MiG 41

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

A class of it's own? *lol* What class is that, "huge engines with wings taped on as an afterthought"?

The class is called MiG-31. Here is one of the several capabilities that makes this incredible aircraft to be in its own class. MiG-31 can act as an AWACS for all Russian built aircraft that have data link capabilities. In data link mode, four MiG 31 flying in a 600km wide formation can cover incredible, 800km wide and several hundred kilometers deep air space. All data linked together and providing target information to MiG's and SUkhois in the area. And of course, at the the same time being able to shoot B-52 at 30 000 feet and cruise missile it launched at flying at 3000 feet.

 

And as I recall, SR71, capable of the same speeds and altitudes (and sustaining them much longer!) had an interceptor variant.

SR71 is in its own class and nothing on earth can come close to it. Just like MiG-31, SR71 established its own class

 

Check this book:

Mikoyan MiG-31

Edited March 8, 2014 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[OutOnTheOP]

Well the F-14 was the only American aircraft that could engage the targets at long range like the MiG-31 as both have very powerful radar and very long range missiles, but the MiG-31 can fly way faster and way higher so I'm afraid it outclassed anything American. The MiG-31 is only no dogfighter. And Sr-71 was no interceptor, it was recon plane so not in same category with MiG-31.

 

*ahem* I'll just leave this here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

 

Also, MiG-25/31 as a "dogfighter"? Not sure if joke...

[OutOnTheOP]

The class is called MiG-31. Here is one of the several capabilities that makes this incredible aircraft to be in its own class. MiG-31 can act as an AWACS for all Russian built aircraft that have data link capabilities.

 

Because... no American planes have datalinks? I mean, hardly any of them have datalinks, after all. By which I mean almost all of them. So, ANY US combat aircraft (F-16, F-15, F/A-18, F-22, F-35) can fill this role, by your logic.

 

In data link mode, four MiG 31 flying in a 600km wide formation can cover incredible, 800km wide and several hundred kilometers deep air space.

 

Realy? The MiG-31 radar has a reliable 150km detection range against F-22 and B-2? I find that very, VERY hard to believe. Also F-22 can do the same thing, AND not be seen by the enemy while they're at it. Or, you could get, you know, a proper AWACS aircraft, and cover 640x640 km (assuming, of course, that the aircraft you're looking for are standard fighter-size returns like, oh, I don't know, a MiG-31).

 

 

SR71 is in its own class and nothing on earth can come close to it. Just like MiG-31, SR71 established its own class

 

I disagree; as far as aerodynamic performance goes, I think they're squarely in the same class. YF-12 was armed similarly as well, and had a radome of similar dimensions (pretty sure YF-12 actually had a larger antenna). Neither one of them would ever be much good in a dogfight, but as missile-armed interceptors, I'm not seeing much functional difference there... except that YF-12 had three times the operational range.

 

As was mentioned earlier, YF-12 just never went into full scale production because the US had no need for a mach 3+ interceptor. Even MiG25 was only built as a response to the threat of the US XB-70 Valkyrie mach 3 strategic bomber. Russia never had (and was never developing, to the best of my knowledge) a bomber with those kind of capabilities, and the only production supersonic Russian bombers were mach 1.8 Tu-22 and mach 2.0 Tu-160 (all 16 of 'em)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I disagree; ...

That's all right. :thumbup: :beer:

[Boberro]

Isn't it obvious?

 

 

It might be right :)

 

Research, surveillance, combat use, maintaining technological edge, prestige ... to name few.

 

Well, doesn't RuAF have more urgend spendings than mighty race for speed?

[Kuky]

*ahem* I'll just leave this here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

 

Also, MiG-25/31 as a "dogfighter"? Not sure if joke...

 

You didn't read well, I said "The MiG-31 is only no dogfighter"

[EtherealN]

*ahem* I'll just leave this here.

 

Now read it:

 

"The Lockheed YF-12 was an American prototype interceptor aircraft"

 

"The program was abandoned following the cancellation of the production F-12B, but the YF-12s continued flying for many years with the USAF and with NASA as research aircraft."

