KYIV, June 7 (Reuters) — Ukraine's air forces shot down a Russian Su-35 fighter jet on Saturday morning, the Ukrainian military said.
"This morning, on June 7, 2025, as a result of a successful Air Force operation in the Kursk direction, a Russian Su-35 fighter jet was shot down," the military said on the Telegram messenger. — Reuters
We don't have a lot of details at the moment but the speculation is that the F-16 Fighting Falcon used Aim-120 AMRAAM missiles. My view at the moment is that Ukraine's F-16 would not have crossed the international border into Russia, but would have fired its missile (s) from within Ukrainian territory to hit the Russian Su-35 Flanker near Koronevo inside the recognised Russian territory of Kursk.
However, other analysts have also considered the possibility of a mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, such as a Patriot, being responsible for the downing, especially given the proximity to the Ukrainian border.
The official Ukrainian announcement uses the words '…as a result of a successful Air Force operation in the Kursk direction, a Russian Su-35 fighter jet was shot down.'
An air force operation, so almost definitely not a Patriot takedown.
How do they stack up?
When considering the combat capabilities of the F-16 and the Su-35, there several critical aspects to consider, including their avionics, manouverability, armaments, sensor systems, radar cross-section, and operational applications.
Design
The F-16, specifically the F-16C/D Block 50/52 and subsequent iterations such as the F-16V, is a lightweight, single-engined multirole combat aircraft. Its design prioritises agility, adaptability, and economic viability. This aircraft relies on seamless integration within contemporary networked warfare environments.
Conversely, the Su-35 is a more substantial, twin-engine, supermanoeuvrable Gen 4.5 fighter. While primarily optimised for achieving air superiority, it retains multirole operational capabilities. Its design philosophy is focused on superior performance and long-range engagements.
Manoeuvrability
The F-16 delivers high levels of agility, possessing a thrust-to-weight ratio approximating 1.1. Its fly-by-wire system enables precise control inputs. The relatively light construction of the F-16 contributes to its notable dogfighting performance, though it does not incorporate thrust vectoring technology.
The Su-35 demonstrates very high raw maneuverability mainly attributable to its AL-41F1S thrust-vectoring engines. These engines permit extreme angles of attack and the execution of post-stall maneuvers such as the Kulbit which was developed by Russian pilots. Although best used in close-range dogfight scenarios, it may exhibit reduced nimbleness at lower speeds when compared with the F-16's tighter turning radius.
However, it's likely that Ukraine would not wish to get into a close quarters situation, preferring to keep its F-16s and their pilot at long to medium range.
Avionics and sensors
Modern variants of the F-16, such as the F-16V, are equipped with advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars, exemplified by the AN/APG-83 SABR. These aircraft also incorporate sophisticated electronic warfare suites and integrated data link systems, such as Link 16, for networked operational environments. The avionics systems are extensively automated, contributing to a high level of situational awareness.
Ukraine has the F-16 MLU aircraft which are upgraded basic F-16 versions, with improved avionics, sensors, and weapon systems to meet more contemporary combat requirements. For example, they are typically equipped with the AN/APG-66(V)2 radar and are compatible with various precision-guided munitions.
The Su-35 is fitted with the Irbis-E passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar. This system offers a longer detection range, extending up to 400 kilometres for large targets, but it is less advanced than the F-16's AESA technology in terms of resistance to jamming and the discrimination of targets. While the Su-35's avionics are robust, they are at a comparatively lower level of integration and user interface refinement when assessed against Western systems.
Radar cross-sections
The F-16 is not categorised as a stealth aircraft; however, its compact dimensions contribute to a smaller radar cross-section (RCS) than that of the Su-35. Certain upgrades, such as the incorporation of radar-absorbent materials, result in a marginal reduction in detectability.
The Su-35 exhibits a larger RCS due to its size and design, rendering it more readily detectable by contemporary radar systems. To mitigate this, it relies upon electronic warfare systems, specifically the Khibiny ECM suite, to counteract adversary sensors. Clearly, they may have problems in this area.
Consider this comparison in the light of the section on Avionics and Sensors.
Armaments loadout
The F-16 can deploy a comprehensive range of NATO-compatible weapons. These include the AIM-120 AMRAAM for long-range air-to-air engagements, the AIM-9X Sidewinder for short-range combat, various precision-guided munitions such as JDAM and SDB, and anti-ship missiles. Its adaptable design allows for the seamless integration of new weapon systems.
The Su-35 is armed with the R-77 for long-range operations and the R-73 for short-range, high-manoeuvrability air-to-air engagements, alongside bombs and anti-ship missiles. It possesses a greater payload capacity, with 12 hardpoints compared to the F-16's 9 hardpoints.
