Skip to comments.
Syria Buying MiG-31s, MiG-35s for $1 billion (But are they really for Iran?)
Defense Industry Daily ^
| 22 June 2007
Posted on 06/22/2007 6:49:42 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
The most interesting paragraph:
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.
1
posted on
06/22/2007 6:49:44 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
To: Yo-Yo
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.
3
posted on
06/22/2007 6:54:27 AM PDT
by
wastedyears
(Check my profile for links to anti-illegal immigration T-shirts.)
To: Czar
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. Very interesting. What do you think, Czar?
4
posted on
06/22/2007 6:54:44 AM PDT
by
nicmarlo
To: Yo-Yo
A back-door deal with Iran is doubtful at best. It would take time to train Pilots, Maintainers and supply replacement parts to keep the airframe flight worthy. Russia doesn't need to go through Syria. They can deal directly with Iran...Cut out the middle guy.
5
posted on
06/22/2007 6:57:22 AM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: wastedyears
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. 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.
6
posted on
06/22/2007 6:57:51 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: SJackson; jveritas; FARS; Ernest_at_the_Beach; knighthawk; Marine_Uncle; SandRat; Steel Wolf; ...
"Russia the seller, Iran the financier, Syria the bullies labor" ping. The ultimate target is obviously
Israel.
To: elhombrelibre
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.
8
posted on
06/22/2007 7:07:24 AM PDT
by
Yorlik803
( When are we going to draw a line a say"this far and no farther")
To: elhombrelibre
“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?
9
posted on
06/22/2007 7:08:35 AM PDT
by
Roccus
(Dealing with politicians IS the War On Terror!)
To: wastedyears
The MiG-25 was the big bogeyman of the Cold War, since the data we had on it was sketchy, and after the supersonic run from Syria to Egypt, tracked by the Israelis at Mach 3. We redesigned the F-16 to go against what we THOUGHT were the MiG-25's abilities, and it turned out that any Soviet pilot would be performing a rather elaborate suicide if he went against the F-16.
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.
10
posted on
06/22/2007 7:08:37 AM PDT
by
jonascord
(She walked thru the door, twirling a pair of 44s. And, in her hand was a gun...)
To: Yo-Yo
Now we’ll have the F-22 which will scare the pants off everybody.
11
posted on
06/22/2007 7:12:01 AM PDT
by
wastedyears
(Check my profile for links to anti-illegal immigration T-shirts.)
To: jonascord
Mach 3??? Jeez, that’s a fast piece of fighting aluminum.
12
posted on
06/22/2007 7:13:22 AM PDT
by
wastedyears
(Check my profile for links to anti-illegal immigration T-shirts.)
To: Yo-Yo
Time to be two generations ahead of them with
a jet miniaturized chemical oxygen iodine laser.
13
posted on
06/22/2007 7:17:44 AM PDT
by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: Roccus
Our problem today is that the consensus on supporting democracies and/or allies against dictatorships, which was pretty strong after WWII, has completely broken down. For example, Pelosi goes to Damascus to curry favor with Assad instead of making clear that if push comes to shove she’d stand behind our government and Israel. An ambiguous approach to Assad does not help and may lead him to miscalculate. So I think you’re right. We could have fools wanting to debate what to do rather than knowing the thing to do is to assist Israel as needed (including our strategic bombers if needed) as Israel destroys Assad and his regime if he takes a hostile action against Israel. We’re at a crucial moment in history where we could actually destroy the regimes implacable to peace.
To: Yorlik803
Of course, the pilots do matter. But I want our side to have every advantage. I’m sure we’ll agree. War is not a sporting event. The fate of Israel hangs in the balance with so many threats gathering. Russia has become a very malign force for pecuniary reasons. Iran is playing a grand strategy to eliminate Israel. This is their openly stated objective. Under those circumstances, Russia selling advanced jets to Syria, Iran’s ally as we all know, is recklessly irresponsible.
To: Yo-Yo
After reading the Luftwaffe pilot's account of flying early variant MiG-29s against NATO, I have renewed respect for the MiGs. If what that pilot said is true, then this sentence should be taken very seriously:
"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).
16
posted on
06/22/2007 7:23:14 AM PDT
by
GBA
(God Bless America!)
To: elhombrelibre
“Were 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.
17
posted on
06/22/2007 7:24:06 AM PDT
by
Roccus
(Dealing with politicians IS the War On Terror!)
To: Yo-Yo
Another chance for the U.S. Airforce to get experience in shooting down Russky planes.
18
posted on
06/22/2007 7:26:29 AM PDT
by
hgro
(Jerry Riversd)
To: Roccus
I think the six year ago reference is to Iraq, right? I don’t see that as comparable. The reasons were much different.
To: GBA
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.
20
posted on
06/22/2007 7:34:28 AM PDT
by
Mac94
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson