This idea of “dodging” missiles is based on a lot of misunderstanding. Most real world 'dodging' of a missile has little to do with the missile’s maneuverability but a lot to do with its guidance. Early IR homing missiles could be dodged by taking the plane outside of the limited field of view of its gimbaled seeker. Likewise SARH or beam homing missiles can be defeated by ‘breaking the lock’ of the guidance radar. The idea that you can out turn a missile – unless it has run out of gas and therefore energy at the end of its range – is pure fiction. Just as easy to dodge a bullet pointed right at your head.
Opinion of the Mig 31
- Thread starter brian00
- Start date
Haavarla
Active Member
The Foxhound in operational Service
By Combat Aircraft Monthly september edition 2010.
Written By Stefan Buttner.
The Current status of Mig-31.
Today, major structural changes have taken place in the Russian Armed Forces and from 2009 the RuAF have acquired a new appearance. In essence, Russia's military leadership set about changing the Regimental system of organization into a more effective brigade structure, while simultaneously introducing major changes within each of the standard formations.
For the RuAF this, is debateble and possible not the best situation. Huge cutbacks in Airbases and units.. but perhaps a necessity.
A certain numbers of units having been 'Re-formed', or to be more accurate 'Reduced'.
Of the units operating the Mig-31 & 31BMs, these changes affected Kotlas, where the regiment was reduced to a single sq structure, and Sokolovka, which was also reduced to a single sq and re-located to airfield at Tsentral'naya Uglovaya.
Today like many other bases in the new RuAF structure, this base is equipped with a mix units of upgraded Su-27SM and some Su-24MR/M2s.
Other bases operating Mig-31 finally began to receive the very latest modification; the multi-role Mig-31BM.
This aircraft has an upgraded radar, offering substancially improved performance and technical parameters. The main differences focus on the installed avionics, with the Zalson radar being replaced by the improved Zalson-M radar, originally intended for use on the abortive Mig-31M interceptor.
Thanks to this modification, maximum target detection range is extended to 320km(173nm) anf kill range is increased to 280km(151nm).
This is acheived using the advanced R-37 long-range radar guided AAM, which was developed quite some time ago, but is only now beginning to enter service with the Russian Mig-31 units.
It is claimed that using this missile today will allow a Mig-31 to simultaneously track 10 targets and engage six of them.
The Mig-31BM's avionics suite facilitates a variety of aircombat scenarios, including some that are quite unusual namly:
The aircraft can effectively co-operate with PVO surface-to-air missile or operate as an airborne command post.
When working in a group of other fighters like Su-27SM, Su-30/35 and Strikers like Su-24M2/Su-34's, equipped with less or equal powerful radar, the Mig-31BM can Co-ordinate their activities, providing guidance for their missiles while closing with the targets under radio silence to permissible launch range.
In a number of combat situations such a tactic could substantially increase the effictiveness of a group of fighters.
The Mig-31BM's cockpit has been upgraded to facilitate a range of intercept and support scenarios using satelite navigation, the latest multi-funcional liquid-crystal dispalys and other devices.
Apart from these changes, spatial awareness in formation flying is improved with the installation of a rear-view mirror and fixed periscope/camera for the pilot.
It can also perform AWACS mission if a section of four(otryad) Mig-31s
flying in a line-abreast formation, and seperated from each other by a dist of up to 200km(108nm), to monitor the airspace over linear 'front' of up to 800-900km(430-485nm).
At the same time permitted target distribution and exchange of information with ground and airborne command posts.
Today's the Mig-31 is arguably the only fighter in the world capable of dealing with low RCS low-flying Cruise missiles at very long range, as well as combating in high-altitude, high-speed enviroments.
Despite appearances, the impressive Mig-31 is more than just a throwback to the cold war.
Designed at the end of 1970s against a backdrop of superpower paranoia, the Mig-31 is today an interceptor without direct equal, combating impressive range with a formidable array of weapons, mulit-target capability and a crew of two.
