willedoo

The plot thickens. CEO of MiG, Sergei Korotkov has denied reports of the supposed MiG-31 delivery to Syria and has said they have no intention of operating the MiGs there. It looks like the story was started by Turkish news agency, BGN. http://www.sputniknews.com/military/20150822/1026049778/no-mig-31-for-syria.html

Just an edit for the above post - the Syrian MiG-31 interceptors have been on order since 2007, but the delivery seems relevant to the current situation there.

You're probably quite right there, Nev. We might have only seen the tip of it. This is the Eastern Gulf region as I see it: All America's loyal allies (excluding Israel) in the region are Sunni. IS is Sunni Iran is Shiite The minority Iraqi government is Shiite Assad's Syria is Shiite related Russia's main influence in the region is Iran and Syria which they would like to maintain, and possibly increase to other countries. Iran, for it's own security, would like to maintain influence in Syria and extend that to Iraq. The previous Iraqi leadership was getting very friendly with Iran and Russia, then all of a sudden, IS showed up. Goodbye Iraqi leader, hello new approved guy. America would like to extend it's influence to the entire region. Iran is in the too hard basket for the US, but they would like to control Iraq and Syria to contain Iranian and Russian influence. Sunni Gulf States would like to see Syria as a Sunni state, to enable oil to be pipelined via Syria to Turkey. But I could just go on and on, there's no end to it, just one big chess game. Unfortunately for Syria, they're just a pawn in all this. There's talk (probably just a conspiracy theory) about a looming US/Russian deal. You give up Assad, we give you the Donbass. Back to aviation - Syria received six MiG-31 interceptors from Russia a few days ago, after the US descision to invade Syria's border with air strikes. Maybe a little message there from President Putin - bomb IS, but stay away from Syrian Government forces. I think the MiG's are upgraded to a reasonably capable level. To quote Jane's on the Syrian MiG-31's: "In particular, the MiG-31's NIIP N007 S-800 SBI-16 (RP-31) Zaslon or Zaslon-A electronically scanned phased-array fire-control radar (NATO codename 'Flash Dance') affords it an impressive beyond-visual range capability, enabling it to see airborne targets out to a range of 108 n miles (200 km; 124 miles) in a clutter-free forward sector, or 48 n miles (90 km; 56 miles) to the rear. It is capable of tracking 10 targets and attacking four simultaneously. Coupled with this radar, the MiG-31's R-33 (NATO codename AA-9 'Amos') or R-37 (AA-X-13/AA-13 'Arrow') long-range air-to-air missiles afford it a highly potent beyond-visual range (BVR) air-to-air capability." Syria sounds like a good place for us to stay out of.

It seems like foreign policy is still made with a Cold War mentality. That was 20 years ago. Maybe it's time to forget about creating client states. Stop funding, arming and training rebel groups, and just move on. That business model doesn't seem to be working. Working with one dictator would probably be better in the long run than creating a million rebel/terror groups. It's like we're boxing ourself into a corner.

I think it was a couple of years ago, Scott, that they started changing over from F-4 target drones to the F-16. I think their stated reason at the time was to have a more modern target. Good for business as well, but I don't know how many they actually hit. One good thing is that they won't shoot any more Phantoms, but I guess a lot will be scrapped anyway.

Well, all the allied military action in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq has further de-stabilized the region and made the world a more dangerous place. So it's hard to see more of the same suddenly working by some miracle. IS should never have got a leg up, but that's another issue. The problem is how to get rid of them, and the answer is simple. If we all stayed out of it, an alliance between Syria, Iran and the Kurds (with permission from the Iraqi Government), would wipe them out in three months, and the US knows that. Only problem is that it wouldn't fit the West's geopolitical template. After watching IS being flicked with a wet tea towel for a year now, it's hard to see how anyone could believe we're really trying to stop them.

It's not a matter of snobbing them. It's just a matter of having the b***s to stand up for ourselves and do what our defence experts and ex miltary leaders are suggesting. That is to demand at least some sort of plan before we commit. The issue with Syria is that it is a soverign country that has not invited us to undergo military operations there, unlike the case of Iraq, which has. Syria also has very poweful friends in Russia and Iran, who will be watching very closely who we actually bomb. Turkey is already bombing the Kurds, so who's next? This was supposed to be about stopping IS, not geopolitics. And that's what our government and military need to be absolutely clear about first.

It's not a matter of snobbing them. It's just a matter of having the b***s to stand up for ourselves and do what our defence experts and ex miltary leaders are suggesting. That is to demand at least some sort of plan before we commit. The issue with Syria is that it is a soverign country that has not invited us to undergo military operations there, unlike the case of Iraq, which has. Syria also has very poweful friends in Russia and Iran, who will be watching very closely who we actually bomb. Turkey is already bombing the Kurds, so who's next? This was supposed to be about stopping IS, not geopolitics. And that's what our government and military need to be absolutely clear about first.

Well that's what we've done for a long time. Problem these days is that the US of A , for a long time now, hasn't been very smart about how they go to war, and we'll get into more trouble than Flash Gordon if we continue to blindly follow and not have the maturity to question. Most countries respect strength, not weakness. If we're going to be involved in someone else's war, we should be accepted as an equal partner in the descision making process. I don't know what the military to military contact is, but just having the the leader of the world ring up our buffoons in Canberra with a request seems a dumb way to do things.

Well that's what we've done for a long time. Problem these days is that the US of A , for a long time now, hasn't been very smart about how they go to war, and we'll get into more trouble than Flash Gordon if we continue to blindly follow and not have the maturity to question. Most countries respect strength, not weakness. If we're going to be involved in someone else's war, we should be accepted as an equal partner in the descision making process. I don't know what the military to military contact is, but just having the the leader of the world ring up our buffoons in Canberra with a request seems a dumb way to do things.

Looks like our esteemed leadership has a bit of a dilemma since being asked to send our FA-18's to bomb Syria. They quote a few legal issues (a bit of an understatement). http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australia-considers-us-request-bomb-targets-syria-33221042 It could be a case of the blind leading the blind, as the US president recently admitted that they didn't really have a strategy. To quote Peter Leahy in last weekend's Weekend Australian: " Without a strategy and a clear view of what we want to achieve, including an end-state and exit plan, we shouldn't be making any further commitments to Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan." Maybe we'd be better off under military rule; our Generals seem to be a lot smarter than our politicians. Well, most people are, actually. Why can't the comedians in Canberra pluck up the courage to say "Come up with a plan first". The wives and families of our RAAF pilots deserve at least that from these clowns. Cheers, Willie.

Looks like our esteemed leadership has a bit of a dilemma since being asked to send our FA-18's to bomb Syria. They quote a few legal issues (a bit of an understatement). http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australia-considers-us-request-bomb-targets-syria-33221042 It could be a case of the blind leading the blind, as the US president recently admitted that they didn't really have a strategy. To quote Peter Leahy in last weekend's Weekend Australian: " Without a strategy and a clear view of what we want to achieve, including an end-state and exit plan, we shouldn't be making any further commitments to Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan." Maybe we'd be better off under military rule; our Generals seem to be a lot smarter than our politicians. Well, most people are, actually. Why can't the comedians in Canberra pluck up the courage to say "Come up with a plan first". The wives and families of our RAAF pilots deserve at least that from these clowns. Cheers, Willie.

The Avenger at the David Hack Classic. Cheers, Willie.

I guess the cheapest way is to keep hitching a ride with the Russians. All this sounds a bit expensive.

I guess the cheapest way is to keep hitching a ride with the Russians. All this sounds a bit expensive.

They could do a lot worse, SrPilot. Those are three good capable aircraft that could live on with a bit of a tweak. I could never understand why the powers to be spend most of their time denigrating Russia instead of actually learning from what the Russians are doing. They have their state of the art stealth fighter, the T-50, in the pipeline, and the formidable Su-34, but they also will have a large force of upgraded and modernized aircraft types as well, going into the future. The MiG-31 modernization programme is one good example, and the basic Su-27 platform just keeps popping up in new versions all the time. One problem is how to keep costs down; it seems to have blown out of all proportion. It's a bit hard to compete with Russia when they can turn out an Su-34 for $36 million.

They could do a lot worse, SrPilot. Those are three good capable aircraft that could live on with a bit of a tweak. I could never understand why the powers to be spend most of their time denigrating Russia instead of actually learning from what the Russians are doing. They have their state of the art stealth fighter, the T-50, in the pipeline, and the formidable Su-34, but they also will have a large force of upgraded and modernized aircraft types as well, going into the future. The MiG-31 modernization programme is one good example, and the basic Su-27 platform just keeps popping up in new versions all the time. One problem is how to keep costs down; it seems to have blown out of all proportion. It's a bit hard to compete with Russia when they can turn out an Su-34 for $36 million.

I can't remember the exact altitude for blood boiling and skin swelling; I thought it was around 63,000'. So if it was, how long would it take to freefall 2,000' at that pressure. Maybe you could get away without partial pressure gear if you dropped to that height quick enough.

I can't remember the exact altitude for blood boiling and skin swelling; I thought it was around 63,000'. So if it was, how long would it take to freefall 2,000' at that pressure. Maybe you could get away without partial pressure gear if you dropped to that height quick enough.

I guess you'd have to glide away from it a bit. You wouldn't want to keep bumping into it for the next 20 klm on the way down. All you'd need is a HA helmet, partial pressure suit, O2 supply, and away you go. Edit: and a parachute.

I guess you'd have to glide away from it a bit. You wouldn't want to keep bumping into it for the next 20 klm on the way down. All you'd need is a HA helmet, partial pressure suit, O2 supply, and away you go. Edit: and a parachute.

A Canadian company has patented a 65,000' tower and elevator to launch vehicles into space. Not sure how they'd build something like that. http://www.rt.com/news/312607-space-elevator-canada-tower/

A Canadian company has patented a 65,000' tower and elevator to launch vehicles into space. Not sure how they'd build something like that. http://www.rt.com/news/312607-space-elevator-canada-tower/

One news report said the plane was carrying 6.5 billion Rupiahs, about $470,000 USD, as social relief for poor families.

One news report said the plane was carrying 6.5 billion Rupiahs, about $470,000 USD, as social relief for poor families.