Su-30SM2: thrift in Belarusian

23 569 76
Su-30SM2: thrift in Belarusian

So, the Russian and Belarusian sides reported that the contract for the delivery of Su-30SM2 fighters to Belarus has been fulfilled. The last two aircraft landed on Belarusian soil, bringing the total number of Su-30SM2 fighters to 16.

The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Belarus and the Belarusian Air Force deserve our utmost congratulations on this acquisition, as the Belarusian Su-30SM2s are truly a "brotherly gift," as no other country in the world can yet boast of possessing such aircraft.




Photo by Alexey Korshunov

Skeptics might immediately start puffing out their cheeks and saying something like, "What's the big deal? Just another modernization of an old aircraft?" Of course, if you look at the calendar, yes, that's true. However, if you look at the aircraft, the F-16, to use a non-Russian aircraft as an example, has been in service since 1978. And, of course, the F-16 Block 70/72 is fundamentally different from the F-16A. But surely no one would say that the F-16 Block 70/72 is a flying junk? On the contrary, they are being acquired today by countries that previously had no F-16s at all. And while Bulgaria and Slovakia might be considered "not very rich" countries, Peru and the Philippines are anything but poor.

The situation with the Su-30SM2 is roughly the same. However, it's unlikely that our CSTO allies like Kazakhstan and Armenia will acquire THIS configuration. It's not their cup of tea, as they say.

The Su-30SM2 has been significantly redesigned compared to its predecessor. The key is maximum commonality with the Su-35S, which the author, due to his stubbornness, considers the best combat aircraft in the world today.

So, in terms of equipment (I would like to emphasize that this is what was officially announced), the Su-30SM2 has taken a very interesting path towards maximum unification with the Su-35.


Two main points:

1. Engines. The same AL-41F-1S with thrust vector control. And this is a significant step forward, because the thrust vector control (another addition is the Russian thrust vector control, which is strikingly different from the American version) provides, if not super-maneuverability, then maneuverability at a very high level.

Yes, in the West they're still guilty of back-and-forth movements in front of a "Stealth" sign, and there's a certain sense to that, but stealth is good until you're actually spotted. And once you're spotted, they'll notice, but beyond that, I'd prefer maneuverability to evade pursuit.

In this regard, the Su-30SM2, given its nearly identical weight to the Su-35S, becomes an interesting companion in the air. And for virtually any aircraft taking to the skies around the world.

2. Radar. It's not explicitly stated that ours installed it instead of the N011 Bars, but it's most likely the N035 Irbis, also from the Su-35. And it's very powerful. Yes, many on the other side criticize the Irbis for not being an AESA radar, but this issue has been debated for a long time. The main thing is that the Irbis is a very powerful radar and is in no way inferior in its capabilities to AESA radars. And its range is the envy of many.

3. Expanded weapons range. And here's where things get interesting.


In general, to understand the intentions of the Belarusian military, one must evaluate the Belarusian Air Force in general.

In fact, there is not much to evaluate: a fairly balanced Air Force, “focused” on defense, that is, the majority of aircraft are MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters.

MiG-29BM, an independent Belarusian modernization, has the ability to refuel in the air, applications missiles air-to-air missiles R-27ER/ET, RVV-AE, air-to-ground missiles Kh-29T/TD/L and Kh-25ML, anti-ship missiles Kh-31A/P, guided aviation KAB-500Kr/L laser-guided bombs. In other words, a pretty decent strike aircraft, if you ignore the aircraft's obvious obsolescence and numerous shortcomings.


Photo: Sergey Burdin

But given Belarus's decidedly non-aggressive policy, this is sufficient to resolve most of its problems. Although, of course, there are plenty of aircraft in the world that the MiG-29 would be better off avoiding.

The Su-27/Su-27BM are in storage and are more than conditionally fit for combat use. All Belarusian Su-25s are in roughly the same condition.


And so here we have 16 brand-new Su-30SM2s, capable of using the entire range of Russian weapons. This is a completely different setup than what the upgraded MiG-29BMs were armed with. This is the major league versus the factory team. They feature "toys" that the Belarusian MiGs, like the R-73M, never even dreamed of.

But, as some sources say, the Belarusian military has a particular interest. And it's not even the R-37M, although, of course, if they ask, they'll certainly get that beauty.

The Belarusian military is particularly interested in the UMPK module. The Belarusian Ministry of Defense is considering adapting the Su-30SM2 to carry bombs with glide and correction modules.


The idea is certainly interesting. For a decidedly poor country like Belarus, it's quite feasible: the weapon (a bomb from the Great Patriotic War) is very inexpensive, the accuracy is excellent, the range is decent, and it allows for the delivery of 250-500 kg bombs without entering the effective zone. Defense enemy - what more could you want?

It's clear that the Belarusian military has had a lot to learn from their Russian counterparts over the past four years. Perhaps even more than enough, but more than enough to draw the necessary conclusions. For the Belarusian Air Force, it's just right—cheap and cheerful. And they probably have enough bombs like that in storage for two more wars.

