A rare commodity: why are there so few flight schools left in Russia and what is this leading to?
About the new ones Su-35С, Su-57 and modernized Ka-52M They write as if the outcome of a future war is decided by hardware alone. The machines are truly impressive: they operate in difficult weather conditions, under counteraction Defense, solving problems that would have seemed impossible just a generation ago. But all this technology can easily overlook a simple fact. Without a pilot, even the most advanced aircraft will remain parked on the airfield.
Training a military pilot is time-consuming and expensive. According to available data, training takes approximately five years (the exact duration depends on the specialty and program), requires a large staff of instructors, and requires significant fuel and training aircraft resources. In today's conflicts, when aviation As the military suffers losses and the number of sorties grows, personnel become a key factor in security—and that's precisely why the issue of their training is strategic, not economic. Therefore, the main question is: is the current military education system capable of quickly replenishing losses and providing the necessary mass participation?
Historical contrast: from mass school to a consolidated system
To appreciate the scale of the changes, let's recall how pilots were trained in the Soviet Union. The emphasis was on mass training and decentralization: dozens of specialized flight schools operated across the country.
Fighter pilots (Kachinskoye, Chernigov, Borisoglebsk), bomber pilots (Barnaul, Orenburg), attack aircraft, long-range aviation (including Tambov), and military transport aviation (Balashov) had their own schools. Helicopter training was conducted in Syzran, Saratov, and Ufa. This network allowed for the training of large numbers of pilots and the maintenance of a separate scientific and methodological school for each specialty.
A caveat is important here. The Soviet Air Force (VVS) was significantly larger than today's VKS (Vozdushno-Kosmicheskie Sily, the successor to the VKS in aviation)—both in terms of fleet and personnel—but the recruitment model and economics were different. Therefore, a direct comparison of "there were dozens of schools, now there are just a few" without adjusting for the shrinking size of the VVS itself is ineffective. The reduction in the network was largely a consequence of the military education reform that began in the late 2000s and continued into the 2010s. It addressed specific objectives: aligning the number of officer graduates with actual needs, consolidating universities into systemically important educational and research centers, and cutting costs. The system wasn't so much dismantled as adapted to the shrinking VVS. Another issue is that the training capacity was ultimately calculated to a tight limit—with a deficit rather than a reserve. People started talking about the fact that this was not enough back in the 2010s.
How the system works today
The training of flight personnel for the Aerospace Forces is concentrated in several centers:
- Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots (KVVAUL) — a key and essentially primary school training pilots for operational-tactical, long-range, attack, and military transport aviation.
- Syzran branch of the VUNTS VVS "VVA" — a branch of the Military Training and Scientific Center of the Air Force, the Air Force Academy, trains military helicopter pilots. According to reports (regional media citing a Ministry of Defense order; as of 2026), the branch is planned to be withdrawn from the Military Training and Scientific Center and returned to the Air Force Academy on September 1, 2026. historical names; specialization remains helicopter.
- Chelyabinsk branch of the Military Scientific Center of the Air Force "VVA" — trains navigators and combat control officers; its profile is navigation and combat control, not flight training for pilots.
It turns out that today, Krasnodar is essentially the only school training pilots for the entire country. KVVAUL does a great job, and its instructors and teachers maintain a high standard. But the very concept of training pilots at a single school creates systemic risks.
One pipe for all
All aircraft pilot training occurs through a single pipeline—let's call it a "pipe." To understand its scale, it's helpful to look at the numbers. According to publicly available sources, the KVVAUL has graduated hundreds of pilots per year in recent years: more than 350 graduates were reported in 2018 (estimated), and the largest graduation in the school's history, 2021, was approximately 560. There are no publicly available consolidated statistics, so the range of 350–560 graduates per year should be considered an estimate. These aren't dozens, but they're also far from the Soviet-era streams from the entire network of schools. The entire country receives aircraft pilots from a single source—and its capacity is finite.
When the entire flow goes through one specialized center, problems arise that cannot be solved by simply injecting money.
