Opinion of the Mig 31

[brian00]

Mig 31 Foxhound entered service in1982, it has a very advanced radar, high speed and many hardpoints. Limitations are short range, very high unit cost and most probably high maintinence costs. Russia manged to buld over 400, although many are not frontline

I think this aircraft has been overshadowed by the fall of the soviet union, it could have been very capable as an bvr fighter, as well as its intended role as an interceptor.

In the 80s missile tech would have held it back in this role, The R-33 it carried was not designed for highly manouverable targets. The R-77 came into service in 1994 and the aircraft then had to be upgraded to use.

I think that in the following period, the Mig31 would have been the most capable bvr fighter in the world, until when the F22 came into service. Ofcourse Russia was not really in a position to field it

What is your opinion of this aircraft, purely as a platform?

 

[gf0012-aust]

What is your opinion of this aircraft, purely as a platform?

it's overhyped.

i interviewed ex russian airforce aviation mechanics who worked on them.

they had appalling availability and service rates, and there was some significant question as to how they would meet high tempo availability rates in a protracted shooting war.

it doesn;t matter how fast you go, how far you can reach etc... if you can't contribute to a sustainable battlespace footprint, then you have limited utility and benefit.

there's a reason why there was a de-emphasis on high mach speeds in the 80's.

 

[Feanor]

The type is vital to VVS perceptions of airspace control. It will remain in service for well over a decade, possibly longer, and upgrade programs for it are in place. I'm not sure if the BM program offers anything to improve maintenance (a sore point for Soviet aircraft more broadly), but I suspect, given the length of time that this platform will remain in service, that some efforts have already been made, and more will be made, to deal with this. Before the recent round of reforms, two regiments of MiG-31's in the Far East were highly active, each averaging over 100 flight hours per pilot. They (aslongside two regiments of upgraded Flankers) were considered the backbone of Far Eastern MD's airspace control capability.

I would indeed question VVS ability to keep the planes flying. But no matter how you spin it, they are a relatively valuable asset and will remain in service.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Considering the MiG-25 was the only MiG who ever shot down a modern, american 4th generation fighter due to its sheer speed....I think the MiG-31 is an option to consider for some nations.

I mean planes like the Su-35 and Su-30MKI are agile as hell, but they will never outmaneuver a missile. So if I would be King Bongo of some African nation, and looking for a nice Jet whith wich I could counter the capable airforce of my enemys, I would try to purchase some MiG-31 or modernized MiG-25s.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Jack Johnson, if you're referring to the alleged F/A-18 shootdown during 1991, then I'm going to have a point of contention with you.

Firstly, outside of a rumored CIA report and some pilot testimony, we don't know for certain if a MiG-25 did down Scott Speicher. And assuming one did, it's likely luck, fog of war, and a failure on the part of Coalition air forces played a greater role in the shootdown than did the claimed superiority of the MiG-25.

And outside of this one isolated incident, the MiG-25 performed fairly poorly in the Gulf War. Outside of a few mission kills and forced aborts, the aircraft never challenged Coalition air superiority. And, in subsequent incidents, at least three MiG-25s have been downed by teen-series fighters.

Not to mention the numerous other incidents in which MiG-25s simply turned tail and ran. Sure, they lived to fight another day; but odd are, a chronically running fighter isn't much use to his air force. Survival without effectiveness is pointless.

Don't get me, wrong, the MiG-25 is an impressive design; but it's very limited in what it can do.

As "King Bongo," you'd also be nuts to buy the fast MiGs. As gf0012-aust has said MiG-25s and MiG-31s are very maintenance intensive. That means a significant investment in mechanical expertise you may not have, limited ability to maintain operational tempo, and less training time.

Secondly, the high operating costs and your air force's low budget are going to make it difficult for you to train your pilots on a fast, unforgiving a/c.. And, without proper training, your pilots, no matter how capable their mounts are, simply aren't going to be very combat effective.

My advice? Buy surplus F-16s or Mirage F.1s.

 

[Feanor]

Or surplus Fulcrums. Or JF-17. It all depends on your political situation, and on what you already fly.

 

[funtz]

Or surplus Fulcrums. Or JF-17. It all depends on your political situation, and on what you already fly.

There was a modified Mig-25 for reconnaissance missions, MIg-25R, heard it was modified for higher altitude than most planes (not most missiles though), that version was said to be very useful for its time, especially for the likes of Indian Air Force.

Any similar Mig-31 versions?

Also, there was initially a news about the MiG-31 being modified as a carrier of LEO satellites, is the venture progressing or is has it been abandoned?

 

[Go229]

I mean planes like the Su-35 and Su-30MKI are agile as hell, but they will never outmaneuver a missile. So if I would be King Bongo of some African nation, and looking for a nice Jet whith wich I could counter the capable airforce of my enemys, I would try to purchase some MiG-31 or modernized MiG-25s.

:shudder
The exact opposite is true. Well not the Su-30MKI but Su-35, Su-37, Su-50 PAK-FA and others with 3d thrust vectoring/supermanoeverability can dodge a missile, but it can't outrun it. An AMRAAM goes at Mach 4, and a Mig-25 can really reach mach 2.8 whitout threatening the engines. A mig-25 was clocked over the Golan at mach 3.2 but it's engines where scrap after the flight.

And i wouldn't discount the Mig-31 one second. Excellent radar and missiles that really reach out and touch someone. AA-9 and AA-13 are better than the tomcat's Phoenix man...

 

[Feanor]

There was a modified Mig-25 for reconnaissance missions, MIg-25R, heard it was modified for higher altitude than most planes (not most missiles though), that version was said to be very useful for its time, especially for the likes of Indian Air Force.

Any similar Mig-31 versions?

No. MiG-25R is still in VVS service, alongside the Su-24MR, and Tu-22MR.

Also, there was initially a news about the MiG-31 being modified as a carrier of LEO satellites, is the venture progressing or is has it been abandoned?

Abandoned as far as I know.

:shudder
The exact opposite is true. Well not the Su-30MKI but Su-35, Su-37, Su-50 PAK-FA and others with 3d thrust vectoring/supermanoeverability can dodge a missile, but it can't outrun it. An AMRAAM goes at Mach 4, and a Mig-25 can really reach mach 2.8 whitout threatening the engines. A mig-25 was clocked over the Golan at mach 3.2 but it's engines where scrap after the flight.

And i wouldn't discount the Mig-31 one second. Excellent radar and missiles that really reach out and touch someone. AA-9 and AA-13 are better than the tomcat's Phoenix man...

Note that you're comparing it to a fighter that the US has phased out. The very nature of your comparison is testament to the MiG-31s issues.

Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite fighter jet of all time. But it has serious limitations, which in VVS conditions are actually amplified. If the upgrade program for it is completed, and further upgrades are pursued, it will be a highly relevant asset in the Far East, even after the PAK-FA arrives. However in it's current state it's reaching the end of it's usefulness.

 

[Bonza]

The exact opposite is true. Well not the Su-30MKI but Su-35, Su-37, Su-50 PAK-FA and others with 3d thrust vectoring/supermanoeverability can dodge a missile, but it can't outrun it.

I find that very difficult to believe. From what I understand modern missiles like AIM-9X and ASRAAM are capable of 60G turns - there's going to be no dodging that in a manned platform.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I find that very difficult to believe. From what I understand modern missiles like AIM-9X and ASRAAM are capable of 60G turns - there's going to be no dodging that in a manned platform.

exactly.

manned aircraft with newgeneration G suits might be able to get to 11-12G, but they're not going to do much when the missile gits its no escape zone and can still turn at 35G+

the pilot will be hoping that the missile is near the end of its energy run

 

[gf0012-aust]

And i wouldn't discount the Mig-31 one second. Excellent radar and missiles that really reach out and touch someone. AA-9 and AA-13 are better than the tomcat's Phoenix man...

