Military Review

F-16 has no chance in front of Russian Su-35С

149
F-16 has no chance in front of Russian Su-35СRussia sent to Syria its most advanced fighter aircraft currently in service: the super-maneuverable Su-35С, belonging to the 4 ++ generation. The Russian air group is still seriously inferior in number to the nearby Turkish forces, but its composition allows it to successfully act against both provocations and more serious clashes.


The representative of the Defense Ministry, Major General Igor Konashenkov, confirmed on Monday that the super-maneuverable Su-35C fighters had begun to perform combat missions in Syria.

“Since last week, super-maneuverable Su-35С fighters have begun to perform combat missions at the Khmeimim airbase,” said Konashenkov.
He recalled that, recently, all Russian aircraft perform tasks in the Syrian sky with mandatory cover for Russian and Syrian fighters, as well as modern air defense systems, including the C-400 complex.

Previously, it was unofficially reported that four Su-35S were sent to Syria. They initially became part of the 23rd Fighter Aviation Regiment of the 303rd Guards Mixed aviation divisions of the 11th Army of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Eastern Military District (Dzemgi airfield), and then were transferred to Astrakhan (Volga airfield). However, a few days ago, the Su-35C flew from Astrakhan and through the Caspian Sea, as well as the airspace of Iran and Iraq, reached Syrian Latakia.

Su-35 (according to the NATO codification of the Flanker-T +) - the Russian jet ultra-maneuverable multipurpose fighter of the 4 ++ generation, developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau, is a deep modernization of the T-10C platform.
The 4 ++ generation, to which the Su-35 belongs, is conditional and only indicates that, due to the combination of characteristics, the Su-35 comes close to the fifth-generation fighter, since, with the exception of stealth technology and AFAR, it satisfies most of the requirements for fifth generation aircraft.

In 2009, Sukhoi entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Defense for the supply of 48 Su-35С until the end of 2015. In December, the second contract was signed - for the supply of 50 aircraft up to 2020.

According to experts, Su-35С has no equal in maneuverability among all other modern fighters in the world.



“This machine is able to maneuver at the so-called supercritical angles of attack. The aircraft has a lot of technical “bells and whistles”: a new avionics complex, a new radar station with a phased antenna array, as well as thrust vector-controlled engines, said military observer Viktor Baranets to RIA “News". - Su-35С can perform in the sky what no other machine in the world can do anymore: in the horizontal plane, without reducing speed, perform the “pancake” figure, which dramatically increases combat abilities. This machine surpasses all airplanes of the same class in flight speed - 2400 kilometers per hour. ”

Now the composition of the mixed air group VKS of Russia at Hmeimim airbase exceeds 70 airplanes and helicopters. It includes Su-27CM, Su-30СМ, Su-34, Su-24СМ and Su-25СМ airplanes, as well as Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters. By the time the Turks shot down the Russian Su-24, and the militants under their control shot the ejected Russian officer Oleg Anatolyevich Peshkov, Russia had only four Su-27CM fighters in Syria - the command did not assume that the assault and bombing aircraft would have to be covered. Since then, the number of fighters began to increase (the exact number of the military is not called), in addition, air defense systems were deployed on warships.

Turkey has around a hundred fighter jets in the border areas with Syria, mostly F-16. After hitting the Russian 18 aircraft, the Turkish F-16 fighters conducted a major operation to patrol the Turkish-Syrian border. Turkey has over 200 fighters of various modifications. On the one hand, it is more than the forces that Russia possesses in the region, but Turkey is not in a state of war with Moscow, so there is no reason to talk about large-scale clashes. “I don’t think that the Turks will engage in direct air clashes with ours,” said Vladimir Anokhin, Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, told VZGLYAD newspaper.
According to him, the fighters, which are now in Syria, are enough to protect the attack aircraft and bombers from provocations: “I think that the Turks, for all their dastardly inclinations, will not accept this. They have already suffered multibillion-dollar losses from our sanctions. ”

“A group of fighters covers entire areas. Do not necessarily go to the wing of the bomber. Fighter can be in the waiting area and control a huge space and at the slightest danger to advance. We have created a multi-layer air defense, ”said the expert.

He noted that the Turkish F-16 during combat contact has no chance against the Su-35C "neither in range, nor in speed, nor in armament, nor in training pilots."
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/society/2016/2/1/791656.html
149 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 3 February 2016 15: 29
    +7
    Does anyone have doubts about this?
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 3 February 2016 15: 32
      88
      Quote: Arctidian
      Does anyone have doubts about this?

      There is. Bravura statements like “I don’t think the Turks will engage in direct air clashes with ours” do not convince. Fuck knows what to expect from these bashi-bazouks. Erdoganische filthy, it seems, completely flew off the coils.
      1. jjj
        jjj 3 February 2016 15: 37
        21
        And proud Turkish pilots, too, in all seriousness can believe that they are the sovereign of the sky. Until they begin to bring down
        1. cniza
          cniza 3 February 2016 15: 40
          14
          I would not want it to come to that, but if they don’t understand then ...
          1. gg.na
            gg.na 3 February 2016 16: 26
            +2
            Quote: cniza
            but if they don’t understand then ...

            That's it good THAT ... !!! am The whole Turkish family pi ..... repeat oh ... in short, a piece of "pie" will be raked winked Here!
        2. PHANTOM-AS
          PHANTOM-AS 3 February 2016 15: 54
          10
          Quote: [b
          Author [/ b]] In 2009, the Sukhoi company entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Defense for the supply of 48 Su-35Ss by the end of 2015. In December, a second contract was signed - for the supply of 50 aircraft until 2020.

          There is a question whether the first contract is fully implemented?
          And second, how are things going on import substitution on the Su-35S. a year ago, it was not very.

          “Something Sukhoi buys abroad itself, while it buys something from Russian suppliers as Russian products. But it’s important to understand the extent to which these suppliers themselves use foreign components. ”

          - the expert noted.

          At the same time, he is confident that debugging the aircraft's production chain will take "not a month or a year." “This is a long-term process, and just like that, at the behest of the minister, you cannot change everything at once. Again, you need to understand at whose expense all this will be done, "Panteleev explained."
          source: http: //www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/05_a_6400845.shtml
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 February 2016 16: 14
            15
            Quote: PHANTOM-AS
            There is a question whether the first contract is fully implemented?
            And second, how are things going on import substitution on the Su-35S. a year ago, it was not very.

            There is a third question - what are the Su-35S armed with?

            Because the same newest Su-30s of ours limited contingent in all photos are P-27. While the situation was not so threatening and it was possible to use IA as a factor of psychological pressure - it was still rolling. But in the current tense situation, I would like something more essential than the heirs of the Sparrow with their PARLGSN or IKGSN.
            1. KVIRTU
              KVIRTU 3 February 2016 16: 47
              12
              You correctly noticed: limited (strong).
              "There are four Su-30SM fighters deployed at the Russian airbase, as well as Su-27SM, and now four more Su-35S have been added to them."
              This is not even a regiment, than do not arm them, but the Turks have 240 F-16s ...
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 3 February 2016 16: 54
                12
                Quote: KVIRTU
                You correctly noticed: limited (strong).
                "There are four Su-30SM fighters deployed at the Russian airbase, as well as Su-27SM, and now four more Su-35S have been added to them."
                This is not even a regiment, than do not arm them, but the Turks have 240 F-16s ...

                If a big mess begins, it is unlikely that Krymsk and other air bases of southern Russia will remain passive observers. So to the 12 Sukhoi fighters in Syria, you can safely add the forces of the airborne forces, based in the South-Eastern Military District, and the Black Sea Fleet Air Force.
              2. Altona
                Altona 3 February 2016 19: 22
                +7
                Quote: KVIRTU
                This is not even a regiment, than do not arm them, but the Turks have 240 F-16s ...

                ---------------------
                Cover missiles with Diyarbakir and Incirlik, and also five more key airfields ...
              3. NEXUS
                NEXUS 3 February 2016 20: 34
                +1
                Quote: KVIRTU
                You correctly noticed: limited (strong).
                "There are four Su-30SM fighters deployed at the Russian airbase, as well as Su-27SM, and now four more Su-35S have been added to them."
                This is not even a regiment, than do not arm them, but the Turks have 240 F-16s ...

                Well, let's start with the fact that all this blooper in 240 F-16, if a mess starts, will be at gunpoint of Triumphs, Shells and Krasukh in addition to our fighter group. And also do not forget that the SU-34 is also capable of carrying missiles " air-to-air ", well, it is clear that the Crimean air grouping, as well as the Black Sea Fleet will not stand aside. So it is not so limited. hi
                1. Marconi41
                  Marconi41 4 February 2016 02: 29
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  And also do not forget that the SU-34 is also capable of carrying air-to-air missiles.

                  Of course it is, but to climb into the swarms of fighters, and even against the F-16, SU-34 should not be. And the SU-25 can also carry air-to-air missiles, but their effectiveness in aerial combat is very small.
              4. quote
                quote 3 February 2016 21: 01
                0
                Quote: KVIRTU
                You correctly noticed: limited (strong).
                "There are four Su-30SM fighters deployed at the Russian airbase, as well as Su-27SM, and now four more Su-35S have been added to them."
                This is not even a regiment, than do not arm them, but the Turks have 240 F-16s ...

