Military Review

In the US, spoke about the losses of the Russian air forces in Syria

112
In the US, spoke about the losses of the Russian air forces in Syria

Russia during the military operations in the Syrian Arab Republic lost 19 aircraft and helicopters. All losses are from 2015 to 2018. It is reported by the American magazine The National Interest.


The authors of the material published on the pages of the magazine claim that Russia for the period 2015-2018 lost 11 helicopters and 8 aircraft in Syria. In addition, according to American journalists, the loss of aircraft caused the death of 23 pilots (crew members) and 37 passengers. All data is taken from open sources.

According to the publication, the Russian VKS suffered major losses in the initial period of the war due to the inexperience of Russian pilots, the second cause of the losses was the problems with equipment. This could be avoided by using high-precision weapon and drones, following the example of the United States, whose Air Force lost one F-2014 Fighting Falcon fighter and V-2020 Osprey convertiplane during the operation against the Islamic State (banned in Syria) in Syria during the period 16-22.

However, the author notes, the losses in equipment and people in Russia were too small to interfere with the work of the Russian Air Force, which by mid-2018 had made about 39 thousand sorties. According to Western experts, Russia's actions have made it possible to change the situation in Syria in favor of Bashar al-Assad. Without the Russian VKS, he would not have survived.
112 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. smart ass
    smart ass 24 March 2020 17: 43 New
    +5
    Mattresses, as always, pull the blanket over themselves.
    1. Jack O'Neill
      Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 17: 49 New
      +30
      Mattresses, as always, pull the blanket over themselves.

      But they are right, since UAVs would really save the lives of our pilots. And Turkey, strangely enough, cemented this opinion when it bombed Syria.
      We must be objective.
      1. svp67
        svp67 24 March 2020 18: 01 New
        +23
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        We must be objective.

        You have to be objective ... and the Americans use manned vehicles the same way, not everyone transferred to the wings of the UAV
        1. Jack O'Neill
          Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 18: 22 New
          +14
          You have to be objective ... and the Americans use manned vehicles the same way, not everyone transferred to the wings of the UAV

          That's right, the Americans also use manned aircraft. But! Americans are also very active in using UAVs, shock UAVs!

          To understand the essence, let’s take Turkey again. How many Syrians shot down Turkish UAVs? And if it were manned vehicles? Yes, there would be casualties among Turkish pilots.
          Impact UAVs gave them the opportunity to avoid casualties among pilots.
          1. svp67
            svp67 24 March 2020 18: 29 New
            +4
            Quote: Jack O'Neill
            Impact UAVs gave them the opportunity to avoid casualties among pilots.

            They allowed at least somehow to arrange air support, since Turkish manned vehicles could not be flown there, they were immediately warned that security was not guaranteed. Our Su-24, with the dead pilot and marine, we have not forgotten ....
            1. Jack O'Neill
              Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 18: 39 New
              +2
              They allowed at least somehow to arrange air support, since Turkish manned vehicles could not be flown there, they were immediately warned that security was not guaranteed.

              Exactly! At high risk of losing the aircraft and the pilot, they chose the UAV. Those. they did not have to check whether the Syrians would bring down the F-16 or not.
              As you can see, the UAV gives serious flexibility and preservation of the aircraft with the pilots.

              Our Su-24, with the dead pilot and marine, we have not forgotten ....

              It goes without saying.
              1. svp67
                svp67 24 March 2020 18: 44 New
                +10
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                As you can see, the UAV gives serious flexibility and preservation of the aircraft with the pilots.

                While UAVs are not able to perform all the tasks assigned to aviation and as soon as the enemy establishes air defense, the UAV losses increase sharply, and their effectiveness drops sharply, due to the inability of these UAVs to solve combat missions from small and super low heights
                1. Jack O'Neill
                  Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 18: 47 New
                  +4
                  While UAVs are not able to perform all the tasks assigned to aviation and as soon as the enemy establishes air defense, the UAV losses increase sharply, and their effectiveness drops sharply, due to the inability of these UAVs to solve combat missions from small and super low heights

                  Yes, UAVs in the continuous air defense zone do not live well, as, indeed, for manned vehicles.
                  here they carry out air defense either beyond the boundaries of the destruction of missiles, or at very low altitudes.
                  But even with an air defense breakthrough, UAVs are useful as targets for distraction.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 24 March 2020 18: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: Jack O'Neill
                    But even with an air defense breakthrough, UAVs are useful as targets for distraction.

