Military Review

Russia against NATO. The ratio of the forces of tactical aviation

243
In order to determine the possible role of aircraft carriers in a large-scale non-nuclear conflict, let's try to figure out how much tactical aviation Russia and NATO will have them in the very near future - say, by 2020. The author did not set himself the task of achieving absolute reliability in calculating the Air Force, collecting them from open sources, but should not be mistaken in the order of numbers.


RF CCS for 2020 g inclusive should have:
PAK FA - 12 pcs. These will be machines for trial operation in the troops, so it is hardly worth considering them in the total quantity.
Su-35C - 98 machines are tentative. The contract for 48 machines has already been executed, now the second one is being executed, on 50 aircraft until the end of 2020.
Su-30 M2 / CM - according to rumors, it is planned to bring to 180 machines to 2020.
Su-33 - not clear, let's leave 14 machines.
Su-27 CM / CM3 - 61 machine. In general, they initially said that at least 100 machines would be upgraded, but recently something has not been heard about Su-27CM3. Perhaps the program is minimized?
MiG-35 - 30 machines
MiG-29MT - 44 machines
MiG-29UBT - 8 machines
MiG-29KR - 19 machines
MiG-29KUBR - 4 machines
MiG-31 - 113 upgraded to 2020.
In addition, an estimated number of un-upgraded vehicles will remain as part of the Russian Air Force: 78 Su-27, 69 MiG-31 and 120 MiG-29.

As for the front aviation, then everything is more complicated:

Su-34 - 124 machines to 2020 g, but it is possible that their number will increase more. Given the fact that they are now being produced on board 16-18 per year, it is quite possible to bring the number of aircraft to the aircraft 142. So we count.

Su-24 - 0 machines. Alas, but according to existing plans, Su-24 to 2020 g should be completely written off from the composition of the Air Force. On the other hand, in case of aggravation of the international situation, this decision may be reconsidered. Yes, and, in fact, even in the event of a decision on the withdrawal, it can be assumed that the upgraded Su-24 will be mothballed, and not destroyed. Leave about half of the current number of Su-24 in the ranks - 120 machines approximately.

Su-25 - can be up to 200 machines.

Tu-22М3М - it is planned to modernize 30 machines. Strictly speaking, these are airplanes of long-range missile-bearing aviation, and not tactical, but they, with a high degree of probability, will be used to solve tactical aviation tasks, therefore we will take them into account here.

Of course, there are also Tu-95 and Tu-160, which theoretically could perform non-strategic functions, but in practice, in the event of a conflict with NATO, they are unlikely to play this role.

Thus, we counted:
Fighters - 458 pcs.
Interceptors - 113 pcs
Tactical bomber - 262 pcs.
Long-range missile carriers - 30 pcs.

All in all, it turns out, 863 new or upgraded aircraft and, in addition, 267 non-upgraded fighters and interceptors and 200 attack aircraft - all 1 330 machines.

It is clear that all these machines can not rise into the air at the same time, because the need for maintenance and repairs has not been canceled. But today we do not have 90 in the yard, so we can safely assume that the number of non-combat-ready aircraft at any given time will be within reasonable limits.

And what about our opponents? Calculate first the European countries of NATO

Germany. Formally, today the Air Force numbers 125 Eurofighters and 93 Tornadoes. In fact - able to perform combat missions 55 "Eurofighter" and 29 "Tornado." Generally speaking, Germany planned to purchase 180 Eurofighters, but for how long, and how many will be “on the wing” for 2020 g? It is unlikely that by that date the once mighty Air Force will be able to boast at least a hundred combat-ready or current aircraft repair.



France. 167 "Mirage-2000" of various modifications, approximately 115 "Rafale" in the Air Force to 2020 g and 44 "Rafale" in the Navy Aviation. Total - 326 aircraft. It seems to be a big force, but only the combatants from this number are about 40% of aircraft.

England - 141 Eurofighter (total 232 ordered), 76 Tornado. The delivery schedule of the Eurofighter is unknown to the author, for example, reaching for the 160 machines - the total will be 236 aircraft. But there is no reason to believe that the situation with combat-ready aircraft is much better than in France or Germany.

Italy - 83 "Eurofighter", 68 "Tornado" in the version of the fighter-bomber, 82 light attack aircraft AMX ACOL and AMX-T ACOL
Spain - 86 F-18 and 61 Eurofighter.
Greece - 156 F-16, 22 - Mirage-2000, 34 "Phantom II" and 34 attack aircraft "Corsair"
Turkey –260 F-16 various (including - quite modern) modifications, 51 “Phantom II”, 35 oldies F-5
Norway - 57 pretty old F-16.
Netherlands - 63 old F-16.
Belgium - 68 old F-16
Denmark - existing X-NUMX old F-30 should be written off to 16 g. Leave them all the same
Portugal - 30 old F-16
Hungary and the Czech Republic - on 12 Swedish SAAB, total - 24
Bulgaria - 15 MiG-29 and 14 Su-25
Romania - 12 F-16 and 36 MiG-21
Slovakia - 12 MiG-29
Croatia - 16 MiG-21
Poland - 48 F-16. There are also MiG-29 and Su-22, but they seem to be removed from the Air Force.

And all, it turns out, 2 177 aircraft, of which no less than 814 (rather - much more) - are already very old cars.

Since the 2 177 is noticeably larger than the 1 330, it seems that the Air Force of the European countries - members of NATO is much stronger than the Russian Federation Space Forces. But if you dig a little deeper, then everything becomes completely not so simple.

The first is, of course, the percentage of healthy machines in their total number. Unfortunately, this figure for the new aircraft of the Russian Air Force is unknown to the author. At the same time, there is data on the USAF where the readiness level of the F-15 and F-16 aircraft is 71-74% of the total number, and the A-10 attack aircraft even the 77% and there is no reason to believe that we are worse today.

Russia against NATO. The ratio of the forces of tactical aviation


Suppose that the% of the health of the RF VKS is at the level of 70%. At the same time, the owners of the most powerful European air forces equipped with the most modern aircraft - Germany, England, France - have extremely low percentages of serviceability at about 40%.

It turns out interesting. If we compare the total estimated number of the most modern aircraft of the Russian Federation (Su-35 / 30, MiG-35 / 29СМТ / К), which, even without taking into account the upgraded MiG-31BM, by 2020 g should be about 383 machines with the most modern NATO machines (440 "Eurofighter" maximum, plus 159 "Rafale", and all - 599 machines), it turns out that the European NATO countries more than one and a half advantage. But if we compare the number of combat-ready machines (with 70% for the Russian Federation videoconferencing and the way even 50% for NATO), then we get 268 versus 299, i.e. almost parity.

If we assume that the percentage of healthy cars on average in European NATO countries does not exceed 50-55% versus 70-75% RF, then the ratio of combat-ready aircraft will be 1 088 - 1 197 of NATO planes against 931-997 RF aircraft, that is, the superiority of European countries NATO is minimal.

But that's not all. After all, it is not enough to have airplanes, they must also be controlled. And if the Russian Aerospace Forces subordinate to a single command and are able to act as a single whole from the very beginning of the conflict, then the Air Force of the European members of NATO (we have listed the Air Force of 19 (!) Countries) does not represent anything of the kind. But this is very important. Of course, the NATO countries are conducting joint training of their air force, but it is unlikely that they are sufficiently intensive and massive to provide such coordination and interaction of aviation that is possible within the framework of the air force of one country.

Recall also that the training of NATO pilots is very heterogeneous. The author does not have accurate data on that score, but the preparation of Turkish or Bulgarian pilots is hardly equivalent to French or English.

It should also take into account the relationship of countries in NATO itself. It is not so easy to believe that in the event of a serious local conflict, the European countries of NATO, as one, will enter the war as a monolithic force. It is not easy to imagine the armed forces of Greece, fighting for the interests of Turkey to the last drop of blood.

Again, it is extremely difficult to expect that even those countries that nevertheless get involved in the conflict will throw all their aircraft into battle. One can be sure that it is not certain that in a large-scale clash, for example, in Eastern Europe, neither England nor France will throw all the power of their air force into battle, but limit themselves to sending a "limited contingent". Of course, Russia has the same problem, because it is impossible to fully expose the Far East and the southern borders, but on the whole the percentage of the total number of combat-ready aviation, which will be able to bring the Russian Federation into any conflict, may well be higher than the European ones NATO countries.

Logistics issues. No, of course, the airfield network of Europe is very large and has over 1800 airfields with hard surface. But the fact is that after the end of the Cold War, the Europeans save a lot on their military budgets, which will create certain problems for them when they try to concentrate the power of their air force, say, closer to Eastern Europe. Not that the Russian Federation did not have such difficulties, but to cope with them within one country is easier.

All of the above leads us to the fact that, despite the list superiority in the air of European NATO countries over the Russian Federation, the actual balance of forces in a conflict that suddenly flared up may turn out to be not so brilliant for Europeans as it looks on paper.

And if you go beyond the limits of the air force itself, and recall such an important factor as air defense?



The armed forces of the Russian Federation have a very strong ground defense, much higher than that of the European NATO countries. Not that NATO has absolutely no ground defense components, but earlier, in times of
The Cold War, they traditionally relied on their superiority in the air. And after the USSR collapsed and military budgets began to be cut everywhere in Europe, of course, they considerably saved on the development and updating of air defense assets. And did the NATO countries need new versions of the same air defense system at that time? In the "wonderful" 90-s, if suddenly there was a military conflict with the Russian Federation, the question was not how to break the Russian Air Force, but how to find them.

However, any disarmament policy is good only when the enemy is even weaker, and if he suddenly begins to grow, then ... Of course, no ground defense, no matter how powerful it may be in itself, is unable to resist the modern Air Force. But as one of the components of the balanced armed forces of the country, it can greatly complicate the actions of enemy aircraft and seriously increase its losses.

Until recently, NATO aviation had a certain superiority in tactical control, missile weapons and electronic warfare equipment, and in addition - in the training of pilots. But it is well known that in the GPV 2011-2020. a lot of attention has been paid to communications and command and control, so you can count on the fact that if we did not equalize on this issue, then at least reduce the backlog. In terms of missile weapons, the situation is also gradually stabilizing, for example, by 2020 we should expect a noticeable amount of RVV-SD to enter the troops. As for the EW funds, the lag has been completely eliminated here, and we can most likely assume that now NATO is catching up. On the issue of combat training, the situation also improved significantly - not only did the Russian Aerospace Forces begin to spend significantly more resources on training, but also the war in Syria allowed many pilots to gain combat experience. And although the “barmalei”, of course, are not a serious opponent for the Air Force, nevertheless, at least, one can speak of “exercises close to combat conditions”.

In view of the foregoing, the author of this article may conclude that the Russian Federation Air Force (with a sufficient number of trained pilots) in the very near future can get not only parity with the Air Force of the European NATO countries, but even good chances of gaining air superiority at the initial stage hypothetical military conflict.

Of course, all this is true exactly until such time as we remember the US Air Force. Even without taking into account the F-35, which, most likely, as at 2020 g and will remain in a semi-capable state, the US Air Force has 1 560 fighters (184 F-22; 449 F-15 and 957 F-16 various modifications) and 398 attack aircraft, including 287 A-10 and 111 AV-8. And that's not counting the 247 F-18, and the 131 AV-8In the Marine Corps Aviation, and the 867 F-18 carrier-based aviation. The United States has at its disposal 3203 tactical aircraft, and in terms of US air power, perhaps, it surpasses the European countries of NATO and the Russian Aerospace Forces together.



Thus, we can say that the United States in the air have an overwhelming superiority. But ... as one very wise proverb says: “if your pistol lies a millimeter further than you can reach, then you don’t have a pistol”.

Currently, the US has deployed F-136 and F-15 combat aircraft on European 16 bases, not counting transport and reconnaissance aircraft. This air group can not fundamentally affect the balance of power in Europe. Ensuring air superiority will depend entirely on the speed of the transfer of US air forces from US territory to Europe.

It would seem, but what’s wrong with that? I refueled, sat at the helm, and flew over the Atlantic ... But this happens only in third-rate action movies. Even the most unpretentious combat aircraft require maintenance at the rate of 25 man-hours for one hour of flight. We need people, we need equipment, we need cover for the airfields, on which the flying wings will be deployed, we need fuel, ammunition and much, much more. And the problem is that the Americans in Europe do not have this now. And the Europeans, somehow maintaining the percentage of healthy machines at the level of 40-50%, do not exist either. And to deliver all this from the USA to Europe is not at all such a simple matter as it may seem.

Recall the operation "Desert Shield"

Transportation continued from the beginning of August 1990 g to mid-January 1991. 729 tactical aircraft and 190 naval infantry aircraft were deployed, and the 900 ground-based tactical aviation aircraft (729 + 190 = 919 airplanes, but part of the "Harrier" of the sea infantry operated from the decks of amphibious ships), as well as 5 divisions, 4 brigades and 1 separate regiment of the ground forces and marines. By the beginning of the “Storm in the Desert”, this contingent was provided with all the necessary supplies for one month of warfare. This is undoubtedly an outstanding result. But the creation of this group took more than five months - the transfers were from 7 August 1990 g to 17 January 1991 g!

Of course, we are talking not only about the transfer of aviation, but also about large contingents of ground forces, but in the event of a large-scale conflict, these very ground forces will be badly needed by the United States on the continent. The fact is that the European NATO countries have about the same problem with the ground forces as with the Air Force - it seems like a lot on paper, but as long as you concentrate in the right place, the war will be over three times. We have already mentioned the state of the once formidable Bundeswehr, which today has only three divisions with 95 combat-ready tanks... France has two tank divisions with three regiments of special operations forces and also a foreign legion, but in the event of a sudden conflict, it will be very problematic to retrieve its parts from Tahiti, Djibouti and similar places. Italy has three divisions, two (and several brigades) - Great Britain ... In aggregate, the European NATO countries have very impressive ground forces by the standards of the XXI century, but only on one condition - if all of them are collected in one place, and with this in the event of a sudden military conflicts will be very big problems.

If the above reasons are true, then in the foreseeable future, the Russian Federation may achieve parity in the air with NATO in the event of a sudden large-scale conflict. And it will take the USA not even weeks, but months to realize its military air superiority. It is quite another thing if the conflict is preceded by a long (several months) period of aggravation of relations - in this case, the war can start with a half or even twice the advantage of NATO in the air.

Продолжение следует ...
Russia against NATO. Background conflict
Russia against NATO. The role of aircraft carriers in nuclear conflict
Author:
243 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cat
    Cat 5 December 2017 06: 25 New
    23
    Dear Andrey, thanks for the review!
    Hold the blow, it will begin now !!!
    1. kenig1
      kenig1 5 December 2017 06: 41 New
      0
      You just started.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 07: 54 New
      28
      Thank you, we will hold on :)
      1. Sergey-svs
        Sergey-svs 5 December 2017 08: 36 New
        +8
        Thank you, good analytical article! good I look forward to continuing. yes
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 5 December 2017 09: 54 New
        11
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you, we will hold on :)

        Good article! Personally, I like it when the author not only loads statistics (which you can easily see for yourself), but also analyzes the laid out facts and expresses his position. You have all succeeded to the full! hi
      3. Skeptic
        Skeptic 5 December 2017 09: 58 New
        15

        The main criticism of the article will be the lack of criticism. For more than two years, chat related to military aviation has not been noted in the chat. I didn’t pay attention to their nicknames at that time (because I considered a person who was far from the aircraft to comment on their articles inappropriate) and simply did not reflect. But the fact that the article in terms of analytics is impeccable is obvious and the author can easily claim to be a columnist in an English-language publication. The author is entitled to trust the statements of officials as much as possible. I do not know what has to do with reality, but there is skepticism. It is a pity that they made the site uninteresting for military specialists, of whom there were plenty more about 9 years ago.
        1. quolta
          quolta 6 December 2017 18: 27 New
          0
          decrypt my nickname))
        2. Botanologist
          Botanologist 10 December 2017 17: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: SkepticCynic
          It is a pity that they made the site uninteresting for military specialists, of whom there were plenty more than 9 years ago.

          I agree to all 100%. Leavened patriotism emasculated the site completely, even a selection of articles went into politics. Unfortunately, none of those who know are left, so once a month they come back from old memory, but write nothing. Not for anyone.
      4. activator
        activator 5 December 2017 13: 04 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you, we will hold on :)

        I didn’t expect from you especially this
        The first is, of course, the percentage of healthy machines in their total number. Unfortunately, this figure for the new aircraft of the Russian Air Force is unknown to the author. At the same time, there is data on the USAF where the readiness level of the F-15 and F-16 aircraft is 71-74% of the total number, and the A-10 attack aircraft even the 77% and there is no reason to believe that we are worse today.
        Until this moment, I read it in passing, after that, generally on the diagonal. In my opinion, judging the state of combat readiness of Russian aviation based on data from the US Air Force is somewhat reckless or is it an attempt to wishful thinking. Yes, and the whole article is structured so that all positive assumptions relate to vks rf although recent events do not allow such a statement. Moreover, I did not observe patriotic moods in your country. Therefore, the question is: what was that? and I will re-read the article
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 13: 33 New
          12
          Quote: activator
          In my opinion, judging the state of combat readiness of Russian aviation based on data from the US Air Force is somewhat reckless

          In general, yes, because
          a) US aviation in the total mass is much older than the just manufactured or upgraded aircraft of the Russian Federation
          b) the US Air Force complained about the insufficient allocation of funds, about the untimely repairs.
          Therefore, generally speaking, it should be assumed that our percentage of technical readiness is higher than in the USA
          1. activator
            activator 5 December 2017 13: 42 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In general, yes, because

            A joke of humor appreciated laughing in general criticism was appropriate to respond, figured out the conclusions
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            it should be assumed that our percentage of technical readiness is higher than in the US

            fellow
          2. alexmach
            alexmach 5 December 2017 23: 34 New
            +3
            And yet, where does the information about the coefficient of technical readiness of the videoconferencing system come from? And where is the confidence that it will be higher than that of European countries? Just based on the fact of a newer technique?
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 5 December 2017 14: 34 New
          14
          Quote: activator
          Moreover, I did not observe patriotic moods in your country.

