Fate of Russia's old birds.

GarryB wrote:Nah... they can have a clean out of old birds and use the money saved that they spend on storage to build new air frames with new systems...

Injects money into the companies making the new planes and new systems, and stops wasting money on old birds that could possibly fly again but there would be little value to actually having them fly for the Russian AF.

This is what the US and their allies would like.

It is curious how some people here promotes the scrapping of veteran but modern and capable in concept aircrafts, like the Su-27 and other aircrafts, while defend to continue with obsolete aircrafts like the Be-12 or the An-2.

A lot of Su-27's in service now are more than capable of obtaining modern upgrades and overhauls that make it more than capable in modern warfare.

A lot of other jets though, older, like earlier MiG's and even first renditions of MiG-29 are not worth it since majority wouldn't be able to fly thanks to the 90's and lack of money in maintaining them or even properly storing them.

Maybe overhaul some by stripping parts from others and then handing them over to nations like Syria so they can replenish some of their lost birds. Outside of that, not worth it for Russian AF.

With some minimum update, every MiG-29, Su-24, Su-17/20/22, MiG-27, MiG-25 and MiG-23 is significantly more capable than a combat helicopter. And significantly more modern as military concept.

The people must stop talking like if it would be a F-22 waiting to every MiG-23 to take off. This is not the reality. There are lots of potential combat situations where even a MiG-23 can be the most capable aircraft in the battlefield.

The alone reason for scrapping some isolate unit of these aircrafts is mechanical exhaustion, after removing every usefull spare part.

It is absurd to think that Russia will be scrapping them, when until now Russia has provide almost nothing in the refered to air warfare to allies with important loses like Syria. After the strong scrapping processes of the 1990s and early 2000s the reserves of aircrafts of Russia are reaching now again the point of saturation for some type of aircrafts. Only now Russia can begin to send some air warfare to Syria without damaging the own capabilities.

eehnie wrote:
With some minimum update, every MiG-29, Su-24, Su-17/20/22, MiG-27, MiG-25 and MiG-23 is significantly more capable than a combat helicopter. And significantly more modern as military concept.

The people must stop talking like if it would be a F-22 waiting to every MiG-23 to take off. This is not the reality. There are lots of potential combat situations where even a MiG-23 can be the most capable aircraft in the battlefield.

The alone reason for scrapping some isolate unit of these aircrafts is mechanical exhaustion, after removing every usefull spare part.

It is absurd to think that Russia will be scrapping them, when until now Russia has provide almost nothing in the refered to air warfare to allies with important loses like Syria. After the strong scrapping processes of the 1990s and early 2000s the reserves of aircrafts of Russia are reaching now again the point of saturation for some type of aircrafts. Only now Russia can begin to send some air warfare to Syria without damaging the own capabilities.

MiG-23 has very few hardpoints to begin with. Syria is better off with retired Su-22s, Su-24s and Sup25s.

eehnie wrote:
With some minimum update, every MiG-29, Su-24, Su-17/20/22, MiG-27, MiG-25 and MiG-23 is significantly more capable than a combat helicopter. And significantly more modern as military concept.

The people must stop talking like if it would be a F-22 waiting to every MiG-23 to take off. This is not the reality. There are lots of potential combat situations where even a MiG-23 can be the most capable aircraft in the battlefield.

The alone reason for scrapping some isolate unit of these aircrafts is mechanical exhaustion, after removing every usefull spare part.

It is absurd to think that Russia will be scrapping them, when until now Russia has provide almost nothing in the refered to air warfare to allies with important loses like Syria. After the strong scrapping processes of the 1990s and early 2000s the reserves of aircrafts of Russia are reaching now again the point of saturation for some type of aircrafts. Only now Russia can begin to send some air warfare to Syria without damaging the own capabilities.

Having lot of different fighters is not that good. You need to train your pilots to fly them, need different engines, parts ... maintenance is different... Having just Flanker variants is easier to maintain and cost less.

If your F-22 have destroyed your entire fleet of Flanker and Pak Fa, your Mig-23 won't change anything to the war. But I agree they could be used for minor tasks.

Upgrading is not cheap too.

Having so many different types just complicates things... especially when even when upgraded a MiG-23 is basically limited to 6 AAMs anyway.


You could spend a small fortune upgrading all those old aircraft... which will be expensive because the old parts are no longer made and the people who operated them have retired from front line service so no one would know how to maintain them.

But most importantly even if you gave them all serious upgrades to allow modern weapons and modern radar and modern systems they still wont be as effective as newer models.

It makes more sense to get rid of all the old stuff... take the valuable materials and scrap the rest or sell to rich people for their collections... removing anything classified first of course.

Once all the old stuff is gone use the money not spent on upgrades and the money made with all the valuable materials recovered and make MiG-29Ms and Su-27SM3s and make some Su-25s based on the two seat model.

If you want to help Syria and Yemen and Eastern Ukraine then old model MiGs (ie 21s, 23s, etc) are not that useful...

And suggesting the US would love that... the US could care less what Russia does with its old crap.

Producing new stuff makes money for the companies making new stuff, meaning more money for R&D on new stuff, and less effort wasted trying to shoe horn modern stuff into old stuff.

The best analogy I can think of is computers... it makes sense... if you know what you are doing... to upgrade a IBM clone PC with an ATX motherboard. A box from 1998 can be dramatically upgraded to the point where it is comparable with a brand new computer.

The ATX standard is still used so powersupply, Motherboard, etc etc will all still fit.

What you are suggesting is keeping Amiga 500s and Atari ST computers alive with upgrades... just let them go.

In its time the Amiga was 100 times the computer the 486 was, but the 486s have moved on.

What a non-sense. A Be-12 can be what you say, but a MiG-23 would not be less than an PC with Windows 95 (less capacity but modern in concept).

For aircrafts like the MiG-23, the situation is not of shortage of spare parts. There are big amounts of almost every thing from the aircrafts scrapped in the 1990s and early 2000s. Russia has also lots of veteran pilots that know well these aircrafts. No need of new pilots. The aircrafts are useful like they are, and at the cost of ordinary maintenance (far less than the production of new aircrafts), Russia will keep aircrafts that remain useful today. The updates and upgrades for an aircraft like the MiG-23 never will be expensive. Only cheap improvements will be approved.

When the US begins to see Russian old aircrafts delivered to the allies of Russia will care more. But in fact, they care today, and this is why we see propaganda against the less modern Russian aircrafts. The US prefers to see Russia without the older aircrafts than with them. In overall terms, the US hates the reserves of old warfare of Russia, because they have nothing equivalent to counter it at this point, thanks to their scrapping policies. Six years of attrition war in Syria and Russia has not been still forced to provide T-64s or BTR-60s to Syria. The lack of older and cheaper warfare is costing to the US a defeat in Syria.

As classical argument of weapon industry lobbyists, the US companies do money producing new weapons, but who is paying them? The US, with the taxes of the Americans (this is why they have 5 years less of life expectancy than most of the advanced European countries) for the benefit of the owners of the companies. Then the US cares? Oh yes, this is why they are finding old and cheap warfare of Sovietic origing and this is why they are paying for this armament, with the taxes of the Americans (5 years less...) for the benefit of the countries that have been keeping the less modern armament.

Syria is a CLIENT of Russia. If they start giving them all they want, what are they going to sell them?? They already are losing some big clients like China and India (buying more and more from other sources than just Russia). There is already a contract for 10 Mig-29M. Russia is no more USSR to give free. Look what happened with Egypt they gave them much more than to Syria and at the end they went to buy overpriced US stuff. Now it's money or nothing.

If these planes were not used since the 90s, they are in a very bad situation and can't be flown. Even newer Mig-29 in reserve can't be used because of corrosion, they even lost some of them, Mig-23 are in worst state. Idem for spare parts they are old and puting them on fighters to fly with will put in danger your pilots. US had the chance to fly a Mig-23 and it was very dangerous as it's not a reliable plane. What do you think it would be today ...

Veteran pilots are flying Su-35 and Pak Fa or are not flying anything and are too old for this anymore. Its a hard work to fly something that put 9G on your body.

US doesn't give a shit about old Mig-23 BTW. They use old R-23 missiles and have an outdated radar. A modernization would need be total if you want to face modern F-15/35 so the price would be huge and not worth it. They already have 100 F-35 and are planing to buy more than 2000 of them. They have the advantage in numbers and in technology. The number of Mig-23 airframe available should'nt be as huge as you think too.