But a fair question arises: why the Su-30SM2? What's the point of this aviation perversion?

The point, of course, is money. The fact is, the Belarusian Air Force doesn't have bombers. They used to have them, but the last Su-24BMs were decommissioned and withdrawn from service back in 2012.

It would seem, what's the problem? Buy a Su-34 and you'll be happy?



But everything is not as rosy as we would like.

First, let's understand that the Su-34 is somewhat more advanced than the Su-27 than the Su-30 and Su-35. It's a completely different aircraft in every way: size, layout, components, and operational style. After all, the Su-34 is more of a bomber than a fighter. Although, of course, it can smash any Western aircraft in the face, although it won't be easy.

But the main thing is: it requires a repair base with trained personnel, pilots need to be retrained, and it's more expensive than the Su-30. Yes, it has one and a half tons of armor. Yes, it has an auxiliary power unit. But apparently, the Belarusian military decided to save a little (actually, a lot), because, essentially, the Belarusians simply don't have the resources for such an aircraft yet. A lot of training is needed, and the personnel are likely already lacking. The pilots who left with the Su-24 15 years ago are completely unfit for combat.

But training new ones is a difficult task.

So the Su-30SM2 seems like a reasonable compromise. It's not a "pure" fighter, which is why many countries buy it. The two-seat cockpit is very convenient for complex strike missions; the navigator/operator can easily guide the UMPK system to the target without distracting the pilot, just like on the Su-34.

Well, in general, the Su-30 is for those who don’t have money for the Su-34.

It's clear that an aircraft originally designed as a fighter doesn't have the same effectiveness with the UMPK as a dedicated bomber. But given the lack of standard bombers in the Belarusian Air Force, this solution seems quite feasible and pragmatic.

Moreover, we're not talking about sweeping attacks, but rather targeted use from safe distances. It's difficult to imagine who Belarus might face in a fight, but the main task of the Belarusian Armed Forces is to hold out for the time it takes for the troops of the allied state to arrive.

So, essentially, these 16 aircraft are nothing more than a new shield and sword, just in case or for some local trouble. But the choice is correct and interesting.

If the Belarusian wish list is actually realized, this could play very positively into Russia's hands when selling the Su-30SME to foreign buyers.

"Look, he can also destroy an enemy oil base with a $500 guided bomb!"


The Su-30 is a thoroughly relevant aircraft today, and it will remain in demand on the global market for a long time to come. Its destiny is destined to be no shorter than that of the MiG-29, which is still in service with more than 20 countries.


So, Belarusians can be congratulated on a good purchase, and if they also contribute something of their own, it will only be a plus.
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. SAG
    16+
    7 February 2026 03: 32
    and if they also bring something of their own, it will only be a plus.

    Naturally, I'll include the Vitebsk electronic warfare system. As far as I know, the Russian Armed Forces are armed with them.
    Belarus's primary role in the global confrontation is truly that of a shield against the West, designed to withstand the first blow until the main Russian forces arrive. But the Poles are arming themselves so aggressively that their speeches increasingly sound like the hiss of a hyena!
    So, good luck to our Belarusian brothers in mastering new technology and keeping their finger on the pulse! There's no peace in the face of change, especially on the front lines! soldier
  2. +9
    7 February 2026 03: 37
    The last Su-24BMs were decommissioned and removed from service back in 2012.
    An interesting modification, and the main one is very rare. It seems the Belarusian Air Force only had 23 Su-24M and 12 Su-24MR as of 2010. They were decommissioned in 2012. And not a word about the BM. But I dug around online and found a real BM.laughing laughing laughing
    1. +2
      7 February 2026 06: 02
      Alexander, welcome!
      Quote: Fitter65
      An interesting modification, and the main one is very rare.

      Does this surprise you?
      1. +2
        7 February 2026 07: 49
        Greetings, Sergey!!!
        Quote: Bongo
        Does this surprise you?
        If you had written this, yes, it would have surprised me. But here it doesn't. laughing drinks
  3. -2
    7 February 2026 03: 38
    ...In general, to understand the intentions of the Belarusian military, one must evaluate the Belarusian Air Force in general..

    As many as 2 times "in general" in such a short sentence...
    A perfect use of the superlative in a popular idiom. This phrase is clearly not AI.
    To finally crown myself the best expert at adding effects to a test, I recommend the author use the modern method used by bloggers and advertisers: "and also..."
    1. +4
      7 February 2026 14: 15
      I agree. Skomorokhov is unmistakable. I want this site to be more like a magazine about technology and weapons, not about youth technology. He has a different opinion. Where did he get the idea that the Su-34 is more expensive? It was originally half the price.
      1. +7
        7 February 2026 16: 28
        The review is becoming not even "Technology for Youth," but "Young Technician." Judging by some comments and articles, the level of education is roughly the same.
        1. +6
          7 February 2026 22: 23
          Quote: gromila78
          and in "Young Technician"

          By the way, it was a very decent magazine for its time. I would be happy if the level of commentators matched the level of this magazine.
          1. +1
            7 February 2026 23: 36
            Yes, it’s probably not a very good comparison, but you can’t compare it with Murzilka.
  4. +6
    7 February 2026 05: 28
    I wonder if the Belarusians are even bothering with reinforced concrete shelters at their airfields for their aircraft? Or at least drone protection?
    1. -7
      7 February 2026 15: 08
      Well, judging by satellite photos, reinforced concrete shelters are being built en masse in Russia, while in the US, for example, airplanes and helicopters are being built in open areas.
      1. +6
        7 February 2026 16: 37
        Quote: Kull90
        For example, in the USA, airplanes and helicopters are in open areas.
        American aircraft are at a considerable distance from the enemy. And the Belarusian airfields
        Ours are not far from NATO borders.
      2. 0
        15 February 2026 23: 47
        Excuse me, but who am I hiding from in the US? From Canada?
  5. 12+
    7 February 2026 05: 58
    The author, as always, is wrong... SU-30 cm2 is not 16, but only 8, and SU-ZOSM-8
    The first pair of Su-30SM2 fighters received by Belarus (aircraft with red tail numbers "09" and "10", factory numbers presumably 10MK7 1117 and 10MK7 1118, respectively) arrived in Baranovichi on May 27, 2025, the second pair of Su-30SM2 arrived there on August 14 (aircraft with red tail numbers "11" and "12"), and the third pair arrived on December 26, 2025 (aircraft with red tail numbers "14" and, apparently, "15"). Thus, to date, eight Su-30SM2 aircraft have already been delivered to the Belarusian Air Force and Air Defense Forces.

    Belarus had previously received eight Su-30SM fighters of the previous modification, also newly built by the IAP. The aircraft were delivered in accordance with a framework agreement signed between Belarus and Russia in June 2017 for the supply of 12 Su-30SM fighters to the Belarusian Air Force and Air Defense Forces.
    1. +4
      7 February 2026 08: 59
      It would be interesting to know the opinion of Belarusian pilots themselves about the differences in performance between the Su-30SM and Su-30SM2 based on their practical operating experience.
      1. +2
        7 February 2026 13: 14
        I don't think the Belarusians should stop at 16 Su-30SM/SM2. It would be reasonable to increase their numbers to at least 24 (two squadrons) and divide them by specialization: one primarily focused on air defense, aerial combat, and interaction with ground-based air defenses (the Irbis radar provides very good target designation for ground-based S-400, S-350, and Buk-M3 air defense systems against targets beyond the horizon), while the second squadron would specialize in striking land (and sea) targets with the full spectrum of anti-aircraft missiles, from anti-aircraft bombs with multi-purpose anti-tank missiles to cruise missiles of all types and purposes, including the Kh-69, Kh-59, and others.
        The Aerospace Forces have plans to subsequently upgrade all previously deployed Su-30SMs to SM2 standard during a "mid-life overhaul," when the engines reach the end of their service life. Therefore, the eight Belarusian Su-30SMs will also be able to undergo such an upgrade in the future.

        And yes, FABs with UMPK can be used not only by the Su-34, but also by the Su-35S and Su-30SM/SM2. Moreover, those launched from the Su-30SM2 can fly even further, since the Su-34 launches them from an altitude of 14,000 m (the Su-34's ceiling) at a speed of 1900 km/h (the maximum speed at altitude, taking into account the factor of fixed air intakes), while the Su-30SM2 can do this from a slightly higher altitude and speed.
        Overall, the aircraft turned out very well, and the two-seat cockpit is optimal for long-range combat and the use of precision weapons on the ground. The pilot is occupied with flying and engaging targets at close and medium ranges, while the navigator monitors the radar situation across the entire visual range and guides the air defense missiles and strike weapons. Furthermore, in the face of a severe shortage of available aircraft, the AWACS can perform this role, which was previously often performed by the Su-35S, significantly overloading the pilot's capabilities. A second crew member will allow the Irbis to fully utilize its potential and free up the pilot's workload for normal piloting.
        At recent exhibitions, Rosoboronexport and UAC offered all operators of all Su-30 modifications the opportunity to upgrade their fleets to the Su-30SM2 standard. And I think there will be some takers.
        The Indians turned their noses up at the Irbis because the Israelis had already developed/are developing an AESA radar to replace the Bars and a complete avionics upgrade. However, their AESA will be rigidly mounted and won't be able to rotate like the Irbis. As a result, the Indo-Israeli radar's maximum field of view will be 100-120 degrees, while the Irbis's is around 240 degrees.
        1. +1
          7 February 2026 14: 11
          I think the Belarusians shouldn't stop at 16 Su-30SM/SM2


          I'd agree with you if the Su-75 weren't looming on the horizon. It's much more suitable for small Belarus. And the price promises to be low, given its use of off-the-shelf components. The engine, for example. It would also significantly speed up testing and acceptance into service. We're still considering this aircraft an export aircraft, but Russia needs it too.
          1. -2
            7 February 2026 17: 42
            The Su-75 hasn't even taken off for the first time yet, despite the promises made last year. But the refinements and testing program are just beginning with that first takeoff. The plane's airframe is completely new and original, and there will be experiments with the engines as well. So there will definitely be some fiddling around until the end of the decade. And that's at least five years. During that time, war could start and end ten times. Including war for Belarus. At the same time, the delivery of eight more Su-30SM2s to equip two full-fledged squadrons could be completed in 1-2 years... even within this year, if pilots can be found for them. And that would be the right decision. The Su-30SM2 is guaranteed to be far superior in combat capabilities and armament to all NATO 4++ generation fighters, and Belarus is surrounded by NATO countries on three sides; it has no one else to fight with. When serial production Su-75s appear, they will be purchased as well. But to clarify, let me clarify right away: the Irbis radar's detection range for a typical target with an RCS of 10-20 square meters is 400 km, while the Su-75's AESA radar will detect the same target with an RCS of 10 square meters at a range of 280 km. So these fighters complement each other perfectly.
    2. 0
      7 February 2026 11: 03
      He is also wrong about this:
      the navigator-operator can easily guide the UMPK to the target
      Since when does the UMPK need to be aimed at a target by the operator? The most you can do is enter the target's coordinates, and even then, I'm not sure that's not done on the ground.
  6. 0
    7 February 2026 06: 09
    I won't comment on the content of this publication. But I'll focus on this passage:
    But it's unlikely that those... CSTO comrades like Kazakhstan and Armenia will buy THIS configuration from us. As the saying goes, the berry didn't ripen in the forest for them.

    What's the point? Our relations with Armenia are indeed difficult at this time, but at least they're not openly hostile, and we still have a military base in Gyumri. But do such statements contribute to a warming of relations between Moscow and Yerevan? No.
    As for Kazakhstan, Russia is currently very dependent on this country in terms of circumventing sanctions.
    1. +9
      7 February 2026 06: 46
      But do such statements contribute to a warming of relations between Moscow and Yerevan?

      Do we really need friendship with Armenia that much?
      The author correctly noted about the "comrades" in the CSTO. Which of them, who are members of the treaty on collective securityOffered his help in expelling the Nazis from our land? I'm not saying sent troops, I'm saying at least offered? Kazakhstan, Armenia? No one. And it's impossible to consider them allies, not even close. The DPRK has shown an example of alliance. And, frankly, if not for the US and UK's encroachments in Central Asia, I would have simply left the CSTO. The treaty has turned out to be somehow one-sided: we help at the drop of a hat. And yet, they don't want to help us.
      As for dependence, I'm not sure. Besides Kazakhstan, there's China, India, Indonesia, and Belarus.
      1. -3
        7 February 2026 07: 46
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        Do we really need friendship with Armenia that much?

        Do we need Armenia as an enemy?
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        The DPRK has shown an example of alliance.

        Selflessly?
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        The agreement turned out to be somehow one-sided: we help whenever something happens. But they don't want to help us.

        There's no need to help anyone for free. We should follow China's example.
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        As for dependence, I'm not sure.

        If you are not sure about something, then there is no point in talking about it!
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        Besides Kazakhstan, there is China, India, Indonesia, and Belarus.

        Yeah, especially Indonesia...
        1. +2
          7 February 2026 10: 32
          Do we need Armenia as an enemy?

          Personally, I don't need it at all. It's of no use to us. Just like Azerbaijan, for example, or Mongolia. Armenia can't do anything for us without the Americans, the British, and other Western trash. Nor can it give us anything good that would be of interest to us. So let them live their lives, and let them live. Like Andorra. No harm, no benefit – like a goat's milk.
          Selflessly?

          What, for money? Do you have a document, a price list? I'd be interested to see it.
          There's no need to help anyone for free. We should follow China's example.

          You are not writing this to me, but to Moscow, to Lavrov.
      2. +1
        7 February 2026 13: 03
        Well, based on your statements, "brotherly Belarus" is somehow (also) in no hurry to help us (not in words but in deeds - like, for example, the aforementioned DPRK in the Kursk region).. or IS THIS SOMETHING DIFFERENT???
        1. +1
          7 February 2026 13: 11
          Not in words but in deeds, like the aforementioned DPRK in the Kursk region

          Why did you decide so?
          Let's see. At the very beginning of the air defense operation toward Kyiv, our forces operated from the territory of the Republic of Belarus.
          The Belarusian Armed Forces are diverting an enemy force on their border. Granted, it's not a million-strong force, but still. The Ukrainians are forced to maintain their forces despite the lack of significant reserves.
          So Belarus is quite supportive. Unlike Armenia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.
          1. +2
            7 February 2026 22: 42
            Ukrainians are forced to maintain troops despite the lack of significant reserves.

            As far as I understand, they are used for rotation at the front. :((
    2. +2
      8 February 2026 14: 24
      Sary-Shagan alone is worth something... a missile defense testing ground
      1. +2
        9 February 2026 11: 14
        Quote: Alex013
        Sary-Shagan alone is worth something... a missile defense testing ground

        Unfortunately, armchair "patriots" don't think about such things.
    3. 0
      15 February 2026 23: 52
      warming between Moscow and Yerevan?

      So it is not Moscow that is constantly "cooling" them.
      1. 0
        16 February 2026 05: 16
        Quote: Jager
        So it is not Moscow that is constantly "cooling" them.

        What started in September 2020 and ended in October 2023, and how is this connected to the CSTO?
  7. +9
    7 February 2026 06: 25
    Quote: Bongo
    But do such statements contribute to a warming of relations between Moscow and Yerevan?


    It doesn't depend on statements... Pashinyan is an agent of Western influence and he is turning Armenia towards the West... regardless of statements.
  8. -1
    7 February 2026 07: 31
    > It is clear that an aircraft originally designed as a fighter does not have the same effectiveness with the UMPK as a specialized bomber.

    This is questionable: instead of a combination of Su-34 (bomber) and Su-35S (cover), send one Su-30SM2 (both a bomber and a fighter) - in my opinion, the second option is much more effective.
    True, there are some nuances here; I would suggest that it is not very convenient to conduct an air battle with bombs on external hardpoints.
    1. +1
      7 February 2026 10: 18
      It's not just inconvenient, it's actually impossible in some cases. How can bombs reach the required speed and altitude to more or less guarantee a missile kill? A missile's energy comes from more than just its own engines.
    2. +1
      7 February 2026 19: 28
      Naturally, everything depends on the mission. No one would send an aircraft loaded with bombs on external hardpoints to conduct patrols or "gain air superiority." And it's worth remembering that war is largely about economics. Maintaining and operating one aircraft (if the situation allows, of course) is always cheaper than two.
  9. +4
    7 February 2026 07: 32
    Quote: Schneeberg
    I wonder if the Belarusians are concerned about reinforced concrete shelters at airfields for their planes?
    They were there during the Soviet era. And if they weren't squandered during Shushkevich's time, they should remain...
    1. +1
      9 February 2026 11: 20
      Quote: Luminman
      They were there during the Soviet era. And if they weren't squandered during Shushkevich's time, they should remain...

      Old Soviet shelters will not do.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The problem was that the typical 2A/13 arch shelter for the Soviet Air Force had a useful width of only 12,9 m.
      The Su-24, with its maximum wing sweep, had a wingspan of only 10,37 m - and easily stood up in this shelter. MiG-23/27 also had no problems under the same conditions.
      But the Su-27/30/35 family with its wingspan of 14,7-14,75 m no longer fits into 2A/13.

      The Air Force got burned badly with these shelters: first, they were sized to fit third-generation aircraft, built several thousand, and then it turned out they were too small for the fourth generation. It seems to me that the Air Force hasn't been fond of permanent shelters since then.
      1. 0
        10 February 2026 07: 50
        Alexey RA, it’s not about the dimensions, but the fact that now there are weapons with very precise positioning, which reduces on no all these fortifications. Previously, shelters could resist even a nuclear strike, except for a precise hit, which, of course, was a great rarity. Now any drone with GPS or GLONASS With navigation and a 250-500 kg charge, it will raze any shelter to dust. As for the dimensions, I think the shelter could be expanded, as the concrete is only on the surface and doesn't extend very far inside. However, I'm no builder...
        1. 0
          10 February 2026 16: 29
          Quote: Luminman
          Alexey RA, it's not about size at all, but about the fact that now there are weapons with very precise positioning, which negates all these fortifications.

          And this too. pfc-joker had a breakdown of Global Strike Command's work in Libya on March 19, 2011.
          On March 19, 2011, three B-2 Spirit bombers of the 509th bomber wing dropped 45 2000-pound GBU-31 guided bombs at the Ghardabiya airfield near Sirte. Simultaneously with the bombardment on the airfield, a sea-launched cruise missile attack was launched against the Tactical Tomahawk.

          In Gardabia, there were 80 reinforced concrete shelters for aircraft, 5 groups of 16 RCBs each. Three groups were attacked by three B-2s, the rest by cruise missiles.

          Out of 80, I counted five shelters with no visible damage. Three of their targets did not hit the B-2 (however, for some reason, they dropped 45 bombs, not 48), two more - Tomahawks.

          Quote: Luminman
          Well, regarding the dimensions, I think that the shelter can be expanded, since the concrete is only on the surface and does not go very deep inside.

