wrightwingThere was no upgraded MIG-31BM in 2006. First two were delivered iin feb 2008. That 280km missile referring to old 90s inventory.
how is AIM-120 range from F-22 at 65K vs F-16 at half its height and speed.
When they announce that export Su-35 is going to carry missiles more than 300KM ranges. there is no reason to doubt 600km from MIG-31BM.
AIM-120 range from F-16 vs. F-22 doesn’t increase by 100s of Kilometers.
How is it that you can pick and choose which parts of articles to use as support, yet anything that doesn’t validate your assertions must be an old missile, or out of date fact? You have yet to produce a link showing any claims of a 600-700km missile(that’s a longer range than a S-400/500, and those are huge compared to any AAM). Whether the Mig 31 was a BM or not is irrelevant, as it’s airspeed and altitude aren’t gonna be any different(i.e. are F-15Cs faster than F-15As? they’ve got newer engines and avionics right, so they must be able to using the newer=faster, higher, longer logic.
wrightwingNew engines are alot more powerful just like IL-76 and Su-35 engines are alot more powerful. And they dont need to disclose the performance enhancement just like F-22 RCS is classified. All they say it is 5th generation competitor.
Old MIG-31 can launch AAMs at double the speed of other jets of those era like Su-27. So it is not few hundred km difference. rather like launching AAMs at Mach 1.2 vs Mach 2.4. twice less. Meaning if Su-27 has to decrease by Mach 1.2 due external weopons. MIG will decrease by Mach 0.6 with similar weopons load out.
http://www.aviapedia.com/video/mig-31-foxhound-video-smotr
Mig-31 can reach huge speed level. And during the design process it was very important to lower down carried missiles resistance to the incoming air. Mig designers succeded in this task – missiles are placed in the way to slowdown plane twice less then all the planes before.
That article from 2006 says this-
“Today in Russia were created new R37 missiles with 280 km launch range.”
This is talking about the Mig 31, not the SU-35. Even your sources are at odds with your claims.
You’re still not gonna get an extra 300km range without a significantly different propulsion system, just by firing at Mach 2.4 vs. 1.2.
wrightwingWhy it cannot fly higher and faster when Su-35 can to it vs Su-27?
that was performance 30 years ago. Nothing to do with lighter avionics with LCD, radar and upgraded engines.
Law of diminishing returns? contrary it is law of increasing returns. Old R-37 at most is 20% heavier but 300% performance boosts. u have to understand the stronger the motor, the higher the speed and greater the range from higher speed. missile accelerated to Mach 10 has different range than missile accelerated to mach 4 even if they have similar fuel. i am not going into decrease weights of new missiles with composite construction.
It is clearly written 320km range vs fighter size target. 280km hypersonic intercept from 1999. In 2008 simply double that figures just like Su-35 double that figure on Su-30MKI of 2001. And that aircraft does not have enhanced performance of new engines.
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/bm/mig31bm.htm
Your own link shows that the speed of the Mig hasn’t changed- Mach 2.83(3000km/h) as the top speed. The new engines may be more fuel efficient, or durable, but I’ve yet to see that the speed has changed.
As for the missile ranges, why should I “simply” double the range since it’s now 2008. As for the platform, how much slower will the SU-35 be travelling than the MIG-31? A few hundred km/h difference isn’t gonna double the range of the missile.
You still haven’t answered as to what missiles are actually IN SERVICE vs. prototypes.
wrightwing–
Lets compare Su-27 with SU-35. Su-35 carries alot more avionics and weopons load but can supercruise and has far better performance it is due engines and lighter avionics with more fuel. Why can MIG-31BM can do it. and it share engine with IL-76 upgrades? how can range increase from 120Km R-33 to 300KM R-37 20 years ago but it cannot increase to 600km now when even platform is better.
Because the MIG-31 isn’t flying any higher or faster than it did 10-20 years ago for one. Secondly a missile with a 600km+ range is gonna be huge, and I doubt any fighter is gonna carry 4 or more of them at anywhere near supersonic speeds.
