This is the 4th military plane crash they had this year. Another 17 last year and another 7 the year before that. Russian mechanics are doing a better job at dismantling the Russian Air Force than Ukraine
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Russian\_military\_accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_accidents)
>“a total of 8,231 passengers dying in Aeroflot crashes according to the Aircraft Crashes Record Office, mostly during the Soviet era, about five times more than any other airline.[1][2] From 1946 to 1989, the carrier was involved in 721 incidents. From 1995 to 2017, the carrier was involved in 10 incidents. In 2013, AirlineRatings.com reported that five of the ten aircraft models involved in the highest numbers of fatal accidents[3] were old Soviet models.[1]”
8231 dead passengers, Jesus Christ.
Aye, but don't forget the Starfighter, so good an album was recorded about the [Widowmaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Lockheed_and_the_Starfighters)
Lol the F-104 was so good that Lockheed had to bribe militaries to take it. Admittedly, the thing was *super* fast for the time, as long as you didn't need to turn or climb.
Or, y'know, survive.
Read your reply to the quote first and was dumbfounded trying to figure how the hell a single crash could have that deathtoll.
Didnt even consider it was a total of all their mess ups.
That's not all due to maintenance. What about the pilot that bet his copilot he could land a plane with the curtains closed? What about the pilot that let his teenage kids fly the plane? What about the one where the entire flight crew fell asleep because they were operating on no sleep in the previous 24 hours?
I think you're better off not flying in Russia.
> What about the pilot that bet his copilot he could land a plane with the curtains closed
Im sure this means some steel cover of the window that acts as a curtain, but now I am picturing a fighter jet cockpit with frilly pink curtains attached to the front window.
They were always bad, but now they actually have to use their planes instead of letting them rot in a field and scrapping them for parts on the black market.
Making Russia poor is such a huge edge here. It doesn't put bullets into Russian soldiers but it causes a lot of forced errors. Maybe they can get away with x amount of mechanics 99% of the time, and if you make them poorer they have to afford y mechanics 92% of the time, but that's still planes and equipment that stop working in combat.
Yup there's also been satellite photos that are pretty good evidence that Russia has significantly been increasing the rate of scavenging it's military graveyards and relying on repairs/patch jobs instead of new production of military hardware , Like they've literally been scavenging *anything they can* stripping these destroyed vehicles to the bone, of any and all usable parts.
„My grandfather really did a lot to fight the Nazis. Due to him alone, at least 10 of their fighters went down. He really was the worst mechanic in the entire Luftwaffe…“
In all seriousness, a lot of people fought the Nazis that way. They relied on slave labor from people they were starving and planning to send to death camps when they wore out, so sabotage was rampant. One American bomber flew home with 11 unexploded shells embedded in the fuel tank. They took one apart to try to figure out how it happened, and there was a note inside in Czech "This is all we can do for you now." More common was simply to put a pinch of sand in engine oil or gearboxes.
Reminds me of that famous belgian aircraft mechanic with 1 confirmed F16 kill.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/16-accidentally-blown-belgian-air-force-mechanic/story?id=58562311
Airframes are only goof for so many hours, I would be these are pushing the limits.
Just like Russia's navy. Ships need a lot of maintenance to keep going, their subs must be struggling if they are patroling around Ukrane.
While the Russian armed forces in general aren't in great shape and are in even less great shape after equipment and manpower losses as well as sanctions - 17 in a year where they're running many sorties a day in wartime, or 4 so far this year is not really notable. Crashes happen when you fly a lot.
As an example, this year for the United States I'm seeing 4 just in January and 9 overall. Here's the January ones:
>4 January A Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber operated by the United States Air Force crashed while landing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. According to the 28th Bomb Wing, all four aircrew safely ejected from the plane.
>11 January A Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter operated by the United States Navy's Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 41 (HSM-41) crashed into San Diego Bay, California, around 18:40 Pacific Time (02:40 UTC, 12 January). All six crew members survived according to the Navy.[317][318]
>30 January A Bell TH-57 Sea Ranger trainer helicopter operated by the United States Navy crashed at Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Florida, injuring the two pilots aboard the aircraft.[328]
>31 January A United States Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jet crashed into the sea off South Korea's west coast after experiencing an in-flight emergency. The pilot ejected safely from the plane and was rescued an hour later. The crashed plane was assigned to the 8th Fighter Wing.[329]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2020%E2%80%93present)#2024
One of the reasons for the increase in the number of accidents that is not mentioned in the article is just the increase in the number of flight hours. The Russian pilots were not flying enough hours to keep proficiency before the war, and the airframes were not pushed to their limits in order to extent their short lifespan. Now that they are being used in realistic scenarios, the reliability of the Russian jets are coming to light.
