Su-35 against NATO aircraft

Today, many are talking about what will begin in the skies of Ukraine, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine receive (hereinafter the list of Western-made aircraft) much-needed fighters.

Let me express and justify the opinion that absolutely NOTHING will start.

It may seem strange to some, but indeed, there are simply no prerequisites for those air battles that the fantasy of some writers on the Internet draws. But let's go in order.

Taking as a source of information one of the sites from the other side and one of ours, where the losses of both sides are calculated quite honestly, that is, with tracking of publications of obituaries, and in the case of the Ukrainian side there are still confirmations, the following picture turned out: during the NWO from 28.02.2022/05.04.2/23 to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX (so far everything has been investigated for this date, but that's enough for us) Ukrainian the side officially lost precisely in air battles:

February 24, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Lieutenant Colonel Yerko Vyacheslav Vladimirovich died.
February 24, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Lieutenant Colonel Kokhansky Vladimir Mikhailovich died.
February 24, 2022. Downed Su-27. Major Kolomiets Dmitry Valerievich died. District with. Kryntsilov, Khmelnytsky region.
February 28, 2022. Downed Su-27. Major Chobanu Stepan Ivanovich died. Air battle over Kropyvnytskyi.
March 1, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Major Brinzhala Alexander Petrovich died.
March 8, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Major Lyutashin Andrey Alexandrovich died.
March 13, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Major Taralka Stepan Ivanovich died. Air battle in the Zhytomyr region.
March 23, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Major Chumachenko Dmitry Romanovich died. Air battle at Trigorye, Zhytomyr region.
March 30, 2022. Downed Su-24R. Major Gorodnichev Konstantin Valentinovich and Colonel Sikalenko Maxim Anatolyevich died. Air combat in the area with. Tumen, Rivne region
May 5, 2022. Downed Mi-14. Colonel Bedzai Igor Vladimirovich and Major Ilchuk Vasily Vasilyevich died. The helicopter was shot down by gunfire from a Su-35 fighter near Pervomaisky Island between Kinburn Spit and Nikolaev.
January 27, 2023. Downed Su-25. A missile from a Su-35 fighter. The plane crashed near Andreevka, DPR.
January 27, 2023. Downed Su-25. A missile from a Su-30 fighter. Captain Murashko Daniil Gennadievich died. Su-25 shot down near Kramatorsk.
March 2, 2023. A Russian Aerospace Forces fighter shot down a Su-24. The crew (pilot Viktor Volynets and navigator Igor Solomennikov) died.

In general, few, if considered impartially, almost the same number of aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine died from their own air defense systems. The vast majority of downed Ukrainian planes and helicopters are accounted for by Russian anti-aircraft missile systems.

What does it say? Only about what aviation The Armed Forces of Ukraine prefer to work where there is no real possibility of running into the same Su-35s.

Today there will be a few quotes, but for a change - from the other side. It makes sense to show how the Ukrainian military figures themselves assess their abilities and needs.

“The MiG-29 has a visibility range with its radar systems of only 60 kilometers, firing range of 30 kilometers. For example, Su-35s have a radar range of more than 200 kilometers and a firing range of more than 100 kilometers.- Minister of Defense of Ukraine Oleksiy Reznikov.

Mr. Minister is a little sorry, the Ukrainian version of the N019U1 radar can “look” a little further than 60 km, but, in fact, yes, this is still the same “Phasotron” radar from the 80s of the last century. And therefore, of course, the MiG-29MU2 is a very easy target for the Su-35.

In addition, there is still the question of the use of the MiG-29 by the Ukrainian Air Force. Basically, the aircraft was destined for the role of an attack aircraft, because the role of a cruise missile interceptor went to the Su-27, which is not a worker on the ground at all.

The huge losses of the MiGs at the beginning of the SVO were caused by the fact that everything that the MiG-29 pilots could hit the enemy with, except for bombs, was again the Soviet Kh-29 missiles, the launch range of which for the Kh-29E and Kh- modifications available for Ukraine 29T does not exceed 10-12 km, which means that it is guaranteed to expose any Russian air defense system to attack. The same "Thor" M1 has the ability to defeat the MiG-29 before the launch of the Kh-29.

Of course, air defense systems also have problems in the form of anti-radar missiles to a lesser extent and drones-kamikaze in more. The air defense systems are hunted, and hunted very successfully by both sides of the conflict. And far from always, air defense systems can fight off a threat from the sky. Paradox, but true.

And at present, such a cycle has been formed in nature, which allows Ukrainians today to somewhat justify such a slow pace of the counteroffensive to their Western partners. It turns out that the equipment that goes to the forefront receives from Russian aviation, missilemen and drone fighters. Air defense systems, which should counteract the aerospace forces, are received from UAVs of all stripes. It cannot be said that the Ukrainian side is completely inactive, but even before the start of the JMD, we said on our pages that the aircraft and air defense systems that are in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot be compared with Russian ones.

Like it or not, Russian technology is more modern.

The fact that NATO sends its air defense systems from time to time is not bad for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, Ukrainians will not be able to saturate the LBS with these gifts due to the small number. It remains only to protect the objects in the rear, moreover, selectively.

And now, with enviable persistence, Kyiv is hammering that it needs fighters. No, they are undoubtedly needed, with their help you can hunt for cruise missiles, drones, enemy aircraft and torment air defense with anti-radar missiles.

Here it is necessary to understand two things very clearly: which planes will be transferred (if they are transferred) and who will sit at the controls.

And we will start with the second part, this is the more significant part. There are plenty of planes riveted in the world, which cannot be said about the pilots who are ready to fight on them in terms of Ukraine.

Western fighters need suitably trained pilots. This is a fact that we have spoken about more than once or twice. And in six months these pilots cannot be retrained, whatever you do, they are “sharpened” for other equipment. They are not fools in the West, they perfectly see how successfully the Ukrainians use donated NATO equipment, how easily the same Leopards are put into statistics.

And foreign benefactors are well aware that more than one hundred "Leopards" will burn easily and simply in the Ukrainian fire, just give it free rein. But the Leopard 2 costs almost $7 million, while the cheapest F-16 Falcon costs at least $43 million. That is, you understood the essence of the problem: a tank can fight, and a Sokol shot down in the first sortie is 6 Leopards, whatever one may say.

And the pilot must be prepared, well, not for six months. Yes, programs are already underway there, but they are of no use... They will, of course, teach you how to fly, and, given the level of training of Ukrainian pilots, they will teach you how to fly quite decently. But to fight ... is doubtful.

Of course, there is the option of mercenaries. And this is a very acceptable option, I must say. Put at the controls of Western aircraft those who know how to fly and fight on these aircraft. And at the very least, there are such people, but it is quite possible to hire them for decent money.

Of course, it will cost more than a retrained Ukrainian pilot with a Su-27 (you have seen MiGs on fire in the truest sense of the word), but a Ukrainian can burn out on the very first flight, because he will not have time to switch to response actions in a new aircraft for himself. And a European or American mercenary may be able to live and fight longer.

In general, of course, it is doubtful that there will be many applicants, but there will be a certain number of crazy people. Who is not afraid of the S-300 and Su-35. But the critically required amount, of course, cannot be dialed. However, everything is better than Ukrainian pilots, somehow retrained at accelerated courses in Europe.

But in the end, should we feel sorry for the enemy?

Now the second part, more precisely, the first, but more understandable. Aircraft. And here it must be clearly understood that it will not be the MiG-29 and not the Su-27 that will resist the Ukrainian and not very aircraft because of their small remaining number due to their removal from the Aerospace Forces due to obsolescence. A certain amount of Su-27SM and SM3, of course, is not a match for the original versions, but everything else ...

So really, what you have to deal with is the Su-30 and Su-35. And here it is necessary to imagine very well the picture of a probable battle between these aircraft and what could take off from Ukrainian airfields.

What can be transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, we dismantled almost all (except for the Swede) - the American F-16, the Swedish JAS-39 "Gripen", the European "Tornado" and "Typhoon" and the French Mirage-2000.

Let's go briefly, in terms of preference.

F-16 "Fighting Falcon"

Here we will try to do without stupid things like what was written in one Russian state media:

“In terms of performance characteristics, the F-16 is comparable to its peers - the MiG-29 and Su-27. And in some ways even surpasses them. But more modern Russian aircraft - the Su-35 and MiG-31 - are noticeably inferior. ”

It must be clearly understood that the F-16 in this list has only one type of aircraft, somehow suitable for comparison - the MiG-29. The Su-27 and its pinnacle of development, the Su-35, as well as the MiG-31, are aircraft of a completely different class. These are twin-engine heavy fighters and an interceptor, large in mass and power-to-weight ratio. Accordingly, initially able to take more powerful equipment. And the whole conversation about comparisons can be ended with the fact that the radars of twin-engine Russian aircraft see much further (and they really see) than on lighter single-engine aircraft.

The F-16 is NATO's most massive combat aircraft. Solid, relatively cheap, a participant in all wars and conflicts in which NATO countries fought, but slightly morally and physically obsolete for fifty years. In general, everything is like the MiG-29, but on the other side.

The most significant advantage of the Falcon is that for 50 years they have come up with just a mountain of the most diverse missile and bomb weapons. In addition, the aircraft has the most developed logistics network in Europe and beyond, and thousands of specialists have been trained to work with the F-16. This is also a very significant aspect, because without specialists who understand maintenance and repair, this will be an aircraft of three sorties.

In the class of single-engine aircraft, the F-16 is perhaps the best. Very reliable, with good performance and thrust-to-weight ratio, it is the most tidbit for the APU. Because pilots are already being trained, and Sokolov will definitely be given by those who have already lined up for the F-35. And there are enough of them among European countries.

How good will the F-16 be against the Su-35? The Americans from Military Watch Magazine doubt and fear that such fights will end not in favor of the F-16, which means they will damage American prestige.

However, a coalition has already formed, which includes Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States, which is preparing to transfer the F-16 to Ukraine. And pilot training is already underway not only in the United States.

But here, perhaps, it makes sense to think about the tactics of application. The F-16 can be used as a strike aircraft against ground targets, the question is what range of weapons will be given to the supplied aircraft. But more on tactics below.

JAS 39 "Gripen"

The aircraft is much younger than the F-16, it was put into service in 1997, in general, the Griffin is similar to the Falcon, but lighter, inferior in combat load and range. It is understandable, the plane was conceived as a means of protecting Swedish airspace from ... most likely, from Russian aircraft. And in this scenario, the range was an insignificant factor.

The aircraft can be used as a strike aircraft, it is capable of bombs and air-to-surface missiles, and even anti-ship ones. But this is secondary, first of all, it is a fighter.

The “feature” of the JAS 39 is that the aircraft, due to its frankly low weight (8 tons versus 12 for the F-16 Block 50/52), is able to take off and land on short unequipped runways or use ordinary roads as such.

The price is slightly more expensive than the F-16 of those models that can get into Ukraine.

How good will the JAS 39 be against the Su-35? Question…

Mirage 2000 and Tornado

Forgive me for lumping two completely different aircraft into one pile, but the principle of unification is the same - Ukrainians frankly turn up their noses at this technology. In Kyiv, these aircraft are not highly valued.

“They will not help us - I would ask all experts to refrain from these stupid comments. The same "Mirages" - compare with the MiG-29, and everything will become clear ", - said in March of this year, the talking head of the Ukrainian Air Force Yuri Ignat.

In fact, the Mirage is a quite wealthy fourth-generation aircraft, which normally took part in hostilities with the same Indian and Greek Air Forces. Yes, it was discontinued back in 2007, but the aircraft is quite acceptable.

"Tornado" yes, frankly old. The fact that both aircraft in the battle with the Su-35 will turn into scrap metal is understandable.

Eurofighter «Typhoon»

This is what the Ukrainians have been asking for for a long time. It is clear why, the aircraft is much younger than the Mirage and Tornado, in terms of combat characteristics it is quite comparable to the F-16 and even surpasses the Griffin, but as a product the Typhoon is much more expensive and more difficult to maintain.

So the receipt of these aircraft by Ukraine in general looks very doubtful. Although it is already clear that what the Ukrainian military pilots will fly on is not decided in Kyiv.

“Now we have moved to discuss the topic of strengthening the Ukrainian Air Force as part of our commitment to Ukraine’s self-defense, in the coming months we will work with our allies to determine where the aircraft will be transferred, how many and who will transfer them.” - National Security Adviser to the President of the United States Jake Sullivan.

There is such a nuance here: if gentlemen, the allies decide to give different aircraft, here, by analogy with tank and artillery diversity in the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be a complete nightmare. We will have to train not only pilots for American or Swedish aircraft, but also engineers, technicians, and so on. An aircraft is a more complex mechanism than the same self-propelled guns, and the presence of Soviet, Polish, French, Slovak and Turkish self-propelled guns in the Armed Forces of Ukraine can be endured much easier than fussing with planes.

So the F-16 really looks preferable.

But let's talk now about air combat.

Air combat is a direct clash of aircraft. Such an event is very controversial and very fleeting.

The latest massive dogfight that can be referenced is the fight between the Indian and Pakistani air forces in February 2019. Yes, there were 24 Pakistani planes against 8 Indian ones, so everything was limited to missile launches from an almost safe distance and an insane attack by an Indian pilot on the MiG-21 of his Pakistani colleagues. As a result, the exchange of the MiG-21 for the F-16 and that's it.

But this is India and Pakistan. And we have Ukrainian realities and Ukrainian pilots who will be taught by instructors from NATO. And according to all the instructions and models of combat according to NATO standards, aircraft (the same F-16s) operate in large groups of different numbers. The most effective model is a "wing" of 16-18 aircraft, which operate in echelon.

The first group is a pair of reconnaissance. These are "skirmishers" who simply assess the battlefield, "catch" the radiation of other people's radars, transmit data for analysis, and often simulate an attack. This is the launch of medium-range missiles "in the direction of the enemy" or anti-radar missiles also in the direction of operating radars. And that's all, and further turn and at maximum speed under the cover of their air defense.
The second group is shock. Usually two pairs that work from different heights. If the first pair of reconnaissance "broke up" and the enemy aircraft began maneuvers to evade missiles, breaking the formation, then the second echelon begins to work hard on them. If the enemy accepts the fight, then the first pair can easily return and play the role of a reserve link, adding their five cents to the fight.

The third group is usually two pairs of cover. They ensure the withdrawal of the first two groups so that nothing flies into the precious nozzles on the way out and catch enemy planes on a counterattack if they go to catch up with the retreating ones.

The fourth group is the reserve, which dangles nearby and enters into action if it starts to take a completely ugly turn.

Considering that today in the sky of Ukraine the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian Aerospace Forces operate mainly in pairs or even single aircraft, it is difficult to imagine such sorties. And in order for the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to start working in this manner, one can estimate how many aircraft and flight personnel will be needed.

Today, it is almost impossible to imagine a “classic” air combat “airplane to plane” even in such conditions when both sides do not take off in groups. Both Ukrainian, NATO and Russian fighters are equipped with on-board radio-electronic systems, which not only can look at tens of kilometers, but also interact with ground and air early warning and control systems.

That is, the appearance of an enemy aircraft may be, but this is already from a completely separate opera, an ambush. And yes, in such situations, battles at very short distances (up to 20 km) are quite possible.

And here, of course, decides who saw and reacted first. That is, either launched missiles, or began to brush aside those launched in his direction with the help of a defense complex or maneuver.

about maneuvering. It's difficult here. The F-16 is light, like the MiG-29. And fidgety too, although in the understanding of a classic aircraft. And the Su-30 or Su-35 that flew out after him, even though they are still chests in mass, but their rotary nozzles and controlled engine thrust vector will be able to provide these strands with maneuverability, which can be better than that of the F-16.

Here the pilot's ability to use the aircraft's capabilities to the fullest will greatly influence. The large turning radii of the F-16 and the prospect of "breaking the trajectory" of the Su-35 are different moments and the advantage here is clearly behind our aircraft.

But the main thing is the human factor. A volunteer mercenary (sarcasm, if anything) from NATO countries will have the opportunity to get away from the Su-35, a retrained Ukrainian - I doubt it. Su-35 in terms of acceleration, braking, turning both vertically and horizontally looks preferable to the F-16. Of course, if there is an experienced instructor with 30 years of experience in the Sokol's cockpit, and we have a lieutenant-captain, then the American will have a chance. But even the major-lieutenant colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be frankly sorry.

In general, all these stories that experienced pilots of the former Soviet aviation can be retrained on the F-16 in six months or a year, or even in a quarter, are complete nonsense. In general, there are practically no pilots of Soviet aviation left, so, surviving veterans, who are in the region of fifty dollars and beyond. Moreover, not only in the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but also in our country. Here it is appropriate to say this: this is different. Another school, another technique, other skills - everything is different. So different from the piloting skills that the Ukrainian pilots have received that it will take them years to master and confidently use American fighters. Takeoff and landing experience will be gained instantly, there is no dispute, but combat use, which requires, first of all, a sense of a different technique, is a problem.

But we are talking about air combat, where the pilot works to the fullest, because otherwise he will add to the list that was at the beginning! This means that it is necessary to release into the air against the Russian Aerospace Forces not retrained pilots who can take off and fly, but capable of performing complex combat missions at any time of the day, in any weather. Are there many of these in the Ukrainian Air Force? I'm sure not. There were not very many of them, but here they were also thinned out in full.

But I will continue to hammer woodpecker: six months or a year of unhurried training under NATO programs will not make Ukrainian pilots professionals on the F-16. So they will burn.

And even the numerical superiority of the aforementioned F-16 wing may not play such a role. The question is not the number of missiles that can be launched in one salvo (although this is also one of the components of success), the question is who can defend themselves against them.

Of course, the most modern AIM-120, RVV-AE or MBDA "Meteor", which practically work on the "fire and forget" principle, is unpleasant and dangerous. There are missiles that even active electronic warfare systems do not have an effect on, moreover, it is precisely at the source of interference that guidance is being carried out. Another question: who said that these ultra-modern weapons will be handed over to Kyiv?

A couple more words about possible problems.

I have already noted above, now I will simply expand one thesis about the power supply and not only. A single-engine aircraft is small compared to a twin-engine aircraft. But you need to shove as much into it as into a twin-engine one, otherwise why make a fuss at all? Well, or almost as much in terms of mass as in terms of volume. There are things without which a combat aircraft simply is not.

So the main problem of all single-seat combat aircraft is the perfectly working fighter systems, which are utterly squeezed in the hull. So they should be set up by understanding and cool specialists.

That is, near each aircraft from Europe, a whole team of a technical and operational nature with very qualified specialists in routine maintenance, maintenance, tuning of all systems, rearmament, and minor repairs should fuss. Teach? For six months, as a pilot?

You know, bring in your F-16s. No offense, enough for five flights. Further - I will not guess, but somehow this case does not look at all further. But I have already spoken about engineers and technicians so many times that I am already tired of it. They are more important than the pilots, but apparently this is not understood in some places. As it happened with the "Leopards": tanks were thrown, but rembaz and ARVs were not. And then they began to make a fuss, to supply engineering equipment. And these are tanks, everything is much simpler there.

How many different stations will have to be driven along with the planes - I won’t even dare to say, because I’m simply not aware of the entire NATO nomenclature, but the fact that there is a lot of everything is clear.

And all this equipment will need to be taught to ground personnel.

In general, most likely, the F-16s are not just promised, they have already arrived at some bases where Ukrainians are being retrained. Well, that's what their partners do. So it was with missiles and with other types of weapons. So somewhere the Falcons are already standing and waiting.

Moreover, I am absolutely sure that these are aircraft of the Block 50/52 modification, the most common, because the more modern Block 70/72, sorry, will squeeze. They are moving too slowly in the F-35 series, which can replace the "70/72" for those who care about deliveries to the Ukrainians.

As a result, no matter what was delivered there, we won’t see air battles. It is fundamentally expensive, both materially and humanly. Well, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have very few decent pilots left to throw them on F-16s or Mirages against Su-35s.

I am sure that the Ukrainians will use the donated aircraft where the presence of both the Su-30/35 and S-300/400 is just minimized. Yes, the interception of cruise missiles and "Shaheds" over the cities, under the cover of air defense. Yes, it is possible to carry out missile and bomb strikes against troops, but only where this can be done with impunity. And intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. To be absolutely sure that nothing will fly into the nozzle and will not hit the cockpit from above with pins.

We will not see dashing air battles; for this, on the other side there are neither aircraft capable of fighting on a par with our fighters, nor pilots capable of using foreign equipment at maximum speed.

Yes, it is difficult to carry out offensive or counter-offensive actions without air support, in the style of the First World War. But even if NATO planes are, in principle, ready to engage in combat with Russian fighters, Ukrainian pilots are not suitable for this.

The issue of mercenaries is also acute, if there is money, but there will be those who want to try. However, the issue of attracting foreign specialists may not solve the problem either. Modern foreign missiles on the MiG-29 did not solve the issues of neutralizing Russian aviation and air defense systems, and Ukrainians have owned their aircraft for a long time. So those who want to die in the sky of Ukraine from among the same pilots of the NATO countries may simply not be.

Therefore, I consider the question of air battles and possible successes in them by aircraft of NATO countries as a whole closed.

Comments

[Toucan]

By and large, the article is "about nothing" - a lot of water and little specifics. In addition, it is noticeable that the author does not understand the aviation topic very well.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Tucan

By and large, the article is "about nothing" - plenty of water and few specifics.

- Water!
- Silly woman, where can I find water for you?
- Back and forth water ...

What can be the specifics if there were no air battles between the Su-35 and NATO aircraft a priori ...
Articles of this nature are written in the spirit - who will win: S-400 or F-35 ...

[Paul Siebert]

"- Valiko, if you tie a big plane and your helicopter with a chain, who will win?
- Chain!.."
(C)

[Bingo]

Quote: Tucan

By and large, the article is "about nothing"

On the contrary, it’s just sensible and to the point, even suddenly somehow ... Something this author, on the contrary, recently went into some kind of fantasy, but here it’s sorted out precisely on the most specific, which is not the case, as it will be in life , spelled out. From the moment I got into the cab.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote from Bingo

On the contrary, it’s just sensible and to the point, even suddenly somehow ... Something this author, on the contrary, recently went into some kind of fantasy, but here it’s sorted out precisely on the most specific, which is not the case, as it will be in life , spelled out. From the moment I got into the cab.

I smoked the Primer in first grade...

On the contrary, it is just sensible and to the point. The author unexpectedly surprised me, because recently he went into some kind of fantasy, but here everything is laid out on the shelves, specific examples are given of how it will look in real life. Spelled from the moment of landing in the cockpit.

Approximately so your thoughts look in the presentation in Russian.

[qQQQ]

The most important thing in modern combat is target designation. Here we are very far behind. With the presence of AWACS in 24/7 F16, and indeed any enemy aircraft, the enemy is not weak, and in some aspects superior to us.

[Igor K]

Plus the satellites of the adversary: ​​who took off from where, etc.

[Belisarius]

The author demonstrates a conceptual misunderstanding (or pretends to demonstrate), which would not be important if he did not express a certain tendency of "fighter thinking". The fact is that many of us believe that the main aircraft are fighters and the main thing is "air fights."
But people don't live in the air, they live on the ground. The only meaning of aviation strike the groundor help to do so. These may be strikes in the rear or on the front lines, they may contribute more or less to ground battles. But this is particular. Accordingly, the main strike aircraft, everything else is just servants for them. It is also important, the fighters allow their strikers to work and shoot down strangers, but this is the servants.
And as the war showed, it was with strikes on the ground at our Air Force (which, on the whole, became a big disappointment, for example, no one expected anything from the fleet, so it didn’t show anything, but they expected at least something from aviation) just catastrophic problems. Until now, the air defense of Ukraine has not been suppressed and even their air force is alive, but most importantly, our aviation does not have a significant impact on the course of hostilities. Now they are trying to fix it frantically, planning bombs have finally begun to appear. but so far everything is bad here.
Therefore, the danger with the supply of F-16s is not at all that they are dangerous for the Su-35 and they are supplied for some kind of "air battles". They will not give a damn about the Su-35 and air battles. The point is that this is a good platform for launching a huge number of various kinds of guided / planning weapons that will fly over our headquarters and locations, over bridges and airfields. In conjunction with the reconnaissance and target designation system, this will be our problem. And we need to think about how to shoot them down, despite the fact that they are not going to participate in any "air battles".

[cold wind]

Therefore, all the "fighters" of the West have become multifunctional. Fighter functions need a short time, about the air offensive. For cover from accidentally taking off enemy fighters. Even with an air offensive, there is an overwhelming amount of work on ground targets. Therefore, a pure fighter / interceptor is now nonsense, they are simply not needed 99% of the time.

[JD1979]

Quote from cold wind

Therefore, a pure fighter / interceptor is now nonsense, they are simply not needed 99% of the time.

Well, yes, this has been clear to everyone for a long time, except for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ... It is also clear to everyone that the aircraft must be of the same type, which ensures greater serial production, even with mediocre characteristics, and provides air superiority over any analogues in single copies. And then most of them work on the ground, and the rest on cover. Logistics and economy in war are no less important than in civilian life.
And in Russia there are only Su-35 and Su-30SM, which can oppose something to NATO aircraft, and everything else: Su-25, Su-24, Su-34 is just rubbish and a waste of money. Modifications of the Su-27 still in service can be attributed to partial garbage, since their avionics do not stand up to criticism and the MiG-31, most likely, too, is a very niche machine. The absence of an analogue of Link-16 and AFAR for interaction in the group for exchanging information via the Wi-Fi protocol also greatly cuts the capabilities of our aviation in terms of control and interaction (yes, there is one too)

[bayard]

Quote: JD1979

. It is also clear to everyone that the aircraft must be of the same type, which ensures greater serial production,

Well, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has relied on the same type of machines - heavy twin-engine MFIs based on the Su-27 airframe (Su-30 \ 34 \ 35), while abandoning the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXba light fighter in principle ...
AND ??
Have you benefited from this?
NO ! Without LFMI, it is impossible to ensure a sufficient number of combat personnel of the Air Force and the massiveness of their use. And the Air Force / Aerospace Forces themselves become very sensitive to losses.
And more about uniformity. Just don’t cite any Sweden as an example, look at the composition of the US Air Force. And we can only compare with them, because the size of the country, and the scale of the use of aviation, and the total number of the Air Force / Aerospace Forces, are comparable.
And what about the USA?
And there are heavy F-15 fighters of several modifications, at the same time both PURE IMPACT (like our Su-34s), and pure air superiority fighters. There is a separate article for the F-22s, which are also only for AIR COMBAT, and not at all for ground targets.
There are attack aircraft - armored, with a powerful gun and a large assortment of weapons for strikes against ground targets. And we have one - Su-25SM.
And there is ... they also have the same LFMI F-16. And they tried to make this fighter the same "universal soldier"! And only him. (we’ll keep quiet about the F-35 for now, they also mold a station wagon out of it, but so far everything is complicated)
So all your maxims that "a single MFI is needed for all the Air Force / Aerospace Forces" are nonsense and only make sense for small states, with a small territory and a limited Air Force. Here it is just for the sake of SAVINGS that it is desirable for them to have such a "universal soldier". Although it is clear that no F-16 or "Grippen" against a heavy fighter with a powerful radar and long-range missiles will pull. Even a link to one ... if from one angle. He simply will not allow them to reach the launch lines of his missiles and will shoot them from a long / medium distance.
but note that both in the USA and in our country they are trying not to use a heavy fighter to gain air supremacy in strike missions. Unless as cover fighters. And those very ... "universal" F-16s are blown away in strikes on the ground, because, firstly, it’s not so bad if you lose, and secondly, they are of little use in air combat. Is it only in the near, but you still need to go to such a distance.
But this is the problem with our Aerospace Forces, that we now simply do not have LFMI, and the Su-25SM and Su-34 perform strike functions.
And yet - we now have simply unforgivably LITTLE combat fighters. Because they considered heavy, enough and so much, "they are SUCH ", but it turned out that it was problematic to ensure high combat tension, constant air watch and action in different directions with limited forces with such a limited number. And if we had purchased at least a hundred and a half MiG-35S by this time, it would already be easier. Simply providing sufficient numbers in heavy vehicles alone...is too costly, and often heavy fighter capability is too costly for many missions.
Need a balance.
In the USA, the following ratio was determined: 30% of heavy fighters and 70% of light ones. And having such a ratio in the Air Force, they can very flexibly use and redistribute their forces, depending on the tasks ahead.
And we cannot.
We only have heavy ones.
The MiG-35S, of course, is not a panacea, and ideally a single-engine MFI is needed, but the Su-75 should wait another 10 years, no less, and the LFMI was needed in the standing yesterday. From here, the way out is to launch the MiG-35S with AFAR into the series and build from 300 to 400 of these aircraft only for the Aerospace Forces (and carrier-based aviation). In addition, just such an aircraft can and should be offered to our allies. But they will never buy it if it is not in service with us.
To the lamentations that "it is outdated" I will simply answer - which of the European fighters is now the most modern and in demand on the market?
That's right - "Rafale"! 4++ generation aircraft like our MiG-35S. In terms of performance characteristics, our aircraft will not yield to the Rafal in anything, neither in maneuverability, nor in speed. , nor thrust-to-weight ratio. The planes are about the same. Taking into account the AFAR radar on the MiG-35S and in terms of combat characteristics, too. And in terms of weapons.
But our MiG-35S, for all that, is about 3-4 times CHEAPER than the French. I'm talking about its attractiveness in the foreign market.
Therefore, the MiG-35S must be urgently put into series, and those fighters that have already been purchased (like so far 6 units) should be sent to the NVO for testing and gaining combat experience.

Quote: JD1979

The MiG-31 is most likely also a very niche car.

Yes - this is an air defense interceptor. What bothers you about it?
Or does our ground-based air defense cover the whole country?
And if not, how to solve the problem? On ground-based air defense with a continuous radar field, the USSR almost went bankrupt - a very expensive pleasure.
So the MiG-31 just closes this issue in the vast expanses of our Endless Motherland.
Very high speed (with new engines up to 3200, and even up to 3400 km / h), good range and very long-range VV BD missiles.
This is an AD FIGHTER, and for our spaces and scales, such an interceptor is the best fit ... and saves money on ground-based air defense. In addition, we simply HAVE them, so we simply return them to service from storage with a major overhaul and serious modernization. And they will serve until the resource is completely exhausted.
For the sake of this, we have resumed the production of engines for it, but now they give out not 15 kg.s at full afterburner. , and 500 kg.s. , hence the increase in speed.
Means of communication, data exchange, and of course AWACS aircraft, of course, are needed, and needed like air, but this is a completely separate issue.

Therefore, in summary - for the Aerospace Forces it is necessary to have not only heavy fighters, but also LFMI in a ratio of at least 1 to 1. And this needs to be done now. The launch of the MiG-35S series.
Ground attack aircraft have proven to be in great demand, and their number must be increased to at least 400 (and preferably up to 500) pieces. That is, increase their total number by 2+ times. Yes, by resuming production of the Su-25 in a modernized form. Lukashenka has already asked for help in resuming their production, we need to seize the moment. I am sure that the allies will also want such an aircraft.
The total number of combat aircraft must be increased at least 2 times. Otherwise, we simply cannot reliably cover all directions. And for starters, not to form new regiments (except for regiments at the LFMI), but to complete the existing ones to a NORMAL three-squadron composition.
And continue work on the unification of the Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S on engines and avionics.
And this is only for combat aviation.

[ZeeD]

Tell me, what is the real range of the MiG-35?
So that he could turn around and be able to return.
I heard that they have a problem with it...

[bayard]

Quote: ZeeD

Tell me, what is the real range of the MiG-35?

Ferry range 3000 km. Based on this, the combat radius is estimated at 1200 km. This is more than a decent radius, and without the use of PTB.

Quote: ZeeD

I heard they have a problem with it...

It was the MiG-29 of the very first modifications that had a small radius, less than that of the MiG-23MLD. The MiG-29K and MiG-35S have a noticeably larger airframe, which is why the capacity of the internal tanks is much higher. So in radius it is almost no different from heavy aircraft (1200 km. vs. 1500 km.). For a European theater of operations, the radius is more than sufficient. And for all the other theaters too.
And yes, with a payload, it is also slightly inferior to heavy vehicles - 6500 kg versus 8000 kg. Taking into account that during a sortie, an aircraft is rarely loaded with more than half of its maximum load. That is, 3250 kg. against 4000 kg.
10 - 11 suspension units versus 12 for heavy ones.
At the same time, the cost of operation is 1,5 times lower than that of heavy ones.
And most importantly, the MiG-35S radar with AFAR, which is not the case with any heavy VKS fighter, except for the Su-57. And this is much greater noise immunity and secrecy of the included radar.
The aircraft can be used from sections of highways, like the MiG-29.
Their engines are modernized, with a thrust of up to 9000 kg.s. , do not leave a black smoky trail like the MiG-29, more economical than the previous ones, plasma ignition, and a very ... very good resource.
So, on the existing theaters, the MiG-35S will easily replace heavy vehicles, and, having picked up a PTB under its belly, it will not yield to them in the duration of loitering.
And it costs less. Let not by much, but this is because of the novelty (in mass production, the cost of the MiG-35S will gradually decrease), and because of the very expensive AFAR radar. Install on the Su-35S AFAR "Squirrel" from the Su-57, the price gap will be much larger. But in the cost of operation / life cycle, the difference is already much greater.
And the MiG-35S is also beneficial in that it can use the airfield infrastructure (filling valves, valves, refueling with compressed air, gases, conveyors, caponiers (Su-27 and offspring do not fit into caponiers), etc. This is very convenient and beneficial for MiG operators -29 in the world and a reason to order the MiG-35S.

[JD1979]

Quote: bayard

Well, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has relied on the same type of machines - heavy twin-engine MFIs based on the Su-27 airframe (Su-30 \ 34 \ 35), while abandoning the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXba light fighter in principle ...
AND ??
Have you benefited from this?
NO ! Without LFMI, it is impossible to ensure a sufficient number of combat personnel of the Air Force and the massiveness of their use. And the Air Force / Aerospace Forces themselves become very sensitive to losses.

1. You contradict yourself in your answer))) Uniformity is only one model, for example, the Su-35. We have a hodgepodge in the family with different gliders, avionics and engines, and there is no and is not expected to be interchangeable. And the supply in which case hellish torment.
2. And where did I say that you need a single plane? Necessary. Just yesterday.

