Russian-Made Crash Notification

George1 wrote: Su-34 jet crashed in Voronezh

Saw the news this morning. One of the videos shows it falling flat and level (as if it had stalled) and then possibly being hit by a missile.

Gomig-21 wrote:

George1 wrote: Su-34 jet crashed in Voronezh

Saw the news this morning.  One of the videos shows it falling flat and level (as if it had stalled) and then possibly being hit by a missile.

They are now able to shoot down a plane flying over Voronezh???  

Plane crashed 200 kilometers from the border. One of the landing gears malfunctioned and pilots had to ditch the plane.

caveat emptor wrote:Plane crashed 200 kilometers from the border. One of the landing gears malfunctioned and pilots had to ditch the plane.

It appears the video I was referring to was either fake or happened in May of last year. My bad.

This happened in Mali 4 days ago on September 23rd. Unfortunate IL-76 transport AC touch-downed way too late and too far down the runway and upon realizing the situation, pilot tried to take off again but of course it was too late as a result they ran out of runway and crashed at a relatively high airspeed.  

From the comments, it seems no one was killed which would be the miracle of all miracles considering the size of the ball of fire. Let's hope that's the case and if anyone knows more about that, pls share.

Wreckage of Su-35 that was shot down in a "friendly fire" by incident yesterday over Tokmak. Pilot has died.
https://t.me/infomil_live/331



Adding a comment from FB channel:

https://t.me/fighter_bomber/14174

Tonight, the Laotian air defense tried to destroy several more of our aircraft, but this time it didn’t work.

 Apparently, the work being done in this direction is near-zero, or with zero results.  More likely even negative than zero.
 It's a pity.

caveat emptor wrote:Wreckage of Su-35 that was shot down in a "friendly fire" by incident yesterday over Tokmak. Pilot has died.
https://t.me/infomil_live/331

It doesn't look like it sustained any extensive damage from a SAM. Proximity impact might've been enough to cripple it but seeing most of these eventual crashes; one thing seems to be constant is how they pancake onto the ground like that. It happened to the Su-34 and one or two of the other Su-35s which I would think is a good thing. If these Flanker designs have a tendency to flat spin down to earth once they're disabled for whatever reason instead of straight-ahead nose-diving, that's a good thing to give the pilot more time to eject.

There must've been another reason for this unfortunate pilot to have been killed. Maybe the impact of the missile detonation was closer to the cockpit/front fuselage.

Video from the crash site:
https://t.me/milinfolive/107320?single

Full video from the crash site of a Su-35S of the Russian Aerospace Forces, shot down by a Russian air defense system as a result of an error. The pilot died.

The plane fell in a field near the village of Novonikolaevka in the Pologovsky district of the Zaporozhye region - more than 35 km from the nearest contact line near Rabotino

It is interesting that the filming is being carried out by Ukrainian Shark UAVs, which freely flew to such a depth without being shot down by air defense. But they successfully shot down their fighter.

Similar situations with friendly fire from Russian air defense systems against high-flying Su-34s have already occurred near Yenakievo (about 20 km from the front) and near Alchevsk (about 60 km from the front), which indicates the persistence of significant problems of interaction and identification between the air defense and aerospace forces.

Military Informant

Another plane lost due to friendly fire. It looks like pilot survived. Type of the plane is still not clear.

https://t.me/fighter_bomber/14276

https://t.me/milinfolive/107662

Another aircraft was lost from friendly air defense fire. Thank God, this time the pilot survived.

As we wrote earlier, the level of interaction continues to hit the bottom.

Military Informant

It is interesting that the filming is being carried out by Ukrainian Shark UAVs, which freely flew to such a depth without being shot down by air defense. But they successfully shot down their fighter.

What is actually interesting is that you ignore that CNN itself admitted that Ukraine loses more than 10,000 drones per month, and that there are no more than a dozen cases of friendly fire, and yet you have the courage to come here and talk about "freely flew to such a depth" and "successfully shot down their fighter"...

which indicates the persistence of significant problems of interaction and identification between the air defense and aerospace forces.

the level of interaction continues to hit the bottom.

Russian anti-aircraft defense has already intercepted tens of thousands of targets with no more than a dozen cases of friendly fire, now explain to me how spending 99.99% of the time shooting down enemy targets and 0.01% of the time committing friendly fire is equal to "persistence of significant problems of interaction and identification between the air defense and aerospace forces"?!

The only thing here that continues to hit the bottom is the level of your comments.

It is pretty obvious that these are translations of the messages and not my comments.
Go back to your digital forensics.

It is pretty obvious that these translations of messages form a line of thought that pleases you and that you agree with, otherwise you wouldn't use your comments to bring them here.
Now you can go back to those shitty telegram channels, which think that a force with more than three thousand aircraft will run out of planes just because it lost half a dozen aircraft to friendly fire in 20 months.

Either way, I don't see what that has to do with you. You don't like it, don't read it.

You can't know if you like something or not until you read it... except of course you are probably right when the information is hot from the press of the US and Kiev to piss their enemies off with their bullshit spin on everything...

Vks get a batch of 4, but they lose 3

It's already poor quantity they have of fighters,

But then they throw them away with friendly fire, sometimes a bit of the old tires on the airframe was not enough to protect from the offhand drone strike,

Because it hasn't happened at least 5 times already, losing a tu22, il76, su30, su35 and other valuable  airframes

But you know what? by MOD logic, it's dangerous for the plane to be in the hangar,  because it might collapse

So if it gets taken out by a drone, at least we saved money on the hangars guys

Line the su57s outside, all 11 of them

That's what you call, fucking stupid

That airfield will be properly defended.... unlike shipyard dry docks or the corners of old airfields...

If it upsets you so much get a rifle and go and stand guard...

Western support for Ukraine is failing and Russian forces seem to be advancing and doing serious damage with drones... and Ukrainian forces are surrendering in numbers.

They are calling up women.

This is not going to take 10 years.

A hangar needs a gate, you know the plane can't stay in there forever, and here's the problem what if the enemy waits to sneak the drone through the gate when it's open?
What if the enemy waits for you to take the plane out of the hangar to send it on a mission and then attacks it with the drone?
What will happen is that your tens of thousands of dollars drone shelter will become obsolete with a simple tactical adjustment.
See? Fucking stupid are people like you who propose solutions that require no effort from the enemy to overcome them.

Oh and before I forget, tires on planes never had anything to do with protection, but rather as camouflage against certain sensors used by reconnaissance satellites.

Planes spend most of their time on the ground so yeah hangars are a must have.

This tinny window for attacks when it is accessible can be overcome by increasing patrol around airfield and turning on jammers to forbid the access to operators or drones.

Long range drones don't have camera and man in the moop. They guide themselves with gps and would hit the top of the hangar. So it work against them most of the time and that's such drones that are used in attack by ukro.

Drones like DJI are very limited by the transmission. Few km away and they loose control. Operators need to be very close to the airbase.

That's why I say the best places for tupolevs is Siberia where there is no one with mines around and patrols by drones and infantry.

Planes spend most of their time on the ground...
...tinny window for attacks...

Not in a war where an aircraft can be doing 5 to 10 missions a day.

Long range drones don't have camera and man in the moop. They guide themselves with gps and would hit the top of the hangar. So it work against them most of the time and that's such drones that are used in attack by ukro.

You claim that the majority of attacks are carried out with this type of drone, but the truth is that in most attacks there is no evidence of the type of drone used, these attacks could be carried out by someone carrying an FPV in their backpack.

Operators need to be very close to the airbase.

Which is very easy to do when you have many aerodromes close to urban centers.

Is very simple concept guys,

Protect the aircraft,

Very simple concept,

Okay?

So put hangars, like Syria, and when you take off for attacks, there must be a new protocol, yes it's going to create new processes and additional security

But that's what conscripts are for, to be used for base security, the VKS needs security at bases, personnel to assist with bringing planes in and out of the hangars

And that's it, no small drone is going to penetrate or destroy a concrete hangar

As for bombers yes station them far away,

And il78 is needed, but MOD don't want to spend money on fuel tankers, in their logic is better to base tu22m3 close by, with tires on the wings, and lose them in drone attacks

It's mind rot, from the top down, and that's what needs to change

Put the bombers in Urals, and if you are launching kh22, or kh101 from tu95, why do they need to be close to the front anyway?

