Military Review

This morally and physically obsolete Su-24 ...

189



When this material comes out, we will be at the funeral of Yury Kopylov, our countryman who died in Syria. Sad moment about which nothing more to say. But I want to say a few words about the plane, especially since the gentlemen "experts" give us a cloud of reasons for this.

How many angry articles were already on “when this junk is removed”, “the plane is physically and morally obsolete” and stuff like that. Good to write on the case, and so ... They even remembered the "titan fires" that occurred at the very beginning of the flight career of the aircraft and were eliminated when Saturn rebuilt the compressor and Su-24 began to be equipped with modified AL-21F-3 engines, and then AL-21F-ZA and AL-21F-ZAT.

Immediately a series of stories began that the Su-24 is the most emergency aircraft of almost all history Air Force Although, if you believe Magomed Tolboev (and who to believe, if not him), then the most alert was the Su-7B.

But let's turn to statistics. She is a stubborn thing.

From 1973 to today with the participation of the Su-24 there were 87 accidents and disasters, 52 of which killed 90 crew members and 7 people of ground personnel.

The causes of disasters were in 70 cases of equipment failure, in 29 cases of crew errors and 8 cases - other reasons (combat losses, birds).

Before the 1990, equipment failures dominated (from 57 12 cases due to crew fault and 2 for other reasons), after 1990, the number of crew accidents began to increase.

87 accidents and disasters for 44 service years. Is it a lot or a little? Especially when you consider that, taking 1990 for a certain year, then for the first 17 years 57 emergency occurred, and for the next 27 - 30.

Yes, in recent accidents involving the Su-24 somewhat more frequent.

October 30 2012 of the year Su-24 crashed 70 km from Chelyabinsk while performing a training flight. The plane blew off the nose cone. Both pilots managed to eject.

10 November 2012 of the year at the airfield Morozovsk in the Rostov region Su-24 when landing rolled out of the runway due to a broken parachute and burnt down. The pilots ejected.

11 February 2015 of the year Su-24 fell into 7 km from the runway of the Marinovka airfield in the Volgograd region. Both pilots died. After that, the Ministry of Defense suspended all Su-24 flights, half a year later, after an investigation and checks, the flights were resumed.

6 July 2015 was a disaster of the Su-24 in the Khabarovsk Territory. Immediately after separation from the runway, the engine failed. The pilots could not be saved.

And so, October 10 2017. Once again a catastrophe, and the crew did not have time to eject. Unfortunately.

Are these numbers enough to conclude that Su-24 is outdated morally and physically? Some experts - completely. But if you count on almost 1 500 aircraft of all modifications, then, as it were, and not very weighty.

It should be noted that the "pure" Su-24 is no longer there. The minimum is Su-24M, the maximum is Su-24М2, which have undergone modernization and are very different from the original version of the bomber. Yes, and their number, let's face it, is small. 140 Su-24М / М2 and 79 Su-24МР is all that is left for today.



Is the plane physically so outdated? Given the upgrades that are carried out in the factory, with a proper survey of the entire aircraft, I think that we are not talking about glider fatigue.

The same Tu-95 for us and В-52 for “them” are still in service for even more years, and nothing.

We are not talking about the moral side either, especially in the case of the modernization of M2. It’s a normal bomber, capable of doing its job in the absence of countermeasures aviation the enemy. It is proved by Syria.

By the way, about Syria.

It is also worth referring to the numbers. The defense ministry and many media outlets report on strikes. In one of the latest communiqué on actions in the region of Deiz-ez-Zor, 150 was told about strikes against militants by our videoconferencing forces in a day.

Considering that in the air group today there are about 20 attack aircraft (8 Su-34, 12 Su-24М) and about the same number of fighter jets, then in order to strike 150 strikes, each aircraft must make 4 departure.

It is clear that the bomber in terms of efficiency is somewhat superior to the fighter / fighter-bomber. And it is no secret to anyone today that the number of crews in Syria far exceeds the number of aircraft. This is normal; two crews may well make a day on 2 or 3 departure. The alternation allows the pilots to rest before another attack on the terrorists.

Aircraft, as we see, also cope. As well as technical personnel, otherwise we would read news of accidents and catastrophes much more often.

It is obvious that what happened to the Su-24, is the result of the fact that the technology simply did not watch, as they say. That is quite natural in combat conditions and not with the newest aircraft. There is no problem with the Su-34, but the planes are also “fresh”.

I do not condone technical personnel, but I also don’t “hang all the dogs” on the technicians, because, firstly, I don’t know exactly how many technical teams work there, and secondly, the technicians still work. I say that the Su-24 is an aircraft that has shown itself not in one conflict, and shouting that it should be urgently removed from the arsenal is somewhat rash.

140 bombers are 140 combat vehicles, still capable of completing a combat mission. And just take them and saw them, arguing that the Su-34 is better is just nonsense, no matter what the supporters of the case say.



Since the beginning of production, that is, from 2008, 122 Su-34 has been released. That is, 13,5 aircraft per year. The “hole” formed by 140 of Su-24М / М2 urgently decommissioned, respectively, will be patched over 10 years.

Can we afford this?

In an absolutely peaceful and stable time - completely. But if peacetime, even with some stretch, is the place to be, then we can only dream about stability in our country. Including, concerning the military budget. Abbreviations have a place to be constantly, everyone knows it perfectly.

Another question is really a problem with technical staff. Yes, the aviation technical schools today, if they do not survive a boom, then at least a competition has appeared. But the “hole” punched in the 90-x and the beginning of the 2000-x is still patched and patched.

That is exactly what the people who are responsible for this question told me at the Zhukovsky and Gagarin Academy.

There is a huge shortage of engineers in the VKS, it is a fact. At the academy, they are trying to reduce this deficiency. It seems to be working, but not as fast as we would like. A diploma from a commercial college with the prospect of sitting in an office at a computer is still preferable to an aerodrome blown by all winds and the prospect of testing an engine and bomb suspension in thirty degrees of frost. Alas.

If we talk about today's problem, this is a problem that must be solved. Do not write off jets that can serve another ten years or more, but prepare personnel capable of making planes fly without a crash.







What is the use of modern Su-34, Su-35, Su-57, if there is not enough for them those who will make sure that the planes fly and fly as they should? No matter how up-to-date aircraft of the fifth, sixth, eighth generation be stuffed with ultra-modern electronics, without knowing and knowing how to properly apply their knowledge of engineers, this will not be military equipment.

With competent technical staff and Su-24 will be awesome for a long time weapons. Without - any aircraft will become a problem for the pilot.

Not about the moral or physical fatigue of the Su-24 today need to think, but about those who can do so that the aircraft did not get tired.
Author:
189 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andr327
    andr327 13 October 2017 06: 59 New
    41
    The problem of literate cadres has always been, but after 90 and Serdyukov transformations became very acute. And this is characteristic not only for the videoconferencing. It should be noted that everyone needs competent specialists, but the commanders still do not like them: they spoil a beautiful picture of straight lines and success in drill training, while they require adherence to technical discipline. discuss the "Dyatlovskie" orders and orders of smart upper headquarters. Most of them were young, promising, who did not hold a wrench in their hands, had never used a sapper blade for their intended purpose. And when you consider that we remained in command, sorry but most of the army scum of the 90s, when the most active part of the army left, but the picture becomes even very sad. Another problem in the troops in relation to the officers is that they no longer see a person, but everyone decides to get the money, do it.
    1. svp67
      svp67 13 October 2017 07: 20 New
      +9
      Quote: andr327
      Another problem in the troops in relation to the officers is that they no longer see a person, but everyone decides to get the money, do it.

      So maybe it’s worth attracting civilian specialists for such purposes, from the manufacturer’s company, where they will undergo training and retraining, and most importantly they will have a vested interest in the trouble-free operation of aircraft, so as not to spoil the export prospects of their aircraft ...
      1. andr327
        andr327 13 October 2017 07: 40 New
        +6
        Now it is very often used, but is not a way out. But the method of smearing responsibility for the result. The conclusion about the readiness for flight should be given by the person (commander) operating the unit. and a representative of industry, only give their opinion. Shifting responsibility hides its own incompetence.
        1. FID
          FID 13 October 2017 09: 01 New
          14
          Quote: andr327
          The conclusion about the readiness for flight should be given by the person (commander) operating the unit.

          Well, well .... The person operating this unit (you mean the plane or the unit in general) CANNOT give a conclusion about the suitability. The operator trusts the MANUFACTURER, or the REPAIRMAN, who performed the repair of the unit (or the aircraft, if you mean it). I ask you not to confuse operation and external inspection ...
          1. dauria
            dauria 13 October 2017 22: 33 New
            +9
            The operator trusts the MANUFACTURER


            Nonsense. The IAS specialist, or the flight crew, performs ITS types of work and inspections according to ITS guidance documents (NIAS, ERTE, NPP). And nobody is going to “trust” anyone. Everyone puts his signature for certain actions (and signed up to eight years in prison). And for a showdown with the manufacturer, there is a procedure for complaints, it is also painted in the NIAS before the points and deadlines - "who, how and when."
            1. iouris
              iouris 15 October 2017 13: 16 New
              +2
              Quote: “The IAS specialist, or the flight crew, performs ITS types of work and inspections ..” End of quote.
              When discussing serious issues, the correct terminology should be used, otherwise the level of discussion decreases and the goal is not achieved.
              The work characterizes the costs of the specialist for the operation. Therefore, technological operations are carried out according to the technological maps, and the completeness and timeliness of operations is controlled.
              The latest regulatory document from the NIAS series has lost its force with the release of NIAO-90. In addition, NIAS was approved by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Air Force and acted as an aircraft of the USSR Armed Forces, and NIIA was approved by a government decree, since it is a regulatory document for state aviation.
              Calling a "showdown with the manufacturer" a reclamation work is, in my understanding, generally, beyond good and evil.
              In general, why bust open the door, talking about "trust" in an area where, as you know, the level of regulation and personal responsibility is quite high?
        2. Abel
          Abel 16 October 2017 20: 08 New
          +1
          Rather, the question should be about the transfer of experience, and not about the transfer of authority and responsibility
      2. dauria
        dauria 13 October 2017 16: 14 New
        +8
        So maybe it’s worth attracting civilian specialists from the manufacturer’s company for such purposes