There are just under 200 operative Mig-31 today, with lots of reserve aircraft held in Air Bases like Lipetsk and other places.
Despite of punishing cutbacks, the 'Foxhound' is one asset that the RuAF would like to preserve for as long as possible.
Only time will tell how long Russia can maintain this unique advantage.
By Combat Aircraft Monthly september edition 2010.
Written By Stefan Buttner.
The Current status of Mig-31.
Today, major structural changes have taken place in the Russian Armed Forces and from 2009 the RuAF have acquired a new appearance. In essence, Russia's military leadership set about changing the Regimental system of organization into a more effective brigade structure, while simultaneously introducing major changes within each of the standard formations.
For the RuAF this, is debateble and possible not the best situation. Huge cutbacks in Airbases and units.. but perhaps a necessity.
A certain numbers of units having been 'Re-formed', or to be more accurate 'Reduced'.
Of the units operating the Mig-31 & 31BMs, these changes affected Kotlas, where the regiment was reduced to a single sq structure, and Sokolovka, which was also reduced to a single sq and re-located to airfield at Tsentral'naya Uglovaya.
Today like many other bases in the new RuAF structure, this base is equipped with a mix units of upgraded Su-27SM and some Su-24MR/M2s.
Other bases operating Mig-31 finally began to receive the very latest modification; the multi-role Mig-31BM.
This aircraft has an upgraded radar, offering substancially improved performance and technical parameters. The main differences focus on the installed avionics, with the Zalson radar being replaced by the improved Zalson-M radar, originally intended for use on the abortive Mig-31M interceptor.
Thanks to this modification, maximum target detection range is extended to 320km(173nm) anf kill range is increased to 280km(151nm).
This is acheived using the advanced R-37 long-range radar guided AAM, which was developed quite some time ago, but is only now beginning to enter service with the Russian Mig-31 units.
It is claimed that using this missile today will allow a Mig-31 to simultaneously track 10 targets and engage six of them.
The Mig-31BM's avionics suite facilitates a variety of aircombat scenarios, including some that are quite unusual namly:
The aircraft can effectively co-operate with PVO surface-to-air missile or operate as an airborne command post.
When working in a group of other fighters like Su-27SM, Su-30/35 and Strikers like Su-24M2/Su-34's, equipped with less or equal powerful radar, the Mig-31BM can Co-ordinate their activities, providing guidance for their missiles while closing with the targets under radio silence to permissible launch range.
In a number of combat situations such a tactic could substantially increase the effictiveness of a group of fighters.
The Mig-31BM's cockpit has been upgraded to facilitate a range of intercept and support scenarios using satelite navigation, the latest multi-funcional liquid-crystal dispalys and other devices.
Apart from these changes, spatial awareness in formation flying is improved with the installation of a rear-view mirror and fixed periscope/camera for the pilot.
It can also perform AWACS mission if a section of four(otryad) Mig-31s
flying in a line-abreast formation, and seperated from each other by a dist of up to 200km(108nm), to monitor the airspace over linear 'front' of up to 800-900km(430-485nm).
At the same time permitted target distribution and exchange of information with ground and airborne command posts.
Today's the Mig-31 is arguably the only fighter in the world capable of dealing with low RCS low-flying Cruise missiles at very long range, as well as combating in high-altitude, high-speed enviroments.
Despite appearances, the impressive Mig-31 is more than just a throwback to the cold war.
Designed at the end of 1970s against a backdrop of superpower paranoia, the Mig-31 is today an interceptor without direct equal, combating impressive range with a formidable array of weapons, mulit-target capability and a crew of two.
There are just under 200 operative Mig-31 today, with lots of reserve aircraft held in Air Bases like Lipetsk and other places.
Despite of punishing cutbacks, the 'Foxhound' is one asset that the RuAF would like to preserve for as long as possible.
Only time will tell how long Russia can maintain this unique advantage.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
Hi, thanks for all comments, informative
For example if the USAF had built it instead and therefore it would have had higher availability,
would it have become intergral to the USAF? and have been deployed in the iraq and balkans wars?
Gf, indeed rating the Mig31 when not considering the lack of availability and high maintinence costs is unrealisitc and somewhat fantasist, however i think there is some merit in it, simply to determine how useful the capabilities of such an aircraft would be
For example if the USAF had built it instead and therefore it would have had higher availability,
would it have become intergral to the USAF? and have been deployed in the iraq and balkans wars?
Well, the US did built several high-speed interceptor designs during the Cold War, but these were increasingly eclipsed by more modern designs like the F-15. So no, I don't think it would have become integral to the USAF, simply because by that stage they'd moved on from specialist interceptors so I doubt they would have ever designed anything similar to the MiG-31 in that timeframe. That's just my opinion, others may vary.
Russian and US requirements were different and so it's difficult to just transplant an aircraft from one side to the other to determine its usefulness.
Russian and US requirements were different and so it's difficult to just transplant an aircraft from one side to the other to determine its usefulness.
Acquisition range does not mean that it can kill at that range - it assumes that the target is acomplete moron and not going to be able to conduct any evasive manouvre/. Do the math, at max launch range. at maximum speed, at the energy bleed point what enemy aircraft is not going to be able to accelerate away and out of reach? There is a reason why western forces abandoned long range aircraft killers in the 80's.
which is something that the US Tomcat could do in the 80's as well.... modern western systems are doing concurrrent track and target management in the 10's of factor - AESA expands concurrent track and target management considerably.
and this has been a function that every US aircraft with Link 16 or a JTAC on the ground can do since the early 90's
as can Gripen, as can a number of other western fighters.... its not unique.
again, what is unique here compared to western aircraft that had systems participation ability since the early 90's?
great, a rear view mirrow for WVR support. if you can see in a rear view mirror whats coming then I suggest that the pilot has an incoming problem, not an adjunct support solution. I'd be relying on ewarfare and companion support from other assets before I relied on a rear view mirror
again, Gripen, Rafale, anything with Link 16 (air, ground, sea) can monitor to effect and trade off events between the flight/
what absolute nonsense. again, go to point one about systems events and engagement issues. a meeting engagement thats stretching, (ot merging) at high mach speeds is not something that infers favour on the shooter. Its basic physics.
what unique advantage? the above article is written by someone who is incredibly selective in promoting the aircraft and conveniently ignores the fact that there are western aircraft that have enjoyed similar capability 30 years ago.
enthusiasts talk about platforms, real analysts talk about systems and system events. much like other enthusiasts talk about things that go bang rather than look at logistics.
it is a distressingly amateurish article and he should be embarrassed to put his name to it.
certainly, you only have to look at ruissian/soviet doctrine differences for Carriers, Cruisers and interceptors to see the diff in employment as their doctrine and conops were based on different vectors.
be that as it may, that is a disturbingly amateurish article and the author seems to be completely oblivious to the issue of systems battlemanagement events and platform centric events.
this is not the killing of Adm Yamamoto where a single aircraft dictates terms and the target is spatially unaware of events within its sensor action bubble.
but thats the issue, anyone who trots out this nonsense based on platform centric scenarios is being cavalier with the truth and a representation of its benefit and tactical utility.
I don't think so at all. the issue is not about the platform - but its overall contribution to a systems based event. apart from high speed, and brute power in a primitive sensor set (which makes it a radiator of the first order, and thus an immediate target as soon as it lights up) - what does it bring to the table?
again, there was a reason for moving away from high speed manned plaforms in the 80's . I can't see any merit in the platform in a modern force construct. its a two trick pony where those two tricks and not battle event changers. even in a modern systems package such as how the israelis, singaporeans, french, UK operate, what benefit would it add?
Not much.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Mig31 as its the last of the big brawlers, it was designed to do a specific job within the threat models of the time.
I'd love to see one of these with western engineering concepts applied to the engines, CCEMU etc... but they are a dinosaur in contemp terms in the modern battlespace.
they aren't to be dismissed as they are still dangerous, but I'd rather be part of a modern opposing package than sitting in one going to war against a modern force based on companion systems in a systems event construct.
