Originally posted by tomcat ha
The Mig 31 has been the best interceptor for a long time because of its excellent radar. It was the first fighter to have an phased radar array. I dont know the russian plans for upgrading it in the near future but it is very dangerous to everything up to a F117/JSF at least.

But again as I point out, its an interceptor not a fighter. That is a huge deal in regards to where the aircraft is to be deployed. For Russia (and the USSR) it made sence. They needed basically a missile truck that could intercept US bombers coming over the pole and other northern latitudes at a high rate of speed, shoot off you BVR missiles at lumbering, big as a barn on radar bombers and RTB.

Im not questioning its abilities an interceptor. Its fast, its big, and yes it does have a nice radar system. It also has data links that allows it to share data with other 31's that can be as far as 800km away. But for all that its a poor choice for the Syrians and almost any country other than say China which tried in the past to get the aircraft.

1) Training. Unless Syria want to train up its airforce to true standards, the IAF is going to be all over them like flies on stink

2) ITS AN INTERCEPTOR PERIOD: Have you seen pcitures of the thing? Notice the lack of a bubble cockpit? Its the last aircraft you want in a dog fight. How exactly would you check six? It not manuverable.

3) If it was that all powerfull why did'nt say the Indian Airforce get them? or any other nation. I tried as hard as I could and could not find a single export customer out there that was not a former Soviet State.

The only way that aircraft would be of any use for the Syrians is if they kept them on station over Syria and used them as mini AWACS to vector other fighters. They would need the protection of a good chunk of SAMS to keep the IAF off of them but it may be possible. The radar system can track up to 24 targets and then relay data to other a/c

However as I have pointed out upgraded or not, its a poor choice for Syria. Theya re far better off with the Su-30 which can dogfight if they want a realistic chance against the IAF. But only if the change training, doctrine and everything else. Otherwise, they are simply going to get shout out of the air in any serious conflict

The MIG 31? Wow I was expecting like MIG29 or the SU30 fighters, not the MIG31 that supposedly is built to take on the SR71. Its definitely not going to be a good match in a dog fight against even the F-15 or F-16.

There does seem to be a confusion developing here whether we're talking Su-30MK? or Mig-31.

3) If it was that all powerfull why did'nt say the Indian Airforce get them? or any other nation. I tried as hard as I could and could not find a single export customer out there that was not a former Soviet State.

FredT, Iraq had the Mig-25 Foxbat. Mig-31 Foxhound is a re-engined two seat Foxbat with a new radar system.

Perhaps the Foxhound's mission is the real clue ?

This aircraft can climb to 67,000ft in just over a minute. It can take out high flying spyplanes and satellites. Maybe Syria only wants it for this purpose ?

Perhaps it is not intended to duel with isreali fighters at all ?

Sy,

As I said in my first post the Mig-31 is really an evolution of the Mig-25 of which the Syrians have 20+.

The Su-30 has come into the discussion as what (I at least) feel would be far more suited to the Syrians needs.

I will concede that it is possible they want it to defend aginst high flying UCAVS, but the Mig-25 can perform that roles as well and they already have pilots trained up to do so.

As far as using the Mig-31 as an ASAT platform I beleive you are refering to the MiG-31D which was never put into production so Im not even sure Syria could use it in that role.

[edit on 6/19/07 by FredT]

Something that hasn't been mentioned thus far, is why the Syrians wanted the MiG-25 in the first place, and why they would want to keep and replace them with a similar aircraft.

Looking back to the reasons for the creation of the MiG-25 - the interception of high and fast bombers (B-70 Valkyrie) - which was never going to be a 'real' scenario in the ME (the B-70 was dead long before the MiG-25 was offered for export) the attraction for Syria (and Libya) was its recon capabilities and (relative) invulnerability - ala SR-71. The MiG-31 has added mini-AWACs and anti cruise missile capabilities, so it would be attractive to replace aging MiG-25s with recon capable MiG-31s.

It would also make an excellent anti-AWACs aircraft. Consider the changes in battlefield management in recent years through the use of AWACS and J-Star type aircraft operating at a distance from the battlefield, therefore acquisition of an aircraft capable of eliminating those platforms could have a profound effect on force capability. If being able to 'see' the battlefield is so important in a conflict, then it is equally important to deny your opponent the ability to 'see' it. A battlefield management asset only remains an asset if you can protect it.

Personally, if I was a crew member of an AWACS, the long range armament (based on the Phoenix missile) and high speed of the MiG-31 would be my worst nightmare. My protective fighter screen would have to be larger and further away and the speed of the MiG-31 makes it much harder to intercept.

Incidentally, with the retirement of the F-14, what is the US tactic for taking out opposing AWACS platforms?

Any suggestion of dogfighting would be like suggesting dogfighting with an SR-71 - Hmm that would be interesting if you could catch one - so any suggestion of use as an air superiority or strike aircraft, is way outside the intended role or capabilities of the MiG-31.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Not only that, but the MiG-31 cant attack carriers with its huge missiles. How is this trouble for the US navy?

What so difficult about stapping on two SS-22 "SUNBURNS" to the MiG-31

You mean aside from the fact that it's not designed to carry them? You seem to think it's a matter of strapping a weapon on and going out to shoot it. You have to flight test it on the plane, make sure it's going to shoot properly, and do other tests. You don't just say "Hmm. I want to carry this missile, so I'm gonna have them upload it." An INTERCEPTOR is not designed to carry antiship missiles. The MiG-31 is an INTERCEPTOR. It's mission is to shoot down other planes, not sink ships.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You mean aside from the fact that it's not designed to carry them? You seem to think it's a matter of strapping a weapon on and going out to shoot it. You have to flight test it on the plane, make sure it's going to shoot properly, and do other tests. You don't just say "Hmm. I want to carry this missile, so I'm gonna have them upload it." An INTERCEPTOR is not designed to carry antiship missiles. The MiG-31 is an INTERCEPTOR. It's mission is to shoot down other planes, not sink ships.

I know that, so how do we know it hasn't been tested for that, is what I'm asking?

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
with the retirement of the F-14, what is the US tactic for taking out opposing AWACS platforms?

That would be the AIM-120D.

Incidentally, what would be the best eastern bloc fighter right now? SU-34?

Originally posted by YASKY
I know that, so how do we know it hasn't been tested for that, is what I'm asking?

Because there are much better platforms to carry antiship missiles than the MiG-31. The SU-27 is a HUGE improvement over the MiG-31 to carry it.

We know it hasn't been tested, because if it had been they would be marketing it as being capable of carrying it so that people would be more interested in buying the Foxhound.

Originally posted by SteveR

That would be the AIM-120D.

Thanks SteveR, that makes sense.

Anyway, that's what I see as the intended role for a Syrian MiG-31 - AWACS killer

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by deltaboy
The MIG 31? Wow I was expecting like MIG29 or the SU30 fighters, not the MIG31 that supposedly is built to take on the SR71. Its definitely not going to be a good match in a dog fight against even the F-15 or F-16.

Why they should do dogfight with Eagle or Falcon? All the MiG-31 should do only is track where the enemy is then sit where far from Eagle and Falcon just fire its long range missile. Thanks to its powerful radar and LRAAM could make Eagles and Falcons very bussy to escape.

And what are they going to be doing when the missiles come flying back at them?

I wonder how good the MiG-31 is at dodging sidewinders.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And what are they going to be doing when the missiles come flying back at them?

Mach 3.0 in the opposite direction?

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I wonder how good the MiG-31 is at dodging sidewinders.

Shattered OUT...

I wonder how does Sidewinder possible to get close to MiG-31

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Something that hasn't been mentioned thus far, is why the Syrians wanted the MiG-25 in the first place, and why they would want to keep and replace them with a similar aircraft.

Looking back to the reasons for the creation of the MiG-25 - the interception of high and fast bombers (B-70 Valkyrie) - which was never going to be a 'real' scenario in the ME (the B-70 was dead long before the MiG-25 was offered for export) the attraction for Syria (and Libya) was its recon capabilities and (relative) invulnerability - ala SR-71. The MiG-31 has added mini-AWACs and anti cruise missile capabilities, so it would be attractive to replace aging MiG-25s with recon capable MiG-31s.

It would also make an excellent anti-AWACs aircraft. Consider the changes in battlefield management in recent years through the use of AWACS and J-Star type aircraft operating at a distance from the battlefield, therefore acquisition of an aircraft capable of eliminating those platforms could have a profound effect on force capability. If being able to 'see' the battlefield is so important in a conflict, then it is equally important to deny your opponent the ability to 'see' it. A battlefield management asset only remains an asset if you can protect it.

Personally, if I was a crew member of an AWACS, the long range armament (based on the Phoenix missile) and high speed of the MiG-31 would be my worst nightmare. My protective fighter screen would have to be larger and further away and the speed of the MiG-31 makes it much harder to intercept.

Incidentally, with the retirement of the F-14, what is the US tactic for taking out opposing AWACS platforms?

Any suggestion of dogfighting would be like suggesting dogfighting with an SR-71 - Hmm that would be interesting if you could catch one - so any suggestion of use as an air superiority or strike aircraft, is way outside the intended role or capabilities of the MiG-31.

The Winged Wombat

perfect point!
The newest information is that Iran also will get MiG-31 through Syria indirectly. I think that Iranian may be realized the biggest threaten from US is Long rang BOMBER like B-1B, so they want MiG-31 urgently. The key is since MiG-31 could intercept B-1B, why couldn't intercept F-15, F-16?
Some tech used on B-1B has already reduced RCS of B-1B to be as small as F-16.

Sorry, ATS went to maintenance just as I was about to edit my late post.

The point of using a missile such as AIM-120D, launched from, say F-15 or F-22, as protection for an AWACs, is to shoot the attacker before he gets within his kill range and launch his missiles. Therefore, if something like MiG-31 is the attacker, then the AWAC's fighter screen has to operate further from the AWACs to ensure the attacker doesn't get within range (If the fighter screen is made up of Mach 2 fighters, they have little time to reposition against a Mach 3 attacker). This in turn multiplies the number of fighters in the defending screen to cover the attackers lethal area, before he can get a shot in. So unless the defending fighter screen is equipped with a longer range missile, the speed advantage of the Mach 3 attacker should be decisive.

If the MiG-31 does get a shot in (and it would be silly just to send one attacker), then the performance of the MiG-31 gives it an increased chance of escaping retaliation, at Mach 3, while the AWACS has to try to escape the incoming missiles at Mach 0.8. The MiG-31 is also capable of carrying R-77, which is reported to be able to engage oncoming air-to-air missiles. Unless the defending fighter screen is already in range of the attacker, the attacker's superior speed will ensure that they never will be.

So by using a Mach 3 AWACs killer (such as the MiG-31) as opposed to a Mach 2 platform, it complicates the protection of AWACs many fold (due to both speed and kill range, and the AWACs crew also has to be aware of a much larger area of threat to itself). The implications for tankers is even more serious (as they and their escort are reliant on the AWACS for warning) and forces incoming friendly attackers to tank further from the battlefield, reducing range and persistence (or war load) over the battlefield.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 20/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

WW, Based on some of the literature I have seen in open sources, I would expect the F-22's to be trolling in an area 100-200 miles out from an AWACS plane in the scenario you describe. If the F-22's can get cuing from the AWACS they could be in position to down the Migs before they could volley a shot off at the AWACS. The phased array in the Mig 31 while powerfull may be able to pick up the Raptor within the kill range of a AIM-120C which is 65 miles but the D varient has a projected range of at least 100 miles. Now again this is open source stuff so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.