                Change the diaper! The S-400 has not been canceled yet, and the "DROP" is sea-based. Well, the Turks are not immortals, after "ten", "sleepy hour". Well, the Turks are on the plane .......!
                And our only "give freedom" and divide 240 by 230!
                Do not forget about diapers, .....!
            2. KVIRTU
              KVIRTU 3 February 2016 16: 47
              0
              You correctly noticed: limited (strong).
              "There are four Su-30SM fighters deployed at the Russian airbase, as well as Su-27SM, and now four more Su-35S have been added to them."
              This is not even a regiment, than do not arm them, but the Turks have 240 F-16s ...
              1. musorg
                musorg 3 February 2016 18: 19
                +2
                Where did they get 240 units?
                1. Kasym
                  Kasym 3 February 2016 21: 21
                  +2
                  There, besides the Air Force, there are air defense systems: S-400, Syrian Buki and Armor - a complete set for creating an echelon air defense system: long, medium and small radius of action. To attack tour. The air force was successful, then you need a MASSED, SIMULTANEOUS BLOW. But I’m afraid that the Turks who break away from the aerodrome of the HSC of the Russian Federation will know about their intentions — how can such a mass of planes take off unnoticed? I'm afraid that even NATO airfields in the EU are under control, not like in Turkey! So the wing undercover. And if you recall what the GDP said, then it is better for them to stay away from the border with Syria.
          2. KnightRider
            KnightRider 3 February 2016 16: 20
            +2
            Quote: PHANTOM-AS
            There is a question whether the first contract is fully implemented?

            Almost two aircraft left to transfer
            Quote: PHANTOM-AS
            And second, how are things going on import substitution on the Su-35S. a year ago, it was not very.

            Do not know laughing
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 3 February 2016 16: 27
          +1
          They can believe it until they are on the ground and the brave Asad soldiers think I will also shoot at them
        5. NIKNN
          NIKNN 3 February 2016 18: 36
          +5
          He noted that the Turkish F-16 in combat contact has no chance against the Su-35S "neither in range, nor in speed, nor in armament, nor in training pilots"


          These are two different classes of fighters and it makes no sense to compare them, but although the Su35 is a heavy fighter, it is second to none in the close maneuverable battle and will not appear soon and its circle of tasks covers all tasks that can be assigned to either a fighter of any class or an attack aircraft. hi
          1. Alexey Lobanov
            Alexey Lobanov 3 February 2016 19: 35
            -2
            Quote: NIKNN
            These are two different classes of fighters and it makes no sense to compare them


            Moreover, the Americans from the 16th have already been making target aircraft since 2010 (QF-16), I don’t understand what comparison can be? Even if you omit avionics, you can’t hide the morally and physically obsolete glider behind it.
            1. Izotovp
              Izotovp 4 February 2016 00: 32
              +2
              It is possible and necessary to compare. In addition to the maximum speed, there are many other parameters in aerial combat: turn speed, climb speed, etc. .. In extreme modifications of the f-16, the car is far from helpless. And about the obsolete airframe, the laws of aerodynamics have not changed since its development, and even the MiG-21 in its modern modification is a very formidable opponent! hi
      2. poquello
        poquello 3 February 2016 15: 38
        0
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Quote: Arctidian
        Does anyone have doubts about this?

        There is. Bravura statements like “I don’t think the Turks will engage in direct air clashes with ours” do not convince. Fuck knows what to expect from these bashi-bazouks. Erdoganische filthy, it seems, completely flew off the coils.

        and where do you think the Turks will enter into direct air clashes?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 February 2016 16: 17
          +8
          Quote: poquello
          and where do you think the Turks will enter into direct air clashes?

          In the border area. Like the Pakistanis during the Afghan war.

          ICH, the USSR in those days was the leader of the military bloc and a superpower, much stronger than today's Russia. But this did not stop the packs.
          1. poquello
            poquello 3 February 2016 17: 08
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: poquello
            and where do you think the Turks will enter into direct air clashes?

            In the border area. Like the Pakistanis during the Afghan war.

            ICH, the USSR in those days was the leader of the military bloc and a superpower, much stronger than today's Russia. But this did not stop the packs.

            and the border area with the Turks is big, can they immediately start naughty in the Bosphorus?
            IMHO purely masochism is Turkish, because apart from the problems themselves they will not have anything.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 February 2016 18: 49
              +3
              Quote: poquello
              and the border area with the Turks is big, can they immediately start naughty in the Bosphorus?

              Well, why so radical. There will be, as always, a limited military conflict on a specific section of the border. In this case, the Syrian-Turkish.
              That is, here we are killing each other, but here - we are not killing.

              Remember at least the same Khalkhin Gol: in Mongolia, the USSR and Japan are fighting to death with the use of tanks, artillery and aircraft. And at the same time, Soviet vessels sail in Japanese towers, Japanese oilmen calmly and legally pump oil on the Soviet part of Sakhalin, and Japanese fishermen just as calmly and legally catch fish and crab in Soviet waters. smile
              1. poquello
                poquello 3 February 2016 19: 10
                -1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Quote: poquello
                and the border area with the Turks is big, can they immediately start naughty in the Bosphorus?

                Well, why so radical. There will be, as always, a limited military conflict on a specific section of the border. In this case, the Syrian-Turkish.
                That is, here we are killing each other, but here - we are not killing ...

                How is it always like in Georgia?
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 4 February 2016 10: 37
                  0
                  Quote: poquello
                  How is it always like in Georgia?

                  How Georgia will fail - Turkey is still a member of NATO.
                  The example of Japan of the late 30s is more suitable: then neither our nor the Japanese leadership wanted a big war. But neither side could lose face either by retreating in cross-border disputes. As a result, both sides limited themselves to 2 local conflicts with limited forces.
                  It was limited: on land, Japan used only the forces of the Kwantung army (and partially), the USSR - only the forces of the Eastern districts (also partially; reinforcements from the European part were generally minimal - EMNIP, airborne brigade). Conflict was ignored by the Japanese fleet and army forces in the Metropolis. On our side, Blucher was harshly drawn when he decided to conduct a complete mobilization in his district.
          2. Marconi41
            Marconi41 4 February 2016 02: 35
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            ICH, the USSR in those days was the leader of the military bloc and a superpower, much stronger than today's Russia. But this did not stop the packs.

            That's for sure. In addition, then we raked from these F-16s in full. By the way, they didn’t take revenge.
        2. GRAY
          GRAY 3 February 2016 16: 31
          +3
          Quote: poquello
          and where do you think the Turks will enter into direct air clashes?

          I think that they will take part in air strikes, but they will have nowhere to return.
      3. tol100v
        tol100v 3 February 2016 16: 49
        +2
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Erdoganische filthy, it seems, completely flew off the coils.

        So Russia should take measures to put these "coils" in order!
      4. yushch
        yushch 3 February 2016 17: 25
        +4
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Quote: Arctidian
        Does anyone have doubts about this?

        There is. Bravura statements like “I don’t think the Turks will engage in direct air clashes with ours” do not convince. Fuck knows what to expect from these bashi-bazouks. Erdoganische filthy, it seems, completely flew off the coils.


        You are absolutely right! I would like to draw attention to one more serious danger for our VKS about which for some reason no one is talking, namely, the Turkish air defense systems located on the border with Syria. It would not have happened again, problems, after which we would say that they did not expect an attack by Turkish ground air defense systems, I would not really like that.
      5. Zai pali
        Zai pali 3 February 2016 19: 16
        +1
        I do not know. But now bashbazuki will be more careful. And it was necessary from the very beginning to fly with cover. Again think backseat.
      6. YARUSSIAN39
        YARUSSIAN39 3 February 2016 20: 15
        0
        They already "did not think that they would meanly attack" so no one knows what to expect from them, you have to be ready for anything
    2. oldseaman1957
      oldseaman1957 3 February 2016 15: 38
      +3
      Turkish F-16 in combat contact has no chance against the Su-35S "neither in range, nor in speed, nor in armament, nor in training pilots."
      - Sounds like that symphony!
      -
      1. Samen
        Samen 3 February 2016 15: 50
        +1
        Quote: oldseaman1957
        Sounds like that symphony!

        ... Fugue BACH! hi
    3. gregor6549
      gregor6549 3 February 2016 15: 48
      21
      I have. And above all, because maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.
      And here everything is determined by the performance characteristics of airborne enemy detection instruments in various wavelength ranges, the airborne information processing and weapon control system of the aircraft, and, naturally, the performance characteristics of missile-cannon and other weapons, including electronic warfare.
      And it's not a fact that in terms of performance characteristics, the latest versions of the F16 are inferior to the SU 35. The Syrian experience is still limited by an almost "clear sky" and strikes against ground targets not covered by serious air defense.
      Again, as the experience of the past war has shown, not everything and is not always determined by technology. Much depends on the tactics of using aircraft, the level of its interaction with ground launchers and command posts, and finally the level of combat training and moral qualities of the pilots. And all this is checked only in the event of a major war, when opponents comparable in terms of the level of armed forces "bump" (God forbid, of course, such a check).
      After all, no one knows how aviation will behave in the event of a major war. And in such a war, some kind of "lousy" EMP can at once use all the aircraft (theirs and others) that are in the air with a "face ab table", and in those that are not in the air they can burn all the fucking electronics with kibenimatics. And then how to prove whose plane is cooler? And most importantly, to whom? The audience is also bye bye.
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 3 February 2016 15: 57
        +5
        Quote: gregor6549
        And in such a war, some kind of "lousy" EMP can at once use all the aircraft (theirs and others) that are in the air with a "face ab table", and in those that are not in the air they can burn out all the electronics with kibenimatics

        We will transfer to the MiG-21, there are tube RESs - they are not afraid of EMI smile
        1. gg.na
          gg.na 3 February 2016 16: 28
          +1
          Then the old 21st may oh how useful.
          1. Wheel
            Wheel 3 February 2016 16: 55
            +4
            Quote: gg.na
            Then the old 21st may oh how useful.

