Novorossiya Armed Forces (NAF)

Very interesting Franco, can you provide the original source? It looks like automatic translation from Russian

Today DNR mobilize around 27.000 or even 30.000 military reservists to military exercise area. War experienced reservists also got weapons for any case of emergency.

These guys will apparently take their small arms home with them to facilitate instant mobilization aka the Swiss Army.

http://twower.livejournal.com/2082347.html

Ispan wrote:Very interesting Franco, can you provide the original source? It looks like automatic translation from Russian

Will try to but I look at at least a dozen of these each day. It was probably an automatic translation. I have several sites set up as such.

I would expect the disapparition of some of the oldest, less capable and less modern weapons that have been reported as present still in the arsenals of Novorussia:

014.5mm ZPU-1/2/4
057mm S-60
023mm ZU-23-2

T-55, including engineering variants (only some isolate unit, likely out at this point)
T-64, including engineering variants

In the refered to the heavy towed weapons, can likely go to Syria in the short term (if not done at this point), being replaced by some alternative, that can work as man-portable weapon:

23mm: AM-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasev_Makarov_AM-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%9C-23
30mm: NR-30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-30 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%A0-30
23mm: GSh-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%A8-23 (in production)

In the refered to the T-64, the timeline can be longer.

I appreciate that you want to solve some problems by solving some other problems... ie getting rid of old Russian and Soviet stuff from their arsenal and providing it to allies like Syria who might find such systems useful, but it is not just a case of here you go... here are some 23mm cannon for you to use.

23mm: R-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikhter_R-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-23_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0)
23mm: AM-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasev_Makarov_AM-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%9C-23
30mm: NR-30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-30 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%A0-30
23mm: GSh-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%A8-23 (in production)

the problem is that you are ignoring some very serious problems... like the fact that the NR-23 uses a unique round used by no other weapon that is not in production, so sending it anywhere would be useless.

The 30mm NR-30 uses a round that is not compatible with the standard 30 x 165mm guns in the Russian military like the 2A42 cannon on the BMP-2 or the GSh-301 in the MiG-29 and Su-27 and later fighters. (it uses a 30 x 155mm round)

So there is little point in sending those to Syria or anywhere else.

The AM-23 might be useful for the Syrian air force because it will have electronic fuse ammo like all Russian AF cannon, which is not compatible with Russian Army ammo, but the forces we are talking about here in this thread don't have an air force and likely wont have one for some time.

It makes rather more sense to destroy most of the obsolete equipment and produce newer equipment for allies as it means their ammo will be compatible with any Russian force they might operate for and they will be easier to top up if needed.

GarryB wrote:I appreciate that you want to solve some problems by solving some other problems... ie getting rid of old Russian and Soviet stuff from their arsenal and providing it to allies like Syria who might find such systems useful, but it is not just a case of here you go... here are some 23mm cannon for you to use.

23mm: R-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikhter_R-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-23_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0)
23mm: AM-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasev_Makarov_AM-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%9C-23
30mm: NR-30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-30 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%A0-30
23mm: GSh-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%A8-23 (in production)

the problem is that you are ignoring some very serious problems... like the fact that the NR-23 uses a unique round used by no other weapon that is not in production, so sending it anywhere would be useless.

The 30mm NR-30 uses a round that is not compatible with the standard 30 x 165mm guns in the Russian military like the 2A42 cannon on the BMP-2 or the GSh-301 in the MiG-29 and Su-27 and later fighters. (it uses a 30 x 155mm round)

So there is little point in sending those to Syria or anywhere else.

The AM-23 might be useful for the Syrian air force because it will have electronic fuse ammo like all Russian AF cannon, which is not compatible with Russian Army ammo, but the forces we are talking about here in this thread don't have an air force and likely wont have one for some time.

It makes rather more sense to destroy most of the obsolete equipment and produce newer equipment for allies as it means their ammo will be compatible with any Russian force they might operate for and they will be easier to top up if needed.

The NR-23 and the R-23 are not the same weapon. The NR-23 uses 23x115 ammunition, but is older and is not included. The R-23 was included, but later edited because would be exhausted too.

I commented not about the situation of every weapon, then you seem to be finding my fault where there is not really a fault.

There is not doubt that after the older heavy towed weapons, the cited weapons appear in line for a replacement, with the advantage of allowing a use as man-portable weapons.

If you look at my previous comment, I included the alternatives together, without comment about every case, but finding a combination of weapons that can include the oldest available options, and at same time, can include a weapon still in production in order to make sure that can be reached the necessary amount of weapons for the replacement.

