A strange breakthrough against all odds

67 825 128
A strange breakthrough against all odds

Yes, the past year, in addition to a variety of discoveries and surprises, also brought some simply mind-blowing statistics: Rosoboronexport sold three times more Su-35 fighters than in the entire history existence of the aircraft.

This is quite interesting and a truly pleasant surprise, considering the impressive "iron curtain" the Americans have erected in the path of Russian military equipment. But as it turns out, the "iron curtain" isn't always an effective barrier to such penetrating contraptions as the Su-35.



But let's start from the beginning, which means, as always, a little history.


Back in 2008, the maiden flight of the prototype Su-35, powered by AL-41F-1S engines, took place. The aircraft was piloted by Honored Test Pilot of the Russian Federation Sergey Bogdan, now a legend in the air.

And in 2013, when the Su-35 was already firmly in flight and the first series of 48 aircraft for the Russian Aerospace Forces was being produced by Russian factories, the Su-35 was shown abroad for the first time, and not just anywhere, but at the 50th anniversary international air show in Le Bourget in France.

The aircraft caused a sensation, and for good reason: everyone expected to see some kind of modernization of the Su-27, since information had leaked to the press that Russia was working on something called the T-10.

But in fact, the Russian delegation brought a completely new aircraft.


Yes, the Su-35 was created on the basis of the Su-27M, a “pure” fighter that did not have the ability to operate against ground targets, but, as we have already said many times on our pages, the Su-35 is not a modernization of the Su-27, it is a completely new aircraft with capabilities that were simply unrealistic for that time.

The French weekly Air & Cosmos wrote following the speeches:
Russians have once again amazed the world with an astonishing aircraft whose flight seems to defy the laws of physics. Its powerful aerial maneuvers are becoming one of the hallmarks of the new Russian design school, which emphasizes true power. In the 21st century, Russia already has a highly successful aircraft—the Su-30MK. The new Russian aircraft has every chance of surpassing this success.

Let's just say there was a lot of excitement, but no financial payoff. Yes, the Chinese ordered 24 aircraft after the exhibition, and in 2015, a contract worth $2,5 billion was signed.


And that is all.

In February 2018, a contract was signed for the delivery of 11 fighter jets to Indonesia. The contract was valued at approximately $1,1 billion. However, under attack from the United States, the Indonesians succumbed and cancelled the contract in 2020.

Next came Egypt. In 2018, this country also signed a contract for 24 fighter jets worth $2 billion.

Unlike the Indonesians, the Egyptians gave the Russian aircraft a complete media blackout, spending a long time describing in the media how much worse the Su-35 is than the Rafale.

The Russian aircraft was, one might say, "lucky": the US praised its flight and combat capabilities so highly that it awarded the Su-35 a separate section of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

It's a pretty nasty law, but the gist of it is that anyone who purchased anything on the list was immediately subject to sanctions, which the US is known to be good at, and that was pretty unpleasant for those who fell under CAATSA.

In short, all potential buyers of the Su-35 were smitten with afterburners, as if they were a leper, and for more than ten years, everyone turned their noses up at this remarkable aircraft. Potential buyers simply didn't yet know how effective this aircraft was.

And now the year 2022 has arrived.


Events began in the skies of Ukraine, without exaggeration, the main hero was the Su-35, and from the very beginning, when Defense The Ukrainian Armed Forces experienced the accuracy of anti-radar strikes missilesAnd then the plane served as a fighter, an airborne early warning and control unit, and a bomber. Yes, there were losses, but the question is under what conditions and at what cost.

Those countries that feared US sanctions continued to watch, and the Egyptians even muttered something about participating in their tenders.

And so, here we are, 2025. It's very difficult to say what happened behind the scenes, but back in 2024, Algeria came on the scene and made the famous one-finger gesture toward the West, "Fuck you all," by ordering 18 aircraft. And in February 2025, the Su-35s arrived in Algeria.


I believe these were Su-35Es from the Egyptian batch, slightly different from the Su-35s currently in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces. And that's normal; sometimes it's easier to put an aircraft in storage "until better times" than to completely redesign it to Russian standards.

By the way, after the purchase, the Algerian Air Force became the strongest in the region, and not only in the region; you can look across the sea and measure your strength with anyone.

And it broke through.

Ethiopia purchased six fighter jets for its Air Force this summer. Frankly, this is overkill, as the country's Air Force—well, it sort of exists—is armed with MiG-21s, MiG-23s, Su-25s, Su-27s, and Su-27SKs.


So, everything is Soviet, and they could have easily avoided the hassle by purchasing the Su-30MK. It would have been considerably cheaper, but apparently they decided to go all-out and buy everything they could, which isn't surprising: the region is in utter chaos, caused by the constant conflicts between the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the Houthis in Yemen, and they have some very peculiar neighbors in Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia. And everyone knows what's going on in the Central African Republic.

Here you won’t want to, but you’ll start arming yourself.

Well, right at the end of the year they arrived news From Tehran. It was a real "Arabian Nights" story, but the fairy tale actually had a happy ending, in that the Iranians contracted the first batch of 48 Su-35Es.


It's hard to say how many more they'll buy. In one of our articles on this issue, we estimated Iran's need for modern aircraft, and it came out to at least 100-120 units. So, there's plenty to discuss and negotiate.

As a result, if 24 aircraft were sold to foreign buyers between the Le Bourget exhibition and 2024, then according to statistics, by 2025, buyers ordered 72 aircraft, which is exactly three times more.

Overall, congratulations to those who sat at the negotiating table. This is truly excellent work; in these times, it's quite challenging to prove the feasibility of purchasing our aircraft and try to minimize the potential impact of sanctions.

But look, we did it.

As a result, those who are braver get at their disposal a luxurious fighter with real combat experience, and not, like some, shooting at balls and houses.


And something tells me that despite the fact that all this hype around the fifth and sixth generations of combat aircraft is gaining momentum, the Su-35 will join the ranks of long-lived aircraft in the world aviation, along with the MiG-21, Su-30, Su-25 and other masterpieces of the creation of the aviation design school of our country.

I'm referring specifically to combat service, not just sitting in hangars like some fifth-generation aircraft. I think everyone understands that perfectly.
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    5 January 2026 04: 37
    Eh, the F-22 haunts Roman. Its performance characteristics are excellent. Unlike, say, the F-35. As for the Su-35, it's a very impressive aircraft with a wide range of weapons, excellent thrust-to-weight ratio, and a powerful radar, no matter what anyone says. NI has quite adequately assessed it as a dangerous opponent for American fighters. The number of hardpoints is impressive; no other fighter, including multirole fighters, has this kind of hardware. If I'm not mistaken, its classmate, the F-15, has up to 9.
    1. +6
      5 January 2026 05: 17
      The number of suspension units is impressive
      This number is even more impressive for ground-based radars. wink
      1. +10
        5 January 2026 05: 49
        Quote: Schneeberg
        The number of suspension units is impressive
        This number is even more impressive for ground-based radars. wink

        If you're talking about the EPR, then what can you do? You can't fit that many missiles into the internal volumes.
        1. +2
          5 January 2026 07: 34
          It's impossible to fit so many missiles into the internal space.
          Nothing can be done, compromise wink
      2. +4
        5 January 2026 14: 58
        The radars may be impressive, but the ground-based air defense missiles are not. The Su-35 is a fighter and doesn't need to penetrate air defense systems, except perhaps to launch anti-aircraft missiles.
        1. +1
          15 January 2026 14: 31
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          The radars may be impressive, but the ground-based air defense missiles are not. The Su-35 is a fighter and doesn't need to penetrate air defense systems, except perhaps to launch anti-aircraft missiles.

          Dreamer.
          The A-50U AWACS aircraft, also supposedly the Radar itself, was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile.
          Su-35s were shot down at least three times by SAM systems. Ambush tactics.
    2. +8
      5 January 2026 10: 55
      Quote: 123_123
      The number of hardpoints is impressive; no other fighter, including multirole, has this; if I'm not mistaken, its classmate, the F15, has up to 9.