Quote: bayard

And what about the USA?
And there are heavy F-15 fighters of several modifications, at the same time both PURE IMPACT (like our Su-34s), and pure air superiority fighters. There is a separate article for the F-22s, which are also only for AIR COMBAT, and not at all for ground targets.
There are attack aircraft - armored, with a powerful gun and a large assortment of weapons for strikes against ground targets. And we have one - Su-25SM.
And there is ... they also have the same LFMI F-16. And they tried to make this fighter the same "universal soldier"! And only him. (we’ll keep quiet about the F-35 for now, they also mold a station wagon out of it, but so far everything is complicated)

You are again confused in causes and effects. We do not touch the Navy - they have their own cars. With the advent of the F-15 and F-16, a heavy-light fighter pair was finally formed, and even with the same engines, hello to our Su-27 and MiG-29 with AL and RD. And if the first versions were pure fighters, then with each new modification they became more and more universal. Moreover, the Americans act absolutely logically in terms of spending money, they drive both large series of aircraft and large series of modifications, and not like in Russia, they will release 10k cars, make the next "very necessary" changes - "Oh, let's call it a new aircraft" We are testing for several years and will release another 10k boards, and so on in a circle. The F-22 and F-35 were intended to replace the previous pair, but since the F-22 was developed first and when the concept of station wagons in the United States had not yet been formed, it came out as a clean fighter, but very expensive, and then there was the collapse of the USSR, budget cuts , in general, the release was discontinued, although the series was still worthy. The F-35 was formed later, and immediately as a station wagon, the machine also came out expensive, but the series is still being driven. In total, the US Army has 4 vehicles in large series and in modern current modifications, and since both the F-15 and F-16 are extremely successful vehicles, they continue to be made for themselves and their allies. And at the moment they have absolute superiority in air conquest machines, which will then replace V-V missiles, with V-Z and JDAM, and take out everything on the ground. And here the savings are not only in maintenance (the same type of engines, one assortment of weapons), but also in the training of pilots, who are also not cheap.

Quote: bayard

Need a balance.
In the USA, the following ratio was determined: 30% of heavy fighters and 70% of light ones. And having such a ratio in the Air Force, they can very flexibly use and redistribute their forces, depending on the tasks ahead.
And we cannot.
We only have heavy ones.

Yes, the United States adheres to it, only not in clean fighters, but in universal ones with an appropriate set of weapons. And we can, but it's more pleasant to cut.

Quote: bayard

Ground attack aircraft have proven to be in great demand, and their number must be increased to at least 400 (and preferably up to 500) pieces. That is, increase their total number by 2+ times. Yes, by resuming production of the Su-25 in a modernized form.

.... Fierce nonsense. especially after what you wrote above, at least you yourself will figure out what you want. or look at the most warring and flying country in the world, I don’t understand the stereotypes - they are stupid, but those who need it, they are NOT STUPID. Do you see their extensive production of attack aircraft or bombers? or the presence of such aircraft in service (do not offer A-10, this is a statistical error) no. These are USELESS junk planes that cannot participate in the air superiority phase (aircraft are idle. pilots are idle), cannot defend themselves in case of attack and require cover. F-111s are decommissioned, a-10s are living out their lives. Each aircraft of this type produced is minus a modern station wagon that will perform any task. Attack aircraft proved that they are completely useless and their production is direct sabotage. The Su-35 will do the same and even better if it is given normal weapons and not this slag in the form of s-8, s-13 and useless FABs from WWII, the use of which is associated with flights at distances accessible to MZA and MANPADS. Do you want 400 Su-25s, well, finances are not rubber and factories too? it means there will be minus 400 Su-35. And what will the Su-25 do if it loses air? but nothing, you can not even take off, so as not to ruin people. All 25s and 24s should either be sold if anyone wants to buy, or written off so as not to waste the already non-rubber budget.

Lukashenka has already asked for help in resuming their production, we need to seize the moment. I am sure that the allies will also want such an aircraft.

Yes, for God's sake, float. You won't find anyone else anyway. Nobody needs them. It is too expensive to have specialized aircraft, specialized pilots and lack of interchangeability. And yes, the Su-34 goes there to the dump. There are no analogues, in 99% of cases this means that there were no other idiots to do such nonsense. He proved his complete uselessness and inferiority in the current realities.

Quote: bayard

The MiG-35S, of course, is not a panacea, and ideally a single-engine MFI is needed, but the Su-75 should wait another 10 years, no less, and the LFMI was needed in the standing yesterday. From here, the way out is to launch the MiG-35S series with AFAR and build from 300 to 400 of these aircraft only for the Aerospace Forces (and carrier-based aviation)

MiG-35/29 goes to the same address as an example of how not to do it. The most epic aircraft obser. F-16 is head and shoulders better than this squalor. Those pests that made this plane deserve to burn in hell. What place did they think when they created separate engines for it and did not take one AL-31 from the SU-27? As a result, a twin-engine aircraft carries only itself and fuel, and then directly above the airfield and a little bit of weapons. The cost of the MiG-35 is generally nonsense, add a little and here we have the SU-35. You need to kick hard whom you need and make a single-engine aircraft out of ready-made systems. All systems have already been worked out on the Su-35 and Su-57, there are also engines. To make the body is a matter of this year if you do not chew snot. In a year, you can manage to rebuild the plant for production and increase the production of systems and engines.

Quote: bayard

Yes - this is an air defense interceptor. What bothers you about it?
Or does our ground-based air defense cover the whole country?
And if not, how to solve the problem? On ground-based air defense with a continuous radar field, the USSR almost went bankrupt - a very expensive pleasure.
So the MiG-31 just closes this issue in the vast expanses of our Endless Motherland.
Very high speed (with new engines up to 3200, and even up to 3400 km / h), good range and very long-range VV BD missiles.

Machine of one task, that says it all. The Su-57 can take over its function, and it will have missiles and already have more long-range ones, which no one will integrate into the MiG-31. They will also run out of resources for the museum or carriers of hypersound and anti-satellite missiles. But at least they can help the Su-30/35, unlike useless strikers and attack aircraft.

In short, as I understand it, you yourself have not decided what you want.

My vision is this. Everything that does not participate in the very first and main phase - the conquest of the air (Su-24, 25, 34, Mish-29) and cannot be modernized in a reasonable time (Su-27SM / SM3 with useless radars and avionics) - TO THE Dump, released funds for the production of additional SU-35 boards and only SU-35, not any SU-30SM, those that can reach the level of the Su-35 in avionics as quickly as possible, unfortunately there is no such possibility for engines.
Ideally, there should be only Su-35, (but the ideal is not achievable in real life), so there will be a certain number of SU-30SMs that are maximally unified with it. (I wish all this was on the same engines, although even here they made it so that this is not possible ....) Well, who thinks about logistics and the economy ... Su-57 is the maximum possible number that the industry will give out as leaders, command posts with the AWACS function, albeit flawed. And Chase into a series of single-engine, preferably already on the engine from the Su-57. ALL. 4 aircraft.
Otherwise, in the event of a big conflict, this entire zoo will cover the suppliers and repairmen with a copper basin, just like the industry in an attempt to produce a bunch of almost similar, but non-interchangeable engines and avionics.
And in order for all this to perform tasks normally, modern weapons should be produced at no less accelerated pace. You need to forget about NARA and ordinary FABS, their place in local conflicts such as the Syrian one.

[bayard]

I almost finished the answer, but the whole post flew off ... I'll start from the beginning.

Quote: JD1979

Su-57 is the maximum possible number that the industry will give out as leaders, command posts with the AWACS function, albeit flawed.

And who in this wonderful (without irony) aircraft will control the air situation and lead the battle of the group (or even squadron)? The pilot is one. So the Indians therefore abandoned the single-engine one - they already felt on the Su-30MKI how convenient it is to have a second crew member. And the load of the Su-57 radar operator will be much higher ... You are VIKO with a scale of 400 km. seen? And how many targets can there be, but in combat conditions?
So we remembered / thought about it ... much later - when the glider could no longer be altered. Everything almost from scratch.
So we can’t do without a specialized AWACS aircraft.

Quote: JD1979

And Chase into a series of single-engine, preferably already on the engine from the Su-57.

And I would use both hands "FOR", but we don't have a single-engine one. Su-75 - a layout ... even a concept layout. It may appear in the gland soon, but even rise into the air ... identify problems, eliminate them, then cure childhood diseases, approve the composition of the avionics (after all, there will be errors) and roll it all out on experimental machines ... And only then TRIAL SERIES . And this is all about 10 years. We won't do it faster. The glider is brand new - how will it behave? Which sides will come out?
But the MiG-35S is already in hardware, it has passed the tests and there are as many as TWO FACTORIES now unloaded. And at the factories - assembly lines ready to launch the series.
The MiG-29 was really complicated and difficult to maintain, the engines had a limited resource, smoked ... The MiG-35S does not have all this. The engine resource is high, they themselves are economical and do not smoke, they have increased thrust (9000 kg.s. in afterburner).
The price is like that of the Su-30SM?
And what kind of radar does the Su-30SM have? How comparable is it to the AFAR MiG-35S? And the price should not be considered a naked aircraft, but the cost of the life cycle. So, such a cost for the MiG-35S is about 1,5 times lower than for the Su-30SM \ Su-35S, and this is not only fuel consumption and other consumables. In addition, it is unified in terms of laner with the MiG-29K and itself has a marine / deck version.
And this happened to us (lack of a single-engine LFMI) not because of the stupidity of our military or designers - the Sukhoi Design Bureau offered a single-engine LFMI on the AL-31F, moreover, the radar and, in general, the cockpit from the Su-27 - back in the early \ mid 90s ... But then it was absolutely not up to it.
Where did the Su-34 come from?
From the 5-day war, when it turned out that we had almost no combat-ready aviation left. When serviceable planes were assembled around their country ... they were sent from the Far East ... Then it dawned that the Army was still needed ... And Aviation. And that the aircraft fleet needs to be updated ... And we didn’t have ANYTHING ready for mass production from fresh. And the Su-34 was not fresh - since the mid-90s it has been gathering dust in the hangar, as if they hadn’t taken it apart for metal ... That's when they decided to launch it into a series, as it is, they say we'll modernize it later. And in principle, the decision was correct, although the first years both the plant and the pilots were sausage.
But a fighter was needed. The Su-35S was late, and then it suddenly turned out that the Su-30MKI turned out to be quite a good fighter ... all American and NATO fighters beat like goldfinches in training battles ... We decided to order. And the groundwork that remained from the Chinese order for the Su-30M2 was also ordered (now it seems that they are all withdrawn from combat strength) .... Then the Su-35S appeared, and of course they were also ordered, although the Sukhovites developed it as purely export project.
That's why the zoo - the harness got under the tail and had to urgently, on the fact that there is to restore the combat-ready Air Force / Aerospace Forces (a funny name, albeit an ambitious one).
So the composition that is now in the VKS is the legacy of the entire post-Soviet period. And a lot will have to and must be abandoned, but only in exchange for new boards. The Su-24M2 will be decommissioned and they should be replaced by the Su-34M (and all those already produced should and will be upgraded). Unification of avionics and engines up to the level of the Su-35 is needed and recognized. But it’s more difficult with engines, they need a new air intake ... so we decided to make a common engine for everyone (except for the Su-35S), a kind of AL-41F hybrid in dimension and with AL-31 air consumption. But with a resource and temperature regime AL-41F-1S. Then it will be possible to simply and without alteration of the airframe and air intakes to carry out remotorization during medium repairs. Hope it works out.
As for the avionics ... of course they want to do everything like the Su-35S, but ... time is running out ... and maybe it’s still worth unifying with the Su-57? So we will raise the combat capabilities sky-high, and we will ensure the unification of heavy fighters as a whole ... In any case, there are rumors that the Su-35S is already flying experimentally with the Belka air defense missile system, although the air defense missile system is most likely truncated ... The same about the on-board computer, communication and data exchange systems, avionics, etc. If we adjust it to a single standard, then to the best that is available.
And the MiG-35S is needed for MASS. We just have VERY few planes. They are simply not enough for all theaters, and we still have a long war ahead of us. And the enemy has a very numerous and modern aviation.
The MiG-35S can be produced immediately at TWO NEAs, and absolutely without prejudice to the production of heavy fighters. So we will be able to receive (albeit not immediately) 36-40 aircraft per year, and more if desired.
And do not forget that the MiG-35S AFAR has a very wide range of weapons. Basically everything we have now. And it's really multifunctional. And believe me, the Su-35S in "Belkoy" and the avionics from the Su-57 will definitely cost 1,5 times more than the MiG-35S ... which, in turn, can get pretty decently cheaper during mass production - simply as a result of mass production. But for this, the series should be about 300 - 400 pieces. If they go into service with the Aerospace Forces, then the allies will probably order, and a lot. And when the Su-75 goes into production and proves its superiority ... then the combatant MiG-35S can be gradually withdrawn to the reserve or sold to the allies. But most importantly, our VKS will have more or less decent numbers and balance.

[bayard]

If the Su-30SM had appeared earlier, perhaps the Su-34 would not have gone into production either. But he is in the series and his number will be increased to 200 - 240 pieces. It is simply unprofitable to have a smaller amount on the balance sheet. And they fully justify and justify themselves. but these are still tactical bombers. With a bomb load of up to 12 tons! The Su-30SM is definitely not capable of this.
The Su-30SM2 is being considered as a naval aviation fighter. And this is very reasonable - it is desirable to have a second crew member over the sea to control the air and surface situation and use long-range weapons. And if he hangs a RLR or RTR container, then he will not have a price at all.
So this plane is justified. do not forget - in the United States, the shock versions of the F-15 are very different from the F-15 air fighters. And they are doubles! And in this the United States was not disappointed for a second. This just gives them a great advantage against countries with conventional MFIs, and even light ones. For the SPECIALIST always beats the UNIVERSAL.

Quote: JD1979

Ground attack aircraft have proven to be in great demand, and their number must be increased to at least 400 (and preferably up to 500) pieces. That is, increase their total number by 2+ times. Yes, by resuming production of the Su-25 in a modernized form.

.... Fierce nonsense. especially after what you wrote above, at least you yourself will figure out what you want.

In the past, I am an air defense combat command and control officer, still of the Soviet period. And with one of my colleagues, we have been discussing these topics for more than 8 years, evaluating the statistics and effectiveness of combat use, incl. and attack aircraft. I advise you to pay attention to the statistics of the Su-25s that returned with serious damage ... let's say starting in 2008 and especially in this NWO (there is little information, but it slipped through, even in videos). Su-25 is a very tenacious machine. But at the same time, it is also a VERY maneuverable machine - at one time, in training close combat, the Su-25 often twisted even the MiG-29 in a maneuverable battle. And it is also a very thrust-armed car, so it has VERY good acceleration dynamics and it is very good on bends.
And let at least someone compare with him (Su-25) in operational tension. what other aircraft is capable of making 5 - 6 sorties per day? Even if changing pilots (for the pilot is not made of iron, he needs rest). Only the F-5E can compare with it in terms of combat voltage coefficient ... but these are completely different aircraft.
Why all this about the attack aircraft?
And besides, on the battlefield it is most often a FIREMAN. He flew in, ras + raked the enemy who had broken through, reloaded and flew in again. MFIs are not capable of that. They have much fewer sorties per day, and inter-flight service is longer MULTIPLY, and survivability is lower by a multiple, and the price of an MFI is more than the cost of such an attack aircraft ... also a multiple. He simply does not have radar, he is small, very simple and unpretentious in maintenance ... and VERY hardworking. And it has already been appreciated.
Therefore, the question of resuming production of the Su-25 in the SM version or the Su-39 (which never went into production) has been raised more than once. There's just nowhere. They released it in Tbilisi, a spark, it seems, in Ulan-Ude, but there was absolutely no equipment left there ... and the equipment largely came from the same Tbilisi. That is, it is necessary to completely restore the entire production process.
And this is difficult and painful ... unbearable for our lazy managers.
But Lukashenka is ready to organize its production at his own facilities, but he asked for support and cooperation. And this is good, because Lukashenka is NOT LAZY, but quite the contrary. This would be production immediately counting on the needs of our VKS. For now there are less than 200 pieces in service. And you need (we did the calculations) about 400 pcs. Moreover, the fleet of existing attack aircraft must be updated. This is a good front of work ... And this is a very INEXPENSIVE aircraft. Its estimated price is about 10 - 12 million dollars. (3-4 times less than the cost of a heavy MFI, and 3 times cheaper than the MiG-35S), so its production will definitely not be ruinous, and the benefits will be simply HUGE. I live in Donetsk and I feel and observe the value of air support for troops ... especially sensitively. He himself is gone, but friends are still fighting ... although some are older than me ... health .

Quote: JD1979

Machine of one task, that says it all. Its function can be taken over by the Su-57, and it will have missiles and already have more long-range ones, which no one will integrate into the MiG-31.

The upgraded MiG-31s ​​carry 4 RVV BD R-37M, see the range of their combat use. And these missiles have already been used in the NWO at a range of much more than 200 km.
Besides, these interceptors simply exist. During the 90s and 00s, the glider resource was not used up, and the glider itself made of titanium and stainless steel is an "eternal glider", as the engineers say. So it will serve another 10-15 years and retire. We definitely do not need a new clean interceptor, but now it is the MiG-31 that is closing our gaps in ground air defense. And in this he is simply irreplaceable. Neither in the speed of reaching the interception line, nor in terms of the composition of weapons, nor in the fact that 200 heavy fighters are allocated for the needs of exclusively air defense ... moreover, fighters such as the Su-35S or Su-57 ... now no one can.
Who to change them to in the future?
Perhaps only on the Su-35S ... but it is still incapable, like the MiG-31, of 20 - 25 minutes, to keep a speed of 2500 km / h, going out to intercept a high-priority target. His glider is simply not designed for this. Perhaps the Su-57 with engines of the second stage will be capable of something similar ... but when will it be, and whether such fighters will be allocated for air defense ... is a question. Air defense on fighters is not at all "gaining air superiority", because this is, first of all, PREVENTION of a strike on ground targets on its territory. Not winning in battle, but avoiding a blow. And it doesn’t matter what kind of targets they are - enemy aircraft or missiles of any type. Reach the line of interception as soon as possible and destroy ... The radar and the composition of the MiG-31 weapons in general, when created, were sharpened to work on ... KR - low-altitude and subsonic. But numerous. And all other air targets too , including the SR-71, which then did not dare to violate our borders, flying only along our borders.
So as a summary:
- Su-57s are needed in an amount of at least 200 pieces.
- Su-30SM2 and Su-34M should be as unified as possible in terms of engines and avionics, taking the best from the Su-35S and Su-57.
- before the Su-75 appears in mass production, the MiG-35S should be produced. Just because now the Aerospace Forces need COMBAT AIRCRAFT and it is necessary in some way to approximately double the composition of the Aerospace Forces combat aviation.
- the production of attack aircraft must be resumed, taking advantage of Lukashenka's proposal and organizing all the necessary production cooperation for this production.
- AWACS aircraft should finally appear at the Aerospace Forces in commercial quantities, preferably based on the Tu-214 airframe, and not the Il-76MD90A. Lighter versions of such AWACS aircraft are also needed, the same analogue of the American Hawkeye.

And in no case should one rush headlong into the heresy of universalization. MFIs are best implemented on light single-engine fighters. This should be the Su-75, and this is already the MiG-35S, although it is with two engines and is no longer quite light. But it is really versatile and multifunctional. Such "strong averages" should cover less priority areas (where the enemy is not the strongest or the enemy is not so numerous) and provide the most important thing - the possibility of massive use. For it is almost impossible to ensure massiveness with heavy ones.
Like this.

[mmaxx]

All equipment, including stamping, was in Ulan-Ude 3 years ago. Nobody at the factory disposed of it. On the contrary, everyone hopes that the Su-25 will finally be needed. There are even 2 almost finished aircraft. It remained to twist the covers, put them under current and fly around. Well, okay, one of the consoles is unfastened. But most likely this is done to reduce the space occupied. Since the connectors, wires and tubes stick out in different directions. So they are not needed by anyone. And the factory takes care of them. Suddenly need?
But now the plant is loaded with helicopters.

[shurshun]

[quote] [/ quote] And on the basis of what do you make brains here for everyone that the Su-35 is the domestic standard and ideal, and the rest of the cars are garbage and complete crap ?! Not only the entire dry zoo is full of rubbish and crap, but the same Su-35, which tops the list of its inhabitants.
The only machine that should be the main and most massive MFI for the country's army and navy is the MiG-35! The MiG-35 in its proper configuration with AFAR and UVT is the best domestic MFI!

[mmaxx]

For a joke +100500.
These letters are to inflate the comment.

[mmaxx]

The MiG-35 is still a so-so aircraft. How many songs about him do not sing.

[Skobaristan]

Already passed, universal machines. Again on the same rake? Well let's see

[JD1979]

What rake? (yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

[Skobaristan]

Universal machines are worse than specialized ones.

[JD1979]

Why is the universal F-16 Block 50/52, not to mention 70/72, worse than the Su-25, Su-24 and Su-34 as a striker, and why is it worse than the Su-30SM? And with nothing he does them all) since having at times the best avionics and normal weapons, he does all our clean drummers in work on the ground. And it does all the fighters with the exception of the Su-35 and Su-57. But! He will make them not by quality but by quantity in a real situation. Wunderwaffles in single copies do not live verified more than half a century ago. Remember history.

[bayard]

Quote: JD1979

Than the universal F-16 Block 50/52, I'm not talking about 70/72 worse than the Su-25

Security, survivability, combat voltage coefficient, inter-flight service time, the ability to be used from runways of any class and even from unpaved ones.

Quote: JD1979

Su-34

Payload, crew security, range / combat radius. According to the avionics, the Su-34 was put into service in a very raw form, hastily with the intention of subsequent modernization.

Quote: JD1979

Su-24

This is an old car, why compare with it, they will all be retired in the near future. But the Su-24 is capable of making a breakthrough at supersonic speed in WWI. F-16 in this mode feels very bad.

Quote: JD1979

having at times the best avionics and normal weapons, he does all our clean drummers in work on the ground.

In this configuration, he is a pure drummer, because in aerial combat, the Su-35S, MiG-35S, and Su-30SM2 will lose. And just don’t tell how he / they will be good under the control of an AWACS aircraft, we are considering aircraft, and not the Russian Air Force and NATO.

Quote: JD1979

He will make them not by quality but by quantity in a real situation.

In-from - quantity. Quantity always beats quality if the quantity is overwhelming. So, with the current number of combat aviation in the Aerospace Forces, direct confrontation with NATO aviation by aviation alone is out of the question. And the number of combat aircraft must be urgently increased, at least doubled.
How to do it ?
It is impossible to do this with the production of heavy fighters of the Su brand - production capacities are limited. But after all, there are as many as TWO aircraft manufacturing plants in reserve, ready for the release of the MiG-35S. So they need to be launched at full capacity, and they will be able to produce from 36 to 60 (over time) MiG-35S per year. And to form new 10 regiments on these fighters. And with the supply of Su-35S and Su-30SM2, replace all the old Su-27SM and bring the number of existing regiments to a full three-squadron composition.
In the meantime, the number of fighter aircraft does not correspond to the existing threats, our chances in confronting NATO aviation will equalize our air defense systems, which, in terms of quality, number and saturation of troops, seriously exceed NATO's capabilities in the European theater of operations.
If the Su-75 does appear, then perhaps it will become the desired single-engine LFMI for our VKS. It's a pity that a single-engine dry fighter on the AL-31F did not "shoot" at one time in the early 90s.

[mmaxx]

Now no one can finance specialized cars. On the other hand, the capabilities of avionics are now such that only a person prevents aircraft from being a complete station wagon.

[Krasavchag2]

for example, no one expected anything from the fleet, so he showed nothing

Unfortunately, it did. Not in every conflict such a ship is hit.

[Lech from Android.]

Quote: ROSS 42

Articles of this nature are written in the spirit - who will win: S-400 or F-35 ...

Jews say F-35 because it comes with a lot of lotions in the form of satellite reconnaissance, surveillance, a network-centric system and other stray ... I believe that the S-400 ... because Zircons, Daggers, Iskanders, Poplars and other menageries in addition to electronic warfare and our satellite surveillance and intelligence system.
In general, every sandpiper praises his swamp.
NATO boasting about its superiority does not impress me at all.

[blackGRAIL]

If this confrontation takes place somewhere in an Arab country, then there will be no Zircons, Daggers, Poplars. But Jewish stray will be all.

[svp67]

I would like to add on my own a list of confirmed losses of the Air Force from our fighter aircraft

March 1, 2022. Downed MiG-29. Major Brinzhala Alexander Petrovich died.

February 25, 2022 A pair of Ukrainian Su-25s set off to attack a bridge on a road 40 km from the Belarusian border along which reinforcements were moving towards the Gostomel landing force. 60 km from the target, the Su-25 N39, which was piloted by the commander of the 299th BrTA, Lieutenant Colonel Gennady Matulyak, was shot down by a Russian fighter and crashed near the village of Glebovka, Kiev region. The Ukrainian pilot died.

March 02, 2022. According to local residents, the Ukrainian bomber of the 7th BrTA, commander - Colonel Nikolai Kovalenko, navigator - Captain Yevgeny Kazimirov, was shot down by Russian fighters and fell into the forest near the village of Dovbysh, Zhytomyr region. Both pilots were killed.

On March 23, "in an unequal air battle" over the village of Trigorye, Zhytomyr region, the commander of the 204th air brigade, Captain Dmitry Chumachenko, was killed

On June 05, 2022, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky visited the advanced positions of Ukrainian troops in Donbas. It was with this event that, apparently, the appearance of a single Ukrainian Su-27 over the front line was connected as a cover for the direction from attacks by Russian aviation. Such a bright performance of the Ukrainian pilot at an altitude of about 1 km ended a little predictably - the plane was shot down by a Russian fighter near the village of Orekhovo, Zaporozhye region, and its pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Vilhelmovich Fisher, died.

On October 13, 2022, a mixed pair of Ukrainian combat aircraft from a Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft and a Su-27 fighter made a sortie into the combat zone. Probably, the intelligence officer, using his radio equipment, identified the most “tasty” Russian radar, and the Su-27 attacked it with the help of the AGM-88 HARM. It is not known whether the Ukrainian pilots were successful, but on the way back they were beaten - both planes were shot down in the depths of Ukrainian territory, and one of the crew members of the reconnaissance aircraft was killed. The incident was immediately reported by the leadership of the Poltava region, the wreckage of the Su-24MR N59 was shown.
Two weeks later they showed an interview with a MiG-31BM pilot who described the interception

[Amateur]

The times when "one on one" fighters went to fight are long gone. The main role is played by the correct tactics for the use of aircraft and information support of the "battlefield", i.e. one fighter of any type that receives operational information from guidance means (for example, from Avax, located 100 km away) will have an advantage over a group of enemy aircraft that do not have such support (of course, only on condition that the pilot is well trained and "hands grow from where necessary" .
Example: the loss of the MiG-25 (which, in terms of performance characteristics, surpassed all Israeli aircraft by a head) in Egypt and Syria due to illiterate use and hand-held pilots.
An article from the category "If I was a sultan, then I had .."

[Vita vko]

The author correctly says that

The issue of mercenaries is also acute, if there is money, but there will be those who want to try.

. But considering this as an unlikely option given the monthly infusion of tens of billions of dollars into the US and NATO war is wrong. For money comparable to the military budget of the leading countries of the world, you can not only find trained pilots, but also create the entire ground infrastructure. The issue is that the Armed Forces of Ukraine need time to deploy it. And another attempt at "peace talks" will give them that time.

Quote: Amateur

The main role is played by the correct tactics of using aircraft and information support of the "battlefield"

With the level of modern technology, the pilot in most cases becomes an extra, whose task is to press the button at the right time. In modern aerial combat, there is no need for serious training.

[tlauicol]

Gripen is not a NATO aircraft. Yes, and there are few of them, there is nothing to give.
But at the Red Flag exercises, the Swedes "beat" f16 and f15 with virtually no "losses". Even in the minority

[Meaning of life_]

Something the author woke up with a hatred that was not characteristic of him before. It must be taken into account that:
1) there are modern air simulators on which Ukrainian pilots can train at least 10 hours a day, and this will certainly reduce the preparation time.
2) due to satellite reconnaissance, Ukrainians will learn about the departure of our aircraft while they are still taxiing on the runway.
3) constantly hanging NATO AWACS aircraft can track our aircraft themselves and transmit their coordinates to Ukrainian F-16s, which will fly in ambush with radars turned off and clinging to the ground (against the background of the ground, the detection distance is reduced).
4) given that the Ukrainian air defense can only cover individual objects, they will be tempted to use the F-16 against our aircraft attacking ground targets. That is, the F-16s will be opposed by aircraft sent to bomb ground targets - the same Su-35s will be loaded with bombs and air-to-ground missiles, their radars will be tuned to search for ground targets, and then F-16s ready for air combat... At the very least, we'll have to send out double the number of planes - for bombing and for cover.
5) F-16 can be used to launch long-range air-to-ground missiles, so they will launch missiles without flying out from under the protection of their air defenses. Then they are not afraid of any Su-35s. It will be possible to hit them only with long-range air defense systems, such as the latest modifications of the S-300 and S-400. And there are much fewer of them than "Thor" and "Beech".
6) it is very important what electronic jamming systems the enemy will have. This is perhaps even more important than the performance characteristics of aircraft and missiles.
All in all, you don't need to relax. The fight against the F-16 will be tough. But there is no need to panic either - "There are no such fortresses that the Bolsheviks could not take." (With) :)))

[KCA]

And how will the satellites learn about the takeoff of our fighters? The satellite does not cover a strip thousands of kilometers wide with observation, it can observe a rather narrow strip, for example, an airfield with fighter jets, which it does not see 10 meters from this strip, a satellite flyby at least once every hour and a half, for low-orbiters, now it is a rarity, a satellite flyby above a specific point is known to milliseconds, it is not difficult to take off during clear space overhead, AWACS yes, it flies for a long time, it sees far, but there is no 24/7 shuttle patrol either, there are windows

[svp67]

Quote: KCA

And how will the satellites learn about the takeoff of our fighters?

How they do it now - on the heat trail

Quote: KCA

The satellite does not cover a strip thousands of kilometers wide with observation, it can observe a rather narrow strip, for example, an airfield with fighter jets, which it does not see 10 meters from this strip, a satellite flyby at least once every hour and a half, for low-orbiters, now it is a rarity, a satellite flyby over a specific point is known to milliseconds, it is not difficult to take off during clear space overhead

To our GREAT regret, but the times when there were only satellites belonging to state organizations in space have passed, there are already a lot of so-called "commercial" satellites in orbit, which, if they are inferior in their capabilities to "spy", are not much inferior to "official" satellites - spies. And it is precisely thanks to such an abundance of satellites that NATO and, accordingly, Ukraine manages to receive all the information about our aviation

Quote: KCA

, AWACS yes, it flies for a long time, it sees far, but there is no 24/7 shuttle patrol either, there are windows

Well, they are now trying to keep their reconnaissance aircraft in the air exactly 24/7.
Yes, and do not forget about the existence of "intelligence". Not only is our headquarters "flowing", but some "initiative" living in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe airfield, using the Internet, is able to report the take-off of our aircraft and may well report their number

[KCA]

The launch of ICBMs is detected by the heat trail, even tactical missiles are not detected, but do you have planes at once? Commercial satellites are mostly just repeaters, at least you know, you can’t follow something from the Starlink satellite, all observation rests on the height of the orbit, the power-to-weight ratio and the amount of equipment, respectively, the size and weight, or do you think that a hundred microsatellites are suspended in geostationary orbit at an altitude of 38 000 km above the combat area and detect any movement on the ground, up to a running mouse?

[Eug]

Even the likelihood of opposition from enemy aircraft will require the Aerospace Forces to allocate a much larger outfit of forces to perform the same tasks. And these are the risks associated with the intensity of operation, resources, fuel and lubricant costs and considerable ... And this is if you do not take into account the potential of Sokolov when working on the ground, and it is much higher than when working in the air ....

[tsvetahaki]

So different from the piloting skills that the Ukrainian pilots have received that it will take them years to master and confidently use American fighters.

One can hardly argue with this thesis ...
That's just ... - do you think how old this particular operation is?
This is worrisome...

[Krasavchag2]

Judging by the information of the military correspondents, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation without a new mobilization can reach the next summer only with big problems. Or on the defensive. Looks like they will freeze CBO - no options. . .

[Pete mitchell]

Here it is necessary to understand two things very clearly: which planes will be transferred (if they are transferred) and who will sit at the controls.

Sami ”falcons” to the question in the forehead: retrain or not? They answer that I won't believe until I go myself. And the allies shake their brains, and the lists were compiled a long time ago, but ....
The list of those shot down is not complete, there are still shot down and survivors ....
And one pilot is more responsible for a quarter of this list - it can officially be called asom

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Pete Mitchell

Sami ”falcons” to the question in the forehead: retrain or not? They answer that I won't believe until I go myself. And the allies shake their brains, and ...

there is an ambush

Quote: Head of the NATO Military Committee Rob Bauer

stated that Ukraine would not receive fighter jets until the completion of its counter-offensive.
He noted in an interview with the LBC radio station that providing Ukraine with the fighters it asked for is an important discussion, but it "will not be resolved in the short term."
Bauer also stressed that training for pilots and aircraft maintenance technicians would not be available until the counteroffensive.

[Red Hunter]

The article is too capricious. NATO countries are armed with thousands of F-16s of various modifications, including a number of fairly modern F-16Vs (Block 70/72). For strikes against ground targets, aircraft of old modifications can be used, at the controls of which hastily trained forelocks will sit, but F-16Vs with NATO “Ikhtamnets” on board will cover them from our aircraft. The level of training of US Air Force retirees is very high, so the risks are high even for the Su-35S. The APG-83 radar is equipped with AFAR and has a detection range comparable to the H035 Irbis, which, in combination with Meteor and AIM-120D missiles, makes the F-16 a worthy adversary

[Negro]

Quote from Red Hunter

including some fairly modern F-16Vs (Block 70/72)

70/72 does not seem to be. Their production has just begun, and the buyers are not members of NATO.

Quote from Red Hunter

F-16Vs with NATO "ihtamnets" on board will cover them from our aviation

Why cover them up?

[TermNachTer]

I strongly doubt that they will give 50/52 - a very expensive chick, and not an old one. It has a lot of tasty things for "eggheads". Most likely it will be 40/42.

[Herman 4223]

The APG-83 radar is equipped with AFAR and has a detection range comparable to the H035 Irbis, which, in combination with Meteor and AIM-120D missiles, makes the F-16 a worthy adversary

Comparable in range only if when working with a narrow beam. The detection range in any radar is primarily affected by its radiation power and the diameter of the web for better reception of the return signal.

[Red Hunter]

This is true, but we must not forget about the use of AWACS aircraft by the enemy. E-3 will give target designation to F-16, and he will turn on his radar only before the attack. Russia is not actively using its A-50U, so sometimes the ukrams still manage to use the remnants of their letables

[Herman 4223]

but we must not forget about the use of AWACS aircraft by the enemy. E-3 will give target designation to F-16, and he will turn on his radar only before the attack.

E-3s fly quite far from the combat area. In some areas, of course, they can help, for example, from the Black Sea. But between the planes of the Ukrainian Air Force and the AWACS plane there will be Crimea. From the territory of which you can put good interference and disrupt communications.

[Negro]

Quote: Herman 4223

between the aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force and the AWACS aircraft will be Crimea. From the territory of which you can put good interference and disrupt communication.

Therefore, while maintaining the red lines, it is most convenient to work under the bourgeois AWACS in the Crimea and Sevastopol.

To work in the Azov and Donetsk directions, if this remains relevant, we will have to redraw a couple more red lines and launch AWACS in Ukrainian airspace.

[Ezekiel 25-17]

The problem is that at the same time the Armed Forces of Ukraine are asked to supply them with 100-120 aircraft, but they will receive in batches of 10-12, 20 is good. This is not enough: therefore, the verdict is this: they can cause trouble, but they will not make a decisive change.

[Herman 4223]

Interesting fantasies on the topic of air combat. But everything is somewhat more complicated. In a normally organized battle, the VKP, AWACS aircraft, and jammers also participate. The transfer of fighters alone without everything else does not make sense and will not have much impact, it would be more correct to say so. Plus, to protect everything transferred, it is necessary to transfer a sufficient number of air defense systems to protect home airfields.

[Bingo]

Quote: Herman 4223

The transfer of fighters alone without everything else does not make sense and will not have much impact, it would be more correct to say so.

It's about reality, in case you haven't noticed. But in reality, "the transfer of AWACS, VKP and jammers" with technical staff and air defense, as well as with equipped airfields - is not visible, this is exactly what the author repeated several times, like a butt, it is strange that you did not read

[Herman 4223]

I read an aerial combat fantasy and commented on it. There was something about the technical staff in the article, but somehow I didn’t notice about the rest.

[Amateur]

Quote: Vita VKO

In modern aerial combat, there is no need for serious training.

I completely agree. D.I. Fonvizin also pointed out this:

- He is taught arithmetic, father, by one retired sergeant, Tsyfirkin "
Why study geography? There is a driver, he will take you where you need to go.
- Without science people live and lived
- I don't want to study, I want to get married!

[Bingo]

Quote: Amateur

I completely agree. D.I. Fonvizin also pointed out this:

And what? Poroschenko Jr. won - he commanded a mortar battery in battles! I don’t know, whether he was taught this at the Economics College of Great Britain, whether it’s really, why the hell an artilleryman, a battery commander to teach what is there - pour and drink ...

[Zaurbek]

Not a specific F16 is scary. And the fact that NATO has a lot of them, there are all stocks of consumables, technicians, training schools, an assortment of ammunition.

[Doctor]

If you believe the Western ones, so far the statistics are in favor of the F-16.
50 wins - 0 losses.

Let's see how it will be here.

[Red Hunter]

At least one F-16 of the Pakistan Air Force was shot down by the Indians during the battle in Kashmir. Perhaps it was an old F-16A, but still

[Bingo]

Quote: Arzt

If you believe the Western ones, so far the statistics are in favor of the F-16.
50 wins - 0 losses.

Yeah, and the Pakistani F-16 failed Vishnu personally, yeah. These will write, ka-aneshna

[Pavel57]

If 80% of the fights of modern aircraft are at medium and long distances, then the advantage in maneuverability is not the main one. But the value of the RCS can greatly influence the moment the attack begins in a duel situation.

[TermNachTer]

I already wrote once that there would be no oncoming battles, because the F - 16, as well as all their other airplanes, are "sharpened" for NATO tactics (Israel). That is, an "avax", which sees and controls everything, an electronic warfare aircraft that crushes, a tanker that will refuel if someone does not have enough and a couple of "needles" on cover. Where will all this come from? And the second point is health, 50-year-old grandfathers))) as the author of the article elegantly joked))) my classmate graduated from the Armavir Higher Command School. So, their teachers, they were told - we will teach even a bear to fly, but health is only yours and we will not give you anything else. What can be the health of a 50-year-old? If by transporter or by helicopter, then yes. But the fighter pilot is definitely not. Now about the mercenaries. I read somewhere that mattress covers are already recruiting old people, since there is already a severe shortage of pilots, in other countries it’s not so hot either. I don’t think that such a valuable resource will be “scattered”, especially if Taiwan looms in the near future)))

[Herman 4223]

That is, an "avax", which sees and controls everything, an electronic warfare aircraft that crushes, a tanker that will refuel if someone does not have enough and a couple of "needles" on cover.

Well, this is not an exclusive NATO tactic.
This is general science. We assume the same. And China is hardly different. But who will give them everything they need to do everything according to science, this is a question.

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: TermNachTER

What can be the health of a 50-year-old? .... pilot - fighter definitely not.

Well, you are slandering: a graduate of your beloved Armavir Bursa went back to demobilization for a couple of weeks: he has been actively in the ranks for more than three decades, and he is not extreme officially - As

[TermNachTer]

And three weeks ago, he did aerobatics with an overload of 7 g?))) I repeat, I don’t deny it, you can fly on a transporter even at 60, no problems. The main thing is vision and a heart, (and there is a co-pilot there too), but a fighter or attack aircraft, as they say, is not at all the coat)))

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: TermNachTER

And three weeks ago, he..

... fulfilled the task.

Quote: Pete Mitchell

officially - As

something like this. Whom did the parents knead

[TermNachTer]

Performed the assigned tasks - a very loose concept. He covered the drummers, provided electronic warfare, etc. - I don’t argue. But overloads of 6 - 7 g are no longer for 50 years. Because I myself have recently crossed 50 and I feel for myself. Although he never smoked, did not abuse alcohol and maintained his physical form, because the operational staff of the Organized Crime Control Department. But I see for myself that it’s not the same coat)))

[Pete mitchell]

I'm still wildly sorry, but your friend, who graduated from the Armavir bursa, probably shared what it means "fit without restrictions"? If admitted, then admitted, no one will select a mission - according to Stanislavsky: to live in the proposed circumstances

[Igor1915]

But I liked the article, I don’t understand airplanes and as a survey ++++. But it would be better if they were not in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

[reaper]

A couple of nuances to the article.
Reasoning who wins, comparing technology and discussing the performance characteristics of aircraft, air defense systems and pilot skills will not matter. It is only important: hit the radar sight - died. And it doesn’t matter from which carrier the launch will be, even from the MiG-21, even from the Su-35.
Our planes are good, only what good is this steepness for the AIM-120C. They get it and destroy it.
And second: in fact, if this happens (air battles), then this is a complete PPC, this is essentially a war between the Russian Federation and NATO. Here, it’s not even a stone’s throw from nuclear weapons, already count on the verge of half a step

[shinobi]

The problem is that the 404th a priori is not going to use the F-16e as a fighter. This was stated quite clearly by their talking heads. And it asks for shock modifications. Few people remember that initially the Ukrainians asked the Yankees for A-10 attack aircraft. with the Falcons.

[Virus-free crown]

It was probably the first time I confused Staver's style with Skomorokhov

With all due respect to both Authors

As they say, everything is a matter of price.

If the Armed Forces of Ukraine set a price, well, at least 100.000 greenbacks for a flight to "volunteers" on Western planes against our pilots, believe me, there will be a queue of people from all over the world for kilometers ...

of those who "ate the dog" and more than one

therefore, "we will shower them with hats" will not fail, alas

[TermNachTer]

Why does a dead man need a million dollars? They have a very serious approach to business, and if the business is very dangerous, they don't go into it. Now mattress covers have a problem with pilots, a large outflow to private firms. More pay, less risk. So, on kamikaze - don't count too much)))

[Krasavchag2]

Delov something! They will be issued through PMCs. It is in the Russian Federation that private traders are not in favor since June 24!

[Virus-free crown]

Well

In general, there are practically no pilots of Soviet aviation left, so surviving veterans who fifty-fifty area and beyond.

if we imagine a purely hypothetical situation - the time machine transfers me to the Colosseum, to the arena of gladiator fights, I'm already all so old, in front of me is all such a cool young gladiator in all the equipment and with any weapon of his choice, and I'm in "what my mother gave birth to - in shorts and socks

to live for that gladiator - well ... ladies 5-10 seconds)))))))))))

[Alister kroulegg]

That tough gladiator will be up to your waist

[Brancodd]

"Expert" Skomorokhov bashfully "forgot" his last review about the uselessness of attack helicopters in modern warfare. Who remembers Skomorokhov's "analytics" - "Ukraine as a cemetery of helicopters." Dear "analyst", would you finish with your reviews. At first you cause bewilderment, then you look ridiculous, then stupid. Well, tongue-tied of course

[JD1979]

An interesting article, I even got some kind of pleasure, but not from the content, but from an attempt to unravel the author’s logic and in what ways the plot is developing. Well, once again they delivered purely our stereotypes, which even those who consider themselves experts suffer))), when comparing aircraft. As far as I am a fan of the 27x family, but nevertheless, I like the F-16 and F-15 and the way they developed. My IMHO F-16 is the T-34 in aviation in modern conditions. And unfortunately, Russia does not have anything like this and will not have it in the foreseeable future (because there is no concept for the development and use of aviation as such, as a single system) there are a lot of F-16s, even very much by modern standards. And if there are deliveries, then 99,99% it will be this particular aircraft. Yes, they won’t give new ones, but they won’t give old ones either, the block 40/42 and 50/52 options are the most realistic. And these are very uncomfortable cars, especially 50/52. And only the Su-35 can oppose it with "spherical comparison in a vacuum", everything else can be ignored. Here, the comparison by the author of the F-16 with our aircraft using such stereotypical clichés made me laugh))

It must be clearly understood that the F-16 in this list has only one type of aircraft, somehow suitable for comparison - the MiG-29. The Su-27 and its pinnacle of development, the Su-35, as well as the MiG-31, are aircraft of a completely different class. These are twin-engine heavy fighters and an interceptor, large in mass and power-to-weight ratio. Accordingly, initially able to take more powerful equipment. And the whole conversation about comparisons can be ended with the fact that the radars of twin-engine Russian aircraft see much further (and they really see) than on lighter single-engine aircraft.

So, today it is necessary to clearly understand that the superiority of one fighter over another is purely due to the power supply, i.e. engine, ended, ended at the moment when the pilots stopped looking at other aircraft through the reticle of a conventional sight, as during WWII, and switched to radars and RVV. The presence of 2 engines only allows you to realize the advantage, or not realize it (as in the case of the MiG-29, and Su-27SM *, Su-33) in the form of installing a more powerful avionics, which still needs to be MAINTAINED up to date, and the ability to carry more heavy and long-range missiles, if, of course, they are available at all. And in general, comparing traction, mass and maneuverability is a wild bad manners that should not be used by those who at least somehow position themselves as an expert.
Here's how, how can you say with a serious look that the F-16 is an analogue or competitor of our MiG-29? In which place? Made plus or minus at the same time? Well, we are not talking about the planes that were then, but those that are now. And the F-16 has come a long way during this time of constant upgrades, and is an absolutely modern aircraft in the 50/52 version, not in terms of mass, thrust, etc., but in terms of its ability to perform its tasks in modern conditions. The same path was taken by the Su-27 turning into the Su-35 (with regard to naming, I am definitely on the side of the Americans, with their block XX / XX, and not with the renaming of each new modification into a new aircraft). We have NO analogues, as the guarantor likes to say. The Mig-29 with which the F-16 is conditionally in the same weight category, this is no longer a plane, it remained in those distant 70-80s and all it is good for is to portray a target, like its fellow Ukrainian Su-27s of the first modifications .

The most significant advantage of the Sokol is that for 50 years they have come up with just a mountain of the most diverse missile and bomb weapons. In addition, the aircraft has the most developed logistics network in Europe and beyond, and thousands of specialists have been trained to work with the F-16.