          At 2A/13, the entire shelter is a solid arched vault. There are no separate walls as such.
  10. +3
    7 February 2026 08: 41
    Fighters are good, but fighters + electronic warfare aircraft + airborne early warning aircraft + data and coordination from space—that's the recipe for effectiveness, and the last three components are a disaster. That's why they're simply not mentioned in such opuses, nor are the generals, as if they're not mentioned and shouldn't be.
    1. +6
      7 February 2026 08: 59
      Fighters alone don't determine anything; you need the weapons to go with them. The three photos of Belarusian Su-30SMs with weapons show R-27E variants, but not a single 77-mm missile. This isn't a "bundle" for modern air combat, although they might be deliberately being obfuscatory.
      1. -2
        7 February 2026 15: 06
        For example, in Syria, Su-35s flew with R-27s, and many laughed at it here, but in the SVO, Su-35s fly en masse with R-77s and R-37s.
        1. +2
          7 February 2026 20: 45
          Moreover, considering the missiles they fly in the SVO, taking photos of new fighters with missiles whose time has expired 30 years ago is definitely not necessary.
          1. 0
            9 February 2026 11: 08
            Are you talking about the F-15EX? We weren't discussing it. We were discussing the newest Su-35 and Su-30 fighters.

            Lockheed Martin will deliver F-35 fighter jets to the US military starting in June 2025, including all F-35As, without the new Northrop Grumman AN/APG-85 airborne radars, as the new radars are still under development. Instead, ballast weight will be temporarily installed in the nose of the F-35s being delivered.
            1. +3
              9 February 2026 15: 30
              Are you writing about the F-15EX?
              Is the F-15EX participating in the Air Defense Forces? I wrote about the air-to-air missiles I saw in photos of Belarusian Su-30s in this article, taking into account what I saw in photos and videos of our fighters in the Air Defense Forces.
              1. 0
                9 February 2026 17: 14
                I just didn't understand what you were talking about missiles, and yes, the R-27s are outdated, but they're probably still in stock, that's why they're used.
                1. +1
                  9 February 2026 17: 40
                  I agree, perhaps they don't want to reveal their capabilities prematurely and waste the resources of new missiles. On the other hand, border violators could be chased away with R-27 missiles.
      2. 0
        7 February 2026 21: 28
        Maybe this is the issue:
        https://woen-brest.livejournal.com/47403.html
      3. +1
        9 February 2026 11: 27
        Quote: Hexenmeister
        In the three photos where the Belarusian Su-30SM are shown with weapons, the R-27E variants are suspended, and not a single 77th missile, and this is not a "combination" for conducting modern air combat, although it may be that they are deliberately obscuring this.

        They are either keeping it secret or they are saving the new RVVs, hanging up old R-27s for all sorts of show, which they don’t mind losing (there are a lot of them and they are outdated).
  11. +2
    7 February 2026 10: 15
    Correct me, but stealth isn't just about not being spotted, it's also about maintaining a good radar or targeting system lock. Maneuverability, when you're completely visible, is when the pilot decides to risk themselves to accomplish the mission, right? It's hard to believe that real-life pilots derive much benefit from maneuverability. Release the payload at the target once they've launched it into the area, defend against it, and if they launch it again, repeat.
    1. -4
      7 February 2026 15: 04
      The Su-57 boasts super-maneuverability and stealth (judging by the video of the Hunter drone being shot down, the Su-57 and the Hunter drone flew undetected into Ukrainian airspace)
  12. 0
    7 February 2026 10: 45
    In 2025, the following entered service:
    ▫️ Su-30SM2 fighters
    ▫️ Mi-35M transport and attack helicopters
    ▫️ Tor-M2K anti-aircraft missile systems
    ▫️ Sopka, Rosa-RB, and Vostok airspace control radar systems
    ▫️ BTR-82A and BTR-V2 armored personnel carriers
    ▫️ Communication and automation equipment
    ▫️ command and staff vehicles
    ▫️ Quadcopters like the Mavic, FPV drones
    ▫️ BAK MD “Supercam S350”, “Berkut‑3”
    ▫️ TANK SD “Orlan‑10”, “Orlan‑30”

    Products of the State Military Industrial Committee have been accepted into service:
    ▫️ MZKT-690003-021 "BTR-V2" armored personnel carrier
    ▫️ UBAK "Peacemaker"
    ▫️ Automation and control systems for artillery guns (MLRS) "Veresk" and "Vulkan"
    ▫️ radio monitoring and radio suppression complexes R‑936 “AERO”, “Optima 2.2M”
    ▫️ HF radio interception complex R‑368MB-P “VOLAR-P”
    ▫️ 9S150MB radar station
    ▫️ Redut-223 command and staff vehicles, 1V15-1AB, 1V16-1AB
    ▫️ The "Panacea" battalion tactical group automation system
    ▫️ 2K20-01 Zenit-2 mobile anti-aircraft artillery system
    ▫️ Filin autogyro
    ▫️ A line of tactical electronic warfare systems for detecting and suppressing unmanned aerial vehicles

    The following is planned for purchase:
    ▫️ SAM systems "Buk-MB", "Pantsir"
    ▫️ Verba MANPADS
    ▫️ BKP "Lerka"
    ▫️ T-72BM2
    ▫️ BTR-70MB1
    ▫️ MLRS "BelGrad-2"
    ▫️ ATGM "Kornet"
    ▫️ combined radio stations
    ▫️ reconnaissance equipment (radar, electronic, optical-electronic)
    ▫️ electronic warfare systems
    ▫️ promising reconnaissance and strike UAVs and countermeasures against them

    It is planned to adopt:
    ▫️ Three-coordinate radars "Neboskon" and "Rodnik-3D"
    ▫️ Chimera NBC reconnaissance vehicles
    ▫️ Unified planning and correction module for FAB-250M-62 aerial bombs
    ▫️ Vitim armored multi-purpose all-terrain vehicle
    ▫️ Integrated helicopter simulator "KTV Mi-35M"
    ▫️ body armor "Plastun-B"

    Modernization carried out:
    ▫️ PRV-16BM.01 to the level of PRV-16BM.04
    ▫️ BM-21 MLRS to the level of BM-21B
    ▫️ BTR-70 to the level of BTR-70MB1
    ▫️ T-72B to the level of T-72BM2

    The following is being finalized:
    ▫️ Uragan MLRS chassis
    ▫️ Ural-375, ZiL-131, and GAZ-66 vehicles
    ▫️ BMP-1KSh

    @iammilitary
  13. 0
    7 February 2026 11: 35
    Algeria also acquired Su-30s at one point, but then also Su-34s and Su-35s. So the optimal fleet composition remains a moot point.

    What a lovely passage:
    There are “toys” there that the Belarusian MiGs of the R-73M type had never even dreamed of before.

    Attaching the R-73M to a MiG-29 is a simple task.

    Or was there a typo - R-37M?
  14. 0
    7 February 2026 13: 17
    The most correct and well-thought-out approach, IMHO. Su-34, Su-35, MiGs, figs... There's no need for this zoo. None of them can penetrate modern air defense systems; their combat load is roughly the same; even a Su-7B from the 50s could handle the UPMK. Air combat is also clear.
    Optimal universal transition aircraft on the way to stealth.
    1. -3
      7 February 2026 14: 59
      F-35, F-22, whatever... none of them will penetrate modern air defense.
      1. +2
        7 February 2026 15: 46
        They (these bastards) penetrated and destroyed the Iranian air defense system, which was built, among other things, on the S300, and flew in Iran as and where they wanted.
        1. -4
          7 February 2026 19: 05
          According to the Jews, the Iranian air defense was completely destroyed in 2024, then in 2025, and finally the Americans also completely destroyed the Iranian air defense in 2025, but is there any evidence?
          Is there any evidence that they flew wherever they wanted? That is, there are only videos of cruise missiles launched from afar.
          All the videos feature some trucks, mock-up missiles, a Scud missile launcher without wheels, two F-14 aircraft that have been parked for a couple of years and spotted by Israeli surveillance systems, and a couple of Iranian-made air defense systems.
          Of course, they destroyed it in words, but then they got hit on the head, shit their pants, and ran to Trump.
          1. +1
            7 February 2026 22: 47
            Proof of the existence of an active air defense system is the downed enemy aircraft.
            1. 0
              9 February 2026 10: 58
              So if they weren't entering Iran's air defense zone, but were firing Dalil cruise missiles from afar, how could Iran shoot them down with a couple of S-300 missile systems (which, according to the Jews, were destroyed three times, all three times completely), and a short-range Tor missile, and its own systems of dubious effectiveness?

              The Su-57 has proven its stealth capabilities on video. Watch the video of a Su-57 and a Hunter drone flying quietly and stealthily into Ukrainian territory.

              Nabavian, a member of the Iranian parliament, said: Trump sent a message to Iran through one of the countries offering permission to strike two targets in Iran, and you should respond too.
              1. 0
                9 February 2026 12: 05
                So what if they didn't enter Iran's air defense zone?

                Israeli aircraft flew freely over Iran, carrying out bombing strikes.
  15. 0
    7 February 2026 16: 32
    What are the MiG-29 BM's numerous shortcomings? Everyone always says it's a blast. I'm not an aviator myself, so I get my information from books and the internet.
  16. 0
    7 February 2026 17: 15
    And, of course, the F-16 Block 70/72 is fundamentally different from the F-16A. But surely no one would say that the F-16 Block 70/72 is a flying junk? On the contrary, they are now being acquired by countries that previously had no F-16s at all.

    Well, how can they not say that? Everyone who is rich is trying to replace the F-16 with the F-35. Take Israel, Europe, etc.
    The 4th generation is now becoming obsolete at a fairly rapid pace.
    1. +1
      7 February 2026 22: 49
      It's not surprising - the price is practically the same, especially considering that the aircraft is usually purchased together with a supply of weapons, critical spare parts, etc.
  17. +1
    7 February 2026 19: 43
    Such a long article. But the point is: less than half a regiment of new aircraft. And as for the latest modifications of the F16, for example, they're already fully utilizing automated, real-time information exchange. It's like a simplified Aegis, but in the air.
  18. +1
    7 February 2026 19: 44
    Quote: vadivm59
    What are the MiG-29 BM's numerous shortcomings? Everyone always says it's a blast. I'm not an aviator myself, so I get my information from books and the internet.

    Short combat range and no long-range missiles. And the radar is from the 70s.
    1. 0
      7 February 2026 20: 25
      It was designed as a frontline fighter, not an air defense fighter. Why would it need heavy air-to-air missiles? A radar is adequate for these tasks. The combat radius, yes, is a bit small.
  19. +2
    7 February 2026 21: 21
    Quote: vadivm59
    It was designed as a frontline fighter, not an air defense fighter. Why would it need heavy air-to-air missiles? A radar is adequate for these tasks. The combat radius, yes, is a bit small.

    Why does the Su-35 need missiles with a range of over 200 km? It's not an air defense system either.
    And 35-year-old MiG-29s used to often break apart in mid-air. Now they're almost 50.
  20. 0
    7 February 2026 22: 03
    As experts write, "stealth" aircraft don't need to maneuver after being detected by radar! The Iranian military couldn't even shoot down any aircraft, or at least didn't have a single one shot down. Author, please tell me at what distance from a "stealth" aircraft can a missile's guidance system lock on to a target?
  21. 0
    7 February 2026 22: 32
    It's hard to imagine who Belarus might face in a fight.

    Nothing complicated - Poland + Baltic tigers )) - Lithuania and Latvia.
  22. +1
    7 February 2026 22: 54
    Welcome everyone to the site! I'd love to hear the experts' opinions on this matter. I agree that it would be better to increase the number of Su-30-SM2 aircraft to 24; their use would be more logical. But here's a question for consideration: what if Russia did launch production of MiG-35 aircraft? Do you think there would be an impact, even if it were a small series, considering that these aircraft are needed not only by Belarus, but also by North Korea, Iran, and I'm sure there will be other interested parties. After all, it's logical to replace the old MiG-29s with better aircraft, given their small size. Russia has a backlog of orders, and in a sense, they wouldn't hurt us either. While that notorious Su-75 is still in use, these aircraft are already in demand. And they wouldn't hurt our friends, at least as long as those countries are led by friendly leaders. What do the experts think?
  23. +2
    8 February 2026 08: 17
    As far as I understand:
    1. The AL-41 engine isn't installed here. It's the same AL-31. The reason is that it doesn't fit; the airframe needs some serious work. The Su-30 and Su-35 are different aircraft, even though they're both Su.
    2. There's no Irbis here. The reason is the same: the AL-31 engines aren't up to the job of this monster.
    3. The most important thing, dear readers (and writers), is that these are completely different aircraft. The Su-35 is from KnAAZ (Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant), UAC. The Su-30SM2 is from the Irkutsk Aircraft Plant, PAO Yakovlev. These are competitors for orders. They dream of their competitor's demise. They're clawing for every new aircraft. So, the Su-30SM2 is there to keep production at Irkutsk from collapsing. The Russian Air Force itself needs the Su-35, and anything worse can be foisted off on its allies. It's business, nothing personal.
  24. 0
    8 February 2026 21: 13
    "...And while Bulgaria and Slovakia can be considered "not very rich" countries, Peru and the Philippines are not exactly poor..."

    Is this some kind of joke about wealthy Peru and the Philippines?
  25. 0
    10 February 2026 13: 23
    The Russian Air Force needs a single, heavy, two-seat fighter. Not three similar ones with completely different cockpits and pilots. The pylons just need to be modified to handle non-standard munitions like the 1.5-ton and 3-ton ones... maybe even the Kinzhal.
  26. 0
    11 February 2026 04: 36
    Judging by the photo, the engines are of the AL-31F series, and therefore the radar is of the Bars series, not the Irbis.
    As mentioned earlier, the Su-30SM2 primarily represents an expansion of the weapon system's capabilities. These are the aircraft currently being delivered to the Naval Aviation Department.
    1. 0
      11 February 2026 11: 07
      This is primarily a standardization of the fleet... The US Air Force also settled on the F15EX—it was retained as the Air Force's single heavy fighter, the 4++ class, and it also serves as the Air Force's insurance during the transition from the F22 to the next generation. And since the F22 is no longer in production, and there's no next generation yet... they'll keep churning out F15EX.
      The Russian Armed Forces aren't ready for this yet. Theoretically, it would be correct to produce the Su-35S with a two-seat cockpit.
  27. +1
    12 February 2026 21: 03
    I wonder if the Belarusian Air Force even has the ability to fly outside NATO's air defense zone? Or are they blocked?
  28. 0
    13 February 2026 22: 00
    The main question is, why did Belarus buy them? Their purpose? How are they different from the Su-35? If not the Su-35, then how are they different from the Su-34? What do you mean, "gone further"? By penis length? "Well, basically, the Su-30 is for those who can't afford the Su-34"—that's a lie. What's the purpose of all the Su-30 variants? What's the waste? Did they put socks in the cabin?