Refuel them and get used to it!

But it's laziness a very persistent bad habit of the MOD

----

As for friendly fire, I thought PVO was supposed to be subordinate to VKS now, so wtf?

Belisarius wrote:A hangar needs a gate, you know the plane can't stay in there forever, and here's the problem what if the enemy waits to sneak the drone through the gate when it's open?
What if the enemy waits for you to take the plane out of the hangar to send it on a mission and then attacks it with the drone?
What will happen is that your tens of thousands of dollars drone shelter will become obsolete with a simple tactical adjustment.
See? Fucking stupid are people like you who propose solutions that require no effort from the enemy to overcome them.

Oh and before I forget, tires on planes never had anything to do with protection, but rather as camouflage against certain sensors used by reconnaissance satellites.

Original namesake would be embarrassed from this comment.
Hangar is not a do all, it just represents one step in better protection of planes that are worth tens if not hundreds of millions. Not to mention that hangars protect planes from inclement weather, which is known that it can be very harsh in those parts.
Especially that goes for Su-57 that has a RAM coating along with plethora of electronics and sensors.
Obviously, in view of the new circumstances a functioning REB is needed, as well as, a secure perimeter around the airport.
bELiSariUs, you say?!

Protect the aircraft,

Very simple concept,

Okay?

So put hangars, like Syria, and when you take off for attacks, there must be a new protocol, yes it's going to create new processes and additional security

But that's what conscripts are for, to be used for base security, the VKS needs security at bases, personnel to assist with bringing planes in and out of the hangars

You cannot stop 100% of enemy attacks, that is impossible, no one has ever done it and no one will. If you think that if Russia strictly follows a script on how to conduct a military operation made by you, casualties will end, you are sadly mistaken. No one has ever fought a war without suffering losses, and this applies not only to those who lose the war but also to those who win the war.

And that's it, no small drone is going to penetrate or destroy a concrete hangar

Concrete hangars became obsolete from the moment projectiles capable of handling them began to be developed at just a fraction of the cost.


If drones are going to give concrete hangars a comeback then how can you realistically expect Russia to make over 3000 concrete hangars for all of its aircraft in less than a year and a half?

in their logic is better to base tu22m3 close by, with tires on the wings, and lose them in drone attacks

Still bitching about 1 lost Tu-22?
With 1 Tu-22 being lost every 18 months, Russia will run out of Tu-22s by 2120, and I'm not even taking into account the hundreds of units in reserve...

It's mind rot, from the top down, and that's what needs to change

But it's laziness a very persistent bad habit of the MOD

Yeah MOD sucks because they are not doing something that is impossible to do, and that no one has ever done, fight a war without suffering losses...
Meanwhile BBC and Mediazone cannot find the names of over 31k dead Russians, whilst Ukraine has more amputees than the nations with over a million KIA in WW1.

Oh!! And someone here has to go to hell and warn the Baderites, who died because of the more than 1000 FABs launched last month, that VKS sucks!

Original namesake would be embarrassed from this comment.

Original namesake would be embarrassed to state that a force that spends 99.99% of the time shooting at enemies, rather than allies, has problems with friendly fire.

caveat emptor wrote:
Original namesake would be embarrassed from this comment.

Actually you should have been embarrassed for your own comments for months (like ever), as more and more of them prove that you have not a single idea what yu are talking about.
It is just a mild variant of trolling, when some of your exposes show some distant shades of being on tracks.
You have never been to any military base closer than by a fence, and that is a big favor as I highly doubt even that.

Solid airplane shelters and military vehicle parks have been obsolete for decades.
Every single army in the world is building its modern infrastructure with modular, soft skinned, and light prefabricated elements.
Why?
Because the precision of modern weaponry made solid, armored, and heavy buildings obsolete.
You can hit a bullseye just in the middle of a shelter, and there is no way to stop that.

Aircraft shelters are being constructed of canvas. Covering light skeleton made of 4mm thick Al elements.

A permanent bases are being build with honey comb structures made of 2mm Al sheets with PUR filling.

Solid concrete shelters with armored doors are abandoned at every single military airfield I visited because those represent a perfectly zero advantage other than an enormous operating cost increase.

The point is, that you are a common case of a person who has a big mouth while never getting close to the matter.