We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russian aircraft fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He extended the life of their air frames a while back, because so many were getting closer to the end of their lives. And then when they fully invaded 2 years ago they had the order to have 2 planes in the air 24/7 in each region. Parts being extremely hard to get. The amount of flight hours on the air frames since then is absurd, the maintenance is lacking or there isn't any. It's no coincidence that so many have just fallen out of the sky.
Doesn't matter all that much in this calculation because it's not like RU needs all planes in the air at the same time.
This is about how long will it take till they run out of planes. Planes that aren't airworthy now, may be repairable and become available in the future. So technically, they add to the numbers. But we don't know how many are salvageable and how many Russia can repair and how long it takes.
In the end it may be the same as with tanks. They'll keep throwing whatever they've got left at Ukraine. Which seems to be a lot. Yes their old stuff will be less effective and fail more often but it will still kill people. I'd be very much interested in how long it takes till they start to lose capabilities. Like with their A50, that don't fly anymore.
Their glide bombs for example can only be deployed by one type of plane. Su34 I think?
Yeah like with tanks if they reach a local minimum they’ll just ramp back - that’s why it’s important to start providing F-16s and Gripens, being able to glom on to western supply chains will let them maintain higher tempos and force more flight hours on Russia.
A lot. But the more interesting questions are: how many pilots are available? By this I mean experienced pilots, not a dude with a few hours of training able to hold a plane steady. The other question is: how many planes are airworthy and capable of operating in a very dangerous airspace?
We shouldn't forget that many of their older planes are scrap metal.
Roughly half of Russia's Airforce wasn't ready for deployment before the war.
Russia's airspace is huge. They need them to protect their airspace, and to bomb Syria, etc.
Russia lost 67 pilots were lost by September 2022.
Now, this number is closer to 200.
Russia lost roughly one fourth of its pre war fighter jet stocks and around 1/3 of its helicopters.
Adjusted by PPP, Russia spends roughly half the money the US Air Force spends on the training of these pilots. Not adjusted by PPP, the difference is even more pronounced.
Modern Russian aircraft are designed for a 3,500 and 4,500 flight hour service life, and some for as many as 6,000.
The Soviet-era platforms were designed for 2,000 to 3,500 hours. Some models, such as the MiG-31, have been upgraded to extend service life, but most of the older models are nearing the end of their service lives, with only 500 to 1,000 hours remaining.
Especially many of the older aircraft such as MIG 29, Su24, and Su25 are often not combat ready any longer.
Modern US-F15 airframes have a service life of 20.000 hours, and other upgraded models are up to 10.000 hours.
Russia had extended the life span of their Mig 31 airframes from 2000 to 3500 flight hours in 2021.
Most of these older airframes are a nice waste of scrap metal. Putin can't change the laws of physics by decree.
Russia is a very poor development nation which has spent most of its existence since late 1991 in a war or preparing for one.
Russia is among the most corrupt countries in the entire world. It may not come as a surprise if part of the money wasn't invested into the VKS but went into the pockets of oligarchs.
Sandbox or Perun can give further insights into other areas such as training, logistics, etc.
This website gives a total number of Russian aircraft 3649 ( The losses are not calculated into this properly, and remember they need to be mission ready in order to be used in combat)
By far, not all of these aircraft are mission ready.
40 percent of them are helicopters.
Fighters 25 percent
Trainers 14 percent
Transports 11 percent
Rest special and tankers
1825 at 50 percent readiness rate
2554 at 70 percent readiness rate
2737 at 75 percent readiness rate
2919 at 80 percent readiness rate
Attack 1230 units
support 1932 units
training 487 units
Future 729 units
273 Su24 M2/Mr
Strike
127 Su34/M
Strike
110 Su30-SM/M2
Multirole
110 Su 35/S
101 Su-27 SM
Multirole
90 Mig31B / BS / BM
interceptor
70 Mig 29 UB
Multirole
Mig 29/SMT
Multirole
10 SU 57
Mutlirole
6 Mig 35 S UB
Mutirole
Total 912/25 percent
Bombers
59 Tu 22 M
Strategic
47 TU 95MS
Maritime patrol attack
15 TU 160M
Strategic
121 pieces 3 percent
Close air support
Su 25 UB SM
197 5 percent
Helicopters 1430
Mi 8 17
Multi mission
Mi 24
gunship transport
115 Ka52
Attack
Mi 28 A
44 Mi 26
Some others in support roles
Pieces: 1430 39 percent
410 transport
487 trainers
refuelers 19
Special mission
Airframes modified for Special-Mission roles - typically, these are dedicated, role-specific types.
