SchorschIt was an unusually reasonable post by Schorsch but nevertheless in CWC combat trim the MiG-31 is 25 tons, not 40 tons. That’s with 4000kg of fuel plus (CWC) weapons.
At 25 tons the Foxhound has comparable wing loadings and finepoints as any other all metal 4th gen fighter type. This continual persistance of dogging the MiG-31 as an ocean liner in fighter manoeuvrability is just erroneous.
It’s not as manoeuvrable as the teen series, but it aint that bad. It’s better than any 3rd gen.
I assume the MiG-31 with 22t operating empty weight.
Given that MiG-21 (6t) needed to be landed at .4t minimum fuel, assume a minimum reserve of about 1.5t of fuel.
One minute full A/B power for a MiG-31 at 10km and M1.4 is about:
Sea Level Ref Thrust * 2/3 * 2.2 kg/(daN * hr) * 1/60 =
2*15200 * 2/3 * 2.2 * 1/60 = 740kg
The “2/3” is a rough number for the thrust decay.
At M0.9 and 10km it is more like 2/5.
So, given that it needs at least another 1.5t to get home, 1.5t desired reserve (these 3t carry it probably 300nm subsonic & empty), I would add a fuel allowance of 3 to 5 minute full A/B, or 2.3 to 3.5 tons.
SchorschAnd Flankers can? :rolleyes:
Have you seen the bulky ECM fitted to the Suchoi 35?
Apparently, they are not really stealthy but want to compensate with powerful ECM.
The MiG-21 has shown that small cross section in combination with powerful ECM can ruin the day even against modern fighters and allow a visual-range IR-AAM shot option.
SchorschYou’re being disengenuous with with the speed/duration. You’re always assuming that the Mig is at a high fuel state, without taking into account how far it may have flown before getting in range of the F-14(or F-15 for that matter). I’m still not so sure that 35-40 minutes at M2.35 is realistic in any event.
A MiG-31 surely can fly 35-40 minutes at M2.35.
MN * Speed of Sound [kts] * Time [hrs]
2.35 * (295*3.6/1.852) * 35/60 = 780nm
But that would pretty much use up all the fuel and leave no reserves.
We can – using a sketchy estimation – consider that the range at supersonic speeds is proportional to the fuel fraction. Note that fuel consumption increases with Mach number.
The motto “was designed for supersonic” is only valid in the eyes of Yefim Gordon believers: designing for supersonic is easier than many think. Reducing the supersonic drag however requires drastic measures that have a severe penalty on the rest of the envelope. See Concorde and Blackbird. The MiG-31 is designed for supersonic by more heat resistance than F-teen fighters and the engine intakes. Supersonic drag is probably the same as for the F-15, with some advantages due to the higher wing loading.
Realistically, we need to consider take-off and climb fuel, and also the fuel required to come home plus reserves. The quoted “720km” radius at M2.35 are probably a typical air dominance mission with take-off and subsonic climb. Then acceleration to supersonic speeds and supersonic cruise for maybe 500km (or about 15 minutes). Fire missiles, turn away and subsonic cruise home.
SchorschHard to say. Boeing is very confident about the frontal RCS of the SE. I think they managed to lower frontal RCS to the level where hanging AAM under fuselage/wings would increase its RCS. Customers aren’t dumb they have acces to full specs and I doubt they’d be happy to overpay for the things that aren’t needed.
However, I must say Boeing has a clear mission: keep the F-15 line running. For that they really squeezing the last ounce out of the venerable Eagle. That is absolutely understandable, but it does not necessarily mean that “Silencing” is the way to go for all other non-stealthy designs.
As many people said, the F-15 (as F-14 and Suchoi 27) is a stealth-nightmare, especially frontal.
The F-16 was already built with some RCS-reduction, and I think it has a much lower RCS than the Eagle. Maybe anyone has numbers on that.
SchorschWhen it comes to radar signature, we have to regard which kind of “unfriendly radar” is looking for me. Eurocanards were designed to have best survivability against enemy fighters. Being undetectable wasn’t really the objective, but rather denying the opponent a lock-on and shot option as long as possible.
For that purpose RCS and ECM play together. The job (and consequently the added weight) of ECM becomes easier when the RCS is lowered.
As always with RCS and radar, relationships are not linear but normally x^2 or e^x. That gives marketing-claims like “50% less” a rather bad taste, as “50% less RCS” is relatively easy (especially when the base value is high), but “50% lower detection range” is a different thing.
SchorschJust to put a few things in perspective:
Versus the F-14A, the odds are even at long ranges. The MiG-31 might win a few miles missile range by flying faster and higher, but the F-14 could escape the engagement zone. Additionally, the ARH-final guidance of the AIM54 allows the F-14 to fire and then turn away. Of course, that increases the chance that the AIM54 misses as mid-course guidance is lost.
At medium and short ranges the F-14 is superior.
If multiple aircraft are involved (likely) or any side has AWACS or ground-based radar available, the whole situation is pretty much unpredictable. I would credit the MiG-31 some advantages as the superior supersonic range can be used for tactical maneuvers. However, this always increases the chance of close distance encounters, which – as said – is not a good playground for a 40t fighter.
Finally:
The MiG-31 is a very good design for its mission, but it is not a good value-for-money contender for a fight against fast fighters.
SchorschAIM-54 are easily fool once they turn their own radars and become active seeker homing, its radar have narrower view than the AWG-9 SARH, MiG-25s used that tactic to break the AIM-54 lock on them.
That is a claim you invented yourself.
At start of the ARH-section the SARH will probably give the exact location to the missile seeker. As soon as the seeker is on the target it is very hard to get rid of, as the missile seeker has the advantage of a very small field of view. Still, trying to escape this seeker would require maneuvers beyond the capabilities of any fighter, as long as the missile has enough energy.
SchorschCost was the primary consideration not capability.
A modernised F-14 (lets call it a Super Tomcat) would crap all over a Super Hornet.
Following the optimistic predictions of Grumman. The idea to use a 19t aircraft, add even more powerful engines and even more weight to pimp up the performance sounds not very attractive to me, especially as the AIM54 was retired.
When looking at the F-14D, the only real advantage os supersonic performance above M1.5 and perhaps some extra endurance at subsonic speeds below M0.75. Disadvantage are ~40-50% more OEW.
SchorschMiG-31 has better turn radius that says all, it has better steady turn rate at Mach 1.4 and 2.2 and 5km, 10km and 17km
see it here here is a similar topic
Sustained turn rates are nice-to-know, but what counts (even in the 1980ies) is instantaneous turn rate.
Just consider the 10km at M1.4 case.
Both aircraft travel at 1500km/h.
Now they merge and the MiG-31 tries to use its superior supersonic turn, and it makes a maximum sustained turn into the F-14.
It needs 160° / 5.6deg/sec = 29 seconds.
The F-14, not stupid, hits the A/B and just flies straight, after 29 seconds it is ~13km away. OK, theoretically an R33 could probably catch it (but it would also get tight). But for anything in the class of a Sparrow 12km on a supersonically fleeing target is much too far.
At M2.2, the distance after the epic turn of the MiG-31 is ~100km.
—-
I assumed 160° as you can launch a missile with an angle.
SchorschI think there’s a lot of confusion in this thread about top speed. Most people saying the Osprey can go over 300 knots are looking at speeds at altitude, as opposed to sea level. The V-22 has a top speed of 250 knots at sea level, that’s from the Boeing website. However once you start getting up to high altitudes where the air is thinner, figures start getting up to 300+ knots.
True Airspeed, Indicated Airspeed and Ground Speed.
Can all be googled.
SchorschOsprey is only at the begining of its evolution, next gen will probably be faster, go futher and be more efficient.
