Military Review

Overview of the Air Force of Turkey. Step back

113

Better a brave enemy

than a prostitute friend (Turkish saying)


The most numerous and aggressive air forces in the region. Downed Russian bomber and 1 thousand. 306 violations of the airspace of Greece for the eight months of this year.

The eternal confrontation between the Turks and the Greeks does not cancel the fact of the membership of both in the North Atlantic Alliance. Turkey is one of the oldest members of the NATO bloc (older than Germany and Spain), actively supporting any directives and programs of the Alliance. The Turks are given priority in acquiring the latest weapons. The Americans put them in a queue for the purchase of F-35 fighters, armed the Turks with drone-mounted, suspended sighting containers and JSOW planning bombs.

The stronghold of the US Air Force in the region is located in Turkey - the legendary airbase Injirlik with a storage facility for nuclear weapons.

What are the air forces of Turkey?

Record 9-hour combat missions of Turkish F-16 during the NATO operation against Yugoslavia. Night strikes on Iraq using high-precision Mavrick and Israeli Popeye missiles. Flight operations under the Baltic Air Police (2006) program. And now - an incident with the Russian Su-24.

Turkish pilots have serious training and serious intentions.

Boeing-737 “Peace Eagle” (in the line - 3, ordered - 1).



Just a dove of peace. Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS), eyes and ears aviation groupings. Created on the basis of the passenger Boeing. In the crest above the fuselage is a MESA radar with an active AFAR capable of controlling airspace within a radius of 600 km, including detect a target like “fighter” at a distance of 370 km, and a ship the size of a frigate - up to 240 km. The radio interception equipment on board allows detecting enemy radar radiation at a range of 850 km. “Peaceful Eagle” is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 180 targets, directing 24 fighters at them.

There is an in-flight refueling system.

Overview of the Air Force of Turkey. Step back


Max. take-off weight - 77 tons. Crew - two pilots and up to 8 operators. Continuous patrol time - up to 15 hours in the air.

KC-135R-CRAG “Stratotanker” (7 units)



Flying tanker on the basis of the passenger “Boeing-707”. Max. fuel capacity - 92 tons with take-off weight of 146 tons. Refueling is performed using a controlled telescopic rod. The use of a rigid rod allows you to double the pressure and performance of the system (compared with the domestic scheme “hose-cone”), reducing the refueling time and facilitating its process. The pilot is left to follow the tanker, the operator on board the Stratotanker will do the rest.

F-16C and F-16D “Fighting Falken” (175 and 57 units of each modification)



F-16 Multifunction Fighter Bomber, licensed by Turkish Aerospace Industries. Turkey has the third largest fleet The Falkans, after the USA and Israel. To date, all aircraft have been upgraded to the “Block 50+” level, having received all-weather sighting equipment, helmet-mounted sights and conformal fuel tanks. In addition to conventional laser and GPS-guided bombs, Turkish F-16s are capable of carrying and deploying heavy planning bombs AGM-154 JSOW, medium-to-long-range air-to-air missiles AIM-120C-7, as well as SOM anti-ship missiles stealth technology.

The two-seater F-16D, in addition to solving fighter and strike missions, can be used as a training aircraft.

“Terminator 2020” (47 units)



Forward to the past or back to the future. Fighter-bomber "Phantom", brought by Israeli experts to the modern level. From the old F-4E remained only the name and fuselage, as well as the characteristic, upward curved parts of the wing. Replaced all hydraulics and 20 km wiring. Installed modern navigation, communications and data exchange. Instead of arrow pointers in the cockpit - multifunctional displays. To solve percussion tasks at any time of day, the Turkish “Terminator” is equipped with an Israeli Elta EL / M-2032 radar and a suspended lightning container with IR cameras, laser range finders and target tracking sensors. For electronic suppression of anti-aircraft missile heads, the Elta EL / L-8222 active jamming system was incorporated into the avionics.

Taking into account the hurricane thrust and with the armament operator in the crew, the 20-ton “Terminator”, when operating on a regional theater of operations, will compete with any modern tactical bombers (F-15E, Su-34, etc.)

With its outdated aerodynamic design, the Phantom is pointless to get involved in close combat with the 4 generation fighter jets. But, with modern avionics and air-to-air missiles, the F-4E Terminator 2020 still poses a threat at great distances.

Other

For the “advanced” training of pilots in the Turkish Air Force, there are 23 supersonic training aircraft F-5F / E “Tiger” and 67 T-38 “Talon”. According to its characteristics and purpose correspond to domestic Yak-130. If necessary, all of them (first of all - the Tiger multipurpose fighter with combat aircraft avionics) can be involved in solving shock tasks during daylight hours.



Two air command posts and a transponder on the basis of Gulfstream passenger business jets.

Specialized jammer (EW aircraft) based on the military transport CASA CN-235.

80 military transport sides (Hercules, C-160, CASA, Airbus A400 Atlas).

Unmanned aircraft:

4 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft RQ-1 “Predator” (leased from the US). UAV take-off weight of about one ton. The duration of the patrol 24 hours.

10 Israeli IAI Heron.

It also reported on the presence in the Air Force of a certain number (within a couple dozen) of UAVs made in Turkey (“Anka”, “Bayraktar”) with a max. take-off weight 650 - 1600 kg.

In connection with the US refusal to transfer shock drones (MQ-9 “Reaper”), the efforts of the Turkish military-industrial complex are developing their own attack drone based on the large TAI Anka.

Space grouping

Species reconnaissance satellite “Göktürk-2”, launched from the Chinese space center in December 2012. The satellite is in low earth orbit at an altitude of 680 km. Max. The resolution of images of the Earth’s surface is 2 meters.

By now, a second similar satellite is being prepared for launch. The launch of the third (“Göktürk-1”), whose equipment would allow to conduct reconnaissance with the 0,8 resolution of the meter, was temporarily postponed due to delays in the delivery of imported equipment.

In 2013, the Turkish company Roketsan started the creation of its own space rocket center. In 2015, Rockettsan cooperation with the State Space Agency of Ukraine was announced with the goal of acquiring technologies for creating a rocket and space complex in Turkey.

Results

Almost 300 combat aircraft with competent support on all informational and technical issues (air bases, AWACS, reconnaissance, air tankers). But, despite its apparent multiplicity and a number of models of modern weapons, the Turkish Air Force grouping remains a secondary formation with limited capabilities. High society trash. Scraps from the American and Israeli tables.

First, the Turks did not have enough money to purchase full-fledged fighters to gain air supremacy - the F-15 level. Attempts to conduct an air war with the forces of some Sokolov are doomed: the small F-16 will not stand the bout with the professionals. Despite the noticeable “from block to block” progress in aerodynamics, the single-killer fighter is still poorly controlled at high angles of attack. And its radar is too primitive and weak for rivalry with the “Irbis” of the domestic “Drying”.

The purpose of the F-16 as a fighter is to take a crap from around the corner and shoot at unarmed / single targets in obviously favorable conditions (the presence of an AWACS - in the absence of it from the enemy).

At the same time, it is worthwhile to give him his due - as a “drummer,” he is magnificent. In general, a good light class fighter-bomber, losing a fair amount of its potential in the absence of nearby “older brothers” (F-15 and “Raptor”).

Technique of the future? About heavy percussion drone not talking even in the long term.

Finally, the presence in service 40-year “Phantoms”. And let their aiming devices be brought up to the level of modern aircraft, often surpassing the latter. The mere fact of having such a “retro” does not do credit to a country claiming its far-reaching ambitions.

At the same time, it is impossible not to note the continuous process of improving the Ottoman Air Force. Acquisition weapons and avionics from leading manufacturers. Create your own high-class samples of high-precision ammunition. It is reported that at the beginning of the next decade, “Phantoms” will be replaced by the newest F-35. Turkey will have its own launch site and a light-class launch vehicle for launching satellites into low near-earth orbits.

Finally, the long-standing membership in the NATO bloc, giving Ankara certain military-political guarantees.


Tr-rr. Fly!
Author:
113 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 1 December 2015 05: 47 New
    10
    Thank you very much for the story and the photo. It somehow happened that different countries took part in strengthening the Turkish army. Turkey received such support.
    And she began to think about the outcome of World War 1, as it is written in another article.
    1. Canep
      Canep 1 December 2015 05: 51 New
      +7
      Yes, the Turkish Air Force has good ones even better than Kazakhstan. True, Russia has only Su-27 more than all Turkish air forces of all aircraft capable of flying.
      1. Santa Fe
        1 December 2015 06: 58 New
        +7
        Quote: Canep
        True, Russia has only Su-27 more than all Turkish air forces of all aircraft capable of flying.

        The quantitative advantage of the Russian Aerospace Forces is obvious.

        On a local scale, variations are possible. In the case of the use of the Turkish Air Force in a conflict similar to the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria, the effectiveness of a similar Turkish group would be higher (how high can be the efficiency of aircraft in a guerrilla warfare, where 99% of bombs are thrown into the sand, printing reports on the thousands of terrorist headquarters destroyed)

        When performing strike missions, the Turkish Phantom 2020 would be more effective than the Su-24 squadron with clusters of free-falling bombs. The Russian military-industrial complex has not mastered creating its analogue of Lightning (and even less so SNIPER or LANTIRN). And without them, looking for point targets in the folds of the relief, from a great height and in supersonic sound - it’s clear that nothing can be seen “by eye”. How to use high-precision ammunition effectively, especially with laser or TV guidance.

        Litening

        And the little things. The Turks refueling system is more efficient. AWACS with an active headlight from Northrop-Grumman (AFAR has higher resolution, is better protected from interference, modules can work independently), we only promise this on A-100 Premier. Planning high-precision JSOW bombs, a new generation of anti-ship aircraft munitions, a large reconnaissance drone of its own design (already there are - anka, 1,6 tons). In the future - F-35, which will partially be assembled by yourself. Not so simple
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 December 2015 08: 38 New
          19
          Didn’t you write that getting hit on the target from the 50's is not even a problem with cast irons. Even the MiG-27 surpasses the F-16 in itself as a percussion machine, and the Block 50 / 52 is essentially a bucket of the beginning of the 90's.

          Container, this is certainly cool, but there is one small BUT. On an area of ​​tens of square kilometers, you can detect anything only by chance, or in the presence of radio-contrast targets, which can be noted by the electronics themselves. In fact, the pilot on the monitor screen, which years 15 back on the tables we stood, sees no more than can be seen through a thin tube. For some reason, this factor is constantly forgotten. => A simple conclusion, if the target is not some tank with a huge EPR and a hot engine, or another easily identifiable object, then the search and highlighting of the target fall on the shoulders of the land explorers and UAVs.
          1. Santa Fe
            1 December 2015 09: 04 New
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            that getting hit on the target from the 50's, even with iron pots is not a problem

            First you need to find out where to get. Yes, and just navigate the area at night
            And analog computers in 1940 were able to calculate ballistics. Only this did not add much to the accuracy of the bombing.

            so it’s not so simple
            Quote: EvilLion
            On an area of ​​tens of square kilometers, you can detect anything only by chance

            it’s strange how pilots dealt in World War II

            paradox?
            Quote: EvilLion
            In fact, the pilot on the monitor’s screen, which years 15 back on the tables we stood, sees no more than can be seen through a thin tube

            for years 30 how to learn how to display the image on the HUD


            + built-in range finder
            + target tracking sensors
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 1 December 2015 09: 55 New
          +2
          We are waiting for an article about the Navy of the Navy
          1. 25ru
            25ru 1 December 2015 10: 12 New
            +4
            Quote: Tlauicol
            We are waiting for an article about the Navy of the Navy

            Turkish Navy, probably?
            The Navy development and modernization program, designed until 2017, provides for the following activities: the implementation of the MILGEM project, within the framework of which it is planned to build six diesel-electric submarines of the U-214 type; completion of the construction program for 16 Tuzla anti-submarine missile systems; the construction of two tank landing ships of the LST project (Landing Ship Tank) and the purchase of helicopters for units of the Bokhr. In addition, it is planned to modernize surface ships, submarines and boats for various purposes, as well as increase the fleet of marine patrol and anti-submarine aircraft. Implementation of the plan will allow the Navy to have 165 warships and boats (submarines - 14, frigates - 16, corvettes - 14, minesweepers - 23, landing ships - 38, missile boats - 27, patrol boats - 33), 16 BPA and 38 helicopters. To solve these problems, the potential capabilities of Turkish shipyards with the use of licenses or on the basis of their own developments should be maximized. At the same time, serious financial problems may complicate the implementation of such a large-scale program of updating and strengthening the Turkish Navy.

            Source: http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/372/voorugennie-sili-turcii © Portal "Modern Army"
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 1 December 2015 13: 33 New
              +2
              meant Turkish and our fleet
            2. THE_SEAL
              THE_SEAL 2 December 2015 15: 29 New
              +2
              The fleet, which acted against Ushakov and against Nakhimov under Sinope, was both larger and more powerful. And sails are better than ours, hemp. And where is this Turkish fleet?
        3. fyvaprold
          fyvaprold 1 December 2015 13: 19 New
          +7
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In the case of the use of the Turkish Air Force in a conflict similar to the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria - effectiveness similar Turkish group would be higher

          "Would be higher because ..."
          Apparently "according to the pike command, according to the Kaptsovsky desire", for no real data, why would it be so, and not otherwise, Kaptsov, as usual, did not bring.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Turks have more efficient refueling system

          ... for so said ̶З̶a̶r̶a̶t̶u̶s̶t̶r Капa Kaptsov !!! Evidence is not required.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          from a great height and supersonic

          At the “supersonic” bombers, the enemy air defense zone breaks through, and they bomb just at the “sound”. Apparently mr Kaptsoff sincerely considers himself an “expert in all matters”, a kind of “Shvets, a reaper and a dude playing,” but as can be seen from his opuses (articles, comments), which are directly impregnated with the fierce anilingus of the whole western and the slop of the whole Russian, “expert” he mediocre, and the “propagandist” of it is inferior, too openly “exposes”, and the great ideas about the “Invincible” do not add confidence either. It would be better if he continued to write his books, fantasy is now in vogue. negative
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. mvg
            mvg 1 December 2015 19: 48 New
            +1
            fyvaprold (3) SU Today, 13:19 PM ↑

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In the case of the use of the Turkish Air Force in a conflict similar to the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria, the effectiveness of a similar Turkish group would be higher

            "Would be higher because ..."
            Apparently, "by the pike command, by the Kaptsovsky desire", for Kaptsov, as usual, did not give any real data on why it would be so, and not otherwise.


            Oleg, of course, is not an expert such as Bongo, Falcon and Opus, in the Air Force, this is a fact. Much in his article "sucked from the finger", but it is here - you are wrong.
            By the effectiveness of the Turkish Air Force against ISIS (instead of the Russian Air Force). Firstly 34 airdromes, instead of the 1st. Secondly, the F-4E Terminators REALLY look more interesting than the Su-24 with the Hephaestus sighting system and the Su-34 with the Platan. Since our "Peregrine Falcon" was never brought to mind. // http://topwar.ru/85382-f-15e-protiv-su-34-statya-otvet.html //
            Then, who, if not the Turks, needs to know who, what and how to bomb? wink At the same time, their intelligence (almost on their territory) is clearly more interesting.
            Supply. Do not "Ruslan" and BDK to carry ammunition.
            In terms of ground operations - all without any questions.
            MLRS. I think that here everything should be clear.
            Regarding escort of bomber aircraft with fighter cover .. Well, who would have tucked into the Turks there, to whom would they interfere?
            The presence of AWACS, actually working by the way.
            Regarding refueling, the Ottomans have clearly more experience, and, given 34 airfields, this is not such an important option in this conflict. Syria is a small country.

            Yes, and all your other attacks - request excuse me, they cost nothing except that you are breathing unevenly towards “sistine”.

            PS: Once again, the article is weak (in my understanding), a lot of things don’t agree (we start with the fact that the strongest air forces in the region - we end up with F-16 bl. 50/52 versus F-15I is for sure). The capabilities of the country's air defense are not disclosed. Let's say the F-5E Tigers are cool aerial fighters. Mig-21 and 23 won all fights in Kubinka.
            Yes, and the article is technically very different from what Bongo writes, no references to sources, evidence .. possible options, etc.
            But it’s tough to “attack” this work like this, how to say .. It’s not for you to do it.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 1 December 2015 20: 06 New
              0
              About 23 I would like to know more
              1. mvg
                mvg 2 December 2015 00: 14 New
                +1
                Do not be lazy, look for yourself. It’s not so difficult to type in Google point ru, and then come up with a question.
                After the F-5E won everything dry against the MiG-21, the latest MiG-23ML were brought to the Cuban. After which the story repeated.
                By the way, the F-5E was planned only for export, a cheap option for those who do not have money for the F-4E.
                PS: Somehow the Americans are very good at doing something for others - the R-51 Mustang was also intended for export .. R-36 Curtiss from the same series.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 2 December 2015 01: 28 New
                  0
                  She couldn’t repeat herself with ML ... For him, until 1988 only the subsonic Harrier in close combat was a threat. For the MiG-21, the F-5 was the most dangerous aircraft, but not a disaster. The Swedes also wiggled against the 21s a couple of times on Wiggens, after which those who knew how came and put them in their place, but all of Sweden still celebrates, as you do with this F-5.
                  Mustang before installing the English engine on it was the same UG as the P-36.
            2. fyvaprold
              fyvaprold 2 December 2015 00: 20 New
              +1
              Respected mvg let me disagree with you. The points:
              1). Kaptzoff wrote:
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              In the case of the use of the Turkish Air Force in a conflict similar to the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria - effectiveness similar Turkish group would be higher

              “similar” - means the same number and with the same ground support, what does 34 Ottoman airdrome have to do with it? If you are comparing ALL resource of Vilayat Turkey, then compare them with ALL resources of the Russian Federation.
              2). Kaptsoff statement:
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Turks refueling system is more efficient.

              And yours:
              Quote: mvg
              Regarding refueling - the Ottomans have clearly more experience

              On what basis are such conclusions? Amerskiy KS-135 with a "rod-hole" system, which simultaneously runs one side, against our Il-78s with a "cone-rod" system and two refueling sides cannot be "more efficient". Yes, and flights requiring refueling in the Russian Aerospace Forces are many times more, if only because of the larger territory and frequent (recently) flights from end to end, so "more Turkish experience" is nonsense.
              3). About:
              Quote: mvg
              Yes, and all your other attacks - request excuse me, they cost nothing except that you are breathing unevenly towards “sistine”.

              In something you are really right, I have certain "feelings" for Mr. Kaptsoff. You know, I don’t like writers writing for the sake of writing, especially if a person, living in the USA, reduces all his “cutting the truth-womb” articles to the thesis: “In Russia - shit, in the West - the gardens of Babylon".
              Thank you for the criticism, but you are absolutely wrong, either because of love for Kaptsoff, or because of an inattentive reading of the arguments and counterarguments that I cite. Sincerely. hi
              PS: By the way, “Kaptsoff”, I call him not for the sake of insult, but because of his place of residence (Wildwoods) and his fierce ̶п̶а̶т̶р̶и̶о̶т̶и̶з̶м̶а kneeling before the “best-in-the-world-country-Emerica".
              1. mvg
                mvg 2 December 2015 00: 50 New
                +4
                Goodnight. Why not sleep? wink
                Point by point, there’s nothing to do anyway ...
                “similar” - does not work out, they (the Ottomans) have no strategists.
                Therefore, I understood "a similar operation", and Kaptsov had exactly that in mind.
                And not so much Turkey is stupid to climb through half a ball of someone there to "pacify". Although the hot southern lads - but, as they say, the fool is dumb.
                At the gas station - the "rod-hole" is twice as thick as the "cone-rod". In Russia, only strategists have a regular practice of refueling in the air. Not all 27/30/34/35 have a refueling system. Not to mention the MiG. Even at 33 for a long time was not, and already there God himself ordered.
                The Turks really very “broke away” in the south in 1995 and 1999. Up to 4 refueling in one departure (F-16, 9 with something hours, refuelers are not their own). They have practice all the time.
                A cartoon here on a Chinese network walked very beautiful .. on this topic.
                On our flights. You know, even test pilots from Komsomolsk to Akhtubinsk fly with landings. Very rarely with refueling. Somehow our IL-78s do not indulge.
                PS: About Kaptsov. As usual - the whole truth is behind the eyes winked A person writes that not many do. Gathers an audience. You look at how many comments are left on his articles. 100% of the most commented .. And this is a "plus" for the site.
                What you think is Wildwoods and its "true womb", so for me it is better to overdo than underdevelop. And to be like that, sorry for insulting me, лThey are like cosmodromes, scrappers, nehus, gsh, warriors and other wonderful personalities on the site.
                There are people who wrote a razik, saw that they wrote a kuynya and read more, but there are the same ones in terms of “tenacity” as Kaptsov, only other deviations. And it’s not just “urapatriots” but “uraitioty” .. Down there on this thread, there is an adequate writer by the way on this topic. I liked his argument with the Scraptor.
                PS: Kaptsov REALLY read a lot of information, maybe he didn’t sit in the design bureau, but not only the gods “burn the pots”, I know the level of several defense design bureaus “by hearsay”. So, not all there ice.
                60-80% of what Oleg writes, I would support.
                My opinion. You just have to respect work.
                And so many things he painted at night looking .. hi
                1. Aqela
                  Aqela 2 December 2015 09: 45 New
                  +1
                  I agree with you. There are a lot of controversial issues in the article, but I personally put a plus sign for the designation of the question and the availability of argumentation: all this provides the basis for an extensive discussion, and some comments are more interesting than the article, but without the article they would not have appeared ... That There is an author who has solved his problem.
      2. Vorobey-1
        Vorobey-1 1 December 2015 07: 10 New
        +3
        Better a brave enemy than a prostitute friend
        (Turkish saying)

        Moreover, they themselves are after the decimal point (second option)!
      3. Lepila
        Lepila 1 December 2015 08: 09 New
        31
        Cape-making article. The Turkish Air Force is a dangerous rival. And the F-16 block 50 with AIM-120 missiles is capable of a high-quality introduction of long-range air combat. So neither you nor us can relax ...
        1. avt
          avt 1 December 2015 10: 46 New
          +7
          Quote: Lepila
          Cape-making article.

          And I liked it, especially this one -
          Given the hurricane traction and the presence of an arms operator in the crew, the 20-ton “Terminator”, when operating on a regional theater, will compete with any of the modern tactical bombers (F-15E, Su-34, etc.)
          And then
          . But, despite its apparent multiplicity and number of models of modern weapons, the Turkish Air Force group remains a secondary formation with limited capabilities. The scum of high society. Scraps from the American and Israeli tables.
          wassat Oleg, in a blow, wrote a straight article on the ascent - ,, Speaking, wringing his hands, a red-faced and balamut
          About the impotence of science before the secret Bermuda.
          All the brains are broken up into parts, all the gyrations are braided,
          And the kanatchik authorities prick us a second injection. "
          Quote: Tlauicol
          We are waiting for an article about the Navy of the Navy

          wassat ,, Dear editor! Maybe better about the reactor,
          About your favorite moon tractor? After all, you can not the same year
          Then the plates are scared, they say, mean, fly,
          Either your dogs bark, or the ruins say. "
          Quote: Lepila
          . So neither you nor us can relax ...

          Well, something like this, especially when you consider that they are working from their equipped bases for years on their territory, so there will definitely not be enough earflaps, and there is no point in making such a comparison - there is no plane to plane. We need to look at what we have in the complex as a system taking into account material and technical support, and here the Turks have a long advantage, well, if Sinop No. 2 is not done, then strike at the airfields of the NATO countries where the USs are sitting in the same Ingirlik. Will NATO join Turkey? After all, it seems that they will first begin on earth. But with aviation support, how will it be?
          1. Santa Fe
            1 December 2015 10: 51 New
            -4
            Quote: avt
            And I liked it

            Quote: avt
            And then

            And then you doubt that the Israelis and Amers are armed with the ultimate technology, which Turkey did not have and will not have?
            1. avt
              avt 1 December 2015 13: 37 New
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And then you doubt that the Israelis and Amers are armed with the ultimate technology, which Turkey did not have and will not have?

              what It was wise that he asked something, honestly, there wasn’t enough reason to understand the question .... Without a sub-fence, what is it about?
            2. Lepila
              Lepila 1 December 2015 15: 55 New
              +3
              This is a no brainer. Amerovskaya (Israeli) F-16s are one thing, and Turkish or Egyptian F-16s are another. The platform is the same, but the filling and capabilities are different ...
          2. Lepila
            Lepila 1 December 2015 15: 52 New
            +1
            If you do not bomb the Inzhirlik, then NATO will not fit in with the Turks. They are not sure for themselves that they will fit in, and never for the Turks.
            1. Abrekkos
              Abrekkos 1 December 2015 16: 06 New
              0
              And what does it mean not fit?

              Patriot disconnect?
              Long-range air-to-air missiles will not be given to their ally?
              Turn off your radar?

              They will not disconnect anything. And this is more than enough for us to not bomb anything there.

              And F-22 to extinguish us and they do not need to bear the losses. Turkish F-16s will quite manage themselves.
            2. avt
              avt 1 December 2015 16: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: Lepila
              If you do not bomb the Inzhirlik, then NATO will not fit in with the Turks. They are not sure for themselves that they will fit in, and never for the Turks.

              what Not sure . If we are ahead of schedule, they will definitely fit in, and if 08 08 in South Ossetia, they will yell for a long time that Russia attacked Turkey. In general, all this eerily recalls how the US dragged Saddam into a war with Iran, then did not object to the adventure in Kuwait and .... in the end, they hung and burned Iraq to the ground. He already wrote - it looks like Turkey will write the Lebanese scenario of civilian stabbing with the involvement of neighboring countries in the struggle for Europe with Russia. But for Europe, it’s exactly kerdyk - Islamization is complete with export substitution of the population. And for Bulgaria there, Macdonia, Montonegro, death in general.
              1. mvg
                mvg 1 December 2015 20: 00 New
                +1
                Not sure . If we hit the lead, they will definitely fit, but if, like 08 08 08 in South Ossetia

                What hit then? You yourself draw that the Turkish F-16s themselves will adequately answer, plus the Americanos radars (although Turkish ones with Jewish filling are not bad), and even the German Patriots will help .. So what will we beat?
                From land, air or from the sea? Where do we have an advantage? Only in caps - but for some reason you immediately rejected this option .. And he is the only one, for the campaign. Well, if the Strategic Missile Forces are not connected right away.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 1 December 2015 21: 14 New
                  -1
                  With everything ... The radius of the Su-27 would be nice to put on a map of Turkey ... And on one such four brand new Superhornets needed. The F-16 is even larger in proportion.
                  1. mvg
                    mvg 2 December 2015 00: 23 New
                    +2
                    It is terrible to ask - where do you get the "firewood" from? Really SAM! is reporting?
                    Who determines how many F-18SE and F-16 bl.50 are needed per Dryer-27. What kind of Su was meant? What upgrade? What missiles will fly to fight?
                    Dear, you would be better, before writing bullshit, if only you would first familiarize yourself with something .. You also had an adequate opponent at the bottom of the branch. Or are you just bored, and the series are all over?
                    Is it really fun to write nonsense? What does not have to do on the fence .. There is another cimus there ..
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 2 December 2015 01: 51 New
                      0
                      If it were scary, then you would not ask ... It delivers to you.
          3. Scraptor
            Scraptor 1 December 2015 17: 06 New
            0
            F-15s from countries have nothing at all, and Turkey did not come out among them with their ambitions and origin.
            F-14 was allowed in only one country - and then what happened?

            About the "injection" - it seems you guessed it, Sir ... laughing
            1. mvg
              mvg 1 December 2015 20: 10 New
              +1
              Scraptor, you are in your spirit .. I don’t know anything, but I draw .. Like to school. I do not know how, but it is necessary, I go.

              F-15s even have the Singapore Air Force. Everyone who can afford this bird purchased it. Google countries that use the Eagles in their Air Force.
              F-14 .. And who is asked to need a deck !!! Extra-class interceptor with unbearable price. And the Phoenixes at $ 1 million (late 70's) per device? Only to the Shah’s regime, because: “It’s necessary, my friend, it’s just necessary ..”
              F-111 is also only one country bought (Australia), but this does not mean that the plane is bad ..
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 1 December 2015 20: 33 New
                -2
                Let’s better do your education on Wikipedia, which only three countries except the USA have F-15 (and not the cut-off F-15E + two more), and why suddenly a lot more were needed, and it was allowed to buy a deck F-18 which is very worse than F-14. laughing Australia is far away - if anything, the F-111 would not have flown to the USA or to its large bases.
                1. mvg
                  mvg 2 December 2015 01: 07 New
                  +1
                  Once again, you heard something somewhere, but did not figure it out. This is normal for you. Take an interest, at least with Bongo, or something, how F-15C / D, F-15SA, F-15I, F-15K, F-15E, F-15SE differ ... and also a bunch of countries. Plin, even in a music lesson, on occasion, a smart phrase in the classroom, attach it somewhere ..
                  Grab the attention of the little ones .. lol
                  At the same time, ask what the difference between F-14 and F-18 is. It is clear that you will not be surprised. It’s impossible to surprise Pinocchio! At the same time, look at the price tags. I wanted to give you an example with cognac .. fool but I agree, he would not be appropriate here ..
                  Let's make it easier. Like in a supermarket .. yellow price tags and normal white ones .. So intelligibly?
                  Well, about the "ant" F-111, I already realized that I didn’t attack it .. You didn’t see this plane in the pictures either .. Its silhouette is not in the coloring book .. My fault is also a bad example, like with cognac .
                  PS: And I, with your permission, well, or without it, got into Wikipedia .. for knowledge, at the same time I will re-read Tikhiy Don Sholokhov and the medical encyclopedia .. I will study.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 2 December 2015 01: 48 New
                    0
                    Let’s you better take care of your education at the designated address of the Internet resource and friendship with Bongo ...
                2. iov
                  iov 3 December 2015 03: 16 New
                  0
                  And why should the Australian Air Force fly to the United States ???? Eka is unseen .... If anything - the UK + USA + Australia + New Zealand cooperate better than the North Atlantic Alliance ..... This is such an Anglo-Saxon friendship .... Although .... a good fantastic story turned out ... Maybe in the next era and grow together ...)))
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 3 December 2015 12: 59 New
                    0
                    Why did the north of the USA fight with the south of the USA?
        2. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 1 December 2015 11: 26 New
          +3
          Quote: Lepila
          Cape-making article. The Turkish Air Force is a dangerous rival.

          In Google maps, look at the Turkish Air Force base near the city of Eskisehir, half of the Turkish aircraft are in heaps, it is very convenient to bomb.
        3. Gardener91
          Gardener91 1 December 2015 19: 40 New
          0
          To complete the clarity of the picture, it is necessary to have data on the tactics of combat use of the types of air forces, and not the generally accepted NATO, but taking into account the Turkish mentality. There I think a lot of interesting things and there is work to do. You also need to know the methodology for training the flight personnel by types of combat and flight training, and only then a complete picture will emerge called: The quantitative and qualitative composition of the Turkish Air Force, the state of combat capability of aircraft and personnel, as well as the degree interaction with units of other combat arms within the army and NATO bloc.
      4. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 1 December 2015 11: 21 New
        +9
        I’m interested in that. On Google maps, you can calmly look at Turkish military airfields, and in Yandex, for some reason, all military airfields are like that. Look around all the same, but the hell base. Yandex whose anyone?
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 1 December 2015 11: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Whose Yandex is it?

          the headquarters was sort of like in Europe. I even remember the scandal was when they asked a similar question
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 1 December 2015 11: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          I’m interested in that. On Google maps, you can calmly look at Turkish military airfields, and in Yandex, for some reason, all military airfields are like that. Look around all the same, but the hell base. Yandex whose anyone?

          Yandex is actually very active in the Turkish market, including maps, version of the search engine, etc.
        3. Saburo
          Saburo 1 December 2015 12: 45 New
          +2
          Yandex in Turkey for some unknown reason is very popular, it is used even more often than Google. So it is not surprising if the Turkish government politely asked them to bluff military airfields.
        4. IAlex
          IAlex 1 December 2015 13: 18 New
          -2
          Yandex is generally Dutch and constantly carries out news feeds profitable for the EU, they could have noticed two years ago when they were broadcasting news about "bandits and militants" from the east of Ukraine ...
        5. Gardener91
          Gardener91 1 December 2015 22: 33 New
          0
          Yandex product is Russian and how the product is sold and used by the buyer as he pleases.
      5. Abrekkos
        Abrekkos 1 December 2015 16: 21 New
        0
        In Yugoslavia, there were also many MiG-29s, but this did not help them.
        Do not overestimate the capabilities of obsolete weapons.

        And do not underestimate the modernized systems equipped with the latest weapons. Sometimes we have no analogues in service with it.

        And generally hope for the best, but get ready for the worst.

        In addition, most of our Su-27s also do not rise into the air.
        1. mvg
          mvg 1 December 2015 20: 17 New
          +2
          How many were the 29th in Yugoslavia? Let me tell you .. 12 pcs, including sparks. 8 + 4. It's a lot? Against 1100 adversary aircraft? AWACS and air defense?
          Air battles involving the MiG-29 and NATO are only 1.5 pieces.
          Regarding the Su-27 - I agree, out of 300 I rejoice declared, God forbid 30% of the flight. Although they write that they have reached 50 and even 70% of the flight boards.
      6. Talgat
        Talgat 1 December 2015 18: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Canep
        Turkish Air Force is even better than Kazakhstan


        Kazakhstan is smaller than Turkey - 17 million people versus 75 million Turks

        The Kazakh Air Force is really the second in the post-Soviet territory after the Russian ones - but of course they will be inferior to the Turets in terms of number of fighters, but there are models in some ways superior to the F-16 - these are Su 30СМ and Mig 31, maybe our Su 27М2 can compete - I'm not sure. Mig 29 - old.

