ThePointblank wrote:

That just leaves the officers as the most experienced personnel.

Really?

NCOs usually are not part of the flow of conscripts.

The Il-18 that crashed this morning was a Russian Air Force Il-18V, registration RF-91821.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 20161219-0

This is the aircraft:

Lack of trained personnel, particularly experienced pilots, is a key challenge for the Russian military:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ches-18824

WIederling wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

That just leaves the officers as the most experienced personnel.

Really?

NCOs usually are not part of the flow of conscripts.

The Russian Navy doesn't have a NCO program unlike the Russian Army, which has in recent times. Even then, the Russian NCO's are considered to be lacking:

https://jamestown.org/program/russias-n ... ract-ncos/

ThePointblank wrote:

The Russian Navy doesn't have a NCO program unlike the Russian Army, which has in recent times. Even then, the Russian NCO's are considered to be lacking:

https://jamestown.org/program/russias-n ... ract-ncos/

The "Jamestown foundation" has (and always had) a very anti-Russian/Soviet bias. I wouldn't put much trust in an article about Russia coming from them.

VSMUT wrote:

The "Jamestown foundation" has (and always had) a very anti-Russian/Soviet bias. I wouldn't put much trust in an article about Russia coming from them.

Radio Jerewan:
Q: does the Russian Military objectively have a problem with qualification?

A: in principle yes.
But the US forces have a problem with qualified objectives.

A Russian Air Force Tu-154 crashed in the Black Sea this morning, about 20 minutes after take-off from Sochi. The aircraft was on its way from Moscow to Syria and had made a refueling stop in Sochi. It had 83 passengers and 8 crew members on board.

The Tu-154 was carrying the Alexandrov Ensemble and accompanying journalists to Syria for a New Year's event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrov_Ensemble

The aircraft concerned is reportedly RA-85572.








http://www.rt.com/news/371623-russian-t ... rs-radars/

http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/20 ... ast_667721

http://tass.com/world/922233

Oh no, the Red Army choir was on board

An-26, Balashov, Russia, with casualties
Looks like a write-off.
http://www.balashov4.ru/an-26-ne-dolete ... 50-metrov/

Just curious, what's the point of this thread? If we're going to start up threads cataloging military aircraft incidents, perhaps there should be one for each of the major powers? (US, UK, China, Japan) This thread seems redundant seeing as how it's two years old, and half the replies are from the same poster who seems to keep track of Russian aircraft crashes for fun, and thinks the Ukrainian Air Force is just the tops.

I loved this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UbjnrS61LY

I always disagree with the thread starter. I don't even believe he is a Belgian.
Still I decided not to start a thread.

DenverA330 wrote:

If we're going to start up threads cataloging military aircraft incidents, perhaps there should be one for each of the major powers? (US, UK, China, Japan)

Sounds like a jolly good idea. Is there anything preventing you from getting on with it?

DenverA330 wrote:

Just curious, what's the point of this thread? If we're going to start up threads cataloging military aircraft incidents, perhaps there should be one for each of the major powers? (US, UK, China, Japan) This thread seems redundant seeing as how it's two years old, and half the replies are from the same poster who seems to keep track of Russian aircraft crashes for fun, and thinks the Ukrainian Air Force is just the tops.

It's a Russia bashing page, the Yanks have just as bad a safety record, why this week there were apparently several US aircraft involved in emergency landings. I agree, there should be balance as well as intelligent discussion on thes incidents.

Phosphorus wrote:

An-26, Balashov, Russia, with casualties
Looks like a write-off.
http://www.balashov4.ru/an-26-ne-dolete ... 50-metrov/

More on this crash:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/dea ... d=47717410

http://www.baaa-acro.com/2017/archives/ ... -1-killed/

The one fatality was the cadet / trainee pilot on board, 21-year old Mikhail Artemyev from Tatarstan.



http://vestikamaza.ru/news/novosti-goro ... arstanets/


Some recent crashes not yet covered here:

In early-May, this picture circulated on some social media:



It is said to depict Mig-29K, 41 blue, of the 100th carrier-based fighter regiment of the Northern Fleet.This crash has not been covered in mainstream media, and no details of what happened seem available.


On April 26, a Mig-31 crashed in the Buryatia Republic in Siberia during a training flight. The pilots ejected and were recovered safely.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20170426/1493144267.html

Balerit wrote:

DenverA330 wrote:

Just curious, what's the point of this thread? If we're going to start up threads cataloging military aircraft incidents, perhaps there should be one for each of the major powers? (US, UK, China, Japan) This thread seems redundant seeing as how it's two years old, and half the replies are from the same poster who seems to keep track of Russian aircraft crashes for fun, and thinks the Ukrainian Air Force is just the tops.

It's a Russia bashing page, the Yanks have just as bad a safety record, why this week there were apparently several US aircraft involved in emergency landings. I agree, there should be balance as well as intelligent discussion on thes incidents.

The issue is rate of incidents, not the sheer number.

There's a bigger issue, if say an airline that records 20 incidents a week with 100 flights, versus an airline that records 500 incidents a week but has 10,000 flights in the same time period.

With how big the US military is, the sheer number of aircraft in service with all branches of the US military, and the very high flight time that is achieved by US military pilots, there's bound to be a large number of incidents. But if the number of incidents is just less than 5% of the total number of flights the US military performs, that's an impressive safety record.

Scipio wrote:

In early-May, this picture circulated on some social media:



It is said to depict Mig-29K, 41 blue, of the 100th carrier-based fighter regiment of the Northern Fleet.This crash has not been covered in mainstream media, and no details of what happened seem available.

If memory serves me, these Mig-29K, with folding wings and other bells and whistles for carrier operations, were a rather rare commodity. Are they still in production?

Balerit wrote:

It's a Russia bashing page, the Yanks have just as bad a safety record, why this week there were apparently several US aircraft involved in emergency landings. I agree, there should be balance as well as intelligent discussion on thes incidents.

Care to back this statement up with facts rather than just your opinion. If you look at accident rates, I think you might eat your words. Also, how are emergency landings comparable to crashes???

Phosphorus wrote:

Scipio wrote:

In early-May, this picture circulated on some social media:



It is said to depict Mig-29K, 41 blue, of the 100th carrier-based fighter regiment of the Northern Fleet.This crash has not been covered in mainstream media, and no details of what happened seem available.

If memory serves me, these Mig-29K, with folding wings and other bells and whistles for carrier operations, were a rather rare commodity. Are they still in production?

For India I believe and because of that order also for Russia again.

Phosphorus wrote:

Scipio wrote:

In early-May, this picture circulated on some social media:



It is said to depict Mig-29K, 41 blue, of the 100th carrier-based fighter regiment of the Northern Fleet.This crash has not been covered in mainstream media, and no details of what happened seem available.

If memory serves me, these Mig-29K, with folding wings and other bells and whistles for carrier operations, were a rather rare commodity. Are they still in production?

Might be still possible to order one, but all deliveries are complete.

If this crash is also confirmed, that's 2 MiG-29K's lost in a period of half a year... with a fleet size that was originally 24 aircraft, not exactly an auspicious safety record.

ThePointblank wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Scipio wrote:

In early-May, this picture circulated on some social media:



It is said to depict Mig-29K, 41 blue, of the 100th carrier-based fighter regiment of the Northern Fleet.This crash has not been covered in mainstream media, and no details of what happened seem available.

If memory serves me, these Mig-29K, with folding wings and other bells and whistles for carrier operations, were a rather rare commodity. Are they still in production?

Might be still possible to order one, but all deliveries are complete.

If this crash is also confirmed, that's 2 MiG-29K's lost in a period of half a year... with a fleet size that was originally 24 aircraft, not exactly an auspicious safety record.

Too small sample size, no conclusions can be reached.

Two RuAF Yak-130s reportedly crash-landed on the same day.

In Borisoglebsk in Voronezh Oblast, a Yak-130 crash-landed after the front landing gear failed to deploy. After multiple manoeuvres to try to get the landing gear to deploy, the crew landed without the front gear, resulting in serious damage to the front section of the airplane.

https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0 ... il_iak-130



On the same day, a Yak-130 belly-landed in Krasnodarskiy krai, reportedly also after the front gear failed to deploy.

https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0 ... iu_posadku

mmo wrote:

Balerit wrote:

It's a Russia bashing page, the Yanks have just as bad a safety record, why this week there were apparently several US aircraft involved in emergency landings. I agree, there should be balance as well as intelligent discussion on thes incidents.