From older to newer, all the weapons included in the list are present still in the Russian Armed Forces, included in some aircrafts that remain in active service and/or in the reserve. The point is not to remove these weapons from the aircrafts that have them. The weapons are needed there. The point is to find additional units of these weapons that can be used as man-portable weapons. To have the weapons present in some aircrafts means that it is possible to find some additional units stored as spare parts, coming from other aircrafts canibalized.

It is very difficult to know the exact number stored in every case, even if there is some unit stored or not, and also it is very difficult to know the amounts of ammunition stored for them (being in production or not). Despite to find faults in my comment where it were not, your comment solved not it. Note that if there is some weapon available is not difficult to restart the production of its ammunition, but maybe not necessary if the stored amount of the ammunition out of production is large enough.

My approach is to put all these weapons together in a list, including a weapon in production in order to assure first the use of the oldest options that can be available (in unknown amounts if available) and to assure also that the necessary amount of weapons for the replacement can be reached, thanks to come until a weapon today in production. You commented not about, but it was a reason why the GSh-23 was present in the list of options. This is a weapon today in production for the Yak-130, and can be produced also for man-portable use in the needed amounts.

But that is the point... the GSh-23 is the only weapon you mentioned that would be worth passing on to allies.

The older guns should just be scrapped or put in museums on display.

Hanging on to old obsolete calibres is not useful for Russia... producing more new ammo will benefit both Russia and all its allies much more than handouts of old crap.

Use up the old stored ammo for it, wear the guns out and then discard and replace with new kit and produce new ammo to store and use.

GarryB wrote:But that is the point... the GSh-23 is the only weapon you mentioned that would be worth passing on to allies.

The older guns should just be scrapped or put in museums on display.

Hanging on to old obsolete calibres is not useful for Russia... producing more new ammo will benefit both Russia and all its allies much more than handouts of old crap.

Use up the old stored ammo for it, wear the guns out and then discard and replace with new kit and produce new ammo to store and use.

If there are weapons stored and there is ammunition stored, there is not a need of scrapping, because as weapons all them are an improvement over the heavy towed weapons used until now. Even the oldest of these weapons cited, that can be used as man-portable alternative, is at least contemporaneous of the heavy towed weapons that would replace, and in the case GSh-23 more modern.

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:But that is the point... the GSh-23 is the only weapon you mentioned that would be worth passing on to allies.

The older guns should just be scrapped or put in museums on display.

Hanging on to old obsolete calibres is not useful for Russia... producing more new ammo will benefit both Russia and all its allies much more than handouts of old crap.

Use up the old stored ammo for it, wear the guns out and then discard and replace with new kit and produce new ammo to store and use.

If there are weapons stored and there is ammunition stored, there is not a need of scrapping, because as weapons all them are an improvement over the heavy towed weapons used until now. Even the oldest of these weapons cited, that can be used as man-portable alternative, is at least contemporaneous of the heavy towed weapons that would replace, and in the case GSh-23 more modern.

I really hope you are aware that keeping stored few decades old highly corrosive and chemically unstable by now ammunition isnt happening. Russia destroyed literally millions of tons of such material though last 2 decades. Sure keep useless and dangerous warload that someone, somewhere, might need in 10 years.

Store machines and special tools that were used to produce it and full technical documentation for it... yes. Store hazard no.

When its about guns and various artillery systems, keeping token amounts stored is fine. Question stays how useful any of it will ever be.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:But that is the point... the GSh-23 is the only weapon you mentioned that would be worth passing on to allies.

The older guns should just be scrapped or put in museums on display.

Hanging on to old obsolete calibres is not useful for Russia... producing more new ammo will benefit both Russia and all its allies much more than handouts of old crap.

Use up the old stored ammo for it, wear the guns out and then discard and replace with new kit and produce new ammo to store and use.

If there are weapons stored and there is ammunition stored, there is not a need of scrapping, because as weapons all them are an improvement over the heavy towed weapons used until now. Even the oldest of these weapons cited, that can be used as man-portable alternative, is at least contemporaneous of the heavy towed weapons that would replace, and in the case GSh-23 more modern.

I really hope you are aware that keeping stored few decades old highly corrosive and chemically unstable by now ammunition isnt happening. Russia destroyed literally millions of tons of such material though last 2 decades. Sure keep useless and dangerous warload that someone, somewhere, might need in 10 years.

Store machines and special tools that were used to produce it and full technical documentation for it... yes. Store hazard no.

When its about guns and various artillery systems, keeping token amounts stored is fine. Question stays how useful any of it will ever be.

There are control procedures that say what can be used and what can not be. The same criteria must be used for all the cases. Do not be surprised if some old weapons and ammunition get the OK, because as example, the last S-60 produced in the Soviet Union was produced in 1957, and we see them used without problem.

The weapons and ammunition that have not an OK go to scrapping, but this is a common process for all the weapons and ammunition. And to be fair, the amounts of weapons and ammunition rejected is low. Most of the weapons and ammunition are used and exhausted before.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:But that is the point... the GSh-23 is the only weapon you mentioned that would be worth passing on to allies.

The older guns should just be scrapped or put in museums on display.

Hanging on to old obsolete calibres is not useful for Russia... producing more new ammo will benefit both Russia and all its allies much more than handouts of old crap.

Use up the old stored ammo for it, wear the guns out and then discard and replace with new kit and produce new ammo to store and use.

If there are weapons stored and there is ammunition stored, there is not a need of scrapping, because as weapons all them are an improvement over the heavy towed weapons used until now. Even the oldest of these weapons cited, that can be used as man-portable alternative, is at least contemporaneous of the heavy towed weapons that would replace, and in the case GSh-23 more modern.

I really hope you are aware that keeping stored few decades old highly corrosive and chemically unstable by now ammunition isnt happening. Russia destroyed literally millions of tons of such material though last 2 decades. Sure keep useless and dangerous warload that someone, somewhere, might need in 10 years.

Store machines and special tools that were used to produce it and full technical documentation for it... yes. Store hazard no.

When its about guns and various artillery systems, keeping token amounts stored is fine. Question stays how useful any of it will ever be.

There are control procedures that say what can be used and what can not be. The same criteria must be used for all the cases. Do not be surprised if some old weapons and ammunition get the OK, because as example, the last S-60 produced in the Soviet Union was produced in 1957, and we see them used without problem.

The weapons and ammunition that have not an OK go to scrapping, but this is a common process for all the weapons and ammunition. And to be fair, the amounts of weapons and ammunition rejected is low. Most of the weapons and ammunition are used and exhausted before.

Yeah, and how many of them harmed the crew by now? We had exploding ZiS-3 guns due to old shells 20 years ago during Yugoslav wars, and it was ammunition mostly produced in 60s. Fact that you have something used, doesnt mean its adequate, it just means there is nothing else available. You wont hear many reports of missfiring 25 years old ATGMs, but that is the reality and its far from uncommon.

I highly doubt for an example there is even a single 76mm shell today in Russia in storages. Yet the fact is that Zis-3 occasionally appears on frontlines in Africa and Middle East. Also ammo for many ex-USSR long retired systems is still available brand new from third party suppliers like Serbia, Ukraine, China, Iran...

You cant keep prolonging shelf life of ammo just by writing down something on paper anyways.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:But that is the point... the GSh-23 is the only weapon you mentioned that would be worth passing on to allies.

The older guns should just be scrapped or put in museums on display.

Hanging on to old obsolete calibres is not useful for Russia... producing more new ammo will benefit both Russia and all its allies much more than handouts of old crap.

Use up the old stored ammo for it, wear the guns out and then discard and replace with new kit and produce new ammo to store and use.

If there are weapons stored and there is ammunition stored, there is not a need of scrapping, because as weapons all them are an improvement over the heavy towed weapons used until now. Even the oldest of these weapons cited, that can be used as man-portable alternative, is at least contemporaneous of the heavy towed weapons that would replace, and in the case GSh-23 more modern.

I really hope you are aware that keeping stored few decades old highly corrosive and chemically unstable by now ammunition isnt happening. Russia destroyed literally millions of tons of such material though last 2 decades. Sure keep useless and dangerous warload that someone, somewhere, might need in 10 years.

Store machines and special tools that were used to produce it and full technical documentation for it... yes. Store hazard no.

When its about guns and various artillery systems, keeping token amounts stored is fine. Question stays how useful any of it will ever be.

There are control procedures that say what can be used and what can not be. The same criteria must be used for all the cases. Do not be surprised if some old weapons and ammunition get the OK, because as example, the last S-60 produced in the Soviet Union was produced in 1957, and we see them used without problem.

The weapons and ammunition that have not an OK go to scrapping, but this is a common process for all the weapons and ammunition. And to be fair, the amounts of weapons and ammunition rejected is low. Most of the weapons and ammunition are used and exhausted before.

