All I know is that its not the J 10.

No, Russian companies just have yet to make a modern half decent one.

Yeah yeah

There is no reason to have a parallel armed drone program running in Syria when you have a functioning air force right there. SU 25 SU 24 and SU 34’s are already there ready and able to do whatever is needed.

Adios Global Hawk, U-2 Will Stick Around

https://defensetech.org/2012/01/25/adios-global-hawk-u-2-will-stick-around/

The AP is reporting that the Air Force is cancelling the RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude spy drone opting instead to keep the legendary U-2 Dragon Lady in service.

I don’t think both events were intentional. Objectively speaking; of the 10 sources drawing maps, 8 would have declared Al-Ghuz village as ISIS controlled. And without clearly stating what is taken and what is targeted, IMO Turkish/FSA side is equally as responsible as Russian/SAA side on this event…

This lack of communication cost Turkey 3 soldiers and a tank transporter, and the SAA’s ongoing attack to Ghuz village cost them 2 soldiers, a BMP-1 and a T-55. All that, just because commanders on all 4 sides were too arrogant to notify other parties -with crystal clarity- of their own intentions.

3 ? Minor mishap.

But that is exactly the point, F-111 was retired because maintaining those big complicated planes ate quarter of USAF tacair budget.

The F-111 served its time just like any other aircraft. Maintenance costs always rise toward the end of a jets service life.

And the jet that took over the bombing roll of the aircraft (B1 Lancer) has swing wings. So its not like the jet was retired to get away from swing wings.

The F-111 was replaced in USAF service by the F-15E Strike Eagle for medium-range precision strike missions, while the supersonic bomber role has been assumed by the B-1B Lancer. The RAAF was the last operator of the F-111, with its aircraft serving until December 2010

If all these new aircraft end up looking like F-22 and/or F-35 mashups I’m going to be seriously pissed off. If the Russians and Chinese can design something new to fire the imagination, why not others?

I agree. So far the Korean, Japanese and the Turkish entries and been boringly similar to Lockheed products.

In military thrust, the F-16 consumes around 10k PPH, in afterburner it goes as far as ~49k PPH. JP8 weighs in at 6.65lbs/gal, that’s anywhere between 1,500 and 7,500 gal/h or 0.4-2.0 gal/sec. JP8 cost is $2.95/gal, total cost between $4,500 and $22,000/hour. $17k per hour is easily doable, depending how much afterburner is used.

How much data does one need to provide in order to bloody make you finally admit you are wrong ?!

Some of these guys just invest too much in their opinion early on and then they have to stick with it just to save face

Su-30 20000 – 25000 $ / hour flight
Su-35S 10000 – 15000 $ / hour flight (presumably)
MiG-35 7500 $ / hour flight

And the percentage gap between F-16 operating costs and F 18 operating cost would be similar.

Its not one or the other. A properly balanced air force would have A-10’s , F-16’s and F-15’s. A proper Russian built force would have Frogfoots, Fulcrums and Flankers.

So please go ahead and list the mechanical components that have been upgraded since the 80s on the Su-24. Or that it has become “more reliable” in the past two decades, well after the initial induction pains were overcome.
Complexity + outdated design and state of technology from 40 years ago is NOT a recipe for efficient reliability compared to newer jets.

Yes, with the cheapo Gefest package. Which is itself a low key, interim upgrade until Su-34s are plentiful enough. The vast majority of the Su-24s avionics = 80s level at best.

Yeah, a Kh-25 is not new by any stretch of the imagination. And again, what is so great about the Su-24 in particular regards to Syria? Kh-25 and SU-24 combo was created for a high pace central European war.

First of all, post the cruising speeds of both craft. Second, by this logic, the Su-25 is the most efficient tool in fighting insurgents in the middle east, because it has largely unswept wings and flies slow?

I don’t see any UAV like loitering in this video whatsoever.

Again, so the Su-25 is the best option for Syria by this logic.

The Su-24 was never designed for loitering or low speed attack passes at medium altitude- which is exactly what it has been doing in Syria. That would have been suicide in the environment it was designed to work in.
You know the reason swing wings went away on modern tactical birds right? It is no longer needed to have an acceptable trade off of characteristics.

Your efficiency argument is straight out of nowhere.

So please go ahead and list the mechanical components that have been upgraded since the 80s

I am sure there are bushings, seals, oils, greases, paints and such that were plain old 80’s tech that are now all weather non degrading synthetics. Which make all parts of the aircraft that were less reliable in the 80’s, more reliable now.

Complexity + outdated design and state of technology from 40 years ago is NOT a recipe for efficient reliability compared to newer jets.

As I said, new alloys and synthetics has made more complicated things form the 80’s, more reliable now.

The vast majority of the Su-24s avionics = 80s level at best.

All frontline bombers Su-24 in the Central Military District received new sighting and navigation systems SVP-24 in 2013. Upgrades include a new SV-24 computer, liquid crystal displays, ILS-31 head-up display, digital moving map and global positioning system.

the Su-25 is the most efficient tool in fighting insurgents in the middle east, because it has largely unswept wings and flies slow?

Yes. The su 25 is a good little aircraft designed for that stuff. Low sweep is better for it yeah

The Su-24 was never designed for loitering or low speed attack passes at medium altitude-

It was partly made for that. This is lifted from a report on the jet
The aircraft had to be capable of hitting small ground targets, reaching supersonic speeds and breaking through low-altitude enemy air defenses at 50 meters – and make it home.

Whatever. We don’t have to get in the weeds again. All I said was its somewhat underrated and is doing a good job in Syria. The su 34 is designed to fight NATO and it would kick the su 24’s a$$ at that.