I have never said export models have 100% performance down grade. Sukhoi merely stated that they are equipming Su-35 with 300km class missile. so likely Su-27SM2 will be 400KM.
MIG-31 missile ranges will be further than this at its high altitude performance is far better. non upgraded MIG-31 can do 3000km/h while export Su-35 is 2500km/h.
3000 km/h is the MIG’s top speed(which it can’t reach with a combat load). It can get up to Mach 2.35 with 4 AAMs(R33/R37) with a combat radius of about 390 miles.
Please explain how R-37 has 300% range increase vs R-33 20 years ago with non upgraded platform.
How big is the R-37 vs. R33? How big is the motor and propellant load on each of the missiles? There is a law of diminishing returns in terms of performance increases. You can’t continuously get 100-300% increases in range without going with a much larger missile. This then limits how many missiles that you can carry, and how fast/far that you can carry them.
wrightwingHow about “Awacs usefull asset but no magic bullet, not invulnerable but no sitting duck either”:diablo:
+1
Not invulnerable, but invaluable.
wrightwingI doubt the ABL could scan the skies and detect an enemy Hawkeye (for example) at 600 km. I also doubt, however, that the YAL-1 would be out and about in Indian country alone. Like all large-scale US air operations anymore, it would be in the company of an E-3 Sentry. The Sentry would find the enemy aircraft, tell the YAL-1 where to look, then the ABL would acquire and engage the enemy aircraft.
Not true. Part of the point I made was that it’s a very slow moving target (relatively). To kill an ICBM, you have to put a lot of energy on target in a very short span of time, otherwise the ICBM is quickly too fast, too high, and/or too far away to engage. An AWACS aircraft cruising at 200-400 knots would not have the ability to get away like that. It could engage it for longer, putting considerably more energy on the target in still a very short period of time, enough for a kill, certainly.
I’ve not seen anywhere that the range figure is qualified by a target altitude. Do you have a link to that information?
Logan Hartke
There’s gonna be considerably more distortion in the laser in denser atmosphere, than at extreme high altitudes. I have serious doubts about being able to engage a fixed wing aircraft at that distance.
wrightwingthere is no guarantee that Stealth wont be detected. Su-35 offers superior performance, range and integrated avionic system across the board. Just BVR shoot capability with high altitude perfomance, fbw control 3D TVC will give it edge in any combat.
1980s era 100km search is very good. Considering MIG-31 was at most 200km at that was using PESA.
APG-73 from late 90s atleast has 160 km range and RMAF considered BARS superior to it from 2001 almost equal to future APG-79.
there is nothing wrong with Zhuk-MSF range as it wast fully developed. and 180km is not a bad range considering it is decade old technology.
-could you provide the areas of the flight envelope where the SU-35 is superior to an F-22(all of them?)
-stealth can be detected, BUT at what range is the question. If the F-22 can see the SU-35 first, it’s gonna win an engagement, as a NON-Stealth design will definitely be detected.
-Are you saying that there’s a higher degree of avionic and sensor integration on the Flanker, than Raptor? You’re basing this on what exactly?
-your whole basis for the assertions you’ve made regarding aerodynamics, avionics, missile performance, etc.. is that huge advancements MUST have been made AND fielded, as the figures presented to you are all old and no longer accurate. Are you saying that everytime an advance is made, it is a 50-100% improvement in capabilities, and that it is fielded throughout the entire inventory?
wrightwingSay the strike/bombing portion had been completed in their respective missions, which is more likely to succed in any ata engaements?
Performance wise it goes to the F-15E, they really did turn that flanker into a bomber, not really a fighter anymore.
Does the su-34 have a radar in its tail? Or was that just hype and its just a parachute.
Anyone know if the su-34 can carry unguided weapons, if so would it have improved its low level bombing accuracy over the woeful su-24?
