Russian Air Force numbers and procurement plans

AMCXXL can u summarize here the losses of combat aircrafts (Su-30, Su-34, Su-35S) from the start of the SMO until now?

The MiG version of the Checkmate looks like this:

Clearly something they need. They should start a prototype because such expo toys aren't gonna push anyone to buy it.

Yes, I am sure that Gerasimov and Suroviking will appreciate your advice

So why bother with the MiG-35 and its 5th gen replacements or the checkmate for that matter?

For aircraft carriers it makes sense to have both light and heavy fighters because together you get better support for your group of ships.

Not all the fighters need to be big and heavy and long ranged and operate 2,000km away from the carrier... having a group that can is useful but making the rest smaller means you can carry more fighters and their shorter range is not a drawback because you need aircraft operating over your ships too just looking out for drones in the air and on the water.

Your approach is not based on the fact that you do not know the real data that the Russians use for their military planning and their willingness to engage in a conventional war against all of NATO,

It is simple mathmatics... if you have half the number of aircraft with the same flight speed and twice the flight range that doesn't mean better coverage it means worse coverage.

If you can fly three or four MiG-35s for the same flight costs as an Su-35 or Su-30 then you can operate two for better coverage and also reduce your operational costs.

The Su-35 has a bigger radar and more weapon hard points but we have seen it in combat with the vast majority of its weapon pylons remaining empty carrying a load a MiG-35 could carry.

Add an inflight refuelling aircraft and the only real difference is radar apature and that could be achieved by attaching a Su-30 to operate with their flight.

The little NATO planes are simply a fetish that do not have the relevance that the West attributes to them in a real large-scale war,

An affordable numbers plane makes sense... on their own they would be vulnerable but as part of a team that includes other more capable types and they are a force multiplier.

The Western oligarchy wants to plunder Russia, not die in a nuclear exchange where many of the missiles are aimed directly at their mansions or their refuges in Patagonia.

The western rich and powerful are fucking arseholes who don't know how to admit they were wrong or apologise and would probably start a nuclear war in a tantrum because their coffee was cold this morning.

Clearly something they need. They should start a prototype because such expo toys aren't gonna push anyone to buy it.

I suspect we only see a model because that is the funded aircraft for the Russian military, while the Checkmate gets the full international sales pitch to try to get foreign funding to get it moving.

They stated the funding for the light 5th gen fighter would be delayed till the Su-57 was in serial production... and it is in serial production.

They have MiG-35s in very low rate production and are likely evaluating them, plus of course the MiG-29KR on their aircraft carrier, which they will also be evaluating.

MiG showed three aircraft which are visible in the photo I posted above with the front on view of the small light single engined MiG fighter prototype. There was the single engined light fighter, an unmanned single engined drone, and a twin engined light 5th gen carrier based aircraft design.

I rather suspect that the Russian military want to wait till the single engined MiG is ready and can be tested to see how it performs in comparison to the MiG-35.

The point is that the light and heavy fighter is supposed to be like the T-90 and T-72 tank with upgrades, where the T-90 is the best they can make... ie Su-27 and then Su-35 when it became available and the T-72 was the MiG-29 and now MiG-35.

The big capable aircraft deals with enemy aircraft and dominates the skies while the smaller lighter aircraft is a bomb truck that can defend itself that is cheaper to operate and use in numbers.

That way you have capable fighters but also enough fighters that you don't have enormous gaps in your airspace.

The shorter flight range of the MiG-35 is a good thing because you will operate them from forward airstrips near the thing they are defending so you want them to not wander off.

The Russian AF now has some experience with the Su-57 and the Su-35 and I rather suspect that there are enough differences between them to warrant having a mixed fleet with both aircraft. Not all missions require stealth while some missions might benefit from 14 plus external weapon points of the Su-35 and perhaps lower operating costs.

What they don't have is operational experience of the MiG-35 and the new single engined MiG.

The purpose of the light aircraft is numbers plane cheaper operations that might not have the enormous payload potential of the heavier aircraft but the fact that you have larger numbers of them means you can hit a lot of targets at once anyway.

New weapons are mostly guided and you don't really need a bomb truck like platform and if you do that will be the Backfire or Fullback.

My point is that they don't know how expensive a MiG-35 and a MiG-xx single engined 5th gen fighter will cost to buy and to operate so they will probably wait till they have the new MiGs developed to see what they are looking at.

That front on photo of the new single engined MiG make it look like a LIFT that is a bit fat... but internal weapon carriage is essential if you want actual stealth.

It is funny those against the MiG-35 because it has two engines also don't seem to like this new MiG either despite it being what they claim is essential.

Almost like their problem is with MiG.

Personally I think a twin engined light fighter would allow much better growth potential and that is why they went with the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the first place.

With thrust vectoring nozzles with two engines you will get better manouvering performance too.

All we have is internet critics who bitch and whine.

And we push our own agendas... I would like to see a carrier based Su-57 and this new twin engined MiG, though with the MiG-29KR the latter is probably not so urgent...

I will do a bit of whining. In restrospect, it would have been a good idea to have restarted MiG-31 and Su-25 production when it was considered about 10 years ago. Cost was cited as the reason not to proceed but would have really been that expensive? Surely Russia could have found a few hundred millions each year to support production. MiG-31 proved it's worth as a lethal BVR platform with the R-37, as well as Kinzhal carrier, while the Su-25 is invaluable for the less glamorous but vital CAS work.

The other mistake was the dramatic drop in aircraft production from 2019 onwards, if they would have kept production at not less that 50 airframes a year, today they would have had another 100 plus modern planes, which would have been very handy against the banderist scum and NATO.

Finally, sidelining the MiG-35 is a big mistake too, surely some of the missions in Ukraine could have been carried out by the cheaper and smaller MiG-35, rather than risk the bigger, more expensive, and perhaps more valuable  Su-34s? And speaking of the Su-34, it's bewildering that it is not fitted with a MAWS yet like Su-35 or MiG-35  (same goes for Su-30SM). At least some losses could have been avoided if it had a MAWS?

So based on the very useful table on the previous page, from 2019 onward an extra 30-35 Su-30SM, 25-30 Su-34 and 25-30 MiG-35 could have been easily manufactured, plus say an extra dozen Yak-130 and  a few more Su-35s too.

Now, AMCXXL said that there are plans to add a third squadron to all the regiments that currently only have 2, which of course would be great. Is there a list by any chance as to the 2 squadron regiments concerned and what they have currently, and would be likely to receive? Many thanks.

I will do a bit of whining. In restrospect, it would have been a good idea to have restarted MiG-31 and Su-25 production when it was considered about 10 years ago. Cost was cited as the reason not to proceed but would have really been that expensive?

It would be expensive to restart production of aircraft designs that are largely obsolete now and in need of replacement.

Surely Russia could have found a few hundred millions each year to support production. MiG-31 proved it's worth as a lethal BVR platform with the R-37, as well as Kinzhal carrier, while the Su-25 is invaluable for the less glamorous but vital CAS work.

I am not aware of any huge shortage of MiG-31s and Su-25s are useful but I suspect might not be replaced with anything that looks like the current Su-25... in fact I think it might be a large turboprop design...

The other mistake was the dramatic drop in aircraft production from 2019 onwards, if they would have kept production at not less that 50 airframes a year, today they would have had another 100 plus modern planes, which would have been very handy against the banderist scum and NATO.

I would think a vast increase in production of medium and intermediate range cruise missiles would be more valuable over that time period.

So based on the very useful table on the previous page, from 2019 onward an extra 30-35 Su-30SM, 25-30 Su-34 and 25-30 MiG-35 could have been easily manufactured, plus say an extra dozen Yak-130 and a few more Su-35s too.

At the cost of what though... I would say having those extra numbers of aircraft would not be a huge influence now and that instead of a huge boost to aircraft production numbers that increases in funding other things might have been more fruitful... I don't know what they are because right now I am not privy to their information and I don't know what they are short of at the moment.

AMCXXL wrote:

mack8 wrote:

Now, AMCXXL said that there are plans to add a third squadron to all the regiments that currently only have 2, which of course would be great. Is there a list by any chance as to the 2 squadron regiments concerned and what they have currently, and would be likely to receive? Many thanks.

Well, I don't know exactly Gerasimov's plans, but based on the announcements made and how the Armed Forces of Russia and before the USSR work, some things can be deduced.

The "Air Base" system was changed to that of regiments, brigades and divisions
Classically in the USSR the regiment had 3 squadrons where the 3rd squadron contained the youngest/less experienced pilots

In the helicopter units, it has gone from 2 to 3 squadrons, reinstating the regiment as a unit and now it is intended to convert them to Brigades of at least 4 squadrons.

In some aircraft regiments there are already 3 squadrons, such as:
Monchegorsk (1st and 2nd AE MiG-31 and 3rd AE Su-24M/MR)
Khotilovo (1st and 2nd AE MiG-31 and 3rd AE Su-35)
Vladivostok (1st and 2nd AE MiG-31 and 3rd AE Su-35)

At first it seemed that they would be separated into two equal aircraft regiments of two squadrons, but the creation of so many fighter regiments is not planned, the MoD announced only one new figther regiment, probably in Leningrad MD, to provide with a fighter regiment to a new Combined Arms Army in the new Military District

It has also been announced in past years that Su-35 squadrons would be deployed to sites such as Millerovo, Belbek, Kaliningrad and Yelizovo

We also know that the PAK-FA is the main fighter aircraft of the Frontal Aviation with 3 regiments contracted to reequip at the rate of 2 squadrons in each
Therefore, so many aircraft can only fit if regiments are made with a mix of aircraft, 2 squadrons of the main aircraft (Su-57, MiG-31) and the third for younger pilots with Su-35.

The case of bomber regiments it is not clear, probably will be also mixed with Su-34 and other airplane for replace Su-25
According to the MoD, 8 bomber regiments have to be created or recreated since current units, for all combined arms armies, this is an enormous number of aircraft if it is only done with S-34


The 7 VKS fighter regiments that currently only have 2 Flanker squadrons:
- Dzemgi: Su-35 (Currently one squadron of Su-35 stay and probably will be the first to receive 2 squadrons of Su-57)
- Besovets: Su-35
- Kursk: Su-30SM
- Millerovo: Su-30SM
- Domna: Su-30SM
- Krymsk: Su-27SM3 (perhaps the second to receive 2 squadrons of Su-57)
- Belbek: Su-27SM/P
Theoretically all these regiments should receive 2 squadrons of Su-57, the 3rd being perhaps in all cases Su-35, retiring the Su-27 and distributing the Su-30SM to the Navy or for training missions and double seat of the Su- 35

In addition, a new regiment will be opened in Leningrad MD that would also be Su-57 probably the 3º Su-57 regiment, therefore there would be 8 regiments to equip with Su-57 in the VKS

Regarding the remaining MiG-31 regiments of the VKS in Perm and Kansk, a 3rd squadron should be included, years ago there was talk of the Su-30 for Perm, but I think they will remain like Vladivostok and Khotilovo with Su-35. The same in Yelizovo and Monchegorsk

The only doubt I have is with the 689º IAP of Kaliningrad

Many thanks for your always insightful details. About those 8 extra bomber regiments, in indeed it's a huge number of aircraft if all were to be equipped with Su-34s, if all would be just 2 squadrons that would still be no less than 192 planes needed, if they would have 3 squadrons that would be 288 planes! Now if i understand correctly the current Su-34M contract is for 76 planes, so a lot more Su-34s are needed to reach those force levels (i've seen mention of a contract for 24 in 2020, but no sure if this is part of the 76 or in addition to it- i'll need to do some more reading).

Are the 8 bomber regiment exclusively for tactical aviation, or perhaps they might include extra Tu-160 strategic aviation regiments? I've just read that there are plans for 70 Tu-160M2s to be built. Correct me if i'm wrong, but those numbers would be enough for 4 regiments at 16 aircraft each plus some spares (is that how DA regiments are organized, 2 squadrons of 8, or is it a different number?)

I said this before, but they could just replace the Su-25 with the MiG-35. The MiG-35 is also a single seater, it has similar engine power, and it has the sensors package to deliver stand-off weapons which the Su-25 cannot do. This would also use what are basically underutilized resources since it would be made at the Sokol plant.

lancelot wrote:I said this before, but they could just replace the Su-25 with the MiG-35. The MiG-35 is also a single seater, it has similar engine power, and it has the sensors package to deliver stand-off weapons which the Su-25 cannot do. This would also use what are basically underutilized resources since it would be made at the Sokol plant.

I cannot agree more. In the current situation, imo Russia cannot afford single role subsonic attack planes, it needs multirole planes capable of facing NATO if need be. Sure, keep the Su-25SM/SM2/3 in service until their life runs out, but they should be replaced with the MiG-35 in the immedite future and perhaps T-75 after 2030. There is course also the option of S-70 when it's ready, so probably a mix of the above, MiG-35 now and T-75 and S-70 when they are ready closer to 2030.

AMCXXL wrote:

mack8 wrote:

Many thanks for your always insightful details. About those 8 extra bomber regiments, in indeed it's a huge number of aircraft if all were to be equipped with Su-34s, if all would be just 2 squadrons that would still be no less than 192 planes needed, if they would have 3 squadrons that would be 288 planes! Now if i understand correctly the current Su-34M contract is for 76 planes, so a lot more Su-34s are needed to reach those force levels (i've seen mention of a contract for 24 in 2020, but no sure if this is part of the 76 or in addition to it- i'll need to do some more reading).

Are the 8 bomber regiment exclusively for tactical aviation, or perhaps they might include extra Tu-160 strategic aviation regiments? I've just read that there are plans for 70 Tu-160M2s to be built. Correct me if i'm wrong, but those numbers would be enough for 4 regiments at 16 aircraft each plus some spares (is that how DA regiments are organized, 2 squadrons of 8, or is it a different number?)

It really is not about 8 regiments of tactical bombers created from scratch in all cases.

The Chelyabinsk regiment, for example, is classified as a "mixed" regiment with 2 Su-34 bomber squadrons and a reconnaissance squadron with Su-24MR
Likewise, the classification of the Voronezh regiment is not at all clear, which in addition to 2 squadrons with 24 Su-34s, has an additional squadron of Su-24MRs deployed in Shatalovo.

There is also a mixed regiment in Marinovka with a squadron of Su-24 and another of Su-24MR and another mixed regiment in Simferopol with squadrons of Su-24 and Su-25.
These regiments should be recycled to be bomber regiments.

In Voronezh, spots for 36 airplanes are painted on the runway, 24 on one side and 12 on the other, so it can be thought that there will be two different types of airplanes.

I think that in total there must be about 10 bomber regiments, each one has 24 Su-34 plus 12 of another type, we would go above 260 Su-34 counting on training and testing units.
Since there should be around half of them in service, there is 10-12 more years of Su-34 production at a rate of one squadron per year.


This is the project of Ru MoD:
1 new figther regiment
8 new bomber regiments  (there are 2 as much on the paper despite there are Su-34 in 4 combat units)
6 new Army Aviation Brigades (the are 4 brigades on the paper and 8 helicopter regiments so 6 should be upgraded)
3 new Air Division HQ´s



Regarding the Tu-160, I highly doubt that there will be 70, the forecast was to build around 50 completely new ones, added to about 15 of Soviet origin.

Each heavy bomber regiment should have 27 aircraft (3 squadrons of 9)

One regiment in Engels and another in Ukrainka are 54 aircraft, add 6-8 more for training in Ryazan and 1 or 2 for testing. Total from 62 to 64


At the moment, contracts were made for 12 aircraft, 2 taken from the remnants of the Soviet era in reserve, plus 10 completely new.
With the 15 in the hands of the VKS that will also be modernized to the same standard, in total there are 27 for Engels' regiment

Therefore, there will be about 35-36 more left for the other regiment and for testing/training.