      The F15EX also has 12 knots...
    3. -17
      5 January 2026 11: 47
      Its price is especially excellent))) a quarter of a billion apiece—that's in late-century prices; in today's prices, it would cost $300 million, maybe more. But its combat record is somewhat obscure, unless you look at countries with very powerful air defenses, like Afghanistan or Iran.
      1. +5
        5 January 2026 15: 04
        To be honest, the F15EX costs around $80 million.
        1. +1
          5 January 2026 15: 30
          So, if the F-22 were made today, its price wouldn't be $250 million, but much higher. The real purchasing power of the dollar has fallen by about 30-40% over the past 30 years.
    4. -8
      5 January 2026 18: 12
      The F 15 E has 13 hardpoints. The combat load is 11,000 kg, and this aircraft flew in 1986.
      The new F15 EX has a combat load of 13200 kg and 12 hardpoints.
      The Su-35's combat load is only 8,000 kg. First, carefully read the specifications of both aircraft.
      Compare Niva and Toyota RAV4.
      1. +9
        5 January 2026 20: 57
        Quote: dimon642
        The F 15 E has 13 hardpoints. The combat load is 11,000 kg, and this aircraft flew in 1986.
        The new F15 EX has a combat load of 13200 kg and 12 hardpoints.
        The Su-35's combat load is only 8,000 kg. First, carefully read the specifications of both aircraft.
        Compare Niva and Toyota RAV4.

        These figures have been discussed many times here (on VO), relating them to engine power, wing area and lift, fuel capacity, and so on. For example, in terms of aerodynamics: the F-15 Eagle has a lift-to-drag ratio of 10, while the Su-27 has 11,6. Furthermore, the Su-27's airframe lift is one and a half times greater than that of the F-15. The F-15 has no advantage over the Su-27 family, except perhaps on paper.
      2. +1
        6 January 2026 09: 29
        Don't confuse maximum payload with nominal payload. The F-15 can carry this load, but it ceases to be a fighter. Just like the F-16, when it can carry six tons.
      3. +6
        6 January 2026 23: 46
        Only the Su-35 can lift 8 tons and fill to the brim with fuel, but when the F15 lifts 13200, its tanks are half empty. So, hold off on your wet dreams about the RAV4.
      4. +1
        7 January 2026 23: 18
        And Kamaz takes all 20 tons and so what?
  2. +23
    5 January 2026 04: 54
    The author, "a certain T-10", is actually the Su-27 itself, the basis of the Su-35.
    1. +2
      5 January 2026 15: 05
      The T10 is not actually the Su-27, it is the first version of the Su, but it did not work out, it was completely redesigned and the Su-27 was born.
      1. +3
        5 January 2026 18: 31
        T-6, Su-24, T-8, Su-25, T-10, Su-27. Initially, the T-10 was equipped with the AL-21F-3 turbojet engine, also known as product "89", but it went into production with the AL-31F.
      2. +4
        7 January 2026 01: 49
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The T10 is not actually a Su27

        The Su-27 is the T-10—that was the aircraft's name before it entered service and was given an official designation. And if we list the entire T-10 line:
        - Su-27,
        - Su-30 of all modifications, and there are many of them.
        - Su-34,
        - Su-35.
        All this is the T-10 line.
        Like the Su-57 in all its modifications, the T-50 was and will be.
        1. 0
          11 January 2026 19: 48
          Quote: bayard
          Su-27, this is the T-10 - that was the name of the aircraft before it was accepted into service and assigned an official index

          The T-10S became the prototype of the Su-27.

          On May 20, 1977, the chief pilot of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Honored Test Pilot and Hero of the Soviet Union V.S. Ilyushin, took the T-10-1 prototype into the air. This aircraft became the first in the family of fighters now known as the Su-27. Testing of the first prototypes revealed the need for a fundamental revision of the Su-27 design. Fundamental elements of the aircraft's layout, such as the wing shape and area, the configuration of the tail fins, and the layout of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, had to be revised.
          In 1976, a configuration with a completely new aerodynamic design was developed. The fundamental features established by Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi were retained: the integral design, rearward center of gravity, fly-by-wire control system (FWS), and the lower engine nacelles. The new configuration introduced a crucial element: adaptive deflection of the leading and trailing edge mechanization. Taking into account other changes to the design, powerplant, and onboard system, the result was a completely new, radically improved aircraft. The design bureau designated the fighter variant with the new layout T-10S. Full-scale design work began in 1979.
          On April 20, 1981, the experimental aircraft T-10-7 (also known as T-10S-1, meaning the first production one), piloted by V. S. Ilyushin, took to the skies.

          The data obtained during the tests showed that an aircraft has been created that is not inferior to, and in some respects superior to, the F-15.
          Production of serial T-10S began in 1981 at the Yuri Gagarin Aviation Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.


          And T-10 (specifically T-10-1), it is in the photo below.
          1. 0
            11 January 2026 20: 52
            Yes, I know this story. It turned out to be a very successful car, and its potential for modernization has not yet been exhausted.
  3. +27
    5 January 2026 05: 18
    laughing
    - Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran! When will you pay?
    - Never... the echo responded as usual...
    Doesn't it seem a little... er... very encouraging to send expensive equipment to countries that regularly don't pay and ask for debt write-offs?
    request
    Well, this is the principled position these countries take regarding their debts...
    No, theoretically Algeria has the means to pay (although this time they will try, IMHO, to avoid paying by planting trees on some Friendship Alley).
    feel
    But Ethiopia is a place of poverty and misery (I don’t swear, it’s a scientific fact), what can you expect from them?
    feel feel
    Iran—any day now, it's "that," and will there be mutually beneficial cooperation again, like with Syria? And even if it's not "that," the country has reached the point of street shootings and bombings; Tehran is without water, and getting water to homes in the capital is a problem:Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian explained that the water crisis in the Iranian capital is being exacerbated by the lack of rain, and, according to him, the city will have to be evacuated if there is no rain by the third ten-day period of November.."
    How will they pay for 48 or 100-120 fighters? With carpets?

    Some dry facts.
    1. Algeria.
    Russia has written off Algeria's $4,7 billion debt.
    Russia has completely written off Algeria's debt, which totals over $4,7 billion. Algeria has also committed to purchasing industrial products from Russia worth an amount equal to or greater than the debt. The corresponding intergovernmental agreement was signed during Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Algeria. The agreement covers both government and commercial loans, RIA Novosti reports.
    The debt write-off is part of a plan that includes Russian arms deliveries to Algeria. It was previously reported that Algeria refused to purchase Russian weapons until its debt was written off.

    https://lenta.ru/news/2006/03/10/talks/

    2. Ethiopia.
    Russia and Ethiopia have signed an agreement to write off $1.104 billion in debt owed by one of Africa's poorest countries to Russia. This was reported by the Ethiopian News Agency, citing Ethiopia's Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. According to ministry spokesperson Getachew Admassu, the signing ceremony took place on Monday in Moscow.

    Ethiopia's total debt to Russia is $1.268 billion. Ethiopia will pay the remaining $160 million after the write-off over 30 years.

    https://www.vedomosti.ru/library/news/2005/03/31/rossiya-spisala-jefiopii-11-mlrd-iz-126-mlrd-dolga
    Ethiopia has reached an agreement with creditors to restructure its $8,4 billion debt, AFP reported, citing the country's Finance Minister, Ahmed Shide.
    ...
    Ethiopia continues to implement economic reforms. In July 2024, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a $3,4 billion financial assistance program for the country in exchange for commitments to liberalize the foreign exchange market. However, the country's economy remains under pressure, with inflation projected to reach 23,3% in 2025.

    https://afrinz.ru/2025/03/efiopiya-dogovorilas-o-restrukturizaczii-dolga-na-84-mlrd/#:~:text=%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%2023%2C3%25.

    3. Iran.
    "Iran paid Russia part of its debt for the construction of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, and the project's implementation deadlines remain unchanged," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak told reporters following a meeting of the co-chairs of the Russian-Iranian intergovernmental commission.
    "Construction of the second and third stages of Bushehr was discussed. [The deadlines] are in accordance with the contract and will not change. The issue of payments was also raised. Payments were made at the end of last year, and at the beginning of this year as well. There is progress, but the debt remains, so this issue is under discussion and implementation," Novak said.
    In the middle of last year, it was reported that Iran's debt to Russia for work on the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant amounted to approximately €500 million.
    "
    https://www.atomic-energy.ru/news/2022/05/26/125094#:~:text=%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%20%D0%B2%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%202021%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B2,%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%20%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D0%B8%20%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0.
    1. +4
      5 January 2026 06: 24
      Some dry facts.

