Most active Russian combat aircraft were built over the past decade. Russia has enough modern combat aircraft to easily take on the UK, France, and Germany combined (and then some) and win.
A waste amount of the aircraft in NATO are basically the technical equivalent of a MiG-29SMT, Su-27P, or worse. Most of them aren't combat capable.
Russia would only have issues if the US sent it's air force. But in that case you could expect all major NATO airbases, maintenance facilities, depots, to be hit with tactical nukes.
The in service MiG-35 in Russia has the AESA radar. We have photos of it being shown right with the radome removed here in this thread.
Egypt decided for economic reasons to remain with a neutered air force. They get the Rafale, but they don't get to buy any modern long range air to air missiles. What did they expect, buying an aircraft from France, with a President who used to work for the Rothschild?
lancelot wrote:Most active Russian combat aircraft were built over the past decade. Russia has enough modern combat aircraft to easily take on the UK, France, and Germany combined (and then some) and win.
A waste amount of the aircraft in NATO are basically the technical equivalent of a MiG-29SMT, Su-27P, or worse. Most of them aren't combat capable.
all 40 of MiG-29 SMT in Russian AF ? 70 is old MiG-29 Su-27P wa modernized form 2000s ?
Russia's 500 fighters vs European NATO 1500? Russia cannot leave southern flank nor pacicis or northern route without fighters isnt it?
So no it is not an easy task. Why then Russia would keep nukes in Belorussia?
Russia would only have issues if the US sent it's air force. But in that case you could expect all major NATO airbases, maintenance facilities, depots, to be hit with tactical nukes.
Glad you confirm what i just stated. Russia has littl echance with conventional NATO confrontation due to numerical advantage of adversary enemy.
The in service MiG-35 in Russia has the AESA radar.
it is nice though doesn't change the status: 6 mande and neither more is planned nor export orders secured. Looks like MiG-35 is gonna be ditched.
GunshipDemocracy wrote: No the situation is NOT rosy. This is what Vova said: NATO has advantage in conventional weapons. That's why nukes are on standby.
There is a big gap between "rosy" and "shady" bro. And that is a whole point. Russkie are not as weak as it seems if looked at without more details. And yes, they have nukes above all of that shit.
the point it Russia is not weak but NATO is stronger having numerical advantage in conventional weapons. Nuker in Belorussia is the best proof for this.
Rodion_Romanovic wrote: Planes from Turkey and Greece are not there to be used against Russia, they are there to be used against each other.
Yeah, you got proof?
And how does US plans to deploy all of its planes in an eventual conflict against Russia?
Especially considering that Russia will target the airfields.
like Russian airfields worn be targeted by massie volley US/NATO missiles. Why USA should use all fighters bombers against Russia? in one place with 6000 fighters? 2000 is more then enough. Russia's 500 fighters around the biggest country in the world? how many against Japan, Korea and USAF in alaska is enough? How many against US navy fighter's + NATO is enough?
If you want to inflate Nato's numbers by adding every 40/50 year old plane like the Hornet, Mirage and F-16, then be minimally coherent and do the same with Russia by adding all the Su-27 and Mig-29.
This works both ways since Su-27 and MiG-29 were made in the USSR. BTW MiG-35 has 15 years already so its not really new design.
Belisarius wrote:
According to Russian wiki Russia has ~500 fighters active
Wiki as source?
Russian wiki, do you have better sources?
Im not sure why do you assume Russian AF all ~500 fighters are in combat condition
And why do you assume that all fighters from Finland, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Poland and Turkey are in combat condition? [/quote]
Fair enough, both sides have non combat ready fighters then still have similar ratio ~ 7/1
how would you evaluate basic MiG-29 or Su-27 against Typhoon or Rafale?
Mig-29 and Su-27 are much more robust and reliable, are simpler and cheaper to maintain and operate, are better able to operate on poorly prepared runways, have pilots with better training, as well as better weapons and whose stocks they won't run out after a few weeks of attacks on military dwarfs like Libya...[/quote]
Russian fighters are cheaper but WEst has much bigger economy and can afford more expensive fighters. Why would you assume that preparing for attack on Russia west is so stupid they wont build enough missiles ? Like they dont know better what Russian have then us on this forum.
F-35 -80 million dollars. -sources saying flights cost 36,000-45,000 dollars. -self ejected a pilot, self-ejected another pilot because of bug in program and I shit you not after the south korean F-35 hit a bird they had to retire the aircraft which originally cost them 85 million dollars but the repairs would have cost over 100 million dollars -4 internal air to air missile carry with a rack option which has yet to be implemented with a 6 air to air missile carry option.
Su-75 -25-35 million dollars per aircraft as proposal -flight costs are estimated 6-7 times less than F-35 -electronics are configurable for you if you want to put your own radar or infrared systems. -5 internal air to air missiles. -https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2807558&TypeFile=html patent allows you to change the cockpit however you like from one seat, 2 seat or UAV mode without having to purchase a whole new platform. -3000km max range internal fuel, UAV option for cockpit would reduce weight and significantly increase the range passed 3000km.
How the **** can Mikoyan even compete with Sukhoi? The most fucked up part is most countries will still purchase the F-35s out of fear to not get sanctioned by the U.S. and western countries if they were to purchase the Su-75 which looks fare more suitable for interest than the Mig-35s. I feel bad for Mikoyan that I beg the Russian government to let them test donation engines for a mig-41 interceptor project to make them feel more relevant again.