Mig-21 Bison with R-77 capacities however is a perfect aircraft for interception but Russia isn't even offering this modernization for export, it's doubtfull they will restart a production for them.

Sukhoi stuff is the backbone of the Russian stuff based on SU-30 and 35. They can just refuse to upgrade them and oblige the governement to buy new because the air force would be on their side.

Another point is the timelife of these things. An upgrade fighter from the 70s will fly far less than a new one so at then end you will still need to replace it. Better put more money from the start and buy new.

This is not a realistic point. Not about the situation of Syria as client of Russia, not about the state of the less modern aircrafts just after see that Russia is sending some MiG-27 to Lybia (in the previous page of this topic).

We heard just this same history about the T-55 and the T-62, and they are winning a war in Syria (without decreasing the Russian defense capabilities). Unfortunately for the US, who caress not about Russian "crap".

The US would love to be destroying Russian T-72 and Su-27 or Su-30 in Syria, in order to make weaker the Russian defense in Russia, and in order to put under effort the Russian economy to replace them, but they are unsuccessful. The Russian T-72, Su-27 and Su-30 are there still, defending Russia. And Russia continues increasing their numbers without an aditional effort on procurement.

eehnie wrote:This is not a realistic point. Not about the situation of Syria as client of Russia, not about the state of the less modern aircrafts just after see that Russia is sending some MiG-27 to Lybia (in the previous page of this topic).

We heard just this same history about the T-55 and the T-62, and they are winning a war in Syria (without decreasing the Russian defense capabilities). Unfortunately for the US, who caress not about Russian "crap".

The US would love to be destroying Russian T-72 and Su-27 or Su-30 in Syria, in order to make weaker the Russian defense in Russia, and in order to put under effort the Russian economy to replace them, but they are unsuccessful. The Russian T-72, Su-27 and Su-30 are there still, defending Russia. And Russia continues increasing their numbers without an aditional effort on procurement.

They were planing to sign a contract of billion $ with Lybia. Now that the country is destroyed offering some stuff would make them future client.

Tanks are tanks. In Syria the main threats are ATGM. Even Leopard were destroyed by them. So having sending T-55/62 is better than T-90 (BTW one was captured, if hit on the side it will be destroyed too). They are used for firing on pick-ups and building. Against Merkevas, Turkish Leopards or emirati Leclerc they will be destroyed very easily. The war in Syria is not a war against a conventionnal opponent ...

Fighters are different in the way that the principal threat are other fighters so if they are too old and outdated they will be useless unless you use them for bombing unprotected target. Su-24 were destroyed by Patriot and F-16, they have old equipement they can't compete with Su-34. No matter if you have 3 for the price of 1 Su-34, sometimes the numbers is not enough.

And no US wouldn't love it as the reaction of Russia would be very bad for them: probably some cruise missiles on their ABM radars in eastern europe or giving some of them to Iran or North corea ...

Isos wrote:They were planing to sign a contract of billion $ with Lybia. Now that the country is destroyed offering some stuff would make them future client.

Tanks are tanks. In Syria the main threats are ATGM. Even Leopard were destroyed by them. So having sending T-55/62 is better than T-90 (BTW one was captured, if hit on the side it will be destroyed too). They are used for firing on pick-ups and building. Against Merkevas, Turkish Leopards or emirati Leclerc they will be destroyed very easily. The war in Syria is not a war against a conventionnal opponent ...

Fighters are different in the way that the principal threat are other fighters so if they are too old and outdated they will be useless unless you use them for bombing unprotected target. Su-24 were destroyed by Patriot and F-16, they have old equipement they can't compete with Su-34. No matter if you have 3 for the price of 1 Su-34, sometimes the numbers is not enough.

And no US wouldn't love it as the reaction of Russia would be very bad for them: probably some cruise missiles on their ABM radars in eastern europe or giving some of them to Iran or North corea ...

The bolded part only can be true if the situation of the aircrafts is far better than what you and GarryB painted in previous messages.

Do not forget air defenses as threat of aircrafts. Tanks are tanks and aircrafts are aircrafts, ok, but if you think the new aircrafts can not be destroyed you are wrong. And Russia does well keeping the best part of its own fleet for the own defense.

The reality proved that to send T-55 and T-62 is better than to send nothing. But in aircrafts here the people is defending the contrary. To send nothing is better than to send MiG-23? It is a non-sense.

In the refered to air warfare, Russia will begin to provide something to Syria when they consider to have satured reserves and consider to have something available. Because Russia will not leave the Syrian Air Force to fall, and to waste their most modern aircrafts. First in line? Be-12 (still possible to send some unit), and L-39. The MiG-23 will not be the first in line. And the US will hate to be spending their modern air defense missiles on Be-12s and L-39s. Likely the missile will be more expensive than the aircraft, perfect for Russia in their attrition war strategy.

I don't think we are talking about the same situation. I'm talking about a general situation where a potential Mig-23 would be used to defend a country like Russia or Syria against modern enemies like Israel or USA, in this case they are useless and would recquire money that can be given for new stuff.
And that Russia is no more acting like USSR by giving weapons for free and so that they depend on them in the long term. Russia is now a liberal country and what matters is buisness so they will want to sell to Syria 10 more Mig-29 with some upgrades than give them 20 Mig-23 and close the syrian market. Even Serbia had to buy some upgrades for having a few old Mig airframes for free.

You are talking about the war in Syria. Russia would give and is giving to Syria in this case some stuff because Russia need Assad. I'm not sure they will give them fighter because the main western argument is that they use them for chemical attacks, Mig-29M were not delivered AFAIK. Against ISIS any fighter that can lunch unguided bombs would do the job.

The bolded part only can be true if the situation of the aircrafts is far better than what you and GarryB painted in previous messages.

If they operate them it means they can do something so they will have to buy missiles on the long terms and logicaly be Russia's client. If they have these missiles and want to operate new fighters they will more likely buy Mig-35 or sukhois ...

This is the model for land warfare is surely coming also for air warfare in Syria:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4461p50-syrian-arab-army-saa#196708
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2665826.html

As said, first in line, Be-12 and L-39.

Now I get it... you are the Israeli agent... the American stooge...

You want Russia to send its allies old crap so they are easier to beat.

You don't want Russia to make more MiGs and Sukhois because that will make them stronger and offer a cheap capability of upgrading their own fleet and the fleets of their allies with aircraft easily upgraded to 4++ generation at a time when the US is only able to get crappy light 5th gen aircraft.

The time and effort and cost of upgrading a MiG-23 is a total waste of time and money.

Put a new radar on board but what is the point... the best armament you could possibly fit would be four R-77s in total... you could do the same much cheaper and much simpler to an upgraded MiG-21.

The swing wing mechanism on a MiG-23 is complex and requires maintainence and attention.

A MiG-29 can do the same job with 6-8 wing pylons for weapons and would be much SAFER because it has two engines so if one stops then you can still fly home and land.

They were blowing up L39s during their last lot of exercises... how many do you think they have left... they have been using them and they have not been buying them in the last 25 odd years.

If they need light jet trainers in Syria then send SR-10s and some dumbed down simplified cheaper Yak-130s.

I agree. But Israel has a big advantage over Syria in quality and quantity. Sending 10 Mig-29, Su-35 or Pak fa won't change anything. They should try to build their country first and resolve economical issues.

GarryB wrote:Now I get it... you are the Israeli agent... the American stooge...

You want Russia to send its allies old crap so they are easier to beat.

You don't want Russia to make more MiGs and Sukhois because that will make them stronger and offer a cheap capability of upgrading their own fleet and the fleets of their allies with aircraft easily upgraded to 4++ generation at a time when the US is only able to get crappy light 5th gen aircraft.

The time and effort and cost of upgrading a MiG-23 is a total waste of time and money.

Put a new radar on board but what is the point... the best armament you could possibly fit would be four R-77s in total... you could do the same much cheaper and much simpler to an upgraded MiG-21.

The swing wing mechanism on a MiG-23 is complex and requires maintainence and attention.

A MiG-29 can do the same job with 6-8 wing pylons for weapons and would be much SAFER because it has two engines so if one stops then you can still fly home and land.

They were blowing up L39s during their last lot of exercises... how many do you think they have left... they have been using them and they have not been buying them in the last 25 odd years.