                    An expensive target comes out, very expensive. An hour of operation of such a “target” is more expensive than a manned vehicle. Not every economy will survive
                    1. Jack O'Neill
                      Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 18: 53 New
                      +10
                      Dear target comes out, very dear

                      UAV options - heaps. The same Reaper will not fly to break through the air defense. )
                      Yes, and initially the topic was about us and Syria, where we have no one to break through air defense. Barmalei have not yet created their own air defense systems.)
                      And flying over the danger zone, bombing Toyota barmalei, the accumulation of manpower, etc., then the role of UAVs is much more promising.
                      Yes, the loss of UAVs can afford it, but not as much as the loss of a manned vehicle with a pilot. Moreover, barmaleis love to scoff at bodies and put it on the Internet, this beats even harder, especially for relatives and families.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 24 March 2020 19: 04 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        And flying over the danger zone, bombing Toyota barmalei, the accumulation of manpower, etc., then the role of UAVs is much more promising.

                        Here, yes, the experience of Israel, and the United States shows their great effectiveness in this matter.
                      2. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 19: 05 New
                        -1
                        Here, yes, the experience of Israel, and the United States shows their great effectiveness in this matter.

                        drinks
                      3. Dreamboat
                        Dreamboat 24 March 2020 21: 13 New
                        -1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        And flying over the danger zone, bombing Toyota barmalei, the accumulation of manpower, etc., then the role of UAVs is much more promising.

                        Here, yes, the experience of Israel, and the United States shows their great effectiveness in this matter.

                        They did not show any promise, since the United States did not bombard the barmaley. UAVs were used to strike stationary objects.
                      4. boris epstein
                        boris epstein 25 March 2020 10: 06 New
                        +3
                        Yes, to strike from someone else’s airspace (but not Syrian, from Libyan, Lebanese) or from civilian aircraft, when the air defense cannot respond due to the risk of destroying a civilian aircraft, is really effective. But meanly.
                  2. Oquzyurd
                    Oquzyurd 24 March 2020 20: 37 New
                    +5
                    F-16 flight hour = 20 thousand dollars. Anka-S UAV flight hour is approximately = 1200 dollars, Bayraktar TV2 UAV = 700 dollars.
                    This was told by a military air blogger from Turkey.
                    The cost of UAVs is 4-12 million dollars, depending on the model and configuration. (They themselves produce, this is the main chip)
                    The cost of aircraft, guess for yourself.
                    For example, they themselves produce Anka-S, on average, for 10-11 million dollars a piece. The other day, they concluded a deal with Tunisia for the supply of 6 pieces of Anka-S, ground stations and many rockets. The total cost of the contract is 240 million dollars .That is, 40 million pieces. In full.
              2. Ovrag
                Ovrag 25 March 2020 00: 02 New
                0
                While UAVs are not able to fulfill all the tasks assigned to aviation

                So far, the only thing the UAV will lose to full-fledged aircraft is in direct aerial combat. All the rest. Same. There is no difference with what to throw cast iron or precision discs. Any carrier can handle this. And if UAVs begin to be equipped with normal radar, then in long-range aerial combat they will be able to show a lot of things.
                1. ism_ek
                  ism_ek 25 March 2020 16: 21 New
                  +2
                  Imagine that your car responds to a turn of the steering wheel or pressing the brake pedal with a delay of about a second. From what time do you drive into the garage? I'm already silent about the "cast iron casting")))
            2. bang
              bang 25 March 2020 00: 48 New
              +2
              they did not have to check whether the Syrians would bring down the F-16 or not.
              In 2012, the Turks checked. Syrians shot down Turkish F-4.
        2. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 24 March 2020 18: 54 New
          +19
          Intersno another, of. the data speaks of the loss of 15 units, and the Yankees about 19 ... apparently even they muddied with the data ..
          1 An-26 aircraft (non-combat losses)
          1 aircraft Su-25
          2 Su-24 aircraft (1 - non-combat loss);
          1 Su-30SM aircraft (non-combat losses);
          1 Su-33 aircraft (non-combat losses);
          1 Mi-8AMTSh-V helicopter;
          1 Mi-8AMTSh helicopter;
          1 Mi-28 helicopter (non-combat losses);
          1 Mi-24 helicopter (non-combat losses);
          2 Mi-35M helicopters;
          1 MiG-29K aircraft (non-combat losses);
          1 helicopter Ka-52 (non-combat losses).
          1 IL-20 aircraft (erroneous defeat)
          In total - 15 pieces of equipment
          1. svp67
            svp67 24 March 2020 19: 03 New
            +6
            Quote: Boris Chernikov
            Intersno another, of. the data speaks of the loss of 15 units, and the Yankees about 19 ... apparently even they muddied with the data ..

