mig-31bmthe only advantage the MIG-31 has in combat is its speed, long endurance, long radar detection range and long range air-to-air missiles (R-33, AA-9 Amos).
there have been tests in Russia in the 90’s to offer an upgraded version as a SEAD platform (Mig-31BM and E) but never got any orders.as 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.
i have already explained why it not a sitting duck in close combat , can you please read all the post before comment
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.
well actually SM-2 , ESSM and RAM can all be use for anti ship , a salvo of them would still be quite deathly and since ship are affected a lot by radar horizon , a long range anti ship missiles on a ship isnot very useful
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.
mig-31 fly at much higher altitude so it more likely look at enemy from the top rather than head on and all aircraft have much bigger RCS from the top even the stealth one , also the Mig-31 have L-band radar which mean stealth of F-22/35 or PAK-FA are basically useless
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.
at medium , low altitude meteor may be superior to any other long range AA missiles due to it’s engine however at high altitude like 70-80K feets the air is too thin for the Meteor’s engine to work
The same happened to the U.S. in Vietnam. F-4’s were missile carriers that were easy targets for VPAAF MiGs. The Navy created Top Gun as a way to re-orient pilots to dog fighting.
that due to ROE and also viet nam mig was guide by ground radar which mean they have advantage in SA and able to sneak up behind the F-4
mig-31bmWhat I find somewhat curious is that you would conclude, despite the Mig-25’s real world performance in combat where a number were brought down, that it would somehow be a dominating aircraft against a far newer and more capable weapon.
Look 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)
mig-25 that was shot down have crap missiles , dont have radar , RWR , ECM also the pilot wasn’t trained properly
and the mig-25 still managed to shot down 1 f-18 and escape from 10 f-15 , and US military dont always have the right choice or solution to everything , they even choose the F-35 as a 5 gen fighter ( a F-35 can only reach mach 1.6 , carry 2 AA missiles , and only maneuver at 4.6 G which is even less agile than mig-31 ) , the main reason for the Aim-120 still in use is that they are cheap and not many country have mig-25 , only Russian have Mig-31
mig-31bmI 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.
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.
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.
totally agree
The AIM-120D is reported to have a considerable range over its stablemates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Air-to-air_missile_versions
a missile with small fin like aim-120 simply useless at altitude where mig-31 operate caused they can’t turn , unless you have mini rocket like on the PAC-3 , also i really doubt the range of Aim-120D, they have exactly the same size of fuel and a smaller fin , quite same weight the different in range may be 20 km at most
aim-120A max range should be 20 km , and for Aim-120D it be 40 km (air breathing missiles like meteor will have much longer range , however at 70K feet the air is too thin for them )
mig-31bmThe F-15 and its successor are more than capable of intercepting aircraft. They are also capable of engaging them in actual air to air combat vs. making an offensive pass or two. The eagle’s combat record speaks for itself.
f-15 go against weak opponent , crap missiles , no radar , no RWR , no ECM
A WVR fight between a Mig-31 and a modern 4th generation fighter would look something like this:
http://youtu.be/4g4_jzqBJnA?t=28s
Of course the F-4 in this test can turn substantially tighter than could a Mig-31… the point is it would be no contest at all. The F-4 would have had to get its nose all the way around to the F-15, and even though the F-15 was hardly turning it never came close. Even if its opponent lacked a helmet mounted sight the Mig-31 wouldn’t have a chance. Flying against a fighter that did have a helmet mounted sight would be nothing more than an expensive way to commit suicide.
You could also look up the account of the WVR engagement between Mig-25s and F-15Cs in 1991. The F-15s took the advantage from the beginning and controlled the fight until the end.
top speed of aim-9 is mach 2.5 it will not be fast enough to catch the mig-31 , the mig-31 will be out of range long before the missiles complete the turn , and if you want to talk about missiles the mig-31 can carry r-40 too which have much longer range , speed , more suited for high altitude or it can carry R-73 as well with superior launch speed + altitude => missiles from Mig-31 have much better chance of intercepting f-15
mig-31bmMy dear sir, this is a promotional video – an advertisement. We cannot take it seriously as a statement of missile capability.
