Israel never had problems with russian made air defence. The same with the russian fighter jets. It' been a one way ticket. Russian MiGs seemed more equal in performance in the days of Korean war, before high tech electronics was under way.

Isnotreal 😂 they only dont attack them and you know that or maama eurppe will cal that antisemitism​@@user-lx2oe9zs4q

@@user-lx2oe9zs4qyou are talking nonsense. Russia had S-400 (still there btw) protecting a small part of that country where Russian base of operation is. Israel was attacking (yes, they were always war criminals) on the opposite side of Syria. The S-400 is close to Turkey because Erdogan (another war criminal) was attacking Syria there to facilitate the oil stealing and killing Kurds. After S-400 was installed (after Erdogan downed a Russian plane), Erdogan stopped his nonsense. So again, you are talking nonsense.

They did say that. And without having ever faced them in real combat. They haven't fought against any nation that has them. We know that because America doesn't fight without default air superiority from jump street which no nation with S-300s would have afforded them at any time since its first deployment. The only country they've fought since '72 that had SAM systems to target them with at all and that actually did so is Iraq. And those systems were no S-300s.

​@@user-lx2oe9zs4qAnd Israel fought whom with S-300s targeting them exactly? Don't say Syria. Because while they do have S-300s, the SAA doesn't operate them in country. Russians do. And that was a condition of their deployment. Russians there use them to protect their own assets, not the country at large. So which countries has Israel flown against and defeated S-300s targeting them exactly? And if you're not talking S-300s then it really doesn't matter. Nobody's discussing SA-2s right now from back when the dinosaurs walked the Earth.

А еще есть С-500 и не только 😊

Exactly. I mentioned something similar ... with a couple of additions: They're not getting a new RADAR, but the AN-APG68, first. And they aren't getting a brand new F-16, but exhausted airframes ... that don't have Conformal Tanks. And with that low-high-low ... they'll have the fuel for about 250 mile radius (at best). Which is about on par with the MiG-29 ... although, the VVS is hardly using many of them anymore. Most of what they use for CAP are Su-27 derivatives: Su-30, Su-34 or Su-35 ... and this year they started mfring the MiG-35 (though I don't think they're yet going to equip it with AESA unfortunately). The real jet they'll likely have to worry about are the MiG-31, which can sit back in the Sea of Asov and fire massive missiles all the way across Ukraine ... which they have to take seriously. And from the altitude (and the sophisticated ability of the MiG-31 to identify against ground clutter) it can accurately find even low flying targets from the high altitudes it can fly from, launching those fast missiles (with two stages) at ranges that make them something they can't ignore. If I recall it's the Zaslon RADAR. You know ... with chips from a washing machine 🙂 and shovel based warheads.

The AGM-88 HARM or high-speed anti-radiation missile, is an air-to-surface tactical missile designed to seek and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems. Let’s find out eh?

@@dg8108 The S-400 destroys these non-so-high-speed HARM relicts of much better times even at their highest speed and has been able to do that since more than a decade already, youngster. But by all means, please go in and find out, yes; same for B-1s, F-22s, and the 40%-availability de-facto subsonic F-35 (supersonic not advised, if needed only 5mins please).

Russian air defense and Russian Air Force are literally 2 different services with inter service jealousy. The S400 crews will happily down the Su57s to show they are more effective. They have already downed 2 A50 AWACS planes.

@@MadDogPeople Ukrainian claims and reality are two different things.

Yes the new system with the MIG-31 Kanzhai hypersonics will do the magic with the tracking syst of up to 1000km That aircraft can be tracked, jammed and spoofed at long distance! Why can't the USA give Ukraine the F-35😅😅😅

@@utiz4321 ok. What are you talking about?

.... and they still don't have air superiority even with their awacs koz russian techs are 10-15 years behind NATO techs, that's the reality.

Well.. still they are getting annihilated by ukrainian ATACMS?! It doesnt really matter what russians say it is, because this stupid war has shown that they are big talkers but unable to actually deliver.

Ukraine got so many gamechangers, that they no longer know which game is being played.

I think they will make a difference, but they won't be this silver bullet that wins them the war.

