Military Review

Comparison of the armies of Russia and the United States in 2020. Air Force

102

An American F-22 Raptor fighter is accompanying the Russian Tu-95 strategic bomber over the Bering Strait.


The Air Force is traditionally regarded as one of the most technologically advanced and effective types of armed forces. The military conflicts of recent years show that domination in the sky allows solving various tasks on the battlefield, ensuring the achievement of tactical, operational and strategic goals. An example of the successful use of the air force is the conflict in Syria. In this country, the Russian Aerospace Forces receive real combat experience, practice the tactics of using shock aviation on ground targets, are testing new types of weapons and, obviously, are engaged in reconnaissance work.

At the same time, Russia successfully coped with the task of deploying a remote aviation group and effectively used it, tipping the scales in the conflict to the side of the Moscow-backed official government of Syria in the person of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Army. For Russia, this is the first such modern experience of the massive use of the Air Force in a military conflict. Prior to this, only the US Air Force carried out such operations at a distance from their borders. Today, Russia is gaining valuable combat experience in Syria, which was previously only possessed by the pilots of the US Armed Forces and NATO countries.

At the same time, in numerical terms, the US Air Force is undoubtedly superior to the Russian Air Force, remaining the strongest in the world, far ahead of its main competitors, including China, both in number and quality of military equipment. As an asymmetric response, Russia has traditionally successfully developed, manufactured and sold numerous air defense systems, which are recognized by many experts as the best in the world. In terms of the composition and quality of air defense systems, Russia has no competitors, while the air defense and missile defense system of Russia is deeply echeloned and represented by hundreds of large-range complexes (S-400, S-300), medium-range (Buk) and short-range (Tor "," Pantsir-C1 ").


Su-34 of the Russian Air Force at an airbase in Syria. Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In terms of the number of combat aircraft, the US Air Force is not so much superior to Russia (1522 versus 1183 aircraft). But there is a very important nuance here.

Military aircraft for various purposes, including direct combat aircraft, are also concentrated in the United States as part of the National Guard aviation, which, in fact, performs the role of the internal army, the US Navy and the Marine Corps. The total number of only combat aircraft that are at the disposal of the US Armed Forces, according to The Military Balance 2020 (data for Russia and the United States are used further exclusively for this collection), is 1522 in the Air Force + 981 aircraft in the naval aviation of the Navy + 432 aircraft in the Corps US Marine Corps + 576 aircraft in the Air National Guard.

A total of 3511 combat aircraft: fighters, bombers, attack aircraft and anti-submarine aircraft. At the disposal of the Russian Armed Forces, taking into account the air force and naval aviation of the Navy (+217 combat aircraft), there are 1400 vehicles.

In terms of the total number of combat aircraft, the US Armed Forces surpass the Russian Armed Forces by 2,5 times.

An even greater difference is observed when comparing transport aviation, AWACS aircraft and tanker aircraft.

In terms of the number of available tanker aircraft, the US Air Force surpasses all countries of the world dozens of times. This is due to the specifics of the use of US aviation around the world, the presence of a huge number of bases and power projection areas. In this respect, the Russian Air Force grouping has a pronounced defensive character, while the US Air Force is offensive.

The presence of numerous attack drones and large strategic drones is also an important advantage of the American military. The Russian Armed Forces currently lack serial attack UAVs and large reconnaissance drones that would be able to operate at a great distance from home airfields.

Organizational differences between the Russian and US Air Forces


Organizationally, the Russian Air Force is one of three types of troops in the Joint VKS (Military Space Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), in addition to the Air Force, it is also the Air Defense and Missile Defense Forces and the Space Forces. In the United States, a similar system has been implemented with its own characteristics, in which the Air Force is also subordinate to certain types of troops, including the space forces and the Air Force Special Operations Command.

The main differences from the Russian Aerospace Forces are that the US Air Force is subordinate to the strategic missile forces (that is, all the country's ICBMs) and there are no air defense and missile defense units.

In addition, the US Air Force has a limited number of helicopters of all types. The main part of this equipment is directly subordinate to the ground forces and can be used in the interests of specific units and subdivisions of the ground forces.

In Russia, on the contrary, the main helicopter fleet is part of the Air Force (about 800 aircraft, of which 390 are attack helicopters). The US Army has more than 3700 helicopters, of which more than 700 are attack vehicles.


The S-400 complexes of the air defense-missile defense forces of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Elements of air defense and missile defense in the United States are distributed between the Army (Ground Forces) and fleet, while the only air defense means at the disposal of the Air Force are the Stinger MANPADS. At the same time, the capabilities of the Russian air defense and missile defense systems exceed the capabilities of similar complexes in the US armed forces both in terms of the declared technical characteristics (for example, in terms of the range of destruction of air targets) and in the total number of long-range complexes.

In service with the US Army, according to the annual bulletin "Military Balance" (The Military Balance 2020), which is compiled by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), there are 480 MIM-104D / E / F Patriot complexes equipped with various missiles.

The exact number of the S-400 complexes in service with the air defense and missile defense forces of Russia is unknown. But, apparently, the number of only these complexes already exceeds the presence of Patriot launchers in the US armed forces. According to Russian media reports, more than 60 divisions of such complexes are in service (usually each division has 8 launchers), while the procurement of the complexes continues.

Until 2023, the Russian Aerospace Forces should receive 3 regular regimental sets of S-400, as well as 4 sets of S-350 "Vityaz". RIA agency reported about it in June 2020 News... In addition to the S-400 systems, the air defense and missile defense forces include hundreds of S-300V / PS / PM-1 / PM-2 complexes in comparable quantities to the S-400 or in large numbers, plus numerous medium and short-range air defense systems.

The personnel of the air forces of Russia and the United States


The total strength of the US Air Force is 332 (excluding civil servants). In addition, the Air Force of the National Guard has 650 military personnel, in the naval aviation of the Navy - 106 people, in the aviation of the Marine Corps - 750 people.

In the Russian Aerospace Forces, about 165 thousand servicemen, including conscripts, are serving. At the same time, the Russian Aerospace Forces includes three types of troops, the general distribution of servicemen between them is unknown. The number of personnel of the naval aviation of the Russian Navy is approximately 31 thousand people.

The composition of the combat aviation of Russia and the United States


The US Air Force is armed with 1522 combat aircraft. In order not to overload the text with numbers, we will confine ourselves to the analysis of the Air Force itself.

The total number of combat aircraft at the disposal of all US and Russian Armed Forces was given at the beginning of the article. It can only be noted that the F / A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers of various modifications, mainly in the F / A-18E and F / A-18F versions, still prevail in the composition of the US Marine Corps and Naval Aviation.

The rearmament of the US Navy with modern, stealthy, multi-functional fifth-generation F-35C Lightning II fighter-bombers (deck variant) is proceeding rather slowly. The fleet has no more than 28 such fighters. The US Marine Corps re-equips faster, with at least 80 F-35B Lightning IIs (short takeoff - vertical landing) at its disposal.


F-35A Lightning II from the United States Air Force

The United States Air Force includes 139 bombers, including 61 B-1B Lancer supersonic strategic bomber, 20 B-2A Spirit stealth strategic bombers and 58 B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers. The B-52H is one of the oldest combat aircraft of the American Air Force, all H-type aircraft were built between 1960 and 1962 and then modernized many times. The US Air Force expects to continue operating them until at least 2030.

Fighter aircraft of the United States is represented by the stealthy fifth-generation F-22A Raptor aircraft - 166 aircraft, 95 F-15C Eagle fighters and 10 F-15D Eagle fighters. The largest number of combat aircraft are fighter-bombers, only 969 aircraft: 205 stealth fighter-bombers of the fifth generation F-35A Lightning II, 442 F-16C Fighting Falcon and 111 F-16D Fighting Falcon, as well as 211 F-15E Strike Eagle. Attack aircraft is represented by one type of aircraft - the A-10C Thunderbolt II; the American Air Force has 143 such aircraft.

A distinctive feature of the US Air Force is the presence of large attack drones and strategic reconnaissance UAVs. So, in the Air Force, there are 221 reconnaissance and strike drone MQ-9A Reaper (Reaper), as well as strategic reconnaissance UAVs, including 3 EQ-4B, 31 RQ-4B Global Hawk and approximately 10 RQ170 Sentinel and 7 RQ-180 (about the last two models have practically no information). It is only known that the RQ170 Sentinel is built according to the "flying wing" scheme and outwardly resembles the heavy attack UAV "Okhotnik" S-70, which is built according to a similar aerodynamic scheme, being developed in Russia.


Reconnaissance and strike UAV MQ-9A Reaper

The Russian Air Force has 1183 combat aircraft. Including 138 strategic bombers and missile carriers: 62 Tu-22M3, Tu-22M3M and Tu-22MR missile-carrying missile bomber with variable sweep wing, 60 Tu-95MS strategic turboprop missile-carrying bombers of various versions and 16 Tu-160 supersonic strategic bombers, in including 6 in the Tu-160M1 version.

Fighter aircraft numbers 180 aircraft, including 80 MiG-31BM, 70 MiG-29 / MiG-29UB, 30 Su-27 / Su-27UB. The largest number of combat vehicles, as well as in the USA, falls on fighter-bombers, there are 444 such aircraft, including: 90 Su-35S, 91 Su-30SM, 122 Su-34, 20 Su-30M2, 47 Su- 27SM and 24 Su-27SM3, as well as 50 MiG-29SMT / MiG-29UBT. To attack exclusively ground targets, there are 264 combat aircraft, including 70 front-line bombers Su-24M / M2 with a variable sweep wing and 194 attack aircraft Su-25 of various modifications (40 - Su-25, 139 - Su-25SM / SM-3, 15 - Su-25UB).


Fighter Su-35S Lipetsk Aviation Center. January 2018. Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

The Russian Air Force lacks fifth-generation fighters. At the same time, the development of such an aircraft, the Su-57, is ongoing in the country, and 10 flight prototypes have been built. The aircraft has not yet been officially adopted for service. The plans for the purchase of this aircraft have changed several times. If in mid-2018 there were announced plans to purchase only 12 fighters to arm one squadron, then on May 15, 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the purchase of 76 fifth-generation Su-57 fighters by the Ministry of Defense to arm three aviation regiments with the completion of delivery by 2028.

Military transport aviation and tanker aircraft


The capabilities of the military transport aviation of the US Armed Forces exceed those of the Russian Armed Forces. The collection The Military Balance 2020 estimates the total number of heavy and medium military transport aircraft at the disposal of the US Armed Forces at 675, while the Russian Armed Forces have 185. In terms of the availability of medium and heavy transport aircraft, the Russian Armed Forces are second only to the United States. But more than twice overtakes the closest rival - the Chinese Armed Forces (88 aircraft of these classes).

At the same time, there are 331 transport aircraft directly in the US Air Force, including 182 heavy (146 C-17A Globemaster III, 36 C-5M Super Galaxy) and 104 medium (C-130J / J-30 Hercules).

The Russian Air Force has 449 transport aircraft, including 120 heavy (11 An-124 Ruslan, 4 An-22, 99 Il-76MD, 3 Il-76MD-M, 3 Il-76MD-90A) and 65 medium (An-12). The superiority of the Russian Air Force in the total number of transport aircraft is ensured due to the fact that they are all concentrated within the Air Force, while American transport aircraft are "smeared" across all the armed forces. At the same time, in terms of the number of heavy and medium vehicles, the US Air Force is still ahead of the Russian Air Force.


Heavy transport aircraft of the USAF C-17A Globemaster III

The greatest backlog of all the armed forces of the world from the United States is observed in the size of the fleet of tanker aircraft. The US Armed Forces have 555 tanker aircraft, of which 237 are directly in the Air Force (the main tanker is the KC-135R Stratotanker - 126 aircraft).

In Russia, the situation with refueling planes is very bad. The Air Force is in service with only 15 aircraft of this type: 5 Il-78 and 10 Il-78M.

The US Armed Forces in the number of tanker aircraft surpass all countries of the world by an order of magnitude. For example, China has an estimated 18 flying tankers, France - 17, Great Britain - 14.

The same lag is observed in the number of AEW & C aircraft. The US armed forces have an estimated 113 airborne radio detection and guidance systems.

At the same time, the number of such DLROiU aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force is estimated at 9 aircraft: 5 A-50 aircraft and 4 A-50U aircraft.
Author:
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bongo
    Bongo 16 December 2020 05: 16
    +25
    Weakly. negative The author did not dig deeply. No. The information was mainly taken from Wikipedia. In this regard, there are a number of significant inaccuracies.
    For example:
    The exact number of the S-400 systems in service with the air defense and missile defense forces of Russia is unknown.

    It is known with an accuracy of +/- two-three. Moreover, if desired, you can find and recalculate positions on publicly available satellite images. And yet, do we have other medium and large air defense missile systems except for the S-400 range in service anymore? request
    Including 138 strategic bombers and missile carriers: 62 Tu-22M3, Tu-22M3M and Tu-22MR bomber-bomber with variable sweep wing

    God grant that from this number declared by the author, three dozen Tu-22M3s could actually fulfill the assigned combat mission. The rest are in storage and are waiting in line for repairs and modernization. With this approach, you can count the American combat aircraft located in Davis Montan.
    The largest number of combat vehicles, as well as in the United States, falls on fighter-bombers, there are 444 such aircraft, including: 90 Su-35S, 91 Su-30SM, 122 Su-34, 20 Su-30M2, 47 Su- 27SM and 24 Su-27SM3, as well as 50 MiG-29SMT / MiG-29UBT.

    Since when did the Su-27SM / SM3, Su-35S, Su-30SM / M2 and MiG-29SMT / UB fighters become fighter-bombers? request The author may not "know", but the IBA in our country was liquidated in the mid-90s. The Su-34, like the Su-24M, are front-line bombers.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 16 December 2020 05: 36
      +13
      Comparison of the armies of Russia and the United States in 2020. Air Force
      even sounds at least silly ... more budgets compare.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 16 December 2020 06: 30
        +2
        ... more budgets compare.
        And there is. You can also compare the number of buttons on the uniform. Whoever has more is in charge. And yet, yes, superficially. It was possible, without comparisons, to roll a series of articles separately and by type and by country
    2. Titus_2
      Titus_2 16 December 2020 05: 52
      +2
      I don’t understand who’s minus had time to slap (not the author) most of the articles because of the comments I read so from the hay
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 16 December 2020 08: 45
      -10%
      And the S-400 are on the spot. positions? And how long?
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 16 December 2020 09: 35
        +11
        Perhaps you are not aware, but all air defense systems carrying a permanent database in peacetime are located in stationary positions.
    4. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 16 December 2020 11: 29
      -3
      Normal informative article. And the fact that there are some roughnesses is not scary, because a dry review is presented here so that a non-professional can compose a general idea in a concise form.

      And deep analytics is not needed here. It will be a report of 100 dissertations in size and with signs of a document of the 3rd level of secrecy.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 16 December 2020 12: 06
        +7
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        a dry overview is presented here so that the layman can get a general idea in a concise manner.

        To get a general idea, it is reasonable to correlate the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Air Forces of the countries with which, let's say, it can be interesting. Of the countries that have serious air forces and have questions to the Russian Federation, one can distinguish, first of all, the PRC and Turkey (dictatorships are more inclined to decisive actions), the second Japan, Poland, Finland, Norway (here it is unlikely that something can start without initiative on the part of the Russian Federation, but it is difficult to guarantee that such an initiative will not take place). The rest of the neighbors do not seem to have a decent air force yet.

        And to compare with the United States, and even more so by the author's methods, having removed from the comparison more than half of the enemy lethalka - this is the magazine "Murzilka".

        4 strongest air forces in the world:
        1. USAF.
        2. US Navy
        3. USMC
        4. NG USA.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 16 December 2020 12: 20
        +4
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        with the signs of a document of the 3rd level of secrecy.

        What is Level 3 Security? what 3rd form of admission?
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 16 December 2020 15: 58
          +5
          1. For administrative use.
          2. Secret.
          3. Top secret.
          4. Top secret of special importance.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 17 December 2020 05: 24
            +1
            Quote: Outsider
            1. For administrative use.
            2. Secret.
            3. Top secret.
            4. Top secret of special importance.

            I know that yes It's funny when a person who is not familiar with secret office work and the law on state secrets begins to talk about "secrecy levels".
            1. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 17 December 2020 16: 32
              +1
              For official use, this is not a state secret.
              To you, as a funny pseudo-knowledge, a quote from Art. 8 of the Federal Law "On State Secrets": "Three degrees of secrecy of information constituting a state secret are established, and the stamps of secrecy corresponding to these degrees for the carriers of the specified information:" of special importance "," top secret "and" secret ".
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 18 December 2020 14: 19
                +1
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                For official use, this is not a state secret.

                This is true... yes But the stamp "ДСП" also imposes restrictions on the dissemination of information and the admission of unauthorized persons to it.
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                I've been trumpeting in this area for 14 years. True, not along the military line, but along the line of justice.

                Why, then, write such oddities?
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                with document signs 3 level secrecy.
            2. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 17 December 2020 16: 34
              0
              I've been trumpeting in this area for 14 years. True, not along the military line, but along the line of justice.
      3. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 28
        -1
        The mig31bm bomb carrier is called a clean fighter, although it can carry several ton bombs. the author is completely incompetent, except for what they did the article so that at first the American potm Russian was a kind of element of educating traitors and cowards.
    5. ancient
      ancient 16 December 2020 11: 38
      +16
      Quote: Bongo
      Weakly.

      I support ... drinks
      1.Since when is the Tu-22M3M already included in the Air Force? And since when did the Tu-22MR become ... a "bomber-bomber"?
      2. Reconnaissance is excluded from the survey completely .... what ... "shameful"?
      3. And what about the electronic warfare and P aviation?
      4. The payroll and the combat strength .... this, as the classic said, is "two big differences."
      5. About the IBA .. in general .... no words ... by the way, what about the "author" with the MPA?
      6. And what about "things" with the airfield network? And with the number of AB abroad ?.
      7. And what about "things" with the "initial training" of the flight crew at the Air Force University .. sorry .. maybe a VKS? wink
      8. Well, the main achievement is the Air Force is ... just ... a kind of troops ... and more recently there was a type of the Armed Forces. soldier
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 17 December 2020 05: 26
        +3
        Quote: ancient
        I support ...

        Hello old man! I'm glad to see you! drinks
        As always, you painted everything thoroughly, that I was too lazy. good
    6. Left shot
      Left shot 16 December 2020 21: 41
      -2
      Uh-huh. When unsuccessful bullshit, which does not replace the Su-24M, the Su-34 is being promoted by would-be propagandists, they are tortured about its "extermination function" (you can't torture it anymore). And this is not IB, but of course ...
    7. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 01
      -5
      drinks and so, in short, so as not to write an article

      There are NO bombers in NATO, we have exterminate and bombers, but we have the same thing, but there are already 24 fighters and even shooters, in addition to long-range flight, and taking into account the radar armament and flight duration, there is also an interceptor ... but the glider is there from the bomber , whereas an alteration from f34 to a bomb locomotive is that of a totype su15 with a dimensional layout for centering with a mass of half a ton from the sight for a moment 24 and wings from su29 ... why does a bomber need this?
      the attack aircraft carries an extra 1,5 tons and has armor to the volume of minus 30%, while it is guaranteed that the air defense will always be destroyed.
      air defense in anto there are few patriots ... in the usa and they are useless. for .. life can be covered from low heights without resistance.
      there are no tanks in NATO, there are less than 2000 ready-made Abrams and leopard2 and others ... we have a current of t72b3 a couple of thousand.
      their air force to our air defense is a laugh.
      Iskander at the f22 special base is always.
      while moment15 showed 4 to 1 in its favor, and then moment21 also came out moment25 af15 yet!
      then came a moment31 which and today knocks down f15 before starting on its own ... it remains that f22 can ... but the cone of the warhead of pershing has a lower epr than f22, but the cone it scatters everything from all sides and on a long wave is not visible because smaller wing f22. his old s300v drove from 100 + km 35 years ago.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 23 December 2020 12: 03
        +4
        Quote: Evil Booth
        drinks and so, in short, so as not to write an article

        There are NO bombers in NATO, we have exterminate and bombers, but we have the same thing, but there are already 24 fighters and even shooters, in addition to long-range flight, and taking into account the radar armament and flight duration, there is also an interceptor ... but the glider is there from the bomber , whereas an alteration from f34 to a bomb locomotive is that of a totype su15 with a dimensional layout for centering with a mass of half a ton from the sight for a moment 24 and wings from su29 ... why does a bomber need this?
        the attack aircraft carries an extra 1,5 tons and has armor to the volume of minus 30%, while it is guaranteed that the air defense will always be destroyed.
        air defense in anto there are few patriots ... in the usa and they are useless. for .. life can be covered from low heights without resistance.
        there are no tanks in NATO, there are less than 2000 ready-made Abrams and leopard2 and others ... we have a current of t72b3 a couple of thousand.
        their air force to our air defense is a laugh.
        Iskander at the f22 special base is always.
        while moment15 showed 4 to 1 in its favor, and then moment21 also came out moment25 af15 yet!
        then came a moment31 which and today knocks down f15 before starting on its own ... it remains that f22 can ... but the cone of the warhead of pershing has a lower epr than f22, but the cone it scatters everything from all sides and on a long wave is not visible because smaller wing f22. his old s300v drove from 100 + km 35 years ago.

        A rare delirium ... wassat
        1. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 30
          -3
          tongue but of course you will avoid details. and I will add a patriot to you, it is useless, but Iskander and s400 are real. the moment 31 still knocks down all sorts of f81 from the 15st without engaging in battle with them. long-range after all. S300 B4 throws 400 km and successfully, but what about NATO air defense? and here is the air force with their ranges of 1 km.
          1. Toucan
            Toucan 23 December 2020 12: 35
            +1
            Quote: Evil Booth
            tongue but of course you will avoid details. and I will add a patriot to you, it is useless, but Iskander and s400 are real. the moment 31 still knocks down all sorts of f81 from the 15st without engaging in battle with them. long-range after all. S300 B4 throws 400 km and successfully, but what about NATO air defense? and here is the air force with their ranges of 1 km.
            fool
            Yes, to comment on such nonsense - not to respect yourself ...
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 40
              -4
              wah) how smart I am. but you still have to clarify why the patriot is better than the c400 and the iskander is bad in terms of the f22 base or how much the EPR of the bch pershing cone is less than f22, while f22 and more is not a regular cone. and flies slower and is visible on a long wave.
    8. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 33
      -4
      the nomenclature of weapons su35 probably both the author and you didn’t look.) and he was a fighter bomber.
  2. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 16 December 2020 06: 31
    +13
    In Russia, the situation with refueling planes is very bad. The Air Force is in service with only 15 aircraft of this type: 5 Il-78 and 10 Il-78M.

    How many of them are capable? Sergei Ivanovich (SSI) wrote in the past that at best half.
    1. ancient
      ancient 16 December 2020 11: 40
      +7
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Sergey Ivanovich (SSI) wrote in the past

      Olya ... did not "fall down the office" bully ...... love
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 December 2020 17: 00
      0
      We are waiting for IL 96 400 as a tanker and AWACS A 100 based on IL 76 90A
      1. bayard
        bayard 17 December 2020 05: 36
        +6
        Quote: Vadim237
        We are waiting for IL 96 400 as a tanker

        Yes, they have already changed their minds, the tankers have decided to build everything on the basis of the Il-76MD90A, it is expensive for the Il-96. Yes and no them in nature ... and will not be soon.
        Quote: Vadim237
        as well as AWACS A 100 on the basis of IL 76 90A

        And then something does not go well, already a year has passed infa about what they think about AWACS on the basis of Tu-214 to sculpt ... because the Il-76MD90A is being built slowly, and in terms of carrying capacity the Tu-214 is quite suitable, and in terms of the duration of loitering will be longer ... and again silence ... As there were no AWACS aircraft, and no. And no more rumors. It seems that they are deliberately dynamiting / sabotaging this topic in the MO. There is simply no other explanation. For even the modernization of the existing / available A-50 to A-50U did not want to carry out.
        They did not want to, but not "could not." But there was an opportunity since 2008 to upgrade at least 15 pieces. ... or even all 20. And there would be at least something.
        How could a part of the IL-76 stored in storage be driven through overhaul and modernized / equipped to the level of the IL-78 - into tankers. At least three dozen to those 15 available. And there would be tankers.
        But they did everything so that they were not in the ranks.
        Why
        Who is responsible?
        Who is our supreme commander in chief?
        Since 2012, at least?
        And the Minister of Defense?
        Did not know ? smile
        They knew. yes
        And sabotaged.
        This is not due to a lack of funds or opportunities (to build, repair, upgrade what is available).
        This is from a firm position in life.
        For they could not not know.
        And the rest is all PR and fairy tales.
  3. w70
    w70 16 December 2020 06: 44
    -5
    Nothing, David dealt with Goliath
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 16 December 2020 06: 51
      +11
      Quote: w70
      Nothing, David dealt with Goliath

      As King Frederick II the Great of Prussia said: " God is on the side of the big battalions. "
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 16 December 2020 09: 51
        -8
        Quote: Tucan
        As King of Prussia Frederick II the Great said

        As Suvorov said, one must fight not by numbers, but by skill.
        1. ancient
          ancient 16 December 2020 11: 42
          +10
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          As Suvorov said, you need to fight not by number, but by skill

          So yes ... but that's where to get them then ...... "Suvorovs" ....... are those who "led" in 1994? Or in 2008? ..... and maybe we will also remember the "great appointee" Taburetkin? wassat
        2. Left shot
          Left shot 16 December 2020 21: 45
          +1
          Well, Frederick the Great also beat the enemy at a 1:10 ratio. that's why the Great One. It's just that when I came across Suvorov, it turned out that Suvorov was better. The same trouble happened to Napoleon.
          1. Andylw
            Andylw 21 December 2020 14: 14
            0
            Where did Friedrich meet with Suvorov?
            In your dream?
            1. Left shot
              Left shot 23 December 2020 05: 02
              0
              Did not meet in battle. There was competition based on parallel actions in Europe.
      2. Paul Siebert
        Paul Siebert 16 December 2020 13: 11
        -7
        Quote: Tucan
        Quote: w70
        Nothing, David dealt with Goliath

        As King Frederick II the Great of Prussia said: " God is on the side of the big battalions. "

        The Russians under Catherine II the Great broke into Frederick II the Great on the first day.
        And they took Berlin.
        His large battalions did not help the Prussian ...))) wink
        1. Seba
          Seba 16 December 2020 13: 23
          +1
          Wow, in what year did the fake of her virtue offend?
          1. bayard
            bayard 17 December 2020 05: 48
            +4
            Under Elizabeth, they met.
            And yet they broke in.
            And they took Berlin. yes
            And in passing ... by the forces of one division (if memory serves).
            And since then the keys to Berlin have been kept in St. Petersburg, which the city fathers carried on a velvet pillow to the Russian general.
            But Ficke, yes, even Konigsberg returned to Uncle Willie.
        2. Andylw
          Andylw 21 December 2020 14: 15
          -1
          Go back to school! Under Catherine II, Russia did not fight with Prussia!
          I am ashamed not to know
      3. Left shot
        Left shot 16 December 2020 21: 43
        0
        As Napoleon said, God helps those battalions that shoot better. This is the first time I hear about PV's statement.
    2. Escobar
      Escobar 16 December 2020 08: 41
      +8
      Wars are won not by individual heroes, but by the aggregate power of the state
      1. Paul Siebert
        Paul Siebert 16 December 2020 13: 17
        -4
        Quote: Eskobar
        Wars are won not by individual heroes, but by the aggregate power of the state

        Small, insignificant Macedonia, with almost a complete lack of economy, under the leadership of the hero - Tsar Alexander, managed to destroy the superpower of the ancient world, Persia.
        With its powerful economy and innumerable troops.
        It is not only the aggregate power of the state that is important, but, first of all, the will to win and combat experience.
        And the heroes will not interfere ... wink
        1. Escobar
          Escobar 16 December 2020 13: 38
          +2
          Learn history, the Macedonians were betrayed by one man, they were bypassed and defeated. In the late 80s and 90s, our army was plunged into the Stone Age with a few strokes of a pen and suitcases of currency, without a single shot being fired.
          1. Paul Siebert
            Paul Siebert 16 December 2020 16: 43
            -4
            Quote: Eskobar
            Learn history, the Macedonians were betrayed by one man, they were bypassed and defeated.

            I, monsignor, do not study history from American films ...
            Judging by them, Sasha the Macedonian is generally blue.
            Lover of Hephaestion ...
            And you probably have a favorite movie: "300" ...
            About the Spartans and King Leonidas.
            He shouts so coolly: "Because we are Sparta-ah-ah-ah !!!"
            There is another sodomite there - Xerxes ...
            Perverts are rewriting history ...
            laughing
            1. Escobar
              Escobar 16 December 2020 17: 55
              0
              Is the humpback or Yeltsin also a historical fake?
              1. bayard
                bayard 17 December 2020 05: 58
                +3
                And Gorbach and Yeltsin did not betray "little Macedonia, without an economy and resources", but one of the greatest empires in the history of mankind - a nuclear Superpower. Therefore, guess for:
                Quote: Eskobar
                the Macedonians were betrayed by one man, they were bypassed and defeated

                USSR \ Russia ...
                ... tricky.
                But recognizable.
                And yes - "a donkey laden with gold takes any fortress."
                Well, almost any.
              2. Diverter
                Diverter 22 December 2020 23: 14
                0
                they are just traitors.
      2. Left shot
        Left shot 16 December 2020 21: 46
        0
        Very often, states with much greater aggregate power have been blown away by states with less. Moreover, in history - as a rule.
        1. Escobar
          Escobar 17 December 2020 12: 38
          +1
          Give an example
          1. Left shot
            Left shot 17 December 2020 23: 57
            0
            There are hundreds of examples throughout the centuries. You can start from ancient times and remember how the great Roman Empire, about a very developed state, fucked up in front of the Makhnovist, in fact, barbarian detachments without any state. The Great Chinese Empire, a powerful state that united many scattered lands and microstates, got fucked up in front of the troops of the Mongols without any state. I started it from the very beginning.

            And then you can enumerate the sheets of a long list.

            From just episodes.
            Prussia, a tiny kingdom, beats as it wants the Austro-Hungarian Empire, disparate states.
            The overwhelmed colony without any traditions of statehood defeats the most powerful Great British Empire on the planet and becomes the United States.
            Hitler's Germany, with a previously killed state machine and no underdeveloped army that had just been formed on the basis of a police force (even they were limited by treaties), trimmed France with a much larger army and threw the British expeditionary force from the continent, given that the latter had much more the state and the army, which was not limited to anyone.
            And so on
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 26 February 2021 10: 21
              0
              Quote: Left Shot
              There are hundreds of examples throughout the centuries. You can start from ancient times and remember how the great Roman Empire, about a very developed state, fucked up in front of the Makhnovist, in fact, barbarian detachments without any state. The Great Chinese Empire, a powerful state that united many scattered lands and microstates, got fucked up in front of the troops of the Mongols without any state. I started it from the very beginning.

              And then you can enumerate the sheets of a long list.

              From just episodes.
              Prussia, a tiny kingdom, beats as it wants the Austro-Hungarian Empire, disparate states.
              The overwhelmed colony without any traditions of statehood defeats the most powerful Great British Empire on the planet and becomes the United States.
              Hitler's Germany, with a previously killed state machine and no underdeveloped army that had just been formed on the basis of a police force (even they were limited by treaties), trimmed France with a much larger army and threw the British expeditionary force from the continent, given that the latter had much more the state and the army, which was not limited to anyone.
              And so on

              On the continent, England had a small army, either in WWII or in the second.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 16 December 2020 07: 56
    +12
    Add NATO aviation here, the alignment is not at all in Russia's favor.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 16 December 2020 09: 07
      -6
      The main task of the existing forces and means is to keep them in combat readiness. There is no need to chase the quantity. Why should we compare quantitatively with NATO? This was impossible under the USSR, and even more so under the current economy.
      The main thing is, in the event of any conflict, to inflict a powerful blow on the enemy, like in the battles with Japan on Khalkhan Gol and Khasan. Having washed in blood, the adversary will roll back, if he does not roll back there is a nuclear weapon.
      1. ancient
        ancient 16 December 2020 11: 48
        +10
        Quote: glory1974
        The main task of the available forces and means is to keep in combat readiness

        Under real conditions, it is always taken into account required and available outfit of forces and means to complete the task.
        The parameter "available" ... here ... no sideways. One blow to AB, which did not manage to get out of the blow and that's it ..... "arrived".
        Quote: glory1974
        The main thing is, in the event of any conflict, to inflict a powerful blow on the enemy, like in the battles with Japan on Khalkhan Gol and Khasan

        And the enemy will "sit and wait" ... when will you deign to .. "strike a powerful blow".? wassat
        1. Glory1974
          Glory1974 16 December 2020 16: 18
          -6
          Under real conditions, the required and available outfit of forces and resources is always taken into account to complete the task.

          Who told you that the available forces are not capable of fulfilling the assigned tasks?
          the enemy will "sit and wait" ... when will you deign to .. "strike a powerful blow".?

          Of course it won't. This is the art of war, to apply it when necessary.
          1. ancient
            ancient 16 December 2020 16: 37
            +5
            Quote: glory1974
            Who told you that the available forces are not capable of fulfilling the assigned tasks?

            The tasks are different .. "big and small" ... (unpretentious and vigorous).
            And what for you ... my word is not enough? ... Well then you mean ... "from another planet .... native" lol
            Quote: glory1974
            This is the art of war, to apply it when necessary.

            Examples in the studio - for the entire period of the existence of the Russian Empire yu ... when it worked out ... when it was necessary ... only wars with the "Papuans" .... (well, with Japan, and even not on its territory) tongue
            1. Glory1974
              Glory1974 17 December 2020 09: 33
              -2
              Of the indicated number of planes, half are defective, not modernized, there are not enough pilots. What's the use? In 41, they also riveted thousands of plywood aircraft, quickly taught the pilots how to take off and land, and what did they accomplish the assigned tasks?
              As for examples, I wrote about Khasan and Khalkhin Gol. But you probably know little of history, but meanwhile, after these battles, the Japanese emperor said: "We received an initial military education at Lake Khasan, and a secondary education at Khalkhin Gol. We will not receive a higher military education." After that, the expansion of Japan turned to the south, they decided to fight the Americans. Our army should be able to inflict such blows so that any aggressor, having washed in blood, would give back. tongue
  5. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 16 December 2020 09: 44
    +6
    The exact number of the S-400 systems in service with the air defense and missile defense forces of Russia is unknown. But, apparently, the number of these complexes alone already exceeds the presence of Patriot launchers in the US armed forces.


    It is enough to look at the data from the adversary:


    Division up to 12 launchers.
    20x4 = 80 i.e. about 80 S-400 launchers according to US intelligence from open sources
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 16 December 2020 10: 07
      +5
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich


      Division up to 12 launchers.

      In theory, in fact there are no more than 8 SPUs in a division.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 16 December 2020 12: 15
        +2
        Quote: Tucan
        In theory, in fact there are no more than 8 SPUs in a division.


        I agree - on average, we can assume from 80 to 160 units of the S-400 launcher deployed - which is very good.
        The adversary does not indicate the exact number of deployed launchers, although he is well aware of the structure, etc.
        If there is a reconnaissance satellite constellation, he has this information almost in real time.
        But this, so far, is less than the deployed Protriroth.
        1. bayard
          bayard 17 December 2020 06: 10
          +2
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          But this, so far, is less than the deployed Protriroth.

          How. belay
          Why don't we consider all the available S-300s of all modifications?
          Including S-300V \ B4?
          And at the same time already the "Buki-M2".
          In addition, the American Patriots are scattered across many foreign bases, but there are not so many of them on the continent.
          "Patriots" generally need to be correlated with the old samples of the S-300, they are no match for the new air defense system.
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 17 December 2020 10: 29
            -1
            Quote: bayard
            Why don't we consider all the available S-300s of all modifications?
            Including S-300V \ B4?


            The question was about the S-400 and not the S-300.
            Or will we lump everything together? THAAD, Patriot, Standart ...
            1. bayard
              bayard 17 December 2020 22: 39
              +1
              The Patriot appeared at the same time as the S-300, and it is conventionally its analogue. If you want to be equal to the S-400, then ... you can compare it with THAAD (although the S-400 is more versatile in terms of functionality).
              In any case, the air defense systems of the Russian Federation are more advanced and this is already traditional, as life and geography have developed.
              And to exclude heavy S-300 air defense systems from the calculation ... this is nonsense. And the author is simply not very competent in air defense.
            2. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 04
              -2
              both taad then)) per one hundred square meters s300v4 each with a dozen spu.
    2. Camrad
      Camrad 16 December 2020 22: 30
      +1
      division is a division, not a division, a regiment-regiment, we are talking about 20 regiments of four hundred.
      1. Toucan
        Toucan 17 December 2020 01: 12
        +1
        In Zrp S-400 there can be up to 12 SPU, but usually 8. In zrp 2-3 zrdn. In the air defense 2-4 zrp + radio engineering parts.
      2. bayard
        bayard 17 December 2020 06: 12
        +2
        Quote: Comrad
        division is a division, not a division, a regiment-regiment, we are talking about 20 regiments of four hundred.

        Quite right. Moreover, the first regimental kits were delivered in a three-divisional composition.
        1. yaglon
          yaglon 18 December 2020 20: 52
          0
          In general, if 36 regiments are re-equipped with 4 divisions each, we will talk about about 1200-1300 S-400 air defense systems (now apparently no more than a thousand air defense systems of this type), which, in fact, is close to the "throughput" of the regular organization - by the beginning of the 90 x Russia had about 1800 S-300P air defense systems, which the S-400 replaces
          1. bayard
            bayard 19 December 2020 00: 43
            +2
            Quote: yaglon
            In general, if 36 regiments are re-equipped with 4 divisions

            Alas, now almost all of the regiments are two-division. request , but for the first few years, three-division kits went to the troops ... but that was in the suburbs.
            Here it would be, over time, to equip the existing regiments to a three-divisional composition ...
            1. yaglon
              yaglon 19 December 2020 12: 39
              +1
              They will be re-armed, I think, in the very near future, a year before 2025. I also wrote that people here believe that 80-160 launchers are deployed. This is not so, about 1000 launchers have already been deployed, and their number will only grow.
        2. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 05
          -1
          each from 400 to 3 divisions is 18 targets in a salvo at a time. when there were s300ps, eot needed 18 divisions.
  6. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 16 December 2020 10: 05
    -1
    10 RQ170 Sentinel and 7 RQ-180

    Where does the data come from? There are no facts of the existence of the RQ-180, and the author is already writing their number.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 December 2020 17: 07
      -1
      "There is no evidence of the existence of the RQ-180." Actually, that is, it was put into service in 2019.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 16 December 2020 17: 09
        -2
        A document confirming this? Photo of the plane?
        + they have no concept of "adopted"
  7. Alien From
    Alien From 16 December 2020 10: 55
    +5
    With all due respect to the author, this is a very dry article ...
  8. Tektor
    Tektor 16 December 2020 11: 31
    -10%
    The tanker plane is a fairly easy target. And if you make these tankers a priority target, kill them with anything at the very beginning of the conflict, then the capabilities of the states' air wings will dramatically decrease.
    1. Escobar
      Escobar 16 December 2020 13: 40
      +1
      This does not diminish the need for their presence in the RF videoconferencing
  9. APASUS
    APASUS 16 December 2020 12: 35
    +2
    The author makes the comparison a little incorrectly. The United States has more than 100 military facilities around the world, therefore, transport aviation is well developed. Also, we must take into account the revisionist policy of the United States in the military sphere, Americans are constantly waging wars. And the military budget is the largest in the world. Consequently, the presence of combat technical and aviation components exceeds the capabilities of any country.
    What's the point in such a comparison
  10. iouris
    iouris 16 December 2020 13: 24
    -4
    Why compare with the United States? The Russian Federation is not the USSR, but everything that is not the USSR cannot compare itself with the United States. Compare with Poland, with Turkey. Compare with Moldova ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 16 December 2020 13: 47
      +1
      Moldova has no Air Force. But Poland and Turkey have, and non-fig.
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 16 December 2020 14: 28
        +3
        In general, to be honest, it would be more interesting to consider the speed with which potential participants in a hypothetical conflict can create the most combat-ready grouping in a threatening direction, with all the ensuing supply issues, reserves, etc. , of course, to be mistaken, but out of all the countries mentioned above in the trade, something similar was done only by our overseas partners in the year 90-91. ...
      2. iouris
        iouris 17 December 2020 13: 00
        -1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Moldova has no Air Force.

        Therefore, it is easy to compare.
    2. Left shot
      Left shot 16 December 2020 21: 48
      -3
      I want to compare with Israel. With one movement - once and there is no Israel ...
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 17 December 2020 13: 16
        0
        In one movement, the RF Armed Forces were withdrawn from Syria in 15 minutes. And at the expense of Israel - it is only on the Internet to fight with the nuclear powers, many who wish. However, as well as to communicate with Israel on its territory.
        1. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 06
          -3
          soldier like gritsa 1 sneeze and no Israel ... for example 1 nuclear sneeze. but Israel will of course take revenge on the United States for nespavsli inflicting a hundred nuclear strikes on him in Google.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 23 December 2020 12: 19
            +1
            Are you not aware of the situation with Israeli nuclear weapons? Google it.
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 23
              -4
              willingly not) because so far they are writing the same thing about Ira.n. and what is the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons do not specify? anaver the fact that it will completely cover Israel with precipitation.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 23 December 2020 12: 42
                +1
                Don't you feel sorry for Moscow and its surroundings? In principle, I can understand you, this is a fairly common point of view.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 16 December 2020 22: 41
    +1
    The US Air Force has no competitors and is not foreseen even in the distant future, so our strategic nuclear forces are our everything
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 07
      -3
      US air force ... those who jokingly bombed Iran?
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 23 December 2020 12: 12
        0
        these are those who have real modern airplanes and helicopters in numbers that we never dreamed of, and they successfully bombed many people, I will not list, this is not a secret
        1. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 18
          -3
          and I will help you. Serbia having lost 2 aircraft out of 1000 against 25 s125 of which they mastered 2 pieces to destroy. still afghanistan without air defense but having lost hundreds of planes and helicopters there in 10+ years, give a list? probably still Iraq in 2003 and not 91 against the air defense much smaller than the Soviet regiment. lost 79 aircraft and Iraq 139 ... the magic of numbers)))
          1. _Ugene_
            _Ugene_ 23 December 2020 12: 27
            0
            these losses for their air force are at the level of losses in peacetime during exercises, you better write the results in terms of infrastructure destruction, etc., this is much more important
            and in general it is rather stupid to deny the obvious things, not a single military expert in his right mind will now question that the US Air Force is the first in the world, and if the propaganda of our media affected you so then I sympathize
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 35
              -3
              so that asad you are soooo afraid that you are not afraid at all. and Iran is bombing US air force bases. and the Taliban dictate the terms of the United States. and DPR too. and venezuela. and others.
  13. hostel
    hostel 19 December 2020 12: 55
    0
    The main lag is in tanker aircraft, RTR, AWACS, RTR.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 36
      -3
      Well, yes, the United States talks a lot about the fact that their tankers are completely vulnerable and useless, and the old ones that almost fall right on the ground. rtr and rab also write they say Russia has overtaken forever. drolow? so that moment 31 a full-fledged drolow is also a weapon. besides the fact that the air force and air defense of even Syria are integrated better than f16 + awaks + patriot.
  14. certero
    certero 21 December 2020 20: 13
    0
    Alas, it is necessary to compare the Russian Air Force with NATO aircraft. And in this comparison it is still sadder.
    Therefore, Russia is simply obliged to develop unmanned aircraft.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 December 2020 12: 19
      -3
      drinks I listen! drinks
      =) and what not? it should be over! immediately fart eot in where it should be understood.
  15. Alekxandr
    Alekxandr 22 December 2020 13: 13
    -1
    Think of the Korean and Vietnam wars. The United States, having lost its 30% of its aviation, stopped the war. And now they have cruise missiles, about 7000 pieces. They will hit first with the Tomahawk missiles. If there is a success, they will destroy 50% of the enemy's air defense systems, then they will strike with bombers and fighter aircraft. Those. what do you need ??
    The solution is nearby - to develop air defense systems to destroy 70% of enemy missiles. Then the United States will not stick its way into our territories.

    Remember. In Syria, the United States lost more than 60% of the tomohawk and then they did not dare to strike with aircraft.
    Since they could have lost more than 30% of their aviation in this region.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 24 December 2020 12: 31
      -1
      So far, today all this American sea, land and air armada of the United States is powerless even against the DPRK army !!! ))))))))
      In the confrontation between the United States and its allies against the DPRK so far in the current situation the score is 1: 0 in favor of the DPRK !!! What cannot but surprise !!! The DPRK exists in its current form, despite all the attempts of the pro-American West and East !!! Therefore, in recent decades, attempts to peacefully displace Kim by imposing scenarios of unification with the south or some kind of restructuring version there.

      If the United States, together with the satellites, could overthrow the Kims by military means, they would have done it a long time ago !!! In the meantime - sorry - there is no reception against scrap (especially nuclear scrap) !!!
  16. Silinvv
    Silinvv 25 December 2020 10: 33
    -1
    Comparing the power of the armies of the United States, Russia and China has no practical meaning, and that's why - the fleet ... Aircraft carriers are the projection of force on countries where there is no serious defense and submarine fleet. In short, for the Papuans. In the event of a conflict, Russia or China will not allow the armada to come closer than a couple of thousand kilometers to the borders and will simply sink this armada, just like if the Chinese Navy or Navy approaches the United States. Aviation ... you can compare as much as you like the maneuverability of the dryers and the F-35 until the air defense begins to operate, or missile attacks on airfields are carried out. The planes, of course, shoot at each other and launch a dozen serious missiles, but very quickly they will be shot down by the enemy's air defense. Perhaps the Aerospace Forces will delve a little further into the territory of Europe, but it is unrealistic to attack the United States, perhaps Alaska. Ground Forces ... Of course, the advantage of the Russian Federation and China is near the borders, but there is no efficiency. When the tanks arrive, the cities will be in ruins. Is that to do a sweep. Just like the tank groupings in Europe will be quickly destroyed. Air support is neutralized by air defense. So that IMHO the bottom line is nuclear weapons. And they will not use it, unless the decision maker brings a fresh plan from Afghanistan. I believe that a military conflict between the three countries is possible only with the use of nuclear weapons. Otherwise, it's just a short duel and everyone is sitting without aircraft and fleet.
  17. kig
    kig 18 January 2021 12: 27
    0
    In this country, the Russian Aerospace Forces receive real combat experience.

    This experience is very specific: our adversaries there have neither normal air defense nor air force.