The pair of Su-27 Fulcrums….about regarding the ex-Moldovan Flankers

what you’ve been smoking Steve??? 😀

The only reasonable explanation could be that not all were wired so as to be nuclear-capable.

For sure, non of them were wired for nukes!!

I have a friend who buys and sells Migs (so knows his way round eastern built aircraft) and on an official visit to Nellis saw one of the Su-27’s hidden away. Unfortunately, he was not able to get close to the aircraft to confirm identity.

Buddy, are there any photos of Migs your friend has been selling, I`d like to see them, thanks a lot!!

I’m a amateur with s/w like this but I thought it would be fun to also consider the ‘evidence’ vs. other aircraft… if you laugh then do it better yourself, and actually I would like that

That is a nice comparison, although it needs further investigation…thanks
What you think of this?
This plane was spotted October 12, 2004, between the first and second session of Red Flag. Based on the size of the image, the plane is about 14 miles away. The top image is as the plane appeared on the color slide film, while the bottom image is the “red” channel (which turns the blue sky black) converted to gray scale.

source link

See the black lightning painted on the fin? That indicates a Malaysian MiG-29SE (lack of refuelling probe says it is a pre-MiG-29N-upgrade pic)

you right Flex, although the camo looks very similar to ours. They applied the same paint scheme on the soviet VVS last built fulcrums. 🙂

Someone has had a little fun retouching this shot – removed the markings from both aircraft – thats just another of the publicity shots taken during the 1990 North American tour by 2 Russian MiG-29s (with Il-76).

Canadian Forces Hornet – the CF ‘escorted’ the group into Canadian airspace from Alaska to Winnipeg and the MiGs went on to Ottawa. The photo may well be taken by (then WO) Vic Johnson who rode with them.

Looking at the Fulcrum camo, that is definitely not a russian one, so it couldn`t be taken in Canada. :p

the taxpayer was told why they were spending the 1 million per jet on them and the deal was always public and never held in secrecy in any way

Uhhhh….one million USD per plane, that`s almost scrap-metal price and not price for a valueable military aircraft. 😀 More important is to say that these moldovan Migs haven`t been flown at least four years(1993-1997). Before the deal, Moldovans requested the MAPO-MIG to make a deep inspection to determine the technical status and to price their planes accordingly. They found out that Migs were stored in contrary to all the regulations of aircraft treatment during parking and long stays. Aircrafts and engines have not been conserved, so to speak they were rusting every day on the airfield. The MAPO-MIG specialists stated it would cost up to 4 mil.USD to make each plane flyable again. Also russians have had enough time and opportunities to remove all the “sensitive” equipment like the jammer Gardenyia, the nuclear electronic, the Parol “IFF” system…etc. away from the planes.

Pic.1 left engine conservation underway….


Pic.2 engine putting back in to service, sometimes happen that residual conservation oil may catch fire. 😎

Anyway, have you seen this?. Former Moldovan Ministry of defence Valery Pasat jailed for ten years for illegal sale of 21 Migs-29 to USA. Here is the source…..link

If the USA evaluated the Su-27 in depth, they’d be in a position to develop systems and technologies guaranteeing they’d be able to blow one out of the sky far easier than anyone else.

Definitely, in case of Mig-29 this has happened already. Remember those Serbian Mig-29 pilots claiming their radars suddenly did not work during missions over Yugoslavia in 1999? I doubt that pilots were taking-off for a combat mission knowing that their radars are defective. I think this all has been properly prepared by the USAF.
I do not have any problem to accept the Su-27 being transfered to USA from former soviet state in early nineties, but I think having one or two Flankers without SPARES AND GROUND EQUIPMENT is almost worthless. Anyway, how would you then explain this statement? (Air magazine, 1998). Do you understand what were they looking for in 1998?

copy&paste
So what’s next? Davison wouldn’t elaborate on what’s on his wish list, saying, “We’re interested in all foreign hardware.” However, he wouldn’t mind running his magnifying glass over the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, flown by the Russian home defence interceptor force, Kazakhstan, several other former Soviet states and China. Anybody want to make a deal?
link

Martinez

They’ve managed to acquire the aircraft, acquiring spares isn’t out of the question. If the operation of the MiGs is classified, why would they announce that they need spares?.

As always, playing with words :rolleyes: …. How would they manage to keep the spares deals in secret when they failed to cover up the aircraft deal?. I never said it is hard to acquire some spares, especially from non-russian countries, but for thirty Migs29 you have to count huge “amount of” spares (engines, engine agreggates, …etc). That would be really hard to do it without any evidence when you realize who are you dealing with.
Anyway, I do not understand why would the evaulation of obsolete soviet “migs” be clasiffied, when operation of ultra-hyper modern F-22 is not??!!!. No offend, but I rather like those UFO stories from Area51.

The Moldovan MiG-29s, yes. But the Moldovan MiGs might not be the FULCRUMs that are flying. And there’s nothing to say that a few of them haven’t been repaired to fly around for a bit in an evaluation program.

Actualy, I`ve said the same but again “a few” are not thirty.

Correct, as they were wired for the carriage of nuclear weapons. If they were vanilla FULCRUMs we probably wouldn’t have cared.

TOTALLY BS, the mentioned wirring/blocks have been removed in early nineties. Study the CFE treaty. You`ve got vanillas, if you call that way nuclear uncapable migs!!…. 😀

Martinez

[QUOTE=bring_it_on]
I asked him the following question-

To which he replied

sorry if I do not feel at free to talk about figures, but I can say that the USAF operates “well in excess of 30” MiG-29s as of this moment.

Some time ago I also tried to find out what happened to ex-moldavian Migs-29. My source (USAF officer and a former pilot) answered that most of them were scrapped, few went to civilian market(~3) and aviation
museums(4~5). He doubted that USAF had ever operated (flown) them, but admitted the possibility there might have been one or two examples(gained from elsewhere) operational at USAF airforce bases.

To operate “thirty” Fulcrums that`s a damn huge consumption of spares and hell a lot of maintenance work and if we consider that USAF has/had no plants to produce Mig-29 spares, they have/had to buy them from somewhere. Did you ever heard that USAF is regularly looking for spares for its fleet of ex-soviet Mig-29?? 😀 Also do not forget that Migs were already in non-flyable conditions when they bought them . Anyway, I would be really surprised about USAF still cutting funds for their military programs, while still operating a fleet of obsolete Soviet fighters. For what reason, any clues? I`m sorry, but that`s all typical crap from Mr. ACIG.

Martinez

As the demonstrator example showed. It could be done, but that the option was never taken really. For the armament of the L-39 of FAG-25 AAMs are given in the books. It was demonstrated, that the L-39 could be flown with AAMs.
In reality, the FAG-25 had no AAMs and none trained with that after 1983.
It shows, that the former idea to use L-39s trainers for combat in wartime, was dropped. Transportating AAMs to that unit had not reinstated that capability “over-night”.

I`m sorry mate, I`ve been away few days.
I tought you would mention the R-3S at last. However, you missunderstood the point of using guided A2A missiles on the L-39.
Firstly, the L-39ZA trainers served in the PVO system (QRA) of CSLA since 1984. The L-39s were more efficient against helicopters and prop.planes at speeds where fast Migs were not able to fly therefore we have used a mix of
Mig-21 and L-39ZA, which worked well during eighties. The usual armament for the L-39ZA were unguided missiles S-5 in two UB-16 blocks and onboard canon the GSh-23. Lately, Mi-24 helicopters took over these “PVOs” routines to chase down “intruders” near the state border with Germany and Austria. I do not know whether there was a similar task for the L-39 in PVOs of the LSK/LV, but it is highly probable that they used them too.
Secondly, the idea of putting guided A2A missiles on the L-39 came from Czechoslovakia too. As you know the L-39 has been used to train military pilots. What you probably never heard of is that their training course also included the combat employment of the L-39. The pilot-students had used to work with gun sight, learn how to drop a bomb, to launch unguided missile and fire the cannon but the training program did not include training with guided A2A missiles. Therefore the airforce command decided to equip the L-39 trainers with the R-3S to improve the training program. The infrared R-3S being a first generation of soviet guided missiles has had numerous restriction prior to launch: minimal aircraft speed 550km/h, max. aicraft g-load 2, no usage against ground targets, etc.
Actually, you might quite often see the L-39 flying with the training missile the R-3U, while ocasionally they attached the real R-3S what happened during military exhibitions or airbase visits. The L-39ZA to R-3S modification
consisted of mounting the APU-13 launch rail, wirring and proper electronic(evaluate) blocks in the cockpit. This is a kind of upgrade which can be easily done during overhauls or small repairs on the aircraft. Some L-39C were
modified further, they added the radar-ranger SRD-5MK(from the Mig-21f) in the nose of the aircraft. First live fire excercises were carried out on 1. june 1988 in East Germany. Three L-39ZA from the 30.sbolp flew to the soviet
airbase in Damgarten where they showed the armed L-39 with R-3S missiles for the first time. East Germans were also participating on these excercises and took over the modification. After fall of the iron curtain in 1990 the
wide-spread adaptation to LSK/LV was probably stopped.

The L-39 with R-60 is a bit different story. Some Czech evaluated L-39 trainers were upgraded to carry and launch the R-60, but this all happened in nineties. The reason is obvious, the R-3S withdrawn from service, they needed replacement. The R-60 is generation ahead of the R-3S, it can be used against groud targets and has no flight restriction.

Martinez