Range and endurance
The F-16 possesses a combat radius of approximately 550 to 900 kilometres, dependent upon configuration and the presence of external fuel tanks. Its single engine and smaller fuel capacity impose limitations on its operational range.
The Su-35 offers a greater operational range, with a combat radius extending to approximately 1,600 kilometres when equipped with external fuel tanks. Its twin-engine configuration and larger fuel capacity provide an advantage in missions requiring extended range.
Operational environment
The F-16 benefits from continuous upgrade programmes combined with its ability to function within networked warfare environments, leveraging systems such as AEWACS, data links, and allied support to achieve superior situational awareness. There are rumours that in this takedown incident a Swedish-supplied Ukrainian AEWACS was involved.
The Su-35 is engineered for autonomous operations or those with limited networked support. It performs with distinction in scenarios where high performance and long-range engagement capabilities are critical. But its overall effectiveness is substantially influenced by pilot proficiency and the availability of ground-based radar support.
Costs
The F-16 is generally less expensive to procure, with unit costs ranging from approximately $40 million to $70 million, contingent upon the specific variant. It also entails lower maintenance costs due to a well-established supply chain and a global support infrastructure.
The Su-35 is comparatively more expensive, with unit costs typically between $80 million and $100 million. It also incurs higher maintenance expenditures attributed to its intricate twin-engine design and a smaller logistics network. However, with Russia's military economy under heavy sanctions control there are likely to be significant maintenance issues. Ukraine has targeted maintenance facilities.
Comparison summary
The F-16 demonstrates pre-eminence in areas of adaptability, modern avionics, and its capacity for networked warfare operations.
The Su-35 maintains an advantage in terms of raw performance, manoeuvrability, and operational range. It is a formidable platform for achieving air superiority, particularly in close-range engagements or those requiring extended range capabilities.
In a beyond-visual-range combat scenario, the F-16's advanced radar, electronic jamming capabilities, and AIM-120D missiles afford it an advantage, especially when supported by AWACS. Conversely, in a close-in dogfight, the Su-35's thrust vectoring and R-73 missiles could establish dominance. The ultimate outcome of any real-world engagement is significantly influenced by pilot training, tactical deployment, and the supporting systems available.
So, given that side-by-side and the events reported, what are the tactical and strategic implications?
Implications of the hit
Tactical
The reported incident has validated the F-16's combat effectiveness in the Ukraine war, but I accept that one swallow doth not a summer make. Ukrainian officials had previously expressed reservations about the F-16's ability to contend with the Su-35 in direct aerial engagements, particularly given that the F-16 variants supplied are often older models with less advanced avionics and weapon systems compared to modern Russian counterparts.
A confirmed shoot-down would demonstrate that, under specific operational conditions, pilot skill, and integrated tactical support, the F-16 can indeed achieve air-to-air victories against a strong adversary like the Su-35. This could lead to a shift in Ukrainian air force tactics, potentially encouraging more assertive air-to-air engagements where opportunities arise.
It could also prompt Russian forces to reassess their air superiority tactics and potentially adjust their operational envelopes to off-set the perceived threat from F-16s.
The incident underscores the critical importance of factors beyond mere platform specifications, such as real-time intelligence, effective command and control, and the synergistic use of other air defence assets.
And undoubtedly there will be a considerable effect on pilot morale on both sides. In particular, Russian pilots will not be keen to be exposed to increased risks.
Strategic
Strategically, a confirmed F-16 victory against an Su-35 would be very significant.
For Ukraine, it would demonstrate Western military aid's effect in critical air superiority challenges. The US fought long and hard to avoid giving or enabling the use of F-16s by Ukraine suggesting that the aircraft would make no difference. I wonder what Jake Sullivan thinks of this development?
It might serve to influence future discussions regarding the quantity and quality of advanced Western aircraft and weapon systems supplied to Ukraine, potentially encouraging further donations or the provision of more advanced F-16 variants.
For Russia, the loss of an Su-35, a technologically advanced fighter aircraft, to a Ukrainian F-16 could be perceived as a setback, challenging their narrative of air dominance and the inherent superiority of their aircraft. It might also lead to a re-evaluation of Russian air strategy and defensive measures, potentially diverting resources or attention to areas previously considered secure.
More broadly, the incident offers insights into the evolving dynamics of modern air warfare between 4th and 4.5 generation fighter aircraft and the impact of integrated air defence systems and networked capabilities.
My overall conclusion is that the West has over-rated Russia' armed forces and weapons systems for many years. Not by much perhaps, but certainly enough to lead to poor decision-making.
Give that man a medal!
The times are changing in what has been a monumental week for Ukraine, disastrous for Russia but still it continues its war crimes with little sign of change in the West.
And there's more to come as the stories line up in my inbox as I speak. Look out for Operation Pavutyna.