outdated af (that did not even fly for the most part) vs no af, see the difference?

Fixed for you, and:

Yes I do. One has aircraft, one does not. End result = no difference. LOL!

maybe the loss of RuAF aircraft had more to do with the RuAF than Georgian air defenses?

You are partially correct. Here’s how: the RuAF did not possess godlike powers to predict the position of a mobile, EMCON SAM system in mountainous terrain behind tree cover! :rolleyes:

hm lets see, Georgia’s small handful of Buks and no air force, versus Libya with much larger manpower, an actual air force, 8 battallions of S-200s, more bases, etc. ok. But Georgia does have the advantage of a mountainous terrain.

Oh please. The BUK was a far more credible threat given its mobility and therefore survivability. You could hide it anywhere.

Libya had(has?) a massively outdated air force regarding fighter aircraft.

They didn’t even have the Mig-23MLD variant, did they?!

Libyan fixed defenses were cruise missile fodder, which they couldn’t even shoot down if they wanted to.

The air force was target practice, so naturally they didn’t even bother retaliating.

so who had more formidable air defenses. Libya or Georgia?

The answer is pretty obvious. I don’t think Libya even had a wiff of ‘double digit’ Soviet/Russian systems. :rolleyes:

well you do have to admit.. as far as air to ground missions.. the Rafale is pounding the Libyans and Afghans.. so its battle proven in that area..

and yeah I would also argue the Su-34 is getting its experience too.. but since there’s less of them available.. and the fact that Russians are unlikely to go bombing anyone other than the Georgians.. we probably won’t see it catch up to the Rafale’s claims.. (not that its a bad thing.. I think the Viggen was a great aircraft and it has very little combat experience)

You are absolutely right. Libyan AD forces are equipped with the latest radars and missile systems.

..

..

.

.

Wait.. what missile systems?

Haha..

Chances of MiG-35 are not super high, good plane, but at this point I’d rather see them just improve Su-35/34 yearly production. Instead of 48 Su-35s in 2015-2020, 96 would be very welcome and should be achievable. Otherwise total force numbers will be unacceptably low past 2020.

If we are talking about long term future, don’t forget about teh PAK-DA.

Su-25 production will be pretty modest, the UBM has been in trials for a while now.

Didn’t want to mention bomber forces, as those are separate. The Blackjack is here to stay for a long time too – what ever happened to resumed low rate production on the plane?

Also, what is the actual plan for the Su-25 platform? The UBM is a two seater? They want 2-seater CAS aircraft now?! I’d much rather see them produce something like the Su-25TM.

They could operate MiG-35s as well.

As paralay said, even those have had “LO” treatments done to them. It’s a highly viable platform. More powerful engines would be even better.

A mix of PAK-FA, Su-35S, Su-34 and MiG-35 into the long-term future is nothing to complain about. Plus new Su-25s?

Once the 117 and better engines are cleared for production, they should simply produce those for remaining domestic Flanker variants and the T-50 production planes 🙂