The Russian wiki about the T-80 mentions the Oryx, so your point is?
Fair enough, both sides have non combat ready fighters then still have similar ratio ~ 7/1
Except that Russia has almost 700, not 500, fighters capable of air-to-air BVR combat and there is nothing to indicate that the availability rate of Russian aircraft is as low as in NATO.
Russian fighters are cheaper but WEst has much bigger economy and can afford more expensive fighters.
Either you're really stupid or you've been living in a cave for the last few years, the last 2 years have made it clear that the much larger economy in the West doesn't mean shit.
Why would you assume that preparing for attack on Russia west is so stupid they wont build enough missiles ?
Why would you assume that nations that cannot produce even the simplest artillery shells in sufficient quantities would produce much more complex missiles in sufficient quantities?
Like they dont know better what Russian have then us on this forum.
They don't know shit about Russia, and that's why they are being humiliated economically, militarily and in every conceivable way by Russia.
GB wrote: Will Turkey put its head on the chopping block?
Will Spain send 160 fighters and Greece send 220 fighters to the front and leave their countries exposed to potential land attack cruise missile attack from Russian subs?
Will they send all their planes and tanks when Turkey does not?
Why they should use all what they have with numerical advantage 7:1? NATO can have more fighters in every point they will choose while Russia's fighters cannot concentrate one place. from Finland/Norway to Iran/Iraq? What about hundreds of fighters from Japan/Korea and USAF/US navy?
No-one knows what would happen and I hope well never have learn
Im not sure why do you assume Russian AF all ~500 fighters are in combat condition and how would you evaluate basic MiG-29 or Su-27 against Typhoon or Rafale?
There are very few basic MiG-29s and Su-27s in service in European Russia.
[/quote]
then we got even less in European part to counter NATO forces.
Besides having more weapons makes no difference if you can't stop the other guys missiles that are going to fly in and break things,
the same works both ways you know. Thousands of NATO missiles launched on Russia is enough for strategic blow. The only thing to keep them at bay are nukes. That's why all nuclear weapons has been constantly upgraded in Russia last 20 years.
. Russia might not even need to resort to using nukes...
I admire your optimism, it seem however Russian military don't share it with you. Russians moved tactical nukes to Belarus as response to conventional military buildup in Poland.
GB wrote:
So no MiG-35 has missed its train. Perhaps the new fighter from MiG can be born in better times.
The heavy Flankers are too expensive to operate in the numbers needed to give them good airspace coverage. The shorter range of the MiG-35 is not a problem in European Russia where there are lots of airfields and targets that need protecting over much shorter ranges.
you can argue with me about how good they are but not with the facts:
1) Only 6 MiGs were ever made. 2) There are no plans so far to procure more 3) Su-35/30 conveyor works at the full speed 4) Neither India not Egypt opted out MiG-35 yet he was cheaper.
Perhaps the situations will change perhaps will not. Im not in Russian MoD, neither are you, we need to wait and see.
The Russian wiki about the T-80 mentions the Oryx, so your point is?
do you have better sources so?
Belisarius wrote:
Fair enough, both sides have non combat ready fighters then still have similar ratio ~ 7/1
Except that Russia has almost 700, not 500, fighters capable of air-to-air BVR combat and there is nothing to indicate that the availability rate of Russian aircraft is as low as in NATO.
including su-34 and 40 years old Su-27 and MiG-29? yay, 700 fighters can you provide source?
Belisarus wrote:
Russian fighters are cheaper but WEst has much bigger economy and can afford more expensive fighters.
Either you're really stupid or you've been living in a cave for the last few years, the last 2 years have made it clear that the much larger economy in the West doesn't mean shit.
Being urapatriot living in parallel reality doesn't change the real situation. the west can product more of everything. Just in EU economy is not on war mode as in russia for last two years. Spending as 2%GDP is what in Russia 6%?
Russian leadership plays their cards cards extremely well. With your optimism Russia would loose
Why would you assume that preparing for attack on Russia west is so stupid they wont build enough missiles ?
Why would you assume that nations that cannot produce even the simplest artillery shells in sufficient quantities would produce much more complex missiles in sufficient quantities? [/quote]
yes they can but not in one year. If they want war you will see 10x increase in production of anything they wish for.
This talk of numbers advantage in favor of NATO is bunk if you're not including the manpower question in the discussion. You do know who is going to be piloting and maintaining these jets for NATO, right?
Fucking Tyrese, Paco, and Ahmed of the sub 80 IQ club, that's who.
The Russian airforce can be in a 3-1 disadvantage and they are still going to wipe. Who fucking cares about numbers, when its the man behind the cockpit that counts.
sepheronx, GarryB, Arkanghelsk and Belisarius like this post
lyle6 wrote:This talk of numbers advantage in favor of NATO is bunk if you're not including the manpower question in the discussion. You do know who is going to be piloting and maintaining these jets for NATO, right?
Fucking Tyrese, Paco, and Ahmed of the sub 80 IQ club, that's who.
The Russian airforce can be in a 3-1 disadvantage and they are still going to wipe. Who fucking cares about numbers, when its the man behind the cockpit that counts.
Doesn't matter, Gunship is just posting nonsense anyway. His numbers are not even close to reality.
Being urapatriot living in parallel reality doesn't change the real situation. the west can product more of everything. Just in EU economy is not on war mode as in russia for last two years. Spending as 2%GDP is what in Russia 6%?
The EU can't do anything with its economy
They are in recession, and on purchasing power/production smaller than Russia
Russia overtook Germany for GDP PPP already and now aims at Japan
Russia is outproducing the entire west right now and the west cannot change the situation
They sit at high interest rates and it's weighing hard on their citizens
They can't risk to enter a war economy, it would mean the collapse of their societies
You need the industrial base, and the west doesn't have it
Not even South Korea has it
Because all those economies were built into a globalized model, they can't just produce things they actually need, they were only allocated a portion of the global trade system and have quotas to meet
Many of them have developed consumer manufacturing base to pump out some kia and Toyota
But that does not translate into military production
yes they can but not in one year. If they want war you will see 10x increase in production of anything they wish for.
No they can't , again more binkov level thinking
You can't print missiles, drones, artillery, and munitions in general
If they could raise production they would
South Korea with its maxed industry can't reach that level of production
It is a problem where money does not equal material
EU citizens are living in a tough time right now
Sure they have money for daily routine, but they don't have money to buy apartments, cars, and other items that the economy depends on
They are in a permanently austere economic environment
Owning nothing and being happy about it
They already experienced severe riots from food prices alone
And you seriously think the EU can increase any kind of production?
flamming_python, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
The Duran actually did a take at the whole "EU go to war economy and mass production" and they more or less said it is impossible. Many of the industries are actually gone now from the bigger EU countries and if they decided to invest now, it may take a decade to catch up to what Russia does now. They also said the welfare structure of the EU couldn't handle it either. Already the people of EU are protesting en mass in various of its countries and that is over little things like price hikes and cheap food from Ukraine. Now add in removal of a lot of the social benefits and there would be mass protest bigger than anything seen now.
Of course EU could go into mass production mode, but they would have to sacrifice a lot. And then they would have risk major discontent. And even then, it will take a long while before it becomes fruitful.
GarryB, flamming_python, Big_Gazza, lancelot and Belisarius like this post
sepheronx wrote:The Duran actually did a take at the whole "EU go to war economy and mass production" and they more or less said it is impossible. Many of the industries are actually gone now from the bigger EU countries and if they decided to invest now, it may take a decade to catch up to what Russia does now. They also said the welfare structure of the EU couldn't handle it either. Already the people of EU are protesting en mass in various of its countries and that is over little things like price hikes and cheap food from Ukraine. Now add in removal of a lot of the social benefits and there would be mass protest bigger than anything seen now.
Of course EU could go into mass production mode, but they would have to sacrifice a lot. And then they would have risk major discontent. And even then, it will take a long while before it becomes fruitful.
Decades of relentessly pursuing "efficiency" and introducing "innovations" like just-in-time manufacturing (all intended solely to maximise profit at the expense of workers/jobs and strategic capabilities) have led to this situation, yet no-one in the West wants to admit it, let alone own this totally-avoidable shitshow. What a clown show the exceptionalist West has become...
GarryB, flamming_python and Belisarius like this post
Russia has no parity with NATO in the air force. Unless for you the parity is 7 to 1 for NATO. Russia also needs to consider China's air force as a possible enemy.
A Russia/HATO war how much effect will aircraft actually have in the conflict?
Russia will launch weapons to strike targets in the west and destroy them because your AD is rubbish... Iskander and Kinzhal and even Kh-32 operate at altitudes above 30km and would be out of reach of all western air defence systems... whether they are nuclear armed or conventionally armed the effect is going to be significant.
China is not Russias enemy. The west has made itself Russias enemy. It is that simple.
HATO is picking a fight with the one country that can really **** them up... even if you think the west might win it is not going to recover from that level of damage.
So no it is not an easy task. Why then Russia would keep nukes in Belorussia?
Russia putting nukes in Belarus is a very belated response to the US keeping nukes in Europe and moving them from Germany to Poland.
Russia's 500 fighters vs European NATO 1500? Russia cannot leave southern flank nor pacicis or northern route without fighters isnt it?
You are getting this arse about... it is the west with no ground based air defence network that needs 1,500 fighter aircraft to try to protect their airspace.
Russia actually has an AD network so aircraft just boost performance and coverage and as a mobile fire brigade that can move to places that need extra protection.
Glad you confirm what i just stated. Russia has littl echance with conventional NATO confrontation due to numerical advantage of adversary enemy.
Actually, it is more to Russias advantage to keep it conventional if they can and with hypersonic land attack missiles they can probably take out HATO facilities and troop concentrations with cluster warheads and other warhead types.
Their level of precision seems to be excellent and their ability to smack targets in the Ukraine no matter what is defending them seems to be pretty good.
Conversely the ability of the western attack missiles seems to be rather poor and patchy at best.
it is nice though doesn't change the status: 6 mande and neither more is planned nor export orders secured. Looks like MiG-35 is gonna be ditched.
They have said they are going to serial produce the aircraft.
the point it Russia is not weak but NATO is stronger having numerical advantage in conventional weapons. Nuker in Belorussia is the best proof for this.
When Russian forces entered the Ukraine the Kiev forces had a massive numbers advantage, but simply couldn't apply it as the Russians chipped away at specific targets that weakened their ability to respond and move.
Russia could attack HATO energy reserves and nuclear power stations... why would Russia give a shit about nuclear radiation in Europe... Russia isn't allowed to be part of Europe remember.
Retired French military are saying sending French troops would be like sending cheerleaders... the game in the Ukraine or indeed against Russia is different from anything HATO has ever even conceived or thought about and those French troops would be learning what to do by the Ukrainians who are losing 1,000 men a day.
