In 2026, the balance of air power in Europe remains one of the most closely watched military equations in the world. On one side stands NATO, an alliance of 30+ nations with a vast, diverse, and increasingly modernized fighter fleet. On the other is Russia, fielding a large but more centralized force shaped by years of sanctions, attrition, and sustained combat operations. This guide takes a disciplined, fighter-only approach using data from FlightGlobal’s World Air Forces 2025 directory, the industry’s most widely referenced open fleet dataset, avoiding inflated or mixed categories.

Since 2022, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has accelerated European fighter procurement programs, air policing patterns, and expanded multinational air policing operations. NATO members have accelerated F-35 deliveries, extended legacy aircraft life cycles, and expanded joint exercises along the alliance’s eastern flank. Meanwhile, Russia’s Aerospace Forces (VKS) have sustained continuous combat operations, gaining extensive combat experience on one hand, but also facing aircraft losses and logistical pressure. Understanding the current state of these fleets nowadays requires looking at aircraft types, readiness rates, pilot training, and real-world deployments to produce a meaningful strategic picture grounded in verified data.

The Composition Of NATO’s And Russia’s Fighter Fleets In 2026

Credit: Shutterstock

NATO’s fighter jets inventory aggregates the fighter fleets of 30 member states under an integrated command structure. It is a vast, fragmented, and increasingly fifth-generation heavy fleet. Each aircraft remains under its national ownership, but NATO’s Air Policing missions, combined exercises, and standing operational plans ensure that these fleets keep fighting as a coordinated whole.

According to World Air Forces 2025, when isolating fighter-designated aircraft, the US fields approximately 2,600–2,700 fighter jets across the United States Air Force , Navy, and Marine Corps. These include the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle and its advanced derivatives, the F-22 Raptor , and the rapidly expanding F-35 Lightning II fleet.

European NATO members collectively contribute roughly 1,600–1,800 additional fighter aircraft, again filtered strictly to air superiority and multirole fighters listed in FlightGlobal’s combat aircraft tables. These fleets center on platforms such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, legacy and upgraded F-16s and F/A-18s. A growing number of F-35 is operated by the UK, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, while Poland, Finland, and others are in various stages of F-35 acquisition and integration, significantly altering the regional balance.

That means increasing interoperability, shared logistics pipelines, and common data-link architecture — an advantage that extends beyond pure airframe count. What makes this total meaningful is the architecture. NATO fighters operate under standardized procedures (STANAG), common data links such as Link 16, and integrated air defense planning. A Norwegian F-35 can plug into a US AWACS picture, a Polish F-16 can share targeting data with a German Typhoon, and so on.

Unlike NATO’s distributed model, Russia’s fighter fleet is centralized under the Aerospace Forces (VKS), incorporating what was historically known as the VVS. According to FlightGlobal data, Russia operates approximately 700–900 fighter jets. This number excludes strike aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback and the Su-25 Frogfoot. Core platforms include the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker family and its derivatives, including the Sukhoi Su-30 and Sukhoi Su-35, alongside the Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum, and the high-speed interceptor Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound. Russia has also fielded a limited number of the Sukhoi Su-57 Felon, its fifth-generation platform, though production numbers remain relatively modest compared to Western F-35 output, or even to the 187 operational F-22 Raptors.

Before 2022, Russia was estimated to have roughly 900–1,100 tactical combat aircraft in active service. However, the ongoing war in Ukraine has reshaped those figures. Official sources and independent tracking organizations such as Oryx (which documents visually confirmed losses) have recorded dozens of fixed-wing aircraft losses since the conflict began. While not all losses are frontline fighters, attrition has undeniably impacted availability.

Technology Gap: Stealth, Sensors, And Weapons

Credit: Shutterstock

Raw numbers tell only part of the story. The qualitative dimension of NATO’s fighter fleet has shifted dramatically over the past decade. The F-35’s sensor fusion architecture, low observable design, and network-centric data-sharing capabilities represent a generational change in air combat. As of 2025, more than a dozen NATO nations either operate or have ordered the platform, creating a multinational stealth backbone. Moreover, NATO’s integration of advanced air-to-air missiles such as MBDA’s Meteor provides extended engagement ranges across Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen fleets.

Meanwhile, Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 is designed with stealth shaping and advanced avionics, but, as we already saw, production remains limited. Much of the VKS fleet consists of upgraded fourth-generation platforms. Russia continues to deploy long-range air-to-air missiles such as the R-37M, intended to challenge high-value airborne assets.

Beyond stealth and missiles, NATO’s advantage lies in sensor networking: AWACS, tankers, ISR assets, and data links such as Link 16 enable cross-national targeting and shared situational awareness. In contrast, Russia’s data-link system remains less interoperable across allied structures, though highly capable within its own integrated air defense framework.

Disaster? Why The F-35 Program Is Under Fire Again

A storm of controversy surrounds the F-35 program, but what’s really behind the criticism?

Dogfight Performance: Energy, Maneuverability, And Close-Range Combat

Credit: Antonio Di Trapani

Probably the most classic way to ultimately define a fighter aircraft is to examine its performance in close-range combat. While modern engagements increasingly favor beyond-visual-range (BVR) exchanges, within-visual-range (WVR) maneuverability remains a critical survivability factor.

Dogfighting capability depends on thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, sustained turn rate, and angle-of-attack authority. These aerodynamic factors determine whether a fighter can retain energy through turns, rapidly point its nose toward a target, and recover speed after aggressive maneuvering. In a 2026 NATO–Russia comparison, both blocs field aircraft with formidable, but philosophically different, close-range combat characteristics.

Among NATO fleets, aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor have demonstrated during Red Flag exercises an ability to dictate engagement geometry before entering traditional turning fights. European platforms, including the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, are frequently described by pilots as strong energy fighters — able to sustain speed through high-G turns rather than relying on dramatic low-speed maneuvers. The lighter Saab JAS 39 Gripen has earned a reputation in multinational exercises for agility and rapid directional changes in tight engagements.

Russian designs such as the Sukhoi Su-35 and Sukhoi Su-57 highlight a different strength: thrust vectoring and high angle-of-attack authority, allowing them to perform the tricks seen in Top Gun: Maverick in real life. Demonstrations and operational footage since 2022 consistently show emphasis on post-stall maneuverability, enabling rapid nose pointing even at very low speeds. Modernized Mikoyan MiG-29 variants continue to reflect the classic Soviet focus on strong instantaneous turn performance.

The table highlights an important nuance for 2026. A higher thrust-to-weight ratio (above 1.0) means the aircraft can accelerate vertically and regain lost energy quickly, crucial after hard turns. Wing loading reflects how much weight each square meter of wing must carry; lower values generally support tighter turning performance and better low-speed handling. Meanwhile, sustained turn rate measures how fast an aircraft can continuously turn without bleeding energy, a key factor in a prolonged dogfight rather than a single spectacular maneuver.

Looking at the values, NATO’s European fighters tend to combine relatively low wing loading with strong sustained turn rates, favoring energy retention and controllable high-G maneuvering. Russian aircraft such as the Su-35 and Su-57 pair competitive thrust-to-weight ratios with thrust vectoring, enabling extreme nose authority even at very high angles of attack. However, in modern engagements, where high-off-boresight missiles and helmet cueing systems reduce the need to “out-turn” an opponent perfectly, the aircraft that preserves energy and secures the first valid firing solution is more likely to prevail than the one performing the most dramatic maneuver.

Availability, Attrition, And The Drone-Dense Battlespace

Credit: Antonio Di Trapani | Simple Flying

Fleet numbers and technical specifications still matter, but modern airpower is increasingly shaped by the operational environment. The rapid expansion of drones, loitering munitions, and persistent ISR platforms has fundamentally altered how fighter aircraft are employed. In contemporary conflicts, crewed fighters are frequently tasked with air defense patrols, counter-UAV interceptions, escort duties, and stand-off strike support.

Real-world examples confirm this evolution. NATO air policing missions in the Baltic region regularly involve rapid reaction alerts to identify and escort aircraft operating near alliance airspace — a task that now exists in an environment shaped by heightened surveillance and drone activity. Similarly, Ukraine’s layered air defense network has demonstrated how crewed jet fighters (but also old propeller trainers!), surface-to-air missile systems, and electronic warfare assets must operate together to counter both manned aircraft and large volumes of unmanned threats. In this context, availability is about sustaining continuous air coverage, rotating assets efficiently, and integrating with unmanned systems that can extend sensor reach and reduce exposure risk. A fighter fleet that can generate sorties consistently, while operating within a dense electronic and drone environment, gains strategic resilience.

For NATO, distributed basing and integrated logistics provide structural advantages. Allied air forces can disperse aircraft across multiple airfields, share maintenance workloads, and draw from multinational supply networks. Investments since 2024 have focused on improving readiness rates and sustainment efficiency, particularly for advanced platforms, while exercises increasingly simulate operating from austere or forward locations.

This emphasis on resilience aims to ensure that aircraft can maintain consistent sortie cycles even if primary bases are disrupted. Russia’s experience since 2022 demonstrates the operational demands of sustained air activity in a high-threat environment. Continuous patrols, stand-off strikes, and air defense missions inevitably accelerate wear on aircraft and engines. While centralized control can streamline command decisions, long-term sortie sustainability depends on industrial capacity, component availability, and trained maintenance crews. In a prolonged 2026 scenario, the side that can preserve airframe life, maintain pilot readiness, and sustain launch rates over weeks and not just days, will hold the decisive edge.

Recent Operations And Large-Scale Exercises

Credit: Antonio Di Trapani | Simple Flying

Operational tempo remains a defining factor in fighter effectiveness. Since 2022, Russian fighter jets have been engaged in sustained combat operations over Ukraine, launching air-to-ground strikes and conducting air patrols near contested airspace. Russia’s large-scale training events, including the annual Zapad (“Z”) and Vostok (“V”) strategic exercise frameworks, continue to demonstrate centralized command coordination, layered air defense integration, and rapid mobilization within national territory. These drills emphasize territorial defense, strategic deterrence signaling, and coordination between air forces and ground-based air defense systems. Although Russia’s exercises are substantial in scale, they are primarily nationally integrated and not multinational in structure.

While Russian forces have generally operated within protected or layered air-defense environments, the prolonged campaign has provided real combat experience under modern electronic warfare conditions. At the same time, extended wartime usage increases maintenance cycles and long-term sustainment pressure.

On the NATO side, deterrence activity has intensified and become more structured across the 2024–2025 cycle, with sustained momentum into 2026. Exercises such as Steadfast Defender 2024 represented the alliance’s largest reinforcement drill in decades, testing rapid transatlantic deployment, large-scale logistics movement, and integrated air operations across multiple European theaters. The exercise framework emphasized not only the movement of forces, but also the interoperability of command structures and the ability to generate combat air power quickly under time pressure.

Within the Baltic Air Policing framework, allied fighters regularly rotate through missions over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, reinforcing the eastern flank. Recent rotations have included aircraft such as the F-35 Lightning II, Eurofighter Typhoon, which recently logged 1 million flight hours, and upgraded fourth-generation platforms, demonstrating the alliance’s ability to sustain a persistent presence while distributing operational burden among member states.

This combination of large-scale exercises and continuous air policing rotations reflects a dual-track approach: prepare for rapid reinforcement at scale, while maintaining a day-to-day deterrence posture in frontline regions. In the context of 2026, that blend of readiness, interoperability, and rotational sustainment remains central to NATO’s airpower strategy.

Which Country Has The Most Superior Military Jets In The World?

Discover why the US leads global air power with over 13,000 aircraft, cutting-edge fighters like the F-35, and sixth-gen tech like NGAD and B-21.

Strategic Outlook: What Actually Decides The 2026 Balance

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

When assessing how NATO’s fighter fleets stack up against Russia’s in 2026, the focus extends beyond aircraft performance to overall system resilience. Modern airpower depends on integration — linking fighters with sensors, data networks, aerial refueling, and air defense assets. In a connected battlespace, the ability to share information rapidly can be as decisive as speed or range.

NATO’s advantage lies in scale and interoperability, reinforced by its growing fifth-generation fleet led by the F-35. This networked structure supports cross-national coordination and flexible force deployment. Russia, meanwhile, relies on centralized command, combat experience since 2022, and a substantial inventory of modernized fourth-generation fighters such as the Su-35. In a prolonged conflict, sustainment capacity and replacement rates become as important as platform capability.

Structurally, the difference remains significant: in 2026, NATO fields well over 4,000 fighter aircraft across the alliance, including approximately 2,600+ in the United States and 1,600–1,800 in Europe, while Russia operates in the range of 700–900 fighter jets under the Aerospace Forces. These figures highlight the contrast between a distributed multinational airpower system and a centralized national fleet. The balance will continue to evolve through production, modernization, and long-term sustainability, making 2026 a comparison of both capability and endurance.