            Do they have any?
            Where, how much and in what condition?
            1. 0255
              0255 3 February 2016 18: 02
              +1
              Quote: Wheel
              Quote: gg.na
              Then the old 21st may oh how useful.

              Do they have any? Where, how much and in what condition?

              There are - in museums and monuments.
            2. goblin xnumx
              goblin xnumx 3 February 2016 19: 03
              0
              in Orenburg is not all sawed?
      2. Vita vko
        Vita vko 3 February 2016 16: 20
        +4
        Whatever the perfect technique, bashing is always easier. You need to be a complete idiot to admit that the Turks will enter into direct warfare. Their whole story is a story of meanness and betrayal. Perhaps this can be regarded as a military trick in a war, but as soon as it smells fried I’m sure that Erdogan with all his henchmen will hide behind NATO, I won’t be surprised that he will even transfer his headquarters to Brussels.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 16: 27
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        And above all, because maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.

        Won't you be so kind and tell me how many aircraft over the past conflicts (Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc.) have been shot down from long (or at least average) distances?
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 4 February 2016 14: 00
          +1
          I will not, because local conflicts do not give a clear idea of ​​the capabilities of aviation and other equipment. And the warring parties were, as a rule, represented in these conflicts by different levels of this technique.
          It is time.
          And two. We are talking about two modern and armed with samples of aircraft that until now, thank God, have not clarified the relationship in the air.
      4. poquello
        poquello 3 February 2016 16: 34
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        ... The Syrian experience is so far limited by practically "clear skies" and strikes against ground targets not covered by serious air defense.
        .

        and this is fantasy VKS
        A Russian airborne fighter performed a combat mission in the north of Syria, while passing along the border with Turkey, the equipment showed that some ground-based air defense systems were trying to capture the combat vehicle, which forced the pilot to make a missile defense.

        РИА Новости http://ria.ru/syria_mission/20151105/1314056775.html#ixzz3z6yTuUp6
      5. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 February 2016 16: 48
        +7
        Quote: gregor6549
        I have. And above all, because maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.

        I hope these conclusions are not drawn on the basis of air battles of local conflicts of the past 20 years? Because in them the game was "one-sided": one of the parties, possessing an overwhelming qualitative and quantitative superiority, could calmly. as in an exercise, to attack the deaf and blind planes of the other side, which did not have a connection and a distinct command control.
        Under these conditions, it really did not come to close air combat - the "other side" usually detected an attack only after capture and launch, when drink borzh it was already late.

        With equal technical and informational capabilities of the parties, the situation of the mid-80s may be repeated, when test air battles at long and medium distances turned into massive launches of RVV "into milk": the BKO of fighters had time to successfully break the capture before the missiles conditionally reached the target. As a result, I had to admit that you can only rely on good old dogfight and sidewinders.
        Quote: gregor6549
        Again, as the experience of the past war showed, not everything is and is not always determined by technology. A lot depends on the tactics of using aviation equipment, the level of its interaction with ground-based launchers and control gears, and finally the level of combat training and the moral qualities of pilots.

        In this case, the role of technology is also very important. The battle in the air will be won by the side whose radio stations will provide the best quality of communication for the "TSUNIA-fighter" in conditions of jammed air.
        For without reliable communications there is no reliable aircraft control, and pilots do not have complete information about the situation in the air. But one cannot rely on the radar of the fighter itself — it is physically incapable of detecting, say, going into the enemy’s rear hemisphere.
        The role of communications was well demonstrated by the 1982 war - then the Syrians regularly lost planes due to the competent actions of the Israeli electronic warfare: the pilots simply did not hear the warning of the earth that they were attacking due to clogging of communication channels.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2016 17: 46
          +5
          Quote: Alexey RA
          I hope these conclusions are not based on air battles of local conflicts of the last 20 years?

          In vain :)) No wonder I asked a friend to list the number of victories in medium and large. That's the joke that the air battles of recent years do not give any reason for declaring that from now on aviation is fighting at medium and long distances.
          To date, the AMRAAM ASWM has shot down about 9-11 aircraft (including one friendly firefighter helicopter), and in some cases the attack was carried out at short range. For example, one Yugoslav MiG-29 was fired from a pair of F-16 missiles AMRAAM and Sidewinder (which in itself indicates the distance from which the AMRAAM was used) the plane was shot down, the success was recorded on AMRAAM.
          Those. it is well known that Sparrow did not justify themselves, even in local conflicts, even on "flying targets" - a few successful launches. The time has come for the amraamki, then everyone shouted - RUNNING the century of long-range combat has come and the super-maneuverability of the Russians is outdated. And the fact that the Amraamki shot down one and a half aircraft and there is still not a single confirmed successful attack from at least several tens of kilometers is nonsense :))
          I do not argue, maybe several of those 8-10 aircraft that were shot down by Amraham were really shot down from long distances. But even this doesn’t prove the priority of the battle at medium distances. drinks
          1. clidon
            clidon 3 February 2016 19: 53
            +2
            Here, many simply faint from the capabilities of any S-300 or S-400 (let alone the S-500). Please list me the successes of long-range air defense in recent years. Everything is like more MANPADS, but all sorts of "Arrows", machine guns, small memory-shki and the like. No, well, maybe there were a couple of cases, but somehow it is not convincing, it does not in any way prove the priority of "large" long-range complexes over small fly swatter. crying
            1. poquello
              poquello 4 February 2016 00: 10
              0
              Quote: clidon
              Here, many simply faint from the capabilities of any S-300 or S-400 (let alone S-500). Please list me the successes of long-range air defense of recent years ....

              Your appreciated sarcasm, but there is a difference - air defense does not fly
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2016 10: 50
              +1
              Quote: clidon
              Please list me the successes of long-range air defense of recent years.

              Five years, you mean? So over the past five years, it has hardly been used, if my sclerosis is not lying to me - only the Su-24 comes to mind, which was shot down from Patriot in Syria. And so - according to the official data of the Russian Federation On 08.08.08, all 4 officially shot down aircraft are considered downed by the Buk air defense missile system. There is a very reasonable opinion that our losses are much higher, and Buk's performance is even higher.
              In Yugoslavia, there is no exact data, alas. The estimation of losses is too different, more or less reliably shot down by the F-117 complex S-125
              During a storm in the desert, air defense missile systems shot down at least 9 vehicles, but possibly more. Plus a certain amount of "Scuds"
              Quote: clidon
              No, well, maybe there were a couple of cases, but somehow it is not convincing, does not in any way prove the priority of "large" long-range complexes over small fly swatter

              One other complements. The threat of air defense systems makes planes and helicopters huddle to the ground, and there are fly swatters. And vice versa, where there are no air defense systems, airplanes can safely work from high altitudes.
              And if you go back to the SIRS, they are all needed, they are all important :))) The usefulness of the medium and long-range SARS is undeniable, you just should not absolutize them. Of course, DVB needs to be studied, but at the same time it is necessary to train pilots and planes, as well as BVB - definitely.
              1. clidon
                clidon 4 February 2016 18: 15
                +1
                Five years, you mean? So for the last five years it has hardly been applied, if my sclerosis does not lie to me - only Su-24 comes to my memory, which was shot down from Patriot in Syria

                Take more "Twenty" years. ) Twenty years ago? Thirty? How many victories did the S-200 have? One (Tu-154) And S-300? Patriot? ("Tornado" and Su-24)?
                In general, everything that got lost was a maximum of S-75 or Buk. But for some reason we focus on hundreds of kilometers of range, investing money and resources in this with hopes.
                But the answer is simple - the technique is becoming smarter and more complex, the radar (AFAR in the military) is seen further, the missiles receive ARLGSN.
                This is the same with the AIM-120 (and I hope the R-77) - these missiles make it possible to push the start of the battle, its line is tens of kilometers further than it was before. What about air swatter? Nobody refuses them - we have the P-73 (and its continuation), the Americans AIM-9x. Therefore, everyone is preparing for the BVB and will be preparing. Another thing is that from the main phase of the battle it can become auxiliary.
            3. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 4 February 2016 10: 54
              0
              Quote: clidon
              Here, many simply faint from the capabilities of any S-300 or S-400 (let alone S-500). Please list me the successes of long-range air defense of recent years

              And you can find out - who in the conflicts of recent years had long-range air defense? Not separate complexes of shaggy years, such as the Libyan S-200, but the normal air defense system, which includes air defense missile systems? The only country with a normal air defense system was Iraq in 1991. And then - with the complexes of the past generation.

              It is very difficult to find the success of complexes that did not take part in conflicts. smile
              1. clidon
                clidon 4 February 2016 18: 17
                0
                So if we return to the original question - "were there many battles in which the Yankees chose between using the AIM-120 and AIM-9 and chose the latter?"
        2. gregor6549
          gregor6549 4 February 2016 15: 28
          0
          The conclusions were drawn on the basis of more than 35 years of experience in the development of automated control systems for the Air Force, Air Defense of the Country and the air defense of dry forces, as well as participation in numerous military exercises and tests of weapons and military equipment of these types of troops. Somehow it turns out that without knowing what you need to manage, you cannot create a good control system. And these systems included communication subsystems, electronic warfare subsystems and subsystems for collecting and processing information about the air situation and guidance systems, and much more. Moreover, the systems were designed in such a way that when some of its elements were suppressed by the enemy, the system itself switched from a centralized control mode to an autonomous or mixed control mode, while some elements of the system took on the performance of functions that were not characteristic of them. For example, radar data collection and processing centers could (to a limited extent, of course) aim their fighters at enemy aircraft or switch from automatic radar data processing to the "grandfather's" methods of radar data processing and transmission using handwritten tablets and matyugalniks. Methods were also developed to increase the combat stability of ACS by using their "system" properties. But again, there was no complete certainty that all this would work in a real war. And numerous local conflicts, including in the Middle East, only confirmed these fears, especially when the Israelis put their own against our equipment. By the way, the myth about the "bad" Arabs who could not use Soviet technology competently or surrendered to the Israelis in batches is nothing but a myth. The same Syrian combat pilots often demonstrated such a level of flight training that was not available to all Soviet pilots, especially when, in the heat of the fight against accidents, Soviet pilots were forbidden to perform complex types of aerobatics.
      6. Wheel
        Wheel 3 February 2016 16: 58
        +5
        Quote: gregor6549
        And above all, because maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.

        Theorists suggest that practitioners have ...
        I remember, during the Vietnam war, the Yusers already put forward this thesis ... broke off ...
        I also remember "tanks don't fight with tanks" ...

        Something concrete can be said only after a serious mess.
      7. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 3 February 2016 18: 03
        +1
        Quote: gregor6549
        maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.


        There was already an attempt to abandon cannon weapons - melee weapons. It is unlikely that you will name a fighter, even the most modern, without a gun, or even several.
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 4 February 2016 14: 55
          0
          This is not about giving up guns and melee in general. The point is that such a battle is considered as an option if "something goes wrong" in a battle at medium and long distances. In any case, the software developers of modern aircraft, including the F22 and F35, came to the conclusion that close combat requires such a complication of this very provision that all software becomes unreliable. At the same time, modern air missiles have become highly maneuverable and have acquired the ability to combat maneuvering targets.
          T.O. all somersaults with which our pilots aces on super-maneuverable aircraft such as MIG29, SU 27 and their modifications are pleasing to our eyes are mainly good at all kinds of shows. In a real battle, everything will be easier and more tragic. One can recall in this connection the air battle of Soviet pilots at MIG21 with Israeli Mirages at the beginning of 70x. Alas, the high maneuverability of the MIG 21x at that time did not help our pilots at all.
      8. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 3 February 2016 18: 03
        0
        Quote: gregor6549
        maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.


        There was already an attempt to abandon cannon weapons - melee weapons. It is unlikely that you will name a fighter, even the most modern, without a gun, or even several.
      9. shuhartred
        shuhartred 3 February 2016 18: 35
        +3
        Quote: gregor6549
        I have. And above all, because maneuverable close-range air combat in modern aviation has long since given way to long- and medium-range fights.

        During the Vietnam War, everyone thought so too. Remind you of what the MiG-21 and F-4 were armed with? And literally on my knee! Although the phrase "has no chance" well .... is somehow wrong. Does the I-16 have many chances against the Me-109G? On performance characteristics no words at all! But it all depends on who is at the helm, a woodpecker or an ace. In the end, even our I-5s beat the Luftwaffe aces on much more advanced technology. I'm not a pilot, but these are bare facts. Waiting for a downpour of cons from Israeli colleagues hi
      10. NEXUS
        NEXUS 3 February 2016 20: 41
        +1
        Quote: gregor6549
        And in such a war, some kind of "lousy" EMP can at once use all the planes (theirs and others) that are in the air with a "face ab table",

        Do you seriously believe that the United States, in the event of a conflict between Russia and Turkey, will get involved in this matter and agree to unleash a third world war because of the Turks? You recall how the mattresses do with their allies in practice?
        1. 2news
          2news 3 February 2016 21: 02
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          Do you seriously believe that the United States, in the event of a conflict between Russia and Turkey, will get involved in this matter and agree to unleash a third world war because of the Turks?

          Britain and France, at one time, were not prevented from unleashing 2MB in response to the German attack on Poland.
          Quote: NEXUS
          You recall how the mattresses do with their allies in practice?

          Remind.
        2. gregor6549
          gregor6549 4 February 2016 15: 01
          0
          In my opinion, I did not have a word about Turkey. I spoke only about the fact that the real capabilities of weapons and military equipment are checked only in conditions of war of opponents comparable in military power. At the moment, this is Russia, the United States and, possibly, China. The rest of the NATO countries, on their own and as a whole, do not possess such power and are unlikely to possess it in the future. Of course, they can cause a lot of trouble as well. are armed with very good models of weapons. But the final word will not be theirs.
      11. Yak-3P
        Yak-3P 3 February 2016 22: 17
        0
        Australopithecus see stories about battles in Ethiopia where sous became the "killer of moments" there all the battles were close-range --- populated rockets - dodged - and cannons - cannons !!
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 4 February 2016 15: 07
          0
          Is that me, sir?
          Then at the wrong address, I am Minsker, although for several years after retirement I lived and worked in Australia helping to create road composter systems. There I met on the Internet with some Australian experts in the field of weapons and military equipment with whom I still sometimes exchange opinions on various issues.
          Now about Ethiopia. I do not think that hostilities in such a country can serve as at least some classic example.
    4. Fregate
      Fregate 3 February 2016 15: 53
      +5
      It is foolish to say that one 4th generation fighter has no chance over another 4th generation fighter. It all depends not only on the performance characteristics of aircraft, but also on various other factors.
    5. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 February 2016 16: 14
      10
      Quote: Arctidian
      Does anyone have doubts about this?

      Tired of this hatred, F-16 they have under 200 pieces, how even 8 dryers will cope with this amount? Plus AWACS and other radars.
      If the Turks want it, they can advance and crush our air forces at the base in Syria, while we look for ways to transfer the main forces of the ground forces, air defense and air forces.
      1. the most important
        the most important 3 February 2016 17: 05
        +8
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Tired of this hatred, F-16 they have under 200 pieces, how even 8 dryers will cope with this amount? Plus AWACS and other radars.
        If the Turks want it, they can advance and crush our air forces at the base in Syria, while we look for ways to transfer the main forces of the ground forces, air defense and air forces.

        You're right!! But not in everything! Of course, 8 sushkas will not last long against 200 Turks, but I hope that in the event of such a massive attack all airfields will be destroyed by missile attacks. And besides this, oil factories, ports, airfields, president’s palaces will fall under attack ... After which, it is worthwhile to offer the rest of the Turkish army to deal with the leader who is sick on the head ... If they refuse, then repeat the volley.
      2. Muvka
        Muvka 3 February 2016 17: 56
        +3
        And why do not you take into account the Su-34?
        1. clidon
          clidon 3 February 2016 20: 03
          0
          Because it is a bomber. With all the consequences.
          1. shuhartred
            shuhartred 3 February 2016 20: 18
            -2
            [quote = clidon] Because it is a bomber. With all that it implies. [/ Quo Generally a strike aircraft. With all the consequences for lovers of easy living.
            1. clidon
              clidon 3 February 2016 20: 59
              +1
              And no matter how you name the meaning and purpose of this will not change much. For example, the Su-25 and the attack aircraft and the R-60 are in service, but somehow no one has any special illusions about its capabilities in aerial combat.
              For the Su-34, similarly, the fighter capabilities are deeply secondary.
    6. GRAY
      GRAY 3 February 2016 16: 21
      +2
      Quote: Arctidian
      Does anyone have doubts about this?

      The fact that the Su-35, one on one will have the F-16 - no doubt.
      But here, the matter is in quantity.
      1. clidon
        clidon 3 February 2016 20: 03
        +1
        here the matter is not so much in quantity as in the conditions of the attack, the weapons and electronic warfare used, the correct choice of maneuver ...
    7. GSH-18
      GSH-18 3 February 2016 16: 27
      +3
      Quote: Arctidian
      Does anyone have doubts about this?

      That's it. About this, even the Americans know. The meaning of this article is incomprehensible. request
    8. activator
      activator 3 February 2016 16: 36
      0
      there is no doubt, I will even say more that at the time of development f 16 did not have a chance against su 35. yes Soon it will come to about such America, shocked by the capabilities of the su 35, 4 su 35 fighters were terrified ....
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 3 February 2016 16: 50
        -2
        Quote: activator
        there is no doubt, I will even say more that at the time of development f 16 did not have a chance against su 35. yes Soon it will come to about such America, shocked by the capabilities of the su 35, 4 su 35 fighters were terrified ....

        Man, F16 is an old airliner. Su-35S without any doubt technically and by all other criteria surpasses it by 3 heads. To be frank, the F16 of any modernization for the Su-35S is a normal, non-threatening target. Somewhere at the level of a reconnaissance drone request
        1. activator
          activator 3 February 2016 17: 56
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          Man, F16 is an old airliner.

          It was like sarcasm ...
    9. st25310
      st25310 3 February 2016 17: 17
      0
      Incorrect comparison, these are different classes of aircraft. SU-35-27 needs to be compared with F-15, and F-16 needs to be compared with MIG-29. You can’t compare a passenger car with a truck.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 3 February 2016 17: 24
        +1
        Quote: st25310
        Incorrect comparison, these are different classes of aircraft. SU-35-27 needs to be compared with F-15, and F-16 needs to be compared with MIG-29.

        That was earlier. But now everything is different. There is no longer light and heavy front-line fighter, progress has stepped over these tactical perversions. Now there is ONLY a multi-functional interceptor fighter, and in the case of the Su-34, also a bomber.
    10. Su24
      Su24 3 February 2016 18: 51
      0
      the moment the Turks shot down the Russian Su-24, and the militants controlled by them shot the catapulted Russian officer Oleg Anatolyevich Peshkov, Russia had only four Su-27SM fighters in Syria

      This is also an expert said? Su-27SM, straight?
      Erdogan is in an extremely difficult situation, but you can’t call him crazy at all. These emotional howls in the style of Hohlak here is useless.
    11. Su24
      Su24 3 February 2016 18: 51
      0
      the moment the Turks shot down the Russian Su-24, and the militants controlled by them shot the catapulted Russian officer Oleg Anatolyevich Peshkov, Russia had only four Su-27SM fighters in Syria

      This is also an expert said? Su-27SM, straight?
      Erdogan is in an extremely difficult situation, but you can’t call him crazy at all. These emotional howls in the style of Hohlak here is useless.
    12. atalef
      atalef 3 February 2016 19: 56
      +5
      Quote: Arctidian
      Does anyone have doubts about this?

      I don’t understand, but what is it compared to?
      General Dynamics F-16 “Fighting Falcon” (eng. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, literally - Attacking Falcon) - the fourth-generation American multi-functional light fighter [9]. Designed in 1974 by General Dynamics. It was commissioned in 1979(Long before the collapse of the USSR, I was 10 years old sad ).

      In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to Lockheed Corporation (currently Lockheed Martin).

      F-16, due to its versatility and relatively low cost, is the most massive fourth-generation fighter (more than 2014 aircraft were built in June 4540) and enjoys success on the international arms market (it is in service with 25 countries, and in 2014 the most common military aircraft in the world [10]). The last of 2231 F-16s for the US Air Force were transferred to the customer in 2005 year

      The author probably beguiled the year,
      The start of flight tests of the first sample of the new batch was scheduled for mid-2007, however, the start dates of flight tests were postponed to early 2008.

      The assembly of the first experimental Su-35 aircraft (w / n 901) was completed in the summer of 2007
      on "KnAAPO them. Yu. A. Gagarin ”, after which the car was presented at the MAKS-2007 air show in a static parking lot.

      Karl, F-16 finished releasing when the Su-35 has not yet begun testing.
      How can you compare.
      What to compare with?
      1. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 4 February 2016 05: 08
        0
        Karl, F-16 finished releasing when the Su-35 has not yet begun testing.
        How can you compare.
        What to compare with?
        F-16s for export are still being produced, contracts with Oman and Iraq are being implemented, there are rumors about the purchase of 25-30 F-16 UAE.
    13. nycsson
      nycsson 3 February 2016 20: 45
      0
      Quote: Arctidian
      Does anyone have doubts about this?

      I have! Skill of the pilot! This is the main advantage. Plant the bad for su-35 and he will lose-23 instantly.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 3 February 2016 15: 31
    27
    Again phalometry. And against 4F-16? And the presence of AWACS aircraft? What missiles are the vehicles armed with? How much can you underestimate potential opponents?
    1. poquello
      poquello 3 February 2016 15: 34
      15
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Again phalometry. And against 4F-16? And the presence of AWACS aircraft? What missiles are the vehicles armed with? How much can you underestimate potential opponents?

      I probably need to read the article before showing off - enough to cover myself from provocations
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 3 February 2016 15: 49
        13
        Quote: poquello
        I probably need to read the article before showing off - enough to cover myself from provocations

        And I read. There is no doubt that the Su-35С is a great machine, but taking into account its presence in the provocation, they can use not one F-16, but 20 pieces and that four Su can oppose them. Moreover, modern missiles for DVB on the Su-35 are still not integrated, unlike the F-16.
        1. poquello
          poquello 3 February 2016 16: 21
          +6
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Quote: poquello
          I probably need to read the article before showing off - enough to cover myself from provocations

          And I read. There is no doubt that the Su-35С is a great machine, but taking into account its presence in the provocation, they can use not one F-16, but 20 pieces and that four Su can oppose them. Moreover, modern missiles for DVB on the Su-35 are still not integrated, unlike the F-16.

          20 pieces, as it were, is not a provocation, but what the Su-35s carry to one Russian Defense Ministry knows.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 3 February 2016 17: 32
            +2
            Quote: poquello
            20 pieces, as it were, is not a provocation, but what the Su-35s carry to one Russian Defense Ministry knows.

            My friend, how do you know what the combat effectiveness of the Su-30 plus Su-35S air wing in Latakia is against 200 rusty Turkish F16s, and even ours are blocked by Treumph and Fort -s RK Moskva plus Pantsir-C1, and even all sorts of our electronic warfare, etc. ??? I want to personally remind YOU of the REAL story: There was such a legendary Admiral Ushakov at the Black Sea Fleet during the time of the sailing fleet, and so, due to his ingenuity and skill, he destroyed the Turkish fleet, which
            (NOW ATTENTION) outnumbered him 40 times! Feel the grandeur of such a victory. A curtain hi
            1. poquello
              poquello 3 February 2016 18: 47
              +1
              Quote: GSH-18
              Quote: poquello
              20 pieces, as it were, is not a provocation, but what the Su-35s carry to one Russian Defense Ministry knows.

              My friend, how do you know what the combat effectiveness of the Su-30 plus Su-35S air wing in Latakia is against 200 rusty Turkish F16s, and even ours are blocked by Treumph and Fort -s RK Moskva plus Pantsir-C1, and even all sorts of our electronic warfare, etc. ??? I want to personally remind YOU of the REAL story: There was such a legendary Admiral Ushakov at the Black Sea Fleet during the time of the sailing fleet, and so, due to his ingenuity and skill, he destroyed the Turkish fleet, which
              (NOW ATTENTION) outnumbered him 40 times! Feel the grandeur of such a victory. A curtain hi

              so the conversation is not about changing the situation in the region, I admit losses in a surprise attack
            2. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 3 February 2016 19: 10
              +3
              Quote: GSH-18
              I want to personally remind YOU REAL story: There was such a legendary Admiral Ushakov at the Black Sea Fleet during the sailing fleet, and so, due to his ingenuity and skill, he destroyed the Turkish fleet, which
              (NOW ATTENTION) outnumbered him 40 times! Feel the grandeur of such a victory. A curtain hi

              This is a fairytale. Even with Kaliakria, which can be considered the crown of Usha's strategy, the Turks had a twofold advantage.
              1. poquello
                poquello 3 February 2016 19: 29
                0
                Quote: Aaron Zawi
                Quote: GSH-18
                I want to personally remind YOU REAL story: There was such a legendary Admiral Ushakov at the Black Sea Fleet during the sailing fleet, and so, due to his ingenuity and skill, he destroyed the Turkish fleet, which
                (NOW ATTENTION) outnumbered him 40 times! Feel the grandeur of such a victory. A curtain hi

                This is a fairytale. Even with Kaliakria, which can be considered the crown of Usha's strategy, the Turks had a twofold advantage.

                one grenade - two tanks = GSS (folk)
              2. shuhartred
                shuhartred 3 February 2016 20: 24
                +1
                Quote: Aron Zaavi
                This is a fairytale. Even with Kaliakria, which can be considered the crown of Usha's strategy, the Turks had a twofold advantage.

                Have you personally been there? Who generally thought that anyone had? And by the way, there was an advantage, but one hell was seized.
                1. poquello
                  poquello 3 February 2016 21: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: shuhartred
                  Quote: Aron Zaavi
                  This is a fairytale. Even with Kaliakria, which can be considered the crown of Usha's strategy, the Turks had a twofold advantage.

                  Have you personally been there? Who generally thought that anyone had? And by the way, there was an advantage, but one hell was seized.

                  yes it’s possible to count, statements about two-fold are nothing, because for Russians it’s ordinary
                  Theodosius -1788g.
                  Ushakov - 32 ships, of which two are battleships, 11 frigates.
                  Turks - 47 ships, including 15 battleships, 8 frigates.
                  Total - 7 times superiority in battleships.
                  Cliakria -1791
                  Ushakov - 33 ships, of which 16 are battleships, 2 frigates.
                  Turks - 78 ships, including 18 battleships, 17 frigates.
                  Total - Aaron's shitty with math.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 February 2016 16: 59
          +4
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          The fact that the Su-35C is an excellent machine is undeniable, but given its presence in the provocation, they can use not one F-16, but 20 pieces, and that four Su can oppose them.

          "101st Karate - Healthy Running". Under the umbrella of land and ship air defense systems. smile
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Moreover, modern missiles for DVB on the Su-35 are still not integrated, unlike the F-16.