Yeah, you got proof?
The US coalition fighting Iraq in the 1990s wanted Turkish bases to operate from and they declined... do you think Erdogan will join a conflict with Russia where they will essentially be on the front line while the US barks the orders from thousands of kms away?
I rather suspect most European nations are not going to send everything they have to the front and if they do they will get massacred by the Russian AD and their attack missile capacity.
like Russian airfields worn be targeted by massie volley US/NATO missiles.
The west will launch missile strikes but against most targets all those missiles get jammed or shot down... and of course western satellites will start failing and the west quickly becomes a blind giant... and as its air forces are shredded its ability to attack or defend fades away too.
Why USA should use all fighters bombers against Russia? in one place with 6000 fighters?
Because like their 12 carrier groups only about 4 are actually operational at any one given time and sailing anywhere near Russian waters would end in them being sunk.
The west has a very high opinion of itself which is largely based on experience against third world countries... western politicians have in the past been very careful to avoid tangling with the Soviets or Russians or Chinese directly... when it happens like in Korea or Vietnam the results are not very favourable to the west. They kill lots of villagers, but they don't actually win.
How many fighters did the Taliban have? They had a few more after the US and coalition of the stupid left.
BTW MiG-35 has 15 years already so its not really new design.
It was claimed bad in the west because it didn't have an AESA radar... well...
Fair enough, both sides have non combat ready fighters then still have similar ratio ~ 7/1
I would say the Ukrainian experience has shown that Russia is much better prepared for war than all of HATO is... they have weapons and ammo in storage and they apply upgrades and get them into service pretty damn quickly and just based on that I would say that would change the ratio because most western countries with worn out old platforms are sending them to Germany and Poland for upgrades they can't apply themselves... they have lost the capacity to upgrade and overhaul aircraft and armour.
Another factor the west totally ignores is textiles... look at this Finnish video warning about the problem:
How is the west doing with uniforms and tents and other fabric materials... Russia makes its own and in fact exports fabric to China.
How will the people in the west feel about conscription. Russians know exactly what they are fighting... western aggression that started a proxy war on their border which the west is feeding to kill Russians. The best way to stop it might be to destroy the west perhaps?
How many in the west want to join the military and be sent to the eastern front... traditionally not a popular front for many Germans...
How many HATO countries will do what they are doing now and not join the conflict officially and just supply weapons and ammo and money in the form of loans to those countries keen to jump into the pool without testing the water?
Remember Afghanistan when the US said it was leaving and so many HATO countries said the job wasn't finished and they would stay for as long as it took... and then when the US started taking all their stuff and stopped supporting the other countries ground forces those other countries realised that without all the stuff the US brings they are horribly vulnerable and there is no way their own countries will fill the financial gap the US leaving would create.
In the end HATO acted in Unity and ran away together.
Russian fighters are cheaper but WEst has much bigger economy and can afford more expensive fighters.
Their more expensive tanks and more expensive missiles don't seem to have been more effective on the battlefield. Some of the most expensive wrist watches are not actually that accurate as time keepers.
The point is that their MIC fooled them into thinking the more expensive something is the more capable. That is simply not true.
Some new technologies cost more but over time the price should go down but the price for western aircraft only ever goes up.
That is not new technology, that is corruption.
Why would you assume that preparing for attack on Russia west is so stupid they wont build enough missiles ?
Because they haven't. Every military intervention they have ever been involved with after about a week the missile strikes reduce because they are running out of missile stocks. Ironically they will spend trillions on stealth fighters that are not stealthy and not very good fighters, but they wont spend 20 million to put a large amount of artillery shells and missiles in storage in case they need some.
Like they dont know better what Russian have then us on this forum.
Based on all the fucking stupid shit the west has done to turn Russia against Europe and the US in the hopes of destroying it economically and to destroy Putin politically so they can get a stooge in there or some crook they can pay off, I would say most of their information comes from their own eyes.
Their core problem is that with their heads up their own arses, all they see is their own shit which tells them Putin is weak and he never reacts and Russia is a third world gas station with nukes that probably wont work.
Of course their military are not prepared for a real conflict with a second world country like Russia or even China for that matter.
F-35 -80 million dollars. -sources saying flights cost 36,000-45,000 dollars.
F-35 is 110-120 million dollars... depending on the model... the 80 million figure is the airframe without the engine... which is another 20 million.
-self ejected a pilot, self-ejected another pilot because of bug in program and I shit you not after the south korean F-35 hit a bird they had to retire the aircraft which originally cost them 85 million dollars but the repairs would have cost over 100 million dollars
Worse than that the oxygen generation system that taps airflow going through the engine often suffocates the pilots when operating at altitudes where oxygen masks are used.
This same oxygen system is used in other American aircraft and it fails in those aircraft sometimes too.
More important the super efficient supply and maintenance system that was going to be developed for the F-35 to make support much cheaper... was cancelled.
How the **** can Mikoyan even compete with Sukhoi?
There is nothing magic about Checkmate... that is what the F-35 should have been, but US corruption is the problem there.
MiG are starting with what looks like a smaller lighter Yak-130 sized aircraft but unlike the Yak-130 they will start with a stealthy shape and internal weapons and a more powerful single engine and there is no reason why it could not be the cheap simple affordable light fighter that most countries are wanting.
The MiG-35 shows they can make planes cheaper to operate than the Flanker otherwise there would be no point to the MiG-35 at all.
The most fucked up part is most countries will still purchase the F-35s out of fear to not get sanctioned by the U.S. and western countries if they were to purchase the Su-75 which looks fare more suitable for interest than the Mig-35s
But that is fantastic... the more arse lickers pander to the US and buy its shit and then pay through the nose for that expensive crap, the less money they will have for decent weapons that might be a threat to Russia or other countries.
The US is complaining that HATO countries don't spend 2% of their GDP... with F-35s that wont be a problem.
The MiG-35 is not cheap to buy, but it has quality technology so it wont get smashed like a drone would. The MiG-35 is designed to be cheap to operate which means you can afford to have more in service and it wont break the bank... and that is also what Checkmate is for too and this new Russian light fighter.
I feel bad for Mikoyan that I beg the Russian government to let them test donation engines for a mig-41 interceptor project to make them feel more relevant again.
Don't feel bad.... the MiG-31 has proved its worth and the MiG-UTS will be popular as a cheap light single engined aircraft for training and likely for civilian use, and now it seems they will be making MiG-35s and this new 5th gen light single engined fighter.
They will probably also be making a MiG-35 modified for carrier operations too to supplement the MiG-29Ks.
Either you're really stupid or you've been living in a cave for the last few years, the last 2 years have made it clear that the much larger economy in the West doesn't mean shit.
The US spends 0.85 of a trillion dollars and all the HATO countries like the UK and France and Germany, all added up together probably bring the total spent to 1.5 trillion dollars a year.
It is not about how much you spend, it is about value for money. Russia gets value for money and the west does not.
Why they should use all what they have with numerical advantage 7:1? NATO can have more fighters in every point they will choose while Russia's fighters cannot concentrate one place. from Finland/Norway to Iran/Iraq? What about hundreds of fighters from Japan/Korea and USAF/US navy?
And what will China do when all those aircraft leave Japan and Korea and the entire US navy heads for places off the Russian coast?
HATOs air forces still have to defend HATO countries airspace... do you think the UK will send all its planes to Poland to fight Russia in Belarus and Ukraine?
What happens when cruise missiles start bursting out of the water in the North Sea heading towards London?
Where are you going to base all these thousands of planes in Finland and Norway?
Who is going to fly these planes?
HATO countries would be horribly vulnerable to a first strike... hitting power stations and gas and oil storage facilities, comms centres and of course centres of government.
This is not a rescue mission to rescue Russians and Russian friendly Ukrainians trapped in a nazi controlled Ukraine, this is survival, so they are interested in destroying targets but not so worried about the native casualties because they are all hostile anyway.
No-one knows what would happen and I hope well never have learn
HATO has a history and so does Putin and I know which I would bet my money on.
If Putin has his way we will never know but if S(u)nak(e) or Moron get their way we will.
the same works both ways you know. Thousands of NATO missiles launched on Russia is enough for strategic blow.
Most will be shot down and a strategic attack on Russia justifies retaliation with nukes in their constitution.
The only thing to keep them at bay are nukes. That's why all nuclear weapons has been constantly upgraded in Russia last 20 years.
Conflict between Russia and HATO was always going to be nuclear.
I admire your optimism, it seem however Russian military don't share it with you. Russians moved tactical nukes to Belarus as response to conventional military buildup in Poland.
No. It was the moving or talk of moving the US nukes from Germany to Poland that made them decide to base nukes in Belarus.
you can argue with me about how good they are but not with the facts:
Your distortion of facts are funny.
After the first 6 F-35s were made they only had 6 but they had a future.
1) Only 6 MiGs were ever made.
Not a fact. The MiG-29M MiG-29K and MiG-35 all use the same airframe/design and they have made MiG-29Ks for India and the Russian Navy and they have also made and sold MiG-29Ms to several countries already.
They have made more than 6 MiG-35s because the 6 you are talking about are serial production MiG-35s... are you that stupid to think they would make 6 Serial MiG-35s without a prototype... or a half dozen prototypes for flight testing and structural testing and avionics testing etc etc etc.
They made six and put them in service so they could evaluate their actual performance and operational issues and actual costs.
They have said they will start serial production of more aircraft.
2) There are no plans so far to procure more
It has been reported that they are going to produce some.
3) Su-35/30 conveyor works at the full speed
And would be too expensive to operate in large numbers.
4) Neither India not Egypt opted out MiG-35 yet he was cheaper.
Egypt went for the MiG-29M and India continues to use its MiG-29 upgrades.
Now the MiG-35 is going to be serially produced for the Russian military then export orders might become more practical.
Being urapatriot living in parallel reality doesn't change the real situation. the west can product more of everything.
This is the real world and the west no longer produces tanks and their current ones can't be made because they have proven as useless as the much cheaper older generation tanks. If they were going to put tanks into production right now it would be M60s and Leopard 1s because they wont do any worse than the expensive tanks they just lost but at least they could make them in larger numbers because they are cheaper.
Just in EU economy is not on war mode as in russia for last two years. Spending as 2%GDP is what in Russia 6%?
They are paying ten times more for artillery shells and even then their production capacity in a year barely matches the Russian capacity for a month.
Russian leadership plays their cards cards extremely well. With your optimism Russia would loose
Western airpower is over rated, but even pretending it was stronger the Russian air defence would destroy it in a couple of weeks... Ukraines air defence is in tatters and has resorted to ambush mode where it is not really defending Orc forces at all... it just occasionally inflicts damage on Russian air power as Russia air power pummels their ground forces and assets behind the lines.
