Talk:Russian Air Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian Air Force article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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)

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)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

:''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)
  • Support as above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)