        On the other hand, from the point of view of air defense, Kazakhstan has a plus - in addition to larger territory than Turkey + the presence of S-300 air defense systems, MiG 31 interceptors and the Su-30SM that began to arrive - there is also an integrated air defense system with Russia - which makes it problematic any aggressor suppresses it, then it will have to suppress Russian air defense in the border areas, and even with the destruction of all Kazakh MiG-31, MiG 29, Su-27М2 and Su-27UBM2 - you will have to engage in battle with Russian aviation from airfields in the Russian Federation

        All this makes an attack on us hopeless enough, except if they decide to start a global war and attack Russia itself.

        Nevertheless, publications are constantly being held that they intend to purchase XMUMX Mig - or Su-35 CM in addition to 30 purchased. Personally, I do not see the need for high costs, while with China such a "peace and friendship"

        For convenience, I copied the info from the article about the prospects of the Air Force KZ
        "... Russian analysts said that in the near future the Navy of the RK can purchase and need the following types of aircraft and air defense systems:

        Training aircraft Yak-130

        about 39-24 units must be received to replace the TCB L-36.

        MiG-35 fighters to upgrade the MiG-29 fleet are supposed to be purchased from 24-96 units.

        It is planned to offer fighters of the Su-30MK2 and Su-35С family for the Air Force of the Republic of Kazakhstan after negotiations on the delivery of the Yak-130 ATC, the planned number of about 80-90 aircraft.

        Due to the obsolescence of the front-line aviation fleet, Kazakhstan may itself begin negotiations on the supply of new Su-34 front-line bombers and Su-25 family attack aircraft, a possible renewal of the front-line aircraft fleet near 100 aircraft.

        Given the vast territory of the country, it is possible to purchase about 5-10 units of AWACS aircraft, which can be supplied by Russian and European manufacturers.

        Also, Kazakhstan’s interest in acquiring fifth-generation fighters, given the economic opportunities of Kazakhstan, we can assume the purchase of T-50 class fighters, which are distinguished by their low cost compared to their Western counterparts and ease of maintenance, the number of possible purchases is about 60-70 units.
        1. brr1
          brr1 1 December 2015 22: 41 New
          0
          Stop swag watch. Kazakhstan will not sustain such a quantity economically. In addition, the money will be stolen by the way.
    2. Lepila
      Lepila 1 December 2015 08: 16 New
      +6
      I hope that due to the financial difficulties that have arisen, the Turks will refuse or at least reduce the number of F-35 purchased. Perdogan and F-35 are not a pair, not a pair, not a pair ...
      1. mvg
        mvg 2 December 2015 01: 17 New
        0
        The Turks want more than a hundred F-35s, while part of the production is their own. Even glider elements.
        Israel, as far as I remember, 35 pieces in total. The rest will be "bought" by the F-15s. There is something to worry about, given the relations between countries, and the inadequacy of leadership.
        PS: I will not hide it, I would love to look at the only worthy rival for the Jews in the region .. I mean for a real fight. Suddenly, the next president of Turkey will be Ahmadinejad’s. repeat
        1. Lepila
          Lepila 2 December 2015 01: 58 New
          +1
          It's too early for you to rejoice. The Turks reduced the purchase plan of F-35 to 75. And ours have already paid for the purchase of 33 F-35, with the option to purchase another 42 cars. And these cars will be with Israeli avionics, incomparable with the American trimmed export option for the Turks. And most importantly: do not compare Israeli flyers with Turkish ...
    3. Vikings
      Vikings 1 December 2015 09: 34 New
      +6
      Turkey is a serious and highly motivated opponent.
      overlook the successes in economics in recent years.
      Strengthening of the Turkish army, not a random factor, but purposeful
      process called up by its strategic position in the region and
      the proximity of borders to Russia. And the aggressiveness of Turkey can be
      to clarify the absence of a worthy adversary, the bottom, walking with
      sides of the United States, and confidence + guarantees of impunity, with
      Rones of the United States!
    4. Abrekkos
      Abrekkos 1 December 2015 11: 11 New
      +8
      And what do you actually say thanks?
      Wash a rather biased article missing key points.
      Those who at least a little in topic or more seriously studied the situation on this theater of completely different opinion.

      And our military, too. Apparently because of this, we do not get involved in a deliberately unequal battle with the Air Force and Air Defense in Turkey. Thank God convinced the Civil Code to respond with tomatoes.
      It was not enough just that the Turks, in full view of the whole world, had shot a dozen more of our most modern aircraft this time, and arranged a no-fly zone over half of Syria.

      One must be patriots, but one cannot be stupid patriots.
      And stupid patriots do more harm than any liberals, cosmopolitans and traitors.

      In military affairs, the worst thing you can do is underestimate the enemy by overestimating yourself. Always the opposite.
      Therefore, a true military expert never writes anything like this. I recognize my dear by gait ...
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 1 December 2015 17: 02 New
        0
        It is necessary to answer this (one plane) if they don’t understand then already ...
        Obviously unequal it will be for the Turks, on their northern coast. During the Soviet era, eastern 2/3 of Turkey was not planned to be defended by NATO at all.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Captain nemo
        Captain nemo 1 December 2015 18: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Abrekkos
        Apparently because of this, we do not get involved in a deliberately unequal battle with the Air Force and Air Defense in Turkey.

        And why don’t you get involved, or do you think that a NATO member country has the right to believe that it has the right to alien Syrian territories because Turkmens live there, and they are their "brothers"?
        In this case, both Yugoslavia in 1999 and the USSR in 1941 had to immediately surrender to the enemy, because the attackers in both cases were clearly stronger than those who did not attack.
        1. mvg
          mvg 1 December 2015 20: 23 New
          0
          Well, RUSSIA then got involved in Donbas, because there are brothers .. And this is the territory of sovereign Ukraine. And I’m not talking about Crimea.
          1. Captain nemo
            Captain nemo 1 December 2015 20: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: mvg
            Well, RUSSIA then got involved in Donbas, because there are brothers .. And this is the territory of sovereign Ukraine. And I’m not talking about Crimea.

            "Sovereign Ukraine" is what you in your Ukraine managed to defend in the Polish-Turkish war. And not what you asked Kerensky, Lenin, Yeltsin.
            You didn’t leave the USSR with us, Belovezhskaya Pribluda was denounced by Russia and Belarus.
            All your “sovereign” rests on Putin’s “brotherhood of the peoples of Ukraine and Russia,” and on the unlawful membership of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus in the UN, which itself illegally recognized you by Belovezhieu and did not give a damn about its own legal recognition of the 1991 spring referendum.
            So your “sovereign” within the borders of the “Eternal Peace” of 1686, plus the Left Bank along the Pereyaslavskaya Rada, and not along the borders of the “collapse of the USSR”.
            1. mvg
              mvg 2 December 2015 01: 26 New
              +2
              This is off-topic forum. I will not discuss. Think, at your leisure, yourself ... Why is the whole world against? How many countries have recognized Abkhazia, Crimea, LDNR .. Even the closest allies are Belarus and Kazakhstan. Even after we dumped the dough for them, and made a discount on everything we could ..
              Probably, politicians and history were not read at school, and all IQs are like Bush Junior and Klitschko.
              I appreciate your patriotism, but I value common sense more.
              1. Alibekulu
                Alibekulu 2 December 2015 17: 17 New
                -2
                Quote: mvg
                and Kazakhstan ..
                And rightly so. And then yours, then skrymazdyat, then it is not clear why they will climb into Syria ..
                Quote: mvg
                Even after we dumped them dough

                Well, how did we dump the dough ..?!
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 2 December 2015 18: 05 New
                  0
                  Turkey and everyone else got in there clearly why? And why did South Siberia, who arrived in a sealed carriage, cut off southern Siberia to the Kazakh SSR, and did the Trotskyist Khrushchev populate it with Kazakhs from China and Mongolia?
                  1. Alibekulu
                    Alibekulu 3 December 2015 22: 16 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Turkey and everyone else got in there clearly why?
                    Turkey climbed there, just like Russia in the Donbass ..
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    And why did the South Siberia who arrived in the sealed carriage blank cut to the Kazakh SSR
                    Well, probably because the Kazakh land laughing
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    did the Trotskyist Khrushchev populate it with Kazakhs from China and Mongolia?
                    How long have the Russians themselves moved beyond the Urals? And the etymology of the word "Ural" was googled .. lol
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 3 December 2015 23: 47 New
                      0
                      Russia does not export oil from Donbass, and coal is cheaper in Kuzbass.

                      Probably because not. Russians generally came from over the Urals. In Russian, these mountains are called Stanovoye.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      4. THE_SEAL
        THE_SEAL 2 December 2015 15: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Abrekkos
        And our military, too. Apparently because of this, we do not get involved in a deliberately unequal battle with the Air Force and Air Defense in Turkey. Thank God convinced the Civil Code to respond with tomatoes.

        We do not mess with the Turks, because Turkey is a NATO member. And take the trouble to explain: how Turkey will bring down a dozen of our aircraft and triple the no-fly zone over Syria.
  2. 25ru
    25ru 1 December 2015 06: 14 New
    17
    Most are the well-deserved +. About Incirlike one phrase - not a set-off, as if the United States “Patriots” are stationed there.
    The "Results" section immediately discourages someone from recommending reading.
    Or politics and political showdowns or the exact presentation of military-technical information. The headquarters do not think in categories: minor formation with disabilities. The scum of high society. Scraps from the American and Israeli tables. . F-16's destiny as a fighter is to spoil from around the corner and shoot at unarmed / single targets in obviously favorable conditions (the presence of AWACS - in the absence of the enemy).
    And they think like this: "During the first days of the armed conflict, side X is able to complete up to ... sorties, use up to ... units of guided weapons, which, as expected, will lead to defeat ... targets ..." etc. ., etc.
    At the same time, with respect to the author hi
    1. Santa Fe
      1 December 2015 06: 29 New
      -6
      Quote: 25ru
      The headquarters do not think in categories: F-16's destiny, as a fighter, is to spoil from around the corner and shoot at unarmed / single targets in obviously favorable conditions (the presence of AWACS - in the absence of the enemy).
      And they think like this: "During the first day of armed conflict

      Is our headquarters here?
      1. 25ru
        25ru 1 December 2015 06: 38 New
        19
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Is our headquarters here?

        No, Oleg! But also not "Censor" to give vent to emotions. With drool we have the fourth day TV gushing. We decided to write a review - that's great. Take the data and bring. A personal assessment can be made in a short paragraph and put on trial. I am not a writer and I do not write articles, although I know how to make reports and presentations, but in my years I would be besieged by the head of the operational department for personal emotions. For the fact that I give information interspersed with personal opinion.
        Again, with respect. hi
        1. Santa Fe
          1 December 2015 06: 46 New
          0
          Quote: 25ru
          No, Oleg!

          Here is the answer to the question about the headquarters
          Quote: 25ru
          A personal assessment can be made in a short paragraph.

          She made one paragraph
          Quote: 25ru
          Take the data and bring

          It's time to embed an article on the evolution of F-16
          and eternal rivalry with the twin-engine twin-engine F-18
          1. ICT
            ICT 1 December 2015 08: 01 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            with twin keel twin engine F-18


            twink -29
            1. Santa Fe
              1 December 2015 08: 13 New
              0
              Quote: TIT
              twink -29

              This is a completely different story.
          2. avt
            avt 1 December 2015 13: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It's time to embed an article on the evolution of F-16
            and eternal rivalry with the twin-engine twin-engine F-18

            what Yah !!?? Or maybe you don’t write about the eternal, but about a very specific YF-17 that really rivaled the YF-16, like Lockheed and the Boeing on the F-35 program recently?
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 1 December 2015 06: 45 New
        -2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Is our headquarters here?

        Yes, the bazaar is here, the bazaar, and therefore your delights such as "Dregs of high society. Leftovers from the American and Israeli tables" still sound quite cool. The Turkish Air Force a priori cannot be strong because they are traitors and traitors who are interested in the composition, training system and industrial base ...
        1. 25ru
          25ru 1 December 2015 07: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Who is interested in the composition, training system and industrial base ...

          To me, for example. True, I knew this before, but "everything flows, everything changes."
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 1 December 2015 07: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: 25ru
            True, I knew this before, but "everything flows, everything changes."

            Well, the Turks are now making the F-35, so there are not many countries in the world building fifth-generation aircraft.
        2. Abrekkos
          Abrekkos 1 December 2015 15: 49 New
          +3
          In, in.

          The Wehrmacht in 1941, too, a priori could not be strong because Hitler was a bastard.

          By the way, it is good to compare the growth of production in the manufacturing industries of Turkey and the Russian Federation for the last 10-15-20-25 years and who can be clarified who is strong.

          And GDP growth can be compared.
        3. mvg
          mvg 1 December 2015 20: 32 New
          0
          did not appreciate sarcasm wink
          about patonkoff and traitors is better than about a regional superpower and industrial potential.
    2. Abrekkos
      Abrekkos 1 December 2015 15: 39 New
      +1
      Well, yes.
      But I add that:
      - In addition, Turkey has a US missile defense radar
      - US missile defense interceptor ships still pulled
      - And not just Patriot, but PAC-3 with wlink16.

      Those. there is a place to be an integrated layered air defense / missile defense system. Russia does not even have such a thing over Moscow.

      And I’ll add if you look at what kind of modernization the F-16 went through and see the pictures from their press, then their lot is no longer just “crap from around the corner and shoot unarmed”.

      Their lot is already incl. shoot down our most modern aircraft without letting them reach the distance from which they can use their weapons against these F-16s in response.

      Those. with competent tactics, destroy us with a dry score and without much risk. Ammunition will help them with NATO. Don't even doubt it

      That's why Erdogan is impudent.

      A bully he is always arrogant when he feels his impunity.

      So all this cap-bailing may well be fraught with a mini 1941 year.
      Then, of course, 1945 should follow, but the 41st should be avoided.
    3. Gardener91
      Gardener91 1 December 2015 19: 55 New
      0
      Here, here and Turkey's air defense must be known and taken into account!
  3. Yak28
    Yak28 1 December 2015 06: 25 New
    -1
    Airplanes are good, but they still have to take off before a missile strike at the airfields. You can’t reach Russia on tanks either, so in any case the theater of operations will take place in the Turkish region and at sea.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 1 December 2015 06: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Yak28
      Airplanes are good, but they still need to have time to take off before a missile strike at airfields.

      Let me ask you what you know about the Turkish Air Force bases. Quantity, what types of shelters? Well, and calculate the outfit of cruise missiles to fulfill your brilliant plan?
      1. sherp2015
        sherp2015 1 December 2015 09: 37 New
        +2
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Let me ask you what you know about the Turkish Air Force bases. Quantity, what types of shelters? Well, and calculate the outfit of cruise missiles to fulfill your brilliant plan?


        Turkish intelligence is actively working in Russia, including monitoring the media)
  4. oldav
    oldav 1 December 2015 07: 00 New
    0
    Wikipedia has not written about phantoms. I think the purchase of modern aircraft will be delayed because they will lose money decently. Although the Americans can make a present in the form of used their aircraft with a long delay.
    1. 25ru
      25ru 1 December 2015 07: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: oldav
      I think the purchase of modern aircraft will be delayed because they will lose money decently.

      They have a license for the production of F-16s, they have a license for attack helicopters, and there are licenses for transport CN-235s. AWACS and tankers - purchased. They are trying to do the tanks themselves and are carrying out modernization (German Leo and Shtatovskie M-60A1 / 3). The line of BBMs and wheeled and tracked ones is made by themselves, they are also bought (BTR-60-70-80). For MLRS and barreled artillery - there are no problems (license or modernization). Shipbuilding capacity - is. No one announced the sanctions except us. The Roquetsan rivets a decent set of rocket weapons. What else? S-300-400 no? Yes, they will be leased to them by the same “Patriots” under the military assistance program.
      1. oldav
        oldav 1 December 2015 07: 51 New
        -1
        What they produce is called a screwdriver assembly. Lada Largus is also considered a Russian car, but how much Russian there. Currency is required to purchase these spare parts. Other countries have not imposed sanctions, but the Russian Federation has a first partner and the smallest major one in terms of currency inflows. Plus, the country is completely dependent on external energy resources, and these are only allies of the Russian Federation and Iran.
        1. 25ru
          25ru 1 December 2015 08: 24 New
          +1
          Quote: oldav
          what they produce is called a screwdriver assembly

          Dear, if you are not completely sure about the topic - do not write better. Here are the conditions for licensed production of B and BT in Turkey:
          [b] In 1975, the US Congress in response to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus imposed an embargo on the supply of American weapons to Turkey.
          From that moment, Turkey decided to switch to a policy of import substitution and production of the most important types of weapons and military equipment in its own territory.
          In 1975, the Turkish National Security Council adopted the first five-year plan for the development of the armed forces, which provided for the modernization and reorganization of the Turkish defense industry. The concept of military supply was formed, which included the inclusion in any arms contracts of a clause on the adjustment of the production of arms and military equipment in Turkey. Now Turkey’s partners in the supply of arms and military equipment were obliged to create defense industry enterprises in the country, with a controlling stake (1% of) of these enterprises being in the hands of the Turkish side.
          In 1970-1980 Turks received a large number of licenses for the production of arms and military equipment. An example is the agreement signed in 1979 with Germany. As a result of its execution, the factories for the production of small arms in Kırıkkale were expanded, a factory for the repair and modernization of tanks in Adapazar was built, a military shipyard in Geljuk was expanded for the construction of submarines and modern frigates, and an aircraft engine factory was built in Eskisehir. A number of contracts were concluded for the production of ATGMs, submarines, etc. 209 and boats. The construction of the ships was largely carried out with the help of foreign experts, while the ships were also equipped mainly with foreign weapons and military equipment that were not manufactured in Turkey. At the same time, Turkey received surplus military equipment from the Federal Republic of Germany, including American M48 tanks and German Leopard 1.
          In 1978, the US embargo was lifted from the arms embargo on Turkey, and in 1980 the parties signed an agreement on the development of military-technical cooperation, as a result of which a special bilateral working group was created. The largest projects were also implemented within this group:
          • construction of a plant for the production of F-16C / D fighters in Ankara near Mykurta. TUSAS (Turkiye U9ak Sanayi Anonim §irketi) received 51% of the shares in the new enterprise, General Dynamics (then Lockheed Martin) - 49% of the shares. [b] In 2005, the US side sold its stake in Turkey;
          • construction of an aircraft equipment factory in Eskisehir. The TUSAS subsidiary, Hava Sanayi Endustrileri; [/ b] owned this company in conjunction with General Dynamics on the same terms.
          Well, etc.
          Yours!
          1. oldav
            oldav 1 December 2015 09: 05 New
            +2
            Such a high-tech product as the F-16 fighter cannot be produced locally by such a country as Turkey. Even the USA and the Russian Federation cannot produce weapons 100% locally. The main components come from the United States and are bought for currency. Of course, they save by producing weapons at home, it's cheaper than buying ready-made ones, but this also requires currency.
            1. 25ru
              25ru 1 December 2015 09: 31 New
              +4
              Quote: oldav
              Even the USA and the Russian Federation cannot produce weapons 100% locally. The main components come from the United States and are bought for currency. Of course, they save by producing weapons at home, it's cheaper than buying ready-made ones, but this also requires currency.

              It's nice to talk with a person who imagines the production cycle. wink There are nuances: the Vladivostok Sollers, the St. Petersburg TOYOTA or the Uzbek DAEWOO, is it a screwdriver assembly or licensed production?
              You miss the topic of your own development of the Turkish defense industry, and they have done very much. Recently there was an article on how to attach a smart head to a Nurs. Turks were noted there too. Those. The electronic industry is working. Warships, up to and including the frigate and diesel-electric submarines, do it themselves. SZRK "Ethylgen" put into serial production, yes - this is a combination of PU MANPADS "Stinger" and Turkish chassis / optoelectronic systems, but they produce themselves. You can continue, I know enough technical English to go through the catalogs of military products in Turkey, but I think that these examples are enough. Since products are offered for export, it means that the country has a full production cycle and no restrictions on export by the copyright holder.
              1. oldav
                oldav 1 December 2015 10: 20 New
                0
                The question is whether she will be able to produce and purchase all this under the conditions of our sanctions? Look at the same Ukraine. What happened to her after the loss of Russian markets.
                In Turkey, a huge wild-growing population, a country dependent on energy (from Iran, the Russian Federation, Syria, Iraq), the tourism market (at least 50%), several million refugees (who also need to be fed) are lost.
                Before the Russian Federation opened for Turkey in the 90s, their economy soared up.
                1. 25ru
                  25ru 1 December 2015 10: 25 New
                  +1
                  Quote: oldav
                  The question is whether she will be able to produce and purchase all this under the conditions of our sanctions? Look at the same Ukraine. What happened to her after the loss of Russian markets.

                  If there is a full production cycle, then what is in the way? It’s also warm there wink Itself was. In January, Antalya + 18 is quite comfortable.
                  1. oldav
                    oldav 1 December 2015 10: 36 New
                    +3
                    Yes, they do not have this production cycle, where did you get it. Even China, making its copies of the su-27 and il-76, buys engines from us. And about the fact that there is warmth it says nothing. We in Siberia in January +5 last year was, but this does not mean that we live in the southern climate. Yes, and you were probably somewhere in Antalya. By the way, gas and oil are needed not only for heating and cooking, but for example for the production of the same f-16s.
                2. Mera joota
                  Mera joota 1 December 2015 11: 58 New
                  +1
                  Quote: oldav
                  The question is whether she will be able to produce and purchase all this under the conditions of our sanctions?

                  And how will our sanctions affect it? Not really. Do they buy components for the military-industrial complex from us? Or are you talking about the myth of a collapsed economy because our tourists will not go? Full of those, as they previously did without our tourists, there will be no Europeans, Europeans, what difference does it make whom they provide services for, or in your Russotourist is irreplaceable and without them everything will grow feather grass?
                  1. oldav
                    oldav 1 December 2015 13: 03 New
                    -1
                    Tourists are only 3-5 billion, they will not transfer everything from trade with Russia $ 16-17 billion, plus a few yards from lost profits from the closure of the Turkish stream. In the case of direct aggression, gas is shut off and they freeze. Speaking of tourists; knowing pedantic Germans, I strongly doubt that they will go to such a restless region, where Yiddish terrorists rest in hotels in addition to tourists.
      2. mvg
        mvg 1 December 2015 20: 38 New
        0
        They still have not returned those Patriots that they have deployed since the time of "Desert Storm". German and Dutch. Only (a couple of months ago) the Germans asked them and “honor to know”, but now, I think, the leasing will be extended. And the US Patriots, who cover B-61-11 .. keep half of Turkey under gun.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 1 December 2015 21: 10 New
          0
          Aren't they taken out by the Kyrgyz Republic and the Scuds without any problems? Better pay attention to the population, if mobilized and trampled, then there may be a lack of ODAB and you will have to use cores ...
  5. thinker
    thinker 1 December 2015 08: 58 New
    0
    Tr-rr. Fly!

    RF-4E on the last flight June 22, 2012
  6. MGB
    MGB 1 December 2015 09: 57 New
    +1
    Finally, the presence in service 40-year “Phantoms”. And let their aiming devices be brought up to the level of modern aircraft, often surpassing the latter. The mere fact of having such a “retro” does not do credit to a country claiming its far-reaching ambitions.

    In my opinion, not a very correct statement. That is, the presence of SU24 in our country does not honor our country either? Although the planes are old, they can successfully cope with certain tasks.
  7. 31rus
    31rus 1 December 2015 10: 36 New
    +2
    Dear, it is not right to consider the Turkish Air Force separately, you need to consider all the armed forces, then there will be a real picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the Turkish armed forces, do not forget the important factor behind the straits behind the Turks, and as events show, they wanted to spit on the international treaty, they forgot why then Cyprus
  8. okroshka79
    okroshka79 1 December 2015 10: 37 New
    +6
    This article is by no means a review of the Turkish Air Force, but a listing of the Turkish Air Force fleet, flavored, as always, with blunders of the "Active AFAR" type with light tactical gadgets of the aircraft and emotional rantings like "Dregs of high society. Scraps from the American and Israeli tables" or " the legendary Inzhirlik air base "(what is it legendary about and what are these legends about?). Meanwhile, the Air Force, as a type of aircraft does not consist of a set of aircraft and other aircraft. There is also an organizational structure, infrastructure, of course, including an airfield network, training of flight personnel, and much more, in order to turn from the name of the Air Force into the corresponding type of the Armed Forces. But not a word about it. And what, here is not the headquarters, conclusions from assessing the situation are not required for a decision! People and it gratefully opens up! Another hack for the need of the day. Dear Oleg Kaptsov! I have no doubt that you respect yourself, but please respect the readers to whom you offer your creation. I have the honor!
    1. Santa Fe
      1 December 2015 10: 46 New
      +9
      Quote: okroshka79
      I have the honor!

      I am very offended by the blatant illiteracy and pride of some citizens who, speaking somewhere, end their speech with the words “I have the honor”.

      For some reason, now the words “I have the honor!” Are perceived by the writer in the sense that he personally has the honor. Such an impudence would never have been allowed by any Russian officer. To say to himself that he has the honor is to expose himself as a boaster and insolent. You can also write at the end of the letter: “I have a mind”, “I have a conscience”, “I have money”, “I have a wife” ...

      In a conversation or in a letter, officers used to say: “I have the honor to introduce myself,” “I have the honor to leave”, etc. That is, the phrase had the exact opposite meaning: a person had the honor of being introduced to another, had the honor of meeting one or another person ... that is, for him, the author of these words, it was an honor to meet or say goodbye to another. And now, for some reason, they decided at the end of the letter to put the completely wild phrase “I have honor” ...

      Nobody actually asked about his honor. Well, you have it, so have it to your health, why should you flaunt it? Who knows what? And most importantly: if a person has honor, then its presence must be demonstrated by deed, and not by boasting about its presence. Moreover, the words “I have an honor” should be appreciated more by others, and not by myself.

      I have a cottage, your ...
      (taken on the Internet)
      1. Turkir
        Turkir 1 December 2015 13: 06 New
        0
        Nobody actually asked about his honor. Well, you have it, so have it to your health, why should you flaunt it?

        You're right. I completely agree. I have the honor to introduce this formal appeal to the senior in rank, according to the charter of that time.
        And just writing like that, showing belonging to a military specialty is ridiculous, especially in the comments, just to raise the "weight" of your own, not always true opinion.
      2. Captain nemo
        Captain nemo 1 December 2015 19: 17 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For some reason now the words "I have the honor!" perceived by the writer in the sense that he personally has the honor.

        I am more likely to be laughed at by those who report "I have the honor." Igor Tenyukh also liked to throw such a phrase, but it was dishonorable when he was asked a question from the commander, it seems, from Kerch, what should he do if 80% of the personnel are not with him. To which "having honor" Tenyukh shamed him called him a whiner.
        This canoe most likely trampled on everything from the same propaganda about the "great honor and dignity of the officer" with the film of the same name, "I Have Honor." Whom all around and always betrayed, and only he alone did not betray anyone.
        For me, it’s so very good about the honor of a soldier and not only an officer was shown in the story “The Eagle Landed,” I don’t remember the author, it seems an Englishman.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Valenok
        Valenok 1 December 2015 20: 58 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I have a cottage, your ...

        There is a deliberate glossing over, erosion of the original meaning of the word.

        Honor is an ancient image, meaning the connection of a person with his intangible nature, with his ancestors. A force based on this connection, which a person can use if necessary to protect himself and his family from any unrighteous attacks.

        Officer (worn-out) "I have the honor!" - has the meaning. This is a kind of proposal to clarify the truth in a duel, where the one behind whom the truth wins.
        “This is a great honor for me” - it doesn’t make sense anymore.
        Having a summer cottage is good, everyone can see it, but to see if another person has the honor, in practice it means to see and understand the last in your life.
        Although, I also do not like it when such words are spoiled for nothing.
  9. Taoist
    Taoist 1 December 2015 12: 15 New
    +4
    Here I don’t see what “breaking spears” is about. Turks have always been a skillful, courageous and strong enough opponent. When I was in my service, no one doubted that the Turkish Air Force and Navy should be taken seriously even without regard to their membership in NATO.
    Here already some hotheads suggested arranging an otvetka in the form of a raid on Turkish air bases. As a rule, these are our "sofa woen". If we take it seriously, today we have a stalemate militarily. Our VKS will not be able to create sufficient local superiority to complete such a task without serious losses and the use of strategic missiles. Turks, too, cannot strike at our sites with air defense systems. (they do not have long-range missiles). So it’s likely that what is being done is being done close to optimum.
    With regards to the Incirlik base - the very filthy there - the nuclear weapons storage facility, and we do not know for sure whether the Turks can use it without permission if something happens. Theoretically, there is such an opportunity. I hope everyone understands that at least one warhead should explode then the further situation can be completely unpredictable up to the global "fur animal"
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 December 2015 17: 38 New
      -1
      In the north they still can. The strike of the BRDS or OTRK in the south is quite an option ... why not? According to Pakistan, they beat them in Afghanistan, the Turks are the same, otherwise if they didn’t get a response, they won’t reach them. After the “test of strength”, the Su-24 left for the first patrol of the Syrian border only a few days later, and there were 18 F-16s in the patrol. The fact that he shot down was eight. Typical such "Turkish" behavior.

      After that, NATO “wants to do it in Turkey” wants to start a nuclear apocalypse - let it start ...
      Here's how you stop them if they just want to start it? Or if the Turkish Air Force continues this practice, what ship will sink, the cruiser "Moscow", just their army will invade Syria and go to our base?

      In general, such countries as they have now become from disarmament and its means of delivery should be taken together to disarm, especially if there is something without permission. Most likely, if they try to unauthorized access to them, they will be neutralized by self-disruption, if the Americans are certainly not completely stupid.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 1 December 2015 18: 26 New
        0
        Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that if a Turkish combat aircraft violates Syrian airspace and is shot down with the help of a Russian air defense system, Ankara will regard this as aggression "
        - Did he mean the aggression of Turkey against Syria?

        This is a log with eyes for a long time does not see the edges ... Most of his "electorate" is the same.
  10. Old_Python
    Old_Python 1 December 2015 12: 16 New
    +4
    If in the article about the enemy and his technique one can hear a quivering erotic aspiration ("legendary air base", "hurricane traction", etc.), then it is immediately clear who the author is.
    Turk, of course, is a fierce enemy. "He stood like on a horseshoe - don’t scare, he won’t run." And respect the enemy, of course, correctly.
    But why lick something?
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 1 December 2015 13: 19 New
      +3
      Interestingly, despite all today's angry condemnations, Israel was the second most important arms supplier to the Erdogan regime.
      An interesting article on the topic of how Israel armed Turkey and in general about their friendship.
      By the way, Israel also modernized Turkey's F-5.
      You can't sit on two chairs
      http://www.waronline.org/analysis/no-seat-on-2-chears/
  11. partizan86
    partizan86 1 December 2015 13: 13 New
    0
    They say they stopped our ships passing through the strait. I hope they already have "clubs".
  12. Oznob
    Oznob 1 December 2015 13: 50 New
    +3
    Oh, times. To have time before the fierce swagger to close the mortgage o_O
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 1 December 2015 16: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: Oznob
      Oh, times. To have time before the fierce swagger to close the mortgage o_O

      Have time ... If that captured Turks will build a new house! bully
  13. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 1 December 2015 15: 27 New
    0
    All these 300 aircraft are well located for their elimination! The question is: well, who will wait for them to rise in the air and why, if they can be bombed all at the airport! There will be enough cruise missiles in full! Turkish pilots will sleep at home in their cradles when they die out.
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 December 2015 15: 53 New
    +4
    The types and quantities of combat aircraft are listed. All are 4+ generation upgraded.
    A lot of good planes.

    Like a quality air force?

    And the author’s sudden conclusion: it’s no good. Because the Turks are Byak ... belay
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 1 December 2015 16: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The types and quantities of combat aircraft are listed. All are 4+ generation upgraded.
      A lot of good planes.

      Like a quality air force?

      And the author’s sudden conclusion: it’s no good. Because the Turks are Byak ... belay

      Glory to the Israeli Air Force ...)))
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 1 December 2015 17: 22 New
        -2
        It's buulshit. Bombing...
        But this guy - Giora Epstein, pilot Mirage - 17 shot down
        fighter jets in aerial combat. Undisclosed world record
        by the way.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 1 December 2015 18: 39 New
          +3
          Again you are old, are you trying to surpass all of Pepeliaev with his real 22?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 2 December 2015 11: 26 New
            0
            May be. Pepelyaev, of course, an outstanding ace.

            Epstein, who almost always fired a cannon
            rear-top cockpit cap, victories confirmed
            photo machine gun. You can see how the cabs fly apart.

            As for quantity - as always, disputes ...
            "Pepelyaev himself in a conversation with historians of the air war in Korea, Yuri
            Tepsurkaev and Leonid Krylov said about his air victories
            The following: “At twelve I am sure. This is definitely 100%.
            If you pull it, then maybe fifteen ""
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 2 December 2015 17: 24 New
              +1
              In fact, your 12th convinced - again, everything is upside down. After WWII, no one was aiming the cockpit cap, if it was not MH17, or the Korean Il-12.
  15. tiheros
    tiheros 1 December 2015 16: 46 New
    +1
    Why is there not a word about the pilots. In the last 5 years, more than 100 most experienced pilots were introduced from the Turkish Air Force, in protest against the repression of the general staff.
  16. okroshka79
    okroshka79 1 December 2015 16: 55 New
    +4
    Dear Oleg Kaptsov! I do not want to engage in polemics with you. Nothing to it. We just turn to the Explanatory Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, from which the expression "I have the honor" means "all the best, see you, goodbye, see you soon, goodbye, goodbye." And just. Those. I personally wished you what is in the meaning of this expression. That is, this has nothing to do with the officers, although for some reason we were led to reckon with this. And as for affairs, for your information I “delayed” my affairs in the form of 39 years of active military service (including in preferential terms) in the Navy, and I know it by no means from Wikipedia and Internet pages. Now on a well-deserved rest. I give you the floor of the naval officer that from now on I will never comment on your articles anymore. I don’t see the point. Let life teach you. Although your desire to delve into material related to the Navy causes sympathy and respect. Well, many others here have repeatedly drawn your attention to the rest. I have the honor!
    1. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 1 December 2015 19: 27 New
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      We just turn to the Explanatory Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, from which the expression "I have the honor" means "all the best, see you, goodbye, see you soon, goodbye, goodbye."

