It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:59 PM
a reply to: BigDave-AR

I agree. Just pulling some legs. Some of us are old.

edit on 7/6/2015 by howmuch4another because: nobody needs to know how old I am.

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 08:30 PM
Russian design has always been agricultural.Ease of maintenance in rough conditions has been dogma since WW2.Maintenance is always about checks.Keeping an eye on problems before they happen is key for maintenance..If there are planes falling out of the sky means there are serious issues with training in checks and maintenance.

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 04:19 AM

originally posted by: eisegesis
From The Good Shepherd,

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?

No, it's not true ... it's a load of crap.

The US power, does not come from it's weapons. In fact, US made products usually never work. We used to have to kick those garbage cans, to make them work in the old days. US made stuff, was rusty crap ... much like the Russian made stuff.

US power comes from attitude, not the beauty of their weapons. And this is also Russia's and China's Achilles heel. They got the firepower, but not the right attitude to back it up. Ukraine is a good example on Russias lack of Attitude. They back off ... if US and Russia would change positions in the game of Ukraine. Ukraine would be a pile of rubble under US tanks. Instead, Putin is playing this game ... scared of the outcome. Certainly he should be, but if he isn't going to use these weapons, he shouldn't be building them.

What concerns these accidents, well I haven't seen any proof of them ... but that doesn't mean I don't believe it to be true. But it works both ways ... if the Russians can make the stuff, they can provide the spare parts. Again, it's a question of attitude, not ability. Ability, that's when you build a jet fighter that crashes because it's wheels don't come down ... or up, because of simplistic programmer error. I hope that last mark, got into some of the teeny brains in here ... as it's a very common mistake ... even today, here in the west.

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:51 AM
a reply to: nonjudgementalist

A glitch in a Russian space launch may have sent part of a rocket and its payload -- a satellite -- plummeting toward southeastern Siberia, according to Russian state-run media reports.

It is the second space mission failure for the Russian Federal Space Agency, Roscosmos, in less than a month. And it occurs on the anniversary of a similar loss in 2014.

Even the Russian Space Agency isn't perfect.

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:54 AM
a reply to: bjarneorn

Wow, US equipment is rusty crap? Bull. We used to fly our jets months between maintenance without a problem. Contrary to what you might want to believe, I've talked to Russian pilots with first hand experience about the problems they have with their aircraft.

Don't believe these accidents happened? Go look for yourself. Unless Russia wants to make itself look bad, you can find plenty of Russian sources reporting on them.

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 09:55 AM

originally posted by: pexx421

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.

Hueys (UH-1D&H) required 13 man-hours for every flight hour but this is somewhat deceptive! It is an average of daily, 25 hour and 100 hour inspections. Helicopters are maintenance hogs! Older and more complex helicopters require more care. It was a common joke that we would get a new helicopter every 2000 hours with all the time rated parts thanks to Ladybird Johnson who was on the board of directors of Bell Helicopters.

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 10:40 AM
a reply to: buddah6
SH-3H Sea King helicopter mid 1980's
Daily, turnaround, 7-day, 14-day, 28-day, phase-A, phase-B, phase-C and phase-D inspections.

Daily inspection 2 people 4 hours (8 man hours) only good for three days if aircraft isn't flown.
Turnaround inspection (2 people 2 hours (4 man hours) after each flight.
7-day corrosion inspection 4 people 4 hours (16 man hours)
14-day corrosion inspection 4 people 4 hours (16 man hours)
28-day corrosion inspection, number of people and time varies I never saw one that was less than 150 man hours.

Phase-A 100 flight hours 60-80 man hours
Phase-B 100 flight hours after Phase-A 80-120 man hours
Phase-C 100 flight hours after Phase-B 120-200 man hours
Phase-D 100 flight hours after Phase-C 250-300 man hours

This was just the basic maintenance to keep the aircraft operational. I'm not counting changing high time components (engines, avionics, hydraulics, rotor blades, rotor heads, gearboxes) and things actually breaking on the aircraft.
Main Gearbox change (500 - 600 man hours).

These are hard numbers. I was Corrosion Coordinator for a bit as well as Phase Coordinator. Three of us changed a main gearbox when one went out in the Bahamas.
All of this was done by less than 60 people for 6 aircraft. Air Force had 300 for 8 aircraft.
edit on 7-7-2015 by JIMC5499 because: typo

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:11 PM
a reply to: JIMC5499

I have only ridden on the H-3 a couple of times. I didn't know how much maintenance they required...but it doesn't appear to be excessive for that size of helo.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in