Weapons are the new “oil” Part 4: The West's main vulnerability is combat aviation!

By Marat Khairullin

The West's main vulnerability is combat aviation.

It probably sounds incredible, but it is true. One of the biggest weaknesses of the modern West is indeed its aviation. Of course, from all the press reports we are told the opposite:

Overwhelming air superiority is the advantage of NATO and the United States.

However, exaggerating facts is common practice for our non-partners. It is not surprising that previous articles about weapons caused a strong reaction from Ukrainian propaganda, which took deep roots in Russian social networks. For a long time, Ukrainian agents did not show themselves much, but now there was an outburst of indignation. That is, we hit the nail on the head, this topic (the weakness of the Western arms complex) worries our opponents very much! Today you will finally understand why.

Lately we have been told a lot about the newest F-35 aircraft: “Look how many have already been produced - more than a thousand, and they continue to be produced.” But the discussion does not go further than a discussion of the pros and cons, since the machine is really complex, full of innovations. Today, everyone has Wikipedia, and few people have accurate information based on the results of actual operation.

From the outside and at first glance, the aviation of the Western bloc may indeed seem strong, ahead of everyone else. Who else has so many new 5th generation airframes? However, there are two considerations that seriously challenge US and NATO leadership:

First: I suggest you pay attention to the research of our colleague, partner - journalist Sasha Berezin from the Nauchpopik channel on Telegram (@nauchpopik) about the best bombers of the Second World War. In terms of technology and armament, the newest British plane, the Lancaster, was considered the best at that time, but from the point of view of real efficiency, the ancient Soviet U-2 was superior.

In other words, it is not a given that the “sophistication” of the F-35 is capable of providing it with a real advantage in a real battle.

Moreover, there is reason to believe that the F-35 has already lost without even entering into a real confrontation.

The second consideration: There is such a wonderful Canadian journalist and pop sociologist Malcolm Gladwell. In his book What the Dog Saw (consisting of articles that Gladwell wrote for The New Yorker magazine), you can read an essay about one of the largest American bankruptcies - the bankruptcy of the energy company Enron. This corporation was so innovative and advanced that their annual report was as much as 800 thousand pages. In these reports, by the way, their weaknesses were honestly pointed out, but everyone looked fascinated at the stock quotes. And when the collapse came, they were very surprised.

Gladwell writes that, in fact, there was no need to look at the report; anyone who wanted to buy Enron shares could make a simple analysis and protect themselves from risk.

All you had to do was look at the US Treasury website, which clearly stated that Enron had never been profitable since its inception. That is, the company did not generate profit, and paid interest on shares only by attracting new investors.
It was a classic financial Ponzi, expanding solely by attracting new clients (buyers of shares), and when their flow dried up and it came time to pay real dividends from real income, then everything collapsed.

The F-35 fighter is an Enron corporation with a huge annual report that is very difficult to understand, and the meaning of the F-35’s existence is exactly the same - to extract money from more and more new clients.

There is a simple indicator of the unviability of this machine.
For one hour of actual flight, the F-35 aircraft requires 9 hours of maintenance. Lockheed Martin, however, promises to subsequently reduce this time to six hours, but, frankly speaking, this also will not save American democracy because practice is the criterion of truth.

As of now, the practice reveals that over 5 years of operation, the combat readiness of the F-35 fleet as a whole has decreased from 75 percent to 50 percent (in reality, even lower). This means that the time it takes to prepare each aircraft for an actual flight now has increased by about a quarter. That is, they promised to reduce it to six hours, but in the end, the time needed for service may increase to close to 12 hours.

The average F-35 flight time in the US Army is now approximately 20 hours per month. That is, for them to fly like that, they need to spend 180 hours per month in service.

Now compare:

About 150 of our aircraft (plus long-range aviation) are operational in the Special Military Operation. It is believed that the Su-34, the main workhorse of this war, flies approximately five hours per day. This turns out to be 120 flight hours per month for each aircraft, if you take into account the other aircraft and those that are sitting in reserve.

Our flanker aircraft and ground-attack aircraft fly even more - at the level of 140 hours per month each.

But let’s be conservative, and take the minimum figures for flight times and for F-35 servicing to give them the benefit of the doubt. To withstand this level of operation in a real conflict with us, NATO and the US must provide a level of service for each F-35 aircraft of more than a thousand hours per month! (120 flight hours multiplied by 9.) Let me remind you that a thousand hours is approximately 42 days! Do the math for yourself.

In general, it is clear that the F-35 will not withstand any long-term conflict. It was created with one sole purpose - to siphon money from the budget of the United States and its allies.

Now, let's look at the F-16 planes, which they just can't hand over to the AFU very easily. According to informed sources, here the situation is even worse. Due to general wear and tear, these aircraft require enormous amounts of maintenance time. Today, for some of the oldest F-16s, ensuring airworthiness for one hour requires approximately fifteen for servicing! And this problem is most acute in Europe. That is, aircraft must spend the lion's share of time on the ground - being repaired and maintained.

Let me remind you that the readiness for takeoff at Ukrop airfields is always 5 minutes, so they have little time to "hit the road" while Iskanders or Kinzhals are flying.

There is a second problem with the lack of production and supply of spare parts. It's likely, of the 20 aircraft that are promised to the Ukraine, five are officially (OFFICIALLY, KARL!) intended for disassembly for spare parts. The NATO masters of Ukraine did not even begin to quietly dismantle them ahead of time, so as not to embarrass themselves. They cram everything into the Ukraine as it is. So much for the great advantage of NATO and the United States in aviation... If you measure it by Wikipedia, then yes, it’s a powerful thing, but if you actually fight with it, then it’s so-so...