Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russian MiG-31 fighter crashes in Urals, crew eject
RIAN ^ | November 19, 2010

Posted on 11/19/2010 4:00:29 AM PST by cunning_fish

A Russian MiG-31 Foxhound interceptor/fighter crashed on Friday in the Perm region of the Urals, but the two crew members ejected safely.

The crew have yet to be located, a local law enforcement officer said.

A local security official confirmed the crash but declined to identify the plane model, saying only that it "was not carrying any weapons" and posed no danger to residential areas.

Defense Ministry spokesman Vladimir Drik said later the pilot and navigator were "in a satisfactory condition."

A special commission has been set up to ascertain the cause of the crash.

MOSCOW/PERM, November 19 (RIA Novosti)


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Russia
KEYWORDS: crash; foxhound; raptor; russia

1 posted on 11/19/2010 4:00:34 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

The crew have yet to be located, a local law enforcement officer said.

Defense Ministry spokesman Vladimir Drik said later the pilot and navigator were “in a satisfactory condition.”

Huh?

Guess it is a little early for all the information to be in.


2 posted on 11/19/2010 4:05:39 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

http://www.adn.com/2010/11/18/1561424/searchers-scour-wilderness-for.html

On another note, in Alaska...


3 posted on 11/19/2010 4:11:12 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
Speaking of the MiG-31, a little-known problem with Soviet-era air defenses: the lack of air-refueling tankers.

Without a decent fleet of air-refueling tankers, fighters like the MiG-29, MiG-31, and Su-27 couldn't extend their range beyond circa 500-600 miles from the air base, and that left potentially dangerous gaps in air defense coverage out into the Arctic Ocean. And the lack of air-refueling tankers meant the Tu-95 bombers flying to the USA were essentially flying one-way missions.

That's why the USAF got over 800 KC-135's and 64 KC-10's, so they could extend the range of bombers and fighters for true worldwide operations. And that's why the next-generation order for tanker planes could be a HUGE one, possibly involving a production run over as many as 300 planes to completely replace the KC-135 fleet.

4 posted on 11/19/2010 5:39:18 AM PST by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Actually Tu-95 is pretty capable for a two-way trip even without refueling. You might be confusing it with Tu-4 - a B-29 carbon copy which was unable to get back home.
Also every model you named has inflight refueling capability. And Russians do have tankers too. For example an Il-78.
They have much less tankers comparing to USAF for a good reason.


5 posted on 11/19/2010 6:11:01 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
They have much less tankers comparing to USAF for a good reason.

One reason being that they did not have operational requirements to fly fighters to Japan or Germany to defend various locations if war broke out.
6 posted on 11/19/2010 7:45:09 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


7 posted on 11/27/2010 9:30:02 AM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson