Andraxxusas an interceptor, it is in a class of its own, but in close-range combat its a sitting duck.
i would not concider it a 6th Gen fighter. 4th Gen, yes.
MiG-31 is not 6th gen obviously, but i believe its charactheristics mostly are. A time will come where technology will come to a level thath missiles will really do what they are supposed to do and maneuverability will become obsolete. Next gen fighters, as a result, will be very much like MiG-31, supersonically cruising flying bricks with long endurance, great sensors and missiles, use long range missiles to take out other targets at BVR, use HOBS missiles with 360 deg coverage in WVR; and efficiently drop high precision weapons at high speed/altiude.
Andraxxusi think missiles are alot less drag than bomb , and the mig-31 is a much newer design compared to mig-25 so it’s kinematic aspect should be somewhat better , if not alot better than mig-25 , even if the cruise speed is mach 2.5 only it still much superior to any other fighter , btw mig-31 can carry 6 R-37 and 2 R-40 at the same time
Debatable, because aerodynamic FAB-500-62s are much smaller than R-33 or R-40 missiles. Also with turbofans instead of turbojets, MiG-31 may even have inferior performance to MiG-25, its impossible to know without solid numbers, which I dont have. R-37 is not yet in service, and it may never enter at all. Current aramament of MiG-31 is R-33S, and i believe it will be until someone decides to upgrade it with RVV-BDs. I believe R-37 upgrade -even if possible- at this stage is not logical. Because in current state MiG-31 already has a clear edge (in terms of attack range) over all legacy fighters. With the development of LO, VLO targets, russians need to upgrade its sensors, not missiles. If it cant achieve a succesful target lock, it cant shoot, no matter the missile range, If MiG-31 had the means to detect F-22 at 150+km it would still be lethal with R-33s. With BM upgrade mainly focused on upgrading avionics, i believe russians think the same way I do, not to an extent to defeat 5th gen to keep costs minimal, but to combat LO 4+ gen fighters like typhoon rafale etc.
Aim-7 have alot bigger wing compares to R-77 , Aim-120 or meteor so it maneuver much better at high altitude , also what if the mig-31 decide to cruise at mach 2.6 at 70K feet then the enemy’s missiles will never going to reach it
Agreed, but meteor may have slight advantage to others, due to ramjet maintaining sufficient speed at terminal stage so that its smaller fins would be effective.
agree , but i think it have advantage over the 5 gen as well
Advantage when running away from them, but that if MiG-31 pilot sees incoming missile or target lock in its RWR. However MiG-31 has no means to shoot F-22 in BVR. It has R-40T/IRST combination, or it could close in so zalson would pick it up, but those are rather difficult to utilize when enemy is repeatedly missiles at you.
AndraxxusLook at it this way, if the US believed that the Mig-25/31’s speed and altitude capabilities would render the AMRAAM ineffective against them, why would the US still be flying with AMRAAM as its sole long-range weapon? It doesn’t make a bit of sense given that both the Mig-25 and the Mig-31 have been high profile “threat aircraft” for 40+ years… (and indeed the US has 3 Mig-25 kills, one of which was brought down by an AIM-120)
With the same analogy a curious question: Why US Navy retired Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? It doesn’t make sense going againist slavas or sovremennys, with only legacy harpoons. Matter is even more concerning, with the removal of harpoon launchers, a late Arleigh Burke has no means of sinking a tiny missile boat -like nanuchka III- at stand-off ranges, and with the removal of both CIWSs, it has no point defense at all to survive the missiles it may launch.
Answer is pretty simple i believe. No nation developed enough to take on an US AF/Navy equipment is insane enough to go againist it. Like somebody stated, MiG-25/31 will never be a threat to USAF, as they will be brought down on the ground.
AndraxxusThe altitude consideration does highlight issues with the current altitude restrictions on the F-22 though? What is the effective range of an AMRAAM if it has to climb 5 miles whilst going after a target?
More valid question is IMHO can AIM-120 even operate at 25000 meters? Sure an armed MiG-31 can not fly in level at 25000 meters, but it can easily climb, fly for a few minutes with minus SEP and then descend.
For a similar discussion about MiG-25 I had posted this:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126978-How-many-F-22-would-it-take-to-shutdown-MiG-25RBS-reconn-flights&p=2079616#post2079616
see the last part how R-27RE’s performance is affected with altitude. IDK about AIM-120, but A/B/C/C-5 has shorter legs than R-27RE, so it should peform even worse.
