Burger,

yes.. the MiG-31 has a ground based radar inside of it..

Correct! At least inasmuch as an F-22 has an AWACs platform clamped to one of its hardpoints. All to often in discussions like this the Russian aircraft is flying in a straight line, all on its own, with no external support (whether it was designed to do so or not) while the ‘western’ aircraft has at its disposal all kinds of support platforms and lots of wingmen… Of course, the western aircraft can bring tactics into play while the Russian aircraft cannot.

Clearly for this scenario to happen it would have to take place over Russian airspace (I cannot imagine MiG-31(M)s being deployed abroad for any reason). Therefore we should at least assume home advantage for the Russian aircraft in that it will have ground-based radar and other facilities at its disposal.

As for a clean fight between the two – unless something radical changes (or has changed and we don’t know about it) in Russia’s ability to detect very stealthy targets, I think the F-22 has the edge.

While we’re on the subject(-ish) I’d like to ask a question that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory answer to: Does anyone have accurate/reliable figures for the vehicular losses of the US forces deployed in Iraq?

Obviously this is complicated to answer because one must first accept a particular definition of the concept of ‘loss’ – i.e. are vehicles lost when they’re out of the theatre and sent home for repairs or are they lost only when completely written off? Nonetheless, some figures would be welcome.

I’m particularly interested in comparing this to Russian Federation vehicular losses in the second Chechnya war… for relatively obvious reasons.

Likewise, RVV-AE would be PBB-AE.

Hey, isn’t it PBB-A3? As in the Russian ‘E’? Off topic but I’m still curious as to whether I’m right or not.

From RIA Novosti – the plot thickens…

MOSCOW, May 3. (RIA Novosti) – It seems that Russia’s Mikoyan-Gurevich and Sukhoi corporations will compete against each other in Venezuela. The country’s Defense Ministry is considering purchasing Su-27 fighter-bombers and Su-25 ground-attack jets even though it has not completed talks on buying MiG-29-SMT air-superiority fighters, a leading business daily, Vedomosti, writes.

A delegation of Venezuela’s Defense Ministry saw Sukhoi aircraft at a defense technology exhibition for Latin America that ended in Rio de Janeiro on April 29. Venezuela could buy Su-25s for its navy and Su-27 for its air force. In all, two squadrons, comprising 10 to 12 Su-25s and Su-27s, might be purchased.

In October 2004, Moscow promised to sell defense systems worth $500 million to the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. The first contract for the delivery of 10 Mil Mi-17 and Mi-26 helicopters, as well as 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles worth $120 million, was signed in February. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complained then that Venezuelan weapons could fall into the hands of Colombian rebels and other anti-U.S. forces in Latin America.

Venezuela is experiencing problems with its military aircraft because the United States has refused to sell spare parts for the 22 F-16 fighters that were bought before Chavez’s election, Ruslan Pukhov, the director of the Center for Analyzing Strategies and Technologies, said. In his opinion, Moscow could sell Su-25s and Su-27s from its air-force surplus because their batch production has stopped. In that case, the entire contract would cost about $250 million, the paper writes.

However, the contract would deprive the MiG concern of money, as the company is negotiating the sale of MiG-29-SMT fighters worth about $250 million to Venezuela, Marat Kenzhetayev, an expert with the Center of Disarmament Problems, said.

Thanks SteveO – wow, I had no idea it was also amphibious! Cool!

Sean,

Your isolationist views, while logical, understandable and even commendable, do not reflect those of your government and the varrious institutions that plan the foreign policies thereof.

The figure of 9% may indeed appear to be insignificant in relation to the general amount of US oil consumption but is not insignificant if taken to mean the amount of oil the US could control but doesn’t. It doesn’t matter much whether Venezuelan oil goes to the US or other US captive markets as long as the US controls it. In my opinion not a small thing to go to war for (or to suppot a coup for). If you think back the US was prepared to invade Cuba before the missile crisis, it did invade Grenada and Panama and did suppot all sorts of undemocratic governments in Latin America in order to keep those countries within its sphere of influence. It also went to war in Korea, Vietnam and Serbia for pretty much that purpose. None of these states produce any oil worth mentioning but the idea that they would be successful while non-aligned or while allied to US competitors (and could ‘export’ their non-alignment to other states) has been seen as unacceptable enough to use military force. Now, in my opinion, none of this applies to Venezuela yet as I simply don’t think the government there has moved far enough away from US influence to justify it – but it might if things get worse.

Gentlemen,

Please bear in mind that the price of petrol (gas) in the US is an insignificant factor in this that is often brought up by leftist of liberal media in order to simplify the concept of US control of oil to its readers. It is a factor, because low oil prices grease the efficiency of the US and US influenced economies. However, much, much more important is the control of oil around the world in order to control (and therefore have the ability to restrict) its distribution.

Most Americans could care less about Cuba. I’d even be willing to bet less than 1% of the population know that it used to be a US possesion. Other than Cuban refugees in Florida, Cuba could drop into a big hole in the ground and unless it took the whole Gulf of Mexico with it, the population of the US won’t lose any sleep over it.

Same thing with Venezuela.

Regardless of whether the public is aware (or give a flying feck) the political establishment is very much aware of Cuba. The republic has represented both a direct security threat (the missile crisis) and a dangerous alternative (i.e. a potential exporter of socialist and anti-US ideas to other states in the region). The missile crisis is well documented so no comment is necessary. The dangerous alternative is a bit more complex. Basically the fear was that a sucessful socialist (commie) state might inspire others states to go that way – pretty much the same domino effect that had the US trembling over Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos etc etc.

This is related to Venezuela but there is a bigger issue at stake too – basically oil. If the US isn’t able to control or influence the distribution of Venezuelan oil this means not only that the oil can go to political and economic rivals (like China) but also that the Venezuelans can manipulate production in order to have their own say in the price of their oil (which obviously affects the world oil price). On the other hand, if a regime is placed in Venezuela that creates favourable conditions for US oil companies these companies can then control or influence production and decide who the oil goes to. However, the current government isn’t yet, in my opinion, hostile enough to US oil companies (and other corporations) to justify military or other subversive action. Time will tell whether this situation will worsen or otherwise.