Russian Air Force numbers and procurement plans

Still not enough. Enemy has far more than Russia (USA) and then add in NATO it is bad case for Russia.

They need at least 1,500 at best just for RuAF.

miketheterrible wrote:Still not enough.  Enemy has far more than Russia (USA) and then add in NATO it is bad case for Russia.

They need at least 1,500 at best just for RuAF.

First they need to see how many air forces will bankrupt because of the f-35

Isos wrote:Add su-34 too as Mike said they have some air to air capability like f-15E.

The thing about your numbers is that there are lot of "big" sukhois an almost no "light" fighters.

Even USA can't affoard more than 400-500 big f-22/15 and rely mostly on lighter f-35/18/16.

Su-57 maintenance must be a couple times harder and more expensive than other sukhoi which are also a couple times more expensive to operate than smaller jet.

Once they get their first 24 su-57 and increase the numbers of su35 they will face the rzality of the costs and will have to order more migs which can do most of the jobs for cheaper.

The operation in Syria coukd have been done mostly by a single engine mig-29SMT/35 while su-35 would have been used to keep nato/israel away of them.

F-15E is comparable with Su-30SM

Su-34 is a bomber capable for long range missions. Even has a "rest área" with a little kitchen and WC
There is no counterpart for the Su-34 in any Air Force , is a Cold War soviet concept

Su-34 is a bomber capable for long range missions. Even has a "rest área" with a little kitchen and WC
There is no counterpart for the Su-34 in any Air Force , is a Cold War soviet concept
Back to top

It's just a cheap su-27 tandem seat bomber that keeps its air to air weapons. There is no real kitchen or real WC. And it has not more range than other sukhois. Everything it does can be done by a su-30/35 abd a targeting pod but they are both more expensive than a su-34.

F-15E has much less maniablility than f-15C. Nowhere near su-30. Much closer to a su-34 actually but with a much beter AESA radar (but it doesn't really helps as its maniability and rcs means it can be fired at from max range by any flanker).

Bombers like su-24 or f-117 couldn't face new threats by themselves that's why both countries developed bombers based on f-15 and su-27.

Su-30 is a real multirole fighter like Rafale but it is a two seater which helps for multirole operations while rafale pilots is alone (on the single seat version). Closest counterpart in US inventory are last f-16 versions that lacks its power and range but are multirole. F-15C and f-22 are for air to air.

The situation in the Air Force is as critical as in the Navy. But unlike the Navy the Air Force and maintaining at the very least, air defence of home territory - is critical for any conventional conflict.
In the Ground Forces and Strategic weapons, Russia if anything has an advantage - but it keeps pumping more money into them instead of addressing the critical issue of air power. Also into Army-related air assets such as Mi-28s, Ka-52s, Mi-17s, transport aircraft, etc... which again will be useless without air superiority - air defence systems won't even help them since such targets can be engaged from well outside the envelope of supporting ground-based air defences.

Even if Russia has the air defence network and supporting fighters, interceptors to more or less protect its own airspace - that will do little to help advancing army groups; with all the T-14s, Koalitsiya-SVs, Tornado-Gs, robots and everything else Russia has been sinking money into. They have their own air defence vehicles of course; but in an environment where they're surrounded by NATO strike aircraft in the form of a swarm of locusts - it's only a matter of time until they're picked apart or run out of missiles and at that point it would no longer matter whether Russia has more organic firepower and battlefield awareness on the ground, with longer ranged artillery and armoured capsules for the crews of its tanks. They'll be stomped from the air. Just as the USSR's advantage of 20,000 tanks against the Germans' ~3000 at the onset of Barbarossa melted away due to a large part because 80% of the Soviet Air Force was destroyed on the ground and in desperate battles in the opening weeks of the war; leading to Soviet tanks being left on their own and being mercilessly picked off by German bombers and Stukas.
The lesson seems not to have been fully learnt.

Now point by point:

• Russia can target US, British, French, Italian and Spanish carriers with hypersonic weaponry and take down a good chunk of their air assets with them. This is a very valuable force multiplier. But NATO is well aware of it; they'll take steps to mitigate the risk, perhaps rebase the bulk of their naval aircraft into continental Europe while keeping carriers well far from Russia.
  
• Isos mentioned Russian heavy fighters and NATO light fighters. The thing is - is that a heavy fighter means that it has greater range and can carry more weapons, and in theory a more powerful radar with greater range. But if heavy fighters are outnumbered, subjected to a heavy EW environment, can't see the enemy as well as the enemy can see them (the latest F-16s, Gripens, Eurofighters, etc... introduced or under development have AESA radars and well-rounded EW suites) then they'll still be dismantled just as easily; their range and weapons payload will yield no advantage.
  
• Su-34s can indeed be used and they will have good A2A performance, but that's sort of part of my point. In order just to somewhat soften a severe situation, Russia will have to commit its modern strike and tactical bomber inventory to the A2A role. They'll be left with only Su-24s and Su-24Ms for these tasks. Like I said it's complacency. It's good that the Su-34, in comparison to the Su-24 - can function as a fighter; but they also won't be able to use them for anything else.
  
• In terms of targeting NATO air bases with cruise missiles - well, if both parties are mobilized and already prepared for war - then yes you'll certainly catch planes in hangers and so on; but mostly you'll be hitting their munitions, fuel and control structures - things that can be replaced or repaired within fairly short order, if the enemy's logistical train is operating well which NATO's certainly will be. You also have to remember that NATO will be hitting Russian airbases back. Not with as much success, due to the ground-based air defence network in Russia being stronger, but still they'll do damage too. You could get lucky and catch them with their pants down, but Russia cannot rely on luck.
  
• Turkey may leave NATO within the next 5-10 years. Again, would no doubt help Russia's situation a bit in terms of the air force disparity; Turkey having 100-200 fighters and multirole aircraft - mostly F-16s. But this by itself is not enough. And in any case again, it cannot be relied upon.
  
• The multinational and bloated bureaucratic nature of NATO does indeed weaken its cohesion, response times; but you have to assume that you're dealing with a scenario of mass-mobilization here, not peace-time. The Americans will come in, take direct control of everyone else if they have to.
  

Of course trying to match NATO 1:1 in fighters is wildly unrealistic. But at the moment the ratio is some 4:1 to 5:1; if Russia has some 500-600 fighters/interceptors/multirole aircraft in service and operation. Russia needs to reduce this down to 2.5:1 at the least.
Then force multipliers such as EMP missiles and Russia's air defence network can ensure that the Russian AF is never completely outmatched.

How to do this? Yes the MiG-29As, Su-27Ps, MiG-31s and so on in storage are old. But provided that their air frames are not too stressed; they're still perfectly eligible for modernization, and this would indeed be by far the most economical stop-gap that can be mustered for the next 10-15 years in a pinch.. and a pinch is exactly what Russia is in.
It's a shame that the MiG-35 is expensive. Cancel it, as the Su-35 costs a bit more but does all that it does better anyway. What the Russian AF really needs for its local AD regiments is a MiG-29SMT with an AESA radar. That will be about equivalent to the latest F-16. Then build a couple hundred of them, equip them with A2A missiles for patrol and interdiction, with Yak-130s flown by cadets in support of them in case of mobilization. Leave the thrust vectoring & air superiority to the Su-35s and Su-57s, and multirole flexibility to the Su-30SMs.
MiG was indeed working on a light stealth fighter, latest news being a joint-project with the UAE - but we haven't heard of it for years. The plan seems to be induct the single-engine Okhotnik UAV in coalition with the Su-57 instead; assuming it can be configured for the A2A role. This is a good plan for the future but judging by the pace of things, still at the very least 10 years away from when they'll be able to muster a viable force of Su-57s & Okhotniks.
The other side of the coin is that the Russian AF has already been complaining about personnel problems and shortages of pilots (I think the news is earlier in this thread). This is really something they need to work on and expand.

MiG-29 series is a dead end. It was supposed to be cheap mass produced fighter but it was taken off the board by Su-30SM who is slightly more expensive but superior by orders of magnitude and produced much faster.

MiG-35 will be in production strictly as advertising effort for export markets.

If MiG wants​ to stay in the game with tactical airforce (MiG-41 is different category) they will have to get that LMFS single engine project done.

As is they will have Su-30SM as mass produced backbone, Su-35 as air superiority stopgap solution (almost as expensive as Su-57) and Su-57 as tip of the spear.

Now it's all about making order for large batch and that is political issue.

As for pilots that problem is already being sorted out with accepting females for pilot training. Program is up and running, all that's left now is to boost cadet intake.

Once they get their first 24 su-57 and increase the numbers of su35 they will face the rzality of the costs and will have to order more migs which can do most of the jobs for cheaper.

Very good observation, but imagine the face of NATO leaders when they realise that the 38,000 US dollars an hour operational costs for their brand new F-35s is going to be something closer to 80,000 US dollars an hour and they already got rid of their old planes so they could afford to buy the new ones...

There wont be a problem in the future with NATO countries meeting their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence... the costs of operating F-35s alone will meet and exceed that demand... the problem will be the next time NATO wants to project power with an exercise most NATO members will only have a token force of F-35s and nothing else... no ground forces, no navy, no tankers, no transports, just F-35s... probably not even any missiles for them because they will be too expensive too.

NATO looks like it is going to kill itself thanks to Trump...

Still not enough. Enemy has far more than Russia (USA) and then add in NATO it is bad case for Russia.

They need at least 1,500 at best just for RuAF.

Why?

HATO might start out with a paper force of 3,000 F-35s but they still have to operate from airfields and Russia will obliterate HATO airfields in the first 10 minutes of any real confrontation with HATO that risks the existence of Russia... including airfields at sea... they wont even enter Syrian Air Space let alone Russian Air Space... how effective could such an air power be?

Would you really need numbers parity with such a force... especially considering one on one engagements with Su-35s shows them at a serious disadvantage in air to air combat in terms of speed and manouver and weapon numbers... if they can concentrate thousands into one small battlespace then nuke the fuckers...

First they need to see how many air forces will bankrupt because of the f-35

Quite true, so it will be important for the Russian military to pretend to be seriously worried about the US production of the superior F-35 and the effect it will have on the balance of power in Europe and elsewhere... but once they have produced the probably 1,200 they will end up actually making, then you can break character and laugh at them bankrupting themselves and their allies...

It's just a cheap su-27 tandem seat bomber that keeps its air to air weapons. There is no real kitchen or real WC. And it has not more range than other sukhois. Everything it does can be done by a su-30/35 abd a targeting pod but they are both more expensive than a su-34.

Have to disagree here... the Su-34 is better than an F-15E.... have you ever been on a road trip where there were no breaks and you sat in that seat you thought was soft and comfortable that gets harder and harder over the hours... in the Su-34 you can stand up and relieve yourself in a toilet instead of wetting your nappy like the pilots of other long range aircraft do... and there is a space to prepare hot food and drinks... Can tell you that crew of other twin seaters are jealous of the space and facilities of the Su-34, and it would really make a serious difference in performance when you approach the target after a 4 hour flight to have just had a stretch and a hot drink and a piss.

F-15E has much less maniablility than f-15C.

F-15C is air to air only and would have zero value in the strike role.

F-15E is perfectly capable of carrying all the air to air weapons of the F-15C and could easily perform all the roles the F-15C can perform... the reverse is not true.

Bombers like su-24 or f-117 couldn't face new threats by themselves that's why both countries developed bombers based on f-15 and su-27.

Su-24 is a strike aircraft like the ground attack Tornado that only has token self defence capability in air to air.

Su-34 is a strike aircraft too but able to carry the full air to air range of weapons as the upgraded Su-27SM3, so it combines strike capacity with an air to air capacity too.

During the cold war there was the concept of a swing fighter... a MiG-21 or MiG-23 would fly in with a couple of bombs and release them on a ground target and then would fly top cover with a couple of AAMs and cannon while the next wave attacked ground targets with bombs or rockets.

They were not particularly potent with either weapons.

In contrast an Su-34 would be as accurate at striking ground targets as a dedicated type like the MiG-27K or M, or Su-24, while being as potent in the air to air role as any modern fighter (MiG-23 or Su-27 or MiG-29).

It upped the game in both areas being fully multirole, though more often used as a strike aircraft that can defend itself from serious opposition.

Su-30 is a real multirole fighter like Rafale but it is a two seater which helps for multirole operations while rafale pilots is alone (on the single seat version).

Actually the side by side seating makes cooperation of crew much easier than tandem crew seating which basically separates the crew... a bit like rally cars with side by side seating where they communicate with hand signals and pointing as well as through mikes and headsets...

They'll be stomped from the air. Just as the USSR's advantage of 20,000 tanks against the Germans' ~3000 at the onset of Barbarossa melted away due to a large part because 80% of the Soviet Air Force was destroyed on the ground and in desperate battles in the opening weeks of the war; leading to Soviet tanks being left on their own and being mercilessly picked off by German bombers and Stukas.

Yeah... that is a stretch.... most of those 20,000 tanks were T-26 two man tanks that were poorly used and not designed for the sort of conflict they were needing to fight. The Soviets were not really ready for war but the elimination of thousands of aircraft on the ground was probably a good thing... if they had gotten into the air they would have lost the air crews as well.

I personally think you rate the NATO forces rather too highly here... I doubt they could invade the Ukraine let alone Russia and the time and money it would take to assemble a force to do so that Russia would spot it and destroy it fairly easily without getting anywhere near running out of missiles.

Russia can target US, British, French, Italian and Spanish carriers with hypersonic weaponry and take down a good chunk of their air assets with them. This is a very valuable force multiplier. But NATO is well aware of it; they'll take steps to mitigate the risk, perhaps rebase the bulk of their naval aircraft into continental Europe while keeping carriers well far from Russia.

Those hypersonic missiles will be just as useful with nuclear warheads obliterating NATO airfields as aircraft carriers at sea.

Being aware of something and being able to actually do something about it are two very different things... I am sure when it comes to fighting Russia their spines will become very yellow and their chests would collapse to a fraction of their size normally displayed.

Isos mentioned Russian heavy fighters and NATO light fighters. The thing is - is that a heavy fighter means that it has greater range and can carry more weapons, and in theory a more powerful radar with greater range. But if heavy fighters are outnumbered, subjected to a heavy EW environment, can't see the enemy as well as the enemy can see them (the latest F-16s, Gripens, Eurofighters, etc... introduced or under development have AESA radars and well-rounded EW suites) then they'll still be dismantled just as easily; their range and weapons payload will yield no advantage.

The R-37M carried by the Su-57 and Su-35 wont be for shooting down B-52s or incoming cruise missiles... they will be for shooting down inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS platforms and of course JSTARS... and when you remove those three types from NATO training exercises all of a sudden the short range of their F-35s and the long distances they need to cover become very apparent.

Su-34s can indeed be used and they will have good A2A performance, but that's sort of part of my point. In order just to somewhat soften a severe situation, Russia will have to commit its modern strike and tactical bomber inventory to the A2A role. They'll be left with only Su-24s and Su-24Ms for these tasks. Like I said it's complacency. It's good that the Su-34, in comparison to the Su-24 - can function as a fighter; but they also won't be able to use them for anything else.

Yeah, I would disagree... you don't need to outnumber an enemy air force... that is what the battle of britain was all about... radar and command and control networks that watched the airspace so you didn't have to continually keep your planes in the air watching for an attack... and then when the attack began you sent up the right number of planes to deal with the problem... the difference for Russia is that they will know which airfields these NATO planes will be operating from and would already have launched attacks to damage them, not to mention any air attack will be dealing with a combination of aircraft and ground based missile systems, and any NATO based EW jamming can be directly targeted with missiles too... something the serbs or Iraqis couldn't do, but the Russians are something different entirely.

In terms of targeting NATO air bases with cruise missiles - well, if both parties are mobilized and already prepared for war - then yes you'll certainly catch planes in hangers and so on; but mostly you'll be hitting their munitions, fuel and control structures - things that can be replaced or repaired within fairly short order, if the enemy's logistical train is operating well which NATO's certainly will be. You also have to remember that NATO will be hitting Russian airbases back. Not with as much success, due to the ground-based air defence network in Russia being stronger, but still they'll do damage too. You could get lucky and catch them with their pants down, but Russia cannot rely on luck.

I would actually expect NATO would run out of munitions first because they are so damn expensive and nobody in NATO seems to be paying their bills except the US. The NATO air defence basically relies on its aircraft so all those thousands of fighters you are talking about clearing the skies of Ruskie fighters will actually be rather busy defending all their ground forces and resources and HQs and SAM sites and Comms centres etc etc from missile attack... including low flying stealthy missiles and high flying hypersonic missiles they have little to no chance of stopping... but shatter their air bases with IRBMs and then where will they be... no where to run to this time...

I am sure after seeing forces getting clobbered a few countries will capitulate like they did in the last war... and lets face it... the Russian forces wont be trying to occupy anyone... this wont be the invasion of Europe... it will be the removal of a threat through limited nuclear exchange.

Turkey may leave NATO within the next 5-10 years. Again, would no doubt help Russia's situation a bit in terms of the air force disparity; Turkey having 100-200 fighters and multirole aircraft - mostly F-16s. But this by itself is not enough. And in any case again, it cannot be relied upon.

If the US treats them the way they are threatening to treat them an economic relationship with Russia and China might be their only lifeline, but neutrality would be all Russia would need from them in this theoretical conflict.

The multinational and bloated bureaucratic nature of NATO does indeed weaken its cohesion, response times; but you have to assume that you're dealing with a scenario of mass-mobilization here, not peace-time. The Americans will come in, take direct control of everyone else if they have to.

Which would probably make things rather worse if their military men are as bad at diplomacy as their current politicians...

Of course trying to match NATO 1:1 in fighters is wildly unrealistic. But at the moment the ratio is some 4:1 to 5:1; if Russia has some 500-600 fighters/interceptors/multirole aircraft in service and operation. Russia needs to reduce this down to 2.5:1 at the least.

I don't agree... during peace time it is just a cost and a burden on the Russian economy slowing it down... what they could do with is a force of IRBMs that are fully hypersonic that can sit in crates hidden somewhere with tactical nuke warheads that they can launch to remove all those very expensive NATO assets from the playing field in an instant...

It will both say, back off, I know what real war is and I wont play your silly games... I am playing this to kill you all... do you still want to play?

And with conventional warheads it can be used in a conflict where their might be a result other than total nuclear annihilation... which I doubt.

It's a shame that the MiG-35 is expensive. Cancel it, as the Su-35 costs a bit more but does all that it does better anyway. What the Russian AF really needs for its local AD regiments is a MiG-29SMT with an AESA radar. That will be about equivalent to the latest F-16.

Why not make MiG-29M2s which are basically MiG-35s but much cheaper and also rather superior to any SMT upgrades of older models. More importantly over time as the MiG-35s technologies get cheaper they can be applied to the MiG-29M2s to make them into MiG-35s on the cheap and unification across the fleet because all the MiGs will be modern new airframes.

MiG-29 series is a dead end. It was supposed to be cheap mass produced fighter but it was taken off the board by Su-30SM who is slightly more expensive but superior by orders of magnitude and produced much faster.

Yeah, the operational costs of having all Flankers and PAK FAs will mean you wont be able to afford to operate the number of fighters you want or need... the MiG-29M2 offers 95% of the capability you need for rather less cost...

If MiG wants​ to stay in the game with tactical airforce (MiG-41 is different category) they will have to get that LMFS single engine project done.

There is no evidence the Russian military would even accept a single engined fighter these days.

As for pilots that problem is already being sorted out with accepting females for pilot training. Program is up and running, all that's left now is to boost cadet intake.

You guys want more planes but there are not enough pilots for the ones they have...

Why not make MiG-29M2s which are basically MiG-35s but much cheaper and also rather superior to any SMT upgrades of older models. More importantly over time as the MiG-35s technologies get cheaper they can be applied to the MiG-29M2s to make them into MiG-35s on the cheap and unification across the fleet because all the MiGs will be modern new airframes.

That would be a huge mistake. Mig-29 is a design from the 70 mainly based on the t-10 flanker design created without computers.

If they want a light fighter and build new airframes the best would be to decide to use a cheap composite and create a new design to bring the rcs to 0.5. Not on pair with su-57 which should not be the goal but create the best cost effective single engine fighter that has reduced rcs, decent aesa/pesa radar and good protection tools. A sort of mig-21 of the 21st century.

They just have to not fall in the trap of "5th generation light fighter" which consist in trying to make a cheap fighter but ends like an f-35 money eater project.

That would be a huge mistake. Mig-29 is a design from the 70 mainly based on the t-10 flanker design created without computers.

The MiG-29 design is the same age as the Su-27, which the Su-30 and Su-35 are based upon.

Aerodynamically they are all very very good efficient designs even today.

Even without placing lego all over the airframe to add things like extra fuel that the original design sorely needed like the new model F-16s.

If they want a light fighter and build new airframes the best would be to decide to use a cheap composite and create a new design to bring the rcs to 0.5.

Get it through your head... a conventional fighter with external weapons stores will never be a 0.5 sqm fighter... that is what the Su-57 is with internal weapons only.

If you want stealth then immediately remove cheap from any description and the light aircraft needs to be cheaper than the heavy model... so it can be the numbers plane.

There is no reason to suggest you could make an actual light fighter the size and weight of a MiG-21 that is stealthy cheap so why even bother?

Make it a medium and don't try to make it equal to the heavies... decide on what you want it for and make it that.

Not on pair with su-57 which should not be the goal but create the best cost effective single engine fighter that has reduced rcs, decent aesa/pesa radar and good protection tools. A sort of mig-21 of the 21st century.

The MiG-21 never had good protection tools nor a great radar nor a reduce RCS... all it had was that it was cheap to buy and operate for a mach 2+ fighter with short range and small but practical payload.

You can get too cheap... for instance a 10 ton thrust single engine in a Yak-130 with AESA radar, but what you basically end up with is a small fighter that used to be cheap and now it isn't but is too small to carry a decent load or have a decent range... it can have one or the other.

By starting with a medium weight aircraft you can have good weapon load with a good range or a minimum weapon load (ie air to air) and very good range, or a heavy air to ground payload but need inflight refuelling.

If cheap small light planes are so bloody fantastic where the fuck are they?

Only poor countries operate MiG-21s and F-5s these days because they can't or choose not to afford something better.

They just have to not fall in the trap of "5th generation light fighter" which consist in trying to make a cheap fighter but ends like an f-35 money eater project.

Demanding a small fighter carry weapons internally to be stealthy immediately demands pathetic performance and high cost.

They can make 250 MiG-29M2s and perhaps 48 odd MiG-35s and then in 5 years time when the technology is mature and cheap they can upgrade those MiG-29M2s with all the bits that make the MiG-35s into MiG-35s for maybe the SMT upgrade price... 6-10 million per aircraft because the cost of components has dropped and they will have a force of 300 MiG-35s but much cheaper and much quicker than if they had to pay for them all as MiG-35s.

GarryB wrote:

They'll be stomped from the air. Just as the USSR's advantage of 20,000 tanks against the Germans' ~3000 at the onset of Barbarossa melted away due to a large part because 80% of the Soviet Air Force was destroyed on the ground and in desperate battles in the opening weeks of the war; leading to Soviet tanks being left on their own and being mercilessly picked off by German bombers and Stukas.

Yeah... that is a stretch.... most of those 20,000 tanks were T-26 two man tanks that were poorly used and not designed for the sort of conflict they were needing to fight. The Soviets were not really ready for war but the elimination of thousands of aircraft on the ground was probably a good thing... if they had gotten into the air they would have lost the air crews as well.

I personally think you rate the NATO forces rather too highly here... I doubt they could invade the Ukraine let alone Russia and the time and money it would take to assemble a force to do so that Russia would spot it and destroy it fairly easily without getting anywhere near running out of missiles.

They were poorly used and not designed for the conflict yes; and they took a lot of their losses while retreating following encirclements and so on - which is precisely when they were most often harassed by the Luftwaffe.
But tanks such as the T-34 faced the same problem. They were good tanks, and ideally suited to Russian conditions. But again, forced into retreat and then attacked from the air.

NATO won't invade Russia; they will bank on air power like they always have. The philosophy is to win the air war and that way the ground war is won automatically. They would want to take out the power stations, boiler houses, bridges, media, government buildings - make things miserable for the population, prevent the government from administrating its own country, arm some anti-government rebels and then wait for a Color Revolution
For that they won't need to assemble an invasion force full of juicy targets. And they'll have the sense to disperse their air force and have plenty of reserve airfields available.

Of course it's the wrong philosophy in the first place. Winning the air war didn't win the ground war for the Germans in Russia. Nor the US in Vietnam. But it did make things a lot more easier for them than it otherwise would have been. And with today's technology ceding airspace control to the adversary and allowing them the luxury of choosing when, where and from which direction to attack you, while staying out of the airspace that you've denied them through ground-based air defence systems - is just a bad idea.

GarryB wrote:

Russia can target US, British, French, Italian and Spanish carriers with hypersonic weaponry and take down a good chunk of their air assets with them. This is a very valuable force multiplier. But NATO is well aware of it; they'll take steps to mitigate the risk, perhaps rebase the bulk of their naval aircraft into continental Europe while keeping carriers well far from Russia.

Those hypersonic missiles will be just as useful with nuclear warheads obliterating NATO airfields as aircraft carriers at sea.

Being aware of something and being able to actually do something about it are two very different things... I am sure when it comes to fighting Russia their spines will become very yellow and their chests would collapse to a fraction of their size normally displayed.

Russia could use nukes yes.

But if wants to base its entire defensive strategy off of nukes then why modernize and maintain all those thousands of tanks, procure all those attack helicopters, etc...?
Since Russia has chosen to maintain a large conventional ground-force, capable of meeting NATO toe-to-toe in a mass conventional conflict - then it should match that force with an appropriately-sized airforce otherwise it's all for nothing.

Banking on a large and modern conventional force is probably the correct strategy. Because it raises the threshold for nuclear war. Which that is of course suicide for everybody. With a powerful conventional army you might be able to achieve your objectives and stand your ground without resorting to WMDs; and then come to a ceasefire and political arrangement with NATO after a few weeks of shooting and manuevering over Kaliningrad, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Moldova, the Baltic States and the Arctic Ocean; before the shit really hits the proverbial fan which of course nobody ultimately wants.

Nukes will still be there though, to discourage the idea of limited war in the first place. But you have to be prepared for all eventualities.

GarryB wrote:

Isos mentioned Russian heavy fighters and NATO light fighters. The thing is - is that a heavy fighter means that it has greater range and can carry more weapons, and in theory a more powerful radar with greater range. But if heavy fighters are outnumbered, subjected to a heavy EW environment, can't see the enemy as well as the enemy can see them (the latest F-16s, Gripens, Eurofighters, etc... introduced or under development have AESA radars and well-rounded EW suites) then they'll still be dismantled just as easily; their range and weapons payload will yield no advantage.

The R-37M carried by the Su-57 and Su-35 wont be for shooting down B-52s or incoming cruise missiles... they will be for shooting down inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS platforms and of course JSTARS... and when you remove those three types from NATO training exercises all of a sudden the short range of their F-35s and the long distances they need to cover become very apparent.

Sure, but NATO airbases are no further from Russia's borders than Russian airbases are from NATO's. If there is fighting it will take place on Russia's and NATO's fringes and the states in between. No side is exempt from range problems.
And if Russian military units advance into Poland then suddenly NATO fighters will have less distance to cover and Russian fighters more distance.

GarryB wrote:

Su-34s can indeed be used and they will have good A2A performance, but that's sort of part of my point. In order just to somewhat soften a severe situation, Russia will have to commit its modern strike and tactical bomber inventory to the A2A role. They'll be left with only Su-24s and Su-24Ms for these tasks. Like I said it's complacency. It's good that the Su-34, in comparison to the Su-24 - can function as a fighter; but they also won't be able to use them for anything else.

Yeah, I would disagree... you don't need to outnumber an enemy air force... that is what the battle of britain was all about... radar and command and control networks that watched the airspace so you didn't have to continually keep your planes in the air watching for an attack... and then when the attack began you sent up the right number of planes to deal with the problem... the difference for Russia is that they will know which airfields these NATO planes will be operating from and would already have launched attacks to damage them, not to mention any air attack will be dealing with a combination of aircraft and ground based missile systems, and any NATO based EW jamming can be directly targeted with missiles too... something the serbs or Iraqis couldn't do, but the Russians are something different entirely.

You're assuming that Russia will be defending.
Once again, Russia maintains a large conventional force. And at the start of any conflict; it will actually have a considerable advantage over NATO in the ground side of things; and will likely advance into NATO; through Poland in order to knock it out the war, and certainly take over the Baltic States, in order to secure Kaliningrad. Russia will advance into the Ukraine towards Moldova, the former of course will fulfill its function of being a US puppet dutifully and will probably already have NATO air wings, missiles and other infrastructure by the time that tensions have spilled out into war.

It's a pro-active defense, which is what Russia seems to be going for; rather than just sitting tight at its borders and waiting to be hammered at NATO's leisure; even with Russia's stock of cruise missiles.
And given this; an air-defence network in Russia and its radars won't be enough to cover this advance.

GarryB wrote:

In terms of targeting NATO air bases with cruise missiles - well, if both parties are mobilized and already prepared for war - then yes you'll certainly catch planes in hangers and so on; but mostly you'll be hitting their munitions, fuel and control structures - things that can be replaced or repaired within fairly short order, if the enemy's logistical train is operating well which NATO's certainly will be. You also have to remember that NATO will be hitting Russian airbases back. Not with as much success, due to the ground-based air defence network in Russia being stronger, but still they'll do damage too. You could get lucky and catch them with their pants down, but Russia cannot rely on luck.

