Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

eehnie wrote:Specific armament very likely to be incorpored to CAS UAVs would be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_(rocket)   (variants under 5 Km of range)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket   (variants under 5 Km of range)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_(rocket)  (variants under 5 Km of range)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-24_rocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMGU

Plus other options of high rate of fire (AGS-17, GShG-7.62, Yak-B 12.7mm,...) or bombs/mines for low altitude.

The consequence of the Su-25/28/39, Ka-50/52, Mi-28, the most modern variants of the Mi-8/.../24/... family (and maybe others) stop fighting under 5 Km of altitude, is that they will not use more these weapons as Air-Surface weapons, and as consequence, the launchers of these weapons in their pylons will be removed to install others of longer range. Also many launchers can be removed from units of older variants of the Mi-8/.../24/... family to scrappe or to be used as transport helicopters, and surely there are many more stored as spare parts from previously scrapped aircrafts and helicopters.

Single pylon CAS UAVs to continue using this armament would need to fly under the range of MANPADS, and as consequence would be designed under the philosophy of expendable material. But this would not be a problem because they have the potential of being dirt cheap.

Reconnaissance UAVs for low distance designed under expendable philosophy would be very light instead. Very small.

Short missions in time are key in both cases in order to make possible a bigger rate of recovery.

Over 5 Km of altitude = Over MANPADs range, the history is different.

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-12

After the last update there are 7 Be-6/12 listed as active:

http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33282  <-->  21-02  1970  RF-12010  Nº29
http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33345  <-->  26-02  1972  XXxxxxxx  Nº01
http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/32991  <-->  28-02  1973  RF-12012  Nº28
http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33396  <-->  28-03  1973  XXxxxxxx  Nº76
http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/32997  <-->  29-01  1973  RF-12006  Nº10
http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33405  <-->  29-02  1973  RF-12007  Nº12
http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33411  <-->  29-04  1973  RF-12009  Nº20

It seems to be still some mechanical reserve for this aircraft, that allowed the return to active service of 2 units (28 and 76). If the mechanical reserve allows still to the return of more units to active service, is likely to happen, because it would not make sense a delay and reserve in the use of this aircraft. The logical model of using of this aircraft would be of fast exhaustion.

With the war in Syria ongoing, and the difficult situation of the Syrian Air Force, a reinforcement with the last units of these aircrafts would be positive, with a potential use as Maritime Patrol aircraft and as Fighter Ground Attack aircraft, even without spending on a modernization of the aircraft.

In February 2015 the commander of the Russian Naval Aviation Major General Igor Kozhin said that the Be-12 would be modernised, with Focus on the ASW systems. There are around 17 aircraft in storage.

Hole wrote:In February 2015 the commander of the Russian Naval Aviation Major General Igor Kozhin said that the Be-12 would be modernised, with Focus on the ASW systems. There are around 17 aircraft in storage.

Even more recently, seems to be a plan to do it:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4343p75-older-warfare-performance-and-short-mid-term-decommissions#214724

posted in the previous page of this same topic.

I find this option weak, taking into account somethings:

- Age of the aircrafts: The production of this aircraft stoped in 1973, and this year the youngest aircraft will be of 45 years old.
- Only a few aircrafts to upgrade: The development of the upgrade needs to be dirty cheap in order to keep low the cost per unit.
- Ukranian speciphic engines: Not available more engines and not available more spare parts. Only available what is now in the hands of Russia.
- Obsolete airframe: The design of the Be-12 is based in the Be-6, with mechanical elements that come from the original design of the late 1940s. Poor range.

Combined with other detection tecnologies present in Syria, can be useful for Syria like it is, without spending, as sea patrol, to scare submarines and small ships or to keep far drones from hostile powers, while can be used as bomber on land. Always as short-term weapon.

