Current state of Russian Air Force?

[localhost127]

this is probably a question that is too vague to answer, but what is the reason for these inexperienced (or lack of proper experience/flight-time) pilot's crashes?

is it usually during aggressive maneuvers? - or during a simple flight path....

what is a root cause of such a crash by an inexperienced pilot? recovery from stalls or something of that nature? but something like that shouldn't happen in the first place on basic flight paths/logging hours, correct?

what are these inexperienced pilots doing that puts them at such great risk - or what are the flight profiles?...as it seems none of these crashes are during takeoff/landing, but during flight. is it ever (in some cases) weather related?

 

[Feanor]

My theory, or rather hypothesis, is that it's due to an upgrade in flight hours that all of a sudden has inexperienced pilots flying many more hours, participating in exercises, etc. Additionally the maintenance structure in the VVS has had huge cuts, and has not been particularly active. As a result when flight hours go up maintenance struggles to keep up.

 

[Vzlet]

My theory, or rather hypothesis, is that it's due to an upgrade in flight hours that all of a sudden has inexperienced pilots flying many more hours, participating in exercises, etc. Additionally the maintenance structure in the VVS has had huge cuts, and has not been particularly active. As a result when flight hours go up maintenance struggles to keep up.

If you wish to have such an opinion that is fine, but be sure to know that it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Accidents happen, they are an unfortunate aspect of aviation but they happen all over the world and there is no evidence to suggest that accidents in Russia are related to pilot experience or flight times.

Through 2009-2010 there were only two accidents in RFAF which were not due to mechanical failure, the other involving squadron commander of the Knights air demonstration team Igor Tkachenko who had over 2,500 hours of flight time and by nature of his position would have to say was one of the most gifted pilots in Russia.

I would argue instead that it is the more experienced pilots in Russia who are more apt to get into accidents, especially fatal ones, because they are more daring, and in the event of trouble try to save their plane until the very end. For routine training, leadership will not demand anything from junior pilots beyond what they are capable of.

Feanor, I think your theory would be more applicable to the US military aviation because they have much higher demands on them from their government to fulfill the need of fighting two wars.

I think it is generally accepted that US pilots have more flight time than their Russian colleagues and yet:

Total non-combat accidents in Russia military aviation from 2007- 2009: 6
Total non-combat accidents in US military aviation from 2007-2009: 33

source: List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that flying is dangerous, especially in military aviation, and the more flights, the more opportunities exist for something to go wrong

 

[Kilo 2-3]

If you wish to have such an opinion that is fine, but be sure to know that it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Accidents happen, they are an unfortunate aspect of aviation but they happen all over the world and there is no evidence to suggest that accidents in Russia are related to pilot experience or flight times.

Through 2009-2010 there were only two accidents in RFAF which were not due to mechanical failure, the other involving squadron commander of the Knights air demonstration team Igor Tkachenko who had over 2,500 hours of flight time and by nature of his position would have to say was one of the most gifted pilots in Russia.

I would argue instead that it is the more experienced pilots in Russia who are more apt to get into accidents, especially fatal ones, because they are more daring, and in the event of trouble try to save their plane until the very end. For routine training, leadership will not demand anything from junior pilots beyond what they are capable of.

I'd disagree. Based on my own, very limited flight experience (a short hop in a Navy trainer and some flight sim time), it seems to me like inexperience leads to making mistakes. It takes stick-and-rudder time to get comfortable at low-level, to fly on instruments, to know what to do if something goes wrong.

Yes, veteran pilots do tend to "hang it out" more than the rookies (the Navy's "Close Abeam Club" is an excellent example), but they also know their aircraft better than a new guy. They know when something's wrong. They have a better idea of what to do. A flamed-out engine doesn't know or care whether you're a butterbar fresh out of SUPT or a full-bird colonel with 10,000 hours, but odds are the latter pilot is going to respond better to the emergency and thus is more likely to survive than the first.

On a related note: this is one of the reasons the US flies Red Flag: to get pilots used to flying in a combat environment, and to let them make mistakes in an environment where the bullet's aren't real, so that they don't go make them when the bullets finally are real and they really are flying in a warzone.

Experience is essential and it can and often will make you a safer pilot.

Feanor, I think your theory would be more applicable to the US military aviation because they have much higher demands on them from their government to fulfill the need of fighting two wars.

I think it is generally accepted that US pilots have more flight time than their Russian colleagues and yet:

Total non-combat accidents in Russia military aviation from 2007- 2009: 6
Total non-combat accidents in US military aviation from 2007-2009: 33

source: List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that flying is dangerous, especially in military aviation, and the more flights, the more opportunities exist for something to go wrong

You bring up a good point. However the really telling statistic is the ratio between the number of hours flown and the number of accidents. Any idea as to what that might be for either side? I'm genuinely curious.

1. 
   1. Also, does the VVS run any regular Red Flag-type exercises? As far as I know, they don't. The fact that the US does may account for its higher accident rate, since simulated operational flying with large numbers of dissimilar aircraft is highly hazardous.
   
   
   2. The US also flies two flight demonstration teams (the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds). The Russians also fly two teams (one in Su-27s and another in Mig-29s). However, their airshow schedule seems less rigorous than that of the American teams.
   
   As you said, more hours=more opportunities to go wrong. Since demonstration flying is statistically one of the most dangerous forms of military aviation, this is one factor in the higher loss rates for military aircraft .
   
   
   3. The US also operates 10 (or is it 11?) carriers plus various assault carriers. Naval aviation is highly hazardous and this contributes to higher US loss rates, since in comparison Russian operates only one flattop.
   
   
   4. The US is also fighting a war. Flight conditions in Afghanistan are by all accounts extremely dangerous, with mountains, overcast and high altitude all combining to make normal, much the less combat operations highly risky.
   
   
   But the most pressing point is the fact that a low accident rate does not equal operational readiness. You have to practice like you play. The goal in combat is to kill the enemy, and that means taking risks in combat and in training. Your country can have a perfect accident record, but when the fur starts to fly, you'd better be able to fight well, 'cause at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

 

[Feanor]

Just an interesting development, earlier in 2009 a new targetting system was tested for the Backfires, in joint exercises with Russia and Belarus. It seems that the new targetting system is now being installed as part of their modernization package. All weather capability, and precision targetting capability, are claimed.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: Ñîçäàíà íîâàÿ ñèñòåìà ïðèöåëèâàíèÿ äëÿ áîìáàðäèðîâùèêîâ Òó-22Ì3

I've heard about plans to modernize the Strategic Aviation for a while, and the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 programs actually started up a couple of years back. It seems it's gotten to the Tu-22M3s now. I wonder if this will spread to the AVMF Backfires as well.