I would actually expect NATO would run out of munitions first because they are so damn expensive and nobody in NATO seems to be paying their bills except the US. The NATO air defence basically relies on its aircraft so all those thousands of fighters you are talking about clearing the skies of Ruskie fighters will actually be rather busy defending all their ground forces and resources and HQs and SAM sites and Comms centres etc etc from missile attack... including low flying stealthy missiles and high flying hypersonic missiles they have little to no chance of stopping... but shatter their air bases with IRBMs and then where will they be... no where to run to this time...

I am sure after seeing forces getting clobbered a few countries will capitulate like they did in the last war... and lets face it... the Russian forces wont be trying to occupy anyone... this wont be the invasion of Europe... it will be the removal of a threat through limited nuclear exchange.

Munitions will run low after a few weeks. I doubt a war would last longer than that; given ammo stocks and the horrendous casualties that both sides will be taking.

But it's anyone's guess as to the character of the war and what comes after. I doubt that after something like this; Russia will simply accept NATO staying at its present borders right at Russia's borders and with all these pet projects and coups like in the Ukraine or what the US and EU are currently trying to do in Moldova; get the elected pro-Russian president impeached by some pro-Atlanticist coalition of parties in Parliament that took power somewhat less transparently.

GarryB wrote:

Turkey may leave NATO within the next 5-10 years. Again, would no doubt help Russia's situation a bit in terms of the air force disparity; Turkey having 100-200 fighters and multirole aircraft - mostly F-16s. But this by itself is not enough. And in any case again, it cannot be relied upon.

If the US treats them the way they are threatening to treat them an economic relationship with Russia and China might be their only lifeline, but neutrality would be all Russia would need from them in this theoretical conflict.

That's what I meant, just neutrality. Turkey would have no reason to enter any war and quite possibly simply decide to leave if it looks like it's on the horizon; if not sooner of course.
I think several other NATO members will get cold feet too; but one has to be careful not to slip into wishful thinking

GarryB wrote:

Of course trying to match NATO 1:1 in fighters is wildly unrealistic. But at the moment the ratio is some 4:1 to 5:1; if Russia has some 500-600 fighters/interceptors/multirole aircraft in service and operation. Russia needs to reduce this down to 2.5:1 at the least.

I don't agree... during peace time it is just a cost and a burden on the Russian economy slowing it down... what they could do with is a force of IRBMs that are fully hypersonic that can sit in crates hidden somewhere with tactical nuke warheads that they can launch to remove all those very expensive NATO assets from the playing field in an instant...

It will both say, back off, I know what real war is and I wont play your silly games... I am playing this to kill you all... do you still want to play?

That would be the preferred approach and it would probably work.
But war can develop from any situation.

Let's say the US, Poland and Lithuania decide to enact a blockade of Kaliningrad. Russia will have to break the blockade one way or the other, but breaking it with nukes would kind of be defeating the point.
Or let's say NATO deploys a bunch of missiles in the Ukraine. Russia can unbox its IRBMs, but then it's still faced with the problem of missiles sitting in the Ukraine only hundreds of KMs from Moscow. Russia might feel it has no choice but to launch cruise missile strikes, and then things will just develop from there.

GarryB wrote:

It's a shame that the MiG-35 is expensive. Cancel it, as the Su-35 costs a bit more but does all that it does better anyway. What the Russian AF really needs for its local AD regiments is a MiG-29SMT with an AESA radar. That will be about equivalent to the latest F-16.

Why not make MiG-29M2s which are basically MiG-35s but much cheaper and also rather superior to any SMT upgrades of older models. More importantly over time as the MiG-35s technologies get cheaper they can be applied to the MiG-29M2s to make them into MiG-35s on the cheap and unification across the fleet because all the MiGs will be modern new airframes.

Quite true, something like the MiG-29M2 will probably do the job well and would be half the price or less compared to the MiG-35.

In general, these planes would be needed for patrol and to support the air defence network. Multirole capability would be an afterthought, so sensors relating to that can probably be skipped.
What they would really need are AESA radars, modern IRST sensors and integration with the latest A2A missiles. And then just accept guidance from ground control for the most part.

They were poorly used and not designed for the conflict yes; and they took a lot of their losses while retreating following encirclements and so on - which is precisely when they were most often harassed by the Luftwaffe.

Only in the same way british and french tanks were poorly used and were not yet adapted to modern tank warfare where a commander was a commander and a gunner was a gunner and a loader was a loader and a driver was a driver. In the T-26 the driver was a driver, but the commander was commander and gunner and loader... and there was no radio.

There was no practical way to readily convert the T-26 into a useful tank... the best use for it would be as a troop transport artillery tractor type vehicle.

The number of kills by the luftwaffe against armour at that period was minimal... they were literally dive bombers without decent cannon at that stage and were direct artillery support really.

But tanks such as the T-34 faced the same problem. They were good tanks, and ideally suited to Russian conditions. But again, forced into retreat and then attacked from the air.

Poor internal layout, lack of proper communication and coordination, and a lack of anti armour rounds limited their effect on the battlefield, but in local areas they caused serious shock... Tiger Terror before the existence of Tigers in fact...

NATO won't invade Russia; they will bank on air power like they always have.

Never say never... the way they are accumulating new members and the new members they want a conflict only becomes more likely rather than less likely... imagine if Georgia was part of NATO in 2008... it does not matter that Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Russia was only responding to direct attacks on their peacekeeping forces... the immediate response in the west was that it was a Russian invasion of Georgia and that Putin was to blame.

In such a situation it wont matter what actually happened NATO will respond first and by the time it is realised that was a mistake.... too late... tell Gaddafi and Saddam it was a big misunderstanding... there is no apology or regret... most of the time the response is that they were evil people who had to be removed anyway... which is ironic considering the rumours about the they installed into power in Kosovo... I mean slaughtering Serbian prisoners for body parts to sell on the international markets... that is real evil but no one in the west gives a shit.

The philosophy is to win the air war and that way the ground war is won automatically. They would want to take out the power stations, boiler houses, bridges, media, government buildings - make things miserable for the population, prevent the government from administrating its own country, arm some anti-government rebels and then wait for a Color Revolution

Yeah that might work in Kosovo against Serbia, where a majority of the population are foreigners anyway, but in Russia they simply could not use air power to destroy Russian assets without Russia using missiles to do the same to them and I would argue that Russian missiles will get the job done better because ground air defence forces together with aircraft offer a much better much more coordinated defence than aircraft alone...

If HATO did it as HATO then Russia can enjoy themselves and take out all those annoying targets that whine at them at PACE meetings, but as Putin stated rather clearly in response to the removal of the INF treaty... if US missiles start heading towards Russia from Poland or Latvia then those launchers will be dealt with in Poland and Latvia but also the decision making HQs in the US will also be targeted because they made the decision for the attack.

Pretty obvious really... if the US wants to attack Russia via its bases around the world then it should expect Russia to destroy the source of the attacks and not just keep fighting the tentacles...

For that they won't need to assemble an invasion force full of juicy targets. And they'll have the sense to disperse their air force and have plenty of reserve airfields available.

But that does not matter... if IRBM units in Poland start attacking Russian power stations and dams and comm centres and HQs... that is an attack by HATO on Russia so all HATO power stations and dams and comms centres and HQs become targets for Russian IRBMs... which will mean HATOs aircraft will need to defend HATO air space and wont be free to wander unhindered in Russian air space to achieve their goals... not only can Russia destroy equivalent targets in HATO territories with IRBMs they can also activate their SAM network and PVO aircraft to seriously reduce numbers of active HATO fighters and strike aircraft... in the air and on the ground.

Of course it's the wrong philosophy in the first place. Winning the air war didn't win the ground war for the Germans in Russia. Nor the US in Vietnam.

As you and I well know the Russian ground forces and navy don't expect to operate with air power cover, yet with air power support would actually be even more effective than on their own.

They learned in Kosovo that air power alone does not win wars.... even small ones... they had to manipulate Serbia and Russia to get a result there...

I don't see Russia capitulating at the loss of a few bridges.

The other tactic might be to try to pretend it is the Ukrainian forces that are attacking Russia, but that would just give Russia to do to the Ukraine what they did to Georgia... except to make more permanent changes and target Kiev for a hammering to disrupt the power structures there... not need to occupy kiev... just move in and set up some new borders depending on the feelings of the locals and let the rest stew in its own juices... if they try to start a guerilla war then hammer them.

And with today's technology ceding airspace control to the adversary and allowing them the luxury of choosing when, where and from which direction to attack you, while staying out of the airspace that you've denied them through ground-based air defence systems - is just a bad idea.

Who said anything about that?

Russia doesn't need 3,500 fighter planes to balance with HATO... they need a few thousand hypersonic IRBMs that can obliterate HQs and Comms centres and major radar and sam sites and of course concrete airfields where AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft operate from, plus perhaps 1,000 fighters that will be coordinated with the air defence network to punish anything that tries to enter Russian airspace without permission.

The mode will be punishment mode, so if HATO aircraft manage to hit the bridge to the Crimea then the Russians can destroy the main HATO HQ in Brussels, and that big US base in Kosovo... and the airfield the aircraft that hit the bridge flew from.

But if wants to base its entire defensive strategy off of nukes then why modernize and maintain all those thousands of tanks, procure all those attack helicopters, etc...?

Some minor skirmish on the border that appears to be a misunderstanding or minor mistake does not warrant a nuke response... having only nukes is like when your only tool is a hammer... treat every problem like it is a nail... doesn't work when the problem is how to cook these raw eggs...

Tanks and armour with high mobility can be shifted around as needed but needs to be able to form a presence where needed when needed, so each district has their own forces and can be supported by forces from other regions when needed, but ultimately a defensive force to stop and contain an enemy attack while decisions are made as to how many targets in the enemy country get irradiated.

Since Russia has chosen to maintain a large conventional ground-force, capable of meeting NATO toe-to-toe in a mass conventional conflict - then it should match that force with an appropriately-sized airforce otherwise it's all for nothing.

But have they?

The US has over 10,000 Abrams tanks... AFAIK the Russian plans are for up to 6,000 in European Russia... the original CFE agreement limits were for 20,000 tanks for each side (HATO and WP) but as countries defected like rats from WP to HATO the tank numbers were never revised, so Russia is only allowed about 6,000 tanks in European Russia with 4,000 of those in storage... and its flank limits were even stricter... even during the conflict in Chechnia...