AndraxxusGoing to throw some thoughts at this. First off, the OP’s quote of 124,000ft is the zoom climb ceiling and might not even have been a standard plane, such is the practice with these record attempts. The actual service ceiling is actually around 70,000ft, which isn’t much more than an F-15, Typhoon (or F-22 when it isn’t restricted to 44,000ft).
I took the data from MiG-25 flight manual. Your comment is true, however with each missile and fuel, F-15 or Typhoon has less than advertised ceiling too. Another issue is MiG-25/31 are designed to operate near their ceiling, and high speeds. They are rated for M2.83 and typical intercept mission is always above M2.5. While F-15 is rated to M2.5, how often does F-15 exceed M2.0? IIRC some F-15C airframes completed their service life without even exceeding M2.0 once, which was one of the explainations why F-22 had lower speed requirements.
As regards the R-33S missiles. SARH doesn’t inspire much confidence for me. In the Ethiopian-Eritrean war 24 R-27Rs were fired, with only one kill, or about half the success rate achieved by early AIM-7Ds in Vietnam. By comparison the ARH AIM-120 has a 59% combat success rate and even the SARH AIM-7M achieved 34% with F-15s in Desert Storm. I have absolutely zero confidence in the ability of SARH against modern jamming when fired from BVR, none whatsoever.
See my post in missile evasion tactics post. http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?127154-Missile-evasion-tactics&p=2079937#post2079937
I dont know of your confidence, but I am 100% confident that in a scenario where a AIM-120B equipped F-15 face an R-33 armed MiG-31, AIM-120 will have 0% success rate, and R-33 will at least have possibility of having 0+%.
Irrelevant of guidance, F-15Cs equipped with AIM-120B/Cs will not have any greater succes rate againist R-27RE/TE equipped Su-27s, or vice-versa, simply because neither can get close to other to enable it’s missile have some sufficient energy for terminal maneuverability. This is the prime reason virtually no R-27R missile ever shoot down an aircraft. Both sides have comperable kinematics, and exact same missiles.
SARH guidance is not flawed in anyway, on the contrary, its far more effective for a given seeker size to track a target. A derivative of SARH, TVM is used on S-300 or Patriot systems to succesfully kill targets 3 times the range AIM-120 even capable of reaching.
How does it guide the SARH missile whilst running? And whilst being fast, it isn’t that great at turning to run even at medium altitudes, at 70,000ft it will barely turn at all.
Why should it run if it manages to fire its missile? R-33 or R-40 missile is way faster than anything out there, All pilot needs to do is to maneuver aircraft to the edge of its radar coverage. +/- 70 degrees azimuth and -60 degrees elevation helps here.
Also your assumption about turn capability is wrong. At high mach numbers, all other 4th gens will have very little excess power to sustain a turn. Instantenious turns are also problematic, because G limits are more restirictive at high speeds. For example, F-15 (55000 lbs) at 20k feet is limited to just 4,8Gs at M1,05, or 6,5Gs at 40k feet M2,2. MiG-31 with 5G limit will have comperable (sometimes better sometimes worse) instantenious turn rates and with its great excess power, better sustained turn rates.
WVR capability of MiG-31 maybe nonexistant, but its high supersonic maneuverability, climb and turn peformance will easily put F-15, Typhoon or F-22 to shame.
AndraxxusMiG-25 can cruise at 25000+ meters only if it is very light. At 24 tons, its ceiling is 22500 meters. At 28 tons while carrying 4x FAB-500-62 bombs, it is 21500 meters and top speed drops to M2,7. When fully loaded to 35 tons, and having 5000l centerline tank, its ceiling is just above 15000 metes, and top speed around M1,7.
I have no solid data about MiG-31, but I assume when armed with 4 R-33s and 2xR-40s, it should behave similarly to MiG-25 with 4 FAB-500s. It should cruise at around 21500 meters (70000 feet) at M2,5. If pushing for M2,6+ it needs to stay at less than 19000 meters (62000 feet).
62k feet is not that high, even AIM-7M missile has the capability to reach it, so it is no where close to being invulnerable. However I agree on the conclusion to a degree; its missiles and kinematics combined with zalson radar will provide much better kill range and NEZ to any other 4, 4+ gen fighters; be it F-15 or Eurofighter or anything. It can fire its missiles before the enemy, and if something not goes accordingly to the plan, it can retreat at will without punishment. And this is not a longshot, a MiG-31 can approach to 30-40 kilometers distance to those types, and still have enough energy (speed and altitude) to run away safely. A pair of R-33 or R-40 missiles fired from 30 kilometers will surely have some excellent Pk.
