MiG say third party aircraft not guaranteed (257 words)

Published: 7/13/2001

The long running saga relating to the supply in 1998 of three MiG-29 (Factory index 9.12S) known locally as MiG-29SE to Peru, and the payments that were reported to have been made to senior politicians including the former head of the country's security services Vladimiro Montesinos to secure the contract. Continues to dog MiG, with reports of a possible enquiry of both the producer and the arms export agency Rosoboronexport, whose predecessor agency was responsible for the supply of the aircraft to Peru. At a press conference on the 12th of July however, the company was defending the quality of its products after the loss of a Peruvian MiG-29. The claim being that sub standard components in the aircraft had caused the crash. MiG however, defended the production of the three aircraft directly supplied through Rosvoorohenie, commenting that Peruvian officials had been involved in both the production and testing of the three new aircraft and the company undertook to support those products in service. The aircraft in question however, was acquired from Belarus by the Peruvians and according to Andrey Mazurov of RSK MiG, it would not guarantee aircraft supplied by third parties. Mazurov further added that the flight recorders had revealed that the crash was due to pilot error as he had taken off without turning on a “direct-current generator” contrary to the aircraft's operating procedures. It is unclear exactly how many of the reported 19 Peruvian MiG-29s are in service, but some reports have suggested that the number may be as low as 6 aircraft.

Article ID: 2642