          Uv.avtor - Stalinist-imperial in their preferences. Usually restrained, but then relaxed)))

          An article in the style of "God Saves Russia" In the role of God - the author.

          Two highlights in the comments

          1. Readiness. "there is no reason to believe that we are worse today." - not even funny. There is no data on the combat readiness of aviation - you need to look at other types of troops. In particular, in the article before last, they recalled the KON of the SSBN. I would venture to admit that the ratio of the combat readiness of "them" and "us" is close.

          2. Penguins. At the end of the 20th year there are 500-600 of them, comparable with all Russian aerospace forces. The author arrogantly deleted them from combat readiness. At the same time, no attention was paid to what even sky-ready penguins are capable of. And they are capable, meanwhile, of a lot, especially in company with an older brother. Taking into account the appearance of penguins among Europeans, it is not difficult to place here a couple of hundred cars. And that the neck from the helmet hurts - so is the time of war.

          3. Not noted in the comments, but perhaps most importantly. The battle for the ether.
          Until recently, NATO aviation had a certain superiority in tactical command, missile weapons and electronic warfare, and also in training pilots. But it is well known that in the GPV 2011-2020. a lot of attention has been paid to issues of communications and command and control of troops, so we can count on the fact that if we did not equalize on this issue, then at least reduce the backlog. In terms of missile weapons, the situation is also gradually stabilizing, for example, by 2020 we should expect a noticeable amount of RVV-SD to enter the troops. As for the EW funds, the lag has been completely eliminated here, and we can most likely assume that now NATO is catching up

          Charming. Analytics as it is.
          1. activator
            activator 5 December 2017 15: 28 New
            +3
            For once, I agree with the cherry nine. Probably in the light of recent statements by the former commander-in-chief of the VKS, decadent moods were noticed, he noticed that even to the 077 eye that he had previously dismissed and didn’t pay much attention, they began to listen somehow, and he screamed in almost every branch that " they don’t clean the rifle with a brick "So I needed a cookie. I believe that NATO will not be able to fight without the United States. In matters of logistics, comparing the Iraqi parquet campaign with 3mv was also incorrectly managed by the Americans in 2mv, such as delivering everything to Europe the same liberties were riveted on the trough per day, there were even projects to cast ships from concrete. Since then, the United States has increased its capabilities and the USSR, alas. After the Vietnam War, Soviet and Russian aviation unfortunately didn’t show anything outstanding (the Jews proved) and air defense too. Therefore, consider that now everything is fine ... as if it didn’t come out sideways.
            1. AIR
              AIR 5 December 2017 17: 17 New
              +7
              Very wrong opinion! Just after Vietnam, our aircraft went so far away from the west that you can not even imagine. I somehow talked with an aviator from Italy. When I talked about the capabilities of our MiG-25PD, he was in shock. And we worked it out in everyday studies. When I just hinted at the initial and well-known capabilities of the MiG-31, he simply did not understand what it was and how it could exist? I could not shock him further, because 31e are in service. But you can’t even imagine how they lagged behind us in the field of aviation. Their level is our MiG-23 only with better avionics! Yes, here they can be envied. And the possibilities of rockets and guns !!!! Indeed, they remained at the level of the Vietnam War!
              1. Dimax
                Dimax 6 December 2017 14: 17 New
                +2
                after the 90s, our aircraft went far back ...
                1. Lexus
                  Lexus 6 December 2017 15: 13 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Dimax
                  after the 90s, our aircraft went far back ...

                  Alas, you are right. At the time of the collapse, the USSR Armed Forces had about 10000 aircraft and 5000 helicopters. Now, along with decayed “in storage”, according to average estimates, there are only about 3200 of all aircraft combined. I believe that they will also cut with 1000 of them to metal, so that with modest purchases of new equipment to achieve the "cherished" figure of 70% of the new ... request
            2. Foxmara
              Foxmara 5 December 2017 20: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: activator
              Since then, the United States has increased its capabilities and the USSR, alas.

              Have you read the news about the 7th fleet for a long time? Read. Everything is very sad there. Incompetence at all levels. Multiplied by cosmic corruption, add to that permission to recruit frank psychopaths (people with mental disabilities) and former drug addicts .. + stuffing pilots with amphetamines ... Of course, you don’t have to throw caps with caps, but it’s useful to go down from heaven to earth. I myself am the daughter of an officer - believe me, not everything is so simple soldier
              For our part, I would pay attention to another problem - ammunition. Part of the technology was destroyed, how much are we able to provide ourselves in case of war? Aircraft need something not only to refuel, but also to put something there.
            3. myobius59
              myobius59 5 December 2017 23: 00 New
              +2
              And what did the Jews prove? You forgot how our MIGIs flew over their capital, and their Air Force chased them with all the shobla and fired at them with their missiles. And how much did they shoot down 25x?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            5 December 2017 16: 54 New
            10
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Combat readiness. "there is no reason to believe that we are worse today." - not even funny. There is no data on the combat readiness of aviation - you need to look at other types of troops. In particular, in the article before last, they recalled the KON of the SSBN. I would venture to admit that the ratio of the combat readiness of "them" and "us" is close.

            M-crying. Well, what else to say? And this man reproaches me for pulling an owl on a globe ...
            It’s certainly more correct to compare a submarine with an airplane than an airplane with an airplane, yes :))) especially considering that our KOH RPKSN are old people “Dolphins”, the youngest of which went into operation 27 years ago and who don’t understand what with missile weapons
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            At the end of the 20th year there are 500-600 of them, comparable with all Russian aerospace forces. The author arrogantly deleted them from combat readiness.

            Who cares? In Europe, they are not, but when moving from the USA it does not matter at all whether the penguin or not the penguin - if you give time for the transfer, they will be crushed by the number without problems, as mentioned in the article
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            At the same time, no attention was paid to what even sky-ready penguins are capable of.

            Lose fuselage details in the air? https://newinform.com/94583-nadezhda-vvs-ssha-ist
            rebitel-f-35-poteryal-detal-vo-vremya-testov? utm_
            source = warfiles.ru
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 5 December 2017 23: 28 New
              +5
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Well, what else to say?

              Well, for example, to formulate why you got the idea that "there is no reason to believe that it is worse today." Here is the basis for you - the equipment of other classes is operated much less intensively than the American one. Between us, there are so many areas where "we have worse today" that parity specifically in the aspect under discussion looks more than strange.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Who cares? In Europe, they are not, and when moving from the United States it does not matter

              The difference is that penguins are already being tested in 4 European countries + vertical lines in Britain. With ground-based infrastructure, moving them from the US is a matter of hours. Worse, any arrogant ruse of Russophobes - for example, replacing the 136 Iglov-Falcons mentioned above with 136 Raptor-Lightings - will ruin all your math. This is among other questions to her.
              Speaking of that. How long did it take to transfer the Raptors to the famous Cope Taufan 2014 exercises in Russia, where our Yak-3 tore everyone up? Is it really half a year?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Lose fuselage details in the air?

              Not only. Google Red Flag 2017
              By the way. Where does the F-35A come from?

              Rounding off. Key points of your article:
              VKS is more ready than Eurogays

              Fives do not fly.

              The adversary does not have the usual advantage of DRL-REB network-centricity

              Argued at the level of "I believe" "no doubt" and "well-known."

              This is pretty sad.

              Quote: Operator
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              author - Stalinist-imperial
              Everything is simpler: the author is a journalist.

              Andrei, you were cleaned from the Stalinists. Sorry.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                6 December 2017 11: 18 New
                +3
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Well, for example, to formulate why you got the idea that "there is no reason to believe that it is worse today." Here is the basis for you - the equipment of other classes is operated much less intensively than the American one.

                This is not a basis, this is an unfounded statement :)
                Because you, firstly, become attached to a completely different indicator, replacing% of technical readiness with KOH. And KOH - this is never a% of technical readiness, this is the time on the BS during the period / period. Our SSBNs go on duty with a creak, the admirals are afraid as if it didn’t work out. And the same Dolphins stand in full combat near the wall, but they don’t go to the BS. KOH below Ohio, yes, and% of those readiness?
                That's it. And finally - if you really want to replace% technical readiness with other indicators, why not remember that in Syria the combat strength of our aircraft is about twice as high as during the US Desert Storm? :)
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Worse, any arrogant ruse of Russophobes - for example, replacing the mentioned 136 Needles-Falcons with 136 Raptor-Lightings - will ruin all your mathematics.

                Only in your perception, but do you know why? It seems to you that Lightning / Raptor is a prodigy that has no analogues, and therefore one such aircraft will cost four of ours :)) Well, I don’t think so and I have good reason.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                The adversary does not have the usual advantage of DRL-REB network-centricity
                Argued at the level of "I believe" "no doubt" and "well-known."

                Right. And this is not enough for you, because you think differently and are confident that you are right :))) Well, I’m sure of my own, but to argue with you ... why? You have formed your point of view and do not back down from it, it’s obvious. So why should I play your games? In for example
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Google Red Flag 2017

                Well google, and what do we see?
                During eight days of flight, during the exercises, 13 F-35A fighters involved made 110 sorties

                To combat stress - 1,05, lower than in the Desert Storm in almost half.
                The most attention was attracted by the results of training air battles of the F-35A with the F-16 units of the "aggressors" designating the enemy. It is claimed that the ratio of "shot down" in these battles was 15 to 1 in favor of the F-35A. At the same time, it is noted that the F-35A achieved this result, acting in conjunction with Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor fighters, which indicated the F-35A cover when solving their tasks. The contribution of the F-22A to the success of the F-35A in the air battles of the latter remains unclear

                Why rejoice? That the super-super-generation in vague conditions defeated the F-16 of an unknown modification? :))) Well, rejoice :)))
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 6 December 2017 11: 53 New
                  +3
                  Why unknown?
                  F-16c-blk25
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    6 December 2017 14: 41 New
                    +3
                    Quote: sivuch
                    F-16c-blk25

                    Block 25? Modification of 1984? From the same achievement at the F-35th :))))
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 6 December 2017 15: 42 New
                      +2
                      64 squadrons of aggressors to this day flies on them. And there are no other squadrons and are not expected
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 20: 15 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This is not a basis, this is an unfounded statement :)

                  You, Andrey, are confusing something. The verbosity is your “I have grounds”, “well-known”, etc.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  First of all, you become attached to a completely different indicator, replacing

                  What makes you think that I am “attached” to him? One example is enough for me that the RF Armed Forces and the US Armed Forces are two different organizations (no matter how crazy this question is). And it is your responsibility to state that in this particular case they are completely identical.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  no and therefore one such plane will cost four of ours :)

                  Why only four? Will the rockets run out?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  You have formed your point of view

                  As you know, I am ready to take the strangest points of view. But I would like to see sane argumentation, and not your "mother klyanus".
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  almost half as much as the Desert Bure.

                  The purpose of the exercises was to take the Rudel prize for departures?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Modification of 1984?

                  Would it not be difficult for you to copy the list of Russian planes from an article indicating the year of the appearance of each model?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    6 December 2017 21: 35 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    You, Andrey, are confusing something. The verbosity is your “I have grounds”, “well-known”, etc.

                    Browse through the dictionary at your leisure. An allegation is an assertion not supported by arguments and facts, therefore dubious.
                    Your statements are not supported by arguments or facts.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    What makes you think that I am “attached” to him?

                    From your statement, consider the technical readiness of aviation through the KOH RPKSN :)))
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Why only four? Will the rockets run out?

                    Well, or more. I don’t know, maybe you think that one F-22 is worth all the airborne forces of the Russian Federation combined. laughing
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    As you know, I am ready to take the strangest points of view. But I would like to see sane argumentation, and not your "mother klyanus".

                    Well, I'm sorry, but I do not have time to argue with you over the entire layer of my statements - from the actual combat capability of the F-22/35 to electronic warfare, control systems, etc.
                    Once again I say - you have your own, formed point of view, and there is nothing to talk about. You can arrange a dispute on F-22 with you, I think this one local question will pull sheets of 40 A4 text on each side. A TTX F-22 radar as they were secret Raytheon, and will remain. Well, why?
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    The purpose of the exercises was to take the Rudel prize for departures?

                    Well, if the exercises do not need conditions close to military ... then no, it didn’t.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Would it not be difficult for you to copy the list of Russian planes from an article indicating the year of the appearance of each model?

                    Su-30M2 - 2010, Su-30SM-2012, Su-35 - 2014, MiG-29SMT - I don’t remember here, but the first flight - 1998, obviously that was received later, MiG-29KR - even later, MiG- 31BM - I don’t know for sure, but after 2008, Su-27SM - 2004 ... Who was forgotten? Su-33. It was modernized in the 2000s
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 7 December 2017 00: 39 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Your statements are not supported by arguments or facts.

                      “My statement” was that there were some “reasons to believe”.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      With your approval, consider the technical readiness of aviation through the KOH RPKSN

                      I never claimed that it should do.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      I would venture to admit that the ratio of the combat readiness of "them" and "us" is close.

                      As far as I can see, you told me why KOH PL does not apply to the case (who would doubt it), but did not give a single argument for your point of view, except for pointing out the relatively small age of the aerospace forces (what did you use your combat readiness coefficient in including on cars of the 80s).
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I don’t know, maybe you think that one F-22 is worth all the airborne forces of the Russian Federation combined.

                      Why one? Pieces 12 at least.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, why?

                      I read below that, firstly, the BVB steers, and secondly, the raptor pilot is forced to orient himself visually, since the radar cannot be turned on. No more questions.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, if the exercises do not need conditions close to military ...

                      No. And the fighting conditions of the Americans, as you have noticed, do not imply tension.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Who have you forgotten?

                      As I understand it, you accepted my point of view on the composition of the videoconferencing system? OK.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        7 December 2017 08: 51 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I never claimed that this should be done.

                        But they did :) Why are you refusing?
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        No more questions.

                        Here I am about the same.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        No. And the fighting conditions of the Americans, as you have noticed, do not imply tension.

                        Fighting voltage twice as much in the Desert Storm against no Iraqi Air Force :)))
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        As I understand it, you accepted my point of view on the composition of the videoconferencing system?

                        I have listed what they asked
            2. maden.usmanow
              maden.usmanow 3 November 2019 02: 17 New
              -1
              Very high quality analysis.
              All the same, they didn’t guess the only thing with the F35, by 2020, they already exist in Europe.
          3. Operator
            Operator 5 December 2017 20: 56 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            author - Stalinist-imperial

            Everything is simpler: the author is a journalist.
          4. KaPToC
            KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 00 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            2. Penguins. At the end of the 20th year there are 500-600 of them, comparable with all Russian aerospace forces.

            A failed project, when the wall-to-wall rubilovo starts, the price of your penguins will be zero point zero. The enemy will be distracted while the real combat aircraft will work, but not for long.
      5. Bongo
        Bongo 5 December 2017 13: 31 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you, we will hold on :)

        Not really your topic, but overall it turned out not bad! I will not find fault with trifles.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 5 December 2017 14: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          I will not find fault with trifles.

          Very sorry, hello. I expected that you could add a lot with respect to AWACS, electronic warfare and control systems.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 5 December 2017 17: 22 New
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Very sorry, hello. I expected that you could add a lot with respect to AWACS, electronic warfare and control systems.

            What for? I also wrote such a fantasy ... wink Since a full-blown conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO (PRC) without the use of nuclear weapons is a fantasy.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 18: 08 New
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          Not really your topic

          In general, yes. But what can’t you do for the sake of aircraft carriers :))))) laughing drinks
      6. NEXUS
        NEXUS 5 December 2017 15: 11 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you, we will hold on :)

        The review is good ... but there is one point. In the case of a hypothetical military conflict between the Russian Federation and the EU, the first blow will be inflicted on the enemy’s bases and airfields ... both ours and European ones. I'm talking about the Iskander, Tu-95 and Swans with the X-101, as well as the marine component with the Caliber. How many fighters, attack aircraft and bombers remain when the dust settles, you cannot say, both from our side and from the enemy. At the same time, the role of our air defense and missile defense is not fully disclosed in the article, as well as electronic warfare systems. And do not forget that the fleets also have their own missile defense and air defense, which will not stand aside.
        I repeat, the article does not consider a nuclear conflict, and therefore we will put nuclear weapons out of the picture, so to speak.
      7. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 5 December 2017 20: 01 New
        0
        Andrew! Tell me, why didn’t you take into account various UBS? After all, they can easily be used as a light fighter / attack aircraft. For example, the same Italians based on the M-346 recently introduced the corresponding modification.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          Andrew! Tell me, why didn’t you take into account various UBS?

          If it came to UBS - then you have already lost.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 5 December 2017 21: 53 New
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            you already lost

            In principle, yes, but, for example, the Finnish Air Force (if I’m not mistaken) use Hawk as an attack aircraft.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              In principle, yes, but, for example, the Finnish Air Force (if I’m not mistaken) use Hawk as an attack aircraft.

              But we will not be equal to Finland?
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 5 December 2017 21: 58 New
                0
                Quote: KaPToC
                But we will not be equal to Finland?

                It’s not equal, but only this neighbor is very, very suspicious and can hardly join the “partners” if they climb on us.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 21: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          Andrew! Tell me, why didn’t you take into account various UBS?

          So no one will use them in a serious conflict. My IMHO, of course
      8. Lucy
        Lucy 7 December 2017 18: 47 New
        +1
        In order to write articles on this subject, you need, besides a lot of things, access to documents of the general public! wink
  2. Victor_B
    Victor_B 5 December 2017 06: 52 New
    +2
    Sensibly!
    But gradually, slowly, they are building up.
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 5 December 2017 06: 58 New
      +5
      In general, in addition to excellent historical articles, military-political reviews are very sensibly obtained.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        5 December 2017 07: 57 New
        16
        Quote: Victor_B
        In general, in addition to excellent historical articles, military-political reviews are very sensibly obtained.

        Many do not think so :))) But here I have repeatedly said that in historical articles I state facts and a little my own opinion about them, but in analytical ones I get much less facts, more thoughts :)
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 5 December 2017 06: 58 New
    +3
    Bravo good
    I just remember, from almost a year ago, last winter, there was a controversy according to the article by Kaptsov, who quite seriously claimed, the EMNIP, that hordes of tankers in the sky are capable of liquidating aircraft carriers as a class and making such a fleet a hegemon on the planet laughing They laughed, of course, well. Well Oleg ...
    It is quite intelligible, the logic is quite robust and understandable, based on mundane realities, and not on flights of fantasy. And if we take into account the enormous complexity of modern Pepelats compared to the VM shelves, then the calculations, in principle, even approximate ones, give a very real picture.
    What the author of the article leads to the article, everything has been clear to me for a long time, because once again, Nikolayevich, bravo! Without pathos drinks hi
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 5 December 2017 07: 05 New
      +3
      And where did he go, by the way?
      It was somehow more alive with him.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 5 December 2017 07: 06 New
        +2
        Issues, but rarely .... what request
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 08: 24 New
      +2
      Greetings, dear Rurikovich! drinks
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2017 08: 44 New
      +1
      And where does the refueling and aircraft carriers? They have a near-zero relationship to the delivery of aircraft to the theater. The transports that carry ammunition and fuel, plus personnel, matter. And then you can unload all of them stupidly with a crane, it is many times easier and cheaper than aircraft carriers.
      1. d ^ Amir
        d ^ Amir 5 December 2017 09: 54 New
        0
        then you can unload all of them stupidly with a crane

        and the Tribal bastard will gladly help them in this ... and will provide the ports and cranes ... we will sit and watch until the last moment NATO is deploying at the borders ... as well as with the existing bases in the Baltic and Pshekia, and newly created .. ..
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 5 December 2017 11: 53 New
          +2
          How did you get it already ...
          Do not bother the MO to do his work, because it does not teach you.
          1. d ^ Amir
            d ^ Amir 5 December 2017 12: 36 New
            0
            how can they interfere?!?!? from our (my) level .. the more so since it’s clear and without us .... in general, they’ll call the address - you’ll get tired of limping ....
  4. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 5 December 2017 07: 14 New
    +5
    And what did the F-35s not count on NATO that have already been announced for replacement by 2020? But these are potential subtle carriers of the American tactical nuclear weapons, the use of which is practiced by almost all NATO pilots (and non-nuclear countries, for a second, too).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 07: 57 New
      +8
      Quote: g1washntwn
      And what did the F-35s not count on NATO that have already been announced for replacement by 2020?

      I do not think that these aircraft will be ready for 2020
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 14: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: iwind
          And you delete them so simply. Is it too bold?

          Absolutely not.
          The F-35s did not reach combat readiness, and the edge is not visible to this edge. You write that there are several tests left, and then :))) I have heard this many times. Further - well, let’s say, a miracle happened and the F-36 is completely and completely ready for the 18th year. How will they buy it in Europe? Take Turkey - According to Lockheed Martin, in 2018 the Turkish Air Force will receive the first two F-35 aircraft ordered as part of the 11th initial production batch (LRIP-10). The second order for four cars will be executed as part of the LRIP-11 production batch starting in 2019, and the next cars will go after 2021, i.e. by 2020, the Turks will have several such aircraft in trial operation. You understand that after an aircraft is declared combat-ready, it often spends years in elite units that reveal all its capabilities.
          Italy? Two planes, and so far nothing is heard of the rest. Norway? Plans to declare initial combat readiness by 2020, complete - by 2025, the Netherlands? 35 fighters in the period 2019 -2023, that is, they will not be combat-ready in 2020
          That’s actually the answer to why I don’t mind the sense of counting F-35 in Europe. And in the USA it makes no sense to count them - they already have too many airplanes, they are limited only by logistics.
          1. iwind
            iwind 5 December 2017 14: 43 New
            +5
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The F-35s did not reach combat readiness, and the edge is not visible to this edge. You write that several tests are left, and then :)))

            Initial reached as planned.
            Now comes the next step. Tests for certification. Aircraft already transmitted to the air force. This is the second squadron with bllock 3f november 2017 63 squadron
            Since the arrival of the first F-35A Lightning II to the 63rd Fighter Squadron earlier this
            "The unit is the first Luke F-35 AMU to receive a 3F, or full-up, combat aircraft capable of pulling 9G's in the air. [B]
            Currently, 146 personnel and seven aircraft are assigned to the 63rd, Taylor said. The AMU is scheduled to grow to approximately 200 personnel and 22 aircraft in the near future. "


            first

            October 2017 34 Squadron
            The 34th Fighter Squadron, known as the “Rude Rams,
            ”Of Hill AFB, Utah, is set to receive aircraft equipped with the final Block 3F software next month, which most critically will allow the fighter to employ its full suite of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. Luke AFB, Arizona, the Air Force's primary F-35 training squadron, will be the next to get the 3F capability, also in September, according to service spokesman Capt. Mark Graff.

            Next year it will already be massive. here miracles are not needed.
            FD-35A SDD already completed in September 2017

            In Europe, you underestimate the amount


            Norway and England and Italy (emnip) will be ready. At this time, the base will be ready, ready to receive, as its own are already in operation.
            A spare parts and service center is already there and is being escorted to be established in Europe.
            50-100 can easily be thrown to Europe in a short time.
          2. iwind
            iwind 5 December 2017 14: 58 New
            +2
            I understand, I’m not writing anymore.
            I wonder what instilled violated that delete.
            Ps in vain generally began. Here an alternative opinion is not interesting.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              5 December 2017 16: 45 New
              +2
              Quote: iwind
              I wonder what instilled violated that delete.

              Generally no idea. But I noticed that sometimes moderators kill completely adequate comments if they have links to other resources. And there’s a rule about over quoting
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 5 December 2017 23: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: iwind
              numb, no longer writing.

              Do not pout, it may just be a glitch.
              You rarely see a literate person in a penguin discussion, thanks for the work.
              1. iwind
                iwind 6 December 2017 12: 08 New
                +3
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Do not pout, it may just be a glitch.

                Perhaps, but this is not the first time.
                But yes, the reaction is unnecessary. Just went to the site, you think maybe it became a little better. AND ... wassat cheers and. d.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                You rarely see a literate person in a penguin discussion, thanks for the work.

                I have been watching the program for a long time. And the relationship to her will not even make me laugh. .... but rather already makes me take my head.
                Already, an airplane has appeared which will not have ten competitors for another 5 years, LFI 300 pok. so far only on the horizon. But ... everyone in FIG. 400-35 F-90 + standard funds will be able to kill XNUMX percent of non-NATO countries, and there will be much more.
                Here is what now.
                September 2017 flight test ended
                Spain arms ended October 2017
                Static tests completed November 2017 at o 24,000 flight hours
                Certification for missions to gain superiority in the sky, near-fire support was completed.
                Remained in mid-December the suppression of air defense and the protection of airspace.
                34 squadron Rude Rams received fully combat-ready Block 3f end of September
                they are now in South Korea in exercises

                64 Squadron from the base Luke received the first fully combat-ready Block 3f end of November
                ps I'm writing about the F-35, just not here.
                It will be interesting for me to observe how F-35 will be passionately ignored in 2018, but there will be more and more of them. You have to wake up, only the longer you wait, the worse it will be.
                The price is now 94. The expected 80 million - there will be no competitors
                1. maden.usmanow
                  maden.usmanow 3 November 2019 02: 21 New
                  -1
                  2019 year. You were absolutely right about the F35
          3. Willywonka
            Willywonka 5 January 2018 15: 22 New
            0
            Jan 4 2018 - The F-35 Program Office announced that they had completed all tests on the launch / discharge of high-precision weapons from the F-35 fighter as part of the demonstration programs.
            “Completing the weapon tests is an important step for the entire F-35 team, as we demonstrate the combat effectiveness of the F-35, which changes the rules of the game. The joint government and industry team overcame all problems and demonstrated outstanding collaboration in the field of weapon testing, its results gave our customers greater confidence in the capabilities of the F-35 weapons, ”says Jeff Babione, Lockheed Martin's Executive Vice President and F-35 Program General Manager.
            Since 2012, the F-35 integrated test group has successfully completed the 183 test for launching / dropping missiles and bombs from both the internal weapons compartment and external pylons at all required speeds, altitudes and maneuvers of the aircraft. The final test was performed in September when the F-35C successfully launched the AIM-9X missile.
            According to Lockheed, the team completed 46 real tests that convinced that all weapons fired from the F-35 could effectively hit targets with the necessary accuracy. On November 30 of November 2017, test firing from the on-board cannon of the F-35A version fighter was completed. 183 tests of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons were performed, including AIM-9X, AIM-120, AIM-132, GBU-12, JDAM, JSOW, SDB-I and Paveway IV.

            Full operational readiness next year.
  5. Odysseus
    Odysseus 5 December 2017 07: 18 New
    29
    The article, alas, is doubtful.
    1) A large-scale war between NATO and the Russian Federation will quickly develop into a nuclear one, so all calculations that do not include this factor are absolutely virtual.
    2) The main strategic factor is not taken into account - the largest military force of NATO-USA is located outside the ocean beyond the reach of conventional weapons (with the exception of Alaska). They do not mind their satellites (primarily Eastern European), they can easily use them as cannon fodder .
    3) Even if we take into account strictly virtual calculations of the author, they, frankly, they extremely overestimate the capabilities of the Air Force of the Russian Federation and extremely underestimate the capabilities of the Air Force of the NATO countries.
    For example, where will we have 2020 Mig-120 and 29 Su-69 by 27? In reality -0. Mig-29 is already only in Erebuni, Su-27С are still barely pulling orphans for the sake of, but in 2020 they will also be written off. According to Su-30СМ- where is 180 from? Here we know the exact number-116 Su-30СМ and 20 Su-30 М2. Where -30 Миг-35?
    According to NATO, F-35 is completely ignored. The number of airborne aircraft is given on 2017, not 2020 year. It is completely arbitrary that their combat readiness is lower than ours. Moreover, such a conclusion is made only on the basis of publications about the open press regarding the state of the German Air Force. However, I'm afraid if we published the exact number of combat-ready (and this is not even flight-friendly) aircraft in the Air Force, the author would be very disappointed ...
    Finally, the factor that our country is several times larger than the whole of Europe and the aviation in it is scattered over a huge area is completely ignored, but combining it together is no less difficult than the US Air Force to transfer its forces to Europe.
    So in fact we have in the West a few number of air regiments with a small number of aircraft.
    4) The factor is not taken into account, and who will attack whom? Since it is very difficult to imagine a large-scale attack by Russia on NATO, NATO will most likely attack. In this case, we are waiting for a sudden (say, January 2) attack by a huge number of KR (of which we have a scanty amount), the "wake up" of air defense by thousands of drones, and then the attack of a very large NATO air force group. I am afraid in this situation our only chance is nuclear weapons.
    PS Well, in practice, the modern authorities in the Russian Federation live in this very Europe, buy real estate there and are ready to be satisfied with Crimea just by giving the rest of Ukraine to the USA. We are afraid to fit in for Donbass (for Donbass, Karl!). What kind of "war with NATO" in such situations the author speaks to me is not clear.
    1. Rijaz-ss
      Rijaz-ss 5 December 2017 07: 42 New
      +3
      totally agree with you. pulled pi ... to the nose.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 08: 23 New
      15
      Quote: Odyssey
      A large-scale war between NATO and the Russian Federation will quickly develop into a nuclear one, so all calculations that do not include this factor are absolutely virtual.

      It is interesting how the abundance calculations at the beginning of the conflict should take into account its development into a nuclear one. Moreover, I have plagued two previous articles on the topic that no one has canceled the need for conventional weapons in a nuclear conflict.
      Quote: Odyssey
      The main strategic factor is not taken into account - the largest military force of NATO-USA is overseas beyond the reach of conventional weapons

      ??? Am I here for someone to go broke about the complexity of technology transfer?
      Quote: Odyssey
      Even if we take into account the strictly virtual calculations of the author, then, frankly, they extremely overestimate the capabilities of the Air Force of the Russian Federation and extremely underestimate the capabilities of the Air Force of NATO countries.

      Let's try to figure it out
      Quote: Odyssey
      For example, where will we get 2020 Mig-120 and 29 Su-69 by 27? In reality -0

      The fact is that a certain number of unmodernized Su-27 and MiG-29 are still in service with us and, presumably, will remain there in 2020.
      Quote: Odyssey
      According to the Su-30SM, where is 180? Here we know the exact number-116 Su-30SM and 20 Su-30 M2

      The exact number of 116 Su-30SM - if we consider the contract on 36 aircraft dated April 3, 2016 with the end in 2018 as extreme, rumors are still circulating that their production will continue in 2019-20.
      Quote: Odyssey
      about NATO, the F-35 is completely ignored.

      Because by 2020, according to the author, he still will not be combat ready
      Quote: Odyssey
      The number of sides is given for 2017, not 2020.

      Reread the article, there are additives of eurofighter.
      At the same time, for some reason you did not want to draw attention to the fact that for NATO the number of aircraft was adopted without taking them off until 2020, even where such plans exist
      Quote: Odyssey
      It is completely arbitrary that their combat readiness is considered lower than ours. Moreover, such a conclusion is made only on the basis of publications about the open press regarding the state of the German Air Force

      As well as France and England
      Quote: Odyssey
      However, I’m afraid if we published the exact number of combat-ready (and this is not even flight-friendly) aircraft in the Air Force, the author would be very disappointed ...

      So publish, upset the author :)))
      Quote: Odyssey
      Finally, the factor that our country is several times larger than the whole of Europe and the aviation in it is scattered over a huge area is completely ignored, but combining it together is no less difficult than the US Air Force to transfer its forces to Europe.

      Can you prove it somehow?
      Quote: Odyssey
      So in fact we have in the West a few number of air regiments with a small number of aircraft.

      Maybe somehow in numbers somehow? :)
      Quote: Odyssey
      The factor is not taken into account, and who will attack anyone?

      You here https://topwar.ru/130549-rossiya-protiv-nato-pred
      posylki-konflikta.html
      Quote: Odyssey
      Since it is very difficult to imagine a large-scale attack by Russia on NATO, NATO will most likely attack. In this case, a sudden (say, January 2) blow of a huge number of KR is waiting for us

      And then fantasies begin, excuse me. However, in the previous article of the cycle certain reasons and reasons for the outbreak of the war are set out, if you do not agree with them and can refute, we’ll talk
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 5 December 2017 13: 46 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It is interesting how the abundance calculations at the beginning of the conflict should take into account its development into a nuclear one. Moreover, I have plagued two previous articles on the topic that no one has canceled the need for conventional weapons in a nuclear conflict.

        This was true for 50-60 years. Now even 150-200 warheads are critical for the United States.
        It’s critical, not in the sense of stupid horror stories about the “nuclear winter” and “the death of mankind”, namely for the US state. Therefore, they will never fight unless they are sure that they will not receive such a blow. On the other hand, the only argument of modern Russia in large-scale war against NATO (as well as against China) is nuclear weapons.
        That is, by default we will respond to NATO’s large-scale aggression with nuclear weapons (the political aspect, namely, whether the Russian leadership decides to do so for now). Why then virtual calculations of the number of aircraft in a virtual non-nuclear conflict?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So publish, upset the author :)))

        The easy percentage of combat-ready (not to be confused with flight-friendly) airplanes in our country is lower than that of NATO. Arranges ?
        In practice, you understand that such information is simply not disclosed to us, and it is always said to the general public that everything is fine with us.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Maybe somehow in numbers somehow? :)

        It is possible and in numbers, all that has in the West are regiments in Khotilovo, Besovets, Kursk, Monchegorsk, Baltimore, and two sea-Severomorsk-3, and Chkalovsk. Well, plus testers in Lipetsk and the Belarusian Air Force.
        That's the whole "grouping." Such a “force” will exist in the event of a full-scale non-nuclear conflict with NATO (strictly virtual) for 1-2 days.
        It may be possible to transfer something from the south (Morozovs, Krymsk, Millerovo, Belbek), but this is unlikely. In the event of your virtual conflict, they and their problems with a blow from Turkey, Romania, Ukraine will suffice.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Can you prove it somehow?

        The burden of proof lies with the approving party, because you are claiming that the F-35s are sky-robots, and we will have Mig-29s in 2020, etc. And besides, how can anything be proved to the believer? What you write -Mig-29 will be in 2020, F-35 skies, we have a higher percentage of serviceable aircraft, it will be very difficult for them to transfer anything from the United States or from aircraft carriers, and with us we consider all aircraft up to Kamchatka- it’s just your creed.
        You can’t prove it at all, you just want it to be like that.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And then the fantasies begin, sorry

        Sorry, but fantasy is just your non-nuclear conflict. If you put politics aside and virtually imagine that Russia has a nationally-oriented government in power, then according to the military doctrine and the real balance of power, the conflict will immediately develop into a nuclear one, that is, it will not, because the United States will not be resolved into a nuclear conflict .
        But if you look at real life, the Russian authorities are concerned about protecting their property and interests in the West (that is, for example, the salvation of a member of the Federation Council oligarch Karimov from the "French dungeons"), and not your imaginary wars.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 14: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: Odyssey
          That is, by default we will respond to NATO’s large-scale aggression with nuclear weapons (the political aspect, namely, whether the Russian leadership decides to do so for now). Why then virtual calculations of the number of aircraft in a virtual non-nuclear conflict?

          I gave an elementary example in a previous article. You do not comment on it in any way
          Quote: Odyssey
          The easy percentage of combat-ready (not to be confused with flight-friendly) airplanes in our country is lower than that of NATO. Arranges ?

          Which NATO? The one that France? Those. You are saying with blue eyes that the% of combat-ready aircraft from new and modernized is below 40%? laughing Or lower than in the USA?
          I can only say one thing - that was the case in the USSR. But now the United States has an aging fleet, and we have a lot of the latest aircraft (by age) and I do not see any prerequisites for the% to be lower than in the USA
          Quote: Odyssey
          It is possible and in numbers, all that has in the West are regiments in Khotilovo, Besovets, Kursk, Monchegorsk, Baltimore, and two sea-Severomorsk-3, and Chkalovsk

          Is it against the terrible German air force? So much?:)))
          Quote: Odyssey
          The burden of evidence rests with the claimant -

          True, it remains only to recall that
          Quote: Odyssey
          Finally, the factor that our country is several times larger than the whole of Europe and the aviation in it is scattered over a huge area is completely ignored, but combining it together is no less difficult than the US Air Force to transfer its forces to Europe.

          You claimed.
          Quote: Odyssey
          After all, it is you who claim that the F-35 is sky-ready, and the MiG-29 will be with us in 2020, etc.

          Because he is sky-ready, and there will be no combat readiness in Europe by 2020. I'm tired of quoting to be honest
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          According to Lockheed Martin, in 2018, the Turkish Air Force will receive the first two F-35 aircraft, ordered as part of the 11th initial production batch (LRIP-10). The second order for four cars will be executed as part of the LRIP-11 production batch starting in 2019, and the next cars will go after 2021, i.e. by 2020, the Turks will have several such aircraft in trial operation. You understand that after an aircraft is declared combat-ready, it often spends years in elite units that reveal all its capabilities.
          Italy? Two planes, and so far nothing is heard of the rest. Norway? Plans to declare initial combat readiness by 2020, complete - by 2025, the Netherlands? 35 fighters in the period 2019 -2023, that is, they will not be combat-ready in 2020

          Quote: Odyssey
          and we will have Mig-29 in 2020, etc.

          I only strive for comparability of data. You do not like my assumption that some MiG and Su will be in service by 2020? No question, subtract them from the calculations. But just do not be lazy, and clean NATO of old planes that are going to waste by 2020.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 01: 54 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But just do not be lazy, and clean NATO of old planes that are going to waste by 2020.

            Why not?

            Briefly, how is modern war going on.
            1. Economics, PR, the sixth column. (in fact, this is where the war with NATO ends, but we scratch further).
            2. Intelligence of all kinds. We are silent.
            3. Air (control systems, air control, electronic warfare). We believe there are none.
            4. The fight for air.
            5. The work of front-line aviation.

            Since this is not about Syria, front-line aviation will not be able to fly until there is no air supremacy. We believe, for some reason, that the enemy did not cover the sleeping airfields on June 22 at exactly 4 o’clock, and issues are resolved in the air.

            Thus, we consider only the 4th paragraph. What is there?

            Russian girl. The author counted 838 tactical aircraft. Of them
            267 Su-27, MiG-31, MiG-29 of the old series. From the beach.
            23 - ship. From the beach.
            8 - combat training. From the beach.
            MiG-29SMT. Consider a new one? Let's say.
            Su-27SM? Similarly.
            Further worse.
            14 Su-33. The ship's car? To whom was she given in the Central European, or, say, Ukrainian theater? Leave it alone.
            MiG-35 - 30 cars. Where does the figure come from? From the Russian newspaper for April 2015. What is written there?
            In addition, the Russian Air Force will receive 2020 MiG-30 fighters by 35, and a contract for development work has already been signed.
            What does it mean? Forgot about the MiG-35.
            The Su-30 M2 / SM is rumored to have 180 aircraft. How much is real? Limes spanked 118. Will there be more? It is not clear, because the degree of dependence on enemy components is incomprehensible.
            Su-35S - 98 aircraft "tentatively." How many of them are real? 68.

            Total 838 planes are turning smoothly, turning trousers into 404, of which 186 are new, the rest are modernized. With regard to specifically these 186 aircraft, it is still permissible to accept a percentage of combat readiness of 70 (although I do not know any reason for this) versus 50 for NATO. The rest we consider for equality.

            What on the other side. We take the latest aircraft.
            Lightings - OK, not in Europe.
            Superhornet - not a single one. But the plane is made, in the presence of hundreds. Is it possible to transfer it to the same Spain? Of course. But since we do not consider the "promised" MO RF planes, we take them for 0.
            Silent Eagle / Strike Eagle - not a single one. Do not touch.
            Fighting Falcon. We take only Block 50/52.
            Greece - 130 cars
            Poland - 48 cars.
            Turkey - 110 cars
            Total 288 cars.
            Eurofighter
            Germany 125
            Italy 87
            Spain 65
            Britain 145.
            Total 422. More was ordered, and, of course, Airbus has no problems with sanctions, but we respect the patriot, we consider there and there only iron, not paper.
            Saab JAS 39 C / D Gripen, Czech Republic, Hungary, 24 cars. 8 Bulgarian are expected, but we do not count them.
            Dassault Rafale B / C, 100 pcs, marine not counted, future not counted.

            Total, for iron machines, except for trash.

            Россия: 186*0,7+218*0,5=239 машин.
            Wrazhina (100 + 24 + 422 + 288) * 0,5 = 417 vehicles.
            The ratio of 4 to 7. Only new and latest. And if suddenly the enemy wakes up and pulls up readiness to American - 2 to 5.

            It is not Americans.

            By the way, about the Americans. 136 F-15 / F-16 with 75% combat readiness - these are 102 combat-ready vehicles. This is approximately half of the available number of new and updated VKS combat-ready vehicles. With Americans sleeping, doing nothing.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              6 December 2017 15: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              267 Su-27, MiG-31, MiG-29 of the old series. From the beach.

              Aha
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              23 - ship. From the beach.
              8 - combat training. From the beach.

              Yes, why? Based on the airfields of the SF, the European part of the Russian Federation, to Europe - just a stone's throw.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              14 Su-33. The ship's car? To whom was she given in the Central European, or, say, Ukrainian theater?

              Tom was given. What is the problem? :) In your opinion, was it nailed to Kuznetsov with nails? :)
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              MiG-35 - 30 cars. Where does the figure come from? From the Russian newspaper for April 2015. What is written there?

              That's what
              In April 2015, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that the purchase of 2020 MiG-30 aircraft was included in the expenses of the State Armaments Program for the period until 35

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The Su-30 M2 / SM is rumored to have 180 aircraft. How much is real? Limes spanked 118.

              again the mistake is Su-30SM 116 (and not 118) but besides them there are 20 more Su-30M2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Su-35S - 98 aircraft "tentatively." How many of them are real? 68.

              For Su-35, there is a firm contract for 2 deliveries of 48 machines each by 2020, but there is evidence that, according to the second part of the contract, 2, not 48, are delivered.
              Again past
              In general, undertake to criticize something, at least a little facts take into account :)))
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 21: 38 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                at least a little facts take into account :)))

                Are the facts that you wrote here?
                In April 2015, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that the purchase of 2020 MiG-30 aircraft was included in the expenses of the State Armaments Program for the period until 35

                Andrey, do you have any problems with reading perception? Mr. Borisov said that if 20 such machines appear before the 30th year and he has money, then he will buy them. This phrase absolutely does not mean the presence in the 20th year of Mr. Borisov, money, and especially airplanes. Now, it seems, there are two disabled people. You plyusat this to their hordes of air, and even 70% combat readiness? The author knows better alternatives.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Based on SF airfields,

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tom was given. What is the problem ?:

                There are two problems. Firstly, fighting naval aircraft from army airfields is not the most obvious idea.

                Secondly, under this junk of at least 20 years ago, I removed 42 Desso and, oops, 10 existing English penguins from the enemy. If you return them, there will be a bazaar station.

                According to UB - if you want to seize air domination over Germany with them - go ahead. I never understood why patriots love killing Russians so much.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                again the mistake is Su-30SM 116 (and not 118) but besides them there are 20 more Su-30M2

                Military Belance 2017 (link on Wik) gives 98 + 20. Maybe he's lying, it happens. How did 116 calculate the source?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Su-35 has a firm contract

                Andrey, but we don’t want to read at all?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                we consider there and there only iron, not paper.

                I do not take into account future aircraft for three reasons.
                1. I do not believe a single word of Russian officials in the future tense.
                2.To take into account future deliveries, you need to do a normal review of the plans of Europeans, and these are not only future Eurofighters and Desso, but also all programs for modernizing the aircraft fleet, primarily replacing the old Falcons. The author did not soar, and I was not in a hurry.
                3. If the author squeezed Russian capabilities to dryness, and strengthening is possible only by refusing to write off the cars of the 70s, then the enemy can be amplified without any restrictions. In particular, absolutely nothing prevents mattresses from out of hatred of the Russian girl to take and upset more than 5 hundred European Falcons to the V series in an unfortunate short time.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  6 December 2017 22: 21 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Andrey, do you have any problems with reading perception? Mr. Borisov said that if 20 such machines appear before the 30th year and he has money, then he will buy them.

                  Sorry, but - nonsense. And you still manage to write to me
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Andrey, do you have any problems with reading perception?

                  This is your problem, and it’s very serious. Borisov says
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  As part of the expenses of the State Arms Program for the period until 2020, the purchase of 30 MiG-35 aircraft

                  That is, money is planned for it. Another question is that any program can undergo changes, and if you have data that the MiG-35 was removed from the GPV ... well, if you had, you would have brought
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Secondly, under this junk at least 20 years ago

                  ??? Who are you talking about so politely? :))) MiG-29KR is a development of the 2000s, especially for Vikramadity. Or ... or do you want to say that you mixed up our new MiGs and MiG-29Ks from the times of the USSR? !! Then excuse me - why am I spending time on you at all?
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  According to UB - if you want to seize air domination over Germany with them - go ahead. I never understood why patriots love killing Russians so much.

                  Again common phrases
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Maybe he's lying, it happens. How did 116 calculate the source?

                  http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1828574.html
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  I do not take into account future aircraft for three reasons.

                  One by one - because the rate of replenishment of the VK of the Russian Federation is much higher than the similar rate of replenishment of NATO countries, and this does not fit your logic.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  To take into account future deliveries, you need to do a normal review of the plans of the Europeans, and these are not only future Eurofighters and Desso, but also all modernization programs for the aircraft fleet, primarily the replacement of old Falcons.

                  Basically, there are plans to write off under F-35 which are not there and will not be in commercial quantities in Europe until 2020
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  In particular, absolutely nothing prevents mattresses from purely hatred of the Russian girl to take and upset more than 5 hundred European Falcons to the V series

                  They now have hardly enough money for the F-35 program plus the maintenance of today's fleet.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 23: 49 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    That is, money is planned for it. Another question is that any program can undergo changes, and if you have data that the MiG-35 was removed from the GPV ... well, if you had, you would have brought

                    Andrey, you respected my religious feelings here. If your faith forces you to equate the plane for which, as they say, money is allocated for OCD, to accepted for service, and even calculate the percentage of combat readiness for it - just say so.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    or do you want to say that you confused our new MiGs with MiG-29Ks from the USSR? !! Then excuse me - why am I spending time on you at all?

                    In the phrase that you quoted, I had in mind the Su-33. But your noble anger, amid everything else, is even funny.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Again common phrases

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrew! Tell me, why didn’t you take into account various UBS?
                    So no one will use them in a serious conflict. My IMHO, of course

                    Well, that is, there is UBS, and here is UBT, it was just invented in order to learn how to shoot down Eurofighters.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1828574.html

                    Andrei, why do you answer the number of available aircraft with the number of contracted? Yes, and with ambition, again by, is that all?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    because the rate of replenishment of the VK of the Russian Federation is much higher than the similar rate of replenishment of NATO countries and this does not fit your logic.

                    Nice try, but no. The number of relatively modern Russian tactical aircraft all types Su-30 and Su-35 are NOW less than the total number of only penguins, only eurofighter, only superhornets, only Strikeiglov, only Falconov 50/52, a little more than only raptors, only rafals.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Basically there are plans to write off under the F-35

                    Except the 6 countries that ordered penguins, no one ever Right?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    They have a lot of money right now

                    1. To humiliate Russia is priceless.
                    2. If the upgrade of the existing Falcons looks really a fad, then the exchange of 40/50/52 Falcons of the European command for older European cars does not require special financial investments.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      7 December 2017 08: 55 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      If your faith forces you to equate the plane for which, as they say, money is allocated for OCD

                      PURCHASING 30 aircraft is OCD? You did not confuse the Russian Federation with the USA? In the Sha - yes, they are acquiring two hundred F-35s as part of the R&D :)
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Andrei, why do you answer the number of available aircraft with the number of contracted? Yes, and with ambition, again by, is that all?

                      Because I'm talking about deliveries until 2020.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Nice try, but no.

                      But yes :) In the European countries practically nothing moves, but with them we compare
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Except the 6 countries that ordered penguins, no one ever Right?

                      Which will not be until 2020
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 7 December 2017 22: 07 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        PURCHASING 30 aircraft is OCD?

                        Andrei, I regret to see that your problems with understanding the text are systematic. Try to meditate and read 4 lines again.
                        In April 2015, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that the purchase of 2020 MiG-30 aircraft was included in the expenses of the State Armaments Program for the period until 35

                        Try to understand what Borisov said, it’s not so difficult. At the same time, find out how things are now with these aircraft, which after a maximum of 3 years have in your alternative 70% of combat readiness.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        they in the framework of the ROC under two hundred F-35 acquire :)

                        Yes. This is the correct OCD. Characteristically, these 200 penguins (266 today) are available in real life, and not in the GPV until 2020.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because I'm talking about deliveries until 2020.

                        And I - about availability, and several times I denote this. The fact that your calculated numbers do not coincide with my actual numbers is not an error.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In the European countries practically nothing moves, and we compare with them

                        Eurofighter and Rafal - European aircraft.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Which will not be until 2020

                        Which today 36 pieces. But I didn’t write about penguins, but about but penguins.
                        Against this background, it would be hasty to require you to understand, for example, the difference between a statement (there is no reason to doubt that ...) and an assumption (I venture to assume that ...).
        2. Operator
          Operator 5 December 2017 21: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: Odyssey
          fantasies, this is just your non-nuclear conflict

          If the author admits this obvious thing, he will have to carry out hara-kiri bully
    3. Rokossovsky
      Rokossovsky 5 December 2017 08: 35 New
      11
      Quote: Odyssey
      The article, alas, is doubtful.
      1) A large-scale war between NATO and the Russian Federation will quickly develop into a nuclear one, so all calculations that do not include this factor are absolutely virtual.


      For those gifted at the beginning of the article, the author clearly indicated:
      In order to determine the possible role of aircraft carriers in large-scale non-nuclear conflict, try to figure out how much tactical aviation the Russian Federation and NATO will have in the very near future - say, by 2020.


      The main strategic factor, the largest military force of NATO, is not taken into account. In order to determine the possible role of aircraft carriers in a large-scale non-nuclear conflict, we will try to figure out how many tactical aircraft Russia and NATO will have in the very near future - say, by 2020. the Itovs (primarily Eastern European) are not at all sorry for them; they can safely use them as cannon fodder.

      It is taken into account. Read the article carefully!

      Even if we take into account the strictly virtual calculations of the author, then, frankly, they extremely overestimate the capabilities of the Air Force of the Russian Federation and extremely underestimate the capabilities of the Air Force of NATO countries.
      For example, where will we have 2020 Mig-120 and 29 Su-69 by 27? In reality -0. Mig-29 is already only in Erebuni, Su-27С are still barely pulling orphans for the sake of, but in 2020 they will also be written off. According to Su-30СМ- where is 180 from? Here we know the exact number-116 Su-30СМ and 20 Su-30 М2. Where -30 Миг-35?
      According to NATO, F-35 is completely ignored. The number of airborne aircraft is given on 2017, not 2020 year. It is completely arbitrary that their combat readiness is lower than ours. Moreover, such a conclusion is made only on the basis of publications about the open press regarding the state of the German Air Force. However, I'm afraid if we published the exact number of combat-ready (and this is not even flight-friendly) aircraft in the Air Force, the author would be very disappointed ...
      Finally, the factor that our country is several times larger than the whole of Europe and the aviation in it is scattered over a huge area is completely ignored, but combining it together is no less difficult than the US Air Force to transfer its forces to Europe.
      So in fact we have in the West a few number of air regiments with a small number of aircraft.

      And again, your carelessness!
      The author at the beginning of the article points to this and immediately makes a reservation that he does not consider his reasoning to be the ultimate truth!
      And problems with logistics and the transfer of forces to the line of conflict will be a problem for all its parties!
      By f-xnumx
      Tell me, how many planes are there in Europe? And how much will be in 2-3 of the year? If you are in the know, then most likely a NATO officer))) You can write an article with your data and smash Andrei to the nines!
      The factor is not taken into account, and who will attack anyone? Since it is very difficult to imagine a large-scale attack by Russia on NATO, NATO will most likely attack. In this case, we are waiting for a sudden (say on January 2) blow of a huge number of KR (which we have a minuscule), "awakening" of air defense by thousands of drones and then a raid by a very large group of NATO air forces. I am afraid in this situation our only chance is nuclear weapons.

      To date, this scenario is unlikely. Mainly due to the inability of the United States to deliver this same global massive strike.
      PS Well, in practice, the modern authorities in the Russian Federation live in this very Europe, buy real estate there and are ready to be satisfied with Crimea just by giving the rest of Ukraine to the USA. We are afraid to fit in for Donbass (for Donbass, Karl!). What kind of "war with NATO" in such situations the author speaks to me is not clear.

