Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:46 pm

Previous thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1028153
is locked. Time to start a new one.

Mi-28 crashed in Russia, with casualties:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/12/ ... ash-a68577

The story is hotly debated on Russian aviation forums, as something is fishy with the situation. Briefly:
1) the crew reported difficulties landing at their home airfield, due to poor visibility, and landed on an unprepared patch (apparently in a field) 12 km from their airfield
2) a more senior crew, along with some other personnel, arrived at the landing site by car
3) more senior crew took over the helicopter, took off and soon disappeared from radars
4) wreckage was found

Hypotheses and versions are flying wide and high.
Last edited by SQ22 on Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title updated
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:39 am

Needless hurry + bad weather = bad outcome?
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:44 am

AirlineCritic wrote:
Needless hurry + bad weather = bad outcome?


Quite possible.
But the only bad weather reported that day was fog. By the way, that particular area is reportedly fog-prone.

What I find fascinating -- this is presumably a brand-new helicopter, fresh from the factory. It's an attack helicopter, crammed with expensive vision and targeting stuff, electronics galore, all that.
The original crew (two people) had a major as pilot in command. They were returning to home base, also crammed with electronics, radars, all that.
A major is a lot of officer in those parts. In Soviet Army, plenty of officers retired as major after 25 years of service.

Here, a major in a (presumably) state-of-the art helicopter cannot land at his (presumably) well-equipped base, because... visibility is poor?

If they cannot fly in fog in fog-prone areas, then probably they are not very useful for defense. (Not that it's a requirement, as Russia practices only aggression as a way of defense in last decades. And an aggressor can chose the time and weather for invasion.)
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2686
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:33 pm

Let's not make this political. Whoever the crew is, were following orders during their service in the military. The problem with fog is not that the helicopter doesn't have electronics to get back to base. From what I understand, it's the terrain obstacles. Imagine flying low and not knowing where exactly you will run into a tree or power lines. Yes, the electronics guide you back to the base, but then landing it requires some minimal visibility to not run into stuff.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:39 pm

sovietjet wrote:
Let's not make this political. Whoever the crew is, were following orders during their service in the military. The problem with fog is not that the helicopter doesn't have electronics to get back to base. From what I understand, it's the terrain obstacles. Imagine flying low and not knowing where exactly you will run into a tree or power lines. Yes, the electronics guide you back to the base, but then landing it requires some minimal visibility to not run into stuff.


Somebody killed my answer. Probably Kremlin brigade didn't like it.
anyway, the question remains -- how is it that a Mil Mi-28N Night Hunter is unable to fly and land at home base in the dark? Night vision equipment, radars, ILS -- nothing beats poor visibility anymore?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4777
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:00 am

And another today, TU-22M engine failure/fire resulting in an “emergency landing” in a field. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/231504
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:26 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
sovietjet wrote:
Let's not make this political. Whoever the crew is, were following orders during their service in the military. The problem with fog is not that the helicopter doesn't have electronics to get back to base. From what I understand, it's the terrain obstacles. Imagine flying low and not knowing where exactly you will run into a tree or power lines. Yes, the electronics guide you back to the base, but then landing it requires some minimal visibility to not run into stuff.


Somebody killed my answer. Probably Kremlin brigade didn't like it.
anyway, the question remains -- how is it that a Mil Mi-28N Night Hunter is unable to fly and land at home base in the dark? Night vision equipment, radars, ILS -- nothing beats poor visibility anymore?


I had written an answer to you and there was a link to a document about the abilities and limits of imaging infrared in fog. No idea why it was deleted. ??
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2686
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:11 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
sovietjet wrote:
Let's not make this political. Whoever the crew is, were following orders during their service in the military. The problem with fog is not that the helicopter doesn't have electronics to get back to base. From what I understand, it's the terrain obstacles. Imagine flying low and not knowing where exactly you will run into a tree or power lines. Yes, the electronics guide you back to the base, but then landing it requires some minimal visibility to not run into stuff.


Somebody killed my answer. Probably Kremlin brigade didn't like it.
anyway, the question remains -- how is it that a Mil Mi-28N Night Hunter is unable to fly and land at home base in the dark? Night vision equipment, radars, ILS -- nothing beats poor visibility anymore?


I think the problem was fog, not darkness. Also the crashed helicopter was a training version, Mi-28UB and not a Mi-28N.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:39 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
What I find fascinating -- this is presumably a brand-new helicopter, fresh from the factory. It's an attack helicopter, crammed with expensive vision and targeting stuff, electronics galore, all that.
The original crew (two people) had a major as pilot in command. They were returning to home base, also crammed with electronics, radars, all that.
A major is a lot of officer in those parts. In Soviet Army, plenty of officers retired as major after 25 years of service.

Here, a major in a (presumably) state-of-the art helicopter cannot land at his (presumably) well-equipped base, because... visibility is poor?


Much more experienced pilots have put much more capable aircraft into the ground during much better conditions. Flying is a dangerous business... I'm sure the fog didn't help but who says it wasn't a CRM (or lack of it) issue? Experience can be detrimental if you let complacency take over.

But we need more information before saying what happened. Jumping to conclusions, like it is implied is going on in the Russian forums, is how conspiracy theories form.

The crash could be something very simple and not at all nefarious
 
Pentaprism
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:12 pm

SU-57 Crash

Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:13 pm

Unfortunately a SU-57 has gone done near the Manufacturer's Base at Komsolmolsk-na-Amure in Eastern Russia. Thankfully the Pilot ejected safely.

Certainly a setback for the program but far from unprecedented when a new Fighter is being developed.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 952151.cms
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:41 pm

So they lost half their operational fleet ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4021
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:55 pm

Love the article wording that "there was no damage on the ground"... not sure how a pilotless aircraft other than a drone can accomplish this.. but then again it may just be American English vs. British English.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:04 pm

Su-57, manufacturer-owned, down in Russia. No casualties.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3189
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: SU-57 Crash

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:41 pm

kanban wrote:
Love the article wording that "there was no damage on the ground"... not sure how a pilotless aircraft other than a drone can accomplish this.. but then again it may just be American English vs. British English.

Because it probably came down in an open field or similar area, and didn't hit any structures on the ground. Yes, there was probably some "damage" to the field it crashed in, but that's not usually reported as damage on the ground.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:46 pm

Image

something like the Cornfield Bomber?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:16 am

Phosphorus wrote:
Su-57, manufacturer-owned, down in Russia. No casualties.


This article has a good top view pic of the SU-57,

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... est-flight
 
Ozair
Posts: 5367
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:15 am

I would be interested to know if the aircraft that crashed had the new engine installed.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:30 pm

This certainly is good news. Kind of odd though that China hasn't had one go down. I guess the benefits of stealing data means you wont make the same mistakes.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:14 pm

426Shadow wrote:
This certainly is good news. Kind of odd though that China hasn't had one go down. I guess the benefits of stealing data means you wont make the same mistakes.


What do you mean? China hasn't had any Su-57 delivered, so in that sense, you are absolutely right, they haven't had any Su-57 crashes to date. And perhaps good to mention that New Zealand also hasn't had any Su-57 crashes.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:56 pm

426Shadow wrote:
This certainly is good news. Kind of odd though that China hasn't had one go down. I guess the benefits of stealing data means you wont make the same mistakes.


What makes you think it would actually be disclosed if they did have one of their new aircraft go down ? Unless it happened at an air show, what hasn't been seen by the international media hasn't happened.

Actually surprised that the Russians made this accident public.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:47 am

Dutchy wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
This certainly is good news. Kind of odd though that China hasn't had one go down. I guess the benefits of stealing data means you wont make the same mistakes.


What do you mean? China hasn't had any Su-57 delivered, so in that sense, you are absolutely right, they haven't had any Su-57 crashes to date. And perhaps good to mention that New Zealand also hasn't had any Su-57 crashes.