In my view this aircraft would have been first in line to help Syria in the refered to the air force, with potential spare parts for the MiG-21 remaining in the stocks. Next would be the L-39, that are being intensely restored in/for Syria. To note that the L-39 would be auxiliary aircraft for Russia, but in the case of Syria can be used as combat aircraft.

Russia would lose nothing with that.

The war will likely continue long, basically because the US impose war. Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

The logical decline in the numbers of the oldest weapons in Syria, Russia and Asia can lead to more intense help of Russia and other countries with some weapons:

AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS

Fighters: J-2(FT-2), J-5(F-5, FT-5) (from North Korea)
by declining numbers of MiG-15, MiG-21
by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

FGA: Be-6/12, H-5 (from North Korea)
by declining numbers of more modern aircrafts
by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

For other types of weapons, the help is more difficult.

With the end of the pockets in Syria, the role of the Syrian air force will change. It will be less oriented to ground attack, specially in the southern front, and will be more oriented to air defense roles, specially anti-drone and anti-missile roles.

The Be-6/12 can have an inmediate total decommission in Russia, to go as help.

The issue with the Be-12 is that, sure it makes sense to remove it from service because it is old, but it offers something newer options currently in service don't offer... and that is fully amphibious capability.

Do they have any Be-40 or Be-200s that can perform safe landings on water if needed?

If not then the Be-12 has a usefulness that makes it valuable...

Its operating costs would likely be lower than for a jet too.

I don't think the Be-12 would be very much use to Syria to be honest... certainly not a huge help in the civil war...

To be honest I think the Russian Navy should decide whether it wants aircraft that can land on the water surface... if they do, buy some Be-42/40/200s and get rid o the Be-12s and if they don't... just get rid of the Be-12s.

There are plenty of countries they could clean them up and gift them to... lots of asian and pacific countries that could use cheap amphibious aircraft...

I guess the Russian Navy plans to buy the Be-200 or A-40, that´s why they decided to Keep the Be-12 for a few years, so their pilots can practise on something.

It was a previous order, but was cancelled. I do not think a new order will emerge. As commented with GarryB many times, the big potential presence of UAVs in the future of the maritime patrol makes unlikely the purchase of new big and expensive (compared to UAVs) aircrafts now, that can be totally surpassed by the new technologies in about 10 years. The time runs in favor of maritime patrol UAVs and every time is less likely the purchase of big aircrafts for maritime patrol.

For me, the main potential role of the Be-6/12 aircrafts in Syria would be to keep the US and Israeli drones far of the Syrian coast (and as consequence of the Russian bases), specially the drones of biggest size. Also to keep the hostile submarines and ships away, in order to make them to launch their attacks from bigger distance, allowing with that a better air defense. The hability of landing on sea can be useful in Syria if airfields are attacked and damaged. Finally, also can help in some ground attack operation.

I think the Russian bases need some maritime patrol in Syria in the short term. To have the Be-6/12 under Syrian flag can help a more agressive answer to drones and potential missile attacks. In addition to this, it would be interesting for Russia in my view to have some Il-38 under the Russian flag in Syria.

Be-12 was built as an ASW aircraft in 60s but later its role became more of search and rescue (And Be-200, Be-12's replacement, that MoD had ordered were mainly for that role). I dont think that can play the maritime patrol role in Syria. Their normal destiny is removal.

Also i dont remember if we have discussed it again, but Ka-52 and Mi-28 are too modern helos to be decommissioned at the end of that decade. I cant understand why they are in poll.
On the contrary i am surprised that you didnt include Su-24.
MiG-25 has also withdrawn from service before that decade

I guess the Russian Navy plans to buy the Be-200 or A-40, that´s why they decided to Keep the Be-12 for a few years, so their pilots can practise on something.

Not just pilot training... if they need aircraft that land on the water then at the moment they only have Be-12s so they would have to keep them operational while they are waiting for the replacement to arrive and get into service...

Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

The US is already arming Georgia and the Ukraine... I really don't think that will change one way or the other with the Syrian situation...

As commented with GarryB many times, the big potential presence of UAVs in the future of the maritime patrol makes unlikely the purchase of new big and expensive (compared to UAVs) aircrafts now, that can be totally surpassed by the new technologies in about 10 years. The time runs in favor of maritime patrol UAVs and every time is less likely the purchase of big aircrafts for maritime patrol.

For many roles a UAV is ideal... long boring missions... recon type missions they are excellent.


The problem is that with maritime patrol there are lots of very specific aspects to the mission that a UAV is not actually suited too... 10 people on an MPA can get out the binoculars and look through the aircraft windows searching the sea for signs of missing people or boats...

Plus landing near a stricken yacht is not really an option for a UAV.

Having said that I am pretty sure there is plenty of potential for manned aircraft AND UAVs... together they tick all the boxes and in the right mix could get most jobs done more efficiently.

Normally a medium MPA like an Il-38 will drop dozens or even hundreds of Sonobouys to try to find submarines... an A-42 could land and use a much more sensitive and expensive dipping sonar. Even expendible sonobouys are expensive so dropping them all over the place wastes a lot of money (of course if you find and sink a sub it is all worth it...) but being able to use a dipping sonar means you can check down different layers of water and listen for subs... retract and then accelerate and skim the water for a couple of kms and then drop the sonar again.

For very long range operations then a UAV could make more sense with the support of a subsonic very long range aircraft like the PAK DA...

In fact a big airship could offer the best of both worlds in the use of dipping sonar and actually being able to land on the water surface, or climb very high into the air to search with radar for periscopes...

For me, the main potential role of the Be-6/12 aircrafts in Syria would be to keep the US and Israeli drones far of the Syrian coast (and as consequence of the Russian bases), specially the drones of biggest size.

For shooting down enemy drones I would suggest L-39 trainer aircraft... probably with a pod holding 4 Igla-S missiles on each pylon and a belly mounted cannon pod...

The Be-12 probably does not have the range to keep enemy vessels out of cruise missile range from Syria either.

Rather than sending obsolete Be-12s to Syria, I would send them to countries surrounded by water like Indonesia... there are lots of countries in SE Asia and the Pacific that would appreciate an fully amphibious aircraft that has simple maintenance... even if they just use it for transport.

Also i dont remember if we have discussed it again, but Ka-52 and Mi-28 are too modern helos to be decommissioned at the end of that decade. I cant understand why they are in poll.

I believe it had to do with all CAS aircraft being obsolete, including attack helos and Su-25s.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:As commented with GarryB many times, the big potential presence of UAVs in the future of the maritime patrol makes unlikely the purchase of new big and expensive (compared to UAVs) aircrafts now, that can be totally surpassed by the new technologies in about 10 years. The time runs in favor of maritime patrol UAVs and every time is less likely the purchase of big aircrafts for maritime patrol.

For many roles a UAV is ideal... long boring missions... recon type missions they are excellent.

The problem is that with maritime patrol there are lots of very specific aspects to the mission that a UAV is not actually suited too... 10 people on an MPA can get out the binoculars and look through the aircraft windows searching the sea for signs of missing people or boats...

Plus landing near a stricken yacht is not really an option for a UAV.

Having said that I am pretty sure there is plenty of potential for manned aircraft AND UAVs... together they tick all the boxes and in the right mix could get most jobs done more efficiently.

Normally a medium MPA like an Il-38 will drop dozens or even hundreds of Sonobouys to try to find submarines... an A-42 could land and use a much more sensitive and expensive dipping sonar. Even expendible sonobouys are expensive so dropping them all over the place wastes a lot of money (of course if you find and sink a sub it is all worth it...) but being able to use a dipping sonar means you can check down different layers of water and listen for subs... retract and then accelerate and skim the water for a couple of kms and then drop the sonar again.

For very long range operations then a UAV could make more sense with the support of a subsonic very long range aircraft like the PAK DA...

