View Russian Army Aviation composition structure. Aviation: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Social development

Home Structure Russian Armed Forces Air Force Structure Aviation

Aviation

Air Force Aviation (AVVS) According to its purpose and tasks, it is divided into long-range, military transport, operational-tactical and army aviation, which includes: bomber, attack, fighter, reconnaissance, transport and special aviation.

What we see, especially in the United States, is a completely different approach. The reality is that the US military plays a minor role in the European theater of World War II, and then the only "victory" it achieved is decidedly embarrassing: Grenada, Panama. Indeed, even China was not attacked by the Soviets or Americans, does this mean that the Chinese were successful in discouraging the Soviets or the Americans? If you answer, you must also admit that they did it for a fraction of the cost paid by the United States, and which army was more effective than the American or Chinese?

Organizationally, Air Force aviation consists of air bases that are part of Air Force formations, as well as other units and organizations directly subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force.

Long-Range Aviation (YES) is a means of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and is intended to solve strategic (operational-strategic) and operational tasks in theaters of military operations (strategic directions).

Look at all the other US military actions, is that a sufficient list of what these military operations actually achieved? In the vast majority of cases, when assessing the quality of the Russian armed forces, it is always compared with the American ones. But does it make sense to compare the Russian military to an army that has almost always proven incapable of achieving the political goals it was intended to achieve? Of course, the US military is huge, hypertrophied, the most expensive on the planet, the most technologically advanced, and its current, rather mediocre performance is systematically masked by the most powerful propaganda machine that exists in the world.

The DA formations and units are armed with strategic and long-range bombers, tanker aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft. Operating primarily in strategic depth, DA formations and units perform the following main tasks: defeating air bases (airfields), ground-based missile systems, aircraft carriers and other surface ships, targets from enemy reserves, military-industrial facilities, administrative and political centers, energy facilities and hydraulic structures, naval bases and ports, command posts of armed forces and air defense operational control centers in the theater of military operations, land communications facilities, landing detachments and convoys; mining from the air. Some of the DA forces may be involved in conducting aerial reconnaissance and performing special tasks.

But is there anything about this that makes them effective? In my opinion, they are far from effective, they are extremely expensive and unexpectedly ineffective, according to at least, from a military point of view. Okay, let's take the "best of the best" American intelligence agencies. Please cite three successful operations carried out by American intelligence agencies. No, small scars against third world fighters, poorly trained and equipped, killed in a surprise attack, do not matter. What would be the American equivalent of, say, Operation Storm 333 or the liberation of everything? Crimean peninsula, even without dead person?

Long-range aviation is a component of strategic nuclear forces.

DA formations and units are based taking into account its operational-strategic purpose and tasks from Novgorod in the west of the country to Anadyr and Ussuriysk in the east, from Tiksi in the north and to Blagoveshchensk in the south of the country.

The basis of the aircraft fleet is the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic missile carriers, Tu-22M3 long-range missile carrier-bombers, Il-78 tanker aircraft and Tu-22MR reconnaissance aircraft.

My goal is to break the mentality that causes many people to view the US Army as some kind of metric to measure the effectiveness of all other armies. This reflection is due to propaganda and ignorance, not logical reasons. Just as the Afghan partisans are absolutely unanimous that a Soviet soldier is worth much more than an American soldier.

Do you remember that the 40th Soviet army, which was tasked with dealing with the Afghan "freedom fighters" was largely understaffed, poorly trained and largely logistically deficient? Read this amazing report on the health of the 40th Army and compare it to the $20 billion the United States spends a year on air conditioning alone in Afghanistan and Iraq! And then they assessed the American and Soviet occupation in terms of return: not only did the Soviets control the entire country in one day, but they controlled everything big cities, 24 hours a day, 7 days.

The main armament of the aircraft: long-range aircraft cruise missiles and operational-tactical missiles in nuclear and conventional configuration, as well as aircraft bombs of various purposes and calibers.

A practical demonstration of the spatial indicators of the combat capabilities of the DA command are air patrol flights of Tu-95MS and Tu-160 aircraft in the area of the island of Iceland and the Norwegian Sea; on North Pole and to the Aleutian Islands region; along the east coast of South America.

On the contrary, the Americans barely control Kabul, and entire provinces are in the hands of the rebels. The Soviets built hospitals, dams, airports, roads, bridges, etc. while the Americans built nothing at all. There are things that the US military does very well, but its effectiveness and efficiency is generally quite poor.

So what makes the Russian military so effective? Firstly, their mission defending Russia is commensurate with the resources of the Russian Federation. Even if Putin wanted it, Russia would not have the ability to build ten aircraft carriers, open hundreds of overseas bases, or spend more on defense than the rest of humanity. A specific political goal set for Russian army, is quite simple: act as a deterrent or reject any attack on Russia.

Regardless of the organizational structure in which long-range aviation exists and will exist, its combat strength, the characteristics of the aircraft and weapons in service, the main task of long-range aviation on the scale of the Air Force should be considered both nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence of potential adversaries. In the event of the outbreak of war, the DA will carry out tasks to reduce the military-economic potential of the enemy, destroy important military installations, and disrupt state and military control.

Remember, this is still a huge task given the vast length of Russia's borders, crossing every conceivable type of land, from arid deserts to the mountains of the North Pole region. And here's the good thing: Russian armed forces are currently capable of defeating all possible opponents along this perimeter. Putin recently said that he said: “We can say with confidence: now we are stronger than all potential aggressors, everyone!”

In most cases, Russians prefer to complain about the numerical superiority they seem to have over their opponents. Indeed, it can be said that, given the size of the Russian Federation, its armed forces are quite small. But they are huge, well balanced in terms of features and make the most of unique geographical features Russia.

Analysis modern views the purpose of the aircraft, the tasks assigned to it, and the predicted conditions for their implementation show that at present and in the future, long-range aviation continues to be the main striking force of the Air Force.

Main directions of development of long-range aviation:

maintaining and increasing operational capabilities to carry out assigned tasks as part of the strategic deterrence forces and forces general purpose through modernization of Tu-160, Tu-95MS, Tu-22MZ bombers with service life extension;
creation of a promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA).

Military transport aviation (MTA) is a means of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and is intended to solve strategic (operational-strategic), operational and operational-tactical tasks in theaters of military operations (strategic directions).

Look at where most cities in Canada or Scandinavia are located. Then take a look at the map of Russia and the latitude of Russian cities. Take, for example, Novosibirsk, which in Russia is considered a South Siberian city. This is almost the same latitude in Edinburgh, Scotland, Grande Prairie, Alberta or Malmo, Sweden. Most Western materials do not work even at these extreme temperatures.

Of course, the same applies to a Russian soldier who is trained to work in this temperature range. Another myth that needs to be discouraged is that of Western technological superiority. In general, Western weapon systems tend to rely more on technology, but this is not due to a lack of Russian capabilities, but rather a fundamental difference in design. In the West, weapon systems are designed by engineers incorporating the latest technological innovations and then based on their characteristics, specified to their operational missions.

The military transport aircraft Il-76MD, An-26, An-22, An-124, An-12PP, and Mi-8MTV transport helicopters are in service with the formations and units of the Military Aviation Administration. The main tasks of military aviation formations and units are: landing of units (units) of the Airborne Forces from operational (operational-tactical) airborne assault forces; delivery of weapons, ammunition and material resources troops operating behind enemy lines; ensuring maneuver of aviation formations and units; transportation of troops, weapons, ammunition and materiel; evacuation of the wounded and sick, participation in peacekeeping operations. Includes air bases, units and units of special forces.

In Russia, the Army sets the type of mission and then looks for the simplest and most cost-effective technology that can be used for that purpose. When necessary, the Russians still used "flight", for example in the Su-27. Last but not least, Russian nuclear forces are now much more modern and much more effective compared to the now outdated American triad.

So what does this all mean? This means that, despite the fact that they were put under extreme difficult task Russian military forces have demonstrated a comprehensive approach to achieving specific political goals by deterring or defeating their potential adversaries, whether they are rebels, a Georgian army equipped and trained by the West, or succeeding in disarming more and more Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea. without even trying to strike by mistake, and of course then there was Russia's military intervention in the Syrian war, where a tiny Russian contingent reversed the fate of the war.

Part of the BTA forces may be involved in performing special tasks.

The main directions of development of military transport aviation: maintaining and increasing the capabilities to ensure the deployment of the Armed Forces in various theaters of operations, airborne landings, transportation of troops and materiel by air through the purchase of new Il-76MD-90A and An-70, Il-112V aircraft and modernization of Il-76 MD and An-124 aircraft.

These two factors are critical to assessing the capabilities of the Russian military. Because they illustrate the fact that the Russian soldier knows exactly what he is fighting against, and when he is sent somewhere, he knows that he will not be used as a tool for Gazprom, Norilsk Nickel, Sberbank or any another Russian multinational state: it knows how to fight for its people, its people, its culture, freedom and security. In addition, the Russian soldier also knows that the use military force is not the first option or in any case the preferred option of his government, but the second, which is used only when all others have already been exploited.

Operational-tactical aviation designed to solve operational (operational-tactical) and tactical tasks in operations (combat actions) of groupings of troops (forces) in theaters of military operations (strategic directions).

Army Aviation (AA) designed to solve operational-tactical and tactical tasks during army operations (combat operations).

He knows that the Russian High Command, the Kremlin and the Main Directorate are not shrinking to find some small state that must be destroyed in order to make it an example of terror. Last but not least, a Russian soldier is ready to die for his country when he gives orders.

Russians know this well, and that is why it was recently launched on RuNet. Text at the bottom of the center One of them must be fed, clothed, armed, paid, etc. on the other hand, you just need to order "from there" and complete the mission at any cost.

Bomber Aviation (BA), armed with strategic, long-range and operational-tactical bombers, is the main strike weapon of the Air Force and is designed to destroy enemy troop groups, aviation, naval forces, destroy its important military, military-industrial, energy facilities, communications centers, conduct air reconnaissance and mining from the air, mainly in strategic and operational depth.

In Russia they are sometimes called "makhra", children of the infantry, not beautiful, not particularly "macho", without special equipment or special training. These are the ones who defeated the Wahhabis in Chechnya at a fair price, but they did it. These are the ones who emerge from a surprising number of heroes who amaze their comrades and enemies with their tenacity and courage. They don't look very good in parades and are often forgotten.

But those who defeated most of the empires of all and made Russia largest country in the world. So, yes, Russia currently has the most powerful military forces around the world. There are also many other nations with superior military forces. But what makes the Russians unique is the scope of their capabilities, from anti-terrorism to international nuclear war, combined with great resistance and willpower Russian soldier. The Russian army can't do much, but unlike the American military, the Russians were never designed to do everything, anywhere, anywhere.

Assault Aviation (AS), armed with attack aircraft, is a means of air support for troops (forces) and is intended to destroy troops, ground (sea) objects, as well as enemy aircraft (helicopters) at home airfields (sites), conduct aerial reconnaissance and mine mining from the air primarily at the forefront, in tactical and operational-tactical depth.

But Hollywood, because of this embarrassing failure, will surely make a big blockbuster and make way for medals for the actual personnel involved. And viewers will repeat that “although the Russians have made some progress, their armed forces are still far from their Western counterparts.”

Russian strategic bombers began a mission to the Korean Peninsula at the same time that the United States and South Korea conduct joint military exercises that irritate Pyongyang. The flights, which also saw advanced reconnaissance aircraft, took off from international waters and were announced by the Russian Ministry of Defense on the same day that Moscow condemned the maneuvers of the United States and South Korea. The United States and South Korea are still doing more military and naval exercises on a large scale, not helping to reduce tensions Korean Peninsula, - said the press secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, in Moscow. We urge all parties to exercise utmost caution.