        Yeah. And in their outfits, they are the nachkar and deja in part, and let them run about the alarm and prepare the planes. And they are responsible for the soldiers-mechanics, etc. Plus a bunch of his work somewhere in the Transbaikal hole. And leave civilians with a civilian pension at 60 (or already at 65?) Years.
        Where will they send benefactors? laughing
        And listen to what their wives and children say ....
      3. alexmach
        alexmach 13 October 2017 16: 52 New
        +5
        Do you think manufacturers companies with personnel deal much better? I’ll tell you a secret, sensible, robotic and skilled people, and generally not enough ... everywhere in the world in all sectors.
        1. papas-57
          papas-57 13 October 2017 21: 48 New
          12
          '' I will tell you a secret, sensible, robotic and skilled people and generally not enough ... everywhere in the world in all sectors. '' Well, I don’t give a damn to the whole world personally, but our highly qualified specialists were dispersed from the enterprises by “highly efficient managers” and their highly seated patrons, redirecting financial flows to their side.
      4. verner1967
        verner1967 15 October 2017 09: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        So maybe it’s worth attracting civilian specialists for such purposes,

        there will be no civilian special in such conditions as a military technician to work, especially for the mythical prestige of the company. Prestige is reflected in managers, and hard workers just do their job (is it good or bad)
        1. sgrabik
          sgrabik 16 October 2017 14: 36 New
          +4
          If necessary, a military technical specialist can replace a civilian, but a civilian can never replace a military specialist under any circumstances.
    2. Alexander Skorik
      Alexander Skorik 13 October 2017 20: 45 New
      +8
      On the Kamran Peninsula in Vietnam, once there was our military base. Well and accordingly there were MiG-29 fighters. In autumn, an order comes from Moscow - "On the transfer of aircraft to winter operation" !!! ??? Aviators will understand me!
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 14 October 2017 19: 16 New
        +4
        Quote: Alexander Skorik
        Alexander Skorik Yesterday, 20:45 ↑
        On the Kamran Peninsula in Vietnam, once there was our military base. Well and accordingly there were MiG-29 fighters. In autumn, an order comes from Moscow - "On the transfer of aircraft to winter operation" !!! ??? Aviators will understand me!

        This is not only aviators will understand ... Who served in the army, he does not laugh in the circus.
    3. bandabas
      bandabas 13 October 2017 22: 36 New
      +3
      Well, this is now a problem for the whole country, on a citizen the same. I won’t go far. The familiar “effective manager” used up a smartphone, it was necessary to perform a multiplication operation. Stupidly failed to multiply on paper in a "column".
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 13 October 2017 22: 41 New
        +8
        Quote: bandabas
        The familiar “effective manager” used up a smartphone, it was necessary to perform a multiplication operation. Stupidly failed to multiply on paper in a "column".

        A mathematician would have killed me for such a thing. Multiplication table. crying
        1. unknown
          unknown 14 October 2017 10: 34 New
          +4
          And now they’re not taught in a column. Literate teachers are also almost gone.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 14 October 2017 10: 44 New
            +4
            Quote: ignoto
            And now they’re not taught in a column. Literate teachers are also almost gone.

            Well at least the table is taught? In the USSR, in the cold of minus 35 and the announcement on the radio that you can’t go to school, the techie came to me with a cry: "Vovka, go to school, they will study an important subject there. An important table." I didn’t let it go, in short.
      2. Awaz
        Awaz 14 October 2017 18: 47 New
        +3
        I have an engineer with higher education and work experience all the time writing the word "sleeve" through "F". I am not talking about other words.
        1. verner1967
          verner1967 15 October 2017 09: 15 New
          +2
          Quote: AwaZ
          I have an engineer with higher education and work experience

          Yes, what’s your engineer there, you read the comments on VO, and here it’s not the janitors who write with the loaders.
      3. Abel
        Abel 16 October 2017 20: 11 New
        +1
        It happens cooler. Yesterday I advised the "manager" what to do if the mouse does not work. Even replacing the battery turned out to be problematic: "but it won’t strike a current?"
    4. masterovoy
      masterovoy 15 October 2017 10: 17 New
      +1
      You are absolutely right, unfortunately, Parkinson’s law was firmly established in the minds of "wild" commanders and chiefs of the generation of the 90s.
      1. okko077
        okko077 15 October 2017 13: 11 New
        +3
        And now to the point.
        The Su-24M has long been replaced, but there is nothing to change. With the destruction of the SU-17M4 and MIG-27, this aircraft in Syria does their job, not its own. If we compare the reliability and laboriousness for 1 hour of flight, it is almost an order of magnitude worse than even the SU-17M4, but we don’t even need to remember the SU-27 and its modifications .... The Su-24M is hell for techies .... I did not start this conversation ... Get it if you wanted to be honest ...
        The author mentioned some technical errors in Syria in the latest state of emergency. Maybe he knows more? .. For information: before take-off, the commander of the SU-24 reports to the KP: ... in take-off ... allow take-off ....
    5. sgrabik
      sgrabik 16 October 2017 12: 18 New
      +3
      No need to say nonsense, if we want anyone who comes to the engineering and technical service, and competent and promising young people, then the main condition should be decent wages and social guarantees from the state, no one will want to turn nuts on a crack taking into account the frost with by the wind and even during night flights, the pay of the flight personnel exceeds the pay of the engineering staff by more than two times, a huge difference in person, now it’s not at all the time that people worked only for the idea of ​​which of the young people capable of and promising, there will be a strong desire to become an aviation engineer, to work in the most difficult conditions, to bear enormous responsibility for their work, on which the lives of crews depend directly on, the trouble-free operation of aircraft worth tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars, and the exact fulfillment of combat missions. If we want to improve the quality and responsibility of the engineering staff, then let's start with financially incentive and improve working conditions, and only then will we tighten the requirements for it, people need to create appropriate working conditions in which there are problems with the processing of standard hours, which are not paid separately, in contrast, for example, to the hourly flight of the flight personnel, as well as updating the corresponding uniforms and equipping with modern means and mechanisms to facilitate and increase the efficiency of labor of engineering and technical personnel. Until the Ministry of Defense understands the special importance of engineering and technical support and starts treating it almost the same as flight crews, we don’t have to wait for any positive changes for the better due to the accident-free operation of our aircraft.
    6. sgrabik
      sgrabik 16 October 2017 14: 29 New
      +5
      For the money that the IAS servicemen get today, they don’t really want to do something, given the specific conditions and harmfulness of this specialty, the salary that compensates for all these loads does not reach an acceptable level, for some reason they are used to observing only the flight personnel, but engineering -technical as a rule remains on the sidelines, and this is fundamentally not the right position, since the accident-free operation of aviation and the lives of pilots depends on these people, then attention and attitude from the Defense Ministry and, in particular, the airborne command to the engineering staff should be appropriate , and not a devil like now.
  2. svp67
    svp67 13 October 2017 07: 17 New
    +7
    Immediately a series of stories began that the Su-24 was the most emergency aircraft in almost the entire history of the Air Force. Although, according to Magomed Tolboev (and who to believe, if not him), the most emergency was Su-7B.
    He certainly knows better, but remember that this not very honorary title was firmly attached to the Tu-22 ... In general, for a very long time the “drying” of course could not be called a “very reliable aircraft”, especially the dislike of air defense pilots to the Su- 9 and Su-11 ...
    But the article raised the question correctly. With such intensive use of equipment, and on that day, the Moscow Region already announced 182 sorties at the end of the day. That is, after the crash of Su-24, that day 30 more flights were made ... For that rather small group of our aircraft, which is concentrated in Syria is a lot, even VERY, VERY MUCH. And I understand that our engineering and technical personnel do everything there that can and even a little more. But everything has limits. And now it’s becoming increasingly clear that this requires not only the self-sacrificing readiness of our Air Force specialists and pilots, but also the readiness of our industry to timely make the necessary changes to the configuration and modernization of aircraft. As well as improving the equipment of ground services in terms of supplying newer and more accurate diagnostic equipment. And MO, accordingly, have time to quickly carry out training on it.
    From the statistics given, it is clear that the percentage of death of our pilots, which either cannot or do not have time to eject, is very time to finish with this, namely to install ejection seats that allow you to leave the plane at 0 speed and 0 altitude, and most importantly give an order that in such conditions, the aircraft should be STOPPED, in order to save the life of the crew.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 October 2017 07: 46 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      and most importantly, give an order that under such conditions the aircraft should be STOPPED in order to save the crew’s life.

      But such a team will always be given (and not an order), unless of course there is an opportunity, precisely in order to save the crew. Moreover, the crew itself determines when to leave the plane, according to the Guides, Instructions, Instructions, knowledge of a / technique, actions in special cases, competent actions in an emergency, readiness for flight, etc. To leave the plane, it is necessary to correctly assess the situation, as well as those who give the crew a bailout command - they are also obliged to correctly submit a command.
      1. FID
        FID 13 October 2017 09: 49 New
        +6
        Quote: bober1982
        At the same time, the crew itself determines when to leave the plane,

        I apologize, BUT not the crew, but the COMMANDER OF THE SHIP (even if it’s a fighter-bomber with two crew members) decides to bail out ....
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 13 October 2017 10: 02 New
          +1
          I agree, his word is law.
    2. Mik13
      Mik13 13 October 2017 07: 53 New
      +8
      Quote: svp67
      From the statistics given, it is clear that the percentage of death of our pilots, which either cannot or do not have time to eject, is very time to finish with this, namely to install ejection seats that allow you to leave the plane at 0 speed and 0 altitude, and most importantly give an order that in such conditions, the aircraft should be STOPPED, in order to save the life of the crew.

      Such chairs have long been standing, including on the Su-24. Called K-36D
      The problem is precisely that the situation on take-off / landing is developing rapidly. The take-off speed of the Su-24 is about 400 km / h. This is 100 meters per second. That is, during the decision to eject, the aircraft can decompose several times on some object of relief.
      The Yak-141 generally had an automatic ejection system, which made a decision instead of a pilot.
      1. svp67
        svp67 13 October 2017 07: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Mik13
        The Yak-141 generally had an automatic ejection system, which made a decision instead of a pilot.

        So she MUST appear on the Su-24. Consequently, by order of this system, if it has different operating modes, then on take-off and landing it must be transferred to the AUTOMATIC position and, again, it is better to make such a switchover automatically.
        1. Mik13
          Mik13 13 October 2017 09: 51 New
          +9
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: Mik13
          The Yak-141 generally had an automatic ejection system, which made a decision instead of a pilot.