In the case of the VVS it adds datalink, relatively sophisticated BVR capability, and a decent radar. Remember, with only ~60 Su-27SM, 28 MiG-29SMTs, and a handful of Su-34s, the Mig-31BM is one of the few modern aircraft in the VVS arsenal. You need to contextualize before you can asses the utility of an asset. Within the current VVS context, the MiG-31BM is a major improvement in capability.
When taken within it's current threat matrix, it's quite a formidable foe against ex-Soviet states, and other 2nd and 3rd world countries bordering Russia.
When taken within it's current threat matrix, it's quite a formidable foe against ex-Soviet states, and other 2nd and 3rd world countries bordering Russia.
Thats the punchline, and unfort it gets lost in some of these debates....
it needs to be considered against its utility in a contemp environment and against a relevant opposing force.
platforms don't win modern wars. Systems do and have demonstrated that since 1999.
Haavarla
Active Member
Rear mirror
How about Flare launcher.
The Mig-31 should never be in a WVR engagement.
If it does, the pilot have done something wrong.
And for support, there should be some POV or Flankers lurking around in any given conflict.
The Mig-31 could 'paint' an enemy at 250km, in a defence role enough in most situations to force the enemy to disengage.
In such case, the Mig have a mission successfull.
You are reading to much into this article.
There is nothing decribing such arial tactics you put out here.
The article just state some of its capability, nothing about tactics.
The Mig has the power output and aparture antenna size as an advantage, the zalson-M radar should be able to lookdown/lockdown on most contenders out there, especial larger units like a striker package, bombers etc etc.
It doesn't help what way you spin this.
The Mig-31 platform and its system is unique for RuAF.
And the same for almost every other world airforces.
This is from a Aviation magazine.
They promoting different aircraft each issue, whats your point?
You should send a complaint then, here you are:
Combat Aircraft Magazine
Yes its an old design. But like Russia have often done in the past, evolution before revolution.
The Avionics upgrade is quite substancial:
"The MiG-31BM has upgraded avionics and digital datalinks, a new multimode radar, colour multifunction cockpit displays, a new, more powerful computer and the ability to carry new air-to-air and possibly air-to-surface missiles such as the AS-17 Krypton anti-radar missile."
Here is a little Mig-31 glims of the old vs newer cockpit(BM)
Last edited:
its about reality and its about conops. - if you're assuming that the Mig21 will always take a battlespace control role where it dictates terms, then thats incredibly naive, battle changes from the first 30seconds. No set battle stays intact from the planRear mirror
How about Flare launcher.
The Mig-31 should never be in a WVR engagement.
If it does, the pilot have done something wrong.
yes, against an unsophisticated force that hasn't rebuilt since 1999 and who doesn't emply layered responses and capability, of course they will be successful. against the french, swedes, UK and Germans, or any NATO force that has multiple sensor layers and reach out ability? hardly
when we buy platforms they are put through a series of vignettes to test their viability to withstand different contact constructs - its "weapons and systems testing 101".
Its standard practice. They might not do this in Nigeria, but they sure as heck do it in the 28 countries tied in with NATO etc....
Its not spin - again we run vignettes that use probably and actual scenarios. Have you ever been involved win weapons procurement and platform assessments? I have and I still do. This is not internet theory from me. Its what I do for a day to day job. again, read my last on construct and relevance
I've written to them a number of times from my work email address critcising the amateurish nature of their articles. One of the people in here knows full well how scathing my criticism has been and he is a defence sector journalist.. If you think tha this is a competent article then I suggest that you take off the rose coloured glasses and/or get a job in the industry where you'll discover quite quickly how much contempt these magazine articles generate. Understand the reality of how weapons systems and platforms are assessed before getting excited about an enthusiasts magazine that in absolute terms has zero comprehension of what actually counts.
Journalists who dumb down articles to the point where they are technically meaningless and fact deficient to a level where they are fanboi articles should hang their head in shame. Its unprofessional and it ends up with the general public having a somewhat shallow appreciation of what actually goes into weapons, platform and systems procurement decisions.
that article is appallingly technically deficient.
what bit don't you understand? there is only so much upgrade you can do to an older platform designed around a doctrine that is now basically irrelevant. It's like sticking a BMW alloy V* into a Lada and expecting it to handle like an Alpina M5. Sure it can do spectacular stuff in a straight line for the adoring crowd who might love Ladas, - but at the end of the day the platform has a limitation that no amount of hotrodding can fix.
again, you're focused on the platform and the widgets on that platform when modern force constructs for the last 20 years have been about sympathetic and relevant systems being bought to bear in a structured coherent manner
this article is the same moronic style that you used to see from APA about the merits of the F-111 and its "Super" upgrade potential.
I can't believe that you would seriously regard this as a defence against journalist spin.
do you mean to tell me that if you were a fleet user of 200 x 1st series E Class Mercedes that you would refer to Car and Driver Magazine about the benefits of the fleet you had and what upgrades were now available to try and turn it into an 2010 S Class? Or convert a BMW 5 series coupe into 7 series?
the mind boggles/
its an ethusiasts magazine - its not Engineering World, the author are filling space, they're not even remotely interested in discussing the technical detail about warfighting, platform relevance and systems relevance because their readers are not part of that market. They're selling oo-aah space.
If I conducted an assessment of a platform at work and referred to a public domain enthusiasts magazine as proof of life of platform competency and abilities I'd get laughed at all the way down the corridors.
lets not make it something that it isn't - and lets at least take a real world look at technology and capability issues that have a direct functional impact rather than gawk at pictures and articles without making serious attempts at analysing them properly on merit and utility.
there are plenty of other sites which will take an uncritical view of articles because its convenient to assume that the author might have technical expertise. If you believe that then you're also subscribing to Aviation Week and the non Govt editions of Janes. The spectacular failure og magazine authors in this sector to do more than lip service analysis is exactly why AW and Janes have taken some hits by professionals over the standard and quality of their "regular" articles.
Its also why the Wheelers, Riccionis. Speys, Kopps, Davies of the world are also dismissed on credibility because they write selectively and often without much awareness of what is happening with force constructs in 2010 - not in 1980.
For a similar analogy look at the references to Afghanistan and Vietnam. lazy theorists are quite happy to try and draw parallels to these 2 conflicts when there is minimal relationship beyond the fact that people are shooting at each other. The Combat Aircraft article is just as lightweight.
[offtopic]Wow gf0012 how did u get so smart? Dont go into that, but I do always enjoy reading your reply's. You always have very good and well informed arguments, and your English is perfect, very readable and elegant. So thanks for your awesome reply's. [ontopic]
After reading this thread, it looks like gf is totally bashing the Mig-31, but he's not! He's in fact bashing some of the other posts and rightfully so. An example:
But he's right, aircrafts are platforms that capture the imagination, especially something as ginormous as the Mig-31. And it is easy to get lost in lists of specs and equipement, but from my uninformed perspective it doesnt look that impressive for an air to air platform. Again its enormous and I figure it will have a big big RCS, I cant imagine it being very manouverable and being Russian it will be a pain to maintain. An airframe this size that does the things the Mig-31 does, it will probably be a very complex aircraft, which would make it very expensive.
So what does it do? It's fast and shoots AAM's. In my opinion thats kinda limited for a plane this size. But I guess it works for the Russians and looking at their procurement situation they will need them.
But for King Bongo it would not be a sensible purchase. Although they would look impressive on satillite pictures sitting on the end of the ramp. Because thats all they will do there. There's no way King Bongo could affort fuel after buying these bad boys, let alone procuring weapons, spares and the expertise and manpower to maintain them. And even when they do, they cant use a Mig-31 to bomb insurgents they cant use them to do much of anything that would be usefull to King Bongo.
