Garry B

The MiG-31 will fly a little less than 20 minutes at 2500km/h because it`s range at that speed is less than 720km

.

RANGE Got it? Means both ways, i.e 720*2 = 1440 km = 40 min. And then something still left for take off and landing.

The Tornado will be able to attack a Su-30MKI at long range because it has AMRAAM and at WVR has ASRAAM, both aircraft are moreless match in what respect odds, but remember what the USAF or RAF want is supremacy and for that you need the F-22 and Eurofighter

We can safely say here what Eurofighter will be much less superior to Su-30MKI (if any) than SU-30MKI superior to Tornado. After all, even if SU-30MKI about equal to Tornado in general avionic, it still have much better speed, climb and max altitude(i.e, airframe). Eurofighter, potencially, have better TTW ratio than SU-30, but lack TVC. It have somewhat lower RCS, but not stealthy – so, most likely, will be detected by SU-30MKI long before it can fire missiles. In avionic terms, current Eurofighter with its old radar is even behinds SU-30MKI, the future batches may surpass it – but again, not by much. And this still leave open grounds for Su-30 upgrades. R-37M alone could mean overhelmly superiority for Su-30…

1. The MiG 31 was (well, is) an interceptor designed against planes such US strategic bombers or SR 71. It can fly faster & higher than anything, but it can not maneuver: it can’t go over 4-5 G in subsonic! Also the R 33 (Nick’s guess is correct it is a SARH missile) is not usefull against a 9G target, but only against slow maneuvring targets.
2.Do a google before posting :p The USAF used datalinks from 1956 on F 86 Sabre (called SAGE). The Russians follwed a few years later. What the Russian did indeed introduced in the ’80 (but a few years after the Swedes) were IFDL (intra-flight data-links) linking fighters inflight. But nowadays, all USAF/USN/USMC/NATO frontline fighters have MIDS data-link terminals that offer both Link 16 (broadcasting-type,linking up to 128 planes/node) as well as IFDL functions (linking 4-6 fighters).

So I can’t see a period where the Russians did enjoy A-A superiority.

Heh, i could point out what if R-33 is not usefull against 9G target, then Phoenix is even less usefull then that. But realisticaly speaking, NO PILOT EVER can sustain even 5G more than few seconds long. Good luck for them to spot that closing missile visually and start that hard manuevering in right time. Remember, R-33 is NOT ARH, its SARH. So enemy pilot would not know how close missile is – at most, he could suspect what an missile was fired when he is locked by enemy radar. But Mig-31 with its PESA radar can track at least 4 targets, so a single MIG-31 can force to break off in endless 9G turns at least 4 enemy fighters – without even firing a single missile! Keep in mind, no other fighter prior to F-22 could do that with SARH missiles. Either way, i think you wouldnt deny what in mid-80x there was a time when a very limited number of F-15A and latest versions of F-4’s with AIM-7 was faced a hordes of Mig-23, Mig-25,Mig-29, Mig-31, Su-27 fighters – all with BVR weapons and albeit limited (but who had it better then?) but still very usefull datalink in EACH regiment. Add to the fact general reliablity problems and tactical defeciences with using SARH missiles and non-ESA radars – you cant guide more than 1 such missile with old radar, and you must continue to fly toward target. So, you have only 1 chance before you find yourself in WWR – and then Soviets aircrafts are vastly superior there with they R-73 and HMS. More to that matter, Soviet aircrafts have addiditional chances in mid-range BVR with they IR missiles and could theoreticaly shot at more than 1 target at once, or more than 1 missile per target. Again, something what USA fighters with its old radars and SARH missiles couldnt do.

As for datalink… I dont know what you are understanding under “datalink”. Sure, F-15 and F-16 had not it before 90x – at least, not in meaningfull numbers. And even then, no intra-flight buddy-buddy datalinks. Russian fighters, aside from Mig-31, didnt had this capabilty either. Russian mid-80x datalink which was deployed in nearly all frontline units was, undoubtly, most advanced of its time in widespread use – of course, we can laught at this “advanced” from current point of view. American ones was either very, very limited in numbers (F-14) or absent at all (f-15, F16). Sweden Grippen… ya, good plane. But without CGI infrastructure and AWACS support what USSR and USA enjoyed it was more a experemental thing than a real service.

Thanks Garry for the explanation .

There has been some disturbing trends emerging from Russian Missile Design Bureau or more precisely its main rival design bureau.