Fighter Aviation (IA), armed with fighter aircraft, is designed to destroy enemy aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles in the air and ground (sea) targets.

Reconnaissance aviation (RzA), armed with reconnaissance aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles aircrafts, is intended for conducting aerial reconnaissance of objects, the enemy, terrain, weather, air and ground radiation and chemical conditions.

Transport aviation (TrA), armed with transport aircraft, is intended for airborne landings, transportation of troops, weapons, military and special equipment and other materiel by air, ensuring maneuver and combat operations of troops (forces), and performing special tasks.

Formations, units, subunits of bomber, attack, fighter, reconnaissance and transport aviation can also be involved in solving other tasks.

Special Aviation (SPA), armed with airplanes and helicopters, is designed to perform special tasks. Units and subunits of special aviation are directly or operationally subordinate to the commander of the Air Force formation and are involved in: conducting radar reconnaissance and targeting air and ground (sea) targets; installation of electronic interference and aerosol curtains; search and rescue of flight crews and passengers; in-flight refueling of aircraft; evacuation of the wounded and sick; providing control and communications; conducting aerial radiation, chemical, biological, engineering reconnaissance and performing other tasks.

The creation of this article was provoked by regular disputes and measurements of various “organs” in topics about our aviation. In general, the audience for these discussions can be divided into those who believe that we are hopelessly behind, and those who, on the contrary, are subject to unprecedented enthusiasm and firmly believe that everything is wonderful. The argument basically boils down to the fact that “nothing flies with us, but everything is cool with them.” And vice versa. I decided to highlight several theses around which frequent debates flare up, and give them my assessment.

For those who value their time, I give conclusions at the very beginning:

1) The US Air Force and the Russian Air Force are approximately equal in both quantitative and qualitative terms, with the US having a slight advantage;

2) The trend for the next 5-7 years is to achieve almost complete parity;

3) PR, advertising and psychological warfare - favorite and effective method conduct of US military operations. An enemy who is psychologically defeated (by lack of faith in the power of his weapon, hands, etc.) is already half defeated.

So, let's begin.

The US Air Force/Navy/Guard is the most powerful in the world.

Yes this is true. The strength of the US Air Force as of May 2013 was 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 attack aircraft, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 training aircraft and 921 other aircraft.

For comparison, the strength of the Russian Air Force as of May 2013 was 738 fighters, 163 bombers, 153 attack aircraft, 372 transport aircraft, 18 tankers, 200 training equipment and 500 other aircraft. As you can see, there is no “monstrous” quantitative superiority.

However, there are nuances, the main one of which is that US aviation is aging, and there is no replacement for it.

Name	In operation (total quantity)	Percentage of exploited	Average age (as of 2013)
Fighters
F-22A	85 (141)	9,1%	5-6 years
Su-35S	18 (18)	2,4%	0.5 years
F-15C	55 (157)	5.9%	28 years
Su-27SM	307 (406)	41,6%	3-4 years
F-15D	13 (28)	1,4%	28 years
MiG-29SMT	255 (555)	34,6%	12-13 years old
F-16C	318 (619)	34%	21 years old
MiG-31BM	158 (358)	21,4%	13-15 years old
F-16D	6 (117)	0,6%	21 years old
F/A-18 (all mods)	457 (753)	48,9%	12-14 years old
F-35 (all mods)	n/a (71)	n/a	0.5-1 year
Total USA	934 (1886)		~ 17.1 years
Total RF	738 (1337)		~ 10.2 years
Bombers
B-52H	44 (53)	45,8%	50 years
Tu-95MS	32 (92)	19,6%	50 years
B-2A	16 (16)	16,7%	17 years
Tu-22M3	115 (213)	70,6%	25-26 years old
B-1B	36 (54)	37,5%	25 years old
Tu-160	16 (16)	9,8%	20-21 years old
Total USA	96 (123)		~ 34.2 years
Total RF	163 (321)		~ 31.9 years
Stormtroopers
A-10A	38 (65)	34,5%	28 years
A-10C	72 (129)	65,5%	6-7 years
Su-25SM	200 (300)	100%	10-11 years
Total USA	110 (194)		~ 13.4 years
Total RF	200 (300)		~ 10-11 years
Attack aircraft
F-15E	138 (223)	100%	20 years
Su-24M	124 (300)	81%	29-30 years old
F-111/FB-111	0 (84)	0%	Over 40 years
Su-34	29 (29)	19%	0.5-1 year
Total USA	138 (307)		~ 20 years
Total RF	153 (329)		~24.4 years
AWACS
E-3	24 (33)	100%	32 years
A-50	27 (27)	100%	27-28 years old

