F-14 vs MiG-25 vs MiG-31

[captain_dalan]

I don't see why the MiG-25 couldn't have used a longer ranged radar and missiles?

I would suspect either a lack of tech available at the time for some aspect of the weapon system, or possibly the practicality of the solution given?

[turkeydriver]

I don't see why the MiG-25 couldn't have used a longer ranged radar and missiles? It's always better to shoot the bombers as far as possible, especially those equipped with stand-off missiles like e.g. SRAM. And with those it might have stood a chance of intercepting the SR-71's for example. It's just that these were beyond what was possible at the time.

 

And you're basing these details of the F/A-18 intercept on which document exactly? IIRC, they were not even sure what shot him down initially as he apparently didn't report being engaged? After the MiG-25 was suspected (it was detected by AWACS), I've read assumptions that an IR variant of the R-40 missile was used without a radar lock (the 25PD carried an IRST system).

 

Its possible, but there was so much jamming going on, it would have been difficult to tell, The IRST on the MiGs was good at finding high altitude afterburning targets but would have been useless against cruising strike fighters flying over the desert. From my info, those early gen IRSTs boasted a best scenario range of 8 miles against a hot contact with good contrast(high altitude afterburner), but it seem possible.

 

Also, a long range radar drives a TON of money for RD and maintenance, if your fighters operate independently of GCI, then a long range radar is good, and any intercept errors are the pilots fault. With GCI, you send a mathematically perfect intercept and train the pilot to trust it-getting them to a near no-escape launch point for their weapons. That was the theory anyway, but it remained sound tactics for massive flights of inbound high altitude bombers.

 

Also the AIM-54s(and any long range missile) success at long range is almost completely reliable on the fact that the target is unaware they're being 1) tracked, 2) shot at. The defensive move at range makes it easier to break lock in STT mode, and makes the radar give tracking updates to the missile in TWS, so range and energy are used for course correction. A C-5 wouldn't have a problem dodging every long range missile in the world if the pilot was fed continuous updates as to the shooter and the weapon. So in this case, getting the shooter close to you is better as it negates your maneuvering.

Edited May 16, 2015 by turkeydriver

[drhyed]

One thing people seem to forget about aircraft of any type is the maintenance! Sure your aircraft can go mach 3 but how many inspections are triggered once that happens, how much time does it take off parts and the airframe as a whole, how many maintenance man hours does it take for every flight hour? While these aren't factors in the sim world they should certainly be considered in any debate about which aircraft is "superior". What good are aircraft that look good on paper but are always down for maintenance and eat up valuable resources to keep flying? There are times where if an aircraft exceeds certain weights, certain G loads, or a combination of both that cut part replacement times IN HALF, no matter if it went 1lb over or .1 G's over a part that should have a life of 1000 flight hours now has a life of 500 flight hours and if the part already has over 500 hours on it the aircraft is "down" until the part is replaced.

[King_Hrothgar]

That right there is why the USN retired the F-14 and replaced it with F-18's. It's also why many eastern European countries dumped their MiG-29's in favor of upgrading MiG-21's to modern standards. I am curious as to how the MiG-25 and 31 fair in terms of upkeep.

[captain_dalan]

That right there is why the USN retired the F-14 and replaced it with F-18's. It's also why many eastern European countries dumped their MiG-29's in favor of upgrading MiG-21's to modern standards. I am curious as to how the MiG-25 and 31 fair in terms of upkeep.

 

That me thinks is also the main difference between a peace time and war time fighter was well. One is designed for economy, the other for performance.

[Dudikoff]

Its possible, but there was so much jamming going on, it would have been difficult to tell, The IRST on the MiGs was good at finding high altitude afterburning targets but would have been useless against cruising strike fighters flying over the desert. From my info, those early gen IRSTs boasted a best scenario range of 8 miles against a hot contact with good contrast(high altitude afterburner), but it seem possible.

 

The article said that it was suspected that perhaps the MiG-25 pilot saw the flash of a HARM launch visually which helped him approach and acquire the target with the IRST. If the MiG used it's radar, they'd expected the pilot would have called it in unless it was coming from some RWR blindspot or it was not functioning well (as I also saw some doubts about the performance of the RWR system used). It's hard to say what really happened without the two pilots involved or at least the Iraqi one.

 

Also, a long range radar drives a TON of money for RD and maintenance, if your fighters operate independently of GCI, then a long range radar is good, and any intercept errors are the pilots fault. With GCI, you send a mathematically perfect intercept and train the pilot to trust it-getting them to a near no-escape launch point for their weapons. That was the theory anyway, but it remained sound tactics for massive flights of inbound high altitude bombers.

 

I don't see why all the generalizing. The fact is that the MiG-31 was developed solely as a replacement for the (IMHO unsatisfactory) MiG-25 (which was again developed first and foremost to meet the B-70 threat) and it was equipped with long range radar and missiles. If the Soviet side was happy with the MiG-25's operational capabilities, I don't think they would be so eager to waste huge amounts of their precious money to start developing a replacement interceptor (especially so soon), a very advanced radar for their tech level and time and completely new and specialized missiles.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Lucas_From_Hell]

As far as I know the MiG-31 wasn't made out of dissatisfaction but as the alternative to the MiG-25M upgrade because the needs and opposition had changed so much in that decade they needed a more drastic redesign. Plus, usually new airframes have more room for development and improvement, and a 4th generation interceptor was the right move - now we're seeing that same old MiG-31 extremely upgraded with multirolecapability.

 

The PVO regularly got the budget it needed to do whatever it deemed necessary, air defence was taken very seriously.

[Dudikoff]

As far as I know the MiG-31 wasn't made out of dissatisfaction but as the alternative to the MiG-25M upgrade because the needs and opposition had changed so much in that decade they needed a more drastic redesign. Plus, usually new airframes have more room for development and improvement, and a 4th generation interceptor was the right move - now we're seeing that same old MiG-31 extremely upgraded with multirolecapability.

 

AFAIK, development of (what was to become) the MiG-31 practically started at the end of 60's which is before the basic MiG-25P even entered service. And that's because MiG-25 was unsatisfactory because it was too slow at low altitudes which was where the NATO bombers were moving to at the time to avoid SAM's, not to mention the introduction of cruise missiles. The MiG-25M was an attempt to fix this problem by switching to different engines in mid-70's, but by that time the MiG-31 was in advanced stages of development and was much more promising.

 

And no, the MiG-31 is not upgraded to become multi-role; the currently upgraded MiG-31BM's are still just pure interceptors. Perhaps you're thinking of the BM upgrade considered in the late 90's or so.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[turkeydriver]

AFAIK, development of (what was to become) the MiG-31 practically started at the end of 60's which is before the basic MiG-25P even entered service. And that's because MiG-25 was unsatisfactory because it was too slow at low altitudes which was where the NATO bombers were moving to at the time to avoid SAM's, not to mention the introduction of cruise missiles. The MiG-25M was an attempt to fix this problem by switching to different engines in mid-70's, but by that time the MiG-31 was in advanced stages of development and was much more promising.

 

And no, the MiG-31 is not upgraded to become multi-role; the currently upgraded MiG-31BM's are still just pure interceptors. Perhaps you're thinking of the BM upgrade considered in the late 90's or so.

 

Yes MiG-31 exists due to the need to intercept low-altitude/high speed targets. This mission is either suicide for a single crewed fighter or impossible. It mandated a radar with a trained backseater. The MiG-25 airframe also got beat up at low-altitude, the MiG-31 has a higher G tolerance due to s stronger airframe mostly because it was needed for lower altitude intercepts. The MiG-25 doesn't compare to a MiG-31, but that doesn't mean you should trash the MiG-25. Its basic capabilities were very good.

[BlackLion213]

Technology during that time moved fast - well, still does.

 

The timeframe for replacement of the MiG-25 was pretty similar to the F-4 phantom and most don't think that the F-4 phantom was rushed out due to massive deficiencies (though it was not perfect by any means).

 

The MiG-25 had many short comings, but it was designed when aerodynamic properties was king and top speed was desired above everything else. It did quite well in that capacity. 10 years later, a much more balanced design was possible and implemented. This seems like logical evolution, nothing to hold against the MiG-25 - IMHO.

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

A-G upgrades for the 31? Is that even a good idea?

[Dudikoff]

The MiG-25 doesn't compare to a MiG-31, but that doesn't mean you should trash the MiG-25. Its basic capabilities were very good.

 

Trashing? That's a bit harsh. All I said was that it's performance was unsatisfactory for its primary mission as by the time the interceptor variant entered operational service (1972), its targets were already moving to low altitudes where it couldn't fly fast, its radar was next to useless (somewhat rectified by the PD variant in 1978 ) and its missiles were of vastly shorter range. I would love to have it in DCS, though (preferably the PD variant or some of the R's) :)

 

A-G upgrades for the 31? Is that even a good idea?

 

I could see the use for using some long range anti-radar missiles like on the MiG-25BM in theory (though the modern radars and tactics probably negate the viability of such a usecase), much less so for putting various short range A2G ordnance on it (though I'd be curious about how well would high speed lofting of the LGB's or even better GPS guided munitions from afar work :) they were toying with that on the MiG-25RBT IIRC, but with dumb bombs only).

 

It was considered for export at the time so a similar upgrade package was proposed for the RuAF as well which probably rejected it as it had no money and need for such an extensive upgrade. As for the actual reason for the proposal, I wouldn't be surprised if its future was questioned at the time due to the PVO being disbanded and its high operating cost for a single-purpose plane, plus the lack of funds for upgrades so making the upgrade a multi-role was perhaps increasing the chances for upgrade approval and keeping the plane in service. I'm quite surprised it survived all those years in service till it was definitely decided that there is a future for its type not so long ago.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Dudikoff

[MBot]

I know you guys are talking about the interceptor variants of the MiG-25. I just want to throw in, in defence of the good name of the MiG-25, that it was a hugely succesful reconnaissance aircraft. Probably the best reconnaissance aircraft of it's time (the SR-71 is discqualified for being too expensive).

[Tirak]

I know you guys are talking about the interceptor variants of the MiG-25. I just want to throw in, in defence of the good name of the MiG-25, that it was a hugely succesful reconnaissance aircraft. Probably the best reconnaissance aircraft of it's time (the SR-71 is discqualified for being too expensive).

 

I don't possibly see how that is even worth mentioning given the sheer success of its mission, the information gathered not just military but also scientific in its contributions to NASA. To the revolution that it helped start in aircraft design and the bleeding edge technology nearly founded by it. It is a sublime representation of American ingenuity and prowess and was the ultimate expression western dominance over the Soviet Union in aerodynamics. You bite your tongue to even think to disqualify it.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

And no, the MiG-31 is not upgraded to become multi-role; the currently upgraded MiG-31BM's are still just pure interceptors. Perhaps you're thinking of the BM upgrade considered in the late 90's or so.

 

Are you sure? Sources are a bit murky but you can consistently find references to MR capabilities being in the package for the new BM (not the 90s M that was supposed to be MR capable after the initial upgrade). Main pointers are towards ARM capabilities indeed. Could be one of those cases of 'capability there but never to be used'.

 

 

Tirak, no one is downplaying the SR-71, the fact is though that most air forces today would be unable to afford its operational costs and pick the -25 instead as it still delivers excellent recce for a lower proce tag.

[Dudikoff]

Are you sure? Sources are a bit murky but you can consistently find references to MR capabilities being in the package for the new BM (not the 90s M that was supposed to be MR capable after the initial upgrade). Main pointers are towards ARM capabilities indeed. Could be one of those cases of 'capability there but never to be used'.

 

There is zero doubt that the current BM upgrade is purely an interceptor which carries only R-33S and R-73 missiles (likely to be expanded if/when RVV-SD and RVV-BD become available). I was not referring to the M (which was not multi-role), but to the BM upgrade proposal from around 1998 or so which was supposed to have included multi-role capability.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Dudikoff

[WinterH]

This really is a bit of aplles to pineapples comparison. While the F-14 is most interceptor like in 4th generation fighters, it still is a fighter first. The MiGs on the other hand, purely interceptors with almost no emphasis on agility and anti-fighter armament.

 

From perspective of speed and altitude, yes MiGs are better, for pure interception MiG-31 may be more capable. But it should also be mentioned that Tomcat is a good performer across it's speed & altitude envelope while the MiG-25 wasn't very fast at low altitudes, and not agile at any altitude. MiG-31 is fast at low altitudes too but, like MiG-25 it also isn't agile anywhere :).

 

F-14 though, is a pretty damn good interceptor (being the fleet defender and all...) yet is still a pretty darn good air superiority contender too. Besides, most late 90ies F-14s were also precision strike capable.

 

MiG-25, as mentioned, is a whole generation behind other two. It's radar, while powerful, simply can't be compared to other two radars. R-40s aren't much to talk home about either, and it can carry only 4 of those.

 

MiG-31 is highly capable in it's role, but that role is very, very specific.

 

So, if I was in the market for my airfroce today, and suppose all 3 aircraft was in active production / maintenance offered, I'd probably pick F-14, and I'm saying this as someone who isn't a fan of F-14 and who likes Russian aircraft quite a bit, still logic would say F-14 is preferrable among mentioned 3 in most contexts :).

 

That said, in DCS I would prefer to have MiG-31 and MiG-25 modules more than F-14 =P, that's just me anyway :)

[captain_dalan]

 

That said, in DCS I would prefer to have MiG-31 and MiG-25 modules more than F-14 =P, that's just me anyway :)

 

I would rather have all :P as this would enable simulation of complex environments and engagements, with multiple threats (especially in MP) :)

[WinterH]

I would rather have all :P as this would enable simulation of complex environments and engagements, with multiple threats (especially in MP) :)

 

Absolutely so, can't argue with that! :) And while I'm not a fan of it as many people are, I will most certainly thorughly enjoy the Tomcat when it hits DCS skies :).

[whitehot]

This really is a bit of aplles to pineapples comparison. While the F-14 is most interceptor like in 4th generation fighters, it still is a fighter first. The MiGs on the other hand, purely interceptors with almost no emphasis on agility and anti-fighter armament.

 

From perspective of speed and altitude, yes MiGs are better, for pure interception MiG-31 may be more capable. But it should also be mentioned that Tomcat is a good performer across it's speed & altitude envelope while the MiG-25 wasn't very fast at low altitudes, and not agile at any altitude. MiG-31 is fast at low altitudes too but, like MiG-25 it also isn't agile anywhere :).

 

F-14 though, is a pretty damn good interceptor (being the fleet defender and all...) yet is still a pretty darn good air superiority contender too. Besides, most late 90ies F-14s were also precision strike capable.

 

MiG-25, as mentioned, is a whole generation behind other two. It's radar, while powerful, simply can't be compared to other two radars. R-40s aren't much to talk home about either, and it can carry only 4 of those.

 

MiG-31 is highly capable in it's role, but that role is very, very specific.

 

So, if I was in the market for my airfroce today, and suppose all 3 aircraft was in active production / maintenance offered, I'd probably pick F-14, and I'm saying this as someone who isn't a fan of F-14 and who likes Russian aircraft quite a bit, still logic would say F-14 is preferrable among mentioned 3 in most contexts :).

 

That said, in DCS I would prefer to have MiG-31 and MiG-25 modules more than F-14 =P, that's just me anyway :)

 

In an ideal world imho, LN would do something like Belsimtek has done so far, a blue plane and then its red counterpart.

So, since the Tomcat is officially going to be released, I'd love to have the Foxhound next.

 

Speaking about the F-14, I really hope LN gonna make it right, like they did with the Fishbed.

I understand that the Tomcat is basically unclassified today, at least the A/B variants; although I really don't know if there are documents out there describing the AWG-9 radar and the Phoenix missile. Since this module has been announced I've had mixed feelings about it: on a side, I think it's an aircraft that simply must be present in DCS, one of those I'd get whatever the price. But, I'm kinda worried that, with a lack of information about its most important systems, it would end up being "gamey", basically in a OP way.

[King_Hrothgar]

I agree BST is doing their releases the right way by doing opposing pairs. Hopefully LNS copies this approach. The Viggen (in either fighter or attacker version), odd of a choice as it is, does seem to reasonably match up against the MiG-21bis. If they do a MiG-31 after the F-14, then that will also be paired up nicely. This setup just leaves the apparent WW2 plane as an orphan. However, given the large number of US/UK WW2 planes already in development, I don't think they'd have to make an opponent for a Japanese fighter as VEAO and ED seem to have that part covered. In any case, both the MiG-25 and MiG-31 occupy the top spots for my most wanted red plane. Both would be day 1 purchases for me.

Edited May 23, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[BlackLion213]

Speaking about the F-14, I really hope LN gonna make it right, like they did with the Fishbed.

I understand that the Tomcat is basically unclassified today, at least the A/B variants; although I really don't know if there are documents out there describing the AWG-9 radar and the Phoenix missile. Since this module has been announced I've had mixed feelings about it: on a side, I think it's an aircraft that simply must be present in DCS, one of those I'd get whatever the price. But, I'm kinda worried that, with a lack of information about its most important systems, it would end up being "gamey", basically in a OP way.

 

It's possible, but one thing in the Tomcat's favor as a DCS module is that the AWG-9's tech is pretty rudimentary. It was the first radar with a signal processor (maybe the first with TWS mode?) and many of it's breakthrough features would become standard fare for all A-A radars to come.

 

It's real benefit and the reason that it remained pretty effective for ~30 years was it's big dish and long range.

 

There was a blog called "Neptunus Lex" that ran for a number of years, written by a retired F/A-18C pilot (went through the RAG in 1986 and retired in mid 2000s (?)). He was a fantastic writer from which I learned a ton about naval aviation. He was predictably pro-Hornet, but still had respect for the Tomcat even as he made fun of them. Sadly, he died working as a private contractor/ACM instructor at NAS Fallon in 2011. He was blog was taken down and the wisdom within entombed somewhere.

 

In any case, long digression – he pointed out that while the AWG-9 performed better at the extremes of radar function, it was nothing to write home about at normal engagement ranges. The Hornet’s radar was also much easier to operate, a necessity given the single crew member of the Legacy Hornet. One of the Tomcat’s other big advantages was that it a had a RIO who devoted nearly all of his attention to developing a good radar picture using conventional tools and some seemingly archaic tools (using the upper radar screen, which was largely unfiltered radar data compared to the larger PTID – whose output was like the conventional radar display that we are accustomed to with 4th gen fighters). A great RIO could develop impressive SA, but a crappy RIO could leave you blind. In the Hornet, electronics allowed for a consistently good radar picture.

 

A long-winded post (sorry :)), but I think that if ED can obtain adequate documentation to develop a realistic model of the Hornet’s radar, then I really should be possible to do the same for the AWG-9. Especially with good input from SMEs, which you REALLY need to do any detailed rendition of an aircraft like the Tomcat. Also, LNS gave a great interview on the 476th’s Podcast in January, pretty insightful with regards to their process and mindset. One of the reasons that have been cagey about in-development aircraft is that they don’t want to announce a project till they are almost completely sure that they can finish it and release a great product (seems pretty smart) – instead of announcing a project and shutting down once the community is excited. I’m confident that finding the right info to model the AWG-9 radar would have been part of the conceptualization/prep process.

 

They did mention that the AIM-54 is short on documentation, I think if the radar was also missing critical information, they would not have announced.

 

In any case, we’ll see. I remain optimistic that my favorite aircraft will join DCS world in the next 12 months or so.

 

-Nick

Edited May 24, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Mizzy]

I don't quite understand this, it's apples, pears and oranges.

 

Mizzy

[BlackLion213]

I don't quite understand this, it's apples, pears and oranges.

 

Mizzy

 

Sounds delicious...wait a minute, what are we talking about again?

 

-Nick