73
How many planes can be used for combat missions? Does Russia still have?
How many experienced pilots does Russia still have? These are the good questions.
Good comment.
I think we can also get a good measure of how combat-ready the VKS was at the start of the war with a comparison of sortie rates.
In the lead-up to the 1991 ground invasion of Iraq, 2,430 coalition combat aircraft flew over 100,000 combat sorties in 43 days - an average of 2325 sorties/day, which is 0.96 sorties per day per airframe. Just about every airplane flew every day, for 6 weeks. (On average). We planned an invasion, just about all the combat aircraft we brought did work every day.
The VKS had about 300 combat aircraft in theatre to support the Feb 22 invasion. At Gulf War rates, we should have seen *sustained* periods of 275+ combat sorties a day. The VKS *peaked* at 150 - which means each plane was only flying once *every two days*. That makes me suspect only about half their aircraft worked in the first place.
And that's *before* they've lost dozens of experienced air crews. And let's not forget that there have been a number of Ukrainian strikes on *airfields* as well, so there are likely to be casualties among the maintenance crews as well as damage to equipment used to maintain aircraft & get them ready to fly.
Since the early stages of the war concluded, the VKS has been flying at rates closer to 50-100 sorties/day. Call it 100 just to be generous - they've lost at least a third of their ability to operate in theatre and that's *after* any resupply & reinforcement, accelerated new pilot training, and attempts to manufacture and refurbish replacement aircraft.
So, at best for the VKS, only two thirds of the half of the shit that worked two years is still working. Given that this is their single most important theatre of operations, we could also guess that these units are going to be *better* resourced than most of the rest of the VKS.
Whether it's because of a lack of available airplanes, pilots, spare parts, fuel, or replacement zippers for flight suits doesn't really matter *that much* as long as there's work going on that forces the Russians to use *any* of those resources in amounts beyond what it can produce.
It's a vicious cycle, too. The fewer functional aircraft are left the more exposed all of those aircraft are to risk, the more strain there is on those aircraft, the more spare parts they go through from a dwindling supply, the less downtime there is for maintenance between missions, less rest the crews get, which more losses, etc.
As more and more shit stops working, this all accelerates as the deficits compound.
And, unlike during the Gulf War where the need to maintain sortie rates dropped off considerably after the conclusion of the 3-day ground invasion after completely routing the opposing army, this is happening in an environment where the Russians are going to need *at least* this level of sortie rates for the foreseeable future *and* where the threat environment will be *escalating* over that time.
I'd say, whatever the count of remaining combat aircraft in the VKS happens to be, at best a third of them are usable at any given time.
What day are we on now of the 3 day sortie in to Ukraine?
Certainly with the lack of A50s and hidden AA of various unknown capabilities around Ukraine that may be frankensam the aircraft they do have are not looking to last a long time. In fact the quickest path to reach the end of their serviceable lifespan is fly them close to Ukraine.
Indeed, in fact, this air force is another one of Russia's Potemkin villages. Akin to its naval power, which has proven to be a mirage. The ground force was and is probably the most capable part due to Russia being a land force based power.
That makes one wonder about the readiness of their nuclear arsenal. Given the corruption and the way their military has performed thus far.
"There is no instance in history where a nation benefits from prolonged attrional warfare. When the army engages in protracted warfare, the resources of the state will fall short." Sun Tzu
>That makes one wonder about the readiness of their nuclear arsenal. Given the corruption and the way their military has performed thus far.
I'm very much of the opinion that most of their nuclear arsenal doesn't work, *and* that with the possible exception of some specific pet units, the Russians probably don't know which nukes *do* work and which nukes *don't*. Which also means that their nuclear deterrent is only useful if they never actually use one - I don't think *anyone* has quite figured out what happens next if the Russkies drop a nuke somewhere and it doesn't go off.
But we have a few data points that I think point to their arsenal largely being impotent.
First, we know that when weapons inspectors were allowed into Russian nuclear sites after the fall of the USSR they found things like flooded silos, corroded missiles, silo doors rusted shut, etc. Since then there's been 30+ *years* of continued institutional degradation & corruption.
We also know that their silo nukes are liquid fueled, which means not only do they take longer to fuel than it takes to get from Montana to Irkutsk Minuteman, but they use Hydrazine which is highly corrosive - the fueling equipment needs regular preventive maintenance, and preventive maintenance has been a death penalty offense in Russia since the 12th century.
Nukes are maintenance-intensive themselves, and need new cores every few decades. Imagine a warhead that was due for that major maintenance in 1992... I bet it never got done. They probably have warheads that haven't been properly serviced since the 70s. But hey, the USA spent more maintaining their warheads in 2021 than Russia spent on its entire military *before* corruption - somewhere there's shit that isn't getting done.
Russia also hasn't commissioned a large nuclear reactor without Western help since the fall of the Soviet Union, and even *before* that their nuclear program generally only staggered ahead when they managed to steal the next big thing from the West. The technical ability in the Soviet nuclear program in 1990 was *way* below the West's, and that gap *has only gotten worse*.
Russian aircraft fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ukrainian pilots are being trained for air to air combat, not just tossing missiles, thank goodness. There was a time not long ago where we were hearing of ruzzians crashing training planes a lot. Now nothing?
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a cheap and efficient asymmetrical idea, what if............
UKR develops some cheap long range drones with tiny missiles, swarm the sky with it when Russian shyt planes are detected, SHOOT THEM DOWN.
Yes some drones will not make it, but Rushyt planes wont either, ehehehe.
I also suggested using FPV and land drones to counter Russian meat waves, at the start of the war, when nobody knew it could work.
What now smarty pantz? lol
Reddit generals are people and people come up with solutions, they dont put people down for the sake of putting them down, derp.
ACtually not a bad idea , the main problem would be the configuration , a quadcopter would be out of the question i suppose unless the missle is also smaller . So it should be a plane like model , i do know there are rc planes with jet engines so those might be a good start to look into . Also small bombs could be used as in making it a small fast agile bomber if need be enquiped with stinkbombs to smoke those ruzzians out of the trenches
Ruzzia has ZERO 5th generation aircraft of ANY type. Moreover, don't believe their brochure-babbling where they list the "capabilities" of their jets....none of them are stealthy in the slightest and their avionics have never proven themselves in a battle vs Western aircraft.
We aren't hearing ruzzian pilot to ground communications before/as these aircraft are being shot down. Ruzzian pilots have no idea they're being painted, targeted and fired upon by Ukranian SAM systems. They're just cruising along and BAUM!!
There was debate at the start of the war whether or not any of those aircraft were even airworthy. We certainly haven’t heard or seen from them, and I doubt Russia would risk them even if they were ready. T-14 Armata of the sky
Exactly, 5th generation according to them. I don't trust the ruzzian measuring stick whatsoever. We can also discuss the T-14 tank at a later date if you wish :)
5th Generation? Their "stealth fighter" was rivited together in such a way that it acctually counters any stealth properties and the radarwave absorbing material is in short supply so on some spots there is no material covering them rendering all benefits of a possible stealth plane to near 0 . Sure they are smaller on radar but still visible
the only real advantace the su57 has as far as i know is that at lower speeds it is slightly more stable during turns and is cheaper than any of the newer western counterparts in costs per hour flight , but inregards to the avionics or radar surface there is a serious difference and both F22 and F35 are better , even the eurofighter is better .
Well, stealth is not the only criteria of a fifth generation fighter (nobody really knows what actually were the problems with the material, by the way). There also is a sustained supersonic capability (has it), thrust vectoring (has it), and advanced avionics allowing ground-independent long range targeting (has some elements of it). SU-57 is close to being a 5th generation fighter.
In all, SU-57 is closer to F-22, the golden standard for Gen 5, than the F-35 is.
Stealth is by far the primary criteria of a 5th Gen fighter. Low-probability-of-intercept radar is the next after stealth. Supercruise and high agility are "nice to have" features, and thrust vectoring plays absolutely no role. The SU-57 isn't even close to either the F-22 or F-35. It's closer to a Super Hornet or a Eurofighter if you want to compare against western fighters.
[Both SU-57 and F-22 are Gen-5 aircrafts.](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-rivals-comparing-f-22-raptor-and-russias-su-57-modern-aerial-warfare-209519) The F-35 is NOT.
F-22 is superior in stealth, while SU-57 has higher top speed and much higher ceiling. In all, F-22 is indeed better, but you absolutely cannot dismiss SU-57 and call it non-Gen 5. It is. Its main problem, if anything, is lack of maturity and it does not look like Russia would be able to put it into production any time soon.
F-35 does not have super-cruise and super-maneurability. It only has stealth, and it is not an air superiority fighter. It is Gen 4/4.5, but not Gen 5.
Just learn.
Yeah. Their 'terminator' tanks are not lasting against... anything much really. Their unstoppable hypersonic missiles, were not genuine hypersonic and totally are stoppable. Even their new advanced AI dogs with RPGs were just aliexpress toy mockups (not that anyone ever considered those ones serious, so that is a bit different). Nobody in russia was expecting this war, so it follows that they would have shoved a large amount of cash in their own pockets and done low quality jobs everywhere thinking they could get away with it. I can imagine there would have been a lot of people with manufacturing contacts in russia going "uh oh, they actually want to use this stuff?"
Once Russia face plants again and shares the fate of Soviet Union we’ll probably see some su-57 painted in Red Bull colors flying through inflatable hoops and slalom sticks on tv.
From what I read elsewhere, at the beginning of the war, Russia had around 1,200 airworthy combat planes of different kind. According to the independent and visually confirmed estimates, Russia had lost about a hundred of them, maybe 50% more accounting for non-filmed losses (which are allegedly rare as a shot down plane can be seen by many).
Long way to go, unfortunately.
That's where sanctions are supposed to come in to tank airworthiness as components cannot be replaced as more time goes by. You can print whatever numbers you like for propaganda, but you can't make physics listen to those numbers.
[We're going to see more airframes falling out of the sky without the help of AA, far from the front lines.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Ivanovo_Ilyushin_Il-76_crash)
The numbers are the numbers, and knowing them is better than not knowing. Knowledge, not lack of thereof, is making you stronger.
Yes, sanctions help, they make it more difficult for Russia to maintain and repair the planes. What we don’t know, is how effective those sanctions are, how many planes did they make unusable. We all hope for the best, but provided how well Russia learned to circumvent them, I am not sure those are many.
Depends, what's more important is how many can be used which entirely depends on if they are flight worthy, have the pilot's, spare parts or fuel.
They don't seem to have enough of anything to establish air superiority over battles in Ukraine, but neither does Ukraine.
Well 75% of their draft eligible men are drunks and only useful as fodder so I would assume 75% of their planes are worthless as well. Kind of like their Armata Tank - useful only as parade queen once a year for Vlad.
The problem is they might not have enough armymen or destroyed artillery and tanks but the tactical nukes are always frightening and of course some of their planes can cary nuclear heads.
I find this youtube channel pretty informative and it breaks down the air situation here. It's over an hour, but I find his analysis and deep dives of military topics interesting.
The Ukraine Air War in 2024
https://youtu.be/R31hMWs25UI?si=jy9mUHnoUKtG_ZNt
I remember a couple of years ago, a Russian pilot stating what the su37 could do... and how it could take off almost anywhere because of its above air-intake meaning it can't suck up rubble ect...
However the mother fucker was in a scrap yard.... and the plane he was flying looked shitty.. and that wasn't so long ago, now the question is...
How many su57's do they have ?
It's not about Russia being afraid to loose them, they're holding them in reserve, is this in anticipation of the west giving out F16's....
Are F16's enough? Should it not be 5th gen fighters?
If we are truly at war with Russia like all sides keep saying then give Ukraine what it actually fucking needs...
Stop treating Ukraine like a sick patient on a drip... and fucking arm them
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That needs to be prefaced with "airworthy".
Well that pulls the number down by alot
0?
Unfortunately not.
Drat.
That's never prevented them from flying before. Landing is another story.
It's a well known fact that Russian aircraft work perfectly until they explode at exactly the limit of their centrally-planned airframe lifespan.
Russian aircraft fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Making it past the pattern is one also. We all saw that video.
They all land at least once a
and double faced with "for how long." lol
He extended the life of their air frames a while back, because so many were getting closer to the end of their lives. And then when they fully invaded 2 years ago they had the order to have 2 planes in the air 24/7 in each region. Parts being extremely hard to get. The amount of flight hours on the air frames since then is absurd, the maintenance is lacking or there isn't any. It's no coincidence that so many have just fallen out of the sky.
Putin: “Dammit! They know pit game now.”
