Softwar,

But would you not agree that intercepting had been the problem for the Syrians? Besides if they need a good counter air fighter with good dogfight performance the Mig-29/35 would seem to fit that role a little easier than either the Su or the 31. The latest Su's are more multirole oriented and as I understand have weight issues that have to be considered when dogfighting in close.

-DA 

This story has gone nowhere since it first broke back in the summer of 2007.  DIA was just repeating the OSINT from 2007, they didn't add anything to it.  Yes, the sale could certainly happen someday, maybe even tomorrow, possibly (but seemingly improbably) it has already happened, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

The Syrians know full well they can't hope to match the Israelis in the air, and they certainly know acquiring a handful of MiG-31s and MiG-29Ms won't change that.  I suggest the Syrians are still looking for some capability at defending their airspace during peacetime from incursions like the Israeli reactor raid in October 2007 and like the periodic UAV overflights that the Syrians can never seem to find much less stop.  The rudimentary communications connectivity ('mini-AWACS") that MiG-31s share with other MiG-31s, with A-50 MAINSTAYs, and with properly-equipped GCI sites won't provide any useful capability to Syria.  They probably hope that the reasonably effective radars on some MiG-31s and MiG-29Ms will be a step up from the reasonably ineffective radars on their decrepit MiG-29s, MiG-25s, MiG-23s, and MiG-21s that currently can't seem to keep Syrian airspace secure for sh!t.  Sadly for them, regardless of what moderately effective jets they buy, it won't change much of anything for them because the main limiting factor remains in place.  The Syrian Air Force will become effective only after they manage to put some effective pilots in the c0ckpits.  They'd be better off buying one less MiG-29M and putting that $20million (or whatever) into Russian or Ukrainian pilots to fill the jets.

 

I think most of us are on the same sheet of music in the belief that the acquisition of five MiG-31s will have a negligible effect on Syria's ability to take on the Israelis, whether they're being used as a makeshift AWACS platform or as an interceptor, but after reading a couple of comments something occurred to me.  I think the Syrians are fully aware that are incapable of defeating the IAF.  To compensate for this the Syrians may be trying to win the battle not in the air over the Golan Heights or Damascus, but in the Arab street.  Downing even a single Israeli F-15 or F-16 would be considered a victory in the Syria and the rest of the Arab world regardless of Syrian losses, and a captured Israeli pilot would be exploited for maximum media converage. 

 

The scenario of  Syrian MiG-31s attacking Israeli jets returning to Israel through Syrian airspace from a strike on Iran is an interesting one.  The Syrians could justifiably claim that they were protecting their airspace from hostile Israeli jets, and if they actually managed to down a couple of IAF fighter bombers Syria's stock would rise in the Arab (and anti-Israel) world.  Maybe this has nothing to do with victory, but more to do with actually scoring a punch. 

The problem is the MiG-35 is a paper airplane - one test bed flying and none in production.  The Syrians will have to wait for years before one appears on the tarmac ready to fly.  The MiG facilities are simply not there to produce them.

 

The SU-27 is an operational fighter and the Russians have plenty in the pipeline/inventory to spare to a paying customer - now that they shut off the Chinese.  The reason why I suggested the SU-27 was because the SU-30 and other variants are designed for the strike role - akin to the F-15 Strike Eagle - not the pure air defense role the original SU-27 was designed for.  Thus a variant on any of the SU-27MK designs sold to China, India or Indonesia are an immediate answer to Syrian air defense issues.

 

What seems to be lost here is the fact the MiG-31 was designed as a strategic interceptor - to attack US bombers inbound over the vast Russian territory, using a powerful search radar and long range missiles.  It was not designed to deal with fighters or any opposition - thus the reason why its limited to a 5 g airframe.  The idea of pressing it into some sort of defender against the IAF is a square peg in a round hole.  Basically, because of its powerful radar and MiG-25 design it is a flying billboard with "shoot me" plastered all over it.

This isn't being lost IMHO, it's the benefit of the platform. Thats why I'm saying as an airborne attack platform to go after nearby High Value Targets loitering outside of normal Mig range or to chase down attack aircraft on the egress leg of a bomb run. Syria knows it can't hope to stop violations of it's airspace by advanced airforces. But they may no longer have to be content just to accept such penetrations either. If I'm hunting wide body large aircraft, bomb laded low altitude penetrators or tactical aircraft on egress, I don't need a dogfighter. I need an interceptor with good eyesight and lots of fuel to run down those threat aircraft. Of the types of targets I mentioned, none of them will be capable of 9G dogfights or maneuvers considering their loads or fuel states. Here is a quote from a past dogfight with regard to Gs...

 ...So to my understanding it's all a matter of tactics. If the Mig-31 pilots chose to merge with and turn with F-15/16 aircraft then they are dumb and will die. But if they use the Migs good situational awareness, speed and altitude. They could get creative and inflict significant propaganda victories. That may not matter against a full attack from the USA bent on regime change. But against the Israelis who's combat operations are much more constrained by political realities it could make a huge difference. Then lets not forget to look at Syrian Geography.

From Southern Syria, they can "see" and engage fighter sized aircraft anywhere over Lebanon and perhaps as much as 100-200km+ into Northern Israel. They could also see substantial distance inside of Iraq too. Also, if the Mig-31's eyes are as good as they claim. Then tankers and other support aircraft may be visible at distances that were previously not viewable to Syria. This could compromise the "stealth" of IDF/AF attacks or force the IDF/AF to stage the tankers and other aircraft further out than desirable to avoid risk. Imagine a headline claiming that Syria shot down an Israeli spy plane off the Syrian cost complete with wreckage of a widebody plane floating in the Med. That could have significant propaganda value.

As was previously mentioned, Iraqi Mig-25's caused a lot of trouble during ODS. The Mig-31 is a considerable improvement over that. Again, wont by themselves win a war, but they can cause a victory to get quite expensive.

-DA 

-DA 

Another consideration. "western nations" often share intelligence and particularly with regard to non-proliferation. One way to get IMINT and ELINT involves the use of high altitude long endurance UAV's. I imagine platforms like the G-Hawk and similar high altitude UAVs being particularly vulnerable to the Mig-31 and can be shot down with a lot less risk compared to manned fighters.

-DA 

Basically the MiG-31 export remains unconfirmed and it is not at all clear if Syria will ever get the planes - despite comments that refer back to the 2007 news reports.  The additional MiG-29/35 exports are even more unlikely.

 

I think part of the problem here is understanding what the MiG-31 was designed to do.  It was the PVO Strany (ProtivoVozdushnaya Oborona) that aquired the MiG-31 to perform strategic bomber intercepts.  PVO's mission was homeland air defense and it included both interceptors and SAMs.  The MiG was never intended to chase or engage fighters but to run down SR-71, B-52, B-1 and cruise missiles without an independent control over remote areas.  It was designed to replace the TU-128 Fiddler - Tupolevs one and only interceptor. It is limited to 5 gs and certainly could not dodge even the more obsolete western AAMs.

 

At over 100,000 lbs at take off the MiG-31 is not a fighter - just a big missile carrier.  Its only foreign customer is Kazakhstan - with about 30 left over from the fall of the Soviet Union.  So its not unknown (in detail) to the west - electronics aside. 

 

However we might speculate the Syrians can employ the aircraft (if acquired) - the one area we all seem to agree on is they would survive for a very short time in combat - if at all. 

 

An export for MiG would be a miracle at best - considering its recent lack of sales over the past few years.  Whether any foreign customer could support the MiG in service for any length of time also becomes an issue considering MiG's current near bankrupt status.  Production of airframes ended years ago.  The current MiGs in Russian service are a fraction of the original numbers - one can assume the Russians are cannibalizing the hanger queens to keep what they can in service.  So - in the end - these planes - if sold - would also become hanger queens and museum pieces.  Fine.

 

I still contend the SU-27 would be much more of a cause for concern and perform the same missions we ascribe here to the MiG-31.  It could do so without the risking the maintenence factor, cost less and form a core around which more SU-27 and other Flanker series could be added later.

DA--I know Operation Bolo pretty well, considering I interviewed Robin Olds and did my master's thesis on it.  Point taken, and while you're right about the lessons learned, I don't think the analogy works well here.

 

The reason why the MiG-21s were more of a problem to the USAF in January 1967 was less due to the particular prowess of the North Vietnamese pilots (they weren't bad) or the MiG-21 as it was to the ROE the US fought under.  MiG-21s could not be destroyed on the ground; their airfields couldn't be attacked; the F-4s were forbidden to use their Sparrows for BVR attacks (assuming the Sparrows would work, which they didn't at an alarming rate).  As I'm sure you're aware, Bolo was a trap meant to lure the VPAF into the air where they could be killed at close range, and it worked.  (The VPAF did have more than 16 MiG-21s in late 1967, but not many more.  That number increased to as many as 60 MiG-21s by 1972, though at one point, their fleet was reduced to eight once the USAF started pasting the airfields in summer '67.)

 

Where your analogy goes off the rails a bit is because the Israelis only operate with an ROE where there is a risk to civilians--in other words, against Hamas or Hezbollah.  The Syrian Air Force doesn't count.  The Heyl Ha'avir has no problem with obliterating a MiG-31 at 26 miles or so with an AMRAAM, whether or not they can visually identify or not.  They also don't have a problem with sending some aircraft over to wreck a Syrian airbase or loft Tomahawks into it.  The Israelis really don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, and so ROE has no effect on them in a war situation with Syria.  A handful of MiG-31s are not going to do the damage of a handful of MiG-21s, simply because the Israelis won't tie their hands behind their backs before the war starts.  The Foxhounds will be lucky to get to cruise altitude before they're jumped by F-15s and F-16s, and the MiG-31 is no dogfighter--unlike the MiG-21, which is a damn fine dogfighter in the hands of a good pilot like Nguyen Van Coc.  And even he got shot down during Bolo. 

 

The VPAF lived in mortal terror of the day the US would take the gloves off.  When we did in summer '67, the VPAF was reduced to less than 20 operational aircraft, including MiG-17s.  The only reason they came back was that 7th Air Force figured they had destroyed the VPAF, returned to bombing bridges and truck parks, and allowed the VPAF to rest, refit, and come back stronger than ever.  The Israelis won't make that mistake.

 

Didn't see this question before I made my last post, so let me answer it:  it makes a big difference.  The MiG-23 and MiG-29 can dogfight.  The MiG-31 can't.  It's not designed to, and as you yourself said, it would be foolish and suicidal to try.  He can loft long-range missiles at you, which is the Foxhound's job, but if he chases you out over the Med, or worse, into Israel, he's heading for a world of hurt.  As long as the Foxhound can keep targets at arm's length, it has a chance, but once the other guy gets within range, the MiG-31 is in big trouble.  And one MiG-31 against four F-15s is a losing proposition, just like one F-4 against four MiG-17s is a losing proposition, no matter how more advanced the F-4 may be.