39 thoughts on “The Sukhoi Aircrafts Photo Collection”

  1. I can imagine how many people would come here to spit toward Sukhoi, saying their western products are so much superior. Something Freudian. Something about overcompensation. Gosh. I miss those russophobes these days.

    • Wow! Blasting the pro-westerners before they even comment on the precieved superiority of their technology. Pretty bold. I fear by stating your opponents arguments before they make it only lends credibility to them. You kind of tipped your cards before everyone else. Not being critical.I am just saying you are shutting down entertaining debate and selling your argument short. However, I think the only way to decide this argument is to look at kill ratios of Western versus Russian fighters in head to head combat. I don’t have those stats but I am sure they are out there. There have been plenty of conflicts that used modern fighters going back to 1980 or so. I wonder what the results are.

    • What matters much more is the level of training aircrews receive.And to be honest in this respect the Russians really due lag behind most western counter parts.

      People that claim one plane is better than the other likely do have some issues.The best data for West vs. East combat aircraft would be the F-86 vs MiG-15.When the kill ratio between the USAF and Soviet flown MiG-15s the ratio is more or less 50/50 mainly because most of the aces on both sides where highly experienced and had flown combat in WWII.

      Now if you compare the USAF F-86 to the MiG-15s flown by Chinese and North Korean pilots the USAF clearly dominated.This was not due to inferior aircraft on one side or the other but due to far superior training that USAF pilots had.

      Chuck Yeager test flew a MiG-15 and he said that it was one of the best aircraft he had ever flown up to that point in time.Of course he had few complaints about the F-86 either.

      I am not saying that Russian aircraft or most pilots are bad I am merely stating the fact that at the current time The level of training that Russian air crews get in lower than western counterparts.

      • yojimbo

        you’ve got a point. many of the RuAF pilots I’ve met also complain about lack of sufficient flying time. but with the ongoing reforms and ever-increasing funding, a lot has improved. Still a long way to go though.

        • I think that the Russians learned a lot from their post Soviet Union military actions.They learned much from Chechnya. I have a good grade school friend who is in intelligence with the USAF is currently a Major he knows an extensive amount about enemy air combat and air defense capabilities(which of course is most likely to be Russian based technology)he told me that during the conflict in Georgia that it is believed that the Russian AF lost about 4 or 5 Su-24s to enemy air defenses which if that information is correct would be a sign of inadequate training or possibly over taxing of available aircrews.

          In the modern world it is becoming too expensive to maintain a huge military force so nations must have much smaller much more advanced better trained professional troops.That is gong to be a huge challenge for the Russians I think because this is a new concept for the most part for Russia.Where the US has been using a no conscript career based military since 1974 and it took us at least 10 years to adapt to it.

          I have read a few places that many annalists feel that until the “old breed” guys retire(who are used to the old ways from Soviet and really ever Czarist times)a different system will not be fully implemented.The first challenge is lower ranks in the US they are given a bit more training than their Russian counterparts not so much in the career field but in leadership and lack of needing direct supervision form an NCO.

          • Actually Russia still needs conscription, mostly because of its vast size. I personally don’t want conscripts in any of the fighting units. Instead of making them serve 12 months in regular brigades, designate conscription as 12 months of training (in separate training centres) instead of one year of service. Russsia has always had a massive reserve, but this would create a massive reserve that has both quality as well as quantity.

            In your last statement, you’ve hit upon the real remaining problem with the new Russian army. the leadership, who in their times as enlisted men and under-officers served in the Soviet army and still sees things that way.

            I think that the correct aircraft losses in Georgia were 4 Su-25’s, 2 Su-24’s and the completely unacceptable loss of one Tu-22M.

            • If you look at most of the posts that this site puts up, they show that the Russian pilots are often in their 30’s and 40’s. The US pilots are typically in their 20’s and 30’s. Being a fighter pilot is a young mans game. It is physcally taxing. Yes experience does play a factor and so does doctrine. In the last 30 years, the NATO military forces has faced more air battles than the former Soviet states. Training is good but real combat builds your skills much faster. In the Iraq war the US lost a single A-10 to hostile fire (SAM Millisle). All other Fighter/Bomber losses were by accident or friendly fire. The only fighter/bomber lost to hostile fire in the Afghan campaign was destroyed on the ground. Considering the length of both these operations it is easy to say that the doctrine and expertise of the NATO pilots is very well developed and lethal. If the numbers in the Gerogian conflict ring true, it indicates a lack of training or out dated doctrine. Although, it could also indicate Russian pilots being over confident or under-estimating the Georgians. At this point in time, 100 US pilots v. 100 Russian pilots (flying identical aircraft) I would bet on the US pilots doctrine and training. Post Soviet Russia has let it’s air force grow old and has not updated it’s doctrine to counter modern technology and advances in air combat.

              • Wow. So you can tell how old a pilot is just by looking at a picture of him!

                The Iraqis and the Afghans have, without a doubt, the perfect example of a modern airforce.

                It wasn’t either training or doctrine that caused the aircraft losses in Georgia. It all boiled down to the simple decision by the MoD to not deploy any of the longer range UAV’s.

                PS. my money’s on the RuAF, because unfortunately for you, this is 2011, not the 1990’s or the early 2000’s.

                • Yes I can tell if any person is old by looking at a picture of them. Just like I can tell if someone is fat too. It is called discernment. It is one of the first skills human get as infants. They can identify physical charachteristics of other humans. Take off your Putin-goggles and look at the other posts. The Russian pilots are obviously middle aged.

                  In fact, the Iraqis had a very modern airforce and airdefense screen that they purchased from the Russians and the Chinese. It was much larger and had many more layers of defense than the Georgian defense forces. And you just made my point by blaming the losses on failure to use UAVs. Obviously there is a flaw in the doctrine that allowed someone to pull away valuable assets from the battlefield that caused the loss of aircraft.

                  You can put your money on the Russian air force if you want. it would have been better to bet on the Soviet air force (better run and equipped) The Russian air force at this time would not defeat at least 4-6 countries in the world right now. US, China, Germany, Isreal, France, Britain, and maybe even Canada.

                  • I don’t have to look at post on ER for news about the RuAF. I practically grew up next to an air base. I’ve seen plenty of RuAF pilots myself, as in with my own eyes, almost all of them being in their late 20’s or their 30’s. How many have you seen?

                    So, did any of the planes of that very-modern iraqi airforce fly in response to iraqi freedom? No. And just how exactly is it very modern? The most modern planes in the iraqi inventory in 2003 were, what, Mig-29 (B’s and S’s)? Yep. Ultra-modern.

                    It’s common (Russian) doctrine to use UARV’s to scout out the designated operations area. This would usually be done by Tu-143’s and its variants. The order to not deploy them, meant that the forward aircraft only had satellite intelligence (another incompetent decision by the MoD, meant that almost no satellites were turned on Georgia). That is not a doctrinal failure, that is a command failure.

                    Once again, this is 2011. Even as recently as 2008/2009, the SAF and SADF might have a theoretical edge. But in the three years since then, the RuAF has changed considerably. Now, the only aspect in which the SAF and SADF would have been superior to the current RuAF, is in sheer size alone. In every other way, especially training-wise, the RuAF has not only recovered to Soviet levels, but has gone on.

                    A more accurate (up-to-date) version of your list would include just China and the US.

  2. The Su-35 and Mig-35 are better than the Su-PAK FA and the Mig-LMFS respectively. But the MoD still prefers them as merely “interim” desgins.

  3. Oh, also, is any one going to accuse Russia in copying? Raptorsky, perhaps? Or, finally would any one admit its design may well be similar (planes should look alike in order to fly according to the same airdynamic laws), but it cannot be spherical or uniwinged.

  4. Beautiful fotos of impressive aircraft! I’ve always loved high performance military planes, whether piston or jet engine powered. I used to love watching F-14s and F-18s launch off of the carrier, when my ship was steaming with a battle group. Awesome post ER!

  5. I love these aircraft! I wish Canada wasn’t bound by law and we could purchase these aircraft for our own forces. Just a beautiful aircraft! Thanks for sharing these awesome pics!

  6. Magnificent! It would be nice to see Russia be able to export these. Maybe one day Russia will be able to compete with Boeing and Airbus, too. Let’s see some Sukhoi, Tupolevs and Ilyushins airliners in the West–they’re long overdue.

      • Su-33 is naval version, It never was exported. Export version is Su-30, operators are India, China, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uganda Venezuela, Vietnam and Russia of course.

      • No, yojimbo. the Su-33 is used by the navy. The Su-27 was upgraded into the Su-30 and there is an upgrade option MK (Modernised Komercial). MKM is for malaysia, MKI is for india and so on.

  7. Awesome! But how the hek did they drawed a haert in the sky?µe
    Must see a video about that one must be impressive to watch them in action

  8. I like it when they take aft pictures of fighter planes. The engines look like furnaces that could blast anything to dust.

  9. Hi, I don’t mean to sound like a typical dumb woman, but the third photo from the top on the first page (with the three fighters), the one in the middle…is that a Russian Stealth Fighter?

  10. I think the Russian designs are much better than the american counterparts, because the “western” planes are more “fragile” (too much electronics), so the Russian pilots are more experienced and better. No pun intended.

Leave a Comment