ZareAfaik all the Foxhound that was ‘given’ to Kazah-AF was all from the last batch produced and all was Mig-31B versions?
12 of them were newly produced MiG-31B. I don’t really know if any of the previous I01/I01DZ stationed in were upgraded to MiG-31BS before USSR dissolved. Probably yes.
From my memory wasn’t it a Mig-25 that shot down a F-15 over Iraqi in the first Iraqi air war. This is the only kill recorded on US aircraft directly by another plane. The Mig-31BM is a far better plane then the mig-25 export version.
No, it wasn’t F-15, it was F-18C (even more agile and newer at the time!). And it was done with R-40. The predecessor of the R-33.
who is more powerful zaslon or irbis?what about detection range ?
In terms of power, Zaslon. By numbers, Irbis. However that numbers are from NIIP’s marketing materials, while both Zaslon, and Zaslon-M were proven in field tests. Zaslon’s backbone computer is also tailored specifically for R-33(S)/R-37(M), eg. guidance of multiple missiles onto varied (single/multiple) number of targets by different approach vectors. And Zaslon has a wider scanning.
Keep in mind that prototype Irbis was conceived in 2006 while last batches of Zaslon were produced in 1992. Having a capacity similar (and in some aspects still better) to 20-year younger design proves that if you have an excellent array, you can do miracles by just upgrading DSP sections.
P.S. If anyone wonders what kind of numbers must MiG-31BM surpass, let’s just say that MiG-31B successfully carried out interception, and destruction of an aerial drone from 228 kilometers of distance, with R-33S missile. That’s it’s maximum kinematic range. And another curiosity is that R-33S can be fitted with a nuclear warhead. Yup.
ZareSo would i Zare.
But there are not much spesific to go by.
If i’m not very mistaken, there should be something on take-off.ru and CAM about the Mig-31BM upgrade, allthough somewhat outdated!The Zalson-M radar has been upgraded with newer missiles.. and there seems to be an slight increase in the detection range, thats about it. I don’t know more about the radar upgrade.
The largerst upgrades has been on communication and datalink systems afaik.
But also some minor instrumentation upgrade, larger LCD displays etc.
And there exist reports that the engines has been upgraded with longer WTBO and slightly more thrust output.I’ve seen statements by VVS officials stating that the Mig-31BM upgrade will increase the Interceptors Capabillities by 2-3 times, not that it gives us any more ideas as what the exact changes are..
I don’t like this lack of information regarding MiG-31BM because I love that aircraft and want to know everything about it. But, the relative secrecy also shows what it means to VVS and to Russia’s defensive arsenal overall.
As I recall, the program started in 2005 and underwent state trials until 2007-2008 (?). Then the upgrade program began. The original MiG-31BM design was concieved in mid to late ’90s, when it was clear that VVS is not going to buy MiG-31M. Mind you, MiG-31M was undergoing state trials until 1995.
The ’90s MiG-31BM was a modification of in-service MiG-31B. New radar backbone was installed, replacing Argon-15 computer system with Leninets C400. Designation is Zaslon-AM, because it’s modified Zaslon-A (retaining the original array), unlike MiG-31M’s Zaslon-M which had somewhat revamped array design. The performance of the computer system is said to be 40 MOPS (hence the designation). It also allowed additional air to ground modes, that’s why you can see Krypton missiles next to Foxhound on static displays.
Of course, any upgrade will include new cockpit instruments, MFD’s, and new components of same capacity but reduced weight.
However, I’m more interested in powerplant/weapons/sensory upgrades, because that’s the real thing. I don’t think that late ’90s MiG-31BM is the actual MiG-31BM in VVS service. First of all, there’s no mention of A2G stuff, nor have I heard of any MiG-31 A2G VVS training, nor we have ever seen in-service Foxhound with A2G missiles. Second, the actual articles mention upgrades to D-30F-6’s FADEC suite, while original program didn’t mess with engines.