      It will probably be a secret for you, but we have been fitting in for Donbass for over 3 years!

      PS The article is good! Thanks to Andrey!
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        5 December 2017 08: 42 New
        +9
        And thank you very much for your kind words! hi
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter 5 December 2017 17: 53 New
          +2
          I have one question, and what can our CSTO allies be able to provide?
          1. Uryukc
            Uryukc 5 December 2017 23: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: Stroporez
            and what can our CSTO allies be able to provide?

            By the way, it’s a very pertinent question, since even Slovenia was counted in assessing NATO’s combat potential, we too can scrape through the guts.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 22: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: Stroporez
              What can our CSTO allies provide?

              Airfields, bread and salt and promiscuous women.

              To the Americans.
              1. Uryukc
                Uryukc 7 December 2017 02: 46 New
                0
                Americans will not need neither bread and salt nor women in underground apartments 2x2 m. Not all litter states, like Germany, as they say do not judge by yourself.
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2017 08: 46 New
      0
      MiG-29 still seem to remain at the storage bases and individual vehicles in combat centers, or as flying laboratories.
    5. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2017 08: 50 New
      +2
      For Donbass already fit in, enough about real estate in Europe to flood. The world is not so primitive.

      hit a huge number of KR


      Do you even know how many of them were produced? To the "huge number" and does not reach close.

      sudden (say xnumx january) blow


      You don’t understand what you’re talking about. No CDs or hordes of drones are secretly concentrated. And an attempt can lead to the fact that they will be followed by a warning (nuclear) strike.
    6. Operator
      Operator 5 December 2017 11: 49 New
      +5
      An “analytical article” is actually babble.

      Given the increase in the number of F-35 and the retirement by age of the MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25 and Su-27, the ratio of the NATO Air Force and the Russian Air Force in the European theater of war in 2020 can be estimated as three-fold superiority of the West.

      30 modernized Tu-22M3 will not do the weather, especially since they will be specialized to combat marine-based carrier-based aviation, and not with tactical land-based aircraft.

      Nobody is going to butt with NATO conventional weapons (except for sofa "analysts", of course) - see the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation.

      Mobile soil systems with medium-range ballistic missiles (in Europe, Central Asia and the Far East) and a flight time of six minutes or more are our everything.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        5 December 2017 12: 00 New
        +5
        Quote: Operator
        Given the increase in the number of F-35 and the retirement by age of the MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25 and Su-27, the ratio of the NATO Air Force and the Russian Air Force in the European theater of war in 2020 can be estimated as three-fold superiority of the West.

        Those. We expect about 2 F-000 to European airfields by 35? What did you write about baby talk there? :))
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 02: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Those. We expect about 2 F-000 to European airfields by 35?

          Considering the results of fights with fives and fours without cheating (cannon fights), approx. Approx. 40 cars.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            6 December 2017 21: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Considering the results of fights with fives and fours without cheating (cannon fights), approx. Approx. 40 cars.

            (shrugging) questions of faith are sacred to me ...
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 21: 59 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              questions of faith are sacred to me

              This is felt by the style of argumentation.
    7. Town Hall
      Town Hall 5 December 2017 12: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Odyssey
      The article, alas, is doubtful.




      Tricks with% readiness smile especially)))).
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        5 December 2017 14: 41 New
        +3
        Quote: Town Hall
        Tricks with% readiness smile especially)))).

        Yes, here is an assumption in favor of the Americans, with us this% should in principle be higher
    8. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 5 December 2017 15: 11 New
      11
      The author is a modest pessimist, and one Odysseus is a dense blackberry. As if not a strategist at all ... I will criticize the Author, referring to the letters Odyssey. But I will round up - for clarity. Firstly, no one and half of their aircraft will be sent to the Russian Federation — not a single NATO member, except perhaps the Poles and the Baltic states. That is, of the rounded 2000 combat Euroboards against us, the “Euro Brothers” will set a maximum (!!!) of 1000, with half being very second-hand and faulty. Their main 3/4 (!!!) will guard their territory, and will be repaired and prepared for battle - but from the outside, especially the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards and smaller peoples. That is, more than 500 combat Euroboards will not be launched at us. Well and the USA m. put up 500 - the rest will protect their territory. So we have about the same number of WORKING aircraft — a ratio of about 1000 per 1000. But with this ratio, they, the European Union, will not want to fight at all from the word. Less than threefold superiority, quantitative and qualitative, their aviation generals will not agree. Because they know that they will be defeated with less superiority. They’ll simply hit them with missiles, starting with satellites and headquarters, going to bases and Avax, then to sea and land aircraft sites. And this is before any nuclear weapons. The prospect of falling under our nuclear weapons to any European returns the desire to live in harmony with the Russian Federation, albeit bark and crap little by little. So in terms of quantity we have almost parity with NATO - it is a matter of quality. And they are while we are higher. Nevertheless, we must work tirelessly on qualities and quantities. And one more remark - operating aviation is a HUGE consumption of fuel and lubricants. And they know for sure that in the event of a major war with the Russian Federation, their fuel and lubricants reserves will begin to burn before their eyes. And in the sea, and on land, and in the air. Chad and smoke will be such that in a month they will stop their military exercises. Europe is not enough for a big war. But taking into account the fact that our aviation in Syria showed an intensity of work that is 4 times higher than the estimated average NATO (4 flights a day were given out by us!), The balance of forces in the air is already UNAIGNABLE on our side. And they understood this, except for the most worn-out American airliners like McCain and others like him Trump Mattis. But these types, alas, are not treated, and, alas, they can lead to a big war.
    9. NEXUS
      NEXUS 5 December 2017 21: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Odyssey
      We are afraid to fit in for Donbass (for Donbass, Karl!).

      While we are weak. Re-equipment is proceeding slowly, saturation with new systems and complexes is proceeding slowly, the fleet and aviation are not in the same condition and combat readiness, so as not to pay attention to all this host of NATO henchmen to take what is rightfully ours. And without a strong and NUMEROUS aviation and a balanced fleet, what is there to talk about? While we have priority Strategic Rocket Forces, so that if anything, send the whole world to the forefathers. We are updating the land, but there are also many pitfalls here. A simple example is the set of Warrior which year AK or AEK are dressed up, ridiculously.
      And the author simply took a hypothetical plot, taking out the Strategic Rocket Forces. Fantasies on the topic-Whose dad is stronger.
  6. Tonygun
    Tonygun 5 December 2017 08: 42 New
    +1
    Great review. Thanks
  7. Tonygun
    Tonygun 5 December 2017 08: 46 New
    +1
    And still dear experts, as far as I know from the military service (the Russian Air Force served at the military aerodrome to support flights of Su-24), the full mobilization of all military branches takes from 7 to 12 days to Russia and NATO
    1. meGrail
      meGrail 5 December 2017 14: 05 New
      +3
      What kind of heresy are you talking about? What are 7-12 days ?? Of course, I did not serve at military airfields, just a reserve officer, but I didn’t oversleep some lectures.
      So a complete mobilization - this is not to get a weapon in a small arms and run to the enemy with a hat
      First, military registration and enlistment offices must find officers and call.
      Then the officers in the units remember why they are actually officers (these are reserve officers, they have not seen the army for decades), they get acquainted with weapons, documents.
      After this, the military enlistment offices send the rank and file. He also needs to remember what’s what, get a weapon and so on.
      Then the fun begins - combat coordination. Starting from small units to large.
      And only after this unit becomes fully operational
  8. Tonygun
    Tonygun 5 December 2017 08: 47 New
    0
    So, NATO has from 2 to 3 months .......
  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion 5 December 2017 09: 10 New
    +4
    With the MiG-35 everything is extremely muddy, on the other hand, the appearance of 1-2 combat squadrons of the Su-57 is possible.

    116 SU-30СМ before the 2018 year and 20 СУ-30М2. Before 180, you need to type 44 cars in 2 years. 22 pcs per year. Irkut simply did not give out such quantities. It can give out, but the peak is passed. More or less, the number problem was solved; nobody will tear the ass now. Or "all Su-30" includes prototypes belonging to KB and non-combat parts. In particular, I do not know anything about the fate of the first 5 Su-30, may be written off by wear, or maybe not.

    According to Su-35, 3 flight prototypes were built, 901, 902 now, I have not seen them for a long time, apparently, they are used for experiments, 904 is lost in 2009. Nevertheless, the cancellation of 2 cars that posed at all air shows before launching the series is extremely unlikely.

    Su-27СМ was 55 pcs, of which 7, apparently, prototypes. 2 cars crashed. 12 Su-27СМ3 built from scratch. As for the rest, then, apparently, the Su-27 with the kapitalka is silently remade into SM, because there it only remains to completely throw out the Soviet filling. At the same time, the process of decommissioning the Su-27 for wear is already underway.

    MiG-29 from storage bases, obviously, are suitable only for spare parts, with proper preservation, you will not immediately be able to remove them, and the personnel familiar with such equipment is less and less.

    An increase in the number of Su-34 is unlikely, they started saving very much. And the process is not fast.

    In general, there is no sense in considering a conflict with more than 2-4 countries of the Euronates, we won’t attack them, otherwise we’ll win, we’ll have to feed them, the Greeks and, especially, some Spaniards because of Eastern Europe they don’t lift a finger. In this regard, the situation is such that no one can bomb anyone, for this there simply are no bombs or planes. For really serious raids, hundreds of cars are needed.
  10. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 5 December 2017 09: 34 New
    +3
    Lord Again strangers versus predator! Andrew, have not played enough in the computer?
  11. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 5 December 2017 09: 36 New
    +7
    The author for some reason the same F-16 puts everything in one basket.
    For example, Greece has not only the old Block-30, but also Block-50 / 52, and these are very serious cars (mini-Su-35), so to speak.
    Turkey also has one and a half hundreds of Block-50!
    Poland, oddly enough, also has Block-52, and the Poles are actively buying AIM-9X. Block-52> AMRAAM, Sidewinder 9X (also Block-2) - very serious!

    Currently, the US has deployed F-136 and F-15 combat aircraft on European 16 bases, not counting transport and reconnaissance aircraft. This air group can not fundamentally affect the balance of power in Europe. Ensuring air superiority will depend entirely on the speed of the transfer of US air forces from US territory to Europe.

    It may well, and much more than for example Spain. And then will only be replenished. Also, do not forget about AUG, which also carry F / A-18E.

    But as it was written here, it all depends on who attacks whom in this scenario. If NATO is at Russia, then the Americans will pull up their air forces by the beginning of the game, but if we attack, then we will mostly fly with the Europeans.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 09: 58 New
      +4
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      The author for some reason the same F-16 puts everything in one basket.

      Why? Where there is junk - I indicate that junk
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      But do not forget about the AUG, which also carry the F / A-18E.

      It will reach them :)
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 5 December 2017 10: 09 New
        +4
        Why? Where there is junk - I indicate that junk

        You do not indicate a modification, which is quite important in the case of the F-16. The same Block-52 + is a completely different machine, compared to Block-30.
        Yes, and what old? There are also Block-15 among Europeans (who have forgotten), and Block-30 is completely for itself, which is difficult to call old and new.
        So the distribution by "Blocks" is quite critical here.

        It will reach them :)

        laughing
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2017 11: 51 New
      +1
      Mini Su-35, this is not nearly Su-35, especially since the 50 / 52 block appeared more than 20 years ago, if memory serves.

      moreover, the Poles are actively buying the AIM-9X. Block-52> AMRAAM, Sidewinder 9X (also Block-2) - very serious!


      Just on bmpd about the purchase of 150 missiles scoffed, it was 75, another 150, now you can even suspend it on 2.

      In general, it would not have been possible for the USSR to win against the whole world, so it’s not clear what the thoughts are about, that the Russian Federation with the population of 140 million does not fence the military unit with the population of 700 million? Well, that's obvious.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 5 December 2017 15: 08 New
        +1
        Mini Su-35, this is not nearly Su-35, especially since the 50 / 52 block appeared more than 20 years ago, if memory serves.


        What is not close then? AMRAAM (C-7), AIM-9X, excellent opportunities for work on the ground (a huge nomenclature of bombs and rockets in the C).
        Yes, 50 / 52 in the 20 area, which does not limit their capabilities today. So then there is a current AFAR prisobachit and all, machine 21 century.

        Just on bmpd about the purchase of 150 missiles scoffed, it was 75, another 150, now you can even suspend it on 2.

        So it is necessary if it is, then they will buy it. Poles can, means allow.

        In general, it would not have been possible for the USSR to win against the whole world, so it’s not clear what the thoughts are about, that the Russian Federation with the population of 140 million does not fence the military unit with the population of 700 million? Well, that's obvious.

        Well, then yes, Europe’s human resources are much larger, and there will be no quick war ...
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 5 December 2017 10: 23 New
    +3
    "Without even taking into account the F-35, which, most likely, as of 2020 and
    will remain in a semi-efficient state "////

    What is the matter with them? Do not fly? Accidents? From the end of the month, they will begin to fight with us.
    Do the Americans have any problems that you know about? They are already participating
    in exercises in Korea, stationed in Japan.
    1. meGrail
      meGrail 5 December 2017 14: 10 New
      +3
      You don’t understand anything! F-35 - drank dough, helmets-stand-milliards, pilots-choke, generally-do not fly, yes-this-and-not-fifth generation! To mention him here as a combat aircraft — how to spoil the air in the company of gentlemen!
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 25 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      What is the matter with them? Do not fly? Accidents? From the end of the month, they will begin to fight with us.

      The concept itself is incorrect, there will certainly be some benefit from them, but completely different machines will decide the outcome of the air war.
  13. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 5 December 2017 10: 32 New
    +2
    "And the problem is that the Americans in Europe have none of this [infrastructure] now.
    And the Europeans, somehow supporting the percentage of serviceable cars at the level of 40-50%, do not either. "////

    You completely forget how fast Americans can transfer equipment and ammunition
    and aviation when they are locked. This, in fact, is their trump card. You can argue about who will be
    to win in air battles, will the Russian air defense cope with numerous air raids ...
    But the fact that in the sky in Europe will be "black" from American aircraft is guaranteed.
    And they will have equipment, and bombs / missiles, and fuel - the logistics of the Americans at an altitude from the 19th century to the present day.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 10: 59 New
      +6
      Quote: voyaka uh
      You completely forget how fast Americans can transfer equipment and ammunition
      and aviation when they are locked.

      I know, "Desert Shield" is called. The results are given in the article.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 5 December 2017 13: 09 New
        +3
        No. If you rely on the “Desert Shield” in your analysis, this will result
        to a large underestimation of the enemy. Nothing pressed Americans there.
        They were not limited in time, since their adversary - Iraq - was trapped.
        If, for example, we urgently need to get some important piece of iron from the States,
        then in the morning the mail, and in the evening a transport worker is already landing with him. This is clear,
        another extreme case, but indicates the absence of bureaucracy and fast logistics.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 14: 02 New
          +5
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Nothing pressed Americans there.

          It’s a big mistake to think so. Involve almost the entire military transport aviation and maritime transport + to collect more aircraft from civilians and freight at neutrals ...
  14. Vovan 73
    Vovan 73 5 December 2017 10: 47 New
    19
    As a person with a military aviation education, I would like to point out a number of factors that are not indicated in the article. The number of aircraft at the time of the outbreak of conflict is not an indicator determining the combat readiness of the air force. It only reflects the alignment of forces at the initial stage.
    So here are the unaccounted factors:
    1. The availability of reserve aircraft.
    Let's remember that in which case the losses will be large enough on both sides. And here one of the first plans is the possibility of quick replenishment of the sides. Remember the sad fate of our aircraft storage bases. And even the Vietnamese A 6 Intruder stand on conservation in those deserts. The car is ancient, no doubt, but at the right time, they can put them into operation in sufficient quantities. And although he is an ancient plane, he will take off and deliver a bomb load. At one time, the MiG-27 and Su-17 of various modifications, including relatively fresh m4. That is, we have, by and large, no reserve for strike aircraft. A similar situation is typical for the whole FA.
    2. The availability of a reserve of the lifting composition.
    It is no secret that in Soviet times, Aeroflot pilots were a hot reserve of YES. Currently, YES does not have such a reserve. The entire aeroflot flies on sausages and Boeing, whose aerodrome skills have only SP-6 from the means of air navigation support for takeoff and landing, and they don’t have any RSBN thread. They have already forgotten how to fly “on their hands”, because current airlines no longer have a suitable training element. That is, even in the case of time “H” and subsequent mobilization, they are a dead reserve. For they are unable to complete the combat mission of what is called on the move. And you, as you understand, are unlikely to give us time for retraining. With the preparation of the reserve of the flight crew of the FA, there are even more problems. He is simply not there. In Western countries, the amateur aviation network is quite well developed and, in principle, any low-powered pilot is capable of performing the simplest flight program on a front-line aircraft. That is, the adversary has a much larger number of people with initial flight training and this is the same reserve.
    3. The availability of capacity for the reproduction of losses. Here I think the comments are superfluous.
    My conclusion is that if there is a long conflict, our Air Force will be in a situation. when it will be impossible to quickly recover human and material losses.
    Well, lastly. In the combat regulations of the Air Force, at least earlier, it was said that the first thing aviation does in the case of the “H” time is to relocate to alternate airfields. Unfortunately with this we also have a little pichalka. The aerodrome network is abandoned, the local population pulls plates from take-offs for their household needs. Accordingly, the runway is not suitable for basing modern aircraft.
    This is only in brief, I don’t even want to remember what they did to the network of aviation schools ..... This is my vision of the current state of the mob. air force reserve.
    I put on a helmet, ready for the arrival of stools
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 11: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: Vovan 73
      And even the Vietnamese ones are on conservation in the same desert deserts. A 6 Intruder

      This is true, but they are unlikely to be able to use it - even the fleet that is “winged” will be very difficult to deploy. And besides, the article explicitly states that with a massive transfer of the US Air Force to Europe, the Russian Air Force — they simply crush the number
      Quote: Vovan 73
      The presence of a reserve of the lifting composition.