      After reading your comment, I suddenly remember the saying "for free and...".
      It's good that China took it for a look and played with it, and it seems India was interested...
      1. +14
        5 January 2026 06: 34
        The Chinese order is fulfilled, but India does not want the Su35.
        request
        But at least these countries paid money... but for this trinity - Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran - there is no hope of payment, IMHO...
        crying
        1. +5
          5 January 2026 11: 13
          Quote: Wildcat
          and for this trinity - Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran - there is no hope of payment, IMHO...

          So there's not much choice. Algeria, a long-standing partner (now perhaps the largest, after China and India), will continue to buy new equipment and maintain existing ones. Iran is practically an ally (at least not an adversary, which is a good thing), and Ethiopia, with its still-weak foreign trade turnover but rapidly developing economy (which shows great promise), may even repay someday...
          1. +16
            5 January 2026 12: 33
            So there isn't much choice.
            Hmm, maybe you could give Russian citizens money and then forgive the debt, at least partially, at least the interest...
            fellow
            1. +4
              5 January 2026 14: 10
              Quote: Wildcat
              It's possible to give money to Russian citizens, and then forgive the debt, at least partially, at least the interest...

              No, you can't. The entire capitalist economy depends on those percentages...
          2. -2
            6 January 2026 20: 48
            Buying means receiving goods in exchange for money. But Algeria receives everything on credit, which is then written off, meaning it receives it for FREE.
            The correct version of this news should be: "Russia gave away three times more aircraft for FREE than it had previously given away."
          3. +3
            9 January 2026 10: 34
            "Ethiopia, with its still rather weak foreign trade turnover, but rapidly developing economy (which shows great promise), may even pay off someday.[quote][/quote]
            Like in the movies: - I'll give you...half...someday...maybe....))))
            1. 0
              9 January 2026 13: 08
              Quote: Doc1272
              Like in the movies: - I'll give you...half...someday...maybe....))))

              Well, it won't just be aircraft deliveries. Training, maintenance, spare parts, engines... And that's for three or four decades. And what will happen in forty years? Who can say... China in 1980 and China in 2020 are two very different things...
        2. 0
          5 January 2026 17: 57
          But at least these countries paid money... but for this trinity - Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran - there is no hope of payment, IMHO...

          I don't know what kind of nonsense you're talking about, but money from export deliveries is actually coming in. This is the only way many factories managed to avoid going bankrupt, especially in the early 2000s...
          1. +1
            6 January 2026 20: 49
            They paid, but not these countries.
        3. +2
          5 January 2026 21: 04
          Quote: Wildcat
          The Chinese order is fulfilled, but India does not want the Su35.
          request
          But at least these countries paid money... but for this trinity - Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran - there is no hope of payment, IMHO...
          crying

          By the way, information recently flashed that a certain country purchased the Su-57.
          1. +3
            5 January 2026 22: 20
            request
            Oh....
            IMHO, until we have completed our rearmament program, I personally would not allow anyone to sell the Su-57.
            Since Soviet times, foreign users have often had their hands on our technology...
      2. +10
        5 January 2026 11: 34
        Quote from tsvetahaki
        After reading your comment, I suddenly remember the saying "for free and...".

        This is
        A strange breakthrough against all odds
        wassat
    2. -8
      5 January 2026 15: 07
      How hard must it be for you to live with Wikipedia instead of the ability to think? Ever wonder why people lend money to buy weapons, with no hope of repayment?
    3. -12
      5 January 2026 15: 07
      How hard must it be for you to live with Wikipedia instead of the ability to think? Ever wonder why people lend money to buy weapons, with no hope of repayment?
    4. +2
      5 January 2026 18: 31
      Quote: Wildcat
      Some dry facts.
      1. Algeria.
      Russia has written off Algeria's $4,7 billion debt.

      Back in 2006. In exchange for new contracts for the purchase of weapons.
      The result? As of 2025, Algeria is not on Russia's list of major debtors (over $1 billion). Bangladesh and Belarus are. India, Egypt, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Yemen are. But Algeria is not.
      1. +2
        5 January 2026 22: 40
        1. Got it, $4,7 billion "understand and forgive."
        2. We don't disclose the financial terms (direct purchase, financing, reverse reinvestment) of such contracts, but usually the buyer does. Or, unfortunately, such information surfaces when it's time to "understand and forgive" yet again.
        request
        Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to approve the behavior of a counterparty that has "paid off its debt" of $4,7 billion, and at the same time is still being sold something else.
        what
        1. +1
          6 January 2026 16: 07
          Quote: Wildcat
          Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to approve the behavior of a counterparty that has "paid off its debt" of $4,7 billion, and at the same time is still being sold something else.

          Greece laughs quietly on the sidelines.
          And yes, the debt write-off for Algeria and African countries in general was part of the IMF's global initiative, under which all participating countries and organizations wrote off a total of $80 billion in debt.
          1. +8
            6 January 2026 16: 46
            You see, I don't care about Greece. And I don't care about the IMF.
            And if the European Union wants to write off European debts in order to maintain European solidarity, then that is their business, the European one.
            Neither the Algerians, nor the Iranians, nor the Ethiopians are my brothers or compatriots.
            You might think it's normal for blacks and Arabs to be forgiven billions and continue to receive supplies, but I don't. Especially when our country itself has always lived in poverty, and just as in better times, they used to collect money for children's surgeries via text messages on TV, they still do now.
            When the country has no money to spend, everyone is cured, roads are built, and every last homeless person is cured, washed, and put to work - then we can start handing out money to blacks.
            I understand you think differently. That's your right, but I don't agree with you and I won't. I'm only concerned about Russia. As for geopolitics, international debt, and aid to developing countries, I saw plenty of it back in the USSR—it never ends well.
            request
            1. +3
              6 January 2026 18: 46
              Quote: Wildcat
              I understand you think differently. That's your right, but I don't agree with you and I won't. I'm only concerned about Russia. As for geopolitics, international debt, and aid to developing countries, I saw plenty of it back in the USSR—it never ends well.

              Where do you see aid and international debt? The write-off of Algeria's debt to the USSR allowed for a return to the Algerian market after a 15-year hiatus.
              Otherwise, the same "patriots" would now be accusing us of wasting the multi-billion dollar Algerian market, which would have been purchased in France and the USA.
              1. +2
                6 January 2026 20: 52
                Where do you see assistance and international duty?

                I don't see it anywhere; I don't have any such debts. And I know everyone I help personally.
                And writing off Algeria's 4,7 billion debt is certainly better than investing in Russia, did I understand you correctly?
                belay
                Can you calculate the balance of our participation in the "multi-billion dollar Algerian market" after writing off 4,7 billion in debt?
                Sorry, while the result is negative, almost 5 billion dollars is a huge amount of money.
                request
                And the argument "Algeria's multi-billion dollar market, which would be purchased from France and the US" is very bad - should we trade at a loss, or what?
                No.
                It's strange, but for some reason, those who tend to address others with the word "patriot," but in quotation marks, are more inclined to focus on Algerian happiness than on Russia. They've just written off a ton of money, and now they're back to it, just not in Russia...
                1. -1
                  7 January 2026 19: 57
                  Quote: Wildcat
                  And writing off Algeria's 4,7 billion debt is certainly better than investing in Russia, did I understand you correctly?

                  Writing off 4,7 billion and getting a contract for 5,5 billion, and then another 7 billion, IMHO, is better than not writing off 4,7 billion and getting... and getting nothing, because Algeria would not have signed contracts with us, but would have simply bought the same thing from other suppliers.
                  I don’t remember from which of the USSR’s debtors Russia managed to collect these debts in full.
                  1. 0
                    7 January 2026 20: 25
                    That's a very difficult question.
                    Some of the write-offs occurred within the framework of interstate relations, where something could be "cut out"; some – within the framework of the Paris Club, where "cut out" was not possible and the principle was "the rich forgive the poor."
                    Well, those were the times...
                    request
                    In arms trading, profits shouldn't be measured by the contract amount, of course, but rather by the difference between revenue and expenses. But that's easy to do with public companies like Boeing and Airbus, which also have to prepare explanatory notes to their annual balance sheets and undergo audits. In our case, it's unclear how to calculate the cost price, since some of the development dates back to the Soviet era, and the expenses could have been spent there. Plus, the contract volume is never known, as they include not only hardware supply but also maintenance, consumables, training, and so on (sometimes even restructuring—see the adventures of the aircraft carrier Virkamaditya and price changes). Plus, there are financing issues and opening lines of credit if the product needs to be manufactured first.
                    In the Russian Federation, these issues were addressed by the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST), also known as the LiveJournal BMPD, but have not been involved in this area recently.
                    what

                    In short, it's impossible to draw conclusions about the profitability of a contract based solely on its price. Typically, even after the hardware is delivered, there's a provision for its maintenance for a certain period, and this can also lead to significant losses.
                    And there are fundamentally solvent clients, like China and India, who pay normally and can even increase the amount, as happened with the Indian aircraft carrier. And then there are all sorts of... Algeria, who can, at any moment, cordially ask for money to be written off.
    5. +4
      5 January 2026 21: 31
      Doesn't it seem a little... er... very encouraging to send expensive equipment to countries that regularly don't pay and ask for debt write-offs?