Their super stealthy air launched cruise missiles need to be fired in volleys for any chance of any getting through, which means to actually be effective you need millions of missiles and thousands of launch platforms... and Russian Air Defence is only getting better.
Western air defence is largely non existent.
yes they can but not in one year. If they want war you will see 10x increase in production of anything they wish for.
Economic difficulties the west is currently facing will be magnified multiple times by massively increasing the defence budgets because it wont come from no where... infrastructure projects and healthcare and education will all suffer... and how many people in the west will want to go and fight the Russians?
And you seriously think the EU can increase any kind of production?
I dare say open conflict with Russia will stop all gas and oil and Uranium supplies, and Germany factories are already moving to the US...
The first Russian missile strikes can be oil and gas storage sites.
Gomig-21 wrote:The bottom line is this whole deal is mired with frustration. Between the MiG-29M/M2/35 and the drama of the Su-35S, it's left a crappy taste in one's mouth and makes one think that any planned future acquisitions from Russia will be neutered before they get on their feet.
GarryB wrote:Yeah, there are never any problems with new western gear, only Russian stuff has teething problems...
Oh come on lol. Put the Russian pompoms down for a minute. The reference I was making were directed at the frustration of the complications initiated by the US & CAATSA and what it's caused with the Su-35 deal and how it could potentially affect every future acquisition Egypt would want to make from Russia, such as additional MiG-35s to increase the fleet numbers.
At the same time, it would be nice to know the Zhuk-AE is available by then. Noting to do with teething problems from the lack of an AESA radar. We're not that spoiled to complain about something like that when a huge portion of imported Russian high-end weaponry has already successfully made its way to Egypt.
Not to mention the pair of Mistral LHDs which were slated for the Russian Navy were instead diverted to Egypt with the understanding that many of the modifications installed in them were to facilitate the induction of Ka-52 Katrans.
Also the 4 batteries of S-300VM and supposed ongoing negotiations for additional Antey 2500 systems but there are vicious rumors that the 4 batteries delivered have been put in storage and not activated yet because of.........yep, you guessed it, CAATSA. At the same time, 8 batteries of IRIS-T-SLM from Germany had no problems being agreed to and delivered with an additional 15 being negotiated on as we speak. These are the reasons for the frustrations I was referring to as the potential of future acquisitions coming from Russia that have a strong potential of being neutered before a penny is paid. Not a good thing to live with.
Heck we have to live with the constant embarrassment of restrictions imposed on high-end & critical weaponry such as the AMRAAM and Long Bow radar etc. It's one thing to be denied western stuff, but when it comes around full circle and starts working against Russian shhttuuufff, that sucks to no end.
lancelot wrote:The in service MiG-35 in Russia has the AESA radar. We have photos of it being shown right with the radome removed here in this thread.
Was that the functioning radar on display there, or was it just a mockup of the Zhuk-AM for that exhibit?
Did they make any announcement regarding the AESA radar being in production? I remember this display I believe was at MAKS IIRC, but don't remember any news about the AESA radar. Pretty sure the Checkmate stole the show that year so it could've gotten drowned out in all that excitement. If true, that would be great news. Any official source?
Have they even shown any pics of the 6 MiG-35s delivered to the VVS?
lancelot wrote:Egypt decided for economic reasons to remain with a neutered air force. They get the Rafale, but they don't get to buy any modern long range air to air missiles. What did they expect, buying an aircraft from France, with a President who used to work for the Rothschild?
Being the first foreign operator of the Rafale and signing the contract for the first batch of 24 aircraft back in 2015, the standard at the time was the F3 which did not have the capability to fire the Meteor, so the missile was not included in the weapons package. But they're still fully equipped with MICA IR & EM A2A missiles, 250 & 500kg ASM HAMMER PGMs, SCALP-EG CMs, full SPECTRA SD & EW suite and the RBE2-AA AESA radar. Not sure I would call that a neutered platform TBH just because the Meteor isn't part of that standard. Here's a summary of the timeline to which the developments were performed to upgrade the Rafale to F3R and to fire the Meteor:
In January 2014, the defense ministry announced that funds had been allocated towards the development of the F3R standard. The standard includes the integration of the Meteor BVR missile, among other weapons and software updates.[57][58] The standard was validated in 2018.[59]
Here's the timeline for the first batch of aircraft for the EAF.
In November 2014, Egypt was reportedly in negotiations with France to purchase 24 to 36 Rafales, subject to a financing and weapons package agreement.[150] By February 2015, the two countries were negotiating a loan from France's export credit agency to reach an export agreement for up to 24 Rafales. The condition for Egypt to buy the 12 additional fighters was to get SCALP-EG missiles, this was compromised by the US blocking the deal.[151] Egypt aimed for the deal's quick completion as to have them on display at the inauguration of the Suez Canal expansion in August 2015.[152]
On 16 February 2015, Egypt became the Rafale's first international customer when it officially ordered 24 Rafales,[153] as part of a larger deal, including a FREMM multipurpose frigate and missiles, worth US$5.9 billion (€5.2 billion).
So the funding for the standard upgrade to be able to fire the Meteor was approved in 2014 at the same time Egypt was signing the contract for its mega deal including the 24 Rafales. Being the standard was not in effect at that time, the missile couldn't be included in the contract. The standard wasn't even validated until 2018. On 15 November 2021, Egypt confirmed that it will receive 30 Rafale F3R between 2024 and 2026.[citation needed] The Egyptian Air Force is interested in buying the Rafale F4 variant once Dassault prepares it for foreign buyers.[167]
We're hoping this next batch of 30 aircraft with deliveries starting this year will include the Meteor as there really is no reason for them not to be at this point.