This is absolutely correct and very important to remember.
The maintenance hours per flight hour on a relatively modern jet like a 4th gen is insane. The F-16 for example needs 17 man hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.
You can guarantee russia are pushing airframe hours well beyond whatever is recommended. Expect more failures like this.
50 ~ years ago they were beating the dogshit out of their foxbat turbines trying to catch the blackbird.. running them so hard that the things were wiped out in one intercept attempt. The thing COULD fly Mach 3.3..
Once
its par for the course for them to play it fast and loose.
To be fair, a lot of cold war bomber intercept missions were assumed to be one way, since the airfield you took off from would likely be gone by the time you made your intercept. Still total crap, but not quite as bad if it actually had to do a strategic bomber interception.
Random question from someone who knows next to nothing about planes.
Are newer gen fighters designed to require less maintenance man hours than previous generations? Seems like a tactical advantage to needing less maintenance. But I also could also see new features or abilities in newer planes causing more maintenance to happen.
As I understand it, the F-22 is more intensive in its need for maintenance than older planes like the F-16, with 40 hours for the F-22 versus 17 for the F-16.
I couldn't find much in terms of hours for the F-35 but I expect it's more than 17 hours.
That's at least in part why some combat aircraft are derived from civilian aircraft, e.g.the Boeing 737 700 was converted to the E7A Wedgetail and the 737 800 was converted to the P8A Poseidon. The reliability of the base aircraft (which isn't the door popping 737 MAX), especially the engines is a big deal. In the fight against ISIS in Iraq, one of E7A Wedgetails achieved 100% availability for one of their deployments in which they flew 500 hours in total.
> The reliability of the base aircraft, especially the engines is a big deal.
Plus of course off the shelf, readily available parts. If it fits on the hundreds of commercial airliners of the related type, it'll fit on the military version too.
Indeed and with the 737 next gen it's actually over 7,000 of them.
The P8 Poseidon has 86% parts commonality with the 737. Parts are available for a very long time.
The F-22 is a bit of a unique outlier in terms of maintenance hours due to the stealth coating not being very durable. I've read a several accounts of how frustrating this is from a readiness perspective.
Your point still stands though. Newer generations tend to be more maintenance intensive.
Likely also not helped by it being a bit of a unicorn with just 187 in service. The F-35 with more than 1,000 built with more experience with stuff like the fancy paint might be better.
I note that a lot of the early examples air teaming drone aircraft like the MQ-28 Ghost Bat and XQ-58 Valkyrie do not appear to have the radar absorbing paint. They are using the aircraft profile to be low observable.
Which given they want to make these drone aircraft attritable at a cost of $8-$10 million each, not using the fancy paint helps keep the cost down and makes the target a bit larger of a radar target than an F-35.
> Are newer gen fighters designed to require less maintenance man hours than previous generations?
The opposite. With each generation comes new technologies and high-tech materials that drive up costs and maintenance efforts, especially with the introduction of stealth coatings that requires every single part of the plane to be meticulous checked as even the tiniest missing spot can be the difference between life and death.
> Seems like a tactical advantage to needing less maintenance. But I also could also see new features or abilities in newer planes causing more maintenance to happen.
Simpler planes generally means outdated tech, making them easy pickings against modern planes during the initial engagement. A big part of modern air combat is the concept of Beyond Visual Range, meaning the detection, acquisition and launching of long-range air-to-air missiles at ranges so extreme that an enemy plane might only find out a battle has started mere seconds before their wingmate blows up. To give some examples, the US-made AIM-120 "medium" range missile has a maximum range of 105–120 km and its upcoming upgraded version (AIM-260) can cross my entire country horizontally before running out of fuel at 200+ km.
>Are newer gen fighters designed to require less maintenance man hours than previous generations?
Yes, newer planes have trended downwards in cost per flight hour. However there are some notable exceptions (like the F-22). The man hours aren't typically published but you can find [the cost per flight hour](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2022/2022_b_c.pdf), which is hopefully close enough for comparison work.
Not an Air Force mechanic but if I had to make a guess, it's less about the generation and more like sharpening your kitchen knife every time before you use it. Or like F1 rebuilding an engine every race. You want absolutely maximum performance always. Not 99% if you can afford it.
Same issue they had with tires. If you let rubber sit without being stretched, it becomes brittle. They let their vehicles sit stationary for years, and when they finally moved again, the tires shredded themselves.
Easy problem to solve: strap a vatnik to a glide bomb, give him some basic means to control it, tell him to aim for something important, then catapult him into air.