      There's such a thing as giving out bad loans. It's a hidden injection into one's own economy. All countries are guilty of this. Write-offs don't happen for nothing, either, but rather for political or economic concessions.
      1. +3
        5 January 2026 22: 22
        Algeria theoretically has money, Iran has gas and oil...
        "But that's not certain" (c)
        ..but what can you expect from Ethiopians other than "thank you"?
        1. +1
          6 January 2026 09: 45
          The kind of labor that is sorely lacking in Russia... bully sarcasm of whom what
        2. 0
          7 January 2026 02: 46
          Quote: Wildcat
          ..but what can you expect from Ethiopians other than "thank you"?

          You never know. Maybe they have some resources with permission/licenses for our companies. Or maybe they have some kind of sponsor. After all, they only ordered six units. And with the most luxurious configuration, that's about 600 million. Not that much.
          1. 0
            7 January 2026 06: 30
            IMHO, from what has been published, Ethiopia (in the 1990s and 2000s) did scrape together enough cash to buy weapons "from stock" for the war with Eritrea. But back then, it was used, and the prices were lower.
            In principle, it's probably possible to scrape together enough for 6 units even now... and considering that the issue of access to the sea with Eritrea hasn't been resolved yet and the next act of the drama is near, they really need the Air Force... especially since Eritrea is even worse than Ethiopia (though it couldn't be any worse, it would seem), and survived the last war "by the skin of its teeth," IMHO...
            1. 0
              7 January 2026 13: 45
              That's what I'm saying: you need to look at the size of the ordered batch. No one will supply new combat aircraft for free during a war, at their own expense. And even in peacetime, such loans are usually tied to certain preferences and services, because otherwise they're pointless. Even the USSR was far from altruistic. Special forms of lending were used, and debt restructuring was carried out when absolutely necessary, but no one wrote off anything, except perhaps for a few hysterical and outrageous antics by Khrushchev. For example, no one wrote off Vietnam's 2 billion transferable rubles debt until very recently. Vietnam tried hard to weasel out of it, almost like "we fought for you," but they were politely and firmly told, "A debt is a debt," but we can defer the repayment period. And they did defer. But they didn't write it off. As well as various African countries. And these remaining $2 billion were written off quite recently, but tied to new contracts and preferences for our businesses, including in the field of tourism and recreation.
              All the fairy tales about "free aid" to the Papuans in exchange for "building socialism" are the heavy-handed nonsense of liberals born at the turn of the 80s and 90s. And this nonsense is constantly being rehashed by new generations of foreign agents.
              1. +1
                7 January 2026 15: 11
                All the fairy tales about "free aid" to the Papuans in exchange for "building socialism" are the heavy-handed nonsense of liberals born at the turn of the 80s and 90s. And this nonsense is constantly being rehashed by new generations of foreign agents.

                Well, it’s understandable if I ask you about your fantasies about “some preferences and services... new contracts and preferences for our business"You'll turn on the barrel organ about the 'keys to the safe'.
                No.
                To the delight of people like you, debt write-offs won't be limited to Algeria and Ethiopia, and Syria and Venezuela won't be...
                You're happy, aren't you?
                request
                1. 0
                  7 January 2026 16: 06
                  Quote: Wildcat
                  Well, it's clear that if I ask you about your fantasies about "certain preferences and services... new contracts and preferences for our business," you'll turn on the "keys to the safe" refrain.

                  laughing And if I ask you about the investment plans, statistics, and contract terms of investment funds like Bdek-Rok and others like it, will you tell me all of that? Really? lol
                  Quote: Wildcat
                  To the delight of people like you, debt write-offs won't be limited to Algeria and Ethiopia, and Syria and Venezuela won't be...

                  Well, we seem to have sorted things out with Algeria; the new arms contracts there more than cover the old problem debts. A good amount. So the profit margin from these contracts alone more than covers all the debts. And that's real money, not payment obligations.
                  With Venezuela, it's even simpler—a significant portion of that country's reserves are held in our bank accounts. In the event of problems with debt repayment or a threat to our investments, we will simply withhold the corresponding amounts in accordance with a court order. We're covered here.
                  And Syria... things are complicated there today, with the threat of a new regional war. But the new leader of Syria has already confirmed responsibility for the debts, as well as our rights to military bases and the right to develop the continental shelf with rich oil and gas fields. When to exercise this right to the continental shelf is still unclear, but our rights have been confirmed. And debts remain debts. Times change, rulers and the international situation change, but the debts remain.
                  Or maybe you'll make up something similar about Turkey's debts to our state-owned companies? All debts will have to be repaid. With all the interest due.
                  Quote: Wildcat
                  You're happy, aren't you?

                  I am calm.
                  1. +1
                    7 January 2026 16: 15
                    Again.
                    Please stick to the topic of discussion.
                    If you have something to write about on this topic with facts, I will be happy to answer you.
                    If not, I kindly ask you not to bother me with your illiterate thoughts about "Bdek-Rock funds", "good interest" it also "The profit margin from these contracts alone more than covers all debts.", "The new head of Syria has already confirmed responsibility for the debts." It's tiring to read.
                    request
                    1. -1
                      7 January 2026 16: 26
                      Quote: Wildcat
                      Again.

                      And why do you need this "time"?
                      Just end the discussion, because you've said nothing but a few quotes about debt write-offs. It's just sheer demagoguery.
        3. 0
          8 January 2026 23: 51
          If my memory serves me right, it was a Soviet naval base))
          There are many options, including “we know you won’t pay us, but you’ll get some perks.”
        4. -1
          10 January 2026 13: 40
          But what can you expect from Ethiopians other than "thank you"

          The write-off was made in connection with cooperation in the energy and resource sectors, construction of roads and factories, etc.
          In short: only in the media do countries "simply grant/write off" debts without delving into the issues (or perhaps this is an order). In reality, there's a cold, calculating approach.
    6. 0
      7 January 2026 02: 42
      Quote: Wildcat
      Some dry facts.

      Well, these are some jaw-dropping statistics.
      And now a little sobriety.
      First, regarding the written-off debts.
      Typically, these are transitional debts, restructured from the Soviet era. And writing them off isn't so straightforward. These write-offs typically involve trade and business preferences for these or larger amounts—access to gold, oil, and other mineral deposits. They also include large arms orders from the Russian Federation or other orders/contracts for modernizing the energy sector, railways, rolling stock, and so on. In other words, the country gets its due, Russian businesses get theirs, and the unsustainable debts are written off. These are often complex agreements that result in our private military companies appearing in some countries and helping to build armies and other security forces, suppress and destroy local gangs, and strengthen governments (all of which is generously paid for). Afterwards, French mining companies and American military bases (with our specialists entering them) are expelled from Africa, and our companies gain access to rich uranium and gold mines and processing plants. So, it's not all that clear-cut.
      As for Algeria, it's one of our largest customers in the arms market. And if the author's actual figures for an order for 18 Su-35Es (and in the middle of last year, an order for 12 units plus an option was announced), that means the order has already been expanded following the delivery of the first batch last year.
      In total, according to last year's data, Algeria ordered 12 Su-57Es, 12 Su-35Es, and 14 Su-34Es. Last year, six Su-57Es, six Su-35Es, and six Su-34Es were delivered. Options were declared for all positions. And yes, the entire Algerian Su-30 fleet is planned to be upgraded to the Su-30SM2E standard (with radar, avionics, and engines from the Su-35S). So, Algeria has purchased and continues to purchase quite significant quantities of weapons from us, and I think the order list includes more than just aircraft and air defense systems.
      And the written-off debt... this is most likely the writing-off of the remaining debt to the USSR, linked to the purchase of a large batch of weapons.
      Iran?
      Of course, there's an attempt (yet another) to stage a color revolution. They'll manage. And they should have started rearming their Air Force a long time ago. They were offered it, they wanted it, they even sent their pilots to familiarize themselves with the Su-35E. But their ayatollahs got carried away with their multi-vector strategy, got involved with MI6 and their proxies in the US (the Democratic Party), and they paid for it. Now they're starting to come to their senses, they've finally convinced us to supply them with air defense systems (we were the ones offering it before, but now, during the Second World War, we had to really persuade them). Apparently, they've already ordered the Su-35E and are even rushing the delivery. But we'll have to wait. Because the entire batch (24) of Su-35Es from the Egyptian order has already been shipped to Algeria. Given such a large order for the Su-35E (and additional orders of an equally large volume are expected), the entire assembly line for these aircraft will likely be switched to producing export models, with only the Su-57 and Su-30SM2 (which are essentially two-seat versions of the Su-35S in terms of armament) being used by the Aerospace Forces. And that's the right thing to do.
      And don't worry about Iran's payments either; they have oil, so they'll pay in yuan. And maybe with other export deliveries as well.
      And this is just the beginning; there are many more interested parties and pre-orders/requests for our combat aircraft. The author only listed the number of Su-35Es ordered, but there are also orders for the Su-34E (and apparently not just from Algeria), the Su-57E, and even the MiG-35SE (with a new, sophisticated AESA radar). Payments will be made outside the dollar system. So, Russia is returning to the arms market as normal.
      1. 0
        7 January 2026 06: 16
        Well, these are some jaw-dropping statistics.
        And now a little sobriety.
        You see, the "grinding statistics" you probably attribute to the financial result in the form of debt write-offs are best refuted with numbers.
        Unfortunately, your stories about what happens after debt write-off are mostly fantasy.
        If you have anything to write about using Iran, Ethiopia, or Algeria as examples, with data on the financial results, you're welcome. If not, then leave all this meaningless writing alone. "complex agreements, as a result of which our private military companies appear in some countries and help create armies and other security structures, suppress/destroy local gangs, strengthen governments (all this is generously paid for), after which they fly out of Africa like a cork...".
        The situation is very clear: the federal budget wrote off funds. Did the budget return this money (for example, in the form of taxes)? In what amount?
        And please, no more talk about this latest "cunning plan": "PMCs are flying in, governments are getting stronger, the French are flying out." More sobriety, as you're calling for, in financial matters.
        1. 0
          7 January 2026 13: 33
          Quote: Wildcat
          If you have something to write about using Iran, Ethiopia or Algeria as an example, with data on the financial result

          And also the keys to the apartment and the safe?
          Last year, 18 heavy fighter jets were delivered to Algeria for a total of approximately/at least $2 billion. Could you please provide the transaction form, currency, and payment method?
          You can make fun of the "debt write-off" argument all you want, but the current Russian government is far from altruistic and doesn't engage in internationalism or charity. Combat aircraft are sold during wartime ONLY for cash and because they are currently being produced in somewhat of a surplus.
          Quote: Wildcat
          And please, no more talk about another "cunning plan"

          So you are talking here about the "cunning plans of altruists" from Russian business and intelligence services (which now make up the lion's share of the top authorities) about writing off something or other.
          They're writing off debts to the USSR and receiving money, assets, and preferences right now. This year, roughly the same number of aircraft will be sent to Algeria. And in the future, they'll either fill the remaining contract or exercise the option to expand the contract. The option has already been exercised for the Su-35E, with an additional six aircraft ordered. The same is expected for the Su-34E and Su-57E.
          Quote: Wildcat
          The situation is absolutely concrete: the federal budget has written off money.

          Just don't show off your financial illiteracy—the state budget never finances such deliveries. That's the preserve of authorized banks.
          1. 0
            7 January 2026 15: 04
            request
            No, well, from the very beginning it was clear that you had no arguments.
            But you started writing long texts with such confidence...
            And also the keys to the apartment and the safe?
            Last year, 18 heavy fighter jets were delivered to Algeria for a total of approximately/at least $2 billion. Could you please provide the transaction form, currency, and payment method?

            "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
            An argument from ignorance is an argument that presupposes the ignorance of the person being persuaded, in which it is concluded that some statement is true because no one has proved it to be false, or, conversely, that the statement is false because no one has proved it to be true.

            request
            You can make fun of the "debt write-off" argument all you want, but the current Russian government is far from altruistic and doesn't engage in internationalism or charity. Combat aircraft are sold during wartime ONLY for cash and because they are currently being produced in somewhat of a surplus.

            "Appeal to the obvious, false authority
            The demagogue's argument begins with expressions like "everyone knows that...," "obvious...," "science has long since proven...," "all successful businessmen know that...," and so on. This exploits the listener's false pride (if something is presented as "common knowledge," it can be difficult for them to admit, even to themselves, that they've never heard of it) or cites supposed authorities who agree with the statement, which has an effect on people who tend to trust authority.

            request
            Similarly, further in the text...
            You are not good with facts, and as a demagogue you are rather weak...
            recourse
            Well, it's okay, you don't need all this in real life, IMHO.
            good
            1. +2
              7 January 2026 15: 43
              And you were counting on me to get information? laughing
              With your demagoguery about debts to the USSR being written off?
              Your manipulation is quite clumsy, and the purpose of such antics is obvious. Your interest in this topic is also understandable. I corrected your demagoguery, but you didn't like it. Which is also quite understandable.
              I think this will not hinder you in life.
              Quote: Wildcat
              You started writing long texts with such confidence...

              I have time, why not write.
              Quote: Wildcat
              It was clear from the very beginning that you had no arguments.

              What arguments? lol
              Publicly available figures on export deliveries?
              The details are currently classified. However, the approximate export price of the Su-35E is known from the cost of the Chinese and Egyptian contracts. It's around $100 million per unit (depending on the configuration—spare engines, air defense, pilot training, and other mandatory contract clauses). For the Su-34E, it's about the same or slightly less. The price for the Su-57E is naturally higher, I think around $150 million. So you can estimate the cost of the contract with Algeria based on the known number of fighters ordered.
              I know about how debt issues were resolved, and the types and conditions of loans issued under the USSR, from conversations with former employees of the State Planning Committee and the Ministry of Foreign Trade. I discussed these very topics in the early and mid-90s. So I know what I'm talking about, while you're engaging in demagoguery and manipulating figures about writing off old debts to the USSR, without even realizing the terms under which these write-offs were made.
              Quote: Wildcat
              You are not friends with facts,

              Young man, working with facts and information is my professional activity.
              But you won’t get more than an analysis of open sources from me.
              1. -1
                7 January 2026 16: 03
                It's simple.
                There is no demagoguery in my text (it seems you don’t even understand what that is). None at all.
                My text presents the bare facts, even without their interpretation. The financial result is debt write-offs and the delivery of new inventory items to debtors.
                Instead of facts on the topic of discussion, you write lengthy texts with your assumptions, which you pass off as facts and "You won't get more than open source analysis from me.".
                OMG
                request
                I don't expect anything from you at all. I just hope you run out of time online and don't write to me.
                Young man, working with facts and information is my professional activity.
                Punctuation marks are what makes you professional.
                And writing long posts on forums is not a profession one should be proud of, dear interlocutor. "with former employees of the State Planning Committee and the Ministry of Foreign Trade".
                1. -1
                  7 January 2026 16: 24
                  Quote: Wildcat
                  My text presents the bare facts, even without their interpretation. The financial result is debt write-offs and the delivery of new inventory items to debtors.

                  This is demagoguery. Naked demagoguery, at that. It doesn't understand what these debts are, or even whose (to whom) they belong, or why they have to be written off. It's not the whole truth; it's also a lie, but a more sophisticated one.
                  Quote: Wildcat
                  I can only hope that you will run out of time on the Internet and will not write to me.