      This is the opinion of Ozhigov, which is in no way connected with the word honesty. And therefore, he perverted this concept in his “explanatory dictionary”, interpreting this phrase as he understood it, which is not always correct if the answer to the root word is not given.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 1 December 2015 19: 39 New
    +2
    Quote: Captain Nemo

    And why don’t you get involved, or do you think that a NATO member country has the right to believe that it has the right to alien Syrian territories because Turkmens live there, and they are their "brothers"?
    In this case, both Yugoslavia in 1999 and the USSR in 1941 had to immediately surrender to the enemy, because the attackers in both cases were clearly stronger than those who did not attack.


    Sorry, maybe I didn’t clearly express my thought. In a hurry.

    The fact is that the initial conditions stated in the article are not quite correct.

    These are:
    - In Turkey, there is a US missile defense radar.
    - Ships with missiles intercepted by the US missile defense are pulled up to it
    - In Turkey there are Patriot PAC-3 - one of the most advanced ground-based air defense systems in general, not inferior to our S-400, but since there are several such systems, they create a denser air defense field.
    - our S-400 from Latakia does not see the lower zone of Turkey at all due to the terrain and it is useless to us in operations on the border.

    Thus, the forces of NATO and Turkey created an integrated layered air defense / missile defense system. Russia does not even have such a thing over Moscow.

    This system can more than successfully destroy all types of carriers that we have (including all of our cruise and ballistic missiles). The only way to crack it is a long and very massive attack in the hope that one of several dozen carriers will break through the defense. This is already a full-fledged war with a NATO member country with enormous costs and losses on our part, even if NATO does not strike us. To get involved in it in isolation from our supply bases because of one aircraft is complete madness. Avenging one obsolete airplane plane to destroy dozens of its newest?

    Trying to break through or suppress this air defense system by 4th-generation airplanes no matter how many advantages they add to them is pure suicide.

    We have practically no air defense systems on the border with Turkey.

    All this in itself gives Turkey a strategic advantage.

    In addition, if you look at what kind of modernization the F-16 went through and see pictures from their press, it is obvious that they:
    1. equipped with radars not inferior to the radars of our most modern fighter jets.
    2. They have more long-range weapons in service than any of our aircraft. At a minimum, they have an AIM-120C-7 with a range of 120 km. They can also use AIM-120D with a range of 180 km. (The United States did not test them with the F-16, this happened in NATO and the Middle East monarchies), although these missiles are not in service with Turkey (although there are photos), but NATO can put them without problems. On our best airplanes, we can only oppose this with modifications of the R-27 rocket, the best of which have a range of 90 km. In addition, our missiles are still inferior in a number of not so obvious parameters. There is no other in service.

    So if they are not substituted, they can shoot down our most modern aircraft without letting them reach the distance from which they can use their weapons against these F-16s in response.

    Those. with competent tactics, to destroy us almost with a dry score and without great risk.
    Ammunition will help them with NATO. Do not even hesitate.
    And that’s how I just sketched out the reality in much more complicated ways.

    Thus, we do not have the technical ability to give a military response to Turkey near its territory without heavy losses.

    In this case, do not run on a machine gun. And it will turn out 41 years.
    It is better to act more cunningly to get into 1945 without going through the defeats of 1941.

    I’m afraid that NATO is just waiting for us to launch a bayonet attack on their machine guns. They all prepared ...

    Should they give them such pleasure?
    1. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 1 December 2015 20: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Abrekkos
      Ammunition will help them with NATO. Don't even doubt it

      But then, what about the NATO super-duper bloc, during the conflict between Argentina and the country, NATO did not supply England with a NATO member, but sold ammunition to it?
      And neither England was the attacking side, but Argentina. And no one's planes and ships, except England at the Falklands were not.
      Well, let’s leave the Falklands of the South Atlantic affiliation far removed from the North Atlantic. But all the same, as far as I know, NATO enters the game only from the attacker, but not as an ally of the aggressor country, which claims the lands of Syrian Turkmen. In fact, the fact of aggression with the SU-24 Turkey is complete, the SU-24 crashed in Syria, the falling plane described a steep trajectory. NATO said that Turkey is not to blame for anything, and in your opinion it turns out that we need to surrender immediately, because they are stronger than us, and they do not deserve to be destroyed like "winners are not judged."
      While of course there is a verbal skirmish between us and NATO, but in this situation I would prefer the situation “Save Private Rain” when dozens of soldiers and officers die for the sake of “evacuating” from the front of a single soldier, but the same side also died in the Wehrmacht dozens. And here, in addition to the "evacuation", we are talking about who is better and more will kill another.
      1. mvg
        mvg 1 December 2015 21: 18 New
        +1
        And then what was the NATO super-duper bloc, during the conflict between Argentina and the country, NATO did not supply England with a NATO member, but sold ammunition to it

        Read more about the Falklands. Who, what and when. Why France didn’t deliver the promised ones (and purchased Etendars and Exocetes), why America didn’t help explicitly, etc. At the same time, the NATO zone of operations (Latin America is not included in it). You will answer many of your questions yourself.
        And Abrikoss painted everything correctly. Not patriotic, but real. And so he still softened a lot.
        1. Abrekkos
          Abrekkos 1 December 2015 21: 33 New
          +1
          Well, I’m no longer a patriot.
          20+ years of work to strengthen the defense capabilities of the motherland no longer count.
          For a long time it was necessary to give it all up. And it would be more whole and richer. But something is still impossible. He left but returned.

          Thank you very kindly.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 1 December 2015 20: 18 New
    -1
    Upon mature reflection, I came to the conclusion that so many discussions arose because of an incomplete understanding of the thoughts of the author of the article.

    This and I suffered somewhat.

    In my opinion, the author writes mainly on the balance of forces between the Armed Forces of Russia and Turkey outside the military context of the current conflict.
    So to speak, in a one-on-one battle.

    In this sense, the author can basically agree.
    And such a consideration makes some sense.

    At least it makes no sense to compare our potential with the potential of NATO. The fool understands that NATO is stronger.

    But when considering the current situation in Syria, in which, in fact, in any case, we will encounter some part of NATO’s potential (in terms of air defense and the supply of advanced weapons), everything looks almost the opposite.

    Hence the directly opposite judgments.

    If the author had a clearer idea of ​​what he was comparing with what would have been mine, many would have agreed or at least would not have denied the article but supplemented it.

    Although the article would have turned out not so topical, but more correct with the same actual content.

    This is my opinion formed, although I also did not agree with the author. I do not pretend to absolute truth.

    In a word guys. Let's live in peace. Respect and respect to the author.

    Let’s better to finish off the Turk together than to go doggy! drinks
  20. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 1 December 2015 20: 47 New
    0
    Quote: mvg
    How many were the 29th in Yugoslavia? Let me tell you .. 12 pcs, including sparks. 8 + 4. It's a lot? Against 1100 adversary aircraft? AWACS and air defense?


    Not 12, but at the time the bombing began, it was about three times as many. Even after the end of the company there are more than 12 of them left.

    And no one 1100 fighters threw into the sky of Yugoslavia. 10-20 NATO fighters worked. If you can imagine what a combat use is, then you know that it is simply impossible and pointless.

    All Migi were suppressed for 3-4 days. Although, in fact, in the first 2 days further, the cover flights stopped, everything became clear. separate hunt for luck. All from a long distance at which they simply could not use their weapons.
    So if they had MiGs of at least 1200, Su-27 as much as this, it would not have helped them even if they had only 120 NATO aircraft against them.
    They were not going to “fight by the rules” and get involved in maneuverable battles. They destroyed MiGs from a safe distance.

    Sorry, but I saw it all with my own eyes and not on TV. So you can not convince me.

    And so, regarding NATO forces, I do not agree with your remark a lot. But the essence of my comment was not in number but in usefulness and helplessness.

    By the way, remind me how many of these at least 12 at least 40 MiGs shot down NATO fighters?
    1. mvg
      mvg 1 December 2015 21: 39 New
      0
      I just rummaged in the magazine .. But I have only for November. In September, I studied these two conflicts. 95 and 99 years.
      Let me give you the numbers that I remember, but with the memory of the numbers I have good, and I will make some links. I’ll find that article, I’ll also throw it in PM. She is big.

      Like that. The south had fighter jets: 1 squadron of incomplete MiG-29 and 3 squadrons of MiG-21. Those. what I wrote to you (12 summer ready-made boards). All MiG-29 of the first modifications.
      http://voina-i-mir.ru/article/822
      At NATO, 1086 aircraft participated in the operation (I rounded to 1100)

      //
      In March 1999, in violation of the UN Charter, NATO launched a “humanitarian intervention” against Yugoslavia. In the operation "Allied Force", 460 combat aircraft were used at the first stage; by the end of the operation, the figure increased by more than 2,5 times. The size of the NATO ground group was increased to 10 thousand people with heavy armored vehicles and operational-tactical missiles in service. Within a month from the start of the operation, the NATO naval group was increased to 50 ships equipped with sea-based cruise missiles and 100 carrier-based aircraft, and then increased by several times (for carrier-based aircraft - 4 times). In total, 927 aircraft and 55 ships (4 aircraft carriers) participated in the NATO operation. NATO troops were served by a powerful grouping of space assets.
      By the beginning of the NATO aggression, the Yugoslav ground forces totaled 90 thousand people and about 16 thousand police and security forces.

      The Yugoslav army had up to 200 combat aircraft, about 150 air defense systems with limited combat capabilities.

      Here is another source, some other data, but close to mine. Not at all to yours. 20-30 NATO aircraft and 40 MiGs ..
      http://bibliotekar.ru/encW/100/97.htm

      It is clear that raising 1000 aircraft into the air is no good. Yugoslavia within its current borders is a small country. And, after 1500 axes, goals became even less.
      Then they hunted for air defense and armored vehicles. Free hunting.
      Air battles. They must be considered separately. What yugs give and what NATO recognizes.
      Really plane 3-4 times. The results are controversial. The MiG-29 has no victories.
      PS: I really, after Ivashov’s article, became interested in this conflict and read a bunch of materials. I don’t know what witness you were, but I’m ready to discuss it on any topic of this conflict.
      How is it in our branch today wink I have the honor ...

      http://artofwar.ru/r/rassypuha/text_0450-1.shtml
      exactly the numbers that I called !!!

      In 1999, the aircraft fleet was represented by various combat aircraft (238 units) and helicopters (56 units) of both national and foreign production: 14 combat MiG-29 and 2 training MiG-29, 82 MiG-21, 60 "Galeb" , 25 "Super Galeb", 48 "Orao-2", Mi-8, Ka-28 and other types. Yugoslav combat aircraft are armed with R-3R, R-27R, R-73, R-60MK, 9M32M air-to-air missiles of Soviet production, as well as various types of air-to-air missiles and aircraft bombs made in the USA and France.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 1 December 2015 21: 47 New
        0
        The MiG-29 also had radars that worked only 40km. Nevertheless, they still managed to knock down even with such.
        Most of all, the democrats in the Russian Federation were afraid that in response to these bombings of 1999 they would drop their entire aircraft at once in a one-way raid on one of the major European capitals. wassat
        1. Abrekkos
          Abrekkos 1 December 2015 22: 22 New
          0
          Well, then you know better ...
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 1 December 2015 22: 46 New
            0
            To me - yes, of course ...
            1. Abrekkos
              Abrekkos 1 December 2015 23: 38 New
              0
              Yes, I don’t argue with you at all. You know better ...
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 1 December 2015 23: 55 New
                0
                More audible ...
                1. Abrekkos
                  Abrekkos 2 December 2015 00: 12 New
                  0
                  Well, I don’t know that myself.
                  But since you know better what you hear, then arguing is stupid.
                  Elementary logic suggests that everything is audible ... what
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 2 December 2015 01: 30 New
                    0
                    Know so do not write. Heard what is heard ...
      2. Abrekkos
        Abrekkos 1 December 2015 22: 16 New
        +1
        Naturally, I did not fly there in the sky.