Referring to the J-21 and J-31
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: SU-57 Crash

Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:19 am

This thread got filled with the usual pathetic useless super stupids pretty predictably quick.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:48 am

yes, I suggest it to be locked, because it went off-topic.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2079
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:31 am

I know that it is only one data point but this points a very bad picture of Russian build quality.

I personally think the SU-57 is no threat at all and is much lower quality. It would be no better than the YF-22 demonstrator that flew 29 years ago. Avionics would be on par with what the west had 15 years ago e.g first gen Rafale, Eurofighter, Superhornet. I wouldn't call placing radar contacts on a GPS moving map sensor fusion. The huge diameter of the radar fitted to Russian fighters is a typical way they get acceptable performance from a lower tech solution.

The pilot ejecting rules out high G blackout or oxygen issues.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: SU-57 Crash

Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:55 am

Not to defend the SU-57 or modern day Russian aerospace engineering in general, but top of the line Western planes crash too. I don't think, this alone, is much of a useful data point

Glad the pilot made it out
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2079
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:36 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Not to defend the SU-57 or modern day Russian aerospace engineering in general, but top of the line Western planes crash too. I don't think, this alone, is much of a useful data point

Glad the pilot made it out

Such as?

The Eurofighter and Rafale had clocked up over 200,000 flight hours before the first crash and we had two mid air collisions and an airshow routine. Nothing maintenance or design flaw related.

The YF-22 crash landing during testing was software related and 29 years ago making a mistake with software would be an acceptable excuse.

The F-35 engine blowing up on the ground hardly counts. The SU-57 has had similar incidents.

I doubt the SU-57 has clocked up over 2000 flight hours. It could fly another 100,000 hours without a crash and end up matching the rate of a western aircraft but it is highly doubtful.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: SU-57 Crash

Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:18 am

There have been 2 F-35 crashes, Japanese one was due to pilot spatial disorientation. 450 produced. Quite acceptable.

As there are only a dozen SU-57, this brings up reliability questions.

The S-400 seems state of the art, so the SU-57 might have a lot of capability. The production numbers will limit its impact.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: SU-57 Crash

Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:51 pm

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:


And why did the SU-57 crash? Was it due to the aircraft itself or another factor similar to the other crashes you mention?

For the record, I will NOT at all be surprised if it was due to inferior design or engineering, not in the least. But I don't think we can say much with certainty
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14104
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:07 am

Interesting way of combining those events in a single thread. Maybe we can start a similar one to combine those for other air forces too.

"US Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 1"

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/21/poli ... index.html

https://www.af.mil/News/Tag/67/crash/

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-16-damage ... san-crash/

Seems very efficient.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
cpd
Posts: 6550
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:39 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Su-57, manufacturer-owned, down in Russia. No casualties.


This article has a good top view pic of the SU-57,

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... est-flight


Any further word on what caused it to go down?

I guess with it being a very new plane type these things can happen.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:53 pm

Crash of L-39 in Russia, with casualties
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26585 ... in_Crashes
Separately, a Russian Su-27, based in Ukraine (occupied territory, in Crimea), was lost off the coast. Pilot not recovered so far.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sat May 09, 2020 7:19 am

Hard landing of Russian Mil Mi-35 helicopter in Dzhankoy, Crimea, Ukraine (territory temporarily occupied by Russia).
One of the crew killed, two more taken to hospital.
https://ru.krymr.com/a/news-rossiikii-p ... 99582.html
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sun May 31, 2020 10:14 am

Two military Mi-8 crashes in Russia, both with casualties:
May 19th, near Klin:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/ ... rew-a70319
May 26th, in Chukotka:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... d-70876707
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
SAS A340
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 5:59 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Sun May 31, 2020 6:52 pm

Seems like a high rate of losses within the daily operations in Russia...
It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Russian Military Crashes Discussion Thread - Part 2

Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:54 pm

Su-30 down in Russia, no casualties.
It's postulated that a friendly-fire air-to-air shootdown by a Su-35 was the cause:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... y-accident
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos