dionis, my Janes is All the World’s Aircraft edition, not the weapons one, so the R33 info is limited and related only to the write up on the MiG-31 published from Mikoyan release data and test performance.

nastle, it’s an assuredly safe bet, no question. But like the way javelin goes far but a spear attack on a wild beast is much reduced, advertised ranges we all understand are idealistic and allegorical. 120km might translate to a lethal range versus manoeuvring fighter-sized targets of less than 40km, but rest assured the AIM-7M is less than 15km.

Hey y’know a Block 50 Viper can’t guarantee a lock much outside of 25km? Maximum ranges are very idealistic, judged for perfect test conditions on a clear sunshiny day with bright colours and loud sirens from the enemy a/c who of course flies straight and level into your missiles.

Well going by everything I’ve read and pilots I’ve talked to. I haven’t piloted these aircraft myself so can’t truly say.

There are tactics that could offset the kinematics of the Foxhound/R-33, and the AIM-7M has a pretty decent range against a high altitude, closing target, that’s not going to be pulling a lot of Gs.

Dude, 5G at 2+ Mach is seriously high Gs.

Schorsch, range is more than 1500km with 4x R33 at 2.35 Mach max sust cruise on internal fuel. It’s just over 2500km at 0.85 Mach economy cruise same config.
Ferry range without weapons and two ferry tanks under wings is 3300km.
Combat radius at 2.35 Mach armed is 720km. Unrefuelled max endurance is 3h36m, with on station loiter refuelled in flight is 6-7hrs.
Figures released by Mikoyan, published by Janes.

Structure 50% arc welded nickel steel, 16% titanium and 33% al-alloy. It has a lot of al-alloy but its wing box and loadbearing areas are nickel steel, leading areas titanium because of airframe heating at 2.8 Mach. Even the EOS has to be retractable because the sensor window would lose effectiveness if treated. Cockpit, portal glass and all seams are specially treated, not dissimilar to spacecraft.

I had a planview once showing the temperatures of the heat areas on the Foxhound at high Mach, and the development that was needed for its various antennae to survive it whilst still being functional.

Also the Foxbat is far from impotent. You really need to have a read over Israeli pilot reports about it. What it isn’t of course is superior and the Eagle is def an effective counter for Foxbats, but there have been several incidents where Foxbat pilots simply disengaged combat with Eagles at a whim, and other inconclusive engagements with Israeli Eagles, but yes you don’t want to tangle with an Eagle in a Foxbat unless it’s just a quick hit and run, run, run for the hills. But you’ll probably live even though your missiles have poor hit chances.
The Iraqi Foxbat that shot down the Hornet, its only combat kill nevertheless did scoot past an Eagle and Tomcat escort to get to it in a pair, then fired on an A-6 and buzzed an A-7.

And besides, any combat pilot will say it’s just plain stupid to underestimate any enemy warbird. The IAF did rate the Foxbat as the only genuine threat they faced once they got their Eagles, and did embark a policy of identifying Foxbat airfields and attacking them with strike aircraft on the ground as a priority. It may seem a bit paranoid but what the hell, why take a chance.

Here’s some assorted quotes from various presumably qualified sources floating around the web in the long standing Foxbat effectiveness debate:

From Thomas Rodrigez

The Mig-25 is by no means a dud. It is true that, with external stores, it can only reach M 2.8; but what other known aircraft can do that (except the MiG-31)?

It is also true that its max. operating limit load factor is only 4.5g: but how many other aircraft can do that a M2 + ? This limit is misleading if you do not know how Soviet designers use this characteristic. This load factor is not the maximum that a pilot can use in combat. This is the everyday limit to preserve at 100% the structural safety margins required by regulations( yes they have military a/c safety regulations which are very tough due to their operational environment). According to these, this a/c can sustain up to 6.75g (supersonic) without danger to suffering plastic (i.e. permanent) deformations, and probably 8.4g before catastrophic destruction of any component. In combat a pilot will only remember the 6.75g limit.

Mark Bovankovich on the combat record of Iraqi Foxbats

An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111’s retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There’s more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren’t expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat’s off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.

exec, ideally, ideally AWACS is involved in an air superiority contest and remains at standoff range from any potential threat. The entire point is that using various types of materiel in certain ways to counter such specific, ideal tactics, is known as enemy tactics. Which are custom designed specifically to counter your tactics. What they don’t do is use no tactics whilst you use your tactics, or use dumb tactics that actually help your tactics.

I know I know, who could think anybody but the USDoD could possibly use tactics in warfare, right? Especially different tactics. Who’s are better tactics, right?

NATO defence industry is in a much better position primarily in terms of war materiel. This I do not challenge. It doesn’t mean your tactics are better, it just gives them a better chance of winning the day if everything is on your terms.
However, nothing in a battlefield environment is quite so guaranteed or quite so perfect. AWACS goes wrong, starts tracking steamtrains, Vipers flameout mid-9G turn because no reason at all. And enemies do everything they can to make sure any individual contact is on their terms, not your terms. So their tactics work, not your tactics.

A Russian force will be using very effective counter-tactics, just as you use force coordination they use defence in depth, as you use AWACS they use strategic intercept, send escorts, they use fighter screens, engage those they operate under ground coverage. They do everything in reverse to you, so what happens is ground forces move up AAA/SAM/EWR, you SEAD, then you both air superiority, and then you AWACS and force coordinate. Do it any other way and you’re just dead. Dead.

In materiel terms they will generally be at a disadvantage all things even, but given either specific circumstances, or complacency, or just plain bad luck, one opening and they’ve got you dead. And since they fight defensively and NATO fights offensively, the fight is on their terms.

