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...
“I think the six year ago reference is to Iraq, right?”
_____________________________________________________
Not just Iraq. We had the opportunity to take care of Iraq at the end of GW I...but we chose not to and it came back and bit us. We had the opportunity to take care of all these “...regimes implacable to peace” on Sept. 12, 2001, but again we chose not to and again we (or more precisely, our allies the Israelis) are going to get bitten.
Has the ABL been fired yet?
This is good news. I likes me a target-rich environment, I do.
TC
Move along. Nothing to see here. The cold war is over. Condi says so. /extreme sarcasm
And I’m no military historian but I don’t believe a US Jet has lost an air to air battle in over 25 years. I know there haven’t been that many but no one has been a match for the US pilots regardless of the jet they were flying.
bttt
- A Standard Operating Procedure for the US Air Force, as seen in both Gulf Wars 1 and 11, is to take out the enemies ground radar and communication systems at the very onset of conflict. US fighters, with the advantage of AWACS and mid air refueling, can then gain a positional advantage against any opposition which is coming up using only their shorter range, on board radar to guide them. With the nearly invisible Raptor in the mix, resistance would be suicidal.
I know some guys that would have been iranian pilots (they are probably retired now.) If THEY are running the Air Force now (they would be the proper age) , I wouldnt be too worried.
They couldnt pass a simple math class without looking at other guy’s papers. After one exam, I was told that the reason there was giggling in the corner of the class was that it was witnessed that i would write down an answer....and then the guy to my left would answer, and then the guy behind him, and behind him. All rag-heads. I had no idea, but it became part of the lore....
The funniest thing is that I would do great in my other classes...but math killed me. They were cheating off the wrong guy. I guess we all got D’s.
My thoughts exactly. Buying them is one thing; flying them and fighting with them entirely another....
Against the Israeli’s? Nobody.
They’ll probably try to TAXI them out of the country to keep them from being blown out of the sky by the superior Israeli birdmen.
I have heard that the AA-11/R-73 “Archer” is a better
air-to-air missile than our sidewinder. I don’t if this
is still the fact. Its not the platform, its the missile that
is the difference.
Also, Russia has been working on a huge naval base in Syria
for years....Tartus just north of the Lebanon border:
http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/05/stories/2006060504281600.htm
It is generally accepted that on the first or second night of Gulf War I an Iraqi MiG-25 brought down a Navy F/A-18.
I think that is our only air to air loss known of since the end of the Vietnam War.
Of course, we haven’t faced a real “air to air” threat in a long time. We learned so much from Vietnam on the 1973 Arab Israeli war that put us ahead of most nations on the learning curve.
Since Vietnam we have had little to challenge our air superiority in air to air action. SAM’s have been different, but still not enough to dent our ability to conduct air operations.
Since Vietnam we had Lebanon/Syria but Syria did not challenge us with her air force. Their SAM’s did bring down two Navy jets in one mission, but that was the extent of our air losses there.
Grenada/Panama - neither had any real air assets.
Lybia - The Navy dominated them in the few skirmishes over the Med.
Iraq - Not a bad Air Force generally but far behind us and the west. They mounted some resistance, bringing down 50+/- Allied aircraft, one in air to air combat, but couldn’t dent our ability to conduct devestating operations against them.
Serbia - Decent little Air Force but outclassed against NATO. Put up a little fight but more of less chose to stay hidden ... and alive.
Iraq in 2003 decided to sit out the air war.
but that’s only short range - ‘beyond visual range’ is where the music plays. If an iranian mig came to archer range to a nato figher wing it would be a small miracle.
AWACS and datalinks are the main advantages nowadays. Iranians couldn’t even tell if they where attacked by F-16, 15 or F22s (or tornados or rafalles or typhoons)
Ihr clowns gehört uns.
=
We own you clowns
What we did not know until we debriefed a defecting Soviet pilot, who flew his MiG-25 to Japan, was that the plane over Israel had all but melted it's engine, that most of the airframe was rather poorly welded stainless steel, that the mechanics were drinking the alcohol based hydraulic(?) fluid, the radio and other electronics were still using vacuum tubes, and that it was solely intended as a B-70 interceptor, by getting close enough to launch a missle. (We never actually brought the B-70 on-line...)
We doom ourselves to Patton’s curse:
“The politicians always stop to soon, leaving us with yet another war to fight.”
If you want to go out and buy a magazine, there is a nice article:
“Twisted Tale of the Sidewinder’s Development” By Mark Lardas
in Strategy & Tactics No. 242
very nice read.
Hey, I agree. If it were up to me, we would be sending the IAF everything they would need to defend against the Muzzies. B52s, B-1, F117, B-2...you name it, they would have it. The good thing about the IAF is that they have a good reason to fight, and that will make the difference.
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.