Crashed Russian MiG-29 ran out of fuel awaiting repairs, officials say
By Doug G. Ware | Nov. 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM Follow @upi
MOSCOW, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- A $30 million Russian fighter jet crashed into the Mediterranean Sea earlier this month because it ran out of fuel while it waited for an aircraft carrier to fix its landing equipment, U.S. naval officials said.
The Soviet-era Mikoyan MiG-29K crashed Nov. 13 off the coast of Syria after its first attempt to land on the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov failed, the United States Naval Institute said Tuesday, based on the translation of a Russian report.
The MiG-29K was flying a sortie with two other aircraft in the area near Syria and was the last that attempted to land. When the aircraft ahead of the MiG broke the landing cable on the carrier, the pilot had to fly out over the Mediterranean and wait for the cable to be repaired, the Russian report said.
While the aircraft was awaiting the repairs, it ran out of fuel and dropped into the sea.
"While in the holding area, both of the fighter's engines shut down," the translation of the Russian report said. "A preliminary explanation is that they were no longer receiving fuel. ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option -- to eject."
The MiG pilot did eject and was rescued by helicopter a short time later.
NATO ships in the area offered to assist, but the Russians refused, a NATO official told USNI News last week.
The MiG-29K was developed and made its first flight in the 1980s but didn't enter Russian service until 2010. Each jet costs about $30 million.
A US carrier would have sent a tanker up to refuel the guy.The MiG-29K was flying a sortie with two other aircraft in the area near Syria and was the last that attempted to land. When the aircraft ahead of the MiG broke the landing cable on the carrier, the pilot had to fly out over the Mediterranean and wait for the cable to be repaired
F16 drivers would disagree.ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option -- to eject."
Let's see him do that dead stick landing on a carrier deck!
I suppose that would increase the pucker factor. Especially with no arresting cables. In an airplane that wasn't designed to land on a carrier to begin with.Let's see him do that dead stick landing on a carrier deck!
+1.Got to love the "Carrier" mini series, especially the parts that show how young and inexperienced the enlisted persons crew is. Take them all to Captain's Mast! One of the best programs PBS ever produced, and well worth a binge watch on your streaming service du jour if you haven't seen it yet.....
Here's the missing half of the above story.....
Satellite images highlight potential problems with Russia’s lone aircraft carrier
By Thomas Gibbons-Neff
The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov passes within a few miles of Dover, in the southeast of England, as a fleet of Russian warships sail through the North Sea, and the English Channel on Oct. 21. (Gareth Fuller/PA Wire)
Recently released satellite images of the airfield Russia uses in Syria suggest that a contingent of jets from Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, which is floating off Syria’s coast, have been moved inland.
The pictures taken Nov. 20 and released to the defense analysis company IHS Janes, show nine jets adjacent to the tarmac at Khmeimim air base in northern Syria. They are the same types as those flown off the Admiral Kuznetsov, an aging, Soviet-era heavy-aircraft-carrying missile cruiser that began launching jets into Syrian airspace earlier this month.
If confirmed, the transfer of the aircraft from ship to shore is just one more wrinkle in the Kuznetsov’s very public insertion into the Syria campaign, an action that began in October when the 1,000-foot hulk steamed through the English Channel on its way to Syria and continued earlier this month when a carrier-based jet crashed into the Mediterranean before landing.
Critics have derided the Kutznetsov — with its myriad mechanical problems and propensity to belch black smoke — for being nothing more than a propaganda tool for the Kremlin. Others point to the Soviet-era ship and its small detachment of trained pilots and aircraft as a modest attempt to field a maritime task force capable — at least on some levels — of mimicking its U.S. supercarrier counterparts.
Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery shows Su-33 jets parked among Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft at Khmeimim air base in Syria on Nov. 20. (Courtesy of IHS Janes)
The nine aircraft in the satellite images include eight Russian navy Su-33s and one MiG-29K, parked alongside Russia’s normal array of Su-34s, Su-35s and Su-24s. When Russia began its air campaign in Syria, about a dozen Su-25 ground-attack jets were stationed at Khmeimim but returned to Russia following President Vladimir Putin’s March announcement that he was withdrawing some of his forces.
On Nov. 14, a Russian Mig-29K from the Kuznetsov crashed in the Mediterranean. Citing the Russian news outlet Gazeta, IHS reported that the crash was the result of a problem with one of the Kuznetsov’s arrestor cables, forcing the jet to circle the carrier. Arrestor cables are spread across the flight decks of aircraft carriers to catch jets as they land at high speeds, and unlike U.S. carriers, the Kuznetsov does not have a catapult to launch its aircraft; it relies on a ramped deck to help get the jets aloft.
While in its holding pattern, the MiG’s engines failed and the jet went down several miles from the carrier. The pilot, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, was recovered without incident. Despite the Nov. 14 crash, the Russian Interfax news agency reported that the Kuznetsov was participating in strikes in Syria the next day, as Russian and Syrian government forces began their renewed blitz on eastern Aleppo. The Kuznetsov first deployed with about 20 fighters aboard — a mixture of Su-33s and a small number of Mig-29Ks — as well as a number of helicopters that provide search-and-rescue capabilities and air traffic control.
The MiG-29K is a multi-role fighter capable of attacking both targets in the air and on the ground, and is a newer, carrier-based variant of the traditional MiG-29. The Su-33, on the other hand, is designed to primarily go after other fighters. Videos posted on social media have shown both aircraft in the skies over Syria.
Supersonic passenger planes may begin test flights next year
Virgin Group founder Richard Branson is teaming up with a Denver company to build a supersonic passenger jet. (Boom Supersonic)
The time it takes to fly from New York to London may be cut by more than half if Virgin Group founder Richard Branson and a Denver start-up are successful in their effort to create a new supersonic passenger plane.
The manufacturing team for Branson’s Virgin Galactic company is working with Boom Supersonic to test a prototype next year of a passenger plane that can fly at Mach 2.2, more than twice the speed of a typical commercial jet.
Supersonic flights came to a halt after the July 25, 2000, crash of an Air France Concorde outside Paris that killed 113 people, and the downturn in the aviation industry after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Blake Scholl, chief executive of Boom, said safety concerns were not the reason the Concorde jets were taken offline. Instead, he said the planes were too expensive to operate.
“Today, we are sitting on 50 years of progress on aerodynamics, fuel economy, design,” he said.
Instead of spending seven hours and paying up to $5,500 for a flight from New York to London on a Boeing 747, travelers can spend about $2,500 for a three-hour flight to cross the Atlantic on a supersonic jet, according to Boom.
“Supersonic travel for both cargo and humans will result in many exciting benefits,” Branson said in a video statement. Under the partnership, Branson is expected to fly the Boom jets in his Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Australia airlines.
The idea has the support of the travel industry.
A survey of more than 2,000 travel boards and tourism industry groups taken last month found that 63% of senior travel executives expect supersonic flying to become a mainstream form of commercial transportation.
Branson throws away a lot of his money on pie-in-the-sky projects, including that sub-orbital space plane thingy. I wouldn't put it past them to succeed with him as the venture capital, especially when he already has the route selected and owns his own trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific airlines.....Nice looking airplane.
But color me skeptical, especially considering that it's a startup company.
Russia just lost its second warplane in a month off Syria
A Russian Su-33 fighter jet, like the one reported crashed, stands on the flight deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. (AP/AP)
By Andrew Roth and David Filipov
December 5 at 6:24 AM
MOSCOW — A Russian warplane crashed off the coast of Syria, Russian state news agencies reported Monday, the second plane in less than a month to plunge into the Mediterranean Sea while attempting to land on Russia’s Soviet-era Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.
The Russian Su-33 Flanker crashed after flying a combat mission, Russia’s Ministry of Defense announced Monday, but it said the cause of the accident was a mechanical malfunction aboard the aircraft carrier.
“After carrying out its military activity in the skies over Syria, an Su-33 fighter fell off the deck of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov on landing because a cable in the arresting gear snapped,” the ministry said in an official statement carried by the Interfax news agency.
The pilot ejected and was saved by a search-and-rescue team, the statement added. The pilot was not injured.
Last month, a Russian MiG-29K fighter jet crashed while attempting to make an emergency landing on the aircraft carrier shortly after takeoff.
The Admiral Kuznetsov, launched in 1985, has a history of on-board accidents during training missions. The Syrian conflict is its first combat deployment. Unlike other modern aircraft carriers, it does not have a catapult system, and the jets it carries must launch off a ramp, limiting the load of fuel and weapons that they can carry.
That plane is "We're going to do exactly what they did 40 years ago and expect different results". Don't get me wrong, supersonic planes give me wood. But the Concord was economically doomed because it had no cargo capacity.Branson throws away a lot of his money on pie-in-the-sky projects, including that sub-orbital space plane thingy. I wouldn't put it past them to succeed with him as the venture capital, especially when he already has the route selected and owns his own trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific airlines.....
From somebody who has beaten a single-engine airplane from New Jersey to Florida in my GTI 16V, you will get no argument from me that flying is obsolete.That plane is "We're going to do exactly what they did 40 years ago and expect different results". Don't get me wrong, supersonic planes give me wood. But the Concord was economically doomed because it had no cargo capacity.
And unless I need to hand you a briefcase full of untraceable bills or stolen artifacts, I can beat you across the ocean with a WebEx.
Trump says new Air Force One too costly: 'Cancel order!'
December 6, 2016
The current double-decker 747-200s used as Air Force One, first ordered by Ronald Reagan and put into service in 1990, are getting old (AFP Photo/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI)
Washington (AFP) - President-elect Donald Trump called Tuesday for the cancellation of a multi-billion dollar Boeing contract to build the next Air Force One, calling the ballooning costs "ridiculous."
"Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!" Trump tweeted.
Converting a pair of 747-8 jumbo jets to state-of-the-art luxury command centers by 2024 had been estimated to cost $3 billion when Boeing was picked for the job in January 2015.
The legendary light blue and white liveried jets -- "United States of America" emblazoned on the fuselage and an American flag on the tail -- are a powerful symbol of US might.
But the current double-decker 747-200s, first ordered by Ronald Reagan and put into service in 1990, are getting old.
Earlier this year, the Air Force issued the first of a series of contracts for the project to build new ones.
Ironically, it was a $25.7 million effort to look at ways to cut the costs of fielding the next presidential aircraft.
Instead, cost projections have apparently ballooned, prompting Trump's outburst.
"I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money," the president-elect told reporters at Trump Tower, his Manhattan headquarters.
He said the estimated $4 billion cost was "totally out of control" and "ridiculous."
Boeing had no immediate comment.
Prestige items like Air Force One have been targeted before because of spiralling costs.
In 2009, President Barack Obama halted a project to replace the Marine One helicopters that ferry the president.
Costs had soared to nearly $11.5 billion after the 28 helicopters were ordered in 2005.
Yeah, editor FAIL.That doesn't look like a 747-200 to me.....
Sure, they're getting old, but I bet they don't have a whole lot of hours or cycles on them. In commercial service, airliners fly 12 or more hours a day and get several cycles on them every day and they still last 30 years. These two airplanes are probably the best-maintaned hangar queens on the planet. So what exactly is wrong with the existing VC-25s, and what would brand-new replacements do better?But the current double-decker 747-200s, first ordered by Ronald Reagan and put into service in 1990, are getting old.
IIRC, Boeing has announced that they want to cease production of the 747 line in the near future. Unless you want to see Air Force One as a Boeing 787 or 767, they need to order replacements for the current 200-series now so that the new airplanes have an additional 25 year of air life. That was the justification used by the Air Force when I started bidding the project with both Boeing and Scarebus.So what exactly is wrong with the existing VC-25s, and what would brand-new replacements do better?
Tell me again why the existing VC25s can't continue to be used indefinitely? Again, these are low-hour, low cycle-count airframes.IIRC, Boeing has announced that they want to cease production of the 747 line in the near future. Unless you want to see Air Force One as a Boeing 787 or 767, they need to order replacements for the current 200-series now so that the new airplanes have an additional 25 year of air life.
My understanding is you only get to use that call sign if you're flying a plane that's owned & operated by the US Air Force, that happens to be carrying the President.Speaking of Air Force One, I bet that Trump's private pilot is drooling right now with thoughts of getting to use the Air Force One callsign in a few weeks.....