Here I agree 100%, this is the No. 1 aircraft in the world in terms of the number of available weapons for any existing purposes, and modern, in contrast to the same MiG-29 and Su-27 versions of the SM

But let's talk now about air combat.

Let's ... now I'll throw it from my worn sofa.

Air combat is a direct clash of aircraft. Such an event is very controversial and very fleeting.

No... God, someone write something already in the pictures for the first class... that aerial combat, this is not... I can’t even find the words... this is not one on one with throwing handkerchiefs or knights but spears. THIS IS THE WORK OF THE SYSTEM. SYSTEMS mother ... Where the planes are just the last link in this system, which perform an action in the form of an attack or not an attack, if not beneficial. Therefore, the F-16 vs Su-35 is not a fight in the sumo ring, the advantage of a heavier athlete, but a battle of all parts of the systems. And here is a blind, deaf and dumb system (and we also have a clumsy one), but with a champion in the class, it can simply lose to a balanced system but with an absolutely average player on the field, but here the F-16 is absolutely not an average player. And its capabilities, which the Su-35 does not have, can play very strongly on the side of Ukraine. If someone burnt out with the words "blind, deaf and dumb system", then let me remind you that Russia does not have AWACS aircraft (they do not count a few) that can provide coverage of the situation in RT, there are no heavy UAVs with the same function. And NATO/USA has it all. There is also space intelligence, and it's all connected into one system without unnecessary gaskets. And what is the OODA cycle, I strongly advise you to read and look at database management through this knowledge, and the Americans run any process for compliance with optimal indicators. Speed ​​is victory. Well, such a thing as Link-16, which is not and will not be in Russia (in the near future for sure). And by the way, Starlink can also be integrated there ... What will it all give? And the fact that the F-16 in Ukraine, thanks to the capabilities of its avionics (and again 2 engines, thrust and aerial acrobatics by. oops.) will receive from NATO a complete real-time air situation and possibly even target designation. And the flight control point can be safely located somewhere in Poland, or Germany, where professionals in planning and conducting air operations will work.

We will not see dashing air battles; for this, on the other side there are neither aircraft capable of fighting on a par with our fighters, nor pilots capable of using foreign equipment at maximum speed.

Roman... You read your statistics at the beginning of the article again eh? And look at these things from a different point of view, sometimes useful for overall development. Now there are no "Dashing air battles" the carrier of explosive missiles is displayed at the most convenient point for intercepting a target, launches and leaves for the base. ALL. And the victim of the attack in most cases did not even suspect about the attack, as evidenced by the almost 100% mortality rate of downed pilots. And most likely received gifts directly in the face. To get to the launch position on command, I think the Ukrainian pilots have enough experience.

Of course, the most modern AIM-120, RVV-AE or MBDA "Meteor", which practically work on the "fire and forget" principle, is unpleasant and dangerous. There are missiles that even active electronic warfare systems do not have an effect on, moreover, it is precisely at the source of interference that guidance is being carried out. Another question: who said that these ultra-modern weapons will be handed over to Kyiv?

Excuse me, but what grounded, again, with 100% lethality in May, modern Su-34s, Su-35s and 2 Mi-8s? Helicopters understandably have zero chances, but airplanes? Also did not see the attack until the moment of defeat? Did not see. AIM-120 she is such an evil rocket and very smart.

A single-engine aircraft is small compared to a twin-engine aircraft. But you need to cram as much into it as into a twin-engine one, otherwise why make a fuss at all? Well, or almost as much in terms of mass as in terms of volume. There are things without which a combat aircraft simply is not.

So the main problem of all single-seat combat aircraft is the perfectly working fighter systems, which are utterly squeezed in the hull. So they should be set up by understanding and cool specialists.

Here I nibbled the countertop a bit. I don't even want to comment, just LOL.

You know, bring in your F-16s. No offense, enough for five flights. Further - I will not guess, but somehow this case does not look at all further.

You know ... there are such sayings: "Do not say gop until you jump" and the second, which is called "not in the eyebrow, but in the eye": "Do not brag about going to the army, brag about going with the army." Here Roman remember the second or write it down. Because we throw hats already passed. And we also saw how it ended.

[TermNachTer]

And where will your system get an "avax", somewhere in the Cherkassy region, where will it be able to see at least something in the Rostov and Voronezh regions, provided that it will not be crushed by electronic warfare? Further, you can not continue. In open combat, the 50/52 unit has no chance against Su - 30, 35 or MiG - 31.

[JD1979]

Quote: TermNachTER

Further, you can not continue. In open combat, the 50/52 unit has no chance against Su - 30, 35 or MiG - 31.

Again this mythical open battle... not tired of living in a parallel reality?
Su-35 still all right, he and PVP one on one should win, but the Su-30 is slag on the radar. humble yourself.

And where will your system take "avax", somewhere in the Cherkasy region

Why not just in the Far East? It is quite enough to see the situation over the territory of Ukraine in order to greatly complicate the work of Russian aviation. And you don’t assume that the enemy also has electronic warfare?

[TermNachTer]

More than once he explained on this site that he studied at a Soviet school. And I had a good physics teacher and I had a "hard 4". Therefore, I don’t need to tell fairy tales about super-duper mattress technology. Because there are laws of physics that no "made in USA" will cancel. In terms of detection range - generally laughter))) if "avax", which will never be over Ukraine))) will only look at the territory of Ukraine, then at modern speeds of aircraft and missiles, information on F-16 will come simultaneously with a Russian missile)))

[JD1979]

A good teacher, yes, the student apparently skipped everything that was possible, including the NVP. Otherwise, I would have known that what I have written more than once: "not spherical horses are fighting in a vacuum", in reality there is no "come on 1 on 1 or for a with a l?" In reality, systems work.
And if it’s funny to you, I advise you to strain your memory and recall the May events, when 4 aircraft were “landed” almost simultaneously without a single survivor. Still funny? And how did the speed help? or did the information come to Sushki at the same time as the American rocket?

[vlad575nso]

Wow, this comment is more interesting to read than the article itself

[Wayfarer_2]

I would like your optimism, author. However, we will most likely see air battles. Only not between F-16 and SU-35, but between F-16 and SU-25 and SU-24. Perhaps with the SU-34. This is what you kind of forgot about. As well as the fact that Western fighters can be used against our helicopters. It is for this reason that I do not share your optimism. It is for this reason that I consider it necessary to tightly destroy ALL Banderlog airfields. By the way, we still use SU-27s in Crimea, for example. The F-16 can fight with them.

[Glagol1]

I completely agree. Wet airfields. Up to the point that if somewhere in Poland or Romania they gather an intermediate consolidation, strike there, and then apologize through diplomatic channels and even promise compensation for the airfield network after the complete lifting of sanctions. We have to be cynics or we'll screw up.

[Alister kroulegg]

Modern Russian aircraft have collided (and are colliding) with aircraft in service with NATO in Syria. These are the Israeli and American Air Forces and other countries (as they wrote - 60 countries were part of the anti-Syrian coalition). There were no fights, but the fight of electronic warfare and other things is present. Interesting about it. And the Iranian Air Force flew in Syria, instant 29, with Russian aircraft in the group. Stopped flying? Silence about it

[Alister kroulegg]

Kyiv is going to use this aircraft as a platform for launching glide bombs and cruise missiles, no air battles are planned. Takeoff, launch and quickly dumped

[TermNachTer]

To launch planning bombs, you need a height, at least 5 kilometers, at least.

[Alister kroulegg]

Therefore, the Ukrainian side does not use them yet. Overseas partners are finalizing the range, apparently

[AC130 Gunship]

I don't get it either, what is the article about? Some set of "pieces of thoughts". It usually happens to me after 5 mugs of beer ... :) The fact that the Tornado will be a good target for the Su35 is the same fact as the UAZ is a good target for the armored personnel carrier.
What is the conclusion?

[Alexander Lysenko]

There will be NATO pilots. If a Ukrainian, then really for a couple of sorties. No air battles. They will cheat with harms, etc. Storms, and then into the ground.

[TermNachTer]

There will be no NATO pilots. They value their skins too much and no one will go on a suicidal flight. And even if. the pilot takes off, then as soon as he understands where he was sent, he will immediately "unroll the shafts."

[Glagol1]

Will. For money, people fly like birds!

[Glagol1]

The striped ones relied on networking, stealth and target designation. But f-16 does not do all this. We fought for a dead end branch - super-maneuverability. It is spectacular at parades, in battle - it is useful only at close distances, which are not. If the striped ones give the 404th not f-16, but f-35, oh, the censor does not let us through. Our Su-35s will get hit in the face, without even understanding where they came from. The only question is, will they give the f-35? If f-16 is given, it will be 1 to 1 in terms of losses. If they give f-35, everyone sailed. We'll have to try the su-57, of which there are 10-12 pieces for all VKS ... There is such a thing - ass. This is about us!

[JD1979]

Quote: Glagol1

Our Su-35s will get hit in the face, without even understanding where they came from.

Already received, unfortunately, both the Su-34 and Mi-8. Much here depends not only on the aircraft, but also on the characteristics of the means of destruction. Well, planning and execution to the heap.

[usm5]

I liked the article. Everything is stated intelligibly and according to the information available in the public space. In general, bravo author. Go ahead. We are waiting for new articles.

[Zakonnik]

Somehow, it looks like we'll throw our hats on.

[Romario_Argo]

LBS from Kinburn Spit to Belgorod 1100 km - 6 S-400 divisions cover the sky = 192 zur / volley
+ 3 S-300V4 military air defense brigades = 432 zur/volley
+ do not count the Buk-M2 / M3 air defense systems, Tor-M1 / M2 air defense systems, Pantsir-S1 air defense systems, Osa-AKM air defense systems, Tunguska-M1 air defense systems
and all this diversity is controlled through the automated control system Polyana, Baikal, Fundament
all the hills are studded with low-altitude detectors,
+ primary target designations come to the ACS from the Nebo-M / SV / SVU, Kasta-2, Niobium-SV, Gamma-S1 / D, Opponent-G, etc. radars. - this is in addition to their own radars at the air defense system
(*/// different ranges)

[Horn]

I would ask differently: how many Su-35s do we have? The answer is 97 pieces for the whole of Russia, from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad. And in Syria, there are several of this number.
How many Su-30s? Approximately 130-140 pieces. Again, all over Russia.
How many Americans and NATO F-16s? About 4000 pieces. Good or bad, but the hare shobla will put any lion in the shrimp pose. And also Swedish and French ... And also F-22 and other Harriers.
We already had: "With little blood, on foreign territory." If 35-40 million lives is "little blood", then I am the next incarnation of the Buddha.

[Lucy]

The problem is not only in quantity, but in the quality of the integrated, automated use of aviation. The author of this article has no idea about the automated combat control of aviation. Perhaps from bombers, or even from jackets who do not have access to Soviet secret literature. I'm inclined to say that the jacket, it's necessary to get rid of such a blizzard. <<If the first pair of scouts "brought a nip".... >>. The pilot of the Su-35, 30, like the MiG-21, ... 29, Su-15, 27 ........ is blind without means of detection, control, guidance. And in the VKS is still on fart steam. Zhmenya A-50 with color monitors instead of Alloy CRT, which I saw already in 1986. at the parking lot of the Tashkent plant

[Lucy]

Was this burda written by a tanker, or a Magellan?

[Neutral Neutral]

F-16s can start carrying jdams to the LBS, with all the consequences.

[Tikhonov_Alexander]

There will most likely be enough mercenaries to service the supplied aircraft even without dill - after all, they will be poking around in the rear. NATO intelligence will provide vital monitoring of the situation for both pilots and service personnel, and target designation. So, there will be few mattress covers shot down in battle.