This has always been the issue about the Cold War. Nothing’s really changed except the US won the industrial war (which really just means any open hostilities with the CIS would go nuclear immediately anyway). It used to be the other way around. By 1958 the US issued a directive to the Kremlin stating any move on western Europe from the Balkans would result in immediate nuclear first strike by the United States. That was over their tank armies.

I have Janes. What they do is publish manufacturer release data, which is also sometimes…erm, idealistic. But they also tend to publish test data alongside.

From a test report for the R33 in current fitment Mikoyan likes to advertise the accomplishment of demonstrated destruction of surface skimming supersonic cruise missile in a tail chase by a MiG-31 flying at 8000 metres from more than 13km horizontal range iirc.
They infer that in a tail chase a small target exceeding 2.5 Mach at 100ft is a guaranteed kill by a high flying MiG-31 from better than 15km using Zaslon/R33. How far exactly for maximum, 25km?

If accurate, that’s pretty damn impressive.

For posts above, um yes, 120km is maximum range for aircraft at superior altitude firing on bomber sized target which does not manoeuvre, head on. Most likely judged for aircraft at 12km alt, bomber at 8km alt. Maximum Zaslon range is 200km if target is at higher alt and bomber sized. Level track range is 120km for fighter sized target I think. Keep in mind the wing leading edges form part of the signal receiver for the Zaslon, it slews digitally and it has a dedicated operator, and even NATO admits it is the most powerful transmitter fitted to a fighter in current service, it piggybacks multiple frequencies for ECM resistance, etc. It’s a kick butt radar in the raw grunt stakes.

Well to be fair that’s specifically because production of Su-24 reached an average of 65/year by 1981 with a total of 900 listed as delivered by Komsomolsk factory. These replaced earlier Fitter versions alongside small numbers of M4 and operated in mixed regiments with MiG-25BM before yet another shakeup of VVS organisation during the 90s (two reorganisations actually).

Almost the entire fleet of Su-17 was retired for the Su-24 from that time. At that stage a centralisation and expansion of the Flanker fleet to multirole was underway, so now the better aircraft are the new kid on the block.

You could look at it like this, the 17M4 is like an Su30M now, where the Su24 was its newer competitor at the time of production and the Su34 does this now to the Su30M (except in VVS-PVO as a datalink controller).

In the Middle Eastern exports however most were the basic Su-17M2 standard with MiG-27 engines and water injection (doesn’t have the same altitude performance as the Lyulka engine in the Soviet Su-17). They also had most navigation aids removed and downgraded basic equipment like simpler RWR and avionics, US made equipment was often retrofitted (then they fought Israelis and USN aircraft, it’s a tangled web we weave).
There were Su-17M4 exported with AL-21F3 motors as Su-22M4 but these were basically redirected Russian sales and wound up mostly with ex-Soviet satellite nations and Naval Aviation or training regiments.
The Su-22M3 that trickled into the Middle East also have the Tumansky derivatives which performs best only at low altitude the same as MiG-27. At least the avionics was basically Russian equipment so it is a great leap ahead of the basic Su-22 that preceded it.
There are a handful of Lyulka engine Su-22 in the Middle East, each individual airframe thus fitted would be like a hotrod version to the arabs and is probably among those that have been used as ad hoc interceptors whilst out on reconnaissance patrol when shot down by fighters and that sort of thing.

There is a genuine disparity between average Middle Eastern export equipment and average Russian equipment of the same type, which is often forgotten when combat records in the Middle East are being used as a comparison of Russian production materiel against western. I’m not attempting to start a debate by mentioning this and I know most here at these forums are aware of it, Russian defence industry and equipment has its specific drawbacks but let’s not go silly is all I’m saying. A top spec Su-17 or MiG-27 variant aren’t a sad attempt at modern warplanes with no shot at victory or competition, they’re dangerous and competitive especially where complacency is brought to bear.

Chaff/flare dispensers standardised on M4 (Fitter-K) and all MiG-27. Flogger specifies SPS-141 IR jammer and SG-1 RWR, Fitter has Sirena-3 and must carry jammers externally. Both are listed as fully capable both active and passive ECM but the ones mentioned are fitted basic equipment.

Both remained in service probably beyond what a western useby date would be because they both have extremely powerful engines optimised for low-medium altitude operation, they’re both very very fast strike aircraft, easily cracking 1.1 Mach at sea level lightly loaded.
After they’ve dropped their munitions, they’re about as quick as an F-15/16 (1400km/h) so long as they keep it low, the Fitter can even keep pace as you climb. And as to be expected it’s a really bad idea to let one even land a couple of internal gun shells on you.

Underestimating one even in a Viper would be a fatal mistake, you’d have to treat it like it had a good shot at you and really pull the stops out.
No chance BVR though of course, these are gunfighters in air to air terms but can carry CWC missiles (Fitter-K can carry archers).

Basically the pilot would treat a mission defensive coverage the same way you would in an early series F-16 or Hornet with a couple of sidewinders and a bomb load, ie. you really want some top cover but have genuine performance up your sleeve if you get bounced.
Absence of a decent search/tracking radar is conspicuous but strike aircraft going low would have it focused on terrain hugging anyway wouldn’t they?

Anybody know how many Su-25T models/variations are in or were in service? I thought there were only a short run of preproduction testbeds and the basic Su-25 was the only front line equip.
Also, did production switch from Georgia after they were handed independence, or was it just stopped?

As gorgeous and capable as the euro-canards surely are, the future is LO. When will Euro-fighter,Dassault, and Saab begin this inevitible consortium?

Purely speculative assumption. It’s a fair opinion, asking for other opinions.
I think placing too much focus here is a lot like the 60s belief that all fighter combat would be superseded by BVR technologies so the Phantom doesn’t need a gun and pilots don’t need to be trained for CWC.
Or the 50s belief that warplanes could simply outrun or outclimb any weapon aimed at them.