      This, of course, is true - I do not have data on the number of pilots, but I hope that the existing aircraft are equipped with them
      Quote: Vovan 73
      Availability of capacities for reproduction of losses. Here I think the comments are superfluous.

      This is no longer an indicator today - an airplane is being made on the order of a year, so much the modern conflict will not last. We will fight (both we and NATO) with what is in the units
      Quote: Vovan 73
      The aerodrome network is abandoned, the local population pulls plates from take-offs for their household needs.

      Of course, there is all hope for existing civil airfields
      Thanks for the qualified comment! hi
      1. Vovan 73
        Vovan 73 5 December 2017 11: 23 New
        +5
        Do not count on civil airfields. They are all located in large cities that will receive massive strikes.
        According to the flight crew. Norma, in Soviet times, had two crews on board. Now the Air Force has a wild shortage of flight personnel. it got to the point that of those rosters for retraining. So you yourself estimate. Previously, there were Barnaul, Kachinsky, Tambov, Armavir, Krasnodar, Kharkov and several more only flight schools. Now there is only one Krasnodar. Technical schools were Achinsk, Kaliningrad. Engineering Irkutsk, Kharkov, Riga, Kiev. Now the technical staff is being prepared only in Voronezh.
      2. NN52
        NN52 5 December 2017 13: 04 New
        10
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk

        At the moment, there are 6-8 pilots in two squadrons of fighter shortage ......
        1. Tektor
          Tektor 5 December 2017 18: 31 New
          0
          Well, we will entrust this work to F.E.D.O.R.u - although he is a robot, he learns quickly.
    2. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 5 December 2017 11: 38 New
      +1
      The same thing happened during the Great Patriotic War. I think the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has calculated everything for a long time in the early stages. We are Russian and we can handle it. There is simply no other option - they should.
      1. Vovan 73
        Vovan 73 5 December 2017 11: 57 New
        +3
        During the Second World War, we had superiority over the Germans over pilots and planes. Another thing is that they could not competently dispose of what happened. And the reserve was in the form of parts in the Far East. again, the level of technology was such that it was possible to produce in sufficient quantities at relatively poorly prepared sites. Well, training in combat use, due to the level of technology again, was quicker and easier. Again, the first time to replenish the losses, Lend-Lease helped. Now nobody will help us.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Vovan 73
          During the Second World War, we had superiority over the Germans over pilots and planes.

          But this is not so, the Third Reich in the air surpassed the USSR
          1. Vovan 73
            Vovan 73 6 December 2017 05: 25 New
            +1
            And you take and compare the number of flight personnel and equipment in the Air Force of the Red Army alone in the western districts on 22.06.1941/16/16. and compare them with the number of Luftwaffe allocated for Operation Barbarossa. About the fact that the I-1943 was not able to fight - the thesis is debatable. Read the memoirs of the GSS Dolgushin, Pstygo and other veterans. By the way, the I-XNUMX in the combat structure of the Air Forces of the Western Fronts was mentioned even back in XNUMX. And the pilots we had were well trained and had enough equipment. Management disappointed by and large something. This is unfortunately a fact.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 6 December 2017 18: 13 New
              0
              Quote: Vovan 73
              About the fact that the I-16 was not able to fight - the thesis is debatable.

              And you compare their performance characteristics and the thesis will cease to be controversial.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2017 12: 15 New
      +4
      As a person with a military aviation education


      I don’t believe in it.

      Availability of aircraft reserve.


      Absolutely everything that can be raised even in theory has been taken into account. The parties have no reserves of airplanes, except for conservation ones. If you do not consider the reserve machines still in factories, or not transferred in part. But these warehouses are taken into account.

      but at the right time, they can put them into operation in sufficient quantities.


      Given that for a long time there has not been a single person who even knew how to fly them, this is, to put it mildly, nonsense. As there is not a single specialist who would know how to serve them. The plane is not a steam locomotive or a car. And that they are in the desert, well, so taking them from there is also worth the money.

      At one time, the MiG-27, Su-17 of various modifications, including relatively fresh mxnumx


      Even if the cars in the 93 were normally mothballed, today, 24 years later, they would be looked at in the same way as the F-35 pilot looked at the “intruder” without understanding which side to approach them. It is naive to think that those. millions of pages of documentation can be quickly mastered.

      The presence of a reserve of the lifting composition.
      It is no secret that in Soviet times, Aeroflot pilots were a hot reserve YES


      I wonder who told you such nonsense. You cannot retrain the pilot in a couple of weeks. And this reserve can only be called hot unless in the case of some IL-76, which are common in both the civilian and the army. Maximum you can call the pilot in advance and start cooking for a new type. Brand new.

      and, in principle, any light-engine pilot is capable of carrying out a simple flight program on a front-line aircraft.


      Hand face.

      Availability of capacities for reproduction of losses. Here I think the comments are superfluous.


      Of course, they are superfluous, because in this indicator Europe just nervously smokes on the sidelines. However, now, when the war ends within days, or weeks, it does not matter. A modern fighter has been going for 9 months.

      the first thing aviation does in the case of the “Ch” time is to relocate to alternate aerodromes.


      Which will be immediately photographed from satellites, making disguise meaningless. But how you drag these air defense systems and all the rest onto these alternate aerodromes, I would be interested to know. An airfield is not only the whole concrete, it is also the deployment of a military unit, controls and huge stores of fuel, ammunition and everything that is needed for combat work.

      So your knowledge is at the WWII level.
      1. Vovan 73
        Vovan 73 5 December 2017 12: 26 New
        +7
        Graduated from Irkutsk VVAIU faculty of REO 96 onwards He served in the Far East. So our IAP according to the plan "H" by squadron, was supposed to diverge at 4 airfields. Division headquarters dumped on the fifth. After dispersal, we got packages with tasks and started to carry out a combat mission. During the service I even took part in such a relocation. I am writing about what I myself know. But you wonder where you served?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 6 December 2017 00: 57 New
          0
          You have already shown complete incompetence, => you either did not serve, or served as a private, and this is even worse than not serving at all, since every soldier thinks of himself as a general and competent in matters that greatly exceed his own level (like managing a division) which the civilian simply does not undertake to judge.
          1. Vovan 73
            Vovan 73 6 December 2017 04: 59 New
            +1
            Well, everything is clear with you. Obviously a "senior" couch officer
          2. Vovan 73
            Vovan 73 6 December 2017 05: 10 New
            +1
            For reference: The Higher Military Aviation Engineering School graduates aviation engineers with the rank of lieutenant, and then as a service trample. But with the tower you can easily reach the level of early. TEC regiment and this is a lieutenant colonel. And if you enter the academy and graduate from the PRIS courses, then you can safely get to the army engineer if you have some luck, of course. And you are still our professional. If you don’t know the regular structure of the regiment, don’t trynd. Where did you see air defense units at peacetime airfields ?. Modern places of deployment are peacetime bases. In addition to the regiment itself, the security company and BATO units, they have no nifig. And the first thing that ANY military unit does on alarm is to get out from under the alleged strike with a change of location of a permanent deployment. This is the ABC of military affairs. And it’s not for you that you should blame the civilian jacket, me, the war veteran for knowledge of the WWII level. You just never saw what was happening at the airport on alarm. Already breathtaking. Less than an hour and at the airport there are only support services and equipment that cannot take off.
      2. Vovan 73
        Vovan 73 5 December 2017 12: 29 New
        +2
        Do you think a modern fighter is going to be 9 months ???? If, for example, the Irkutsk APO makes about a dozen cars a year, this already indicates that the assembly cycle is much faster. I will not say how much, but I know the exact number. A dozen a year - simply because there is no money for a larger amount.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 5 December 2017 14: 22 New
          +5
          Quote: Vovan 73
          If, for example, the Irkutsk APO makes about a dozen cars a year, this already indicates that the assembly cycle is much faster.

          12 months divided by 10 cars, total 1 car in 1,2 months !!! Indeed, from where did 9 take ??? You are right vovan good drinks
          1. Filxnumx
            Filxnumx 5 December 2017 20: 38 New
            +2
            unfortunately confuse soft with warm. 10 machines a year is NOT the speed of their manufacture, but the NUMBER of aircraft completing assembly in a given year. The start of this assembly was laid much earlier (for aircraft manufactured in the first half of the year - unambiguously in the previous year). For example: JSC 360 ARZ repaired 2017 IL-5 aircraft in 76, but this does not mean that the average repair time is 2,5 months, because according to the repair documentation, the repair term is from 140 to 180 WORKING days (depending on version), i.e. from 7 to 9 MONTHS.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            12 months divided by 10 cars, total 1 car in 1,2 months !!!

            If a woman gives birth in nine months, this does not mean that nine women will give birth in a month ... and if twins?
          3. Vovan 73
            Vovan 73 6 December 2017 05: 17 New
            +1
            Simple division in this case is not entirely correct. My college friend is currently working at IAPO. He told me how much the complete assembly cycle of the Su-30 is. It’s just why everyone needs to know this, and wartime it is somewhat reduced. It’s just that the number of enterprises capable of producing equipment has sharply decreased. You know the market. For example, the Moscow factory "banner of labor" if I am not mistaken before, MiG did, but now it’s breathing. Sokol plant in the same position and so on. In fact, only IAPO, KNAPO, and NAPO remained afloat. The Kazan plant, which Tupol used to do before, is also not so hot now
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 6 December 2017 00: 54 New
          +1
          Damn, did it ever occur to you that planes are being handed over in batches, and when a batch is being handed over for delivery, are there other machines on the assembly? And you can collect aircraft 9 months to issue them for the year pieces 20.
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 11 December 2017 08: 35 New
          0
          The "engineer" does not even know how the assembly of the aircraft goes. At least I do not pretend that I graduated from any military universities, because I did not really graduate from them.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  15. Vadmir
    Vadmir 5 December 2017 10: 50 New
    +2
    The article deals with a sudden conflict with NATO. However, the United States does not act like this, usually they take a long time to prepare, concentrate their forces, and only then attack. In another way, NATO will not risk it, especially with a country like Russia.
    If we assume an attack by Russia on NATO, then an attack requires a numerical superiority, which is not there. This means mobilization and concentration of troops at the border, which will not go unnoticed and will lead to mirror concentration on the part of NATO.
    A variant of an unexpected, unprepared conflict is extremely unlikely.
    Suppose this option - in Ukraine, absolute inadequacies come to power and start a war with Russia or large-scale ethnic cleansing of Russians throughout the country. Can NATO intervene after the occupation of Ukraine by Russia? I think that this option is possible, although unlikely. However, even with NATO intervention, it will occur after lengthy preparations and concentration of forces; the entire initial war will only occur in the press, in order to prepare public opinion.
    The same option when attacking one of the NATO countries by Russia - first preparation and then war. Or is someone experiencing the illusion that a war can begin out of pity for the civilian population of a captured country or of any nationality? No, politicians are too cynical.
    Therefore, it will be necessary to deal with already concentrated military force, which, however, opens up new prospects - a sudden blow to concentrated troops and especially aircraft can give very good chances to even the less powerful side of the conflict, it is only important to choose the right moment and have time to strike first. This eliminates the eternal geographical advantage of the United States, when most of its armed forces are invulnerable to a first strike.
    It is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to make modern technology that the losses of the first days and hours of the war cannot be made up for by the end of this war.
    In any case, the big war with NATO, starting with aircraft and high-tech weapons, will end with millions of infantry with machine guns. However, this will lead to unacceptable losses for the West, and therefore to the inevitable use of tactical nuclear weapons first, and then to the exchange of global nuclear strikes.
    The only option for a non-nuclear war is a short, limited in space clash, the result of which will be a catastrophic defeat for the armed forces of one of the parties to the conflict, followed by the transfer of the conflict into the negotiation process, provided, of course, that the party losing the battle will be ready to make concessions.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2017 12: 18 New
      0
      We could well move to Ukraine in the 2014th without mobilization. Border units are always, more or less, combat ready.
      1. Vadmir
        Vadmir 5 December 2017 12: 55 New
        0
        And what does Ukraine have to do with it in 2014?
        I believe that even now our army is able to cope with Ukraine without mobilization. Of course, a bloodless liberation campaign with flowers and bread and salt, as it would not be possible in 2014, but we can cope if this task is set.
        But Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and in the event of a conflict, NATO will most likely not fight with us for Ukraine.
        Well, if he dares, then after a long preparation and concentration of troops at our borders.
  16. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 5 December 2017 11: 16 New
    0
    great article. everything is clear, on the shelves.
  17. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 5 December 2017 11: 24 New
    +1
    Bravo for trying. I would also like to add that the Russian Armed Forces will not allow the Americans to throw their Air Force across the ocean so easily .... a serious war will also begin there. And if you immediately suppress air defense and enemy aircraft on the European theater of war ... then the Americans will have nowhere to transfer forces .... but all this is hypothetically finite.
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 5 December 2017 12: 27 New
      +2
      I agree. The Air Force will not fight alone in a hypothetical non-nuclear war. In fact, all of Europe is "shot" by Russian missiles (Caliber, Iskander, X-55, X-101, etc.), which can easily destroy the airfields of Europe (and not only). AUG to the coast of the Russian Federation will not fit (the radius of the same F-18) physically.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        5 December 2017 14: 05 New
        +5
        Quote: vvvjak
        In fact, the whole of Europe is "shot" by Russian missiles (Caliber, Iskander, X-55, X-101, etc.)

        How much did the USA spend on dislodging one air base? Knocked out? There are more than 1800 paved airfields in Europe, where do we have so many missiles?
        1. vvvjak
          vvvjak 5 December 2017 14: 23 New
          +1
          And how many airfields in Europe from which the eurofighter (or other) can fly to Moscow? And moreover, not only do you need to stupidly fly, but also carry out some kind of combat mission. At the same time, it is advisable that the Iskander from Kaliningrad or Tu 22 from the Crimea would not get to them (airfields).
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            5 December 2017 14: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: vvvjak
            And how many airfields in Europe from which the eurofighter (or other) can reach Moscow

            Why would he fly to Moscow? He needs to finish our armed forces in the conflict zone.
            1. vvvjak
              vvvjak 5 December 2017 14: 55 New
              +1
              Look. So where will the conflict zone be? RF attacks or NATO? Accordingly, the effectiveness of aviation (range, frequency of departures, logistics, etc.) is different. Even a conditionally union state like Belarus can play a small role (stupidly extra 600 km. Of summer, without taking into account local air defense).
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 36 New
                0
                Quote: vvvjak
                Look. So where will the conflict zone be? RF attacks or NATO?

                Hypothetical conflict in Eastern Europe, Russia will fight with NATO in some territory laughing Eastern European country, and neither Russia nor NATO countries will be hit, otherwise - a nuclear war.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 5 December 2017 14: 27 New
          +6
          hi Greetings my friend!
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          where do we have so many rockets?

          If tomorrow is war ...
          A plane will fly, a machine gun will be sharpened,
          Mighty tanks rumble
          And the battleships will go, and the infantry will go,
          And dashing tachanka rush
          bully Missiles ... missiles only cowards fight wink
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            5 December 2017 14: 39 New
            +3
            Quote: Serg65
            Missiles ... missiles only cowards fight

            I agree that Armata at the enemy’s airport is better :)
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 5 December 2017 14: 46 New
              +8
              You know Andrei, I’ve been going to write about the last years of the KChF of the USSR for 1,5 years and collecting materials (the tragedy of the KChF was directly dependent on the collapse of ZAKVO and OdVO) I came to the sad conclusion ... no one will attack us, we will raise our a country on a silver platter to our sworn friend ....
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                5 December 2017 18: 13 New
                +3
                Quote: Serg65
                nobody will attack us, we ourselves will raise our country on a silver platter with a blue border to our sworn friend ....

                Well, with the thesis that we are invincible, because the only one who can defeat us is ourselves, I completely agree laughing
                Nevertheless ... The situation with the KChF was generally disastrous. Recalling this ... to put it mildly, is unpleasant. Nevertheless, what was then unlikely to happen again in the foreseeable future. drinks
  18. yoyo1984
    yoyo1984 5 December 2017 11: 41 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author. Of course, everything is hypothetical, you can argue endlessly, but I’m close in spirit! Hold Lois! =)
    PS The main thing to Kaptsov is not a word about the article, but the "maestro" having studied the wiki will quickly take you to "clean water";)
  19. tchoni
    tchoni 5 December 2017 11: 55 New
    +1
    "Sleep citizens in their warm apartments" - the border is on a safe castle, the enemy will be defeated and yours .....
  20. Soho
    Soho 5 December 2017 12: 05 New
    +4
    The article is entertaining, but not informative. Since there are too many assumptions and far-fetched. All the same, Andrei liked the previous cycles much more)
  21. Ural resident
    Ural resident 5 December 2017 13: 27 New
    +2
    I'm certainly far from aviation, but I am always interested in another question:
    number of trained pilots.
    You can have 1500 aircraft, but what about piloting? If you take into account that in some cars you need 2 people - plus interchangeable crews - you get a rather big figure.
    I remember in 90 years, our top military officials sadly said that there were no pilots at all. The only prepared groups were the Swifts and Falcons of Russia, which de only they saved the entire school.
    Yes - now there is intensive training of new personnel, running-in on the battlefield.
    But the fighting in Syria, even with the rotation condition, could "prepare" in the region of 200-300 pilots.
    Could it be that by the start of hostilities we simply do not have enough flight personnel ?.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 14: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      Could it be that by the start of hostilities we simply do not have enough flight personnel ?.

      It could be. Unfortunately, I do not have data on the number of pilots in the Russian Federation
  22. Aleksandr21
    Aleksandr21 5 December 2017 13: 45 New
    0
    Interestingly, what is the point of comparison? Just calculate the strengths of the parties? If we talk about "Russia against NATO" and discard the nuclear weapons factor, then the air wall on the wall vryatli will work :) Russia will primarily use air defense systems and with the help of these systems will try to protect the sky from superior NATO forces, and the United States will try to fit at a distance the fleet and a massive salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic will try to demolish our air defense along with airfields and everything else, and if the air defense is suppressed (and given the number of missiles the US has, this is a very realistic option), the sources indicate numbers different from 4000 cruise missiles (which are now) o "According to unconfirmed reports, by 2020 the United States can deploy 7000-9000 Tomahawk KR against Russia," the situation will be very ..... ..... therefore, the aircraft’s numbers will not be correct, who will survive in this meat grinder (for a short time) will fly into the air .
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 5 December 2017 14: 30 New
      +4
      Quote: Aleksandr21
      Interestingly, what is the point of comparison?

      laughing This is an intrigue, my dear friend! There is a small attribute at the end of the article ..
      Продолжение следует ...

      wink Be patient yes
      1. Aleksandr21
        Aleksandr21 5 December 2017 14: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Serg65

        Продолжение следует ...

        wink Be patient yes


        Let's wait, sir, in fact, Andrei’s analytics is quite interesting, but in my opinion (as a reader) it’s incomplete, a lot of factors are not taken into account, and conclusions can be wrong from a lack of information. In the United States, a concept of a quick global strike is being developed, under which they will also defend missile defense systems and everything else, it would be interesting to read on this subject, after all, BSU is what Americans are guided by.
    2. Vadmir
      Vadmir 5 December 2017 18: 22 New
      0
      who will survive in this meat grinder (for a short time) will rise into the air.
      For some reason, no one takes into account the possibility of a preemptive strike by Russia in the event of active preparation of the war and the launch of the Tomahawk carrier ships to the strike distance.
      But Russia will have no other choice, and then your phrase can already be addressed to the NATO Air Force. Yes, we do not have such a quantity of cruise missiles (Caliber), but we have Iskander, Points U and even MLRS Smerch capable of reaching some airfields (up to 120 km). There are aircraft X-55 and X-101.
      1. Aleksandr21
        Aleksandr21 5 December 2017 19: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: Vadmir
        For some reason, no one takes into account the possibility of a preemptive strike by Russia in the event of active preparation of the war and the launch of the Tomahawk carrier ships to the strike distance.
        But Russia will have no other choice, and then your phrase can already be addressed to the NATO Air Force. Yes, we do not have such a quantity of cruise missiles (Caliber), but we have Iskander, Points U and even MLRS Smerch capable of reaching some airfields (up to 120 km). There are aircraft X-55 and X-101.


        Unfortunately, they don’t know how to beat us ahead of schedule, only after the fact: (I would like to agree with you, but knowing our leadership they will pull to the last, hardly believe that we will strike the first blow, even knowing that we can’t pull anymore. But if it’s a miracle if something happens, then the chances of victory will be greater .... hypothetically, of course, without the use of nuclear weapons, but with the use of nuclear weapons the chances of survival will fall across the entire planet.Although the concept of a quick global strike by the United States may present an unpleasant surprise, all the same in the Pentagon no fools are sitting and if they orabatyvayut such a strategy in relation to countries such as Russia / China you must have a trump card in the hands of a global missile defense system is one of the elements to reduce our capabilities, and until the Americans come up with the ability to lock our nuclear weapons then the chances of a real war small ....
  23. BAI
    BAI 5 December 2017 13: 46 New
    0
    Actually, Canada is also part of NATO. In the ranks - 77 Hornets.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 15: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      Actually, Canada is also part of NATO. In the ranks - 77 Hornets.

      But they’ll only transfer to the continent, after the USA, i.e. this is completely uninteresting
      1. BAI
        BAI 5 December 2017 17: 00 New
        0
        And why should the US and Canada transfer something to Europe? They can strike the Far East. Here, too, Japan may come up. The devil knows what secret agreements after the war she is connected with the US occupation regime. And the US military bases in Japan also exist very safely. And if some of the aircraft in Russia will have to be transferred from Europe to the Far East, then the calculations and results will be, to put it mildly, somewhat different.
        1. BAI
          BAI 5 December 2017 17: 21 New
          0
          Add failed immediately. I had to write separately.
          I will even say more. After the United States uses military bases in Japan (and they use them necessarily) in the hostilities against Russia, Russia will have to strike at these bases - i.e. on the territory of Japan. This is a war in which Russia will act as an aggressor party, the instigator of the war. And Japan after that, naturally, will take the side of the United States and the NATO that has joined them.
          Japan Air Force - 292 fighters plus 42 F 35 in order.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 18: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: BAI
          And why should the US and Canada transfer something to Europe?

          ??
          Quote: BAI
          They can strike the Far East.

          Where from? :) Even from the territory of Japan - it’s far out
  24. Graff77
    Graff77 5 December 2017 13: 56 New
    +2
    I can not help it.
    Andrei, what about the aircraft carriers? :) Transfer of F 18 to ground airfields to build up the aviation group?
    Modern war can go very long. Or be very fast. Here no one will really say anything.
    About the pace of aircraft production in the comments of nonsense. If they’re doing 9-10 a year now, they’ll do 9-10 a month in the war, or even more, because they will live at work and work in four shifts. As in the Second World War. The question is whether enterprises will survive. About the personnel reserve - everything is exactly the same, civilian pilots will master the equipment in the shortest possible time. Yes, there will be a large percentage of the dead. As in the Second World War when after 10 flights the survivor was considered a veteran.
    The collapse of aviation schools and technical schools - in person. This is a big problem, because you can’t put the machine operator from the collective farm as a technician on the S-30.
    About the layouts, if there is no clear data on the combat readiness of the Russian Aerospace Forces, what comparisons can there be?
    The number of F35 in European countries by 2020 can not be accounted for. A) A crude aircraft and no releases in two years will eliminate this. B) Not much buy it. There are intentions, there are not many planes yet. C) Limited use. In 2020, the entire burden of the war will fall on F 18 and F 15-16, plus attack aircraft.
    And then, why is war necessary when it is easier to crush the economy? Plus, before active hostilities there will be a long information campaign. Because it can be enough to win, as in 91.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 5 December 2017 14: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: Graff77
      I can not help it.

      what Well you are .... hold on too! Moreover, at the end of the article it is written
      To be continued.
      ..
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 14: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: Graff77
      Andrey, what about the aircraft carriers? :)

      So far, we are only comparing tactical aviation. Because if I just write an article about aircraft carriers, in which I say that in the event of a sudden conflict we will have approximate parity with NATO in the air, then they simply will not understand me. So you have to prove thesis after thesis
      Quote: Graff77
      About the pace of aircraft production in the comments of nonsense. If they’re doing 9-10 a year now, they’ll do 9-10 a month in the war, or even more

      You are mistaken. 9 women will not give birth to a baby in a month
      I will give you a simple example. The cycle of manufacturing a helicopter blade is something there for 7-9 months, the hardening there is very tricky and lengthy. Work at least 48 hours a day.
      Quote: Graff77
      The number of F35 in European countries by 2020 can not be accounted for.

      Minuscule. It has so far been bought in Europe by Turkey, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy. Moreover, the Turks have only a few units until 2020, the Norwegians also expect full readiness no earlier than 2025 ...
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You are mistaken. 9 women will not give birth to a baby in a month

        However, a woman can give birth to two in nine months, and in rare cases, three.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 21: 55 New
          +1
          Yes. But take out 9 months, yes put it :))) More precisely, take out first, and then put 9 months laughing repeat
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 5 December 2017 22: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes. But take out 9 months, yes put it :))) More precisely, take out first, and then put 9 months

            However, nine women in nine months will give birth to nine children. The plant, if we draw an analogy, is not a woman, but a maternity hospital.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 December 2017 08: 34 New
      0
      The machine operator from the collective farm was not actually set up even by the mechanical drive on the T-34 simply because the machine operator on the collective farm only pulled the tractor levers, but served the MTS equipment. This is the right system for managing, but in the army, the driver and crew generally had to service far from the most reliable and often damaged equipment on their own.

      In WWII, if not in 41, then the average survivability of the aircraft reached dozens of flights. The combat losses of the USSR, as it were, and 50%, do not reach from what was generally produced, or delivered by the Allies in the War. Aircraft more often crashed or deducted for wear than lost. And from the beginning of the 43, Germany began to be actively bombed, which sharply reduced the number of German fighters in the east.

      The modern level of those. equipment allows you to win the battle to advance hundreds of kilometers in a matter of days. Such in the 45, when the 80% of the armies was infantry, it was simply impossible.
  25. Strategy
    Strategy 5 December 2017 14: 09 New
    +5
    The author very freely exaggerates the number of our combat-ready aircraft and understates the number of such NATO ones. When planning or even figuring out a possible balance of forces and means in an aggravation of the situation, it is necessary to proceed from an unfavorable ratio for us. This, excuse me, is the PRINCIPLE of martial art. The article, in my opinion, is somewhat capricious.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 14: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Strategia
      The author very freely exaggerates the number of our combat-ready aircraft and understates the number of such NATO ones.

      Can you specify in numbers?
      1. Strategy
        Strategy 7 December 2017 17: 34 New
        0
        Countryman, I'm not talking about numbers, but about their interpretation!
  26. Taoist
    Taoist 5 December 2017 14: 19 New
    +1
    The analytics is solid, but everything is very conditional ... This kind of analytics makes sense only in relation to some kind of conflict model. It is not clear which of the models is taken as a basis. A sudden attack by NATO forces? Or ours?
    It is worth considering that the NATO military command and control system and NATO’s political decision-making system are two big differences ... Again, the question of assessing logistic capabilities (and in modern warfare, this is question No. 1 in principle) is based on very rough parameters. In general, of course, it may just not be completely completed?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 14: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      It is not clear which of the models is taken as a basis. A sudden attack by NATO forces? Or ours?

      There was a previous article in the series :) The conflict occurs either suddenly (for everyone) or with a several-month period of tension preceding it. In the first case, we can count on a parity ratio in the air, in the second - we merge in black, we are crushed by mass
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 5 December 2017 14: 44 New
        0
        A conflict can occur suddenly, theoretically, in almost any situation, some period of tension will always be. The question arises, which of the models will NATO work out for which we? How likely is the probability? Here, after all, the question is very specific ... at any level of air superiority, getting into objects with unsuppressed air defense is completely unhealthy. And here we must probably first of all compare not the capabilities of aviation in air battles but the capabilities of aviation to counter air defense. In this case, again, to which air defense? In general, a lot of parameters need to be taken for complete analytics and any adequate conclusions. otherwise it is juggling with numbers. Proceeding from the same figures, we should have simply crushed the mass in the 41 of the Luftwaffe. .
        1. Vadmir
          Vadmir 5 December 2017 16: 39 New
          0
          A conflict can occur suddenly, theoretically, in almost any situation, some period of tension will always be.
          Conflict is not war. This is a saber and small skirmishes, a powerful company in the press, but not full-fledged fighting. All major wars are prepared in advance. It happens that a trifle provokes a war, but only when the preparation is already completed and this trifle is actively sought as an excuse.
          In the event of a conflict, preparations may begin for war - concentration of troops, mobilization, etc.
          And the war will come later, when one of the parties is fully prepared, or will count. that prepared enough. I believe that a sudden, unprepared war in advance between NATO and Russia is not possible in principle.
          But preparation cannot be hidden, therefore it will be bilateral.
          Another thing is the sudden conflict that can lead to mutual preparation of the war - it is quite possible, but whether the war will begin after the preparation stage is another question, I would say - it is unlikely that everyone wants to live.
      2. Vadmir
        Vadmir 5 December 2017 15: 03 New
        0
        There was a previous article in the series :)
        It would be necessary to place links in the article to past articles of the cycle, otherwise someone might have missed (for example, I missed it, though I always read your articles with pleasure and try to follow your work).
      3. Vadmir
        Vadmir 5 December 2017 17: 07 New
        0
        secondly - merge in black, we are crushed by a mass
        If the tension lasts several months, a war is being prepared, forces are concentrated, there is a chance to inflict great damage on the enemy aircraft with the first blow. There will be nothing to lose anyway, otherwise, as you wrote correctly, they will be crushed by the mass.
        A sudden missile strike at the airfields on which thousands of aircraft are concentrated is very powerful, it is not a Syrian airfield with several half-rotten aircraft without fuel and ammunition. And with all the abundance of airfields in Europe, most front-line aviation will be concentrated near the border and very densely within the reach of the Iskander and Caliber. And then you can add aviation-based missiles.
    2. Town Hall
      Town Hall 5 December 2017 14: 46 New
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      Again, the question of assessing logistic capabilities (and in modern warfare this is question No. 1 in principle) is based on very rough parameters. In general, of course, it may just not be up to



      Well, why. The author very specifically addressed the issue of logistics. In the spirit of all other aspects of this opus. He reported that there are about 1800 airports in Europe. Then he generously admitted that there will be fewer in Russia. The truth of modesty did not say how much less specifically. I made a vague phrase that ..in one country, this secondary detail will somehow be solved by itself. Concrete stripes will grow like mushrooms themselves .... with the appropriate order of the party. If this does not solve the problem, you can equalize the chances, for example, declaring the combat readiness of European and roportov at 5%, and the Russian-say 146% .and voila ... the Swedes bend
  27. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 5 December 2017 14: 40 New
    +2
    Little blood on foreign territory? It was already like that. Do not underestimate the "partner" enemies.
  28. Dimax
    Dimax 5 December 2017 15: 25 New
    +2
    While we are building 44 SU-35s, the Americans will build during this time a couple of thousand raptors without straining ....
  29. Sergey Cojocari
    Sergey Cojocari 5 December 2017 15: 53 New
    0
    Do not discount propaganda. If you timely explain to the Europeans that this time they will not take prisoners and woe to the vanquished, then the passions will quickly subside.
  30. Fudo
    Fudo 5 December 2017 16: 20 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    But the fact that in the sky in Europe will be "black" from American aircraft is guaranteed.

    if they decide to help Europe, and do not sit, as in World War II, on their island
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 5 December 2017 18: 45 New
      +1
      You probably mixed up with the 1st World War.
      In World War II, they actively helped England and the USSR
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 46 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        You probably mixed up with the 1st World War.
        In World War II, they actively helped England and the USSR

        There is a suspicion that in the Third World we will again be allies.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 6 December 2017 14: 12 New
          +1
          If China climbs into the Russian Far East, then LendLiz-2 is guaranteed.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 02: 16 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        You probably mixed up with the 1st World War.

        The USA did not participate in WWI?
        Quote: voyaka uh
        In World War II, they actively helped England and the USSR

        The man who helped England was called the Supreme Commander of the Allied armies. At his headquarters in Reims, Jodl signed the surrender.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 6 December 2017 14: 10 New
          +1
          "The United States did not participate in the WWI?" ////

          At the very end.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 6 December 2017 21: 56 New
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            At the very end.

            Yeah, instead of Russia. Are you sure you want to talk about this?
  31. Macross
    Macross 5 December 2017 16: 28 New
    0
    Everything is fine until the author remembered the US missile bases. and how the EU works. That is, it prepares troops near the border with the enemy. For an hour or earlier they storm, and then declare war.
  32. vasilkovichi
    vasilkovichi 5 December 2017 16: 37 New
    0
    Excellent article! I’m sure that the command of the RF Armed Forces does not miss the moment of the accumulation of NATO troops near our border, as it was in the 41st.
    1. Vadmir
      Vadmir 5 December 2017 16: 50 New
      +1
      At 41, too, they did not blink, only they did not dare to fully respond. The issue of leadership’s determination on military measures is always relevant. You can have any superiority in strength and lose by showing indecision. Or vice versa, you can win in a hopeless situation by showing will and determination.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 5 December 2017 21: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Vadmir
        At 41, too, they did not blink, only they did not dare to fully respond.

        This is not a matter of determination. This is a matter of speed of mobilization and deployment of troops.
  33. Tektor
    Tektor 5 December 2017 17: 57 New
    0
    It all depends on the tactics. Now the main thing is to knock out (from the German tanks, crossed out) AWACS. This task must be assigned to the MiG-31 or DRONs with the X-31PD. Well, or someone else, for example, who has pulsed warheads with a good radius of destruction. Who said: "Iskander?"
    Well and then - tactics. More precisely, a tactical group. As part of the MiG-31 and induced by 10 sides in the radio silence mode. A special element of such a group is the Su-57, which should win dry (but only with the engine of the second stage). There are also our A-50Us, which can direct including the Yak-130, and Su-25, and Su-24, and even Ka-52 (!) Helicopters with a fairly large range of weapons. Well, it’s a sin not to use the IL-38 with the Tu-142 ...
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 5 December 2017 18: 40 New
      0
      Yes, I forgot about the Su-34 Tarantula - it can become a lifesaver, i.e. with such an element in a tactical group you can become simply unbreakable! Just nothing.
  34. The comment was deleted.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 19: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: Polkan
      But will not the "respected expert" tell me about the% of losses on the sides of the Russian Federation in Syria due to technical malfunctions?

      Itself to look weak? Aircraft operate, one might say, with virtually no damage and almost no loss.
      Quote: Polkan
      that!

      Something? two decked aircraft, both of which seem to be the result of problems with the aircraft carrier, and not with the aircraft.
      Quote: Polkan
      And please note that between the "old" NATO machines and the Russian Federation - the difference!

      Which is that we have almost no old cars, NATO has almost no new cars :)))
      Quote: Polkan
      own avionics element base and logistics system, where ANY range of spare parts is supplied during SUTOK.