I also want to highlight next moment. Our country 20 years ago entered into “democracy” with the Su-27 and MiG-29, which, thanks to a competent export policy, were able to survive and then increase their potential to the Su-35S and MiG-35. The United States entered a crisis with the F-22, out of production, and with the unfinished F-35, as well as a massive fleet of good, but already outdated F-15/16. I lead my rhetoric to the fact that this moment The United States does not have a relatively cheap reserve that would allow it to maintain a quantitative (and in some ways qualitative) superiority over the Russian Federation without multibillion-dollar investments in new developments.

At the same time, the Russian aviation fleet will be actively modernized over the next 5-7 years. Including through the creation of completely new aircraft. At the moment, until 2017, contracts have been concluded for the production/modernization of MiG-31BM - 100 units; Su-27SM - 96 units; Su-27SM3 – 12 units; Su-35S – 95 units; Su-30SM – 60 units; Su-30M2 – 4 units; MiG-29SMT – 34 units; MiG-29K – 24 units; Su-34 – 124 units; MiG-35 – 24 units; PAK FA – 60 units; IL-476 – 100 units; An-124-100M – 42 units; A-50U – 20 units; Tu-95MSM – 20 units; Yak-130 – 65 units. By 2020, more than 750 new machines will be put into operation.

To be fair, I note that in 2001 the United States planned to purchase more than 2,400 F-35s by 2020. However, at the moment, all deadlines have been missed, and the entry into service of the aircraft has been postponed until mid-2015.

We have only a few 4++ aircraft and no 5th generation, but the USA already has hundreds of them.

Yes, that's right, the United States has 141 F-22As in service. We have 18 Su-35S. PAK FA - undergoing flight tests. But you need to consider:

a) F-22 aircraft have been discontinued due to 1) high cost ($280-300 units versus 85-95 for the Su-35); 2) they overlooked the issue of the tail unit (it fell apart when overloaded); 3) glitches with the fire control system (fire control system).

b) The F-35, with all its PR, is very far from the 5th generation. And there are plenty of shortcomings: either the EMDS will fail, or the airframe will not work as it should, or the control system will malfunction.

c) Until 2017, the troops will receive: Su-35S - 95 units, PAK FA - 60 units.

d) Comparing individual aircraft outside the context of their combat use is not correct. Fighting– this is a high-intensity and multimodal mutual destruction, where much depends on the specific topography, weather conditions, luck, training, coherence, morale, etc. Individual combat units do not solve anything. On paper, a conventional ATGM will destroy any modern tank, but in battle conditions everything is much more prosaic.

Their 5th generation is many times superior to our PAK FA and Su-35S.

This is a very bold statement.

a) If the F-22 and F-35 are so cool, why are they: 1) So carefully hidden? 2) Why don’t they allow EPR measurements to be taken? 3) Why aren’t there demonstration dogfights or at least simple comparative maneuvering, like at air shows?

b) If we compare the performance characteristics of our and American aircraft, we can find a lag in our aircraft only in terms of ESR (for the Su-35S) and detection range (20-30 km). 20-30 km in range is bullshit for the simple reason that the missiles that we have exceed the US AIM-54, AIM-152AAAM in range by 80-120 km. I'm talking about RVV BD, KS-172, R-37. So, if the F-35 or F-22 radars have a better range against stealth targets, then how will they shoot down this target? And where is the guarantee that the “contact” will not fly “low”?

c) There is nothing universal in military affairs. An attempt to create a universal aircraft capable of performing the functions of an interceptor, bomber, fighter and attack aircraft leads to the fact that universal becomes synonymous with the word mediocre. War recognizes only the best models in their class, tailored to solve specific problems. Therefore, if it’s an attack aircraft, then it’s a Su-25SM; if it’s a front-line bomber, it’s a Su-34; if it’s an interceptor, it’s a MiG-31BM; if it’s a fighter, it’s a Su-35S.

d) “America spent $400 billion in R&D to create the F-35, and $70 billion for the F-22. Russia spent only $8 billion to create the T-50. Doesn’t anyone realize that if Russia would spend $400 billion on a research project, they would probably produce an aircraft capable of conquer the world in a second…” (c) War is not a comparison of who has X longer. What is more important is who will have the best X in terms of price/quality ratio.

The United States has significant superiority in strategic aviation forces.

This is wrong. The US Air Force operates 96 strategic bombers: 44 B-52N, 36 B-1B and 16 B-2A. The B-2 is exclusively subsonic and carries only free-falling bombs from nuclear weapons. B-52N – subsonic and old, like a mammoth. B-1B is currently not a carrier of nuclear weapons (START-3). Compared to the B-1, the Tu-160 has a 1.5 times greater take-off weight, 1.3 times greater combat radius, 1.6 times greater speed and a greater load in the internal compartments. By 2025, we plan to commission a new strategic bomber (PAK DA), which will replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160. The United States has extended the service life of its aircraft until 2035.

If you compare their ALCMs (cruise missiles) with ours, then everything turns out quite interesting. AGM-86 ALCM has a range of 1200-1400 km. Our X-55 is 3000-3500 km, and X-101 is 5000-5500 km. That is, the Tu-160 can shoot at enemy territory or AUG without entering the affected area, and then calmly escape at supersonic speed (for comparison, the maximum operating time at full thrust with afterburner for the F/A-18 is 10 minutes , the 160th has 45 minutes). It also raises deep doubts about their ability to overcome a normal (non-Arab-Yugoslav) air defense system.

To summarize, I would like to note once again that modern air warfare is not about individual battles in the air, but about the work of detection, target designation and suppression systems. And look at the plane (be it F-22 or PAK FA ) like a proud, lonely “wolf” in the sky – no need. There are a lot of all sorts of nuances around in the form of air defense, electronic warfare, ground-based RiRTR, weather conditions, flares, LTC and other joys that will not allow the pilot to even reach the target. Therefore, there is no need to compose sagas and sing hymns to single fantastic winged ships that will bring laurels of victory to the feet of those who created them and destroy everyone who dares to “raise a hand” against their creators.

	PAK FA	F-22	F-35	Su-35S
Maximum take-off weight, kg	37 000	37 600	31 750	34 500
394	487	606	556
Maximum speed, km/h	2500	2100	1900	2400
Cruising speed, km/h	1300-1800	1570	850	850
Range without PTB, with combat load, km	2700	2500	2520	3000
Joint traction, kgf	2 at 17,600	2 to 15,810	1 in 19,500	2 per 14,000
Rate of climb, m/s	230	n/a	n/a	280
Maximum operational overload	10-11 G	6G	7.5G	10G
EPR	from 0.005 to 0.3m²	from 0.0001 (?!) to 0.3-0.4 m²	0.005 m²	0.5-2 m²
Working ceiling, m	20 000	20 000	20 000	18 000
up to 10,000	n/a	up to 7 700	up to 8,000

Rainbow Unicorn 1977, blogger, c especially for the Telegraphist