            Apparently damaged during the first strike by "drones" they contributed to the losses
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 24 March 2020 19: 16 New
              +3
              heh, this is their favorite way, for the enemy to record any sneeze in losses, but there’s a pile of scrap that was a tank yesterday — not to be written off as losses, but simply written off ..
              1. flicker
                flicker 24 March 2020 21: 44 New
                +3
                this is their favorite way - the enemy can record any sneeze in losses, but have a pile of scrap, which was a tank yesterday, to write off not as losses, but simply to write off

                Wow, they didn’t really talk about the exploits of McCain, who alone killed 25 American planes and disabled Forrestal aircraft carrier for a year. bully
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 25 March 2020 08: 46 New
                  0
                  And where does McCain have to do when the electric launch at the rocket foolishly worked there? McCain himself would hardly have survived at all if he had been in the cockpit on the deck.
                  1. flicker
                    flicker 25 March 2020 09: 06 New
                    +3
                    And where does McCain
                    yes here I think, and where is McCain? request
                    ... did the electric launch on the rocket stupidly work there?

                    To blame: the electric starter (?) And the rocket itself (it was not McCain who destroyed the aircraft carrier, but the rocket).
                    1. EvilLion
                      EvilLion 25 March 2020 10: 08 New
                      +2
                      We recently had a Ka-52 so accidentally shot at the camera. Obviously, the pilot’s fault is not there, he came to the training ground, requested permission to turn on weapon control, got it, turned it on, the descent of the NURS closed.
          2. bars1
            bars1 24 March 2020 19: 40 New
            0
            Su-24M brought down by Turkey to consider labor as a combat loss since the war was not with Turkey.
          3. Serg koma
            Serg koma 24 March 2020 20: 42 New
            +2
            The Syrian Air Force partially added. After all, the data is from "open" sources, so that they rely on all sorts of social networks, jazzirs and "helmets" and use "information" wassat
            1. flicker
              flicker 24 March 2020 21: 51 New
              +3
              partially added. The data is from "open" sources, so on all sorts of social networks, jazzirs and "helmets"
              Well, like:
              “- Write from a new line:“ Lunch. ”Underline.“ I refused the soup. ”In parentheses:“ Kharcho soup. ”
              - "Three portions of barbecue - thrown into the abyss."
              - “Wine. Broke ... two bottles. "
              - Three!
              - Write three. "
              laughing
          4. huntsman650
            huntsman650 24 March 2020 21: 25 New
            0
            There was infa about the defeat of turntables at the airport (((
        3. Dreamboat
          Dreamboat 24 March 2020 21: 08 New
          +6
          Another "admired couch expert." The range of Turkish drones is 125 km. and they are not any analogue of combat aircraft. It is rather an analogue of tactical missiles.
          All the PR of the American Air Force about the success of their drones is stories about single flights of VERY expensive toys on previously explored routes. Where operational decision-making and less mass involvement of aviation is required, the Americans use manned aircraft.
          1. Soviet Union
            Soviet Union 24 March 2020 23: 03 New
            +4
            And do not forget about 39 thousand sorties.
        4. venik
          venik 25 March 2020 08: 11 New
          +3
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          That's right, the Americans also use manned aircraft.

          ========
          Excuse me, how many flights did "American aviation" fly in Syria ??? Could you tell?
        5. EvilLion
          EvilLion 25 March 2020 08: 43 New
          +3
          Do you really believe that one UAV with a load of 200 kg can replace at least the F-16, which will completely deliver tons of 3 loads? The result is appropriate, some problems among the Syrians, while the UAV did not beat. An F-16 regiment in the same time would have rolled Syrians into dust simply.
    2. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 24 March 2020 18: 06 New
      +4
      for objectivity it is also necessary to count American sorties. Well, that would be measured by statistics.
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 24 March 2020 18: 24 New
        +8
        Quote: carstorm 11
        for objectivity it is also necessary to count American sorties. Well, that would be measured by statistics.

        And also take into account that the barmalei bring down those who are fighting. And on their own, on those who help them, they do not shoot.

        If America fought with the bearded in Syria, I would see how many “American heroes” would increase in Arlington.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 24 March 2020 19: 11 New
        +14
        the whole thing is that then Iraq and Afghanistan must be taken into account. And yes, after the Americans in the same Iraq lost a dozen and a half cars a year to zero, they didn’t teach us how to fight. In Afghanistan, in the 15-18th years, which, in fact, were calm for the coalition, 4 sides were lost for those reasons but if you take any year of active combat, there’s a different picture - 12 boards for 2013 or 15 boards for 2012 .. About the 2011 general I’m silent, there the starfall-16 boards crashed or was shot down .. so 15-19 sides for 4 years in Russia is less than 5 sides per year ..
    3. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 24 March 2020 18: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Mattresses, as always, pull the blanket over themselves.

      But they are right, since UAVs would really save the lives of our pilots. And Turkey, strangely enough, cemented this opinion when it bombed Syria.
      We must be objective.

      Do you compare the attacks of the KAB-250/500/1500 air bombs with the MAM-L attacks, that is, the cut-off UMTAS ATGMs? And what would be the operational efficiency of the UAVs? Our Orion UAVs also attacked in Syria, though not so massively, but as tests.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 18: 43 New
        -2
        Can you share information on the Orions in Syria? It is especially interesting what exactly was bombed.
        And yes, the comparison is not only with the CAB, but with the usual FAB, no matter how strange it sounds.
        There is a comparison with efficiency, in comparison with manned vehicles, the same Su-24/25.
        The only minus of the UAV is its load, it can take fewer bombs / SD.
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 24 March 2020 21: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Can you share information on the Orions in Syria? It is especially interesting what exactly was bombed.
          And yes, the comparison is not only with the CAB, but with the usual FAB, no matter how strange it sounds.
          There is a comparison with efficiency, in comparison with manned vehicles, the same Su-24/25.
          The only minus of the UAV is its load, it can take fewer bombs / SD.


          Well, the information is not as much as we would like.
          Orion-E, a Russian small attack drone reconnaissance, was allegedly the first to strike in the Syrian Arab Republic. This was reported by the Syrian opposition agency Step News and the telegram channels of the militants of the "moderate opposition."


          Reportedly, the target of the strike was the position of the militants of the Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham organization banned in Russia and its allies of the moderate opposition in the north of the Hama province.


          This strike was carried out within the framework of the aviation company of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the CAA Air Force to destroy strongholds, headquarters and other objects of militants violating the de-escalation regime in northern Syria.


          The Orion-E unmanned aerial vehicle has a maximum take-off weight of 1000 kg and a payload mass of up to 200 kg, and its flight duration is 24 hours. In the strike version, the drone has several different modules for ammunition weighing from 25-50 kg to 150 kg.

          https://anna-news.info/rossijskij-bespilotnik-orion-e-vpervye-nanes-udar-v-sirii/
          1. Oquzyurd
            Oquzyurd 24 March 2020 22: 46 New
            -1
            Presumably? Not serious.
          2. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 24 March 2020 23: 22 New
            -2
            Russian small attack drone reconnaissance Orion-E, presumablyfirst hit in the Syrian Arab Republic. This was reported by the Syrian opposition agency Step News and the telegram channels of the militants of the "moderate opposition."

            Well, so yourself ... Especially Anna News. If Orion would have bombed on the barmales, then there would have been the First, Second, and Rennes-TV, even shouting at every corner.
            And then only Anna News, and even "presumably"...
    4. tarakan
      tarakan 24 March 2020 20: 46 New
      +3
      The bomb load on the UAV and Rook is the same? Or do you propose, at the onset of the barmalei, to destroy them pointwise one at a time? wink
    5. Runoway
      Runoway 24 March 2020 22: 15 New
      +1
      One must be objective

      - Were there any threats to the US Air Force?
      The goals of the United States: the seizure of oil fields and the overthrow of the regime (so as not to interfere) with controlled barracks and well-trained equipment (I will not be afraid of these words), neither Turkey nor Israel would risk even getting in the way of the USA

      AND OUR VKS
      One must be objective

      -Opposite them, everything from the barmalei and the USA to Israel and Turkey (do not touch these, do not offend them, some barmalei from the moderates have been sorted for years)
      drove what was and studied in the process:
      -blind night hunters
      - a half-dead kuzya with a haze and a faulty aerofinisher (let's be honest (there was an article, avionics is not on our deck aircraft) and there was no need for it at all except for ambition, they wanted to boast, but they left, well at least under their own power, with shame for endless repairs)
      helicopters without President C systems
      -work front-line bombers without fighter cover
      -unpunished villains of the Israeli allies (downed silt -20)
      That is objectively 90% of the causes of the loss of the airspace forces in Syria
    6. LMN
      LMN 24 March 2020 22: 36 New
      +3
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Mattresses, as always, pull the blanket over themselves.

      But they are right, since UAVs would really save the lives of our pilots. And Turkey, strangely enough, cemented this opinion when it bombed Syria.
      We must be objective.

      39.000 sorties!
      How to create such intensity with the help of drones?
      And the bomb load is not comparable.
    7. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 24 March 2020 22: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: Jack O'Neill

      But they are right, since UAVs would really save the lives of our pilots .....
      We must be objective.

      To be objective, we must admit the fact that Russia is really fighting international terrorism there, while the United States merely imitated this fight, and therefore their aviation was not the target for a bearded riffraff. Indeed, it was with the participation of Russia that most of the territory held by the igiloids came under the control of the SAA, while during the participation of the aviation of the pro-American anti-Assad coalition, the territory controlled by terrorists reached almost 80% of the entire territory of Syria.
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      And Turkey, strangely enough, cemented this opinion when it bombed Syria.
      Yes, we must admit that Turkey has demonstrated that UAVs are truly effective weapons. But, again, you have to be objective! Turkey used the surprise factor and the fact that the SAA concentrated a critically small amount of anti-aircraft defense equipment in this direction, since the bearded a priori lacked UAVs and aviation, and therefore the SAA was not ready to repel an attack from the air. But, we must admit that the Syrians quickly enough reacted to this Turkish attack and reduced the number of Turkish drummers by 7 units.
      1. Oquzyurd
        Oquzyurd 25 March 2020 01: 29 New
        0
        My classmate (a long time ago) came to school with a fingal under my eyes. What happened, we asked, and he: I was suddenly hit. How? They didn’t share the girl in the yard, I thought that for a start we would swear, swear, and he silently hit right away. Everything was sudden, that’s it hi
    8. alexmach
      alexmach 24 March 2020 23: 59 New
      +1
      One must be objective

      The numbers are not real. Where did 8 aircraft and 11 helicopters come from?