So whats my opinion of the Mig-31? Well it looks cool. And they are probably very usefull within Russian military doctrine. But I dont know another airforce that uses aircraft for such specialist roles, so it doesnt have much export potential. And I dont think it is a very sophisticated or impressive aircraft.
On the other hand, could it not be a very fast interdictor? Just screw some Brahmos on the hardpoints and infiltrate enemy air defences with mach 2 (or whatever speed it does at sealevel). I think it would be hard to find anyone that will strap themselves in this giant and fly it at mach 2+ at low level. But it is worth a thought and I would like to know what you think.
After reading this thread, it looks like gf is totally bashing the Mig-31, but he's not! He's in fact bashing some of the other posts and rightfully so. An example:
As I mentioned a very very elegant remark but a total burn, classic post!
But he's right, aircrafts are platforms that capture the imagination, especially something as ginormous as the Mig-31. And it is easy to get lost in lists of specs and equipement, but from my uninformed perspective it doesnt look that impressive for an air to air platform. Again its enormous and I figure it will have a big big RCS, I cant imagine it being very manouverable and being Russian it will be a pain to maintain. An airframe this size that does the things the Mig-31 does, it will probably be a very complex aircraft, which would make it very expensive.
So what does it do? It's fast and shoots AAM's. In my opinion thats kinda limited for a plane this size. But I guess it works for the Russians and looking at their procurement situation they will need them.
But for King Bongo it would not be a sensible purchase. Although they would look impressive on satillite pictures sitting on the end of the ramp. Because thats all they will do there. There's no way King Bongo could affort fuel after buying these bad boys, let alone procuring weapons, spares and the expertise and manpower to maintain them. And even when they do, they cant use a Mig-31 to bomb insurgents they cant use them to do much of anything that would be usefull to King Bongo.
So whats my opinion of the Mig-31? Well it looks cool. And they are probably very usefull within Russian military doctrine. But I dont know another airforce that uses aircraft for such specialist roles, so it doesnt have much export potential. And I dont think it is a very sophisticated or impressive aircraft.
On the other hand, could it not be a very fast interdictor? Just screw some Brahmos on the hardpoints and infiltrate enemy air defences with mach 2 (or whatever speed it does at sealevel). I think it would be hard to find anyone that will strap themselves in this giant and fly it at mach 2+ at low level. But it is worth a thought and I would like to know what you think.
thanks.
I'm glad that someone else is seeing this.
I've also reacted the same way to claims about the Super F-111 etc....
Platform centric debates are fundamentally flawed. If the platform is not relevant or sympathetic to the way that the rest of the force intends to fight, or cannot fight on its own merit in modern contested battlespace, then someone needs to ask the questions.
is the platform of benefit? yes. But in a limited environment and not against modern force elements which are designed around symbiotic layered systems,
you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how much velvet you line its insides with..
IMHO, its of limited utility in modern combat constructs on "1st day of war scenarios"
it has greater relevance and utility at "5th day of war scenarios" assuming that "its" team has sanitised the air battlespace and delaminated the opposing forces GBAD, C2/C3/C4ISR etc...
speed and sensor range are of minimal benefit unless you own the battlespace before this asset arrives.
I'm sorry but what's Ukraine got to do with this? Only Russia and Kazkhstan operate the type, both pursuing the BM upgrade option. No export contracts have been fulfilled, and the two major customers, India and China, who could make some use of this plane have shown no interest.
I would however note that the question og obscolescence is a debatable one. The Flanker is of similar vintage, however with extensive re-engineering, it's turned into a quite capable modern platform. Especially the MKI, and Su-35S variants. I can see criticism of the BM upgrade as too little too late, but it's not inferior to the SM program for the Flankers in VVS inventory, and those are currently the most modern air superiority assets the VVS has. It's by no means a showstopper for NATO airforces, but then neither is anything else. At the end of the day, the type is useful, and tactically relevant within the VVS. It needs to be modernized to continue being relevant, as no replacement will come in the next decade. The BM variant is a good step in the right direction. Once that program sees some major deliveries, a BM2 variant, probably with new radar, and other major upgrades, should follow, that will put the type back on comparable footing with mid-late 4th gens.
I would however note that the question og obscolescence is a debatable one. The Flanker is of similar vintage, however with extensive re-engineering, it's turned into a quite capable modern platform. Especially the MKI, and Su-35S variants. I can see criticism of the BM upgrade as too little too late, but it's not inferior to the SM program for the Flankers in VVS inventory, and those are currently the most modern air superiority assets the VVS has. It's by no means a showstopper for NATO airforces, but then neither is anything else. At the end of the day, the type is useful, and tactically relevant within the VVS. It needs to be modernized to continue being relevant, as no replacement will come in the next decade. The BM variant is a good step in the right direction. Once that program sees some major deliveries, a BM2 variant, probably with new radar, and other major upgrades, should follow, that will put the type back on comparable footing with mid-late 4th gens.
MiG did propose a range of 31 vairants to the Soviets for strike including VG and side by side seating. But they lost out to Sushka and the 24.
Now you hang a store as big as the Brahmos on an aircraft and it is not going to fly at Mach 2.0 or even 1.0. Even with low drag stores the 31 would not fly faster than Mach 1.1 at sea level. Air's too thick. And if it did fly that fast at NOE it would break its big wings off from gust response. It is a high and fast aircraft and nothing else.
Great for intercepting B-1s and B-52s flying over Moscow, not so great for King Bongo trying to contest oh lets say Frances air superiority over a battlefield. Costs to much, Not agile enough for the Dassault's and almost nil Air to Ground capability. Great interceptor, not much else.
What King Bongo needs is a multirole fighter, as someone before me mentioned some surplus f-16's would do the trick
What King Bongo needs is a multirole fighter, as someone before me mentioned some surplus f-16's would do the trick
Alright, this is going off-topic; but darn the torpedoes (or the R-77s, as the case may be) here we go. I'd argue that for "King Bongo" (not a condescending name at all, is it, now?) to even attempt to
contest French/NATO air superiority through air-to-air means.
If "Bongostan" is one of the Francophone nations in West Africa, and for some idiotic reason she decides to pick a fight with her former colonial master (resource conflict, internal politics, etc.), and takes French citizens or interests hostage, her biggest initial threat is probably going to be from the sea, from the navair operating off of CdG (or her eventual replacement) and cruise missiles from SSNs and frigates/DDs.
The Foxhound doesn't really allow "Bongostan" to threaten any of these launch platforms, allowing the French to control the sea and air aspects of the battlespace and better dictate amphibious landing sites.
Some SSKs and/or a modern/modernized SAM and radar network would probably be better options if you're planning to pick a fight with France, although buying, training, and operating all these would severely strain your country's resources.
Now, back to the Foxhound. Why do the Khazaks still operate the type? Correct me if I'm wrong; but it seems like don't have a pressing need for an Foxhound-grade interceptor. Is it just a matter of keeping a current type flying being cheaper than buying a new one?
contest French/NATO air superiority through air-to-air means.
If "Bongostan" is one of the Francophone nations in West Africa, and for some idiotic reason she decides to pick a fight with her former colonial master (resource conflict, internal politics, etc.), and takes French citizens or interests hostage, her biggest initial threat is probably going to be from the sea, from the navair operating off of CdG (or her eventual replacement) and cruise missiles from SSNs and frigates/DDs.
The Foxhound doesn't really allow "Bongostan" to threaten any of these launch platforms, allowing the French to control the sea and air aspects of the battlespace and better dictate amphibious landing sites.
Some SSKs and/or a modern/modernized SAM and radar network would probably be better options if you're planning to pick a fight with France, although buying, training, and operating all these would severely strain your country's resources.
Now, back to the Foxhound. Why do the Khazaks still operate the type? Correct me if I'm wrong; but it seems like don't have a pressing need for an Foxhound-grade interceptor. Is it just a matter of keeping a current type flying being cheaper than buying a new one?