comparing russian and US jet engines OH times

(Smartace11) wrote in message ...

I just read where Russian Su-30 engines are intended to operate 300 hours
before major overhaul. How do US engines compare? 300 hours seems awfully
short to a layperson like me.

The whole engine doesn't get overhauled, just modules. Each module, ie fan,
compressor, turnine, fan drive turbine, etc has a different interval, usually
based on cycles, ie temperature excursions from cold to hot.

Fighter engines typically stay installed for 300-600 hours on average and come
off for repair not overhaul.

The Soviets/Russians have always made disposable fighter engines from what I
know. Run'em hot, burn'em up, then salvage/overhaul them. Eliminates most of
the logistics tail and cuts way down on traing requirements. Gues you can do
that when you own the world's supply of titanium ore and most of your troops
are illiterate.

The Russians have a different maintenance philosophy. All of their
maintenance is meant to be done in the field. There is no return to
the depo or factory style maintenance at all therefore their field
maintenace looks more frequent compared to western methods which are
infrequent but then have a huge overhaul back at depo or factory
level.

There is a big difference in philosophy and you aren't comparing
apples with apples but rather apples with oranges.

It probably would require some scoreboarding on a spreadsheet.

I can understand the Russian reasoning: the USAs military and
procuremewnt philosophy is based on the assumption that CONUS and its
depos and factories will not come under air attack, and the US
airfields overseas will also be free due to US air superiority. The
Russians don't have that luxury becuase they are or were withing close
distance of lots of hostile nations in Eruope, Near East and Far East.
They have thus have to develop more autonomy andf built to lower
levels of skills and field equipement.

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.

"The Enlightenment" wrote

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.

Right.

In 20 yrs in the USAF, I came across 1 (and only one) guy who was
functionally illiterate. Reasonably smart, but the poor guy could not read.

How does this contrast with Russian conscripts who may be drawn from a wide
range of native languages?

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...
"The Enlightenment" wrote

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.

Right.

In 20 yrs in the USAF, I came across 1 (and only one) guy who was
functionally illiterate. Reasonably smart, but the poor guy could not
read.

How does this contrast with Russian conscripts who may be drawn from a
wide
range of native languages?

In theory, school standards were same across the USSR, so all were taught to
read. Whether in practice this meant that everyone really could read
Russian, I don't know.

On average, conscript armies probably have "smarter" personnel as you get to
draft all the truly smart ones. On the down side, you get all the dumb ones
too (and there were some _really_ dumb ones, I can tell...).

In theory, school standards were same across the USSR, so all were taught to
read. Whether in practice this meant that everyone really could read
Russian, I don't know.

On average, conscript armies probably have "smarter" personnel as you get to
draft all the truly smart ones. On the down side, you get all the dumb ones
too (and there were some _really_ dumb ones, I can tell...).



You are assuming the smarter ones want to be there and are motivated, something
that wasn't the case before the all volunteer military in the US

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"The Enlightenment" wrote

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.

Right.

In 20 yrs in the USAF, I came across 1 (and only one) guy who was
functionally illiterate. Reasonably smart, but the poor guy could not
read.

Likewise, I came across only one in the US Navy. They discharged him
after 4 weeks of boot camp.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote


In 20 yrs in the USAF, I came across 1 (and only one) guy who was
functionally illiterate. Reasonably smart, but the poor guy could not
read.

Likewise, I came across only one in the US Navy. They discharged him
after 4 weeks of boot camp.


hehe. This guy was a motorpool type E-5. Maybe 13 yrs in. We sent him to
reading classes.

Pete

"Pete" wrote in
:
"The Enlightenment" wrote

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.

Right.

In 20 yrs in the USAF, I came across 1 (and only one) guy who
was functionally illiterate. Reasonably smart, but the poor guy
could not read.

How does this contrast with Russian conscripts who may be drawn
from a wide range of native languages?

Pete

Russia: 99.6%
US: 97%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...rs.html#People
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...us.html#People



Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
"Pete" wrote in
:
"The Enlightenment" wrote

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.

Right.

In 20 yrs in the USAF, I came across 1 (and only one) guy who
was functionally illiterate. Reasonably smart, but the poor guy
could not read.

How does this contrast with Russian conscripts who may be drawn
from a wide range of native languages?

Pete

Russia: 99.6%
US: 97%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...rs.html#People
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...us.html#People


I wouldn't call 2% "much better". But the question still remains.

The CIA Factbook defines it as "age 15 and over can read and write "
I understand Russians are/were to be educated in the 'official language'.
But is that really true? An otherwise highly intelligent, literate conscript
mechanic, who was not educated in the Mother tongue, would still not be able
to reliably maintain a modern tank or aircraft.

If I were plunked down in the Finnish, Brazilian or Russian AF at age 18, I
wouldn't expect to do a very good job.

Pete

"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
m...
There is a big difference in philosophy and you aren't comparing
apples with apples but rather apples with oranges.

I've never quite got that metaphor. Oranges are much superior.

There is a big difference in philosophy and you aren't comparing
apples with apples but rather apples with oranges.

It probably would require some scoreboarding on a spreadsheet.


The benefits and disadvantages of two vs three level maintenance (flightline
-depot, flightlne-intermediate ship-depot has been studied to death and
scorecarded). As an analyst and engineer in an overhaul depot and propulsion
systemprogram office, I gathered data and did the analysis myself.
For most of the world, the most efficient means of maintaing jet engines has
proven to be three level. Even in Israel where the battle front is not more
than one hundred miles away fro the bases, three level is employed.

I misspoke on Russian literacy. I should have said Soviet/Russian enlisted
ranks, the people who do the maintenance. This has been a point made in
numerous publications and always considered to be a weakness of the Soviet
military. I am not prepared to say how much of a problem it is in the Russian
military but I suspect it is still a problem considering where the men are
drawn from.

I can understand the Russian reasoning: the USAs military and
procuremewnt philosophy is based on the assumption that CONUS and its
depos and factories will not come under air attack, and the US
airfields overseas will also be free due to US air superiority. The
Russians don't have that luxury becuase they are or were withing close
distance of lots of hostile nations in Eruope, Near East and Far East.
They have thus have to develop more autonomy andf built to lower
levels of skills and field equipement.

The Russian literacy is probably much better than US literacy.