Opinion of the Mig 31
- Thread starter brian00
- Start date
Do you mean what do they operate? They have a hodge podge of late Soviet era aircraft, including handfuls of Su-27, MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25, and MiG-31. I believe they also have MiG-25 and Su-24R variants, but I'm not sure how many of the Foxbats are still operational.
They 'could' operate anything that they could reasonably buy. However given their political and military-technological orientation, if I were them I'd focus on either Flankers or Fulcrums, and possibly Su-25 and Su-24 for strike and interdiction roles. I'd ditch the MiG-31s, and probably MiG-29s, have the Su-27s upgraded to SM, and order newer Su-35S to replace everything I'm getting rid of.
However they seem to be intent on leaving the Foxhounds in service, as well as all the other types. As far as I know, they have no comprehensive plan to optimize their airforce.
Guys sometimes reading this forum I see only main thought
"If something is done by NATO - it is capable, it is needed, and it is good.
If something is done in Russia - it is always too primitive, it is uneffective and of course "what were those Russians thinking of when they do this?"
MiG-31 is unique platform, remember about F-22 and how much it servicecost but US still operate them.
MiG-31 can operate in radius 720 km on 2500 km/h speed with 6 missile of 150+ km range - no one can do such things.
And I can say one thing - there is more then 2 operative MiG-31BM in service - here you can believe or not it is your choice, no links would be.
"If something is done by NATO - it is capable, it is needed, and it is good.
If something is done in Russia - it is always too primitive, it is uneffective and of course "what were those Russians thinking of when they do this?"
MiG-31 is unique platform, remember about F-22 and how much it servicecost but US still operate them.
MiG-31 can operate in radius 720 km on 2500 km/h speed with 6 missile of 150+ km range - no one can do such things.
And I can say one thing - there is more then 2 operative MiG-31BM in service - here you can believe or not it is your choice, no links would be.
Are you saying that the F-22 could be beaten by the Mig-31? The F-22 is the best air superiority plane in the world, no matter what anyone says. For modern conflicts the Mig-31 has no tactical ability, when you say "MiG-31 can operate in radius 720 km on 2500 km/h speed with 6 missile of 150+ km range - no one can do such things." No one needs these capabilities
not at all, eg look at the thread on the SR-71 - even though its has basically derailed. or even have a harder look at some of the responses in here,
the effectiveness and utility of any platform has to be considered sgainst that countries threat matrix and who or what they are likely to face (and realistically, not some martian invasion where red team are all carrying portable nukes etc...)
eg, if someone asked me what was the most effective platform that the russians had, and was unique in capability then I'd say Blackjack. If the same question was extended to what was worth continuing investment in development, I'd say Blackjack. I wouldn't say the same about the Mig31 because in my view, in modern contested battlespace against a competent opposing force - its binary advantages of sheer speed and brute force sensor sweep provide limited advantages.
again, this is a platform with limited advantages where the maximising and/or extending of its advantage against likely foes can only take effect if its part of a battlemanagement system - and an effective one.
It is only your opinion that no one needs - we need these.
And who said that F-22 is the best? LockheedMartin?
It is a good plane but there is no proof that it is the best - there are only opinions. It is old holywar so lets finish it in a birth. I only said that service cost of F-22 is very high and still USAF use them. MiG-31 is also not so cheap but it is worth those money. Read attentively please.
GF0012 - but and I can say that MiG-31 is used as command centre and as interceptor - It can be used against US AF in Alaska, against Japan AF in the FarEast also
Against PLAN of course. If you know how the bases with these AC are placed you'll see that's the truth.
Of course they can be used. The question is how effectively? Within what conflict scenario? What other VVS assets will be in the air?
OWww okay, now I need to reply! This thread is getting pretty heated.
first some quote's from Skolzki:
And the discussion is not as much about if the Mig-31 is a good or a bad aircraft. It flies and its very fast, so as far as aircrafts go its pretty good. As a war machine.... Well its pretty old fashioned for Western standards, and face it at the moment (at least) Western aircraft are the cutting edge. Most of the arguments however descibe the usefullness (or lack theroff) of the plane within strategic combat doctrine.
Western, most prominently US, combat doctrine is geared towards warfare against any foe anywhere in the world. So its machinery is built to fit that task, and then some. Russian strategic doctrine, as far as I can figure out, is more geared towards defence (Feanor plz correct me if I'm wrong). Russian armed forces are very capable of projecting tactical an limited strategic force along their periphery but they wont be able to deploy a marine and navy battlegroup halfway across the world.
Whitin this doctrine the Mig-31 is very usefull, especially in Russia's the sparcely populated far east region. But in the Western region (where the distances are much shorter) there are far more effective alternatives, the older Su-27's are more usefull then the '31.
