Talk:List of active Russian military aircraft

-2
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-destroys-russian-spy-plane-airborne-command-post-2024-01-15/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

How much?..
It would be great if someone could find how many of each aircraft listed here are active in the Russian air-force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC) == List in incomplete. For example, I'm pretty certain the Russian Air Force still operates some An-12 and a few An-22s. I did a quick look for these two type on Airliners net and there are 2013 pictures for both type flying as Russian Air Force... Hudicourt (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian Air Forces
Hello,There is a Reason Why I Like The Older Picture Because The Current Photo That Unknown Number Was Vandilisme.You Can Change The Imformation Of The Russian Air Forces But The Photos are Can't Change And It's Very Nice Pictures.Kornet GSR (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The photos have been reverted to images with more appropriate visuals and representative camouflage schemes per the Manual of Style. Please review the appropriate policies, and discuss it on the Talk page.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I will stop but Please Don't Change The Fighter Aircraft Photo.But other Aircraft Is only Can.OkKornet GSR (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to keep this set of photos. You are in violation of WP:3RR and multiple editors have agreed which photos are to be included, and why.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Picture of Your Curruent Picture Are Not Nice.Please Do not Change The Fighter Aircraft Of Russian Air Forces.Kornet GSR (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not? ScrapIronIV has provided some very clear reasons, based on Wikipedia guidelines, for the "newer"—and apparently current consensus—set of pictures. You need to provide a more compelling argument than "I like it"—and you need to work to establish a new consensus here in support of that set of pictures. Right now, you seem like the sole voice supporting that set. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kornet GSR Was Right And C.Fred,The Mikoyan MIG-29,Sukhoi Su-27 And Sukhoi Su-35 Were not Clear and Worse Picture.The Picture That You Take Was a Non Relible Sorces.OK.175.141.22.214 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you quit while you are ahead, before your ability to edit the encylopedia is removed. Editing while logged out is taken as a serious offense, when used to try to influence article content. This is your only warning from me.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reduce number of Mi-28 by one? Maybe also write that this type is not flown as long as investigations are made
1 of the modern and rare aircrafts that have not been already produced in the Soviet Union crashed as many maybe know (I don't know if in US media this is reported like in European or German Media), however the Mi-28 crashed during a 2-week "War Games" in Russia. The pilot was not a nobody, it was the 45 year old Lieutenant Colonel Igor Butenko who had good chances to become a General on a higher age. However, not the best demonstration of power for Putin, the Russian self-produced Helicopter crashes on War Games, does not help to increase fear of this "new type" if it crashes in a military parade... Kilon22 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No, per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS - Keeping an up-to-date inventory is out of scope.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Numbers dont add up
Wondering if someone has a more up to date document or source on RuAF aircraft numbers. The Reference No 4 that is used currently is the only working link i found that has almost complete numbers. The previous links used that had almost complete numbers no longer work including the registered ones and i do remember that in the past there was one that did work. Hence not too long ago i removed non-working link and replaced with current one.

maybe someone has a registered link or new source? cheers Hammer5000 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK THEN - I have recently added a source for 2016 edition of Flight global. All in all seems good there, nothing too dificult to understand. There is only one exception and that is the Su-27/30 and Su-35. Su-27/30 line no longer includes the Su-35 and Su-35 does not have a separate row either. To assume that the Su-35 is included as Su-27 ('M' version etc) is not ideal in my opinion, but could be best estimation...only FlightGlobal knows :) . On the other hand the IISS2014 source is out of date and estimation way out as it states a number of 12, but recent sources on Su-35 page have a number of 40. If 2014/15 news releases are added up then there are substantially more than 12 units. EDIT: Also forgot to mention the Ka-50, Flight Global 2016 does not mention any at all. Are they still in service? Hammer5000 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of active Russian military aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/498721.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327144527/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1807527.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1807527.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:AVIMOS
When making changes to the article, can we please stick to the guidelines at WP:AVILIST? If you are unfamiliar with them, please take a look at the recommendations there. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of active Russian military aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410141013/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1839328.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1839328.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6E811Ri8h?url=http://www.take-off.ru/blogaf/652-helirussia-2012-news-05-12 to http://www.take-off.ru/blogaf/652-helirussia-2012-news-05-12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What are they for the references on this page?
If a reference is written, even if it is debatable, it would be logical for the figures in the table to be according to the references, or at least to approximate