        What axes are you talking about?

        All MiGs were pressed to the ground in the first 3 days of the operation. Of those that flew back half. Shot by NATO fighters with long-range air-to-air missiles. NATO did not know about many losses.

        This was clear and discussed in advance. What such attempts is to go on a machine gun with a shovel.

        Only here are the same "patriots" as some here we shouted the coolest. And they lied to political leadership, it all started with basic victims.

        When the forecast came true, another day they froze and deliberated. Already throats tore the morons explained this. And then they did not dare to give a stop order to aviation. Also considered all kilometers, tons, etc. <here the word is not good>! It was just a crime. Again raised and again raked. Then they gave a stop order. Fought two days for 2 hours in the interval one thought. Here you have the whole war!
        There were no more than 10 NATO fighters in the sky during these 2 hours. Specially selected moments.

        The main tomahawks flew afterwards. When there was no one to hunt. Everyone was at the airfields.

        NATO airfields bombed only after sorties and did not touch. Like do not fly you will be safe. And the legend that they supposedly took everyone on earth later came up with an image for washing. Do not tell the truth.

        Then there was one task - to bring down the invisibility.

        Zadolbalo already is a lie on the Internet to read. Do not read this nonsense in the form of the memories of those who watched it on television. It was not so.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 1 December 2015 22: 52 New
          0
          And what is not in the first 3 hours? And the Serbs, of course, did not attack the airfield and the heliport ... In Aviano and other places was the "fiesta" at these 2 hours?

          Further explain to everyone about your "invisibility".
          1. Abrekkos
            Abrekkos 2 December 2015 00: 47 New
            0
            Well, I know the first week. Then another 10 days. I heard the rest from my comrades.

            Was Aviano bombed? What are you talking about!
            So they took and bombed with 29? The main base of NATO? Well then!
            Yes, there were about 100 NATO planes there!
            Why didn’t they get into one?
            And of course, those were not there at that time. They bombed Yugoslavia.

            And why not a single soldier was killed there?
            Well, at least they bombed the dog?
            Well, the dog is for sure ... That's a fact.

            So I therefore missed all the fun. That’s a pity then ... And after all, no one told me. Here comrades are the same to me. Just a stranger enlightened.

            Have you seen the bombing of Aviano on Yugoslav TV?
            Or yourself, something smoked or sniffed?
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 2 December 2015 01: 55 New
              0
              Have you heard about Aviano from your comrades? This is not a city, not a tavern, and not a hotel, if that ... Yes, they bombed the B-29s. Unlike some two, I do not abuse it here.
  21. mvg
    mvg 1 December 2015 20: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: oldav
    Tourists are only 3-5 billion, they will not transfer everything from trade with Russia $ 16-17 billion, plus a few yards from lost profits from the closure of the Turkish stream. In the case of direct aggression, gas is shut off and they freeze. Speaking of tourists; knowing pedantic Germans, I strongly doubt that they will go to such a restless region, where Yiddish terrorists rest in hotels in addition to tourists.

    Yes, you sho? where are there 16-17 lard? They wrote about the deficit on our part, and the figures were 2.6 lard and 9 lard ... The fact that the Russians did not go to Turkey in the winter would certainly hit the production of 209/214, F-16, and the Altai national tank. And the production of wings for the F-35 completely freezes.
    You will not tell which countries do not give a damn about Turkey in solidarity with our sanctions? Iran will not supply gas or oil? Will Azerbaijan refuse them? Or China with Kazakhstan? I hasten to disappoint, they sent Russia in this version. Both China and Armenia, and Kazakhstan .. concluded an agreement on the supply of Chinese goods to Europe bypassing Russia.
    Even our bulbash uncle Lukash, on occasion, shit in the well.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. stan200000
    stan200000 1 December 2015 20: 59 New
    +2
    What is the point of discussing the Turkish Air Force if, in a serious conflict, the whole Nata will harness for them. Only a serious answer from our side, non-contact.
  24. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 1 December 2015 21: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: Captain Nemo
    In fact, the fact of aggression with the SU-24 Turkey is complete, the SU-24 crashed in Syria, the falling plane described a steep trajectory. NATO said that Turkey is not to blame for anything, and in your opinion it turns out that we need to surrender immediately, because they are stronger than us, and they do not deserve to be destroyed like "winners are not judged."
    I would prefer the “Save Private Raina” situation when dozens of soldiers and officers die for the sake of “evacuation” from the front of a single soldier, but stand still in the Wehrmacht dozens also died.


    Well, you basically said everything yourself. There is nothing special to add.

    NATO believes Turkey is right. They prepared the evidence in a week. Double standards have not yet been canceled.

    In fact, they strengthen the Turkish air defense after the incident. New cool systems have appeared on the air in addition to the Patriot, which, as it were, are not there, and which Turkey itself has nowhere to take from.

    Saving a pilot and retaliating against a NATO country are two different things.

    And the pilot is saved not out of humanism or nobility, but so that all pilots calmly, confidently and decisively fulfill their duty. Firmly knowing that if they don’t leave them, they will help out at all costs. Pilots adults with wives, children, loans ...
    What does the confrontation of the Air Force have to do with it? The pilot did not fly on the wings on the sky; he was already on the ground.

    I didn’t speak about a rescue operation, but about a military response in Turkey and our capabilities.

    He didn’t offer to give up, but simply explained his vision of the balance of power.

    And he urged us not to give the enemy pleasure to watch how our planes, pilots senselessly perish and how our prestige collapses due to noble but reckless actions.

    If they got on the rampage, then we would dare to assure you that we would have to give up for real and in disgrace under escort leave Syria altogether.
    And still get tough sanctions, a dollar of 3000 rubles, etc. The confiscation of our foreign exchange reserves that still lie in their banks. And other delights.

    as shown by the actions of the country's leadership, there are no people who want to give Russia a penny.

    It is better to prepare and give an answer when you are ready for this as you feel comfortable and where you feel comfortable. And not vice versa.

    Such is my humble opinion.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 December 2015 21: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Abrekkos
      If they got on the rampage, then we would dare to assure you that we would have to give ourselves up and, with shame, leave Syria altogether under escort.

      That from the north of Turkey (non-nuclear weapons) there would be nothing left, and in the south there could be something left ... bully
      1. Abrekkos
        Abrekkos 1 December 2015 21: 42 New
        +1
        I don’t even know what to say.
        I can only say for missiles and planes. I’m not immersed in another.

        If you happen wall to wall, maybe you're right.
        But what it would turn out for us is not clear.

        And already wrote. I am for a trip to the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles and Istanbul, in the course of course, I need to return the historical name of Constantinople.
        Here are some things you need to finish before inside.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 1 December 2015 21: 54 New
          0
          Almost all of this, if necessary, will fly there on missiles and on airplanes.
          1. Abrekkos
            Abrekkos 1 December 2015 23: 42 New
            0
            Thanks for the praise.
            I know that flatter but still nice. wink
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 1 December 2015 23: 53 New
              0
              Will it really go on oars?
              1. Abrekkos
                Abrekkos 2 December 2015 00: 15 New
                0
                Well, to "fasten your shield on the gates of Constantinople it is possible and on the oars."
                There is a historical precedent.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 December 2015 21: 29 New
      0
      As Lavrov said, "For Turkey, too many questions have already accumulated over the past few years as to a country supporting terrorism, even without reference to this Su-24 episode." ...
  25. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 2 December 2015 10: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Know so do not write. Heard what is heard ...


    If I knew that you were so angry, I would not agree with you at all.

    Now it’s all clear to me that it is both more visible and more audible and more sniffing and more sensitive and that it’s important to taste better and through this everything is even more equal for you ...
    By induction, I have now proved this for sure. No doubt no more! Just knowing two statements is not enough for this method. You would immediately give the required amount of information; I would not bother you with trifles. I understand that rotten otmaz, but I write as it is. With all my heart, so to speak.

    I'm not from evil. I apologize if I offended with anything. repeat Seriously.
  26. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 2 December 2015 15: 43 New
    0
    Quote: THE_SEAL
    We do not mess with the Turks, because Turkey is a NATO member.


    I agree. That's what I'm talking about.

    Quote: THE_SEAL
    And take the trouble to explain: how Turkey will bring down a dozen of our aircraft and triple the no-fly zone over Syria.


    Already bothered to read my other posts here.

    Good luck. drinks
  27. CSI
    CSI 2 December 2015 16: 57 New
    +1
    Interesting info ...
  28. k_ply
    k_ply 2 December 2015 18: 30 New
    +1
    F-16C and F-16D “Fighting Falken” (175 and 57 units of each modification)

    By certain 241 F-16C / D and 69 F-4E and RF-4E (World Air Forces 2015).
    We remember the "general NATO" squadron of 17 E-3A AWACS.
    1. k_ply
      k_ply 2 December 2015 18: 51 New
      0
      The British and French have their AWACS, 6 E-3D and 4 E-3F, respectively.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  29. k_ply
    k_ply 2 December 2015 20: 39 New
    +1
    Quote: EvilLion
    Even the MiG-27 surpasses the F-16 itself as an impact machine ...

    Patriotism patriotism, but the combat load in 4t. MiG-27 and 7,7t. at F-16 ...
  30. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 2 December 2015 22: 04 New
    0
    Quote: k_ply
    Quote: EvilLion
    Even the MiG-27 surpasses the F-16 itself as an impact machine ...

    Patriotism patriotism, but the combat load in 4t. MiG-27 and 7,7t. at F-16 ...

    Then indicate their exact names, since you are comparing (that our MiG has, that the F-16 has a sea of ​​different versions, upgraded to some limits).
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. k_ply
      k_ply 2 December 2015 23: 04 New
      +1
      Having trouble finding yourself? were "K" and "C" block 50, respectively, is something cleared up? It was not worthwhile to hope for a significant difference between the modifications (basic, extreme), the gap is noticeable.
      Trepachki above even believe that the MiG-27 is still in service.
  31. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 11 December 2015 20: 40 New
    0
    The article is very good, although certainly not without some flaws.
    A brief summary with the addition of a "couple of kopecks" (and distracting from the technical features):

    1). Turkish behavior requires otvetku. But not direct (weapons to the Kurds - right up to the tanks, they will also appear by chance, they will also buy them on the Diarbakır market). The main problem is that Osmania is a member of NATO. And when Turkey opposes Russia in alliance with some European countries - the result is always sad = Crimean War, and the First World War. When Russia and Turkey are one-on-one - we win.

    2). The Russian air force is not ready to conduct a serious offensive military company away from its main bases in the territory of the Russian Federation.

    3). Especially my opinion, but in principle based on existing facts: Turkey is now superior to Russia in organizing the Air Force and in the average quality ratio of pilots even taking into account our increased skill in recent years and a decrease in the combat capability of the Turks due to the fundamental dismissal of many “flyers” over the same period of the last few years.

    The bottom line: we do not need a war with Turkey. We will not be able to win it, and to competently occupy land territories at least partially, too; and playing muscles will cost us several hundred planes, most likely with less losses from the Ottomans ... About the fact that war will mean a complete razorselenie Russian economy, and although Turkey will suffer, it will probably come out a little with the best state of the national economy.