Russia Confirms talks on delivery of MiG-31s to Syria
MOSCOW, September 3 (RIA Novosti) – Russia and Syria are in talks on the delivery of at least eight MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors under a contract signed two years ago, a Russian business daily said on Thursday, citing an industry official.
Kommersant said Russia has so far denied reaching a deal with Syria on MiG-31 sales, but Damascus insisted in May on the existence of a contract worth an estimated $400-500 million.
“A couple of years ago we signed two contracts [with Syria] – one on MiG-29M and another – on MiG-31. The first is being implemented, but the MiG-31 contract has never become effective… I hope that the contract will be implemented sooner or later,” Alexei Fyodorov, the head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), told Kommersant.
According to Kommersant, Russia’s Sokol aircraft manufacturing plant started preparatory work for assembly of MiG-31 from hulls (without engines and weapons) kept in storage since 1994, when the production of the interceptors was officially discontinued.
However, the actual assembly has never materialized, the paper said.
The MiG-31 Foxhound is a two-seat supersonic interceptor aircraft developed to replace the MiG-25 Foxbat. It is equipped with two D-30F6 turbofan two-shaft engines with a common afterburner and a variable supersonic nozzle, which allow the aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds of up to Mach 2.83.
The interceptor also features unique air-to-air missiles capable of hitting targets at ranges exceeding 200 kilometers (125 miles), including aircraft with stealth capabilities, cruise missiles, and supersonic aircraft.
According to various sources, about 500 MiG-31s have been produced since production began in 1978, approximately 370 of which remain in service with the Russian Air Force.
The sales of MiG-31 aircraft to Damascus may spark criticism in the West and Israel, which consider arming Syria a threat to regional security, the Kommersant said.
Source: RIA Novosti
I wonder what would happen if the Titanic turned the right way? That means it might not have hit the iceberg. What would happen then?
I wonder what would happen if the Titanic turned the right way? That means it might not have hit the iceberg. What would happen then?
why don’t we just ditch the F-35 for a navalised Typhoon or Tornado or just upgrade the Harrier? It’d be cheaper
nice
gulfkiller
This seems like such a random question, you can get a license, you can get an NPPL or PPL.
What we would like as forumites are more specific details of what you would like to achieve, that way we can actively converse over the topic in hand.Rgds
Dean
I would like to fly personal planes (e.g. the Europa XS) as a recreational activity, not a lot else I can say.
wtf?
I’ve tried both the address given and “http://www.lustylindy.co.uk” but according to google neither of them exist!
That’d be interesting…
That was the carrier version.
V/1500 launching off the HMS Argus? That’d be like launching a Rockwell B-1 off the USS Nimitz!
No good arguing about the HP bombers, the Zeps were true successful strategic bombers and used before them!:diablo:
Well the Zeps certainly had potential to be great strategic bombers, but they never got to properly show this potential as they were considerably under-armed, slow and let’s be honest – a hard target to miss. And a body filled with hydrogen (or is it helium?) isn’t a great thing to have whilst under attack.
No, it is not true.
As I wrote earlier, this is Russian L-39 – see the insignias and paint scheme.
The Somalian Air Force insignia was WHITE star in BLUE CIRCLE – see here:
http://wp.scn.ru/en/markings/opers/africa/20.Beside that, after Somalia – Ethiopian war for Ogaden in 1977, the international relations between USSR/Russia and Somalia became strained. And probabilities for Somalia to repair their aircraft in Russia are practically impossible.
Well I must be either: going blind or was just having a quick glance through as I thought it was just a white star.
And for the record I did know that Somalia never used L-39s, I was just commenting on the similarity.
I’ve been researching the Handley Pages in WW1 for nearly 2 years, so I did realise that, and I wasn’t aware that size and engine numbers decided as to whether it’s a strategic bomber or not……
I thought strategic bombers were planes which could travel at least something like 700-1000 miles
The V/1500 was specifically designed to be able to strike Berlin from RFC/RAF airbases, beyond the reach of enemy fighters. Now that’s a strategic bomber.
Maybe the O/100 and O/400 bombers were strategic bombers when they were the largest bombers in RFC but when the V/1500 came along it raised the bar for what a strategic bomber is.
The Type Os just became heavy bombers.
It all depends on which book you consult – and how you interpret the definition.
Bill Gunston, in his ‘The Osprey Encyclopaedia of Russian Aircraft’ calls the Illya Mourmets a ‘Strategic Bomber’.
Also – from this excellent source……
Although Igor Sikorsky originally intended his giants for more peaceful purposes almost all of them were used by the Escadra vozdushnykh korabley or Squadron of Flying Ships during World War One. This unit, led by General Mikhail V. Shidlovskiy, chairman of the R-BVZ, constituted the worlds first long range strategic bomber and reconnaissance squadron. It’s theater of operations covered vast expanses of the eastern front which included the Austro-Hungarian region of conflict in the south as well as the East Prussian front in the north.
Without doubt the V/1500 was a strategic bomber – but let’s not overlook the Russian achievements….
Plus – the V/1500 never actually did any Strategic Bombing.….:eek:
Ken
Of course, the Sikorsky was a beast of a bomber (I believe it even had a bomb bay), not bad for 1914.
The V/1500 did do a strategic-esque bombing mission on Kabul during the Third Anglo-Afghan War of of 1919.
I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_V/1500:
“This could be said to be the first decisive use of strategic bombing”.
Interpret that how you want but I interpret that as meaning a strategic bombing attack.
How was the V/1500 the first strategic bomber – what about the O/100 and O/400?
The O/100 and O/400 were about half as big as the V/1500, they had 2 engines whilst the V/1500 had four (and was the first British bomber to have 4 engines)
I think you’ll find that the Imperial Russian Military were operating the Sikorsky ‘Illya Mouromets’ as early as 1914….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets
Ken
“The much bigger V/1500 was the first four-engined British production aircraft and the first truly strategic bomber in history“
-The Encyclopedia of the World’s Combat Aircraft: A technical directory of the major warplanes from World War 1 to the present day – entry “Handley Page night bombers”, page 101.
And yes the Sikorsky bomber is in that book
I recommend you buy it, it’s a great book (it even has pictures on all entries).
That particular airplane scheme is the former paint scheme of the Lone Star Flight Museum’s B-25. It was painted up in pseudo PBJ markings and flew around the states here promoting the Disabled American Veterans cause.
You can see it in it’s old markings here: http://www.cablesmart-austin.com/LSFM.html
It is now flying in colors honoring the Doolittle Raiders: http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=2456&page=12
Ryan
Oh right, thanks