And no, bigger missile does not equate to unmaneuverable awacs killer. A Su-27 is way bigger and 6 times heavier than a MiG-15. I doubt anyone is foolish enough to claim MiG-15 is better in agility. Engineers can design a R-33 sized missile more maneuverable than IRIS-T, if they want; only issue is the costs.
Also comparing MiG-31 with F-14 is wrong. In terms of top speed an ceiling, F-14 is inferior to F-15, not even comperable to MiG-31. F-14 is just another fighter, albeit armed with AIM-54s. Then again, this comes to the discussion we are having in “missile evasion tactics” thread. Sure AIM-54 has impressive range, but without aircraft kinematics to back it up its effectiveness is doutbful. This is not an issue for MiG-31+R-33/R-40 combination where it has advantage in both kinematics and missile ranges to all 4/4+ gen fighters
AndraxxusAlso missile does not know target’s RCS or the range it can achieve target lock. It is very likely seeker goes active seconds after the missile launch, but as long as it cannot find any target it relies upon mid-course updates. As ARH seeker can detect MiG-25 at 25+ km like ff1987 stated, MiG-25 should be able to detect it twice the range. Plus, getting precise vector data for feeding mid-course updates from AESA radar is hard to do in LPI, it could be detected as well.
AndraxxusWhen your enemy is in range so are you
The problem with missiles and missile effectiveness is that equally matched opponents will never be able to fire their missiles in optimal conditions (like in videos). I mean an F-15C going againist a MiG-21 will easily achive kills. Not only because MiG-21 has insufficient maneuverability and equipment, but because F-15C will be able to close enough to a range that its AIM-120 missiles will be very effective. However when going againist an Su-27, both will need to fire missiles(AIM-120C and R-27REs) at their extreme ranges, and both will be easily evaded. Second, third, fourth missiles, and all the BVR missiles can accomplish is to deplate some energy/fuel before WVR. Same happened in eritia war, of dozens R-27R/T missiles fired, only one actually hit (or rather, detonated), and it only damaged, not downed the MiG. I dont say missiles will never hit, but not in pk ratios where it can be called effective. Then WVR missile’s effectiveness is also related to firing position and energy state of the opponent. If, again, both sides are evenly matched, they will need to fire their missiles at their kinematic/gymbal ranges and they will also have much reduced effectiveness then advertised.
However on a theoratical situation where Su-27 doesnt carry BVR missiles, F-15C can fire AIM-120 missiles at their effective (rather than maximum) ranges, surely missiles can achive BVR kills.
AndraxxusSuch a zoom climb maneuver by the MiG-25R would immediately terminate its reconnaissance mission there and then would it not? Mission kill for the F-22.
It depends on the capabilites of the reconisance equipment. I am unfamiliar with MiG-25R variants and their equipment, but with something comperable to SLAR or side looking optics of SR-71, there is nothing prevents MiG-25R from descending 30 km away from the attacking F-22 with a favourable escape velocity, and continue the recon.
How would the MiG pilot know there was an amraam approaching anyway?
RWR? It can not only detect, but classify target lock from ARH missile and display bearing and height relative to aircraft (high low etc).
Andraxxushead on speed increases NEZ
Not really, just the succesful engagement range of the missile. Those are different things; You can fire an AIM-120 missile at 80 kilometers if target is closing in, and succesfully hit it. If targets turns by 30 degrees and decreases its closure rate, missile will fall short. In other words, target is in range of the missile but outside of NEZ.
To make things more complicated, there is also a vertical component which is usually neglected but its even more important if we are talking about MiG-25. You can fire an AIM-120 missile at 100+ kilometers to a target closing in at M2.5 at 50k feet; but if the target happens to have capability to suddenly zoom climb to 100k+ feet, you wont be hitting it even if you fire it from 5 kilometers, because 100k is certainly outside of AIM-120s ceiling. Hence, such target is outside of your NEZ.
AndraxxusFor how long/far can a Foxbat run at M3?
[I know MiG-31s can run for phenomenal distances – at over Mach 2. What about the Foxbat?]
Combat radius for M2.5+ intercept is 300 km. Its not that bad, however I dont think range is really an issue. Only 3 minutes in full AB and MiG-25 (@M2.83) will put ~50 km distance to F-22 (tail-chasing at M2.0).
I think you are setting the bar for “some” agility very low. 4.5 Gs is the best it could do and this wouldn’t have been at high altitude.
Its actually 3.8Gs for that speed regime. Its still more than 2 times what SR-71 is able to pull. How many Gs could AIM-120 missile pull?
The Mig-25 was also a pretty short ranged aircraft and unlike an SR-71 couldn’t cruise for long periods of time at Mach 3+ speeds. It could get there, but only at the cost of trashing its engines. An SR-71 for comparison would routinely operate at mach 3+. (The point is that even if the Foxbat was flying “fast” by its standards that would likely translate into something much closer to M2 than M3. It would only be in an extreme situation that the pilot would push the plane near M3.)
The altitude difference wouldn’t need to be that large given that the F-22 can exceed 50k ft and the Mig-25 would be a fairly cooperative target in terms of its ability to maneuver.
Debatable points. I never said MiG-25 will be flying at M3.0+, but it will surely be flying higher than M2.5 (which it routinely does with 4 R-40 missiles during intercepts), and possibly somewhere around (but not higher than) M2.83. Like you said F-22 will be flying around 50k feet at best and not if its on full fuel, or its pushing for its max speed. A MiG-25R will be flying at 75k feet. Altitude difference would translate to 25000 feet.
-Operational speed difference between SR-71 and MiG-25B is M0,47. Typical operating altitude difference between types is 16000 feet. MiG-25 is purposely designed to be fast and fly high, and to intercept fast and high-flying targets. Its missiles are also designed to hit M3.0+ targets. Then people say it takes 6 MiG-25Bs to corner SR-71, and you believe it.
-Operational speed difference between MiG-25R and F-22 is M0,83. Typical operating altitude difference is at 40000 feet. F-22 is not designed to be fast or high flying, nor its purposely designed as an interceptor. Its missiles are designed to hit maneuvering fighters, which may not even posses capability of reaching 75000 feet. Your analysis is only one F-22 is sufficient to take down MiG-25R. Interesting.
A MiG-25R flying at Mach 2.6 has no agility to evade missiles.
Amiga500 said what i was trying to say. MiG-25 can change closure rate of the missile far more easily/rapidly than SR-71.
However for sake of argument, another point; a 9G fighter in a good energy state has no problems evading (by outmaneuvering) a 30G missile. If same ratio holds, a MiG-25 pulling 3.8Gs could out-maneuver a missile pulling 12Gs. Can AIM-120C pull 12Gs at 75k feet? If yes, for how long?
@35 AOA:
Laughable point due to historic events with those types. Funny thing is not only that you fail to understand importance of speed, you also dont understand the importance altitude too. To make anti-russian bias get out of the way of clear thinking, i will say this: A MiG-25R flying at its service ceiling at 50% fuel is invulnerable to R-27R equipped Su-35s, simply because it exceeds operational altitude of the missile. A million brand new Su-35s crawling beneath, firing 10 million missiles will not shoot down a single MiG-25R. They are incapable hitting MiG-25R, just as they are incapable of hitting a satelite in space. However a single R-27ER equipped Su-27S will be more effective, as it is at least capable of hitting it. That is according to sk manual, R-27ER fired at a subsonic target at 25000 meters will have 53 km head-on range, 29 km range if fired from 90 degrees and only 4.5 km if fired at tail chase. 4.5 km NEZ for a subsonic target at ~80k feet! Compare AIM-120C with R-27ER’s kinematics; its slower, has shorter range, smaller wings. Then add speed of the MiG-25R to the equation: what is your expectation about its NEZ for a MiG-25 at 75k feet and M2.5? Mine is 0.00 kilometers.
AndraxxusThis would be the case if the Mig-25 were aware it were in danger. It is one thing to evade a pursuer you can detect and track, but quite another to evade one you are unaware of.
In all likelihood the F-22 would be able to fly out to an intercept point guided by off-board radars and the Mig-25 would have no cause for alarm until it was too late.
(A variation of the Iranian F-4/F-22 story that hit the press recently.)
True, yet SR-71 had little to no means of detecting GCI directed MiG-25Bs either. The tactic was to be fast in the first place, and simply accelerate and outrun if they see any missile. It worked back then, and should work for MiG-25R too. IMHO, it should work even better, as MiG-25R has at least some agility to evade missiles.
Question comes to this: Can F-22 (or AIM-120 should I say) succesfully hit a target flying at M2.5+ and 75000+ feet? For example, what is the ceiling of AIM-120C? What is its kill range when fired to 25000+ feet elevation difference?
Sure if you want to assume the SR-71 was operating without any support of its own… speed by itself is not safety.