They know man, it's about deals and money to a very few

Nothing will make it not even f35

​@@blankspace1419f-35 isn't battle tested obviously USA will test against some goat herders and will boast about the capabilities similar to f-117 nighthawk which was claimed to stealth and engineering marvel during Yugoslavia war but the moment they shot it down they retired the entire fleet fearing their propaganda might get exposed 😂

😂😂😂😂😂

🤣🤣🤣

GYF vatnik

4 Abrams vs thousands of Russian tanks lol shows who's got the better tanks

@@user-kn7gu2kr6b True, T-90 had a better turret toss .. hard to beat.

No one has air superiority in Ukraine.

@@Raivo_K Huh? Which Ukraine are you referring to?

@@SlaktraxAll of it - both the 2014 occupied and free. Any aircraft flying on either airspace has a high risk of being shot down. Russians also have to worry about their own guys shooting them down too.

Sorry, S-500 exist to 😊

Пока все боятся С-500, Русские где- то тихо в Сибири прикручивают последние гайки к С-900. И не сомневайтесь.👍💪

Why do you think they only have 4​@@bradleyheights5905

Clownsky told you that ? CNN ? @@bradleyheights5905

​@@bradleyheights5905 No S400 was hit by Ukraine, you stupid... Rather two American patriot system destroyed by Russsia on Ukraine

Есть и С-500 😊

@@bradleyheights5905 they can also take off from roads and work closer to the front. They are meant to counter Russians attack aircraft as they can blast giant holes in the frontline when they actually hit the target. It will come down to individual pilots nerves. The F-16 better maneuverability may help.

oh man what is Russia going to do? invade one of its neighbors?

So - who's that elephant ?...

You mean sleeping drunk don’t you?

Giant Russia ia capable to what ever likes when comes into space

@@ggayigeorge5141 Therefore, ... when comes into space. Oops.

I think you need to do some research sir.

Next you’re going to say the Su air craft are better. I’ll tell you what, we have better ones than Russia has in every aspect. Same thing with China the only threat to the US is Nuclear.

​@@troybing6665no, he's onto something. R37 already boasts worlds longest air to air kill at 217 km in Ukraine. It is formidable best in class technology

F16 is quite outdated today anyways. Especially not big deal in small number and without proper airfields and service stuff.

Russian planes are way more beautiful and reliable

It's not outdated, cuz it has been upgraded many times & has modern electronics & radar, even better than the best operational jet russia has now, su35. They were gonna destroy all the Himars trucks too! Lol.@@taurivendor8994

@@antonina-fk7lq Russian planes are useless!!! 2 years and still can’t gain air superiority over Ukraine whose airforce consists of a small number of old soviet era jets 😂😂😂 Russian clowns 🤡 a single squadron of American f-22’s would absolutely terrorise the Russian air force 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@taurivendor8994 more modern and updated than everything that russia has. The F16 is the most produced, modern fighter jet of all time.

Не попросит, не будет Украины

​@@75-qt2hp😂😂😂

F35-f32 will still make no difference stick to Hollywood Scriosfaidh an Rúis na Naitsithe seo arís 🇷🇺♥️☦️✝️🙏🏻⚓

Unquestionable fact indeed.:)

No next year for Ukraine 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Seriously yet another superior weapon and nothing comes of it.

@@tonyradoina9147 And what did all those shouted weapons from the West significantly do? What? If they were not Ukrainians, sorry, the few Ukrainian Armed Forces, NATO troops in Ukrainian uniforms, mixed with various dogs of war, with various adventurers, typical Western European neo-Nazis, who came to Ukraine in thousands, imagining that they were their heirs (in) "glorious" Waffen SS divisions that fought in these same areas from 1941-1945, and most fiercely during 1943 and 1944 if we are talking about these same areas.. If not perhaps with the help of JDAM's, with the help of HIMARS platforms with ATACMS tactical missiles , with the help of various cruise missiles fired from aircraft, such as Taurus, Storm Shadow, or those "monsters" made of tanks; the British Challenger, the German Leopard and the American Abrams, etc., managed to defeat the Russians, and now fierce fighting is taking place on the approaches to Donetsk. In a little while, the Russians will be kicked out of Crimea and "Glorious Ukraine" (and the "sleepy" Joe is not "worn out old man", he can say more than 2 sentences without spouting nonsense, and he doesn't need teleprompter when giving a speech) finally won. Nonsense! The Russians underestimated the Ukrainians at the beginning of this conflict, and they started a conflict with the country that NATO, since 2015, has easily turned into a huge fortress for 7.5 years, with less than 200,000 soldiers! They should have struck immediately with a million soldiers and that was it. Now we have a long and difficult conflict because of this, but the mistakes have been drawn. In the end, you learn from mistakes.