I've got more to say, but I'm to tired to do so. I'll edit it tomorrow or something
first some quote's from Skolzki:
On the basis of what is known in public, it seems like the F-22 is the best. at the least it's a more capable platform then the Mig-31! Why? It has a small RCS, is very manouverable, has an incredible radar and the rest of its avionics is so modern that half of it wont work with the rest of the USAF!
And the discussion is not as much about if the Mig-31 is a good or a bad aircraft. It flies and its very fast, so as far as aircrafts go its pretty good. As a war machine.... Well its pretty old fashioned for Western standards, and face it at the moment (at least) Western aircraft are the cutting edge. Most of the arguments however descibe the usefullness (or lack theroff) of the plane within strategic combat doctrine.
Western, most prominently US, combat doctrine is geared towards warfare against any foe anywhere in the world. So its machinery is built to fit that task, and then some. Russian strategic doctrine, as far as I can figure out, is more geared towards defence (Feanor plz correct me if I'm wrong). Russian armed forces are very capable of projecting tactical an limited strategic force along their periphery but they wont be able to deploy a marine and navy battlegroup halfway across the world.
Whitin this doctrine the Mig-31 is very usefull, especially in Russia's the sparcely populated far east region. But in the Western region (where the distances are much shorter) there are far more effective alternatives, the older Su-27's are more usefull then the '31.
I've got more to say, but I'm to tired to do so. I'll edit it tomorrow or something
The MiG-31 was designed from 1968 to hunt US bombers penetrating at low level through the Arctic. It’s a very specific capability that has resulted in impressive numbers for speed, range and radar output but none of that means it is a particularly good or better fighter for other missions. The MiG-31 is just too big and not agile enough to tangle with other fighters in smaller battlefields.
As to its capability as a mini AEW&C this is nonsense and based on a misunderstanding between the different terminologies practised by the Soviets and NATO aligned forces. What the Soviets called airborne command posts the West called datalinking. The MiG-31 has no capability to manage an air battle just to share fire control information.
Unfortunately for it the B-2A makes the MiG-31 obsolete as a bomber interceptor. Through it could probably put up a good show against the B-1B as a point interceptor its lack of detection range (80-120km) would mean the B-1B could just route around it in the Arctic air battle situation. The great strength of the MiG-31 was it could intercept the SR-71 and its introduction saw USAF curtail their Habu penetration missions and was another significant stake in its coffin.
As to its capability as a mini AEW&C this is nonsense and based on a misunderstanding between the different terminologies practised by the Soviets and NATO aligned forces. What the Soviets called airborne command posts the West called datalinking. The MiG-31 has no capability to manage an air battle just to share fire control information.
Unfortunately for it the B-2A makes the MiG-31 obsolete as a bomber interceptor. Through it could probably put up a good show against the B-1B as a point interceptor its lack of detection range (80-120km) would mean the B-1B could just route around it in the Arctic air battle situation. The great strength of the MiG-31 was it could intercept the SR-71 and its introduction saw USAF curtail their Habu penetration missions and was another significant stake in its coffin.
The SR-71 had been pulled from doing ferret missions over the soviet union prior to the introduction of the Mig-31. (it was pulled from western entry ferrets in 72 as the US had its full keyhole capability up). Although spasmodic runs were done over the Kola, the SR-71's were then tasked to run their ferrets over mainland china and north korea in conjunction with the dladys and early ram coated (1st gen( bugs). they'd proved the merit of the decision to pull it when the keyholes were able to successfully take happy snaps over areas like Ramenskoye (obviously sats meant no risk to pilots). They got pulled from all continental ferrets in 89 (IIRC)
what it did do was reinforce that pulling the SR-71 from running ferrets over the SU was a smart decision. Bearing in mind that at no stage did any Mig-25 ever close the gap even when they were volleyed ahead of the SR-71..
Of the 3500+ mission flights that the SR-71's conducted, over 95% were over the SU. and over 90% of those ferrets were at mach 3+. No Mig25's got close enough to launch within kill range. A number of the habu pilots who are on the blackbird forums have spoken about getting chased and shot at by SAMS where the Soviets were prepared to launch SAMs even though their own aircraft were in the target box. As there was basically no difference in absolute performance between the Mig31 and Mig25, the closing opportunities would have been the same.
The Mig31 basically arrived too late and the threat model had changed
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Some one needs to keep in mind, and this is something many of the DefPros and/or Senior Members keep trying to point out on a variety of threads, is context.
In this particular thread, the context is the potential and relevance of the MiG-31 in Russian service at present. With that in mind, one then needs to look at the broad performance capabilities the platform itself, the intended/operational role, the overall capabilities (and needs) of the Russian military, and the potential hostile powers which the MiG-31 might need to be used against.