I’d agree- when one considers the avionics and visibility advantages of the F-15E, I’d much rather do A/A in the Eagle. The -E(and its weapons) has demonstrated its A/G in combat conditions as well, whereas the effectiveness of the Russian A/G weapons haven’t been validated in combat conditions.
wrightwingYes, when operational, it is supposed to be effective against liquid-fueled ICBMs at 600km (but not solid-fueled). I figure that a hit against a much slower-moving converted airliner filled with sensitive electronics, liquid jet fuel, and people is likely to do enough damage to at least destroy mission equipment and/or kill operators. My guess is that the aircraft would be totally destroyed, however, even at that range.
Logan Hartke
Could the airborne laser get a line of sight shot at that range, against a target that was only at 35,000 feet though? The laser may be powerful enough at that range, but you still have to deal with the horizon at those ranges.
wrightwingWhy the F-14 can not survive the fight with MiG-23 MLD (without help from AWACS-es and all sort of Jammer a/c):
See the F-14A Manual:
-Max speed =1.88 M clean or with 2x Aim-9 (page 4-7)
-Max G load= 6.5 (page 4-10, so it is not true that this limit was imposed only in later years).
-Subsonic maneuvering limit =15 units (about 10 degrees). Pathetic!!! (page 4-16, 11-2)
-With Slats extended the max allovable G = 5.2. (page 4-16)
-The combat Thrust/weight ratio: 0.82 static, sea level. At higher altitudes it falls rapidly.
-Its engines were not designed for speed and altitude. Only for a subsonic low fuel consumption.
On the other hand, the MiG-23MLD has:(Source Manual)
-The max speed , with 2x medium range R-24 missiles, is 2.35 Mach.
-The combat T/W is 1.01:1 sea level, with excellent high altitude thrust.
-Max allowed maneuvering Angle of Attack is 28 degrees Alpha at 45 degrees wing sweep ( can do Loops, split-S, turns etc at this high Alpha).
It is much higher that that was allowed for F-14A.-No maneuvering limits, no missile firing limits.
For example: The Mig-23 ML is cleared for maneuvers at 27 degrees alpha at 8.5G at 860 km/h.
It is more than F-16 can do ,which is allowed to 9G but at only 15 degrees Alpha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat
-The overall thrust-to-weight ratio at maximum load is around 0.56, which does not compare favorably with the F-15A’s ratio of 0.85.[15] Even so, the aircraft itself is able to reach Mach 2.4, and the maximum speed is officially Mach 2.34.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_2.html
-Two retractable surfaces, called glove vanes, were originally mounted in the forward part of the wing glove, and could be automatically extended by the flight control system at high Mach numbers. They were used to generate additional lift ahead of the aircraft’s center of gravity, thus helping to compensate for the nose-down pitching tendencies at supersonic speeds. Automatically deployed at above Mach 1.4, they allowed the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2 and could be manually extended at above Mach 1. They were later disabled, however, owing to their additional weight and complexity.[7]
-Specification of the Grumman F-14A Tomcat:
Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-412A/414A turbofans, each rated at 12,350 lb.s.t. dry and 20,900 lb.s.t with afterburning.. Maximum speed: 1544 mph (Mach 2.34) at 40,000 feet
wrightwingSadly I knew that already..;)
The issue however remains the same. Nobody here is saying the Mig 25 is not a fantastic peice of engineering and design. However just because it is that it does not mean….
1) It’s the best interceptor/ fighter/ bomber or recce aircraft ever built.
2) Just because it has unique characteristics not present in other aircraft that it was becuase others were unable to do so…What it means its that this was the only aircraft that did make it to operational status that combined the speed/ altitude/ fighter performance.
It was not the fastest, nor the highest flying, nor the most manoeuvrable….but it took dedicated airframes to exceed its performance.
That is its real strength.
And there you have it- a “Jack of all Trades” design, which is perfectly fine. He just has to understand that there aren’t any other aircraft that were designed to do what the Foxbat did, so you can’t really compare its versatility against another aircraft. There were other aircraft that exceeded it’s performance in each category of comparison, just not at the same time.
wrightwingAs I said earlier, we may find every kind od data, all sort of it.
But the pure facts are:
-The YF-22 prototype achieved max 1.57 Mach in dry thrust, in speed tests.-The service F-22 has much higher drag than prototype. It has redesigned wings with higher span and less sweep. It is also much heavier, with operational equpment added.