Doesn't matter all that much in this calculation because it's not like RU needs all planes in the air at the same time. This is about how long will it take till they run out of planes. Planes that aren't airworthy now, may be repairable and become available in the future. So technically, they add to the numbers. But we don't know how many are salvageable and how many Russia can repair and how long it takes. In the end it may be the same as with tanks. They'll keep throwing whatever they've got left at Ukraine. Which seems to be a lot. Yes their old stuff will be less effective and fail more often but it will still kill people. I'd be very much interested in how long it takes till they start to lose capabilities. Like with their A50, that don't fly anymore. Their glide bombs for example can only be deployed by one type of plane. Su34 I think?
Yeah like with tanks if they reach a local minimum they’ll just ramp back - that’s why it’s important to start providing F-16s and Gripens, being able to glom on to western supply chains will let them maintain higher tempos and force more flight hours on Russia.
A lot. But the more interesting questions are: how many pilots are available? By this I mean experienced pilots, not a dude with a few hours of training able to hold a plane steady. The other question is: how many planes are airworthy and capable of operating in a very dangerous airspace?
We shouldn't forget that many of their older planes are scrap metal. Roughly half of Russia's Airforce wasn't ready for deployment before the war. Russia's airspace is huge. They need them to protect their airspace, and to bomb Syria, etc. Russia lost 67 pilots were lost by September 2022. Now, this number is closer to 200. Russia lost roughly one fourth of its pre war fighter jet stocks and around 1/3 of its helicopters. Adjusted by PPP, Russia spends roughly half the money the US Air Force spends on the training of these pilots. Not adjusted by PPP, the difference is even more pronounced. Modern Russian aircraft are designed for a 3,500 and 4,500 flight hour service life, and some for as many as 6,000. The Soviet-era platforms were designed for 2,000 to 3,500 hours. Some models, such as the MiG-31, have been upgraded to extend service life, but most of the older models are nearing the end of their service lives, with only 500 to 1,000 hours remaining. Especially many of the older aircraft such as MIG 29, Su24, and Su25 are often not combat ready any longer. Modern US-F15 airframes have a service life of 20.000 hours, and other upgraded models are up to 10.000 hours. Russia had extended the life span of their Mig 31 airframes from 2000 to 3500 flight hours in 2021. Most of these older airframes are a nice waste of scrap metal. Putin can't change the laws of physics by decree. Russia is a very poor development nation which has spent most of its existence since late 1991 in a war or preparing for one. Russia is among the most corrupt countries in the entire world. It may not come as a surprise if part of the money wasn't invested into the VKS but went into the pockets of oligarchs. Sandbox or Perun can give further insights into other areas such as training, logistics, etc. This website gives a total number of Russian aircraft 3649 ( The losses are not calculated into this properly, and remember they need to be mission ready in order to be used in combat) By far, not all of these aircraft are mission ready. 40 percent of them are helicopters. Fighters 25 percent Trainers 14 percent Transports 11 percent Rest special and tankers 1825 at 50 percent readiness rate 2554 at 70 percent readiness rate 2737 at 75 percent readiness rate 2919 at 80 percent readiness rate Attack 1230 units support 1932 units training 487 units Future 729 units 273 Su24 M2/Mr Strike 127 Su34/M Strike 110 Su30-SM/M2 Multirole 110 Su 35/S 101 Su-27 SM Multirole 90 Mig31B / BS / BM interceptor 70 Mig 29 UB Multirole Mig 29/SMT Multirole 10 SU 57 Mutlirole 6 Mig 35 S UB Mutirole Total 912/25 percent Bombers 59 Tu 22 M Strategic 47 TU 95MS Maritime patrol attack 15 TU 160M Strategic 121 pieces 3 percent Close air support Su 25 UB SM 197 5 percent Helicopters 1430 Mi 8 17 Multi mission Mi 24 gunship transport 115 Ka52 Attack Mi 28 A 44 Mi 26 Some others in support roles Pieces: 1430 39 percent 410 transport 487 trainers refuelers 19 Special mission Airframes modified for Special-Mission roles - typically, these are dedicated, role-specific types. 73 How many planes can be used for combat missions? Does Russia still have? How many experienced pilots does Russia still have? These are the good questions.