Well their getting enough practice against their own planes.

And your point is ???? This is a war what do you think. And the pilot of the f16 will make all things rushan fair game.

@@psclassy1123all the weapons and intelligence has made anything fair game do you really think 50 year planes will.

Russia has already lost more than they bargained for. 2 more countries in nato and all its friends are very questionable.Still guilty of an invasion and a long list still adding up. Can’t hide crimes of war today but russa thinks they can.

I think if the U. S. is sending American pilots to Ukraine to fight this war, then it is no longer a proxy war between U. S. and Russia. The Russian might have a legitimate reason for using nuclear weapon directly against U. S. That, I am afraid, would likely be beginning of WW3.....

All the Ukrainian pilot have to learn is the way the f 16s handle there already pilots my frendame

Weather trained USA or Ukraine they are old and heard not all are even combat ready so modern warfare is all about modetn weapons and guess what Russia out produces more modern weapons 3 times than what NATO and whole of USA and Europeans produce in a year with far more advanced weapons now what NATO and European has is media propaganda it all they are good at and also because they control all mainstream media outlet so they are doing good on the internet network winning. Reality they've lost and it looks very very bad

you think this is Top Gun movie bwahahaha I like you.....

yet will still piddle over anything ruzzia has !

But yet I haven’t seen a Bradley or abrahms knocked out by any russian tank only Bradley demolishing t-90s

@@RegularJoe419 are you in coma or something, read the news man, I mean some legit news..

@@RegularJoe419there’s dozen of them in Russian museums. lol. From front line to museum in less than a year. True. Look it up.

@@Royl12345 yep t-90s in all the museums

@@RegularJoe419 5th abram just got knocked out along with her crew. You see Nato were boasting of their superior war machine technology before fighting Russia, bombing and defeating some 3rd world countries with farmers & malitia.they never have pitted against someone equal or better equipped now they are learning the hard way realising how weak they are.Russian don't need expensive t90 or armata to defeat western armaments, they only need some kamakazi drone with good piloting skill. Rest is history..

Who should give what up?? Sentence makes no sense...

​@@buddyboyingtonesq.231ukraine should negotiate and give up wasting their people and our money. Got it now?

​@@buddyboyingtonesq.231they should give up because they don't have the munitions nor manpower to defeat Russia. The longer this goes on the more territory they will lose at the end of all this.

@@DarkoFitCoach Same thing is available for Russia too. What's so hard ?.

@@nemesioansorin ofcourse it is. But russia is winning and is outproducing europe and usa threefold in ammunition. Millions of soldiers if needed. Russia has taken 21% of ukraine and will never give it back and ukraine will also not be allowed to enter nato Russia can keep this war up for years. Europe and usa cannot

Nope, they also need alot of run way for take off

Zelensky has promised a red carpet for every F16 as a substitute for runway.

They might try and launch from another country!!?! I hope I am wrong

​@@DanMan-we9qfPoland or Moldova if they use outside

​@@DanMan-we9qf Putin said if they take off from NATO countries these runways will be targeted.

Why? So Russia can gather it's forces and try again in a few years? The only one who has to respect realities is Russia as the aggressor. GTFO out of Ukraine and there will be peace. No negotiations necessary.

You thoughts can lead to analogy, that Soviet Union had to give up after loss of Ukraine and Belarus, including almost all of their European territories to nazis

​@@DeadlyDreamKillerUkraine is fighting a Superpower. Their troops are being slaughtered. Russia is steadily advancing fighting the Ukrainian army with land, air, and sea assets. Ukraine only has land based assets. Drone warfare is dominated by the Russians as Ukraine's own capabilities are quickly neutralized. In this analysis surrender is not a bad word. That is the current reality.

The B52 is even older, so that dosent hold Water. The airframe being 20 years older!

The design's age doesn't matter. The Su-27 that the majority of the combat jets in the VVS are based on are also designed in the 1970s. And actually, F-16 is a multirole fighter ... that's not the issue. The issue is that it's a small jet, which means it doesn't have a large combat radius. And without Air Refueling ... nor conformal tanks (contrary to this video's statement, they aren't receiving Block 52 or anything that new) ... flying a low-high-low profile will roughly HALF their combat radius. Basically it'll have about the same radius as a MiG-29. All the Sukhoi have larger radius ... in which their weapons have a lower overall impact on their CD. In addition to lacking CT, it doesn't have a new RADAR ... it'll likely have the AN/APG-68 from the 2000s. Pretty good fire control RADAR, but certainly not state of the art ... and probably about parity with Su-35 or Su-30 (the late model). Of which I think the Sukhoi have the edge ... as will their real threat, which is (as stated) the IAD ... or MiG-31 which can fire massive missiles all the way from Russian airspace, from altitudes that they absolutely CANNOT reply to. But I wouldn't be surprised if an F-16 catches a few Russian VVS pilots off guard if they get lucky ... on the other hand, they're getting FAR TOO LITTLE training ... they'll barely be familiar with the protocols, checklists, etc., and are going to not only have a difficult time out performing the VVS pilots who've had extensive combat experience by now ... but those jet's airframes are exhausted. And if they aren't on top of those checklists, they're going to have mishaps and incidents which they struggle to respond quickly to ... and may have to eject out of a few for technical issues alone. Between their exhausted airframes, the MUCH higher threat from the Russian IAD, Russia's greater range weapons than the variant of the AIM 120C they'll likely get ... greater combat experience ... Russia's likely to do better. And remember ... it takes USAF pilots a decade to become the "lead" of a "four ship" (a formation of 4 jets). Are these guys going to fly solo sorties..? Is the USAF a good ol' boys club that creates artificial limits..? I guess we'll get to see. But from what it sounds (judging pilots who've left the USAF or USN and discuss combat operations, NATOPS, etc) I highly doubt that it's "easier" than we think. It's more likely far more complicated than anyone yet realizes. As many pilots and strategists (Justin Bronk from RUSI) have mentioned. He was an advocate for them getting the Swedish Gripen with Meteor missiles. Not to mention for the increased durability and bc as a platform it was designed to be easily maintained. I expect this is a misadventure the Ukrainians will suffer through ... just because it's the hand-me-downs that are in adequate abundance to be available for these "generous" nations to provide ... but not based on a careful assessment of what they're able to best deploy. All of which is ignoring the NATO // West lies that it's an "unprovoked invasion" ... and not support for a bunch of bellicose nazis.

​@@trumanhw👍

@@trumanhw I was a design engineer - Structural failure, can have many causes, flying hours, material type, overloading, of the airframe. Also work hardening, of aluminium, on old airframes. New planes, with Carbon fibre & composite materials, are stronger & more flexible. Could you repairs older aluminium planes, using the new materials, & carbon fibre retro fitting, / repair of the old air planes? This might make them even stronger than using, old aluminium parts. New repair techniques, and materials, for the repairs of old aluminium planes. Older plane air frame rivets cause cracking, or total structural failure. Needing regularly tests & inspected. monitoring for weak points. Using these New materials, to repair old planes, could give them better, stronger, repairs, and extended lifespans? You could easily increase New Planes, performance with a 20 percent higher loading factor, at the Design Stage! Using these higher strength materials, with - section, builds! - designed to quickly change old, long repair jobs, into large section swap out of parts, integration into the design. This could get them back in the air faster?

@@trumanhw The design age "does, matter", because you wouldn't have obsolescence, or out of date, planes? Due to fatigue, which is time relevant! Material type - aluminium, used old type rivets, that can open up a small wear, - vibrational stress point, - into a major structural failure! That's one of the reasons, they don't use rivets anymore. I use to load test, stress, test, certification, elasticity tests. Until a failure occurred. Which happens, because every material has a mechanical stress test limit, then failure.

During the entire campaign NATO countries lost 2 planes from serbian fire. Two planes, that's hardly anything. The bombing lasted 2 months. I mean, Serbia was de facto defenceless against the planes, not against kosovo- albanians.

@@user-lx2oe9zs4q just say with what was taken down f117,as only S300 is presentef in video.Russians have manny things to counter f16.

A lucky lock because the bombing bay was open and they knew the flight patterns as NATO was getting lazy... avoidable

@@frederikjacobs552 Nope, after 2 planes get down by serbian air defence NATO change the strategy and start bombing over the 5000m and serbian air defence could not do notting that's why NATO didn't lost outher planes but cruise missiles yes.

@@frederikjacobs552 Nope, after 2 planes get down by serbian air defence NATO change the strategy and start bombing over the 5000m and serbian air defence could not do notting that's why NATO didn't lost outher planes but cruise missiles yes.

You maybe right but the Russians seem to be doing fine on their own, we know that because those drone blue prints the Russians got from Iran has improved x10

@@themanwiththegoldengun1998 I’m definitely not underestimating Russia’s military. I served the United States during the end of the Soviet Union era. It amazes me how far Russia has come since then. I’m just surprised with Iran,because I never would have imagined that they could even build decent weapons

@@hankogle6858 the rest of the world has seemed to have caught up and as you'd probably know the wars have changed, the introduction of drones has changed everything adding hypersonic tech, which makes me angry because what have we in the west been doing, spend billions on billions and still can't develop a hypersonic missile, I've watched vids on the new Zircon missile the Russians have introduced onto the battlefield and it's literally unstoppable...

Its a western story that tries to convince people that Russia is an ancient broken country with old tech. In reality they travel to space and even take american austronauts with them.

Those F-4s won't fix themselves

😅lol

Russia is learning even much more by testing anything they wish on the field.

​@@EGvids1smart response. And that making Russia stronger

Right the poor millions US tax payers/Europe tax payers Will suffered the most on this promong war in Ukraine due US debt at 34trillions/Europe at trillions dollar debt Now their economy are bankrupy

F16 has been modernized and before they send F16 in the sky they will destroy S300, they are not stupid lmao

@@senzosanjuro1769 How can airplane destroy anti air missile??🤣 Go to sleep kid...this is adult comment section.

S-400 are hypersonic interceptor as well as stealth killers f-16 has no chance against it even the professional pilot won't stand a chance

Ancient how? These F-16's have the MLU upgrade installed. Still miles better than the old models Ukraine uses now.

👍👍😅

No

They want to use romanian airfields. But Putin said those would be legitimate targets for Kalibr missiles

@@orhanabd1724Who gives a F what Putin says.

@@igorjuricek5683 😁 All nato "warriors"

S-500 are still not used for battle purpose right now they are used only in Moscow and st Petersburg for air defense only s-400 are used but that too not for defensive purpose only for offensive air strikes and quite rarely right now they vastly use s-300 upgraded version for all defensive and offensive purpose since they have a lot of s-300 system

@@unknowncitizen282 do they still have A-50's operational in the theatre or were they all shot down?

@@perseusrex614 used for practicing on.

He also used a B-1B Lancer and a BAE systems concept ICBM, I think the only russian thing in there is the A-50 🤣

Noticed that myself.

serbs shot down an F-117 "stealth" fighter LOL

Shows you don't understand how it works.

@@ObeyNoLies lets be honest about it...ukraine ain't getting the latest F-16...they are getting junk that is well past its sell by date and barely safe to fly...airframes that are beyond their tolerances and remember, NATO was boasting that the tanks they were sending to ukraine were going to be a game changer...it sure changed the confidence game for NATO tanks...M1 abrams destroyed, leo2 destroyed, challenger2 destroyed it will be the same with the obsolete F-16, especially if they go head to head with Su-35 or even Su-57

actualy its was S-125 NEVA miscile system that shoot down that F-16 in Bosnia

Very well said sir. That is the real truth. Poor tax payers.

@leonidjohnecuacion9727 yes poor tax payers indeed !!

Версия о "дружественном" огне до сих пор не подтвердилась.

@@user-vj6dc8le8hThen the Ukrainians in completely outdated MiG 29, Su 27 or the completely inferior Patriot shot them down? Either way the A-50 is a worthless system and their aren’t enough to make a difference

The model is "old" but has been updated since the begining... They are one best and effective planes of aviation history.

Against civilians, not against a proper military

They won't be shot down koz before they send F 16 in the sky first they will destroy s-400, they are not stupid you know

😂

@@SnakePliskin762🤡

@@spitfire3797 truth hurts?

@@SnakePliskin762 What truth. The autism you have speaks very loudly

Just talk is cannot to change the war result

NATO combined industrial might can't even produce artillery shells...

Or a joined up story to hide their terrorist attack

Each military is built on a different doctrine. This is the age of missiles and satellites. So Russia did bet on the right move.

Yup. Its cheaper to build air defense.

Not necessarily. Russia's policy, regardless of the west's paranoia about Russian invasion. They have always pursued a defense policy. Which means building systems to defend themselves from any attack. Don't forget it's the west that has aggressively invaded Russia more than once and it's the USA that is the most belligerent country in history. Yet western propaganda's Russophobia always makes out Russia is the threat and people with a weak mind believe it.

In reality F16 is wery agile plane

There are several factors to consider when comparing different fighter aircraft and their capabilities, including the F-16 and F-15. Here are some reasons why the F-16 might be considered superior in certain scenarios: 1. Agility and Maneuverability: While the F-15 is known for its speed and power, the F-16 is highly maneuverable due to its lighter weight and advanced fly-by-wire control system. This agility can be crucial in dogfights or evading enemy missiles. 2. Versatility: The F-16 is designed to perform a wide range of missions, including air superiority, ground attack, and reconnaissance. Its multirole capability allows it to adapt to different combat scenarios more effectively than the F-15, which is primarily an air superiority fighter. 3. Advanced Avionics and Electronics: The F-16 is equipped with advanced avionics and electronic warfare systems that enhance its situational awareness and survivability in combat. These systems can help detect and counter enemy missiles, improving its ability to survive in contested airspace. 4. Cost and Maintenance: The F-16 is generally cheaper to produce and maintain compared to the F-15, making it a more cost-effective option for many air forces around the world. This cost advantage allows operators to procure larger fleets of F-16s, which can be strategically advantageous in certain situations. 5. Upgradability: The F-16 has a long history of continuous upgrades and modernization efforts, which have kept it relevant and capable in modern air combat environments. Newer variants of the F-16 incorporate the latest technologies, further enhancing their performance and survivability. While the F-15 may have certain advantages such as speed and twin-engine redundancy, the F-16's combination of agility, versatility, advanced avionics, and cost-effectiveness make it a formidable fighter aircraft in its own right, capable of fulfilling a wide range of missions effectively. Also, the effectiveness of a fighter aircraft depends not only on its individual capabilities but also on the tactics employed and the skill of the pilots operating them.

@@pointersoftwaresystems Yes...F16 is one of the best fighters till today...even better of F35...F35 is only modernised with tech...but avionics and agilityis superb in F16....on the other hand i think that good modernised SU pair will dismantle that F 16 in Ukraine....first of all....Ukraine will not have modernised models and Russian do not have export models...domestic Russian fighters are really good and problematic for any tipe of plane

Just a small correction, the MIG29 is much superior to the F16

You are assuming that Dogfighting is all it can do, and are forgetting Wild Weasel Missions

Amateur hour yet again.

JFC, pal. Where do you idiots come from? You make stuff up in your head, then convince yourself that it is all true...

What do you want Ukraine to day?

And not forget the Russian chovel

K-52 is just a beefier Ka50, Lancet is Russia's off-brand Switchblade loitering drone, Tornado is just a Better BM-27 Uragan MLRS, Iskandar is a Ballistic missile Carrier that the US also has with the ATACMS pod for the m-270 and the Himars. BGM-71F Top attack TOW is better than the Kornet, and the SU-34 is like the T-90, nothing new about it, just another Su-27 Upgrade variant designated as a new Aircraft

@@mainStream-userquite nice thanks

​@@mainStream-usercmon be realistic, do you think America's propaganda is legit😂

@@zikhrofallah278 SO in your opinion when the US develops Stealth Tech aircraft is Not okay. But when Russia does it's okay?

