Let’s stick with the military aspect of it.

Iran made Shaed-129 was downed by an Israeli attack helicopter after having allegedly entered in their air space (but over occupied Golan) for about a minute and half (Gasp!).
After this IAF launched a series of air strikes to T4 airbase, hundreds of Kms inside Syria, trying to destroy a command center of such UAVs (no one nearer?) so quite an hasty move IMHO.
For what it seems they have not moved their planes to bomb it directly but they have used instead stand off weapons.
Syria claims to have intercepted the majority of them but surely they have fired back a S-200 from the same base and nailed the F-16 still over Syrian airspace.
Plane was however able to get back to Golan hills where it crashed (in a zone inhabited by Arabs and Druze).
While the first claim was not verifiable easily, the fact that IAF had to repeat the strike in the same zone seems to point on the fact the results were not the ones they expected for.
So, surely a F-16 down it is not a great game changer but the fact that Syrian Air defence were able to get the archer and not just the arrows seem me a significant change in itself.

The Mig-35 that the VKS are acquiring are for the acceptance trials, even if design is completed they still need to pass them before a construction contract would be legally signed.

Egypt’s ones are in export standard so they lack components used exclusively for russian service, so let’s consider them baseline export Mig-35 with another name.

@totoro

How many modernized SMs will that be altogether by then? How large was that last batch contracted recently?

For what I have read (in the Russiadefence forum) it was about the question of the 36-42 Su27P actually still operative.
There was a debate if it would be better to update them all or to wait for substitution.
.
Problem arose because the initial option i.e. substitute them with the first series of Su-57 was skipped due the decision to wait for the definitive one with Objekt 30.

Su-35S lines are actually full because of the China’s “I want it, I want it NOW!” order, so there is actually a production deficit.

On the other hand to modernize the whole lot just to get them replaced by completely new ones after a few years goes against the whole M.O. of the Russian acquisition processes.
It seems also that those Sukhois, being used in the PVO have seen a more intensive use than the older Su-27S and have no much life left.

So the final decision was to update just those six you cited and combine them with already modified ones actually not attached to a regular unit to form a new squadron ASAP while the others would wait for substitution.

It seems me that some of the intervention in this discussion ( notably the ones coming from the other side of Atlantic) suffer of a sort of mental block or almost doesn’t even read wht is written.
They seems to be always stuck to always the same point i.e. the overall precision of the weapon used, a point that was never raised up in the first place by others and cannot just get that the critics expressed are about STRATEGY ( they have approached air campaign against ISIS as it were against a conventional enemy luke Saddam Hussen + a sprinkle of drone strike like their were Osama Bin Laden hiding in a cave in Afghanistan) and TACTIC (they as a consequence use their tactical fighters in long range missions over fixed, predetermined targets instead to have them used as a support to ongoing land operations or to autonomously searching their own targets).

Given that they seems not able to shrug them off of this quasi-pavlovian mental habit, I call myself off giving that I have said all what I need to say and I thing that all those that have instead put their own mind on discussion have correctly understood the point I have tried to made.

For detonation rocket engine it is russian for detonation pulsejet?

As promised , i’m back and now it’s time of a reply to SpudmanWP about precision:

Spud, you have to help me on there, I’have checked my own post #7132 two times but I have not found anywhere the point where I say that the bombs dropped with the aid of a targeting system are MORE PRECISE of a guided one. So if you can point it for me, I’ll be grateful.

What I have said instead is:

Given that their aiming devices give them now enough precision to engage a target with a single bomb instead of a whole rack, better for them to carry more fuel possible and stay on operation zone more time than to have more bombs for with they have no use and above all leaving troops without air cover.

Let’s repeat the logic process: nowadays-targeting devices-engage target-single bomb versus Cold War era-no targeting device -a rack of six. I see no guided bomb mention at all there…

Now, IMHO of course, the tactical discriminant there is exactly in the possibility given by both the operational procedures to allow the engagement of a military objective with a limited amount of payload dropped not the possibility of winning a Darts-like contest to ascertain who will place their own closer to the bull’s eye.
In other words and to reply to FBW also: given that my own inboard system allow me to place, nine cases over ten, a bomb with a lethality radius of more than thirty meters (i.e. the one of an OFAB 250/270 not of some MOAB like monstruosity) in a circle of less than twenty why have i to spent almost 20K (or 40K in case of a SDB) to place fins, control devices, etc, etc on ANY weapon I have?

And repeat with me now: Also RuAF use guided weapons, also RuAF use guided weapons, also Ruaf use…

..it when they really need a level of precision superior of the one afforded by the said targeting devices but it tipically uses laser or optical guiding systems because they are even more precise than the sat guided one.

And to close on an happier note: Tigers have taken Abu Duhur airbase!!!!!!:applause::applause::applause:

Levsha, this kind of loading is the one that have earned them the “Thud” nickname…

Drag of such kind of weapons disposition (a.k.a. the Christmas tree) is absolutely massive.

Actually they seems to have the reverse problem a they lack small size guided weaponss to be used in close proximity of friend forces or for avoid case of overkill (Iran-made drones have them instead).
They have made a big use of OFAB 250/270, only in rare cases however you would see the Cold War era 6 bombs racks.
That’s because they operate in an opposite way to the JDAM inflation spoiled coalition.
While they start(ed) from faraway bases, pass all over Iraq and attack pre-designated locations as their fighters were B-17 in disguise, Russians start from close locations (for Palmyra Deir-el-Zour operations they relocated choppers and relatively short legged Su-25 in Homs governatorate airbases) and usually keep their planes over SAA operation zones ready to answer to aid calls by ground troops or to engage “on the run” targets discovered in the meanwhile by their (or their allies) UAV/SF.
Given that their aiming devices give them now enough precision to engage a target with a single bomb instead of a whole rack, better for them to carry more fuel possible and stay on operation zone more time than to have more bombs for with they have no use and above all leaving troops without air cover.

Even in this way there are several footages of Su-24 and Flankers landing back with an odd bomb still on their pylons, meaning it was an half empty day and they doesn’t had need to use all their weaponry.