Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

Came across an article in Janes Defence Weekly which seems to indicate
that the decline in Russian air arms has reached an uncontrollable
decline (snippets added below) due to ageing pilots, minimal training
and flight hours, and no significant new investment.

"Russia's combat aviation in 'uncontrollable' decline

Nikolai Novichkov JDW Correspondent
Moscow

The official statement that Russia's air combat capability in 2003 was
healthy and improving has come under fire from high-ranking aviation
generals.

Lt Gen Victor Sokerin, commander of the Russian Federation Navy's
(RFN's) Baltic Fleet naval aviation, and Maj Gen Oleg Kolyada, the
Russian Federation Air Force's (RFAF's) chief of flight security, have
described a very different state of capability to the official
'healthy' claims
made by Col Gen Vladimir Mikhailov, RFAF commander (JDW 21 January)."

So at least the claims are coming from knowledgeable sources.

"At present, the age of experienced specialist aircrew in the Baltic
Fleet air force and air defence force has risen by 10-15 years and
keeps
growing. There are no interceptor pilots under 36 and only 2% are
below 40. Only 3% of first- and second-class pilots are under 36 and
just 1%
of interceptor navigators are under 40, while 11% of first- and
second-class navigators are under 36. Sixty per cent of crew
commanders are
over 35, with half of them over 40."

"In five years' time, according to Gen Sokerin, there will be no-one
to carry out combat tasks since all first-class pilots will have
retired. Over the
last 12 years, the number of aircrew in the Baltic Fleet has fallen by
more than a third. The pilots' flying time on the fleet's Sukhoi
fighter/strike
aircraft is a mere five to seven hours per year because only 10% of
the required minimum allocation of aviation fuel is available. Around
50% of
pilots make no more than one flight in a year - and then only to
qualify for the pilot's food ration and a meritorious service record."

There is also comment on the lack of ability in ATC facilities due to
no more than 3-4 flights being in the air at one time - presumably
controlling large air battles or strike packages requires rather more
practise.

For the RFAF average flight time appears to be about 40 hours (also
from teh article).



So, with all that in mind, is there a way back for the RFAF and other
air arms, or are they on their way to the problems India is having
with high accident rates and poor availability - is it time to start
again?

If they opt to begin again then as a straw man I'd suggest......

Rely on the S-300 series to provide border control for the moment, and
withdraw *all* fast jets (including the bombers) to storage (or sell
them), using the O&M cash saved to buy a few regiments (4?) of combat
capable advanced jet trainers (I can't recall the Russian equivalent
of the Mako) with the combat fit being concentrated on ground attack.

Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.

One of the more obvious drawbacks is the destruction of the Russian
aircraft manufacturers, unless you can seal some sweet
research/development/production deals with a few nations (i.e.
India/China) to keep you development ticking over and your engineers
employed.

Also exchanges and training will improve the proficiency faster (DACT
is a *good* thing) .

Any comments or thoughts from those who know a bit about builing an
Air arm from scratch?

Oh, and I'd particularly be interested to hear what Mr. "no one has
ever gone to the moon" Petukhov thinks :-)

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...


snip


Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.


I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.

I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
number of aircrew you need.

This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Of course that would leave a lot of redundant Admirals
and Generals not to mention boosting the youth
unemployment rate.

Keith

Peter Kemp wrote:

Came across an article in Janes Defence Weekly which seems to indicate
that the decline in Russian air arms has reached an uncontrollable
decline (snippets added below) due to ageing pilots, minimal training
and flight hours, and no significant new investment.

"Russia's combat aviation in 'uncontrollable' decline

[snipped for brevity]

Look at it this way: their loss is our gain! For example, one of
my contacts is Vassili Tarakanov, a 1986 graduate from the Moscow
Aviation Institute (MAI).

Tarakanov used to work on the Su-24, Su-25 and super-maneuverable
(thrust vectoring) Russian Su-37 fighters but he now designs and
manufactures inexpensive and superb flexwing trikes (he calls them
"deltas") for us sport flying enthusiasts.

Unfortunately, despite all the clever engineering, quality control is
an issue since the workers at the factory seem unable to leave their
Vodka at home and some of the aluminum tubing they bought from
Antonov stock has killed a few folks in the U.S. and Canada recently.

Peter Kemp wrote in message . ..

Any comments or thoughts from those who know a bit about builing an
Air arm from scratch?

Oh, and I'd particularly be interested to hear what Mr. "no one has
ever gone to the moon" Petukhov thinks :-)

Well if you really want to know my opinion I can tell you that
I think the situation in VVS is rather difficult indeed but it would be
untrue to say that VVS must be build from scratch. Pilot training
is indeed the major problem while main part of planes even if
not upgraded are OK more or less for the moment. At least as long
we are not at wor with US.