Russian can't even intercept the Ukrainian drones taking out their oil refineries

Yet, the russians are the only ones to have used hypersonic missles. Like it or not, they are ahead.

There's only evidence for one shoot down and it may have well been friendly fire.

Приветствую. Зеленский не решает, он просто пешка.

You are ignoring the multiple block upgrades and technology upgrades in those 40 years... not the same plane anymore either

@@frederikjacobs552 ukraina wont take the VIPER F16 JUST BLOCK 52......

​@@frederikjacobs552 the f16 at peak speed can travel 1,345 mph and with counter measures it will not fear will against a S400 missile travelling at mark10, I just can't see it getting away, even if it fires off a salvo from a safe zone, it's still in trouble

@@themanwiththegoldengun1998 Zelensky is negotiating a deal with NATO nations for such a scenario. At any point an F16 pilot feels that he is about to get hit, he can immediately call over a special hotline and seek asylum from any NATO nation of his choice.

Nah

The S-400 and A-50 are two different systems used by the Russian military. The S-400 Triumf is a mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) system developed by Russia’s NPO Almaz. It’s designed to engage targets at ranges of up to 400 km, in an intensive jamming environment. On the other hand, the A-50 is an airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft. These two systems can work together to enhance the effectiveness of air defense. The A-50 can provide the S-400 with targeting data in the ‘mid-course’ phase, which is then stored in the missile’s navigation system. As for the mention of these systems being at the bottom of the sea, it seems there might be some confusion. There was an incident where a Ukrainian missile destroyed a Russian S-400 system located at Cape Tarkhankut in the northwest region of the Crimean peninsula. However, this doesn’t imply that the system is at the bottom of the sea. It’s possible that the system was deployed near the coast.

@@pointersoftwaresystems, the A-50 is at the bottom of the sea.

for your own sanity and peace of mind plz assume russia has none left and ukraine is losing .it'll help you stay off the meds

There are still around 10 if I'm not mistaken but it's not just A-50s that are the problem but also Krasukha which are combined with air defense and they also serve for electronic warfare and if I remember correctly they are more powerful.

@@mikitaj1 Nice one - Thank you for the info.

@@robo__cop8154 🤣

​@@justinhaslam-lucas8711 even if they lose 2-4 they can easily produce them look at the ground reality Russia is producing weapons more weapons than what thy lose in battle field almost equivalent to war time manufacturing so the rest is history

I just get the same sought... I think it will come

The idea of splitting up radar systems into multiple drones or platforms can potentially increase resilience and robustness. Here are a few thoughts on this concept: Pros: - Redundancy and distribution makes it harder for an adversary to completely disable the entire radar capability with a single attack. - Individual drone radar nodes are smaller and potentially more expendable/replaceable compared to a large consolidated radar installation. - The system has more mobility and could reposition/relocate radar nodes as needed. - With coordination, the distributed radars could synthesize an integrated radar picture from multiple vantage points. Cons: - Increased complexity in networked communications to share radar data between nodes. - Potential for electronic warfare jamming/spoofing of the node-to-node communication links. - More challenging to generate strong radar emissions from smaller drone platforms. - Higher overall cost to deploy and maintain multiple radar drones vs a single site. Overall, a distributed multi-node or multi-platform radar architecture could provide advantages in survivability, but would need robust secure communications, electronic protection measures, and would likely have higher overhead costs. It represents a trade-off between survivability and complexity/cost. Many modern radar systems do utilize some level of distribution already. Ultimately, the optimal radar architecture depends on the specific operational requirements, threats, environment and resources available. A layered defense utilizing different radar capabilities could leverage the strengths of both consolidated and distributed systems. But the core concept of separating transmitters and receivers across multiple platforms is a potential way to improve resilience against anti-radar threats.

