3 or 4 or shot down? and none at medium to higher altitude otherwise the debris will spread over kms.
. Its primary low altitude war with in visual range strike both in chopper and fighters.
higher altitude losses are not much better.
Exactly! None at medium and higher altitude means that they are NOT even really threatened by potent medium to long range anti-air missiles systems. Why do they even need to do this much low altitude flights, if they are not threatened by potent medium to long range anti-air missiles systems?
you only see image of Su-34 either shot down due to low altitude or what Russians is showing. it does not mean that other 200 to 300 sorties are done same way. Orion drone was testing in Syria but years later they showed up its strike sorties. so we cannot exclude they not testing systems of SU-34M and Ka-52M for much longer range strikes.
Well, whatever the Su-34 and other flankers are doing, it doesn't look at it's enough.
i doubt few antiship missiles can change anything. Russia train with high end war. thats why they cannot see how rockets or drone attack a cargo ship.
Of course they can't do much, but the very fact that the UK all of a sudden dared to ship in Anti-ship missile to Odessa means that they are not emboldened by the abysmal VKS performance.
F-35 is think produced in Texas with global supply chain. not exactly ideal place for manufacturing when they have to compete with Elon Musk and so many other factories for skill labor and whole tranport expenses moving in and out stuff.
Flanker variants are produced in stand alone aviation towns with no competition from Elon or high price MBAs in the area. They are now producing Drones and Civil Aviation products in same locations. It is far more efficient when labor turnover is low and skill level dedicated to Aviation. If Russians cannot managed efficiently they will not have overhaul business in Gulf. they know how to manage.
Russia MIC still follow the same old habit of USSR strategic planning and MIC. But the two countries has entirely different capabilities, wealth, external condition and threats. What works for the USSR might not work for Russia. If it were the USSR, I believe they could easily field 1500 to 2500 flankers. If that's the case, having 4 or 5 different flanker variants makes sense.
single seat and twin seat strike platform the same? twin seat platform may get more data from Drones/AWACS/JSTAR to have clear picture of much more targets on ground or sea.
while Single seat fighter mostly dealing with air targets with secondary role in strike. this create more proficient air force.
SU-30M replaced by Su-35 in same factory. Su-30SM is separate.
Sure, they can certainly function differently on the battle field and training. But It would certainly be a good idea to at least limit the variants to Su-35 (and Su-30SM2) and Su-34. Having the Su-35 and the Su-30SM2 share the same avionics and engine is a very good idea, which Russia is already on track to do.
They have orders for Su-34M and S-70 built in same location.. i would think Su-30SM will moveout of production once MS21 is in mass production. Su-35 production will get replaced by Su-57/SU-75 as they in same factory.
Whatever happens, it would be a good idea to have a future VKS's heavy twin engine fighter-bomber fleet, at some point be consist of only:
Su-57 (100 ~ 200)
Su-35 and Su-30SM2 (sharing same engine and avionics) (~400+)
Su-34 (~200+)
That would be pretty decent.
well they have more than 300 Su-34/Su-30. and now add upto 200 Su-25SM. this very big force.
Su-25SM3 survival rate very good and most effective aircraft for mobile targets. Ukraine hardly has armour formations. so only Su-25 can deal with it effectively.
I am not sure whether the Su-25SM3 route is right answer for the future....
BTW, will it ever get a turbofan engine?
why you think so many in testing. they dont need single engine fighter or another turbo prop drone.
now they do need this one not for AAMs but huge sensor power and higher altitude than AWACS.
That's just a crazy idea....