What’s also interesting, that ’90s MiG-31BM stands for MiG-31BM, which means upgraded MiG-31B. Now it means “better modernization”, Bolyshaya Modernizaciya. But, it could be due to differences in naming between bureaus and VVS. MiG-31BM would be VVS’s naming, while it’s possible that MiG reversed that acronym into something that can be remembered, a buzz.
Therefore, we can’t tell with any certainty what kind of stuff operational MiG-31BM has.
Is R-37 in service, yet?
ZareMiG-31 is the pinnacle of dedicated strategic interceptor design.
I’d like to hear some data about modernized sensory suite. The sheer power of Zaslon combined with a modern backbone should yield impressive results.
ZareThey mixed PAK FA with PAK DA. F’king journalists.
They’re talking about still-on-the-drawing board next-gen bomber. Sukhoi T-50 should be ready for LIRP by 2015.
Zareeven to the point that pilots could visually see the Raptor without getting weapons locks
Ahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa.
GOD DAMN!
Zareyou plan to shoot at far range and turn back? your nozzle pointing to your opponent will be the most perfect target to any half modern IR missile on the planet
The effective range when fired towards retreating target falls down miserably in aspect to missile’s maximum kinetic range. For instance, R-27ET, which is to my knowledge longest-ranged thermal missile with 120 km kinematics, goes down to within visual range Rmax if the target is retracting fast.
In fact, it’s quite possible that MiG-31 can be more effective than Su-27 in that kind of scenario. R-40TD has shorter range but MiG would be flying somewhere near Mach 2.5.
ZareDitch the bull****, call Moscow and get some serious planes.
ZareSo what ever happened to the original 40k AL-41? Is it long dead? (The one in the Mig 1.44).
MiG-1.44 never had Al-41. It was powered by D-30F.
ZareI think that was a certain literal form called sarcasm…
ZareYes, it’s the test of R-33S missile and SBI-16A radar system (upgrades after Tolkachev incident). The missile ranged 320 kilometers. It was SARH, therefore SBI-16A did achieve a lock-on from 320km.
ZareNone do waste his AAM in a tail chase. Such disengaging aircraft does pose no threat any longer
Really? I heard that Americans defend AIM-54’s high miss ratio because F-14s fired on retreating highspeed targets out of fury.
Zareduring the iran-iraq war i havent heard of a mach 3.2 which is the speed on paper that i havent seen or heard, and i tell you there is no situation in combat where it is so tempting to do that when your clearing the enemy airspace
Sustained Mach 2.8 is bloody impressive…especially when the chaser aircraft has problems going over Mach 2. Even AIM-54 would have it’s envelope significally reduced if going after M0.8 faster aircraft in tailchase scenario.
Don’t let Firebar hear you talk such crazy talk, as he’ll do his best to convince you otherwise.(i.e. Mach 3 for 30-40 minutes
Absurd. MiG-31 can sustain Mach 2.35 for 40 minutes, and it’s most impressive performance of any fighter/interceptor aircraft. It can cover more sectors faster than even F-22 in supercruise mode. To imply that that MiG-25, it’s predecessor can go helluva faster and sustain same flight time…not.
ZareBut that’s exaclty my point mate! It’s all in a frame of reference. The object contained in a spacetime distortion has a (v) of zero. It doesn’t move. What doesn’t move, won’t break laws of physics easy. The contraction of space in front of the object and the compression of space behind the object in Alcubierre model would push the whole localized region of the continuum at superluminous speed.
Original Star Trek used the term of subspace as a real world mathematical term. In that fiction, pushing the ship in subspace would reduce it’s mass and can continue reducing it’s mass in negative domain, thus going FTL. However, later “models” (of TNG and beyond) use compression of STC as means of propulsion.
Subspace as a physical form doesn’t exist. Our universe has a “expanding disc” geometry. If it had spherical geometry, perhaps things would be different.
ZareIMHO, Chinese didn’t get their hands on Irbis. Nevertheless;
A lot of the maximum detection range you read for these radar are for the so called velocity search mode. The tracking range in RWS mode is less than that and the lock-on range is even less.
I wrote about early detection, not tracking in range while scan or having a lock.
And with that statement, your whole argument just went up in flames. When has a MiG-23 ever shot down an F-15? Hasn’t happened.
Ok, hasn’t happened.
ZareOn what numbers are your assumptions operating?
I’m speaking out from official NIIP numbers for export model of Irbis. That’s 90 km detection of 0.01m2 target, head on. I don’t want to get into discussion about F-22’s RCS, but it ain’t perfect. So there must be a relative angle from Flanker’s viewpoint where Raptor’s RCS comes to (or above) 0.01m2.
N035 is a powerful and capable radar. It matches/surpasses AESA designs in terms of sheer range.
And we should take your word for it in all your infinite wisdom? When you aren’t privy to any of that information… In the A-A role the Flanker series really is not a match for the F-22, don’t kid yourself. 2 vs 1 won’t be a fair fight.
I couldn’t care less about your pityful opinion. If you wanted to question my “infinite wisdom” (thank you for your kind words), you’d be pulling some numbers from some official sources. Until i see real diagrams of Raptors “stealth”, and that’s dBm to particular wavelength to relative angle, you got nothing for the issue. I can believe that F-22 has a RCS of a ball bearing in best case, for best working wavelenght and for best perspective. Any other than best case, and your RCS increases.
Using best case scenarios in warfare equals almost instant loss.
When you can’t see a Raptor, you can’t shoot it down. When you can’t see it, you can’t evade it. When you can’t evade it, you must kill it. When you can’t outperform it, you can’t kill it.
Who says that Su-35 can’t see a Raptor? Wait, since when did LM start manufacturing licensed Romulan cloaking devices? I thought they were banned for our usage. Damn. Tal Shiar is going to be pissed.
F-117 was stealth also. Downed by vintage Neva.
Modern aviation warfare is a lot more complex than your exemplary head-on clash from BVR distance. For all you know, enemy intelligence has your mission plans, there’s a Su-35 behind your F-22, tracking it with optronics, there’s a R-27ET on the way, your pilot is looking at a bright blue sky not knowing he’s about to get knocked in a few seconds.
Now, that’s a best case scenario for your enemy, just like your best case scenario is having a 4th gen aircraft torching the sky with radars, looking for F-22. In real world, there aren’t best case scenarios.
F-22 doesn’t have true A2A PR guidance capability. It’s EW suite can cue the AIM-120 to threat coordinates, and only two angles (don’t flood me with distance measurement bull****, for that you need enemy radar identification and it’s working parameters in your database, and you sure don’t have those of modern .ru systems). There’s a datalink providing updates. There’s a terminal phase, where you are transitioning from PR to AR guidance. So there’s no chance in hell that F-22 can fire on Flanker just by locking in Flanker’s emissions, without Flanker knowing it. Firing on an enemy without knowing his distance…hmm. LPI – detection ranges against Su-35’s RCS please? Full power radar mode – going to alert the L-175M and the Flanker knows where to look at.
There are a number of things that can go wrong for Raptor. Perhaps two times less things than what can happen to Flanker. But there are number of things that can go wrong for Raptor.
Thus, everything else is rather obsolete. Obsolete doesn’t mean useless though as there are far more other fighter types than just Raptors. It’s just that in a situation involving an F-22, everything else is at a huge disadvantage.
Again, a great overstatement. What huge disadvantage? F-22 trying to precise bomb the site protected by S-400, who is in disadvanage there? Su-35 going in for F-22 is in same disadvantage like MiG-23 going in for F-15. It’s a generational gap. Nothing more. Doesn’t make anything obsolete. MiG-23 shot down F-15, in case you forgot. What can shoot you, isn’t obsolete.
That’s like saying the STS made Soyuz obsolete. In reality…someone performed better over the years, and it ain’t the shuttle.
Sign In