Funny thing about Macron is he took a lot of heat for allowing the entire arms deal to go through considering how reviled and chastised Sisi is within the international "humanitarian" court of public opinion which is ironic beyond belief. They claim he's a tyrannical dictator who killed hundreds maybe even thousands of his own people on his way to overthrowing a democratically elected president and so no military equipment should be sold to him otherwise he'll use it on his own people lmao but the US has a problem with the SCALP CMs going to Egypt because they violate ITAR rules concerning US-made chips in the missiles and what does Macron do? He asks MBDA to find a way to replace the chips with French-made ones to make the deal happen yet somehow, he supposedly refuses the Meteor because of the zionist entity which just wiped out 50,000 Palestinian women & children & elderly (and counting) and is starving the rest of the 2.2 million population of Gaza?! LMFAO at the brutal hypocrisy.
GunshipDemocracy wrote:all 40 of MiG-29 SMT in Russian AF? 70 is old MiG-29 Su-27P wa modernized form 2000s ?
Russia's 500 fighters vs European NATO 1500? Russia cannot leave southern flank nor pacicis or northern route without fighters isnt it?
So no it is not an easy task. Why then Russia would keep nukes in Belorussia? ... Glad you confirm what i just stated. Russia has littl echance with conventional NATO confrontation due to numerical advantage of adversary enemy.
The older XXth century airframes still in service are a minute part of the composition of the Russian Air Forces.
The miniscule amount of Su-27P left in service are mostly used by the Russian Naval Aviation from land based airbases and are being replaced with the Su-30SM2 as we speak. The few Su-27P still in the Russian Air Force, if there is such a thing, will be replaced with the Su-35.
The Russian Naval Air arm had like 50 Su-27P. They ordered 50 Su-30SM and Su-30SM2 to replace them. The Russian Air Force might have had like a dozen Su-27P left which will be replaced with Su-35 over the next couple of years. The other Su-27 in service are Su-27SM and newer types. Which have much better electronics and radar and were of recent make. The Su-27SM has better radar and electronics than the first two Eurofighter tranches let alone the F-16AM.
This is the Su-27SM cockpit.
It has the electronics of the Su-30MK2 including the N001V radar. Which is basically the original Flanker radar with the analog circuits replaced with digital circuits.
The Su-27SM2 and later have the Irbis-E radar which wipes the floor with anything in the current Eurofighters NATO has in service right now. It is basically a Su-27 airframe with the electronics of a Su-35. It is the second best in service fighter PESA radar available right now after the MiG-31BM radar.
This is the F-16AM cockpit.
It has the original F-16 radar with analog circuits replaced with digital circuits. But the radar has way less operating power than the one in the Su-27. The range is pathetic and the capabilities of the F-16AM radar are very limited.
I would like to see a detailed description of these "1500 European NATO" fighters. Sounds like bullshit to me. Does this include Cold War era aircraft in the boneyards? Because Russia also has a waste amount of Cold War Su-27 and MiG-29 in storage.
sepheronx wrote:The Duran actually did a take at the whole "EU go to war economy and mass production" and they more or less said it is impossible. Many of the industries are actually gone now from the bigger EU countries and if they decided to invest now, it may take a decade to catch up to what Russia does now. They also said the welfare structure of the EU couldn't handle it either. Already the people of EU are protesting en mass in various of its countries and that is over little things like price hikes and cheap food from Ukraine. Now add in removal of a lot of the social benefits and there would be mass protest bigger than anything seen now.
Of course EU could go into mass production mode, but they would have to sacrifice a lot. And then they would have risk major discontent. And even then, it will take a long while before it becomes fruitful.
The problems of the defense sector in Europe have nothing to do with the welfare structure. In the late Cold War you could argue there was more welfare in Europe than there is today and the military was much more well developed. It is just that a huge chunk of the industry in Europe has moved to Asia. Europe is increasingly just a tourist venue where people work on services. The biggest issue is that if you stop investing in military R&D for two or three decades it is extremely hard to start things up again. The last MBT designed in Europe was the Leclerc and that entered service in the early 1990s. The Leopard 2 is over a decade older (entered service in 1979). Someone in his 20s in 1979 would be in his late 60s today. In a retirement home. A team leader in his 40s then would be likely buried under the ground today.
The French are the ones in best shape to continue the tank and fighter weapons programs after this long hiatus because their programs are more recent than the ones the Brits or the Germans were into. Yet you still see the Brits and Germans thinking they will be able to run these programs by themselves. What will happen is a major failure and possible foreign purchases from the US or whatever.
You can just ignore mass production. To go into mass production you need to have something at least in limited serial production. At best you could make Eurofighter and Rafale aircraft. But I have seen no new Eurofighter orders of significance and the Rafale is fully booked with exports. The tank production facilities are just pathetic. They are more tank upgrade facilities than tank production facilities. They should at least put the tanks they have in storage back into service and create a spare parts reserve. But they aren't even doing that properly.
including su-34 and 40 years old Su-27 and MiG-29?
You inflate Nato's numbers by adding fighters over 40/50 years old like the F-16, Mirage and Hornet but you dislike when others do the same with Russia... Oh! And the Su-34 can fire BVR missiles in addition to a radar that can detect enemy aircraft at more than 100km.
-24: 24 MiG-31K See? More than 750 aircraft! Here is the source, it is The Military Balance 2024: https://m.vk.com/wall-50957736_638580
You can start reading on page 191, notice how they barely start talking about Russia and are already spewing Ukrainian propaganda, therefore this is still a questionable source and the number of Russian aircraft is probably higher.
Just in EU economy is not on war mode as in russia for last two years. Spending as 2%GDP is what in Russia 6%?
Russia is not in a war economy, this is baseless Western propaganda, and 2% of Western GDP is much more money than 6% of Russian GDP, deal with reality, Russia has a much more efficient war industry.
GarryB, flamming_python, Big_Gazza and lancelot like this post
Those numbers from Military Balance 2024 are bollocks.
There are 20+ serial production Su-57 in service for example. There are also more Su-35 in service than that for sure. As for the MiG-29 AFAIK it is only in use with MiG-29K in the Russian Navy and the MiG-29SMT in Armenia. You also have the half a dozen initial batch MiG-35s.
Any other MiG-29 are probably in storage.
Unfortunately it is unlikely we will be getting well defined numbers from Russia any time soon. The CFE Treaty is basically dead.
the point it Russia is not weak but NATO is stronger having numerical advantage in conventional weapons. Nuker in Belorussia is the best proof for this. wrote:
Russia does not have the strength to defeat Ukraine, which has 25 million people and is supported by NATO. There is no way they could take Kiev etc. So how can it compare to NATO with 1 billion people. Only with nuclear weapons, conventionally, they are unable to compete with NATO.
Oh come on lol. Put the Russian pompoms down for a minute. The reference I was making were directed at the frustration of the complications initiated by the US & CAATSA and what it's caused with the Su-35 deal and how it could potentially affect every future acquisition Egypt would want to make from Russia, such as additional MiG-35s to increase the fleet numbers.
Nothing to do with pom poms Russian or otherwise... all new weapons and systems have teething problems and the MiG-35 is still a new weapon system.
If Egypt wants to do as the US tells it then that is up to Egypt. If daddy tells you you can't have nice toys then you can't have nice toys... unless you realise the US is the 5 year old in this discussion and Egypt should be an adult by now.
At the same time, it would be nice to know the Zhuk-AE is available by then. Noting to do with teething problems from the lack of an AESA radar. We're not that spoiled to complain about something like that when a huge portion of imported Russian high-end weaponry has already successfully made its way to Egypt.
From what Lancet posted I rather suspect that Egypt was buying the MiG-35 first and part of that honour includes paying for the final development of the AESA radar and that they likely baulked at the cost and went with MiG-29Ms instead. Perfectly undersstandable... they have the same airframe so in 5 years time when their AESAs have been developed and are fully operational they can look at upgrading from MiG-29M to MiG-35 at much more affordable rates.
India has essentially done the same with the Su-57... waiting for the price to go down.
Also the 4 batteries of S-300VM and supposed ongoing negotiations for additional Antey 2500 systems but there are vicious rumors that the 4 batteries delivered have been put in storage and not activated yet because of.........yep, you guessed it, CAATSA. At the same time, 8 batteries of IRIS-T-SLM from Germany had no problems being agreed to and delivered with an additional 15 being negotiated on as we speak. These are the reasons for the frustrations I was referring to as the potential of future acquisitions coming from Russia that have a strong potential of being neutered before a penny is paid. Not a good thing to live with.
It is not Russias problem though, that is for Egypt to sort out... either man up, or stop pissing off your big daddy and bend over.
Heck we have to live with the constant embarrassment of restrictions imposed on high-end & critical weaponry such as the AMRAAM and Long Bow radar etc. It's one thing to be denied western stuff, but when it comes around full circle and starts working against Russian shhttuuufff, that sucks to no end.
All the restrictions are coming from the US... don't blame Russia for that.
Was that the functioning radar on display there, or was it just a mockup of the Zhuk-AM for that exhibit?
Why would the Russian military buy MiG-35s if they had the same radar as the MiG-29Ms.
A major reason for choosing the MiG-35 over the MiG-29M is the more advanced avionics and systems and radar.
Russia does not have the strength to defeat Ukraine, which has 25 million people and is supported by NATO.
Russia IS defeating Ukraine and would have done so a few months into the conflict if Zelensky had signed the deal.
Ironically that would have been the best solution to this conflict for Kiev, but now the deal is going to be much worse...
German and French government officals and even the gardner Borrell are saying this might only last months...
There is no way they could take Kiev etc. So how can it compare to NATO with 1 billion people.
Ukraine is a rescue mission, against HATO it will be self defence against a threat... where serious violence will be applied.
Only with nuclear weapons, conventionally, they are unable to compete with NATO.
Funny you say that because despite massive support for Kiev HATO is losing to Russia in the Ukraine conflict too, which suggests they would also need nukes to get a result.
At the start there were to be no talks and everything was to be decided on the battlefield... now they are resorting to terrorism and the Russian offensive has not started yet... what will they do then?
Russia does not have the strength to defeat Ukraine, which has 25 million people and is supported by NATO. There is no way they could take Kiev etc. So how can it compare to NATO with 1 billion people. Only with nuclear weapons, conventionally, they are unable to compete with NATO.
Lmfao binkov really got to you with imaginary 3500 planes and 1 billion people
Newsflash the most combat ready state in NATO - Ukraine has lost 20 million people
And you talk about NATO mobilizing it's population
They will follow the Ukrainians, as far west as they can
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Arkanghelsk