          So she MUST appear on the Su-24. Consequently, by order of this system, if it has different operating modes, then on take-off and landing it must be transferred to the AUTOMATIC position and, again, it is better to make such a switchover automatically.
          Hmm ... It is impossible to realize this.
          On the Yak-141, the system responded to roll speed. The fact is that in case of failure of the lifting engine or control system, the aircraft quickly capsized and, accordingly, crashed. Ejection at ultra-low altitude with your head down is quite a sentence even for the K-36. That is why the system reacted to roll speed and forcibly ejected the pilot when it was still safe. That is, in the upper hemisphere.
          As for the Su-24, not a single automatic system will determine what the aircraft has ahead - 1000 meters of the runway or concrete cube of the short-range drive. So alas - so far the decision will still be made by man.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 13 October 2017 12: 58 New
            +4
            It is also worth adding that it reacted only in the take-off and landing mode, and in the horizontal flight mode it turned off so that the pilot would not be thrown out during maneuvers. Well, the chair was also on the Yak-38, i.e. It was quite serial.
      2. figwam
        figwam 13 October 2017 08: 38 New
        +4
        On the SU-24, a reliable ejection system for both crew members, here is an example of an emergency landing of the Iranian SU-24MK, the pilot and navigator remained alive.

        Work in Syria.
      3. FID
        FID 13 October 2017 11: 18 New
        +4
        Quote: Mik13
        The Yak-141 generally had an automatic ejection system, which made a decision instead of a pilot.

        Only in CRITICAL situations ... The automatic system DOES NOT MAKE decisions, but acts in accordance with the inherent algorithm of work in certain situations.
      4. Gray brother
        Gray brother 13 October 2017 12: 51 New
        +4
        Quote: Mik13
        The Yak-141 generally had an automatic ejection system,

        There is no such plane in the series. Such a system stood on the Yak-38, there were cases of arbitrary operation - an unexpected shooting of a chair is also not a gut.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 13 October 2017 16: 29 New
          +5
          It is not true. There was one case during the tests after which the system was finalized. There was no more case of unauthorized operation ... Another question is that the SC-EM is not applicable to aircraft for ordinary take-off and landing. because based on the analysis of angular velocities along the roll and pitch channels.
    3. inkass_98
      inkass_98 13 October 2017 07: 56 New
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      I especially remember the dislike of air defense pilots for the Su-9 and Su-11 ...

      And not just pilots. Several former aircraft technicians worked with me at one time, so they talked about these planes like this: the Sukhoi plane, and the technician is wet.
      But Skororokhov is right that there is simply nothing to replace the old aircraft with, so all attention must be paid to their competent maintenance and modernization of what it still makes sense to modernize.
      1. svp67
        svp67 13 October 2017 08: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: inkass_98
        But Skororokhov is right that there is simply nothing to replace the old aircraft with, so all attention must be paid to their competent maintenance and modernization of what it still makes sense to modernize.

        I also think that the author is right, but not that these planes have nothing to replace, there is already something. Simple, but why change them there? What is the enemy's strong air defense, electronic warfare systems at every turn? No, it’s not there, but it means you can use the old planes completely, but it’s precisely in order to understand what else can be modernized on them, in order to increase capabilities and what should be installed on the same Su-34s
      2. avt
        avt 13 October 2017 10: 01 New
        +7
        Quote: inkass_98
        Several former aircraft technicians worked with me at one time, so they talked about these planes like this: the Sukhoi plane, and the technician is wet.

        No. About the First Su-9/11 was - ,, The plane is raw, the technician is wet, the pilot is sweaty, the designer is dry. "
        Quote: svp67
        Simple, but why change them there?

        The fact that already in the USSR in Machulishchi showed the forerunner of the Su-34. It’s just that in the 90s it was not possible to put 34-ku in a series. Although they tried due to import orders. Remember about the Su-32 at exhibitions, BUT ..... request didn’t grow together and now the old man Su-24 is still in the ranks and pulls the strap properly.
        The same Tu-95 for us and В-52 for “them” are still in service for even more years, and nothing.
        Well, in the first place - not the old 95s, obviously not 50 = x; in the second - there is no need to compare the load on the glider among strategists and tacticians. Wear on the glider is clearly not in favor of tactics. Pretzel strategists in the air do not prescribe similar ones.
      3. iouris
        iouris 15 October 2017 13: 26 New
        +2
        Quote: inkass_98
        Sukhoi, and the technician is wet.

        I specify: "The designer is Dry, the plane is raw, and the technician is wet."
        In general, you cannot blame everything on one designer. Just the level of requirements for military equipment at that time was ahead of the technological level of industry of the USSR. It should be noted that the Su-17M ... and Su-24 aircraft, created in the early 1970s, already contained constructive solutions that facilitated the solution of engineering support tasks and thereby increased combat readiness and flight safety.
    4. Taoist
      Taoist 13 October 2017 16: 26 New
      +3
      Such a chair stands on Su 24 ... K-36. Another question is that in such a situation, the pilot often simply does not have time to make a decision. On the Yak 38 there was an automatic ejection system - it saved a lot of lives ... Alas, for ordinary aircraft, automation can not be foreseen ...
      1. chetbor
        chetbor 24 October 2017 21: 57 New
        0
        Yes, honestly)))) Ejection in automatic mode can be counted on the fingers of one hand - it’ll be enough and will not remain bent
    5. Alexander Skorik
      Alexander Skorik 13 October 2017 20: 58 New
      +1
      "namely, to install ejection seats, allowing you to leave the plane at 0 speed and 0 altitude, and most importantly give an order that in such conditions the plane should be STOPPED,"
      The plane began to produce in the 70s, then the place was no seats that provide two zeros, i.e. zero speed and zero altitude. On the MiG-23 only a chair appeared - "zero hundred thirty", and the first ones with two zeros are K-36D as far as I remember. To put a new chair on an airplane, it is necessary to remake the cockpit, well, to do a chair for it, and given that the airplane is already pre-retirement and there are few of them left, it is unlikely that anyone will do it. And as for leaving the emergency plane, the "instructions to the pilot in special cases" explicitly states in what situations the pilot MUST leave the plane.
    6. Awaz
      Awaz 14 October 2017 18: 51 New
      +1
      here I already noted about your last paragraph. The crew should leave the plane if something goes wrong and no one should then blame them for property damage and all that .. As I understand it, the instructions we still have are from the Soviet school and are too vague in this regard. Planting now is unlikely to be planted, but it is easy to write off, with all that it implies ..
    7. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 14 October 2017 19: 30 New
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      install ejection seats that allow you to leave the plane at 0 speed and 0 altitude, and most importantly give an order that under such conditions the plane should be STOPPED in order to save the life of the crew.

      If the memory serves, on the Su-24 chair allows you to eject at 0 altitude and 0 speed.
      Another thing is that the pilot must have time to perform a certain sequence of actions, with a shortage of time.
      As for orders to leave. In Soviet times, after take-off from a Polish airfield, the afterburner at the MiG-23 turned off. In accordance with the instructions, the pilot catapulted. The aircraft continued to climb, flew over Poland, then Germany and, having developed fuel, thrust into a residential building in Belgium, killing a teenager.
    8. verner1967
      verner1967 15 October 2017 09: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      I especially remember the dislike of air defense pilots for the Su-9 and Su-11 ...

      you are very right! My father used this saying about the Su-9 “Constructor is Sukhoi, the technician is thin, and the pilot is wet,” after a regular landing on this iron, you really get out of the cockpit wet.
  3. bober1982
    bober1982 13 October 2017 07: 25 New
    +5
    The Su-24 has been brought to perfection, including reliability. The aircraft is of course outdated, but it successfully performs combat missions, and it’s too early to disarm it.
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 13 October 2017 08: 07 New
      +5
      Su-24 is cheaper and more economical than Su-34. The vast majority of flights in Syria were made on the Su-24! Guess why? Simply, to perform the same tasks only on the Su-34, it would be ruinous for our country.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 October 2017 14: 47 New
        +5
        Quote: Stas157
        Simply, to perform the same tasks only on the Su-34, it would be ruinous for our country.

        PMSM, the point is not so much in cost as in mastery of technology. It is not ruinous for our country to work on terrorists with Caliber and ALCM. And drive Tu-22M3 to Syria through half the country.
        Remember the story of helicopters - the Mi-35 campaign and almost the Mi-24P were launched. And then, as they were ready, the Mi-28 and Ka-52 pulled themselves together.
      2. Alexander Skorik
        Alexander Skorik 13 October 2017 21: 08 New
        +4
        Well, about efficiency, here I do not agree with you. And why is the main load of the Su-24. then I think that it’s just a fairly old plane, their fleet is constantly decreasing soon, all of them are on a demobilization, so we need to take the maximum of them. In a war, under the conditions of opposing enemy fighters, Su-24s will not survive, and in Syria the enemy has no fighters yet. But Su-35 cherish for those times. when it gets really hot, they still have to fight and fight. So everything is logical.
        1. chetbor
          chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 01 New
          +1
          This is what you tell the pilots of the Su-27, which we constantly blew when they try to intercept us on the Su-24m against the backdrop of the earth, the plane at a speed of 900-1000km / h at altitudes below 100m.
          Against the background of the earth, hell who does not intercept, even F-22, which as it turned out does not have a heat finder, normal when working on targets
      3. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 14 October 2017 19: 37 New
        +2
        Quote: Stas157
        to perform the same tasks only on the Su-34, it would be ruinous for our country.

        No brainer. Depreciation of the Su-34 (aircraft cost) is many times higher. Plus more take-off weight and fueling.
        If we talk about savings, then about 80 percent of the tasks solved by dryers, it would be necessary to solve impact drone. And it would have been time for a long time ... nothing. Shame and disgrace.
  4. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 13 October 2017 07: 32 New
    +1
    F111 has long been not exploited as bombers. And this is what our concept of su24 looked at.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 October 2017 07: 37 New
      +2
      The Americans didn’t need the F-111, and probably from the very beginning, and why look back at them, these are their problems and deeds, if they decided to withdraw from service.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 14 October 2017 19: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: bober1982
        bober1982 Yesterday, 07:37 ↑
        The Americans didn’t need the F-111, and probably from the very beginning, and why look back at them, these are their problems and deeds, if they decided to withdraw from service.

        Until now, the F-111, according to a number of experts, has no equal in flight capabilities at low altitudes and effectiveness in attacks in the depths of the enemy’s defense. It was operated a lot and successfully in the most difficult conditions with minimal combat losses.
        In my opinion, the Americans shifted the tasks accomplished by the F-111 to cruise missiles. They are doing this now more efficiently and more economically than aircraft, even such outstanding ones as the F-111.
    2. Mik13
      Mik13 13 October 2017 07: 44 New
      +7
      .
      Quote: Ken71
      F111 has long been not exploited as bombers. And this is what our concept of su24 looked at.

