Opinion of the Mig 31
- Thread starter brian00
- Start date
To update, the GLONASS-K launch got postponed until next year because the ground control systems aren't ready for it. The count on orbit is 22 active satellites in 3 orbital planes, with 4 undergoing technical maintenance (expected to rejoin the constellation some time next year), and 0 in reserve. A launch of 2-3 more including the GLONASS-K is tentatively planned early next year.
http://rian.ru/defense_safety/20101221/311596142.html
MiG-31 vs all fighter
How MiG-31 (the best version MiG-31BM) against the F-15C, F-16 block 60 or even Rafale, EF-2000? I think the MiG-31 squad won the team before the enemy aircraft, since most of them depend on the AWACS early warning, even though they have smaller RCS missiles, MiG-31, but mainly AIM-120 is relatively low accuracy rate (48%), so the opportunity for R-37M, R-77M range is quite high (BVR), and with large speed and altitude than the F-22 (over 20km) MiG-31 is quite safe, because the radar is now only limited to look-forward and look-down/shoot-down.
even when compared with the F-35, MiG-31 will also have the opportunity to fight, to use radar Zaslon-AM completely L-band/X-band radar can detect the F-35 with more than 20 service ceiling km, I guess MiG-31 will detect the F-35 at more than 200 km range on the first F-35 (RCS prediction the back F-35 is about 0.01 m2)
How MiG-31 (the best version MiG-31BM) against the F-15C, F-16 block 60 or even Rafale, EF-2000? I think the MiG-31 squad won the team before the enemy aircraft, since most of them depend on the AWACS early warning, even though they have smaller RCS missiles, MiG-31, but mainly AIM-120 is relatively low accuracy rate (48%), so the opportunity for R-37M, R-77M range is quite high (BVR), and with large speed and altitude than the F-22 (over 20km) MiG-31 is quite safe, because the radar is now only limited to look-forward and look-down/shoot-down.
even when compared with the F-35, MiG-31 will also have the opportunity to fight, to use radar Zaslon-AM completely L-band/X-band radar can detect the F-35 with more than 20 service ceiling km, I guess MiG-31 will detect the F-35 at more than 200 km range on the first F-35 (RCS prediction the back F-35 is about 0.01 m2)
Banned for an apparent inability to read the forum rules and a series of totally unverifiable claims about the performance of classified military systems. You've got three months to meditate on why that's a stupid thing to do.
Lcf
Member
The legendary Foxhound... imagined as one of the main elements of Russia’s developing anti-missile defense system.
I've read the entire subject and, correct me if I'm wrong, no one's mentioned its ability to intercept cruise missiles, which I'm curious about and also about its role in general in their upcoming AM defense system, so any thoughts?
I've read the entire subject and, correct me if I'm wrong, no one's mentioned its ability to intercept cruise missiles, which I'm curious about and also about its role in general in their upcoming AM defense system, so any thoughts?
What exactly are you asking? The VVS currently plans to use them as long range interceptors, for cruise missiles, as well as airplanes.
EDIT: I don't know if this is relevant, but during a recent exercise, a MiG-31 squadron was training on interception of aerial targets at ranges of 100-120kms. There are some photos here: http://pressa-tof.livejournal.com/96528.html
Flights are conducted day and night. These MiGs are a former Pacific Fleet regiment, that was reduced to a squadron and passed to the VVS, along with the Pacific Fleet Backfires.
To extrapolate a little, they were probably not practicing against low altitude cruise missiles.
Last edited:
Lcf
Member
Not asking anything specific, just interested on possible updates since the thread has been offline for nearly 3 years. And nice photos.
Btw, few days ago a group of MiG-31BMs has been deployed in Novosibirsk region.
Russia Deploys New Interceptors to Novosibirsk | Defense | RIA Novosti
Yep. A total of iirc 6. That's not exactly impressive rates. GPV-2020 only includes 60 BM upgrades, i.e. ~6 per year. There's barely 100 of them left in service. I suspect they will start disappearing once the PAK-FA comes, because it's not like anyone will retire upgraded Flankers when there are un-upgraded Foxhounds. There's supposed to be a project for a next-gen ASAT platform on the MiG-31 platform, and that might require a different variant of it. But I suspect that those numbers are going to be very small.
Lcf
Member
Not sure on Novosibirsk but six were deployed in Krasnoyarsk region last December and, during 2012, 10 in the entire military district, according to a district representative.
Some time ago, Izvestia mentioned it (ASAT), but it seems it involved work on testing communication between the ground-based sat. tracking system and an aircraft, without the interceptor.
Some time ago, Izvestia mentioned it (ASAT), but it seems it involved work on testing communication between the ground-based sat. tracking system and an aircraft, without the interceptor.
Just commenting on the 91 shoot down. I believe the shoot down was officially attributed to the MiG not being picked up by the E-2 and the MiG jumped the hornet before he knew he was even there. In aerial warfare, AWACS coverage/support seems to make all the difference. That MiG pilot got lucky I think but in war, one must believe in his/her luck.
There were news on Krona, including the construction of a new ground-based complex, and modernization of existing facilities. And yes, they did test the system without the specialized MiG-31 variants, which are currently left in Kazakhstan. There was some mention of a new variant for a next-gen anti-satellite system. But right now that's all on paper.
EDIT: Well this is strange news. The Russian Duma just heard a report on the possibility of resuming MiG-31 production. However from what few details are available, this would not be true production of new airframes, rather re-activation of old ones, without even replacing the engines (there is a large stockpile of ~1000 MiG-31 engines in storage).
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/04/10/mig31/
The article seems to imply further modernization, past the BM standard, which in my opinion would be absolutely necessary to consider extending the lifetime of the MiG-31. And while the article cites NATO threat, I strongly suspect (given the geography of MiG-31 deployment) that China is the real opponent under consideration.
It's even possible that they're considering the type for their original purpose, intercepting bombers, just not American ones.
Last edited:
Haavarla
Active Member
Its allways a good choice to upgrade and increase flight hour of existing jets in your fleet. And frankly the current BM upgrade coud be done a whole lot better in terms of capability..
But when you state that the these Mig-31 are to be used out at the Far-East region and towards the borders of China.
Well if this is so pressing, why do Russia export their latest toys(Su-35S) to China then?
Seems to me its an double edged sword issue..
But when you state that the these Mig-31 are to be used out at the Far-East region and towards the borders of China.
Well if this is so pressing, why do Russia export their latest toys(Su-35S) to China then?
Seems to me its an double edged sword issue..
Lcf
Member
Though talks of "Chinese threat" in Russia are not new, I sincerely doubt they're the reason (that is, if the news proves to be true at all).
Let's look at closely what the article says. NATO infrastructure getting closer to Russian borders, ABM system in eastern Europe, militarization of space etc. It's not something the US has been doing since yesterday, they've been doing it while the Soviet Union was around and no reason to stop now, just this time the intensity is not the same since the Soviet union is long gone. Some will say the US doesn't wish to fight Russia and vice versa and that's true, but wishes are one thing and, ironically, the reality calls for further militarization on both sides. Look at the US-China economic relationship, look how tied their two economies are, and yet, we're bound to see dramatic increase of American military might in Asia-Pacific region which will of course be followed by Chinese countermeasures. The Russians are probably wondering, if they (Americans) perceive them (Chinese), one their most important economic partners, as a threat, then how do they perceive us?
So if their Far East regions are to see increased militarization, my best guess, it's because of increased American presence in the region, alongside the objective threat they face from growing Chinese ambitions.
After all, if China is the real threat, then all their military cooperation could be called "placing a gun in my enemiys hands".
But still, it just doesn't add up. As you said, MiG-31s would probably start disappearing once the PAK-FA comes and with the upgrades the Flankers are getting, so why extend their service ceiling? Could it be the things with PAK-FA are not going as planned? Or could it be they still find MiGs too useful to retire them?
Btw, I've found an article on Ausairpower that explains US Air Force cruise missile defense, I couldn't confirm this anywhere else, so I'm looking for other opinions.
My question is, could in theory the Russian AF implement a similar strategy?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few things. If there is some idea to adapt a version of the MiG-31 for ASAT, then increasing the service ceiling makes sense. Or it could be intended to target high altitude ISR assets (long endurance UAS, etc). Otherwise if there are some servicable airframes at present, it only makes sense to keep them in service until updated designs/newer designs are in service to replace the MiG-31's.
As for looking at information from APA... Pretty much ignore anything & everything on that site. Some of the information might (emphasis MIGHT) be correct, most of it is not, it just looks right unless one knows where to look. You would do far better looking for US sources on US anti-cruise missile tactics. Far too often the authors of APA have inserted their own bias and opinions into what they write, yet present the materials as fact. This becomes especially problematic when the authors lack access to anything other than public domain information, and still make assertions about topics where non-public domain information definitely exists.
-Cheers
An ASAT variant already exists, it's part of the Krona complex. And MiG-31 airframes are not only around, but there are hundreds of serviceable aircraft in storage, with 1000 engines for them also in storage. They could not only remain in service, they could expand the active MiG-31 fleet by a lot. It just doesn't seem terribly useful.