If they need light jet trainers in Syria then send SR-10s and some dumbed down simplified cheaper Yak-130s.

Syria can not pay for new aircrafts, you know it, or not? Then you know perfectly that new aircrafts will not be made with Syrian money in some years.

Also you know that you are calling crap to aircrafts that are today in active service in the Russian Armed Forces. Aircrafts that you defend to continue in the Russian Armed Forces otherwise. While the Be-12 and the L-39 are good to continue in the Russian Armed Forces, are not good enough to give to Syria. When there is an option to give them to Syria as help, then these aircrafts become crap.

Obviously you have not problem if the Syrian Air Force receives not help. You say nothing about it. The problem for you begins when you see the option to reinforce the Syrian Air Force with something that is in use in Russia today, and as consequence is useful. Then to avoid to reject the help, you are promoting something that you know that will not happen.

You know perfectly that Russia will not order new aircrafts with money of its own treasure to give them to Syria. Russia can not do, and will not do it because it weakens the own defense. If Russia increases not its own defense budget, would be giving to Syria the aircrafts to renew their own Airspace Forces. If Russia increases its defense budget, would be weakening other type of assistance to the Russian citizens.

The logical way to help to Syria, as an ally that can not pay for it, is to give them the less modern, less powerfull and less capable armament that gets free in the process of renovation of their own air forces. And in the logical process of renovation and reinforcement of the own Armed Forces, Russia will leave out first the less modern, less powerful and less capable aircrafts. First in line, the Be-12 and the L-39.

It requires not a big talent to see that the Be-12 in service in the Russian Armed Forces will be removed fast. Also Russia is replacing their L-39 by Yak-130. Taking this as example, it would be silly for Russia to give to Syria the new Yak-130 that have to replace the L-39, keeping the L-39 only to continue needing to build more Yak-130 to replace them in a few years. To give to Syria new Yak-130 would affect to the Russian defense, delaying the replacement of the L-39.

In the case of the fighters, the situation is not even this, because the new fighters, Su-30, Su-35 are being added to the current fleet, but without a retirement of units of the oldest model, the MiG-23. The units in active service are not being increased, but the number of units in the reserve are being increased. As consequence there are not fighters to give to Syria until the saturation of the reserves.

Obviously it would be better for Syria to receive new Yak-130  or Su-27. But it would be damaging for the Russian defense and the Russian treasury.

It is obvious that Syria received many T-55 and T-62 that need not a rebuild. Obviously they are not in the repair plant, they are in the front lines. Here are the tanks that are not totally complete, but using some as spare parts, Syria gets more T-55 and T-62 combat capable from the Russian help. It is something very logical, and it is a model that can be applied also to the air warfare.

What you see in the Syrian repair plant is not crap, mostly are tanks that need some repair, and many of them will be in the Syrian Armed Forces in the short term.

Obviously, no, I'm not the "Israeli agent... the American stooge..." like you said, because Russia has interest in doing the things this way. And neither is the Russian military people that organized this scheme for the land warfare, because they did it in the interest of Russia and Syria. And the result of doing this is a military success for Syria since the entry of Russia in Syrian territory.

In the last months the reports about use of the L-39 in Syria seems to increase again.

Maybe with some Russian assistance?

Syria can't afford PAK FA or Su-35 or MiG-35, but they can easily afford MiG-29SMT, and MiG-29M2 but without all the bells and whistles.

For much of their needs a simple Gefest and T upgrade to create simple cheap dumb bomb bombers applied to cheap simple aircraft like Su-27SM3 or MiG-29SMT would be good enough.

Certainly not enough to take on Israel or the US, but enough to form a useful military that could cooperate with both Iraq and Iran in the region to make them even more powerful.

Right now something that they can use to support their troops on the ground would make sense... MiG-21s are probably the cheapest aircraft to operate... something like 6K per flight hour if I remember correctly... a basic modification with the Gefest and T bombing system and improvements to its radar and systems to allow the use of R-73 and R-77 missiles and then just dumb bombs for ground targets and you are set.

The same avionics upgrade for Su-22 for bombing ground targets would also make a cheap effective bomber option.

GarryB wrote:Syria can't afford PAK FA or Su-35 or MiG-35, but they can easily afford MiG-29SMT, and MiG-29M2 but without all the bells and whistles.

For much of their needs a simple Gefest and T upgrade to create simple cheap dumb bomb bombers applied to cheap simple aircraft like Su-27SM3 or MiG-29SMT would be good enough.

Certainly not enough to take on Israel or the US, but enough to form a useful military that could cooperate with both Iraq and Iran in the region to make them even more powerful.

Right now something that they can use to support their troops on the ground would make sense... MiG-21s are probably the cheapest aircraft to operate... something like 6K per flight hour if I remember correctly... a basic modification with the Gefest and T bombing system and improvements to its radar and systems to allow the use of R-73 and R-77 missiles and then just dumb bombs for ground targets and you are set.

The same avionics upgrade for Su-22 for bombing ground targets would also make a cheap effective bomber option.

The logical for Syria and Russia, would be the procurement of the modern heavy armament under payment to receive units of export variants, and the procurement of the less modern armament as military help.

The less modern armament to receive as help without payment would include every heavy weapon received, which production stoped in 1981 or before, with the exception of towed air defense (SA-3, SA-2, SA-5 and ZU-23) plus their ammunition. Also would include the oldest auxiliary vehicles (like the L-39) and the man-portable weapons received indlucing its again ammunition.

Not sure if Syria payed all the most modern armament received until now. It would be possible, but I'm skeptic, because it would include some advanced and expensive systems like the SS-26 Iskander, SA-22, SA-10/12/20/23 or the T-90. The most likely option is that Syria has not been able to pay all the most modern heavy weapons received until now. It means the procurement of new modern heavy weapons can be out of the table, unless external powers become more involved still in the war of Syria. Just Russia stablished the joint Air Defense system to have enough modern armament of this type in Syria without making a direct transference of armament to Syria.

Here's a little scenario to get your thinking cap on lol.

Below is your airforce (attack only listed) you Currentlyhave a hostile neighbour who western influenced enjoys a slightly better economy than yourself currently in the process of rebuilding it's airforce with western aircraft although nothing in the realm of F-35, rafale, eurofighter. More like F-15, F 16, Grippen etc it's also looking at western attack helicopters and it's ground forces are equipped with 70/80/90's armour. Air defence is of the same era.

You have been given just $3 billion for procurement and upgrades. Your main defence suppliers are Russia and China and being a long time customer you get reasonable prices. Question is what would you upgrade/purchase

Su-27S x12
Mig-29S x 24
Mig-25RB x 8
Mig-25PD x 6
Mig-23MLD x12
Mig-23BN x12
Mig-21-93 x 24
Mig-21Bis x 24
Mig-21R x12
Mig-27M x 8
Su-17/22M4 x 24
Su-24M x 24
Su-24MR x 6
Su-25 x 24
Mi-24V x 24
Mi-8TVK (armed) x 12
Mi-2 (armed) x 18

Please note this is a bit of fun hopefully no bitching lol.

On Storage.
#Su24 #MiG31

Those MiG-31s look like they are single seat... which would make them MiG-25s...

On Storage.
#Su24 #MiG31

Not only ... I think I can see some mig 29 and two or three other I can't id.

How many tu-16 Russia has in reserve ? Would be nice if they had some 24 equiped with kh-32 for navy's aviation untill they get some pak da with hypersonic missiles.

I assume you mean Tu-160, and they wont have any in reserve.

AFAIK they had 14 operational a few years back and have completed two more unfinished aircraft from the factory that they were unable to complete because they didn't have the large centre section titanium box structure complete. Now they have built a new forge for handling very large titanium sections to make new Tu-160s that can also be used in the future to make PAK DA aircraft, they were able to complete those two that were in the factory.

(There were actually four left in the factory when production stopped but the other two could be completed with existing equipment... the other two needed the large forge in the Ukraine which I doubt exists any more).

The whole point of restarting Tu-160 production was to increase numbers to make it a more viable force as it is a capable and useful aircraft.

I have only ever seen the Kh-32 carried externally and I am not sure it would be compatible with the rotary launchers in the bomb bays of the White Swan.

If you did mean the Tu-16, the Tu-22M3M would be a much more suitable platform for Kh-32s and Zircons and Kinzhals and a range of other large new weapons and is currently available in numbers including significant numbers in reserve.