      The Wright brothers' airplane has not been exploited for a long time as an airplane. And this is what the whole world looked at the concept of the plane
    3. svp67
      svp67 13 October 2017 07: 48 New
      +5
      Quote: Ken71
      F111 have long been not exploited as bombers.

      This aircraft was difficult to maintain and operate even for the US Air Force, so removing them from service is a natural result.
      And in this regard, it is probably worth recalling the story of the A-10, they were also taken to the reserve, with the further prospect of being sent to the "needles", but now they’ve changed their minds somehow. But the A-10 is a much simpler aircraft, with the FB-111 such a trick will not work.
      1. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 13 October 2017 07: 52 New
        0
        And our type is not complicated
        1. svp67
          svp67 13 October 2017 07: 55 New
          +4
          Quote: Ken71
          And our type is not complicated

          Complicated, but everything is known by comparison. FB-111 is more complicated. And to be absolutely precise, the Su-24s in Syria are not bombed from extremely low altitudes, where special difficulties arise both in piloting and in operation.
          1. Kenxnumx
            Kenxnumx 13 October 2017 08: 28 New
            0
            And ours do not use an automated flight system at low altitudes. Something I heard about a fair amount of problems with its implementation.
            1. svp67
              svp67 13 October 2017 08: 37 New
              +5
              Quote: Ken71
              And ours do not use an automated flight system at low altitudes.

              And what's the point of her at those heights where they work?
            2. bober1982
              bober1982 13 October 2017 08: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Ken71
              A low altitude automated flight system

              What do you mean by low altitudes? there are small heights, there are extremely small (from 50m and below) At such altitudes, the aircraft is piloted manually, no automation exists and cannot exist.
              1. Kenxnumx
                Kenxnumx 13 October 2017 08: 59 New
                +2
                And yet. Such a system exists on 111 and 24
            3. Servisinzhener
              Servisinzhener 13 October 2017 11: 08 New
              +5
              So after all, flying at extremely low altitudes was provided for a breakthrough in air defense, not for bombing. And in conditions when the bearded from air defense means only MANPADS and MZA there is no word to fly at extremely small, because in this situation, the height guarantees protection.
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 13 October 2017 11: 16 New
                +3
                Quote: Servisinzhener
                So after all, flying at extremely low altitudes was provided for a breakthrough in air defense, not for bombing.

                But bombs can also be thrown from extremely low altitudes (assault bombs)
                Quote: Servisinzhener
                because in this situation, the height guarantees protection.

                That's right, you have to fly and bomb according to the situation.
            4. chetbor
              chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 03 New
              +1
              There are none, on the Su-24 and Su-24m have long been flying with the relief envelope even in the clouds at night
    4. figwam
      figwam 13 October 2017 08: 53 New
      +5
      The F-111 began to have problems in the rotary assembly of the fastening of the moving part of the wing, microcracks began to form, and metal fatigue. They began to limit speed and overloads, and this is his main task to go on supersonic with enveloping the relief to break through the air defense, the meaning in its operation began to disappear, so only the scouts who were decommissioned remained in service.
    5. Alexander Skorik
      Alexander Skorik 13 October 2017 21: 14 New
      +1
      F-111 F-fighter - fighter, bombers with the letter "B", and fighter-bomber - "FB" Apparently, our Su-24 turned out to be more successful than the FB-111
    6. iouris
      iouris 15 October 2017 13: 32 New
      +2
      Su-24 and F-111 - were intended for different structures, they were created not according to one ideology and they used different technologies. The Americans no longer need the F-111, but it does not follow from this that the Russian Federation can afford to abandon the Su-24 without compromising combat effectiveness.
    7. chetbor
      chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 02 New
      0
      The West generally abandoned the concept of having front-line bomber class aircraft in the late 70s
  5. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 13 October 2017 07: 46 New
    +5


    Please note
  6. tchoni
    tchoni 13 October 2017 07: 59 New
    +2
    Whatever the author says, Su-24 fights every two years. It is a fact. And the fact is the most stubborn thing in the world.
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 13 October 2017 09: 43 New
      11
      Quote: tchoni
      Whatever the author says, Su-24 fights every two years. It is a fact. And the fact is the most stubborn thing in the world.

      Or maybe they fly the most on them? It is necessary to calculate the number of take-offs for each type of aircraft, and this does not work out objectively. For example:
      in 2015, the Kremlin lost two Tu-95 strategic bombers, three Su-24 front-line bombers (one of them was shot down by Turkish F-16) and one Su-34 attack. In fighter aircraft, losses amounted to: two MiG-29 fighters and two MiG-31 interceptors. Also, the An-12 military transport received serious injuries.
      So now record the Tu-95, Mig-29, Mig-31 in bad aircraft? But on these types there are fewer flights than the Su-24.
      Then there are complex planes requiring laborious maintenance, strict in flight. But this is not a reason to abandon them and fly only on simple ones! All development in the world goes to complication.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 13 October 2017 19: 50 New
        +3
        Lots of personal experience. There is a Baltimore airfield in Voronezh and a regiment of bombers of the same 105 OSAD equipped with Su24 sat on it. From 2004 to 2010 - three accidents. One fell in 2006 - it seems like the compressor blade collapsed, the hydraulic line was destroyed by a fragment and the car became uncontrollable along the roll - the pilots are alive. The second - in 2008 - I don’t know the details. And one in 2010 - rolled out in the Irkutsk lane, the nose rack was broken, the pilots died. In 2007, fighters were put on the same airfield. (if memory does not fail, then Kachalovsky regiment). They flew as if not more often than dryers. I didn’t hear about the broken twinks.
        1. chetbor
          chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 05 New
          0
          It's not our fault that you were banned even in Yandex - it's about fallen MiGs hi
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 13 October 2017 19: 52 New
        +1
        I am not saying that it is necessary to urgently and unconsciously withdraw from service. But it is necessary to systematically change. Updating the bombers fleet.
    2. Mik13
      Mik13 13 October 2017 13: 09 New
      0
      Quote: tchoni
      Whatever the author says, Su-24 fights every two years. It is a fact. And the fact is the most stubborn thing in the world.

      Well, in this form, this is not a fact.
      It is necessary to look at the number of incidents by raid, and not by timing. So it will be more correct.
      1. iouris
        iouris 15 October 2017 13: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Mik13
        It is necessary to look at the number of incidents by raid, and not by timing. So it will be more correct.

        How to assess the level of flight safety using accident statistics is not a question. There is nothing to discuss here. However, other risk factors should be considered. It’s good that they don’t offer to compare the accident rate of the Su-24 with the accident rate of “Airbasov”.
    3. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 13 October 2017 13: 40 New
      0
      And instant 31 every year. This is not an airplane problem but operation.
    4. Alexander Skorik
      Alexander Skorik 13 October 2017 21: 20 New
      +4
      It is interesting to know which planes do not fight? I know the exact answer: - "Those that do not fly" do not fight! And these fly very much and fight very well.
      1. chetbor
        chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 07 New
        +1
        Those planes that have not yet been built lol
  7. Strashila
    Strashila 13 October 2017 08: 01 New
    +2
    What to say, they were optimized ... how many specialized military schools were closed in the country ... also the Achinskoe ... namely for the training of technical specialists ... now we disintegrate, it’s good that this was revealed in a conditionally peaceful time. This is already confirmed by classical statements ... "Cadres decide everything" and "All charters and instructions are written in blood."
    1. Alexander Skorik
      Alexander Skorik 13 October 2017 21: 26 New
      +2
      Nobody optimized anything. after the destruction of the USSR, our "sworn friends" began to disarm us and destroyed, first of all, the most combat-ready units and the latest equipment. Take the Tu-160, cut in the first place the newest aircraft with a raid of less than 50 -100 hours.
      It is good that somehow the Ukrainians managed to pick up what survived.
  8. VRV In
    VRV In 13 October 2017 08: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    namely, the installation of ejection seats, allowing you to leave the plane at 0 speed and 0 altitude, and most importantly give an order that under such conditions the plane should be STOPPED in order to save the life of the crew.

    K-36 provides ejection from a height 0 of speed 0 and in an inverted state (if there is a necessary height). If the crew did not catapult, then there was no time in this situation.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 October 2017 09: 14 New
      0
      Quote: VRV B
      K-36 provides ejection from height 0 to speed 0 and upside down

      You can jump from zero height, but you need speed, at zero speed the probability of breaking on the wing of the lamp is almost 100%. The sash does not have time to safely shoot, the seat collides with the pilot with the pilot.
      The ability to catapult from zero altitude or from low altitudes does not guarantee a safe exit from the aircraft, an emergency situation develops too quickly. There are frequent cases of crew death due to collisions with the ground during ejection.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 13 October 2017 10: 42 New
        +1
        At the end of 70-x - the beginning of 80-x, I do not remember exactly, in the Far East, the commander and navigator accidentally (!!!) ejected from Su-24 right in the parking lot. Without injury, there was appropriate encryption on the topic. And there were rumors that they were even awarded, because no one had experienced K-36D with such parameters)))
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 13 October 2017 10: 53 New
          +2
          In Chernyakhovsk, at launch, the crew ejected involuntarily, the crew was awarded the chair designers. At the navigator, the launch ejection handle was accidentally hooked onto the control handle, such a test jump was obtained at zero speed.
      2. Yeah
        Yeah 18 October 2017 10: 14 New
        0
        I don’t even want to comment on nonsense, I’ll just call FACT - naval aviation, an airplane (MIG-29 in my opinion), rolled out during landing for GDP and drowned, UNDERWATER CATAPULTED — alive !!
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 18 October 2017 10: 27 New
          0
          And what nonsense, I did not understand.
      3. Taoist
        Taoist 18 October 2017 11: 02 New
        0
        For K-36 this is a regular situation. On the Yak 38 in vertical modes, the flashlight was not reset at all, the bailout passed through the glazing of the flashlight. The chair makes it an armored head. In addition, the K-36 has a two-stage seat withdrawal system and a forced dome opening system - the sensors monitor the position, height and speed and, depending on the situation, this or that bailout cyclogram is activated.
  9. VENOM
    VENOM 13 October 2017 10: 20 New
    0
    As for the aircraft itself - I remember, in the magazine "Youth Technology" for the 95th year I read a review about domestic fighter-bombers. Then in service were still the Su-17, MiG-23B, MiG-27, MiG-25RB and, of course, Su-24. Already then it was said about difficult times for front-line bomber aircraft. What to do with these aircraft (Su-24) now? Perhaps this is not the most emergency aircraft in history. But what is there is enough in abundance. Other planes crashed, but even taken together, they are probably inferior to one Su-24. I remember as before, as soon as they say something in the news about the plane crash, you immediately think that we are talking about the Su-24. I must admit that this aircraft is far from the most successful in terms of reliability. Given that the machines are far from the newest, it is necessary to switch to the Su-34 as quickly as possible. In principle, if all 24th is now put into reserve until 180-200 Su-34s accumulate, no disaster will happen. There are already more than a hundred of them, despite the fact that the new planes have greater combat effectiveness. Yes, and there are doubts that as many as 140 cars remained in flight condition, as indicated in the article. I remember a couple of years ago, information came from several sources at once that there were 120 aircraft. And they are gradually being removed from service. Last year they shot all 24th without the "M" index. Where did another 20 cars come from?
  10. s_ta_l_ke_r
    s_ta_l_ke_r 13 October 2017 10: 31 New
    +1
    A decent car for the 70-90s of the 20th century is essentially a front-line bomber without any anti-inflammatory properties (two P-60 missiles are like an officer’s revolver for peace of mind) for its time a very good pepelats still flies .... but already there is an SU-34 which is developed on the basis of the legendary SU-27, which means it has kept anti-fighter properties including maneuverability + longer range modern avionics better security and radius also more + more unification (reconnaissance aircraft, ground attack aircraft, front-line bomber, electronic warfare aircraft .... it's all SU-34)) so it’s better to spend the old man at rest replacing it with the SU-34 and put it on pedestals in cities and towns of Russia
  11. Servisinzhener
    Servisinzhener 13 October 2017 11: 27 New
    +5
    Many have a reaction to air crashes in the style of: - If you don’t have a dog, your neighbor will not poison her. Immediately write off and ban these old planes and replace them with new ones. And then this "old" flies 20-25 years. The same story was with civil aviation. As if Boing and Airbas production aircraft have a life expectancy and less crash. Such people need to understand that everyday life’s standard of the ordinary person’s resource doesn’t quite suit airplanes. Because the things he uses change much faster. A new model of the car comes out every 3 years, and the same iPhone once every half a year. And everywhere pours in my ears: It is necessary to change! What are you using old stuff! After all, two weeks ago a new one was released in exchange for the stargo, purchased by the way less than a year ago.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 October 2017 13: 49 New
      0
      Well, the fatigue of the metal, etc. The phenomenon of 20-25 years of operation is garbage.
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 13 October 2017 16: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: EvilLion
        Well, the fatigue of the metal, etc. The phenomenon of 20-25 years of operation is garbage.

        Well, it’s so good that you remembered about it. No one knew. Strong people are wild people. You could say from plow. Sopromats did not read.
        Read for fun about the resource. How is it measured, in what units. And what control procedures are needed.
        For example:
        1 This bulletin informs the airlines of the Russian Federation that Tu-154M aircraft are installed:
        1.1. Assigned resources - 30000 flight hours or 15000 flights or life - 20 calendar years.
        1.2. Resources prior to the 1 repair - 10000 flight hours or 4000 + 150 flights or service life - 6 calendar years, based on normal climatic conditions (or 4 years in tropical climatic conditions);
        1.3. Overhaul resources - 10000 flight hours or 4000 + 150 flights or service life - 6 calendar years, based on normal climatic conditions (or 4 years in tropical climatic conditions);


        On combat aircraft - the same thing. Only under the bar. In the Internet, it does not roll.
        1. your1970
          your1970 17 October 2017 19: 49 New
          0
          Mi-6 was withdrawn only in 1998 and then not everywhere in the army - and they flew some 40 (!!!!) years
      2. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 13 October 2017 16: 41 New
        +1
        It depends on how many hours it flies during this time, takeoff and landing cycles and supersonic flights. In addition, it is not known in which year the aircraft was manufactured. In any case, I doubt that throughout the 90s he wound flying hours. Most likely, for the most part, he stood at the airport, like most of our aviation.
  12. Sharansky
    Sharansky 13 October 2017 11: 36 New
    0
    in the absence of opposition to enemy aircraft. It is proved by Syria.

    I wonder what the author means? The opposition there was only once, and it was precisely the Su-24 that was shot down by the Turks.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 October 2017 11: 48 New
      +1
      Shot down "from around the corner", so the opposition was shameful.
      1. Sharansky
        Sharansky 13 October 2017 22: 43 New
        0
        the opposition was shameful.

        The whole question is for whom it was a shame, for a country with claims to Syria or for the Turks.
        In other words, there was no opposition as such, right? But at the same time lost 4 aircraft and 10 helicopters.
  13. Mcsim78
    Mcsim78 13 October 2017 11: 53 New
    +1
    Good afternoon. The question is off topic. As a pedant, I pay attention to the visual quality of the assembly of Western and Russian aircraft. A photo on the example of Su 57 and F 22. Do not tell me why, or discard the links where this is explained. Thank.

    1. E50M
      E50M 13 October 2017 12: 41 New
      +5
      Quote: McSim78
      Good afternoon. The question is off topic. As a pedant, I pay attention to the visual quality of the assembly of Western and Russian aircraft. A photo on the example of Su 57 and F 22. Do not tell me why, or discard the links where this is explained. Thank.


      I explain that the Americans have open the lantern of the cockpit and there they are looking for a lost cigarette. Ours is closed - they do not smoke in flight. What else is not clear?
      1. vik669
        vik669 13 October 2017 13: 10 New
        +3
        At one time in Martynovka, for 100 meters, it was possible to distinguish the Irkutsk and Ulan-Uden Mig-27s (this is about the build quality).
      2. your1970
        your1970 17 October 2017 19: 50 New
        0
        This is it about rivets, they say they spoil the view / affect the speed
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. user1212
      user1212 15 October 2017 08: 58 New
      0
      And if without a candy wrapper?
  14. Pan_hrabio
    Pan_hrabio 13 October 2017 12: 45 New
    0
    Are there statistics in the public domain where you could see, for example, the ratio of accidents and flight hours for different types of aircraft? For the assessment "by eye" in the style

    But if you count on almost 1 aircraft of all modifications, then it would not be very weighty either.


    still too subjective.
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 13 October 2017 13: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: noviczok
      Are there statistics in the public domain where you could see, for example, the ratio of accidents and flight hours for different types of aircraft?

      This is Polish spies lazy!
      No, my dear, the attempt failed ...
      1. Pan_hrabio
        Pan_hrabio 13 October 2017 13: 28 New
        0
        Jokes are jokes, but the question remains valid. I really would be interested to get acquainted with such statistics. Of the individual disasters, even if you summarize them, you won’t understand anything, not knowing how intensively these planes were used.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 13 October 2017 13: 48 New
          +1
          In the USA, it was unknown to me whether the Russian Defense Ministry publishes.
          1. iouris
            iouris 15 October 2017 13: 43 New
            0
            Ilf and Petrov said that "statistics know everything." I will tell you what they had in mind the United States. I doubt that in the Russian Federation statistics can be trusted enough to make responsible decisions.
  15. vik669
    vik669 13 October 2017 13: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Mik13
    The Yak-141 generally had an automatic ejection system

    So she stood on the Yak-38 (dealt with them in Novofedorovka), but what was more dangerous than an airplane or ejection system was always a question and the pilots tried to do without automatic equipment, although the Yak -38 was rather naughty and there were more than ... accidents! And the Su-24 from birth did not differ in terms of problems, but where is the Yak-38, where are the MiG-23 and 27, and so on and so on, and the Su-24 is in business and even in some ways ahead of the Su-34!
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 October 2017 13: 09 New
      0
      Yes, that's right, what kind of automation in the bailout system can be, it will be thrown out of the plane at any time.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 October 2017 13: 47 New
      0
      Nothing that the Su-24 had all the MiG-27 functionality?
      1. vik669
        vik669 13 October 2017 14: 23 New
        +1
        As they say in Odessa, - these are two big differences - it was that the MiG-27 and the Su-24 (OdVO) stood next to each other - so Odessa people are right!
      2. bober1982
        bober1982 13 October 2017 17: 12 New
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Nothing that the Su-24 had all the MiG-27 functionality?

        It’s not entirely clear that these planes solved different tasks; to make a MiG-23 fighter, a MiG-27 fighter-bomber is not the best solution, but this is of course my opinion.
  16. Fitter65
    Fitter65 13 October 2017 13: 10 New
    +2
    In the late 90s and early 00s, this was before Serdyukov, when the life of engines was extended by order, instead of repairing the plant, carry out repairs by the power of the power plant. Here is one example of these solutions.
    , Khurba airfield, the date on the photo. Moreover, the board was being repaired for a long time, I don’t remember the further fate of the device ... It was that we had demolished the front pillar and a lot of things ... The very last time we took off in 2015 tragedy ... Yes, from the fact that iron can fail at any time, no one is safe.
  17. Rusfaner
    Rusfaner 13 October 2017 13: 34 New
    10
    Once, in the 90s, looking at the bacchanalia around, my senior comrade (electrical engineer, ISU) said that the new government easily makes sales engineers out of the bazaar, but the reverse process will not work ...
    PS: The primary meaning of the word "engineer" from Latin is "a skilled inventor, witty inventor" (c).
  18. Des10
    Des10 13 October 2017 13: 44 New
    +4
    [b "] I do not condone the technical staff, but I also do not“ hang all the dogs ”on the technicians, because, firstly, I don’t know exactly how many technical teams work there, and secondly, the work of the technicians is still that." [/ b]
    Well, I don’t know how in the Air Force (VKS), but in the VV (now, accordingly, the Russian Guard) judging by how I see it - to the technicians “on-the-air” - they are in the outfit in the kitchen, in the checkpoint, in the patrol ( the frequency of attraction is unlimited, they have no time to serve their profession), everywhere there is a reserve --- like don’t sew a sleeve, but according to their specialty - according to FIG, more precisely visibility (on papers - norms, well, so for everyone).
    The rest will understand - who is serving. Gone on the OSHM and - wanted to take on a max, but waved --- nerves are more expensive.
    And TCO - in the shower ...

    Well, this is a general trend - after all, they are sleeves and tadpoles, they are responsible, because they are specialists.
  19. EvilLion
    EvilLion 13 October 2017 13: 45 New
    +1
    Firstly, the number of serial Su-34 should be 2020 units, 124 contracts, 2 and 32 machines by the 92 year.
    Secondly, plans for the complete decommissioning of all Su-24 by the 2020 year have been voiced for a long time. I can’t say whether it was about Su-24M2.
    Thirdly, from where the author imagined a hole from the write-off of cars. The question is not in the hole, but in what the plant will do after the 2020 year.
    Fourth, in the army and industry, personnel issues are solved without commentary or articles on the Internet. And they decide, apparently, very well.
    1. iouris
      iouris 15 October 2017 13: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      should be by 2020

      The keyword is here. What will happen in 2020 no one knows, so they prefer to tell what will happen in the 2040th.
  20. dimast
    dimast 13 October 2017 14: 45 New
    +1
    All this is about nothing, miracles do not happen - if there is no money, then there will be no aircraft. And there is little money in Russia and it will only be less, the economy is barely creeping, the population is declining even taking into account the enormous influx of migrants from Ukraine in recent years. There are no engineers - and all the sensible ones are leaving to work in a Boeing or Lockheed - this is unfortunately the truth of life - there can’t be a modern aviation industry on 1.5 people - therefore, the end is a little predictable - oblivion - the latest developments of the Union and our old, God bless them, Soviet specialists - they will support all these Potemken villages for another 10 years - but when neither one nor the other - it all disappears and remains only in textbooks.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 October 2017 15: 48 New
      +1
      Ahhhhhhh !!! We all will die!!!! Aaaaaaa !!!!
      Someday, but not before you saboteurs.
    2. Servisinzhener
      Servisinzhener 13 October 2017 16: 50 New
      +1
      No money? And then what is our Ministry of Finance strenuously hiding in American bonds? Cow dumplings?
      1. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 08 New
        0
        I look at the understanding of the economy at the level of GOD)))
      2. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 09 New
        +1
        Can you become a Minister instead of Siluanov? ) We credit Americans ahah .... Just the Kingdom
      3. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 30 New
        +1
        Okay. I will give a small educational program - and it’s just a shame, for compatriots. So, foreign exchange reserves are being invested - which the Central Bank (not (!!) the government has on its balance sheet). The Central Bank is independent of all, its money does not go to the budget, teachers' salaries and the purchase of S-400. These reserves are not so many unfortunately, and their presence is not an indicator of economic development, this is just a statement of the fact that we are an export-oriented country.
      4. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 34 New
        0
        Reserves are in fact just the presence of a positive difference in the current account. And unfortunately, never, in essence, in any way and even if Putin asks, they will not be able to go on the construction of aviation plants.
      5. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 41 New
        +1
        And yes - a small detail .... China has 8 times more reserves, and Japan has 5 times more reserves. Germany has 4 times. And if you take gold, then your credited homeless states have 25 times more than in Russia ... Just 4ini4
    3. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 13 October 2017 18: 58 New
      +8
      Quote: dimast
      There are no engineers - and all sensible people are leaving to work in a Boeing or Lockheed - this is unfortunately the truth of life

      This is a lie. I can with numbers, if. In exchange for your numbers, naturally.

      In the meantime - stupid lies. At IMHO never.
      1. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 12 New
        0
        A brilliant answer)) The numbers that left ... aren't you funny yourself? Who then leaves statistics? Do you personally stand at passport control? )))
      2. dimast
        dimast 16 October 2017 09: 17 New
        +1
        All my friends left. All my teachers have left. For me, this is an indicator. And the presence of numbers is ridiculous, they made my morning straight. I love people who, despite everything obvious, still believe
      3. The comment was deleted.
  21. Grits
    Grits 13 October 2017 18: 53 New
    +2
    If the number of strikes and, accordingly, combat sorties has so sharply increased, can it make sense to increase the grouping of our airborne forces in Syria? Both in the number and nomenclature of aircraft, and in the number of technicians. Extra experience will not hurt them at all. If the Khmeimim base is overloaded, then it is quite possible for the Su-25 and helicopters to be moved closer to the center. for example, at Tiyas airbase. Yes, and the airfield Dayr Ez-Zora is now free.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 13 October 2017 18: 56 New
      +8
      Quote: Gritsa
      If the Khmeimim base is overloaded, then it is quite possible for the Su-25 and helicopters to be moved closer to the center. for example, at Tiyas airbase. Yes, and the airfield Dayr Ez-Zora is now free.

      What are you going to cover? Movers, damn it.
  22. NN52
    NN52 13 October 2017 20: 07 New
    10
    Here is a super mega article ....
    Roman Skomorokhov, are you morally obsolete? And not physically flabby?
    To write such an opus?

    Well, how can this be written ...
  23. NN52
    NN52 13 October 2017 20: 21 New
    10
    How so, not knowing about the real causes of the disaster, talk about those malfunctions ... And start reading statistics on this type of machine ....
    1. NN52
      NN52 13 October 2017 20: 27 New
      +9
      I did not fly to Su 24. Tell me experts. which chair is it worth?
      1. HEATHER
        HEATHER 13 October 2017 22: 26 New
        +2
        Ka-36 DM. It is completely reliable.
  24. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 13 October 2017 20: 53 New
    +2
    Sorry, I don’t understand something, or in 20 cases there was a superposition of reasons?

    From 1973 to the present day, with the participation of Su-24 there were 87 accidents and disasters, in 52 of which 90 crew members and 7 ground personnel were killed. - [/ b] 87 accidents and disasters
    The reasons for the disasters were in 70 cases, equipment failure, in 29 cases, crew errors and 8 cases - other reasons (battle losses, birds). - 70 + 29 + 8 = 107 [b]
  25. HEATHER
    HEATHER 13 October 2017 22: 22 New
    +2
    It’s a good and capacious article. But it’s time to write off the car unequivocally. Her life has gone. I know that until there is enough 34, we will have to plow 24. We have the same Tu-95 and B-52 But it is wrong to compare strategists with front-line ones. There are other requirements.
    1. NN52
      NN52 13 October 2017 23: 12 New
      +9
      I understood from the chair ... Only we had the K 36 DM series 2. But not on this Su, but on the MiG.
      The article is nonsense, no offense ...
      He started by addressing the funeral of Yury Kopylov, and then moving on to those topics ... In which the author does not understand anything ...
      1. HEATHER
        HEATHER 13 October 2017 23: 17 New
        +2
        In which the author does not understand anything ... Alas. Here, such articles are not uncommon. Sincerely, colleague. I am in stock. Former head of the group of JSC Armeyskaya. drinks
        1. NN52
          NN52 13 October 2017 23: 35 New
          +9
          I'm also in stock ... But only from above ... 31 ....
      2. NN52
        NN52 13 October 2017 23: 17 New
        +8
        And the technicians in this particular case are not to blame ...
        1. NN52
          NN52 13 October 2017 23: 19 New
          +8
          And 24 will plow another 5-8 years at least ...
  26. misti1973
    misti1973 13 October 2017 22: 41 New
    +1
    Come on! Just say that there is no money, everything went offshore :) We will understand. Yes, he is old, old! We are already talking about replacing the F / A-18, but with us this one is still flying.
  27. Reklastik
    Reklastik 14 October 2017 01: 00 New
    0
    Although, if you believe Magomed Tolboev (let alone whom to believe, if not him)
    - statistics))))
  28. Reklastik
    Reklastik 14 October 2017 01: 06 New
    0
    And just taking them and sawing them, motivating them with the idea that the Su-34 is better, is just stupid, no matter what the proponents say.
    - Roma knows better laughing
  29. Nemesis
    Nemesis 14 October 2017 03: 14 New
    +6
    Everyone who believes that the Soviet Su-24M, and the USSR has not been around for decades, you can still fly, I strongly advise you to change the sofa to the cockpit of this rarity and prove to us by personal example everything that they write here. GDP gave Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan $ 750 million, with this money it was necessary to equip the Russian army, and not feed foreigners and their state at the expense and expense of the Russian Federation .... Ukraine was given 3 billion $ ... How much could be would be done in Russia .... A new frigate 11356 costs $ 500 million ... and a corvette 20380 is half the price ... I'm not talking about stealing officials, none of whom are punished according to their deserts, with confiscation of property .. . So the blood of these dead pilots is in the hands of officials from the State Duma and the Government of the Russian Federation ... including GDP.
    1. chetbor
      chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 13 New
      0
      If you take a run from the 25th floor to concrete, but all of our hands WILL NOT be in your blood. The crew is to blame for the disaster.
      On understanding your place in my brain, I just flew off to the Su-24m - 15 years, and before that, more and more
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 25 October 2017 09: 16 New
        +1
        No need to tell us where and how people like you flew. People like you above Madame de Pompadour will never fly and end the same way ... there are no others among the parishioners of the alcohol center
  30. Dedmazay
    Dedmazay 14 October 2017 09: 48 New
    +2
    An example of this is Perm VATU! They sawed the territory, part of it was transferred to GUFSIN, part of it was sold to someone. Buildings and infrastructure kirdyk. The country needs more than propellers, not military aircraft! Specialists from the school - lost forever, and the former Minister of Defense only an oral reprimand for the fact of treason and terrorist activities !!!! Surrealism on the march !!!
  31. Dedmazay
    Dedmazay 14 October 2017 09: 52 New
    +1
    And about Kamran airbase - it is strong !!!!))) as well as about Anadyr !!! )))) The misfire at headquarters is immeasurable !!!!
  32. Dedmazay
    Dedmazay 14 October 2017 10: 06 New
    +2
    I saw the live work of aircraft in Bagram! This is beyond praise !!! I'm just a special forces officer, for flyers - cargo, body, carcass. A low bow to you guys, for your work, especially to the helicopter pilots of the Vladimir Regiment !!!! Maybe not the topic - but from the heart !!!!
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 14 October 2017 19: 24 New
      +2
      Thank you ... Usually, “pilots in black airborne schools” are rarely noticed ... only aviation is kept in the air as it is known “on the back”.
  33. 501Legion
    501Legion 14 October 2017 11: 24 New
    +1
    Land Down Pilots
  34. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 October 2017 11: 48 New
    +1
    What is the problem? Train and hire competent technical personnel, train technicians, value personnel .... With the current approach to personnel and students, there are 5 managers / lawyers / economists per technician ...
  35. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 14 October 2017 13: 12 New
    +2
    everything is simple, the su-24s will be changed to the 34th, the kit arrived, replaced, and the 24th to the storage base, I won’t be surprised that they will eventually be sold to the same Syrians
  36. Radikal
    Radikal 14 October 2017 16: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: andr327
    Another problem in the troops in relation to the officers is that they no longer see a person, but everyone decides to get the money, do it.

    So maybe it’s worth attracting civilian specialists for such purposes, from the manufacturer’s company, where they will undergo training and retraining, and most importantly they will have a vested interest in the trouble-free operation of aircraft, so as not to spoil the export prospects of their aircraft ...

    And the cat wept for these specialists at the enterprises themselves - what are you talking about!
    sad
  37. Simfy
    Simfy 15 October 2017 10: 14 New
    0
    if we take into account that, having taken 1990 as a milestone, then in the first 17 years there were 57 emergency situations, and in the next 27 - 30 - maybe there were just fewer departures?
    1. iouris
      iouris 15 October 2017 13: 52 New
      +1
      There were not very many Su-24 aviation regiments in the RSFSR. After 1990, a completely different life began, and the fleet was “sawn”.
  38. panzerfaust
    panzerfaust 15 October 2017 15: 12 New
    +1
    As is the case with the Yaroslavl “Locomotive”. Forgot to remove from the hand brake? Stupidly dying professionals ... Catapults - that's the salvation! The main thing is human life, and in our army, iron is more expensive.
    1. Cossack 471
      Cossack 471 15 October 2017 18: 13 New
      +1
      such a psychology has remained from the time of the union. They will deliver the air defense systems worth a billion. and people barracks for several thousand rubles. type strongly saved
    2. Yarhann
      Yarhann 15 October 2017 23: 25 New
      +1
      in any army everything has a price and iron is much more expensive than the operator as a rule - take for example a pilot su 35 or f 22 - airplanes are many times more expensive than the pilot’s life (insurance upon death) + training cost + salary - this is the economy of war. But the cost of the commandos is much more than the weapons that he uses - because such soldiers are really valuable - they using relatively cheap means can bring quite large losses to the enemy.
      Do not forget that we are talking about a professional army where a person sells his life literally for money - and the officers in the Soviet army were professionals (contractors) - so that all the guys can be counted in money. The main goal of the Defense Ministry is the battle-worthy army and navy, and the snot that people say they don’t value them shit is a war and not fist fights.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 16 October 2017 01: 14 New
        +2
        Is an airplane more expensive than a pilot? laughing
        1. Yarhann
          Yarhann 16 October 2017 15: 05 New
          +2
          Of course many times - take a calculator and count
      2. chetbor
        chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 18 New
        0
        To understand the issue, approximately 1 rubles in 000 prices cost a summer, replacing cadet epaulets with brand new ones with two asterisks. hi
        Up to the level of 1 class - that is, when he is a reaper and a dude is a dude - this is another 5-7 lyam and the same number of years.
        Next, translate it into cars or iPhones smile
  39. Yarhann
    Yarhann 15 October 2017 23: 17 New
    +2
    everything is true in the article, it’s not written in the technique, but in the ability to master this equipment and in aviation, the possession of the equipment is the work of technical personnel and a small percentage of pilots - because the machine costs hours to maintain and is much less in the air. Look at modern aviation, it is even more demanding in maintenance and there will be even more personnel on the working board - in the future we risk getting to the point where the main target of the attack will be not airplanes in the air, but personnel at the aerodrome - because without it airplanes cannot fly into the air - and the more modern the sides, the more highly qualified personnel are needed.
    And here the main point comes up - if we are fighting against the Papuans and the probability of losing service personnel is small, then this approach helps to create modern complex machines, but when the enemy is technically at the same level, then attacks on the airfield (maintenance personnel) will be in any case and there will be personnel losses which means that the planes will be fun and the more complex the board, the more they will be on the ground and not in the air.
    THAT there is a conclusion that it is necessary to seek a balance in the complexity of servicing the speed of training of personnel and pilots.
  40. shuravi
    shuravi 16 October 2017 16: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: Yarhann
    Of course many times - take a calculator and count



    Have you personally tried to count? Here is the source data. With the serial production of Su-24 aircraft, it takes about three months to create one instance.
    To prepare the pilot of the entire 3 class, 5-6 years. bully
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 17 October 2017 01: 10 New
      +1
      Of course I tried, we consider the cost of the pilot - life insurance in case of death + the cost of training the pilot + salary for the period of his work - we get the cost of the pilot. If you know all these indicators, then calculating how much the pilot costs is not a problem, but I think there are clearly not millions of bucks.
      And airplanes usually cost millions of dollars and the most advanced airplanes even hundreds of millions.
      And yes, I talked about the price of an airplane and a pilot, and not about the time of construction and preparation. And pilots should always have more planes - simply because when conducting combat operations for round-the-clock sorties, you need several crews on board - as was the case in Syria.
      So you do not have to worry about the fact that the pilots will not have enough sides to end faster. Well, do not forget that with heavy losses in military equipment, its use as a rule either decreases or ceases.
      So the cost of any warrior can be calculated on a calculator - at least now when we have a professional army.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 18 October 2017 11: 06 New
      0
      5-6 years you took this a little ... (I think by the way, first of all, therefore, we will go to drones) - but it still doesn’t solve the “human factor” - drones also need to be prepared and maintained, and the “airplane technician” is being prepared no less than pilot ... So the demon of pilots can still do, but it’s unlikely to be without us ... ;-)
  41. fanplan
    fanplan 17 October 2017 12: 12 New
    0
    I am an aerodynamic physicist, a pensioner, and have been leading an aircraft modeling club since 1998. I realized that modern children can’t handle traditional models with internal combustion engines, therefore, having made 4 inventions, I developed a model line acceptable for the modern world, but it was not liked by eminent sportsmen-aircraft modellers, and therefore the authorities from education. The result is to see a child launching a do-it-yourself model IMPOSSIBLE, even on the Internet, the exception is my site http://fanplan.ru/ And this is one of the main sources of a shortage of aircraft engineers.
  42. shuravi
    shuravi 17 October 2017 13: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Yarhann
    Of course I tried, we consider the cost of the pilot - life insurance in case of death + the cost of training the pilot + salary for the period of his work - we get the cost of the pilot. If you know all these indicators, then calculating how much the pilot costs is not a problem, but I think there are clearly not millions of bucks.
    And airplanes usually cost millions of dollars and the most advanced airplanes even hundreds of millions.
    And yes, I talked about the price of an airplane and a pilot, and not about the time of construction and preparation. And pilots should always have more planes - simply because when conducting combat operations for round-the-clock sorties, you need several crews on board - as was the case in Syria.
    So you do not have to worry about the fact that the pilots will not have enough sides to end faster. Well, do not forget that with heavy losses in military equipment, its use as a rule either decreases or ceases.
    So the cost of any warrior can be calculated on a calculator - at least now when we have a professional army.



    Well, the circus and more. When not bothering even with approximately realities, the boys come up with their theories and try to defend them. laughing
    Young man, write on your forehead that the most valuable thing on any plane is a trained pilot.
    The price of an airplane, in modern times, is a conditional and inflated amount expressed in a certain amount of colored cut paper.
    The true price of an airplane is aluminum, magnesium, titanium, steel, etc., which is required to build, and time to process.
    It’s more difficult to calculate the price of a pilot:
    - Firstly, women do not give birth immediately ready for flight training. a child needs to be born, raised, learned before 17 recognizes him fit for flight training
    - secondly, studying at a college at a college is very expensive and also takes time
    - thirdly, having started the development directly to the development of the very expensive aircraft in part, the pilot, among other things (fuel, ground handling, etc.), generates its resource. Thus, the cost of the aircraft is transferred to the pilot in the form of experience (about simulators and do not stutter, they are not able to replace real flights, they only help), which becomes much more expensive than the aircraft itself.
    - fourthly, time for the production of aircraft can be reduced, automated, cheapened. In the preparation of pilots, this will not work.
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 17 October 2017 20: 13 New
      +1
      and you laid out on the shelves the cost of the pilot that you still need. and if you consider it so primitive as you that a woman should give birth to so on and so on. That damn plane also needs to be designed then to develop all the components and assemblies to put it all together then try to fix all the jambs after which create a new serial model for which MO will pay grandmas and give the dough for the organization of serial production - and after the organization of serial production we get an airplane standing in a hangar that even with a pilot will not fly anywhere because operation requires a set of maintenance measures and a staff of technicians with engineers - all this costs such astronomical money that the pilot of all this just nothing and he just izmeryaetsya money.
      And you stop evaluating everything with children's values ​​and fairy tales from books that the pilot is the most important thing on the plane - yes the pilot is the most important thing on the plane - but without the plane, the pilot is a foot soldier - a very expensive foot soldier who doesn’t know how to fight even at the level of a sergeant who contracted millions of rubles. So if without snot the plane is primary - because the pilots make money for pilots and it’s much easier and cheaper to train them than to build a bunch of spare planes and keep them. The days of the Second World War were long ago when cars cost a penny and when the pilot really was valuable simply because the aircraft burned in dozens under each of the experienced pilots - now the plane is gold - often a modern plane uses and carries such ammunition (not nuclear) whose price is more than the cost of the pilot himself - And you damn about women 17t years of preparation - kindergarten is the older group.
      It is difficult to calculate the price of a pilot only if there is no system for the selection and education of these same pilots and when there are no specific numbers, how much does it cost, and now everything is there and having specific numbers that I mentioned above, it’s easy to consider the cost of a pilot for the Moscow Defense Ministry, so to speak.
      And there is no need here to tell tales about caring for people, etc., and in military affairs, the primary task is to fulfill the assigned combat mission and people with appliances in it are consumables and both of these consumables cost money.
      And about the price of an airplane, which is estimated in colored cut paper — I shouted shkolo from the heart))) at least for a second, think about how much time and money you need to create a modern airplane — I'm talking about the equipment and specialists who should create it — it's not a pilot for you airplane (driver) - here you need to think with your head, and not just one person, but hundreds and thousands of hard workers in the factories that all the engineers designed there to implement.
      Without a good modern airplane, the pilot is just a bad fucking infantryman and the trouble is that at least sit down but the plane will not create a flock of pilots for 3-4 for not 10 years — well, perhaps, it is a maize)) but to train pilots for 5-6st years or even faster You can from any young man - you understand the difference - which is actually more expensive. It is not a question of a pilot to do it - as it was during the Second World War when there were not enough planes to prepare their packs, especially considering that the plane burned in packs as well. In WWII, there was simply a natural selection of pilots who better survived, but then the planes were not as endlessly golden as now. Yes, maybe now the pilot is more expensive than during the Second World War, yet for the preparation, more aircraft are needed, although they became automated, but still they began to perform more functions - in vain in some even two pilots. And that means why on some planes there are two pilots — yes, it’s just not because it would be difficult to do everything alone — it’s very expensive to create such a fire control system that one pilot could handle — because it’s cheaper to train another pilot who will take on some of the functions - i.e. replace the on-board system
    2. chetbor
      chetbor 24 October 2017 22: 22 New
      0
      [quote = shuravi] [quote = Yarhann
      It’s more difficult to calculate the price of a pilot:
      - Firstly, women do not give birth immediately ready for flight training. a child needs to be born, raised, learned before being recognized as fit for flight training at 17 [/ quote]
      Bingo, 1200-1400 people came to only one school, all healthy and tested, about 400 people survived before the credentials committee, 160-170 arrived
  43. shuravi
    shuravi 17 October 2017 22: 22 New
    +2
    Quote: Yarhann
    and you laid out on the shelves the cost of the pilot that you still need. and if you consider it so primitive as you that a woman should give birth to so on and so on. That damn plane also needs to be designed then to develop all the components and assemblies to put it all together then try to fix all the jambs after which create a new serial model for which MO will pay grandmas and give the dough for the organization of serial production - and after the organization of serial production we get an airplane standing in a hangar that even with a pilot will not fly anywhere because operation requires a set of maintenance measures and a staff of technicians with engineers - all this costs such astronomical money that the pilot of all this just nothing and he just izmeryaetsya money.
    And you stop evaluating everything with children's values ​​and fairy tales from books that the pilot is the most important thing on the plane - yes the pilot is the most important thing on the plane - but without the plane, the pilot is a foot soldier - a very expensive foot soldier who doesn’t know how to fight even at the level of a sergeant who contracted millions of rubles. So if without snot the plane is primary - because the pilots make money for pilots and it’s much easier and cheaper to train them than to build a bunch of spare planes and keep them. The days of the Second World War were long ago when cars cost a penny and when the pilot really was valuable simply because the aircraft burned in dozens under each of the experienced pilots - now the plane is gold - often a modern plane uses and carries such ammunition (not nuclear) whose price is more than the cost of the pilot himself - And you damn about women 17t years of preparation - kindergarten is the older group.
    It is difficult to calculate the price of a pilot only if there is no system for the selection and education of these same pilots and when there are no specific numbers, how much does it cost, and now everything is there and having specific numbers that I mentioned above, it’s easy to consider the cost of a pilot for the Moscow Defense Ministry, so to speak.
    And there is no need here to tell tales about caring for people, etc., and in military affairs, the primary task is to fulfill the assigned combat mission and people with appliances in it are consumables and both of these consumables cost money.
    And about the price of an airplane, which is estimated in colored cut paper — I shouted shkolo from the heart))) at least for a second, think about how much time and money you need to create a modern airplane — I'm talking about the equipment and specialists who should create it — it's not a pilot for you airplane (driver) - here you need to think with your head, and not just one person, but hundreds and thousands of hard workers in the factories that all the engineers designed there to implement.
    Without a good modern airplane, the pilot is just a bad fucking infantryman and the trouble is that at least sit down but the plane will not create a flock of pilots for 3-4 for not 10 years — well, perhaps, it is a maize)) but to train pilots for 5-6st years or even faster You can from any young man - you understand the difference - which is actually more expensive. It is not a question of a pilot to do it - as it was during the Second World War when there were not enough planes to prepare their packs, especially considering that the plane burned in packs as well. In WWII, there was simply a natural selection of pilots who better survived, but then the planes were not as endlessly golden as now. Yes, maybe now the pilot is more expensive than during the Second World War, yet for the preparation, more aircraft are needed, although they became automated, but still they began to perform more functions - in vain in some even two pilots. And that means why on some planes there are two pilots — yes, it’s just not because it would be difficult to do everything alone — it’s very expensive to create such a fire control system that one pilot could handle — because it’s cheaper to train another pilot who will take on some of the functions - i.e. replace the on-board system



    Yes, child, you are a child. You should read more, and not put forward the next theory. Especially about the short-term courses of pilots a la WWII for modern aircraft. laughing
    Well, if you bother to call me "shkololo", then let's open the cards. And we will evaluate how competent anyone is in this matter.
    This is me.
    http://artofwar.ru/l/lisowoj_w_i/
    You can ask a question there, I will answer.
    Now, please confirm your competence.
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 17 October 2017 22: 56 New
      +1
      And what is your competence in the development of airplanes or in organizing the Air Force or children's judgments that the most important thing in the Air Force is airplanes - this is the most important soldier in the infantry - because this is the main consumable - albeit incomparably cheaper than the pilot but also having his own the price.
      Throw that you this kindergarten - this is not a theory, this is reality, but you probably live in a fictional world where a soldier is the main value - there are no soldiers, this consumable was and will be - there are expensive soldiers there are cheap tasks of a soldier to control weapons, whether it’s an automatic machine a tank or an airplane - and each type of armament costs money just as much as a soldier - just like ensuring infantry and air force combat worth money but incomparable - but the effectiveness of weapons is incomparable.
      Well, the last one is that it would be clear that the technology steers (the loot is convertible through scientific developments into equipment) - we recall the Strategic Missile Forces troops - the pilots or ship commanders or the commanders of mine launchers are the most important there - of course there is the most expensive and important missile weapon there I am a nuclear warhead, the cost of which, although high, is that each such missile will perform such a task that no infantry battalion will be able to perform; no airplane; no pack of tanks - and this weapon will fulfill this task with guarantee.
      It is a reality that the whole army is built on a dough in any country of the world, every soldier costs money - you just translate the soldier’s skills into relative skills in civilian life. Suppose an infantryman is a loader or a janitor, and a strategic pilot or a nuclear submarine commander is a research fellow at the Rosatom Nuclear Research Center - each has his own competence, each has his own level of knowledge, each has his own salary, and naturally is important for his industry.
      So the soldiers are all worth the money and therefore they are paid different salaries - and in the event of the dismissal of a soldier-soldier (well, he died for example) they hire a new one - that’s all.
      And do not tell tales about preparation and the rest of this nonsense here - you will tell your children. Thank God that in the army, as in life, people live, develop, work, serve, reach certain heights and retire. And this whole system has been worked out for centuries and I haven’t come up with this theory now - a soldier costs money.
      If I explain to you inaccessibly or you simply cannot understand that a soldier is worth the money - that is, for example, PMCs are, for example, contracts for the protection of let's say airspace like in NATO countries when all sorts of small countries that cannot allow (due to dough) the Air Force simply pay others countries for that. There are the same banal mercenaries who fight in hot spots all these guys cost money - in the same PMCs there are agreements where a warrior is evaluated. Another example is the UN military missions where warriors from different countries of the world work from infantry to pilots — these guys also have a hundred dollars of money, their life (if it is a pilot, a private soldier and an army) and their salary.
      So dear man, you first understand the reality and then tell tales here that the soldier is priceless - it’s priceless for your mother and for any employer, whether it is the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the Pentagon, PMCs, or all kinds of military organizations, you are an employee (consumable) costs money and must bring a certain profit to the hiring organization.
      Well, instead of the empty lines that you write here, try to tell how your military system works in the world.
      I’m not going to crawl into the subtleties of pilot training - it’s not interesting to me — it’s banal mechanics — it would be loot to prepare no question.
      And yes, the fact that you are a helicopter pilot does not mean anything about your competence in organizing the Air Force - it’s the same if the driver judges the organization of the transport enterprise based on its driver’s knowledge of which pedals to press and where to put the solarium.
      I just painted everything in the form of money because any modern army is first of all money, but of course you can stay in your childhood fantasies that the army is something more than working for money for money. You still say that war is not a business)))
      1. NN52
        NN52 18 October 2017 21: 48 New
        +8
        Well, this is certainly cool .... A driver, a herd, etc., banal mechanics to prepare a pilot ...
        I didn’t want to write anything, but I read it, and ofig ....
        In 1989, 220 cadets entered; in 1993, 41 lieutenant fighter pilots AVVAKUL graduated.
        And you mr .... something else you can argue?
        It’s better not to write such nonsense /////
  44. shuravi
    shuravi 17 October 2017 23: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: Yarhann
    And what is your competence in the development of aircraft or in the organization of the Air Force ...


    Kid:
    1. You have not confirmed your competence. then you are a shkolota and a lamer.
    2. For the reason of the first paragraph, your verbiage is worthless. Give at least one authoritative source, which indicates that the plane is more expensive than a pilot. At least one instruction, where the priority is the rescue of an expensive aircraft, and not the crew.
    1. NN52
      NN52 18 October 2017 21: 53 New
      +8
      But you’re not being fooled by him ,,,,
      OH sick or troll ///

      Shuravi, this is me about your dialogue opponent ...
  45. wild
    wild 18 October 2017 10: 21 New
    0
    you have to pay with dignity, then they will work in frost and heat.
  46. Yeah
    Yeah 18 October 2017 10: 29 New
    0
    ek twisted you all, respect mechs, you see the guys got sick, the earth died in peace, well, and the rest, wait until the investigation is over ...
  47. Cop
    Cop 19 October 2017 20: 05 New
    +3
    Mr. Skomorokhov, and you don’t know that the Su-24 in ONE sortie can deliver, for example, four bombing and assault strikes. And then you need not four flights, but only one ......
  48. shuravi
    shuravi 19 October 2017 20: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Cop
    Mr. Skomorokhov, and you don’t know that the Su-24 in ONE sortie can deliver, for example, four bombing and assault strikes. And then you need not four flights, but only one ......



    You can also 38, it all depends on what goals.
    1. Cop
      Cop 19 October 2017 22: 07 New
      +3
      And why, then, does the author of "shadow on the fence" induce ......?
  49. shuravi
    shuravi 21 October 2017 11: 38 New
    +2
    Quote: Cop
    And why, then, does the author of "shadow on the fence" induce ......?



    BShU is a loose concept. One FAB-100 in the target, already BShU. And the whole BC there, also BSHU.
  50. Cop
    Cop 21 October 2017 17: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: shuravi
    Quote: Cop
    And why, then, does the author of "shadow on the fence" induce ......?



    BShU is a loose concept. One FAB-100 in the target, already BShU. And the whole BC there, also BSHU.

    And what does that change? author -> author -> author simply manipulated this figure and that’s it.