may or may not mean, but in general it will hit anything you point it at, and it's up to you to point it at the right thing, and has been suggested in multiple configurations, from a CIWS to an air-to-air weapon for Apache gunships.
Currently Starstreak is deployed as part of the Alvis Starstreak armoured vehicle carrier system (the one at the top of this post) and in a Lightweight Multiple Launcher (LML) housing three missiles, which is carried by infantry and set up at the desired site. While the British Army operates about 150 of the former and 135 of the latter, it's seen limited export abroad, with only South Africa buying 8 LMLs. If the ATASK (Air-to-Air Starstreak) Apache modification gets approved by Lockheed Martin, however, it would see a boom as it gets taken up by the U.S. military; however, as the latest fiasco with Airbus' contract for building the USAF's latest tankers showed, it's fairly unlikely that U.S. forces will end up using foreign weapons however effective they may be, and the AIM-9X is much more likely to be considered the better candidate. Regardless, Thales actively markets the system, and with a fair amount of publicity going their way, it may not be long before more international orders are seen.
Whew! That was longer than I thought it was going to be.
Also, my thanks to Doomsday for providing me with the info on the Haida. A most interesting vessel.

Edited by CommanderJB, 30 September 2008 - 11:07.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:

So with the electronic complexities invlolved, does it have any protection against jamming measures? (i.e. EMP, etc.)

[Warbz]

Is it just me or is that comouflage very ineffective?

[CommanderJB]

The Wandering Jew, on 30 Sep 2008, 20:30, said:

@^:

So with the electronic complexities invlolved, does it have any protection against jamming measures? (i.e. EMP, etc.)

Actually, it effectively can't be jammed at all. Unlike a radar-guided weapon it doesn't rely on an electronic seeker, and unlike an infra-red weapon it doesn't actually home in on emissions made by the target that the target can then change to confuse the incoming weapon; instead, the seekers on the darts are keyed exactly to the laser frequency used by the launch unit, meaning they'll always be heading straight for wherever the lasers coming from the launch unit end up. It all depends on the launch platform; the darts pretty much hit what you point them at, so it's up to the operator to make sure the cursor stays on target until they do. Any guided weapon is vulnerable to EMP, so that can't really be counted as jamming (especially as it will fry the platform that's carrying out the jamming too!). Even the launch platform itself isn't vulnerable to ECM because effectively all it consists of is a camera and a laser. There's no communication between any parts of the system, so there's really nothing to jam.

Warbz, on 30 Sep 2008, 20:41, said:

Is it just me or is that comouflage very ineffective?

Depends. I'm not sold on the idea of aircraft camouflage either, but as people pointed out to me in a little discussion on that some time ago, there are circumstances when it can make a difference and the once you see is actually approximately one of them. Zoom the camera out by a kilometre and the jagged edges (or any feature on the fighter really) become impossible to spot, and the colour blend created will end up being a rough analog of that of the swamplands below. Now imagine the same scenario with a fighter jet painted blue, white, black or even light grey and it should be fairly obvious that no matter how small the advantage it should be slightly easier to see the latter, and any such advantage is worth having for effectively free. Obviously it won't work so great on all terrain types, but over most of Russia it should work fine.

Oh, and I'll have to postpone today's entry. Too much to do, sorry.

Edited by CommanderJB, 30 September 2008 - 11:22.