The Osprey is ion development for more than 20 years, and since then a double-digit amount of billion USD has been invested.
the x-2 on the other hand is refinement of an old tech
By the time X-2 tech is on the market, tiltrotor tech will have some upgrades up its sleive.
Tiltrotor has inherent disadvantages, primarily its immense mechanical complexity. Anything that can deliver comparable performance will less complexity will rule.
wings will always more efficient than rotors in flight
But how much additional weight do the wings lift?
Schorsch.
Interestingly, they completely ignore any subsonic engagement. Any engagement started supersonic will pretty quickly end up in subsonic regime. That is how it normally develops. When trying to escape the Tomcat the MiG will use its structural limit to full extent, and bleed energy fast.
Turning capabilities at 17km … are you serious?
Even if the MiG uses its “superior” turn capability, the F-14 will just fly straight ahead. When the MiG is around for a shot, the F-14 is out of range even for an R33.
Schorschhere’s a comparison:
The entire AWG-9 radar set weighed in at something like 540 kg if I recall right.
The MiG-31’s Zaslon weights in at a whopping 950kg or so (almost a ton)!:eek:
When you consider that both radars have similar capabilities and the AWG-9 is actually sixties technology, a good decade older than the Zaslon.
The radar is one thing, the electronics interpreting its result are a different kettle of fish. We can assume that 1970ies technology from the USA beats Russian stuff from a decade later – the lead in small and reliable computer technology was pretty strong.
SchorschObligatory
it simply says what Yefim Gordon` book say, at Mach 1.4 and Mach 2.2 the MiG-31 has better maneouvrability, they offer the turn rates and turn radius at both speeds and the MiG-31 is superior at both speed regardless the F-14 has a higher overload limit, the reasons are in a turn the overload allowed for a F-14 is lower than on the MiG-31 and its sustained turn rate is lower despite it has better instantaneous turn rates and while the MiG-31`s radar detects and tracks less targets, the space volume it covers is several times superior. Also at the max supersonic cruise speed Mach 2.35 for the MiG-31 and Mach 1.5 the MiG-31 has a better range at 720km while the F-14, 250km, same is at subsonic range.
Turn rates can be explained by the wing difference.This means while the F-14 can fire its six AIM-54 at 6 targets, this will be done in a a zone at least 36 smaller than the Zaslon, basicly meaning its multitarget engagement is useless if the targets are widely spaced
The data actually is a near death sentence for the MiG-31.
I cannot speak or read Russian, but I have scanned sufficient amount of data to understand the units. Together with a knowledge of ballpark numbers it is easy to get the key numbers.
MiG-31 and F-14A are compared at M1.4@5km, M1.4@10km and M2.2@17km. The data given from top:
> thrust/weight ratio
> sustained load factor (g)
> instantaneous load factor (g)
> sustained turn rate (deg/sec)
> instantaneous turn rate (deg/sec)
> sustained turn radius (km)
The last lines I don’t understand.
As we see, the MiG-31 has an advantage in sustained turn. Great. At the time its 3.2 deg/sec turn rate advantage gives it a shot option, the day is over.
In real life the MiG-31 has a clear disadvantage: the F-14 can achieve a much better instantaneous turn rate, bring around the nose quickly and kill the MiG-31 with a Sparrow.
The last column is funny: a turning fight at 17km, where even the “nimble” MiG has a 34km turn radius.
The other table lists basic data. Apart from a few facts it apparently compares radar performance, with the F-14A being better or similar in most categories of relevance (detection range, number of targets).
Range is worse for the Tomcat, pretty easy to understand given the Tomcat’s low fuel fraction. The author apparently missed that you rarely see an F-14 fly without its subsonic drops tanks.
If Yefim Gordon quotes the sustained turn rates at M1.4, he clearly cherry-picks his information. Given the quoted table, I would nearly always prefer the Tomcat over the MiG-31.
SchorschThe Russians had severe problems building radars with multiple target tracking ability, probably due to the lack of powerful micro-electronics. Here the West had a 10+ year lead.
Sign In
