Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Share
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2344
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:41 pm

    JohninMK wrote:OT but Mmmm, 'grasshopper' the Kung Fu David Carradine one perhaps? Takes me back, what a series.

    Yep, that one Cool ...showing my age I guess


    max steel wrote:"Most of the guys are now unhappy because of this war. They drink, or they are sick or disabled, and the state does not pay any attention to them. Of course, this is tremendous pain."

    Hahaha media and their vilification. lol1


    Russian fears of Syria becoming a 'new Afghanistan'


    It's to be expected....will probably get worse (if that's possible)
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Militarov on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:48 pm

    WarIsCrap article on Russian logistics and operation rates of their fighters.

    "Russia’s pace of air operations in Syria appears to have dropped off slightly from their peak in recent days. While the Russians had flown as many as 88 sorties per day about two weeks ago, more recently that number has dropped off as many U.S. defense officials had predicted. “In the course of the last 24 hours, the Russian air group carried out 59 sorties engaging 94 terrorist objects in the Hama, Idlib, Lattakia, Damascus, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor provinces,” reads an Oct. 26 release from the Russian Ministry of Defense. “In the course of the last three days, the aircraft of the Russian air group have performed 164 combat sorties engaging 285 terrorist objects.” That means that the Russians have been flying an average of 55 sorties per day with their mix of Sukhoi Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-30SM and Su-34s — which is a slower pace than before. But those figures are within the range Pentagon officials had predicted the Russians could fly with the number of jets they have deployed.

    The Russians are thought to have between 32 and 36 aircraft at their base in Latakia, which means they could generate with between 48 and 96 sorties per day with good logistics. While the Russians initially surprised many with their ability to generate up to 88 sorties per day, most U.S. defense officials predicted those numbers could not be sustained for long. That’s because the Russians don’t have any recent experience deploying aircraft overseas, nor do they have a well-oiled logistical train that could sustain the pace for long. Indeed, USA Today reported Oct. 26 — citing an anonymous Pentagon official — that nearly one-third of Russia’s combat aircraft and 50 percent of its transports in Syria are grounded at any one time. The harsh conditions appear to be taking a toll on the Russian crews and their aircraft.

    My own sources said much the same. However, they said that logistics are probably the biggest factor in the drop-off, noting that Russian aircraft usually fare pretty well in harsh conditions because of their rugged construction. Regardless, the result is that the Russians are not quite matching the performance of U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps expeditionary forces. However, there is another factor that could be playing a role. The bulk of the Russian aircraft deployed to Syria are either upgraded but elderly airframes or brand new models that have not yet ironed out all of their various teething issues. But the same is true of brand-new aircraft. Until maintenance crews learn a jet’s quirks and which parts need replacing most often, new aircraft that have just entered service have horrible mission-capable rates. It happened with the F-22 when it was first introduced and it’s happening with the F-35 now. And Russia is not immune to the problem.

    Indeed, Russia’s most capable bomber in-theater, the Su-34 — which has been built in boutique quantities like most of the newest Russian jets — has had severe issues with maintenance in previous years due in part to its slow build rate. It remains to be seen if Russia will use this as an opportunity to revamp its logistical system. But if it does, it is possible that Russia might be able to ramp up its air operations once its crews learn to deal with the deployed environment and the correct spare parts start flowing in a timely manner."


    Source: http://warisboring.com/articles/russia-stumbles-in-syrian-air-war/
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:49 pm

    par far wrote:Most people are wondering why the SAA offensive has gone cold, this is why.

    "According to independent military experts, the current United States course aims at containing Syrian government forces successes at any price. Pentagon believes that the failure of the Syrian army can trigger the transfer to Syria Russian land forces and the beginning of a protracted and costly ground operation".


    http://southfront.org/isis-increases-capabilities-in-aleppo-province-reasons-conditions/



    Which is Stupid, Russia can always break the Tupolev's and do exactly what the US did over Ain Al Arab, carbet bomb the shit out of everything. Who GAF about collateral. Just bomb, bomb, bomb FSA and their buddies.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:52 pm

    Militarov wrote:WarIsCrap article on Russian logistics and operation rates of their fighters.

