When this material comes out, we will be at the funeral of Yuri Kopylov, our fellow countryman who died in Syria. A sad moment about which nothing more can be said. But I would like to say a few words about the plane, especially since the gentlemen "experts" give a lot of reasons for this.
There have been so many angry articles on the topic "when will this junk be removed", "the plane is physically and morally obsolete" and stuff like that. We would like to write on the case, and so … We even recalled the "titanium fires" that happened at the very beginning of the aircraft's flying career and were eliminated when the Saturn design bureau redesigned the compressor and the Su-24 began to be equipped with modified AL-21F-3 engines, and then AL-21F-ZA and AL-21F-ZAT.
Immediately, a series of stories began that the Su-24 was the most emergency aircraft in almost the entire history of the Air Force. Although, if you believe Magomed Tolboev (and who to believe, if not him), then the most emergency was the Su-7B.
But let's turn to statistics. She's a stubborn thing.
From 1973 to the present day, there have been 87 accidents and disasters with the participation of the Su-24, 52 of which killed 90 crew members and 7 ground personnel.
The causes of the disasters were in 70 cases of equipment failure, in 29 cases of crew error and 8 cases - other reasons (combat losses, birds).
Until 1990, equipment failures dominated (out of 57 cases, 12 were due to the fault of the crew and 2 for other reasons), after 1990 the number of accidents due to the fault of the crew began to increase.
87 accidents and disasters in 44 years of service. Is it a lot or a little? Especially when you consider that, taking 1990 as a certain boundary, 57 accidents occurred over the first 17 years, and over the next 27 - 30.
Yes, recently accidents involving the Su-24 have become somewhat more frequent.
On October 30, 2012, the Su-24 crashed 70 km from Chelyabinsk during a training flight. The nose cone of the aircraft was ripped off. Both pilots managed to eject.
On November 10, 2012, at the Morozovsk airfield in the Rostov region, the Su-24, while landing, rolled out of the runway due to a detached braking parachute and burned out. The pilots ejected.
On February 11, 2015, a Su-24 crashed 7 km from the runway of the Marinovka airfield in the Volgograd region. Both pilots were killed. After that, the Ministry of Defense suspended all flights of the Su-24, six months later, after investigation and checks, flights were resumed.
On July 6, 2015, the Su-24 crashed in the Khabarovsk Territory. Immediately after taking off from the runway, the aircraft engine failed. The pilots failed to escape.
And so, October 10, 2017. Another disaster, and the crew did not have time to eject. To the greatest regret.
Are these numbers enough to conclude that the Su-24 is outdated morally and physically? To some experts, quite. But if you count on almost 1,500 aircraft of all modifications, then, as it were, not very significant.
It should be noted that there are no more "clean" Su-24s. The minimum is the Su-24M, the maximum is the Su-24M2, which have undergone modernization and are very different from the original version of the bomber. And their number, frankly, is small. 140 Su-24M / M2 and 79 Su-24MR are all that remain today.
So is the plane that physically outdated? Considering the upgrades that are carried out at the factory, with a proper examination of the entire aircraft, I think that we are not talking about airframe fatigue.
The same Tu-95 in our country and the B-52 in "them" have been in service for even more years, and nothing.
The moral side is also out of the question, especially in the case of the modernization of the M2. Quite a normal bomber, capable of doing its job in the absence of opposition from enemy aircraft. Proven by Syria.
By the way, about Syria.
Here it is also worth referring to the numbers. The Ministry of Defense and many media outlets cite figures on the strikes delivered in their reports. In one of the latest communiqués on actions in the Deyz ez-Zor area, it was said about 150 strikes by our Aerospace Forces against militants per day.
Considering that today there are about 20 strike aircraft (8 Su-34, 12 Su-24M) and about the same number of cover fighters in the air group, in order to deliver 150 strikes, each aircraft must make 4 sorties.
It is clear that the bomber in terms of efficiency is somewhat superior to the fighter / fighter-bomber. And it is no secret to anyone today that the number of crews in Syria significantly exceeds the number of aircraft. This is normal, two crews can easily make 2 or 3 flights per day. The alternation allows the pilots to rest before the next call to the terrorists.
The planes, as we can see, are coping too. As well as the technical staff, otherwise we would read the news of accidents and disasters much more often.
It is obvious that what happened to the Su-24 is the result of the fact that the technicians simply did not overlook, as they say. Which is quite natural in combat conditions and with not the newest aircraft. There are no problems with the Su-34, but the planes are "fresher".
I don’t make excuses for the technical staff, but I don’t “hang all the dogs” on the technicians, because, firstly, I don’t know exactly how many technical teams work there, and secondly, the work of the technicians is still the same. I am saying that the Su-24 is an aircraft that has shown itself in more than one conflict, and it is somewhat rash to shout that it urgently needs to be removed from service.
140 bombers are 140 combat vehicles that are still capable of performing a combat mission. And just take them and cut them up, arguing that the Su-34 is better - it's just stupidity, no matter what the supporters of this case say.
Since the beginning of production, that is, since 2008, 122 Su-34s have been produced. That is, 13.5 aircraft per year. The "hole" formed by 140 urgently decommissioned Su-24M / M2, respectively, will be patched for more than 10 years.
Can we afford this?
In the conditions of an absolutely peaceful and stable time - quite. But if peacetime, although with some stretch, takes place, then one can only dream of stability in our country. Including with regard to the military budget. Abbreviations take place all the time, everyone knows this very well.
Another question is really a problem with the technical staff. Yes, aviation technical schools today, if they are not experiencing a boom, then at least a competition has appeared. But the "hole" made in the 90s and early 2000s can still be patched up.
This is exactly what the people who are responsible for this question told me at the Zhukovsky and Gagarin Academy.
There is a huge shortage of engineers in the videoconferencing, this is a fact. The academy is working hard to reduce this deficit. It seems to be working out, but not as fast as we would like. A diploma from a commercial university with the prospect of sitting in an office at a computer is still preferable to an airfield blown by all the winds and the prospects of testing the engine and suspension of bombs in thirty-degree frost. Alas.
If we talk about today's problem - this is a problem that needs to be solved. Do not write off aircraft that can serve for another ten or more years, but train personnel who can make the aircraft fly without accidents.
What is the use of modern Su-34, Su-35, Su-57, if there will not be enough for them those who will take care that the planes fly and fly as they should? No matter how you stuff an aircraft of the fifth, sixth, eighth generation with ultra-modern electronics, without engineers who know and know how to correctly apply their knowledge, this will not be military equipment.
With competent technical personnel, the Su-24 will be a formidable weapon for a long time to come. Without - any plane will become a problem for the pilot.
Today we should not think about the moral or physical fatigue of the Su-24, but about those who can make sure that the planes do not get tired.