Speaking more broadly of NATO vs. Russian doctrine and systems... NATO systems and doctrine have undergone very regular and rigorous employment since the end of the Cold War, first in GWI, then in the Balkans, then on to Afghanistan and back to Iraq. Between the operational and developmental experience built up and maintained over the last two decades, US/NATO doctrine and systems have gotten to the point where there is no peer or even near-peer.
The other part of that is that a number of the current Russian systems is either upgraded Cold War-era equipment, modernized designs of legacy equipment. In some unfortunate instances, the equipment might even be non-upgraded Cold War-era kit. This is important since the doctrine driving how the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact countries would operate militarily is no longer a viable model for the current Russian forces. During the Cold War, SU forces would deploy and operate en masse, with the intent being that with a weight of numbers, needed efficiency levels could be reached and maintained. To achieve this, much of the Soviet kit was comparatively inexpensive to purchase vs. Western gear, but was less efficient and had higher maintenance and/or operating costs. If the logistical train operated at a large volume, it would still be able to maintain some efficiencies. Unfortunately due to issues stemming from the change in the political and economic systems in place in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was insufficient resources to maintain the same developmental pace that the West was able to maintain. Exacerbating this is that there was also insufficient resources to continue employing large numbers of different types of equipment, which then meant that the efficiencies gained by large scale operations ceased to exist. In short, due to limitations in terms of resources, Russia has had to scale back its forces (in terms of numbers and types) to levels similar to those of other European powers, however many of the current types of equipment do not lend themselves to operating in small numbers.
Hope this makes sense.
-Cheers
whats your meaning with this?
when people make the effort to give detailed responses, its fundamentally polite to respond with something that looks at first glance as being deliberate indifference....
There is a relevance issue here as the VVS even hypothetically doesn't plan to operate against NATO focus in conventional forms. Granted ex-Soviet states, as the most likely short term opponents with China being a long term consideration the threat matrix looks very different.
thats true, but SkolZkiy appeats to have taken offence to what he believes a NATO skewed response.
from my perspective its not - it gets back to the fundamentals, utility and merit against the threat matrix. I've been quite clear in articulating that (I think I have anyway!)
hence my reinforcement about being foe relevant
I don't disagree with what you stated, I'm just pointing out it's irrelevance in the larger context. What you said runs along the lines of "Bongostan can't defeat NATO". Sure. But it doesn't plan to or need to, so discussing it's capabilities within that context doesn't matter. In that sense Skolzkiy is correct in citing the ability of the MiG-31 as relevant to Russia's current defence needs, and incorrect in trying to claim that it offers some sort of advantage over NATO.
Granted there are a lot of emotionally charged and politically fueled discussions of current Russian capabilities within a Russia vs NATO context. But I think as serious defence analysis those discussions are largely worthless.
Granted there are a lot of emotionally charged and politically fueled discussions of current Russian capabilities within a Russia vs NATO context. But I think as serious defence analysis those discussions are largely worthless.
again, my point is about utility and relevance, I personally still question the merit of updating that platform when considering a contemporary threat environment.
it still has a limited utility set, its not like an F15 which has changed in capability significantly since the A series, where the taskings are fundamentally different as the platform had inherent design flexibility.
we are fundamentally talking about a platform that was designed as a high speed bomber interceptor and that has data linking in place, this is philosophically different in the soviet sense where GCI and GC ruled the pilots.
whats more important in that sense is the doctrine shift - not the technology shift - as the tech shift is something that other countries in the west have had with Link 11 and Link16 (and Link 22 in the next few years). If it was Link 22 type capability then that would make people sit up and take notice because that would indicate a serious shift in russian doctrine and a significant shift in doctrine change
I can't see how it can be separated from the baseline assessment considerations of utility and relevance at the russian level, even though comparisons will be made with western developments because both have been the traditional sides of developments both technologically and doctrinally. (although china is obviously prepared to run her own race on this and is breaking the paradigm)
I think that it can be, with heavy modernization, turned into a contemporary high-speed interceptor. Provided 1) a new radar 2) new BVRAAM capability it can be a useful additional to dealing with late 3rd gen, or unmodernized 4th gen level enemies even on the platform level. On the systems level we have to consider that there is nothing to replace it. There are no additional fighters that can be pulled out of thin air to replace the MiG-31s currently in service. And with an upgrade they will remain serviceable.
The BM upgrade includes significant electronics upgrade including, from what I know, a new mission computer, and new avionics architecture as well as major radar upgrades, and R-77 capability. In my opinion this makes it quite useful for airspace control roles over say Tadjikistan, in the event of another Tadjik civil war, or over the North Caucus if Georgia is at it again (or if the Azeri-Armeni conflict unfreezes itself).