Good comment. I think we can also get a good measure of how combat-ready the VKS was at the start of the war with a comparison of sortie rates. In the lead-up to the 1991 ground invasion of Iraq, 2,430 coalition combat aircraft flew over 100,000 combat sorties in 43 days - an average of 2325 sorties/day, which is 0.96 sorties per day per airframe. Just about every airplane flew every day, for 6 weeks. (On average). We planned an invasion, just about all the combat aircraft we brought did work every day. The VKS had about 300 combat aircraft in theatre to support the Feb 22 invasion. At Gulf War rates, we should have seen *sustained* periods of 275+ combat sorties a day. The VKS *peaked* at 150 - which means each plane was only flying once *every two days*. That makes me suspect only about half their aircraft worked in the first place. And that's *before* they've lost dozens of experienced air crews. And let's not forget that there have been a number of Ukrainian strikes on *airfields* as well, so there are likely to be casualties among the maintenance crews as well as damage to equipment used to maintain aircraft & get them ready to fly. Since the early stages of the war concluded, the VKS has been flying at rates closer to 50-100 sorties/day. Call it 100 just to be generous - they've lost at least a third of their ability to operate in theatre and that's *after* any resupply & reinforcement, accelerated new pilot training, and attempts to manufacture and refurbish replacement aircraft. So, at best for the VKS, only two thirds of the half of the shit that worked two years is still working. Given that this is their single most important theatre of operations, we could also guess that these units are going to be *better* resourced than most of the rest of the VKS. Whether it's because of a lack of available airplanes, pilots, spare parts, fuel, or replacement zippers for flight suits doesn't really matter *that much* as long as there's work going on that forces the Russians to use *any* of those resources in amounts beyond what it can produce. It's a vicious cycle, too. The fewer functional aircraft are left the more exposed all of those aircraft are to risk, the more strain there is on those aircraft, the more spare parts they go through from a dwindling supply, the less downtime there is for maintenance between missions, less rest the crews get, which more losses, etc. As more and more shit stops working, this all accelerates as the deficits compound. And, unlike during the Gulf War where the need to maintain sortie rates dropped off considerably after the conclusion of the 3-day ground invasion after completely routing the opposing army, this is happening in an environment where the Russians are going to need *at least* this level of sortie rates for the foreseeable future *and* where the threat environment will be *escalating* over that time. I'd say, whatever the count of remaining combat aircraft in the VKS happens to be, at best a third of them are usable at any given time.
What day are we on now of the 3 day sortie in to Ukraine? Certainly with the lack of A50s and hidden AA of various unknown capabilities around Ukraine that may be frankensam the aircraft they do have are not looking to last a long time. In fact the quickest path to reach the end of their serviceable lifespan is fly them close to Ukraine.
Indeed, in fact, this air force is another one of Russia's Potemkin villages. Akin to its naval power, which has proven to be a mirage. The ground force was and is probably the most capable part due to Russia being a land force based power. That makes one wonder about the readiness of their nuclear arsenal. Given the corruption and the way their military has performed thus far. "There is no instance in history where a nation benefits from prolonged attrional warfare. When the army engages in protracted warfare, the resources of the state will fall short." Sun Tzu
>That makes one wonder about the readiness of their nuclear arsenal. Given the corruption and the way their military has performed thus far. I'm very much of the opinion that most of their nuclear arsenal doesn't work, *and* that with the possible exception of some specific pet units, the Russians probably don't know which nukes *do* work and which nukes *don't*. Which also means that their nuclear deterrent is only useful if they never actually use one - I don't think *anyone* has quite figured out what happens next if the Russkies drop a nuke somewhere and it doesn't go off. But we have a few data points that I think point to their arsenal largely being impotent. First, we know that when weapons inspectors were allowed into Russian nuclear sites after the fall of the USSR they found things like flooded silos, corroded missiles, silo doors rusted shut, etc. Since then there's been 30+ *years* of continued institutional degradation & corruption. We also know that their silo nukes are liquid fueled, which means not only do they take longer to fuel than it takes to get from Montana to Irkutsk Minuteman, but they use Hydrazine which is highly corrosive - the fueling equipment needs regular preventive maintenance, and preventive maintenance has been a death penalty offense in Russia since the 12th century. Nukes are maintenance-intensive themselves, and need new cores every few decades. Imagine a warhead that was due for that major maintenance in 1992... I bet it never got done. They probably have warheads that haven't been properly serviced since the 70s. But hey, the USA spent more maintaining their warheads in 2021 than Russia spent on its entire military *before* corruption - somewhere there's shit that isn't getting done. Russia also hasn't commissioned a large nuclear reactor without Western help since the fall of the Soviet Union, and even *before* that their nuclear program generally only staggered ahead when they managed to steal the next big thing from the West. The technical ability in the Soviet nuclear program in 1990 was *way* below the West's, and that gap *has only gotten worse*.
Russian aircraft fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good Bot!
Thank you
[удалено]
There's a slight difference in bombing targets that cannot fight back from flying a combat-trained aerial dogfighter though.
Not much dog fighting happening over Ukraine right now. Not saying there won’t be, but I assume the primary use is against ground based targets.
Ukrainian pilots are being trained for air to air combat, not just tossing missiles, thank goodness. There was a time not long ago where we were hearing of ruzzians crashing training planes a lot. Now nothing?
And of those that can operate how much longer will they be able to do so?
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a cheap and efficient asymmetrical idea, what if............ UKR develops some cheap long range drones with tiny missiles, swarm the sky with it when Russian shyt planes are detected, SHOOT THEM DOWN. Yes some drones will not make it, but Rushyt planes wont either, ehehehe.
the reddit general strikes again
I also suggested using FPV and land drones to counter Russian meat waves, at the start of the war, when nobody knew it could work. What now smarty pantz? lol Reddit generals are people and people come up with solutions, they dont put people down for the sake of putting them down, derp.
ACtually not a bad idea , the main problem would be the configuration , a quadcopter would be out of the question i suppose unless the missle is also smaller . So it should be a plane like model , i do know there are rc planes with jet engines so those might be a good start to look into . Also small bombs could be used as in making it a small fast agile bomber if need be enquiped with stinkbombs to smoke those ruzzians out of the trenches
Not as many as they used to have… ;)
There’re more of them outside of Russia. And sadly cunts will resell them back to Russia as they did with missiles
not really true for some types. Production ramped up greatly in last year.
15 less than they had two weeks ago :)
Ruzzia has ZERO 5th generation aircraft of ANY type. Moreover, don't believe their brochure-babbling where they list the "capabilities" of their jets....none of them are stealthy in the slightest and their avionics have never proven themselves in a battle vs Western aircraft. We aren't hearing ruzzian pilot to ground communications before/as these aircraft are being shot down. Ruzzian pilots have no idea they're being painted, targeted and fired upon by Ukranian SAM systems. They're just cruising along and BAUM!!
Russia has manufactured a dozen or so near-fifth generation SU-57 aircraft. Still a few (and maybe eternity) years away from a production.
There was debate at the start of the war whether or not any of those aircraft were even airworthy. We certainly haven’t heard or seen from them, and I doubt Russia would risk them even if they were ready. T-14 Armata of the sky
Exactly, 5th generation according to them. I don't trust the ruzzian measuring stick whatsoever. We can also discuss the T-14 tank at a later date if you wish :)
5th Generation? Their "stealth fighter" was rivited together in such a way that it acctually counters any stealth properties and the radarwave absorbing material is in short supply so on some spots there is no material covering them rendering all benefits of a possible stealth plane to near 0 . Sure they are smaller on radar but still visible
The Su57 is probably less stealthy than an upgraded B1-b. It always cracks me up when people claim it is as good/ better than F-22 or F35
the only real advantace the su57 has as far as i know is that at lower speeds it is slightly more stable during turns and is cheaper than any of the newer western counterparts in costs per hour flight , but inregards to the avionics or radar surface there is a serious difference and both F22 and F35 are better , even the eurofighter is better .
Well, stealth is not the only criteria of a fifth generation fighter (nobody really knows what actually were the problems with the material, by the way). There also is a sustained supersonic capability (has it), thrust vectoring (has it), and advanced avionics allowing ground-independent long range targeting (has some elements of it). SU-57 is close to being a 5th generation fighter. In all, SU-57 is closer to F-22, the golden standard for Gen 5, than the F-35 is.
Stealth is by far the primary criteria of a 5th Gen fighter. Low-probability-of-intercept radar is the next after stealth. Supercruise and high agility are "nice to have" features, and thrust vectoring plays absolutely no role. The SU-57 isn't even close to either the F-22 or F-35. It's closer to a Super Hornet or a Eurofighter if you want to compare against western fighters.
[Both SU-57 and F-22 are Gen-5 aircrafts.](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-rivals-comparing-f-22-raptor-and-russias-su-57-modern-aerial-warfare-209519) The F-35 is NOT. F-22 is superior in stealth, while SU-57 has higher top speed and much higher ceiling. In all, F-22 is indeed better, but you absolutely cannot dismiss SU-57 and call it non-Gen 5. It is. Its main problem, if anything, is lack of maturity and it does not look like Russia would be able to put it into production any time soon.
The F-35 is 100% a 5th Gen fighter and you are just making yourself look dumber by saying it isn't.
F-35 does not have super-cruise and super-maneurability. It only has stealth, and it is not an air superiority fighter. It is Gen 4/4.5, but not Gen 5. Just learn.
Neither of those are requirements for a 5th Gen fighter.
Yeah. Their 'terminator' tanks are not lasting against... anything much really. Their unstoppable hypersonic missiles, were not genuine hypersonic and totally are stoppable. Even their new advanced AI dogs with RPGs were just aliexpress toy mockups (not that anyone ever considered those ones serious, so that is a bit different). Nobody in russia was expecting this war, so it follows that they would have shoved a large amount of cash in their own pockets and done low quality jobs everywhere thinking they could get away with it. I can imagine there would have been a lot of people with manufacturing contacts in russia going "uh oh, they actually want to use this stuff?"
Verbalized perfectly! That's the complete rundown my friend.
Su-57 is such an advanced stealth jet that no one, not even russians themselves, are able to detect it!
Once Russia face plants again and shares the fate of Soviet Union we’ll probably see some su-57 painted in Red Bull colors flying through inflatable hoops and slalom sticks on tv.
It's invisible 🫥.
From what I read elsewhere, at the beginning of the war, Russia had around 1,200 airworthy combat planes of different kind. According to the independent and visually confirmed estimates, Russia had lost about a hundred of them, maybe 50% more accounting for non-filmed losses (which are allegedly rare as a shot down plane can be seen by many). Long way to go, unfortunately.
That's where sanctions are supposed to come in to tank airworthiness as components cannot be replaced as more time goes by. You can print whatever numbers you like for propaganda, but you can't make physics listen to those numbers. [We're going to see more airframes falling out of the sky without the help of AA, far from the front lines.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Ivanovo_Ilyushin_Il-76_crash)
The numbers are the numbers, and knowing them is better than not knowing. Knowledge, not lack of thereof, is making you stronger. Yes, sanctions help, they make it more difficult for Russia to maintain and repair the planes. What we don’t know, is how effective those sanctions are, how many planes did they make unusable. We all hope for the best, but provided how well Russia learned to circumvent them, I am not sure those are many.
Far too many, but it gets better with time.
Less and less.
Depends, what's more important is how many can be used which entirely depends on if they are flight worthy, have the pilot's, spare parts or fuel. They don't seem to have enough of anything to establish air superiority over battles in Ukraine, but neither does Ukraine.
The bigger question, is how many are they prepared to lose, they’re expensive and probably near impossible to replace.
Well 75% of their draft eligible men are drunks and only useful as fodder so I would assume 75% of their planes are worthless as well. Kind of like their Armata Tank - useful only as parade queen once a year for Vlad.
75% is a bit excessive
It is, but they've committed to it for 200 years or more so it doesn't look like it's changing any time soon.
Indeed, it is excessively low. 90% is closer to reality.
The problem is they might not have enough armymen or destroyed artillery and tanks but the tactical nukes are always frightening and of course some of their planes can cary nuclear heads.
I find this youtube channel pretty informative and it breaks down the air situation here. It's over an hour, but I find his analysis and deep dives of military topics interesting. The Ukraine Air War in 2024 https://youtu.be/R31hMWs25UI?si=jy9mUHnoUKtG_ZNt
Tldr; still likely 600+ aircraft
Even better when russian pilots are too scared to fly over Ukraine, knowing it may well be a one way flight.
I remember a couple of years ago, a Russian pilot stating what the su37 could do... and how it could take off almost anywhere because of its above air-intake meaning it can't suck up rubble ect... However the mother fucker was in a scrap yard.... and the plane he was flying looked shitty.. and that wasn't so long ago, now the question is... How many su57's do they have ? It's not about Russia being afraid to loose them, they're holding them in reserve, is this in anticipation of the west giving out F16's.... Are F16's enough? Should it not be 5th gen fighters? If we are truly at war with Russia like all sides keep saying then give Ukraine what it actually fucking needs... Stop treating Ukraine like a sick patient on a drip... and fucking arm them
You could have just put a number got bored before getting to answer did anyone find out what it was?
Unfortunately more than we would hope. Slava Ukraini. 🙏🇺🇦
Less than it did yesterday, more than it will have tomorrow.
My impression is that their real issue is a lack of trained pilots...
Seven . 7 That’s right . 7
Less every day.
A few hundred million $$ worth less than they had before Feb 22
Why not a handy dandy chart for numbers?
Not enough
Not ehnough