      Threat; Yes indeed, I checked with the sources and it turns out.
    9. shonsu
      shonsu 25 March 2020 00: 07 New
      +2
      To be objective, helping Assad was one of the goals. The second of the goals was to run into the database as many samples of equipment and pilots as possible. That is why pilots are constantly changing. Kuznetsov was driven for the same. Hence, at least half the losses.
    10. Rusj
      Rusj 25 March 2020 07: 29 New
      +2
      Race! Losses of 7 helicopters and 8 aircraft of different types! Of the 8 aircraft, 5 crashed for various reasons, 1 aircraft were shot down by the Syrians from air defense systems and only two were shot down! Of 7 helicopters, 2 crashed and 5 were shot down! Where did they get 19 miserable ???
    11. fighter angel
      fighter angel 25 March 2020 09: 45 New
      +2
      Objectivity and mattresses are incompatible concepts.
    12. Sirocco
      Sirocco 25 March 2020 12: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      We must be objective.

      To be objective, along with UAV operators, we must not stop growing pilots for the aerospace forces, because the eggs in one basket are not gut. I remember more than five years ago, many argued that tank building was yesterday, and tanks are not relevant. Life has shown the opposite. So here with aviation, these two areas should complement each other.
  • knn54
    knn54 24 March 2020 17: 47 New
    +12
    Is the Yankees fighting with someone?
    I won’t comment anymore, just remember the guys.
  • Honest Citizen
    Honest Citizen 24 March 2020 17: 49 New
    +1
    And the minke whales do not want to tell how they salted the Taliban from the Taliban in Afghanistan so that their checkpoints would not attack?
    1. Tuzik
      Tuzik 24 March 2020 18: 22 New
      +2
      And what's wrong with that?
    2. telobezumnoe
      telobezumnoe 24 March 2020 22: 50 New
      +1
      Yes, they travel everywhere with cash pallets)) if they print anything else. it’s more profitable than losing people and equipment. Do you think bitcoins are created for what? to sponsor those where carrying cash is problematic.
  • vladcub
    vladcub 24 March 2020 17: 50 New
    +9
    "he would not have survived without the Russian VKS"; here they are right. Our VKS have done a lot to make the barmel men sour.
    At times, Americans are fair.
    1. gurzuf
      gurzuf 24 March 2020 18: 34 New
      +1
      Well, to be objective, it’s not the “barmaley” but the freelancers of the United States that our VKS did sourly.
  • kjhg
    kjhg 24 March 2020 17: 56 New
    +5
    For the period 2015-2018, Russia lost 11 helicopters and 8 aircraft in Syria. In addition, according to American journalists, the loss of aircraft caused the death of 23 pilots (crew members) and 37 passengers
    War is war. It all looks beautiful on the TV screen and one continuous victory, but in reality everything happens. Enemies are also insidious. In war, there is no loss. To this list you need to add those who died fighting on the ground, as well as the passengers of the crashed Tu-154. And taking into account the losses of PMCs, the losses of people and equipment are not small. Earth to them all in peace. The losses of Iran and Hisballa are much greater. And the opponents in the person of the Turks, French, Americans and other Saudis lost quite a few.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 24 March 2020 18: 07 New
      -3
      and who cares about PMC losses? American, for example, you also do not recognize. this is a secret and at what commercial.
      1. kjhg
        kjhg 24 March 2020 18: 21 New
        +11
        Quote: carstorm 11
        and who cares about PMC losses?