I realise the CFE treaty is dead, but the Russians agreed to those forces levels because they seemed reasonable and affordable...

Banking on a large and modern conventional force is probably the correct strategy. Because it raises the threshold for nuclear war. Which that is of course suicide for everybody.

A large conventional force is expensive. A smaller mobile modern conventional force makes rather more sense... it can be supported with large numbers of conventional weapons like cruise missiles and ballistic and quasi ballistic missiles and of course hypersonic manouvering weapons so they don't need tens of thousands of aircraft burning fuel... there will come a time when unmanned armour and unmanned aircraft will fight for Russia instead of manned systems... just take them out of the box, fuel them up and arm them up and send them on their way...

With a powerful conventional army you might be able to achieve your objectives and stand your ground without resorting to WMDs; and then come to a ceasefire and political arrangement with NATO after a few weeks of shooting and manuevering over Kaliningrad, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Moldova, the Baltic States and the Arctic Ocean; before the shit really hits the proverbial fan which of course nobody ultimately wants.

Which totally ignores your opponent completely... do you think the west will fight fair and not use WMDs and go for a political arrangement... remember it will be Russias fault... they started it. It wont be a rerun of WWI with a bit of a stalemate with both sides roughly evenly matched pot shotting each other from their trench... this is going to be a brutal and highly mobile and highly technical conflict where the first casualty will be the truth... there is no way they could make peace with Russia after all those churches and schools and hospitals are destroyed in the EU on the first day...

Nukes will still be there though, to discourage the idea of limited war in the first place. But you have to be prepared for all eventualities.

I remember reading a book by a Soviet General who was amused by the western doctrine of escalation... ie fight conventionally to a stand still and then someone starts using tactical nukes and then escalation and eventually strategic nukes start getting used on a wider and wider scale till eventually you get to the point where you either launch a full nuclear strike on the enemy or you call for talks and work out some peace deal that saves humanity from nuclear oblivion.

As the Soviet general points out... the fog of war and miss calculation... in a cowboy movie they don't start swearing at each other, and then start throwing punches and then start throwing bottles and chairs and then go for their guns... what if you have a chair above your head about to slam it down on your opponent and he pulls his pistol and shoots you in the chest... when it is two professional gun slingers they stand out in the open and someone calls draw and they try to shoot each other.... anything else is bullshit.

It is like sword fighting... some people think the bits that stick out near the handle are intended to make the sword look like a cross... in actual fact they are there to stop an opponent turning his blade sideways on contact with your blade and slicing down the edge of your blade to cut off your fingers or your hand depending on which side of your blade his blade is.

There is no honour in sword fighting or war... it is brutal and no place for pussy politicians like HATO will have.

Sure, but NATO airbases are no further from Russia's borders than Russian airbases are from NATO's. If there is fighting it will take place on Russia's and NATO's fringes and the states in between. No side is exempt from range problems.

Russian bases will be better defended, HATO airbases near Russian borders will be under serious pressure most of the time.

Russian aircraft will mostly be operating over friendly territory...

And if Russian military units advance into Poland then suddenly NATO fighters will have less distance to cover and Russian fighters more distance.

Why advance into a hostile foreign country?

What purpose would entering Poland serve... if HATO attacked then destroy its components... air and ground bases, troop concentrations and centres of power, then direct fire power to the next NATO country causing a problem... the priority would be to hit targets deep inside the EU where the decision making is being made... they will be the ones that ask for a peace treaty, not the front line forces.

Russia should not seek to occupy or invade the EU... that is their thinking, that Russia wants to take control of them... really Russia just needs to obliterate them and remove them as a threat...

You're assuming that Russia will be defending.

What is there to attack for?

Once again, Russia maintains a large conventional force. And at the start of any conflict; it will actually have a considerable advantage over NATO in the ground side of things; and will likely advance into NATO; through Poland in order to knock it out the war, and certainly take over the Baltic States, in order to secure Kaliningrad. Russia will advance into the Ukraine towards Moldova, the former of course will fulfill its function of being a US puppet dutifully and will probably already have NATO air wings, missiles and other infrastructure by the time that tensions have spilled out into war.

It's a pro-active defense, which is what Russia seems to be going for; rather than just sitting tight at its borders and waiting to be hammered at NATO's leisure; even with Russia's stock of cruise missiles.
And given this; an air-defence network in Russia and its radars won't be enough to cover this advance.

You are basically wanting to turn Russia into NATO and be able to invade other territories and take air defence with you like NATO does... such an aggressive force would need numbers superiority and it would need to be able to act as an occupation force which will be expensive to achieve and maintain... you might find yourself in the same place as HATO now looking for conflicts to engage in to justify your force structure and spending on "defence".

You are going to need a lot of aircraft carriers then and to seriously spend big on your navy because much of the time you wont have land access to the countries you will want to be fighting most of the time.

Munitions will run low after a few weeks. I doubt a war would last longer than that; given ammo stocks and the horrendous casualties that both sides will be taking.

Given the improved performance of munitions and their improved accuracy the devastation would be terrible... I doubt the europeans would cope with actually hearing warning sirens of an attack... and the explosion and then whoosh of an incoming hypersonic weapon... In such a conflict civilian targets would be the ideal targets for Russia to force HATO to stop... I mean if HATO started a conflict with Russia why would Russia make it a fair fight between military powers?

Of course hammer military targets that are being used against Russia but also attack things of value in EU countries... make them pay a real price for their aggression.

I think several other NATO members will get cold feet too; but one has to be careful not to slip into wishful thinking

Politicians are dicks and it seems high ranking US soldiers are more like politicians than most... just look at what happened in Kosovo where the US commander ordered that British force to attack the Russians and take the air port and the British commander said no. I believe his name was actually Michael Jackson. Sounds astounding now and during WWII he probably would have been shot, but he was basically right and I suspect there are a lot more sensible level headed professional soldiers within HATO that would also do the right thing when they see the wrong thing approaching like a train wreck in slow motion...

That would be the preferred approach and it would probably work.
But war can develop from any situation.

It can but right now the last thing the Russian economy needs is the huge financial strain of a large conventional force sucking money out of the system for no tangible benefit... it is like paying way too much insurance on something that isn't actually worth it...

A small but powerful and professional and mobile conventional military means modern up to date kit and modern training that can be sold to other countries to offset the cost, plus a reasonable air force and a reasonable navy, plus integrated air defence capability and of course the fire power to crush any likely aggressor... big or small... thanks to the US getting rid of the INF treaty a couple of thousand hypersonic manouvering IRBMs with both conventional and nuclear warhead options depending upon the situation, ready to obliterate any enemy force down to the level where the smaller conventional forces Russia has will be more than enough to deal with what is left.

Over time robotic air and ground vehicles will add to this force making it more powerful and damage resistant...

Let's say the US, Poland and Lithuania decide to enact a blockade of Kaliningrad. Russia will have to break the blockade one way or the other, but breaking it with nukes would kind of be defeating the point.

But the blockade would be broken at sea... Russia really can't force Poland or Lithuania to allow Russian trade across their borders if they don't want it... either by truck or aircraft. Any conventional method of defeating that blockade would be by sea... and of course the best solution for Russia would be then to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad and fit them to short range tactical missiles and make it clear they will be pointed at targets in the countries supporting the blockade... and then of course you would need to look at what action could be taken against the US for supporting such a blockade.
I really can't see tanks getting involved however.

Or let's say NATO deploys a bunch of missiles in the Ukraine. Russia can unbox its IRBMs, but then it's still faced with the problem of missiles sitting in the Ukraine only hundreds of KMs from Moscow. Russia might feel it has no choice but to launch cruise missile strikes, and then things will just develop from there.

Russian IRBMs in Kaliningrad for a start and also Crimea, as well as missiles in the far east where they could reach US ABM systems in Alaska would be useful... of course make it known they have nuclear warheads and list the targets they will be pointed at... including HQs in Brussels and any other origin of the problem missiles in Ukraine.

Of course missiles in the Ukraine are not much different from ABM missiles in Poland... at the end of the day all you can do is respond with stupid gestures of your own, but don't bother with balance... you need to seriously escalate and make them think they are now at a disadvantage for them to step back... US Titan missiles in Turkey is what started the Cuban missile crisis... missiles all over europe pointed at europe would have not made any difference because they were there because the US wanted them there and the US couldn't care less about more missiles in europe... it was missiles pointed at them that got their attention.

Quite true, something like the MiG-29M2 will probably do the job well and would be half the price or less compared to the MiG-35.

And they have the same air frame so in 5 years time when the technologies of the MiG-35 have matured and gotten cheaper you can upgrade the whole fleet of 250 MiG-29M2s to that standard, while the 48-50 MiG-35s could probably be further upgraded with matured components and also newer more innovative technologies... so you would end up with unified standardised aircraft with 250 MiG-35s and 50 MiG-35Ms... smaller shorter ranged aircraft mean a denser coverage of your airspace... with Flankers you might have a squadron of four aircraft covering air space 2,000km across, but with MiGs it might only cover 1,000km diameter airspace areas... but as they both operate at roughly the same flight speed there will be twice as many MiGs as Flankers so while the Flanker has better radar and more missiles two separate MiGs can be in two places at once and therefore cover more actual air space and with coordination can provide chances of both long range attacks but also flanking attacks from unexpected directions because there are more aircraft there.

In general, these planes would be needed for patrol and to support the air defence network. Multirole capability would be an afterthought, so sensors relating to that can probably be skipped.
What they would really need are AESA radars, modern IRST sensors and integration with the latest A2A missiles. And then just accept guidance from ground control for the most part.

But that is the thing these are fully multirole aircraft... they might start the conflict looking for incoming aircraft and weapons like cruise missiles but they can also use their sensors and equipment for other roles... when a MiG-29KR is flying 600km away from the carrier group... if it detects a US carrier on its radar then that information can be passed back to the fleet and other platforms can then engage... this is a network where every node can add data to the information database of what is where...

Even if it is chasing down an enemy cruise missile near the Polish border it can still use its lower facing AESA radar elements to scan the ground for tanks or missile launchers... or just large scale ground movement of troops or vehicles... that data can be sent to HQs and examined and UAVs sent up to confirm for targets to be selected and forces moved or adjusted.

To be honest if I was a member of HATO I would not be in any hurry to fight Russian forces... just looking at their performance in the Crimea and Syria alone... the former showed skill and professional control not seen in most HATO occupying forces around the world, while the latter showed flexibility and changing tactics and introducing new weapons to suit the situation as it changed.... not something HATO seems to be good at... which seems to be more like war by committee.

flamming_python wrote:NATO won't invade Russia; they will bank on air power like they always have. [...] They would want to take out the power stations, boiler houses, bridges, media, government buildings [...] (then) wait for a Color Revolution

1. This scenario is only available in the minds of arm-chair generals. Before the last bomb hits, Washington will turn into a light shade of green.
   
2. NATO air power next to Russia is negligible. Operations from carriers would be difficult due to long-range land-based ASM's and Russian Navy aviation. NATO airbases close to Russia would not have a long survival record.
   
3. Air operations are much more complicated than what most people want to believe, even against Syria - Israel cannot maintain regular strikes, as the countries air-space is getting closed down tighter and tighter with more air-defense systems coming in. Russia, on the other hand, has had nearly 7 decades to figure out it's own airspace and the track record of NATO aircraft in it isn't great.
   

flamming_python wrote:Since Russia has chosen to maintain a large conventional ground-force, capable of meeting NATO toe-to-toe in a mass conventional conflict - then it should match that force with an appropriately-sized airforce otherwise it's all for nothing.

It is very appropriately sized for it's purposes, which is defensive in nature. You seem to forget that Russian Air-Force is part of 'Russian Aerospace Forces'. They do not plan on fighting using aircraft alone. In terms of 'power projection', it is not typical of Russian doctrine. Most of their power projection comes from artillery and long/short/medium range ballistic missiles with aviation to back it, though the aviation itself is not meant to operate outside of their anti-air system created 'fuck-off' bubbles. They're not going to invade Europe, in fact, it would be against their interest to do so, because they still believe in 'Eurasia'.

If I am not mistaken, they have 37-40 fighter squadrons. That's over 500 aircraft. They also have more anti-air TEL/TELAR's that most countries have tanks. Last I checked, of the S-400 system alone they have somewhere around 370-400 TEL's available for their forces. Add in the older S-300 systems, 9K37, 2K22, Shell, 9K330, 2K12, 9K33 and others... Then take into consideration all of the electronic systems they have... Krashuka-4, as an example, bleaches the paint of an aircraft it targets. The amount of power it emits is simply insane. And it is not the 'scariest' system of them all, it is their [aerospace defense forces] ability to gather information passively that is simply horrifying for people that actually have expertise in the area.

Reading the rest of your post, it is clear you fundamentally do not understand Russian doctrine. Soviet doctrine was to race the US to their expected landing in France after a nuclear exchange. This is what their forces were built up to do, this is why they had so many APC's that weren't all that well armored but were otherwise CBRN resistant.

In a hypothetical scenario with 'war with NATO', nuclear weapons would be used in terms of a few days if not hours. Because it would simply spiral out of control. Conventional forces are there to deal with the aftermath of nuclear war, because not everyone would end up dead and both sides would effectively wage a war of extermination. If you think the Soviets loathed the Germans due to their policies of 'subhuman slavs', better hope you do not get to experience Russia's anger after such a war.

George1 wrote:Summary on deliveries of Rus combat a/c.

No , no way , 24 Su-35 in one year NOT

The matter is count twice the same batch , one time when Factory hand over the airplanes to VVS and twice when the airplanes arrives to the regiment after conversional training at Lípetsk

The first two Su-35 for the airfporce were in december 2011 , while the first 2 Su-30SM were in december 2012
The Su-27SM(3) were only 12 in 2011 , the other 12 in 2014 , 2017 and 2018 were modernized Su-27P to standard Su-27SM(3)
Tere are several other mistakes in the table

The correct numbers are those:

And in France Dassault delivers only 3 rafales per year to french air force ...

Cyberspec wrote:
Contract signed for first 10 Mi-8 AMTSh-VN to be delivered in 2020/21
https://www.aex.ru/news/2019/6/27/198978/

Another contract for Mi-8 variants
There is a lot of Mi-8 contracted in the last decade, but it really seems that no one knows exactly the total amount of Mi-8 purchased and how many are in service today.

It is not easy to find detailed information about the VVS on the Internet before 2010.
Also, many links are broken and I have only been able to find references in forums and blogs

Is a rare information , nothing easy to find all together compiled on the Internet, so I copy it here so that all this remains

I have reviewed my files and will try to answer that question:


Numbers and procurement plans for Mi-8 in Russian Armed forces




Mi-8MTV-5




This is the standard assault  helicopter (together the Mi-8AMTSh)  for Brigades and Regiments in the Army Aviation of VKS

This versión os produced in Kazan by KVZ ,and it has a rear ramp instead of the classic rounded stern of the Soviet Mi-8

The production for the VVS began in early 2008, although the tests were done before between 2006 and 2007:
-The first copy was seeen firts time at the Torzhok Conversion Center (344º TsPAPiPVI) in August 2008
-The first batch was received by the regiment of Prybilovo in the Leningrad region (currently 549 OVP in Pushkin)
-Then other batch it was also received in the Buddyononsk regiment


I have been able to identify the following Mi-8MTV-5 contracts:

● 5 Mi-8MTV-5 in january of 2008 , for send to Prybilovo until june 2009

http://zakupkiold.gov.ru/Tender/ViewPurchase.aspx?PurchaseId=163316
"Mi-8MTV-5 - military transport helicopter" - 5 pieces. Note: Military transport helicopter Mi-8MTV-5-1 according to TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00TU with a single set of TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00TU Part 2 (1: 1)). The following are not installed on the helicopter: radio station R-828, radio station R-863, radio station Yadro-1A; sight OPB; DAK DB-5VK equipment; T 819 equipment. The onboard communication complex “C 603” is installed on the helicopter.
The initial price of the contract (lot): 931000000.00 RUB
Published 11/01/2008 23:53
Is signed 12/03/2008 10:13 PM

● 4 Mi-8MTV-5 in march of 2008 (in theory for Buddionovsk regiment)

https://www.tetre.ru/tender/108008
Subject of state order: Mi-8MTV-5 - transport and landing helicopters - 4 (pcs.)
Initial cost, thousand rubles: 592,000
Official publication: 03/19/2008
Content: Mi-8MTV-5 - transport and landing helicopters - 4 (pcs.) - 592 000 thousand rubles.
Reception of applications until: 04/21/2008 15:00

● 4 Mi-8MTV-5 in june of 2009 for Pryvilovo until dec-2009

http://zakupkiold.gov.ru/Tender/ViewPurchase.aspx?PurchaseId=393593
Mi-8MTV-5 - transport and landing helicopters, namely Mi-8MTV-5-1 - military transport helicopters according to TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00TU with a single set of TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00TU Part 2 (1: 1) - 4 pieces.
The initial price of the contract (lot) 756000000.00 RUB
Published 06/04/2009 21:15
Is sigmed 07/08/2009 9:10 PM

● 9 Mi-8MTV-5 in october 2009 , until june 2010 (8 for Pryvilovo and ove for Severomorsk in North Fleet)

http://zakupkiold.gov.ru/Tender/ViewPurchase.aspx?PurchaseId=533431
Lot 1: Mi-8MTV-5-1 - military transport helicopters according to TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00TU with an on-board communication complex C-603 and with a single set according to TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00Т part 2 (1: 1) - 8 pieces.
The initial price of the contract (lot)  512000000.00 RUB

Lot 2: Mi-8MTV-5-1 - military transport helicopters according to TU 8MTV5. 0000. 00TU with an onboard communication complex C-603, a conciliation protocol to TU No. 4-Mi-8MTV-5/09 and with a single set according to TU 8 MTV5. 0000. 00TU part 2 (1: 1) - 1 piece.
The initial price of the contract (lot) 167000000.00 RUB

Published: 10/12/2009 6:53 pm
Signed 11/13/2009 7:02 PM

● 140 Mi-8MTV-5 in march 2011  , until the end of 2020

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/348166.html
- dated March 3, 2011 No. 3/4/2 / 5-11-DOGOZ for delivery in 2011-2020. 140 Mi-8MTV-5-1 helicopters manufactured in accordance with the Technical Conditions 8MTV5.0000.00TU, taking into account the decision No. 8-Mi-8MTV-5/09 dated January 16, 2010, according to the modification of Technical Specifications 8MTV5.0000.00TU;

● 4 Mi-8MTV-5 in august 2011 . Probably this are the 4 Mi-8MTB-5 received at Severomorsk/North Fleet about 2013 or 2014

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/348166.html
- dated August 29, 2011 No. 3/4/2 / 15-11-DOGOZ for delivery in 2011. of four Mi-8MTV-5-1 helicopters manufactured in accordance with the Technical Conditions 8MTV5.0000.00TU, but without taking into account the decision №8-Mi-8MTV-5/09 of January 16, 2010 to change TU 8MTV5.0000.00TU there is a simplified modification;

● 3 Mi-8MTV-5 in march of 2014 for Pryvilovo (Pushkin)

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/785845.html
Under the terms of the second tender http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ea44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100000814000300)(, the military department plans to receive three Mi-8MTV-5-1 helicopters in the military transport version (that is, with weapons). Delivery should be carried out in military unit 12633, located in the town of Pushkin near St. Petersburg (the actual recipients are likely to be units of this air base, stationed at the airfields Levashovo and Pribylovo).

Then , the total contracted is 169  Mi-8MTV-5
Of them:  
164 are for the VKS 
5 for the Navy-North Fleet

The number received for VKS until the end of 2018 was "about 130" and it is planned other 14 in 2019 and over 20 in 2020 https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3514335.html
In february 2019 other 8 were received at Chelyabisnk airbase https://tass.ru/ural-news/6082757

The total received for VKS is about 140

Mi-8AMTSh




Mi-8AMTSh (rus: Ми-8АМТШ )
Standard assault helicopter (together Mi-8MTV-5) for Brigades and Regiments of Army Aviation VKS
It has a rear access ramp instead of the classic stern of the Soviet models
Is manofactured at Ulan Ude plant (UUAZ)

The production started in 2009 and the first batch was received in december 2010 , 10 at Korenovsk and 4 in Budyonnovsk, that in the first moment received both variants: Mi-8AMTSh and Mi-8MVT-5. However , the  Mi-8AMTSh of Bidyonnovsk was transfered to other base in 2011 after an accident in Mount Elbrus

I was able to identify the following contracted lots

● 4 Mi-8AMTSh in 8 october 2009 for Budyonnovsk regiment

https://subscribe.ru/archive/economics.tech.itendersru.samoleti/200910/17145013.html
Competition for the supply of Mi-8AMTSH. 2009-10-08 18:22
Title: Competition for the supply of Mi-8AMTSH.
Name of goods (work, services): Mi-8AMTSH according to TU-8AMTSH-2004 in accordance with the technical appearance of the Mi-8AMTSH helicopters supplied for the Ministry of Defense of Russia, approved by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, and also complete set in accordance with paragraph 1.9 of TU-8AMTSH-2004 - 4 pieces.
Maximum price / total cost of goods, thousand rubles: 760000
Quantity of godos: 4.00
Units of measurement: Piees
Place of delivery (work): Russian Federation, Stavropol Territory, Budennovsk.

● 6 Mi-8AMTSh in 14 october 2009 until october 2010

Open auction from 10/14/2009
Mi-8 AMTSh helicopter in military transport variant with additional equipment - 6 pcs.
The cost is 1,614,252,000.00; delivery time - 10.2010; registry entry number - 7479509001377
http://reestrgk.roskazna.ru/prilojen...id=07:44711198
the contract is executed 09/29/2010
http://reestrgk.roskazna.ru/prilojenie2.php?type=contract_lines&ctr_id=07:61790646

● 22 Mi-8AMTSh in january 2010 until october 2010

http://zakupkiold.gov.ru/Tender/ViewPurchase.aspx?PurchaseId=661182
Name of goods (work, services):  Mi-8AMTSH - 22 pieces
The initial price of the contract (lot): 4180000000.00 RUB
Published: 01/18/2010 10:56 PM
Is signeded: 3/9/2010 8:13 PM

● 132 Mi-8AMTSh in march 2011 until the end of 2020

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/723171.html
In total, under the long-term contract concluded in March 2011, in the period from 2012 to 2020, the UUAZ should produce 132 helicopters.

Mi-8AMTSh-V (with the classic rounded stern)




● 40 Mi-8AMTSh-V in august 2013 until the end of 2020

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/583966.html
According to the RosBusinessConsulting news agency, the Russian Ministry of Defense and the holding company Helicopters of Russia signed a state contract for the supply of 40 Mi-8AMTSH helicopters worth 12.6 billion rubles to Ulan-Ude The contract was signed by the Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov from the Ministry of Defense of Russia, and from the Russian Helicopters holding, by Dmitry Petrov, Director General. Production of helicopters will be carried out by JSC "Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant", deliveries will begin in 2014.

● 2 Mi-8AMTSh-V in december 2017 until the end of 2018 (probably for replace 2 helicopters lost in Siria of the same regiment)

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3012626.html
As the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported on December 20, 2017, as part of the implementation of the state defense order GOZ 2018-2020, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant JSC (UUAZ) concluded state contracts for the supply of Russian forces of the Mi-8AMTSh-V
In accordance with the terms of the contract, until the end of 2018, two newest Mi-AMTSh-V helicopters will be handed over to the VKS, and by the end of 2019, eight Mi-8AMTSh helicopters in the salon package will be handed over.

Mi-8AMTSh-VA (Artic special configuration)



● 1 Mi-8AMTSh-VA was in fligth in late 2015 (instalation batch). https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1585712.html
Cannot find a specific contract for this helicopter
It has been sent to 199 AvB in Tiksi, part of the Artic Task Group of the Long Range Aviation with Nº 17 red https://russianplanes.net/id212223

● 5 Mi-8AMTSh-VA contracted in february 2016 . Of them , one was trasfered to Pacific Fleet in Yelizovo and 4 to a separate squadron of VKS in Kamchatka Krai

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1887662.html
As part of the execution of the State Defense Order in 2015, the transfer of the first military transport helicopter Mi-8AMTSH-VA to support the tasks of the Arctic group of forces became a significant event for U-UAZ. In 2016-2017, the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant will transfer to the Russian Defense Ministry another 5 Mi-8AMTSh-VA helicopters to support the tasks of the Arctic group of forces. This helicopter can become an important element of transport logistics in measures to ensure the interests of Russia in the Arctic region.

Mi-8AMTSh-VN versión for special conditions (desert / high altitude)


.
● 10 Mi-8AMTSh-VN contracted in june 2019 for supply until the end of 2021

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3693937.html
Contract for the supply of ten Mi-8AMTSH-VN helicopters to the Ministry of Defense of Russia
Russian Helicopters Holding (part of Rostec State Corporation) on June 27, 2019 announced that it had entered into the first contract with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for the supply of ten newest Mi-8AMTSH-VN multi-purpose helicopters. All vehicles will be handed over to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in 2020-2021

Mi-8AMTSh-1 "Saloon" configuration with special equipament for the Ministrer of Defence  (porthole Windows)



● 2 Mi-8AMTSh-1 "Saloon" configuration contracted in august 2011

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1075319.html
This decision justified the need to manufacture for the needs of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the basis of the production of a military transport helicopter MI-8AMTSH of two helicopter salons of the new modification Mi-8AMTSH-1 for the needs of the MO of the RF The lead contractor for the manufacture and supply of aircraft was determined by U-UAZ, with which the relevant government contract was signed on August 1, 2011 for the supply of two helicopters with serial numbers AMTS01643115707U and AMTS01643115708U. The cost of each of them amounted to 304 million rubles.

Mi-8AMTSh-1 "Saloon" configuration  (VIP transport versión , with square windows  )



● 2 Mi-8AMTSh-1 "Saloon" configuration serial numbers 73-33 and 73-34 were received finished in late 2014
Cannot find for the moment the reference of contract for the machines, only the additional installation work for VIP transport

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/890043.html
· Development of design documentation and ED for installation of additional equipment on MI-8AMTSH helicopters in the Salon version (series No. 7333,7334). Maintenance of the construction of helicopters. Tests of helicopters. OJSC “U-UAZ” - Customer, OJSC “MVZ im. M.L. Mile "- Artist.

● 8 Mi-8AMTSh-1 "Saloon" configuration contracted in december 2017

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3012626.html
As the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported on December 20, 2017, as part of the implementation of the state defense order GOZ 2018-2020, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant JSC (UUAZ) concluded state contract for the supply of Mi-8AMTSh helicopters in the salon configuration.
In accordance with the terms of the contract, by the end of 2019, eight Mi-8AMTSh helicopters in the “salon” configuration

Then , the total number contracted: 234 Mi-8AMTSh
- 206 of the general médium cargo/assault helicotper Mi-8AMTSh and Mi-8AMTSh-V
- 6  of Mi-8AMTSh-VA Artic version
- 10 of Mi-8AMTSh-VN Special performance versión
- 12 of Mi-8AMTSh-1 "Saloon" VIP transport versión


The contracts of Mi-AMTSh habe been ended or nearly to end
The Mi-8AMTSh-V , have been received more than 30
Also received 6 Artic versión and 6 VIP versión



The total number received by end of 2018 is near 200 Mi-8AMTSh
Of then, one crashed in 2010 in the Elbrus Mountain
Other two were lost in Syria on 2015 and 2016

Mi-8MTPR-1 (EW versión of Mi-8MTV-5)


● 3 Mi-8MTPR-1 (at least) in december 2011

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/715504.html
The photo was taken on January 14 in Rostov-on-Don. Probably this is the Mi-8MTPR-1, which was written about in press releases for the delivery of new aircraft to the Southern Military District. I will assume that the batch of these machines is being built in the framework of the contract for OCD, signed between the KNIRTI and the Russian Ministry of Defense on August 23, 2011 under the number H / 4 / 08-11-DOGOZ mentioned in the report of the Kaluga Research Radio Engineering Institute (KNIRTI) for 2012. . The amount of lending for the purpose of executing this agreement amounted to 876 million rubles in 2012. The term of the contract is not specified, but, on the basis of the crediting terms, it can be assumed that its execution will continue this year. Creation of special modification is carried out on the basis of new cars built by the Kazan Helicopter Plant. The agreement between the KVZ and KNIRTI on the supply of helicopters for their further staffing with EW equipment was signed, on December 12, 2011, according to the procurement website. From the mass produced and supplied by the Russian Air Force Mi-8MTV-5-1, the new jammer is notable for the lack of ramps and armored plates in the cockpit, narrowed by the left sliding door and the lack of portholes (apparently due to the electronic warfare equipment and operator workplaces), additional antenna on tail boom
Outside the fuselage, there is a set of additional equipment (probably related to active jamming equipment), similar to the complexes deployed on previously seen prototypes of this modification

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1458627.html
An instalation batch (at least three machines) was probably also released by the KNIRTI in 2014.
The first Mi-8MPR-1, seen at the beginning of 2014 in Rostov-on-Don
The second and third Mi-8MTPR-1 also arrived in Rostov.

● 18 Mi-8MTPR-1 contracted in 2013

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1458627.html
The contract for the serial order of the Ministry of Defense in 18 Mi-8MTPR-1 was issued to the Concern "Radio-electronic technologies" on November 22, 2013. The final assembly of the machines is carried out at the Kazan Optical-Mechanical Plant, officially not included in KRET, but affiliated with the Concern. The first batch of three aircraft was transferred to one of the air bases of the Western Military District in March of this year. Unlike the first batch, these vehicles are not supplied in gray, but in traditional camouflage paint.

