Not only that, if the pilots are having to switch planes all those flight hours don’t mean much on a new plane. Which is why we aren’t seeing any SU-57 deployed
Something to take into account is that Russia is using long range bombs, which they did not used in 2022. This could also explain their lower losses : their planes could fire from far away.
any war-related videos will sure have the most civil of discussions in the comment section look to the comment sections of videos about the israel-hamas conflict, for example; it is divisive even amongst western audiences who are otherwise wholly on ukraina's side in the rus-ukr conflict
@@coffeeupnorth1398 99% of them don't even do the 2 minute googling thing, because if they did, they'd already realize how stupid what they're saying is.
@@SCIFIguy64 you are so stupid its comical, look how he said the airframes look good not even talking about combat capabilities. also im sorry a non stealth fighter gets shot down? like what is it supposed to do? go stealth by drinking a potion or something? dummy
100%. It’s not the aircraft that are important it’s the pilots & ground crew. 5 years training I went through in the RAF before going near a Tornado. But from what I’ve been hearing by former colleagues Russia has complete air superiority. Which means game over.
@@2sqnbandit379 Complete air superiority would mean the removal of the very lethal air defenses . The Russians haven't managed to do that ... which means they lack operational freedom to do what they want over the battlefield 🤷
@@Freedom_Half_Off air defence in Ukraine is depleted. They’re actively now using patriots. Very expensive and not enough trained men to operate or assets. In Avdivka for example Russia had complete unrestricted air dominance. Trust me without air power you’re done. Air defence isn’t infinite. In warfare it always depletes. In Iraq we overwhelmed it & won the war in the air. Russia also is using glided bombs called FAB 100. Very cheap & destructive launched well away from any air defence. A glide bomb. Like a cheap cruise missile. Ukraine moral is shot. They’re done unfortunately mate. Ukraine comes out with a lot of propaganda like the Russians but if you look at the current gains you can see a successful Russian offensive. Big gains across the whole front. None of this will be reported in the msm. Civilians are easily manipulated & generally mentally weak when it comes to war. Flip flop mindset. Uneducated in the art of war.
@@2sqnbandit379 this reminds me when I went to a doctor to support a friend . The was discussing an adenoma and the need to do a scan. When I asked doctor if he was looking for angiogenesis on the scan ... he looked me straight in the eye and said "no ... we're checking for blood flow " We don't need to go anywhere else information wise to see the Russian Air Force does not have "complete air superiority " We can look at just what you wrote . The Russians don't have a mission capable equivalent to a Tornado . Low altitude high-speed deep penetration missions are not the strength of an SU-25 . So the Russians were forced off the deck early on by mpads Then they started substituting helicopters ... which ran into similar problems along with their susceptibility to basic anti-aircraft systems The Russians haven't been flying around the battlefield the way Western pilots toured Irag and Afghanistan Russian air power for the most part has been driven back behind their lines . Something you allude to when you discuss the use of glide munitions . Now it may be expensive do you use Patriots for control of airspace against manned aircraft ... but it is definitely effective to the point that it has changed Russian tactics and operational deployment of assets . I don't have a dog in the fight . But it is noticeable that the US decided once again ... to kill a replacement for the Apache . The Russian inability to achieve air complete air superiority over the battlefield with fixed or rotary wing aircraft speaks for itself Your long list of changing Russian doctrine to adapt to that reality is simply confirmation of it . People aren't as confused as you think they are 🤦♂️
I think the factor you didnt mention that IMO deserve to be mentioned is all those tens of thousands of flight hours that Russia is putting on its current aircraft - especially considering the short life-span of some Russian aircraft like MiG-31s.
I believe the distinction is that "lost" is a total lose, crash and burn sorta situation, whereas "damaged but can't be repaired" implies that the plane landed well enough that while the plane is still too damaged to fly again, it *can* supply parts to keep other aircraft airworthy. Say it took a glancing hit from AA, which caused airframe damage sufficient to require a complete rebuild of the whole airframe, you might as well just build a new plane. You could still pull all sorts of goodies like engines, radars, munition interface mechanisms, landing gear assemblies, and use them to repair "damaged but repairable" planes. So one "damaged but can't be repaired" plane might revive a score of other aircraft, but a "lost" aircraft won't, and in the arithmetic of war, that matters.
That`s because ukraine loosing, and all negative factors will continue increasing over time. They've already lost all motivated reserve, They've already lost most heavy military equipment, lost most Air defense. Western countries galvanized this golem for a while. But everything will end sooner or later. The dead will become completely dead. Most ukrainian people lives in propaganda bubble and prefer close eyes when they see something they dont like. Poor ba-ds...
@@I_am_Yarr Easy there, Vlad. Ukraine is not at all out of this fight yet. The real question is how many more tens of thousands of dead Russians can Russia really afford to lose for each bombed out village and a few additional kilometers? They might be replacing combat aircraft, but tanks, ships, missiles, and much more will take many more years to build and will divert critical money from developing future weapons. By the time Russia has replaced their 1990s hardware, the world will have built 2020 and 2030 hardware.
@@youtubecommentsectiondebates Hmm.. On aug 31 2023 Ukraine RADA (parliament) allocated expensive farming lands for about new 1.6 million graves and its full. So be careful about comparing 10 million ukraine (today's ukraine population) with 150 million Russia.
Good analysis. However there is one other factor... Russia is putting a good number of airframe hours into the operations they are conducting. This will shorten the service life of the airplanes and eventually increase the maintenance downtime. Eventually, those airframes will become losses through attrition.
You don’t mention a vital component in low supply. Skilled aviators. They sent instructors to the front. If we assume some of the pilots were not in good shape from these aircraft losses then that will also impact their effectiveness.
@@АндрейКазанцев-ы8м9ь I don’t claim a shortage of pilots. I assume that putting instructors into the action will mean a reduction in quality or skilled pilots over the long term. Russia implied low pilot numbers by transferring, earlier in the war, flight instructors to active front line units. This would have been short sighted thinking and implies desperation. The loss of so many aircraft maybe linked to reduced skill of the pilots as much as to the quality and skill of the oppositions anti aircraft weapon systems.
@@rosedruidне верьте пропаганде НАТО, потери конечно есть, но они минимальные. Подготовка летчиков идёт регулярно, тем более сейчас инструктора с реальным боевым опытом. И не с таким, как в США, где есть опыт по бомбежке свадебных кортежей в Афганистане. У России реальный опыт с противодействием современной сильной ПВО .
