Harsh conditions are foiling Russian jets in Syria

Russian warplanes sent to Syria to back the regime of Bashar Assad are breaking down at a rapid rate that appears to be affecting their ability to strike targets, according to a senior Defense official.


Nearly one-third of Russian attack planes and half of its transport aircraft are grounded at any time as the harsh, desert conditions take a toll on equipment and crews, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive intelligence matters.

The Russians appear to be having difficulty adapting to the dusty conditions, and the number of airstrikes they have conducted seems to have dipped slightly.

"For deployed forces, that's a hideous rate," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm.

I figured something like this would come about.
Although russia may have started a major revamp of the armed forces, they still lack the internal infrastructure and experience to support an extended foreign engagement. Even though they are technically well developed in some areas, the ghosts of their past soviet manufacturing system are still haunting them.

Russia's inexperience deploying forces at some distance, unlike their military actions in bordering countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, could also account for problems keeping planes in the air, he said.

"An awful lot of expeditionary warfare revolves around logistics," Aboulafia said. "A lot of it comes down to experience. They don't have that much of it."

For U.S. warplanes, readiness rates of less than 80% would attract attention from top brass, said a senior Air Force commander with multiple combat deployments in the Middle East. The officer was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. However, the officer noted that planes break, especially in austere, deployed conditions. He characterized mission-readiness rates of less than 80% as a matter of concern, not alarm.

David Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who led planning for the air war in Operation Desert Storm, said the rates for American fighters in combat zones has been above 90%. The readiness rate of 70% for Russian fighters isn't surprising, he said, because they lack experience being deployed and have been flying their jets hard. He called their rates for cargo planes, "pretty low."

"If those rates are accurate, it indicates that their deployed logistics function requires some attention," Deptula said.

U.S. pilots and aircraft have flown combat missions in the Middle East almost continuously since the first Gulf War. They struck Saddam Hussein's forces to push them from Kuwait, patrolled no-fly zones in Iraq for more than a decade, and fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, they returned to strike Islamic State militants on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

www.msn.com...

a reply to: punkinworks10

Why does that not surprise me. We've had our share of the desert lifestyle, now it's there turn learn that it isn't that easy to maintain equipment in those conditions and far away from home.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Yup if Russia want to play in the sand pit they need to grow up and buy big boy toys.

The US found that out during Desert Shield. Several types had much higher than normal engine change rates due to sand wear.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Russia's inexperience deploying forces at some distance

This is rather funny, considering no one noticed them moving their troops to Syria, till they themselves exposed it.

Journalists here in Serbia that are in Syria with Russian forces actually report the Russian bases are well organized for a long use.

a reply to: punkinworks10

odd I have been reading that the Russians have upped their rates of strikes each week. Hmm Russian propaganda or American propaganda? Yeah,I just won't believe either.

a reply to: Dimithae

How's propaganda being transparent about the actions you take in Syria, unlike some other countries?

In the last three days, more than 280 ISIS and Al Nusra targets have been hit. Amazing, wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: Nikola014

Well organized doesn't equate to being able to do the mission exceedingly well. How many times in recent years has Russia deployed to another country? How Navy years of experience do they have in desert conditions?

There's a learning curve to this that they're still learning. Hell, with all the years the US has under their belt in these conditions they're still learning.

a reply to: Dimithae

You can still increase the mission rate while using fewer aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The US found that out during Desert Shield. Several types had much higher than normal engine change rates due to sand wear.

Since you're the expert, I wanted to ask......is there a problem with Russian metallurgy?

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The US found that out during Desert Shield. Several types had much higher than normal engine change rates due to sand wear.

Since you're the expert, I wanted to ask......is there a problem with Russian metallurgy?

yes there is a problem with Russian metallurgy, all of the high temp super alloys are American or british inventions and we have been making them for decades while the Russians had to figure it out themselves, or through industrial espionage.
The other issue is with Russian MFG techniques and quality control principals, and corruption takes its toll at all levels of Russian industry.

a reply to: TonyS

Russia has always had problems with engine reliability. It's improved in recent years, but over the last summer they lost 8 aircraft, counting a helicopter, in 7 weeks and almost all of them initially appeared to be engine related problems.

Years ago I met a Russian pilot who told me that when he was flying the Condor, they were required to sit on the end of the runway at full power for two minutes, brakes locked, at full power. At the two minute mark, if all four engines were still running with no problems, they released the brakes and took off.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I friend of mine was recently working with MIA recovery efforts in Laos, and the Russians volunteered helicopters to transport the crews out to the remote spots.
when they boarded the heli my friend, who was a career flight line guy, noticed that the some fuel and hydraulic lines in cabin had rags wrapped around the fittings and there were visible leaks you could see and smell fuel and hyd fluid in the cabin.
He was little concerned at first, as no USAF aircraft would be allowed to fly in condition, and low and behold, about 1 hr into the flight the chopper lots the tail rotor and began to auto rotate, my friend thought for sure they were about to die, but the pilot put it down on a jungle road.
My friend told the pilot, " that was nice bit of flying thank you", he replied "no problem, you get used to it after a while".

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow....that's dramatic.

I seem to recall the Indian government wasn't very happy with the Russian products and/or the arrangements they had to enter into to use the Russian equipment.

a reply to: TonyS

They make great equipment, but between the loss of engineering/production capabilities after the Cold War, and engine reliability issues they have had to have a reduced operations tempo.

They have a new engine in development that on the test stand has a better compression ratio than many Western engines, and has supposedly approached reliability parity. But until they begin flying it and put it out into use, we won't know.

if it is dusty and the sand keeps kicking up & fouling the engines... deploy the weather -warfare brigades that are doggedly accused of existing...

a continuous drizzle of light rain all over Syria/Iraq would settle the airborne sand/dust/ molds from all those people using the great outdoors as a restroom.


Oh... now there are NOT weather Control teams in place in the military or as a separate branch of Armed Forces...

can't have it both ways CT crowd

a reply to: Nikola014

In the last three days, more than 280 ISIS and Al Nusra targets have been hit. Amazing, wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't. Why wasn't this done in 2011? How about 2012? etc. Why are we in Syria to begin with? Don't tell me its over human rights.Thats nonsense. We have violated the rights of so many people around the world now that it is not even funny. Oh but lets not go there. We are the greatest nation in the world(yawn). I wouldn't want to live in a lot of countries out there,but this one needs to start living up to its own hype. Huge F there.

Number of airstrikes is enormous in such a short time, get em before they get away.

No quarter on all them terrs.

Propaganda.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

How many times in recent years has Russia deployed to another country?

Quite a few times, even if you exclude Chechnya. Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine. Not bad for a country that is peaceful.

To topic. Russia have a history of poor maintenance and training. Over the last few years that have been many stories of Russian planes suffering accidents, including fairly recently discussed on these very Boards.

It's a learning experience. Soon they may even start using half decent guided munitions. Cluster bombs are reported to have been used around Aleppo.