Strong words of the generals cited (certainly if it is true words)
need very serious attention. the words that "pilots (I guess Baltic
fleet pilots) make no more than one flight in a year - and then only
to qualify for the pilot's food ration and a meritorious service record."
sounds very strange to me. Can you believe that Commander of
that "pilots" who is responsible for the proper training could
say that publicly? I cannot. I know that many journalists often
invent the facts for their stories. remmeber recent scandals
in US press (NY times for instance etc.) Why it cannot happend in
that journal as well? Just because it is highly respectful?
NY Times is also highly respectful.

Also as far as I know there is minimum level of per year flying
experience (around 20h) in order one can be allowed to fly
independently. There was times in 98 when VVS pilots ON AVERAGE
were at that minimal level. Since than they fly 40h on average.
Which is not enough, but still 40h.

I do not know why Baltic fleet pilots could fly only 5h if everybody
else have 40h. There were reports in local TV about increased flying
activity of Baltic fleet aviation and that unlike 35-40 years old
pilots many young pilots had indeed no flying experience to be
qualified for a fighter pilot. And therefore VVS started wide program
to retrain the young pilots indeed almost from scratch.

As for aging pilots, well whatt is age statistics for US pilots, and
its normal retirement age? just to compare with.

Michael






Peter Kemp

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...


snip


Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.


I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.

I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
number of aircrew you need.

This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...

But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:

1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
fastest growing economy.

Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.

An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.

Michael


Of course that would leave a lot of redundant Admirals
and Generals not to mention boosting the youth
unemployment rate.

Keith

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...

But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:

1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
fastest growing economy.

Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.

I'd otherwise agree about merits of conscription army, but in this case I
agree with Keith...

1. Russia is second most powerful nuclear power on Earth, nobody in their
sane minds would dare to directly invade Russia

2. Neither does Russia have a pressing need to invade other nations

3. Instead Russia does have pressing need to suppress various freedom
fighters...oops, they are officially terrorists now. Whatever, in such
police operations conscripts tend to be notoriously ineffective.

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...


snip


Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.


I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.

I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
number of aircrew you need.

This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...

But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:

1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
fastest growing economy.


All the more reason to have an efficient military

Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.


Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
equipped. Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units

An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.


Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

Keith

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
[snipped for brevity]

Look at it this way: their loss is our gain! For example, one of
my contacts is Vassili Tarakanov, a 1986 graduate from the Moscow
Aviation Institute (MAI).

Tarakanov used to work on the Su-24, Su-25 and super-maneuverable
(thrust vectoring) Russian Su-37 fighters but he now designs and
manufactures inexpensive and superb flexwing trikes (he calls them
"deltas") for us sport flying enthusiasts.

Unfortunately, despite all the clever engineering, quality control is
an issue since the workers at the factory seem unable to leave their
Vodka at home and some of the aluminum tubing they bought from
Antonov stock has killed a few folks in the U.S. and Canada recently.


Kinda hard to get repeat customers that way...
Steve R.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.


Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
equipped. Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units
An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.


Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now) but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare" crap to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no basis
whatsoever.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...


snip


Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.


I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.

I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
number of aircrew you need.

This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...

But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:

1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
fastest growing economy.


All the more reason to have an efficient military

True. Any army needs to be more efficient. Even yours.


Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.


Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
equipped.

Generally true for now. But given available resources our military
decided in 1990s to give adequate training and equipment to rather
limited part of army in so called units of permanent readyness (some
100000-130000 service men) at expense of total stopping of
battle training in the rest of army. Many on west wanted to beleive
that whole russian army in a such bad shape. Far from it, my
dear, very far.

Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units

Well it is oversimplification certainly. Mercenary army
are rather good in short local conflict of low intensity
with very limitted goals like that in Yugoslavia and
Iraq in very beginning. In a big long wars for most basic
national interests small mercenary army are completely
useless since full power of the whole nation must be use
to win. conscript armies can be very efficient as well.
Conscript wermarht was very efficient in 39-42 until
its backbone was broken by conscripts of Red Army which
in turn became most efficient army of the world in 44-45.

I agree in a peace time army can me relatively small
and mercenary type. However the its contruction should be
flexiable enough in order to be converted in full scale
national conscript army in a short time where professional
solders will serve as sergants and unterofficiers.

This is what we are building proffesional peace time
army with flow of training 1 year conscripts. But
it cannot be less than 1 mil for russia given its
territory. There will be 500000 professionals in that army
at any given moment.



An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.


Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK

What is that "more" Kieth? grabbing Iraq oil?

is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

It does not want conscripts because it though it has no serious
enough enemy. US is already called reservists and is sending
them to Iraq in order to replace tired professionals. why is that?
Right, the war quickly and unexpectedly converts into too serious
all out war against Iraqi people. That's why.

Michael



Keith