        That is, you want to say that the former military man, who is now a member of the PMC, who is fighting near Aleppo and Deir Ez-Zor, is very different from the same existing military contractor? What is interesting? Accent? Face shape? Maybe he has a different passport? Or do you seriously think that one is fighting only for an idea, and the second only for money? This is a clear idealization of the situation, which has nothing to do with reality.
        1. polar fox
          polar fox 24 March 2020 18: 29 New
          +6
          Quote: kjhg
          That is, you want to say that the former military man, who is now a member of the PMC, who is fighting near Aleppo and Deir Ez-Zor, is very different from the same existing military contractor?

          it’s just that the pretzel dislikes people who don’t smoke a sinecure in the civil service, but are FORCED to “chop cabbage” in this way. Blood. Several guys knew who went there ...
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 25 March 2020 04: 42 New
            -1
            Well, you call your friends a pretzel. in my case, I, like many personnel officers, clearly understand the difference. the mercenary can leave at any moment. but the soldier cannot. for failure to comply with the order of the mercenary does not expect anything and their tribunal. continue?
        2. Levin
          Levin 24 March 2020 20: 44 New
          -4
          Are different. The contractor is in the civil service, and PMCs often work for oligarchs. They will also work for you, if only there was money wassat
        3. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 25 March 2020 04: 36 New
          -1
          for me all. . a mercenary is not exactly a serviceman. a mercenary is a personal choice to take risks for money. Among them are many excellent people and excellent soldiers. but I will never put them next to anyone who obeys orders there.
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 25 March 2020 04: 49 New
            -2
            By the way, I propose to think about what prevented them from signing a contract with the Moscow Region
        4. Vitaly Voloshin
          Vitaly Voloshin 25 March 2020 13: 05 New
          0
          Mercenary Article 359 of the Criminal Code
  • Piramidon
    Piramidon 24 March 2020 18: 00 New
    +3
    VKS ... by the middle of 2018, they made about 39 thousand sorties

    I wonder how many sorties the Yangkes made there during this time?
  • cniza
    cniza 24 March 2020 18: 03 New
    +1
    Strange numbers and what kind of open sources it is, and if you compare the number of sorties and how ours plow there, the United States and the coalition look pale ...
    1. Glory Ponomarev
      Glory Ponomarev 24 March 2020 21: 44 New
      +1
      Well, the coalition also has a lot of sorties, only with the release of Raqqa 8 thousand combat jacks were committed
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 24 March 2020 18: 05 New
    +2
    Even if the losses really amounted to 19 vehicles for 39 sorties, this is not bad, as it seems to me. In addition, it is worth considering that this number includes planes shot down by Turkobes and Jews, as I understand it.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 24 March 2020 18: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: stock buildbat
      In addition, it is worth considering that this number includes planes shot down by Turkobes and Jews, as I understand it.

      And the two that fell from the Kuzi ...
  • Operator
    Operator 24 March 2020 18: 06 New
    +3
    Open Sources of Information NI - Gozman's Personal Site laughing
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 24 March 2020 18: 10 New
    +1
    Fighting on the side of the barmaley, the Americans also managed to lose the technique. And this despite the fact that Syrian air defense forces were not used against them.
    1. Glory Ponomarev
      Glory Ponomarev 24 March 2020 21: 48 New
      +1
      Well, Syrian air defense is a weak argument, they always use anti-Israeli aircraft, but so far, for all time, only one downed plane
  • ric
    ric 24 March 2020 18: 18 New
    -9
    Such losses from pure races ..... both pilots and flight managers. Why not fight like that, it’s impossible, according to the instructions, the pilots demonstrating courage and heroism crawled under the ZSU and (not under the Stingers) under the Russian Needles.
    1. Levin
      Levin 24 March 2020 20: 54 New
      -1
      Where did they climb on ZSU? Most planes bombed from an altitude of 5km. Therefore, the combat losses over 5 years (among aircraft) are only 3 devices, in contrast to the losses of the Trukhlyandiy Air Force in the Donbass, for example, where it lost over a dozen aircraft in 3 incomplete months.
  • Retvizan 8
    Retvizan 8 24 March 2020 18: 31 New
    +3
    ... "led to the death of 23 pilots (crew members)" ...
    Here, maybe they don’t lie, only with the death of a reconnaissance aircraft IL 20, 15 children died.
    Bright memory to all our wars!
  • Mitroha
    Mitroha 24 March 2020 18: 51 New
    0
    Quote: kjhg
    Quote: carstorm 11
    and who cares about PMC losses?

    That is, you want to say that the former military man, who is now a member of the PMC, who is fighting near Aleppo and Deir Ez-Zor, is very different from the same existing military contractor? What is interesting?

