Russian MOD orders investigation into crashes

The Russian Ministry Of Defense has ordered an investigation into the recent string of crashes by Russian Air Force aircraft. TASS reported that from 2010-2014 there was an average loss rate of one aircraft every two months. In the last seven weeks they have lost seven aircraft.

The latest was an AN-12 that ran off the runway trying to make an emergency landing. The tail of the aircraft was hit by lightning shortly before it suffered a dual engine failure. The aircraft went off the end of the runway and the nose gear collapsed causing damage to the nose and fuselage around the main landing gear.

So far this summer they have lost two Tu-95s, two MiG-29s, one Su-24, one Su-34, and the AN-12. Engine problems appear to be a common factor.

AN-12 accident

Investigation ordered

Russia has in the past had problems with fuel standards, I wonder if this is a common factor with the crashes

a reply to: imod02

That could definitely be involved if the common factor is engine problems.

I had read before on ATS that there were a bunch of crashes and I figured it was Russias' economy restricting regular needed maintenance and possibly drone attacks?

I'd like to know what is going on over there.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

They have massively increased their operations tempo, on largely older aircraft, that have had maintenance and fuel issues in the past. It's catching up to them in a hurry.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Is their fleet mostly old compared to the US?
If it is, they need to ramp E and M massively or they WILL crash constantly.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

It's roughly the same age in most areas. The biggest thing is repeated production and maintenance issues that they've had in recent years.

When the Su-34 went operational last year, of the first 16 aircraft, two were grounded completely, the other 14 had problems from radar not working right (you could use the radar or radio in one aircraft), to navigation problems, to the fire control system not working. They said you could take the same control board out of three aircraft, and it would be built in three different ways, including at least one where parts were soldered onto the wrong side of the board.

a reply to: Zaphod58

USSR/ Russia has always had problems with tolerances with anything build in different places, it will be interesting to see if they can get it together now the new cold war seems to be starting. Add to this inexperienced pilots and ground/ maintenance crews does not make a good combination. How ever Russians are a very proud people if they feel there country is in danger experts will soon be returning to serve there country and we will see a introduction of high quality equipment and man power and thats not good news for any one out side Russia

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: zazzafrazz

It's roughly the same age in most areas. The biggest thing is repeated production and maintenance issues that they've had in recent years.

When the Su-34 went operational last year, of the first 16 aircraft, two were grounded completely, the other 14 had problems from radar not working right (you could use the radar or radio in one aircraft), to navigation problems, to the fire control system not working. They said you could take the same control board out of three aircraft, and it would be built in three different ways, including at least one where parts were soldered onto the wrong side of the board.

I have to say that besides the being empathetic to the genius that did that last part, that is the funniest thing I have read all day! Russky Standart all the way….

a reply to: imod02

Russian engineers have always impressed me. They've come up with some crazy ideas that worked exceedingly well over the years. If they can get their production issues worked out we may see some those crazy new things sooner rather than later. It'll be interesting to see if they can solve the issues the T-50 has had with their new bomber when it starts testing.

I think its just down to the sudden ramp up and probably a lapse in maintenance standards.

The post cold war era saw a LOT of expertise leak away from the Russian military, but they're coming back slowly now.

a reply to: neformore

The surge they've been doing would be hard on just about any military. Throw in one that fell as far as theirs did and I'm honestly surprised they haven't been hit harder.

thats not good news for any one out side Russia

a reply to: imod02
I agree. Especially when all of those quality built aircraft are crashing all over other people's countries that russia has invaded or will be invading.

Russia's fleet of aircraft are so old that they are bound to crash regularly. The same can also be said for the majority of their ground equipment and military vehicles which are from the 70's and 80's. It's issues like this which mean if Russian and NATO troops went to war, Russia would be beaten.

a reply to: AnonymousTM

And how is that different from the US? Our youngest bomber is 20 years old. Our main fighter is 30, G and mach limited, while its backup recently had 25% of the fleet suffering fuselage and wing cracks.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: zazzafrazz
They have massively increased their operations tempo, on largely older aircraft, that have had maintenance and fuel issues in the past. It's catching up to them in a hurry.

Can Russia actually afford the size of military they aspire to have?

An article I read a couple of years ago in Flight International indicated that on paper the Russian air force was large, but had a large proportion of aircraft grounded and pilot training was poor with low flight hours.

Is there any evidence from users of existing Russian aircraft types that parts supply, maintenance and support is an issue? For example, how long between engine overhauls for Russian-engined fighters against (say) comparable Western types.

I read somewhere that poor support and maintenance of e.g. the MiG-29, was one reason why India did not take the MiG-35 when offered as part of the India MRCA competition. If customers think it's crap, then think about the Russians who have no choice!

If tempo has been increased, then a poor maintenance due to cost limitations and parts supply, coupled with poor pilot and ground-crew training seems a plausible cause of increased accidents.

Double, sorry

a reply to: paraphi

India has had issues with maintenance on existing aircraft and hasn't been happy with the T-50 development.

The T-50 order has been cut to one squadron in favor of cheaper 4++ aircraft, so the Russian economy is definitely starting to play a role.

a reply to: AnonymousTM

A few direct comparisons in terms of front line aviation/similar roles...

The B-52 has been in active service one year longer than the Tu-95

The Su-27 is 11 years younger in active service than the F-15

Th F-18 came into service the same year as the MiG 29, both of which are 5 years younger than the F-16

The TU-160 came into service in 2005 - The B2 came in in 1997

The Su-25 came into service in 1981, the A-10 came into service in 1977

The F22 came into service in 2005, the Pak-Fa is coming into service next year.

The only comparable plane that is older is the Tu22M, which came in service in 1972 while the B1 came into service in 1986, although at present the Russians have no direct competitor to the F-35