          This is a question of questions. Because in the photo of the Su-35S of the Syrian group are visible AKU-170. And they are intended for our analogues of Turkish AIM-120. But the AKU itself is empty - without rockets.

          So we are waiting for photos and videos from Syria from our Moscow region - with flights of the Su-35S.
        3. Tusv
          Tusv 3 February 2016 17: 02
          +1
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Moreover, modern missiles for DVB on the Su-35 are still not integrated, unlike the F-16.

          It's right. They did not begin to screw the AKU-620. Stupid RVV-BD made friends with AKU-410-1. So the thirty-fifth has integrated weapons for DVB in the amount of 4 pieces
        4. 11 black
          11 black 3 February 2016 17: 42
          0
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          And I read. There is no doubt that the Su-35С is a great machine, but taking into account its presence in the provocation, they can use not one F-16, but 20 pieces and that four Su can oppose them. Moreover, modern missiles for DVB on the Su-35 are still not integrated, unlike the F-16.

          Whether or not they are integrated is still a question ... but do not forget that in addition to our Air Force, there is also the Syrian Air Force, which, if anything, will help with the "mass effect", in addition, the entire border is being shot through by the S400 division, which is 32 missiles, just for 20 fighters and that's enough smile Although in fairness, our half of the border is shot by the Patriots on the Turkish side, but their use is the Russia-NATO war
        5. xtur
          xtur 4 February 2016 11: 28
          -1
          > in provocation, they can use not one F-16, but 20 pieces and that four Su will oppose them.

          Yes, at least 70 cars - in sight for the C-400 - one salvo and not all of them.
    2. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 3 February 2016 15: 45
      11
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      How much can you underestimate potential opponents?

      No offense, but the Israelis apparently overestimate their potential opponents. Otherwise, why do you need an army that is among the top ten most armed and combat-ready? Well, if you have no worthy opponents in the region?
      However, I note that in terms of the beauty of your female soldiers, the IDF is undoubtedly in first place in the world smile
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 3 February 2016 15: 52
        15
        Quote: Ami du peuple

        No offense, but the Israelis apparently overestimate their potential opponents. Otherwise, why do you need an army that is among the top ten most armed and combat-ready?
        In 73, we underestimated the threat. I had to wash the blood with ambition. Here it’s better than not ...
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 3 February 2016 16: 01
        10
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        in the beauty of your military girls, the IDF is undoubtedly in first place in the world

        I would not be so categorical. yes
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 3 February 2016 16: 24
          +3
          Quote: Vladimirets
          I would not be so categorical.

          Well, when we have (God forbid, of course) a universal military duty for women, then this parameter is easily blocked at times. Nevertheless, the bulk of our girls are prettier. Fact, not advertising
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 3 February 2016 17: 03
            -1
            Quote: Ami du peuple
            when we have (God forbid, of course) a universal military duty for women, then this parameter is easily blocked at times.

            So you are talking about quantity or average quality? smile
            1. Ami du peuple
              Ami du peuple 3 February 2016 17: 51
              0
              Quote: Vladimirets
              So you are talking about quantity or average quality?

              “Bulk” means overall quality. High and incomparable smile Well, and in terms of quantity - there are no equal at all
        2. Diana Ilyina
          Diana Ilyina 3 February 2016 16: 25
          +6
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          in the beauty of your military girls, the IDF is undoubtedly in first place in the world

          I would not be so categorical. yes


          Agree! Our paratroopers are much more beautiful!

          P.S. Teach someone to insert a photo, I can not figure it out!
          1. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 3 February 2016 16: 31
            0
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            P.S. Teach someone to insert a photo, I can not figure it out!

            The fourth button on the left, if you comment immediately. With subsequent editing - the eighth button from the left or the seventh from the right. The "picture" is called. If from a computer, then the name of the file, if from the network, then the URL of the image.
            1. Diana Ilyina
              Diana Ilyina 3 February 2016 16: 36
              +7
              Quote: Ami du peuple
              If from the computer - then the file name, if from the network - then the URL of the image.


              Thanks, I will try!
          2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Darkoff
      Darkoff 3 February 2016 15: 45
      +5
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Again phalometry. And against 4F-16? And the presence of AWACS aircraft? What missiles are the vehicles armed with?

      So you can get to the comparison of the nuclear potentials of potential enemy countries!
      It's about comparing two specific aircraft. What is incorrectly written in the article?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 February 2016 16: 44
        +5
        Quote: DarkOFF
        So you can get to the comparison of the nuclear potentials of potential enemy countries!
        It's about comparing two specific aircraft. What is incorrectly written in the article?

        The fact that
        1) aircraft are compared only by the characteristics of a particular Su-35c and a hypothetical unknown F-16 (which are many varieties)
        2) Compared in the context of a specific potential battlefield, but excluding a bunch of related points
        3) Compare without taking into account existing weapons

        Shapkazakidach such
    4. ultra
      ultra 3 February 2016 15: 45
      +5
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      How much can you underestimate potential opponents?

      Who underestimates? Sofa experts? I don’t think the Russian Defense Ministry underestimates the enemy.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 3 February 2016 15: 54
      +1
      And about flights in the "home" region for the enemy should not be forgotten ...
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 3 February 2016 17: 21
        +4
        Quote: Zaurbek
        And about flights in the "home" region for the enemy should not be forgotten ...

        In what home ??? Syria for the Turkish air force isn’t already a home ?? What are you talking about? In Syria, we have actually built an echeloned air defense system, plus a sickly air wing, plus a naval component. Plus the superiority in technology, "Rubella" and all sorts of other secret nishtyaks, which were a surprise not only for the Turks but for all NATO.
    7. Scoun
      Scoun 3 February 2016 15: 59
      +4
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      And the presence of AWACS aircraft?

      Bravura article and many comments from the series of "hiding"! and generally did not want to comment, but all the same, the comrades are right
      Quote: poquello
      enough to cover provocations

      and at the expense of AWACS there was recently an article that "Krasukha-4 is in Syria and what they write about it.

      The Russian military deployed Krasukha-4 electronic warfare systems in Syria, designed to suppress aircraft radars and counter drones.
      In the video illustrating the landing on the Syrian airfield of Khmeimim, the Russian Su-25 attack aircraft returned from a combat mission, a car with a characteristic set of antenna devices is visible in the background.
      "Kraukhi" are wide-range jamming stations and are designed to suppress the operation of airborne radar aircraft early warning and strike aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles radars, as well as radar of radar reconnaissance satellites.

      According to the manufacturers, the Krasukha-4 complex is capable of completely closing the protected object from radar detection at ranges up to 150-300 kilometers, and can also inflict radar damage to enemy communications and electronic warfare.

      And it is probably correct to consider the deployed contingent as anti-terrorist, supplemented by means of cover after the treacherous strike of the Turks. And of course it is difficult to talk about a full-fledged "batch" in the presence of +/- 8 fighters, a S-400 division and a missile cruiser (exaggerated / approximately).
      1. 2s1122
        2s1122 3 February 2016 16: 41
        0
        This is all excellent, but in any situation there will be losses on both sides. And the more sudden the attack, the sadder the consequences.
    8. GSH-18
      GSH-18 3 February 2016 16: 46
      -1
      Aron Zaavi: Again phalometry. And against 4F-16? And the presence of AWACS aircraft? What missiles are the vehicles armed with?

      Well here are the standard weapons for Syria:
      R-73 thermal ghs, range 40km
      ks-172 range of 400 km, just do not get out with drool, on the F-22 and F-35 this is not close, and your government squeaks and climbs to spend your shekels on amerostoy lol
      There is still an intermediate at 60-70km air-to-air missile, I just forgot what is called.
      That’s why the Turks started with their 200 rusty F-16s.
      This year, the first Four T-50s (5th generation) F-22s will go on combat duty there hard rest with a cigarette on the side by TTX.
      1. d.antonov
        d.antonov 4 February 2016 10: 48
        -1
        As many as 4? Wow. In what place is he resting hard? Most inferior, which is not surprising, but some parameters are still inferior, and 20 years have passed laughing.
        Well, who needs those 400 km? Shoot down passengers or non-maneuvering scouts?
        How many p-37s were there, 300 km? And the capture of GOS without guidance from an airplane 40 km of 5 m2, severely laughing
        Well, and as always ravings about f-35, what jambs are there that cannot be fixed?
        Read at least something other than yellow newspapers
        http://www.f-16. net/forum/viewforum.php?f=22
        http://www.f-16. net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27875&sid=f8d5ac7dfc2f0f717a3aa96fb2453007&start=

        45
    9. GSH-18
      GSH-18 3 February 2016 17: 55
      0
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Again phalometry. And against 4F-16? And the presence of AWACS aircraft? What missiles are the vehicles armed with? How much can you underestimate potential opponents?