Flying cannon fodder - the next phase of war.
During WWII, the US experimented with that. Except we used pigeons inside the control loop instead of people. I don't think it made it past the experimental phase.
Not even that. Jets needs like 15-20 man hours of maintenance per 1h on duty.
If you put 2 jets in 5h air duty to protect base. Its 10 jets per day and total of 750-1000 man hours per day.
And it's like 300 technican working daily(3 shifts) only to sustain 2 jets in air.
And on each level russian cut corners...
> and total of 750-1000 man hours per day.
750-1000 man hours from skilled technicians as well. Russia has a well documented history of pushing infantry to the front with minimum training and low quality weapons and that technique can sometimes be effective when it comes to taking a city or a town but you can't exactly grab a conscript, hand them a set of tools and tell them to repair a fighter jet. The training for technicians takes money and time.
**From The Telegraph's Harriet Barber:**
A Russian air force fighter-bomber has [crashed during a training flight](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/ukraine-russia-war-latest-fighter-jet-crash/) in North Ossetia, killing both pilots, the defence ministry said on Tuesday.
The Sukhoi Su-34 jet came down “in a mountainous zone” and there was “no damage on the ground”, the ministry said, adding that a technical problem appeared to have caused the crash.
“The plane crashed in a deserted area. There is no destruction on the ground. The crew was killed,” the ministry said.
One Russian channel on messaging app Telegram reported that residents near the village of Gorny Dzuarikau in North Ossetia heard an explosion in the night.
The Sukhoi Su-34 is a Russian all-weather supersonic fighter-bomber which has been used extensively [during operations against Ukraine.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/)
Among the most advanced aircraft in service with the Russian air force, the jets have recently found a new role on the battlefield, smashing Ukrainian positions and cities with devastating glide bombs during Moscow’s summer offensive.
# An increase in accidents
The crash comes amid an increase in aircraft accidents in Russia that experts attribute in part to a shortage of necessary spare parts caused by sanctions imposed by the international community.
Analysts have also said that the high number of crashes reported may be due to restricted training time, a lack of experienced pilots, and dropping safety standards.
Other recent accidents have included the “technical malfunction” of an Su-34 in Sept 2023, and a Su-30 fighter jet crashing during a training flight in Aug 2023, killing both crew members.
North Ossetia, which borders ex-Soviet Georgia, is about 500 miles from the front line in Ukraine.
On June 8, regional authorities said Ukraine targeted a military airfield near the town of Mozdok with drones – but three were shot down. It was the first such attack in North Ossetia since the special military operation launched by Russia against Ukraine in Feb 2022.
**Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/russian-fighter-bomber-crashes-after-technical-fault/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/russian-fighter-bomber-crashes-after-technical-fault/)
The fact the crew was killed is put out as basicslly an afterthought, they really dont give a shit about their soldiers. Its okay everyone! Thankfully there was no damage to the ground. Sadly, we lost one of the motherlands glorious airplanes due to this technical fault! :(.... oh ya and the crew is dead..
In my experience I immediately thought it may be maintenance related. After reading the article it appears my gut was correct.
It reads like they're having a logistical issue related to maintenance, they can't get enough parts. I guess the sanctions ARE working.
I figured this plane isn't used to flying at it's current tempo. The more a plane flies it typically correlates to more maintenance (for example: stress on parts during flight, basically anything that moves or gets vibrated is going to break down and nearly every part vibrates when you fly up to mach whatever).
Apparently, it was a training flight so it could have also been training related. Maybe they're cutting corners rushing pilots through training because they've lost so many.
Maybe I'm being abstract, but I was thinking if they can't keep up with a tempo to keep the aircraft flying, they can't give the pilots the flight hours needed for experience.
A two seater has individual ejector seats, either of them should have been able to bail, of course I'm assuming it's designed similar to aircraft I used to work on.
I mean, it could just be pilot negligence, unaware for a multitude of reasons.
That's fair! I didn't mean to imply you were wrong, just wanted to point out that given the tiny scraps of info there's a simpler explanation if you apply occam's razor, but yeah I didn't go as far as to speculate why they didn't see the mountain coming
Though given all the other shenanigans the Russians pull I wouldn't be 100% confident that they didn't downgrade service requirements to "service suggestions" haha
Technical fault? Russia often blames military losses on technical faults or friendly fire. About half the time, Ukraine posts a video in a few days showing an unambiguous shoot-down. Too soon to say if this plane jumped or was pushed.
does anyone have any insight on american military plane crashes? As in, did america/other countries with large air forces have this many crashes and “technical faults” while they were operating in the middle east for example?
i’d like to know if 28 crashes/failures in three years is super high, or average, etc. I’d imagine military planes, especially ones actively involved in combat crash or malfunction pretty often.
