MiG-31 Foxhound
(click to view full)
(click to view full)
Posted on 06/22/2007 6:49:42 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
Russian newspapers are claiming that Russia has begun delivering 5 MiG-31E Foxhound aircraft to Syria under a deal that was reportedly negotiated in autumn 2006. The Russian newspaper Kommersant adds that:
"...a lot of MiG-29M/M2 jets was sold to Syria as well. They are being sold abroad for the first time and are similar in their technical specifications to the MiG-35 model Russia is now offering India. The total value of the contract for the MiG-31 and MiG-29M/M2 aircraft is estimated at $1 billion."
The paper adds that this amount raises questions, noting the likelihood that the deal is being financed by Iran as a back-door purchase....
A Cut-Out Purchase?
Kommersant cites a number of indicators that this may be the case, including a Jane's report in May 2007 that a similar arrangement has being used to funnel some of Syria's 36 new Pantsir-S1E air defense systems to Iran in exchange for a fence's (sorry, "intermediary") fee. They also cite the 2 countries' recent mutual defense agreements, including the July 2006 agreement signed by both countries' defense ministers, which envisaged Iranian financing of Syrian arms deals with Russia, Ukraine and China.
In response, Russian authorities have issued non-denial denials.
Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement that "...all of Russia's deals in the sphere of military-technical cooperation comply with international law and Russia's obligations under various treaties and United Nations resolutions." Since none of those obligation prohibit sales to Syria, this response is utterly meaningless.
Sergei Chemezov, head of state arms-trading monopoly Rosoboronexport, is quoted as saying that "Russia has no plans to deliver fighter jets to Syria and Iran." Of course, a sale of fighter jets only to Syria would comply with this statement - and if the Syrians choose to send them to Iran, that concerns Syria's plans and not Russia's.
The Aircraft
The MiG-31E is reportedly offered on a trade-in basis for countries that have the MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor, a list that includes only Syria, Libya, and Kazakhstan.
The big MiG-25 caused quite a sensation in the west when it was first unveiled, and incidents in which the planes were tracked at speeds around Mach 3 added to its mystique. In time, the west would learn that flying at speeds over Mach 2.5 had a tendency to melt the plane's engines, its range was extremely short (defector Viktor Belenko flew his MiG-25 from Russia to Japan, and the 1-way flight left his fuel tanks nearly dry), and its aerodynamic design and lack of a gun made it vulnerable in dogfights.
The MiG-31 made a virtue out of the Foxbat's vices, turning it into a 2-seat hunter-killer of cruise missiles via improved engines, the 'Flash Dance' electronically scanned radar, a retractable refueling probe, and an internal gun. Unlike its predecessor, the MiG-31 is capable of low-level supersonic flight, and can reach Mach 2.8 before its engines begin to melt. It also has communications capabilities that allow its pilot to view the full air battle in a C3I mini-AWACS role, and direct other aircraft like a chess player. Aeronautics.RU described the MiG-31E variant as:
"Export version of basic Type 01. Prototype ('903') first noted 1997; simplified systems, no active jammer, downgraded IFF, radar and DASS. Offered to China, India and other countries."
These planes could be of some use to Syria in an air defense role. Syria's air force, which was once reliably on the cutting edge of technology during its Cold War years as a Soviet proxy, has not modernized in over a decade. Iran's two air forces (regular and Revolutionary Guard) would find the MiG-31's style crimped by the absence of air-to-air refueling capabilities, but cruise missile defense is important to them given the likelihood of BGM-109 Tomahawks being used in any American strike. MiG-31s could also step into the 'fighter AWACS' role that has been played to date by Iran's dwindling but ingeniously maintained fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters. This would be only marginally useful against a full American offensive, but could make a big difference to Iran's ability to cover limited targets against an Israeli strike on its nuclear bomb-making facilities.
Readers who really want to understand the MiG-31 are urged to book a flight for themselves.
As for the MiG-29, Syria already flies earlier versions. So does Iran, thanks to the Iraqi Air Force whose pilots fled to "safe haven" in Iran during the 1991 Gulf War.
The MiG-29OVT, aka. MiG-35, is a heavily upgraded MiG-29. Its most notable improvements include a new radar and avionics package to improve air-air performance and add ground-attack capability, extra fuel in a new aircraft "spine" down the back, and thrust-vectoring engines a la India's SU-30MKIs. German pilots who flew East Germany's older MiG-29s against NATO jets believed that the planes were nearly unbeatable in short-range dogfights when armed with Russia's AA-11/R-73 "Archer" short range missiles + helmet-mounted display systems.
The fallout from those encounters actually led Germany to quit the ASRAAM program, and begin work on the multinational IRIS-T short-range missile instead. It also led to helmet-mounted sights becoming standard equipment on most modern combat aircraft around the world.
The MiG-29's biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability. The MiG-35 fixes most of these, and adds thrust-vectoring capability to give the aircraft an additional super-maneuverability edge close-in. Its other weakness is Russian spare parts support; India found that the long turnaround times actually left a large portion of its MiG-29 fleet grounded, and has taken steps that include licensed local engine production.
In a situation where neither side had external advantages, when flown by pilots of comparable skill, and armed with similar missiles, it is likely that a MiG-35 would be an even adversary at least for any Israeli opponent, and any American aircraft other than the F-22A.
Of course, war isn't about even odds. War is about finding the most unbalancing things you can do, and doing them as quickly as you can. The use of true AWACS aircraft, electronic jamming, better radars, better missiles, and pilot skill differentials would all combine to ensure that any fight involving Israel vs. Syria or Iran vs. the USA would be anything but even. Syria's MiG-25s, MiG-23s, and MiG-21s experienced that first hand in 1982, when they were massacred 80 to 0 over Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.
* = I think the German translation of this L337 slang phrase ['pwn' = lit. to own, alt. dominate or crush, esp. in a video game], put into the plural, would be: "Uns haben euch gepwnen." To save the honor of my German teacher, however, I'm going to ask readers for help on this one...
Iran's two air forces (regular and Revolutionary Guard) would find the MiG-31's style crimped by the absence of air-to-air refueling capabilities, but cruise missile defense is important to them given the likelihood of BGM-109 Tomahawks being used in any American strike. MiG-31s could also step into the 'fighter AWACS' role that has been played to date by Iran's dwindling but ingeniously maintained fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters. This would be only marginally useful against a full American offensive, but could make a big difference to Iran's ability to cover limited targets against an Israeli strike on its nuclear bomb-making facilities.
And who’s gonna fly ‘em? :-)
I remember hearing we had trouble with the MiGs when they were put into service, but I forgot what jet we fielded that was able to take them on.
Very interesting. What do you think, Czar?
Which time? In Korea, the F-80 Shooting Star was no match for the MiG-15, so we brough in the F-86 Sabre.
In Vietnam, The MiG-21 gave the F-4 a hard time, leading to the F-14.
Simultaneously, the MiG-25 scared the pants off the West, leading to the F-15.
But Israel could beat them. IAF could be flying P51s or FW190s and still give the Muzzies a hard time.
The machine aint worth crap unless you have good Pilots.
“The ultimate target is obviously Israel.”
______________________________________________________
No doubt...I’m just concerned with how fast and how effective our response would be if Israel is attacked. IOW, is the US going to do something decisive immediately, or will it have to be debated first?
Also, remember that the Russians still have two versions of their military equipment. Standard is for themselves, and the "monkey model" for export. The term "monkey model" is for who they believe will be running it.
Now we’ll have the F-22 which will scare the pants off everybody.
Mach 3??? Jeez, that’s a fast piece of fighting aluminum.
Time to be two generations ahead of them with
a jet miniaturized chemical oxygen iodine laser.
"In a situation where neither side had external advantages, when flown by pilots of comparable skill, and armed with similar missiles, it is likely that a MiG-35 would be an even adversary at least for any Israeli opponent, and any American aircraft other than the F-22A."
We don't have that many F-22s and it's anyone's guess as to the quality of the F-35 and whether or not it can live up to it's hype. And, let's not forget the Sukhois. All of these aircraft are being fielded by other countries, especially China. In the meantime, Russia is still making improvements to their aircraft (as are we, I hope).
“We’re at a crucial moment in history where we could actually destroy the regimes implacable to peace.”
_________________________________________________________
We’ve seen that moment before, about six years ago.
Another chance for the U.S. Airforce to get experience in shooting down Russky planes.
I think the six year ago reference is to Iraq, right? I don’t see that as comparable. The reasons were much different.
They have good birds ... always will. But, they lack alot of intangilbles. We have decades of combat experience, from WWII to Korea to Vietnam to the Middle East. Russian and Chinese Air Forces haven’t faced a real air to air enviroment since the early 1950’s. We have grown and learned and adapted based on experience and have developed a complete system of battle management that is combat tested. It isn’t just the pilot and warplane. They have great warplanes ... but we have better everything else from pilots to AWACS to electronic warfare to command and control, etc.
The only thing we are untested in and could cause problems against a major foes (Russia and China) would be facing an enemy with the ability to hit our airbases hard with SSM and cruise missile capability. Operating combat ops under fire with critical infrastructure degraded or destroyed is something we haven’t had to face in a long time. We train for it, but this is an area where our systems are untested.
As for dealing with Syria or Iran ... these would be nice birds in their inventory ... but would be meaningless in the overall balance against us or Israel because of their shortcomings in so many other key areas.
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.