🇩🇿 Details about the crash: The pilot died following ejection, while the weapons systems officer ejected safely. Authorities are investigating the cause of the crash.

Update: The crash happened at a critical moment during takeoff, at a low altitude with full fuel tanks.

@planenerd

Urgent !
RuAF have alledgedly managed to shoot down a F-16 !
Statements are still to come and confirm or deny that news but word is the Russians used a Su-35 jet to pinpoint the target which was subsequently lit up by a S-400 crew (The techbros at PlaneNerd channel will explain that better than I could, give them a follow here
https://t.iss.one/planenerd)

🇺🇦⚡️🇷🇺 Not much info yet on this air engagement, but let's break down what we have so far.

Reports are coming in that a Ukrainian F-16 has been shot down over Sumy, with claims that a Su-35 worked alongside an S-400 to take it out. Let's get into the technical side of how that might have played out.

The Su-35 has a powerful radar, the Irbis-E, capable of detecting and tracking low-flying targets beyond the range of ground-based systems. If the F-16 was flying low to avoid detection, the Su-35 could have:

Picked it up on radar.

Provided target illumination for the S-400.

Transmitted mid-course updates to guide the S-400’s missile.

The S-400 has multiple missile types, but an active radar-homing missile like the 48N6DM or 40N6 would be the most likely choice for a fast-moving F-16. If the jet was too low for the S-400 to acquire a direct lock, the Su-35’s radar feed could have been used to guide the missile until it got close enough to activate its own seeker. This is standard networked engagement, something Russia has been developing for years.

If the reports are accurate, this would be a strong demonstration of Russian air defense integration, using a fighter jet to extend the reach of a ground-based system.

Western fighters rely on AWACS for similar functions, but Russia doesn’t have that luxury. The Su-35 acting as a sensor relay is an interesting workaround.

The S-400 hitting a low-flying F-16 also raises questions about how survivable Ukrainian air assets actually are in this conflict.

Still waiting for solid confirmation, but if this is real, it’s a major data point in modern air defense strategy.

PS: Further updates will follow with new and relevant information. Ofcourse if visual confirmation is made then all the better.

@planenerd

⚡️🇷🇺🇺🇦 So, an aviation strike occurred at the Engels Military Airbase, this is where some strategic assets are housed, such as long-range fighter bombers, it was probably struck using drones and it hit some depots.

Right now, the fire is still raging as an hour ago went by, and the situation was declared an emergency and the immediate surroundings were evacuated, the extent of the damage and the causalities are not yet known.

@medmannews

This is some next level self confidence lmfao😁

🇺🇦⚡️🇷🇺 Part 2 (addressing this analysis) This time no holding back I am gonna tear into this.

Before diving into the analysis, let's address the credibility issue first.

We need to acknowledge that both Russian and Ukrainian sources are prone to exaggeration, especially when reporting air combat. The fog of war is real, and both sides have incentives to control the narrative. Yesterday, there was zero concrete information, and now we’re getting a detailed engagement report? That alone raises questions.

There are a few questions that need answering. Was this even a real engagement and was the SU-35 an upgraded model equipped with an AESA.

If this Su-35 had an upgraded AESA radar, it would change the equation significantly. AESA radars offer faster scanning, better resistance to jamming, and multi-target tracking.

However, Russia has struggled with mass-producing AESA radars, and only a small handful of Su-35s have reportedly been fitted with them.

The standard Irbis-E (PESA) radar is still powerful and can perform mid-course guidance for missiles, so the tactic is possible even without AESA.

The lack of confirmation means this could be pure speculation, a case of “something happened in the sky, let’s make it sound dramatic.”

Air combat in this war has been very methodical and unspectacular. Fighters don’t engage in Hollywood-style dogfights.

There have been very few air-to-air aces or legendary pilots on either side, which is why both are desperate to create a narrative of air combat glory.

"A pair of Ukrainian F-16s were conducting a CAP over Sumy at 16:45 local time."

Ukrainian F-16s have just entered service, and while a CAP over Sumy (close to Russia) makes sense, there has been no reliable confirmation of them flying missions yet.

Ukraine has been extremely cautious with deploying its F-16s. They know these jets are a prime target for Russia, and losing one early would be a huge morale and propaganda hit.

So far, no visual evidence, satellite data, or even leaked radio comms have emerged to confirm these F-16s were even airborne in this area.

The claim comes solely from Russian sources, which raises skepticism.

"A Russian Su-35 flew supersonic over Voronezh to intercept them."

Voronezh is a known launch base for Russian fighter patrols. Su-35s and MiG-31s routinely fly in that sector, so this part is reasonable.

However, the claim of "supersonic" speeds is odd.

Supersonic flight burns a lot of fuel quickly and isn’t ideal for air-to-air missile guidance, which requires stable tracking.

Most BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements start at high subsonic speeds, not full afterburner.

If true, this suggests the Su-35 was trying to rush into position, meaning they were likely not well-prepared for the engagement.

"The Su-35 and an S-400 system coordinated an engagement."

Considering the above info this is the most questionable part for me. I analyzed it at face value but after thinking about it for a day I have some issues.

The S-400 launching without using its own radar is highly unusual.

Why? The S-400’s radars are designed to operate in a network. If its radars were off, it means:

They were relying entirely on the Su-35's radar, which is not how SAM doctrine typically works.

The S-400’s missiles still need mid-course updates, and while fighter guidance is possible, it’s not Russia’s standard procedure.

Why would the Su-35 be guiding the missile instead of an A-50 AWACS or ground radar?

Russia has AWACS aircraft for this role, and it would make much more sense for an A-50 to guide the missiles than a single fighter jet.

The fact that a Su-35 had to do this suggests that Russia’s AWACS coverage was lacking at the time. (But this is in conflict with information saying there were AWAC&S present in the sector at the time)

@planenerd

🇺🇦⚡️🇷🇺 Continuation from Above.

"The engagement resulted in a miss."

If true, this is actually bad for Russia.

This suggests one of the following:

1. Missile guidance failed—either due to jamming, poor tracking, or ineffective integration.

2. The F-16s successfully performed evasive maneuvers.

3. The missiles were launched at the wrong moment or with bad targeting data.

Either way, this is not a success story for Russian air defense.

If the engagement happened as described, it actually exposes Russian weaknesses rather than strengths.

They had to improvise an unusual tactic (fighter-guided SAM launch), which suggests they were either testing new methods or struggling with normal procedures.

The missed shots indicate Ukrainian F-16s are harder to hit than expected, which is bad news for Russia’s air defense strategy.


How does this compare globally?

PAF (Pakistan) would not use a fighter to guide a SAM like this. Instead, they’d rely on Erieye AWACS to handle targeting.

NATO and China would prefer a networked AWACS + SAM radar approach rather than an improvised fighter-based method.

@planenerd

Falcon posting

SU-57 doing aerodynamics. I never realized how thin the SU-57 was.

Is the SU-57 the only modern plane with a sliding canopy?

I know back in the day the F-86 Sabre, F-84G ThunderJet and the F9F had sliding canopies as well.

Man the SU-47 was such a sexy plane. I would love to see a SU-57 in black.