-It has fixed inlets, which are not optimised for a speeds much over 1.6 Mach.
-It has very high pressure ratio F-119 engines. In order of more than 35:1 static sea level. Such enormous pressure ratio has disastrous effect on speeds over 1.5 Mach.
All this clearly shows that its dry thrust max speed is in the region of 1.4 to 1.5 Mach, as I presented in some attachments.
You can not have 2 Mach aircraft with over 35:1 pressure ratio engines and besides that, with the fixed inlets.
You may find that it has 2.5 Mach speed, but it simply can not be true. We have some physical laws as limiting factors.
So you’re saying that the pilots who have observed these performance figures are misinformed?
wrightwingLogic is pretty strong. 100 KM S-300 system change into 300 to 400 Km S-400. and now 500 KM S-500. And certainly that MIG-31BM of early 90s has nothing in common with new engines and lighter avionics of 2006- 2008.
I dont see any reason that 300KM range is not converted into 600 KM AAM when launch platform is upgraded for higher performance and export product is cleared for 300KM missile.Evidence is pretty strong. 300KM for export Su-35 and 400KM for Su-27SM2. There is no reason not to believe 600 to 700 Km for MIG-31BM. and than there is project 810 (2 to 2.5 times range vs R-37 for PAK-FA). Ruaf officials have themselves said export things are inferior in both platform and strike weopons ability. Only Russia has correct low cost approach to fighting wars.
Wrong! The evidence is most certainly not pretty strong for any of these claims. Assumptions on the otherhand are myriad. You have offered no tangible evidence to a single claim that you have made.
-how is it relevant whether or not the MIG-31 has newer engines or lighter avionics, in terms of the range of it’s weapons? Are you suggesting that the old engines and avionics onboard the aircraft was a hindrance to the kinetic performance of a missile? If so, please explain for the rest of us. Using your “logic” the latest variant of the MIG must be able to fly Mach 6 at a cruise altitude of 160,000 feet, as older MIGs could fly Mach 3 at 80,000.
-as for the range of missiles, is it your assertion that the export models have a 100 percent performance downgrade from the Russian models(i.e. export=300km thus the Russian model must be able to reach twice as far)? Are the Indian Flankers inferior to those that the Russian Air Force is flying?
Additionally, the range that you’re asserting is greater than that of any long range SAMs(and getting into the range of IRBMs). Even if we’re gonna assume a range of 300km, that’s the outside range against an opponent heading towards you(which means by the time the missile hits, the target will be much closer). As was pointed out earlier, that 300km range was achieved by midcourse guidance info that had been handed off by an SU-27 that was closer to target. There is no fighter radar that can lock onto a target at 700km, and guide a missile to impact. At that range, if the target changes direction, the missile won’t have much energy left for manuevering.
-please explain why only Russian AAMs seem to have 100% range increases every few years, but no one else seems to be able to accomplish this feat.
You like to use the word logic, but by definition you must provide proof to support your premise. It’s your job to show us that you’re correct, not ours to prove that you’re wrong.
wrightwingDepends on what you make of them apples to begin with. The JSF is definitely disadvantaged in some respects in A2A vs the advanced Flanker/F-15/Eurocanards. But given its mostly meant to be a strike asset, it shouldnt matter much. But its definitely not by any means, invulnerable or without tactical disadvantages.
By apples to apples, I meant an F-35 carrying only AAMs vs. a 1-3m2 target.
The F-35 if flown smartly is gonna have significant situational awareness advantages(i.e. first look, first kill). If it gets into WVR, then the odds may change in favor of pilot skill. VLO along with JHMCS and AIM-9X is gonna be pretty lethal in close too though.
wrightwing:rolleyes:
Ah the perfect fighter…
There are a multitude of ways depending on exercise parameters, ROE and real world situations that a JSF could find itself on the losing end of a WVR and BVR battle.
Only the F-22 can claim some sort of invulnerable status…in BVR.. for now.
This is true, but if one is conducting an apples to apples comparison, then I stand by my remark.
Sign In
