Ukraine / Russia Situation

[Airwayfreak]

Knowing some people who work with the Russian aero industry, they say Russian equipment is very inferior, relying on quantity over quality.

Hoo boy.

As the lawyers in the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial would say....hearsay. Rather speak to me when you have hands on experience with Russian aircraft

[Trevorn]

Knowing some people who work with the Russian aero industry, they say Russian equipment is very inferior, relying on quantity over quality.

Hoo boy.

As the lawyers in the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial would say....hearsay. Rather speak to me when you have hands on experience with Russian aircraft

Yip and knowing you, you have a friend you is Russias top fighter pilot, .....

[lupedelupe]

... or he listens to a podcast.

[Trevorn]

No he has meticulously researched this topic using a friend who he met while abroad and is still friends to this day, together with experts in the field

[Theuns v V]

I can not say if easternbock aircraft are inferior but having closely seen a few and worked on a couple, I can say that the russian/ukrainian airframes are more "crude" and almost agricultural for lack of a better discription.

They do not have the finesse of western airframes that tend to be more refined and more optimized.

Not that there is something wrong with it being "agricultural" in terms of how its built but you can not compare performance and longevity of systems to that of a well designed, optimized system.

I wonder if the non participation (large scale like many expected) of the russian air force has to do with the fact that the aircraft may not be as serviceable as we thought.

Look at the armor breakdowns, simple things like tyres failing. There seems to have been large scale corruption in the russian army wrt procurement , maintenance was clearly not a high priority and how many skilled maintenance personell is still there?? I cant see that the air force would be drastically different.
Lets look at simple things like hydrolic systems in aircraft, it they are not regularly "used" the seals start failing and the entire system is leaky and useless, this takes time and most importantly skilled person to fix....if the spares are available needless to say. Simple things like rolling the aircraft and other wheeled equipment so that the tyres dont become brittle and sunburned is basic stuff.

If you cant move the starting rig around to the flightline the aircraft cant start. Granted they have internal batteries for this but that is just for emergency use and not long term every day use, its not designed for it.

I once worked on a ukrainian built crop duster and the inter granular corosion on the lift strut clevis was scary bad, it could be carved with a blade like cheese! This shows that quality control may not have been great in manufactor of said part.

[Trevorn]

Interesting point Theuns.

In the battel of Britain, the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire did. The hurricane with its tubular steel & Fabric fuselage, and thick wing was technologically inferior to the Spitfire, yet it was more successful. But there were more Hurricanes than spitfires.

In WW1 Germany had superior aircraft in the form of the Fokker D VII & D VIII, Junkers D1 was an all metal monoplane with a cantilever wing.
The Albatros, Phalse and Siemens all used plywood monocoque fuselages. The British used this technology in WW2 with the Mosquito. The British ended the war with wood and fabric biplanes, yet they won.

In WW2 again the German aircraft were more advanced. FW 190, TA 152, ME262 Fighter jet, Arado AR 234 blitz bomber that could have bombed America at will. Don't forget about the Horten HO 229 that the Americans visited in the Smithsonian while developing the Nighthawk. But Germany lost the war

My point is having advanced aircraft does not win a war. Motivated solders and good leadership does. From what I can see the Ukrainians are more motivated and there are some questions regarding the leadership of the Russians.

[Airwayfreak]

Yip and knowing you, you have a friend you is Russias top fighter pilot, .....

Alright, you win

[Theuns v V]

You are correct wrt the motivation and lets not forget training of boots on the ground, I come back to my point of 80K "boers" initially holding back 3-500K trained troops because they were fighting on their home ground and used non conventional tactics....much the same as in ukraine now. And yes the brits did win the war but only after they went with scorched earth and rounding up the woman and children. Then there was basically not much for the boere to keep fighting for.

The russian forces are basically also using scorched earth now, bombing the hell out of cities they want to take regardless of civilian body count. In WW2 the germans also tried this with th blitz and instead of breaking the brit's morale it just made them more determined.

The west found out that you can take a place like afghan or iraq but with a well determined non conventional enemy you can rarely maintain control.

As with warfare in modern techno age, I think the guy that has the best coms , data links and intel is most likely going to win. In WW1 and 2 the best aircraft did not nesesarly have the highest kill ratio but that was also because it was down to the skill of the pilot flying the thing and if he had good eyes to see the enemy first, granted radar did give them a basic idea of where they were.

With aircraft being able to track allot of BVR targets as the same time and prioritize them, the guy with the better tech is likely to get the kills.

What is interesting about the hurricaine vs spitfore kill ratio (im sure you know this anyway) was that the hurricaines were slower but more "sturdy" and could take way more damage than the spits. The hurricaines were therefore tasked with taking down the bombers and the spits the escort fighters. The oppertunities for a kill on the bomber stream was allot better than for the ME 109's that were free to move as they wanted.
Aso the german tactics during the BoB was more flexable with their "finger 4" formation for the 109's vs the RAF strict tight Vick formation. The raf did however learn fast to adapt.

This brings me back to the russian military. They seem to not really adapt to new ways, they still use the same tactics and they are not flexable to change the plans on the frontline without having to ask putin first. The ukranians and indeed the west teach their commanders to think outside the box and have multiple plans ready before you even go into a fight. This is what may be a big problem for the russian way of thinking. They may still winn the war if it becomes a long drawn out thing, I dont think the west will keep sending support ad infinitum and this I think is the way putin is thinking now. He knows he cant take the whole place like he wanted to but may settle for the donbas and south to odessa.
The west may at some stage pressure ukraine into taking "the deal" if thos is indeed the case, lets see what come out of the wash

[Airwayfreak]

I once worked on a ukrainian built crop duster and the inter granular corosion on the lift strut clevis was scary bad, it could be carved with a blade like cheese! This shows that quality control may not have been great in manufactor of said part.

Interesting, not unlike the several Stearman with a cropspraying history that have lost engines due to structural failure

[Trevorn]

I once worked on a ukrainian built crop duster and the inter granular corosion on the lift strut clevis was scary bad, it could be carved with a blade like cheese! This shows that quality control may not have been great in manufactor of said part.

Interesting, not unlike the several Stearman with a cropspraying history that have lost engines due to structural failure

Me not comprehend.
How do you lose an engine due to structural failure?
Surly if there is a structural failure you will probably loose the entire aircraft?
Or am I not understanding you correctly?

Did the SAAF not loose an F1 in Angola in the late 1980's due to corrosion on hydraulic pipes? If I remember correctly the pilot was Copenhagen?

[Airwayfreak]

Me not comprehend.
How do you lose an engine due to structural failure?
Surly if there is a structural failure you will probably loose the entire aircraft?
Or am I not understanding you correctly?

I take it you do not follow aircraft accidents and also that you are not a pilot. I do not have the inclination to explain everything to you. Perhaps ask your friend who knows somebody that works in the aviation industry

[Theuns v V]

those chemcals they use is higly corrosive , but the case of the inter granular corrosion shows a flaw in the manufactor proces. I have seen "metal rot" on western craft aswell but even if it is a 60-70's era thing the company will still come up with a repair schedule to try fix it. I dont think russian aerospace industry really cares allot about this. It it lasts a few fights,and you have more than the enemy you may winn, BUT basic maintenance of the craft aswell as the support equipment is vital

Trevor, I think it may be engine loss more due to the fact that the crop dusters got bigger, heavier engines so they could carry more weight, not becuse of the chemicals.
The heavier engines put stress on the airframe and engine mound bolts that it was not designed for and over time that may lead to the engine departing the fuselage. Remember these okes pull high G at the end of the run and do sharp rudder turns, it puts a high torsional load on the frame and this due to gyroscopic forces also want to twist things.

PS. remember the PT17 came out with a 220 HP radial, people started to put 450HP harvard engines in the damn things,if you fly gently, I dont think it is a hassle but when you start to "tumble" the thing there are problems over time. Look at that oke at oshkosh who had a damn jet engine on IIRC a Waco biplane.....sure its a great stuntshow but it puts stresses on something that was never designed for it and the damage may not manifest itself until you have a structural failure....usually in flight

[Trevorn]

Y

I come back to my point of 80K "boers" initially holding back 3-500K trained troops because they were fighting on their home ground and used non conventional tactics....

Yes The Boers cheated. In those days the way gentleman fought a war was to line up in a row and shoot each other. Whoever had men left won. The Boers went and hid behind rocks and wore kaki cloths, not like the bright red tunics the Brits wore. Very unsporting.

With aircraft being able to track allot of BVR targets as the same time and prioritize them, the guy with the better tech is likely to get the kills.

First you need to get the aircraft into the air. If you logistics and serviceability is not up to standard that highly advanced aircraft is useless on the ground.

[Trevorn]

t


PS. remember the PT17 came out with a 220 HP radial, people started to put 450HP harvard engines in the damn things,if you fly gently, I dont think it is a hassle but when you start to "tumble" the thing there are problems over time. Look at that oke at oshkosh who had a damn jet engine on IIRC a Waco biplane.....sure its a great stuntshow but it puts stresses on something that was never designed for it and the damage may not manifest itself until you have a structural failure....usually in flight

Okay thanks Theuns.
The way I read that post was the engine failed (stopped running) due to a structural failure.
What you saying is the engine separated from the airframe due to a structual failure.

[Theuns v V]

Y

I come back to my point of 80K "boers" initially holding back 3-500K trained troops because they were fighting on their home ground and used non conventional tactics....

Yes The Boers cheated. In those days the way gentleman fought a war was to line up in a row and shoot each other. Whoever had men left won. The Boers went and hid behind rocks and wore kaki cloths, not like the bright red tunics the Brits wore. Very unsporting.

With aircraft being able to track allot of BVR targets as the same time and prioritize them, the guy with the better tech is likely to get the kills.

First you need to get the aircraft into the air. If you logistics and serviceability is not up to standard that highly advanced aircraft is useless on the ground.

Ja nee, here in Africa we do not play by the rules LOL

Exactly my point wrt the tech. Where was the mighty numerically superior russian AF ?? They need reular ,actually constant maintenace ASWELL as the ground equipment and I have a nasty feeling this was/is lacking.