jupiter2 wrote:

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.

What do you mean "attitude to safety", what are you? This is not a Hollywood movie, the plane from one shard will not burn.
About the base Hamim sufficient detail shot shown here:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEqC6gax3M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JDM2Vl0Qp8o
There you can see the location of the aircraft, and security measures.

Scorpius wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

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.

What do you mean "attitude to safety", what are you? This is not a Hollywood movie, the plane from one shard will not burn.
About the base Hamim sufficient detail shot shown here:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEqC6gax3M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JDM2Vl0Qp8o
There you can see the location of the aircraft, and security measures.

Lovely pieces of propaganda crap for the folks back home, doesn't show the scenes during or after the mortar shelling though, so pretty useless in regards to that.

"Attitude to safety", well there is fuel leaking onto the tarmac and you don't think that is safety hazard to the men and machines in the area ?

Sure there is only damage caused by one shard, but what else is around the scene ? How many other possible ignition sources are there for that leaking fuel ?

Take a deep breath and start to be realistic about what is being shown to the Russian people back home.

jupiter2 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

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.

What do you mean "attitude to safety", what are you? This is not a Hollywood movie, the plane from one shard will not burn.
About the base Hamim sufficient detail shot shown here:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEqC6gax3M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JDM2Vl0Qp8o
There you can see the location of the aircraft, and security measures.

Lovely pieces of propaganda crap for the folks back home, doesn't show the scenes during or after the mortar shelling though, so pretty useless in regards to that.

"Attitude to safety", well there is fuel leaking onto the tarmac and you don't think that is safety hazard to the men and machines in the area ?

Sure there is only damage caused by one shard, but what else is around the scene ? How many other possible ignition sources are there for that leaking fuel ?

Take a deep breath and start to be realistic about what is being shown to the Russian people back home.

LOL, what makes you think that in Russia people zadurili head of propaganda? On the contrary - it is in the West that no news is a propaganda fake. You try to take a deep breath and answer, how to destroy, or completely destroy SEVEN big iron planes? Terrorists from the Pentagon drove a couple of "Tomahawk"? Damage to the stabilizer in the photo is nothing like the consequences of a mortar attack. Rather, such damage could happen from a failed descent of the bomb with the suspension - such cases are so far, when one of the grips works late, and the bomb is shaken in the air. The repairs associated with the replacement stabilizer, takes several hours. Those two photos that I brought here is the only evidence of damage to the aircraft, which provided the initial source of the news - the journalist Roman Saponkov: https://vk.com/roman_saponkov?_parent_post=-23956241_1027734. However, he referred to some insiders from the base Hamim, but to confirm information could not.
When he began to ask about whether he can prove the loss of seven aircraft, he threw a tantrum, called asking the Kremlin trolls, and banned them. In fact, evidence of the loss of seven planes, so still no and no. Common sense dictates that such losses are possible in a massive artillery or missile strike - but not with the fleeting fire of the 82 mm mortar, which could not last longer than 2-3 minutes, thus most likely it was limited to probably a dozen shots.
As for the current from a punctured fuel tank can be made immediately after the shooting. Or you can seriously suggest that someone would leave the plane just to stand with the current tanks? Do you accept military technicians for idiots, or suicide?
And again speaking of propaganda - I don't see even the slightest attempt to analyze the incoming information from your side, this suggests that it is you who is trained by propaganda to perceive critically presented you the news.

I agree, no independent source so we can never tell what has happened. But given Scorpius does agree an attack did take place and aircraft were damaged is perhaps the real news here. Rebels being able to do this kind of attack means the war is far from over.

Scorpius wrote:

You try to take a deep breath and answer, how to destroy, or completely destroy SEVEN big iron planes?

Wow, those big iron planes

Dutchy wrote:

I agree, no independent source so we can never tell what has happened. But given Scorpius does agree an attack did take place and aircraft were damaged is perhaps the real news here. Rebels being able to do this kind of attack means the war is far from over.

Scorpius wrote:

You try to take a deep breath and answer, how to destroy, or completely destroy SEVEN big iron planes?

Wow, those big iron planes

Rebels being able to do this kind of attack means the war is far from over.

First, they are not rebels. They are terrorists. The rebels have for the most part are not at war with Assad's forces and ending the war with the rebels - the credit is the Russian Center for reconciliation of the parties.
Secondly, from a one-time stock type of the occurred fire no one is immune - the country still too many uncontrolled movements of arms and subversive group low density can penetrate close enough to military installations. The main, "hot" phase of the war now completed a long work on the final reconciliation and reconstruction of Syria. This is the work of at least 15-20 years.