      That's it in France and Germany, the percentage of combat-ready aircraft dances around the figure of 40% :)
      Have you been in a binge since 1995?
      1. NN52
        NN52 5 December 2017 21: 10 New
        +8
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk

        Today I read and did not particularly intervene in your battle, with the exception of my small comment, which you did not notice ....
        Read it, and divide pzhl the number of aircraft in what you see in my comment ////


        And honestly, let's get the best part about aircraft carriers ....
        Can this part be removed better?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 December 2017 21: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: NN52
          Can this part be removed better?

          What for? If I'm wrong about something, this is not a reason to remove the material.
          Quote: NN52
          Read it, and divide pzhl the number of aircraft in what you see in my comment ////

          Let me nevertheless find out where such data came from. I remember the discussion here https://topwar.ru/126296-vks-namereny-v-korotkie-
          sroki-vospolnit-nehvatku-letchikov.html
          it seems like there was no talk of disaster.
          1. NN52
            NN52 5 December 2017 22: 26 New
            +8
            Andrew, a disaster ....
            1. NN52
              NN52 5 December 2017 23: 46 New
              +8
              With the removal got excited ....
              Interesting comments slip through ....
              Email message look ///
  35. colorado
    colorado 5 December 2017 19: 17 New
    +1
    article liked and analytics at the level
  36. a.sirin
    a.sirin 5 December 2017 20: 48 New
    +2
    After reading, I experienced 2 feelings:
    1) inexpressible pride in the Russian Air Force, and
    2) ardent desire to finally "fade"
    Judging by the article, Russia can and, judging by the fact, is ready to go to war with NATO.
    Approx.
    It’s somehow overlooked that at the current level of US GDP growth of about 3,5% per year, for 2 years America creates only the entire GDP of Russia in the growth volume.
    Yes, fight! Of course! Urgently! There are no other worries. In Russia.
    As, however, the malicious NATO, which sleeps and sees, is as if fanatic to destroy its own very high standard of living.
    See, they have no other worries.
    On the military side ... does the author of army realities even imagine?
    If the conflict starts relatively abruptly, the United States will forcefully transfer F-22s and take out the Russian Air Force more or less quickly.
    If the conflict in the preparatory part drags on, then the United States on the territory of the Allies will quickly create a layered defense against long-range missiles, placing the same F-22s on terr. Britain and / or Iceland, tanker planes are also based there. From all sides towards Europe (are we talking about Europe, right?), Carrier ships of the Kyrgyz Republic are pulling up, Russian trade is blocked by the word "completely." A mass transfer of parts and formations from the continental United States to Europe is being organized, the Russian submarine is blocked at certain borders, and a permanent airlift across the Atlantic is established. From the conservation mode, they forcefully begin to display everything that can be deduced ...
    By this time, Russia had been disconnected from SWIFT, almost all contracts with Western companies were blocked, and in accordance with the “act of war”, representations were made to India, China and so on.
    Actually, that's all
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 December 2017 21: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: a.sirin
      If the conflict starts relatively abruptly, the United States will forcefully transfer F-22s and take out the Russian Air Force more or less quickly.

      These are those who complained about the lack of OLS and the inability because of this to distinguish between the target at night? Well I do not know:))))
      1. a.sirin
        a.sirin 6 December 2017 15: 21 New
        +3
        You, Andrei, are certainly a good person, but, apparently, you do not really imagine (excuse me, please = that), the reason for this statement. The bottom line is that in Syria, American pilots do not attempt to destroy Russian aircraft, but have night identification problems (i.e. visually identifying the type of aircraft). If required - required - to shoot down, then this will be done - alas! - quick and easy. And ols is not needed for this.
        Do not confuse the identification and shooting combat.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 December 2017 15: 40 New
          +1
          Quote: a.sirin
          You, Andrey, are definitely a good person.

          That’s how everyone would start a discussion laughing hi
          Quote: a.sirin
          but, apparently, you don’t really imagine (sorry, please = that), the reason for this statement

          Let's figure it out. I never claimed to be a know-it-all
          Quote: a.sirin
          The bottom line is that in Syria, American pilots do not attempt to destroy Russian aircraft, but have night identification problems (i.e. visually identifying the type of aircraft).

          I read
          The lieutenant colonel noted that, especially at night, American pilots have to turn their heads in order to understand where the Russian pilots are.

          Fifth-generation F-35 fighters have sufficient potential to detect any aircraft in the surrounding airspace, however, F-22 is used in special operations in Syria, said the commander, whose name is not named, in an interview with Aviation Week. In addition, the Raptor (F ‐ 22 Raptor) cannot independently transmit important information through the tactical data exchange system used by other Western coalition aircraft. Pilots are forced to do everything "by touch", describing what they saw on the radio.

          In other words, they cannot precisely track movements (that death in a night BVB) + they cannot normally receive / transmit information. (data on enemy aircraft transmitted orally)
          1. a.sirin
            a.sirin 6 December 2017 20: 17 New
            +2
            Andrey, you are a smart person! The raptor is designed to fight at distances substantially more than the visual range of target detection / identification. And he can work on goals, wow! Just no longer have to think - who is flying there. "Friend or foe" - and all. Determine whether it flies Russian - no longer need Russian. What do you want to say that an American cannot open fire without looking at the enemy’s plane? Well, you are a smart person!
            And by the 20th year, much will change not only in Russia.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              6 December 2017 21: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: a.sirin
              Andrey, you are a smart person! The raptor is designed to fight at distances substantially more than the visual range of target detection / identification

              This is not true. But a simple question - how will this help him at night? He does not see the enemy plane. That is, all that remains for him is to turn the radar into search mode and thereby inform everyone around me, "I'm here!"
              This is to say nothing of the fact that, regardless of what it was created for, the Far Eastern Military District did not become not only a priority, but even at least a little noticeable in recent conflicts - although the United States themselves are fighting in proving grounds (a poorly trained opponent outdated equipment that does not have any information support from the outside) And still, most of the shots are from BVB distances
    2. karabas86
      karabas86 10 December 2017 19: 46 New
      +1
      Yes, throw all these cries about the war for wrecking suckers on the headstock - "Around the enemies, rally together around the leader, tighten their belts," and the suckers rod. What a war if there are children, a nest, and here is the territory where the loot is being boarded up. Due to its closeness, it is much easier to steal, roll back, and bring in the military department.
  37. TOR2
    TOR2 5 December 2017 21: 45 New
    +1
    In the discussion process, F-35 is repeatedly mentioned. And somehow the fact that this equipment is quite difficult to maintain is bypassed. In the event of a high-intensity conflict, it is highly likely that such conditions will not occur. To care for the radio with an absorbent coating, 5 types of gloves are required, and the gentlemen do not want to see the fuel oil rag as a substitute.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 6 December 2017 11: 28 New
      +2
      In order for the plane to deceive the air defense and bomb
      an important object, and 10 types of gloves do not mind buying. smile
      1. TOR2
        TOR2 6 December 2017 20: 17 New
        0
        Not ... I'm not talking about that. Nothing but a rag will simply be available.
  38. myobius59
    myobius59 5 December 2017 23: 04 New
    +1
    The author forgot the air force of the God-chosen, the strongest in the region. Well, they probably will not miss the opportunity to fight with us if their masters from overseas begin this adventure. Although they would not be NATO, they will be more NATO than many Romanians, Slovaks, and other Bulgarians.
  39. myobius59
    myobius59 5 December 2017 23: 09 New
    0
    Quote: a.sirin
    After reading, I experienced 2 feelings:
    1) inexpressible pride in the Russian Air Force, and
    2) ardent desire to finally "fade"
    Judging by the article, Russia can and, judging by the fact, is ready to go to war with NATO.
    Approx.
    It’s somehow overlooked that at the current level of US GDP growth of about 3,5% per year, for 2 years America creates only the entire GDP of Russia in the growth volume.
    Yes, fight! Of course! Urgently! There are no other worries. In Russia.
    As, however, the malicious NATO, which sleeps and sees, is as if fanatic to destroy its own very high standard of living.
    See, they have no other worries.
    On the military side ... does the author of army realities even imagine?
    If the conflict starts relatively abruptly, the United States will forcefully transfer F-22s and take out the Russian Air Force more or less quickly.
    If the conflict in the preparatory part drags on, then the United States on the territory of the Allies will quickly create a layered defense against long-range missiles, placing the same F-22s on terr. Britain and / or Iceland, tanker planes are also based there. From all sides towards Europe (are we talking about Europe, right?), Carrier ships of the Kyrgyz Republic are pulling up, Russian trade is blocked by the word "completely." A mass transfer of parts and formations from the continental United States to Europe is being organized, the Russian submarine is blocked at certain borders, and a permanent airlift across the Atlantic is established. From the conservation mode, they forcefully begin to display everything that can be deduced ...
    By this time, Russia had been disconnected from SWIFT, almost all contracts with Western companies were blocked, and in accordance with the “act of war”, representations were made to India, China and so on.
    Actually, that's all

    Macedonian, Caesar, and Genghis, with Tamerlane in one person. Plus half of Napoleon and Adolf.
    Well done, bravo good drinks
    1. a.sirin
      a.sirin 6 December 2017 15: 22 New
      +2
      Thanks ... did not expect, nice. Tamerlane with Caesar ... yes
      1. myobius59
        myobius59 6 December 2017 19: 37 New
        0
        Yes please...
        As the characters said in "The Master and Margarita" at the ball at Satan, "We are in admiration. The Queen is in admiration!"
        I respect people who have their own position. moreover, if they can justify it. And here you have everything on the shelves laid out. One inconsequential puncture you have is with SWIFT. What the hell is SWIFT, if the nuclear landmines fall around and explode ?! Do you think it will not come to this? Well then, EVERYTHING that is written here, and what they write in general, is utter nonsense.
        1. a.sirin
          a.sirin 6 December 2017 20: 10 New
          +2
          If nuclear weapons fall, then everything becomes nonsense ... Swift is the very level of non-nuclear conflict that people here talk about. Do you understand? SWIFT - this is a non-nuclear conflict. Including the system of economic pressure in the real, in fact - the war - Russia will rapidly begin to lose this very "non-nuclear conflict." For the vast majority, this is incomprehensible: how so ?! But what about our planes? They will not shoot down NATO airplanes over Kaliningrad ?! But what about the “Caliber” - what, there will be no shelling of Comiso from the Caspian by “Karakurt”?
          And you know, dear, it will not. Because you, the people whom I absolutely respect, in the absolute majority do not even understand WHAT will happen as a result of a real, not puppet, as it is now, economic blow to Russia.
          After that, you really have to face nuclear weapons.
          Do you know what will happen next?
          And then they’ll point a finger at the United Nations from the rostrum in the Russian Federation — here he is, who wants to destroy a huge human civilization, cast it into the Stone Age, and so on.
          So what?
          And they will tear out (what some people just dream about here, it seems) from the UN, and China and Iran will remain silent and silently support, because life is the main thing for everyone. The main and only thing that a person really has.

          Do you really want to fight with America?
        2. karabas86
          karabas86 10 December 2017 19: 50 New
          0
          Brzezinski, speaking with our scientists on the missile defense problem, noted that “he does not see a single case in which Russia could resort to its nuclear potential, while in American banks there is $ 500 billion belonging to the Russian elite. And then he added: you still figure out whose elite it is - yours or already ours. This elite in no way connects its fate with the fate of Russia. They have the money already there, the children are already there .... ".
          And you are talking about some landmines, remove the noodles.
  40. MOSKVITYANIN
    MOSKVITYANIN 6 December 2017 00: 42 New
    +1
    In aggregate, the European countries of NATO have very impressive ground forces by the standards of the 21st century, but only under one condition - if you collect them all in one placeand with this in case of a sudden military conflict there will be very big problems.

    Collect all NATO NEs in one place .... to get hit by Russian ICBMs? This is where dispersed independent groupings of troops are needed, and they are - the United NATO Allied AK in Europe, which are saturated with AA and PTS attack helicopters .... their task is to defeat the Russian military units in border battles, as it was in 41, only now NATO tactical aviation will destroy Our troops are retreating with tactical nuclear weapons, and air defense systems will be destroyed by missiles and strike UAVs .... that will be launched from our occupied territory ....
    And this is not counting the 247 F-18, and 131 AV-8 in marine aviation, and 867 F-18 carrier-based aviation.

    The author "forgot" to mention the basic tactical aviation (uncompromising) of the US Navy and Air Force ....
    USA has at its disposal 3203 tactical aircraft

    Also, the author "forgot" about the Air Force of the South Caucasus and Japan, Australia, Israeli Jews, who will release the tactical and fighter aircraft of the United States to participate in hostilities on other military theater ....
    In addition, the author again "forgot" about a well-equipped network of US air bases around the world, mainly around the perimeter of the borders of the Russian Federation .... both at distant approaches and at close ones ....
    Currently, the United States deployed F-136 and F-15 combat aircraft at European 16 bases, not including transport and reconnaissance aircraft.

    No longer needed, after the first attacks on Europe, these forces will be immediately evacuated ...., Russia has weak SVs, so the Russians will have less illusions about the battle on equal forces of general purpose and the more likely we will use tactical nuclear weapons against NATO NEs in Europe....
    The European theater of operations will be a universal meat grinder (at least Anglo-Saxons will participate in it), the Americans will save their SV, including and the forces of NG .... who will calmly watch everything from across the ocean ... and from overseas bases ....
  41. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 6 December 2017 00: 49 New
    0
    The number is of course an important thing, but tactics are even more important and therefore it is necessary to work out the battle in the minority.
  42. MadCat
    MadCat 6 December 2017 03: 10 New
    +1
    just a fanatical distrust of the F35 lol , the author does not even suspect that there are different degrees of readiness? F35 adopted, is available as a means of destruction, as well prepared ground services and flight personnel, at least in these countries. Nothing will stop them from taking to the air and pulling everything that is on purpose ...
    ps I think that such a formidable censor sits here and wraps up all the articles where they don’t write that F35 drank, sipped, doesn’t fly, doesn’t shoot, and doesn’t dumb .. laughing
    1. Soho
      Soho 6 December 2017 08: 55 New
      +1
      MadCat Today, 03:10 AM
      ps I think that such a formidable censor sits here and wraps up all the articles where they don’t write that F35 drank, sipped, doesn’t fly, doesn’t shoot, and doesn’t dumb ..

      but I think you don’t know the word "impartiality." There were a lot of articles at VO that describe the technical advantages of the F-35.
      available as a means of destruction, ground services and flight personnel have been prepared in at least these countries

      Do not explain where the trained personnel and flight personnel in these countries could come from if these countries themselves had just begun to receive ready-made machines?
      Nothing will stop them from taking to the air and pulling everything that is on purpose ...

      want to say that those are 4 units. F-35, what do the Netherlands, Italy and Japan combined have at least some noticeable effect?
      1. MadCat
        MadCat 6 December 2017 18: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Soho
        but I think you don’t know the word "impartiality." There were a lot of articles at VO that describe the technical advantages of the F-35.

        I did not see this, "impartiality" and VO are generally not very compatible.
        Quote: Soho
        Do not explain where the trained personnel and flight personnel in these countries could come from if these countries themselves had just begun to receive ready-made machines?

        All the countries that made purchases sent staff to the USA for internships, is this news for you? This is part of the contract.
        Quote: Soho
        want to say that those are 4 units. F-35, what do the Netherlands, Italy and Japan combined have at least some noticeable effect?

        let's leave your fiction about 4 units, firstly the USA is also a NATO country, secondly the total number of f35 has already exceeded 250 pieces, thirdly, the assembly is going on in Italy at the moment, and finally in the article he mentions a comparison up to 2020 of the year.
  43. Zefr
    Zefr 6 December 2017 08: 17 New
    0
    If Skynet had been built in Russia by 2020, it would have immediately attacked Europe, before it is too late.
  44. Nemesis
    Nemesis 6 December 2017 10: 59 New
    0
    In 2008, the Russian Federation had only one Su-34, however it was thrown into battle ... I am sure that in case of war all Su-57s will take part in the battles
  45. looker-on
    looker-on 6 December 2017 17: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey-74
    I would also like to add that the Russian Armed Forces will not allow the Americans to throw their Air Force across the ocean so easily .... a serious war will also begin there.


    Tell us how we will interfere) It is very interesting to listen
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 6 December 2017 21: 47 New
      0
      Me too .... gee ...
  46. The comment was deleted.
  47. asr55
    asr55 7 December 2017 14: 15 New
    0
    Stupid comparison, right as a child. And if you compare Andryushka, then you need to be careful with the numbers, do not be mistaken 1.5 times. Russia is a country with a defense military doctrine and comparing its weapons with the NATO bloc, which includes countries with budgets many times larger and without considering the nuclear potential, is not entirely appropriate softly speaking. In general, there is no point in commenting on this core.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2017 18: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: asr55
      Stupid comparison, right as a child.

      Do smart, what problems?
      Quote: asr55
      And if you compare Andryushka

      You didn’t confuse me with your husband for an hour?
      Quote: asr55
      make no mistake 1.5 times

      And I was not mistaken
      Quote: asr55
      and not considering nuclear potential

      The nuclear potential was compared in the first article of this cycle, you are our forgetful
      Quote: asr55
      In general, there is no point in commenting on this core.

      So what are you doing then?
  48. Lucy
    Lucy 7 December 2017 19: 02 New
    0
    The beginning the opera for such an explanatory note to the decision or plan of use was taken out as a caponier, doused with kerosene, set on fire and forgotten.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2017 19: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: lusya
      The beginning opera for such an explanatory note to a decision or plan

      Do not confuse the explanatory note of a pro who has all the necessary information for decision-making and analytics on open sources. These are slightly different things.
  49. Njnjnj66
    Njnjnj66 8 December 2017 22: 26 New
    0
    and pilots and skill and training I think our higher will be
  50. Steve57
    Steve57 9 December 2017 06: 06 New
    +1
    The author with his analytics and conclusions of rights is more than 80%. Confirmation of the seriousness of the attention paid to the Air Force and Air Force, as well as numerous and large-scale surprise inspections of troops!