Opinion of the Mig 31

[Abraham Gubler]

I think that it can be, with heavy modernization, turned into a contemporary high-speed interceptor.

There is no such thing. Because there is no contemporary bomber threat requiring high speed for interception. The big requirement for anyone who wants to intercept US bombers is an anti stealth capability.

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.

You don’t need a modernised MiG-31 to knock down Chinese bombers (only remaining 3rd gen fleet), B-52 stands off to far for the MiG-31 and B-1B would fly with escort (primarily a tactical asset now). Even a highly upgraded MiG-31 still has a range of significant problems in taking on any fighter force. Especially a contemporary networked force that can ambush their slashing attacks. You’d be better off putting those upgrade resources into Su-27s or MiG-29s or even, frankly the MiG-21 which makes for quite a nasty fighter with some modern tech.

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.

This is why it is still in service. If you can call sitting around at an airport all year and maybe flying once a month ‘in service’.

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).

The MiG-31 is not an AEW&C it has severe restrictions for providing situational awareness (its radar points in one direction) and control (only one back seater). The Georgian air space is so small a MiG-31 would spend all its time repositioning just to keep its nose pointed in a useful direction and then when it gets close its dog meat.

 

[Feanor]

There is no such thing. Because there is no contemporary bomber threat requiring high speed for interception. The big requirement for anyone who wants to intercept US bombers is an anti stealth capability.

Once again the US is not even on the threat matrix.

You don’t need a modernised MiG-31 to knock down Chinese bombers (only remaining 3rd gen fleet)

North Korea, Central Asian Republics, and China all fly 3rd gen fighters, from MiG-21 knock-offs, to Fencers.

, B-52 stands off to far for the MiG-31 and B-1B would fly with escort (primarily a tactical asset now).

Once again irrelevant. Russia is no longer a world power in the military sense. It's a regional power. US strategic bombers are not a concern.

Even a highly upgraded MiG-31 still has a range of significant problems in taking on any fighter force. Especially a contemporary networked force that can ambush their slashing attacks. You’d be better off putting those upgrade resources into Su-27s or MiG-29s or even, frankly the MiG-21 which makes for quite a nasty fighter with some modern tech.

Upgrade resources are being put into Su-27s and MiG-29s. What's more MiG-35s and Su-35s are on the shopping list, with Su-35 conveyor either starting up right now, or already running. However additional resources are being put into the MiG-31 precisely because some use can be had from it, and the resources in question are not enough to pay for it's replacement.

The MiG-21 is not on the table because reactivating it would be difficult. Spares are not available. The plane has been out of production for quite some time. Optimizing it to coordinate with existing VVS and PVO assets would also take time. It would be 2-3 years before the first "new" MiG-21s would be ready for line service. Probably 4-5 years before the numbers in question can be produced. Given poor storage conditions, significant overhaul may be necessary for many of the airframes. The result will be a fairly expensive program, by the time of implementation of which, it will be almost useless as large numbers of Su-27SM/SM2/Su-35S will be in service, along side MiG-29SMT and MiG-35 variants, with the first PAK-FA units just around the corner. If you're suggesting replacing the MiG-31 with the MiG-21 on a 1 for 1 basis in the long term, then one might as well consider that the 31 is a larger airframe, that can carry the same electronics and weapons package that your hypothetical 21 upgrade would offer. Assuming we're not looking for Vietnam and Korean war style dog-fighting performance, there isn't anything else the 21 has to offer.

This is why it is still in service. If you can call sitting around at an airport all year and maybe flying once a month ‘in service’.

Now you're ignoring what I've written earlier. The MiG-31 units in the Far Eastern MD, two regiments before the last reforms, were some of the most active in the country in terms of flight hours for pilots, averaging at over 100 hours per pilot. Together with the two SM regiments, before the reforms they made up the backbone of the VVS in that MD.

The MiG-31 is not an AEW&C it has severe restrictions for providing situational awareness (its radar points in one direction) and control (only one back seater).

No contest. Never said it was.

The Georgian air space is so small a MiG-31 would spend all its time repositioning just to keep its nose pointed in a useful direction and then when it gets close its dog meat.

If it gets close. Realistically it would take off from somewhere inside South MD, only after AEW&C or a Su-27 or MiG-29 CAP has sighted enemy aircraft.

EDIT: I find it very interesting that you're choosing to ignore everything in regards to the CAR context, which is strange given that the south CARs are a major hot spot, and the site of many recent and probably quite a few future conflicts. A region that is large enough to justify the interceptor in question, and whose air forces while severely aged, are flying and are combat capable.

From what you've written the MiG-31BMs only real problem is in dealing with modern networked airforces. The one thing that the VVS won't have to deal with in the near future.

 

[Todjaeger]

Upgrade resources are being put into Su-27s and MiG-29s. What's more MiG-35s and Su-35s are on the shopping list, with Su-35 conveyor either starting up right now, or already running. However additional resources are being put into the MiG-31 precisely because some use can be had from it, and the resources in question are not enough to pay for it's replacement.

Any idea or guess on if/when sufficient resources would be available to replace the MiG-31 with either Su-27 family, MiG-29/MiG-35 or PAK-FA?

My impression of the current situation is akin to someone using a 'muscle' car as a commuter automobile in Los Angeles, instead of something like a Prius hybrid. Sure, it can be done, and there is a lot of power available, but it is not all that efficient in what is the now normal level of operations, and the utility of all the extra power (or interecept speed for the MiG-31) can be somewhat questionable. The other part of my impression of the situation is that the reason MiG-31 is still being used is because Russia already has a number of them, and could not currently afford to order a different aircraft as a replacement.

-Cheers

 

[Corsair96]

It would seem to me, and you must understand that this is a newbies idea, that the Russians design their aircraft to a more specific level and do not usually change their mission capabilities or their role on the battlefield. Is this correct?

 

[Feanor]

Any idea or guess on if/when sufficient resources would be available to replace the MiG-31 with either Su-27 family, MiG-29/MiG-35 or PAK-FA?

Not within the decade. At least from the looks of it right now. Right now the entire Su-27S fleet is set to be replaced or modernized by 2020-2025 timeframe, by a combination of SM/SM2, Su-35S, and PAK-FA. After that it's anyone's guess. If the PAK-FA production line remains open past 100 aircraft, which is the number planned for right now, then the MiG-31 will probably be the next one replaced, with MiG-35 replacing MiG-29, and Su-34 continuing to replace Su-24.

My impression of the current situation is akin to someone using a 'muscle' car as a commuter automobile in Los Angeles, instead of something like a Prius hybrid. Sure, it can be done, and there is a lot of power available, but it is not all that efficient in what is the now normal level of operations, and the utility of all the extra power (or interecept speed for the MiG-31) can be somewhat questionable. The other part of my impression of the situation is that the reason MiG-31 is still being used is because Russia already has a number of them, and could not currently afford to order a different aircraft as a replacement.

-Cheers

About right.

 

[fretburner]

Just a question: Can a Mig-31 really go up to Mach 3? Or just "touch" Mach 3, i.e. a Mach 2.5 class like the F-15.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not within the decade. At least from the looks of it right now. Right now the entire Su-27S fleet is set to be replaced or modernized by 2020-2025 timeframe, by a combination of SM/SM2, Su-35S, and PAK-FA. After that it's anyone's guess. If the PAK-FA production line remains open past 100 aircraft, which is the number planned for right now, then the MiG-31 will probably be the next one replaced, with MiG-35 replacing MiG-29, and Su-34 continuing to replace Su-24.

Okay, I will bite. I was under the impression that an non-upgraded Su-27S was of greater relevance and utility to current and expected Russian Air Force needs than a (non-modernized) MiG-31. If that is the case, would it not make more sense replace the MiG-31 with additional numbers of Su-27 family aircraft, in place of launching separate upgrade programmes for both the MiG-31 an Su-27S? Or is it that the projected upgrade costs are quite low vs. the per unit replacement cost for the MiG-31?

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

Okay, I will bite. I was under the impression that an non-upgraded Su-27S was of greater relevance and utility to current and expected Russian Air Force needs than a (non-modernized) MiG-31. If that is the case, would it not make more sense replace the MiG-31 with additional numbers of Su-27 family aircraft, in place of launching separate upgrade programmes for both the MiG-31 an Su-27S? Or is it that the projected upgrade costs are quite low vs. the per unit replacement cost for the MiG-31?

-Cheers

I think it's a combination of cost and inertia.

I agree with what say in regards to MiG-31B and Su-27S. However like you say it's a lot cheaper to upgrade existing Foxhounds then to build new Flankers. Work in retraining the pilots, chaining the whole supply chain, and you have have an expensive project for something that needs to be at the very least modernized and overhauled to begin with.

I would expect that once the PAK-FA has replaced Su-27S squadrons, the MiG-31BM would be next. Consider that there aren't that many of them left to begin with. There were ~5 regiments before the current reform, so ~120-140 fighters.

Additionally replacing the MiG-31 would be a daunting undertaking in regards to organizing the affair. Given the entrenched military bureaucracy, as well as the natural lack of desire to change on the part of the pilots and staff officers, it would be a rather unpopular measure. I'm also fairly confident UAC has some lobbying power, and until domestic MiG-29K production is started up, Sokol benefits notably from the modernization orders.

 

[Haavarla]

Okay, I will bite. I was under the impression that an non-upgraded Su-27S was of greater relevance and utility to current and expected Russian Air Force needs than a (non-modernized) MiG-31. If that is the case, would it not make more sense replace the MiG-31 with additional numbers of Su-27 family aircraft, in place of launching separate upgrade programmes for both the MiG-31 an Su-27S? Or is it that the projected upgrade costs are quite low vs. the per unit replacement cost for the MiG-31?

-Cheers

One thing to remember is, at present time and in the near future, the Mig-31 is to be consentrated into three airbases, or two and a half rather..
Its far east and south east, and a few units in central Moscow region.
Now there will also operate Su-27SM's out of these very same airbases.

As mention earlier the Su-27 is not meant to replace the Mig-31 altogther, cause the Mig-31 is a special interceptor unit that still maintain its assigned role.
But it is interesting to read what Feanor just mention, that a quad/pair of Mig-31 would launch and intercept into a given battlespace area AFTER it has been been fielded with Flankers..

From what i see, the Mig-31BM is not a day two-four assets, but a day one assets along side with RuAF Flanker units, since the Flanker have about the same loiter time and share several weapons systems with the Mig-31BM and vica verca.
And most likely the Mig-31BM would never operate completly alone without any support close by in a battle airspace.
RuAF does not have the same nettwork and survailance capability as NATO has, still its not as they are flying 'blind' as some posters like to think.

But really, most of the post here is posted within a NATO orginization point of view from perspective and operational system requirements, role, doctrine and purpose.
Which in the end means nothing.
Its only within the RuAF doctrine, tactical role and capabilities thats is relevant in this thread.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But really, most of the post here is posted within a NATO orginization point of view from perspective and operational system requirements, role, doctrine and purpose.
Which in the end means nothing.
Its only within the RuAF doctrine, tactical role and capabilities thats is relevant in this thread.

Sorry, thats just plain incorrect. and its a common mistake made when people look at platforms and how they fit into a force structure.

the issue about any orbat is about is relevance against a given enemies doctrine.

we look at how assets will fare against a given enemy with given capabilities and given strengths and given and likely behaviour.

your own doctrine is about how you build your force - how it survives is about tactical planners looking at how they will stand up to the enemies force structure and doctrine.

the russians fight the same as everyone else - they do exactly the same as what I've stated above. They're no different.

Mig31's are not day 1 assets against a modern systems event - and ever since 1999 the delivery of force has been at a systems level.

 

[Feanor]

Sorry, thats just plain incorrect. and its a common mistake made when people look at platforms and how they fit into a force structure.

the issue about any orbat is about is relevance against a given enemies doctrine.

we look at how assets will fare against a given enemy with given capabilities and given strengths and given and likely behaviour.

your own doctrine is about how you build your force - how it survives is about tactical planners looking at how they will stand up to the enemies force structure and doctrine.

the russians fight the same as everyone else - they do exactly the same as what I've stated above. They're no different.

Mig31's are not day 1 assets against a modern systems event - and ever since 1999 the delivery of force has been at a systems level.

A systems level event when dealing with a first-world military. Conflicts against second and third world militaries have been and continue to be at times less then system level occurences. The issue is not how Russia will fight, but who Russia will fight, and in that context, what the threat matrix is.

It's also about platform suitability for certain mission profiles granted certain supporting assets. As we can and have to evaluate not only the effectiveness of the VVS as a whole, but the utility of the MiG-31 in particular to the effectiveness of the VVS within a given situation.

With that said, I think what Haavarla meant to say (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that what has been said, was said with NATO in mind as the likely opponent. And that is indeed wrong. However there can be little doubt that the direction that VVS operations and doctrine are moving in bring them closer to the same RMA that US forces, and later NATO forces, have experienced, both conceptually and practically.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A systems level event when dealing with a first-world military. Conflicts against second and third world militaries have been and continue to be at times less then system level occurences. The issue is not how Russia will fight, but who Russia will fight, and in that context, what the threat matrix is.

agreed. these things have to be in context, but generally when we analyse force and effect it is done against a series of tactical vignettes. There are usually about a dozen vignettes that are used to model your orbat against a threat

typically and not exclusively they are:

Tier 1 power (projected)
Tier 1 power and coalition
Tier 2 power (projected)
regional power

variations of the above with various shifts in capability and preparedness

It's also about platform suitability for certain mission profiles granted certain supporting assets. As we can and have to evaluate not only the effectiveness of the VVS as a whole, but the utility of the MiG-31 in particular to the effectiveness of the VVS within a given situation.

thats true, but platform capability cannot be measured in isolation of likely opposing force, their support elements and the injection of day "nn" in a conflct. otherwise it starts to become meaningless

With that said, I think what Haavarla meant to say (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that what has been said, was said with NATO in mind as the likely opponent. And that is indeed wrong.

agree

However there can be little doubt that the direction that VVS operations and doctrine are moving in bring them closer to the same RMA that US forces, and later NATO forces, have experienced, both conceptually and practically.

which is the absolute irony of it all. its generally considered that the US RMA was heavily influenced by Soviet doctrine about the need for change. The SU collapsed, Russian force coherence and capability suffered significantly, they lost some considerable leak in the officer corp and generally the force went downhill. Russia has never really recovered from this situation and has not been able to articulate and develop the modern force construct in lockstep with other nations developments. (esp western - and it looks like China will also surpass them in the very near future)

Its ironic in the sense that they were the catalyst for this change by everyone else but they are literally 20 years behind the US and NATO at a force coherence and systems development level.
China could well jump a few european countries as well if they maintain their pace of change.

the long and the short is that platforms utility is always considered against the strongest "platform/systems" threat even if the host country may not be a threat (because it becomes a measurement baseline) - and then against the other assessment vignettes developed on other capabilities that could be confronted. ie the baseline is always a worst case scenario.

 

[Feanor]

thats true, but platform capability cannot be measured in isolation of likely opposing force, their support elements and the injection of day "nn" in a conflct. otherwise it starts to become meaningless

And to contextualize this to our instantiation, the MiG-31BM would indeed be a day 1 asset, but only in the context of being part of a mixed Flanker/Foxhound team. In particular the current SOPs have the MiG-31 using it's more powerful radar, and great speed to enter the battlespace from a distance, light up targets, and transmit the data to Flankers already present, but with their radars cold. How effective this is against NATO forces, or against any modern networked force is largely irrelevant. This is effective against the airforces of the ex-USSR states, and indeed most third world airforces. That is the context. This is also a foot-step in the direction of networking and systems level action, albeit a small one. Hence the desire to continue employing the MiG-31.

which is the absolute irony of it all. its generally considered that the US RMA was heavily influenced by Soviet doctrine about the need for change. The SU collapsed, Russian force coherence and capability suffered significantly, they lost some considerable leak in the officer corp and generally the force went downhill. Russia has never really recovered from this situation and has not been able to articulate and develop the modern force construct in lockstep with other nations developments. (esp western - and it looks like China will also surpass them in the very near future)

In the case of China, it remains to be seen. They are still dependent on imported tech. Otherwise, no dispute.

the long and the short is that platforms utility is always considered against the strongest "platform/systems" threat even if the host country may not be a threat (because it becomes a measurement baseline) - and then against the other assessment vignettes developed on other capabilities that could be confronted. ie the baseline is always a worst case scenario.

I'm not sure how Russian military planning approaches the issue. I'm not sure if there is any organized military planning on that level, granted the poor state of military analytics in Russia these days.

 

[Feanor]

Current Foxhound basing, according to warfare.ru is as follows:

West MD
6 Mil Space Bde - 24 MiG-31
7051 Airbase (unclear which MSB) - 24 MiG-31BM

Center MD
8 Mil Space Bde - 24 MiG-31
9 Mil Space Bde - 24 MiG-31

East MD
12 Mil Space Bde - 12 MiG-31
AVMF - 36 MiG-31

It's unclear which of the additional MiG-31s are BM. It's also unclear whether the Foxhunds under AVMF command are actually meant in support of AVMF ops (which makes no sense and would be a major departure) or whether they are actually planned for regular VVS usage, while AVMF command is purely for practicality in terms of supply lines, and management. Given that District Command now controls VMF and SV forces in the MD.

 

[Haavarla]

Sorry, thats just plain incorrect. and its a common mistake made when people look at platforms and how they fit into a force structure.

the issue about any orbat is about is relevance against a given enemies doctrine.

we look at how assets will fare against a given enemy with given capabilities and given strengths and given and likely behaviour.

your own doctrine is about how you build your force - how it survives is about tactical planners looking at how they will stand up to the enemies force structure and doctrine.

the russians fight the same as everyone else - they do exactly the same as what I've stated above. They're no different.

Mig31's are not day 1 assets against a modern systems event - and ever since 1999 the delivery of force has been at a systems level.

I have to disagree.
You use NATO Airforce as an benchmark, fine.
Even against the NATO airforce, the Mig-31 will be just as good 1st day assets as any other RuAF units.
My point is the Mig-31 will operate in coherens with Flankers. This way it will endure longer, and it will be less open for 'Flanking BVR manuveres'.
As you said your self, more eyes(radar,OLS,etc) the better.
Besides, they have to use the Mig-31 the first day to maintan strenght too, the Flankers cant cover everything alone.

And RuAF will not fight like any other Airforces.
It has to do with its units capability.
Which differ from NATO units.

The AWACS and tanker capabilities in the RuAF is a sad story.
So what will they do, fight like NATO airforce? Hardly..
They have to adapt this situation, which for sure means the units will have to be consentrated more. less battle airspace awareness and tanker capabilities dictates this, even if Flankers and Mig-31 has above average mission range compaired to other units.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have to disagree.
You use NATO Airforce as an benchmark, fine.

No, the capability and force construct benchmark is the US. You fight NATO then you enjoin the US immediately.

Even against the NATO airforce, the Mig-31 will be just as good 1st day assets as any other RuAF units.

based on what? how fast they can go? that they have a russian version of Link16 that only works between aviation assets - whereas Link 16 works across tri-service and joint levels? At a systems level, where are the russian equivalents of Compass and Rivet assets? (these are not AWACs so don't trot out Mainstays)

My point is the Mig-31 will operate in coherens with Flankers. This way it will endure longer, and it will be less open for 'Flanking BVR manuveres'.
As you said your self, more eyes(radar,OLS,etc) the better.

and again, the russians don't have it. they don't even have a full Glonass constellation at the moment. they don't have organic sensor advantage either. again, where are their equiv compass and rivet assets? (which are battlemanagers as well as picket assets. the Mig31's may have a Link11 type capability that may have some Link16 capability, but fundamentally all NATO forces can all trade with Link16, they can all feed of US AWACS, Compass, Rivet assets as well as NATO AWACs, they can even feed off Guardrails. At a sensor management level Western Europe and the US can see a bird fart. This is the most saturated airspace in the world. Count the number of capital cities and their associated civilian radars, add in the military radar systems, not just static ones. They have track management overkill advantages that the russians could only dream of.

The Mig31 is not the lone ranger, and the Flankers are not Tonto - they have to work within the sensor footprint of a system that can already see into russian territory beyond the range of the Mig31

Its all academic anyway as the EU/NATO/USA have no desire to fight the russians.

Besides, they have to use the Mig-31 the first day to maintan strenght too, the Flankers cant cover everything alone.

and what are they doing that makes them more useful than the Flankers, they are slash and burners with Link11/16 capability only at the air asset level, they have to be able to fight on their own terms.

And RuAF will not fight like any other Airforces.

yes, and every other airforce fight on the basis of what they have to confront. High speed may let them apply contempt to some engagements, but contempt of engagement is a one trick pony.

It has to do with its units capability.
Which differ from NATO units.

The capability is about what it can do against an opposing force, unless you are exercising contempt. So again, what is the speciality that this asset brings to the fight outside of high speed? every other capability is countered by other aircraft and force structure in the region.

again, there is a reason why nobody maintained the development of Mach 2.5+ platforms

The AWACS and tanker capabilities in the RuAF is a sad story.
So what will they do, fight like NATO airforce? Hardly..

so, in one fell swoop there goes the opportunity to project and persist. if you don't kill the tankers then you let the other side inject projection, persistence and dictate tempo.

They have to adapt this situation, which for sure means the units will have to be consentrated more. less battle airspace awareness and tanker capabilities dictates this, even if Flankers and Mig-31 has above average mission range compaired to other units.

range means nothing if you don't control the air battlespace bubble. a 1st year airforce cadet knows this.

thats what is frustrating me about this debate - planes mean stuff all in modern war if you can't manage and command the battlespace bubble. if you don't have sensor control, if you don't have the capacity to delaminate the enemys sensor hubs, then you planes are resigned to air show theatrics.

no amount of wishful thinking changes the way that forces actually fight.

 

[Haavarla]

Current Foxhound basing, according to warfare.ru is as follows:

West MD
6 Mil Space Bde - 24 MiG-31
7051 Airbase (unclear which MSB) - 24 MiG-31BM

Center MD
8 Mil Space Bde - 24 MiG-31
9 Mil Space Bde - 24 MiG-31

East MD
12 Mil Space Bde - 12 MiG-31
AVMF - 36 MiG-31

It's unclear which of the additional MiG-31s are BM. It's also unclear whether the Foxhunds under AVMF command are actually meant in support of AVMF ops (which makes no sense and would be a major departure) or whether they are actually planned for regular VVS usage, while AVMF command is purely for practicality in terms of supply lines, and management. Given that District Command now controls VMF and SV forces in the MD.

Here is the latest update on Mig-31 airbases in the new RuAF structure:

3958th Air Base Savasleyka (former 4th TsBP i PLS)
6977th Air Base Bol'shoye Savino (former 764th IAP)


And the Mig-31BM is dest for new airbase structure:
6968th Air Base Olenya (former 458th IAP) Current units Mig-31BM unknown, planned numbers 12

6968th Airbase Khotilovo (former Sokol) planned units 24

There is also a small nr of Mig-31BMs at Lipetsk airbase.
One or both of the top Mig-31 airbases could be structured/closed in the future.
Mixed Air Bases are also beeing created, resulting in the direct co-ordination of PVO Su-27 and Mig-31 fighters.
The previous Northern fleet Air Base at Olenya will be re-designed as the 6959th Air Base.
Concurrently the 9thIAP PVO at Kilp-Yavr(Su-27) and the 458 IAP PVO at Kotlas(Mig-31) will be transfeered to Olenya.
The Contigent of mixed sq will consist of one sq Su-27 and two sq of Mig-31.

Note that the the old Air regiments are now gone in the RuAF structure, Sq level is the new concept.
In term of infrastructure, it is estimated that more than two-dozen military Air Bases will eighter be closed down or converted into civilian usage.

 

[Haavarla]

No, the capability and force construct benchmark is the US. You fight NATO then you enjoin the US immediately.

Bah, splitting hair are we?

based on what? how fast they can go? that they have a russian version of Link16 that only works between aviation assets - whereas Link 16 works across tri-service and joint levels? At a systems level, where are the russian equivalents of Compass and Rivet assets? (these are not AWACs so don't trot out Mainstays)

And how do you know the Russian Link16 ONLY works between Aviation assets?
Source pls?
According to RuAF aviation reports the Russian Link16 also works with POV units(Mig-31BM).
If it do works with POV units it should also work with the small RuAF AWACS fleet.
Yes, the RuAF AWACS do not have the NATO Capabilities.
RuAF don't have Hi-command sensors situation awarenss at the same extend.
And there will of course be few bubble scattered accross Russia huge airspace.
Nobody is disputing this.
Never the less RuAF AWACS will have their own sensor bubble in the air and will feed detected contacts to any RuAF units within these few pockets..

and again, the russians don't have it. they don't even have a full Glonass constellation at the moment. they don't have organic sensor advantage either. again, where are their equiv compass and rivet assets? (which are battlemanagers as well as picket assets. they have a Link11 capability that may have some Link16 capability, but fundamentally all NATO forces can all trade with Link16, they can all feed of US AWACS, Compass, Rivet assets as well as NATO AWACs, they can even feed off Guardrails. At a sensor management level Western Europe and the US can see a bird fart. This is the most saturated airspace in the world. Count the number of capital cities and their associated civilian radars, add in the military radar systems, not just static ones. They have track management overkill advantages that the russians could only dream of.

So you have Intel on RuAF senors capabilities?
Pls share with the rest of us.
Arent the Glonass deployd allready?

As of 6 September 2010 (2010 -09-06)[update], the GLONASS constellation status is:

Total satellites in constellation 26 SC
Operational 21 SC
In commissioning phase 3 SC
In maintenance –
Spares 2 SC
In decommissioning phase –

The system requires 18 satellites for continuous navigation services covering the entire territory of the Russian Federation, and 24 satellites to provide services worldwide.
The GLONASS system currently covers 100% of Russian territory.
Six new GLONASS satellites were added to the network in 2008. Three spacecrafts were launched in 2009. Two more triplets of GLONASS-M satellites were placed into orbit in March and September 2010.
The accuracy of GLONASS is not as good as GPS system..yet.
But in the future it will improve and should be at the same level.

and what are they doing that makes them more useful than the Flankers, they are slash and burners with Link11/16 capability only at the air asset level, they have to be able to fight on their own terms

.

Who said anything about 'more' usefull than the Flanker
They are an important assets in the RuAF, why is this so hard to understand?
The Mig-31BM have Link 16 capability.
And various R-77 version missiles capabilities.
In any case, the Migs can get an edge in speed and height launch prep.

The capability is about what it can do against an opposing force, unless you are exercising contempt. So again, what is the speciality that this asset brings to the fight outside of high speed? every other capability is countered by other aircraft and force structure in the region.
again, there is a reason why nobody maintained the development of Mach 2.5+ platforms
so, in one fell swoop there goes the opportunity to project and persist. if you don't kill the tankers then you let the other side inject projection, persistence and dicate tempo.

This is difficult to say, I'm not an pilot within RuAF and it seems i must remind you..
But one thing is for sure, the NATO/US air units will not have the same freedom with its tanker fleet as we have seen in Iraq and Cosovo conflict.
The Tankers almost tailed the fighter units right up to the final engagement zone.
F-15/F16 had the choise to drop their DT on every occation if needed.

range means nothing if you don't control the air battlespace bubble. a 1st year airforce cadet knows this.

RuAF do have their bubbles and their range. Just not NATO/US Bubbles..
Every 1st airforce cadet know this

thats what is frustrating me about this debate - planes mean stuff all in modern war if you can't manage and command the battlespace bubble. if you don't have sensor control, if you don't have the capacity to delaminate the enemys sensor hubs, then you planes are resigned to air show theatrics.

no amount of wishful thinking changes the way that forces actually fight.

No need to get frustrated here.
I don't see anyone claiming anything about RuAF beeing at the same capability as NATO/US battlespace sensors do.
Nor did the article i've posted claim any of this.
There is no wishfull thinking here, so no need to pointing this out.
All i see is your usually posting entry which at times miss equity..

 

[gf0012-aust]

No need to get frustrated here.
I don't see anyone claiming anything about RuAF beeing at the same capability as NATO/US battlespace sensors do.
Nor did the article i've posted claim any of this.
There is no wishfull thinking here, so no need to pointing this out.

I'm getting frustrated because I have to point out the obvious - and you don't seem to understand how militaries actually fight,

that is blatantly apparent as you persistently misunderstand doctrine issues.
no amount of backchat changes this.

if you don't understand basic engagement constructs then you'll struggle to understand joint engagement issues. (your comments about how Link 16 works and its equivalence in russian terms reinforces this) Link16 is an ALS capability. The Mig31's is not - you have quoted air elements between air services. I'm happy to be corrected by Feanor because he will at least have a clue re this. You however have not provided an answer that demonstrates that you actually understand basic comms systems

its about platform relevance, its about system coherency.

ps, the russians themselves state that Glonass is not at the full constellation levels that they need to have full global ability - ie it has degraded. hence why they're looking at Indian co-participation because they need another partner to assist.

btw, to get full tailgating capability for a satellite constellation, you need at least 13 and preferably 27 satellites.

13 satellites only allows for 2 hour passes and only allows about 10 minutes of redundancy for the tailgater...anything else but these numbers means that you don't have a constellation - you have a regional grid.


'

 

[gf0012-aust]

As of 6 September 2010 (2010 -09-06)[update], the GLONASS constellation status is:

Total satellites in constellation 26 SC
Operational 21 SC
In commissioning phase 3 SC
In maintenance –
Spares 2 SC
In decommissioning phase –

The system requires 18 satellites for continuous navigation services covering the entire territory of the Russian Federation, and 24 satellites to provide services worldwide.
The GLONASS system currently covers 100% of Russian territory.
Six new GLONASS satellites were added to the network in 2008. Three spacecrafts were launched in 2009. Two more triplets of GLONASS-M satellites were placed into orbit in March and September 2010.
The accuracy of GLONASS is not as good as GPS system..yet.
But in the future it will improve and should be at the same level.


.

In the first instance 24 satellites might provide a global footprint, but it does not provide full redundant coverage. hence why both the soviets/russians/americans regard proper coverage with redundant tailgating as 36 satellites

for full redundant global coverage, with tailgating to proviide overwatch across all timeslots then its 36, its barely covered (proper redundancy) by by 26.

Note that the number of launches that the russians deemed necessary to get to the preferred constellation size has not eventuated.

and yes, I spent some 18 months on a satellite project because I worked in a track and target management project involving military satellites.