Sohu called the number of victories F-16 in battles with aircraft of Soviet and Russian production - 65: 0

Sohu called the number of victories F-16 in battles with aircraft of Soviet and Russian production - 65: 0

The Chinese media published material that describes yesterday’s strike by the Turkish Air Force F-16 fighters. Recall that the Turkish planes shot down two Su-24 bombers of the Syrian Air Force.


The Chinese portal Sohu reacted to this event with an article that spoke about the advantage of F-16 fighters over Soviet (Russian) aircraft with a score of 65: 0. By the number 65, the author of the material understands the number of Soviet (Russian) aircraft that were shot down at different times by the pilots of F-16 aircraft.

From the material:

Until yesterday, the score was 63: 0 in favor of the F-16. And yesterday, after 2 Su-24 shot down by the Turks, the score was 65: 0 not in favor of Soviet aircraft.

In particular, we are talking about downed MiG-29 fighters during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.

Comments by Sohu users are noteworthy.

In the short term, Turkey prevailed. But Russia has already seized the initiative in Syria, and Turkey will soon be defeated.

Let's not forget that Iran is also present in Syria. And the pro-Iranian forces are not on the Turkish side at all.

The Syrians lost 2 Su-24. This, of course, is bad. But the pilots are alive. And how much has Turkey already lost there?

The important thing is: Turkey shot down the Su-24, hardly knowing exactly who they belonged to. This suggests that the Turks sent a signal to Russia: they are ready to shoot down your aircraft. And so they showed that they were, as it were, not afraid of war with Russia.

Yes, even if the score is at least 100: 0, this does not inspire confidence in Turkish pilots.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

237 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexey Sommer 2 March 2020 17: 25 New
    • 27
    • 20
    +7
    They forgot the recent battle with the Hindus.
    There was shot down 1 F16
    So at least 65: 1
    1. Blackmokona 2 March 2020 17: 28 New
      • 27
      • 12
      +15
      There were no confirmations of the downed F-16
      1. Alexey Sommer 2 March 2020 17: 28 New
        • 46
        • 7
        +39
        So 65 seems to me not everything is confirmed.
        1. Sergey39 2 March 2020 17: 46 New
          • 19
          • 6
          +13
          Especially considering that the Turks fired "from around the corner" (from abroad).
        2. Well done 2 March 2020 19: 21 New
          • 31
          • 7
          +24
          I don’t understand how to compare the Su-24 and the F-16. Supersonic Front bomber Su-24 vs General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon - lightweight multi-functional American fighter 4th generation. Absolutely different types of aircraft. Why Sohu did not remember about it?
          1. SovAr238A 2 March 2020 21: 09 New
            • 29
            • 14
            +15
            Quote: Welldone
            I don’t understand how to compare the Su-24 and the F-16. Supersonic Front bomber Su-24 vs General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon - lightweight multi-functional American fighter 4th generation. Absolutely different types of aircraft. Why Sohu did not remember about it?


            When there is a fight on the street, no one thinks who has what weight, height, bald or beaver, do you have a grandmother or not, who studied where and how old.
            Nobody needs it.
            There is a fight where you either gave or got ...
            Won or lost.
            1. Andrey sh 3 March 2020 09: 50 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Then it’s necessary to take into account the destroyed F-16s at airfields - the 24th is actually a bomber, not a fighter.
            2. toptigin 3 March 2020 09: 58 New
              • 11
              • 2
              +9
              as a hypothetical example (When I beat Alexander Usik on the street about 20 times, and he never once told me how? Well, it’s nothing that it was 20 years ago and he was 13 and I’m 19 years old, the score is 20: 0.) that do not write nonsense. stupid to rely on some kind of victory on the street comparing who is stronger. if you compare someone stronger then you need equal conditions.
            3. Zhelezyakin 3 March 2020 14: 03 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Following your logic, this is not really a fight. F-16 has the means to defeat air targets. Thus, this is a punks armed with a firearm. The Su-24 does not have such means, so let it be at least law enforcement officers, at least a couple of kartists, they obviously have no chance. In any case, this conflict does not pull in a fair fight 2 x 2 ...
          2. l7yzo 3 March 2020 19: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Sohu is playing for his planes. After all, the Russians are their main competitors, they licked everything with us. Here and PR for the future.
      2. URAL72 2 March 2020 19: 27 New
        • 29
        • 4
        +25
        As far as I remember, Pakistan recognized the loss of the F-16 during the war in Afghanistan. From the MiG-23.
        1. albert 2 March 2020 21: 27 New
          • 12
          • 2
          +10
          Quote: URAL72
          As far as I remember, Pakistan recognized the loss of the F-16 during the war in Afghanistan. From the MiG-23.

          Two F-16A, if my memory serves me.
        2. EvilLion 3 March 2020 09: 09 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          It is not clear what happened, there were no applications for a downed MiG-23, and they flew for the bombing. Options: 1) Packs, such packs, friendly fire. 2) Hooked by a bomb from the MiG, which then gained height.

          The only result of the MiG-23 and F-16 meetings is the damage of one MiG-23 with a b / n 55. There is an article with beautiful photos on the site.
    2. Zoldat_A 2 March 2020 18: 02 New
      • 20
      • 6
      +14
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      They forgot the recent battle with the Hindus.
      There was shot down 1 F16
      So at least 65: 1

      They would still "Seybor" with MiG-15 "recorded in the general bill ....

      And then - if the F-16 knocks someone down on Russian equipment, and this “someone” (maybe) cannot walk very well, then, according to Sohu, is the equipment bad? I realized that they are leading to this.
      Do not shoot the pianist - he plays as best he can.


      And to put down the downed Syrian pilot on the F-35 - only the score will change, and the result of the battle will be the same.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. voyaka uh 2 March 2020 18: 35 New
          • 19
          • 45
          -26
          ", the Syrian pilots counted the destruction of five F-15, six F-16" ////
          ----
          It was counted - on health! at least 100 fellow but not a single plane of these types
          Israel did not lose in the 1982 air battles.
          1. Oden280 2 March 2020 19: 10 New
            • 45
            • 4
            +41
            Yes Yes. Just like the Merkavas do not burn and their crews survive. laughing
            1. Sky strike fighter 2 March 2020 19: 14 New
              • 47
              • 6
              +41
              Abrams also never burn. And F-16 no one ever knocked down. These tales from childhood told him somewhere in Israel. He still believes in Santa Claus. We will not injure the fragile psyche.
              1. Zoldat_A 2 March 2020 19: 44 New
                • 9
                • 2
                +7
                Quote: Oden280
                Yes Yes. Just like the Merkavas do not burn and their crews survive. laughing

                Quote: Sky Strike fighter
                Abrams also never burn. And F-16 no one ever shot down.

                If any Mozambique were able to make at least some kind of airplane, it would also shout that it was the “shortest” in the world.
                And the history of F-15 and F-16 should not be considered at all without taking into account the relations between the USA and Israel (I won’t go deeper, otherwise our Israeli colleagues will flock to dispute every word with hawks) -

                Cuckoo praises the cock
                For praising the cuckoo ...
              2. voyaka uh 2 March 2020 20: 46 New
                • 10
                • 27
                -17
                The Americans also did not believe that the Israeli Air Force had no losses
                F-15 and F-16 in battles with Syrian pilots.
                We arrived in Israel to check this issue.
                They were put in the ranks of all aircraft received from the United States. In order
                numbers. And they were able to go through and make sure.
                One F-15 was not operational, with a nozzle disrupted by a rocket.
                But he sat down himself and was in this "parade".
                1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 59 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  We have such beliefs for a bottle.
                2. dali 3 March 2020 11: 11 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  They were put in the ranks of all aircraft received from the United States. In order
                  numbers. And they were able to go through and make sure.

                  Cardboard? laughing laughing laughing

                  shl
                  I do not believe!!!
                  K. S. Stanislavsky ©
            2. Vol4ara 3 March 2020 09: 16 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Oden280
              Yes Yes. Just like the Merkavas do not burn and their crews survive. laughing

              So show a photo of the wreckage of f16 and the dispute will be resolved
              1. dali 3 March 2020 13: 03 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: Vol4ara
                So show a photo of the wreckage of f16 and the dispute will be resolved

                Show me the photo:
                Quote: Vol4ara
                They were put in the ranks of all aircraft received from the United States. In order of numbers.

                And the dispute is also possible to resolve ... laughing laughing laughing
          2. Pereira 2 March 2020 20: 49 New
            • 9
            • 2
            +7
            Israeli aircraft in general, multiplied by division.
            1. Zoldat_A 3 March 2020 09: 04 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Pereira
              Israeli aircraft in general, multiplied by division.

              By budding. laughing
          3. maidan.izrailovich 3 March 2020 03: 26 New
            • 23
            • 1
            +22
            .... but not a single aircraft of these types
            Israel did not lose in the 1982 air battles.

            There are other statistics.
            As of June 2016, over 650 incidents leading to the loss of the aircraft (F-16)

            As of 2018, about 180 F-15 aircraft in all countries
            This is all according to American Wikipedia.
            If no one ever shot down these planes, then why are there so many lost cars? Maybe construction costs? Or is the build bad?
            For comparison. MiG-29 for the entire operation period was lost 47 pieces.
            F-15 produced 1500, and lost 180.
            F-16 produced 4604, and lost 650.
            MiG-29 produced more than 1600, and lost 47. And this is taking into account the shot down.
            Large non-combat losses in peacetime are clearly not in favor of American technology.
            1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 09: 06 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              The MiG-29 cannot be lost in total 47 pieces, at least 4-5 of them should have fought only in the USSR for a year. Even taking into account the downtime in the 90s and the actual decommissioning of Soviet-built machines later, their losses are hardly lower than 7-8% of the manufactured ones. True, with the number of disasters made, there were no 1600 there, from the USSR and 1000 cars remained (Russia had 330, still the Ukrainian SSR, BSSR, KSSR, Moldova was a little stolen, but these 4 republics were almost the entire Union and almost all the equipment), and the other they were not supplied to countries in large quantities, except India, the post-Soviet release is not great.
            2. Evil Booth 3 March 2020 16: 32 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              we need billi proofs drinks
            3. Gosha Smirnov 3 March 2020 21: 52 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              yeah, only they have raids many times more than in the videoconferencing
      2. Santa Fe 3 March 2020 05: 00 New
        • 2
        • 15
        -13
        and this “someone” (maybe) isn’t very good at walking, then, according to Sohu, is the technique bad?

        Then the question can be asked differently.

        Why on the Soviet / Russian technology in the majority fly the Air Force of the underdeveloped countries

        time after time losing all air fights
        1. vadimtt 3 March 2020 08: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, because it is cheaper at times and access is more free. And to teach faster and easier. And in this context - faster - the most important.
          1. Santa Fe 3 March 2020 10: 30 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Yes, because it is cheaper at times and access is more free.

            Well, why such a technique, all the advantages of which (cheaper, easier, can be put in the cockpit of a Papuan) can only lose

            It is true for everyone who is trying to fight cheaper, easier and without quality training
        2. missuris 3 March 2020 09: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          underdeveloped countries equally use NATO and Soviet aircraft.
          and those countries that use old Soviet aircraft were once part of the social camp or allies of the social camp.
          those. the Arab monarchies use obsolete NATO weapons, although it is believed that they have a lot of money.
    3. smart ass 2 March 2020 20: 30 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      This account symbolizes only Western aggression.
    4. Host Tavern 2 March 2020 20: 41 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Sohu called the number of victories F-16 in battles with aircraft of Soviet and Russian production - 65: 0

      Maybe they also fought with Russia 16 times ?!
    5. Gosha Smirnov 3 March 2020 15: 49 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      it is written with a pitchfork that he was shot down there.
    6. Vanych 3 March 2020 19: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      moreover, Mig-21, and he compared with f-16 - whatnot, five are))
  2. Amateur 2 March 2020 17: 27 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    When it was in fashion: "1024 last serious Chinese warning" fellow
    1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Now there will be "another Chinese bragging." However, they bought the Su-35 themselves, which means they agree that their planes are worse than Russian ones. Apolitical in Sohu reason.
  3. Killemall 2 March 2020 17: 27 New
    • 37
    • 4
    +33
    I just want to say that the lack of an answer leads to the appearance of great arrogance, in principle, in general, and even more so the Turks must be taught, otherwise they will become insolently wild. in those parts, decency is often perceived as weakness. this misconception from the head of the bouzouzou-bashiki must be beaten out in the most severe way.
  4. japan-k 2 March 2020 17: 28 New
    • 34
    • 2
    +32
    it seems to me that it’s not very correct to compare the bomber and the fighter
    1. Grits 2 March 2020 18: 01 New
      • 1
      • 17
      -16
      Quote: japan-k
      it seems to me that it’s not very correct to compare the bomber and the fighter

      Well yes. Then let's take the war in Korea and compare the account of the Mig-15 and other American aircraft. Including bombers. Also a decent figure will be drawn. Maybe not as impressive, but still.
      In addition, the F-15 is one of the most numerous fighters used in a large number of countries. Therefore, the figure is this.
  5. KKND 2 March 2020 17: 29 New
    • 30
    • 11
    +19
    F-16 is a very successful aircraft, with high thrust-weight ratio and low moment of inertia, the well-established maneuvers of his element, so it is not surprising that he can shoot down the most modern aircraft, not to mention old cars. And more than 4600 units produced in comparison with about 1600 "analogs" of the MiG-29 say that it will be fighting for a long time.
    1. hydrox 2 March 2020 18: 04 New
      • 12
      • 5
      +7
      This is until the first F-16 battle with the Su-35 - according to the results, we will draw conclusions, especially if the number of shot down and damaged will exceed statistically significant lows.
      1. Santa Fe 3 March 2020 05: 12 New
        • 3
        • 11
        -8
        This is before the first battle of the F-16 with the Su-35

        Dry can be knocked down any number of times. The ability to knock back F-16 is not available

        The leadership of those countries does not have the courage to order the return destruction of the F-16. You can live without one downed “drying”. And getting sanctioned for firing at F-16 is already serious

        It’s better to wipe yourself again, and then another
        1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Come on, I'll see how the F-16 will shoot down our or Chinese Su-35. If in 2015 the Turks could still have something to bay near their border, and that is why the packs with the Indians quickly dispersed, because they understand that there is no war, but they are violating, now any attempt to attack our planes will have consequences in in the form of our transition to the destruction of Turkish troops, while the crews prohibit the destruction of the Turks on the fact of detection will not work, even if watered. the situation is not conducive to war, because people simply will not have a choice.

          SAMs shot down the F-16 several times.
          1. Santa Fe 3 March 2020 10: 33 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            how F-16 will shoot down our or Chinese Su-35

            Just like other types of our planes shot down over Afghanistan and Syria

            Suddenly. Knife in the back. And nothing, a ride
            “You are the court of justice, I’ll strike you again!” (with pronounced Turkish accent)
            1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 11: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In fact, they shot down only in the area of ​​their border, which ours often violated. And they perfectly understood this, and that if something happens, they will be wrong. But the packs of brains don’t understand that if they don’t have gangs in their place, then Soviet planes will not fly either. Few of them are now being blown up by their own faithful Muslims. And with India, all this again repeated that they fed the freaks, and then the Indians threw the answer, the question is, however, how successful.

              But Idlib is not Turkey at all, so the Turks go there from the air, in fact, they have already been warned about the no-fly zone. Barrage near the border will not last long, as a result, they will pull up the air defense systems and simply say that do not fly closer than 50 km, and there will already be no care that Turkish territory, Israel can not spit at the borders, which means ours can. It’s just that our things like sending a precedent because of trifles do not scatter, and use them only as the trump cards when it gives a win. The status of a great power requires more or less to abide by the rules.
              1. Sardanapalus 3 March 2020 17: 07 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                In general, how do those living in Indilib relate to everything, they are for the locals, Assad or the Turks, that’s the question. I read VO regularly, but I did not understand the position of those who live there.
                1. A.TOR 3 March 2020 18: 21 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  As a person born in Beirut, I would tell you who and how they belong to whom, but the post will be immediately demolished by moderators.
                  And that such Assad in particular and Alawites in general, but - it is impossible
          2. A.TOR 3 March 2020 18: 18 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Ok, you begin to "ram" the Turks, they close the straits ...
            And, by the way, Turkey is not Georgia and Ukraine, has already proved the ability to fight. And also NATO ...
    2. orionvitt 2 March 2020 19: 44 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: KKND
      says that he will fight for a long time.

      The most important thing with whom? And we'll see. In the air, a fighter pilot is not alone. Nowadays, he is accompanied, guided, prompted, patronized, hundreds more by people and ground services (subject to availability). So blame only on the plane, this is a stupid profanity.
    3. Kasym 2 March 2020 19: 49 New
      • 12
      • 2
      +10
      ККND, thrust-to-weight ratio is the ratio of engine thrust (s) to weight. In F-16 it is equal to 1,03 WITHOUT SUSPENSION and CONFORMAL TANKS. So there is no need to talk about HIGH thrust-to-weight ratio. The F-16 has one engine. And even the F-35, which has the most powerful, mass-produced engine among classmates, has low draft power (0,9 for version A, B and C are even worse).
      What does the "settled maneuvers of his element" mean? Load the F-16 at least to its normal load (there’s no need to talk about the maximum) and ... it’s better not to engage in close maneuverable combat - definitely. For the MiG-29 (1,09 at normal and 0,92 at maximum heat), this will be easy prey in such a battle.
      Most of the victories of the F-16 were with an overwhelming advantage (number and control of radar airspace). It should be noted that the Americans constantly upgraded it (AFAR, hanging containers, conf. Tanks and other modern equipment). They adhere to the principle that light fighters should be much more heavy (F-15). Under the guise of F-15 and F-18, they correctly use the F-16. hi
      1. KKND 3 March 2020 00: 14 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -7
        Quote: Kasym
        In F-16 it is equal to 1,03 WITHOUT SUSPENSION and CONFORMAL TANKS. So there’s no need to talk about HIGH thrust-to-weight ratio

        Well, I will not argue about the exact thrust-to-weight figures for the F-16 and Miga-29, there are many different modifications of both aircraft and engines, but as it were there is more or about 1 on take-off, and this is not very bad, again the thrust-to-weight ratio fuel generation and even altitude.
        Quote: Kasym
        What does the "settled maneuvers of his element" mean? Load the F-16 at least to its normal load (there’s no need to talk about the maximum) and ... it’s better not to engage in close maneuverable combat - definitely. For the MiG-29 (1,09 at normal and 0,92 at maximum heat), this will be easy prey in such a battle.

        It’s like pilots when entering into an air battle that the near and the distant usually drop that fuel tanks that bombs. So it’s not clear what are you talking about? But the article is about air battles, and not about strike missions. Or do you think that the F-16 bombed with bombs will fight the MiG with 4 missiles?
        If you don’t argue about the thrust-to-weight ratio, then the “eye” shows one indisputable advantage in aerial combat, a small moment of inertia compared to the Mig 29, it is enough to compare the geometrical dimensions, the mass of the empty plane and the fact that the Mig 29 has 2 engines and they are still spaced . And it helps a lot in maneuvers.
        But still, this is of course a spherical horse in a vacuum, but the fact that Migov 29 was produced less than the heavy Su-27 of all modifications makes you think about the "success" of such a machine.
        1. Grazdanin 3 March 2020 08: 13 New
          • 0
          • 6
          -6
          Su 27 at a price comparable to instant 29. In general, instant 29 is an unsuccessful car. Only the former Glory of the Moments keeps this manufacturer afloat.
          1. mark1969 3 March 2020 09: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You tell the pilots of the former GDR, Czechoslovakia, etc. ...
            These are machines with different tasks.
        2. Kasym 3 March 2020 15: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          KKND. The fact that the Indians are fighting in educational battles F-15, 16, 18 - you think America is there. AB fighters loaded ?! Have you ever seen the MiG-29 in action? Why did the Poles refuse to upgrade their F-16s, but didn’t make decisions on the MiG-29 until the last moment? November 26, 2019 the Poles decided to return to the service of the MiG-29 (inf. You can find) - apparently until the F-35 will not receive.
          Maneuverability is characterized by a fighter turn time of 360 degrees. Type in the search engine "John Farley about the MiG-29 (or Su-27)" - there will be an occasion for you to think. And he is a test pilot, an Englishman. Even the F-35 didn’t get close to this issue. to fighters.
          On the "eye" is not necessary. Engine power F-16 afterburner 12 900 kgf (without - 7 900). Empty weight 9 400 kg + 3 200 kg. fuel. Here is the proportion of thrust to weight. Now add a lot of ammunition and make the same proportion. So get the traction weapon. Conclusion: F-16, to compare with the MiG-29, you must either fly on the "one bucket" of fuel, or with a minimum of ammunition.
          The main maneuver for a Russian fighter to be thrown off the tail of an “American” must be climbed. The Americans, due to poor traction, are forced to go into horizontal flight (the so-called "ladder") to gain speed. But the Russian pulls uphill in a way that the Americans cannot. hi
  6. Sergey Averchenkov 2 March 2020 17: 30 New
    • 15
    • 12
    +3
    Hm And they forgot about the “alley of twinkles”?
    1. Blackmokona 2 March 2020 17: 33 New
      • 12
      • 5
      +7
      F-16s invented much later than the end of the Korean War
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 2 March 2020 17: 35 New
        • 16
        • 3
        +13
        Sorry, I read inattentively what they say about f-16. But even in this case, it is incorrect to compare it with the su-24.
        1. Ovrag 2 March 2020 18: 17 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Well, they just figured out how much he had accumulated various Soviet cars in his career.
    2. SovAr238A 2 March 2020 22: 33 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Hm And they forgot about the “alley of twinkles”?


      Not tired of always remembering the exploits of fathers and grandfathers?

      Do you have your own victories in aviation?
      Modern, over the last 40 years ..
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 3 March 2020 07: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Do you propose to forget fathers and grandfathers? And at the expense of their victories ... well, the spirits were driven across Afghanistan from helicopters ... is this considered a victory? I think not - I specifically told you not to raise a discussion here about the Afghan people. And then start the snot on a fist winding.
        1. SovAr238A 3 March 2020 12: 59 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
          Do you propose to forget fathers and grandfathers? And at the expense of their victories ... well, the spirits were driven across Afghanistan from helicopters ... is this considered a victory? I think not - I specifically told you not to raise a discussion here about the Afghan people. And then start the snot on a fist winding.


          And some for 2-3 days fled from the spirits after the operation ...
          To survive...
          For there were no helicopters that could press the spirits and allow the group to come off.

          My brother served in the Special Forces of the GRU in Afghanistan.
          Alas, I'm 4 years younger than him.
          The call was after the withdrawal.
      2. toptigin 3 March 2020 10: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        But what kind of victories do you write about? Do you consider a fighter a bomber to be a victory for a fighter? especially when the latter simply did not expect this ... I’ll go with a club to whom I will prescribe a thread from the back and will boast of victories like you.
        1. SovAr238A 3 March 2020 13: 02 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Quote: toptigin
          But what kind of victories do you write about? Do you consider a fighter a bomber to be a victory for a fighter? especially when the latter simply did not expect this ... I’ll go with a club to whom I will prescribe a thread from the back and will boast of victories like you.


          And it doesn’t matter.
          How many planes did Gulaev, Rechkalov, Pokryshkin, Kozhedub bring down?
          Do you remember?

          Do you separate their downed bombers from their downed fighters?

          no.
          History only remembers the number of PLANES shot down.
          1. toptigin 4 March 2020 21: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            well, let's count the Soviet-style RPG score against Abram tanks, the score will certainly not be so impressive, but contrast, interestingly, you bet on that? or the Mississippi submarine couldn’t knock out a single tank, fu, the Kalashnikov assault rifle was sold in a million amount, the people use it so much, he defeated much more opponents, where are the abrams, can we replace the abrams with AK? according to your logic should reconcile.
            But the point is not that, the point is that the author of the article stupidly wrote stupidly 65: 0 and signed f 16 against Soviet / Russian aircraft. although objectively stupid to compare so ..
            For sim goodbye, I see no reason to continue the conversation with the troll.
            Without respect!
            1. SovAr238A 4 March 2020 21: 56 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: toptigin

              But the point is not that, the point is that the author of the article stupidly wrote stupidly 65: 0 and signed f 16 against Soviet / Russian aircraft. although objectively stupid to compare so ..
              For sim goodbye, I see no reason to continue the conversation with the troll.
              Without respect!

              Have a good day.

              Changed shoes on the fly.
              a fair breeze in the back.

              Once again, during the outbreak of the war of 1941 - no one thought that I would have to fight on the I-15bis against the Me-109 ..
              But I had to fight.
              And TB-3 also had to fight,

              Because when the war comes, no one will wait for a comparison of combat capabilities, greenhouse conditions for an equal ring ...
              There will be no equal ring during the war.
              And you have to fight only with what is ...
              And the same Pokryshkin always attacked from an ambush.

              And if he missed the first attack, he always left the battle.

              And the same Gulaev - a much, almost an order of magnitude higher quality Ace, compared with Kozhedub or Pokryshkin.

              When they had one shot down for four sorties, Gulaev had a downed enemy in almost every sortie.
              It was he who fought in battle, and did not attack from an ambush.

              You read the story.
              Read the statistics.

              Ambush tactics are the norm in air combat!
              Norm!

              And in the army manuals - this is also the norm.
              And here you have arranged a little boyhood.
              Kindergarten, offended proud. They saw the troll. Just because. that they themselves have no understanding of what a battle is.


              And when the sniper is working - what is it?
              Also dishonest in relation to the infantry?
              Should he take a machine gun and go into battle in the open?
              so do you think?
              So then why come up with snipers?
              If your morality does not allow this?

              And when in response from the tanks "extinguish" the sniper?
              Is that what you think?
              Also dishonest?

              You either decide what war is, or go play in the sandbox ...

              Although even children in the sandbox easily throw sand at each other's faces ... When they want to "win" ...
              1. SovAr238A 4 March 2020 22: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                From zhezh offended handsome ..
                I ran through the latest posts and put down the minuses ...
                on all topics ...

                Bet more - even more - avenge your own ... let's self-actualize with minuses ... :)
        2. Santa Fe 4 March 2020 01: 43 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          do you consider a fighter a bomber to be a victory

          Countries operating the F-16 have the opportunity to shoot down with impunity su and Migi belonging to their opponents

          Why wage some aerial fights if you can fly up and shoot any type of Su or Mig whenever you want

          Why does it happen that countries with F-16 had and have political will and the ability to do this with countries flying Soviet / Russian technology is a very deep question
  7. Prahlad 2 March 2020 17: 31 New
    • 24
    • 24
    0
    Sorry, but it really is. Although with more modern models have never met in battle (cream mi-29). In addition to the incident on the Indian-Pakistani border. Where the Su-30MKI could not hit the Pakistani f-16. But there the problem was in the p-77 missile, which does not correspond to the declared range. And most likely it will be interchangeable. Guys do not minus much.
    1. Zoldat_A 2 March 2020 18: 11 New
      • 14
      • 7
      +7
      Quote: Prahlad
      with more modern models have never met in battle (cream mi-29). In addition to the incident on the Indian-Pakistani border. Where the Su-30MKI could not hit the Pakistani f-16. But there the problem was in the p-77 missile, which does not correspond to the declared range.

      The only problem for Soho, it seems to me, is that they jump out of the cover, trying to prove that American equipment is 65 times superior to Soviet-Russian.
      Only the comparison is incorrect - if the pilots of the Soviet-Russian production were piloted by our pilots - then they would have counted. And then they put them on do not understand who ... And then they consider "victories".

      And yes. If our technology is so bad - why do the Chinese copy it, and not the F-16?
      1. Beringovsky 2 March 2020 23: 14 New
        • 0
        • 10
        -10
        Zoldat_A
        And yes. If our technology is so bad - why do the Chinese copy it, and not the F-16?

        The Chinese are copying our technique ???
        Which one?
        Are Shenyang J-31 and J-20 copies of our technology?
        Which of our modern technology did they copy?
        And to copy the F16 you need to have it, and all the technology from the engines to the "brains" and weapons.
        Apparently could not steal.
        1. Zoldat_A 3 March 2020 00: 14 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Beringovsky
          The Chinese are copying our technique ???
          Which one?

          A few days ago here, at VO, they discussed hotly, "before the fight" ( wink ) this topic. Inspired, by the way, is again Soho.
          If not laziness - rummage. I have no desire to retell the entire discussion. hi
        2. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 40 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          They are copies of a bunch of concepts of varying degrees of mossiness. Well, the engines are either Russian or none, and if there are really 31 RD-2s on the J-33, then this is not even an F-35, it's just an experienced aircraft, unsuitable for practical use due to no LTH and small internal volumes.
      2. SovAr238A 3 March 2020 13: 10 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Zoldat_A

        And yes. If our technology is so bad - why do the Chinese copy it, and not the F-16?


        And you are completely off topic ..
        Here's a Chinese copy of the F-16 - Chengdu J-10 ...

        400 pieces riveted, however ...
    2. Sgan 2 March 2020 18: 15 New
      • 3
      • 20
      -17
      Prahlad, how can we not minus you? You are never a patriot, and besides, a liberal who sold himself to the Anglo-Saxons ...
      1. SovAr238A 2 March 2020 22: 34 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Sgan
        Prahlad, how can we not minus you? You are never a patriot, and besides, a liberal who sold himself to the Anglo-Saxons ...


        It is necessary to minus cap-takers, and not constructive criticism ...
    3. Sky strike fighter 2 March 2020 18: 40 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: Prahlad
      Sorry, but it really is. Although with more modern models have never met in battle (cream mi-29). In addition to the incident on the Indian-Pakistani border. Where the Su-30MKI could not hit the Pakistani f-16. But there the problem was in the p-77 missile, which does not correspond to the declared range. And most likely it will be interchangeable. Guys do not minus much.

      The R-77-1 is comparable in range to the AIM-120-7. Although Indian pilots actually worked with R-73 missiles.
      According to local journalists, an Indian pilot on a Su-30 shot down a Pakistani F-16 with an air-to-air missile R-73, after which a Pakistani F-16 sent an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile to an Indian MiG-21. The Indian pilot managed to catapult, and the Pakistani military captured him.
      After the conflict, Pakistani authorities hastened to declare that their F-16s didn’t take off at all on February 27th. But representatives of the Indian Air Force showed the media photographs of parts of the American air-to-air missile AIM-120 AMRAAM, which they found on the ground after an air battle in the sky over Kashmir.
      In the pictures you can distinguish the name of the ammunition, series and number. It is noteworthy that the AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles are used exclusively by American F-16 fighters. According to Indian pilots, "parts of the American missile are evidence of the participation of the F-16 in the battle, in which one of them was shot down by a Su-30 fighter, which was launched back in Soviet times."

      https://m.volgograd.kp.ru/daily/26948.1/4000272/
      1. Prahlad 2 March 2020 18: 58 New
        • 6
        • 8
        -2
        Yes, it is comparable (on paper), but in practice it turned out that it does not correspond to the declared characteristics. Even on this resource there was an article on this topic.

        The Indian Air Force claims that Russian missiles do not match the declared range.

        Indian broadcaster NDTV talks about the reasons for the failure of the Indian Air Force in the battles with Pakistani fighters. The story is muddy. They say with reference to their source in the Indian Air Force.
        The Indian Air Force fighters Su-30MKI plan to re-equip Israeli air-to-air missiles Rafael "I-Derby" after February 27 of this year were unable to respond to Pakistani fighters due to the limited range of Russian-made R-77 missiles.

        The essence of the material:
        Eight Indian Air Force fighters, including two Su-30MKI aircraft, were sent to intercept the Pakistani compound when they discovered the launch of several American long-range AIM-120 C5 missiles in their direction.

        “The Pakistani Air Force took the Indians by surprise by firing air-to-air missiles from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir,” said Samir Joshi, a veteran of Kargil. "AMRAAM effectively surpassed the R-77 air-to-air missile, which is part of the armament of Indian fighters, the missile did not receive a command to launch," he said.

        Among the Indian Air Force fighters were two Su-30MKI fighters, which managed to evade AMRAAM, which were launched from a maximum distance of 100 kilometers. Defending themselves and desperately trying to get away from the approaching AMRAAM, the Su-30MKI escaped the downfall, but could not take revenge on the F-16 because their own missiles, the Russian R-77, did not have sufficient range. Indian Air Force sources told NDTV that Russian missiles did not meet the declared range and could not hit targets that were more than 80 kilometers away.
        1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Even if you have rockets a little further, but a start has already been detected for you, then you are unlikely to try to immediately shoot back. Moreover, we do not know anything about the circumstances of the battle, which, most likely, has not yet happened. The range of the rocket directly depends on the height and speed of the carrier, and all these ranges of 100 km from the tables are just bullshit.
    4. Sky strike fighter 2 March 2020 19: 03 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      After that, India purchased from Russia a large batch of air-to-air missiles under a new contract.
      One of the Indian Air Force Su-30 fighters during an air battle with Pakistani aircraft shot down an Amraam medium-range air-to-air missile, Indian Air Force officials said.

      https://m.vz.ru/news/2019/3/6/967275.html
      1. Prahlad 2 March 2020 19: 10 New
        • 3
        • 11
        -8
        Yes, they bought, but this is due to the difficult situation on that coin. So they re-purchased the P-77, because they do not require additional integration with the su-30. But in the "long" they will not buy them.
    5. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Greek Mirage-2000 shot down 1 F-16, but there HZ, as everything was, could and meanly catch.
  8. japan-k 2 March 2020 17: 34 New
    • 8
    • 9
    -1
    still a lot depends on the professionalism of the pilot. I do not think that such pilots in Syria, as for example in Russia. How easily and successfully our plane left the Turkish MANPADS
    1. vova1973 3 March 2020 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      At what height did the plane go at the time of evasion? Before him, the rocket simply did not reach.
  9. Reserve buildbat 2 March 2020 17: 34 New
    • 21
    • 7
    +14
    The Chinese Soha, apparently, relies on advertising tales from the Lohkid, which as early as 2000 declared that the f-16 shot down 67, it seems, aircraft and was never shot down. Although at that time several f-16s were officially recognized, but 67 victories were not counted. laughing
    1. tlauicol 2 March 2020 17: 38 New
      • 6
      • 13
      -7
      ADMS shot down a few f16. Pilots never
      1. Sky strike fighter 2 March 2020 19: 17 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        Quote: Tlauicol
        ADMS shot down a few f16. Pilots never

        Those who themselves are deceived are deceived. The combat losses of the F-16 are about 160 vehicles, and not several as you write.
        Since the start of operation, 671 F-16 Fighting Falcon crashes were recorded, in which 208 pilots and 98 people who were in the crash zones of this aircraft were killed. Oddly enough, this sounds - the American Air Force was the most "distinguished", having lost 286 aircraft. F-16 combat losses for the entire time participating in local wars amounted to about 160 fighters.

        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
        1. tlauicol 3 March 2020 04: 15 New
          • 0
          • 8
          -8
          wah handsome! copied so many letters, tried! And not a single fact of the downing of f16 by another plane negative Yes, because they are not there! request all f16 are lost from the fire of air defense systems or on the ground. But look, minus one!
    2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 19: 18 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: stock buildbat
      It relies on advertising tales from the "Lohkid", which as early as 2000 declared that the f-16 shot down 67, it seems, aircraft, and was never shot down.

      they could not say that. Greeks and Turks periodically threshed each other (the first on Mirages and F-16, the second on the Falcons). The Greeks shot down several Turkish F-16s.

      In the photo: Turkish F-16s during a demonstrative flight over the Acropolis of Athens, April 2016
  10. Karaul14 2 March 2020 17: 36 New
    • 18
    • 28
    -10
    Electronics is the best for Americans and it solves. And the fact that the characteristics of other countries are better written on paper ... anything can be written on paper, but in fact everything is completely different - how the plane detected and captured the target, how the rocket reached the target, noise immunity, etc. d.
    1. Sky strike fighter 2 March 2020 19: 05 New
      • 10
      • 6
      +4
      Electronics is the best for Americans and it solves. And the fact that other countries have characteristics better written on paper ...

      Sometimes it’s better not to write about what you don’t know. Air-to-air missiles are not smartphones.
      1. Orakul2000 2 March 2020 20: 09 New
        • 11
        • 7
        +4
        Maxim, sometimes it’s better to remain silent, you’ll look smarter. In terms of electronics and engine reliability, Americans are superior to Soviet / Russian aviation. We had the opportunity to compare the live so-called competitive / training battles Phantom 2000 \ F-16 \ F-15 with the MIG 23 \ 29 and the Su-27. And I know this firsthand. During our tests with the MIG 29 and with the Su-27 was personally (was in the service staff Phantom 2000). If MIG 16 and Su-15 had equal chances to landfill with F-29 \ F-27, then in the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) battle your radars are much inferior to both the target capture range and the speed of information processing.
        With respect.
        1. Oleg2003 2 March 2020 23: 50 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          What kind of phantom 2000 airplane? I want to, I want to see
          1. Orakul2000 3 March 2020 01: 23 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Oleg - in the mid-90s in Israel, Phantom aircraft were modernized (the Israeli name is Qurnas (translated from Hebrew Kuvald), which after modernization were called Phantom 2000.
            - F-4E Kurnass 2000
            Modernized Israeli F-4Es, AN / APG-76 radar, AGM-142 Popeye capability-
            Modernized Israeli F-4Es, radar AN / APG-76, the possibility of AGM-142 Popeye.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_variants
            With respect.
            1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 33 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Well, radars from the mid-90s and late 70s, this, of course, is comparable.
        2. gemini 3 March 2020 00: 03 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          when did the radar with the headlamps appear in the west? when did the OLS appear? why your super engines do not provide the parameters that are present in the RD-33 and AL-31 (for example, high gas-dynamic stability, which makes it easy to fly at large angles of attack), which western planes have an all-round rotary nozzle ???? Only the tongue can spank the inhabitants of Ezrael.
          1. Orakul2000 3 March 2020 01: 39 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Vlad, I don’t want and will not go down to your level, I finished grimacing in early childhood, then my parents communicate with people (with everyone) with respect. BUT I will answer your question. Firstly, all Western engines from J-79 onwards allow you to do whatever you describe. In addition, I advise you to compare Soviet and American engines in terms of fuel economy and the number of hours between service. Regarding all angle fuel, taking into account modern radars and other electronics to capture the target and also the means of destruction, the expediency of such a nozzle is doubtful. No matter how the plane is spinning in the air, modern air-to-air missiles, with modern eyes and brains, with permissible overloads of 20-40G, the chances are almost zero.
            With respect.
            1. Grazdanin 3 March 2020 07: 57 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              for "not having any analogues in the world" google: Rockwell-MBB X-31, F15S
            2. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 37 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              From the point of view of fuel efficiency, Soviet engines are slightly better, judging by the available info on consumption. As for the multi-angle nozzle, it directly converts the engine thrust into a force that turns the plane, which means, among other things, higher acceleration characteristics. Air-to-air missiles with monstrous overloads have been known for a long time, but they can perform such maneuvers very briefly, and for a fuel rocket for seconds of work, so sharp maneuvers dramatically reduce its energy supply.
          2. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 31 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            When the AL-31F appeared, the Americans were already introducing an engine of the same mass but with a thrust of 13.1 tons. On engines, the Americans have always been ahead of everyone, and now remain. Instead of the F-35, they could have built the aircraft with the highest performance characteristics if they had not done it on one engine, even if it was the most advanced at the moment.
          3. vova1973 3 March 2020 14: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They demonstrate such aerobatics in non-combat flight modes. You bring a sports plane for comparison.
        3. missuris 3 March 2020 09: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          you write exact models of both.
          if there were non-modernized su-27s from the 80s taking part in it, but more or less new f-16s from the 2000s with afar or pfar were opposed, then how can this be compared?
          1. SovAr238A 3 March 2020 13: 15 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: missuris
            you write exact models of both.
            if there were non-modernized su-27s from the 80s taking part in it, but more or less new f-16s from the 2000s with afar or pfar were opposed, then how can this be compared?


            How it will not reach you that the planes are not boxers in the ring.
            They are compared only in battle.
            What you have here and now is what you are fighting ...

            And no one will regret you if you are armed with either outdated or obviously unhealthy aircraft.
            And no one will wait for parity in quality and quantities from amolets to start an equal conflict.
        4. dali 3 March 2020 10: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Orakul2000
          Maxim, sometimes it’s better to keep silent, you’ll look smarter.

          ... just for starters, a source of information in the studio !!!
      2. Karaul14 3 March 2020 08: 08 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        Sometimes it’s better not to write about what you don’t know. Air-to-air missiles are not smartphones.
        Yes, it’s not a smartphone, but so that the development of electronics in the country would be generally low compared with competitors, and at the same time in those areas where electronics decides (radar, on-board computer processor, sensor sensitivity ...) the same country exceeded its competitors - this does not happen.
        1. Hexenmeister 3 March 2020 09: 38 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          it doesn't happen
          To get started, go back to the mid-80s and compare the characteristics of the F-15 and Su-27 radars, just at that moment, do not forget to remember the “fatal defect” of the F-15 radar receiving path of those times, about which everyone is modestly silent ! Of course, the technology does not stand still, and after 10 years everything changed, not only because something “super-duper” appeared on the F-15, but because, due to well-known circumstances, the Su-27 (which is without letters at the end ) "stayed in the mid-80s."
          1. Karaul14 3 March 2020 11: 35 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Compare, again on paper? Why, if in fact, everything is completely different?
            1. Hexenmeister 3 March 2020 11: 50 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Well, in the studio, the target detection range with an EPR of 3 sq.m. for F-15 and Su-27 radars as of 1985! Say it on paper ... well, the paper numbers on the Su-27 were confirmed during the tests, and indirectly on every production aircraft upon delivery to the customer in Komsomolsk. Waiting for ...
              1. Karaul14 3 March 2020 11: 56 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                A little higher comment, where a person had a real opportunity to compare these aircraft. And again, where is the mid-80s, the USSR from the USA and where is Russia now compared to the USA? Backlog for 20 years.
                1. Hexenmeister 3 March 2020 12: 22 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Compare the F-15 level of the 2000s with the Su-27 of the mid-80s! That is, what was the ratio at the time of 1985, you do not know. It seems that you can hardly imagine the current situation, only general “la-la” about some kind of electronics, without knowing the specific characteristics of specific radars.
                  1. Karaul14 3 March 2020 14: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 3
                    -3
                    It is not particularly interesting to read the characteristics, because statistics say the opposite, elementary logic says the opposite. If you want, you can lay them out yourself.
                    1. Hexenmeister 3 March 2020 15: 24 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Statistics that do not confirm the characteristics, not statistics!
            2. Simargl 3 March 2020 15: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Not on paper: I'm not afraid with my gun to go against a man with a musket ... from 200 meters ...
  11. Siberian 66 2 March 2020 17: 38 New
    • 47
    • 7
    +40
    Well, what kind of kindergarten, not analytics ... With whom did they fight, with us or with Arabs and Iraqis? And the conditions of the battle are decisive for victory. In Yugoslavia and the Middle East, our production aircraft took to the air like blind kittens, hoping only for their radars, without guidance from the ground, at their own peril and risk. A well-coordinated system of early radar surveillance and target designation worked against them, at the tip of which were the F-16. With the overwhelming advantage in airborne awareness, which is crucial, the ambush, often not using their own radar, but using the information of the AWACS, went to the launch distance. Blindfold the boxer and release five others, fresh and big-eyed, against him. How many seconds will it last? And do it 65 times and be proud, penguins ..
    1. ApJlekuHo 2 March 2020 18: 39 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      It’s good when in the subject, for me, all this “analytics” is welcomed and thrown by the “Chinese partners” not in vain. The more desi, in the form of fighter shot down by nails, the easier it will be to shoot down everything that moves in the sky.
    2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 19: 33 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Siberian 66
      In Yugoslavia and the Middle East, our production aircraft flew into the air like blind kittens, hoping only for their radars, without guidance from the ground, at their own peril and risk. A well-coordinated system of early radar surveillance and target designation worked against them, at the tip of which were the F-16. With the overwhelming advantage in airborne awareness, which is crucial, the ambush, often not using their own radar, but using the information of the AWACS, went to the launch distance.

      In Bosnia and Kosovo, NATO aviation won only ten victories in air battles - 6 are listed as F-16s. four are behind the Needles.

      The main intensity of air battles (with the exception of Vietnam) fell on the Lebanon war of 1982 and the Iran-Iraq war - there are dozens of casualties there.
  12. Mitroha 2 March 2020 17: 39 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Why this "spherical horse in a vacuum" count? He does not show anything from the word at all.
  13. jeka424 2 March 2020 17: 41 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    Did the Chinese take part in the battles?
    1. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 19: 47 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: jeka424
      Did the Chinese take part in the battles?

      and the Chinese have an F-16? ..))

      of the Chinese litak, only J-7 took part in recent conflicts - a Chinese copy of the Soviet MiG-21
  14. Neutron Retarded 2 March 2020 17: 44 New
    • 8
    • 11
    -3
    All these calculations can be wiped. As with any technique, a lot depends on the gasket between the helm and the seat. And here, unfortunately, Soviet cars were much inferior and inferior to this day.
    1. Zoldat_A 2 March 2020 18: 14 New
      • 5
      • 8
      -3
      Quote: Lagging Neutron
      All these calculations can be wiped. As with any technique, a lot depends on the gasket between the helm and the seat. And here, unfortunately, Soviet cars were much inferior and inferior to this day.

      When the "gasket between the seat and the helm" is not Russian (Soviet) production. Then, in fact, inferior.
      1. Neutron Retarded 2 March 2020 18: 17 New
        • 8
        • 10
        -2
        I meant it. The Soviet AU would have shot down the F-16 at the gate of the chicken coop.)) And some episodes of the Second World War are proof of this.
        1. Astra55 2 March 2020 18: 42 New
          • 13
          • 2
          +11
          It is difficult to say which of the modern pilots fits the concept of "Soviet AU" and where does the Second World War.
          But Russian combatant fighter pilots, who faced the F-16 in reality, say that it’s very difficult to spin it.
          So you are exaggerating a little about the chicken coop.
          1. Zoldat_A 2 March 2020 19: 35 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Astra55
            It is difficult to say which of the modern pilots fits the concept of "Soviet AU" and where does the Second World War.
            But Russian combatant fighter pilots, who faced the F-16 in reality, say that it’s very difficult to spin it.
            So you are exaggerating a little about the chicken coop.

            Fortunately, I saw alive and in a combat situation, and our attack aircraft are working. Jewelers. And in a peaceful environment I saw what wicks they twisted within sight from the airfield.
            Why, why, our flyers know how to fly. I don’t know how on the “gate from the chicken coop”, but on our planes our men can do a lot of things.
            1. Astra55 2 March 2020 22: 18 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              But who argues that our fellows and a lot of things can.
              Zagogulin’s fact is that on the other side, too, not tin soldiers on biplanes fly.

              They got used to say: “A German is a coward, a German is afraid of a head-on, he will certainly turn him down!” But mine didn’t turn away ... Yes, so that ... the planes flew off: the wing to the left, the wing to the right. He found himself on the ground - “Yak” is dying, and in front of my eyes ... sweet cherry blossoms.

              Anyway. Let it be chipboard.
              And for everyone:
              "We've rotated your Fe-16 in one place!"
              1. Zoldat_A 2 March 2020 22: 51 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Astra55
                Zagogulin’s fact is that on the other side, too, not tin soldiers on biplanes fly.

                The Germans were clearly not tin soldiers. But our grandfathers won! This is the main thing.

                At what price, with what “score” - then let “Yehu Masskva” consider it. They are not used to it - they believe that if they surrendered Leningrad, the Germans would have entered the city and would have distributed cookies on the go, as in Paris.

                And we, the entire Soviet people, paid as much as was necessary for the Victory. It would have needed more - and would have paid more. Not the issue to bargain with.
      2. vova1973 3 March 2020 14: 32 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        You read about the air battles over Sinai. When the then Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Air Force Kutakhov (he fought with the Germans for the GSS fighters for that war) strictly forbade our pilots to engage in air battles with the Israeli Air Force. Our pilots violated the order and suffered heavy losses, then they all recalled. Kutakhov knew from experience that a good aerobatic pilot is not a fighter yet. That the air war is not a tournament of the best pilots.
  15. ochakow703 2 March 2020 17: 45 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the F - 16 preys on aircraft performing other tasks, as an aggressor, and if you imagine the other way around ... yes, put a normal pilot in the cockpit.
    1. cniza 2 March 2020 17: 51 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      Yes, and always acts at a maximum distance, in general, in most cases, jackal ... although everyone recognizes the plane is good.
      1. Ovrag 2 March 2020 18: 20 New
        • 16
        • 5
        +11
        Do you have to noblely go the distance of pistol fire and shoot from the service Colt?
        But what then call the favorite tactics of the Vietnamese? When a couple of Mig17 pulls on themselves American fighters, which then fall like a bolt from the blue at huge speed Mig21, make one approach at 6 and joyfully dump into the distance on the afterburner without getting involved in the BVB. You know the same thing "not fair." Only here all do not care. Better means then. Which works.
        1. Nyrobsky 2 March 2020 20: 21 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Ovrag
          Do you have to noblely go the distance of pistol fire and shoot from the service Colt?
          But what then call the favorite tactics of the Vietnamese? When a couple of Mig17 pulls on themselves American fighters, which then fall like a bolt from the blue at huge speed Mig21, make one approach at 6 and joyfully dump into the distance on the afterburner without getting involved in the BVB. You know the same thing "not fair." Only here all do not care. Better means then. Which works.
          The fact is that if the Vietnamese fought with the Americans in the skies of Vietnam and, in principle, were imprisoned for a “meeting,” then the Syrians worked on targets on their land in the airspace of Syria, and they did not expect such a joke from the Turks. Now, after the Syrians lost two Su-24s, it was decided to close the sky for everyone except the Russian Air Force, ours notified the Turks that their aviation security was not guaranteed, we will see how things go on there.
        2. vova1973 3 March 2020 14: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is called tactics.
      2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 19: 52 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Quote: cniza
        Yes, and always acts at the extreme distance, in general, in most cases, jackal.

        why should the enemy use tactics that are disadvantageous for themselves? For the sake of Vasya Pupkin?
        The tactics of application should just realize the strengths and level the flaws of the apparatus (and the pilot), but not the other way around.
        For example, if you have a long-range ATGM, you climb onto a tank with hand grenades? not? so why should the rest be idiots ???

        By the way, in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the Su-27 also felled the MiG-29, taking advantage of the superiority in avionics and the presence of long-range missiles
  16. Garris199 2 March 2020 17: 53 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Basically, these are victories over obsolete MiG-17, MiG-21, MiG-23 aircraft. Yugoslav MiG-29s were the base version, where avionics were significantly inferior to the modernized F-16s.
  17. Victor March 47 2 March 2020 17: 54 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Quote: KKND
    F-16 is a very successful aircraft, with high thrust-weight ratio and low moment of inertia, the well-established maneuvers of his element, so it is not surprising that he can shoot down the most modern aircraft, not to mention old cars. And more than 4600 units produced in comparison with about 1600 "analogs" of the MiG-29 say that it will be fighting for a long time.

    And also, that the score will grow to very decent values.
  18. Wolf 2 March 2020 17: 55 New
    • 22
    • 10
    +12
    Serbian Migi 29 beat them and enough 1999 and there is no sense only F16 a and F15, F18 and A10 and so on. You can calmly add a minimum of 10-15 pieces from our side. In addition, Serbian Migi od 10 of their 8 were partially defective criminal radars did not work well, but part of it was not! Add radar to the old NEVE. QUIETLY ALLOCATED TO THE INVISIBLE !!! So besides 1 Ф117, STRATEG B2 BEATS ALSO NEVA BEATED - FROM 2 ROCKET FROM CROATIA IN SPYUVACHVAN FORESTS !!! Let’s just say 2 F117, one fell in Macedonia and one in Croatia at the airport! They may say that they want Neva saw and sold them, and it was only 1-20 years old that she was beaten, mature for going to the army!
    1. Wolf 2 March 2020 17: 58 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      Serbs NEVA called TANYUSHA! smile
    2. A.TOR 2 March 2020 17: 59 New
      • 9
      • 26
      -17
      And the Serbs drowned 2 aircraft carriers ...
      1. tlauicol 2 March 2020 18: 28 New
        • 3
        • 16
        -13
        Quote: A.TOR
        And the Serbs drowned 2 aircraft carriers ...

        And the third aircraft carrier landed at an airfield in Macedonia. Was, was
        1. Wolf 2 March 2020 19: 26 New
          • 10
          • 4
          +6
          What was there you still won’t believe. But because they loved Serbs very much and they felt sorry for them they didn’t come in a heap, and after 60 days they began to threaten with a nuclear bomb that they would throw at Belgrade, Chernomyrdin confirmed this! The yadernom was threatened because no one shot them down and not 1 F16 was shot down but Strategist B2 still they don’t say where 1 B2 and its crew were killed by the pilots !!! They asked that the bi catapult but the team did not allow. The team was the goal there and there with 2 Tanyi knock down! Something like Tanya for their death! ;)
          1. Wolf 2 March 2020 19: 31 New
            • 9
            • 4
            +5
            And smart women, explain to the people why the United States sent F117 to Pension immediately after the aggression in Yugoslavia? wink So that they would know and for Tanyusha sent F117 to penziu! laughing laughing laughing
            1. A.TOR 2 March 2020 20: 29 New
              • 2
              • 8
              -6
              Moreover: the Americans sent B-17 and Mustang to Pension! And - you will not believe! - Saber, F-100 and even F-104 and F-4! And also F-111 ... but this is a military secret
            2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 20: 36 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: Wolf
              Why did the US send F117 to Penziu immediately after the aggression in Yugoslavia?

              But nothing, that the "pensioner" F-117, which was "leaked after Yugoslavia", was noted in Iraq in 2003? And they began to withdraw from combat personnel only from the end of 2006? Some long wires turned out (already at 7 years old), don’t you?
              1. Wolf 2 March 2020 21: 09 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                F117 was the plane’s first drag and much younger than F16, F15, F18 so far and F16 and F15 and F18 fly and F117 to Penziu. Already in the aggression against Yugoslavia, it was clear that he had the invisible thread suitable for the thread, and with the aggression in Iraq they had already confirmed. And Iraq had Tanyusha I think? Then they sent to penziu. B2 was not sent because he stands as an Aviation Carrier and he is under the protection of squadrons of aircraft, B2 has another task.
                1. Wolf 2 March 2020 21: 11 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  How will they immediately send immediately the number of new combat aircraft themselves to Penziu? Even the US needs time for this.
                2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 21: 23 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Quote: Wolf
                  F117 was a drag aircraft

                  Nighthawk was a highly specialized aircraft. With the advent of the F-22 Raptors, the need for it finally disappeared.

                  Quote: Wolf
                  F16, F15, F18 are still and F16 and F15 and F18 are flying

                  because these are "station wagons", unlike the F-117. Which are not in a hurry to write off today, although 5th generation fighters appeared

                  Quote: Wolf
                  Already in the aggression against Yugoslavia, it was clear that he had the invisible thread suitable for the thread, and with the aggression in Iraq they had already confirmed.

                  firstly, no one has ever called stealth invisible (with the exception of couches and journalists) Stealth does not give invisibility, the technology reduces the range and probability of detection
                  Secondly, in Iraq, the F-117 did not suffer losses, and moreover, worked very efficiently. What is Iraq for?

                  Quote: Wolf
                  B2 was not sent because he stands as an Aviation carrier and he is under the protection of squadrons of aircraft, B2 has another task

                  B-2 just always acted autonomously. Nighthawks, sometimes it happened, flew under the guise of Laskok and EW aircraft

                  Some strange ideas you have, right ...
                  1. Wolf 2 March 2020 21: 32 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    So autonomously and those fell. knock down with 2 missiles NEVA (Tanya), it can autonomously fly only if there is no air defense and over blacks in central Africa. Even NEVA is deadly for the ego, and today it is 50 years old! He never flew alone, but on the radar he shines like a big candle. They say when they got into the ego everything was lit up on monitors! It was not himself, but the great goal themselves.
                    1. Wolf 2 March 2020 21: 35 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      There and REB and airplanes against radar, etc. .. ...
                      1. Wolf 2 March 2020 21: 37 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        But TANYUSHA Fries AND IN SUCH CONDITIONS! smile
                    2. tlauicol 3 March 2020 04: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      What is the problem of shooting down a large subsonic non-maneuvering target directly above the air defense positions? F117 went so close that it was visually visible. Radars did not see him in hundreds of other sorties.
                      Can you see a man in a camouflage suit if he walks three steps away from you? But do not laugh at the disguise, because in 50 steps you can no longer see.
                      F117 has been flying for almost 20 years - what is the newest one?
                  2. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 28 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Did you know that the F-117 carried 2 bombs of 905 kg each, and in the F-22 you can put a narrow bomb in place of an air-to-air missile instead of a maximum? These are absolutely disjoint planes.
                    1. Grigory_45 3 March 2020 11: 31 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Did you know that the F-117 carried 2 bombs of 905 kg each, and in the F-22 you can put a narrow bomb in place of an air-to-air missile instead of a maximum?

                      two 454 kg bombs and two AMRAAM, or 8 113-kg and the same two AIM-120
                      1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 15: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        “Doesn’t fit,” too narrow.
          2. tlauicol 3 March 2020 04: 06 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Yugoslavs shot down f16 air defense systems, their pilots never shot down
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Sibguest 2 March 2020 19: 11 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Bravo, friend!
      Here is such honest arithmetic of their arrogant yellow physiognomy!
      The Chinese very quickly adopted the style of the Yankees and Europeans: to cite only those facts that are beneficial to them - they are learning .... This will not bring to good.
    4. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 19: 59 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Quote: Wolf
      Serbian Migi 29 beat them and enough 1999 and there is no sense only F16 a and F15, F18 and A10

      and also filled up forty-five F-117s, twenty-three V-2s, sank an aircraft carrier and nearly shot down the Moon))))

      By the way, for the Needle. He is one of the three modern fighters who took part in the database and have never been shot down in air battles. These are the F-15 Eagle, Sea Harrier and the Su-27.
    5. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 23 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      They didn’t bring down anything. It’s strange that they were still able to take off
  19. Fantazer911 2 March 2020 18: 05 New
    • 7
    • 9
    -2
    The Turks hit me in the back!
  20. gvozdan 2 March 2020 18: 06 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Is it possible to list 65 Soviet aircraft in the studio? model year country
    1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 26 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Yes, different MiG-21s, a bit MiG-23s, but there are already problems with them, because in the Arab-Israeli wars the F-15 was reliably shot down by the R-60 missile from the MiG-21, and the Syrian MiG-23 EMNIP claim to be 5 F-16 and 3 F-15. But of course everyone knows that Jews never lose equipment in battle.
  21. Mountain shooter 2 March 2020 18: 35 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Again I shot a sneaky one from my side of the border ... But are you not afraid to get an answer with long-range missiles from our dryers? And also across the border.
    1. Alexey Z 2 March 2020 20: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Do not be afraid.
  22. Ros 56 2 March 2020 18: 35 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    As I understand it, are the Sinists counting from the Battle of Kulikovo? Well, tady oh. And why only the F-16? Something narrow-eyed muddy is not childish.
    1. Orakul2000 2 March 2020 20: 20 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      They mean the first Lebanese war and the Indo-Pakistani conflicts. Also in Afghanistan, Pakistani F-16s were shot down by a Su-25 piloted by Alexander Rutsky.
    2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 20: 28 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      As I understand it, are the Sinists counting from the Battle of Kulikovo?

      F-16s first entered battle in April 1981 during the Lebanon war. Then the plane was far from perfect (it did not at all resemble the current Falcon) - it had the simplest avionics gun and a pair of melee sidewinders.
      1. Orakul2000 3 March 2020 01: 48 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I'm not even talking about its reliability. I talked with the staff serving the Falcons in the first Lebanese. This was still that tragedy with torment.
  23. Dimy4 2 March 2020 18: 47 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    If the pilots of Sushki were Chinese friends, then this composition would have been written exactly the opposite.
  24. Zaurbek 2 March 2020 18: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A good aircraft used for superiority in the air ... or dominance in AWACS. And knock down Su24 or Su25 for him is not difficult ....
  25. impostor 2 March 2020 18: 56 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    With all due respect to the Chinese peppers from Sohu, but they couldn’t calculate the results - "Soviet fighters vs Boeing who violated the state border"? For rent, the bill will also be dry.
  26. Sibguest 2 March 2020 19: 08 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    The narrow-film ones were mistaken the next (eleventh) time: not 65, but 165, and not planes — but submarines, and they didn’t shoot down but fired off the wheels and crushed the bumpers ....
    Does anyone else have doubts about the "honesty, impartiality and competence" of this "agency"? What sour rice with magic mushrooms they overeat?
    The Chinese are buying samples of the most modern technologies from left to right and dismantling shamelessly up to a screw. Then, based on this stolen - let's call it by its proper names - they produce "their advanced products." And then they begin to praise them in every possible way and pour mud on the developers (countries) of the original developments - they say ours, Chinese, is the best, and yours is last year’s shit of the old panda.
  27. Goldmitro 2 March 2020 19: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The Chinese portal Sohu reacted to this event with an article that spoke about the advantage of F-16 fighters over Soviet (Russian) aircraft with a score of 65: 0.

    This is a study from Soha. has some bad connotations[b] [/ b] almost satisfaction that so many Russian planes were shot down! And this is not her first study on Russia with such a subtext! First they ran after us - sell it to us, sell it, copy it, create something on the basis of it and now it turns out fu .....! Not good!
    1. NordUral 2 March 2020 20: 28 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      It is foolish to wait for gratitude for the past when it is weak now.
  28. Lord of the Sith 2 March 2020 19: 38 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Ponte for visitors. F-16 is a good aircraft, but never fought on equal Russian aircraft.
    And he went astray with everything possible, even with small arms.
    They even fought against each other.
  29. Sergey Freeman_61 2 March 2020 19: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is necessary to watch every case. Su-24, this is a target for the F-16. A downed MiG-29 Yugoslav Air Force, this is alarming. I would like to see a detailed "debriefing." But judging as a sofa expert, it seems that they shot from around the corner, like the Turks. Specialists, respond!
    1. Barmaleyka 2 March 2020 20: 43 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Freeman_61
      A downed MiG-29 Yugoslav Air Force, this is alarming.

      not quite when you consider that the Yugoslavs flew alone and tried to arrange battles against a numerically superior enemy, several planes stupidly shot down on takeoff
    2. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 20: 54 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Sergey Freeman_61
      A downed MiG-29 ... it is alarming.

      Sounds strange, but the MiG-29 did not have much success in aerial combat. On his account, only a few drones and their own compatriots (Ethiopian MiG-21, one MiG-23BN and one Su-25)

      In Yugoslavia, the MiG-29 was not active. There were only 15 vehicles, and for the entire time of the conflict they made only 11 sorties. Having lost 11 vehicles of this type (6 of them in air battles). The condition of the fighters was, to put it mildly, very unsatisfactory - plus the active opposition of NATO aviation to ground-based control and guidance.
      The most combat-ready aircraft of the Serbs was MiG-21
  30. Egor2517 2 March 2020 19: 47 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Sad but true. How many Arabs on Russian technology were burned by Jews, planes and tanks. Of course, preparation plays an important role here, then what do our instructors do? Either our technique is boiled shit, or one of two. And the Ministry of Defense should cost less than 3,14 hours about the successes of our military-industrial complex, and to show more facts with the destroyed NATO equipment, in fact, you have to prove your superiority. So far, on our technique, only bearded obtz turns out to win
    1. Barmaleyka 2 March 2020 20: 42 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Egor2517
      Of course, preparation plays an important role here, then what do our instructors do?

      they teach a bear to ride a motorcycle, even if they teach it, this does not mean that the bear can participate in the rally
    2. gmb
      gmb 2 March 2020 20: 49 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Here I also tried to explain that deception (cunning) and tactics in military matters are the main thing, and they say everything should be fair, a bear without weapons, and you fold yours on a stump and forward, and do not dare to scream, suddenly he will get scared.
    3. Oleg2003 3 March 2020 00: 07 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      I agree. Electronics, and therefore situational awareness, is better for them. How far does a person see in the sky? At such distances, our aircraft may have an advantage. And then everything, drain the kerosene. There was not, no, and I suspect that during our lifetime there will be no advantage in airplanes at a distance of more than 5 (?) Km
  31. 501Legion 2 March 2020 19: 54 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Well, yes, a fighter against a bomber is of course very cool statistics. if there were fights between fighters then there would be an account
    1. Grigory_45 2 March 2020 20: 57 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: 501Legion
      if there were fights between fighters then there would be an account

      there were such ones - a fighter against a fighter, but something didn’t affect the account ... Falcons shot down MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29
      1. Uran53 3 March 2020 06: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In more detail, please, about the bottle against 29.
        1. Grigory_45 3 March 2020 20: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Uran53
          In more detail, please, about the bottle against 29

          what is there more to talk about? Everything is already known - Iraq (Gulf War 1991) and the Balkans of 1999. As well as little-known episodes of the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict 1998-2000, where MiGs converged in the sky with the Su-27.
          In Yugoslavia, MiGs lost a dry record to NATO pilots on the F-16 and F-15 (though, judging objectively, they did not have a single chance when NATO aviation dominated the sky)
          On the Horn of Africa, the 29th was also beaten by Sukhoi Design Bureau airplanes

          In total, for the MiG-29 during his combat career, there are 6 confirmed victories
  32. NordUral 2 March 2020 20: 26 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Until yesterday, the score was 63: 0 in favor of the F-16. And yesterday, after 2 Su-24 shot down by the Turks, the score was 65: 0 not in favor of Soviet aircraft.

    Attribute to the author and An-2 if they were flying next to the 16th.
    And as for the latter - these are attack aircraft, but not fighters.
  33. TatarinSSSR 2 March 2020 20: 37 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Most likely, the F-16 pilot knew that it was the Syrian SU-24, and not the Russian one, that was attacking. If it really didn’t matter to him - whose plane he was shooting down - it means that the pumpkins finally arrived from the Turks. And they are really sure that Russia will again toothlessly respond with tomatoes.
  34. Barmaleyka 2 March 2020 20: 40 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    it’s ridiculous that the battle with the bomber is so modest, don’t waste your time, you can still compare the battle of F-16 with AN-2
    it is also not frivolous to compare the losses of Serbs and NATO in the Yugoslav conflict
    1. tlauicol 3 March 2020 04: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Barmaleyka
      it’s ridiculous that the battle with the bomber is so modest, don’t waste your time, you can still compare the battle of F-16 with AN-2

      Well, then write off Pokryshkin, Kozhedub 3/4 victories?
      1. Uran53 3 March 2020 06: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Or with a paraglider. But actually F - 16 shot down in Iraq and Yugoslavia
        1. tlauicol 3 March 2020 07: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Uran53
          Or with a paraglider. But actually F - 16 shot down in Iraq and Yugoslavia

          Zrk
      2. Barmaleyka 3 March 2020 07: 40 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        you mixed everything in a heap, catch the difference between the downed pilot airplanes and the comparative characteristics of the quality of the aircraft
        1. tlauicol 3 March 2020 08: 27 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Barmaleyka
          you mixed everything in a heap, catch the difference between the downed pilot airplanes and the comparative characteristics of the quality of the aircraft

          It’s you who do not set off the battle with the bomber, do not you?
          1. Barmaleyka 3 March 2020 11: 20 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            you forgive me write nonsense, the offset of the shot down military pilots and analysis of the "success" of the aircraft based on such statistics, to put it mildly, is not very smart
  35. ric
    ric 2 March 2020 21: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In 90, the Belorussian mig 29 tested the American f 16 in the United States. The Belorussian pilots won in the dry, all the victories were behind them. The cameras were so offended that they fueled the MiGs with some kind of crap, the pilots barely reached the Belarus.
    1. Vitaly161 2 March 2020 22: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      it’s freshly given, but it’s giving a gamnets, the MiG-29 was called an airfield cover fighter, because of its modest combat radius, I don’t know how many kilometers from the Belarusians to the states, but one damn thing will not reach))
  36. shadow 2 March 2020 21: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    1999 was forgotten about Yugoslavia.
    1. Barmaleyka 2 March 2020 22: 34 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      what exactly did you forget?
  37. Chingachguk 2 March 2020 22: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Bears in the circus can also ride motorcycles in a circle, but this does not mean that they can be let out on the road ..... So with the Syrian pilots, they saw the plane yesterday, and today Turkish columns are being beaten to ashes. Nothing, they’ll grow old, they will have the audacity and slap them as they should. In addition, I am sure that the Turks mostly beat like Jews, either from their territory, or hide behind someone like jackals .....
  38. Al Asad 2 March 2020 23: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It would be interesting to see the statistics of the Soviet air defense systems against the F-16
  39. flateric 3 March 2020 00: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Lord, when will the authors understand that Sohu is not “the media”, but the same parade of govnoblogs like Yandex Zen. A source, ****.
  40. AKS-U 3 March 2020 00: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Soviet-made aircraft can be shot down ... on the ground.
    And when did our pilots fight against the F-16? Something I do not remember this. Our main motto is "Do not give in to provocation."
  41. shinobi 3 March 2020 01: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Soho needs to be treated with great skepticism. All materials. They love gossip.
  42. Artavazdych 3 March 2020 01: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    A lot of controversy. It was interesting to read the comments.
    And here is what the Greek elder Paisius Svyatorets said in the 90s:
    “Today, reading the prophecies is the same as reading the newspaper: they are clearly written. Thought tells me that many events will happen: the Russians will take Turkey, Turkey will disappear from the map, because a third of the Turks will convert to Christianity, a third will die and a third will go to Mesopotamia ”
    “There will be a war between Turkey and Russia. At first it will seem to the Turks that they are winning, but this will be a disaster for them. Russians will win and take Constantinople ”
    1. Uran53 3 March 2020 06: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why do we need Constantinople, the elder did not say? Moreover, he is Greek. Greeks and Turks old friends
      1. Artavazdych 3 March 2020 11: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, Greeks and Turks are friends. And we don’t need Constantinople with the straits!
  43. tolmachiev51 3 March 2020 04: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This only indicates the level of training of foreign pilots. Do not touch the Russians, otherwise Vietnam may happen, where vaunted penguins rained down. like peas.
  44. Uran53 3 March 2020 06: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is nothing like leather. The Americans are still rubbing everyone that their Falcon has never been, for all the time has not been shot down. And all the losses are only due to equipment failure. The main thing is to fool fools.
    1. Crimean partisan 1974 3 March 2020 07: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And all the losses are only due to equipment failure. .... take it higher, the combat losses of aviation have long been hidden in the phrasing - I FAILURED, and there guesses from what, when they specifically lowered it then only then it wasn’t shot down and RECEIVED INJURY .... so they beat F- 16 in the tail and in the mane and all who are not in contact and than not getting
  45. Sergey985 3 March 2020 07: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It only says that the side with the F-16, used the best tactics of the battle, was more knowledgeable in terms of information. In other words, they fought with a weaker enemy. Change the planes of the parties, would fall down F-16.
    1. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      No, that F-16s were always on the side with an overwhelming numerical and technological advantage.
  46. EvilLion 3 March 2020 08: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    More than a day has passed since the fake about 2 downed Su-24s, no proofs were provided.

    The Chineses would still remember the F-15s, which are generally unbeatable when they fight with machines 20 years older than them, and with newer ones except maybe 20: 1.
  47. edeligor 3 March 2020 08: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Statistics ... Americans, for example, managed to bring down more aircraft in Vietnam than they were in service. All sinners of this planet all sin of the same thing. The most interesting thing is that the number of combat losses also includes burned aircraft at airfields! Therefore, friends, as the professor from the immortal work said, do not read the newspapers! Believe what you saw and what you saw for yourself, everything else from the evil one.
    1. michaelruss 3 March 2020 18: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The Americans lost there 1500 aircraft only about t of our air defense systems C 125. McCain will confirm;))) But I don’t remember what many of them shot down there. The Vietnamese didn’t have enough planes this time, and secondly they couldn’t fly them (according to the recollections of our instructors. They lost consciousness of overload due to genetics and inadequate rations) and they beat themselves more. But when we started flying with it was raining with a “mask” on the face .. like in Korea, where the losses of aviation of the USSR - USA were 1 to 4 (5)
      1. edeligor 4 March 2020 07: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What is the conversation about))) Only collective McCains say the opposite.
  48. Oleg Salov 3 March 2020 08: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, let them try to bring down our planes, but I would admire these Turkish “heroes”, beat out from under the silence, this is all of Turkey, well now, beat out from under the silence will not work, ours on the alert and the Syrians will be on the alert.
  49. ZaharoFF 3 March 2020 10: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Pretty weird counting method. Compare warm and white.
  50. Petrik66 3 March 2020 10: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What would they do here on the site, whom would sofa experts discuss, if not for this Chinese resource and American national policies and interests ?! If my memory serves me, then it was the Chinese who said that: they will conquer us in three hours or a day, that su 57 is shit compared to Chinese planes, etc. God be with them wretched. Well, I really want some Chinese "experts" to talk about their incredible tanks that break on tank biathlon, about airplanes with 5 space speeds, etc. Well, it happens ... but you can remember how the Chinese dumped from Libya ..... Not everything can be bought for money. Combat experience in particular. You can rivet the ships and tell that our fleet is the most. , but God forbid this "armada" clash with the Americans. Does anyone have doubts about the outcome? The same “resource” wrote about the futility of ours with 300, but its new missiles at our borders, under our umbrella. If it’s clear that these are ordinary balabol, then why react?