In fact a big airship could offer the best of both worlds in the use of dipping sonar and actually being able to land on the water surface, or climb very high into the air to search with radar for periscopes...

I personally think the rescue role is more for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters. I do not see a need of making compatible the rescue role with the carriying of weapons unless it is in a combat zone, and in this case likely the most useful option would be some shipborne combat helicopter.

In other situations a combination of UAVs and Tu-PAK-DA/modernized Tu-22/modernized Tu-160 can solve perfectly the role. One of the main advantages of the UAVs to gain range despite being smaller is that can be easily shipborne with VTOL technologies. Here yes, here the VTOL technologies are very useful.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

The US is already arming Georgia and the Ukraine... I really don't think that will change one way or the other with the Syrian situation...

At this point the effort of the US in Syria seems significantly bigger, and without a need of it, the US would have important amounts of free budget to contine their hostility toward Russia in other places.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:For me, the main potential role of the Be-6/12 aircrafts in Syria would be to keep the US and Israeli drones far of the Syrian coast (and as consequence of the Russian bases), specially the drones of biggest size.

For shooting down enemy drones I would suggest L-39 trainer aircraft... probably with a pod holding 4 Igla-S missiles on each pylon and a belly mounted cannon pod...

The Be-12 probably does not have the range to keep enemy vessels out of cruise missile range from Syria either.

Rather than sending obsolete Be-12s to Syria, I would send them to countries surrounded by water like Indonesia... there are lots of countries in SE Asia and the Pacific that would appreciate an fully amphibious aircraft that has simple maintenance... even if they just use it for transport.

Yes of course. The help with the L-39 likely has been and will continue being intense. The effort done to restore Syrian hulls and to keep their numbers seems outstanding. In fact in my previous comment it was a non-explicit reference to this case, now edited to a more explicit reference.

eehnie wrote:The war will likely continue long, basically because the US impose war. Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

The logical decline in the numbers of the oldest weapons in Syria, Russia and Asia can lead to more intense help of Russia and other countries with some weapons:

AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS

Fighters: J-2(FT-2), J-5(F-5, FT-5) (from North Korea)
by declining numbers of MiG-15, MiG-21
by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

FGA: Be-6/12, H-5 (from North Korea)
by declining numbers of more modern combat aircrafts
by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

For other types of weapons, the help is more difficult.

With the end of the pockets in Syria, the role of the Syrian air force will change. It will be less oriented to ground attack, specially in the southern front, and will be more oriented to air defense roles, specially anti-drone and anti-missile roles.

The Be-6/12 can have an inmediate total decommission in Russia, to go as help.

In the case of Novorussia, the intensity of the conflict remains in significantly lower level than in Syria. There is not doubt that Novorussia would have all the necessary material in case of war of bigger intensity. At this point the war seems reduced to some Artillery, Surface-Surface and man-portable weapons duels. Taking it and the new local designs into account:

AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS

Likely no new needs on air armament.

Scrapping report of the 3Q of the decade for the heavy air combat material (January 2016 - June 2018)

Isolate units and/or broken parts of heavy air combat material to continue:

Su-27/30/33/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Su-24: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Tu-22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-25/31: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-29/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Su-07/17/20/22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-27: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Su-25/28/39: Sale and auction of scrap material.

Low amounts of heavy air combat material to continue:

MiG-23: Sale and auction of scrap material and spare parts.
Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177: Sale and auction of scrap material and spare parts.

Low amounts of heavy air combat material in process of exhaustion for the mid-term:

.

Lowr amounts of heavy air combat material in process of exhaustion for the short-term and with exhaustion finished:

Be-6/12: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Il-28: Sale and auction of scrap material.

Liquidation of heavy air combat material which exhaustion was likely completed by the end of 2015:

MiG-21: Sale and auction of spare parts.
Yak-28: Sale and auction of spare parts.

Looking at the reports I tend to think that:

- The scrapping activity for heavy air combat material in this time has been low, specially in 2017. The biggest activity is in the Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177:.
- The scrapping process of the Be-6/12, seems near the end.
- The scrapping process of the Il-28 was likely finished in 2015/2016.
- The scrapping process of the MiG-21 was surely finished before 2016. In 2016 would be the liquidation of the last spare parts.
- The scrapping process of the Yak-28 was surely finished before 2016. In 2016 would be the liquidation of the last spare parts.

In the case of the heavy air combat material would not be models for a planned total exhaustion in the mid-term. Aircrafts like the MiG-23, MiG-27 or Su-07/17/20/22 can remain longer despite to be present only in the reserve, thanks to remain relatively modern as military concept.

To note that in the case of the heavy air material, the scrapping activity is low for both, heavy air combat material and heavy air auxiliary material. In both cases the material for total exhaustion in the short-term seems totally finished at this point, except in the case of the Be-6/12.

Scrapping report for the heavy air combat material (January 2016 - December 2018)

Isolate units and/or broken parts of heavy air combat material to continue:

Su-27/30/33/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Tu-22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-25/31: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-29/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-27: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Ka-50/52: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Su-25/28/39: Sale and auction of scrap material.

Bigger amounts  of heavy air combat material to continue:

Su-24: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Su-07/17/20/22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-23: Sale and auction of scrap material and spare parts.
Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177: Sale and auction of scrap material and spare parts.

Isolate units and/or broken parts of heavy air combat material with expected exhaustion for the mid-term:

.

Bigger amounts of heavy air combat material with expected exhaustion for the mid-term:

.

Bigger amounts of heavy air combat material in process of exhaustion for the short-term and with exhaustion finished:

.

Isolate units and/or broken parts of heavy air combat material in process of exhaustion for the short-term and with exhaustion finished:

Be-6/12: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Il-28: Sale and auction of scrap material.

Liquidation of heavy air combat material which exhaustion was likely completed by the end of 2015:

MiG-21: Sale and auction of spare parts.
Yak-28: Sale and auction of spare parts.

Looking at the reports I tend to think that:

- The scrapping activity for heavy air combat material in this time has been low, specially in 2017, increasing in 2018.[/b].
- The scrapping process of the Be-6/12, seems near the end.
- The scrapping process of the Il-28 was likely finished in 2015/2016.
- The scrapping process of the MiG-21 was surely finished before 2016. In 2018 would be the liquidation of the last spare parts.
- The scrapping process of the Yak-28 was surely finished before 2016. In 2018 would be the liquidation of the last spare parts.

For the last 2 years of the decade is not likely to see increased the scrapping activity for the heavy air combat material. In this case is unlikely to see a planned total exhaustion of some model in the mid-term. Aircrafts like the MiG-23, MiG-27 or Su-07/17/20/22 can continue longer, becoming useful for Russian allies, thanks to remain relatively modern as military concept, despite to be present only in the reserve. In the short-term is likely to see increased the scrapping activity for the:

Be-6/12

Like for heavy land and sea combat material, the scraping activity for heavy air combat material is at this point lower than for heavy air auxiliary material.

PS: IF there is some new report in the last days of 2018, will be included in this resume.

I personally think the rescue role is more for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters. I do not see a need of making compatible the rescue role with the carriying of weapons unless it is in a combat zone, and in this case likely the most useful option would be some shipborne combat helicopter.

Normally search and rescue is performed by suitable aircraft... which often include border patrol and naval security type platforms.

The ability to land on the water would make the Mail an ideal search and rescue platform, and most of the time they will operate unarmed, because their job is to find things like smugglers or illegal fishing or ships in distress, or people in the water etc.

Don't underestimate the ability of patrol aircraft to spot submarines in shallow water too.

A helicopter does not cover the same area that a fixed wing aircraft can, which makes them better for rescuing after they have been located rather than for search and rescue.