 

Regarding dogfighting: launching missiles at high angels and high speed is NOT dogfighting.

MiG-25 pilots trying to "dogfight" is precisely what killed them in Iraq.

NATO believing the MiG-25 was both a really fast plane and a dogfighter is what caused the US to spend rediculous amounts of money developing the F-15. But when a MiG-25 defected to Japan, they found that it was not a dogfighter at all - but a highly capable interceptor, sure.

Edited March 9, 2014 by EtherealN

[GGTharos]

IIRC it would do much better than a MiG-25 though ... I thought the MiG-31 had at least a 7 if not 9g airframe, as opposed to the 25's 5g. That's not to say you can't dogfight at 5g, but I'm not sure the 25 would have the TWR for it :)

 

You didn't read well, I said "The MiG-31 is only no dogfighter"

[Pilotasso]

Maybe the T/W was not the issue, dogfighting is a special regime where there are a lot of thrust changes. Back then fuel controls were made of cams rubber diaphragms, springs and pulleys, they had a delay of action and required time to stabilize the proper fuel dosage solution to the engine. A sudden input could blow out an engine. On the other hand there is a reason why Turbofans were adopted over the old turbojets for dogfighters.

 

The Mig-25 was all about specialization in speed. Im willing to bet those massive turbojets would suck at energy recovery in any dogfight.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Pilotasso

[OutOnTheOP]

Now read it:

 

"The Lockheed YF-12 was an American prototype interceptor aircraft"

 

"The program was abandoned following the cancellation of the production F-12B, but the YF-12s continued flying for many years with the USAF and with NASA as research aircraft."

 

Regarding dogfighting: launching missiles at high angels and high speed is NOT dogfighting.

MiG-25 pilots trying to "dogfight" is precisely what killed them in Iraq.

NATO believing the MiG-25 was both a really fast plane and a dogfighter is what caused the US to spend rediculous amounts of money developing the F-15. But when a MiG-25 defected to Japan, they found that it was not a dogfighter at all - but a highly capable interceptor, sure.

 

No shit? Maybe you should read what I posted: the US did not put it into service because they didn't need to. They had, however, a fully developed F-12 system, including AIM-47 missiles integrated into the FCS, which they tested in live fire conditions. I never said the US DEPLOYED anything in the same class as MiG-25/31, I said they DEVELOPED something in the same class. And could have built it, had they so chosen

[RIPTIDE]

I think the difference is implicit; patrol vs intercept.

I think the difference is nothing. I did mention the words "ability to intercept". What I see is just a strawman pattern from the same poster. It isn't the first time for me personally. :)

[RIPTIDE]

Well, doesn't RuAF have more urgend spendings than mighty race for speed?

I think there may be an element of ABM here also very much akin to the F-15C that was used as a ASM-135 ASAT platform. We know the old Kirov Hulls are been refitted to serve as Naval ABM defence platforms. It wouldn't be beyond reason to see the MiG-41 fitted out to fill the gaps and add an airborne element to the whole system.

[RIPTIDE]

IIRC it would do much better than a MiG-25 though ... I thought the MiG-31 had at least a 7 if not 9g airframe, as opposed to the 25's 5g. That's not to say you can't dogfight at 5g, but I'm not sure the 25 would have the TWR for it :)

At maximum T/O weight it surely must be lower than that.

[RIPTIDE]

No shit? Maybe you should read what I posted: the US did not put it into service because they didn't need to. They had, however, a fully developed F-12 system, including AIM-47 missiles integrated into the FCS, which they tested in live fire conditions. I never said the US DEPLOYED anything in the same class as MiG-25/31, I said they DEVELOPED something in the same class. And could have built it, had they so chosen

Hey now. The US stronk crowd should be happy. Anything with MiG-XX with Mach-XX ability might convince the bureaucrats to open more F-22 production and oil the F-35 media machine.

[dumgrunt]

Hmm, looking at history, the Mig-25 did fair the "best" out of the Russian aircraft in the gulf war. In fact it seems to have been the only aircraft to get an air to air kill during the conflict. And they only got shot down when trying to engage WVR. Certainly the RuAF seems to place great value in the mig31, despite the expense a large number are still operational.

 

It would be really interesting to find out what really happened during the Iran Iraq war, would probably have been the fairest comparison of western and soviet aircraft possible, Infact the iranians wild have been at a disadvantage given much of their talent would have been purged and spares and support was all but eliminated.

 

Really, the mig31 still operating in large numbers probably shows that it retained an edge over even the f-15 which quite simply seems not to have the weapons or avionics to meet it on equal terms BVR, quite possibly the raptor/120D combination may have prompted the Russians to look at a modernization, likely in concert with the USA developments in hypersonic engines.

[Kaktus29]

so glad the Mig-31 is getting a younger version of itself..

 

i see people talking if no stealth what is the point.. well, consider this, you are in F-35 and some Raptors flying here and there, ..and then on a radar you see Mig-41 flying Mach 4 at 85.000 feet.. and changing direction so intercept is impossible.. go ahead, venture in that place.. so SAMs below, Flankers on well on the flanks, and other decoys baiting you to enter.. problem is Mig-41 would pose big complication, since speed alone determines how fast one can initiate an attack and develop escape.. with such speed only a missile in the face can destroy such a plane.. now, here comes all kind of maneuvers and tactics that will be deployed and trained.such as 1 mig at the front, 1 back, 1 even more back changing direction and helping guide other fighters to kill from the flanks or even SAMs to kill..

 

All in all, great concept, .. it was great concept with Mig31 and with this.. even better..

 

Even if you see it on the radar it won't matter, since there will be SAMs ahead of you and Pak-fa lurking somewhere.. and even if no such things how the hell do you intercept it? unless it flies straight into you like a noob there is no chance of interception..

 

This thing will be good at satellite killings as well.. maybe this will be his first priority.. a black out of recon sats.. especially those in lower orbit for obvious reasons..

 

 

What i do like to know is how much can EOS advanced version see from the ground up.. if you put that box lets say on 10 meters height, point it to up to check the sky.. will it pick a supercruising F-22 at 40.000 feet?) (considering the distance IF F-22 would fly over such a ground based EOS it would be distance of 12 km.. surely close enough to pick the airframe of supercruising machine.. in that case a network can be easily built to make EW-eos detection of stealth planes and datalinked to Mig-41 and others to easily avoid if not destroy the F-22.. or bait it in kill zones..

[RIPTIDE]

What i do like to know is how much can EOS advanced version see from the ground up.. if you put that box lets say on 10 meters height, point it to up to check the sky.. will it pick a supercruising F-22 at 40.000 feet?) (considering the distance IF F-22 would fly over such a ground based EOS it would be distance of 12 km.. surely close enough to pick the airframe of supercruising machine.. in that case a network can be easily built to make EW-eos detection of stealth planes and datalinked to Mig-41 and others to easily avoid if not destroy the F-22.. or bait it in kill zones..

Yeah... dem clouds, tho..

[Exorcet]

Even if you see it on the radar it won't matter, since there will be SAMs ahead of you and Pak-fa lurking somewhere.. and even if no such things how the hell do you intercept it? unless it flies straight into you like a noob there is no chance of interception..

 

I can't agree. There would be SAM's regardless (which could be handled by SEAD/DEAD). There would be other fighters regardless, and if the PAK-FA could sneak up on the attacking group you wouldn't need the MiG. It very well could fly straight at you if it doesn't see you. If the MiG isn't stealthy, then you'd probably see it from miles away.

 

Stealth isn't invisible, it's reduced detection. This makes it sounds like the MiG's job is easier, and technically it is, but the mission planners know this and they're not going to send stealth fighters charging into the nearest radar. The MiG could fail to even protect its target by not detecting the stealth planes. Interceptors without anything to intercept aren't useful.

 

You're also assuming Mach 4 is cruise speed, it could be, and I suppose in a time of war they're be less worried about babying the airframe, but it's not a given.

 

This thing will be good at satellite killings as well.. maybe this will be his first priority.. a black out of recon sats.. especially those in lower orbit for obvious reasons..

I think this is a possibility.

 

 

What i do like to know is how much can EOS advanced version see from the ground up.. if you put that box lets say on 10 meters height, point it to up to check the sky.. will it pick a supercruising F-22 at 40.000 feet?) (considering the distance IF F-22 would fly over such a ground based EOS it would be distance of 12 km.. surely close enough to pick the airframe of supercruising machine.. in that case a network can be easily built to make EW-eos detection of stealth planes and datalinked to Mig-41 and others to easily avoid if not destroy the F-22.. or bait it in kill zones..

I guess it depends on where you're putting this. You could put it around your border, if it works (and I think what you said sounds reasonable) you'll know that something crossed the border, but that's about it. In such a case, the MiG's speed could be a valuable asset, but it could be disastrous if it was sent to intercept, the target was lost, and then the MiG was lost after being shot by the hidden fighter.

[Kaktus29]

@exorcet .. why just the "border".. how abous EOS ground station in a grid fashion like.. connecting them to a C3,C4 posts it could track supercruising stealth planes easy.. maybe enough to spamm missiles in the vicinity of stealth planes .. height is pretty much known, it will be more than 30.000 feet, if for no other reason than to preserve airframe from going supercruise in less friction environment than lower than this.. and it its higher than that than you can "track" by condensation plumes it leaves behind.. of course if its cloudy you can't see it..

 

but still, EOS grid makes cheap financial investment to what it offers.. a location (that is location of stealth planes minus the altitude info).. but connecting this EOS together a computer analysis can give quite good estimates as to speed, bearing, heading.. enough for fire-solution from S300,S400.. or Mig-41.. in this case..

 

the thing is, F-35 will not be sure he is stealthy, you can't be 100% sure nobody sees you..and you see this thing on radar going in unpredictable way moving faster than anything you can kill of with your mach 4 missile.. for god sake that means F-35 would have to fire a missile in the face at 20 miles to get a hit.. and only if it flies straight into the face of f-35..

 

by flanking left right, etc.. flanks are exposed and radar signature is bigger, etc .. This Mig-41 could very well play a role of a spear-head where Pak-FA and other follow into the breach..

 

its very good idea..

[ФрогФут]

IIRC it would do much better than a MiG-25 though ... I thought the MiG-31 had at least a 7 if not 9g airframe, as opposed to the 25's 5g. That's not to say you can't dogfight at 5g, but I'm not sure the 25 would have the TWR for it :)

O__O

[RIPTIDE]

@exorcet .. why just the "border".. how abous EOS ground station in a grid fashion like.. connecting them to a C3,C4 posts it could track supercruising stealth planes easy.. maybe enough to spamm missiles in the vicinity of stealth planes .. height is pretty much known, it will be more than 30.000 feet, if for no other reason than to preserve airframe from going supercruise in less friction environment than lower than this.. and it its higher than that than you can "track" by condensation plumes it leaves behind.. of course if its cloudy you can't see it..

 

but still, EOS grid makes cheap financial investment to what it offers.. a location (that is location of stealth planes minus the altitude info).. but connecting this EOS together a computer analysis can give quite good estimates as to speed, bearing, heading.. enough for fire-solution from S300,S400.. or Mig-41.. in this case..

 

the thing is, F-35 will not be sure he is stealthy, you can't be 100% sure nobody sees you..and you see this thing on radar going in unpredictable way moving faster than anything you can kill of with your mach 4 missile.. for god sake that means F-35 would have to fire a missile in the face at 20 miles to get a hit.. and only if it flies straight into the face of f-35..

 

by flanking left right, etc.. flanks are exposed and radar signature is bigger, etc .. This Mig-41 could very well play a role of a spear-head where Pak-FA and other follow into the breach..

 

its very good idea..

Dem clouds, tho bro.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what country's border you would put Electro Optical sensors around in a grid. Do you have any idea of the staggering cost to grid a major country's frontiers? These devices are not cheap. THis reminds me of a similar discussion I had recently here before about the idea of replacing conventional bombs with missiles.....

 

... it's unworkable. And absolutely unnecessary to begin with.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

^ These posts are my favorite, While the Russian bias is quite big on these forums. It just shows more and more these days keep underestimating American aircraft. Which is a good thing. :smilewink:

I don't think some posts here are to downplay American aircraft. MiG 31 is such a special aircraft with very specific combat mission to fulfill. That's why it is very unique and it is the only one in its own class.

 

There are many American aircraft that nobody else in the world has and will never have. Those airplanes rule their own domain and because of their uniqueness, they actually have their own class, just like MiG 31.

 

By the way, when Kuky compared radar capabilities of the F-14 and MiG 31, there is no denying that MiG 31's radar capability far surpass F-14's. The volume of air scanned buy MiG 31 radar is multiple times higher then what F-14 radars can do. This info is not secret and is publicly available. This by no means "underestimates" American aircraft. It simply is a fact that MiG 31's radar is that good.

 

I don't see any problem accepting that some other nation can build a piece of military hardware that is that good.

[Kaktus29]

@riptide.. really? its too expensive.. lol.. how much does such a device cost? 10 million? nope.. 5 milion? nope.. 500K? maybe.. so if you put it in a 10 miles grid covering a huge country like Russia would be what.. how many devices.. 10.000 km X 2.000 km = 20.000.000/10 km= 2.000.000 devices which cost 500K equals what?.. 1.000.000.000.. so 1 measly billion to cover a huge ass country like Russia and gives you ability to shoot down raptors that cost 200 million a pieace not to mention other stealth planes..yeah .. i think this is a good investment..

 

considering this is a passive system that even in occupied territory would still work and be hidden and transmit coded info to your datalinks gives such a advantage considering the low price i say no, this is FAAAR from impractical that you say it is..

 

clouds on other hand are not EVERYWHERE all the time.. and since planes MOVE sooner or later they move to patches that are clear from clouds and would be picked up by EOS right away.. couple this with other techniques probably already envisioned and this is good way to make sure Stealth is far from superior horse in the battle..

 

 

having hard-core speed and altitude will prove to be the only thing that really gives you the edge..

[RIPTIDE]

Right... so we're going to just leave a billion quid's worth of optoelectronics scattered around the country and absolutely NOONE will ever think about digging them up and selling them on. It would turn into the biggest game of 'treasure hunt' in history.

 

 

For something that is not even necessary....

[EtherealN]

Really, the mig31 still operating in large numbers probably shows that it retained an edge over even the f-15 which quite simply seems not to have the weapons or avionics to meet it on equal terms BVR, quite possibly the raptor/120D combination may have prompted the Russians to look at a modernization, likely in concert with the USA developments in hypersonic engines.

 

Regarding having an "edge" over the F-15, I'm not sure we can analyze it so simplistically. The two aircraft have different jobs; the F-15 is an air superiority fighter with good BFM capability, the MiG-31 is an interceptor meant to defend a vast area against bombers coming over the pole. The ability of the MiG-31 to engage F-15's efficiently depends a lot on whether the R-33 can be effective against them. Those missiles are designed to attack bombers, not fighters. (Like the Phoenix on the US side.)

 

Basically, it might very well get the first shot, which is of course really nice, but said first shot might also be very easy for the F-15's to defeat.

 

To my mind, the most likely reason the MiG-31 stayed in service in the numbers it has is that there is nothing else that could effectively defend such a huge area without having to add a lot more bases and a lot more aircraft.

 

Someone know if the 33 has been tested against maneuvering fighter-sized targets, and similar for 37 or derivatives (which I guess might be what would equip the 41, unless they are intended to be exclusive to the upgraded MiG-31)?