                  So stop first, I’m just responding to what you write to me.
                  1. -1
                    7 January 2026 16: 39
                    As you say.
                    You actually wrote to me, but why pay attention to such trifles.
                    Just in case: look up what demagoguery is, at least the definition; the techniques are too complicated.
                    I hope you won't write to me anymore.
                    good fellow Yes
                    1. -1
                      7 January 2026 17: 57
                      Quote: Wildcat
                      You actually wrote to me,

                      I responded to your point about the debt write-offs by saying that these debts had nothing to do with the Russian Federation and were therefore problematic. Throughout the post-Soviet period, Algeria has been regularly paying for its deliveries. And there were quite a few of them.
                      But you didn't like that my information devalued your "free supplies to the Papuans" claim. Everything you did afterwards was simply flailing around the topic, uninformative and meaningless.
                      Quote: Wildcat
                      I hope you won't write to me anymore.

                      Quote: bayard
                      So stop first

                      I hope this ends this conversation.
                      1. -1
                        7 January 2026 18: 45
                        "I can only hope that you run out of time on the Internet and don't write to me."
    7. 0
      7 January 2026 23: 22
      Well, why is it so difficult to understand that it’s not about money.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +16
    5 January 2026 06: 02
    customers ordered 72 aircraft, which is exactly three times more.

    To promise is not to marry

    And the Iran deal should be considered carefully. It's unclear who will be in power there in a year.
    1. 0
      5 January 2026 15: 33
      It'll be the same old ones. The US has been fighting for a change of power in Iran for decades. So what? It's very difficult to kidnap all the ayatollahs (just as it would be to destroy them).
  6. +8
    5 January 2026 06: 02
    Publication in the category "everything is fine, beautiful marquise".
    But if there is a factory, and they have an aircraft they produce, then either the factory must be closed, since they won't buy it for "real money," or there must be a barter, which the commentators have already written about.
    Former "friends" won't buy. And they won't sell to them either. Current "friends" have their own factories. Those who remain are willing to take and promise to pay. That way, at least the machines won't rust and their hands and brains won't deteriorate too much.
    Or just use it yourself.
  7. 0
    5 January 2026 06: 25
    The Iranians have contracted the first batch of 48 Su-35Es.
    But after this, the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council were reinstated, specifically UN Security Council Resolution 1747 of March 24, 2007, which prohibits the sale to Iran and the purchase from Iran of arms and anything related to them. So Russia was able to purchase the Shaheed license just in time, when the sanctions were suspended.
    1. +5
      5 January 2026 07: 06
      How many UN Security Council resolutions do the US and Israel comply with? There are no innocent virgins in politics, so these resolutions can be ignored, which is precisely what Israel and the US do.
      1. +7
        5 January 2026 07: 56
        Quote: Grencer81
        These resolutions can be backed by a large threaded bolt, which is what Israel and the US are doing.
        Israel and the United States are putting a big screw in the way of UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no legal force anyway. And the United States vetoes UN Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding and binding on all UN members, even before they're adopted if they don't like them. Consequently, they're not adopted. But Resolution 1747 was adopted by the UN Security Council, and note that Russia voted FOR these sanctions.
        1. +2
          5 January 2026 11: 00
          Quote: Nagan
          Israel and the US are putting a big screw in the UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no legal force anyway.

          And the UN itself has no power.
          Does the UN have troops? No? Well, there you go.
        2. +1
          5 January 2026 11: 54
          You can always revoke your vote if you want...With bandits like the USA and Israel, no one plays with nobility.
        3. -1
          5 January 2026 21: 08
          Quote: Nagan
          Quote: Grencer81
          These resolutions can be backed by a large threaded bolt, which is what Israel and the US are doing.
          Israel and the United States are putting a big screw in the way of UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no legal force anyway. And the United States vetoes UN Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding and binding on all UN members, even before they're adopted if they don't like them. Consequently, they're not adopted. But Resolution 1747 was adopted by the UN Security Council, and note that Russia voted FOR these sanctions.

          Russia has already de facto violated sanctions against North Korea. Has anything changed in the world? And Chinese flights to Iran have become more frequent.
        4. 0
          7 January 2026 02: 56
          Quote: Nagan
          But Resolution 1747 was adopted by the UN Security Council, and note that Russia voted FOR these sanctions.

          That was a long time ago, and those sanctions were lifted. A long time ago. Reimposing them won't happen automatically. A new UN Security Council vote? It will be vetoed or simply ignored. Leading UN countries are still putting up with it simply for the sake of a platform for chatter. That institution is dead, and Trump is finishing off the old world order. If Iran PAYS, it will definitely get its planes. Pay, not a loan with deferments. You can go to China for a loan.
    2. +2
      6 January 2026 01: 57
      Since this fall, Russia, China, and some other countries have officially declared sanctions against Iran no longer effective. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, France, and the UK, on ​​the contrary, believe they are. There was a whole saga about the so-called restoration of the sanctions regime through a mechanism with a convoluted name that's too much to look up. Russia and China issued a statement that this mechanism is not applicable in the event of violations by the aforementioned countries. Consequently, they consider the sanctions no longer effective.
      1. +1
        6 January 2026 05: 13
        Quote: Fanur Galiev
        restoration of the sanctions regime through a mechanism with a convoluted name that is too lazy to look up.
        snap-back sanctions
      2. +1
        6 January 2026 05: 20
        Quote: Fanur Galiev
        Russia and China issued a statement that this mechanism is not applicable.
        And they tried to push through a Security Council resolution on this matter, which was naturally blocked by the US, UK, and France. So, from the UN Security Council's perspective, the sanctions remain in effect until suspended or lifted by a special Security Council resolution. Accordingly, any UN member has the right to prevent arms supplies to Iran by any means necessary, including the use of military force. At the very least, Israel is probably already considering how to destroy these weapons.
        1. +1
          6 January 2026 10: 56
          Now, each UN member decides for itself whether these sanctions apply or not, because from the perspective of so-called international law, the sanctions regime no longer applies.
        2. +1
          6 January 2026 11: 05
          From the perspective of Russia and China, the UN Security Council resolution on sanctions expired on October 18.
        3. -1
          7 January 2026 03: 06
          Quote: Nagan
          Accordingly, any UN member has the right to prevent arms supplies to Iran by any means, including the use of military force.

          Since the founders of the UN, i.e. the so-called "board of directors" of this office, were divided in their opinions, everyone will now act according to their own discretion.
          Quote: Nagan
          Israel is probably already figuring out how to bomb these weapons.

          You're welcome. As sellers, it's important for us to get paid for the goods. And you can fight the Persians until the second coming of Zoroaster. If China is interested in preserving Iran, it will lend money and provide technical assistance. So that the Persians don't run out of missiles.
          Quote: Nagan
          They tried to pass a Security Council resolution on this matter, which was naturally blocked by the USA, Great Britain, and France.

          Of this trinity, only the United States will remain in the Security Council of the renewed UN.
          Russia and China will definitely remain. Then we'll talk.
          1. 0
            7 January 2026 10: 11
            Quote: bayard
            in the Security Council of the renewed UN
            From now on, please provide more details: who plans to update the UN and how?
            1. 0
              7 January 2026 14: 13
              I think Donald Trump will do it.
              With our and China's consent.
              But he will not do this until Greenland and, most likely, Canada have joined.
  8. +1
    5 January 2026 06: 28
    The logic of many comments on VO.
    1. The plane is so-so. I won't be able to sell it to anyone.
    2 Even if they're interested, they still won't buy it. Because of sanctions and all that.
    3 If they spat on the sanctions and signed a contract and buy, they still won’t pay.
    If they paid, then they don't need it. Rafal is cooler.
    1. -5
      5 January 2026 07: 46
      The Chinese-made MiG-21 has shown the Rafale's worth, but local commentators haven't yet updated their manuals.
      1. -4
        5 January 2026 08: 09
        Regarding the manuals, this is right on target.
  9. +10
    5 January 2026 10: 35
    "Bought"... "Bought" - this is when it is for a hard currency, and not for "shady schemes".
    1. -1
      5 January 2026 21: 17
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      "Bought"... "Bought" - this is when it is for a hard currency, and not for "shady schemes".

      Well, the USSR had clear schemes ("say socialism and get a loan, you don't even have to pay it back" (c)) - so the Russian Federation had to write off its loans.
    2. 0
      7 January 2026 03: 21
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      “Bought” means when it’s for a hard currency, and not for “shady schemes.”

      And is the yuan a "hard foreign currency"? smile
      It’s now impossible to pay for such deliveries with dollars or euros - they are extremely unreliable currencies... I would even say toxic.
      For our military-industrial complex, the most reliable and sound currency is the domestic ruble. It's the most reliable and hassle-free method of payment.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      "shady schemes".

      So, let's say some Indian buys various machine tools and equipment worth the cost of a weapons contract for dollars and yuan and brings them to Russia. We'll pay him some real rubles for it, and he'll use those rubles to pay off the weapons contract, and he won't forget his own interests either. Who thought this scheme was "shady"? Indians are simply buying Russian weapons for rubles. With honestly earned rubles. And everyone's happy.
      Or not everyone?
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      What's the difference

      That's what I'm saying - as long as they pay. Better in rubles.
  10. +4
    5 January 2026 10: 56
    The Russian aircraft was, one might say, "lucky": the US praised its flight and combat capabilities so highly that it awarded the Su-35 a separate section of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

    It's a pretty nasty law, but the gist of it is that anyone who purchased anything on the list was immediately subject to sanctions, which the US is known to be good at, and that was pretty unpleasant for those who fell under CAATSA.


    A free market, they said.
    WTO.
    Fair competition...
  11. +15
    5 January 2026 10: 57
    Roman Skomorokhov is clearly being disingenuous when comparing "Sold" and "Ordered." After all, in the same article, he himself pointed out how Egypt and Indonesia had earlier cancelled their orders for 35 aircraft. And they didn't cancel them immediately, but two years later. So it's worth waiting for the contracts to be paid before jumping into the "tripled" talk.
  12. -2
    5 January 2026 11: 05
    It's still unclear how many aircraft and what kind the DPRK will receive. I'm sure they will, and most likely they will produce them at their own factories. I think the best option for them would be the Su-57; they could have churned out some super locusts! It would be better if they produced the airframes and we shove in our own internals.
  13. +6
    5 January 2026 11: 12
    Ah, Roman... he has two tonalities, IMHO, everything is bad and everything is super-wonderful...
    Here's the second one. Although, yes, the planes weren't sold for real money, but only ordered...

    P.S.: The internet is full of instructions on how to distinguish the "brand new" Su-35 from the "brand new" Su-27M, because they're pea-in-a-pod.
    1. +6
      5 January 2026 11: 46
      Quote: Max1995
      The internet is full of instructions on how to distinguish the "brand new" Su-35 from the "brand new" Su-27M, as they're as alike as twins.

      There have never been Su-35 and Su-27M aircraft in combat fighter aviation regiments; they were or are being operated Su-35С, Sioux 27SM и Su-27MX3And the first Su-35S (pictured in a personal archive) differ in many ways from the Su-35S currently being produced at the Komsomolsk plant.
      1. +5
        5 January 2026 12: 56
        There have never been any in the combat fighter aviation regiments
        There were none on the shelves, but formally there were such serial indexes, and there were also aircraft for them, albeit in a single copy.
        in a photo from a personal archive
        At least you have a real photo, and the last photo in the article is complete "AI nonsense" with the main landing gear "growing" from the engine nacelles, and not the Su-35S.
        1. +3
          5 January 2026 13: 04
          Quote: Hexenmeister
          There were none on the shelves, but formally there were such serial indexes, and there were also aircraft for them, albeit in a single copy.

          Let's talk not about experimental ones, but about machines that have actually been used.
          1. -1
            5 January 2026 13: 12
            and about the cars that were actually used
            So, before anything fit for service emerges, the prototype must be tested and thoroughly tested. The Su-35S wouldn't have appeared without the T-10M, and those serial numbers are derived from it.
            1. +3
              5 January 2026 15: 31
              Quote: Hexenmeister
              So, before anything fit for service emerges, the prototype must be tested and thoroughly tested. The Su-35S wouldn't have appeared without the T-10M, and those serial numbers are derived from it.

              Are we going to mention all the experimental Sukhoi Design Bureau aircraft? You might not have realized it, but I was talking exclusively about production aircraft in active service regiments.
              1. +1
                5 January 2026 16: 20
                Well, if we want to understand the full origins of the Su-35S, we have to recall, and the article attempted to do so. However, as usual, both the author and the "discussers" lumped together real production aircraft, prototypes, and fictitious serial numbers for aircraft that never entered production. And they completely forgot that the Su-35S was a privately developed project, and our military had absolutely no interest in it. And when it was ready for export, the military suddenly remembered it without having invested a penny in its development.
      2. -1
        5 January 2026 13: 08
        Quote: Bongo
        And the first Su-35S (pictured in a personal archive) differ in many ways from the Su-35S that the Komsomolsk plant is currently producing.
        According to the data I found on the Internet, there are 3 types of Su-35 aircraft.
        The first Su-35 (T-10M) (without the letter "S") were made on the basis of the standard Su-27 (produced in 1986, the first flight of this Su-35 was on April 1, 1992).
        - Su-35UB_(T-10UBM) (2000) - a two-seat version of the Su-27M. Created on the basis of the serial Su-30MKK.
        - Su-35S ("BM")_(T-10BM) - the variant that went into service (...the first serial Su-35S produced by KnAAPO made its maiden flight on May 3, 2011, at the Dzemgi airfield (Komsomolsk-on-Amur...). The static instability of the Su-27 is 5% of MAC, while the Su-35S has a static instability level of up to 20% of MAC. Due to the large number of composites in the airframe, the RCS of the Su-35 is several times lower than that of the Su-27.
        In the photo Su-35UB (T-10UBM)
        1. -1
          5 January 2026 13: 41
          The first Su-35 (T-10M) (without the letter "S") were made on the basis of the standard Su-27 (produced in 1986, the first flight of this Su-35 was on April 1, 1992).
          The original T-10M, marketed as a multirole fighter, was developed and flew during Soviet times. Two experimental aircraft from the T-10M series were later redesignated Su-35 and Su-37, in hopes of export sales, and these aircraft flew under the Russian Federation.
  14. +1
    5 January 2026 12: 36
    What is the situation with the delivery of Su-35s to the Russian Aerospace Forces?
    1. 0
      6 January 2026 13: 25
      Things are going well. Seven batches over the past year. If we consider a batch to be at least two, then at least 14 vehicles were delivered, and most likely much more.
  15. -6
    5 January 2026 12: 51
    I'll give you an interest-free loan for 10,000 years, and you buy similar scrap metal from me with that money.
  16. +5
    5 January 2026 13: 25
    Looking at these orders, the 48 units for Iran raises a question. It's unlikely they were new ones, so those 24 units are from the Egyptian contract. And where did Algeria get its 18 units? And Ethiopia its 6 units? I can imagine such a story. I'm interested in this topic; I've gathered some information online and from friends. Algeria and Ethiopia are new production. And the 24 Egyptian ones were sent to Iran on credit, for now. The other 24 for Iran are an option for new production, but the issue of payments is acute. Their currency is practically worthless. They don't have rubles. Payments in Western currencies are out of the question. The yuan—they probably just don't have that much. The only option is barter for oil. But that's not easy either—all Iranian oil is under sanctions. So the math is this: 24 for Algeria and Ethiopia – yes, 24 for Egypt for Iran – yes, but on credit, and 24 new for Iran – an option for which an acceptable barter deal is being sought. It's not at all a given that this will pan out; the 24 on credit will still need to be paid for somehow. Furthermore, China could sell Iran its fighter jets for oil – probably half the price. So my prediction is that the 24 option is more of a mutual bonus for propagandists from both countries, like "look how powerful we are," than reality. The Americans, in their utter insolence, have cut off the Su-35 and any other items of our arms export. That's the reality.
  17. -2
    5 January 2026 13: 41
    Before praising our latest supposedly unique military "product" – the Su-35 – the author, Roman Skomorokhov, should read the article by a truly competent specialist on this very website:
    https://topwar.ru/274771-jera-tradicionnyh-zrk-zakonchilas-navsegda.html
    The fact that OUR - Russian air defense, also immoderately praised and propagandized, is backward, defenseless, and incapable of combat against all the combat aviation of NATO and the USA. Our latest air defense systems are incapable of shooting down any US-NATO combat aircraft due to the complex and multi-stage missile defense systems installed on them. This has already been proven by several aggressive US-Israeli strikes and wars in recent years, in which NOT A SINGLE US-NATO-Israeli combat aircraft was shot down! Consider the US strikes on Syria, Iran, and Venezuela, and the Israeli strike on Iran. This has already been demonstrated by the coalition strikes on Libya and even Iraq. A second, albeit indirect, proof of this, unlike the first direct one, is that Western countries DO NOT supply Ukraine with any combat aircraft with modern defense systems, only unmodernized old ones. By doing this, the US-NATO is achieving victory in two main ideological directions at once: 1) they are lulling Russian society and the army into believing their IMAGINARY superiority, preparing a sudden, disarming strike against Russia, just like they did against Iran and Venezuela. And 2) they are inspiring superficial Russian "experts" like Roman Skomorokhov to continue their unbridled praise of our IMAGINARY superiority and further disastrously mislead Russian society about it.
    So, President Maduro has been placed on the scaffold of the Hitler-like "peacemaker" Trump! Prepare for the same fate as the result of a similarly victorious operation (with zero damage) by the US – who? You got it right...
    P.S. For those unfamiliar with 20th-century history, type "Peacemaker Hitler" into any internet search engine—you'll get a complete overview of Adolf Hitler's pre-war peace propaganda. From 1936—the Berlin Olympics—to early 1939, there was no greater "peacemaker" ruler in the world than Hitler. Where did the Munich Agreement come from? Hitler, like Trump in 2025, was supposed to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939—but they almost missed it. And Hitler's "Deuchland uber alles" is no different from Trump's "Make the USA Great Again."
    From this, draw a PRACTICAL conclusion regarding ALL persons in Russia who support Donald Trump in any way - what is their role in finishing off Russia!
    1. 0
      5 January 2026 15: 32
      I agree with much of what you wrote, but Biden, or any other American president, would be no better for us than Trump.
    2. +2
      5 January 2026 16: 23
      Regarding the backwardness of our air defenses—that's completely out of line! The Striped Ones imposed sanctions on India and Turkey over their S-400 orders. Why so? It's simple. It's the best long-range system in the world. They're afraid.
      1. 0
        5 January 2026 21: 13
        Quote: Glagol1
        The Striped Ones imposed sanctions on India and Turkey over S-400 orders. Why?