Yet you are assuming MiG-25 would be flying without any support?
Edit: As far as capability concerned, is AIM-120C even capable of killing such target? I mean, lets look at R-40, which is actually designed to hit M3.0+ targets at high altitudes.
-R-40 is designed to be fast in order to be able to catch its targets, AIM-120 is both slower and has less sustain time. It simply glides to target to achieve its range.
-R-40 carries 70kg warhead because the thin air at high altitude would not allow building up enough pressure to cause damage or propel fragments fast enough. AIM-120 carries 18kgs of warhead.
-R-40 has very large control surfaces to maneuver well in the thin air. AIM-120C has less draggy wings to increase glide time and range.
Sure AIM-120C is much newer missile, it has smarter algorithms to provide better guidance etc etc, but if R-40 is supposed to fail in intercepting SR-71, I question how AIM-120 is supposed to hit such target anyway?
Andraxxus1- Dash speed + high mach acceleration of pursuer,
2- Dash speed + high mach acceleration of target,
3- NEZ of missile fired at M2.5+ target.
Those are only factors matter in such scenario. Comparing with MiG-25B vs SR-71 scenario:
#1,2: SR-71 has 16% better top speed than MiG-25B (3% if MiG-25 overspeeds), where as MiG-25RBS has at least 30% higher top speed than F-22.
As for #3, I doubt there would be much difference between NEZ of R-40 and small finned AIM-120C againist a high altitude/high speed target.
So if 6 MiG-25B is required to intercept SR-71 due to 16% improvement in speed, at least 11 F-22 is needed to intercept the MiG-25RBS in the exact same scenario.
Andraxxus% of relaxed stability is meaningless without further considering aerodynamics. Higher the percentage, higher AOA elevators will require, and that itself will increase the drag. There is an optimum point that drag from main wing + drag from elevator is the least. If you make 50% negative stability, you will -theoratically- need elevator equal size of main wings and have exact same drag from them. So having less negative stability does not mean worse maneuverability and more drag. An ideal -theoratical- design would have neutral stability at any speed/AOA/altitude and have very tiny elevators with minimal drag.
Su-27 continiously changes between negative and positive stability. According to part2 of the manual, its completely negative stable at 2000 and 6000 meters, with unstability is increased almost by 3-5 times at transonic supersonic regime. But at 11000-13000 meters, its relaxed stable only between M0,65 and M0,9, and switch to positive stability at transonic/supersonic regime. However if carrying 10 missiles, Su-27 gets unstable again at above M1.3. (This is interesting, as only on BVR configuration aircraft needs to maneuver at such speeds) Also, its relaxed stability is dependent on AOA. For example At M0,2, its negative stable until 29 deg AOA, neutral at 29, and switching to positive stability at 29+ (and this allows cobra maneuver).
IMHO Su-27 design is perfected when its designed, so without changing wing/elevator geometry its illogical to shift center of gravity or amount of unstability. If it would improve maneuverability, Sukhoi would have done that during the design of the baseline Su-27. Su-30 Su-35 are heavier, so their CoG shift behaviour can be different, and very slight (measured in milimeters) changes may (or may not) be needed to make it as efficient as original Su-27 design at varying fuel/payloads.
AndraxxusAn APA slide riddled with errors and implausible “calculations.” Shocking! :rolleyes:
Naturally this won’t stop some around here from reposting this again and again and again…
Normally I am the one who claims F-35 is a flying brick; but not in this case: Here is my version of the 30k feet acceleration graph:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221545[/ATTACH]
Side notes:
F-16 blk50 (2xAIM-120s or AIM-9s), data is taken from flight manual; but linearly interpolated for required weight and mach number.
F-15E PW229 (4xAIM-7s), data is taken from flight manual acceleration graph; but linearly interpolated for required altitude.
F-18C (2xAIM-7 2xAIM-9) and F-18E (AIM-120, 2x AIM-9) data is directly taken flight manual.
F-5E data is taken from flight manual, interpolated for required altitude.
Mig-29 (2xR-60+4 pylons): acceleration values deviated from excess power graphs as the manual suggests.
Su-27 (2xR-73): acceleration values deviated from excess power graphs same way MiG-29 manual suggests.
Mig-23ML (2xR-23): acceleration taken from manual, interpolated for altitude.
F-22 and F-35, are estimates based on static T/W, intake configuration, my own estimates about drag, etc etc. No sources, its ok to ignore them both.
Altitude is 30k feet; all aircraft carry 50% fuel plus the mentioned payloads.
Sign In