The promotional video for my DSLR camera did not show an elderly short-sighted academic fighting his way through a long series of menus and sub-menus. No, it showed a handsome young photographer effortlessly photographing pretty girls in exotic locations.
i know but then both side have advertising not only the russian , and i have not seen any aircraft maneuver 9G at > 50K feet
What we often forget when talking about maximum speed is the process of actually getting there. A MiG-31 isn’t going to turn to run particularly fast at high altitude even subsonic/transonic. If already at high supersonic speeds we’re looking at a turn radius the size of a county.
do you have anything to support that statement ? the turn radius may be 2-3 km but that no where the size of a country
you can’t apply tactics of WW2 fighters taking advantage of slight manoeuvering or accelleration capabilities to modern dogfight.
At dogfight altitudes and speed, the mig-31 will turn like a brick, won’t out accelerate any descent 4th generation fighter (not to mention fox2 missiles), will have the crappiest SA you can imagine due to poor visibility and will be a target easy to spot and target due to its huge size.
A mig-31 deciding to enter a dogfight with, let say a F-16, will be dead after the first turn.Don’t fool yourself, any Mig-31 pilot with a bit of common sens will disengage and return to base when he runs out of BVR missiles.
why can’t I ? WW 2 have much better turn range and turn radius compared to jet fighter , the different between their speed ( hell cat vs zero ) also not as much as the different between speed of mig-31 and other modern fighter but WW II fighter still managed to use speed to their advantage
it not really a dogfight in common sense , the mig-31 will make head on a pass and run away ( with it’s much superior speed ) then when the enemy is ways out of range , it will turn and come back
btw range of long range missiles like Aim-120 , R-77 , meteor against target running away at mach 2.5 is probably 100 meter , and a R-73 or Aim-9 simply dont have speed to catch the mig-31
mig-31bmMiG-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).
i 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
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.
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
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
agree , but i think it have advantage over the 5 gen as well
mig-31bmQuestions that come into my mind are these
Whats AN/APY-1/2 Elevation since MiG will be flying way higher than E-3 Sentry AWACS tracking MiG-31 at later stages of engagement will be difficult
R-33 is SARH missile so have to jam Zaslon…
Whats elevation of AWACS ESM and Jammers?
normally fighter’s radar have a FoV of about 60 degree ( AWACs have alot more ) but that is more than enough to detect the mig-31 , even if the mig-31 fly at very high altitude ( you can try to draw a triangle your self and see ) , also ESM and RWR are often cover 360 degree so it quite easy to detect the powerful PESA radar of mig-31 , But that not important , mig-31 wasnot designed to hide , it speed and altitude make it invulnerable to enemy fighter
Yes. From the moment you said: “In my opinion Mig-31 appear to be a very good 6 gen fighter.”
As you can see, you claimed in your opinion. Your opinion doesn’t mean you’re factually correct. And you do realise that those figures such as 120,000ft+ and top speed were done with a stripped down aircraft, like the F-15 (Streak Eagle) was to “determine” it’s performance figures? In reality, the aircraft doesn’t approach any where near those, of course, they’re high indeed, but you’re kidding yourself if you truly believe so.
mig-31 is a high altitude aircraft , so drag doesnot affected it that much , also it’s missiles are carried in the same fashion as the Typhoon or F-4 so have very little drag effect ,mig-31 can reach the maximum of mach 3 but that affected the engine life so normally it only fly at top speed of mach 2.8 ( by contrast American , EU fighter simply have really pathetic actual top speed )
as you can see from previous page there are case reported by F-15 pilot that they saw Mig-31 fly at mach 2.5 for 700 miles , no other fighter could do that
mig-31bmWith all due respect a Mig 31 is a 40 year old design, and it was designed as a defensive aircraft.
So lets put aside this national pride.