Again, much appreciate your expert insight. If i can ask one more thing, what is the current situation with the MiG-29 and MiG-29SMTs (i have of course read wiki and other stuff online, but i'm sure they are not that accurate? They have bough no less that 50 modern SMTs, are they all in training units now (which seems like a waste to me in the current situation but here we go). How many standard MiG-29s are still flying, if any? I have read that Erebuni was supposed to receive SMTs, is this confrmed?

And while at it, the situation with unupgraded Su-27s? I would think that once they are retired, Su-27SM/SM3 will be filtered down to training units as they would still have life left, especially the SM3s.

Finally, can you point me to a good recent-ish VKS order of battle with as many details as possible, rather than the outdated stuff on wiki for example?
Many thanks.
PS: I found your excellent overview of legacy types in post 704 from 2021, mostly answers my questions above re MiG-29/Su-27 (though perhaps there are a few changes from 2 years ago?). Do you have the same kind of data (regiment, location, numbers etc.) for the modern types Su-35, Su-30SM, Su-34 etc. as well as MiG-31?

mack8 wrote:

Again, much appreciate your expert insight. If i can ask one more thing, what is the current situation with the MiG-29 and MiG-29SMTs (i have of course read wiki and other stuff online, but i'm sure they are not that accurate? They have bough no less that 50 modern SMTs, are they all in training units now (which seems like a waste to me in the current situation but here we go). How many standard MiG-29s are still flying, if any? I have read that Erebuni was supposed to receive SMTs, is this confrmed?

And while at it, the situation with unupgraded Su-27s? I would think that once they are retired, Su-27SM/SM3 will be filtered down to training units as they would still have life left, especially the SM3s.

Erebuni air base got Su-30SM, instead of Mig-29SMT. I think that all Su-30SM were delivered by year-end of 2021.

I said this before, but they could just replace the Su-25 with the MiG-35.

As has been said they have plans going forward, but I would say the experience of the last year and a half with essentially a HATO proxy force of a peer enemy that they might think differently than they did before about numbers.

Their experience in this conflict seems to me to show that while they had recon and C4ISTAR assets they didn't really have the capacity to cope with tens of thousands of targets at a time... it is one thing to have a Javelin or a Kornet, but when 50 enemy vehicles appear in view you can hit a couple but then you need to fall back.

This end of the war they seem better prepared because when you can only hit a couple then you hit the vehicles with the mine clearing equipment and also the ones at the back of the queue and then call in artillery and air power and other systems to do damage to them and drop more anti vehicle mines behind them to block their escape the way they came in... they also have suicide drones with a decent range that can hit over and over the way they used to have to use forward deployed anti tank teams which would be horribly vulnerable to enemy BMP fire with automatic cannon and HMG.

They only seem to withdraw to create a pocket for the enemy to bunch up into and then hit them with artillery and smash them and push them back to where they started from or even further back.

New guided weapons and new technology is good but your information management system has to cope with all this new information all you new systems are adding to the information system, which I why I think MiG-35s in numbers over the front line would be collecting new information for other platforms to target... with a targeting pod mounted on it you could transmit all the target information in both directions... to the guy on the front line in a tank and to the HQ above them so they get a better idea of what is in front of them. I am sure a combined high resolution AESA radar view of the terrain around them from the air and also a high resolution thermal view of the same territory would be useful for troops on the ground who could mark where they are and find where there enemies are and get the MiG to engage or to pass the job to artillery. An advantage of very long range gun and rocket artillery is that you can have a selection of different round types ready to fire at different targets, so with 40km range Grads you might have two or three Grad batteries in range to provide support, but with Smerch rocket batteries with 150km range there might be five or six batteries in range, so for instance one battery might be all anti armour mine laying rockets for use against a retreating or advancing enemy armour formation... with longer range rockets you can afford to have a battery armed with something exotic like top attack anti tank submunitions.