Wow, those big iron planes

The phrase "большой железный самолёт" Google translator translates that way. There is a lost context - defining "iron" does not necessarily mean the material of manufacture. One of the values in this definition is "strong, strong, strong."
UPD. LOL, Google-translator managed three different words "сильный, крепкий, прочный" translated into English equally "strong, strong, strong".

Rebel is a neutral term: terrorist is a term used by people supposed to be in control and freedom fighter by the people whom like to have another government. So yes they are rebels.
This is the military forum and like I said I will not go into an endless debate with you about politics, no use since you do not believe in independent evidence, just listen to Russian propaganda, which is fine.

Iron planes, that is just funny. But on a more serious note, planes must be, in their nature be strong but light. A motor hitting a plane directly, or in the vicinity will do a great deal of damage to a plane. Perhaps a Su25 will have little damage because they are built like tanks, but a Su-24 or Su-35 will have a great deal of damage because they aren't built for this. A few dozen means at least 24 shots. This can easily destroy 7 a/c, don't you think.

Dutchy wrote:

Rebel is a neutral term: terrorist is a term used by people supposed to be in control and freedom fighter by the people whom like to have another government. So yes they are rebels.
This is the military forum and like I said I will not go into an endless debate with you about politics, no use since you do not believe in independent evidence, just listen to Russian propaganda, which is fine.

Iron planes, that is just funny. But on a more serious note, planes must be, in their nature be strong but light. A motor hitting a plane directly, or in the vicinity will do a great deal of damage to a plane. Perhaps a Su25 will have little damage because they are built like tanks, but a Su-24 or Su-35 will have a great deal of damage because they aren't built for this. A few dozen means at least 24 shots. This can easily destroy 7 a/c, don't you think.

Think logically - in the case of close downs mines, the aircraft must be shredded by shrapnel. Photo not submitted any serious damage to break the tank of the plane could single shard mines that exploded at a distance of 50 meters. Standard 82mm army mortars fired mine weighing 3.31 kilos to a distance of 3040 metres is the maximum distance for aimed fire. In this mine, weighing 3.31 kilos contains ~400 grams of explosives, and the explosion gives 400-600 fragments that affect manpower within a radius of 60 meters. What tells us this language? That if you are from the explosion point farther than 60 meters, even without the vest you will not be injured - the fragments lose their kinetic energy and lethality. If you are from the point of explosion at a distance of 5-10 meters, then you shred with shrapnel like a duck.
Now tell me, where I had to explode a mine to damage the stabilizer of the plane this way, as shown on the picture?
Personally, I think that this explosion had to occur close to the plane. But then, where the holes from 30-50 pieces, which was bound to penetrate the aircraft fuselage?
Hereinafter, for the destruction of the plane enough to punch him tank and damage the regulator. Online a lot of photos and A-10 and su-25 damaged by anti-aircraft fire, while continuing the flight and returned to base. For example, damage to su-25 during the war 8.8.8.:

This plane made it to the airfield and landed, were subsequently repaired and returned into operation.

For comparison, DESTROYED the plane looks like this:

or this:


So when you claim that a group of terrorists using a small minimatica DESTROYED seven planes - I say that's bullshit.
To destroy seven planes, you need at least two or three direct hits mines in each of them, and this accuracy with a mortar impossible, because in addition to circular error probable error will make the relocation of the fire at 150-200 meters wide and ~50 meters in depth.
That is, such a task is realizable only with the help of a massive fire attack, and fire team must be at least 10-12 detachment while acting in a coordinated manner. But 10-12 detachment - it is a force that is not able to quietly get close to the firing range, and will be destroyed on the outskirts.

Point being, you weren't there so you can't know..........

Dutchy wrote:

Point being, you weren't there so you can't know..........

This information is calculated for a couple of minutes. Of course, you can continue to dream about the destruction of seven Russian aircraft, who are fighting in Syria with the terrorists, and to tell stories about the military conspiracy. This is just another example of how Western propaganda you are weaned to think for themselves.

*sight*, don't care about your opinions or your assessments about me or the western world, you just make yourself look like a fool. Sorry.

Today, reports emerged of a drone attack on Hmeimim air base. Russian forces reportedly shot down a drone over the base.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42595184
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mi ... Syria.html

Scorpius wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

What do you mean "attitude to safety", what are you? This is not a Hollywood movie, the plane from one shard will not burn.
About the base Hamim sufficient detail shot shown here:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEqC6gax3M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JDM2Vl0Qp8o
There you can see the location of the aircraft, and security measures.

Lovely pieces of propaganda crap for the folks back home, doesn't show the scenes during or after the mortar shelling though, so pretty useless in regards to that.

"Attitude to safety", well there is fuel leaking onto the tarmac and you don't think that is safety hazard to the men and machines in the area ?

Sure there is only damage caused by one shard, but what else is around the scene ? How many other possible ignition sources are there for that leaking fuel ?

Take a deep breath and start to be realistic about what is being shown to the Russian people back home.

LOL, what makes you think that in Russia people zadurili head of propaganda? On the contrary - it is in the West that no news is a propaganda fake. You try to take a deep breath and answer, how to destroy, or completely destroy SEVEN big iron planes? Terrorists from the Pentagon drove a couple of "Tomahawk"? Damage to the stabilizer in the photo is nothing like the consequences of a mortar attack. Rather, such damage could happen from a failed descent of the bomb with the suspension - such cases are so far, when one of the grips works late, and the bomb is shaken in the air. The repairs associated with the replacement stabilizer, takes several hours. Those two photos that I brought here is the only evidence of damage to the aircraft, which provided the initial source of the news - the journalist Roman Saponkov: https://vk.com/roman_saponkov?_parent_post=-23956241_1027734. However, he referred to some insiders from the base Hamim, but to confirm information could not.
When he began to ask about whether he can prove the loss of seven aircraft, he threw a tantrum, called asking the Kremlin trolls, and banned them. In fact, evidence of the loss of seven planes, so still no and no. Common sense dictates that such losses are possible in a massive artillery or missile strike - but not with the fleeting fire of the 82 mm mortar, which could not last longer than 2-3 minutes, thus most likely it was limited to probably a dozen shots.
As for the current from a punctured fuel tank can be made immediately after the shooting. Or you can seriously suggest that someone would leave the plane just to stand with the current tanks? Do you accept military technicians for idiots, or suicide?
And again speaking of propaganda - I don't see even the slightest attempt to analyze the incoming information from your side, this suggests that it is you who is trained by propaganda to perceive critically presented you the news.

If the whole situation in Syria wasn't so serious, your posts would border on comical. As it is, they show that the propaganda machine in Russia is doing it's job nicely.

Scipio wrote:

Today, reports emerged of a drone attack on Hmeimim air base. Russian forces reportedly shot down a drone over the base.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42595184
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mi ... Syria.html

Good for them. Like I said many times, I do not wish the Russian people any harm.

While the discussion is rather nonsensical, making fun of Scorpius for using "iron" is silly, if not in bad taste. Clearly, English is not his first language. Let's see you present your arguments to him in Russian and see how many mistakes you make??

The security system of the Russian airbase "Hamim" and the point of logistics Russian Navy in Tartus on the night of 5 to 6 January 2018 successfully foiled terrorist attacks with the massive use of unmanned aerial vehicles

With the onset of night time Russian air defense at a considerable distance were identified 13 small-size air targets of unknown origin approaching Russian military installations.

Ten strike UAVs were approaching the Russian air base "Hamim", and another 3 - paragraph MTO in Tartus.

Six small-size aerial targets by a Russian electronic warfare units managed to take control, taking over band management. 3 of them were planted in the controlled territory outside the base, and another 3 UAV during landing exploded from the collision with the ground.

Seven of the UAV was destroyed by the regular anti-aircraft missile and gun complexes "Carapace-C" Russian air defense units, carrying round-the-clock combat duty.

Casualties or material damage on the Russian military facilities there.

Russian airbase "Hamim" and item logistics Russian Navy in Tartus continues to function as planned.

Currently, the Russian military experts carried out a detailed analysis of the design, technical stuffing and homemade ammunition seized and strike UAVs.

The result of the decryption of intercepted drone identified the exact location of their launch.

Terrorists first massively used by UAV type aircraft, launched from a distance of more than 50 kilometers with the use of modern technologies guidance by satellite GPS coordinates.

A technical examination of the seized aircrafts was shown that such attacks can be carried out by terrorists from the range of about 100 kilometers.

Engineering solutions used by the terrorists during the attack on Russian facilities in Syria could only be obtained from one of the countries with a high technological opportunities to provide satellite navigation and remote control reset professionally assembled improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at the designated coordinates. All UAVs of terrorists equipped with barometric sensors and actuators of the Elevator control.

In improvised explosive devices of terrorists attached to drone aircraft of the type used fuses foreign production.

Currently, the competent Russian specialists established channels of supply of terrorists these technologies and devices, and also studied the type and the origin of explosive mixtures used for IEDs.

The fact that the militants of shock unmanned aerial vehicles aircraft type indicates that the militants handed over the technology, allowing to carry out terrorist acts with the use of such drones in any country.

https://vk.com/mil?w=wall-133441491_120281

sovietjet wrote:

While the discussion is rather nonsensical, making fun of Scorpius for using "iron" is silly, if not in bad taste. Clearly, English is not his first language. Let's see you present your arguments to him in Russian and see how many mistakes you make??

Quite a nonsensical post.

Dutchy wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

While the discussion is rather nonsensical, making fun of Scorpius for using "iron" is silly, if not in bad taste. Clearly, English is not his first language. Let's see you present your arguments to him in Russian and see how many mistakes you make??

Quite a nonsensical post.

Why? I was just saying not to make fun of him for mistakes in English. The rest is nonsensical because everyone is making a lot of assumptions based on a almost no evidence, especially photographic. Whether 7 planes were destroyed or not, there is little concrete proof for either argument.

Some mistakes are funny, my friend, and I thought it was a funny mistake, I don't make fun of the person, just an honest mistake.

sovietjet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

While the discussion is rather nonsensical, making fun of Scorpius for using "iron" is silly, if not in bad taste. Clearly, English is not his first language. Let's see you present your arguments to him in Russian and see how many mistakes you make??

Quite a nonsensical post.

Why? I was just saying not to make fun of him for mistakes in English. The rest is nonsensical because everyone is making a lot of assumptions based on a almost no evidence, especially photographic. Whether 7 planes were destroyed or not, there is little concrete proof for either argument.

What you say is quite true, nobody on this board has detailed knowledge of what occurred and every comment about what happened during the mortar attack is pure speculation on our part. However, the gentleman in question is taking the word of what is released by the Russian military as the absolute truth and whether he speaks English well or not, that is my problem. I wish I could speak Russian, I'd love to have a conversation with him, but somehow I doubt he would be persuaded to believe anything other than released by the authorities in Russia. His last post is interesting too, I read a report that the "high tech drones" were home made wooden aircraft, didn't mention more than one involved, with a couple of small IED mines attached, that came from one of the local aid agencies in the region. Suppose that can't be verified either, but doesn't sound quite so romantic as a squadron of them being taken down by weapons and hacking into their control frequencies.

jupiter2 wrote:

His last post is interesting too, I read a report that the "high tech drones" were home made wooden aircraft, didn't mention more than one involved, with a couple of small IED mines attached, that came from one of the local aid agencies in the region. Suppose that can't be verified either, but doesn't sound quite so romantic as a squadron of them being taken down by weapons and hacking into their control frequencies.

True that. And here is a very strange truth: this appears to be a swarm attack, a "zerg rush". Cheap multiple attacking units, in overwhelming numbers, with a pre-programmed target guidance via GPS coordinates, are testing the very ideology of traditional air defense. Instead of trying to study this phenomenon and formulating a proper response, with think tanks and general public participating in brainstorming the problem, Russians seem more happy quenching the debate. Denial, denial, denial is the order of the day.

Phosphorus wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

His last post is interesting too, I read a report that the "high tech drones" were home made wooden aircraft, didn't mention more than one involved, with a couple of small IED mines attached, that came from one of the local aid agencies in the region. Suppose that can't be verified either, but doesn't sound quite so romantic as a squadron of them being taken down by weapons and hacking into their control frequencies.

True that. And here is a very strange truth: this appears to be a swarm attack, a "zerg rush". Cheap multiple attacking units, in overwhelming numbers, with a pre-programmed target guidance via GPS coordinates, are testing the very ideology of traditional air defense. Instead of trying to study this phenomenon and formulating a proper response, with think tanks and general public participating in brainstorming the problem, Russians seem more happy quenching the debate. Denial, denial, denial is the order of the day.

Yes, an interesting development if substantiated. I would have thought that a single drone would have more success against a base like that with considerable air defenses, than trying the mass attack with it's inherent higher visibility. It would appear though that the Russian serviceman there will be having a busy time of it in the future, I wish them all well.

jupiter2 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

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.

What do you mean "attitude to safety", what are you? This is not a Hollywood movie, the plane from one shard will not burn.
About the base Hamim sufficient detail shot shown here:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEqC6gax3M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JDM2Vl0Qp8o
There you can see the location of the aircraft, and security measures.

Lovely pieces of propaganda crap for the folks back home, doesn't show the scenes during or after the mortar shelling though, so pretty useless in regards to that.

"Attitude to safety", well there is fuel leaking onto the tarmac and you don't think that is safety hazard to the men and machines in the area ?

Sure there is only damage caused by one shard, but what else is around the scene ? How many other possible ignition sources are there for that leaking fuel ?

Take a deep breath and start to be realistic about what is being shown to the Russian people back home.

Propaganda by whom? If you're so positive about 7 aircraft being damaged, show us the photos or get the 'unofficial sources' to show them.

At least this leak is from shrapnel, the SR71 just stands there and leaks!

Maybe you should be realistic about your own propaganda/agenda.

Balerit wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

What do you mean "attitude to safety", what are you? This is not a Hollywood movie, the plane from one shard will not burn.
About the base Hamim sufficient detail shot shown here:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEqC6gax3M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JDM2Vl0Qp8o
There you can see the location of the aircraft, and security measures.

Lovely pieces of propaganda crap for the folks back home, doesn't show the scenes during or after the mortar shelling though, so pretty useless in regards to that.

"Attitude to safety", well there is fuel leaking onto the tarmac and you don't think that is safety hazard to the men and machines in the area ?

Sure there is only damage caused by one shard, but what else is around the scene ? How many other possible ignition sources are there for that leaking fuel ?

Take a deep breath and start to be realistic about what is being shown to the Russian people back home.

Propaganda by whom? If you're so positive about 7 aircraft being damaged, show us the photos or get the 'unofficial sources' to show them.

At least this leak is from shrapnel, the SR71 just stands there and leaks!

Maybe you should be realistic about your own propaganda/agenda.

Did you bother to watch the videos the above comments were directed at ? They had nothing to do with the mortar attack on the base and were purely for home consumption, or in other words, propaganda. If you bothered to read the rest of the replies, you will also note that I quite clearly said I have no idea of what actually happened during the attack. But unless able to be proven otherwise, I'm not prepared to believe what is told to the Russian folks back home, unlike our Russian friend above, who is quite willing to accept it, which is entirely his prerogative.

The SR 71, did have that wonderful ability to stretch itself (through the heat friction of course) in flight and seal those gaps though didn't it. Believe the airmen responsible for the SR 71 also bothered to place containers under it to catch the leaking fluids.

jupiter2 wrote:

Did you bother to watch the videos the above comments were directed at ? They had nothing to do with the mortar attack on the base and were purely for home consumption, or in other words, propaganda. If you bothered to read the rest of the replies, you will also note that I quite clearly said I have no idea of what actually happened during the attack. But unless able to be proven otherwise, I'm not prepared to believe what is told to the Russian folks back home, unlike our Russian friend above, who is quite willing to accept it, which is entirely his prerogative.

The SR 71, did have that wonderful ability to stretch itself (through the heat friction of course) in flight and seal those gaps though didn't it. Believe the airmen responsible for the SR 71 also bothered to place containers under it to catch the leaking fluids.

The fact that you believe your own media proves you are brain washed. I sit in a country far away from all the bullshit and will believe Russian media before I believe any of the fake MSM. As I said: show proof of anything that condradicts the Russian story.

Balerit wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Did you bother to watch the videos the above comments were directed at ? They had nothing to do with the mortar attack on the base and were purely for home consumption, or in other words, propaganda. If you bothered to read the rest of the replies, you will also note that I quite clearly said I have no idea of what actually happened during the attack. But unless able to be proven otherwise, I'm not prepared to believe what is told to the Russian folks back home, unlike our Russian friend above, who is quite willing to accept it, which is entirely his prerogative.

The SR 71, did have that wonderful ability to stretch itself (through the heat friction of course) in flight and seal those gaps though didn't it. Believe the airmen responsible for the SR 71 also bothered to place containers under it to catch the leaking fluids.

The fact that you believe your own media proves you are brain washed. I sit in a country far away from all the bullshit and will believe Russian media before I believe any of the fake MSM. As I said: show proof of anything that condradicts the Russian story.

