It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the current pace of Russian operations taking its toll?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
We've all been paying attention to the increase in Russian flight operations in recent months. It's been significant, and putting a lot more stress on aircraft. From watching the last month it appears that it's beginning to take its toll on those aircraft.

June 4th, a MiG-29 crashed near the Caspian Sea, no fatalities. A few hours later, an Su-34 landing at Voronezh suffered a drag chute failure, went off the runway and flipped on its back. No fatalities.

June 9th, a Tu-95 bomber went off the end of the runway after an engine fire on takeoff. One dead, one seriously injured. The aircraft were grounded as a result.

July 3rd, a MiG-29 crashed near Krasnodarsk. No fatalities, the fleet was grounded afterwards.

July 6th, an Su-24 crashed on takeoff near Khabarovskiy. Both crew members were killed. The aircraft reportedly rolled left before diving into the ground after apparently colliding with another aircraft. The rest of the fleet has been grounded.

The Russian air force in recent years has not been a high time/high intensity fleet. That may be starting to show with five high profile accidents in a month, resulting in the grounding of three types.
edit on 7/6/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
A few years ago I read an article that the Russians had very poor maintenance regimes and apart from the fact that most of their aircraft were grounded, the ones that did fly were often reporting problems. Could it be they never really solved the problems?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Possibly. The Su-34 when it first came out had huge issues straight from the factory. Add to that, maintenance issues, and a major increase in operational pace and it's the recipe for a disaster.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

better send supplies...




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are those things all confirmed? Just wondering as they would make a great false story to make others think the Russian air fleet is in distress and should be advanced on. If they were faking it to garner a military response it seems they have gotten that somewhat with the buildup of forces around the area now.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yes they've been confirmed. Multiple reliable sources in the aviation community as well as Russian sources.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Could the Chirok Drone make up for some of this later on when they make the 2 tonne version?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood

Not really. If they do put weapons on it, they'll be fairly small ground attack munitions. Mostly it looks like it's going to be used to move cargo around although they can add seating for passengers as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Well anytime you take forces that have been less active and make them more active you greatly increase the chance of accidents and other problems. Not just from pilots, aircraft. party but, maintenance crews who are not up to par. I know training for the Russian Army is pretty terrible mostly do the conscripts who do want to be their. I would hope the people they have maintaining their aircraft are professionals and not conscripts. Then again you hear all the time about nations that buy Russian aircraft getting poorly built aircraft. More than likely it is a combination of things. So for the Russian's it is time to figure out what the problem is and fix it or to reduce the tempo off operations.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This the point that I have been saying for a while. It is exactly the problem that I have with the "gamers" here on ATS. They don't understand the ability for sortie generation with the Russian military. Most of their fleet is "long in the tooth" and any new aircraft are acquired in small numbers.

Their state controlled news media shows these beautiful capable aircraft and announces that they are going to receive 600 of them...Zarodina! 6 months later, they quietly reduce the number to 16. Gamers will argue their 600 Su-37s will destroy the 200 American F-22s easily. America you will die. They refuse to understand that they only have 16 and not all are operational. Some aircraft will ultimately be used for parts with high sortie generation. Eventually, none will be flying.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Several years ago, we had a conference involving some Russian generals and VIPs. They flew in on a Tu-154, and watching them was incredible.

When the aircraft parked, their brakes were hot from the long taxi. Standard US procedure is to park a fire truck nearby, just in case, and allow them to cool on their own. So we brought the truck over to watch things.

The Russians wanted the truck to come up to the aircraft, and spray the brakes down to cool them off. Pretty much everybody out there went, "Uhm, no".

One of the pilots told me that when he flies the Condor, they line up on the end of the runway and go to full power, with the brakes locked. After two minutes, if all four engines are running and showing normal, they release the brakes and roll.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
From The Good Shepherd,


Soviet power is a myth. Great show. There are no spare parts. Nothing is working, nothing, it's nothing but painted rust. But you, you need to keep the Russian myth alive to maintain your military industrial complex. Your system depends on Russian being perceived as a mortal threat. It's not a threat. It was never a threat. It will never be a threat. It's a rotted, bloated cow.

How truthful those words are is what makes propaganda so fun! Russia's power comes at the expense of it's people much like the US. They like to keep all that power and stuff it under their shirt to make them look big where the US spreads it all around like warm peanut butter. And who doesn't like peanut butter?




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Maybe the Russian space industry should give tips to NASA about how to send a rocket into space without it exploding, in exchange for tips from AirForceOne to the Russian Air Force about building and maintaining sound aircraft...



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I just can't imagine the Russian manufacturing lines and repair depots are like ours. Stop work until that grease nipple is found, missing faster, find it or nothing goes out the door.

Absolutely spotless painted floors, pristine uniforms with nothing loose, QA/QC like a religion/nazi.

Those who care for elf and safety and want everyone of their pilots and planes come home put in the extra cost, just can't see it in Russia!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I was in the army. If you knew how often our helicopters went down you would be amazed. They require 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time, and we were always having to go pick up our hueys and blackhawks from emergency landings.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
Maybe the Russian space industry should give tips to NASA about how to send a rocket into space without it exploding, in exchange for tips from AirForceOne to the Russian Air Force about building and maintaining sound aircraft...


Why has a Russian rocket never exploded?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Yes, but helicopters are always more maintenance intensive and more at risk, regardless of who they belong to. To lose five fixed wing aircraft in a month is a sign of something that needs fixing.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Yeah because the Proton-M has only failed 6 times since 2010. Stellar...(pun intended)

NASA's problem with the Antares rocket in October '14 came after 5 successful launches and if anything the problems have roots to Soviet tech in the first stage.



The Antares itself is a product of the Orbital Sciences Corporation. Designed to launch a Cygnus spacecraft with an 11,000 pound payload into low earth orbit as part of a NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Space Act Agreement, the Antares performed four successful spacecraft launches before last week's spectacular failure. Presently, OSC engineers suspect the fault lies within the Antares' first-stage rocket engine: the Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-26.

The AJ-26 has a bit of a history. Originally named the NK-33, it was actually first developed by the Kuznetsov Design Bureau in the 1970s to lift the Russian NI rocket into space as part of the Soviet Union's ill-fated moonshot attempt. It's a 12-foot tall, 1200-pound liquid oxygen-kerosene turbopump design boasting 338,000 lbf of thrust at sea level. The Soviets spent $1.3 billion and more than a decade developing the NK-33, eventually producing more than 200 of the engines before the Union's fall in 1991.


The Soviet History of the Failed Antares Engines

Maybe you meant Space-X?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Huey? '50s era tech with lots of moving parts? man I hope they get that kind of care



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
a reply to: pexx421

Huey? '50s era tech with lots of moving parts? man I hope they get that kind of care

Well most likely twin Huey's like the the Yankee model.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join