I have followed some disskussions on that matter. General points what most ppls agree are these:

1. Liquid fueled missiles are 2-3 times cheaper to produce than solid fueled. Note, this is only missile price, warhead not included. The difference here is mainly due to much more expencive fuel and somewhat more expencive materials for solid fuel missile hulle itself -i.e. composite materials needed.
2. Maintanance – both are about equal. Both have they own specialities however.
3. Now the main difference, why solid fueled missile was choosen as next ICBM by USSR: solid fuel allows 2-3 times faster acceleration of missile. So, effectivly, active phase of Topol-M is only 2 minutes long, all speed is gained below 100km – i.e still in atmosphere. Compare it to about 5 min. long active phase for liquid fueled missiles. This greatly increase problems to shot them down by ABM. Also, it buy 1 extra minute in case of direct nuclear attack on missile silo. Remember, USSR started to develop Topol in the time USA was promoting SOI by full scale. Topol-M was definitly choosen by the time USA pulled out of ABM treaty.
4. Liquid fueled missiles allow greater throw-off weight. But it didnt matter if missile itself stand in silo – as we have no weight limitation there. So, the only advatage remains is the cheaper liquid fueled missilles – and thats they only advantage to speak of regarding ICBM. Keep in mind, what even “expencive” solid fueled missile is still quite cheap really. For example, Topol-M costs less than 10 mil.$
5. Due to the START treaty only about 2200 warheads are allowed. About 1000 warheads reserved for Airforce and Navy, so only about 1200 warheads left for ICBM forces. And then its much, much better to have 400(200) Topol-M with 3(6) warheads than 120(80) SS-18 alike bigger missiles. As liquid fueled missiles have problems with mobilty, they are ruled out of competition. Some ppls hinted thought, what if Russia will ever want to increase its nuclear arcenal in the future to 5000-6000 nuclear warheads, than there will be certainly space for a big mean liquid fueled missile. Right now – no chances.

The more engines you have, the better is your tolerance against failure (a very common problem in the 50s).
.

Thats a common misunderstanding. After some point, more engines didnt meant more safety. Average aircraft still need half its engines to fly (sometimes even more than half at long range), and from probability theory we can compute the chances for total aircraft loss in cases of 1, 2, 4, and 8 engines. This is standard exercise for students. Answer is: 2 engines are much better than 1. Next: 4 engines are only *slightly* better than 2. And hammer: 8 engines are actually *worse* than 4 regarding mission kill (you cant continue mission with 2 from 8 engines failed for sure, and most missions aborted after 1st engine failure) , and 8 engines offer NO advantage over 4 engines regarding total aircraft loss (i.e, more than half engines out).

Can you name a conflict in which US lost more planes in WVR than the opponent? I am just curious… :p

Can you name a conflict where *USSR* had lost more planes than an opponent? Dont bring up Afganistan, as i will get Iraqwar here.

I assumed that your understanding of civil aircraft design is limited at best. thank you for proving it with that statement.
All Soviet designs were made under the circumstances of the Soviet system. Under market economy conditions, they were outclassed even in the 60s. So “successful” bomber to civil conversions were just a costly experiment. If one has no really cost-driven market, he will not discover how unappropriate his designs are. As stated above the final price to pay was the SU itself. It ruined itself by things like that.

I assume what you too. By 1980 25% of ALL civilian airlines in the world was of soviet origin. If its not a market success, when i dont know what is. If you would point to some “political” cirumstances, when i would answer what that reason work both ways. Sure, russian planes had they specialities regarding to maintance, but these are not defeciences in any way. They was just suited for soviet style maintance – not better and not worse than western style. Just different. Of course, if you try to do soviet planes maintanance with western stlye system, they will look bad. But thats also true for western planes and soviet style maintance system.

It is interesting to learn about the fate of the Russian POWs from that ‘Winter War’. When handed back to the SU. Stalin ordered that 50% of those had to be executed. Are they listed under war-losses and which way the relatives were informed about their final fate?!

Allthought i dont have Winter War statics on hand, i very doubt what Stalin have ordered anything with %. Its just not in his style. He MIGHT have ordered a “serios investigation”, or “execute everyone”, but certainly not %.

Btw, here is the statistic from WW2 (winter war shouldnt be that much different):

1941 г. – 03.1944 г.
Total income: 317.594 100 %
Checked & handled to army: 223.281 70,3 %
Checked & handled to NKVD regiments: 4.337 1,4 %
Checked & handled to industry: 5.716 1,8 %
To hospitals: 1.529 0,5 %
Died: 1.799 0,6 %
Handled to penal battalions: 8.255 2,6 %
Arrested: 11.283 3,5 %
Still under investigation: 61.394 19,3 %

As you can see, myths about “every POW was shot” or “every POW was send to penal battalions” are, well, just propaganda myths.