S-200 failed to destroy even older jets (like F-14, F-8 and EA-6B) in Lybia and Pantsirs were being constantly destroyed by drones in Syria. That large ammounts of "superior" Russian equipment still can't win a war against inferior country equipped with small ammounts of moderately modern NATO equipment. They can't even defend Russian mainland from attacks.

Hell no

Long enough to bankrupt Russia. The west supported afghans for 10 years till Russia left.

They may lose if not enough supply but Russia will loss at least half of its Soldier

Ukraine and nafo boys win war with Russia only in their dreams.

@@vinayedke614 Damn another Indian, I think I've seen about a 1,000 Indians supporting Russia, the country must be down real bad

Amateur hour.

Let me compare the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the 1970s F-4 Phantom in these categories: 1. Combat Range, full load: The F-16 generally has a higher combat range compared to the F-4 Phantom, especially with newer variants and technological advancements in fuel efficiency. The F-4 Phantom's range is respectable but tends to be shorter compared to modern fighter aircraft like the F-16. 2. Max Speed, full load: The F-16 has a higher maximum speed compared to the F-4 Phantom. Technological advancements and design improvements allow the F-16 to achieve greater speeds. 3. Max Weapons Load, ton: The F-16 typically has a lower maximum weapons load compared to the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 was designed to carry a heavy payload of weapons, making it more suitable for certain missions requiring a larger arsenal. 4. Number of engines: The F-16 has a single engine, while the F-4 Phantom has twin engines. Twin-engine configurations provide redundancy and improved safety in case of engine failure. 5. Climb Rate, full load: The F-16 generally has a superior climb rate compared to the F-4 Phantom due to its lighter weight and advanced aerodynamics. 6. Flying Time, full tank: The F-16 typically has a shorter flying time compared to the F-4 Phantom due to its smaller fuel capacity. 7. Thrust Vectoring: The F-16 can be equipped with thrust vectoring capabilities, providing enhanced maneuverability in certain situations. The F-4 Phantom does not have thrust vectoring. 8. Number of Missiles carried: The F-16 can carry a significant number of missiles, depending on its configuration and mission requirements. The F-4 Phantom also has a considerable missile-carrying capability. 9. Survivability Structure: The F-16 incorporates advanced materials and design features to enhance survivability, including better cockpit protection and electronic countermeasures. However, the F-4 Phantom's larger size and twin-engine configuration may offer certain advantages in survivability. 10. Cannon rounds: Both aircraft are equipped with cannons, but the specific number of rounds may vary depending on the variant and configuration. 11. Machine gun rounds: Both aircraft are equipped with machine guns, typically in the form of internally mounted cannons or externally mounted gun pods. 12. Fuel Capacity: The F-4 Phantom generally has a larger fuel capacity compared to the F-16 due to its larger size and twin-engine configuration. 13. Cost New: The cost of the F-16 varies depending on the variant and configuration, but newer models tend to be more expensive. The cost of the F-4 Phantom would have been lower when it was initially produced, adjusted for inflation. Regarding your last question, twin-engine planes like the F-4 Phantom can generally continue flying on one engine in the event of an engine failure, providing greater redundancy and safety compared to single-engine aircraft like the F-16.

@@pointersoftwaresystems Thank You for your Hard Work. I loved the F4 due to my age at 69 in June.

RiP NATO 🎉

It's vice versa

You're right . NaTo Rip ❤. Thanks for catching that

@@viktoroleynik9132 NATO have ten times more fighter jets then Russia

Lol ! In 2027, China will be steam rolling Taiwan.😂

You answered your own question. Ukraines old jets are garbage so there’s no need for such powerful missiles

@@dorlan7499 that being said all Russian equipment is junk . Just wait till Ukraine has f 16s then you'll see what good equipment can do.

Who will spend 100doller plane to destroy using 1000 dollars rocket.

@@rajushrestha3256 they won't dufus they send a harm missle to greet that Russian radar system and say what ya doin and then destroy the system. Lol

The point is that those few planes that Ukraine has shoot the missiles away from the range that covers the Russian air defense and then come back then the rest of the work is done by the missile if it manages to pass the Russian defense, of course something passes but you look at the percentage that manages to pass the defense.