One of the most interesting things in every video like this or about the Russian-Ukranian war is the amount of bots it attracts. There is no way this isn't targeted trolling and being done for free.
Yes right? People are still claiming that the paper tiger supposed super power Russia is still a "superpower" despite being stuck against a 3rd world nation for like what, 2 years now? A humiliation that will last until end of the world yet, the propaganda machine of the midget putty is s till alive and working.
@@chronozetawell, to be fairbsame can be said about the us and afghanistan or vietnam. But yeah, russia is kind of like those kids that try to show they have more biceps by pushing up on them with their thumb
Been tracking this as well and noticed a huge uptick after the Tucker interview. I don't know if they started a new contract or if they were relocated from other topics or regions. Either way, I wish someone would analyze their modus operandi and alert the audience.
the information warfare is absolutely key in 2024. Considering how many russian bots existed before, Ukraine would be screwed without their own bot army
Only after a video is done on the fall of Bakhmut where infographics did a show saying Russia lost it lol And a video on how Ukraine lost 500,000 Nato trained soldiers KIA
You forget that there is also natural attrition from the high tempo of operations. So that production likely wont even cover general war attrition, ;et alone that plus shootdowns and friendly fires. Russian production before the war was not enough to offset natural attrition of their old Soviet planes. They were slowly shrinking their numbers. Hard to believe that with increased attrition from many more sorties PLUS combat damage Russia will suddenly have MORE jets.
Exactly. Airframes can only support so many flight hours before they have be written off. Russia's Mig-31s for example are flying constant air patrols and most airframes aren't exactly new, since Russia stopped building them 30 years ago. So while the number of modern airframes (SU-30/34/35) is likely going to go up, the overall number is going to dwindle as legacy airframes are simply being used up.
About 2,800 combat aircraft were left to Ukraine from the USSR. Since 1991, Ukraine has sold $3.5 billion worth of planes, helicopters, aviation equipment and weapons. For all these 33 years, Ukraine has not built or purchased a single military aircraft. An absolutely unique story in the world: how it was possible to screw everything up and not build anything to replace it.
Imagine building soviet garbage as a good idea, it was obsolete and out classed at time of production last century. Committing any resource to building them 21st century is a stupid idea
They had no money but they did have guns. Its one of those problems that in theory solves itself. Problem is most of that money went to rich people to make themselves more rich instead of building the economy.
You know, like, there is an international agreement to give ukraine independence and territorial integrity sign by russia. The thing where they fucked up badly is actually trusting russia and international law
But can Russia produce sufficient AWACs to replace those destroyed by Ukrainians? They lost a second A-50 on the 23rd february of 2024. You cannot replace such costly airplanes as fast as you would do with jet figthers...
30 planes at $50 million each is around $1.5 billion. That's not small change. But the big loss is really in the experience pilots. That's much harder to replace. At some point, you'll need to account for the higher hours of airtime that these planes are accumulating. The airframes are rated for x hours of flight time with are rapidly consumed by wartime operations. Their useful lifetime will be much shorter and Russia would need to build planes to replace the worn out airframes in additional to the ones shot down..
Did you not just watch this video? Russia replaces it's fighters faster then they can lose them, brand new jet fighters every month you think they care about airframe hours?
@@titanproductions3628 If Russia were to only lose aircraft that were end of life and being phased out, you could replace your losses with about the same amount of production. Because Russia has losses from aircraft that are in the middle of their life cycle, more must be produced than just the losses, otherwise you will be left with a smaller air force year after year by decommissioning old aircraft. These will also have to be taken out of service more quickly due to the higher intensity of operations during a war. Think of it as if you produce 40 cars every year, throw away 40 every year due to old age and lose 30 due to accidents. If nothing changes you will have 30 fewer cars in the fleet every year until you are left with a very small modern fleet that is only 1/3 of the original size so you only need to decomission 10 cars every year.
@@adrien5834 anddddd sanctions doesn't work to begin with. Russia is still being able to import Western components because they are produced and sold in such large quantities to retail and bulk customers that it is impossible to trace them. Russia could just spool up a front company and pretend they are a legit civilian company, and voila! Sanction bypassed. If the Russian got found they would just found a new front company
Guy makes a video 2 months ago about Russia losing, gets hate. He makes a video explaining Russia's air production, gets hate. What do people this guy to do??😭😭😭
Generally Binkov has poor sourcing & sometimes just makes shit up. Though I'll give him props for doing better this time round. For the most accurate evaluations though look towards Perun. Covert Cabal also does a good but focuses far more on ground vehicles and uses satellite imagery to count stocks at supply bases. This is a bit more difficult to do with aircraft. Something that should be noted is that the thing Binkov says about sanctions, yeah that's bull. A lot of the parts in Russian fighter jets are based off of Western tech, and whilst sanctions aren't ever going to 100% stop that trade, it'll slow it down and limit it and make it more difficult for Russia to build these planes at scale.
@@xxrockraiderxx its financial power that is slowing building lots of planes, not tech issues.. rf can and does produces everything it needs, but it doesn't have 40 bn to sink into just making 500 jets..
@@keepwalking6041 Nor does it have the work force to make them according to the factory managers from Russian defence plants. According to a Defence News article that quotes people in the Russian defence sector, Russia is short a workforce of roughly 400,000 employees to meet the needs of the "Special Military Operation."
@@xxrockraiderxx Yeah, I agree. But well military guides like these are often a subject of bias and opinion cause no nation is truthful with their data hence we must speculate a lot
Russians started using insane amounts of glide bombs lately. So no, smaller losses does not equal a good thing for Ukraine. It only means that Russia now switched completely to frontline bombing via plane strikes 50+km from the target. Deep strike missions are done by drones/cruise missiles/ballistic missiles.
@@ilaser4064ow shoigu saying so on Russian tv. Yeah lol no that’s not gonna cut it. Is that the one where hebsays they killed 2000 Ukrainians in a strike and dozens of vehicles? Lol and of course hundreds of HIMARS missiles 😂 Theres only 3 patriot in all of Ukraine but that buffoon claim dozens destroyed already.
@@duxd1452 Just today there is a video of NASAMS launcher eating an Iskander missile...i don't know why people think all these western SAMs are invincible.
@@Mishisato No, that is well known. Russia only has a small academy that trains on average 25 pilots per graduation. That is why we saw 50 year old pilots captured earlier in the war. Russia has more airframes than pilots as it turns out.
@@Amann0407 reeeeeeaaaaalllly?! Next is google-translated public release of yearly report: "In 2023, the aviation universities of the aerospace forces held graduation ceremonies for young officers, pilots and navigators. In total, VKS universities have graduated more than 800 pilots and navigators, of whom more than 80 people graduated with a red diploma, and about 20 people with a gold medal," the Russian Defense Ministry said. Graduation events were held at the Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots named after A.K. Serov, as well as in the Syzran and Chelyabinsk branches of the Zhukovsky and Yuri Gagarin Air Force Academy. "Krasnodar is training flight personnel for operational and tactical, long-range, military transport, and naval aviation. Army aviation pilots are being trained in Syzran, and navigators for all types of aviation are being trained in Chelyabinsk. In Syzran, the graduation of army aviation pilots took place on the day of the 75th anniversary of the army aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces," the Russian Defense Ministry said.
A major factor is attrition losses from all the air time these airframes are being subjected to. Many of the current flying planes will be suffering from self inflicted attrition which is basically impossible to estimate.
Actually, in Russia there is no total military censorship and people rent and post the most shameful files of the Russian army. So, if the plane flew to Russia and crashed in Russia, then you can be 100% sure that photographs will appear on the Internet even before the plane crashed, as happened recently with the IL-76, which crashed due to a technical malfunction of the engine
@@MrToubrouk Ukraine is as defeated now as Germany was Post Bagration. All that is left is the collapse. The tragedy here is that people like you will never learn because you cannot accept that you have been wrong your entire life
Not factored in is the increased flight hours from wartime sortie rates. Su-35 has a 6k hour airframe lifespan, older models have as low as 4K hour lifespan. Most of the aircraft in the fleet are mid life, with a decent amount of flight hours already clocked up. Say Russia is flying 100 x 4 hour sorties per day. It’s probably more and longer, but that gives 400 flight hours per day. 10 days takes out an equivalent of an Su-34. With 730 days of conflict at 400 flight hours a day, that’s 292k hours or the equivalent of 73 Su-34s with 4K lifespan. This is going to be an immense amount of wear and tear on the fleet, causing probably triple the attrition of combat losses.
Fatigue on aircraft is something that can be ignored for a long, long time before becoming an issue. It's a regulatory issue rather than an engineering one.
@@rollercoasterintogiantdomo It's a regulatory issue because no one wants to be in a plane that fails in mid air. Outside of Russia, human lives are valuable. It's an engineering issues because flying puts a lots of stress on materiel which will fail after x amount of hours. Those hours are part of the engineering design and learned through testing and through blood.
@@rollercoasterintogiantdomo I’d flip that one around. Regulatory issues come from engineering predictions. If the engineers predict a bad outcome, then the regulators will make a decision to accept that risk or prevent it. For example, Ukraine is currently flying their su-25, mig-29 and su-24 fleet beyond design life because they cannot replace the aircraft during this conflict. That results in a high risk of airframe failure and crashes. Russia can accept that risk, that’s a regulatory decision. But the engineering forecast will be sound and it will result in aircraft crashes and aircrew losses as a result.
@@HuyLe-qc8jc It's not an engineering issue. Airframes have their service lives extended regularly. All it takes is a thorough inspection, and it can be certified for more. Modern fighter airframes have a high percentage of carbon composites, a material resistant to fatigue cracking. There is also a thing called "service life extension", which can add thousands more hours of life to the aircraft. The idea that the entire aircraft is thrown away after 6k hours is incomprehensible.
If the Russians were able to build more capable planes I think they would have more then 20 planes of their so called 5th generation when we have just hit 1000 f35 built
Or they probably realized it's not worth the investment, besides propaganda. I mean look at tanks, a multi-million dollar tank is disabled by an RPG tapped to a $500 drone.
and what "cheap" way is there to kill an f-35? youre comparing apples to oranges, besides, tanks are in no way obeslite, its just the fact russia doenst support them properly. leading to situations where, yes tanks dies to drones. your argument is simply bad
F 35 is the most overrated and overpriced piece of garbage on the market, nobody believes its specs because it keeps swimming in the sea and only US allies buy this crap.
@@BGVassil that doesn't mean theirs not going to be tanks on the battlefield because a cheap munition can take out a expensive one it's just going to take time to teach different doctrine and tactics
@@blue_ish4499 training still takes a good while, and far more than standard infantry. Also knowing how corrupt the russian military is, that budget is _not_ going to the training of pilots.
All im going to say is im suprised at Russia's and Ukrainians ability to adapt, at one point it looked like Russia was extremely unprofessional and going to be kicked out of Ukraine... But now we know that's not going to happen any time soon. Same with Ukraine, they have formidable forces who won't give up, even when aid is less. Both armies deserve respect. Maybe not so much all the commanders and higher ups tho...
@@jb-xc4oh True enough, without support they would've lost in late 2022, most likely. Thankfully this didn't happen, albeit the fact war propaganda is proclaiming that no inch should be given is extremely worrying. That being said originally the War of Ukraine shouldn't have lasted more than a month. The reason it did is due to extremely poor Russian planning but especially the Ukrainians holding out in Kiev and actually expecting the way the Russians fought.
The loss of fighter planes is one thing, but there is another problem. Losses of early warning aircraft, flying radars. The Ukrainians destroyed two and damaged one A-50 AWACs. These losses may be even more noticeable for Russia because they affect the security of the entire country's borders.
@@mohamedabarkan7734 There must be something wrong with the Russian army if most of the losses are caused by friendly fire... Or the Russian propaganda has no other idea to explain the losses... 🤭
This is a comparism of the absolute lowest esitmate of russian losses to the highest estimate of russian production. Not a reasonable take. But then again this guy also said Russia would reach total victory in early 2022
Over the whole of 2023, losing 22 or 30 fighterjets is not that bad actually given that Ukraine received some advanced air defense systems from NATO...
@@angel19785 what's funny? It's war and Ukraine air space is kind of well defended by NATO, fulor sure NATO planes are flying over Ukraine along with patriot systems. Still, the situation on the ground is the determining factor on who is doing better than the other side. It's a war, you lose one battle and win the next, of course until Russia starts using tactical nukes on the frontlines and the real fun starts and NATO won't respond because it means mutual destruction...
when russian lost one of their jet fighter in ukraine war they must have 2 more add to that, russian for over 30 years now after ww2 they produce parts of jet fighters all they have to do is put all parts to gether fast assemble there are millions of them under ground tunnels, and you never can defeat russia for sure,
@@nashazzi8399 population is not the problem. To train new pilots you need old experienced pilots, which got killed in Ukraine. You also need training aircraft which were made in 1970s are piles of junk by now. Russia can maybe train 15-20 pilots per year. If you notice only modern su-34 and su-35 get shot down, even though Russia has 1000+ more older planes it could be using, but they don't have pilots to fly them
@@nashazzi8399 so? the thing isnt the amount, its the effort that goes into pilot training. it takes a loong time to get a competent pilot. and if he dies, its a huge loss, material can be easily reproduced, but a good pilot is no longer a good pilot if he's dead. Russia has always had a problem with trained pilots. there has been a shortage for some time, and they have also had a massive problem with maintenance, their jets are much more complex than some others, and too complex doesnt always mean good, If you have no support crew to maintain the jets, then it will at some point just stop working. if you are lucky, on the ground, unlucky in the air. And the more complex and random the construction and design is, the longer it takes for a support personel to be trained, And same with a pilot, if that mechanic dies during lets say, a bombing of a russian air base, then its a Massive hit to the already short staffed support crew. It's not a bad plane, not at all. but well it doesnt beat NATO aircraft regardless of who i would support, the technology gap is HUGE, which is ehy russia focuses more on Anti air capability, its cheaper, easier to produce and keep in stock, hence why NATO also has a much wider focus on SEAD. Because their main opponents tend to have more ground AA than CAP. and the reverse for russia. Look, we shouldnt Underestimate Russia's cabability, BUT, and a very huge BUT. Russia is currently, by fact alone. just worse. maybe not worse than ukraine, but Ukraine has less focus on air to air combat, they also carry over the Soviet doctrine with a HUGE network of SAM systems. So the number of airframes russia has doesnt help when their SEAD capability is halted by missile technology, and reliability problems. It just is what it is.
@@tedarcher9120 so you are saying Ukrainian with no facility, equipment and aircraft trained faster in new aircraft than Russia is in their own mastered aircraft? Btw where do you get that figure? Dont talk nonsense dude. Russia aircraft production is higher compared to pre-war. Do you really think they would do it if they cant man them? Plus you bullshit that russia dont have pilot for older generation jet is stupid since russia is the one that maintained older jet from 3rd world like Malaysia, Egypt, Syria and such. Who do you think the one who provide training? They simply dont use older jet because they have better aircraft. Who would use frogfoot in patriot active territories anyways.
@@travisfubu9053 Does it? You can be pretty sure that nothing happens if you stay in front of a lorry on a highway, it doesn't make it true. Russia complained that it didn't have enough pilots in 2021. Shoigu said he needs 1000 pilots. Losing tens or pilots when you only have a few hundred or even a couple of thousands is a bad situation. Nice try rusko.
Ukraine is constantly losing its air defense systems and has nearly depleted its air defense rocket reserves, so flying over Ukraine has become less risky for the Russian Air Force.
Bro, dont know why you trust any of that, but if true Ukraine is running out of rockets since 2022 winter and russia running out of tanks since mid 2023
Production of airframes is meaningless, it is the pilots that are the more difficult thing to replace. How many of the lost aircraft also counted as a lost pilot? Given that Ukraine is using US anti-air systems, which supposedly are biased to get above an enemy aircraft and explode in the vicinity of the cockpit, I am guessing about 50% of totally lost aircraft are also loss of the pilot. Sure a plane can take 1-3 years to build, but a pilot can take 3-5 years to properly train and nother 1-2 years to become proficient in the use of a given plane. This means that to replace a good pilot could take 4-7 years. This long lead time on qualified pilots also means that as the war drags on, Russia will likely lose planes at a faster rate due to unskilled pilots (unless of course Putin can afford for the war to drag out for at least 4 years). There is also the consideration that any wreckage of planes downed in Ukraine could give NATO countries (the same ones supplying Ukraine with weapons) information on how to better defeat Russian planes, which will also lead to Russia losing aircraft at an increased rate.
Exactly. The German wartime production in WW2 peaked in 1944! Is anyone seriously claiming that they were 'winning' until 45? Or replacing losses? Russia may well win the war, but their air force is fucked right now.
These are very good points. The fascist lost WWII by bleeding pilots. Overall the video is myopic in it doesn't count the greater strategic conflict, air war with NATO, which the ruzis entered the war at a losing disadvantage and have greatly further degraded their standing. Instead of addressing this they spend their resource to barely improve their standing against Ukraine at a rate that will likely take a decade to overwhelm the UA. Meanwhile doing dumb things like announcing su57 missions and flying missions jointly with non stealth aircraft so NATO radar gets a chance to see the SU 57. Fascist are dumb😂
The russian keyboard divison vs 2 ukrainian airsoft brigade are fighting heavily in this comment section.. Its really intense.. Maybe binkov or the others should make a video about this fight here
What is Nafo? Anyway Russia was able to produce only around 28 new combat jets in 2023. In the last two weeks alone the lost count for Russia is now at 13 jets plus the one A-50. Putin is getting desperate before election time and Vatnik meat waves with artillery weren't getting results fast enough so he pressed Avdiivka with lots of sorties for dropping glide bomb. Running out of tanks so now Putin is having to start using more expensive air power to fill the gaps in missing ground armor. That is why we are seeing a sudden spike in air losses by Russians.
@@mdjey2 NAFO are bunch of deluded fanboys basement dwellers who think that they affect the war by screeching on Reddit. Sure, Russia does not have anything as pathetic as that. on the other hand we have actual volunteer groups that help soldiers. Seen that second Abrams being pummeled by drones? Upir (Ghoul) drone is 100% crowdfunded project that is extensively used along the whole front. Assembled at cost by volunteers and delivered straight to the front.
@@Istalior Russia has scores of dweebs all over the internet vomiting all sorts of propaganda, so you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Russia also has a large part of their population that's disaffected and disillusioned by a terribly bloody war they know they're being lied to about. How many more human waves have to be gunned down to gain a few extra meters before Putin's grip on power begins to fade? This war is setting back the Russian military and economy DECADES. The world is actively developing 6th gen fighter jets and Russia can hardly field a 5th gen fighter that is really an upgraded 4th gen fighter -- and its forced to rebuild outdated AEW&C aircraft that's already obsolete.
Going to be interesting to see in how far they can make their planes more Stinger proof. Those manpads were causing a lot of casualties in the early stage of the war.
Russia has such a large untapped manpower pool that pilots won't bee a problem. With good training and modern computer assisted controls though not as experienced as veteran pilots, there still will be an extra machine available to the russians.
@@comradedawid5292 Manpower has nothing to do with such specialized professions. Pilot schools and training are elite schools. Take a long time to train. The fewer you train the better the quality. The more you train in a few schools, the worst the quality. Plus new pilots are rubbish compare to veteran pilots.
@@przemyslawlib There are around 20 of those that can be refurbished (and from satellite images that seems to be happening), plus other aircraft. Virtually no military aircraft company is going to accept orders of less than 10 units, as a lower number is too small for the company to cover costs of production...and you have to do that years in advance. If orders for 5 to 10 different types of aircraft were ordered, it'll mean that there'll be 50 to 100 in the pipeline (a pipeline that takes a while to get started...but once it's going, it'll keep pumping out even after the war stops...)...plus a lot of those are gonna be newer aircraft that probably won't see action. refurbished aircraft will fill the gaps (Russia has plenty of rustbuckets laying around)
I disagree with Binkov's characterization of Oryx' reliability. Each loss reported by Oryx has always been confimed by imagery, never based on just claims. I agree that both websites present conservative tally numbers. Also not sure whether anyone can ever trust any of the production numbers provided by the Russian ministry of war, especially not during an ongoing war in which Russia itself is heavily engaged. Still, I appreciate the effort to compare production to losses. After all, it is a war of attrition. And it underlines how necessary it is that the West keeps supplying Ukraine with all the weapons and ammunitions it needs in its righteous and heroically desperate fight to remain free and independent from Russia's unwarranted aggression. Slava Ukraini.
Oryx is notorious for using boosted numbers by posting the same destroyed equipment from different angles and locations. additionally, they downplay Ukrainian losses by simply not reporting them. I don't blame Oryx, they are a pro Ukrainian organization and if they told the truth it would paint a picture not entirely complimentary to the Ukrainian government.
@@thehawk8486checked by who? there's no such thing as objective accounting because any group allowed to do so would need permission from the Ukrainian government.
Uh, doubt those numbers in the real world, but even if it is true, the more important figure is that Russia isn't destroying more jets than it is producing.
Always fun to see the russian bot army assemble under certain videos. No arguments and facts, only hyperbole and disinformation. Best is, when the bots claim to be from other countries as well. Sooo entertaining. Binkov, you're doing something right when you get this kind of attention here! (Waiting for the bots to respond in 3...2...1...)
Ah yeah because Ukraine is totally not losing large swaths of territory every month...and definitely doesn't use propaganda to lie to the masses. Nope, totally doesn't.
@@commandervile394 It literally doesn't lose large swaths of territory every month though?? HAHAHHA. Russia managed to capture back %1 - %2 of the territory they've lost to Ukraine after the first stages of the war. Like literally.
Oh so Ukraine didn't lose the entire eastern and southern side of their borders, and Russia only captured territory that they already had like Bakhmut and Adviidka? Okay. Keep coping Ukebot. @@chronozeta
Russia can also further degrade ukranian air defenses and improve their standoff munitions. Russian losses were lower in 2023 va 2022 while playing a decisive role in both repelling the ukranian offensive and in capturing andiivka. Russia also claimed in the last day or so the destruction of two patriot missile systems and had video evidence to go with it. Maybe its fabricaded, maybe its not. But it seems like a very real possibility that ukrainian air defenses weaken further and russia has both fewer losses and an even more effective air force.
Replenishing your fleet with 40 aircraft while losing approximately 30 in combat per year is not feasible in the long term. Due to higher sortie rates, airframes are used up earlier than in times of peace. In addition, the Russian fleet was already old before the war started, so replacing what you lose in the war is insufficient. The majority of these contracts and deliveries are based on replacing old aircraft, not replacing shot down aircraft. They will have to double their production at current losses if they do not want to lose any capabilities long term. Especially if the war drags on for years.
Su-35s are Su-34s are all new, even Su-30s are not that old, mostly newer than the bulk of NATO air forces flying F-15s and F-16s and F-18s (or F/A-18, depending on a country). Su-24s are relatively old but being replaced by Su-34s. Now Su-25s are not being replaced directly, but they are not effective on the battlefield full of MANPADs and functionally are being replaced by drones or drone-corrected (and thus much more precise and effective than before) artillery fires.
@@PaulVerhoeven2In your reaction I make up that you are agreeing with me, but im not sure. So for a bit of extra context. If Russia were to only lose aircraft that were end of life and being phased out, you could replace your losses with about the same amount of production. Because Russia has losses from aircraft that are in the middle of their life cycle, more must be produced than just the losses, otherwise you will be left with a smaller air force year after year by decommissioning old aircraft. These will also have to be taken out of service more quickly due to the higher intensity of operations during a war. Think of it as if you produce 40 cars every year, throw away 40 every year due to old age. Now factor in the fact that you start using those cars more often and and start losing 30 due to accidents. If nothing changes you will have 30 fewer cars in the fleet, and every car in the fleet will also see more milage. This will go on every year until you are left with a very small modern fleet that is only 1/3 to 1/4 of the original size so you only need to decomission 10 cars every year. In a country like Russia with a lot of big powerful neighbors (China, Korea, Poland, Finland Ukraine) you need quantity to defend yourself because of the immense borders with other countries.
That is true. Among military analysts there is a consensus that due to combat stress on the Russian fighter planes in combat, the life expectancy of these aircraft means that a lot of them are nearing the end of their life as effective aircrafts. A lot of Russian airframes will soon be unsuitable for service in such a degree the Russia will not be able to replenish its losses. As a result, available Russian military aircraft numbers will inevitably dwindle.
@@alexvandun2124 I really doubt that Russia is worried about Poland or Finland invading its territory, Ukraine is what it is now, and China, although big and powerful, does not have any aspirations to conquer Russia; China has great relations with Russia. Other than that, your analysis is interesting.
@@zix_zix_zix Kaliningrad could be interesting for the NATO alliance if they are worried about de the Baltics being invaded, or if Russia tries some militairy action in the Baltics. This would automatically bring Poland, Sweden and Finland in the mix because of their proximity. And although China and Russia are on friendly therms at the moment, all that can change within a few years. In 2010 there were NATO alliance members participating with tanks in Moscow on Victory Day. That would be unthinkable at the moment. Between 1969 and 2003 Russia has had more soldiers on the China Russia border than on their European border. So things can quickly change if geopolitics change. And military procurement is something that takes years and years to ramp up or slow down. In Western Europe we see a very slow ramp up at the moment of trying to start up (restart) militairy production, and 2 years after trying to start up, we still dont meet most of the required targets for products like ammunition, tanks, IFV's or even spare parts. And the supply chain of modern aircraft might be one of the most complicated there is, therefore the ramp up is also very complex and takes a long time. So losing a lot of aircrafts in the 2020's can hurt a country even in the 2030's if industry can't replace your losses. Only the US and China at this point are producing more than a 100 fighter planes a year and can lose big numbers like Russia is losing without impacting their fleet to much.
There is one parameter unknown. The airframes have limit life, RU flights quite a lot of sorties and may be consuming planes without having them taken down.
Cope. As though an air force doesn’t know these and don't have any way to compensate! Seriously, u pathtic people disgust me. U call u r more informed of the world? Did u try to check if your 'story' matches reality and the outcome therein?
Ladies and gentlemen this is the text book definition of a clown 😂😂 Ethiopia has a big population too but you don't see many of them in f-35 do you? Space programs have nothing to do with training combat aircraft personall dummy@@andreiuluada7460
@@pablodesilvestro831 comparing Ethiopia and Russia is crazy. especially the school system. children in elementary school in Russia know mathematics better than Western European and American high school students.
The 67 Russian aircraft lost in 2022, is still less than the claims of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which told the world about 5 Russian planes were lost every week.
@@Shatterfury1871 There's a website called Minusrus that tracks the losses of the Russian AF as per Ukrainian MoD reports. According to Ukraine, they have shot down 342 aircraft and 325 helicopters. That's a claim of almost 6.5 Russian aircraft losses per week or about 3.2 losses per week for fixed wing aircraft.
When you calculated the lost airframes you left out the ones lost to wear and tear. Those planes were never designed to withstand the workload they have had over the last 3 years and many are worn out.
In 1999, the B-2 was hit over Serbia near the border with Croatia with 2 S-125 missiles and fell into Croatia, but unfortunately there is no evidence other than the statement of air defense officers and soldiers as well as people who wanted near where the B-2 fell who at the time said that something big that looked like a spaceship had fallen?!?! It's a place where agricultural populations live, but we also have a list from America how many B-2s America owns in 1998 and 1 less in 2000 and which is enough evidence but America She never admitted it.
How many Russian aircraft are now out of commission now due to simply wearing out or a lack of spare parts? There are a lot of extra hours getting put on airframes due to the war. Sure, most planes can easily fly past their recommended flight-hour limit. But if components are starting to fail & replacement parts are in short supply, the aircraft is at least less effective & potentially grounded. Worst case scenario, the aircraft decides it doesn't want to fly anymore while still airborn. I would imagine that such 'losses' could easily outstrip the combat losses incurred.
Exactly what I was thinking. Russia has been putting a lot of wear in its air frames. They're not going as deep into Ukraine, but they're running nonstop CAP. We probably won't see them fully falling apart for some time still, but that wear is absolutely there and having an impact. I imagine the effect is even worse for their helicopters
Goddamit why is it so difficult for ppl to just have a balanced view on a conflict. This is probably the most objective video I've ever seen on the ukraine air war, and it's comment section is still full of either trolls or morons.
you sir are the moron if you think Russia is building jets faster than Ukraine is shooting them down. Ukraine has knocked 9 Russian jets out of the sky just this week, one of which (the A50) will never get rebuilt. wise up, stop being played by this Kremlin propaganda comrade.
My opinion is that Russia will continue production of the MiG-35 SM since the MiG and Russia have invested a lot in modernizing the MiG-29 aircraft, but unfortunately there was not enough time to promote this aircraft because of the sanctions imposed on Russia, but it is well known that many smaller countries were interested in this aircraft or almost all non-NATO countries that used the MiG-29, The most important thing about the MiG-35 SM is that Russia has upgraded all the missiles that the MiG-35 could carry, My opinion is that Russia will try to counter f-16s with mig-35s because they are aircraft of the same category and if it successfully opposes, of course, with the help of other aircraft, it would be the best promotion for the MiG-35, which is currently the cheapest solution for Russia and the fastest. As we know, even the first versions of the MiG 35 were good enough for that money and now that plane has been further upgraded.
@@ericthered494 I don't understand why you wrote this or what you meant. The F-16s and MiG-29s are aircraft from the same period only Russia has not modernized its MiG-29s except for export and the U.S. has done everything possible on the F-16 and there is no room for any modernization. And as for the aircraft itself without equipment, the MiG-29 has much better flight characteristics and great modernization capabilities that would cost Russia very little. Now how many MiG-29s are preserved in Russia, no one knows. But I know that in one place near Moscow there are 250 MiG-29s and in excellent condition, Russia did not use these aircraft for the simple reason that Russia is huge and they were all for export, but since there is little chance that they will sell them today I see no reason why it should not modernize and use them on this part of the front since they can carry KAB bombs and much more, I doubt they'll throw them away or let them go to waste and they have enough pilots for them, why would they build a plane from the beginning when they have a scotch
@@velimirkolundzija4451the F-16s are not block 70 from the US. They are old models from Denmark and possibly Netherlands. They are far from the latest “US has done everything possible” aircraft.
@@sixdegrees6434 What's that bike? I'm currently driving a GSR 600. And as for this aircraft, it is absolutely unnecessary to talk about it because those who are at the top of western countries today are equally working against Russia and against the whole world, no one doubts that anymore. America and the West have failed the whole world and today leaders in the West are turning against their people and it is seen all over Europe and as I have heard, america is becoming increasingly difficult to live. The U.S. fooled Russia first and foremost and in essence who has the better weapons about it is ridiculous talk about it. Simply neoliberal capitalism cannot compete with the socialist system, especially as in Russia today state capitalism means that large factories are owned by the state and the people can buy up to 30% of shares. When a factory is state-owned, everything is aimed at making the best possible product, not how much the factory owner will earn.And that is why in America there are the most billionaires and the most homeless, and in Russia it is only important to earn enough for salaries and that the military has everything it needs, and even if it is not sold enough to other countries the salary will be again because the state can simply donate gas to that factory and not only gas if it is a factory of national importance the state will help it financially and therefore Russia produces more grenades than the entire West. It's very simple, why would anyone in the West today invest in If he doesn't know if he'll have someone to sell them to in a month? What if the war ends in 10 days? It takes a lot of money to invest in machines and then for the least. For the smallest line, there are at least 100 people who have to get dressed first and this is a process that takes time and the salaries in the West are quite high for the simple reason that life in the West is so expensive. Those of us who had a system where state factories were four times lower for us, but our lives were 10 times cheaper. Let's say Yugoslavia, we produced literally everything and when someone hired the company gives him an apartment, we have free health care and education and that all the way to college, everyone could to play any sport because it was all free and that's why Yugoslavia beat America several times in basketball and if it is 100 times smaller?!?! It is the same in football and tennis, for example, as in all other sports, and today when Serbia is left alone and that is not even 1/3 of Yugoslavia, but we all have our own views, electricity is produced by the state and is therefore ten times cheaper than in the EU, and we sell excess electricity to EU countries at their prices. It's been 30 years since the West has occupied Serbia. We can still live very well with 1,000 euros a month, and that's how much wages are today on average in Serbia, which means that women do not have to work and can devote themselves to children, and if a woman works, then life in Serbia is much better than anywhere in the West with 10,000 euros.
Wonder how many A-50U aircraft they build. They'd better be making about one per week to keep up with the losses as of today. Crew losses crazy high. Good news today
@@keepout78112 years after and now things are looking really good for Russia. How long do you think Ukraine is able to just defend and taking immense offensive from big country Russia. It just the matter of time
@@LuqmanCarti pretty good if you know history at all. Invading powers in a war of attrition have lost every time throughout history. The Russian army engaging in trench warfare will be no different.
@@keepout7811 That’s not how things are looking for in Ukraine rn tho. I’m not and warfare history expert but maybe Russia is and could learn and change that. Or maybe Ukraine knows best. That’s why they need NATO infinite supplies to counter-offensive Russia. But just how long do you think Ukraine is going able to hold on? Their supplies and manpower will eventually run out. Do you think NATO will keep giving them enough supplies. Like I said It’s just the matter of time.
@@LuqmanCarti it definitely depends. Statistically defenders have a 3/1 advantage against attackers. Ukraine performing counter offensives undermines that advantage. Russia can’t occupy Ukraine forever. Ukraine exhausting their supplies more quickly by doing these counter offensives surely isn’t that helpful.
These production lines basically are at a snail pace, seconds to knock them out of the sky. It's currently like an average every 2nd day Russian fighter jets kept falling from the sky.
One factor not considered is the depletion of G/A systems and munitions available to Ukraine. Recently it has been noticed not all Russian missile launches are targeted because of a lack of G/A missiles available to Ukraine. Russia may be capable of replenishing it's aircraft losses but do not automatically assume Ukraine will continue to have adequate G/A munition supplies. The clear production problems of the AFU suppliers with artillery shells suggest it will not.
Binkov's Battlegrounds: A lot of the plane lost have been close air support. The replacement planes are mostly air superiority ones. So, that leaves a widening gap in close air support. While SU34 have been getting more air time, they are also getting shot down and Russia still has issue sourcing for them enough precision guided bombs. Russia has limited options: glide bombs from far away (with a number of planes shot - hasn't been that safe), dropping dumb bomb from high up with SU34 with limited precision (and plane losses) or low flying runs with old SU24/SU25 mostly firing unguided rockets while hoping to avoid manpads (and plane losses). Or use limited quantity of cruise missiles on static targets since the Russian targeting takes days.
They get shot down, but you have to be careful with the recent claims that many of them got dhot down in a single week. We have no videos or pictures supporting the claim, and it's still a information war. So it's hard to say how many really got shot down. I think russia acknowledged 1 and the Su-35.
Aaammm.. Ejection seats genius. I would also like to remind you that out of 300 Soviet legacy aircraft, plus 250 MiG29 gifts, Ukraine has almost zero left
I pay a small fortune for Jane's. This is a fact, plain and simple. The Russians have also built 45 Ka-52M, and thousands upon thousands of drones. You absoloutely in no way shape or form have to take my word for it. It's written all over the battlefield. Ukraine is in retreat on every active part of the front. Weeb Union and History Legends tell the truth anf provide video and satelitee imagery to back up their reporting and analysis. CNN and the rest of the corporate media can't do this because they are lying. This administration vowed to win the "information war" this time. That means out-bullshitting the Russians, which would be laughably transparent if they do not also bullshit the American people. Globalization bites.
@@LumineScientiaeFidei Dont bother, these "NAFO" guys if I can call them are narrative driven rather than logically driven. They want to hear good things about Ukraine all the time.
Great message! I've eaten more sandwiches then l did yesterday. Drank less coffee but had an orange juice. And my cats are always hungry. Very important and very interesting news though? If you have nothing better to do waste your time elsewhere
The key isn’t the airframes but the aircrews they lose every time one of these jets get downed. They are not producing experienced crews at a rate to keep up with losses. Also in 2024 they already lost more airframes than they produced in 2023 and were still in month 2 / 12.
People don't realize just how big the military industrial complex is in Russia, you can't compare to US or EU, Russia as always had a strict policy on production (Exports pay for domestic), example when US retired Shuttle NASA payed Russia for 12yrs straight to ferry crews to ISS (Elon musk $$$) not Putin who complained every year because it went beyond there set production.
The US and china both have larger military industries in general. Certainly when it comes to something like aircraft. Maybe Russia has an advantage in artillery shells or something.
@@OttoKremlNo, Russia as more superior 700ft subs, up-graded bombers, new Kinzhal Hyper-sonic missiles, new Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, ICBM's(satan-2), new nukes 100mt Poseidon's, Russia as developed a world's first Nuclear propulsion cruise missile Burevestnik, superior space technology, su-57 and new su-57m 3d supermaneuverability vectoring f-22 is 2d, su-57 is superior in a dogfight, Russia is way ahead of US in technology, steel, alloys, exotic titanium's, rare earth metals, America has to fill 11 carriers(looks more), Russia doesn't tell its stocks.
@@paulroberts7429 the only thing I agree with there is in hypersonics, which the US has chosen not to invest in. Clearly Space-X has better rockets than the soyuz at this point. India withdrew from the SU-57 program due to it being significantly below what they expected. Nuclear warhead technology is just not relevent. Russian subs are widely considered to be behind the US ones, although they are purported to be close (of course they were purported to have the second best military in general, and they can't even overfly Ukraine). Industrially we have good stats on Russian materials. Russian steel is... okay. It's generally worse than US, Australian, Jpanese, and German steel. Although it's better than chinese steel, and is as I say, decent. However the lower quality steel does show in the poor service lifespan of Russian military jet engines. Russian airlines also use western aircraft for a reason. Although Russia does have access to a lot of raw resources, that's true. Russia has also tried to get into the aircraft carrier game. Famously their one aircraft carrier is a piece of junk that bursts into flames whenever it leaves port. What you have ignored is all of the western advantages. The west has WAY better stealth. Better thermal sensors and radars. Better sensor fusion and guidance systems. Is leading in AI by a wide margin. And importantly, the US and EU barely feel the war economically due to the giant mismatch. Russia is demonstrably running out if stuff. We have satillite imagry of their storage yards. I can't say whether the US and EU political will can hold, but if they actually care even mildly, there is very little Russia can do other than I guess nuclear war. And the fact that Russia needs to buy decades old munitions from north korea, only half of which even works, should be pretty telling of the situation they are in. This is Ukraine, not some major military power. Nobody thought Russia couldn't even take on Ukraine, including Russia.
@@OttoKreml absolute rubbish 700ft titanium hull k-329 belgorod is the deepest diving military sub, top 5 deepest diving subs are Russian and invisible, US tried a titanium and failed big time, greatest rocket in history Soyuz with 1700 launches, superior to any American rocket, all RD engine are more efficient than any US, space x uses methane, the worlds most powerful rocket engine RD-170 used on Energia 190ft uses 1 engine, star-ship 400ft and use 32 engines, RD-180 engine first used 1985 by NASA, ULA, Lockheed bought 130 engines and are still used today till 2030 for atlas-5 and starliner a ferry to mir-2 (ISS), Russia has the only human certified life-support on ISS, US as been on ISS for 20yrs and still 400ltrs a year behind EU life-support, china as now beat US on Chinese citizen on a Chinese station, US astronaunts on a Russian station, SU-57 has 3d vectoring, F-22 as 2d, Lockheed bought Russian yak-141 technology, US engineers are crap with no history of vtol/stovl, Russia started 1967 to today, yak-141 the worlds first supersonic vtol/stovl thrust vectoring jet, f-35 uses Russian tech, worlds first nuclear propulsion missile, Burevestnik now completed all tests, you see how silly you look when you see US is lagging a long way behind Russia in technology, US got its ass kicked in Vietnam, Korea, Libya and Iraq.
@@paulroberts7429 Okay that's a lot of nonsense, most of which I just answered. Do you have an actual area in particular you think Russia is better in? Or is the world's leading superpower just trash in every way, and your country with less than 1/5th the GDP per capita perfect in every way? It seems your story has some holes is all I'm saying. Something doesn't quite add up here.
beleive it or not, Russia produces the engines that the USA uses for their rockets and jets. the USA literaly buys military equipment directly from Russia.
@@Jimothy-723 No they don't. NASA and some private western companies did sometimes use space on Russian rockets too launch payloads into space but they are launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. The engine you are thinking of is the RD-180 rocket engine which did power the Atlas III and the Atlas V. However the Vulcan rocket which has replaced Atlas does not use the Russian engine. We do not use Russian jet engines for any of our jets neither military or civil.
I have personaly watched Oryx post two videos of same KA52 shot-down presented as different kills. You can find it, it is stugna (anti tank) shot. Half of proofs are pilots obituaries, so it is probably the third time the same downing is portrayed as separate.
Oryx already claimes the higest rate of Russian casualties resonably possible. In geneal I think it's a very good video. But to add casulties to what is already a very high end estimate undermines your credibility.
Oryx only counts visually confirmed losses. There are many videos of Ukrainians firing manpads which explode near Russian planes but the plane keeps flying. Often more than one missile is fired at the same plane. Also a lot of the Russian planes are flying more than they should before regular full strip down maintenance as the factory is busy making new ones. So losing engines due to overuse is not common even when you still maintain them well. Fighter jets are very maintenance heavy. Overall the Ukrainian claims are over the top oryx is usually a bit low and the reality is a bit higher than oryx.
@@MrRedsjack Yes, but the same wreck can be filmed from multiple angles or with tampering on site. There is no vetting of when the wreck actually happened.
@@khyronkravshera7774Oryx constantly revises their tally and uses geolocation and other methods. Theyre not purposefully tallying the same wrecks or anything of the sort. Ive seen them remove claims multiple times. They also tally UA losses and those are pretty ugly, not as high as russian though. That jives too - Russia has been attacking.
@@ericthered494 🙄. The Anti- Russian bias in your defence is Oryx supports rather than invalidates my position. A Pro-Ukraine source is just as compromised as is a Pro-Russian source.
You honestly believe they take 3 years training pilots?.. Do you even know how many flight hours Russian pilots were getting monthly before the war? All they have to do is get someone to a competent enough level not to crash on takeoff and landing and they can send them out there.
there are a few videos of russian pilots ejecting there is a fpv view from a Su 25 that went viral there are a few other ground videos of ejections too @@user-ph4wi4sy2p
Their is also a loss source form simply wearing out an airframe. Its not clear if Russia is actually writing off airframes when they reach end of lifespan but it dose represent a possible hidden drain on their numbers. It's also notable that Russian aircraft losses in 2024 seem to correlate with heavy ground pushes, which seems to incidate a lack of caution on their part.
Indeed, Russia certainly has airframes in storage that it can pull out (including airframes it has claimed are active in the air force but haven't been part of active squadrons for years, such as Mig-29s). However, these airframes already have high flight hours, they have been subjected to poor storage practices. Just like the T-62s they are pulling out of storage and refurbishing, it is far from ideal. Russia cannot produce more Su-35s than it is losing either to combat losses or worn out
