VympelRussia suspends Su-24 flights after Thursday crash in Far East
23/08/2007 12:08 MOSCOW, August 23 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Air Force has suspended all Su-24 strike aircraft flights following a crash in the country’s Far East early Thursday, an AF spokesman said.
An Su-24 Fencer tactical bomber crashed Thursday about 115 kilometers (70 miles) southeast of the Khurba airfield in the Khabarovsk Territory, but both pilots successfully ejected from the aircraft. In recent years Russia has been gradually phasing out the planes, which have a patchy safety record.
“The commander of the Russian Air Force has ordered the suspension of Su-24 flights until the causes of the August 24 crash are established,” Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky said.
The spokesman said a special investigation commission, which has arrived at the crash site, is considering technical failure as a probable cause of the incident.
The Su-24 is a two-seater, twin-engined strike aircraft similar to NATO’s Tornado and Mirage 2000 planes. The plane has been in service with the Russian Air Force since the mid-1970s and is currently being replaced with advanced Su-34 Fullback tactical bombers.
Last year, flights of Su-24 were suspended twice following three crashes in various regions of Russia. Two pilots were killed in the latest crash in western Russia, in July 2006.
and the follow-up
Russian Air Force chief says technical failure caused Su-24 crash
23/08/2007 14:41 ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), August 23 (RIA Novosti) – A power supply failure most likely caused the crash of a Su-24 strike aircraft in Russia’s Far East early Thursday, the Russian Air Force commander said.
A Su-24 Fencer tactical bomber crashed Thursday about 115 kilometers (70 miles) southeast of the Khurba airfield in the Khabarovsk Territory, but both pilots successfully ejected from the aircraft. In recent years, Russia has been gradually phasing out the Su-24, which has a patchy safety record.
“The aircraft was returning to the airfield after a training mission when a failure in its power supply system occurred,” Colonel General Alexander Zelin said, referring to preliminary reports.
Zelin said the final conclusion about the causes of the crash would be made following pilot accounts and reports of a special investigative commission, which has been dispatched to the crash site.
An Air Force spokesman earlier said two pilots of the Su-24 had been hospitalized in satisfactory condition.
The commander of the Russian Air Force has ordered the suspension of Su-24 flights until the causes of the August 24 crash are established.
The Su-24 is a two-seater, twin-engine strike aircraft similar to NATO’s Tornado and Mirage 2000 planes. It has been in service with the Russian Air Force since the mid-1970s and is currently being replaced with advanced Su-34 Fullback tactical bombers.
Last year, flights of Su-24s were suspended twice following three crashes in various regions of Russia. Two pilots were killed in the latest crash in western Russia, in July 2006.
VympelUpdate, that Iskander-M/E looking thing is Iskander-K, a shore launcher for Klub-M missiles.
VympelLet’s not post full size pictures here, it’s very bandwith intensive if repeated over many pages.
My comments on some of the pics I’ve seen.
One of the biggest airshows of every two years just opened, and there’s lots of photos, either stuff that’s been seen before, or new, interesting stuff.
Novator’s AAM-L / KS-172 project
This prototype Ka-50 has been significantly altered since it’s last appearance at MAKS 05 – back then, it still had the Shkval system, but now it appears to have been completely overhauled electro-optics from UOMZ, emulating the sensor setup on the Ka-52.
I take a dim view of the single-seat Ka-50s prospects to be an effective night helicopter, there’s just too much for one pilot to do, but who knows.
The full-standard Buk-M2 (SA-17 GRIZZLY) TEL, as opposed to the Buk-M1-2 upgrade (ie a Buk-M1 TEL equipped with Buk-M2 missiles). Rarely seen, but Antey has unveiled a few new things at this show.
The Pantsyr-S1 fully loaded
Looks like the Iskander-M (SS-26 STONE) TEL, but significantly altered. I have no idea what this is. More to come.
In a snazzy new paintjob. The lack of black paint makes the optical sensors a lot easier to see – the one underneath the cockpit (sort of) is identical to that used on production versions of the Mi-28N (as well as the Ka-50 above). Closeup Here
What’s really of note though is the four big missile cylinders on the pylons. These are possibly air launched versions of the Khrizantema ATGM (AT-15), but I can’t be sure.
For some reason, on one Mi-28N present, they’ve swivelled the optical sensors around so they can’t be seen, yet on this example, it’s got the old style ball-sensor that has been replaced (the larger system at the bottom is the same):
Strange.
I expect better pictures of the new Tor-M2E (ie Tor-M1/ SA-15 follow-on) in the next update.
Pictures of the Su-35 should be ready soon, too.
There’s other, annoying and small watermarked pictures floating around of same, but why post them up?
VympelWhat is that guy smoking? The F-22 program was never “suspended”. Flight testing was curtailed for a while because they were using the PW-powered YF-22, but it crash landed. But the F-22A program didn’t skip a beat, Lockheed just had to complete the first EMD prototype for flight test work to resume.
Mate – it’s Pravda. You might as well ask the same question of that worthless Pavel Felgengauer hack.
VympelIt’s not 9M96/2. The export designators are 9M96E and 9M96E2, just like 48N6E and 48N6E2. The native designators are 9M96 and 9M96D, the D standing for something (I forget what) basically meaning longer range.
Yeah, by saying 9M96/2 I meant “rightly or wrongly” – Jane’s called it that, I believe (fat lot of good they are).
The D stands for Dal’naya, apparently.
Same for the 48N6-series, you have 48N6 and 48N6D, with the new S-400 missile being 48N6DM (probably the 48N6ME or 48N6E3 in export terms, but I haven’t seen those yet so they might not be right).
What’s the range of 48N6DM, anyway? Are they going to use 9M96 & 9M96D on the S-400? I thought they’d deploy S-400 TELs with a mix.
VympelFirst S-400s on combat alert around Moscow
First Battalion with S-400 to Go on the Watch
The first battalion equipped with the most advanced S-400 air defense missile system will be on combat alert in the Moscow region starting from Monday, August 6, 2007.
The ceremony of first watch will be held in Elektrostal town of the Moscow region and attended by Col.-Gen. Alexander Zelin and Almaz Research and Production Association GD Igor Ashurbeili.
From now on, a division of S-400 Triumph and a command post will protect the air of Moscow and its region.
The units with S-400 and machinery arrived at the place of permanent dislocation in the Moscow region on July 24, straight from the training ground in the Astrakhan region.
S-400 is designated to hit all types of aircraft, ranging from planes to unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles. S-400 could be also used to fight aerodynamic and ballistic targets, which makes it a key link in creating an air defense system in the battle ground. The maximum range of fire is around 400 kilometers, the altitude exceeds 30 kilometers.
I like the new truck they’re using as a basis, they look snazzy. Anyway, the TEL we can see is clearly not equipped with the 9M96 or the 9M96D (the latter of which has alternately been called 9M96/2 or 9M96M) – those would be the missiles small enough to put in a four-pack (so that a single TEL fully armed with them would carry 16 rather than 4 missiles).
The 40N6 (400km) missile is still being worked on, so it’s likely they’re entering combat duty with the improved 48N6DM.
VympelWell, at least Kh-102 and by extension, Kh-101, are still active programs.
VympelNerpa would be leased to the Indian Navy by the end of this year
Any source for that? Because it directly contradicts the statement of Russian Navy Admiral Shlemov that it was headed for the Pacific Fleet. Heck, Nerpa had a big Russian flag over her tubes when she headed out of the yard!
The Nerpa nuclear submarine was launched at the Amur shipyard and will join Russia’s Pacific Fleet in 2007 after undergoing sea trials, the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Vice-Admiral Anatoly Shlemov on Friday.
AFAIK, the media keep claiming that an Akula will be leased, and nothing but denials comes up, over and over.
VympelThe launchers are concealed behind the superstructure walls; between the tapered mast and the smoke funnel. You can see the door for the exhaust gases of the launching missile in Tango III’s attached photos and the launchers in the attached image below.
Ah yes, I can see them clearly now. Nice.
At least the Steregushchy and the first batch will use the Uran. Oniks is planned in the long term. http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=271&linkid=2179
Disappointing. By the first batch, do you mean up to Stoiky?
I’m not sure there is even provision for VLS SAM, but anyway, IMHO it is not a priority for a corvette sized ship. Similar discussions are also being made for MilGem project here in Turkey. MilGem is a patrol ship whose mission will be ensuring the safety of sea trade lines as well as littoral warfare against symmetric and assymetric threats in brown waters. Stereguschy’s missions will be similar to those of MilGem’s, hence the similarity in armament configuration.
I can’t see any on the model, so I doubt it has SA-N-9s. Not surprising, considering the smallest ship they’re fitted to is the Neustrashimy-class.
Speaking of Neustrashimy, if Stereguschy is equipped with Uran, does that mean they may have finally gotten round to fitting Neustrashimy with the Urans it was supposed to have from the start?
VympelCurrently Steregushchy doesn’t carry SS-N-26. It has a total of 8 3M42 Uran (SS-N-25 “Switchblade”) in two quad KT-184 launchers.
Where are they?
New generation of SSM’s will be installed “when they are ready”, AFAIK.
I would’ve thought Oniks was ready. Oh well.
Additionally, although it is on the design, Steregushchy doesn’t have SA-N-9 SAM’s.
I didn’t know it had SA-N-9s at all. Why aren’t they on either?
By the way, is it me or the Kahstan on the above photo does not have SA-N-8’s installed on the either side of the turret?
It doesn’t. Presumably because the ship isn’t combat-ready.
VympelI should note that this new heavy missile may well be closer to the mighty and fearful SS-18 as easily as it could be the SS-24.
VympelThat the Russians intended to develop a 10 warhead, heavy ICBM in the class of the SS-24 SCALPEL was no secret- news articles about this came out back in 2003/2004, as far as I can remember. Though one suddenly being launched for the first time- impressive.
I thought TOPOL-Ms were supposed to replace SATANs etc?!? How do you know its heavier? How many warheads?
That’s what the news articles say, direct from the Russians. Just type in RS-24, you’ll find it on google 🙂
And it’s supposed to replace SS-19 and SS-18, not just SS-18. The Topol-M could never be a replacement for either missile, it’s in a different class. You could argue whether they need replacing, but it looks like the Russians are set on silo and mobile Topol-Ms and these heavier RS-24s. Like the olden days 🙂
VympelA breach of cease-fire terms is tantamount to a return to hostilities.
The entire purpose of the 1991 war was to throw Iraq out of Kuwait (see Resolution 678). Those objectives were accomplished. You can’t return to hostilities when the original hostilities were for a (wisely) limited objective that was already acccomplished.
More importantly than that, Resolution 687 says nothing about automatic military action commencing again in the event of a breach of any term. Like it says, it’s for the Security Council to remain seized of the matter.
(things would be different if say, the US declared war on Iraq, but then the US hasn’t declared war since … a long time :))
I’ve been saying for a while now that the regime change was not justified under any UN resolution.
Yes, but any invasion for any purpose qualifies as an attack on all three.
VympelIt is sheer chutzpah of the highest order to point to supposed “breach” of Resolution 687 (in the form of ineffective, past-their-use-by-date, utterly useless mustard gas shells) as justifying military action, and is quite simply a complete corruption of the Resolution itself and indeed the entire way the UN operates.
Resolution 687 does not provide for military action in the event of Iraqi non-compliance, material or otherwise. It certainly does not contemplate the absurdist response of toppling it’s entire government.
Resolution 687 does not vest the United States with the power to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions any which way it sees fit. It is for The United Nations Security Council to enforce or not enforce resolutions as it sees fit, not the bloody United States:
The Security Council …
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
Resoluton 687 does say the following:
Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq,
Anyone who seriously argues that Resolution 687 contemplates the invasion of Iraq in light of what the Resolution 687 actually says is cherry-picking the resolution- to say nothing of the massive level of doublethink required to “enforce” a Resolution which affirms the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq by ….
Destroying it’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.
It was entirely legally (and morally) unjustified, and everyone now acknowledges (as was known before the war, but no one listened) that Iraq had nothing whatsoever- just like Iraq, UNMOVIC and the IAEA damn well said.
In short, please no inanities about UN resolutions providing a legal justification for any part of the war.
Sign In
