vanir

Pure speculation here but nevertheless: they're mid range alt for efficiency so it'd be around 8500 metres (a Hornet would be around 7000 metres and a Foxbat 10500 metres, F-15 around 9000 metres). What you'll want is economy cruise, about 75% power? The Mach 1.1 figure you've got there will be maximum cruise, about 90% power? (same as a Hornet, as I suspect it isn't adjusted for alt...ie. I'm saying the max cruise would be more like 760mph adjusted). Economy cruise (max) should be around 0.85M (about 580mph at altitude) could be wrong but it just seems to me the Flanker wouldn't have a higher max cruise than a clean Hornet, which is 1.1M at alt

I noticed early in the thread discussion about Australia's Flanker concerns and the F-35 inadequacy argument. I read the RAAF issued magazine (called unsurprisingly, RAAF Magazine) edition which featured the article ostensibly referred to, which was several years ago. The article included interview with RAAF commanders, whose opinion differed as presented with Parliament/political decision to purchase at that time a medium sized force of F-35 as tabled to replace both the older model Hornets and the F-111 which are long past their use by date, but remain in service because of no suitable replacement with the range requirements. The RAAF commander (no way I can recall a name, sorry) was concerned since at that time he placed the range capabilities of the F-35 in the Hornet class in terms of the necessary Force Interdiction role for the ADF, ie. having a limited range off shore without aerial refuelling. With what he knew at that time about the proposed, actual delivered specifications of the F-35 in action he felt it was a good Hornet replacement but left a gaping void in a very important role of the RAAF which can presently only be filled by keeping the F-111 in service. He proposed a smaller force of F-35 to be purchased so that two or three squadrons of F/A-22 (in the proposed multirole variation) could compliment them and take on the role of the F-111. The ADF is importantly concerned not only with Australia's defence, but also with Australia's "territorial interests" which requires a long range penetration strike aircraft in service with the RAAF. This argument is moot however, since the purchasing authorities have reconsidered the order and we are getting the SuperHornet to replace the F-111, which the RAAF is apparently quite happy with, and will also continue an order for F-35 to replace our older model Hornets with in the air defence role. The concern about the Flanker was mostly regarding its loaded and unrefuelled range, a very good air superiority performance, and a very good combat load all in one package. Also in trying to think well forward in purchasing agreements, there was some contention of whether and which rather excellent prototyped Flanker variations might have entered export service with small regional nations by the time Australia got its update deliveries. Indonesia with a force of Su-30MKI and a nasty change of government would be a daunting prospect for example. They have a very wide lethal range and we'd have to bring aerial tankers into the threat zone. We've got what, three? Also consider that the middle of the Pacific does kind of put things on Flanker footing. Personally I feel better we're adding SuperHornets to the mix, but I'd still prefer either Raptors or a switch to some new variant superFlankers. I'd be more excited about the JSF if Australia was in Europe.

I have basic LOMAC on dvd I bought from a store, have no credit cards and have never made an online purchase before. My internet connection is not reliable for large downloads, it's wireless, can get expensive and is just for browsing. Also I live all the way in Australia. Your FAQ mentioned a dvd release eventually that can be installed over basic LOMAC complete, without earlier FC versions. Will this be commercially released so that I can order it from my local games store? Otherwise how should I order the dvd release when available? I suspect it may cost AU$30-50 doing it this way but totally worth it.

Okay I understand, what I can do is cut and paste the pylon positions and information for those individual aircraft I want to put in to my basic LOMAC v1.02 Meinit.xml from your files. Thank you again for your reply and your hard work. LOMAC is a great program and the mods from the community make it even better.

Hello TOMCATZ, thank you very much for the great work doing these models and modifications, we're lucky to have you around. I was wondering if it might be fairly easy and not take much time for you to be able to make the Jetpack Mod into individual Mod installations for each aircraft so it is easier to pick and choose which to install? I hope I do not seem ungrateful, I think you have done excellent work and I realise we are very lucky that you offer it for free downloading to the community. An alternative might be easier to simply make a word doc which is a guideline of how to install just one or more new models (such as the F4F model and Su-30-flyable, Su-33 models but leave the rest out) out of the standard Jetpack Mod, so you don't have to change the Mod itself but it just teaches an installer how to do it themselves in step by step fashion? For example, just to change the visual appearance of an aircraft, we only have to add the LOM files for that aircraft in the World/Shapes folder and then point to the skins CDDS we add in the Bazaar/World folder using the Graphics.config file, is that right? I'm not worried about loadouts because I can use the LOPE and keep my own MeInit.xml because it is changed already for the 3GO and Walmis models. Also some of us have v1.02 the MeInit.xml doesn't match anyway. The only thing which really bothers me about the game at the moment is that standard aircraft like the Su-30/33 and F4 don't look very good when you close up on them too much in external views. So of course I'd very much like to add your new models for those aircraft. That would just leave the MiG-31 which is an eyesore, the rest look pretty good.

Definitely need separate/individual installs. I'd really love to put in the mod except for the Su-27 because the 3GO model is just too awesome, no way I'm going to replace it. That said I've been absolutely hanging to have a better looking F4, Su-33, a flyable Su-30 would be awesome and F-15E is conspicuously missing, IMHO it is more appropriate for LockOn than the F-15C. And if I'm not mistaken the Lockonfiles site says this mod is v1.02 compatable, which I assume means a LOPE style modding combined with some new cosmetic modelling but nothing you specifically need FC for. So it really is a perfect mod for me, but I just don't want to give away my 3GO Flanker mod, which I use LOPE to make an Su-27S, P or SM at my discretion. Same way I just added AMRAAMs for the F4E to make an ad hoc F4F ICE (though does Germany actually have a stock of AIM-120, I thought the main thing about the ICE was the AN/APG-65 and digitalisation, plus I heard a rumour the latest Sparrow was more reliable than the AMRAAM in practise). In any case, TOMCATZ if you pop into the thread sometime, yes I would very much like a version of your mod which leaves the Su-27 alone so I can keep the 3GO-Flanker mod. I suspect many of your customers would have the same sentiment. But thank you very much for the mod whether or not I figure out how to use it while keeping my 3GO Flanker. It is great work and is naturally appreciated. We are very lucky to have free customisations available to download at the online community, particularly when the work is so talented.

I know it's an ancient thread but I have a problem with ModMan 7, being that I can't install dds files into the cdds directories if they are a higher resolution, which is needed for the ModMan version of 3GO Flanker. Problem here is I have v1.02 of Lomac, so the FC fix for LoMan doesn't work for me. Is there a CID_lockon fix available, like Teka Teka's CID_fc one but for v1.0x ? I can't even install the necessary dds files manually. Putting them into the temptextures folder does nothing. And the CDDS Studio I downloaded seems broken, it won't make cdds files (so I can't make a new CDDS directory and refer to it using the MeInit.xml), part 2 of the download is just some corrupted files that are already in part 1.

reposting as a thread so hopefully might get some feedback: I have some problems with the latest Modman release version 1.5 3GO Flanker model for LOMAC 1.0x game versions (released recently at lockonfiles). It seems the download package is incomplete. The readme is blank, there are no instructions or troubleshoot guide, there are no edits to the graphics.config or Me.init files which I can find. I had manually installed the original release version of the Flanker model, but when I unistalled it and installed the new one using Modman as per instruction the new model is just white. I tried troubleshooting it myself with no luck, so did a fresh reinstall of LOMAC and installed the Modman v1.5 Flanker on the fresh installation and still just a white model. Modman says it's installed but I can't see that the package is installing the new skins dds files into the WorldTexturesBMP1.cdds like it should, when I open it after install using the CCDS-explorer all the skins in there are still 512x512 instead of the new 2048x2048 ones they should be. When I look in the LOMAC directory the new skins are just placed as dds files inside the main directory. I think they're supposed to be installed into the ccds file so the game can use them. So it appears the Modman package v1.5 Flanker is not put together to install correctly. I do not have modding software to install the dds skins files into the cdds directory myself. Plus there are more than the stock number of skins (13 in total) so surely the Me.ini needs to be edited. Also if the new skins are meant to just be in the main LOMAC folder in dds format, the graphics.config would have to be edited to point the model there to find them, but surely they should be compiled into one or two ccds files, or otherwise replace the existing WorldTexturesBMP1.ccds file? I cannot seem to get the 3GO home site loaded in my browser, and I don't think it is an english site anyway, so I'm posting here. Any help or advice would be great. Thankyou for your time.

