You don’t buy 8 billion dollars worth of groceries and then stop the whole deal because in one shipment the Icecream has melted around the edges.
Agreed, but could also be a means of pressuring MiG to deliver new airframes. I haven’t heard any specific complaints about the other stuff in the package.
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.
Care to explain? English is not my native language.
Ahhh, so you read the contract… the verbal difference between “new” and “as new” is not especially clear, especially when dealing with translators.
No, and neither did you.
And I don’t believe that in a multi billion contract the customer wouldn’t take care about the “new” versus “as new” expression. I don’t believe that the Algerians don’t have people who know Russian to read the contracts papers written in that language.
besides and airframe sitting in storage that has not been flown or sold to a customer is new… isn’t it?
After 16-17 years of “storage” in Russian conditions I wouldn’t qualify it as new. This is not a Kalashnikov greased and put in a box, the aircraft is a complex piece of machinery which will degrade, even if not used.
The fact that the Algerian Government is swinging west suggests they would find fault with the equipment anyway just to save face when they back out of the agreement.
Let’s wait and see if that is the case. Again, I suspect that they are just trying to pressure the Rusians (and MiG) to deliver new airframes. They could even drop the MiG part of the deal and still that doesn’t prove anything – except that they didn’t want old airframes, but if they drop the whole deal (Su, Yak, tanks, BMPs,…), I’ll agree with what you said above.
************
Arthur,
Got a source for that?
Yes. As far as I know it happened to Romania (see below) and Hungary (member Sainz from this forum could confirm that)
Here’ one source, but you probably can’t read it; an article about the first Soviet planes received by Romania, it’s written by one of our leading aviation historians
http://www.virtualarad.com/orizont_aviatic/decembrie_2004/articol4/articol_4.htm
Here’s the key phrase:
“…singurul necaz a fost acela ca nu toate avioanele au fost noi. Pe unele dintre ele inca se mai vedeau stelutele care marcasera victoriile aeriene obtinute in razboiul din Coreea.”
“…the only problem being that not all aircraft were new. On some of them one could still see the small stars which marked the aerial victories obtained in the Coreean war.”
This was 1952, the aircraft were MiG-15.
I have another article (on print) mentioning the same thing, plus the patched .50 cal holes – written by a former MiG-15 pilot, later CIC of the Air Force (gen. Iosif Rus).
There is a third one, where one pilot had to eject after putting into a flat spin a MiG-15 (not the one he usually flew)
“…Obisnuit cu avionul meu greu in comenzi (probabil descentrat in Corea)”
“…I was used with my aircraft which was slow in response (probably damaged in Korea)”
Also, a former RoAF maintainer who had worked in his first years of duty with guys which had previous experience on the Fagot, told me the same thing.
I hope 4 sources are enough 😉
Merry Christmas 🙂
Sign In
