|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 14, 2015 10:45:13 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/world/2015/07/14/russian-bomber-crashes-in-far-east-crew-7-bails-out-but-still-missing/
Well, another Russian aircraft bites the dust. According to the article, this is number six this summer. "unspecified technical malfunction" is the possible reason; that covers a multitude of areas to look at. The Tu-95MS bombers are now grounded pending investigation. Maybe I can help: Possibly less Vodka and more timely maintenance? Maybe an extensive SLEP program? Why don't we just mothball the damn fleet of this aircraft and get it over.
The Tu-95 family of bombers, or Russian Bears as we used to call them, first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. The MS version was known as the Bear H. The Russian's have 63 of these bombers..... excuse me.... 62 now. This version is about 25 years old.
This goes hand in hand with the grounding of the Su-24s. Although the Russian's plan to modernize their strategic aviation by 2020, most experts believe that they don't have enough qualified personnel or funding to accomplish this.
Sounds like the old Soviet Union attitude and BS..... Things change... and things stay the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 14, 2015 17:53:34 GMT -6
I had read that the Russians were planning to re-engine the Tu-95 fleet ... except the factory only cranks out 10 engines per year. Which means 24 years to re-engine all the bombers. Yeah, that ain't gonna fly ... literally. In addition to the Tu-95 and Su-24 groundings, the MiG-29 fleet has been grounded - they've lost two in the past month, and prior to that they had parts falling off of some of them. The Su-27 and MiG-31 fleets got the lion's share of the maintenance funding during the lean years in the 1990s and the toll on the MiG-29s is showing. More troubling for them, this month's losses included a brand-spanking-new Su-34 - the Su-24's replacement. www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/12/russian-fleets-crashing-ukraine-nato-fighter-bomber/29962399/This is in line with what I was referring to in another thread - Russia is talking a big game with more military activity, aggressive actions in Eastern Europe, and talk of modernizing and expanding the force, but they haven't put the logistical effort forth to support that. Airframe attrition has spiked recently and they're going to have to dial back on making faces at NATO before they trash their planes. I don't expect them to mothball aircraft; sending crews out in obsolete deathtraps is a time-honored Russian tradition and i don't see them stopping for a few funerals. For additional "gits and shiggles" - foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-tank-carrier-challenged-crimeas-winding-roads-and-1717196344 |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 15, 2015 12:02:34 GMT -6
I had read that the Russians were planning to re-engine the Tu-95 fleet ... except the factory only cranks out 10 engines per year. Which means 24 years to re-engine all the bombers. Yeah, that ain't gonna fly ... literally. In addition to the Tu-95 and Su-24 groundings, the MiG-29 fleet has been grounded - they've lost two in the past month, and prior to that they had parts falling off of some of them. The Su-27 and MiG-31 fleets got the lion's share of the maintenance funding during the lean years in the 1990s and the toll on the MiG-29s is showing. More troubling for them, this month's losses included a brand-spanking-new Su-34 - the Su-24's replacement. www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/12/russian-fleets-crashing-ukraine-nato-fighter-bomber/29962399/This is in line with what I was referring to in another thread - Russia is talking a big game with more military activity, aggressive actions in Eastern Europe, and talk of modernizing and expanding the force, but they haven't put the logistical effort forth to support that. Airframe attrition has spiked recently and they're going to have to dial back on making faces at NATO before they trash their planes. I don't expect them to mothball aircraft; sending crews out in obsolete deathtraps is a time-honored Russian tradition and i don't see them stopping for a few funerals. For additional "gits and shiggles" - foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-tank-carrier-challenged-crimeas-winding-roads-and-1717196344I am certain that this is just the tip of the iceberg. There maybe more aircraft types that if not grounded, are at least restricted in flight hours and types of missions. Mission types have much to do with sortie hours which is what is tracked, at least in the US. Air superiority missions do not put as much stress as air to ground, as you might imagine. However, if the aircraft already has an excessive amount of flight hours and has not had the proper maintenance of a progressive air rework or service life extension program, performed, then any flying, especially by inexperienced pilots will be excessive.
As the article points out, a sudden increase in sortie rates before doing any inspection and overhaul can be fatal, as we can see. But if you fly more, you will crash more. We have had the same issues with many aircraft over the years. Again, the article points out that the Russians have never had a good record of maintenance and have only recently begun to expand on their maintenance because they realize that the days of over production of any weapons system in Russia are over. As we are always saying, " You won with what you brung" seems appropriate. Their reliance on outside sources is now beginning to hurt them, it makes them vulnerable to economic sanctions, which in the past were never a factor.
I agree that with sanctions and the aging air fleets, the Russian's have a major problem that might not be solved very quickly unless Putin is disposed of and more moderate leaders take control. Only time will tell.
|
|