    Perhaps it was meant that for the average layman, who is the majority of the population of the participating countries, a soldier is a representative of the state, a defender of the fatherland, who did not really have a choice to go or not. And the PMC employee - a man at his own risk and earning money, went there consciously. Accordingly, a different attitude to losses, no matter how cynical and stupid it may sound. And PMC losses are not required for ordinary people to report, unlike losses in the armed forces.
    Well, most of our fellow citizens do not understand while PMCs are not used to it.
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha 24 March 2020 18: 55 New
      -4
      But I don’t understand what kind of 9 aircraft are in question? What such open sources were used, sites of bearded or what?
      Well, 5 could remember, but where else 4 come from? Well, if you still count the couple who lost at sea ... But this is such a stretch
      About helicopters I’m not completely up to date, but I also remember only 6
  • Ham
    Ham 24 March 2020 18: 58 New
    +1
    usually when someone else’s losses begin to be taken, it means things themselves are not very ...
    they gave a tear from Afghanistan, slowly twisted with bv and everything there too - the Russians and the pilots are not experienced and the equipment is not reliable ...
    but we with our drones - uuuh! we will show you all!
    1. L-39NG
      L-39NG 24 March 2020 19: 53 New
      -7
      Walking broadly, the main thing is that the balls do not fall off. Create drones first, then scare us.
      1. Levin
        Levin 24 March 2020 20: 59 New
        +3
        Who are you? Are you ISIS?
  • Dzungar
    Dzungar 24 March 2020 19: 14 New
    -1
    following the example of the United States, whose Air Force lost one F-2014 Fighting Falcon fighter and V-2020 Osprey convertiplane during the period of the operation against the Islamic State (prohibited in Syria) in Syria during the period 16-22.
    And what losses can be in the fight against abandoned tractors in the desert .....? Or what they bombed there ....
    1. Levin
      Levin 24 March 2020 21: 00 New
      0
      We don’t touch our own. laughing
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 24 March 2020 19: 14 New
    +1
    One or what is it worth ..
  • Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 24 March 2020 19: 35 New
    +1
    One fighter and one tiltrotor could not be lost at all. Why did they even lift them into the air? They would have sat as they had been in Syria these 6 years before the arrival of Russia. The best way to not bear losses is not to fight. Who called them there? Trump likes oil? Let it go and drown in it, moreover, at home it can do faster. There is more oil in the USA.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 24 March 2020 19: 48 New
    +4
    And then another is written))
    And even that is mainly non-combat.
    And the Yankees do not fly at the front, they have tactics - farted from afar and ran away until they caught up))

    1. Stalllker
      Stalllker 25 March 2020 06: 44 New
      0
      It's closer to the truth
  • FOBOSS
    FOBOSS 24 March 2020 20: 02 New
    0
    It is interesting to compare the number of American sorties in the period 2015-2018
    1. tarakan
      tarakan 24 March 2020 21: 06 New
      -2
      There are departures, but there are departures
  • orionvitt
    orionvitt 24 March 2020 20: 11 New
    0
    Following the example of the United States, the Air Force in Syria for the period 2014-2020 lost one F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter and V-22 Osprey convertiplane
    Of course, terrorists do not shoot in their own way.
  • tarakan
    tarakan 24 March 2020 20: 55 New
    -2
    Specialists, why do not they come up with a UAV bomb carrier, a quadrodura with a bunch of KAB or noras?
  • Sibguest
    Sibguest 24 March 2020 21: 36 New
    -2
    "All data is taken from open sources."
    What sources?
    Read the entire list, please!
  • The Sparkle
    The Sparkle 24 March 2020 22: 19 New
    -1
    *** (p.) This could be avoided by using precision weapons and drones, following the example of the United States, whose air forces lost one F-2014 fighter during the period 2020–16 in Syria during the operation against the Islamic State in Syria Fighting Falcon and V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. ***
    I understand that when the Americans "fought" with ISIS, the terrorists did not have air defense / MANPADS /, and when Russia began to fight, did it appear in ISIS?
  • Barmaleyka
    Barmaleyka 24 March 2020 23: 35 New
    -2
    let them broadcast their losses
  • Uncle_2
    Uncle_2 25 March 2020 05: 54 New
    -1
    This is all sad. The children of the government should be sent to all conflicts in the heat. They will think about how to minimize losses and not earn Putin points.
    1. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 26 March 2020 12: 00 New
      0
      sprains pull up uncle minimizer
  • Stalllker
    Stalllker 25 March 2020 06: 40 New
    -1
    A bit too much
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old partisan
    Old partisan 25 March 2020 09: 24 New
    0
    And why on the photo are warthogs?
    Type of videoconferencing loss from them?
  • zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 25 March 2020 09: 39 New
    0
    And as a percentage of casualties / sorties, what will it look like? The number of American sorties on the network over the years has not been found.
    Of course, a UAV of its kind is good, but a competent approach and the absence of losses in general are much better.
  • fighter angel
    fighter angel 25 March 2020 09: 51 New
    +1
    It would be useful to remind mattresses of their loss in Vietnam.
    I note the loss of certain types:
    - 31 B-52 (we count 34)
    - 765 F-4 Phantom
    - 243 F-100 "Super Saber"
    - 382 F-105 Thunderchief (about half of all issued aircraft of this type)
    - 373 A-4 Skyhawk
    - 84 A-6 "Intruder"
    - 106 A-7 "Corsair"
    - 140 F-8 "Crusader"
    - 256 A-1 "Skyrader"
    - 84 OV-10 Bronco
    - 3.197 UH-1 Huey
    - 277 AN-1 "Cobra"
    - 842 OH-6 Keyus
    - 132 CH-47 Chinook
    Let them remember their own, "analyze", and reveal their lesser havalnik ...
  • Barmal
    Barmal 25 March 2020 10: 32 New
    +1
    If the military operations of the Russian Federation in Syria did not have political problems in the form of the "democratic" forces of the USA and Turkey, then the losses of the air forces would be minimal.
  • Oleg Salov
    Oleg Salov 25 March 2020 10: 33 New
    +1
    Only those who do not take part in hostilities have no losses, and the Americans, from 2014 until Russia entered the conflict, managed to give 80% of the territory of Syria to the terrorists and until now the Americans have done nothing to eliminate the gangs of terrorists, but on the contrary, in every way they are covered and covered, and ours entered into conflict in 2015 and already in 2017 80% of the territory of Syria would have been freed, if it had not been for the treacherous policy of Erdogashka, everything could have ended a long time ago, so we have losses, and the Americans don’t, they they don’t fight, but, on the contrary, they supply weapons and they help to plan and carry out operations, Americans in Syria can have losses only from ours.
  • sanik2020
    sanik2020 25 March 2020 11: 12 New
    +1
    There are military operations in which UAVs are more effective than an airplane or turntable, and it’s not a pity to lose it by comparing the prices of a pilot and a drone. And there are operations where the UAV does not do what the aircraft can do, and the pilot has an intuition that you can’t replace with a computer, you just need to use everything wisely.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 25 March 2020 11: 15 New
    -1
    Quote: svp67
    While UAVs are not able to perform all the tasks assigned to aviation and as soon as the enemy establishes air defense, the UAV losses increase sharply, and their effectiveness drops sharply, due to the inability of these UAVs to solve combat missions from small and super low heights

    To deny that UAVs are more effective than manned aviation is absolutely meaningless.
    1. Today, and all the tasks of aviation, UAVs are not capable of performing only transport flights.
    2. When the enemy establishes air defense losses of manned aircraft, if it performs the same tasks, they grow faster than losses of UAVs. In Yemen, UAVs are very successful strikes with the absolute dominance of Saudi manned aircraft in the air.
    3. UAVs can solve problems from all over.
    4. UAVs are much cheaper than manned aircraft. Compare the price of one Bayraktar and one F-16 with the pilot. When Bairaktar is one of the most expensive UAVs due to Western technology, which is always very expensive.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 25 March 2020 11: 27 New
    -1
    This could be avoided by using high-precision weapons and drones, following the example of the United States, whose air forces lost one F-2014 Fighting Falcon fighter and V-2020 convertiplane during the period 16–22 during the operation against the Islamic State (banned in Syria) in Syria Osprey

    In addition to the US Air Force, their allies also acted against the IS, and they also lost aircraft. One Jordanian pilot was publicly burned.
    One of the Russians and two Syrian aircraft shot down the F-16 from the Turkish Air Force, but the IS did not hit the F-16.
    But you can’t dispute that UAVs and low-lethal weapons are better. Even better and more efficient are UAVs and high-precision missile and artillery weapons.
  • Mnir Sharafeev
    Mnir Sharafeev 25 March 2020 11: 54 New
    +3
    it’s funny to read about how they depicted the struggle for several years, then Russia came there, they armed and trained the barmaley and now they compare the losses
  • Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 25 March 2020 13: 41 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    But even with an air defense breakthrough, UAVs are useful as targets for distraction.

    An expensive target comes out, very expensive. An hour of operation of such a “target” is more expensive than a manned vehicle. Not every economy will survive

    Himeim was attacked by cheap drones. An air defense missile costs more.
  • mordor
    mordor 25 March 2020 14: 06 New
    +1
    who by the middle of 2018 had made about 39 thousand sorties? And the coalition for all the time, because our aircraft are not recognized as pregnant by the signal of their stranger, and weddings in hospitals and at the funeral, there is no pro, and the coalition flies out to bomb almost only them.
  • Varaga
    Varaga 25 March 2020 14: 47 New
    +1
    Pind wasps should often report for their real losses to their citizens, and not soak a nickle in someone else's plate.
  • Igor Dvornikov
    Igor Dvornikov 25 March 2020 18: 00 New
    +1
    The percentage of losses from the number of departures should be considered. The Kurds did not lose a single aircraft even if they had one.
  • Rustic i ......
    Rustic i ...... 26 March 2020 12: 09 New
    0
    What is not clear here? The war began, using bacteriological weapons. The one who used this weapon did not show his face, so as not to receive a retaliatory strike, it is so tolerant, in the West. The blow has already been dealt when bloodsucking insects (midges, mosquitoes, flies) are connected (with the onset of heat), the consequences will be terrifying for the population. The war is on the destruction of the population.