        To stop them from buying anymore. The US is systematically cutting off all sources of foreign exchange earnings.
  18. 0
    5 January 2026 14: 35
    The key issue here, which we'll certainly never know, is what's going on with the payment. In light of recent events, Iran could very well back out of the contract and basically screw us over with the payment. Contracts like these require advance payment, but I don't believe we're capable of that. Iran should have bought S-400s and Su-35s five or seven years ago, added Pantsirs, and all that in large quantities, and trained intensively all these years. Now it seems like it makes little sense. They lost their war miserably, and their government is about to be overthrown.
  19. +3
    5 January 2026 15: 23
    As someone with no connection to aviation, but a Russian patriot, I'm curious: Is the SU35's production capacity really so large that it's available to everyone?
    And yet, are our Air Forces fully supplied with them and in reserve (taking into account the Air Defense Forces)?
    1. -5
      5 January 2026 19: 35
      You know, this question about the "success" of the arms trade in the current situation is also a key indicator of Russia's imminent defeat and demise. We're on the brink. Because 10 days ago, in the final days of 2025, our arms trade with Venezuela was doing extremely well in Russia. And then January 5, 2026, arrived—and HOW are things going in Russia with Venezuela now, just a week later?! Everything we trade with Venezuela?! And Roman Skomorokhov, what do you think? I won't even go into detail about why the holy fathers of past centuries warned the Russian princes of that time: "Don't trade in weapons!" It's enough for us to point to the current state of our affairs in Russia. The war with Ukraine has been going on for exactly as long as the entire Great Patriotic War between the USSR and Germany lasted. During these four wars, the entire Russian army failed to recapture more than 80% of even the Donetsk region, the very reason this war began four years ago! Why does Roman Skomorokhov consider it acceptable to discuss "our successes in trading advanced Russian weapons systems" in such a situation? Knowing/not realizing that the entire combat aviation of our mighty enemies, the US and NATO, is completely invulnerable to even the most advanced Russian air defense systems?! In contrast to the fact that our most advanced aircraft do not have such powerful missile defense systems?! And accordingly, Russia is the next immediate target for the same disarming, crushing US and NATO air strikes that they used to crush the entire defenses of Iran and Venezuela over the course of six months—without losing a single one of their own planes?! And, Roman Skomorokhov, do you think it's appropriate to discuss our "successes in the arms trade" today? Don't be late in reaping your profits... belay
      Incidentally, air strikes against Russia this time, unlike during WWII, will come from both the West – from Europe – and the East – from the Pacific Ocean. And just like that: within half a day, enemy aircraft, invulnerable to our air defenses, will destroy our entire aviation structure and all deployed military bases – as happened in Iran and Venezuela over the past six months. And you, Roman Skorokhov, continue to rejoice in our successes in the aircraft trade... request
  20. +2
    5 January 2026 18: 08
    What kind of Pokemon is in the last picture?
    Anyone have any thoughts?
    1. +1
      5 January 2026 21: 02
      Quote: Neo-9947
      What kind of Pokemon is in the last picture?
      Anyone have any thoughts?
      This is AI-powered creativity. YouTube is littered with this kind of thing: people read a text about technology, and then the screen displays images that have nothing to do with the text.
  21. 0
    5 January 2026 18: 16
    Iran has major domestic political problems, as well as financial ones. So, it's not yet clear whether it will buy or not.
  22. bar
    0
    5 January 2026 19: 13
    Judging by the situation in Iran, it is far from certain that they will buy anything.
  23. 0
    5 January 2026 22: 22
    The car is definitely a success!
    But people familiar with aviation know that the Su 30, 33, 34 and 35 are modifications and further developments of the Su 27.
    It's just that in other countries, it's common to add a new index to the designation. But in the Russian Air Force, for some reason, as with the MiG-25/31 or MiG-23/27, it's common to create new designations.
    1. 0
      5 January 2026 22: 49
      These are different aircraft. Therefore, the models are different. The MiG-23 is a fighter, the MiG-27 is a tactical bomber. It's all clear and logical.
    2. -1
      6 January 2026 08: 49
      Because bonuses, titles, and awards are generously handed out for the development and implementation of new machines. But for modernizing old ones, no. That's how it was back in the USSR.
  24. +1
    6 January 2026 00: 04
    Quote: Glagol1
    These are different aircraft. Therefore, the models are different. The MiG-23 is a fighter, the MiG-27 is a tactical bomber. It's all clear and logical.

    Tupolev had it all figured out: the Tu-16P does one thing, the Tu-16R another, and so on. Around 10 aircraft were created on the basis of the C-130 alone, serving completely different roles—from tankers to reconnaissance aircraft to heavy attack aircraft. The C-130 designation was always present in the aircraft's designation.
  25. 0
    6 January 2026 11: 39
    What breakthrough? What are you talking about? The bourgeoisie makes money, even if the buyer doesn't pay, so budget money is most likely involved in this trade deal.
  26. 0
    6 January 2026 16: 44
    Competition, friend Roman. Somewhere there's economic, military, or other pressure. If there's nothing to eat, what planes are there? Let's squeeze out the fascists from the EU, and things will get better. And less talk about aircraft generations; not everyone's an idiot, right?
  27. 0
    6 January 2026 20: 36
    As a result, while 24 aircraft were sold to foreign buyers between the Le Bourget exhibition and 2024, according to statistics, 72 aircraft were ordered by 2025, which is exactly three times more.
    Remove the Iranians, who have a Jewish knife at their throat, minus 48 units, and we'll get the same 24 aircraft sold from the exhibition's opening to 24. Better yet, let them build aircraft for our army—they're more needed there. Europe, the Baltics, and the Finns are there, ready to fight us, or rather, be sent to the slaughter by Uncle Sam for Uncle Sam's sake, so more Sukhoi wouldn't hurt us.
  28. -1
    8 January 2026 12: 57
    There's one thing I don't understand: why sell something that can be used against you? Any innovation is nullified.
  29. 0
    10 January 2026 22: 24
    Ethiopia bought six fighter jets for its air force this summer. Frankly, it's too much, since the country's air force
    It would be a shame if these planes ended up in the US, disassembled and fully examined.