      Is there something to underestimate? You now decided to joke dear AARON ZAAVI? F-22 is old, but they will put it to you (if at all) in a stripped-down version with bookmarks! F-35, even in the states themselves, has not yet been accepted into service (it is in military operation) due to the many irreparable jambs in the structure. And then amerotorgashi come into effect (well, it’s necessary to somehow save the loot!) Flooded the advertisement plus coercion of the alliance members. Only now they heard that they want them ... and they reduced the initial applications 2-3 times (you just can’t refuse completely, they will impose sanctions! wassat ) And your government still hawks amero-noodles about the invulnerability and superiority of these flying shushpanzer ... well, well ... no matter how Iran punishes you from the S-300 and Su-30SM. I would not want to watch this, honestly!
  4. antiexpert
    antiexpert 3 February 2016 15: 32
    +3
    it would be interesting to know about the real use of modern aircraft of the last classes, because this is not in the world so far ..
    and what’s interesting is that the propelled F-22s in general have real experience in combat confrontation against similar machines?
  5. hartlend
    hartlend 3 February 2016 15: 33
    +1
    How much can you procrastinate this news.
  6. sever.56
    sever.56 3 February 2016 15: 33
    +4
    A good fist to cut into the snout, if someone dares to try again to bring down our plane! good
    It would be earlier to cover, but we did not expect a scam from the Turks.
  7. POLITICIAN
    POLITICIAN 3 February 2016 15: 34
    +4
    They can go for a provocation, but these fighters will reassure anyone.
  8. jurijsv
    jurijsv 3 February 2016 15: 35
    +8
    And it should be noted that not only power and strength, but the grace and beauty of Soviet-Russian technology
  9. fzr1000
    fzr1000 3 February 2016 15: 35
    +6
    But what if one on one with an equal class of pilots, then what could be some doubt? Only such fights do not happen now.
  10. Dam
    Dam 3 February 2016 15: 44
    +3
    The bad thing is that there will simply be no air battles. And the task of the Turkish Air Force is simply to forge the work of bombers and attack aircraft on the advancing Turkish foot soldiers. The situation is so-so. We do not have enough ground forces covering the air forces, and the Syrians are not yet ready for war with the regular Turkish army. So the conflict has no chance of being local. It will be necessary to hammer the infrastructure of Turkey. I hope that Perdogan understands this.
  11. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 3 February 2016 15: 46
    +3
    In fact, these are machines of different classes and different combat capabilities, so this comparison is from the series "who has more kutun", and not who and how often uses it!
  12. Yves762
    Yves762 3 February 2016 15: 47
    +4
    Meanwhile, the Bashibuzuki are squeezing Syrian territory ...(http://warfiles.ru/show-107429-hronika-sirii-turciya-vtorglas-na-territoriyu-re
    spubliki-buratino-pugaet-daish.html)

    Very much is not written about by fellow authors. bully
    Anyway, this is the style of the yellow press.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. vobels
    vobels 3 February 2016 15: 50
    +2
    ".. I think that the Turks, with all of them vile inclinations for this will not go .. " The meanness of the Turks is already like a constant. And the sillyness of some kamikaze might be enough.
  16. triglav
    triglav 3 February 2016 15: 51
    +2
    I think that against the Su-30 F-16 about nothing.
  17. Lanista
    Lanista 3 February 2016 15: 55
    +1
    F-16 has no chance in front of Russian Su-35С

    The statement is indisputable, but with the same success it can be said that some Fokke-Wulf 190 also does not have a chance before him. Airplanes of different generations, after all.
    1. arutun
      arutun 3 February 2016 16: 45
      +3
      You are a little wrong, the F-16 of the latest modifications is very different from the first, about the same as the Su-35 from the Su-27.
      Here, rather, not a different generation, but "weight" categories. Although they used to be "light" and "heavy" fighters, now the "light" ones have gained weight and functionality, and almost caught up with the "older" brothers.

      And yet, after reading the comments, I am glad that at least some of the people still respond adequately to such materials. And not just write "Hurray we will tear everyone! 111" and so on.

      From the heading to the last point, it's all blah blah blah.
      In aerial combat there are so many nuances that to predict the outcome of a battle is how to predict which horse will win the races, not knowing who the rider is, what horse, where the races, what weather and other conditions.
      Half of the victory does not depend on the aircraft, but on the ground guidance services and flight director. A plane is a tool, a spearhead, the shaft is not in the hands of the pilot, and part of the responsibility for the result of the battle lies with the command of the airborne forces.
  18. Nix1986
    Nix1986 3 February 2016 15: 57
    +2
    Well, firstly, it’s not even going to compare 2 cars of different classes, no one says that grants have no chance against the e-class gelding. And secondly in numbers, the press spoke of the transfer of 4 planes to Syria, while the Turks have 115 f16, of course they are not all in the same Syrian direction, but even taking into account this ratio, the situation does not look so lightly victorious. It was much more correct to push the C400 air defense umbrella and its abilities, and this is a sobering fact of Turkey’s use of the F16, and not just 4 aircraft.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 February 2016 17: 58
      +3
      Both machines are of the same generation 4 ++, so a comparison is appropriate.
      The Turks produce the F-16 under their own licenses. Turkish F-16s undergo regular "upgrades".
      They are not as "twisted" with avionics and weapons, as Israeli, but rather modern.
      The Su-35 will have an advantage at altitude, and they will dominate in the ratio 1: 1 - 1: 2
      in the air. But Turkey has hundreds of F-16s ...
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 3 February 2016 18: 46
        +1
        And where is the generation? The class of cars is different. That way you can even compare 31 with a warthog, the years of production intersect. Only who needs such a comparison. And yes, Klitschko and Emelianenko can also be compared who is who.
  19. mpzss
    mpzss 3 February 2016 15: 58
    +1
    why are you comparing the F-15? After all, this is a light fighter, we have an analogue of the MiG-29, to be objective, we need a Su (any after Su 27) with an F-15, this will be fair, otherwise it turns out that we are comparing the Moskvich with the BMW!
    1. Rokossovsky
      Rokossovsky 3 February 2016 16: 47
      +3
      Because the Turkish Air Force does not have F-15, and the Turkish Air Force is currently the most likely enemy. hi
    2. BABAY22
      BABAY22 3 February 2016 17: 32
      +1
      Quote: mpzss
      F-15? it's a light fighter

      Comrade General, the F-15 is not a light fighter analogue of the Mig-29. This is something larger with two keels (these are two vertical pieces of iron at the back) and two engines.
  20. From Samara
    From Samara 3 February 2016 16: 07
    +4
    I look forward to the appearance of new MIGs. Here where the underestimation of the aircraft ... MIG-35 is even better! He just does not have a lobby.
  21. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 3 February 2016 16: 12
    0
    F-16 has no chance in front of Russian Su-35С

    Another blah blah blah ...
    We will lower the maneuverable close combat, not for him on the fighter is a radar with a detection range of 400km!
    What to do with ranged combat?
    What air-to-air missiles to use at long range?
    What is there Obnosov, how is he doing?
    Scribble from the repertoire of National interest.
  22. tchoni
    tchoni 3 February 2016 16: 23
    0
    ".. apart from AFAR and stealth technologies" - we suck garbage ...
    almost PAK FA ...
    but, okay. god with him ...
    I am most enraged by the headlines in the style of "F-16 will not stand up to Su-35". People claiming this, where do they get these statements from? Have a look at the airshows? Did you see "pancakes" and other "barrels" with "bells" and decided that all were "keldyshs" from aviation? .. Admins, ay, maybe it will be enough to re-read the yellow press? Is it a serious publication or where?
    1. Rokossovsky
      Rokossovsky 3 February 2016 16: 55
      0
      Did you see "pancakes" and other "barrels" with "bells" and decided that all were "keldyshs" from aviation?

