totoroI’ve just completed a rather thorough survey of whatever is visible on GE imagery, all across Russia. I used the airbase list available on scramble.nl. Where there were no images available, I assumed scramble.nl is correct and added what they said.
It is important to say that this is only circumstancial evidence and certainly no proof of number of squadrons. That said, GE has gotten better over the last years. I had images of something like 95% of the airbases from the list, and on average there were 3-4 images per airbase, ranging from first half of 2000s to 2011. A lot of the bases had images from 2011. There were airbases with close to 10 different images, giving pretty good idea what was going on there over time.
where images from various years remained the same (sometimes the formations of planes didnt move for years) and where there were available other on-site images clearly showing conserved planes – i assumed that lot is not active.
Of course some bases could have been closed since the image was taken. Some mayve been reopened. Some squadrons mayve been temporarely relocated. One cant take all that into account. But knowing an airplane sits on the ground some 97% of the daytime period throughout the year, chances are most of the info is pretty solid.
All that being said – here is another take on fairly current state of the VVS. Info of course isnt quite current, i would say the average dates range from 2010 to 2011.
mig29 – 6 squadrons
mig31 – 10 squdrons
su24 (and su24mr) – 8-9 squadrons
su25 – 5-6 squadrons
su27 – 7-9 squadrons
su33 – 1 squadron
With some bases i wasnt sure if the planes were active or stored, that is why there is a range of number of squadrons.
Also, it seems that regular squadron is 24 planes, for most. However, mig31s seem to come in squadrons of 16. Also, some mig29 bases seem to be squads of 16. (maybe the algerian SMTs?)
totoroI dont really care about number of planes right now, that is always a matter of debate. But i am shocked that info such as precise number of regiments is not available online. That is not something that can be hidden from other countries, intelligence services of other countries certainly know such figures. So why keep it a secret for the public?
Also, is the numbering system in VVS encrypted or something? or is its scheme well known? when a plane has a number “503” what does it mean? When another plane has “722” on its tail and “02” near the cabin, what does that mean? shouldnt those numbers give the info on the division and regiment, like the numbers in other air forces do?
heck, even the chinese AF can these days be fairly accurately tracked using the serial numbers and photographs. I would expect there are a bunch of photos of various planes available, so there should be somewhere a database of all those photos, arranged by serial numbers, helping solve this mystery of number of squadrons.
totoroThank you, haavarla.
May I ask what do you base the number of squadrons on?
It is pretty damn hard to find any decent sources for squadron numbers, a little bit frustrating really.
I’ve found scramble.nl’s list to be fairly okay for other countries, but in russia’s case it doesn’t really mesh well with the lists of units we’ve seen cited in this topic. So which one is correct?
Plus all these lists don’t seem to give a clear answer to how many planes there are in a VVS squadron. 12? 16? 24? Or does that figure vary, depending on the type of plane?
As for su-24 numbers, i was refering to this bit of news, allegedly citing Zelin. http://lenta.ru/news/2012/02/14/su24/ Anyone care to comment? True? Not true? Why the mixup if not true?
I do also recollect a bit of news (with a quote from someone from the VVS, was it Zelin or a deputy i dont remember) where it was claimed the modernized su27s (at that point all sm3s have arrived) comprised half the total number of su27s in service. Now I am not saying that is necessarily true, but it is certainly a possibility. I really would like to find that newsbit but so far i’ve been unable to google it. If anyone remembers something of the like, please provide a link…
totoroSo current squadron in VVS is comprised of 12 planes, not 16? That applies to all types of planes?
If there are 34 mig29SMT and squadrons are comprised of 12 planes, that would mean some mig29 sq. are mixed, made of old and new mig29s. Is that a realistic assumption?
I thought there are 48 active su27sm (not 60), perhaps a few more for training at lipetsk. I’ve heard numbers 48, 52, even 55, but never 60. I would only read about 60 planes if the sm3 are added in the mix.
And all that doesn’t help much when it comes to older, unmodernized planes such as original mig29, su27, su24, su25 and so on. Do we have any source which could offer precise figures?
If what you say is true, then there is 60-72 su27sm/sm3 active, around 48 su27s active, around 36 mig29, 100 mig31 and so on. That give a total of 120 su27, 70 mig29, 100 mig31 etc. That would mean the VVS shrunk by about 50% in the last few years alone.
Do we have a source for mig31 modernization reaching 50 units so far? I believed the first contract of 30 is still underway and the second contract of 60 is yet to start, as its completion is not planned until 2020. Having 50 modernized so far would mean progress rate at which all could be done by 2015, which is not what was said in the published newsbits about the contract.
I’ve also read one recent statement from Zelin (back when he was chief) where he mentioned current number of su24 was 124. (perhaps just strike planes, without the recce variants?)
Warfare.ru is better than a good deal of sites, but its info seems dated, as if they stopped keeping track some 3-4 years ago.
totoroHaavarla, could you perhaps break down exactly the number of squadrons per each aviation base from the list you linked to? I tried to do it myself but I lack the information required to know if a base has 1, 2, 3 or more squadrons of a certain type of airplane…
Also, do all air defense brigades have similar compositions? What sort of subunits (and their numbers) would an air defense brigade have?
Operational Strategic Command for Air-Space Defense (Moscow)
6963rd aviation base (Kursk) (Mig-29SMT) **two squadrons worth**
6968th fighter aviation base (Khotilivo, Tver Oblast) (Su-27, Mig-31) **one squadron of each or more?
First Air Force and Air Defense Command (Voronezh) (Western OSK)
6961st aviation base (Petrozavodsk) (Su-27) **should be 2 squadrons. or three?**
6964th aviation base (Monchegorsk, Murmansk Oblast) (Su-24M, Su-24MP) **how many squadrons?**
7000th aviation base (Voronezh) (Su-24M, Su-24MP, Su-34) **how many of each?**
Second Air Force and Air Defense Command (Ekaterinburg) (Central OSK)
6977th aviation base (Perm) (Mig-31) **same question as before…*
6979th aviation base (Kansk, Krasnoyarskii Krai) (Mig-31) **again the same… etc**
6980th aviation base (Cheliabinsk) (Su-24M)
6982nd aviation base (Domna, Zabaikalskii Krai) (Mig-29)
Third Air Force and Air Defense Command (Khabarovsk) (Eastern OSK)
6983rd aviation base (Vozdvizhenka, Primorskii Krai) (Su-25, Mi-8, Mi-24)
6987th aviation base (Komsomolsk-na-Amure) (Su-27SM)
6988th aviation base (Khurba, Khabarovsk Krai) (Su-24M, Su-24M2, Su-24MR)
6989th aviation base (Vladivostok) (Su-27SM)
Fourth Air Force and Air Defense Command (Rostov-na-Donu) (Southern OSK)
6970th aviation base (Morozovsk, Rostov Oblast) (Su-24M)
6971st aviation base (Budennovsk, Stavropol Krai) (Su-25SM, Mi-8, Mi-24, Mi-28)
6972nd aviation base (Krymsk, Krasnodar Krai) (Su-27, Mi-8, Mi-24, Mi-28, Ka-27)
6974th aviation base (Korenovsk, Krasnodar Krai) (Mi-8, Mi-24, Mi-28)
999th aviation base (Kant, Kyrgyzstan) (Su-25, Su-27, Mi-8)
Long Range Aviation Command (Moscow)
6950th aviation base (Engels, Saratov Oblast) (Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS, Tu-160)
6952nd aviation base (Ukrainka, Amur Oblast) (Tu-95MS)
6953rd aviation base (Srednii, Irkutsk Oblast) (Tu-22M3)
totoro5 degrees would roughly mean twice the drag than it would have without worrying about maintaining altitude. Though this is quite imprecise. Maybe it is 2 degrees? But let us assume it is 5 degrees, would twice the drag mean roughly half the range? so 75 kms travelled, without ballistic trajectory, without manouvering, and end speed would be mach 2.25? And that is even for 18 kms of flight altitude, which i do agree is quite a bit, close to the operating limit of most missiles. So in more realistic profiles we could be looking at like 60 or so km? Now that looks quite low, though.
So either the angle is quite a bit less than 5*, or the added drag, say twice as much, does not equal half the range, but impacts range significantly less. I would expect the former is more likely and that angle of attack is closer to 2 degrees.
totoroI recently remembered this thread when i was calculating ranges for various missiles which, upon rereading what was said here, left me a bit puzzled.
It was said that, as a rule of thumb, missiles loses 25% of speed every:
Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space
~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft)
~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft)
~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft)
~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft)
~5 seconds @ Sea Level
So, assuming our missile is going, say, mach 4 at 18 km altitude, it would, after 70 seconds of deceleration, cross another 81 km and at that point still be going strong at mach 3. It would go on, for another 70 seconds, crossing aditional 61 km, stilll going mach 2.25. So at that point, calculating in at least initial 5-6 km crossed during the engine burn phase, we are looking at total horizontal distance travelled of nearly 150 km.
Of course, during that time, the missile should lose quite a bit of altitude. I used a very rough approximation of terminal velocity thanks to this calculator http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/fallq.html
and this curve for air density with altitude http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0046b.shtml
and it should work out that missile would lose at least 10 perhaps 15 km of altitude during those 148 seconds. Sadly, i cant figure out a more precise range of numbers as it is hard to approximate drag coefficient for side projection of a missile…
Naturally, a real missile would not lose altitude that fast but would trade increased drag/decreased range for altitude. So the question is: by how much? How much would range suffer if missile tried to lose no more than 50m of altitude per second?
How much would range suffer if missile tried to maintain altitude? at what speed and distance travelled would the missile start losing altitude?
(all this ignores the likely possibility of depressed ballistic trajectories, of course, but it is complicated enough without those…)
totoroPossibly, though i would say the chances are they are talking about Russian jets. Tejas and perhaps even gripen would be a tie for second place and… well, wouldn’t it just be hilariously ironical if it ends up being JF-17? 😀
totorowe dont know if the SM models will be kept past 2020. The recent news did say pretty clearly that su35 will replace su27. SM is su27. And yes, they have been modernized, but they have been modernized some five years ago. by 2020 they will still be some 12 or so years old post modernization and some 30 years old in total.
Also, if anyone can find it, i seem to recollect another official statement some months ago that su24 will be taken out of service by 2020, to be replaced by su34. So no su24 should serve beyond that point. Again, nothing really too strange as were talking about 30 year old airframes by then, at best.
Sure, years of life does not equate flight hours, but even with flight hours calculations it should be several thousand hours, plus possible corrosion etc…
su25, however, may serve a bit more… i dont think there were any news about them. There is news about a replacement model but that is likely to be later than 2020, at least in numbers to replace the whole current fleet.
strike ucav before 2020 is impossible, in my opinion. russia is behind other countries in ucav department, and all the others are in demostrator phase. not even the West will have strike ucavs in active service in 2020.
totorodoes that mean that in 2020 RuAF will not be flying any su27s whatsover? (with perhaps the sole exclusion of 12 newly assembled su27sm3?)
If a regular squadron in RuAF is 16 planes (is it?) then 90 su35s is enough for 5 squadrons. With addition of 12 sm3 that would be enough for 6 squadrons and still have 6 planes for weapons and subsystem testing and tactics development.
Also, is it then realistic to expect that at any time before 2030. RuAF will field more pakfas than it has older sukhois?
totorojh7a was seen carrying ten 250 kg class bombs under each wing (20 total) and 2 yj83 missiles (4 total). I guess that is also the practical maximum, alongside a pair of self defense missiles.
totoroAs far as su27s top speed with some missiles, it surely must be able to go over mach 2 with at least some kind of load. That is more or less standard for a plane with variable intake ramps and that good weight to mass ratio. There arent any public figures for russian planes but laws of physics should be the same for all, so if figures for US made planes say, for example, this: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977.pdf
then it is very likely su27 can do at least the same.
1170 knots with 4 sparrows for f14a (A model with fairly weak engines!) and then that drops to 970 knots for loadout with 6 phoenixes.
Also compare (available on the same website) figures for f16a, f15c, f15c with cfts, f8h/j, f111 etc.
So su27 should be able to, upon using half of its fuel or so, to achieve at least close to mach 2 speeds with 8 air to air missiles. And cross mach 2 with still a decent load of them.
totoroRussia Signs $35-Mln Missile Contract with Malaysia
Some media outlets that mention this newsbit also add the contract is for 35 missiles. is that an error? someone mixed up the dollar value and number of missiles?
also, can we be sure the missiles in question are indeed rvv-ae, like the newspaper say? or are they rather rvv-sd, which would make much more sense, knowing rvv-ae is a model that will soon be 20 years old. ?
totororeason why it is still in service, even though that too may be questionable (shelf life? i wonder if they expect that a large number of them wouldnt work anyway) is most probably political inertia following a period of no money. Now that finally mig31s are getting modernized i do believe it is only a matter of time (a year? two?) before we start seeing mig31bms with rvv-sd variants underwing, perhaps even on twin pylons.
totorolow ballistic protection as opposed to other, new, assault helicopters. hind’s super heavy armor was always a myth more than anything else. Compared to Cobra, sure, it is probably more armored, but compared to todays helicopters – especially the likes of ka50 or mi28, it really is fairly unprotected.
Sign In