Yeah, and how many of them harmed the crew by now? We had exploding ZiS-3 guns due to old shells 20 years ago during Yugoslav wars, and it was ammunition mostly produced in 60s. Fact that you have something used, doesnt mean its adequate, it just means there is nothing else available. You wont hear many reports of missfiring 25 years old ATGMs, but that is the reality and its far from uncommon.

I highly doubt for an example there is even a single 76mm shell today in Russia in storages. Yet the fact is that Zis-3 occasionally appears on frontlines in Africa and Middle East. Also ammo for many ex-USSR long retired systems is still available brand new from third party suppliers like Serbia, Ukraine, China, Iran...

You cant keep prolonging shelf life of ammo just by writing down something on paper anyways.

The bolded part is not right. The oldest material is to be used first, if adequate, if can do the work wanted. And when it is totally exhausted, time to move forward.

I have not doubt that there is ammunition stored for the weapons in use, and there is not ammunition stored for the weapons out of use. The alone case that I know of one without the other would be the SA-4, that have been without missiles (ammunition). The weapons mentioned as man-portable alternative are present in aircrafts, and also some 76mm weapons are present in ships. It is logical to think that there is ammunition stored for them. If some ammunition of weapons present still goes out of production is because there is stored enough ammunition for them.

The weapons mentioned as man-portable alternative can missfire used as man-portable and also can missfire used in the aircrafts they are being used. If they have not been retired of the aircraft fleet, as a whole concept, there is not reason to doubt about them for a use as man-portable. It is necessary to analyze case by case, like is done.

The people in charge of the procedures of control does not like problem with missfiring weapons. They work to avoid it. At least in the country we are talking about. I have not reasons to doubt about them. In other cases, like the country of your example, maybe different.

It is not just about weapons and ammo... you can't just drag a 40 year old heavy weapon from storage... dust it off and pass it on to allies with some equally old ammo.

You need to train them to use and maintain it, you need spare parts... by the time they get proficient with using it effectively what happens when they run out of ammo?

Put it back into production?

Using a small arms analogy you are talking about giving them PPSh-41 SMGs with WWII ammo... it would work but they would be at a serious disadvantage against any force with modern Assault rifles... out ranged with more effective and lighter weapons...

There is no need to issue them with AK12s, but in Syria new 5.45mm weapons and ammo would be useful... it would certainly give them a range advantage over AK carrying enemies. in 7.62 x 39mm.

GarryB wrote:It is not just about weapons and ammo... you can't just drag a 40 year old heavy weapon from storage... dust it off and pass it on to allies with some equally old ammo.

You need to train them to use and maintain it, you need spare parts... by the time they get proficient with using it effectively what happens when they run out of ammo?

Put it back into production?

Using a small arms analogy you are talking about giving them PPSh-41 SMGs with WWII ammo... it would work but they would be at a serious disadvantage against any force with modern Assault rifles... out ranged with more effective and lighter weapons...

There is no need to issue them with AK12s, but in Syria new 5.45mm weapons and ammo would be useful... it would certainly give them a range advantage over AK carrying enemies. in 7.62 x 39mm.

The bolded parts are just part of the work of the people working in the procedures of control mentioned before. Do you doubt about their work? I do not. If they give the OK to some weapons and ammunition, I have not reason to say the contrary.

About the training process in the use of weapons and ammunition tha receive the OK of the people in charge of the control procedures, we should look before at how was the training process with the current S-60, ZPU-1/2/4 and ZU-23-2, when they appeared the first time in the Novorussian Armed Forces. And looking at this, I have not doubt that the training process with the weapons that will replace them (sooner or later) will be better.

Some data about the production timeline of these weapons in the Soviet Union/Russia.

Heavy Towed Weapons to be replaced (sooner or later, just now being needed in Syria):

57mm S-60: Production 1950-1957
14.5mm ZPU-1/2/4: Production 1948-196?
23mm ZU-23-2: Production 1960-Today

Potential replacement with weapons that can be used as man-portable:

23mm R-23: Production 1957-1971
23mm AM-23: Production 1953-197?
30mm NR-30: Production 1954-1993
23mm GSh-23: Production 1965-Today

There is nothing worse in the weapons potentially available for man-portable use than in the heavy towed weapons. As military concept are more modern, fairly easier for movements, and it means fairly safer for its operators in the frontline. Also these weapons for potential use as man-portable are newer than the heavy towed weapons in overall terms.

They (NAF) started manufacturing pistols.  Hopefully soon, rifles:


What is cool is the interchangeable barrel. Does both Luger round and 7.62 from TT.

So naf still has a lot of work ahead of them.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3598435.html

Apparently they had trouble against some of the Ukies unmanned vehicles. I wonder if the NAF will get their own? They are in desperate need of thermal and night vision equipment and uav's

The rag-tag militia that guards Donetsk....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=389&v=khRp7wMoIUo

Very impressive looking force. Although, I would like to see more home made weapons (so in other words, more heavier weapons made by them like their own artillery systems. I mean, if ISIS can do it, why not them?) and more SHORADS. Maybe some hobo attachments to tanks

But they are looking very professional. I know Lughansk gets little mention.

The forces of the People's Democratic Republic of Nov. 19, 2017 distributed photographs, as claimed, of the American small unmanned aerial vehicle AeroVironment RQ-11B Raven, shot down near the settlement of Bezimennoye on the Azov Sea coast, used by the Ukrainian armed forces.

Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov said that in the Donbass, siloviki are opposed by 35 thousand militiamen.

The 1st Army Corps in Donetsk and the 2nd Army Corps in Lugansk operate ... There are more than 35 thousand people in the east of Ukraine
Said Avakov.

Avakov called the number of militiamen of Donbass

According to him, the number of these formations, the structure, as well as data on armored vehicles, mortars and missile weapons at their disposal are known to the Ukrainian side thanks to the activities of intelligence.

Avakov informed that 478 tanks, 848 armored cars, 750 mortars, 208 MLRS, 363 anti-tank complexes are in service with the militia.

This is more than in the armament of Great Britain
- said the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

franco wrote:Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov said that in the Donbass, siloviki are opposed by 35 thousand militiamen.

The 1st Army Corps in Donetsk and the 2nd Army Corps in Lugansk operate ... There are more than 35 thousand people in the east of Ukraine
Said Avakov.

Avakov called the number of militiamen of Donbass

According to him, the number of these formations, the structure, as well as data on armored vehicles, mortars and missile weapons at their disposal are known to the Ukrainian side thanks to the activities of intelligence.

Avakov informed that 478 tanks, 848 armored cars, 750 mortars, 208 MLRS, 363 anti-tank complexes are in service with the militia.

This is more than in the armament of Great Britain
- said the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Where are this clown's estimates of Russian forces? The Kiev regime claims it facing the Russian army in the Donbass. An army of which
not a single photograph or video exists since 2014.

I would like to open discussion about forming of Novorussian air force again after few years. It will not happened over the night, but will take time. Project of Novorussia was frozen for Minsk agreement, which is now dead and now it is resurected. I don't think, Russia will include Donbass inside Russian Federation like Crimea. For Russia independent Donbass as Novorussia is better solution, because they will have an independent state between Russia and NATO enemies and because in that way they could help ex-Ukraine to rebuild themselves, but not living them. US want exactly this, that Russia annex destroyed Donbass and Novorussia inside and live them, what will suck russian economy and resources and they will support nazi guerilla troops, to fight with Russian army. In case of independent Novorussia, those nazi thugs will be a problem of Novorussian army and police. As any independent state, Novorussia will also need its own air force. It will not be formed now and used against Ukraine in comming war, but later after it. Of course it will depend on how big Novorussia will be. If they will include only DNR and LNR or it will include more ex-Ukrainian oblasts. Anyway, Novorussia will not need big air force, but smaller one, that they could support it and use it. For pilot training, they could buy 12 Yak-152 or Diamond DA40 built in Russia and 12 SR-10 for advanced trainings. DA40 and SR-10 are cheap civil planes, so no problems to maintain them. For combat duties they need one regiment of 24 multirole jets at maximum. Than they need some transport planes and some training and 12 transport helicopters like Ansat and Mi-8MTV-5. That would be more than enough for the size of Novorussia and their economy.

First Novorussia will need pilots and ground crews, so it would be smart for LNR and DNR to send young students to Russian air force academies. For the beginning they could also hire ex-RuAF pilots and ground personel to help them. They could very quickly obtain basic civil trainers to start trainings and that new Novorussian pilots get first flying hours at home. Different thing are combat jets. Most probably they will be donated or sold from RuAF. For NRAF could be put on option Su-24M2, MiG-29SMT, Su-27SM and Su-30M2. The best option would be Su-30M2, but there is a good question, what plans have RuAF with them in the future, when old Su-27SM will be retired. Maybe they could restart their production in KNAAPO for RNAF as they are cheaper than Su-30SM and I don't think RuAF will give them Su-30SM or Su-35. Retired ex-Algerian MiG-29SMTs, which are replaced by Su-30SM will most probably go for Syrian AF. Other question are new russian standard MiG-29SMT. Will RuAF keep them or will be ready to deliver them? Same question is for new built Su-27SM3. Older Su-27SM are more likely to be free for donation or sell. Only plane, which could be delivered imidiately is Su-24M2. They are already retired and replaced by Su-34 in Khurba air base. There is only a question, if they will go to Syria and how many, full regiment or one squadron? Su-24M2 is capable to work in modern Russian data link network and have larger arsenal of weapons, including anti-ship missiles. But it is not a fighter and could carry only R-73 missiles for self defense. For the beginning it is still a good jet and could support ground troops for quite some time untill they get newer jets for replacement. They could take both, Su-27SM and Su-24M2, but it will be better to have only one type of jets for simpler logystics and cheaper maintenance.

medo wrote:I would like to open discussion about forming of Novorussian air force again after few years. It will not happened over the night, but will take time. Project of Novorussia was frozen for Minsk agreement, which is now dead and now it is resurected. I don't think, Russia will include Donbass inside Russian Federation like Crimea. For Russia independent Donbass as Novorussia is better solution, because they will have an independent state between Russia and NATO enemies and because in that way they could help ex-Ukraine to rebuild themselves, but not living them. US want exactly this, that Russia annex destroyed Donbass and Novorussia inside and live them, what will suck russian economy and resources and they will support nazi guerilla troops, to fight with Russian army. In case of independent Novorussia, those nazi thugs will be a problem of Novorussian army and police. As any independent state, Novorussia will also need its own air force. It will not be formed now and used against Ukraine in comming war, but later after it. Of course it will depend on how big Novorussia will be. If they will include only DNR and LNR or it will include more ex-Ukrainian oblasts. Anyway, Novorussia will not need big air force, but smaller one, that they could support it and use it. For pilot training, they could buy 12 Yak-152 or Diamond DA40 built in Russia and 12 SR-10 for advanced trainings. DA40 and SR-10 are cheap civil planes, so no problems to maintain them. For combat duties they need one regiment of 24 multirole jets at maximum. Than they need some transport planes and some training and 12 transport helicopters like Ansat and Mi-8MTV-5. That would be more than enough for the size of Novorussia and their economy.

First Novorussia will need pilots and ground crews, so it would be smart for LNR and DNR to send young students to Russian air force academies. For the beginning they could also hire ex-RuAF pilots and ground personel to help them. They could very quickly obtain basic civil trainers to start trainings and that new Novorussian pilots get first flying hours at home. Different thing are combat jets. Most probably they will be donated or sold from RuAF. For NRAF could be put on option Su-24M2, MiG-29SMT, Su-27SM and Su-30M2. The best option would be Su-30M2, but there is a good question, what plans have RuAF with them in the future, when old Su-27SM will be retired. Maybe they could restart their production in KNAAPO for RNAF as they are cheaper than Su-30SM and I don't think RuAF will give them Su-30SM or Su-35. Retired ex-Algerian MiG-29SMTs, which are replaced by Su-30SM will most probably go for Syrian AF. Other question are new russian standard MiG-29SMT. Will RuAF keep them or will be ready to deliver them? Same question is for new built Su-27SM3. Older Su-27SM are more likely to be free for donation or sell. Only plane, which could be delivered imidiately is Su-24M2. They are already retired and replaced by Su-34 in Khurba air base. There is only a question, if they will go to Syria and how many, full regiment or one squadron? Su-24M2 is capable to work in modern Russian data link network and have larger arsenal of weapons, including anti-ship missiles. But it is not a fighter and could carry only R-73 missiles for self defense. For the beginning it is still a good jet and could support ground troops for quite some time untill they get newer jets for replacement. They could take both, Su-27SM and Su-24M2, but it will be better to have only one type of jets for simpler logystics and cheaper maintenance.

There is something interesting to see:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=es&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D0%2590%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B0%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE-%25D1%2582%25D0%25B5%25D1%2585%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B9_%25D0%25BC%25D1%2583%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B9_(%25D0%259B%25D1%2583%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA)&usg=ALkJrhjidtqZIIz57doyFAApelS0MIPSJw

Talking about manned aircrafts, Novorussia would not begin from an absolute 0. There is something that is not as old and can be restorable. If Im not wrong their Su-25 comes from here.

Despite it, Novorussia likely will try to form its air force from a modern basis.

Basically the first step would be UAVs. Small UAVs in enough amounts.