Russian-Made Crash Notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Su-25 crashed in Belgorod region on return to airport. Unfortunately, pilot has died.

https://t.me/milinfolive/97289?single

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reports that the pilot of the crashed Su-25 attack aircraft has died. The cause is called a technical malfunction.

RIP

The important thing is pilots are fine.
A Russian MiG-31 fighter jet has crashed during a training flight, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday. The jet fell in a deserted area, the ministry’s statement said, adding that the incident resulted in no casualties. Videos on social media showed flames coming out of the jet as the aircraft was still flying.
Both pilots ejected to safety, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

https://www.rt.com/russia/575385-fighter-jet-crashed-nornthern-russia/

Did the pilot of the Su-25 that crashed in yeysk survive?

I don't think.

Too many crashes of planes that are no longer produced and have no replacement. Another sign they need to restart su-25 production and mig-31. Most used in that war by russians, way more than flanker family.

limb wrote:Did the pilot of the Su-25 that crashed in yeysk survive?

Apparently yes, you can see the deployed parachute.

Pilot managed to deploy parachute , but didn't survive.
https://t.me/RVvoenkor/49406
Also, there was one crash of MiG-31 in Kamchatka on July 5. Both pilots perished.
https://t.me/fighter_bomber/13058

How does it happen that he deployed parachute from pretty high up and still died? Design flaw?

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

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

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

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

Not good at all for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not good at all for them.

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

Su-30 crashed in Kaliningrad oblast. Both pilots perished.
https://t.me/milinfolive/104965

And there's a video, moments before crash. It is not clear, if it was a human error or technical malfunction.
https://t.me/milinfolive/104966

caveat emptor wrote:Su-30 crashed in Kaliningrad oblast. Both pilots perished.
https://t.me/milinfolive/104965

And there's a video, moments before crash. It is not clear, if it was a human error or technical malfunction.
https://t.me/milinfolive/104966

Very odd that it would go inverted and try to loop down like that in either scenario, be it pilot error or a jet malfunction.  

Usually, a jet crash at a low altitude like this is not that difficult to see what happened.  Most of the time it's an engine malfunction or a bird being inhaled into one of the intakes and flaming out one or both engines and the jet tweaking to one side then going down.  But in this case, there doesn't seem to be much indication of one of the engines flaming out.  Did it just suddenly lose power?  I doubt it.

And what makes it even more bizarre is that it seems like the pilot was intentionally making a maneuver of some kind because he went into what appears to be a controlled barrel roll and stay in that inverted position to perform a backward loop.  All the criteria for a Split-S, making the possibility of the mishap much more likely to be pilot error rather than a technical malfunction.  But why would he ever think of doing that at such a low altitude.

Reminded me of this mishap in 2002.  Thunderbird in Idaho.



According to the accident investigation board report released today, the pilot misinterpreted the altitude required to complete the "Split S" maneuver. He made his calculation based on an incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=483

The difference is that this guy misinterpreted the altitude setting from sea level to the ground level at where they were performing.  A difference of about 1200 ft.

Russian ejection seats seem rather reliable. Whether it's some beater Mig 21 in Syria or a Mig 23 air show plane in the US. 

A Mig 23 crashed at an air show in the US. Pilots are ok, nobody on the ground harmed even though it went down n near an apartment block 

Sad end. Bet it could have told some stories

A few more videos here https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/private-mig-23-flogger-crashes-in-michigan

Backman wrote:Russian ejection seats seem rather reliable. Whether it's some beater Mig 21 in Syria or a Mig 23 air show plane in the US. 

A Mig 23 crashed at an air show in the US. Pilots are ok, nobody on the ground harmed even though it went down n near an apartment block 

I watched the walk around video on that and it was really surreal to listen to what the pilot was describing, especially about the ejection seats.

Which Flogger was it? I mean, registration.

I've seen two UBs that fly privately in the U.S. One grey/blue N51734 and one olive drab camoed N23UB.

edit: well, it was the latter apparently:
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/343511

And the former had its air worthiness certificate expire this year.

Always sad when rarities go down.

Olive drab for sure. More like a super dark jungle camo which is a bit unusual. Jungle camo was always a bit brighter than this.

Good looking plane. Could have been modernized to carry an irbis radar with r-37M missiles as well as new mini kinzhals.

The first version were very bad however...

Isos wrote:Good looking plane. Could have been modernized to carry an irbis radar with r-37M missiles as well as new mini kinzhals.

The first version were very bad however...

Interesting you brought up the radar because watching the walk around video of that plane with the pilot/owner, he mentioned that the UB (two seater) models were strictly for training purposes, so the Soviets didn't install any radar in them.  They only put a radar in the single seaters but left these 2 seater UB trainers empty in the radome.

He said that the cadets would have to learn the use of the radar once they started flying in single seaters.  I thought that was pretty wild.

The other thing that was cool was the air intakes.  He said the Soviet Union "acquired" an F-4 Phantom and ended up reverse engineering the air intakes and duplicating the exact ones for the MiG-23.  Makes sense once you look at them, especially that flat plate.