B-52 , tu-95 are also very old designed but they still work well
mig-31bmYou should look at a few laws of physics.
iamnot making things up , look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXhsaau4Bs4 new RVV-BD are designed to attack fighter as well
mig-31bm125,000′ is pure dreamland. I don’t think it could do that stripped and empty with only a single pilot on board. Eagle has a faster climb rate anyway.
service ceiling and top speed of an f-15 ( or any other fighter like f-22 , PAK-FA , Typhoon , f-35 ) is way lower than mig-31 , they are not designed to work as an intercepter , and to be fair mig-31 may cruise at 90 K feet only that still make it invulnerable to AA missiles ( just the same as the SR-71 )
mig-31bmUltimate fighter IF long range missiles were what they are made out to be,
in practice it would work the same way as ‘stealth’ proponents claim for stealth a/c,
“ok, spotted a radar blink 100 km away, time to push the I WIN button and keep cruisin on the success wave”I stand by my conclusion those ranges are not applicable vs agile fighter
mig-31 can cruise at 90k feets at mach 2.8 with mean it invulnerable to enemy’s A2A missiles ( even most SAM )
the much faster speed and higher altitude mean it’s missiles will have more energy to attack agile target so even if both side use the same missiles the mig-31’s weapon will have much much longer effective range
Agile fighter may sound really cool in movie but lessons in WW II shown that even in WVR combat fighter with much superior turning will lose to the one with superior speed and acceleration ( that why we switch from tri-fighter to bi -fighter to monofighter ) so basically even if missiles dont work mig-31 still superior in dogfight
mig-31bmI reckon the aircraft Mig-31BM is on about is the one Clint Eastwood stole from the Soviets…
…Otherwise, he’s living in such a state of which he’s somewhere in between being awake and unconscious.
do you have any logical argument why iam wrong
mig-31bmThe MiG-31 might be able to reach 90,000′, but it is not going to cruise and fight at that altitude. If you are right, then the MiG-31’s own missiles would not work at that altitude either. If that is the case, what’s the point of hiding out at that altitude? You have to come down sometime, even if only to refuel. I think the MiG-31 would be more like to fly its mission in the 60,000′ area of altitude. An F-15 can deal with that and despite not having long range missiles, would make a deadly opponent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izIClWYKK1o even the mig-25 can cruise at that altitude , there no reason why the mig-31 can’t, the max altitude of mig-31 is about 125k feets
first mig-31’s missiles (r-37 , r-40 ) have much bigger wing compared to aim-120 or r-77 so they are more suited for high altitude , secondly , since f-15 cruise at much lower altitude where the air is denser it will be easier for mig-31’s missiles to maneuver while a missiles fired at mig-31 willnot only have to climb up( lose energy ) but also have more trouble maneuver due to thin air
mig-31bmFor such a huge jet, 720 km is not that great of a mission range, its better to trottle Down and conserve fuel, and only use high Mach when absolutly needed.
The way i se it, the main Con about Mig-31 is its weapon array.. thos R-33E missiles are not well suited for today threats. It can carry other missile on its wing pylon, but at the cost of drag.Thos R-33 can be used to spooke enemy fighter and make them disengage, but something tells me they are expensive and are of a Limited supply..
the range can be short for a big aircraft but it still longer than f-22 , f-15 , su-27 at supersonic speed
mig-31 can use r-37 as well , and these missile are quite agile , can defeat a 8g aircraft , not to mention the mig-31 extremely high speed and altitude give missiles even more energy to deal with enemy.
mig-31bmMig31 has better endurance and range at full afterburner than the F22 at supercruise, also Mig31 top speed is not Mach2.83,it is limited operationally to that speed to prevent excessive engine wear, but Mig31 can easily achieve mach 3 and perhaps even slightly more in an emergency if really needed so its as fast as a Mig25 and Mig31 can be called a true mach 3 fighter. Mig31 acceleration is also phenominal, most likely better than any fighter in the world except that of the Pakfa
Mig31 especially the Mig31BM have very powerful radar and they can burn thru pretty much any AWAS ECM and guide the missles to target so that will not save the AWACS.
agree with pretty much every thing u say , but i dont think PAK-FA have better acceleration , the mig-31 have lot higher Thrust/weight not to mention it is designed for high speed
Sign In