For example: reference 24 http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2326878.html Numbers of soviet fighters in december 2016 (in gross numbers): VVS: 160 Су-27, 120 МиГ-29, 90 МиГ-31 Total including Navy: 180 Су-27, 20 Су-33, 120 МиГ-29, 120 МиГ-31 Of course the number of Su-27 is higher than reality but even this is much better that the number in the table The number of MiG-31 is absolutely correct in december 2016, arround 90 for VVS and less than 30 in the navy. In 2017 there are a new squadorn in Vladivostok so the number is 102 and 28=130

Then, if the reference says about 90+30 , why the numbers on table are different?

The truth is that this page is very poor, if someone does not know aviation, not only is not informed correctly, but ends up more uninformed than before In general, everything related to Russian aviation in wikipedia in English is painful. It only indicates that those who wrote it have a deep ignorance of Russia and everything Russian --AMCXXL (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Prototipes and developmental airplanes are not operated by the units of Air Force
The prototypes and other airplanes built in the program of development of each project is operated by manufacturer, not by the Air Force or the Navy, and are drived by experts ex-pilots contracted for the company.

Those aircraft are used also for modernizations and improvements by the company, and at the end of their life, are stored. Airforce does not operate no one MiG-35.

The MiG-35 has 4 prototypes:
 * Nº741 (one seat, year 2011) https://russianplanes.net/id118198
 * Nº747 (two seats, year 2011) https://russianplanes.net/id148106
 * Nº702 (one seat, year 2016) https://russianplanes.net/id229086
 * Nº712 (two seats, year 2016) https://russianplanes.net/id218312

The high tail numbers 7xx, indicates are not regular airplanes, are factory airplanes. In all cases is clearly indicated that the operator of this four prototypes is: КБ МиГ - РСК МиГ, this means RSK MiG = the manufacturer This four airplanes are for service of the manufacturer during all the live of the project. Is for that the MiG-35 should be in the list of future airplanes of the VKS, not in the list of airplanes in service. Today has been announced the first contract for 6 airplanes MiG-35 for hand over until 2023 https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3316363.html The program is still in the state fligth tests stage, since this spring and for about 1,5 or 2 years, and after that could start the production if there are not more matters, so is not probable the first production MiG-35 will be seend to VKS before 2020-21 in a rate of 2 per year--AMCXXL (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Numbers of remaining old soviet airfraft
Strategic Bombers Realistic sources say really operational 16 Tu-160, 32 Tu-95MS and 41 Tu-22M3 https://russiamil.wordpress.com/tag/russian-air-force--AMCXXL (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tu-95MS: Source https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201703211758-cx72.htm says in 2017 there are 48 Tu-95MS and 12 Tu-95MSM. this is obviously a mistake. The number of 48 Tu-95MS is realiable as is the theorical number (3 regiments x 16 Tu-95MS each) However the number of 12 Tu-95MSM (Tu-95MS-Modernized) is a mistake because the modernization is still in development as say the other source https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3303872.html ,and the first delivery is expected by the end of 2019. This is a contradiction. Also each modernized aircraft Tu-95MSM is one less Tu-95MS added a source of 2014 https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Heavy-Bombers-For-The-People-3-27-2014.asp with a consensus number of 50 in several sources (including IISS), and this even does not inlcude 3-4 crashes since that time https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=TU95
 * The case of Tu-22M3 is similar, some sources included the reference say about 60 Tu-22M3 https://iz.ru/762766/ilia-kramnik/kinzhal-dlia-tushki (Maritime recon. Tu-22MR is out service since 2011). Also a couple of accidents last two years https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=T22M so 60 probably is very optimistic

Orphaned references in List of active Russian military aircraft
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of active Russian military aircraft's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "World Air Forces 2021": From Kamov Ka-27:  From List of active aircraft of the Turkish Air Force:  From List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force:  From Antonov An-26:  From List of active military aircraft of the Philippines:  From Sukhoi Su-27:  From List of active Bangladesh military aircraft:  From List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces: </li> <li>From List of active Italian military aircraft: </li> <li>From List of active Brazilian military aircraft: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Definition of terms
I've gone through and updated the page from lists that contain similar sources (Military Balance 2022, World Air Forces 2022).

When doing this, I noticed that many errors have crept into this article. It's partly due to vandalism, and partly because terms are left undefined and people update independently according to their own definitions.

One common error seems to be how to update aircraft on order. When news about delivery appear, some people decrement the number of aircraft on order, and increase the "in service" column. This has led to it increasing far above what the total order size is, as it can become unclear which part of an order is being delivered in which particular news.

Therefore, I suggest that we specify the total contract size, and then count up to this number in the notes as news about deliveries appear. For example "32 on order, 3 of which have been delivered and are in service". Having this information makes it easier to cross-verify and correct errors as they appear. When an order is complete, this note, as well as all the news sources, can be removed, as the count will be incorporated in credible sources (Military Balance, World Air Forces).

Also, some newer aircraft, such as the Su-57 and MiG-35, have been partially delivered, but the planes are not yet in active military service. These should not be listed in the "In Service" column, but instead be left in the "Total" column with a note.

Strange-attractor (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

At least 1 Ka-27 lost by navy
https://mezha.media/2022/04/25/zyomka-raketnyy-kreyser-moskva/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.156.36 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
I see a lot of referenced sources being removed by non-users who have only an IP address. If someone could please add protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Geran-2 and other drones displaced by BlackFlanker edit
This edit implies that the Shahed-136 (Geran-2) drone is somehow commanded by the Russian Ground Forces, whereas it would seem natural to put long-range munitions under the command of the Russian Air Force. Does anyone have good reference material for the identity of the command structure which flies the Geran-2? For all we know, the Geran-2 might be flown by the Wagner Group. Herreshoffian (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
The article is full of lies when it comes to the number of planes. The main source is The Military Balance 2022 but it gives much less planes that is stated here. I checked these numbers in source, corrected, and now someone put the wrong numbers back. 2A02:A318:4042:D400:CDAA:8001:5464:ED37 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

western bias
some people are only uses the smallest estimates for Russian air force numbers examples are mig 29 only 87 su 27 only 101 and an124 only 4 clearly anti Russian editors have been changing numbers apparently numbers come from the military Balance 2022 (which is a book) but no photo evidence of this is available please either put higher numbers in total aircraft put a + next to the aircraft with higher estimates put both numbers down the main source for larger numbers is flightgobal world airforces Yarael poof2 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * exactly, using wayback machine you can check that this article has been vandalised and weird enough it fluctuated massively. For instance, prior to march 2022 Russia had at least: 259 MIG-29's, 131 MIG-31's, 172 Su-27's but suddenly now in may 2023, Russia has lost: 172; 46 and 71 respectively... The MIG-31 is not even a front-line fighter lmao but a long range interceptor, how can you possively lose 46 if you have not put them at the front the first place -_- ... of course there had been losses on russian side but it is impossible to have that many. 190.104.185.15 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Unverified and Unnecessary
When looking at various wiki pages I find it interesting that other inventories are not hyper-commented on estimated losses. The Ukrainian Air Force, for example, for all intents no longer exists and yet there is nary a mention of losses. Conversely, the Russian Air Force on this page is reduced by losses not even remotely verified. It is representative of the bias not only of western media but also of Wiki in general. 70.120.79.115 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop using Oryx as source especially for recent losses
Some of the latest Oryx report, especially for helicopters such as Ka-52 are from random screenshot of telegram texts without visual evidences, and Russian losses are often presumed to be "completely unsalvageable". This goes for other Oryx flawed report of Russian losses, even including "unknown jet fighter" using telegram screenshot as "source". Oryx also using Tweeter as source even though it is also unreliable Dauzlee (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its as reliable as Russian sources of numbers. Take it to WP:RSN Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oryx was caught already in 2022 using pictures of Ukraine equipment with painted or photoshopped Zs or similar on them as proof of Russian casualties.  They have also been caught using pictures of the same actual Russian equipment up to over a dozen times, every one claiming to be a unique loss.   They've even been caught trying to post CGI pictures as proof of casualties.   AND they've been caught trying to claim Russian losses of equipment that Russia does not have at all or did not have at all in Ukraine when claimed.   Equipment like T-64s which just happens to be the mainstay of Ukraine army at start of 2022, with over 1800 in service.   And when a tank has Ukraine ERA, Ukraine cage armor, Ukraine electronics, and a frickin M2 .50 mounted on top, and you can outright SEE that the Russian markings are badly painted on top of Ukraine markings, at that point trying to claim that it's a Russian tank isn't even funny any more.
 * Oryx is ALSO a proven propaganda outlet connected to Atlantic council.  Any use of Oryx, you can just as well use Goebbels as a source, although he's probably MORE reliable.   It's just pure propaganda.   Go look up Mediazona reporting on Russian tank crewmembers.   Less than 800.   And yet, how many obviously catastrophic losses of tanks for Russia does Oryx claim?   Does not compute at all. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At least one of the analysts that debunked oryx put a long video of it on youtube.  Do some actual research.   Or even just go look yourself at the oryx pictures.   Some are laughably poor attempts at making Ukraine losses appear Russian.   I think it was Andrey Martyanov who sarcastically pointed out in an interview that noo, Russian airforce and attack helicopters does NOT have text like that on the sides when asked about it.   I know Larry Johnsson did a short writeup on it back in 2022, he didn't bother with a full debunk as that had already been done.   I have only limited experience as a professioal photo analyst, but even i could EASILY debunk at least 1/4 of Oryx "destroyed Russian" tank photos as blatantly fake.   If it has Ukrainian camouflage, it is NOT Russian.   If it has Ukraine external electronics and sensors, if it has Ukraine external MGs, if it has Ukrainian ERA or cage armour or even a damn malteser cross badly painted over, then it is NOT Russian.
 * And very simple fact here, all the "X lost" aircraft in Ukraine, they're complete faerytale numbers.  Last time Ukraine shot down over a dozen Russian aircraft over 2 weeks, when actually checked, Russia lost ONE aircraft in that time.   Please do at least compare with the Pentagon leakes.   28 lost aircraft as of early of 2023.   And those included damaged aircraft.   And since spring 2023, Russian aircraft losses have dropped to extremely low. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its WP:RS and you as an IP aren't really in any position to debate this. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I myself have looked through Oryx and attempted to independently verify certain categories of aircraft losses and it's just not possible. Oryx claims 29 Su-34 destroyed as of 7/13/2024 but almost every photo or video is inconclusive. The photos show fragment of an aircraft that may be from an Su-34 or might be from something else. Most of the videos show an aircraft in the distance take a hit and then go down, but the aircraft is nearly always too distant to make any sort of identification possible. A few of the links to claimed kills have no photo, or video at all or just a picture of an Su-34 with the statement that one was shot down. This methodology of demonstrating evidence exists throughout the website. PrinzHohenstaufen (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're a new account and this is your first and so far only edit, so you don't have much credibility on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And straight off it's an ad hominem attack. My credibility has nothing to do with my comment. The statement I made contains no privileged information that only I can verify, it is based on my review of a public website that anyone can examine for themselves. It is a very simple process. Go to the website, select a type of vehicle or aircraft, then verify that each photo or video contains an image of the destroyed vehicle or aircraft. It's an incredibly simple process. PrinzHohenstaufen (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're a new account and the first thing you do is come to this page and argue that Oryx isn't reliable. You're not credible. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am proposing that everyone who is interested in the accuracy of this Wikipedia article go to Oryx and verify what I have stated. You counter by suggesting I have nefarious motives and I am therefore not "credible" and my suggestion be ignored. I don't see how that is constructive. If you are unable to live without using Oryx as a source then perhaps the wording should be rephrased. For example in the notes column for the Su-34 it states "As of 28 May 2024 at least 26 Su-34 and one Su-34M have been lost in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine." you could change it to "As of 28 May 2024 as many as 26 Su-34 and one Su-34M may have been lost in the Russian invasion of Ukraine". PrinzHohenstaufen (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Any user, old or new, can argue that Oryx is not credible, whether they have 10 edits or 1,000,000. Please do not bite the newcomers; WP:AGF is a core principle of this encyclopedia. If users wish to dispute the argument rather than the person they should focus on the evidence that is being presented for or against Oryx's reliability. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06 so you don't find it at all strange that a "newcomers" first edit is to come here and question the reliability of Oryx? I don't AGF on a sensitive current topic like this. Mztourist (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not matter one bit, unfortunately. AGF is a overarching guideline, not something we can ignore whatever the sensitivity of the topic. Let me be clear: I am fully aware of aggressor attempts to disrupt this website, but we serve ourselves better by following our own rules as closely as possible. If you take a look at Talk:Prostitution in Afghanistan you will see a referral to RSN that actually seems to have had a good outcome. I would guess that Oryx has already had several go-rounds at RSN, given that the war is now two and a half years old; are there links we can point Prinz Hohenstaufen to? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Further along: anyone wanting to take this discussion further might profitably examine Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 410 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 407, the most recent discussions of Oryx. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not edited anything. I posted a comment in the "talk" page to get a consensus from other users. I understand there is an edit war taking place within Russian military articles. I have not interest in taking part in that. PrinzHohenstaufen (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline that has very limited exceptions (basically IAR only). We even have a section on the WP:AGF page that specifically discourages accusing others of bad faith (WP:AOBF). This user, as shown immediately above, did not actually wish to get involved in an edit war. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As seen below, I have started requesting the latest issue of the Military Balance. Most commentators on Ukraine are very well aware of Oryx, and I have no doubt the Military Balance writers incorporated consideration of Oryx in their calculation process. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced and poorly sourced increases in aircraft
Recent edits by Emperorpenguin20160923 increase the number of aircraft with edits that either are unsourced or poorly sourced:


 * Adds 24 Su-35, source is Izvestia which has been banned in the European Union due to being under control of the leadership of the Russian Federation
 * Increases Tu-95 from 42 to 55 without changes in sourcing. The cited source states 42.
 * Multiple edits that increase the number of several aircraft types without any new citations. The claims "Calculated based on..." are not supported by evidence that supports increasing the number of aircraft.

Challenging these edits due to the lack of citations and reverting them unless supporting evidence is provided. Steady as she goes (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Number of Su-35
Undid the edit that added 24 Su-35 (for the Russian Naval Aviation) after reviewing based on the following:


 * The source provided in the edit (Izvestia) mentions 24 Su-35 as delivered to the Chinese Air Force. I see no mention of delivery to the Russian Naval Aviation.
 * A Ukrainian news outlet quotes the number of Su-35 at about 100: https://kyivindependent.com/military-intelligence-russia-has-about-200-su-34-su-35-fighter-jets-7-a-50/
 * In Sukhoi_Su-35, we list Russian Aerospace Forces with 110 inventory as of December 2022, plus 8 deliveries suggested by Russian sources 2023. Russian sources suggest further deliveries in 2024.
 * A Russian source quoted on the above-mentioned Su-35 Wikipedia page suggests 103 + 7 Su-35's: https://www.soldat.ru/news/1540.html

Would prefer to source this from The Military Balance 2024, but I do not have one at hand. World Air Forces 2024 lists Su-27/30/35 as a combination with a total of 365 and 12 on order, the number of Su-35 is not singled out.

Given the Russian invasion of Ukraine, pointing the exact number of Su-35 in Russian inventory is hardly possible. Until and unless better sources are available, I am suggesting that we


 * Return to "110 Su-35S in service as of 2022" (for the Russian Aerospace Forces), which appears to be supported by The Military Balance 2022. This was the state prior to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft&diff=1161995397&oldid=1161767790
 * Add a sentence "Additional deliveries according to Russia after 2022" and move the other citations to that sentence.
 * Keep "As of 28 May 2024 at least 7 Su-35S have been lost in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine." with the Oryx citation as the source.

Steady as she goes (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * for the Military Balance, try WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request or the Milhist talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)