Care to back this statement up with facts rather than just your opinion. If you look at accident rates, I think you might eat your words. Also, how are emergency landings comparable to crashes???

2 F16's down in two days plus one in April. Also a multitude of oxygen problems on the newest aircraft.

Balerit wrote:

mmo wrote:

Balerit wrote:

It's a Russia bashing page, the Yanks have just as bad a safety record, why this week there were apparently several US aircraft involved in emergency landings. I agree, there should be balance as well as intelligent discussion on thes incidents.

Care to back this statement up with facts rather than just your opinion. If you look at accident rates, I think you might eat your words. Also, how are emergency landings comparable to crashes???

2 F16's down in two days plus one in April. Also a multitude of oxygen problems on the newest aircraft.

As I wrote earlier, care to back it up with facts, not snapshots. Take a look at the accident rates and you might want to rethink your position.

Phosphorus wrote:

An-26, Balashov, Russia, with casualties
Looks like a write-off.
http://www.balashov4.ru/an-26-ne-dolete ... 50-metrov/

Footage has appeared of this crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZk9xgeFn7Y

It is said that the crew was practicing a one-engine-out landing and the second engine failed during approach.

TU-22M3 of Russian air force, hull number 20 "red", registration RF-94233, ran off the runway. No casualties, a writeoff.
Some photos here:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?s= ... tcount=390

So 68 left in service (69 according to Wiki). Good to see everyone is all right.

Dutchy wrote:

So 68 left in service (69 according to Wiki). Good to see everyone is all right.

Are these total serviceable hulls? Or active hulls?
Because it could happen that harvesting of usable components from this frame could be sufficient to reactivate a parked frame, sitting somewhere "stored" or "inactive".
USSR built a lot of equipment, and it was not unusual for Russia to operate a fraction of what it inherited.

As I understand it, around 500 Tu-22M were build, although a number were inherited by Belarus and Ukraine, the mainstay was within the Russian Federation.

Yak-130 down, no casualties.
https://snob.ru/selected/entry/129096

Dutchy wrote:

As I understand it, around 500 Tu-22M were build, although a number were inherited by Belarus and Ukraine, the mainstay was within the Russian Federation.

Around 500 were built, but a large part of that number were Tu-22M2, only 268 were Tu-22M3. Of those, at least half have been retired, scrapped, or crashed. Right now only the Tu-22M3 is left in service.

sovietjet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As I understand it, around 500 Tu-22M were build, although a number were inherited by Belarus and Ukraine, the mainstay was within the Russian Federation.

Around 500 were built, but a large part of that number were Tu-22M2, only 268 were Tu-22M3. Of those, at least half have been retired, scrapped, or crashed. Right now only the Tu-22M3 is left in service.

the M1, M2 frames have been destroyed in scope of the Strategic Arms limitation treaties.

What I found:
2014 100 operational
2017 61 operational.

100+ in storage ( but partly vandalized for parts.)

( WP:DE says the M3 represented the majority of frames built !? )

WIederling wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As I understand it, around 500 Tu-22M were build, although a number were inherited by Belarus and Ukraine, the mainstay was within the Russian Federation.

Around 500 were built, but a large part of that number were Tu-22M2, only 268 were Tu-22M3. Of those, at least half have been retired, scrapped, or crashed. Right now only the Tu-22M3 is left in service.

the M1, M2 frames have been destroyed in scope of the Strategic Arms limitation treaties.

What I found:
2014 100 operational
2017 61 operational.

100+ in storage ( but partly vandalized for parts.)

( WP:DE says the M3 represented the majority of frames built !? )

Around half of all Tu-22M were Tu-22M3. As I mentioned, around 60 Tu-22Ms were left in Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR. Those are all scrapped now. I’m not sure how many were M2 and how many were M3, maybe about half/half. Around 15 or so Tu-22M3 were scrapped in Vozdvizhenka after that regiment was deactivated around 2010. The rest were transferred to Belaya. An old repair plant in Russia has 3 of them sitting there dismantled with no future. The Naval Tu-22M3s at Mongohto were transferred to the air force several years ago. 8 remain at Mongohto, probably because they were not flyable. A handful are at Kazan and Zhukovsky in various states of disrepair. Based on latest Google Earth images.

Belaya – 34 (20 seem stored)
Mongohto – 8 stored
Ryazan – 11 (5 seem stored)
Shaikovka – 23 (4 seem stored)
Soltsy – 7 (probably all stored as it is not an active base but only used for Shaikovka deployments)
Ostrov – 1 stored
Kaliningrad – 3 stored
Kazan (overhaul plant) – 7 (4 stored)
Olenegorsk – 39 (26 seem stored)

That makes a total of 133 with ~78 stored. Which gives 55 as “active”. However there can be errors in this methods:

1) Aircraft airborne when satellite photo was taken (less visible than real amount)
2) Aircraft inside hangars or inside overhaul plant (less visible than real amount)
3) Deployments from one unit to another (possible “double counting” of airframes)

That being said, the amount looks realistic and I’d consider the google earth imagery to be slightly less of the real count because of the factors above. In addition, the following “RF-“ numbers have been noted on Tu-22M3s (53 total). RF-94233 was just lost.

RF-34089
RF-34035
RF-94264
RF-94153
RF-94146
RF-94149
RF-94144
RF-94161
RF-94150
RF-94233
RF-94241
RF-94152
RF-94238
RF-95956
RF-94154
RF-34075
RF-94231
RF-94155
RF-94143
RF-94216
RF-94237
RF-94157
RF-94235
RF-94217
RF-95948
RF-94228
RF-94234
RF-94159
RF-94266
RF-94137
RF-34025
RF-94265
RF-94141
RF-34038
RF-94142
RF-34039
RF-94138
RF-95955
RF-94135
RF-94223
RF-94140
RF-94139
RF-34091
RF-34081
RF-34082
RF-34084
RF-34083
RF-34090
RF-34079
RF-94221
RF-94218
RF-94145
RF-94239

However, some are still flying without RF- numbers. And some RF- numbers might now be stored. So yes, based on the RF- numbers and google earth count, I’d say around 60 are active.

sovietjet wrote:

However, some are still flying without RF- numbers. And some RF- numbers might now be stored. So yes, based on the RF- numbers and google earth count, I’d say around 60 are active.

Hey! thanks for collecting that detailed info.

Phosphorus wrote:

TU-22M3 of Russian air force, hull number 20 "red", registration RF-94233, ran off the runway. No casualties, a writeoff.
Some photos here:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?s= ... tcount=390

Video of this crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzFwjT-D10M

Wow, at about the 57 seconds mark, you can see the left wing going up in pieces! Luckily the fuel in it did not ignite. (maybe there are no fuel cells in the "variable wing" portion?)

That was a very lucky escape there for that crew. There is a cutaway drawing of the TU-22M:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/e1/e8 ... 6e2080.jpg

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Wow, at about the 57 seconds mark, you can see the left wing going up in pieces! Luckily the fuel in it did not ignite. (maybe there are no fuel cells in the "variable wing" portion?)

afaik never. Think about the complications.

.... but anyone got a translation for
97: deposito integrado en ala barbor

( "60: deposito combustible en raiz ~= fuel tank in root )

WIederling wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Wow, at about the 57 seconds mark, you can see the left wing going up in pieces! Luckily the fuel in it did not ignite. (maybe there are no fuel cells in the "variable wing" portion?)

afaik never. Think about the complications.

.... but anyone got a translation for
97: deposito integrado en ala barbor

( "60: deposito combustible en raiz ~= fuel tank in root )

"barbor" should read "babor". Talking about tank integrated into the port wing.

46: depósito integrado en ala estribor (starboard)
97: depósito integrado en ala babor (port)
101: depósito integrado en caja articulación alar

If that is what I take it to be, then it's a miracle it didn't go off like a bomb. What would be the typical fuel loading for these planes I wonder, and how is it distributed across the tanks the plane has?

cpd wrote:

If that is what I take it to be, then it's a miracle it didn't go off like a bomb. What would be the typical fuel loading for these planes I wonder, and how is it distributed across the tanks the plane has?

There are indeed fuel tanks ("deposito") in the variable portion of T-22Ms wings (as per above linked cut away).

Those tanks must have been empty (and without much fuel vapors) or indeed, something close to a miracle occurred.

Maybe those (little?) vapors caused the wing to go up in pieces.

Su-24 destroyed on takeoff in Syria, crew killed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... CF0SW?il=0

cpd wrote:

That was a very lucky escape there for that crew. There is a cutaway drawing of the TU-22M:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/e1/e8 ... 6e2080.jpg

Thanks for the video, very interesting and scary. But what happened?

AirlineCritic wrote:

cpd wrote:

That was a very lucky escape there for that crew. There is a cutaway drawing of the TU-22M:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/e1/e8 ... 6e2080.jpg

Thanks for the video, very interesting and scary. But what happened?

It was reported that the airspeed indicator failed, so the captain aborted takeoff past V1.

Hmm. Interesting, but must have a been a close call even with that kind of fault. Try to fly without knowing airspeed, or crash and burn at the end of the runway? Luckily they didn't burn, but no one could have known that when aborting...

AirlineCritic wrote:

Hmm. Interesting, but must have a been a close call even with that kind of fault. Try to fly without knowing airspeed, or crash and burn at the end of the runway? Luckily they didn't burn, but no one could have known that when aborting...

Su-24 has a reputation as a very unforgiving plane to pilot. In general, Soviet variable-geometry bombers (Su-24 and Tu-22/Tu-22M) seem to be not easy on their pilots; particularly Su-24, AFAIR was singled out by a public report some years ago as the type with the highest amount of mishaps (or fatalities, I might mix up) of RuAF.

On December 31, Russia's Hmeymim Air Base in Syria was attacked with mortar fire. Unofficial reports suggest that seven aircraft were destroyed: 4 Su-24s, 2 Su-35s, and an An-72. In addition, several Russian military staff were killed or wounded.

Russia's Ministry of Defense has acknowledged the attack, but denies that seven aircraft were destroyed. However, pictures are emerging of damaged aircraft.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-de ... ria-2018-1
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... tos-emerge

Separately, Russia lost a Mi-24 in Syria, in a crash blamed on a technical fault. The two pilots perished, but the board technician reportedly survived and was recovered.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN1ES0LI

Quite a hefty attack and quite successful for the rebels. The loss of life is always sad.

Scipio wrote:

On December 31, Russia's Hmeymim Air Base in Syria was attacked with mortar fire. Unofficial reports suggest that seven aircraft were destroyed: 4 Su-24s, 2 Su-35s, and an An-72. In addition, several Russian military staff were killed or wounded.

Russia's Ministry of Defense has acknowledged the attack, but denies that seven aircraft were destroyed. However, pictures are emerging of damaged aircraft.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-de ... ria-2018-1
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... tos-emerge

Separately, Russia lost a Mi-24 in Syria, in a crash blamed on a technical fault. The two pilots perished, but the board technician reportedly survived and was recovered.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN1ES0LI

About the destruction of 7 aircraft a fake. The Russian defense Ministry says two of the victims in the result of mortar fire.: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4856695
From the available online photos, which, allegedly, visible damage to the aircraft after firing, can not see any very serious damage:

Scorpius wrote:

Scipio wrote:

On December 31, Russia's Hmeymim Air Base in Syria was attacked with mortar fire. Unofficial reports suggest that seven aircraft were destroyed: 4 Su-24s, 2 Su-35s, and an An-72. In addition, several Russian military staff were killed or wounded.

Russia's Ministry of Defense has acknowledged the attack, but denies that seven aircraft were destroyed. However, pictures are emerging of damaged aircraft.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-de ... ria-2018-1
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... tos-emerge

Separately, Russia lost a Mi-24 in Syria, in a crash blamed on a technical fault. The two pilots perished, but the board technician reportedly survived and was recovered.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN1ES0LI

About the destruction of 7 aircraft a fake. The Russian defense Ministry says two of the victims in the result of mortar fire.: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4856695
From the available online photos, which, allegedly, visible damage to the aircraft after firing, can not see any very serious damage:

Easy to only show the damaged aircraft for local consumption (and propaganda) back in the home land. Western media tend to not be so kind to their own governments and armed forces.

BTW, is that fuel or water leaking in that 2nd shot ? If it's fuel, it tells a lot about attitude towards safety. Probably won't be the last time these bases are attacked and it will only be a matter of time before one of those shells hits something more volatile.

The leak is fuel. But, until more concrete evidence comes out, there is no way to prove or disprove how many aircraft were damaged.

sovietjet wrote:

The leak is fuel. But, until more concrete evidence comes out, there is no way to prove or disprove how many aircraft were damaged.

Thanks, bit of a concern that they don't seem to concerned about it.

As for concrete evidence, couldn't agree more.