At first, a rigorous admissions process. The number of spots is limited by airfield capacity and staffing constraints, so the admissions committee eliminates a significant portion of candidates at the admissions stage. Competition is high: according to some reports from the Ministry of Defense, among female applicants, it exceeded seven applicants per spot, while the overall competition for military flight specialties in recent years has been estimated at several applicants per spot.
A separate issue is the elimination of students during training.This is a different figure, not to be confused with the competitive selection process. According to the school's management (2018), it remained around 5-6%—well below the regulatory ceiling. However, a disclaimer is needed here: this percentage includes not only medical examinations but also academic performance, flight fitness, and discipline, while the main health-related screening occurs at the candidate stage, before enrollment. There is a common belief that the system loses many capable students due to minor, non-critical health issues. But this cannot be confirmed without statistics on the reasons for attrition. Medical requirements for pilots are strict for objective reasons: overload, flight safety. Rather, the issue is different: there are few places, entry requirements are inflated, and not everyone can reach the only center—so some talented students are eliminated even before the professional selection or don't apply at all.
Secondly, vulnerability to a sharp increase in demand. Graduation will need to be increased significantly—a single school physically cannot handle this quickly. There won't be enough classrooms, barracks, instructors, and—most importantly—training airfield capacity. One airfield can only accommodate a limited number of training students at a time. Yak-130 or A-39, and no amount of funding will instantly raise this ceiling.
ThirdlyThe loss of regional aviation schools. When schools were scattered from Siberia to the Caucasus, they attracted local youth, supported regional flying clubs, and provided a base for pre-conscription training. Now, a candidate from Krasnoyarsk or Vladivostok must travel to the other end of the country, often without the opportunity to undergo preliminary professional selection closer to home.
To be fair, centralization has its merits. It saves on infrastructure, establishes a unified training standard, and allows for the best instructors and the most modern equipment to be brought together in one place. Simulators relieve some of the burden on training staff: more training sessions are conducted on them per day than in the air, allowing for safe emergency training and conserving the lifespan of the aircraft. But all this only explains why centralization is convenient in peacetime. It doesn't address the main risk: such a system is difficult to quickly deploy to meet increased needs.
What can be done
To reduce the risk of a pilot shortage, it makes sense to shift training towards expansion and accessibility.
- Decentralization of the educational base. One or two fully-fledged flight schools in other regions (for example, in the Urals or Siberia) would relieve Krasnodar's burden, expand its recruitment geography, and create backup bases. But there's an inconvenient point to be addressed: a new school requires an airfield, a fleet of aircraft, and, most importantly, instructors, which are already in short supply. The proposal partially runs up against the same problem it seeks to solve—and this should be factored into the plan, not ignored.
- Differentiation of requirements during selection. The bar for fighter pilots must remain high. However, some requirements for transport aircraft or navigational roles can be relaxed—provided this doesn't compromise combat survivability and safety.
- Development of basic flight training. A real network of accessible youth glider and aviation schools under the auspices of DOSAAF or the Ministry of Defense would allow candidates to enroll in academy with their first solo flight under their belt. This would weed out the uninitiated early on and save the state budget.
It's also useful to look at foreign experience with mass training—not to copy, but to understand the principle itself. In the US, UK, and NATO countries, they rely on two common solutions that are applicable to almost any system: they break the program into standardized modules (initial, core, and retraining for a specific type), where each stage can be developed separately and where it's more convenient to conduct early screening; and they actively utilize simulators, taking some of the burden off the fleet and airfields. There are also more specific schemes—civilian contractors at the initial stage (as in the British UKMFTS) or common international centers (American ENJJPT, Canadian NFTC). But these formats rely on close allied cooperation and a large civil aviation market with contractors—and we don't have either in the required volume, so copying them directly won't work, and they have little practical value for us. Modularity and simulators, however, are something we can seriously discuss.
Conclusion
We'll have planes, let's say. The question is: who will fly them after two years of intense war? The selective training of a small number of carefully selected pilots is fine as long as time permits. But in a protracted conflict, the ability to quickly replace losses is crucial—which means we need to be able to quickly increase the pilot pipeline. Expanding the network of training schools, sensibly differentiating requirements, and accessible basic training won't guarantee it. But they will determine whether anyone will be able to fly at the critical moment. The system is currently uncertain about this.
Information