    "Russia’s pace of air operations in Syria appears to have dropped off slightly from their peak in recent days. While the Russians had flown as many as 88 sorties per day about two weeks ago, more recently that number has dropped off as many U.S. defense officials had predicted. “In the course of the last 24 hours, the Russian air group carried out 59 sorties engaging 94 terrorist objects in the Hama, Idlib, Lattakia, Damascus, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor provinces,” reads an Oct. 26 release from the Russian Ministry of Defense. “In the course of the last three days, the aircraft of the Russian air group have performed 164 combat sorties engaging 285 terrorist objects.” That means that the Russians have been flying an average of 55 sorties per day with their mix of Sukhoi Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-30SM and Su-34s — which is a slower pace than before. But those figures are within the range Pentagon officials had predicted the Russians could fly with the number of jets they have deployed.

    The Russians are thought to have between 32 and 36 aircraft at their base in Latakia, which means they could generate with between 48 and 96 sorties per day with good logistics. While the Russians initially surprised many with their ability to generate up to 88 sorties per day, most U.S. defense officials predicted those numbers could not be sustained for long. That’s because the Russians don’t have any recent experience deploying aircraft overseas, nor do they have a well-oiled logistical train that could sustain the pace for long. Indeed, USA Today reported Oct. 26 — citing an anonymous Pentagon official — that nearly one-third of Russia’s combat aircraft and 50 percent of its transports in Syria are grounded at any one time. The harsh conditions appear to be taking a toll on the Russian crews and their aircraft.

    My own sources said much the same. However, they said that logistics are probably the biggest factor in the drop-off, noting that Russian aircraft usually fare pretty well in harsh conditions because of their rugged construction. Regardless, the result is that the Russians are not quite matching the performance of U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps expeditionary forces. However, there is another factor that could be playing a role. The bulk of the Russian aircraft deployed to Syria are either upgraded but elderly airframes or brand new models that have not yet ironed out all of their various teething issues. But the same is true of brand-new aircraft. Until maintenance crews learn a jet’s quirks and which parts need replacing most often, new aircraft that have just entered service have horrible mission-capable rates. It happened with the F-22 when it was first introduced and it’s happening with the F-35 now. And Russia is not immune to the problem.

    Indeed, Russia’s most capable bomber in-theater, the Su-34 — which has been built in boutique quantities like most of the newest Russian jets — has had severe issues with maintenance in previous years due in part to its slow build rate. It remains to be seen if Russia will use this as an opportunity to revamp its logistical system. But if it does, it is possible that Russia might be able to ramp up its air operations once its crews learn to deal with the deployed environment and the correct spare parts start flowing in a timely manner."


    Source: http://warisboring.com/articles/russia-stumbles-in-syrian-air-war/

    It is Dave "më ha mutin"jar. His speciality is why Russia sucks. Meanwhile the current sortie rate is about 50 a day. Which is bang on the same numbers supposedly given to him.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2944
    Points : 2969
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  max steel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:00 pm

    Militarov wrote:WarIsCrap article on Russian logistics and operation rates of their fighters.

    "Russia’s pace of air operations in Syria appears to have dropped off slightly from their peak in recent days. While the Russians had flown as many as 88 sorties per day about two weeks ago, more recently that number has dropped off as many U.S. defense officials had predicted. “In the course of the last 24 hours, the Russian air group carried out 59 sorties engaging 94 terrorist objects in the Hama, Idlib, Lattakia, Damascus, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor provinces,” reads an Oct. 26 release from the Russian Ministry of Defense. “In the course of the last three days, the aircraft of the Russian air group have performed 164 combat sorties engaging 285 terrorist objects.” That means that the Russians have been flying an average of 55 sorties per day with their mix of Sukhoi Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-30SM and Su-34s — which is a slower pace than before. But those figures are within the range Pentagon officials had predicted the Russians could fly with the number of jets they have deployed.

    The Russians are thought to have between 32 and 36 aircraft at their base in Latakia, which means they could generate with between 48 and 96 sorties per day with good logistics. While the Russians initially surprised many with their ability to generate up to 88 sorties per day, most U.S. defense officials predicted those numbers could not be sustained for long. That’s because the Russians don’t have any recent experience deploying aircraft overseas, nor do they have a well-oiled logistical train that could sustain the pace for long. Indeed, USA Today reported Oct. 26 — citing an anonymous Pentagon official — that nearly one-third of Russia’s combat aircraft and 50 percent of its transports in Syria are grounded at any one time. The harsh conditions appear to be taking a toll on the Russian crews and their aircraft.

    My own sources said much the same. However, they said that logistics are probably the biggest factor in the drop-off, noting that Russian aircraft usually fare pretty well in harsh conditions because of their rugged construction. Regardless, the result is that the Russians are not quite matching the performance of U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps expeditionary forces. However, there is another factor that could be playing a role. The bulk of the Russian aircraft deployed to Syria are either upgraded but elderly airframes or brand new models that have not yet ironed out all of their various teething issues. But the same is true of brand-new aircraft. Until maintenance crews learn a jet’s quirks and which parts need replacing most often, new aircraft that have just entered service have horrible mission-capable rates. It happened with the F-22 when it was first introduced and it’s happening with the F-35 now. And Russia is not immune to the problem.

    Indeed, Russia’s most capable bomber in-theater, the Su-34 — which has been built in boutique quantities like most of the newest Russian jets — has had severe issues with maintenance in previous years due in part to its slow build rate. It remains to be seen if Russia will use this as an opportunity to revamp its logistical system. But if it does, it is possible that Russia might be able to ramp up its air operations once its crews learn to deal with the deployed environment and the correct spare parts start flowing in a timely manner."


    Source: http://warisboring.com/articles/russia-stumbles-in-syrian-air-war/



    How efficiently do US Air Force , Navy or Marine Corps Expeditionary forces perform ? Seriously these paid so called bogus wannabe muritards analyst leaves no chance to gloat about their failing MIC.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Militarov on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:11 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:WarIsCrap article on Russian logistics and operation rates of their fighters.

    "Russia’s pace of air operations in Syria appears to have dropped off slightly from their peak in recent days. While the Russians had flown as many as 88 sorties per day about two weeks ago, more recently that number has dropped off as many U.S. defense officials had predicted. “In the course of the last 24 hours, the Russian air group carried out 59 sorties engaging 94 terrorist objects in the Hama, Idlib, Lattakia, Damascus, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor provinces,” reads an Oct. 26 release from the Russian Ministry of Defense. “In the course of the last three days, the aircraft of the Russian air group have performed 164 combat sorties engaging 285 terrorist objects.” That means that the Russians have been flying an average of 55 sorties per day with their mix of Sukhoi Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-30SM and Su-34s — which is a slower pace than before. But those figures are within the range Pentagon officials had predicted the Russians could fly with the number of jets they have deployed.

    The Russians are thought to have between 32 and 36 aircraft at their base in Latakia, which means they could generate with between 48 and 96 sorties per day with good logistics. While the Russians initially surprised many with their ability to generate up to 88 sorties per day, most U.S. defense officials predicted those numbers could not be sustained for long. That’s because the Russians don’t have any recent experience deploying aircraft overseas, nor do they have a well-oiled logistical train that could sustain the pace for long. Indeed, USA Today reported Oct. 26 — citing an anonymous Pentagon official — that nearly one-third of Russia’s combat aircraft and 50 percent of its transports in Syria are grounded at any one time. The harsh conditions appear to be taking a toll on the Russian crews and their aircraft.

    My own sources said much the same. However, they said that logistics are probably the biggest factor in the drop-off, noting that Russian aircraft usually fare pretty well in harsh conditions because of their rugged construction. Regardless, the result is that the Russians are not quite matching the performance of U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps expeditionary forces. However, there is another factor that could be playing a role. The bulk of the Russian aircraft deployed to Syria are either upgraded but elderly airframes or brand new models that have not yet ironed out all of their various teething issues. But the same is true of brand-new aircraft. Until maintenance crews learn a jet’s quirks and which parts need replacing most often, new aircraft that have just entered service have horrible mission-capable rates. It happened with the F-22 when it was first introduced and it’s happening with the F-35 now. And Russia is not immune to the problem.

    Indeed, Russia’s most capable bomber in-theater, the Su-34 — which has been built in boutique quantities like most of the newest Russian jets — has had severe issues with maintenance in previous years due in part to its slow build rate. It remains to be seen if Russia will use this as an opportunity to revamp its logistical system. But if it does, it is possible that Russia might be able to ramp up its air operations once its crews learn to deal with the deployed environment and the correct spare parts start flowing in a timely manner."


    Source: http://warisboring.com/articles/russia-stumbles-in-syrian-air-war/

    It is Dave "më ha mutin"jar. His speciality is why Russia sucks. Meanwhile the current sortie rate is about 50 a day. Which is bang on the same numbers supposedly given to him.

    "As of November 2004, the directorate was able to increase the number of F-16s available from 939 to 974, an increase of 35 aircraft. Across the Air Force, the increase means an improvement in the F-16 aircraft availability rate, from 69 percent to 72.5 percent. The directorate started by identifying the best areas for process improvement. The teams found three root causes lowering F-16 availability: downtime due to schedules depot repair or modification, lack of spare parts, and downtime due to maintenance. "

    72% for single engined multirole fighter which they have almost 1.000 in service? India is almost doing better with SU30MKIs....

    Source: http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1301.html

    "On the basis of the 11 active combat battalions fielded when our work began, we found that the Apache's fully-mission-capable rates are low-- averaging 49 percent during 1989. For the same period,
    the 11 battalions had partially-mission-capable rates of 14 percent and non-mission-capable rates of 37 percent. The Apache fleet did not meet the fully-mission-capable requirement in the 3 preceding years."


    Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/110/103166.pdf

    "For FY10, the F-15C/D's aircraft availability was 65 percent" - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-life.htm

    "Operationally the aircraft has not been quite the success one would anticipate; though its performance is universally praised its reliability up to recent times has been a serious problem. In spite of the built in test (BIT) capability, its complex avionic system is quite difficult to troubleshoot and the F-100s apparently go through a lot of spares. Some sources suggest an availability as low as 65% with some units (generally improving, though the first TFW was down to 35% in late 1979) and this has forced the increasing of spare levels and test equipment levels on deployments." - on F15 http://www.ausairpower.net/Profile-F-15A-D.html

    "In its letter to ABC News, the Air Force itself asserted “…the 80% Mission Capable rate of the F-22s at Langley [Air Force Base] was comparable to similar fighter aircraft, specifically Block 50 F-16s.” The statement was clearly intended to impress that the F-22 is combat-ready. Contrast that to GAO’s statement: “Last year, the F-22A fleet achieved a 55.5 percent materiel availability rate. Stealth-related maintenance, system component reliability problems, and lack of spare engines were factors contributing to the fleet not achieving the goal.” (GAO explained that “Material availability is defined as the percentage of the fleet available to perform assigned missions at any given time.”)" - http://nation.time.com/2012/05/16/f-22-gets-into-a-dogfight/

    So, during peacetime their most numerous fighters/combat helicopters on average have availability rate of... 60% in US?

    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7113
    Points : 7385
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:38 pm

    max steel wrote:"Most of the guys are now unhappy because of this war. They drink, or they are sick or disabled, and the state does not pay any attention to them. Of course, this is tremendous pain."

    Hahaha media and their vilification.  lol1  


    Russian fears of Syria becoming a 'new Afghanistan'


    Why post it? So far it is a waste of bytes. No one is sad or drnk about this. It is simply trying to use cheap stereotypes for terrorist supporting al jazeera to try and discredit Russia. None of it makes any sense seeing as this isnt even close to Afghanistan. Lol.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7113
    Points : 7385
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:42 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:WarIsCrap article on Russian logistics and operation rates of their fighters.

    "Russia’s pace of air operations in Syria appears to have dropped off slightly from their peak in recent days. While the Russians had flown as many as 88 sorties per day about two weeks ago, more recently that number has dropped off as many U.S. defense officials had predicted. “In the course of the last 24 hours, the Russian air group carried out 59 sorties engaging 94 terrorist objects in the Hama, Idlib, Lattakia, Damascus, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor provinces,” reads an Oct. 26 release from the Russian Ministry of Defense. “In the course of the last three days, the aircraft of the Russian air group have performed 164 combat sorties engaging 285 terrorist objects.” That means that the Russians have been flying an average of 55 sorties per day with their mix of Sukhoi Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-30SM and Su-34s — which is a slower pace than before. But those figures are within the range Pentagon officials had predicted the Russians could fly with the number of jets they have deployed.

    The Russians are thought to have between 32 and 36 aircraft at their base in Latakia, which means they could generate with between 48 and 96 sorties per day with good logistics. While the Russians initially surprised many with their ability to generate up to 88 sorties per day, most U.S. defense officials predicted those numbers could not be sustained for long. That’s because the Russians don’t have any recent experience deploying aircraft overseas, nor do they have a well-oiled logistical train that could sustain the pace for long. Indeed, USA Today reported Oct. 26 — citing an anonymous Pentagon official — that nearly one-third of Russia’s combat aircraft and 50 percent of its transports in Syria are grounded at any one time. The harsh conditions appear to be taking a toll on the Russian crews and their aircraft.

    My own sources said much the same. However, they said that logistics are probably the biggest factor in the drop-off, noting that Russian aircraft usually fare pretty well in harsh conditions because of their rugged construction. Regardless, the result is that the Russians are not quite matching the performance of U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps expeditionary forces. However, there is another factor that could be playing a role. The bulk of the Russian aircraft deployed to Syria are either upgraded but elderly airframes or brand new models that have not yet ironed out all of their various teething issues. But the same is true of brand-new aircraft. Until maintenance crews learn a jet’s quirks and which parts need replacing most often, new aircraft that have just entered service have horrible mission-capable rates. It happened with the F-22 when it was first introduced and it’s happening with the F-35 now. And Russia is not immune to the problem.

    Indeed, Russia’s most capable bomber in-theater, the Su-34 — which has been built in boutique quantities like most of the newest Russian jets — has had severe issues with maintenance in previous years due in part to its slow build rate. It remains to be seen if Russia will use this as an opportunity to revamp its logistical system. But if it does, it is possible that Russia might be able to ramp up its air operations once its crews learn to deal with the deployed environment and the correct spare parts start flowing in a timely manner."


    Source: http://warisboring.com/articles/russia-stumbles-in-syrian-air-war/

    It is Dave "më ha mutin"jar. His speciality is why Russia sucks. Meanwhile the current sortie rate is about 50 a day. Which is bang on the same numbers supposedly given to him.

    Are the US this stupid that they dont see the constant passing of ships to and from Russia/Syria?
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:46 pm

    max steel wrote:"Most of the guys are now unhappy because of this war. They drink, or they are sick or disabled, and the state does not pay any attention to them. Of course, this is tremendous pain."

    Hahaha media and their vilification.  lol1  


    Russian fears of Syria becoming a 'new Afghanistan'


    All-JIZZ-smear-a, aka the official news channel of butthurt Qatari's. I'd love nothing more than to see Debaltsevo brought to Qatar... Twisted Evil
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 506
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Kimppis on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:48 pm

    And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?
    avatar
    Siempre_Leal

    Posts : 174
    Points : 189
    Join date : 2015-05-04

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Siempre_Leal on Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:04 am

    RuAF Su-24 & Il-20 over Eastern Ghouta, Damascus


    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:17 am

    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 506
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Kimppis on Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:44 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    Well according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34 it's apparently 73 as of October (it says 81 in the infobox, so that must include the prototypes, right?). And they're going to end up with around 200 at this rate anyway, so it's enough.

    Aren't most of those numbers from Cold War or something? And the thing is that I wouldn't call around 20 per year a "boutique quantity" compared to 40 or even 60 anyway. Also, it's not different from any other country at the moment. Even China is "only" building maybe 20-40 aircraft of a single type per year (so like 20-40 J-10s, same number of J-11s, some J-15s and J-16s, each ofc). Rafale year rate can't be too high either. Well, US and F-35 might be an exception, but they are planning to replace most of their fighters with that single type. And it's 'Murica.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:59 am

    Kimppis wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    Well according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34 it's apparently 73 as of October (it says 81 in the infobox, so that must include the prototypes, right?). And they're going to end up with around 200 at this rate anyway, so it's enough.

    Aren't most of those numbers from Cold War or something? And the thing is that I wouldn't call around 20 per year a "boutique quantity" compared to 40 or even 60 anyway. Also, it's not different from any other country at the moment. Even China is "only" building maybe 20-40 aircraft of a single type per year (so like 20-40 J-10s, same number of J-11s, some J-15s and J-16s, each ofc). Rafale year rate can't be too high either. Well, US and F-35 might be an exception, but they are planning to replace most of their fighters with that single type. And it's 'Murica.

    Well Super Hornets have been produced since late 90s in such numbers, Panavia ended production in late 90s too. Dassault has production rate of 2 per month i belive, but that depends on orders. Well F35 is projected to have 240+ yearly production, maybe even more depends how project goes in future, some crazy estimates even go for 1 daily in total score.

    J10 is built at 30 per year rate to my knowledge. Thing is that all these airforces sustained renewal of their fleets and modernisation though 90s and early 2000s, Russia did not. For EF2000 i do not know actual production rate but i guess its around 40 on average since serial production started.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:11 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    Two words. Cold War.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 506
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Kimppis on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:20 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    Well according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34 it's apparently 73 as of October (it says 81 in the infobox, so that must include the prototypes, right?). And they're going to end up with around 200 at this rate anyway, so it's enough.

    Aren't most of those numbers from Cold War or something? And the thing is that I wouldn't call around 20 per year a "boutique quantity" compared to 40 or even 60 anyway. Also, it's not different from any other country at the moment. Even China is "only" building maybe 20-40 aircraft of a single type per year (so like 20-40 J-10s, same number of J-11s, some J-15s and J-16s, each ofc). Rafale year rate can't be too high either. Well, US and F-35 might be an exception, but they are planning to replace most of their fighters with that single type. And it's 'Murica.

    Well Super Hornets have been produced since late 90s in such numbers, Panavia ended production in late 90s too. Dassault has production rate of 2 per month i belive, but that depends on orders. Well F35 is projected to have 240+ yearly production, maybe even more depends how project goes in future, some crazy estimates even go for 1 daily in total score.

    J10 is built at 30 per year rate to my knowledge. Thing is that all these airforces sustained renewal of their fleets and modernisation though 90s and early 2000s, Russia did not. For EF2000 i do not know actual production rate but i guess its around 40 on average since serial production started.

    240+? When? Even then it's for multiple countries and for the US it's the only fighter they are buying. Of course, in the best case scenario Russia could've somehow renewed its fleet with upgraded Flankers, MIG-31BMs and MIG-35/MIG-29SMTs in the 90s and early 2000s and right now they could just concentrate on T-50 and MIG-45 (or whatever). But atleast now the renewal is happening at a reasonably rate, and it's all that matters.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:28 am

    Kimppis wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    Well according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34 it's apparently 73 as of October (it says 81 in the infobox, so that must include the prototypes, right?). And they're going to end up with around 200 at this rate anyway, so it's enough.

    Aren't most of those numbers from Cold War or something? And the thing is that I wouldn't call around 20 per year a "boutique quantity" compared to 40 or even 60 anyway. Also, it's not different from any other country at the moment. Even China is "only" building maybe 20-40 aircraft of a single type per year (so like 20-40 J-10s, same number of J-11s, some J-15s and J-16s, each ofc). Rafale year rate can't be too high either. Well, US and F-35 might be an exception, but they are planning to replace most of their fighters with that single type. And it's 'Murica.

    Well Super Hornets have been produced since late 90s in such numbers, Panavia ended production in late 90s too. Dassault has production rate of 2 per month i belive, but that depends on orders. Well F35 is projected to have 240+ yearly production, maybe even more depends how project goes in future, some crazy estimates even go for 1 daily in total score.

    J10 is built at 30 per year rate to my knowledge. Thing is that all these airforces sustained renewal of their fleets and modernisation though 90s and early 2000s, Russia did not. For EF2000 i do not know actual production rate but i guess its around 40 on average since serial production started.

    240+? When? Even then it's for multiple countries and for the US it's the only fighter they are buying. Of course, in the best case scenario Russia could've somehow renewed its fleet with upgraded Flankers, MIG-31BMs and MIG-35/MIG-29SMTs in the 90s and early 2000s and right now they could just concentrate on T-50 and MIG-45 (or whatever). But atleast now the renewal is happening at a reasonably rate, and it's all that matters.  

    For multiple countries naturally, however majority of those will anyways go to the USAF and Navy air wing.

    "One of the company's final activities under the four-day PI, he noted, was the completion of the 200th center fuselage, AF-97, the 97th F-35A variant for the U.S. Air Force. That hardware was delivered July 29. The PI on Northrop Grumman's IAL has dropped steadily from an initial level of approximately eight days when the line first opened in March 2011 to the current three. Under the F-35 full rate production plan, it would drop to approximately 1.5 work days in 2018."

    USAF says they will take over 60-80 F35s yearly, i guess Marines and Navy will take at least that much themself too, rest is i assume for foreign buyers, this is for period 2016-2025.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:33 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    But your forgetting one serious aspect....Russia isn't borrowing money to fund it's military budget, everything is paid off within budget.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:38 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    But your forgetting one serious aspect....Russia isn't borrowing money to fund it's military budget, everything is paid off within budget.

    I am not saying anything about funds, we dont know that much about funds in USAF, well.. we dont know much about RuAF funds either, but i am just looking at production output here. I am not claiming this production rate is horrible, no, but it could be better thats for sure.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 506
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Kimppis on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:41 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    68 excluding prototypes.

    Well i see some point there, F/A-18 was built on 42 per year rate, Super Hornets were on 48 per year in peak, F16 punched though 200 per year few times during its prime, Panavia Tornado around 60 yearly... I suppose its partially coz it shares platform with other fighters from T10 family but still its quite slowish production rate for modern standards, last and this year tho were decent in terms of delivery numbers.

    Well according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34 it's apparently 73 as of October (it says 81 in the infobox, so that must include the prototypes, right?). And they're going to end up with around 200 at this rate anyway, so it's enough.

    Aren't most of those numbers from Cold War or something? And the thing is that I wouldn't call around 20 per year a "boutique quantity" compared to 40 or even 60 anyway. Also, it's not different from any other country at the moment. Even China is "only" building maybe 20-40 aircraft of a single type per year (so like 20-40 J-10s, same number of J-11s, some J-15s and J-16s, each ofc). Rafale year rate can't be too high either. Well, US and F-35 might be an exception, but they are planning to replace most of their fighters with that single type. And it's 'Murica.

    Well Super Hornets have been produced since late 90s in such numbers, Panavia ended production in late 90s too. Dassault has production rate of 2 per month i belive, but that depends on orders. Well F35 is projected to have 240+ yearly production, maybe even more depends how project goes in future, some crazy estimates even go for 1 daily in total score.

    J10 is built at 30 per year rate to my knowledge. Thing is that all these airforces sustained renewal of their fleets and modernisation though 90s and early 2000s, Russia did not. For EF2000 i do not know actual production rate but i guess its around 40 on average since serial production started.

