Talk:Russian Air Force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''

  • Support. And BTW, according to the Constitution, both official names and are treated equally (i.e. Russian Federationis not preferred in any way over Russia), even though some people seem to treat the former name as official and the latter as informal. --DmitryKo 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Where it makes no ambiguities, the word "russian" covers both "soviet" and "russian" (including "of russian federation" and "of russian empire") terms. --jno 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: for reasons as per above. Tutmosis 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

.. the word "russian" covers both "soviet" and "russian" (including "of russian federation" and "of russian empire") terms. --jno 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The established pattern is to use Soviet and Imperial Russian. --DmitryKo 19:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Where it makes no ambiguities --jno 08:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to have redirects from Soviet Air Force and alike articles to point here. --jno 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinct article dealing with the Soviet Air Force. As well, the Soviet Air Force is arguably not one and the same with the Russian Air Force: this is analogous to advocating for the redirect of Soviet Union to Russia. Thus, this should remain a separate article without the redirect as proposed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Then it breaks the idea: Russian Empire, Soviet Union, and Russian Federation are successive, but different countries on the almost same land. What should the article "Russian Air Force" be about? IMHO, it must be either single page for all three entities or mere page with links to three different articles. --jno 13:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Just the same: the two air forces are as different as their parent territories and are significant enough to necessitate distinct articles. Compare with the United States Air Force/United States Army and the (predecessor) United States Army Air Forces ... which, in this case, are for the same political entity. The Soviet Air Force article should focus on historical content, including the Cold War, up to its dissolution (c. 1991) while the Russian Air Force article should concern the modern force. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
and where the Imperial Russia Air Force should go to? Well, either me or you just misunderstand the idea of such a renaming... AFAIU, the idea is to join all russian-related air force data to the single page. It's ok for me. Wanna have soviet apart from russian? It's ok either! But in latter case i'd like to have the three article: "Imerial Russia Air Force", "Soviet Air Force", and "Russian Federation Air Force", and possibly a stub "Russian Air Force" with just three links on. --jno 15:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's already Imperial Russian Air Force, so the topic of this move would round out your proposed triplet. And, I think, there is no difference between the Russian Federation Air Force and Russian Air Force (hence the move); after this move, the RFAF will redirect to RAF.
To clarify ambiguity, I think what you want is to have a disambiguation (DAB) page that perhaps lists all of the air forces for the Eurasian political entity in its various shapes ... say at Russian Air Force (disambiguation) or similar? Or are you suggesting that RAF be a DAB page? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
RAF is much more common for British Royal Air Force :-), hence I suggest the Russian Air Force (disambiguation) DAB page. --jno 08:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question why is the Ilyushin Il-76 not an Russian Air Force you can get a picture at www.airliners.net 1. Air Force, not Air Forces. 2. RusAF can be used instead of RAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.138.38.164 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

Why does it say russian air force is second most powerful?? Tactical yes, Strategic - No, Strategic aviation of Russia is more powerful than that of USA. I can prove my claim with numbers, which everyone will accept. I think the whole sentence should be deleted as it is senseless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.253 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mil Mi-17

No numbers listed for this transport helo: Mil Mi-17 I am 99% certain they are in service.

Signing for archiving. Redalert2fan (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Additions to inventory based on the information stated at warfare.ru

At that site they have a directory containing the vast majority of the military equipment created in or used by the Russian Federation, and the numbers in service with the military. They have some numbers that aren't listed in the inventory on this page, such as 9 Su-30's and 10 Su-39's. There aren't any sources listed on the website for where the numbers come from, but the website is extremely professional and the information seems top notch.

I thought I would throw that link out there and let some of you more experienced guys decide whether or not you want to impliment the numbers into this page.

Links regarding the airforce in general from that website:

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2238&catid=239 http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=241&linkid=2180

--Skyler Streng 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

hm-hm. quite strange source - english only in .ru TLD created in 2004? btw, owned by the webmaster of sevastopol.com :-) --jno 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I made a brief attempt to clean this article up, but there are a few areas I'm still not happy with. In particular:

Russian aircraft production is estimated to have risen to an impressive 4,700 aicraft at this time - I'm sure it was more like 27, 000 after the war, but I may have taken this figure out of context.

I'm not really happy with the tone of the article still either: I think it relies too heavily on abbreviations, and the history section, which creates a substantial portion of the article, is, in my opinion, poorly ordered, which is a shame: it seems to contain plenty of facts!

Post any replies to this on my talk page, please: I'll probably forget about this post!

EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 00:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Su-35 in service?

Your ref to http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1606&catid=255 does not provide any notice on entering service. It only states that there are 11 aircraft that were built.

The Su-35 and Su-37 have all the merits allowing them to become...

--jno 10:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Army Aviation

Could someone compile a list of active RAF helicopters? Blast-san | Talk 2203 (UTC -4), 07.10.06

It is quite short: Mi-8, Mi-24, Mi-6, and Mi-26 with few Mi-28 and Ka-50. --jno 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

News Article re SPC

Army

Russia's Special Purpose Command providing air defense umbrella to 140 strategic sites

MOSCOW. April 5 [2007] (Interfax-AVN) - The Special Purpose Command, responsible for air defense of Moscow and Russia's Central Economic District, covers 140 critical administrative, industrial, power and transport facilities, and nuclear power stations.

"The force is currently controlling an airspace 1.3 million square kilometers wide, securing 30% of the Russian population and covering over 140 strategically important installations," reads the reference paper, made available for those present at the news conference of Colonel General Yury Soloviov, the Commander of the Special Purpose Command, at the Interfax main office on Thursday.

The potential firepower of forces available to the Special Purpose Command with wartime reinforcements allows defeating up to 500 targets at high and medium altitudes and up to 400 targets at small altitudes by one salvo of missiles and one sortie of aircraft.

It is also said in the paper that the S-300 surface-to-air missile systems of Russia, which are much superior to U.S. Patriots, can simultaneously track 12 missiles to six targets, ensuring their effective destruction at altitudes from 10 meters to 30 kilometers.

Over 2,000 personnel are employed for alert duty daily within the Special Command, who track up to 3,000 aerial targets during one shift.

The Special Purpose Command's aviation leg operates MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, Su-35 and MiG-25 interceptor-fighters, Su-24 tactical bombers, Su-25 attack aircraft, Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters, and Il-18, An-12, An-24, An-26 and Tu-134 transport aircraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

NO trainers at all in Russian air force ?? i dont see any trainers planes in inventory. they are 455 L-39 Albatros in service not mentioned at all.

The list of aircraft is only the ones operated by the Special Purpose Command/16th Air Army; not a list of aircraft operated by the whole force. Buckshot06 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to put the trainers in the inventory but I couldn't do it because of the lack of sources. Can you provide me your sources?Eurocopter tigre 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, very little seems to get published on the air force's training formations. I haven't tracked it much in the last few years, but I know the whole training structure has undergone a series of reorganizations and consolidations beginning a decade or so ago. The last I recall, much of the basic and primary training was accomplished under ROSTO (a modern version of DOSAAF), and the air force remained responsible for advanced training – strictly on L-39s – with tactics training at the pilots' assigned squadron. I don't know if this remains the case, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I heard about the RusAF upgrade program for the L-39, but I don't think that all of the aircraft (455) will be upgraded. The L-39s are still fitted with 20-year old avionics, and a proper upgrade will cost $1.7 million dollars. The objective is to make a modern combat aircraft fitted with liquid crystals display cockpits for the training pilots. Probably some of the aircraft will be retired and stored, because I don't think Russia has the financial capability to upgrade all 455 aircraft. Eurocopter tigre 09:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IS as you describe them. its impossible to upgrade the whole fleet of 455 planes. only the neseccary number. no money of course to upgrade all the fleet . it is a upgrade to help the pilots entry new technology cokpits of Russian AF. till the YAK-130 enter in service in capable numbers to replace the L-39. every air force is upgrading only the neseccary number of trainers in such case. recently Finnish AF will upgrade 15 of 49 HAWK trainers with new cokpits and electronics. Swiss AF upgrade a small number of PC-7 trainers of whle fleet. the same will do in Russia. John ,Greece

Public Domain versus Copyrighted

The article is great, and full of a lot of specific information, and has adequate references.

However, I question if it truely autohorized for posting in Wikipedia based on rules (GFDL license), could it be a copy of the Air Forces Monthly magazine article?

Having tracked this article for a while, and owning a copy of the AFM article in question, I can assure you that it's not a copy - the AFM article is much more comprehensive. Buckshot06 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tu-160

The Tu-160 was designed and built in the USSR therefore the flag of te USSR should appear next to it on the list. ZealotKommunizma (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Flights Up The Irish Sea Between UK and Ireland

"Patrols towards the North Pole, the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean were reinstated, bringing the planes often close to NATO territory, most recently flying over the Irish Sea, between the UK and Ireland.[14]"

The citation mentions nothing about these planes flying this close the the UK mainland. If strikes me as being an quite extraordinary claim, currently unverified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.76.72 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Total number of aircraft

From the source I found, Russia has about 2800 combat aircraft. However, from the list of units, the number is around 3300. I wouldn't be sure how to go about figuring out the correct number. Since the majority of the info is sourced for the numbers provided in the list, should the number in the infobox be changed? Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of Aircraft in service

Hi everybody; the numbers of aircraft I added from the International Institute for Strategic Studies's Military Balance have been substantially changed. No other sources have been added for the increase in numbers of combat capable aircraft from 1,852 (Mil Balance 2006) to the 2,000 plus now cited. I think that unless sources can be added for the increased numbers, the best thing to do would be to change the numbers back to the IISS estimates. Thoughts? Any extra sources would be most welcome. Buckshot06 05:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is due to multiple editors pulling individual numbers from uncited sources. I suspect, though, that even Mil Balance overstates the active inventory; IISS has a history of leaving numbers the same for several years. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The IISS number is an estimate based on... something. Not even Russian generals are privy to those numbers Jenga3 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In Service vs In Reserve

Go ahead Jenga3, if you've got sources, be WP:Bold!! Please also add some of the above nuances. Buckshot06(prof) 00:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it the largest airforce?

HOw is the russian air force the largest in terms of aircraft inventory?? the ref given says that russia only has 1,650 combat capable aircraft available and running while the usaf has greater than 2000? and plaaf also has greater than 2000.... i think that statement of second highest is the best suited sentence to fit....--Heaven's Army (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But what about strategic aviation? Russia has largest strategic fleet of bombers. Tactically, Russia is second, strategically - first. ALso, should we say that russian land forces are largest and most powerful? Zalgo 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Strategically, first? How do you make that calculation? There are about 64 Tu-95s and 16 Tu-160s in 37th Air Army. Meanwhile there are 66 B-1s and 21 B-2s in Eighth Air Force, not even counting the B-52s. Or are you counting warheads? Would you like to explain a bit more? Addendum: the Chinese may have anywhere between 80-120 Xian H-6s in service, so the PLAAF might be argued to have more than both. Buckshot06(prof) 09:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
American total is 162 B-1/2/52 so USAF is number one. Hcobb (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be careful Hcobb. Most of the B-52s are non-nuclear aligned, and if you want to start counting non-nuclear aligned you have to count all the Tu-22Ms, which would put Russia first. You have to define your terms very carefully if you want to have this type of discussion. Buckshot06(prof) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just silly treaty rules.

http://www.dod.mil/acq/acic/treaties/start1/execsum.htm The Treaty limits each side to 20 test heavy bombers and an aggregate total of 75 heavy bombers equipped only for non-nuclear armaments, former heavy bombers and training heavy bombers.

Hcobb (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For SU-34

Look at this link for su-34 number: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=2981 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.115.13 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Stars

Looks like the Parliament has effectively reversed their decision regarding the repainting of the red stars: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/apr/08/bc-eu-russia-red-stars/?news --ZedderZulu (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here it's stated that the Upper House of the parliament rejected the new symbols as well. — Hellerick (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

-The image of the roundel sill needs to be changed back to the original red star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.72.104 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

government.ru/ru/gov/results/9678/ (Russian government adopted new red-blue-white star. Change the roundel.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.170.88 (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New stars

We should change the insignia http://www.rian.ru/infografika/20100310/213435162.html. User: Mr Nonono

Read your link, new insiginia applies only to police and custom services aircrafts, not military. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
EllsworthSK, please, if you don't know Russian do not confuse others. Source clearly says, that stylized image of Russian flag "applies only to police and custom services aircrafts" ("на воздушных судах государственной авиации, используемых для осуществления милицейской и таможенной служб" in original), but red-blue-white star applies to "aircrafts, using for military and border services, and also for implementation of mobilisation-defence tasks" ("На воздушных судах государственной авиации, используемых для осуществления военной и пограничной служб, а также для выполнения мобилизационно-оборонных задач" in original). http://government.ru/ru/gov/results/9678/ - the government of Russian Federation is credible enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.170.88 (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me the stars are official for everything now, yes? - The Bushranger (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Nicely played, I haven´t noticed that part at all. However it changes nothing since according to this source [1], Upper Hosue of parliament has rejected that proposal. So I´m reverting it back. --EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have re-added the part about the roundels, however altered it to mention that it's status is unclear as while it was rejected in Parliament, some aircraft appear to have had it applied. Fry1989 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
'Hip' with early proposed version; Mi-28 with definitive Tricolor Stars. It seems either they didn't get the memo from the Upper House, or, they changed their minds... also, reportedly one of the T-50s has received a red/blue/white pattern star! - The Bushranger (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Is that so? [2] is currently the only picture of PAK FA with camouflage avaliable (beside the second one which canonity is questioned - where you can´t see new patter either) and it has the "old" pattern. Also as you demonstrated with the first picture - latest news regarding the insignia are that Upper House has rejected the proposal, one insignia on Mi-28 (which we don´t even know if is in active service) doesn´t mean anything. This version seems to be the best one however I´m pretty sure that if more than 2500 aircraft in Russian Air Force would have to repaint their insignia someone would notice. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said 'reportedly' re the T-50 aberrant star - since the only illustration was the drawing on that site, it's in the "dubiously reported" category for sure. But at least one An-72 had the 'new stars' as well - in 2007! Based on that, perhaps some units "jumped the gun" as it were on applying the new stars, and then last year the Upper House said "thanks but no thanks?". Obviously the whole thing is a disgusting mess at the moment, though...

...and, just to make things potentially worse, is it just me, or does the star on the wing of that T-50 in the picture you linked look rather like an "outlined" (low-viz?) star?!- The Bushranger (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that An-72 pictures, what cought my interest is that those pictures were taken in 2007 or 2008, before the new pattern was proposed by the Russian goverment. That is interesting, at last. But it seems that what we see is Russian beurocracy at it best - ie royal mess. And yes, it looks that way - if you notice the star isn´t even fully painted, its just the red outline. However it is just the prototype and this photo came just a few weeks after the camouflage was painted, maybe they will paint it fully as the time comes, who knows.
Just one last input - now when I think about it, Slovak Air Force insignia can be seen on the wiki page so I´m not gonna desribe it, but the MiG-29 and some Mi-17 have different insignia - ie only the outline of insignia in the color of camouflage. From this way it would seem that the insignia on aircraft can be redesigned if its approved by some kind of higher comman, although now I´m making these things up. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Stars officially changed

The old red stars have been changed and since march 2010 they officially introduced the new tricolor stars (see russian article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Low Visibility Star?

There's some Photos of the Pak-Fa in Camouflage Scheme showing simply a Red Star Outline, meanwhile there's Photo of a SU-25 with the same treatment just White

...so that's three different unofficial variants of the Russian insignia now? ("Tricolor", "Red Outline" and "White Outline".) Geez. - The Bushranger (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The Tricolor is Official according to a announcement made on the the Russian State Duma's Website --Thegunkid (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Roundels of the Russian Air Force

The original Soviet star pre 1943 is missed in the section.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.8.192 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 May 2010

Good point. However, we're discussing the Russian air force here, which never used this roundel, so I'm not sure if it belongs here or just at Soviet Air Force... - The Bushranger (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tricolor Star Is Official As Of March 4th 2010

Approved By Decree of March 4, 2010 № 127 [3] --Thegunkid (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RF Government Decree of 4 March 2010 N 127 "On the signs of nationality to aircraft of state aircraft"

Under Article 34 Air Code of the Russian Federation Government of the Russian Federation decrees:

1. Set as a sign of state accessories:

stylized image of the State flag of the Russian Federation - on aircraft state aircraft used for police and customs services;

image five-pointed star - to the state aviation aircraft used for military and border services, as well as for mobilization and defense tasks.

2. To approve the attached:

description and color picture of the mark of nationality - a stylized representation of the national flag of the Russian Federation;

description and color picture of the mark of nationality - images five-pointed star.

3. To establish that the financing costs associated with labeling of nationality referred to in paragraph 1 of this resolution is carried out within the federal budget provided for the federal executive bodies, with units of state aircraft.

Russian Prime Minister

Putin

Description of the mark of nationality - a stylized representation of the national flag of the Russian Federation (approved by RF Government Resolution of March 4, 2010 N 127)

The stylized image of the State flag of the Russian Federation is a parallelogram, consisting of three equal horizontal bands: upper - white, middle - blue and lower - red. The ratio of the length of the middle line of the parallelogram to its height is 1:2.

To make the contrast of the main color coverage of the aircraft above and right of the image can be applied shielding strip of gray.

The ratio of the width of the shielding strips to the length of the middle line of the parallelogram is 1:12. The upper band of the thesis are illustrated on the left edge of the flag and the right lane of the thesis are illustrated by the lower edge of the flag retreat at a distance equal to the width of the shielding strips.

Multi-color image of the mark of nationality - a stylized representation of the national flag of the Russian Federation (approved by RF Government Resolution of 4 March 2010 N 127)

Description of the mark of nationality - images five-pointed stars (approved by RF Government Resolution of March 4, 2010 N 127)

Five-pointed star is a red star bordered equidimensional blue and white stripes and a red line on the contour.

The ratio of the width of the blue and white stripes to the diameter of a circle inscribed in red field star is 1:10.

The width of the red line along the contour of five-pointed star to the width of the fringing bands is 1:5.

Multi-color image of the mark of nationality - images five-pointed stars (approved by RF Government Resolution of 4 March 2010 N 127)

...finally, something definitive on this mess. Thank you!! - The Bushranger (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Since fellow Editors do not seem to be able to download the .doc attached to the Announcement I linked, I have extracted the two images they are Referring to.


Title: Многоцветный рисунок - знака государственной принадлежности - изображения пятилучевой звезды (Eng- Multi-color image of the mark of nationality - images five-pointed star)

File:Officalfinflash.png

Title: Многоцветный рисунок знака государственной принадлежности - стилизованного изображения Государственного флага Российской Федерации (Eng- Multi-color image of the mark of nationality - a stylized representation of the national flag of the Russian Federation)

As we can see, the Tricolor is Official, and all removal of it will be reverted --Thegunkid (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase that a little, I understand how you mean it, but the phrasing could be considered to violate WP:OWN and/or WP:CIVIL. You might want to say "removal of it is in error", which would better phrase what you mean while not raising hackles by other editors. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Ash Sul seems mistaken, he has come on to my talk page and told me it only applies to State and Border Aircraft when the full Text specifically says image five-pointed star - to the state aviation aircraft used for military and border services, as well as for mobilization and defense tasks.

Aircraft Used for Military Services would clearly refer to the Russian Airforce. --Thegunkid (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, and pointed out the proper wording on his talk page. The Russian wording is a little difficult in translation at first - it's an easy mistake to make until you read it the second time around and realise, "...it's full of stars!" Thanks muchly for finding this and detailing it. Of course, the question is, will anybody in charge of painting the stars on the aircraft actually pay attention? "Ah! Dimitri! They want new stars on the aircraft. Silly lawmakers. Pass me more vodka!" - The Bushranger (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There are already photos of the new roundel on several aircraft Fry1989 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for sharing, however I´m gonna recheck this and see if its really as you say and nothing more. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In a oddity, I have found this picture of a Topol-M with the Tri-Color Star painted on it, could someone Explain to me why the Roundel of Russia is painted on a Land Vehicle?

The red star has been the standard Soviet land vehicle identification for 60 years. Thus maybe the inclusive-blue version will be applied to the Ground Forces etc as well? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FA - what is in English for it?

Folks, I have a question: there is so called Russian: Фронтовая авиация, ФА, which is translated as

  • Frontal Air Force
  • Frontline Aviation
  • any mix of words from previous two

What is the proper translation? --jno 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think JNO - and thanks for your additions to Moscow Military District, by the way, that it depends on whether you want a literal translation - Frontal Aviation is another I've heard - or translating the term, which would get you something like, surprise surprise, Tactical Air Command. But Frontal Aviation is the most used term I see. Cheers Buckshot06 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Frontal Aviation" is correct. Askari Mark | Talk 23:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Front" in Russian means "Frontline", so as a native speaker, I would recommend using "Frontline Aviation". It also makes more sense as, while perhaps creative, "Frontal Aviation" suggests very little in English. 128.205.46.231 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

MiG-29 service numbers

This section is blatantly wrong. Of the less than 300 aircraft in service, over 200 were cleared to fly again, and some 70 declared in need of major overhaul, NOT the other way around. -Shamil

I believe this page is in great need of a column detailing the number of aircraft in reserve. Given the number of Su-27s in the Russian Air Force, the number of the cheaper Mig-29s is very low at 194. They are simply given a lower priority in funding, as they are of a less critical importance at this time to the nation's security. But that does not mean they don't exist or cannot be refurbished (which would come quickly if a strong need arises). I would strongly recommend at least reverting the figure back to 572, and adding a note that 194 are currently in active service. 128.205.46.231 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion, the sources state that Russia operates 194. NOTE that the table says "Numbers In Service" not "Number in Inventory". It works this way for all the airforce inventory tables on wikipedia. Just accept it please. - Heaney555z (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Only one source for numbers

Using warfare.ru as the sole source for numbers is really poor as that site in itself is extremely incorrect. I suggest we refer to a real archive or official figures rather than rely on some estimates from persons who have no clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.43.213 (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WARFARE.RU is just updated pages. They added "MAIN ARMAMENTS OF RUSSIAN AIR FORCE AND NAVAL AVIATION" page where calculation is done (confirmed) on BY AFB principle with final results: TOTAL in VVS, BY TYPE, BY MIL DISTRICT. Sources like IISS dont provide any confirmation from where they got those numbers. So visit http://warfare.ru/?vvs=true and decide yourself. IISS is non-professional comparing to this 'open source' calculation. 213.227.230.68 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide better sources and changes can be made. -Nem1yan (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to find other sources, but most of them will be of Russian origin. Now the Russian Air Force is the completion and data on the composition must be regularly replenished — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said and tried to implement, the IISS Military Balance is probably the most independent and authoritative source. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
But one source of reference is not necessary, I agree IISS Military Balance good source, but even there, noticed discrepancies — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

White Blue Red Star

Hasn't it also been shown in the most recent Red Square parade video that now even ground forces have put the new white blue red version of the Red Star on their vehicles? 71.207.105.10 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing request regarding number of M-8 Units

Can somebody with authority to edit the page please do something about an appalling number of 3459 next to M-8 transport helicopters in the aircraft inventory list. It is logically impossible for a country to have such a large number of helicopters, even the US which spends more than a third of worlds defence budget each year. Previous number of helicopters was 195, 160 in Air Force and 35 in Naval Aviation, while the current Russian language page states 600. Pages in several languages, including German and French, also agree on 160 units. I could argue other numbers but, some one always comes up with new ones. Thank you. 182.237.5.143 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change as you request. Please feel free to check other figures and suggest changes - this page, even with semiprotection, is a vandal magnet. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. The Russian Air Force also operates the aircraft that supports the army; the number of Mi-8s is in the 1000s. I'd recommend reverting to the previous figure at least. The reason for the discrepancy you noted is that the US Marine Corps, Army, and Navy each have their own aircraft; helicopters owned by the US armed forces are in the tens of thousands. Those listed for the USAF are used solely by the US Air Force, ie: search+rescue, liaison, etc. Please conduct at least minimal basic research before suggesting such drastic changes. 128.205.46.231 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the number of Mi-8s is 160- a number supported by nearly all of the sources. Just because you WISH it was more, doesn't mean it should be changed to more. - Heaney555z (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. There are 195 confirmed active aircraft, but that doesn't definitively mean anything, since these sources are wrong as often as they are correct. The very source used for the figure of 195 aircraft:

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1634&catid=260&lang=

Also denotes "Transport: Mi-8/17 "Hip", 160, transport, + 1300? "
My arguments for the current figure of 195 to be replaced with a number range (ie: "195-1300+"), with a note added "estimates vary":
1.Yes, there is a source that notes the number to possibly be much higher.
2.The presence of a lone source quoting this figure (which is BTW too overused as a single source on this article) indicates very little (moreover it gives more than one figure, and itself states its numbers are not nearly precise). The article on the Mi-8 and Mi-17 rightly do not give numbers for this aircraft, since there are no reliable, roughly accurate sources. But since this page should give some indication, I believe the above range and notation of uncertainty is needed.
3.It is highly illogical for Russia, the producer of over 17,000 of these aircraft which remains in mass production to this day to have only 160 such aircraft. It is the primary (and for the most part- the only) wide-use general purpose helicopter in the VVS. Seeing how crucial such aircraft are in modern armed forces (ie: Afghanistan will soon have 55 of these; the US armed forces have many thousands of such aircraft in service), a figure of 160 is highly misleading.

We do have indications (from currently our only source) that there may well be much greater numbers of these aircraft in service, and that the number is uncertain.--128.205.46.140 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments 128.205.46.140. We appreciate active contributions to questions such as these which have sometimes an absence of agreed hard fact. What we run into here is what are statisically 'outlying estimates', as well as the WP:Reliable Sources rule. Warfare.ru does not source the '+1300'; the 160 or 195 - under 200 anyway, is referenced by a couple of usually reliable Western sources. The Russian Air Forces have been continually cutting their number of aircraft in active service for some years, and this article does not adequately reflect that contraction. I'd invite you to find the referenced issue of Combat Aircraft that I added in the start of the structure section to gain an idea of the scale of the cutbacks. The IISS use the term 'in store' to refer to aircraft not in formed operational units. It would be my best guess that the '+1300' indicated warfare.ru indicates a very large number of helicopters of very varying servicability which are part of the BRVs, the Bases for Reserve Helicopters, and other central storage units. The Soviets/Russians have a very long history of maintaining weaponry in store for decades after Western defence ministries might retire them (See Suvorov, 'Inside the Soviet Army'). In effect, we're talking about aircraft that are probably at the Russian version of the US Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center in Arizona. So because we have two usually reliable Western sources that indicate a figure under 200, and a plausible explanation for why some sources list a much much higher figure, my personal preference would be to stay with the referenced lower figure. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06 Thanks for your constructive, informative critique. I don't quite agree with the state of all aircraft of this type (and many aircraft of other types as well) being similar to the AMARG. First off, the latter contains a very wide range of aircraft states, a majority of which are retired and/or scrapped. There are indeed similar instances of such occurrences in Russia/USSR, but I don't believe that this is the case for a majority of the Mi-8 aircraft, owing to their importance and possible urgent need if a semi-serious conflict comes up. The state of a number of them may of course indeed be poor, but it IS possible to distinguish with the VVS when something is retired (ie: Mig-27s and 23s), or when it is merely held in reserve, with a very good chance of a return to service for many of the aircraft (ie: Mig-31 and 29s). This is due to the fact that, as you pointed out, the withdrawal from service is a lack of funds, coupled with a lack of immediate and/or constant need. The mentioned aircraft themselves are not outdated, and many are likely capable of seeing a serious amount of usable lifespan. Hence, I think that aircraft of such types (ie: Tu-22, Mig-29, Mig-31, and Mi-8)are not very comparable to the average aircraft state at USA's AMARG, and in addittion there is a fair chance of a notable number of them returning to service, simply owing to their state, 'non-outdatedness', and importance. Hence, we have already listed the Tu-22M, Mig-29, Mig-31, and Su-24s as being in reserve for those same very valid reasons: these reserves play an active role in the Russian defense strategy in a case of potential high-scope conflict, and neglecting them would be very detrimental to the Russia and to our evaluations of the potential capabilities of the VVS (there is a similar story with the Ground Forces- see 'Storage Divisions'). Hence, I think it is crucial that we at the very least denote that Russia indeed possesses a large number of these very important aircraft, ie: "Note: Estimates vary. Up to 1000 more aircraft in storage/reserve." I think our current sources and the general trends you described support this. Not to do so and leaving the article as is would strongly suggest more informed readers that the Russian Armed forces are not only incapable of fielding mobile airborne troops in helicopters (a crucial element of modern militaries), but moreover have lost and done away with the famous capabilities of the USSR in this area, which IMHO is simply false and misleading.--128.205.46.241 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to calculate TODAY not only combat ready aircraft but aircraft in storages. Reform cuts number of ac in service, some BRVs/BRS were disbanded, it is active process of cutting ac in storages, some ac are damaged at AFB and waiting for restoration or scrapping, some ac are in storage at ARZs (Ac Repair plants) etc etc. Stupid idea also to try to make ac register by ac plant's id. On the other hand, it is hard to calculate combat ac by AFB because reality sometimes is different from MoD plans which Russian MoD changes very often. Ac change location from AFB to AFB, AFB changes subordination from AF to AAF, VDV-Naval-RVSN-Space Aviation resubordinated to AF-VTA- and all this takes new changes in AFB ac structure... Try this link to understand better 213.227.230.68 (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
213.227.230.68, thank you very much for your comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Do you happen to have a list of disbanded BRVs / BRSs - ? Our current list is at Forces of central subordination of the Russian Air Force. Also, can you tell me about the cuts in stored aircraft numbers ?? Are they actually destroying stored aircraft ?? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of the air force

Военно-воздушные силы Российской Федерации, english transl. War Air Force of the Russian Ferderation is the official name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.120.45 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Military Air Force of the Russian Federation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.70.77 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Tupolev Tu-22m3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tupolev Tu-22m3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead says

That the Russian armed forces have recieved more funding since Putin's era, compared with the Yeltsin era. Could that be more specific? Have the Air forces recieved more funding? Or have the Navy, Army & missile command recieved more funding while the air force has been ignored?--27.32.168.222 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the sentence, and it is correct, but I really do not wish to spend the time to dig up further details. Happy to help others refine material which they may find. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

heli

attack helicopters ka-50, 52, mi-24, 28 are not included in the Air Force, part of the Army--188.255.41.104 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.interfax-russia.ru/Moscow/main.asp?id=190041 --188.255.41.104 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Star

Who the heck deleted the Red Star roundel of the USSR, Belarus, and Russia(old style)?


Post it back up!


71.173.28.140 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


The number of active Mi-24

No accurate data, approximately 360 units in service in 2012 + new Mi-35M, some 200 in storage, they are gradually being repaired and sold to other countries, or simply retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Big thanks to whoever fixed the formatting and made this thing readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneHaughey (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft list

Aircraft list is looks incomplete. I live near military air base which have An-26 and Tu-134UBL. They uses as transports and for training bomber pilots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.202.21.29 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


This list has recently been utterly screwed up. There are disparities in the 100s of units for both the SU-27 and Mig-29. Who decided that the Su-27 and Su-30 were the same class of aircraft?? What in the world is an Il-76 AEWC??? Its Beriev A-50!! Oh and the Ru AF only has 33 trainers?? lovely.

IMO the article is on the verge of being trashed completely. Contributors need to clean it up, fix the aircraft inventory list, and most importantly- agree on the numbers of aircraft sources. After that, it should be locked from free editing, and edited by moderators according to what the contributors decide on in the discussion page. As it is, this article on the world's 2nd largest air force is as inaccurate as the one on the Libyan one.

LASTLY: WHY CANNOT THE NUMBERS OF AIRCRAFT IN SERVICE BE TAKEN FROM THE AIRCRAFT ARTICLE'S operators section, whenever possible?? --74.110.19.170 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The list does not include the antonov an-30, antonov an-70 (which according to the Wikipedia article is going to be operated by the russian airforce) and tupolev tu-214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.116.241 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prototypes, experimental aircraft and technology demonstrators

Such aircraft do not belong in the main table which is reserved purely for aircraft types which are in operational service. A separate table can be made for experimental aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-37, Mikoyan MiG-33 or even the Sukhoi Su-47. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Beriev A-50

it is necessary to correct the table on arms there are 26 Beriev A-50 planes, instead of 20 http://www.avia.ru/news/?id=1312888153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.146.122 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are 29 A-50s active, including 26 M ones and 3 U ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Inventory of the Russian Air Force.

Dear editors of this page,

I am coming from the List of equipment of Russian ground forces page.I would like to help.

I see that this page lists all aircraft and helicopters used by the Russian AF.However,since the list is really long,are you,perhaps,interested in making a new page?

If not,is somebody willing to edit this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Russian_military_aircraft

I would be glad to help,but I hope that I will not be alone.

Best Wishes,

RussianBear158 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It probably does make sense to move the inventory list to List of currently active Russian military aircraft. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I have done it,but what to do with the inventory on this page?Delete it? RussianBear158 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. No sense in having two separate tables. Good work.Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Deliveries

Since the 2015 deliveries data for fixed-wing aircraft has been added, can the same be added for helicopters? Anyone has sources with complete information? Hammer5000 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Russian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft Numbers and Source

I have done my best to find a reliable source and sort out the A/C listings in this article.

Here is the source, http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2010-78877.aspx

Great. These numbers are based on outdated WARFARE.RU data. 213.227.230.68 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the fixed wing aircraft table, only Helicopters to go! Will sort that one out tomorrow now. Tweaked over the Fixed wing A/C table for a better layout etc Recon.Army (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

errr the pdf for World Air Forces 2010 appears to be down at the moment! I think its a site problem, should be up and running again soon enough. Ill overhaul the helicopter table when its back up and running. Recon.Army (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Wait! I have Flightglobals World Air Forces 2010 report on pdf on my PC (downloaded). Great! Recon.Army (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 0_0 what's going on here? I looked at the table and was surprised, even showed it to my father, he is on Air Force Maj. Lipetsk air base, he laughed for a long time on this list)

MiG-25 - only in form intelligence, not the interceptor AN-72 uses only the FSB and the Border Service, the Air Force them NO! Ka-28 - it's export designation Ka-27. Ka-27 all are in service with Aviation Navy Ka-29 also are in service with Aviation Navy MI-6 is completely replaced by the Mi-26 Mi-17 Air Force NO - this is the export designation Mi-8 most images do not correspond to modification of equipment number of techniques are not really example: Aero L-39 Albatross - 27? - Based only on the basis of the Lipetsk Avia 40) Kazan Ansat - 0? Yakovlev Yak-130 - 3? - Based only on the basis of Voronezh Avia 5) In general in this table are a lot of mistakes, it would be better left Old — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    • AktiNo, thank you for your comments. Our problem is that we must adhere to WP:Verifiability, which does not allow us to do WP:Original research, which would be what we would be doing if we took your father's thoughts from Lipetsk and based the table's contents on his input. We can quibble on things like MiG-25Rs and the distinction between a Mi-8 and a Mi-17. But aircraft numbers must, according to Wikipedia rules, be based on solid public sources - like Flight or the IISS. Get your father to publish his own list and we might be able to consider using it !! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
), I quoted his father purely as an example, I know that numbers and models of each technique should be supported by source. Just what is published in Table Air Force, the composition and quantity - slices of reality. After all, had links to good sources for some models such as Ansat Kazan, now their number is indicated by zero - this is stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I hear you, at least on the Kazan Ansat. Our article lists four in service at Syrzan, but without any reference. Can you point to any reliable Russian or English source that lists their numbers in service and details ? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2011-03-18/7_vvs.хтмл - that's a relatively old it is a good source - it points to the delivery of seven units in 2010, and ordered six in 2011. There's not even just about Ansat. Generally rely on one source is not reliable, of course the exact number of aircraft in service is unknown, but rely on sources such as: World Air Forces, 2010, WARFARE.RU and others are not correct. It is unclear how they get there, such data or understated or overstated. better to take the info from various sources, although this is only my opinion, the administrator can be seen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No, we're going to have to take the data from one source; consistency, good or bad. To do otherwise is effectively WP:SYNTH which leads to WP:Original Research. So it'd be fine to have an extended talkpage discussion over which WP:Reliable Source to use, but once the decision has reached a consensus over which RS to use, we'll have to enforce it. Wearing my administrator's hat, I may have to lock the entire page from editing - at least that would make it stable !! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I will not argue, my opinion I have expressed, but the last word is always for the administrator)

it was pleasant to talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 09:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep on expressing your opinion, AktiNo!! And if you can find an interpretation of wikipedia's rules that means we could use a different source for each aircraft type, I would be very pleased to hear it. It's just that I have struggled with keeping this page at an acceptable standard for years, and this is always a problem. Please, keep arguing; administrators are by no means infaillable!! Regarding the Independent Military Review ref for the Kazan Ansat, would you mind please adding that link to the External links section of that article ? Kind regards and many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, as you will have gathered, my Russian is not very good. Do we have a ruWiki article for either Syrzan the town or the Syrzan VVAUL (rough acronym only, sorry). Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not know the city Syrzan, but there is a town of Syzran, and there is Syzran Higher Military Aviation School - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сызранское_высшее_военное_авиационное_училище_лётчиков_(военный_институт), — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 03:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, AktiNo, if you wish to do any translations at Forces of central subordination of the Russian Air Force, it would be very welcome. Please, however, consider not making any changes, as I believe we can directly source that listing to the Kommersant-Vlast article of 2008. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, tomorrow will try to translate in more detail, but in 2008 I think the source is no longer relevant, since 2008 is the reform of the Russian army and some parts may be merged or disbanded. I'll try to find a more recent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Like List of Soviet Army divisions 1989–91 and List of formations of the Turkish Army 2008, and orders of battle for specific battles, these things need to have specified dates. If you have data for 2011, I would think a Forces of central subordination of the Russian Air Force 2011 would be a fantastic page. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

These numbers are a joke. From google earth you can see more than 190 mig-29s in operation... 195 flankers? Are you kidding? Photos and serials from 2011 confirm at least 260 Su-27's in active service. Where did this source get its information because it clearly is lacking. Can we find a real source and not something from a fourth rate publication aimed at teenage flight sim fanboys? Futhermore the Mig-25 is not used by the air force in an interceptor role. The Il-76 AEW should be called an A-50. The Mil-17 is another mistake, it is known as the Mi-8M in russian service, the same with the mi-35. Finally only an idiot would believe that the russian airforce has only 33 trainers, even Switzerland has more. The source is bad and full of errors, but if you want to believe poorly researched sources full of errors then go ahead and let things remain inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.18.171 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've re-locked the page to anonomyous users (again). Contributors may have severe disagreements over the validity of the presently presented data, but there is no sense in everybody changing one aircraft type higglety-pigglety; there's no consistent WP:Reliable Source anymore. I am completely open to a replacement of the present Flight numbers, but it must be remembered that Flight is a well respected global aviation news magazine; in Wikipedia terms, a completely reliable source. Therefore I would strongly urge that people wishing to change the numbers suggest their potential new source on this talk page. Warfare.ru may or may not be more accurate that Flight, but as a random webpage it is less of a reliable source; the IISS Military Balance numbers are another possibility. Notwithstanding this, I would invite people who say things like 'photos and serials .. confirm at least 260 Su-27s in active service' to produce their evidence on this page where people can judge it. A clear debate on sources instead of a wave of random, badly-sourced numerical changes is the best way to do things. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Reliable source according to whom? 14 year old flight sim fan boys, nobody else respects this joke of a publication. They are so poor a source that they cant even get the names of the aircraft right. What professionals! Its clear you have an agenda so keep believing that the Russian air force has less trainers than Switzerland. If I were to post over 270 photos of flankers with serials taken this year, you would call it original research and not use it even though it is accurate and I cant be bothered to waste 20 hours of my time just to hear excuses as to why you cant accept the factual information. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people dont accept the current source does not even concern you. Neither does the fact that the source is Full of errors. Keep using it and your bias. This article is ruined already anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.163.25 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

- And how is that "Flightglobal" reliable and other sources arent? Its biased by you my friend,thats only your personal opinion - nothing else (because im sure that more than 90% of people dont believe to this "reliable" source. Russia inherited more than 400 hundred of Su-27,and some Flightglobal was in Russia TO COUNT every Su-27 on every airport - right??? This site should be open for everyone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.70.77 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

IISS 2010 numbers (active service for tactical aviation of air force): Su-27 = 281 inc 58 su-27sm + another 21 used as trainers. 302 in active service. Mig-29 = 266 in active service. Mig-31 = 188 + a further 34 transferred from naval aviation = 222 in active service. Su-24 = 550 frontline including 7 su-24m2 plus another 79 su-24Mr plus another 16 trainers. = 629 total. Su-34 = 16. Su-25 = 241 + 15 trainers. A-50/U = 20

ISS 2010 transport: 12 an-124, 210 Il-76, 50 an-12, 21 an-22

Will add more shortly

I believe that the IISS is a far better source than flightgobal magazine. We should update the data accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.7.78 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree also that IISS is far better source and everyone can go on Russian or even German Wikipedia for a better info about VVS (RUAF).Current list is like a man who locked her - nonsense!
I agree completely. I should also note the article is not 'locked'; it is un-editable only to anon IPs and named users with less than four days' editing. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Been nearly a month and the article is still not updated with the more reliable information. Does someone have a reason or a purpose for keeping things inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.7.78 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The incomplete data needs citations - and the rest of the aircraft lists - before any of these numbers can be added to the article. Right now we have no proof that the figures above have actually come from the IISS. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I checked the 2010 IISS PDF file and what he/she posted is correct. Given that the source is named and the numbers are accurate, I see no reason why you decline to add them. I can not post an actual link due to copyright infringement, but I can confirm that the poster did get them from the IISS, at least the 2010 edition I bought last year confirms it. 80.5.7.78 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that wikipedia was the encyclopedia 'anyone could edit.' I am not the sole person responsible for editing this article, and I have no particular responsibility for adding any particular information to any page. Personally, I leave stupid aircraft number disputes to the millions who follow these matters, and work on things that wikipedia's systematic bias brings less attention to. On this particular issue, I want to see the IISS figures with my own eyes before adding anything. I am far to untrustful of the manipulations this page has suffered to do anything else. If you have the book or a PDF of the book, I invite you to either (a) create an account and fit it yourself (WP:BOLD), or (b) email me the data through the emailthisuser function, and I will be able to make a more informed judgment of it. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC),
I am sorry you feel the need to refer to the inventory numbers as "stupid". If indeed you feel this is a pointless piece of information, why spend so much time arguing for the flight global case. With respect to trusting only your own eyes, thats of no consequence, the data is real, already confirmed by two parties here and soon will be corrected. However I will not violate copyright laws by unlawfully spreading a protected publication. I guess I will have to wait for someone who has the authority to edit this article to come along and edit it correctly. Thanks for your time and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.7.78 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears the IP address's of those two parties are the same. One person supposedly quoting numbers from a PDF file he cannot share the link to, or, when requested, wont forward the PDF by email to another user and then attempts to try a confirm those figures him-self by trying to pass as a different person makes me question his character motives. 194.46.181.89 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and yes the number of training aircraft in this article does appear to be horridly low! But do take into account these three things;
  • One, It is becoming increasingly common for air forces to look to private finance initiatives for pilot training - especially basic pilot training. To name a few the RAF (USAF???) German AF, RCAF and Indian AF use private finance initiatives in some part of pilot training. Aircraft are owned by the private finance initiative, but registered with RuAF training squadrons and fly the RuAFs colors. In some cases the aircraft are owned and registered totally with the private finance initiative, therefore not countable as part of the RuAF.
  • Two, Training aircraft are often over looked and regarded as mundane to count, especially in larger air forces like Russia....the resources and will is often just not there!
  • Three, Many front-line fighters, bombers and helicopters are modified before delivery for advanced pilot training - so many of those aircraft listed are for training purposes.

194.46.181.89 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you check properly (like the history), you will see the numbers were posted by 83.55.73.153. Who for some reason did not sign. That is clearly not my IP as it seems to be based from Spain. Im in the Uk. So please do not falsely accuse people.

Also its not a random PDF file, but the IISS 2010 military balance. Anyone who owns a copy can check it. I will not violate copyright laws just for your satisfaction by passing around commercial published work that isnt mine. In the mean time, do you wish to appologise for your false accusation of me using sockpuppetry? Nobody will think less of you if you correctly retract that accusation and appologise. Thanks 82.3.40.242 (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The new table? hmm ... the Mi-28N only 7 units, funny, silly data ANSAT just is not 0, and where so much of the Su-35? Su-30? ... copying data from one source ... why? What if this section will differ from the source? need a lot of different sources confirms the interaction of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I think that Alexander Zelin,everyone knows who that guy is, said before few days that VVS have 252 Mig-31 in service,so im shore thate this statement is more reliable and with more 'weight',than someone from flghtglobal,warfare.ru & co..simply,he is the comamander in chief of RUAF.http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2012-03-16/1_zelin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.153.103 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad interpretation of Zenlin words.He said "in the inventary" , not "in service". In the onventory includes all not decommisioned and scrapped, even some junk abandoned in the sides of the runways.
The number of in service MiG-31 since the cuts of 2009 are about 120 (10 squadrons). The other are half a hundred preserved in Lipestk 4020 air reserve base for modernization and replacement of now in use MiG-31 (thet happened in 2014-2017) , and a lot of planes (more than 50) stored in repair plant 514 ARZ of Rzhev for parts and canibalization. Also there was about 20 stored in Yelizovo without use for 15 years of the first versions waiting for scrap, starting in 2016--AMCXXL (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


i will repeat my words again! When someone like Alexander Zelin,i think he is the commander of the russian VVS,said before few days that russia have 252 Mig-31's in operationalu use and 48 in reserve.Is here on this site anyone normal? That statement has more value than some from 'reliable sources' like warfare.flightglobal,or eve jane's.Sorry guys,but thats true.He is the No1 in VVS. http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2012-03-16/1_zelin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.153.103 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Made several revisions to the source! , Added an explanation of orders. + Removed the MI-6, because they are taken out of service since 2002!http://www.airdisaster.ru/database.php?id=264 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you kindly please explain what you're talking about ? What is/was PL101? What was the incident ? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Roundel

It appears Russia is still using the new tricolour roundel after all. The article currently says it was removed in favour of reverting back to the old Soviet star back in 2013, however the tricolour roundel is still on the Air Force website, and the website has a photo gallery with many photos taken this year with aircraft with that roundel on them. Four years is more than enough time to update a website and repaint aircraft if they had stopped using that roundel back in 2013. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat:, surely the Russian Air Force's own website and photo gallery is reliable enough. Fry1989 eh? 00:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@BilCat:, you have an answer mate? I don't speak Russian so I have absolutely no way of going about searching for news articles countering the 2013 citation that they went back to the Soviet star, but as far as I'm concerned the Russian Air Force is its own good enough source. Four years is long enough. Fry1989 eh? 17:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fry1989: Sorry, I wasn't able to respond when you pinged, and I forgot to come back later. I don't speak Russian either, but that's not generally an excuse for ignoring a citation. The Russian Air Force homepage does appear to support the new roundel, but without a clear citation supporting it, it might be reverted again later. It won't be by me, though, and I'm not going to revert any changes to the roundel again, no matter who makes it. If you checked the article history, you'll see that I was the one who requested the citation for going back to the old roundel in the first place. Then you show up and declare it wrong, and remove the citation, all without citing anything in the article, which is still true of your last edit. In the future, you can deal with this issue. Except for obvious vandalism, I'm not getting involved again. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I created this talk page discussion before I edited the article. Because I didn't leave a citation in my edit summary I don't think is an excuse not to check the talk page.
If there is a user that sees this an does speak Russian and is willing to do some digging to find a citation, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Fry1989 eh? 23:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
When I use "citation", I mean actually citing a source in the article, per WP:CITE: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." (Emphasis added.) An edit summary or a talk page note isn't sufficient, especially for editors reviewing the article at a later date. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


THe tricolour roundel of Zenlin was abolished in 25 january of 2013 decret of Viktor Bondarev. The official roundel is the classic of 1943 but with a size 1/3 minor. The airplanes , of course have tricolor star and even any repair plant is painting the tricolour, this is not important. Some airplanes (transpor, airliners, etc...) even have the symbols of Aeroflot with the sickle and hammer after 25 years of the breakdown of the USSR--AMCXXL (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft procurement

Is necesary a standard criterion for complete the table of aircraft procurement of RuAF The State Arms Program is official and is completed 100% every year, so this is the better source The press news are not objetive and sometime are uncomplete or mistaken The aircraft manofactured in november of december are ususlly sent to the destination airbase in the first months of next year , when usually the press have notice, but the airplanes are part of the SAP of the year in which are manofactured and made the first fligth. In other case the table will have doubled figures and will be mistaken--AMCXXL (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The precise quantitative and qualitative composition of the Russian Air Force

I have improved the english in the "Equipment" section so it makes sense, it would be nice to know why it keep being reverted to gibberish. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Organisation Chart/Equipment/Squadrons

I have removed the "organisation chart" as it has access issues, it is not readable in in normal view and hardly any better when you make it bigger. It appears to be home made, unreferenced and out of date as well. I will remove it again unless somebody can explain what it adds to the article that is already in prose, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed a list of squadrons in the equipment section, it belong in the organisation section and has no relevant to equipment, I will remove it again unless somebody explains why we need to list the organisations twice, and once in the wrong place. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Organization chart (scheme) is appoximately organization of Air force after the military reform of 1998 , in concrete after year 2000, probably in 2002
This is not repeated information since there were at least 3 military reforms of the Air Force since 1998 until today I agree that this could be in the HISTORY section since it corresponds to the organization of an important period, just after the union of the two branches of the Air Force in 1998-2000 (PVO or Air Defence Forces ,and Frontal Aviation or "attack aviation") inherited from the Soviet Union. Also in 2002 the Army Aviation (helicopters) was absorbed by RuAF.
The scheme has not problems of wiew, perhaps you could try to upload again with a better format (JPG or other) or simply reduce about 1/3 the size of file and upload again.
I also include a reference with information of the era the scheme is based on.

The currently showed list of units refers to just after the military reform of Air Force in 2009.
It was a complete and radical reform that changed the entire command structure and all the denominations of all the units. Armies, Divisions and Regiments were abolished and new units called "Air Base" (of different ranks) were created instead.

Probably this organization information also should be in the "History" section, is completely outdated after new deep reforms in 2011 (more cuts) and 2015-to present that is restoring the Air Force, but while nobody writes a new one, it must be here.

You can not delete wikipedia information. If somebody writes the information about the 2018 organization (or ORBAT = Order of battle), then the currenty showed information about the organization (2009), also must go to the History section, or at least be copied to an annex to keep the historic informtion in wikipedia

ABout the number of squadrons , is diferent information

ORBAT is QUALITATIVE information (structure of command) and include name , location and the subordination of each unit: combat units,transport units , training untis, logistic units, etc...., while the number of combat squadrons is QUANTITATIVE since each squadron have 12 airplanes of fighters/strike/training or 9 airplanes in transport and other big airplanes --AMCXXL (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_Air_Force/Archive_1&oldid=1124505931"