I have some problems with the latest Modman release version 1.5 3GO Flanker model for LOMAC 1.0x game versions (released recently at lockonfiles). It seems the download package is incomplete. The readme is blank, there are no instructions or troubleshoot guide, there are no edits to the graphics.config or Me.init files which I can find. I had manually installed the original release version of the Flanker model, but when I unistalled it and installed the new one using Modman as per instruction the new model is just white. I tried troubleshooting it myself with no luck, so did a fresh reinstall of LOMAC and installed the Modman v1.5 Flanker on the fresh installation and still just a white model. Modman says it's installed but I can't see that the package is installing the new skins dds files into the WorldTexturesBMP1.cdds like it should, when I open it after install using the CCDS-explorer all the skins in there are still 512x512 instead of the new 2048x2048 ones they should be. When I look in the LOMAC directory the new skins are just placed as dds files inside the main directory. I think they're supposed to be installed into the ccds file so the game can use them. So it appears the Modman package v1.5 Flanker is not put together to install correctly. I do not have modding software to install the dds skins files into the cdds directory myself. Plus there are more than the stock number of skins (13 in total) so surely the Me.ini needs to be edited. Also if the new skins are meant to just be in the main LOMAC folder in dds format, the graphics.config would have to be edited to point the model there to find them, but surely they should be compiled into one or two ccds files, or otherwise replace the existing WorldTexturesBMP1.ccds file? I cannot seem to get the 3GO home site loaded in my browser, and I don't think it is an english site anyway, so I'm posting here. Any help or advice would be great. Thankyou for your time.

Lenonski, thankyou very much sir for the information about the screen aspect ratio. I had no idea about that and was getting annoyed at my widescreen stretching all the views in LOMAC. Looks great now. TOMCATZ thankyou for all the work you've done, tremendous job, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on that F4F remodelling you've done, although the F-15C suits my current campaign better than an F-15E. What I'm curious about though is whether you might be considering...remodelling the F-14 :D Or does anyone know where I can download an existing F-14 remodelling for v1.02 as the stock one is really nasty, esp compared to things like the Hornet. But as I haven't found one yet I assume nobody's done one other than the F-14D flyable for v1.12, not suitable for my setup.

When you kill civilians you don't get to play victim when they kill yours. That's what this cost the US. America really needs the support of the international community to run with this war on terror thing. If I was American this would concern me deeply. Remember the one and only difference between the good guys and the bad guys is a change of perspective. Coz damn sure your actions are no different.

My thinking is along these lines, lasers have interferometry issues due to heat refraction esp near concentrated ground combat (irrespective of beam coherence), advanced optics and digital interferometers could compensate but you're dealing with weight, expense and complexity and could wind up using more expense for munitions in dealing with enemy equipment than they spent buying that equipment in the first place. Can you really call a battle which cost the enemy $10m and cost you $100m a victory ratio? Beam riding at least leaves most of the avionics in the firing platform, cutting the cost of throwaway guidence avionics, but its range is governed by the weight of the missile to be carried (could be prohibitive for light attack a/c to go mounting 2-ton long range missiles just to take 100kg to the target), and of course complexity and weight of the radar set and avionics (could wind up with "low cost" tactical attack a/c that cost as much as front line multiroles). I'd say battlefield attack a/c and munitions are governed in terms of cost benefit ratio, where the rule is how much it costs to send a squadron of Vipers in the first place. Even the modern combat helicopter is becoming prohibitive outlay for dealing with mundane terrorists (armed with angry camels and a couple of grenades, but dangerous around small children nonetheless), it beggars the need for the "lightweight, low cost battlefield attack aircraft" which has been popular in Europe and Africa for the past two decades, typically small combat trainers with rockets and gunpods slung. Again, if I spend $5m on lost equipment which forces you to spend $50m giving me that loss, I still win the day. So the new Tomcat is a Super Hornet, the new Viper is a Raptor and the new combat helicopter is a Lightning, and in the end the US will probably start buying Russian surplus just like everybody else just so they can afford to keep going to war over everything from crime to the weather. Seriously there's great argument for the good ol' fashion fin stablised rocket pack. Blows up tanks, doesn't cost a fortune. There's another good argument for a launch a/c that costs less to lose than a superduper AT missile does to fire from over the horizon.

I have a question about the Georgian air force markings in LOMAC. I did a little research about the region and am confused with flags and markings. Are the markings in LOMAC for Abhkasia (which is pro-Soviet/CIS) or Georgia (which is pro-independent/NATO but recently forced to join CIS)? Whose is the red Star of David roundel, Georgia or Abhkasia? The tail flash looks like an Abhkasian flag. Or did Georgia use these markings through the 1990's? It is confusing because the roundel looks like it would be Georgian and the flag looks like it would be Abhkasian, so does this mean Georgian military personnel based at Sukhumi (ca 2000) but carrying the Abhkasian region tail flash?

I thought my post directly addressed the speed claims of this "F-111" using a reasonable comparison of contemporary technology, though the subject of engine overspeeding did come up in the thread but is again a reasonably associative consideration. I do most certainly agree this business about F-15 "g" capabilities is walking headlong beyond the topic, a relevant point is one thing but a sustained discussion about turning ability and F-15 video footage seems to warrant a new thread. please don't feed me to the pigs

Ju-88C zerstörers often had "window glazing" painted on the nose and part of the tail fin sky-blued to look like regular Ju-88A bombers. Gave them a nice cannon pack surprise that otherwise would've made them a priority target. British utility and command tanks often had dummy guns fitted to look like regular combat tanks. My favourite is the British tactic in Egypt during 1940. They had I think two serviceable Hurricanes for a time and so flew them from airfield to airfield to give any enemy reconnaissance flights the impression whole squadrons were patrolling. Of course if you were particularly observant you'd notice it was the same two Hurricanes at every airfield you were photographing...

Any non-bypass engine can overspeed (runaway rpm). A combination of compressor and inlet design decides what speed. Something like an A-4 for example will overspeed in a shallow dive at 1.2 Mach or thereabouts. An F-4 it'll be more like 2.3 Mach. Generally for obvious reasons aircraft are engineering so as to reduce likelihood of overspeeding at normal operating speeds. This gets more difficult as operating speeds get higher, where the airframe capabilities may outweigh those of engine/inlet design. The most graphic example of this is the MiG-25 which has an airframe limit of 2.83 Mach and an engine restriction of 2.5 Mach. Normal maximum speed is 2.35 Mach although 3.2 Mach has been recorded in service (by NATO intelligence recording as well as Soviet figures), however during flights exceeding 2.5 Mach engine destruction is virtually inevitable due to uncontrolled overspeeding. Experienced Foxbat pilots advise maximum throttle should never be used at high Mach except in emergencies due to this tendency. The MiG-31 has similar airframe design limits (2.83 Mach maximum is official limit in common with MiG-25 but Foxhound airframe is much better built for these speeds with twice titanium content and general improved construction). It has no such overspeeding problems with the Aviadvigatel engines which are designed to sustain cruise at speeds up to 2.83 Mach and reportedly are very reliable (yet to fail in bench testing after several hundred thousand hours according to manufacturer). As far as design for high speed flight goes the F-111 is built more like a MiG-25 than a MiG-31. The variable sweep structure is not as strong as the F-14 but overall is a less bulky type so it has a higher speed capability than the Tomcat, but the Tomcat was chosen because it was stronger for sustained carrier operations (the F-111 was originally going to use the Pheonix weapon system as a 2.5 Mach carrier fighter). At high altitude the F-111 has the same troubles as any contemporary in terms of airframe heat dissipation, how much friction heat it can handle (or produces in the first place) and engine overspeed limitations. Plus there is all the same interpretive qualities to judging its best high speed condition as other types. "Maximum speed" in an Eagle under service conditions is a dash anything over 2 Mach, which is a remarkable speed for a fighter carrying missiles and a lot of avionics, but not much else. Phantoms that aren't actually stripped down for a dedicated speed test are unlikely to see much above 1.8 Mach. That 2.35 maximum cruise of the Foxbat (with BD engines) is pretty much uncatchable as it is. It's a similar story with the F-111. I've spoken to Aardvark pilots too, on RAAF bases and they boasted proudly, it's as fast as an F-15, it can get faster than 2 Mach flying clean. That's the way they put it too. At low altitude you've got other issues. Critical Mach is a much lower figure. The very fastest supersonic aircraft in the world at low altitude, can do 1.2-1.3 Mach at sea level. The F-111 is one of these. Aircraft like the Hornet are also considered very fast at low altitude because they can make 1.4 Mach not very far from sea level (but certainly not at sea level). The F-111 also fits into this category. Generally an aircraft is considered exceptional if it can make supersonic at sea level at all, most second generation strike and fighter aircraft can't. The Foxbat can't. Most of the reason for this is the fact the F-111 was designed as an air superiority fighter type with an emphasis on speed (the Foxbat for example is an interceptor type with an emphasis on altitude). This 1.7 Mach figure is obviously either, at altitude above ground level and not sea level (ie. say 2000' above sea level but 100' above ground level maybe), or it is a figment of somebody's imagination. Regardless of flight experience in one of these aircraft between us forumites, the key issue would be that the aircraft engineering itself cannot support the claim. You might as well say an ice cream cone can do Mach 1.5 at sea level, nobody's ever flown one supersonic so how could they know? Well it's just unreasonable to suggest, plainly. The 3 Mach figure at altitude is fictional. No other way to put that. Total poppycock. Maybe someone was having a lend of the OP. Maybe he's just making it up. There are no examples to support the contention, and the engineering certainly doesn't. 3 Mach is a huge jump from 2.5 Mach in terms of airframe stresses and heating, which is a *very* liberal, rather conditional speed figure for the Eagle and the Aardvark in the first place. By very liberal I mean it's unlikely you'll ever hear of that kind of speed in normal service outside of an extreme situation probably involving the destruction of the aircraft. Mach 6 for a Blackbird btw is also pure fiction. The fact it could sustain 3.2 Mach cruise was an astonishing achievement (and has more than a little to do with the altitude it is cruising at). Some pilots have individually inferred that speeds of closer to 3.5 Mach were possible (actual recorded figures are 3.2 dash for YF-12A and 3.2 sustained absolute for SR-71A). This contention about high speed flight being in any way parallel to high speed ground travel is just preposterous. High speed flight is achieved in concordance with altitude. It has totally different rules than putting a wider valve timing and uprated fuel supply in your Volvo (which then needs a compression change, head flow/manifolding examination and distributor recurve).

You have to manually install, following the pdf instructions that comes with the download. I'm using 1.02 and had no problems after making a fresh reinstall and cleaning out my registry, because I had some Su-27 mods/skins for the stock model.

I've got detailed specs on the Chinese made MiG-21MF (J-7 III) 7.154m wingspan (23', 5 + 5/8") length excl. nose probe 13.945m length incl. nose probe 14.885m overall height 4.103m wing aspect ratio 2.22, wing area 23m^2 weight empty 5275kg normal max t-o weight (2x PL2 or PL7 missiles carried) 8150kg VNE above 12500m Mach 2.35 Max level speed above 12500m Mach 2.05 max normal operating Mach number 2.1 acceleration from 0.9 Mach to 1.2 Mach at 5000m 35sec service ceiling 18200m absolute ceiling 18700m g limit +8 Chinese made WP13 engine produces 40.21/64.73kN with a 1500hr total service life, the main difference between this and the Soviet model. The Tumanski (R13) it is based on has slightly better dry performance, but is about 15 years older than the WP13.

I absolutely must say this model is really excellent. Top notch work by 3GO. I had some sort of conflict at first (I'm using 1.02 and had to manually install), but I cleaned out my hdd and registry and tried a fresh install of LOMAC and LOMAN, after this the new 3GO model played beautifully and I added most of my favourite mods back in without trouble. Of course in this fresh install I haven't installed any Su-27 mods/skins at all, and I'm a bit nervous about putting walmis' F-15 model or sebastien's (mhmm) Su-27 cockpit retexture, but I suspect the conflict was just with some residual Flanker skins LOMAN maybe didn't completely remove the first time I tried it before the fresh LOMAC installation. I'm also getting pretty good fps (30-50) with two Flankers on a clear day with the graphics maxed on 1440x900, no fps tweaks and only AMD 3200 single core with 7600GS card and 4G ram. I'm pretty happy all round. The external views are very lifelike. Airframe lines are nice and smooth. The Flanker looks just great!