It's more that while Rosoboroneksport is desperate to sell the Su-35S to anyone, the MoD has to deal with threats. There also seems to be some concern over the ability of the Flankers to patrol over the large areas in the Far East. Finally China is the only opponent left with a fleet of bombers.
moon_light
New Member
several things :
1) R-77M was canceled , and all BVR missiles have low PK not just AIM-120 , even SAM have low PK
2) Mig-31 service ceiling only 2 km higher than the f-35 and 1 km higher than the f-22 not enough to make it safe ( only aircraft with significant higher ceiling like sr-71 or U-2 can be harder to shot down )
3) Zaslon-AM is X band , the L-band part of it is only for communication with far less emitters
( i can't post link but you can use google to find information about it )
4) L-bands while may be better against stealth it not useful for weapon lock due to low accuracy , and also it will no way allow many times longer range than X-band like you claim
5) all radar can look up
6) F-35 according to US government declare have RCS = 0.001 m2 ( - 30 dBsm ) head on but at the moment no one no the RCS in the back of it
7) mig-31 have very high RCS => F-16 block 60 , rafale , ef-2000 , f-35 will all be able to detect it from 300-400 km By their radar ( you can find the information about radar detection range on google ) except the F-16 block 60 , mig-31 can only detect other aircraft on the list when it already inside the launch range of AIM-120D , meteor
8)and since mig-31 flying high and significant faster than normal fighter make it IR signature also very easy to detect , so very hard for it to sneak up on F-35 even from behind due to DAS
9) Mig-31 isnot agile and fly fast => Aim-120D , Meteor engagement range will be very high compared to their normal engagement range
10 ) R-37M is more of an anti AWACs , bomber rather than anti fighter missiles , it's PK will be even worse than Aim-120
11) AWACs is nice to have but that doesnot mean aircraft will be useless without AWACs
to sum up , mig-31 is much better in intercepting nuclear bomber than any western aircraft due to it's very high speed but going against fighter it will get alot of problem
P/s : mig-31 was designed to be an interceptor , making it a fighter is like trying to make B-52 a dogfight fighter
Last edited:
Good lord...
Can we please stop quoting publicly available RCS figures for classified military aircraft as if they're definitive statements? The same goes for ranges on military radars and all the rest. Do you really think the capabilities of these systems will just be revealed by google for all to see?
It's folly to debate on such shaky ground and more to the point this whole thing is turning into a versus thread, which is specifically against the forum rules. Please refrain from this.
Next time it happens the thread is getting locked until people calm down and understand the pitfalls of quoting data on these systems and comparing them to other systems with equally dubious data as if the whole thing is rock em sock em robots, not modern air combat...
Can we please stop quoting publicly available RCS figures for classified military aircraft as if they're definitive statements? The same goes for ranges on military radars and all the rest. Do you really think the capabilities of these systems will just be revealed by google for all to see?
It's folly to debate on such shaky ground and more to the point this whole thing is turning into a versus thread, which is specifically against the forum rules. Please refrain from this.
Next time it happens the thread is getting locked until people calm down and understand the pitfalls of quoting data on these systems and comparing them to other systems with equally dubious data as if the whole thing is rock em sock em robots, not modern air combat...
MiG-31 - ask if any questions
I read with joy your discussion about abilities of MiG-31. Nevertheless, success in dogfight depends not only on the specs of operating interceptor. The main is the person and how this person operates his interceptor.
I used to fly on long-range interceptors MiG-31 and Tu-128 in Arctic and Kamchatka areas.
I have interesting moments to recall about that time.
I can answer questions, just write them here.
For those who are really interested in Soviet Air pilot's mentality - I wrote a book. Interested can easily find it on the internet.
Regards,
Oleksii Chaika
P.s. I descibed causes and technical details based on my personal experience in operating Tu-128 and MiG-31 supersonic interceptors (18 years as military navigator, 1,500 flight hours, 13 missile launches).
I read with joy your discussion about abilities of MiG-31. Nevertheless, success in dogfight depends not only on the specs of operating interceptor. The main is the person and how this person operates his interceptor.
I used to fly on long-range interceptors MiG-31 and Tu-128 in Arctic and Kamchatka areas.
I have interesting moments to recall about that time.
I can answer questions, just write them here.
For those who are really interested in Soviet Air pilot's mentality - I wrote a book. Interested can easily find it on the internet.
Regards,
Oleksii Chaika
P.s. I descibed causes and technical details based on my personal experience in operating Tu-128 and MiG-31 supersonic interceptors (18 years as military navigator, 1,500 flight hours, 13 missile launches).