    240+? When? Even then it's for multiple countries and for the US it's the only fighter they are buying. Of course, in the best case scenario Russia could've somehow renewed its fleet with upgraded Flankers, MIG-31BMs and MIG-35/MIG-29SMTs in the 90s and early 2000s and right now they could just concentrate on T-50 and MIG-45 (or whatever). But atleast now the renewal is happening at a reasonably rate, and it's all that matters.  

    For multiple countries naturally, however majority of those will anyways go to the USAF and Navy air wing.

    "One of the company's final activities under the four-day PI, he noted, was the completion of the 200th center fuselage, AF-97, the 97th F-35A variant for the U.S. Air Force. That hardware was delivered July 29. The PI on Northrop Grumman's IAL has dropped steadily from an initial level of approximately eight days when the line first opened in March 2011 to the current three. Under the F-35 full rate production plan, it would drop to approximately 1.5 work days in 2018."

    USAF says they will take over 60-80 F35s yearly, i guess Marines and Navy will take at least that much themself too, rest is i assume for foreign buyers, this is for period 2016-2025.

    Naturally. And that makes sense, as they are planning to get around 2400 of them in total, IIRC. So we could expect them to have around... idk, 700-1000 in 2020.

    But yeah, this is getting off-topic.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7078
    Points : 7172
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:14 am

    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    Dude, this is nothing, Business Insider just put up ''article'' about conscripts in RU army complete with ''fresh'' photos and statistics from 2006... lol1

    par far

    Posts : 1735
    Points : 1908
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  par far on Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:29 am

    "Battle of Aleppo is a must-win for Russia".


    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/319736-battle-aleppo-syria-russia/

    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 506
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Kimppis on Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:26 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:And Su-34s have been built in "boutique quantities"!? WTF... almost 80 (according to wiki) are in service and 150+ in 2020. What is this, 2010!?

    Dude, this is nothing, Business Insider just put up ''article'' about conscripts in RU army complete with ''fresh'' photos and statistics from 2006... lol1

    Let me guess... It's about the "real" Russian military?

    "You've seen the Russian operations in Syria, but this is the sad reality of Putin's (tm  Cool ) Army: unmotivated, terribly trained conscripts, living in the most terrible conditions!"
    avatar
    Dima

    Posts : 1060
    Points : 1073
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Dima on Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:37 pm

    Combat report: Over 1,600 terror targets destroyed in 1 month of Russia's Syria op
    https://www.rt.com/news/320168-syria-russia-operation-month/
    The Russian Air Force has conducted some 1,400 sorties in Syria since the start of Moscow's anti-terror operation. They have eliminated more than 1,600 terrorist targets in one month, the Ministry of Defense said.

    Among the destroyed targets are 249 command posts, 51 militants' training camps, 131 ammunition and fuel depots and 786 field bases, Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov of Russia's General Staff said on Friday.

    Despite Islamic State's "considerable losses and mass walkout," it's too early to talk about "complete victory" over the terrorists in Syria, Kartapolov stressed, adding the militants are continuing their stand against Syrian government troops in a number of regions. But "all their [terrorists'] efforts of counter attacks have been timely suppressed by the Syrian Army," the Russian military official said.

    In some regions, it is more difficult to defeat the jihadists. Over the years they have turned the areas into powerful organized tactical localities, with a wide network of underground passages and hideouts, Kartapolov said.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2944
    Points : 2969
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  max steel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:47 pm

    Is this the reason for the boots on ground?


    MUST-SEE Crazed US Senator Attacks Defense Secretary for not Planning War With Russia!

    Lies here, lies there...lies everywhere.....Boots will make the Middle (Meddling?) East region worse than ever before...

    Every time US has entered any country such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or wherever else, it has always made a bad situation worse...

    So, what will be different this time?

    U.S. to send Special Operations forces to Syria


    When will US learn not to meddle in the internal affairs of another country?

    This news will send alarm bells ringing in major world capitals and in the region whereby US is entering a sovereign nation without any invitation which Russia received both from Syria as well as Iraq.


    Last edited by max steel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:50 am