No worries, thank you. I'm already excited, 65% downloaded now... I am going to pick up so many chicks in this thing :D

do I need to remove old skin mods for the Su-27 first or will the automatic installer do it for me?

Really been looking foward to this. The F-15 got a nice new model, but I never fly the F-15. I always loved the Flanker. Now I really love it. Thanks (Dor-jeh?)

Thankyou for your kind words. I'm a hard copy writer looking to get published and haven't even figured out how to make a webpage yet to be honest :D First step is generally inspiration, in which I get a little excited at times (hence my serious decision to become a writer). Some more info for your enjoyment: I was running around updating my info on the Foxhound and ran into some interesting current expenditure at Mikoyan OKB. Firstly no less than 650 Foxhound-A were equipped in service with the PVO based at Archangelisk and the Far East (modern Kazakhstan and around Vladivostok). Some 150 are currently listed as serviceable with around 300 in operating condition. My figures were less than half this, but well out of date. The mid-90s improvement project MiG-31M was indeed cancelled due to escalating costs and economic collapse. The later MiG-31D ASAT project was also indeed the subject of international disinterest, with 3 prototypes built and then abandoned. There was a civilian project which is still current based on this, for putting small satellites in orbit using the Foxhound as a launch platform. This is available. Two further variants are current as at late 2008. The MiG-31BM is a multirole update based on the M project and the PVO is currently in the process of updating all Foxhounds in service to this standard, with MFDs and other general avionics updates, R-77 capability and a wide variety of ground attack hardware available. It is listed as an air-superiority and ground attack type with extreme airframe performance. The main basis is the Flash Dance radar which NATO still admits is the most powerful ever fitted to a fighter aircraft to date. Effective missile lock range is claimed by Mikoyan as 280km with up to 8 targets engaged simultaneously and rearward hemisphere targeting due to pure signal strength. The entire front of the airframe is used as the antenna, with digital "virtual movement" of the search zone (the dish itself does not need to gimbal). ECM is of course similarly updated. The MiG-31F is an export version of this, currently available for purchases at a hefty price. According to some reputable speculators it is a good match for the avionics/weapons complexity of any other 5th generation model at BVR and the penetration strike role and of course unmatched for high Mach performance in general. Word is development of the R-37 has restarted too. The Foxhound fleet is projected to be brought back up to full strength, with contemporary features and avionics/weapons/ECM/datalink performance and kept in service until at least 2015. I should add the way I've read what has been listed and claimed may be subjective to a degree as I am not an aircraft engineer or experienced military pilot, just a civvie. My take on the claims might be different to actual real world performance.

Okay, well thanks for the replies fellers. I think I understand the game a bit better now. I'll give the adjustments golfsierra suggested a try, but it may indeed be doubtful they'll work. Here's fingers crossed :) Since I play SP offline it's pretty natural I'd get fixated about AI aircraft performance. That's what I'm fighting in any of my missions. I actually tend to use flight sims like this and Il2 as an inspiration for speculative fiction. edit: yah I had a look and it seems I need a dedicated script editor with Russian language support...and Russian language skills. Either that or a Russian version of notepad and Russian language skills...I could install cyrillic script into windows but I'd still need to learn Russian. Dammit. I at least made cosmetic adjustments for correct weights and airframe loadings in the xml file for MiG-25PD, RBT and 31, so I assume the object viewer will stop lying to me. Some figures were way off. Hey just a sidetrack of interest. I actually found additional performance benchmarks released by Mikoyan for the MiG-31 more recent than those I had. Its time from runway start to 10000m is indeed 7.9min (4x R33 carried) but its continued climb 10000m-20000m takes only 1min longer, which I think really expresses the performance differences we need to be seeing in any reputable flight sim intending to represent them accurately. It is of course a given this was not a priority for LOMAC...but can't I wish for a patch or opened code?

Now the Foxhound, where do we begin? The D30F6 engines have a demonstrated reliability of "several hundred-thousand hours by 1992" (ref. Perm Scientific and Production Enterprise, formerly Shvetsov, formerly Soloviev) with a 0.57 bypass and overall pressure ratio of 21.15:1, four flame rings in the high volume afterburner and a FADEC control system. Rated 93.2/151.9-186.1kN, now this is just space shuttle territory. Design features are 2.83 Mach cruise at 11000-21000m and 1.25 Mach at sea level. The Foxhound itself is listed by Mikoyan for 2.35 Mach cruise, 0.85 Mach economy cruise (60% range improvement) and 3000km/h true at 17500m outright or 1500km/h at sea level. Supersonic g-rating is 5g, with overall structure at least 16% titanium and 50% nickel steel (with light alloys and some composites). max internal fuel is 20250kg with provision for two underwing external tanks of 2500 litres each, there is also a retractable refuelling probe. radius of combat action with 4x R33 missiles is 720km at 2.35 Mach CAP radius with 4x R33, two underwing tanks and one flight refuelling is 2200km using econocruise. max wing loading is 750kg/m^2 airframe speed restriction is 2.83 Mach Now the real trick here is vastly improved low altitude performance over the Foxbat, partly by reducing exhaust diameter and yet gains in altitude performance with the improved efficiency of low-bypass turbines (the exhausts are still pretty big) for a net gain on both counts, though actual top speed limitations are unchanged. It does take almost 8min to get a full weapon load from a standing start to 10000m, but like the Foxbat the MiG-31 really shines once you've already got some altitude and airspeed up and it is still very fast in a straight line down low. Not many aircraft can make 1500km/h at sea level. Idea was, intercept the B-1B at 50m altitude, intercept its standoff missile launches, match BVR air superiority with a Tomcat at 12000m, scare off an SR-71 at 25000m and launch an ASAT to take out military satellites at 500km. Ambitious, yes. But Kelly Johnson said when the USAF decided to forego high Mach strategic development for extreme transonic performance coupled with improved weapons/survivability technologies (a doctrine which remains to this day), it was the biggest mistake they ever made. The true test of this comment will remain with the F-22/F-35 and future Soviet models, which benefit from mass produced high Mach development. A quick comparison is the Fulcrum versus F-16, although in fairness the Viper was originally aimed at combating something like the Flogger. Another is the F-15 versus Flanker, which broke many of its performance world records with 2 and 4 ton weapons loads (time to altitude armed for combat remains unmatched in the world). Still, American aircraft/missile avionics trumps the Russians all the way to the bank except for the excellent Archer, EOS and helmet designator combination. Soviet radar avionics claims are largely unproved, but equally impressive. Yet it is a mistake to think Soviet airframe design itself is strictly old tech whilst American is new tech, this is the product of manufacturer salesmanship and regional culture. It would be far more reasonable to assert both nations decided to head down entirely different paths, rather ignorant to think one is really better in all circumstance to the other. Soviet military and technological doctrine always concentrated on the strategic aspect. The US went the route of tactical engagements and policing actions, deferring to a doctrine of likelihoods in immediate deployment. Soviets played chess, Americans played checkers. The Russian PVO claims simply American overflights of Russian airspace by the SR-71 promptly halted when the Foxhound was fielded and began intercept sorties. They're quite proud of it, though the American story is model obsolescence, improved international relations and airframe wear. The Foxhound itself is seen to have a limited deployment opportunity in the current environment. The Russian Federation has been trying to sell them, or fund further development projects of the type but has met with no interest, not even for the ASAT modification for the Chinese market. It is said only a bare handful of the original 300 or so remain serviceable. But for supersonic performance and handling, from sea level to the very highest altitudes nothing remaining in service can match it, and to attempt it would require a beast like the YF-12 which could barely function at low-medium altitude. The Foxhound is very, very expensive but it can chase down just about anything, just about anywhere, under just about any conditions. I enjoyed reading Israeli F-15 drivers commentary on older (Syrian?) Foxbats, which they claimed were the only serious threat they faced at the time but were indeed quite alarming. The IAF quite simply did its very best to ensure most, if not all were destroyed on the ground. Of the few engagements between F-15s and Foxbats some were inconclusive due to the MiG's ability to simply leave the engagement at will. One should have to assume the Foxhound exaggerates this benefit somewhat, since it cannot be denied it vastly improves the Foxbat performance envelope. In LOMAC this plane should definitely not handle just like a Foxbat with two seats and a new weapons option, let alone that the Foxbat doesn't handle like a Foxbat anyway.