Total: at least 21 Mi-8MTPR-1





Mi-8MTV-2



After the collapse of the USSR, the orders of Mi-8 for the armed forces of Russia ceased in 1992 and the last copies were received in 1993

However, already in the 21st century several small orders have been made for the service of the Arctic group, including Rogachevo in New Zemlya

The helicopters Mi-8MTV-2 go with the orange colors for the Arctic and are in the 33 OTSAP of Levashovo in Saint Petersburg, assigned command of the western district

● 2 Mi-8MTV-2 purchased in 2003 , serial numbers 64-71 and 64-72
Not available reference found in internet of 2003 about contract but were listed in the russianplanes register

● 2 Mi-8MTV-2 purchased in 2005 , serial numbers 65-92 and 65-93
Not available reference found in internet of 2005 about contract but were listed in the russianplanes register

● 1 Mi-8MTV-2 purchased in 2008
Bit available oficial iformation, only one reference in other place

(1) the deliveries of Mi-8:
Delivery - Mi 8MTV 02 helicopter (for 12 GU MO RF) - 1 piece
Delivery time is November 25, 2008.
Winner - OJSC Kazan Helicopter Plant

● 3 Mi-8MTV-2 purchased in 2011

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1489466.html
Previous deliveries of the Mi-8MTV-2 were held by the KVZ under a separate contract dated August 1, 2011. According to its conditions in 2011-2012, three helicopters of this modification were received.

● 1 Mi-8MTV-2 purchased in 2014

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/785845.html
Rosoboronpostavka posted on the official website two auctions for delivery of helicopters for the needs of the Russian Defense Ministry before November 25, 2014.
The subject of the first is the manufacture and supply of one Mi-8MTV-2 helicopter in the transport version. The recipient of the vehicle was identified as military unit 49719, stationed in the Priozersk District of the Leningrad Region, better known as Gromovo Air Base 12 of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in charge of nuclear weapons.

Total: 9 Mi-8MTV-2
 




Mi-8AMT-1 "Saloon! configuration for VIP tansport (square windows)



This helicopter for VIP transport were contracted before the AMTSh-1 versión for VIP tranport
Other 4 units were purchaded but transferred to the Ministry of the Interior, so I do not count them between the supply to the armed forces

● 2 Mi-8AMT-1 " saloon" purchased in 2008 , serial numbers 31-06 and 31-07
Not available information  of 2007-2008 found  in internet about contract but were listed in the russianplanes register

● 2 Mi-8AMT-1 " saloon" contracted in  2009 but produced and handed over in 2012 , serial numbers 57-03 and 57-04

http://zakupkiold.gov.ru/Tender/ViewPurchase.aspx?PurchaseId=61564
Delivery of Mi-8AMT-1 helicopters in the salon versión ,scope of delivery 2 pieces, final delivery of 2 helicopters in 2009; SNO, KPA for Mi-8AMT-1 helicopters in the salon version (from the Group set of ground operational equipment (1:10) number of statement TU-80AMT-8 and Test and test equipment (1:10) in accordance with the list specified in the tender documentation.
The initial price of the contract (lot) 415371013.85 RUB
Published 09.08.2008 00:16
Is signed 09/19/2008 23:06

Total : 4 Mi-8AMT-1 "Saloon"

Interesting... thanks for posting...

GarryB wrote:Interesting... thanks for posting...

Yes, it has been a bit complicated to put everything in order so that it can be easily understood
Well, its is summer and I have a little time to share some data I have collected trought the time

It is a difficult information to find, I hope it is useful

There are interesting data in the links where the information comes from. Some deserve to be read in depth
There are interesting data , as the price pf several lots , that can be compared just by look for the ruble Exchange in the specific date

I will try to summarize how the supply of the Mi-8 purchased mainly in the last decade goes


Mi-8 contracted until July 2019: 437
of them:
- 234 Mi-8AMTSh in all versions
- 169 Mi-8MTV-5
- 21 Mi-8MTPR-1 (EW)
- 9 Mi-8MTV-2 for support the artic group
- 4 Mi-8AMT-1 for vip transport


The number received until february 2019 is about 370
of them:
+/- 200 Mi-8AMTSh in all versions
+/- 140 Mi-8MTV-5
- 16 Mi-8MTR-1
- 9 Mi-8MTV-2
- 4 Mi-8AMT-1


Also there are more than 100 or 120 (included about 15-20 in the Navy) soviet Mi-8 in service in different regiments, squadrons and other small units pending for replacement
Also at least 40 Mi-8 (2 squadrons) are in the Instructions units, but  it is not clear what is the replacement for them


In total , now there are 520 to 540 Mi-8 in service in the Russian Armed forces today


When the replacement will conclude the numbers will be between 550 and 600 Mi-8

Great detail and much work. Appreciated

Good work

Excellent work AMCXXL!
Can you also write us the numbers of Mi-26s and attack helicopters??

George1 wrote:Excellent work AMCXXL!
Can you also write us the numbers of Mi-26s and attack helicopters??

Sure, once I can order all the data

In the case of Mi-26 is easy:


● 344 TsPAPiPVI Torzhok (8.)  Nº01 , 03 , 04 , 05 , 06 , 07 , 10 , 11

● 15 Br.AA Ostrov (6) Nº53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 79 , 80 (in white)
In Google maps there are 7, but there are no more new helicopter received here, Probably is a old soviet made Mi-26 in reserve or a visitor

● 16 Br.AA Zernograd (7) Nº87 , 88 , 90 , 91(ex-97) , 93 , 95 , 96
In Google maps there are 10 Mi-26 here.The other 3 old soviet made Mi-26 94 , 99 , 100 in reserve, that not fly many or years. Perhaps any could be repared and return to service at 17th or 18th brigades

● 17 Br.AA , HQ: Kamensk-Uralsk (4)  Nº01 , 02 , 03 , 04
two sites:
- Urpun-Uvelskiy: 2 Mi-26  https://www.google.es/maps/@54.3859856,61.353784,215m/data=!3m1!1e3
- Novosibirsk-Severny: 2 Mi-26 https://www.google.es/maps/@55.0837743,82.9189046,211m/data=!3m1!1e3

● 18 Br.AA Jabarovsk (6)  Nº05 , 06 , 07 , 10 , 11(ex-85) , 12

● 40 SAP HQ:Olenya - Artic group of Long Range Aviation: (3) Nº80, 81 , 82
Deployments in:
-Rogachevo  https://www.google.es/maps/@71.6088,52.4694495,116m/data=!3m1!1e3
-Tiksi  https://www.google.es/maps/@71.7036438,128.8973853,116m/data=!3m1!1e3

● 33 OTSAP Levashovo (2) Nº70 , 71 (painted in orange for Artic service)  https://www.google.es/maps/@60.089958,30.2082239,46m/data=!3m1!1e3



In total there are 36 Mi-26 in service
Of which 13 are soviet made and 23 of newly built
There was one contract of 17, and then 4 and the last for 2

Taking into account that the brigades will have at least 8 Mi-26, it will take another 10 helicopters at the moment to complete them, and in the long term another 12 to replace all the Soviet Mi-26s.



Two Mi-26 Nº81 and Nº82 of the Artic Task Group of Long Range Aviation in Tilsi. Also a Mi-8AMTSh-VA and other Mi-8AMTSh of VKS. The last is a Mi-8AMTSh of the Border Guard 

https://russianplanes.net/id212427

Great stuff.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6718219
"The fighter regiment of the Western Military District completed the acquisition of a squadron of highly maneuverable fighter jets of the 4 ++ Su-35S generation for permanent deployment in the Tver region.

In total, six planes were delivered from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant in July," the agency’s source said .

According to the press service, the new Su-35 will replace the outdated fleet
Technicians and pilots carried out the acceptance of aircraft at the factory in the Khabarovsk Territory.
And the pilots underwent retraining in Lipetsk, where they learned to perform aerobatic exercises at extreme speeds and loads on special simulators

Earlier it was reported about three Su-35, delivered in July at the disposal of the regiment on the state defense order

New batch of 3 Su-35 for Khotilovo


Then the total in 2019: 6 Su-35 ,

Total in service VKS: 84 Su-35



Now, the only Sukhoi squadron of Khotilovo regiment is completely rearmed with Su-35


There are 6 Su-35 squadrons:  2 Dzemgi , 2 Besovets , 1 Khotilovo and 1 Vladivostok


The next could be complete a second squadron of Su-35 in Vladivostok ,  something expected since 2015 when that regiment received the first squadron.


In that case, other regiment could be formed in Primorie Krai , and then a new Air División, as apparently they have planned in the Defense Ministry

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12237479%40egNews&fbclid=IwAR2Su3Src8MsdIA4BXp8bFL5XqHbUQ-7FhBXw8FSVs6I7Li4D5f1_i6g0z4
19.06.2019 (16:43) Moscow,
Under the leadership of the head of the military department, Army General Sergei Shoigu, a regular meeting of the Board of the Russian Defense Ministry was held:

Over the past year, VKS received more than 250 units of new and modernized equipment

The Minister of Defense announced a number of tasks for the future

In addition, it is planned to complete the construction of nearly 700 buildings and structures of the military infrastructure of the VKS.

Under the State Armaments Program this year, the Aerospace Forces will receive 205 units of new technology.

Until the end of the year, it is necessary to form a mixed aviation division in the Primorsky operational direction and an air defense missile regiment of a mobile reserve

Until the end of 2019 we can expect other squadron delivered to Vladivostok (at least 8 or 10 airplanes to form a new regiment , one with Su-35 and other different with the MiG-31BM)

http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2019/0731/140053669/detail.shtml

ZVO air regiment near Tver will receive a batch of Su-30SM fighter jets with a modernized engine

A batch of fighters is scheduled for delivery in 2021.
The new aircraft will be equipped with the most modern engines, the AL-41F-1C.
To date, these engines are installed on production aircraft generation 4 + + Su-35S.

This could mean, by 2021 the regiment of Tver could receive more Su-35 to get a fourth squadron and later form two regiments , one with two squadrons of Su-35 and other with MiG-31BM , as in the case of Vladivostok


As I see, , between 2019 and 2020 , Vladivostok and Kubinka should receive one squadron of Su-35 each, and in 2021 , Khotilovo other squadron to complete two diffr¡erent regiments of 2 squadron each.

In 2022 and after that, the turn for Belbek, and later the Navy