Military Review

Source in the KLA: Russian “Su” in Syria had “uncritical” failures

63
In the course of the antiterrorist operation in Syria, the latest Russian “Su” aircraft had incidents of serious failure, reports Look with reference to the RNS agency.




“There were failures both in the control system and in the engines. In general, they are not critical, ”a source at the United Aircraft Building Corporation told the agency.

“There were no critical failures, and those that were eliminated on the spot. On the contrary, all the pilots noted the high quality of the aircraft, ”said the source.

He noted that “flights were performed only by combat pilots of the Russian space forces, test test pilots from the factories were not there”.

According to a source, “specialists from the Novosibirsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur aircraft factories were in Hmeimim, and specialists from the Sukhoi Design Bureau regularly came to.”

“Aircraft maintenance and the replacement of small parts were carried out on site. Many of the aircraft manufacturers received state awards for this operation. For example, the director of the Novosibirsk plant, a specialist in the same plant on-board equipment, as well as a specialist at the Sukhoi Design Bureau aviation means of destruction, ”he said.

The agency acknowledged that they failed to receive official comments either from the press service of the KLA or the Ministry of Defense.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Engineer
    Engineer 25 March 2016 12: 37
    +46
    And why was this writing? A combat aircraft is the most complicated symbiosis of different systems and there is no way to fail without failures. Is this discovery for anyone? The backlight of a button is off. Renouncement? Renouncement. Somehow it will affect the performance of a combat mission. No way!
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 25 March 2016 12: 40
      +10
      there is no 100% reliable technology. even a titanium ball can be broken. or to drink. so "minor glitches", which, incidentally, did not lead to accidents or aircraft losses, is more than acceptable. add to this that the technique is new - it turns out very well. maybe even great!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. RUSS
        RUSS 25 March 2016 12: 46
        +1
        Quote: DrVintorez
        to break. or drink it.

        To break and drink are different things and you have to deal with them in different ways, the question is - "in Syria, the ball still broke or was it" drunk "at the manufacturing plant?
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 25 March 2016 13: 34
          +6
          "to break or drink" is from a bearded anecdote.
          and flaws / breakdowns / failures, especially with new equipment, always happen. and they are eliminated in the working order. normal circuit. it's the same as people. until the young specialist cones, he will not learn anything. the main thing is to correct it in time and set the right path =).
    2. cniza
      cniza 25 March 2016 12: 40
      +16
      A normal working environment will be finalized after gaining valuable experience in combat conditions.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Motherland Russia
      Motherland Russia 25 March 2016 12: 42
      +12
      I agree with you. One gets the impression that it is important for someone to raise topics on which one can "cheat" ours, and to praise enemies.
    5. Kent0001
      Kent0001 25 March 2016 12: 43
      +4
      I fully support it. The tasks assigned to these machines were fulfilled perfectly and this is the main thing.
    6. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 25 March 2016 12: 45
      +5
      Quote: Engineer
      And why was this writing?

      That's it !
      Quote: Engineer
      A combat aircraft is the most complicated symbiosis of different systems, and without failures there is no way. Is this discovery for anyone?

      Especially the latest aircraft in combat!
      The fact that failures are clarified by the application of technology is the norm!
      In the offices of the "menActors" it is impossible to reveal it!
      There were no critical failures

      Praise to the developers, assemblers and techies serving the aircraft between flights!
      1. iouris
        iouris 25 March 2016 13: 00
        0
        Quote: Starover_Z
        complex symbiosis

        Symbiosis is a truck crane, a crocodile and a bird that brushes a crocodile’s teeth after eating.
        An airplane is a complex, i.e. a complex system designed to achieve a given efficiency.
    7. siberalt
      siberalt 25 March 2016 12: 55
      +3
      There is no perfect technique. Moreover, the plane is new. And failures and failures will be taken into account by designers and assemblers. Simple practice.
      1. iouris
        iouris 25 March 2016 13: 07
        +2
        Quote: siberalt
        And failures and failures will be taken into account by designers and assemblers.

        Failure is a random event.
        Some of the failures may be associated with improper operation, and not only with structural and production shortcomings (CPN).
        Failures under CIT require improvements or transition to new technologies.
        Trouble-free technology does not exist, all the more so complicated.
        Failures (malfunctions) are classified by causes and consequences, and other signs. No accident was recorded whether there were cases of non-fulfillment of the task - it is unknown.
    8. VP
      VP 25 March 2016 13: 14
      +3
      Well, the essence of the message, as I understand it, is precisely that for several thousand sorties, the equipment did not have serious failures.
    9. Monos
      Monos 25 March 2016 13: 14
      +5
      Quote: Engineer
      And why was this writing? A combat aircraft is the most complicated symbiosis of different systems and there is no way to fail without failures. Is this discovery for anyone? The backlight of a button is off. Renouncement? Renouncement. Somehow it will affect the performance of a combat mission. No way!


      I think that it could not do without competitors. Someone is launching an anti-advertising company.
    10. chikenous59
      chikenous59 25 March 2016 13: 15
      +3
      Quote: Engineer
      And why was this writing? A combat aircraft is the most complicated symbiosis of different systems and there is no way to fail without failures. Is this discovery for anyone? The backlight of a button is off. Renouncement? Renouncement. Somehow it will affect the performance of a combat mission. No way!

      In this case, of course, they talked about control systems and engines.
      But if you take into account which raid was committed, then it was obvious that there could be some minor glitches quite natural.
      In any case, this is experience and a chance to make some improvements.
    11. Homo
      Homo 25 March 2016 13: 18
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      And why was this writing? A combat aircraft is the most complicated symbiosis of different systems, and without failures there is no way.

      In addition, we are talking about the latest aircraft. Which are still in the stage of "finishing".
    12. sir_obs
      sir_obs 25 March 2016 13: 19
      +3
      Our divisional commander called such reports (I'm about the article) - fart in flour.
    13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 March 2016 14: 28
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      And why was this writing?

      To what we now know - there were NO critical equipment failures! Those that were - frivolous.
      And this is wonderful, because the technique was used horribly as intensively, and the presence of only non-critical failures suggests that the reliability of our equipment is beyond praise
    14. your1970
      your1970 25 March 2016 17: 53
      0
      "The backlight of some button does not light up." - in general, if this is detected in flight, then this is "Prerequisite for a flight accident" (officially), and the buttons are different, although in principle in aviation, especially the combat - not important buttons no
      1. Koshak
        Koshak 27 March 2016 02: 03
        0
        Quote: your1970
        "The backlight of some button does not light up." - in general, if this is detected in flight, then this is "Prerequisite for a flight accident" (officially), and the buttons are different, although in principle in aviation, especially the combat - not important buttons no

        A burnt out light bulb is not a prerequisite for LP; it is not a threat to the integrity of the aircraft or the lives of people. It's like one pilot wrote down a note after the flight: "Little mosquitoes on the windshield."

        Aircraft incident (Formerly - Prerequisite for a flight accident.) - An event related to the flight operation of an aircraft that could create or pose a threat to the integrity of the aircraft and (or) the life of persons on board, but did not end in an accident.
    15. UralMan
      UralMan 25 March 2016 20: 26
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Renouncement? Renouncement


      -----------
      and the Americans would have collapsed long ago ... after such a load, and their pilots have a completely different topic (they don’t fly without diapers at all)
      -------
      how our near will see ... mother hurt ... they are so close to us, we can’t fly like that ...
      -------
      and our nothing heat-desert cold-Arctic and do not care ... we are in the drum ... we are from RUSSIA
    16. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 25 March 2016 22: 24
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      And why was this writing?

      For comparison with "partners"
    17. The comment was deleted.
  2. DMoroz
    DMoroz 25 March 2016 12: 37
    +1
    It’s fortunate that they’re not critical; The only concern is that failures in the engine and control system - important aircraft components
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 25 March 2016 13: 10
      +8
      Su-34 on 200-300 combat flew.

      Of the serious ones, according to rumors, the Su-24 already had an engine failure on the way home, amid a loss of second traction. But they reached out and sat down. Like a fuel system.


  3. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 25 March 2016 12: 37
    +8
    HERE AND ROLLED INTO BUSINESS. NOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE "CHILDREN'S DISEASES"
    1. meriem1
      meriem1 25 March 2016 12: 47
      +4
      Quote: Black Colonel
      HERE AND ROLLED INTO BUSINESS. NOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE "CHILDREN'S DISEASES"


      the Americans themselves judged and shouted that with such a concentration of departures, failures would certainly be. And so. Since there is ... And then Kerry flew saying a completely different thing! Americans of course ... bastards and self-lovers ... But certainly not suicides. And don’t have to KNOW THAT EVERYTHING IS BAD IN US. Liberians yell about what they don’t know. The military-industrial complex always dragged ALL !!!
  4. Limon1972
    Limon1972 25 March 2016 12: 38
    +4
    Right. Overcome problems and classify information good
  5. Retvizan 8
    Retvizan 8 25 March 2016 12: 40
    +1
    Eaglets learn to fly!
  6. Hiw
    Hiw 25 March 2016 12: 40
    +2
    yes, a normal situation, even at any exercises that something happens ... and the ears in such a company should clearly identify something that needs to be fixed, and this is a huge plus - they ran the equipment in, made conclusions, fixed it
  7. pts-m
    pts-m 25 March 2016 12: 41
    +4
    Here, with the maintenance of a simple bicycle, you are tormented, and here is the whole plane. All truths are revealed in motion.
  8. Romanenko
    Romanenko 25 March 2016 12: 43
    +9
    For running-in cars, these were the "best" conditions - a harsh continental climate with heat during the day and cold at night, dustiness, field airfields and daily loads for a long time, and by the way, field service, which still cannot be compared with the native air base near Voronezh or where else is there. And the fact that in such conditions the equipment is rubbed in and from time to time shows where and what is not perfected to the end, speaks of a good systematic approach of the maintenance service, which, despite the uncritical nature of the failures, still recorded and analyzed them, and of course speaks in favor technology. Still, the conditions of use were quite tough and the cars were mostly new, and did not fail. Respect, as they say, and respect to everyone. And a deep bow to the 24 dryers! The grannies piled pills on the Basmachs.
  9. meriem1
    meriem1 25 March 2016 12: 43
    +1
    Sielo and critical about yourself !!! It says a lot. Whoever is not sure does not open the "cards". Until two F-35s fell on takeoff / landing ... no one could mumble anything.
    P C Au! Liberasty! waiting for the cons. As always, almost any post 2-3 ... Even when I say the obvious thing. I miss you. Or modera pinched you I .. sorry tail))) in connection with the charter of the resource ???
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 25 March 2016 13: 41
      +2
      I’m afraid that you won’t get any cons from the liberals. only pluses. they don’t have enough brains to realize that non-critical failures are good. they are plus and yelling: MALFUNCTIONS !!! adynady over eleven, bullshit technique !!!! etc.
  10. avt
    avt 25 March 2016 12: 44
    +2
    With such an intensity of operation in those conditions, it really causes admiration! good And working moments have always been and will always be, but None of the devices have been lost for technical reasons !!! This is a real achievement that deserves rewards. And work on errors has always been and always will be. I don’t see any disaster here, but
    Quote: DMoroz
    And why was this writing?
    the emphasis of course had to be emphasized precisely in terms of reliability. Yes, and in general this stuffing from Rambler is similar to a probe, especially in light of this
    The agency acknowledged that they failed to receive official comments either from the press service of the KLA or the Ministry of Defense.
    Right now, in writing and in three copies of the crying, we’ll bring a report on the results. laughing
  11. NordUral
    NordUral 25 March 2016 12: 46
    +1
    Everything is fine, accelerated run-in. So would our power? worked.
  12. Primus pilus
    Primus pilus 25 March 2016 12: 47
    +1
    Most importantly, what is the average time between failures in time. And everything else is not serious, failures will always not be what is eternal.
  13. 76SSSR
    76SSSR 25 March 2016 12: 48
    +1
    Why talk about it ?! An extra reason for Russophobia and grant white-collar workers to once again cry out our aircraft industry.
  14. semuil
    semuil 25 March 2016 12: 48
    +1
    You would also write that all these failures were identified within a few months, and how long would it take for this in a peaceful environment?
  15. Ros 56
    Ros 56 25 March 2016 12: 49
    +2
    Well, and what’s surprising, but how did you want to work with new equipment, and with such intensity. Iron, it and Africa iron. It will rub, slap and everything will be fine. With any new technology, it’s all the more difficult.
  16. kit-kat
    kit-kat 25 March 2016 12: 49
    +1
    Well, of course, the director received an award. Who else to reward?
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 25 March 2016 13: 02
      0
      Quote: kit-kat
      Well, of course, the director received an award. Who else to reward?

      I completely agree with you. Imagine a sort of balding paunch climbing on a plane with wrenches and monitoring equipment. They ridiculed, well, directly, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, who became four times Hero of the Soviet Union in peacetime. Corruption and blat flourish!
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 25 March 2016 13: 56
        -2
        Quote: Алексей_К
        Quote: kit-kat
        Well, of course, the director received an award. Who else to reward?
        I completely agree with you. Imagine a sort of balding paunch climbing on a plane with wrenches and monitoring equipment. They ridiculed, well, directly, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, who became four times Hero of the Soviet Union in peacetime. Corruption and blat flourish!