      Here everyone laughs at Kaptsov, in whom the F-22 and F-35 have no analogues in the world, rightly noting that neither one nor the other were used in real combat. But the Su-35, which also has no experience in combat use, smashes everyone to smithereens!
      Yeah! Especially rockets developed forty years ago!
  23. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 3 February 2016 16: 23
    +2
    "I think that the Turks, with all their vile inclinations, will not agree to this."
    Pitched in the ground allied and friendly, Iphicrates carefully surrounded him with a moat and a tynom. And to the question: “What are you afraid of?” - he answered: “No worse than when the commander says:“ I did not expect this! ”.
  24. DPN
    DPN 3 February 2016 16: 28
    +1
    The downed SU-24 showed who has what chances. First of all, the head of the commander should work, so as not to receive coffins from "friends".
  25. AlexTires
    AlexTires 3 February 2016 16: 32
    0
    You can’t relax in any case ... Such rhetoric regarding the alleged opponent / foe is the mother of all punctures ...
  26. gg.na
    gg.na 3 February 2016 16: 33
    +2
    In general, don’t say that these airplanes are very impressive! good
  27. dyksi
    dyksi 3 February 2016 16: 34
    11
    Author, why are you comparing these machines at all? How did you get the idea to compare them? Do you want a budget version of the $ 90 million gizmo to drive to the junkyard? Whoever does this will be sent to Kashchenko and they will do the right thing. In Syria, they are not for the BVB, but for other tasks, he has a far-sighted radar, he plays the role of AWACS, the MiG-29 will start fighting, then the Su-30SM will bite. The troops have not yet received new weapons for the explosive missiles, and without them (for your information) Western vehicles have an advantage at medium and long distances, including upgrades of the same F-16, plus they have very strong electronic warfare. Modernized by our Syrian MiG-23 and MiG-29, catching up with the Israeli F-16, which dropped the GBU at an object in Syria, they could not shoot it down with medium-range missiles because of the enemy's electronic warfare, and it did not come to close combat, the F-16 quickly disappeared into the Israeli territory. I'll write more for you. The F-16 has an option for quick interception (BVB). Three tons of fuel, PTB and just two melee missiles. Taking off, dropping the PTB and here is a 10-ton fighter with fuel and weapons. At the moment, the Su-35 is armed with the R-73, R-77, R-27 missiles (R-77 is also questionable), new weapons, they are only being tested, and most importantly in the west, their counterparts have been in use for a long time, so that its long-range promising missile will hit a maximum of 120 km, by the way, these missiles can also carry the Su-30SM and MiG-35 (MiG-29M / M2). Please open the topic wider, deeper. War is a much more serious and cruel thing than air shows. Another circumstance speaks in favor of the F-16, there are a lot of them. If you win three out of four battles on the Su-35, then you will go bankrupt in a couple of months, because they are incomparable in cost and the F-16 can be produced at three hundred a month, in the basic version, and AWACS that lead them, they have more fighters than we have. If we have already begun to compare, it’s better compared to the "Super Hornet", I assure you there is something to see, especially aerobatics with a combat load. If you consider me a Westerner, then you are mistaken, of the fighters I like the MiG-29 in its latest upgrades, but judging by the enthusiasm with which we took up the castration of the MiG-35 options (although the car has not even been tested yet), then something like the MiG-29SMT / M can reach the conveyor (although I really hope that it will still be a MiG-35, even without AFAR, but with OVT, "smeared" along the center section of the OLS, a TsLU container, an increased BR, its the engines were going to be even more modernized, the PrNK is cool and to carry all the latest weapons).
    1. alexandrastafiev
      alexandrastafiev 3 February 2016 17: 51
      0
      But this is a very serious "PRESENTATION" I would like to read the comment of the author of the article!
  28. iouris
    iouris 3 February 2016 16: 42
    +1
    No need to get excited, dueling situations are not expected. Unless as a special case. For example, the Turk flies to F-16 and discards the glove: they say, I challenge to a fair fight. The fight will take place in a square ..., time ...
    The signal for the attack will be three green whistles.
  29. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 3 February 2016 16: 44
    +2
    For complete happiness, we just do not have enough war with Turkey.
  30. Alexander S.
    Alexander S. 3 February 2016 16: 47
    0
    ... Turkey is not at war with Moscow ... "I don’t think that the Turks will engage in direct air clashes with ours,"
    What is it called? what does it mean not at war? Turks shot down our military plane? is that .. not a declaration of war? Or maybe Germany did not fight with us in the war? so ... she accidentally killed 20 million of our citizens. So how many of our planes have to be shot down ... so that this is called a war? One pilot is not considered .. partners ... wait and count further.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 February 2016 17: 05
      +5
      Quote: Alexander S.
      What is it called? what does it mean not at war? Turks shot down our military plane? is that .. not a declaration of war?

      Not. Pakistanis did the same thing in Afghanistan. Moreover, they openly, without hesitating anything, prepared spirits on their territory.
      So what? But nothing - there was no state of war between Pakistan and the USSR.
  31. bikeev1234
    bikeev1234 3 February 2016 17: 15
    +2
    It has long been known "Trust in God, guys, but keep your gunpowder dry."
  32. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 3 February 2016 17: 19
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Alexander S.
    What is it called? what does it mean not at war? Turks shot down our military plane? is that .. not a declaration of war?

    Not. Pakistanis did the same thing in Afghanistan. Moreover, they openly, without hesitating anything, prepared spirits on their territory.
    So what? But nothing - there was no state of war between Pakistan and the USSR.

    And if you recall Vietnam? The Union openly transmitted the latest equipment, food, fuels and lubricants to the North, sent specialists and nothing, the Third World did not happen! hi
  33. Kachesgm
    Kachesgm 3 February 2016 17: 24
    0
    Another problem with our fighters is rocketry. The Turks have the most modern fire-and-forget missiles on the F-16. And what are ours playing now? Many articles provide data that we have a lag in medium-range missiles, and close ones too. And close combat of fighters is possible as a last resort ...
  34. Trigger-Happy
    Trigger-Happy 3 February 2016 17: 40
    +2
    The title of the article is not correct, it looks like a hatred. Firstly, everyone has a chance and always, the main thing is who and how will use it. Secondly, the F-16 car is not new and run-in, with spent weapons and equipment, and the Su-shkah car is new. Plus a lot of different kinds of information on the presence of certain problems on our machines in terms of long-range missile weapons. An important point is the accumulation of experience in real combat conditions!
  35. Signaller
    Signaller 3 February 2016 18: 22
    +3
    Question to the studio ..... And where does the confrontation between Su 35 and F-16 ???? Well, they will converge in close combat. ???? They will launch a rocket, the same f-16 in the zone and that’s it. Who will fight eyes to eyes. Shooting the enemy out of guns. ????? Well, complete nonsense. You went out of the zone-caught in sight, put a mark in memory and launched a rocket, that's all. Which planes are super. There, the main thing is who sees the first. Well, the pepper is clear, then who is late, it is necessary to dodge missiles fired. did not dodge ... got on a parachute jump. ...
  36. Volzhanin
    Volzhanin 3 February 2016 19: 00
    0
    As a layman and not a specialist in the flight business, I can only say that our planes are the most beautiful. Perfect perfect exterior!
    At least by this parameter, the NATO letaki lose outright!
  37. Zai pali
    Zai pali 3 February 2016 19: 21
    0
    S-400 is much more dangerous than you think. I speak as the commander of the Circle.
  38. TRex
    TRex 3 February 2016 19: 59
    +1
    For a couple of years of participation in the "couch battles" a huge number of "generals" have changed ... Only now have I noticed a huge number of "MARSHALS". Among the veterans I see GSH-18, Pupyrchaty, Vladimirts and some others. To all participants - stop throwing slogans and toasts. Something from my head, pzhst ... And?
    1. 2news
      2news 3 February 2016 20: 14
      0
      Quote: TRex
      Just now I drew attention to the huge number of "MARSHALS"

      Quote: TRex
      To all participants - stop throwing slogans and toasts.

      Like this? This is the main way to become a sofa marshal.
      Quote: TRex
      Something from my head, pzhst ... And?

      So what? First in the negative, and then in the ban.
      PS. Maybe not out of your head? Maybe Internet fables? It doesn't look as disgusting as the slogans. And they will not be banned, as for "out of my head".
      Here is a rating system created here. And the gagging system.
  39. sergant67
    sergant67 3 February 2016 21: 08
    +1
    The beginner confidently ends in doubt; one who begins his journey in doubt will end his confidence.
    F. Bacon

    I'm not ashamed of being an ardent skeptic
    And the soul is not light, but darkness;
    Doubt is the best antiseptic
    From the decay of the mind.

    Practice will judge)))))
  40. aba
    aba 3 February 2016 21: 40
    0
    The video is certainly awesome: the car creates in the air just unthinkable! smile
  41. Lexus
    Lexus 3 February 2016 21: 41
    0
    [quote = 11black] [quote = Aaron Zaavi] besides, the entire border is being shot through by the S400 battalion, which is 32 missiles, just enough for 20 fighters smile Although in fairness, our half of the border is shot by the Patriots on the Turkish side, but their use is the Russia-NATO war [/ quote]
    Patriots like Americans bred a month ago. What the Turks were very upset about (in general, a strange decision, given the storage of atomic charges at the air base). But there are none of them.
    1. clidon
      clidon 3 February 2016 22: 16
      0
      There the Spanish Patriots remained.
  42. Lexus
    Lexus 3 February 2016 22: 48
    0
    S-400 to 36 simultaneously fired targets with a full complement of anti-aircraft missiles, total 32 missiles there ?, Fort Varyaga another 64 missiles accompanied by 6 targets (traditionally 2 missiles have one target). It’s rather weak against 240 f16 (although the Turks cannot be set as much as the Indians probably have an airworthiness coefficient of up to half. Yes, and to drive everything is suicide) Yes, and our response will arrive including tiao (the gauges highlighted in case of something with Varyag
    Another issue knock down at the border. According to the news, they fly out to patrol up to 20 aircraft. Here, probably against them, four 35x with good radars and other avionics. At the same time full-scale tests, and everything else (s400, fort, 30s with 27s) for safety net.
    I also do not understand why there are no purchases of twinks, in Syria, in my opinion, they belong to the same place. Do not tear? Ensuring sustainability and profitability of dry for the implementation of the T50 program? But it’s not so long to lose a moment. Or maybe the prices of Migovtsy have bent, I recently saw a comparison of prices of the 35th su and a moment, the difference is less than half.
  43. Gnufus
    Gnufus 3 February 2016 23: 47
    -1
    I read half the comments and didn’t go further about the destruction of airbases in Syria, + you also need to destroy the water group, after that, the Turks will simply be demolished with precision strikes, or you can stupidly bomb us, you understand that this will end or 3 world’s, Yes, it’s just logical to immediately destroy Turkey, without fear of any kind of sanction.
  44. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 4 February 2016 12: 17
    -1
    All this is a "rustle of nuts": Erdogan, like a bandit, shot down our plane from around the corner, following the "order" of the "big brother from across the ocean", and now he himself cannot come to his senses because of what he had done, it seems that no one is for him will not intercede (and who wants to start 3 MV and die because of some Turks), but "pulling the tiger's mustache" with someone else's hands is just in the light of the Anglo-Saxon policy! What if Russia will falter and retreat, as with the destruction of Hussein and Gaddafi! This is already clearly visible at the Geneva meeting!