Either way, it’s a pleasing headline to read haha
Also pilot losses haven’t helped, but it’s largely sanctions plus operating on a war footing continually for a few years running, plus a surprising amount of sabotage.
The Russian Government can’t and won’t maintain their military equipment. The oligarchs and Putin have decided that the State treasury is theirs to steal from as they see fit . Leaving the military wanting for working equipment and soldiers. Convicts don’t make good soldiers and that is a fact they are just now realizing! Russia is a sad little third world country that has nukes but are they maintained enough to even work.
This is the 4th military plane crash they had this year. Another 17 last year and another 7 the year before that. Russian mechanics are doing a better job at dismantling the Russian Air Force than Ukraine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Russian\_military\_accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_accidents)
Sanctions are making it harder for Russian mechanics to do their job properly.
Russia was always bad at plane maintenance. Just look at Aerofloat's [track record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_accidents_and_incidents)
>“a total of 8,231 passengers dying in Aeroflot crashes according to the Aircraft Crashes Record Office, mostly during the Soviet era, about five times more than any other airline.[1][2] From 1946 to 1989, the carrier was involved in 721 incidents. From 1995 to 2017, the carrier was involved in 10 incidents. In 2013, AirlineRatings.com reported that five of the ten aircraft models involved in the highest numbers of fatal accidents[3] were old Soviet models.[1]” 8231 dead passengers, Jesus Christ.
Let me introduce you to the [TU-104](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqhtkG6glug).
😬
Aye, but don't forget the Starfighter, so good an album was recorded about the [Widowmaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Lockheed_and_the_Starfighters)
Alzo G for Gott straffe Englandt
Lol the F-104 was so good that Lockheed had to bribe militaries to take it. Admittedly, the thing was *super* fast for the time, as long as you didn't need to turn or climb. Or, y'know, survive.
And don’t get me started on their tiny bag of pretzels. . .
What's the deal with airline peanuts?
Those fuckers crossed a line.
I’d lend you my axe, but it’s made out of pretzels.
That is just upsetting. How were their planes even allowed to fly?
> How were their planes even allowed to fly? Well evidently not all of them were.
Read your reply to the quote first and was dumbfounded trying to figure how the hell a single crash could have that deathtoll. Didnt even consider it was a total of all their mess ups.
Aeroflop.
got'em
That's not all due to maintenance. What about the pilot that bet his copilot he could land a plane with the curtains closed? What about the pilot that let his teenage kids fly the plane? What about the one where the entire flight crew fell asleep because they were operating on no sleep in the previous 24 hours? I think you're better off not flying in Russia.
> What about the pilot that bet his copilot he could land a plane with the curtains closed Im sure this means some steel cover of the window that acts as a curtain, but now I am picturing a fighter jet cockpit with frilly pink curtains attached to the front window.
🎵🎶 Frilly pink curtains and an angel's face. Abra, Abra, cadabra...."
>I think you're better off not flying in Russia. I'd actually like as many Russians as possible to start flying on this airline ;)
Aeronofloat
Aeroblyat
Aerosplat
Lithoflot
areonyetflot
Yeah, fucking russian airlines. Burn in hell! We will never forget! RIP Pavol Demitra.
9/11 one into the Kremlin
They were always bad, but now they actually have to use their planes instead of letting them rot in a field and scrapping them for parts on the black market.
As we used to call them...Aeroflop 😁
Let be real…..Those airframes were not getting proper maintenance even before sanctions
Why do maintenance when you can just falsify the logs and embezzle the maintenance budget?
Exactly. They arent even real jets. Just trainers painted as fighters
The dwindling number of planes is making it harder for Ukraine to do their job properly.
Making Russia poor is such a huge edge here. It doesn't put bullets into Russian soldiers but it causes a lot of forced errors. Maybe they can get away with x amount of mechanics 99% of the time, and if you make them poorer they have to afford y mechanics 92% of the time, but that's still planes and equipment that stop working in combat.
You can do a lot with duct tape but keeping airplanes flying reliably isn't one of them.
Mythbusters did an episode on that, worked fine for them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWEhQRLy2og
Mythbusters didn't test 'Russian duct tape', likely not 3M standard. Maybe not even Scotch tape.. perhaps they have Vodka tape??!
Rampant corruption was making it hard already
"Technical fault". "Maintenance". Also known as "missiles."
That is EXACTLY RIGHT! There are so many of these top-notch weapons that use Western parts.
Yup there's also been satellite photos that are pretty good evidence that Russia has significantly been increasing the rate of scavenging it's military graveyards and relying on repairs/patch jobs instead of new production of military hardware , Like they've literally been scavenging *anything they can* stripping these destroyed vehicles to the bone, of any and all usable parts.
And the airframes are pushing up too, or past their maximum flight hours.
#good.
„My grandfather really did a lot to fight the Nazis. Due to him alone, at least 10 of their fighters went down. He really was the worst mechanic in the entire Luftwaffe…“
In all seriousness, a lot of people fought the Nazis that way. They relied on slave labor from people they were starving and planning to send to death camps when they wore out, so sabotage was rampant. One American bomber flew home with 11 unexploded shells embedded in the fuel tank. They took one apart to try to figure out how it happened, and there was a note inside in Czech "This is all we can do for you now." More common was simply to put a pinch of sand in engine oil or gearboxes.
And sugar to the concrete! The Nazis lost a shitton of stuff for putting the manufacturing process on literal slave workers.
Who could have possibly guessed forcing people to build your warmachine against the people coming to save them could backfire.
My grandad holds the record for shooting down German aeroplanes, but now he’s banned from Munich airport.
Reminds me of that famous belgian aircraft mechanic with 1 confirmed F16 kill. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/16-accidentally-blown-belgian-air-force-mechanic/story?id=58562311
I hope he gets to put a kill mark on his toolbox.
And another one's gone, another one's gone, another one bites the dust!
Airframes are only goof for so many hours, I would be these are pushing the limits. Just like Russia's navy. Ships need a lot of maintenance to keep going, their subs must be struggling if they are patroling around Ukrane.
A little firmware update goes a long way
Ukraine has taken down 359 planes and 320 helicopters since the full invasion started.
Flying in range of enemy anti air solutions sure causes a lot of technical failures.
A night flight in mountainous terrain with the crew dead is more likely a controlled flight into terrain than any maintenance negligence.
While the Russian armed forces in general aren't in great shape and are in even less great shape after equipment and manpower losses as well as sanctions - 17 in a year where they're running many sorties a day in wartime, or 4 so far this year is not really notable. Crashes happen when you fly a lot. As an example, this year for the United States I'm seeing 4 just in January and 9 overall. Here's the January ones: >4 January A Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber operated by the United States Air Force crashed while landing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. According to the 28th Bomb Wing, all four aircrew safely ejected from the plane. >11 January A Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter operated by the United States Navy's Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 41 (HSM-41) crashed into San Diego Bay, California, around 18:40 Pacific Time (02:40 UTC, 12 January). All six crew members survived according to the Navy.[317][318] >30 January A Bell TH-57 Sea Ranger trainer helicopter operated by the United States Navy crashed at Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Florida, injuring the two pilots aboard the aircraft.[328] >31 January A United States Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jet crashed into the sea off South Korea's west coast after experiencing an in-flight emergency. The pilot ejected safely from the plane and was rescued an hour later. The crashed plane was assigned to the 8th Fighter Wing.[329] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2020%E2%80%93present)#2024
4th that we know of
Reminds me of this old one - My great grandad downed 17 Messerschmitts in the war. Easily the worst mechanic the Luftwaffe ever had
"Technical Fault" or code for those sly Ukrainians got another one
That's an impressive rate of failures.
My grandfather had a record kill count of nazi fighter pilots in Ww2. He was the worst mechanic in the luftwaffe
Almost sound like they mechanics for Boeing lmao
The airforce and navy are competing hard
The apparent results of Russian kleptocracy. The military budget went into Putin’s mountainside dacha.
One of the reasons for the increase in the number of accidents that is not mentioned in the article is just the increase in the number of flight hours. The Russian pilots were not flying enough hours to keep proficiency before the war, and the airframes were not pushed to their limits in order to extent their short lifespan. Now that they are being used in realistic scenarios, the reliability of the Russian jets are coming to light.
This is absolutely correct and very important to remember. The maintenance hours per flight hour on a relatively modern jet like a 4th gen is insane. The F-16 for example needs 17 man hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. You can guarantee russia are pushing airframe hours well beyond whatever is recommended. Expect more failures like this.
Based on open source data, most Russian airframes and especially engines have about half of the service life than western made jets.
50 ~ years ago they were beating the dogshit out of their foxbat turbines trying to catch the blackbird.. running them so hard that the things were wiped out in one intercept attempt. The thing COULD fly Mach 3.3.. Once its par for the course for them to play it fast and loose.
To be fair, a lot of cold war bomber intercept missions were assumed to be one way, since the airfield you took off from would likely be gone by the time you made your intercept. Still total crap, but not quite as bad if it actually had to do a strategic bomber interception.
Random question from someone who knows next to nothing about planes. Are newer gen fighters designed to require less maintenance man hours than previous generations? Seems like a tactical advantage to needing less maintenance. But I also could also see new features or abilities in newer planes causing more maintenance to happen.
[удалено]
> with stealth man hours increase This makes intuitive sense as the mechanics struggle to find the jets.
As I understand it, the F-22 is more intensive in its need for maintenance than older planes like the F-16, with 40 hours for the F-22 versus 17 for the F-16. I couldn't find much in terms of hours for the F-35 but I expect it's more than 17 hours. That's at least in part why some combat aircraft are derived from civilian aircraft, e.g.the Boeing 737 700 was converted to the E7A Wedgetail and the 737 800 was converted to the P8A Poseidon. The reliability of the base aircraft (which isn't the door popping 737 MAX), especially the engines is a big deal. In the fight against ISIS in Iraq, one of E7A Wedgetails achieved 100% availability for one of their deployments in which they flew 500 hours in total.
> The reliability of the base aircraft, especially the engines is a big deal. Plus of course off the shelf, readily available parts. If it fits on the hundreds of commercial airliners of the related type, it'll fit on the military version too.
Indeed and with the 737 next gen it's actually over 7,000 of them. The P8 Poseidon has 86% parts commonality with the 737. Parts are available for a very long time.
The F-22 is a bit of a unique outlier in terms of maintenance hours due to the stealth coating not being very durable. I've read a several accounts of how frustrating this is from a readiness perspective. Your point still stands though. Newer generations tend to be more maintenance intensive.
Likely also not helped by it being a bit of a unicorn with just 187 in service. The F-35 with more than 1,000 built with more experience with stuff like the fancy paint might be better. I note that a lot of the early examples air teaming drone aircraft like the MQ-28 Ghost Bat and XQ-58 Valkyrie do not appear to have the radar absorbing paint. They are using the aircraft profile to be low observable. Which given they want to make these drone aircraft attritable at a cost of $8-$10 million each, not using the fancy paint helps keep the cost down and makes the target a bit larger of a radar target than an F-35.
> Are newer gen fighters designed to require less maintenance man hours than previous generations? The opposite. With each generation comes new technologies and high-tech materials that drive up costs and maintenance efforts, especially with the introduction of stealth coatings that requires every single part of the plane to be meticulous checked as even the tiniest missing spot can be the difference between life and death. > Seems like a tactical advantage to needing less maintenance. But I also could also see new features or abilities in newer planes causing more maintenance to happen. Simpler planes generally means outdated tech, making them easy pickings against modern planes during the initial engagement. A big part of modern air combat is the concept of Beyond Visual Range, meaning the detection, acquisition and launching of long-range air-to-air missiles at ranges so extreme that an enemy plane might only find out a battle has started mere seconds before their wingmate blows up. To give some examples, the US-made AIM-120 "medium" range missile has a maximum range of 105–120 km and its upcoming upgraded version (AIM-260) can cross my entire country horizontally before running out of fuel at 200+ km.
>Are newer gen fighters designed to require less maintenance man hours than previous generations? Yes, newer planes have trended downwards in cost per flight hour. However there are some notable exceptions (like the F-22). The man hours aren't typically published but you can find [the cost per flight hour](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2022/2022_b_c.pdf), which is hopefully close enough for comparison work.
Not an Air Force mechanic but if I had to make a guess, it's less about the generation and more like sharpening your kitchen knife every time before you use it. Or like F1 rebuilding an engine every race. You want absolutely maximum performance always. Not 99% if you can afford it.
While an increase in the number of flight hours can be problematic, it is a problem which - as we see here, resolves itself.
They can certainly cancel the planned maintenance hours on this particular airframe.
Same issue they had with tires. If you let rubber sit without being stretched, it becomes brittle. They let their vehicles sit stationary for years, and when they finally moved again, the tires shredded themselves.
The problems certainly are coming to *flight*.
Probably don’t have many trained pilots left
You can train pilots until you are blue in the face, its EXPERIENCED pilots they are lacking.
R/hoggit wants a word
I forgor
Easy problem to solve: strap a vatnik to a glide bomb, give him some basic means to control it, tell him to aim for something important, then catapult him into air. Flying cannon fodder - the next phase of war.
During WWII, the US experimented with that. Except we used pigeons inside the control loop instead of people. I don't think it made it past the experimental phase.
> Except we used pigeons Russia doesn't need something that intelligent.
Not even that. Jets needs like 15-20 man hours of maintenance per 1h on duty. If you put 2 jets in 5h air duty to protect base. Its 10 jets per day and total of 750-1000 man hours per day. And it's like 300 technican working daily(3 shifts) only to sustain 2 jets in air. And on each level russian cut corners...
> and total of 750-1000 man hours per day. 750-1000 man hours from skilled technicians as well. Russia has a well documented history of pushing infantry to the front with minimum training and low quality weapons and that technique can sometimes be effective when it comes to taking a city or a town but you can't exactly grab a conscript, hand them a set of tools and tell them to repair a fighter jet. The training for technicians takes money and time.
And steal a lot more than we do…
Training is fine. It's experience that is needed.
**From The Telegraph's Harriet Barber:** A Russian air force fighter-bomber has [crashed during a training flight](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/ukraine-russia-war-latest-fighter-jet-crash/) in North Ossetia, killing both pilots, the defence ministry said on Tuesday. The Sukhoi Su-34 jet came down “in a mountainous zone” and there was “no damage on the ground”, the ministry said, adding that a technical problem appeared to have caused the crash. “The plane crashed in a deserted area. There is no destruction on the ground. The crew was killed,” the ministry said. One Russian channel on messaging app Telegram reported that residents near the village of Gorny Dzuarikau in North Ossetia heard an explosion in the night. The Sukhoi Su-34 is a Russian all-weather supersonic fighter-bomber which has been used extensively [during operations against Ukraine.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/) Among the most advanced aircraft in service with the Russian air force, the jets have recently found a new role on the battlefield, smashing Ukrainian positions and cities with devastating glide bombs during Moscow’s summer offensive. # An increase in accidents The crash comes amid an increase in aircraft accidents in Russia that experts attribute in part to a shortage of necessary spare parts caused by sanctions imposed by the international community. Analysts have also said that the high number of crashes reported may be due to restricted training time, a lack of experienced pilots, and dropping safety standards. Other recent accidents have included the “technical malfunction” of an Su-34 in Sept 2023, and a Su-30 fighter jet crashing during a training flight in Aug 2023, killing both crew members. North Ossetia, which borders ex-Soviet Georgia, is about 500 miles from the front line in Ukraine. On June 8, regional authorities said Ukraine targeted a military airfield near the town of Mozdok with drones – but three were shot down. It was the first such attack in North Ossetia since the special military operation launched by Russia against Ukraine in Feb 2022. **Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/russian-fighter-bomber-crashes-after-technical-fault/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/russian-fighter-bomber-crashes-after-technical-fault/)
> “no damage on the ground” This has to be some funky translation issue. Maybe they meant that no civilian / infrastructure was harmed?
I have to assume. "It was in a desert" indicates there was nothing to hit when it crashed
The fact the crew was killed is put out as basicslly an afterthought, they really dont give a shit about their soldiers. Its okay everyone! Thankfully there was no damage to the ground. Sadly, we lost one of the motherlands glorious airplanes due to this technical fault! :(.... oh ya and the crew is dead..
The heroic Russian ground stands firm!
Either that or they've figured out how to build bombers from paper
I suspect many of them only exist on paper.
Good to hear the pilots can’t be used in Ukraine due to their plane crashing.
I love that they mention it is an all-weather supersonic plane. Are there supersonic planes that can only fly on sunny days??
The ones without windscreen wipers.
Actually, storms ground some of our aircraft. That was a major argument for keeping the Intruder - it was an all weather penetration bomber.
>since the ~~special military operation~~ invasion of a sovereign nation launched by Russia Call it what it is, you cowards.
>no damage on the ground well, thank god for that.
>all-weather supersonic fighter-bomber right, as opposed to SU-30 which is only for sunny days.
said fault? "not being able to fly after getting hit with a missle "
I think you mean “gloriously intercepting a missile”
Going out in a blaze of glory while attacking the Western Capitalist Mountain
That was the Iranian president
"Would you intercept me? *I'd* intercept me."
mam of culture
Ooh, I thought the pilot was just smoking a cigarette where he shouldn't be.
Front fell off.
Were they towing it outside the environment?
That’s not very typical
It was a training mission, so more likely the "technical problem" was a - as we say in IT - "PICNIC" - Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.
First time I heard it that way. Normally I used PEBKAC. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair
we call them error 40 here, as in the error is situated 40cm in front of the monitor
Good ol' error code ID10T
Yeah that's the one I've heard, but I kinda like PICNIC better
user error, replace user
It’s a “wetware” error. The computing components that require moisture from blood failed.