In other situations a combination of UAVs and Tu-PAK-DA/modernized Tu-22/modernized Tu-160 can solve perfectly the role. One of the main advantages of the UAVs to gain range despite being smaller is that can be easily shipborne with VTOL technologies. Here yes, here the VTOL technologies are very useful.

For more military purposes of hunting enemy combatants like ships and subs then UAVs and UCAVs together with long range aircraft make sense, though the Backfire and Blackjack would likely be too fast for such missions a PAK DA might suit the role... especially if custom made with less emphasis on stealth and more on long range subsonic cruise to make it cheaper to operate...

At this point the effort of the US in Syria seems significantly bigger, and without a need of it, the US would have important amounts of free budget to contine their hostility toward Russia in other places.

If it is activity against Russia I think they get money thrown at them by their government... by all parties.

In the case of Novorussia, the intensity of the conflict remains in significantly lower level than in Syria. There is not doubt that Novorussia would have all the necessary material in case of war of bigger intensity. At this point the war seems reduced to some Artillery, Surface-Surface and man-portable weapons duels. Taking it and the new local designs into account:

Poro knows he will lose the next election if it is free and fair, so he is being cornered and could try anything...

The biggest activity is in the Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177:.

Not really a surprise... it is the most produced helicopter on the planet... and still in production...

Aircrafts like the MiG-23, MiG-27 or Su-07/17/20/22 can remain longer despite to be present only in the reserve, thanks to remain relatively modern as military concept.

Engines are not longer in production... which would be a problem if you actually wanted to fly these aircraft again.

Su-27/30/33/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Tu-22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-25/31: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-29/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
MiG-27: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Ka-50/52: Sale and auction of scrap material.
Su-25/28/39: Sale and auction of scrap material.

I rather doubt any Su-35s or MiG-35s or Ka-52s would be up for sale for scrap.

Would they be Tu-22s or Tu-22M2s?

It is important to forget not the words introducing every box in the resume. Isolate units and/or broken parts means that in some cases are not even one entire unit.

Sometimes there are scrapping reports of material from units lost in accidents, or about brocken pieces, that can come from young material.

Also the use of a designation for the entire technological developments, mean not a confirmed scrapping activity of every variant included. In the cases of the Su-35, MiG-35 and Ka-52 variants, it has not been scrapping activity. In the case of the Tu-22 it was of some Tu-22M variant that I can not specify now.

About the MiG-23, MiG-27 and Su-07/17/20/22, it is likely that the Syrian aircrafts of these developments are using at this point spare parts from the Russian reserve. I do not think all the units were retired to the reserve with the engines totally exhausted. Russia very likely keeps some mechanical reserve to put still some units of them to fly and/or to sustain longer flying units of its allies.

Obsolete combat aircrafts pending scrapping:



Yak-38:

3 units partially conserved in Evpatoria, Crimea

https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/35769
https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/49190
https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/35823

https://www.google.es/maps/@45.2181953,33.3885819,34m/data=!3m1!1e3



Be-6/12:

2 units Kacha Sebastopol, Crimea (also near 4 of the 7 active):

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7799688,33.5547425,138m/data=!3m1!1e3

3 units Evpatoria, Crimea (also near 1 of the 7 active in darker color that seems under reparation):

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2180725,33.3890088,137m/data=!3m1!1e3

3 units Saki Novofedorovka, Crimea (one of them with engines still, maybe this one captured to Ukraine https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33417):

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0861566,33.5794081,274m/data=!3m1!1e3

4 units TANTK Taganrog

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1931065,38.8685013,66m/data=!3m1!1e3

6 units Ostrov, Pskov

https://www.google.com/maps/@57.2845012,28.4183534,210m/data=!3m1!1e3

1 unit Severomorsk (with engines still, maybe this one https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33312)

https://www.google.com/maps/@69.0254006,33.4255749,35m/data=!3m1!1e3

Not observed in Yelizovo nor Viborg.