You still don't bother to read or comprehend what I've said, so want be bothering anymore

jupiter2 wrote:

Balerit wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Did you bother to watch the videos the above comments were directed at ? They had nothing to do with the mortar attack on the base and were purely for home consumption, or in other words, propaganda. If you bothered to read the rest of the replies, you will also note that I quite clearly said I have no idea of what actually happened during the attack. But unless able to be proven otherwise, I'm not prepared to believe what is told to the Russian folks back home, unlike our Russian friend above, who is quite willing to accept it, which is entirely his prerogative.

The SR 71, did have that wonderful ability to stretch itself (through the heat friction of course) in flight and seal those gaps though didn't it. Believe the airmen responsible for the SR 71 also bothered to place containers under it to catch the leaking fluids.

The fact that you believe your own media proves you are brain washed. I sit in a country far away from all the bullshit and will believe Russian media before I believe any of the fake MSM. As I said: show proof of anything that condradicts the Russian story.

You still don't bother to read or comprehend what I've said, so want be bothering anymore

He believes the Russian media before anything else = Russian troll factory worker, so why bother indeed.........

Dutchy wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Balerit wrote:

The fact that you believe your own media proves you are brain washed. I sit in a country far away from all the bullshit and will believe Russian media before I believe any of the fake MSM. As I said: show proof of anything that condradicts the Russian story.

You still don't bother to read or comprehend what I've said, so want be bothering anymore

He believes the Russian media before anything else = Russian troll factory worker, so why bother indeed.........

Not at all, I'm a licensed aircraft engineer and worked at SAA. You my friend, are even more brainwashed, you wouldn't even know the truth if it fell on your head. Me thinks that you are the troll around here.

Check my pages out:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/120022681351417/

http://novelbooks.weebly.com/

jupiter2 wrote:

Balerit wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Did you bother to watch the videos the above comments were directed at ? They had nothing to do with the mortar attack on the base and were purely for home consumption, or in other words, propaganda. If you bothered to read the rest of the replies, you will also note that I quite clearly said I have no idea of what actually happened during the attack. But unless able to be proven otherwise, I'm not prepared to believe what is told to the Russian folks back home, unlike our Russian friend above, who is quite willing to accept it, which is entirely his prerogative.

The SR 71, did have that wonderful ability to stretch itself (through the heat friction of course) in flight and seal those gaps though didn't it. Believe the airmen responsible for the SR 71 also bothered to place containers under it to catch the leaking fluids.

The fact that you believe your own media proves you are brain washed. I sit in a country far away from all the bullshit and will believe Russian media before I believe any of the fake MSM. As I said: show proof of anything that condradicts the Russian story.

You still don't bother to read or comprehend what I've said, so want be bothering anymore

It's been more than two weeks, but no evidence that was destroyed 7 aircraft, was not presented. In fact, it confirms that the news was a fake. Damaged aircraft have been, but was not DESTROYED.
It also shows who is brainwashed by propaganda, and who prefer to check the facts.

Su-25 downed by missile in Syria, near Saraqib, east from Idlib
Pilot ejected, but killed on ground

russian forum with more info:
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/sbit-su-25 ... st-2159761
hit on 38 sec:
https://youtu.be/E_wfI_4Y-SI

more pics here:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3 ... tml#cutid1

Armadillo1 wrote:

Su-25 downed by missile in Syria, near Saraqib, east from Idlib
Pilot ejected, but killed on ground

russian forum with more info:
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/sbit-su-25 ... st-2159761
hit on 38 sec:
https://youtu.be/E_wfI_4Y-SI

more pics here:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3 ... tml#cutid1

The pilot was killed on the ground. Were shot by terrorists, and then when you were surrounded, blew himself up with a grenade, to not be captured.

Scorpius wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

Su-25 downed by missile in Syria, near Saraqib, east from Idlib
Pilot ejected, but killed on ground

russian forum with more info:
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/sbit-su-25 ... st-2159761
hit on 38 sec:
https://youtu.be/E_wfI_4Y-SI

more pics here:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3 ... tml#cutid1

The pilot was killed on the ground. Were shot by terrorists, and then when you were surrounded, blew himself up with a grenade, to not be captured.

So he was still fighting and not surrendering, totally different than the Russian Su-24 crew which was shot down and slaughtered on the ground or the Jordain F-16 pilot.

Terrorist vs freedom fighter --> rebels is neutral.

Su-24 was a bomber on a relatively long mission, and its crew had, at least theoretically, a chance of being taken prisoner by a relatively disinterested bunch on the ground, and exchanged for something or someone.
This Su-25 was shot down in the thick of an unguided rocket launching run, in populated areas. The pilot had, consequently, created a large fan base (pardon the sarcasm) on the ground, who apparently were really looking forward to get close and personal with him. This reality was not lost on the pilot, and going on his own terms probably looked more reasonable to him, than surrendering to the eager audience.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

Su-25 downed by missile in Syria, near Saraqib, east from Idlib
Pilot ejected, but killed on ground

russian forum with more info:
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/sbit-su-25 ... st-2159761
hit on 38 sec:
https://youtu.be/E_wfI_4Y-SI

more pics here:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3 ... tml#cutid1

The pilot was killed on the ground. Were shot by terrorists, and then when you were surrounded, blew himself up with a grenade, to not be captured.

So he was still fighting and not surrendering, totally different than the Russian Su-24 crew which was shot down and slaughtered on the ground or the Jordain F-16 pilot.

Terrorist vs freedom fighter --> rebels is neutral.

Pilot of downed Su-24 was killed in the air, as he descended by parachute. The second pilot landed too far and expected the evacuation of about a day.
In General, according to the instructions the pilot must leave the place of landing and wait for evacuation, taking the disguise and covertly moving through the area. In the case of the Su-25 pilot after ejection landed on the terrorists, and he had no choice but to fight. He was alone against several dozen fighters. He had a pomegranate and a Stechkin pistol with three magazines and a half of the store, he managed to shoot before he got surrounded. The grenade he blew up when the fighters were already literally in several metres from it.
And yet - the aircraft overflew the area of de-escalation at the time of the shootdown. The launch occurred from the area under the control of "Dzhabhat EN-Nusra", which is a terrorist organization. They used mass executions, torture. They burn people alive in cages or beheading. This is the Thriller "Dzhabhat EN-Nusra" on the camera cut out and ate the liver of a man killed them. You have some problems with identification, because these animals are not the freedom fighters. Where they came from - there is no freedom. There is only terror and blood.

Border Guard Mi-8 helo down in Chechnya
http://tass.com/world/993173
There are casualties, but also some survivors.

Scorpius wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

Su-25 downed by missile in Syria, near Saraqib, east from Idlib
Pilot ejected, but killed on ground

russian forum with more info:
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/sbit-su-25 ... st-2159761
hit on 38 sec:
https://youtu.be/E_wfI_4Y-SI

more pics here:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3 ... tml#cutid1

The pilot was killed on the ground. Were shot by terrorists, and then when you were surrounded, blew himself up with a grenade, to not be captured.

When ever have air crews carried grenades? Seems like a bad thing to have in a cramped cockpit.

On page one post one, a 4 engine Tu-95 crashed due to "engine failure"? Shouldn't it fly just fine on 3?

Wolf662 wrote:

On page one post one, a 4 engine Tu-95 crashed due to "engine failure"? Shouldn't it fly just fine on 3?

I think the failure led to other failures and then the crash

Wolf662 wrote:

When ever have air crews carried grenades? Seems like a bad thing to have in a cramped cockpit.

Survival kit is stashed somewhere in the ejection seat. A pistol or AKSU is a self-understood part of it; apparently grenades are there, too.

Wolf662 wrote:

On page one post one, a 4 engine Tu-95 crashed due to "engine failure"? Shouldn't it fly just fine on 3?

The crash of the Tu-95MS 14.07.2015 was due to the failure of THREE of the four engines. That is, the failure was a cascade, first off one engine, then two more. To continue the flight on one of the remaining was impossible. The cause of the engine failure could be a faulty fuel system, as the simultaneous failure of three engines is extremely unlikely.

Phosphorus wrote:

Wolf662 wrote:

When ever have air crews carried grenades? Seems like a bad thing to have in a cramped cockpit.

Survival kit is stashed somewhere in the ejection seat. A pistol or AKSU is a self-understood part of it; apparently grenades are there, too.

Stechkin's gun, spare clips to it, grenades and fuses to grenades are in pockets of a unloading vest of green camouflage colouring (it is visible on a photo):

An example of the gun:

4 spare clips to Stechkin:

Signal cartridges of 15 mm caliber with rocket launcher:

The location of the f-1 grenades in the pockets of tactical vests:

I don't know the exact number of grenades to wear, but it's supposed to be between 4 and 6.
Under the pilot seat are additionally located AKSU with four spare stores of 40 rounds each, food and water, emergency beacon.
However, given that Roman Filippov had to fight with a pistol, cut it originally from falling to the side of the chair, and he could not take advantage of AKSU. At this time, his wingman was trying to fight, covering the landing area of the flight commander. He made several combat calls have shot all ammo, struck at least two vehicles of militants, pushed in the impact area, and was forced to leave for the airport for the emergency fuel.

Yak-130 down in Borisoglebsk, Russia, during a training flight. No casualties.
https://ria.ru/incidents/20180412/1518451976.html

Helo down in Baltic sea off Kaliningrad oblast, with casualties. Type speculated to be Ka-29, no confirmation yet.
https://ria.ru/incidents/20180413/1518526901.html

Yesterday (April 27) near Maykop (Southern Russia) Mikhail Emanov, a cadet pilot on a solo flight in a L-39 hit some birds at 200 meters. One went through the canopy and got ingested into the engine, causing it to flameout.

He landed the aircraft with the gear up on a field.
Minor injuries and some damage to the aircraft.

Reports are the aircraft will be repaired and returned to sevice, and the cadet pilot will recieve some government award for his actions.

Watch the video, it is in Russian but you can clearly see the damage to the canopy and engine.
https://iz.ru/737464/video/pilot-kursan ... i-v-adygee

today, at 9.45 Moscow time, during climb after takeoff from the air base Hamim, fighter of Russian air force su-30 SM crashed. According to preliminary data, the cause of the accident was a bird caught in the engine. Pilots tried to save the jet until the last moment. The plane fell into the Mediterranean, no survivors.

What's the point of trying to save fighter over the sea? Because of the high salinity of Mediterranean, it will be beyond repair, even if later recovered from the water. Besides, SU-30SE can continue accelerate even if one if his AL-31 is off - they have more than enough power for this.

Amazonski wrote:

What's the point of trying to save fighter over the sea? Because of the high salinity of Mediterranean, it will be beyond repair, even if later recovered from the water. Besides, SU-30SE can continue accelerate even if one if his AL-31 is off - they have more than enough power for this.

Yeah, something doesn't add up. They say "engine failure due to bird strike". It gives two possibilies, one engine killed, or both engines killed.

The SU-30 will easily make it back home on one engine.

With no engines spinning the crew would easily determine whether they could deadstick back home, or they had to jump. They didn't jump. Why?

There is more to this story.

prebennorholm wrote:

With no engines spinning the crew would easily determine whether they could deadstick back home, or they had to jump. They didn't jump. Why?
.

Dense housing. The just managed to not crash into living quarters!?

WIederling wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

With no engines spinning the crew would easily determine whether they could deadstick back home, or they had to jump. They didn't jump. Why?
.

Dense housing. The just managed to not crash into living quarters!?

Soviet ejection seat allows a bail-out at ground/sea level. The airplane has obviously cleared the coast, there's no dense housing beyond the shoreline.

So, while your (subtle) reference to the story of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EQNv8L49cs
is appreciated, "close, but no cigar". It's not downtown Berlin, with nowhere to go, and it's not 1966

Gotta be something else.

Another crash in Syria. A Ka-52 went down, presumably due to a technical failure. Both crew members perished.

https://ria.ru/syria/20180507/1520095709.html

One of the perished pilots were surprisingly young - born 1993. Probably fresh from the flying school/technical college. Keep in mind that in Russia, kids start school at age 7-8.

Amazonski wrote:

One of the perished pilots were surprisingly young - born 1993. Probably fresh from the flying school/technical college. Keep in mind that in Russia, kids start school at age 7-8.

25 years old military helicopter pilot -- too young?
Let's count -- 11 years total of schools (starting not earlier that 6.5 years) -- i.e. graduating from school at 18 max.
remaining 7 years should be enough to train a military rotary pilot, no?.

Also, don't forget, in ex-USSR, helicopter piloting is young people's territory, historically.
AFAIR, in USSR, rotary pilots could retire with a full pension as early as 45.

As a side note, Russian aviation discussion sites are full of drama, regarding rotary pilots who changed qualifications to fixed wing, and went to work for commercial airlines. (I would guess some had already earned their retirement and wanted to continue flying and collect pension simultaneously; but cannot be too sure).
Apparently, many of these conversions happened while the regulator was somewhat asleep at the wheel, and issued conversion guidelines that were relatively benign.
Later, the regulator woke up, and not only started to toughen conversion guidelines (fairly arbitrarily, so it seems), it also started to retroactively void its own conversion certificates (and resulting licenses), throwing multitude of pilots under the bus in the process.