Russia is designing a new interceptor... Are they on to something?

MiG-31, obsolete aircraft...  But not obsolete concept.

Recently, Russian officials have admitted to developing a MiG-31 replacement.  This sparked some interest from aviation enthusiasts who have long believed the MiG-31 "Foxhound" was little more of a remnant of the Cold War and would see retirement as the PAK FA and Su-35 became the prevalent fighters in the Russian inventory.

Why does this seem odd?  Because in this age of "multi-role" jet fighters, when even the F-22 Raptor is equipped for ground attack, The Foxhound is decidedly single purpose:  Interception.

MiG-25 "Foxbat".

Developed from the legendary MiG-25 "Foxbat", the MiG-31 was conceived as a sort of a "Super Foxbat" with better detection abilities, longer range, and the ability to engage low flying targets.  The MiG-25 itself was developed to counter the threat of  the B-58 Hustler and (soon to be aborted) XB-70 Valkyrie bombers.  Oddly enough, early exaggerated reports of the MiG-25 led to the development of the F-15 Eagle, in a game of "one-upmanship" that was common in the Cold War.

Before the time of ICBMs, interceptor aircraft were all the rage during the Cold War.  The concept was simple enough, aircraft built to engage invading enemy bombers as quickly and from as far out as possible.  Speed, range, and time-to-climb were the ultimate benchmarks of an interceptor's performance.  Powerful radars were needed to detect and lock on to hostile threats.  Since bombers are rather ungainly, maneuverability was a secondary concern.

CF-101 Voodoo.

Canada was certainly no stranger to the interceptor concept during the Cold War.  The Avro CF-100 Canuck was a dedicated all weather interceptor (appearances to the contrary), and the cancelled CF-105 Arrow would likely approached the MiG-31s level of performance.  The Arrow's stand-in, the CF-101 Voodoo, was a pure interceptor (with a minor exception), using nuclear rockets able to destroy entire fleets of bombers.  Even the much maligned CF-104 Starfighter was designed as a high-speed, high altitude interceptor...  The fact that it was used as a low-altitude strike fighter may have been a factor in its poor safety record.

The F-14, last of the Western interceptors?

So what became of the interceptor?  Most modern fighters are required to have at least some ground attack ability, even last true western interceptor, the F-14 was equipped with air-to-ground ability shortly before its retirement.  The proliferation of ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and SLBMs (submarine launched ballistic missiles) meant that countering an enemy bomber attack simply wasn't enough.  Further experience in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Libya has stressed the need for "shock-and-awe" type tactics against opponents to quickly eliminate defenses and control enemy airspace.

So why is Russia so keen on replacing a single purpose interceptor like the MiG-31?  For one thing, Russia's sheer size means that a long-range, high-speed interceptor makes sense.  Another reason is to ensure a platform capable of launching long-range "AWACS killer" missiles like the Vympel R-37.  With the retirement of the F-14, the U.S. military has lost its capability of launching the similar AIM-54 Phoenix, now relying on variations of the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

RAF E-3 Sentry AWACS.

One reason for western air dominance in recent conflicts like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is the use of AWACS (airborne early warning and control system) aircraft.  Eliminate the AWACS, and sizable advantage is lost.  Over southeast Asia, AWACS systems are gaining popularity, with Boeing 737 AEW&C "Wedgetail" being used by Australia and South Korea, the Boeing E-767 being used by Japan, and the KJ-2000 utilized by China.

Needless to say, these AWACS make tempting targets, and their physical size and considerable radar emissions make them easy to detect and lock on to.  Fighter escorts are pretty much standard procedure, but fast, long-range missiles (like the Mach 6 R-37) can be fired from almost 400km away, far enough away for a fast interceptor like the MiG-31 to safely launch its missile and escape at near Mach 3 speeds.

How big of a tactical advantage is this?  Consider a 2008 Rand report that painted a bleak picture of US forces against a hypothetical air war against China in the south Pacific.  Even assuming superiority for American F-22s and F-35s against Chinese fighters (12:1 kill ratio), US fighters would run out of missiles before they ran out of targets, and the supporting AWACS and aerial tankers would likely be lost.  More realistically, the Chinese forces would be much closer to American F-22s and F-35s in performance and kill ratios.

As more details of the Chinese J-20 are revealed, it is beginning to look more like the aircraft will also be more than capable of the intercept role.  Plenty of internal missile space, along with an abundance of fuel, could give it superior range and payload to the F-22 or PAK FA, whilst sacrificing agility.  No doubt about it, a stealthy, long range interceptor armed with "AWACS killer" missiles would give any invading force pause.

The "Canadian Foxbat" the Avro Arrow.

Should Canada look into revitalizing the interceptor concept?  Of the 4 fighters now being considered, the Eurofighter Typhoon equipped with the MBDA Meteor is as closest to being a "true" interceptor, but the Typhoon is considered more of a short range "point defense" fighter.  The Rafale is even less of an interceptor given its "omnirole" design, and both the Super Hornet and F-35 were developed primarily as strike fighters, with neither the range, nor the speed to be considered as interceptors.  The only proposed CF-18 replacement that could be considered an interceptor would, in fact, be a modernized Avro Arrow.  This concept was not given serious consideration however.

Is the interceptor concept due for a comeback?  Will supercruising, long-range, high-altitude jets fitted with extremely long-range missiles make a return with the Asia-Pacific shift?

If so...  Should Canada look into its own "Foxhound"?