Russian-Made Crash Notification

If you get 30 new jets per year then 10 crash is too much.

It doesn't matter how many crash it will always be too much, and the investigations will try to work out why it happened and make recommendations to make it less likely to happen again in the future, but sometimes there is not much they could do to prevent a crash except not fly... and sometimes that is not an option.

Su-75 at 20 million is the best deal but then who knows the price of the mig-35. Export price of mig-29M isn't that low. And I would rathzr have tge su-75 even if it is a bit more expensive than the mig-35. It is also a single engine so 2 times less spart parts for the engine.

The 30 million they claim for the Exported Su-75 so it might be 20 for the Russian military, but it hasn't flown yet so it is not really a good option for now... instead of getting 30 new jets per year, getting zero new planes per year is a huge step backwards.

Single engined fighters are not half the price of twin engined fighters... the twin engined F-5 is much cheaper than the single engined F-16, and lets not get started with the F-35... the engine in a single engined fighter is generally very powerful for its weight class which tends to make it more expensive and more expensive to maintain.

The Flanker isn't more expensive to operate than the Fulcrum because it burns more fuel, it is because the engines are more expensive to operate and maintain amongst other issues.

The MiG is more than 50% cheaper to operate yet has the same number of engines.

I do not disregard sabotage. Especially how many Ukrainians and sympathizers live in Russia. Who knows.

Each incident will be investigated and the situation in that regard determined...

Anyway, as the saying goes "things don't change until someone loses a head".

Yeah, because an atmosphere of fear and paranoia is always a great working environment that gives amazing results... NOT.

I would take Putin over Stalin any day of the week.

Lets not wait for any investigation... obviously speculation on a web site and declaring solutions pulled from various dark hard to reach places is how every country should manage its air safety policy...

Accidents happen and the amount of flying around means they will be more frequent than if no planes are flying around at all.

It was always the criticism of any Russian losses that in peace time accidents shouldn't happen... well they are at war so who knows what happened and why.

Let's not forget, many of these jets sat idle for a good part of the 90's and early 2000's.

They would be checked and given upgrades before being flown again...

Su-25's also proved their worth and honestly, should also restart production.

They have been trying to replace it for a while, there is talk that attack helicopters will take over the role the Su-25 performs.

The point is that if it has proven its worth then developing an actual replacement for it should be able to be justified which will mean they will be replaced eventually.

The issue with losses being sudden and together like that... well that is pretty normal... random does not mean regular and evenly spaced... in fact patches of accidents and then periods with no accidents is perfectly normal when weather is a factor, or stretched air services...

Causes are not that important. It's the consequences that really matter. They loose aircraft they can't replace and they are aircraft very used during wars.

If the aircraft are considered valuable and not replaceable then they will be replaced... otherwise other aircraft will likely be produced to substitute them.... including drones which in their suicide versions are doing a lot of work the Su-25s used to do.

Not good at all for them.

They are currently building rather more aircraft and tanks and BMPs than they are losing, and only a fraction of their forces are involved in the Ukraine and Syria.