Why are you even comparing a discontinued platform such as the Tomcat when its mission set was completely different anyway?

you don't seem to understand that the Phoenix missile was also designed to kill slow moving bombers such as Bison, Bears, Badgers (and a Blackjack driver if they were asleep at the wheel)

you're not comparing apples with apples - you're not even comparing apples with oranges so your attempt to draw logic to the planes merit is fundamentally flawed

 

[localhost127]

exactly.


the pilot will be hoping that the missile is near the end of its energy run

if it were 1 fighter vs 1 fighter, and both got missiles off, and they both were now in defensive maneuvers (e.g. both have incoming missiles to deal with) ... that may be the case, right?

but since that would probably rarely happen in the real world, would there ever be a case where a platform was taking long, sweeping runs (trying to get the missile to burn as much KE as possible before NEZ) --- because that would simply set him up as a sitting duck for more incoming missiles.

so does/would that ever happen in the real world? i see lots of posts (youtube equivalent drivel) speaking about supermaneuverability, but wouldnt this only be useful against a single attacker launching a single missile? if the attacked platform is performing said supermaunvers and was able to avoid the original missile, he himself would have little KE left and would be a sitting duck for anything else thrown at him while he was trying to deal with the original missile.

so why is it used as such a concrete argument (super-manueverability) when its usefulness would only be against a single attacker launching a single missile --- which isnt conductive of real world operations?

not to mention, maneuvers to evade a missile would likely expose a larger RCS and larger IR sig, right? since before missile launch, he would likely be head on (where frontal RCS and IR sig would be minimized)...but once evasive maneuvers are taken, the attacked platform would be a much easier target to track from both aspects?

 

[IronsightSniper]

I find that very difficult to believe. From what I understand modern missiles like AIM-9X and ASRAAM are capable of 60G turns - there's going to be no dodging that in a manned platform.

Well, the g load formula:

Missile Speed(Mach) / Target speed(Mach) = ratio * ratio = x

Missile would need to do x times more G's then target.


So, if the AIM-9X travels at M. 2.5, and a Su-30 was traveling at M 0.9(great maneuverability speed), than that would mean that the AIM-9X would have to pull about 7.7 more Gs than the Sukhoi. Sukhois can turn at 9g(although very difficult), so that means that the AIM-9X would have to pull almost 70g. If what you said about the G capabilities of the AIM-9X are true(60g), than I think there's a chance that the Sukhoi can get out of it.

Of course, that all depends if the AIM-9X is going at M. 2.5


An interesting idea that was said by a Russian Air Col was that the Russians are developing a 2 stage missile, with the first stage composed of a R-27 variant with an extended range, and at a certain point in that range, the R-27 would seperate and a R-74(improved R-73) would separate from the R-27 and engage it's engines. So in effect, you're using a BVR missile that maneuvers like a mad dog!


But back on topic, yeah, pretty much agreed about the earlier statements regarding the MiG-31. High performance machine that requires a lot of maintenance. Not exactly multi-purpose so it's not as much punch for the price. Should of gotten a Su-27 variant instead.

 

[Knjaz]

AFAIK, MIG-31 is very specific platform, designed for long range interceptions. Not much countries may need such aircraft - like Russia,Canada, Brazil, USA, India, China . (its list of countries that could find it useful, not potential buyers of course))

 

[localhost127]

Well, the g load formula:

Missile Speed(Mach) / Target speed(Mach) = ratio * ratio = x

Missile would need to do x times more G's then target.


So, if the AIM-9X travels at M. 2.5, and a Su-30 was traveling at M 0.9(great maneuverability speed), than that would mean that the AIM-9X would have to pull about 7.7 more Gs than the Sukhoi. Sukhois can turn at 9g(although very difficult), so that means that the AIM-9X would have to pull almost 70g. If what you said about the G capabilities of the AIM-9X are true(60g), than I think there's a chance that the Sukhoi can get out of it.

Of course, that all depends if the AIM-9X is going at M. 2.5


An interesting idea that was said by a Russian Air Col was that the Russians are developing a 2 stage missile, with the first stage composed of a R-27 variant with an extended range, and at a certain point in that range, the R-27 would seperate and a R-74(improved R-73) would separate from the R-27 and engage it's engines. So in effect, you're using a BVR missile that maneuvers like a mad dog!


But back on topic, yeah, pretty much agreed about the earlier statements regarding the MiG-31. High performance machine that requires a lot of maintenance. Not exactly multi-purpose so it's not as much punch for the price. Should of gotten a Su-27 variant instead.

i dont think you have that quite right.
the actual angle/vector change at a 9g pull is very different between mach 0.9 and something slower (0.3mach)

so if the platform were traveling at 0.9mach, and pulls a 9g turn, he isn't actually turning (changing vector) anywhere near as much as he would at a 9g turn at slower speeds....so the missile *doesnt* need 7* the G rate to still hit the target..if anything, at higher speeds the G rate of the missile should be much much less, no?