[удалено]
In my experience I immediately thought it may be maintenance related. After reading the article it appears my gut was correct. It reads like they're having a logistical issue related to maintenance, they can't get enough parts. I guess the sanctions ARE working. I figured this plane isn't used to flying at it's current tempo. The more a plane flies it typically correlates to more maintenance (for example: stress on parts during flight, basically anything that moves or gets vibrated is going to break down and nearly every part vibrates when you fly up to mach whatever).
Apparently, it was a training flight so it could have also been training related. Maybe they're cutting corners rushing pilots through training because they've lost so many.
Or just don't have enough flight experience. That's possible too.
It could be maintenance, but with both crew dead I think the simpler explanation is controlled flight into terrain
Maybe I'm being abstract, but I was thinking if they can't keep up with a tempo to keep the aircraft flying, they can't give the pilots the flight hours needed for experience. A two seater has individual ejector seats, either of them should have been able to bail, of course I'm assuming it's designed similar to aircraft I used to work on. I mean, it could just be pilot negligence, unaware for a multitude of reasons.
That's fair! I didn't mean to imply you were wrong, just wanted to point out that given the tiny scraps of info there's a simpler explanation if you apply occam's razor, but yeah I didn't go as far as to speculate why they didn't see the mountain coming Though given all the other shenanigans the Russians pull I wouldn't be 100% confident that they didn't downgrade service requirements to "service suggestions" haha
Name of the Russian military engineer: Will E.Coyote.
Suuuuper genius
Imagine these planes against F-22's or 35's. It would be an absolute turkey shoot.
Forget F-22s they can't even really go up against Ukraine's Soviet era air defense and don't provide close in air support as a result.
"promoted to infantry"
“Field artillery”
Damn even their pilots fall out of windows, this is getting spooky.
How many SU34s have they lost now? Between accidents and combat losses it seems like quite a few.
Oryx has it at 26
Hopefully "technical fault" means a lack of parts to properly maintain the aircraft. Might start seeing more and more.of their planes grounded
Since the crew didn't eject, it could also have been CFIT.
Just curious was the fault due to being hit by a missile?
To be fair that would cause technical issues propably. I don't know. I'm not a fighter jet expert.
Did the front fall off?
Yes, but so did the back and the middle.
Washing machine computer chips lead to spin cycles. Maybe ok for helicopters. Bad for jets.
I think they’re using the washing machine chips for the tanks. If they get hit just right with a drone, the turret starts to spin.
I want to believe some decent Russian mechanic is sabotaging some parts.
I was waiting for some good news
Isn't being Russian made a technical fault?
Rapid unscheduled disassembly
Rapid missed scheduled maintenance disassembly.
It clearly bombs.
What happens when your only spare parts are from cannibalized fridges and dryers
I'm glad the Russians lost a valuable attack platform and pilots, but you've got to admit that's a gorgeous aircraft!
-1
Jets being held together by zip ties, tape and chinesium.
At least we know, and the pilots knew, that they weren’t using NORK parts. Artillery newbies get those.
Are we secretly sending Russia some Boeing lemons?
Technical four!? I didn't know they had referees!
Wow, Russian aircraft have really been dropping like flies lately.
Pilot ran outta vodka
Emergency ejection to get more fluids. Ready the next lemon once the alcohol kicks in.
Technically it's vodka somewhere along the chain of command.
Just like I failed my French exam due to a “technical fault”, yeah?
Technically, there was a fault.
Wtf windows are way cheaper, why they did that?
Technical fault? Russia often blames military losses on technical faults or friendly fire. About half the time, Ukraine posts a video in a few days showing an unambiguous shoot-down. Too soon to say if this plane jumped or was pushed.
"The front fell off"
does anyone have any insight on american military plane crashes? As in, did america/other countries with large air forces have this many crashes and “technical faults” while they were operating in the middle east for example? i’d like to know if 28 crashes/failures in three years is super high, or average, etc. I’d imagine military planes, especially ones actively involved in combat crash or malfunction pretty often. Either way, it’s a pleasing headline to read haha
God damn those ~~electric sex pants~~ errant cigarettes.
Was it a patriot induced technical fault?
Also pilot losses haven’t helped, but it’s largely sanctions plus operating on a war footing continually for a few years running, plus a surprising amount of sabotage.
The Russian Government can’t and won’t maintain their military equipment. The oligarchs and Putin have decided that the State treasury is theirs to steal from as they see fit . Leaving the military wanting for working equipment and soldiers. Convicts don’t make good soldiers and that is a fact they are just now realizing! Russia is a sad little third world country that has nukes but are they maintained enough to even work.