When your management system knows what guns you have and what ammo they have ready to fire it makes you more efficient in killing the enemy and you get to better use your resources. Anti personal cluster munitions would be wasted on an armoured formation on the move, but hit them with anti armour munitions when they have driven into a minefield then the anti personnel cluster munitions are ideal to get the retreating crew that have abandoned their vehicles in the minefield.

The MiG-35 is also a single seater, it has similar engine power, and it has the sensors package to deliver stand-off weapons which the Su-25 cannot do.

The improvement in performance of helicopters and the adoption of drones has also changed things... including the introduction of glide bombs and weapons like LMUR and HERMES.

The role of the Su-25 is a tricky one because they have been trying and failing to replace such aircraft with more conventional fighters before they existed.

The MiG-21 and MiG-27 were supposed to be ground support aircraft, but it turned out the slower MiG-15 was actually better suited to the job which led to Sukhoi developing the Su-25 and Ilyusion developing the Il-102, and MiG developed a light attack aircraft too. The Il-102 was very much more like an A-10 in size and weight, but it was rejected for the lighter faster Su-25 which carried a lighter payload but was simpler and cheaper and could carry rockets and bombs and gunpods directly to target.

With new "guided" unguided weapons like glide kits for bombs and guided unguided rockets then the focus really seems to be on standoff delivery of weapons which tends to make the MiG-35 more appealing than the Su-25 in that sense, though it was the direction the Su-25 was going with its T and TM modifications.

Better radar, better electro optics, drones and standoff weapons that are still cheap are eroding what the Su-25 was... a cheap tough plane that could fly low and fast and hit targets hard with 250kg and 500kg bombs and rockets directly fired from relatively close range or gunpods and the internal gun against softer targets... all very cheap and very accurate because it is delivered in your face.

This would also use what are basically underutilized resources since it would be made at the Sokol plant.

Directing funds and work towards MiG and the radar and engine companies and factories that work with it will be good for a whole sector of the industry that is being neglected.

I cannot agree more. In the current situation, imo Russia cannot afford single role subsonic attack planes, it needs multirole planes capable of facing NATO if need be. Sure, keep the Su-25SM/SM2/3 in service until their life runs out, but they should be replaced with the MiG-35 in the immedite future and perhaps T-75 after 2030.

An upgrade of the Su-25 with the radar and EO systems being fitted to their helicopters would be interesting and the role of fighting the faster heavier drones over friendly territory as well as looking for low flying helicopters trying to penetrate you airspace in an aircraft with low operating costs would be interesting.

Perhaps transferring those sensors and systems to a light transport plane like the Baikal or slightly larger aircraft or LIFT like the Yak-130 or Yak-152.

It might be that the replacement for the Su-25 is waiting for a new engine like that new 5,000hp engine they were talking about, or maybe a PD-8 derivative of the engine for the Mi-26.

Regarding the Tu-160, I highly doubt that there will be 70, the forecast was to build around 50 completely new ones, added to about 15 of Soviet origin.

There were always plans for other versions of the aircraft like a heavy interceptor to supplement the Tu-128, while a jammer aircraft would be interesting as it could operate with the bombers to make them safer... perhaps a combination jammer interceptor using a huge AESA radar for both roles...

That's great stuff, many thanks AMCXXL. It didn't occur to me to look at the spanish wiki. I will try to save all that before someone tampers with it (probably some banderist lowlifes). If you still have those maps and can post them would be fantastic.

About those SMTs, puzzling they were retired, they were only 10 years old. Could it be that they had too many western systems, and this is the reason why? And are the 21 MiG-29 that were/are supposed to be bought by India drawn from these 34 ex-algerian SMTs?

The reason the SMTs were not kept was probably the reason they didn't buy them in the past, they didn't really seem to want a swing role fighter bomber that could go in first with AAMs and clean up enemy aircraft and then go in later with AAMs and bombs where it would drop bombs on ground targets and then climb and provide air protection for the next fighters coming in with their bombs.

They didn't want to use expensive air to ground weapons so a cheaper plane was what they wanted... they were not interested in swing role or multirole aircraft.

Ironically the west was expecting to be overwhelmed by tank forces outnumbering them by a large margin so their C4ISTAR was expecting enormous numbers of targets at a time and to roll back with the attacks picking off the important stuff as they rolled back with the attacks... top priorities of course being air defence vehicles and mine clearing vehicles.

Russia has spent quite some time upgrading its C4ISTAR equipment and now they will likely realise that dealing with enormous numbers is part of what they need to be able to do, and to deal with enormous numbers of enemies means having lots of platforms that shoot.

When you have enormous numbers of aircraft or tanks but lack C4ISTAR like the Soviets did at the start of WWII having lots of Polikarpov I-16 fighters or T-26 light tanks does not help if you can manage them and coordinate their fire... the I-16s were largely obsolete and so was the T-26 because it had a two man crew, but its 45mm gun was actually rather good for the time.

A good way to boost numbers with lighter cheaper fighters means more sensors and more weapons pointed at the enemy which means you can deal with his forces better when he mounts an attack.

With Russian Air Defence systems their AD vehicles get more missiles and upgrades to engage more targets at one time, but their fighters are big and heavy and not cheap... even if they are not as expensive as western aircraft of all sizes.

Ironically the model for the fighters was that the big aircraft (Su-27 and Su-35 and Su-57) was to be the top predator and air dominance fighter, while the smaller lighter fighter (MiG-29 and MiG-35 and MiG-??/Su-75) was to be the swing fighter bombers for frontal aviation that clears the skies over the battlefield of enemy helicopters and CAS aircraft and enemy light fighters like F-35 and F-16 etc, and these days also deal with the larger drones.... even when it runs out of missiles its radar can be used to direct ground based defences against air threats.

The Russians have been very skillful in adapting to the situation on the front line... I wonder if they decide that a light fighter decision cannot wait till the new single engined MiG is ready and start mass production of the MiG-35.

Ironically it was probably price that was stopping them producing it but most of that price was the AESA radar, for which mass production is the only way to make the price come down.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

ALAMO wrote:Weren't those SMTs declined by Algeria because of finding out being used?
Something rings my bell that those have been built using old hulls, and some structural issues were found.
But it is a very old flash of my memory, so might be wrong  

Algeria had refused to accept the SMTs because they found on the aircrafts equipment dated back to the early 1990s

I think it is about the time to try and collect data about new airplanes and helicopters produced and delivered to VKS in 2023.

Acc. to official sources VKS received 237 new airplanes and helicopters in 2023.

I suppose that majority of these deliveries are related to helicopters ( at least 2/3)...
However, I would form my list based on some questionable sources from internet and please feel free to update my list.

Airplanes:

Su-57    - 11 (link)
Su-34    - 12 (link)
Su-30    - 10
Su-35    - 12
yak-130 - 12

IL-76     -  6 (link)
Tu-160   -  4 (link)
-----------------
Total --- 67

Helicopters: (link) optimistic scenario

Ka-52   ~ 25
Mi-28   ~ 25
Mi-35   ~ 25
Mi-8     ~ 25
Mi-17   ~ 25
Mi-26   ~   5
Mi-38   ~   5
-----------------
Total ~   135

Overall total aircraft delivered in 2023 = 135 + 67 = 202

Even though my calculation is based on extremely optimistic forecast for helicopters, still it is far below 237 reported deliveries.
This indicates that those 237 delivered includes modernized aircraft as well.

What are your thoughts ?

Ned86 wrote:I think it is about the time to try and collect data about new airplanes and helicopters produced and delivered to VKS in 2023.

Acc. to official sources VKS received 237 new airplanes and helicopters in 2023.

I suppose that majority of these deliveries are related to helicopters ( at least 2/3)...
However, I would form my list based on some questionable sources from internet and please feel free to update my list.

Airplanes:

Su-57    - 11 (link)
Su-34    - 12 (link)
Su-30    - 10
Su-35    - 12
yak-130 - 12

IL-76     -  6 (link)
Tu-160   -  4 (link)
-----------------
Total --- 67

i am not sure about the Su-30M2s. I have counted only 4t his year