        Here, this is Stalin's way! Directly with a tab on the face, with all the proletarian hatred! And if you move the convolutions, then who has the easiest place to "comunicate" the necessary spare part? The manufacturer has a Su c / z ERO / operational and repair department of the enterprise /, which reports to the director or from the equipment department, having tested, just in case, in the incoming control laboratory / if the electronic unit /. And in the absence in both of these places, remove the block from the already built, but not accepted "product". And you will produce all this in addition to the director, including the removal through the checkpoint?
  17. Signaller
    Signaller 25 March 2016 12: 52
    +1
    That's great that they started to use in hostilities. Our planes during the Second World War. The same Yaki or Lavochkin are certainly good planes, but in order to bring them to a normal state, I was tested in battles. A bunch of complaints were. And everything went in series. With each series, design flaws were eliminated. As a result, the construction got out almost completely. Then appeared Yak-3 and La 7. Then Lavochkin upgraded to La-9 and La-11. The same MIG 15 in the course of combat work in Korea became an excellent fighter. And ideal planes do not exist in principle. As they say, the best stands on earth and does not fly anywhere, but it doesn’t. Good luck to our designers. I am sure that, taking lessons and experience in combat use, our aircraft will be the best.
  18. attuda
    attuda 25 March 2016 12: 58
    +2
    It doesn’t break where it’s not working,
    even perpetual motion machines are eternal
    time guarantees ...
  19. lopvlad
    lopvlad 25 March 2016 13: 00
    +1
    The agency acknowledged that they failed to receive official comments either from the press service of the KLA or the Ministry of Defense.

    in this case, this is not a source in the KLA, but another gossip in the absence of real problems with our new aircraft.
  20. Lieutenant Izhe
    Lieutenant Izhe 25 March 2016 13: 00
    0
    Intensive operation in various conditions most fully reveals unaccounted for design, production, programs
    nye and in service "jambs".
  21. afrikanez
    afrikanez 25 March 2016 13: 01
    +1
    “There were failures both in the control system and in the engines. In general, they are not critical, ”a source at the United Aircraft Building Corporation told the agency.
    So why even write about it or have you decided to justify yourself again? The habit of always making excuses to someone is already in our blood. It's time to end with this practice.
  22. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 March 2016 13: 11
    +3
    With such an intensity of operation, practically in combat conditions, not a single serious failure that even led to an emergency landing is an absolute achievement. He grew up in a garrison at the airfield, his father is a military pilot. In the air regiment a year, on average, one disaster. I know this firsthand, the fathers of friends died, and friends left the garrison ... And this was the world, no war. So ours worked - surprisingly to the whole world. And minor defects - well, then they are small ...
    1. your1970
      your1970 25 March 2016 18: 00
      0
      a helicopter regiment - for 8 years, not a single lost machine, even in Chechnya - although it was in all the hot spots from 1991 to 98 ...
      I doubt something that the regiment commander would have long commanded if the buoys of his planes fell every year
  23. Shamsik
    Shamsik 25 March 2016 13: 12
    +1
    Even a balloon that is technically simple may fail. The main thing our planes did their job at 5+
    and safely got home! Except one ... very sorry !!!!! But I hope we will return this favor !!!!!!!!!!!!
  24. Safer
    Safer 25 March 2016 13: 17
    +1
    Well, if you recall the number of sorties per day and the number of air groupings, then the absence of critical failures indicates the very high reliability of our aircraft and the high level of qualification of staff. Many thanks to the technicians.
  25. rehev931
    rehev931 25 March 2016 13: 26
    +1
    Quote: Motherland Russia
    I agree with you. One gets the impression that it is important for someone to raise topics on which one can "cheat" ours, and to praise enemies.

    and if we take into account the intensity of departures, then they worked perfectly !!!
  26. askort154
    askort154 25 March 2016 13: 33
    +4
    In aviation there is no such formulation of refusal - "critical" or "not critical", these are fictions of journalists.
    This situation can be "critical" or "not critical". In aviation, after each flight, regardless of the type of aircraft and its "seniority", a special log of malfunctions and failures of systems and assemblies detected during the flight is filled in. And since, the plane is slightly different from the car, and consists of
    tens of thousands of parts, complex systems and assemblies, then naturally there are "remarks". At the same time, there is a list of malfunctions with which the aircraft can fly to the "base". This is the normal, everyday life of aviation. (Described in general terms).
    An article with such a "hot" title is not about anything. What for? Deliberately fly in the ointment "Su's barrel" ?!
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 25 March 2016 13: 45
      0
      Quote: askort154
      An article with such a "hot" title is not about anything. What for? Deliberately fly in the ointment "Su's barrel" ?!

      the article is even about what. just thinking - will understand that the planes and people have worked perfectly. and who does not think ... but is it all the same what the "non-thinking" fantasize for themselves? =) the article, on the contrary, is not a fly in the ointment, but a bucket of honey.
      1. askort154
        askort154 25 March 2016 14: 00
        +1
        DrVintorez ..... just thinking - will understand ...

        I do not pretend to be "thinking" in your understanding.
        But "thinking", in my understanding, will not make such a HEADER.
        And the "thinking", if he undertakes to write about something, is obliged to study the topic, at least at the level of an amateur. The fact that our VKS worked there for 5+, we know this without this opus. hi
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 25 March 2016 14: 40
          +1
          Quote: askort154
          The fact that our VKS worked there for 5 +, we know that without this opus

          I agree, man!
    2. UralMan
      UralMan 25 March 2016 20: 37
      0
      Quote: askort154
      This situation can be - "critical" or "not critical". In aviation, after each flight, regardless of the type of aircraft and its "seniority", a special log of malfunctions and failures of systems and assemblies detected during the flight is filled in.

      ---------
      why am I a box? you can write off everything from it ...
      and technicians will do everything right
      ----
      and they fall from the old age of the aircraft ... from critical wear and tear ... to failure ... they do so that the part plows ... plow and bam and that's all ... as always, we have not enough money ... works well and to hell with it ... we will replace later .... and then forgot as always or something else
  27. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 25 March 2016 13: 58
    0
    the information is likely to be classified, but it’s very interesting how the avionics worked. the glider and armament were enough in operation - there almost all the moments are known. But how did the avionics work?
  28. Starik72
    Starik72 25 March 2016 14: 02
    +1
    The aircraft is a very complex technique, and is designed to work in very difficult conditions, and minor malfunctions, which after manufacturing the product, during technical tests, it is not always possible to identify. These malfunctions are identified in the most difficult combat conditions, which are eliminated by maintenance before departure and after departure, according to the pilot’s statement. We used to have signalmen in the old days, there was a saying: there is no bad connection, there are bad contacts, and this is correct, because a good specialist will quickly find and eliminates this minor malfunction. And most importantly: EVERYTHING IS PREPARED, ACCOUNTED, AND MANUFACTURED PERFECTLY, NOT REALLY, although everyone in the WORLD strives for this.
  29. Dali
    Dali 25 March 2016 14: 07
    +1
    Why break the spears ... laughing

    The situation is just very correct ... we checked new equipment in a combat situation, found some flaws that cannot be identified in a non-combat situation ...

    Damn, so it’s on the contrary good for us that such an opportunity presented itself ... the defects will be eliminated and the equipment will be even more reliable !!!

    On the one hand, war is bad of course, but on the other hand, where else would we test equipment like that !!!
    Or what, only mattresses can? !!! belay

    Now it will be possible to praise this technique even more - if earlier, cool planes, but not tested, now cool and really tested, and after a while cool, really tested, and even better become !!!
  30. HMR333
    HMR333 25 March 2016 14: 37
    0
    Well, what does the view have to do with airplanes? How do they know that it would be a sensation to come up with facts where officially there is no information! at this intensity, maybe it was, but I hate filthy articles based on fantasy for hot news! it’s time to publicly expose such scribblers and declare that he supposedly invented balabol Thoth - Thoth not having any facts, keep in mind and so on all channels! After all, in the article he does not suggest but claims!
  31. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 25 March 2016 15: 18
    0
    According to a source, “specialists from the Novosibirsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur aircraft factories were in Hmeimim, and specialists from the Sukhoi Design Bureau regularly came to.”
    This is natural and necessary, in this case. New equipment, specialists
    They will deal with further improvements, serving right on the table, with heat and heat.
  32. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 25 March 2016 15: 57
    +1
    We flew off at "5", bombed at "5", no combat losses of aircraft "0", what else is needed? Thanks for the great technique!
  33. Concept1
    Concept1 25 March 2016 16: 31
    0
    Not surprising! Do you remember how fast they drove them !!!
  34. irbis0373
    irbis0373 25 March 2016 19: 54
    0
    This article just wanted someone to check out. The news is almost about nothing. It would be surprising if the equipment worked without failures. But the fact that they are insignificant already speaks of the right approach in design work, high build quality and high-quality training of technical maintenance personnel. Given that the equipment is new and has passed the combat experience, this speaks volumes. This is a run-in of embedded solutions, well, and advertising. And such an advertisement is worth a lot!
  35. Whowhy
    Whowhy 26 March 2016 12: 25
    0
    There are no uncritical failures in a war.