 

[gf0012-aust]

if it were 1 fighter vs 1 fighter, and both got missiles off, and they both were now in defensive maneuvers (e.g. both have incoming missiles to deal with) ... that may be the case, right?

it gets down to critical basics in the end, the distance of the meeting engagement and subsequent closing speeds, absolute distance at launch and energy management. The absolute speed of the aircraft is not as critical until these are known

but since that would probably rarely happen in the real world, would there ever be a case where a platform was taking long, sweeping runs (trying to get the missile to burn as much KE as possible before NEZ) --- because that would simply set him up as a sitting duck for more incoming missiles.

yep, but thats also why shots are volleyed or salvoed in the hope that one will get through - the one shot one kill scenarios are fanboi dreams

iso does/would that ever happen in the real world? i see lots of posts (youtube equivalent drivel) speaking about supermaneuverability, but wouldnt this only be useful against a single attacker launching a single missile? if the attacked platform is performing said supermaunvers and was able to avoid the original missile, he himself would have little KE left and would be a sitting duck for anything else thrown at him while he was trying to deal with the original missile.

see above

iso why is it used as such a concrete argument (super-manueverability) when its usefulness would only be against a single attacker launching a single missile --- which isnt conductive of real world operations?

its not a concrete argument - its absolute wank. the other factors oft quoted re super manouvreability - ie TVC are also worth critical analysis on their influence. TVC on a jet fighter or TVC on a missile? guess what can outmanouver? there's no G forces acting on a mini pilot inside a missile.

not to mention, maneuvers to evade a missile would likely expose a larger RCS and larger IR sig, right? since before missile launch, he would likely be head on (where frontal RCS and IR sig would be minimized)...but once evasive maneuvers are taken, the attacked platform would be a much easier target to track from both aspects?

tracking is different from targeting. hence why the soviets never had a successful launch on an SR-71, it had speed and altitude and an effective suite to sense and deflect enemy systems. bear in mind that the SR-71 was also the first of the fast airborne systems jammers. if you see it first, if you see it far, then you start to dictate terms of engagement. The Isrealis went through the same grief when they tried to volley shots against a Mig25.

what the kids forget is that speed can help you dictate contempt, NOT so much engagement. (until they develop hypersonics and neutralise the issue of energy bleed at termination of the engagement

the russians have never got high availability and reliabiliy right on their fast engines.. Look at the SR-71, 60 years after it first flew on a mission, the russians still don't have a military engine with comparable availability rates.

at the end of the day, in a real war, where the battle isn't over because merlin the magician waved his magical wand and closed the battle with suspended animation tricks - it gets down to logistics. things break, things need replacing, things need to be there to maintain presence aif not tempo.

these platform vs platform arguments are good grist for the kids, but its suspending reality by some margin when real world warfighting issues get factored in.

 

[Jack Johnson]

You have not convinced the King. Bongostan will purchase the MiG-31.

 

[localhost127]

there's no G forces acting on a mini pilot inside a missile..

it's funny you mention this --- as a hobbyist, i find a lot of the same types of internet commentary now use this as their reasoning for the switch from manned to unmanned fighters -- as if the human G limit is somehow the critical factor in determining platform capabilities....when they flat out deny aircraft stress/limiting (especially with ordinance), and even still --- if an unmanned fighter could do 15Gs without being manned, so what? the missile still has the advantage

im glad that point really gets stressed on these forums -- it makes wonderful sense and has saved me a lot of time researching other argument/debate paths. saves a lot of time hearing the sensible and logical points right here.

 

[gf0012-aust]

im glad that point really gets stressed on these forums -- it makes wonderful sense and has saved me a lot of time researching other argument/debate paths. saves a lot of time hearing the sensible and logical points right here.

even without a pilot, on large unmanned assets there are going to be stress frame limits that you won't get on a missile. on a manned aircraft the stress frame alerts start singing at 7-8g. modern G suits enable the pilot to function out just beyond 11g, but that doesn't mean that aircraft can undergo prolonged g stress.

35-60g on a missile is a bit better than 15g on an unmanned asset that still needs to be overengineered to handle those stresses.

its not that the missile is invincible - but there is a need to inject some reality in the basics like issues of structural engineering, mechanics and physics.