F-14 vs MiG-25 vs MiG-31

[Frisco1522]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, looking at the stats and a documentary or 2, these airplanes actually seem quite similar in terms of roles.

 

F-14

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (2,485 km/h, 1,544 mph) at high altitude

Range: 3,204 km(1,991 miles)

Ferry range: 2,960 km (1,600 nmi)

Service ceiling: 15,200 m (49,869 ft)

Rate of climb: 229 m/s (45,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 553.9 kg/m² (113.4 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.92

 

 

MiG-25

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 3.2 (3,470 km/h, 2,170 mph) at high altitude; Mach 2.83 (3,200 km/h, 1,920 mph) continuous engine limit; Mach 0.98 (1,200 km/h, 746 mph) at altitude

Range: 1,730 km (935 nmi, 1,075 mi) with internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,575 km (1,390 nmi)

Service ceiling: 20,700 m (67,915 ft) with four missiles; over 24,400 m (80,000 ft) for RB models

Rate of climb: 208 m/s (40,950 ft/min)

Wing loading: 598 kg/m² (122.5 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.41

 

 

MiG-31

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.83 (3,000 km/h, 1,860 mph) at high altitude; Mach 1.2 (1,500 km/h, 930 mph) at low altitude

Cruise speed: 2,500 km/h (supersonic, Mach 2.35)

Range: 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 / 720 km (447 mi) at Mach 2.35

Ferry range: 3,300 km (2,050 mi)

Service ceiling: 20,600 m (67,600 ft)

Rate of climb: 208 m/s (41,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 665 kg/m² (136 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.85

 

 

The F-14 and the MiG-31 in particular were both known for being able to track and engage 6 targets simultaneously, all 3 are categorized as Interceptor/Fighters and were used for similar roles. What could the F-14 do that the MiG's couldn't, and vice versa?

 

This documentary about the MiG's claims the MiG-31 is more comparable to an F-22, but I think they are really more comparable to a Tomcat.

From MIG-25 to MIG-31 (Documentary)

 

Frisco1522

Edited May 14, 2015 by Frisco1522

[turkeydriver]

Your info on the F-14 is inaccurate. That's the wing loading from the swing wings only, not the huge tails, not the lifting surface between the engines(has more lift than the wings, and stalls at a lower speed than the wings)

 

Playing Devil's Advocate here, looking at the stats and a documentary or 2, these airplanes actually seem quite similar in terms of roles.

 

F-14

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (2,485 km/h, 1,544 mph) at high altitude

Range: 3,204 km(1,991 miles)

Ferry range: 2,960 km (1,600 nmi)

Service ceiling: 15,200 m (49,869 ft)

Rate of climb: 229 m/s (45,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 553.9 kg/m² (113.4 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.92

 

 

MiG-25

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 3.2 (3,470 km/h, 2,170 mph) at high altitude; Mach 2.83 (3,200 km/h, 1,920 mph) continuous engine limit; Mach 0.98 (1,200 km/h, 746 mph) at altitude

Range: 1,730 km (935 nmi, 1,075 mi) with internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,575 km (1,390 nmi)

Service ceiling: 20,700 m (67,915 ft) with four missiles; over 24,400 m (80,000 ft) for RB models

Rate of climb: 208 m/s (40,950 ft/min)

Wing loading: 598 kg/m² (122.5 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.41

 

 

MiG-31

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.83 (3,000 km/h, 1,860 mph) at high altitude; Mach 1.2 (1,500 km/h, 930 mph) at low altitude

Cruise speed: 2,500 km/h (supersonic, Mach 2.35)

Range: 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 / 720 km (447 mi) at Mach 2.35

Ferry range: 3,300 km (2,050 mi)

Service ceiling: 20,600 m (67,600 ft)

Rate of climb: 208 m/s (41,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 665 kg/m² (136 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.85

 

 

The F-14 and the MiG-31 in particular were both known for being able to track and engage 6 targets simultaneously, all 3 are categorized as Interceptor/Fighters and were used for similar roles. What could the F-14 do that the MiG's couldn't, and vice versa?

 

This documentary about the MiG's claims the MiG-31 is more comparable to an F-22, but I think they are really more comparable to a Tomcat.

From MIG-25 to MIG-31 (Documentary)

 

Frisco1522

[Frisco1522]

Well I just happen to see.."We" happened to see an F-14 do a 4G negative dive....

Kidding!

 

Jokes aside, this is just the data Wikipedia supplied me so I could get the ball rolling. If you have the exact stats on it, can't hurt to post it.

 

Frisco1522

[Exorcet]

Your info on the F-14 is inaccurate. That's the wing loading from the swing wings only, not the huge tails, not the lifting surface between the engines(has more lift than the wings, and stalls at a lower speed than the wings)

It's not really inaccurate, wing loading doesn't account for all the lift. If it's wrong for the F-14, it's wrong for basically every fighter. At the end of the day it isn't the most reliable stat for gauging performance.

 

On the actual subject from what I know, the F-14 could operate from a ship, carried ARH missiles as opposed to SARH (though for extremely long range shots I'd suppose there was a lot of guiding to be done, I don't know the AIM-54's radar range), and is the most maneuverable of the three. The MiG-25 is pretty old and is actually a generation behind the other two. It wouldn't really be the biggest threat in a fight, though its speed can be very useful against modern fighters.

 

MiG-31 vs F-14 would be interesting to see, as would the performance of their long range missiles against fighters.

[Numien]

The biggest difference is simply that the F-14 was designed to be a naval fighter/interceptor, where the MiG-25 and -31 were designed for border interception against bombers and recon (though their role has expanded somewhat since).

 

Overall, yes, they are reasonably similar in terms of performance.

[turkeydriver]

It's not really inaccurate, wing loading doesn't account for all the lift. If it's wrong for the F-14, it's wrong for basically every fighter. At the end of the day it isn't the most reliable stat for gauging performance.

 

On the actual subject from what I know, the F-14 could operate from a ship, carried ARH missiles as opposed to SARH (though for extremely long range shots I'd suppose there was a lot of guiding to be done, I don't know the AIM-54's radar range), and is the most maneuverable of the three. The MiG-25 is pretty old and is actually a generation behind the other two. It wouldn't really be the biggest threat in a fight, though its speed can be very useful against modern fighters.

 

MiG-31 vs F-14 would be interesting to see, as would the performance of their long range missiles against fighters.

 

The MiG-25 is impressive as an interceptor any day. It's radar was pretty much unjammable inside of 20 miles, and its missiles were designed to operate in a heavy jamming environment. It has the performance to catch everyone up high and take 4 shots at you.

 

The MiG-31 is refined. It's unknowns are the datalink capabilities and how well these are built into the radar receiver and processor. It built on the F-14s early Link4 system, but I don't know who is better- an F-14D or a MiG-31(latest upgrade) for the air control/intercept mission.

[Hummingbird]

The main and big difference is that the F-14 is a thoroughbred fighter on top of its interceptor role, whilst the MiG-25 & 31 are not.

[King_Hrothgar]

It's hard to compare the F-14 to either of them tbh. The MiG-25 and 31 were built for a single thing, incredible speed. Used properly, that speed advantage should make them effectively invincible in combat against anything else. The F-14 relies on low speed agility and a powerful radar. All three are good aircraft in their own ways, but the F-14 doesn't really compare well to them. It has more in common with an Su-27 or F-15.

[AussieGhost789]

The MiG-25 is impressive as an interceptor any day. It's radar was pretty much unjammable inside of 20 miles, and its missiles were designed to operate in a heavy jamming environment. It has the performance to catch everyone up high and take 4 shots at you.

 

The MiG-31 is refined. It's unknowns are the datalink capabilities and how well these are built into the radar receiver and processor. It built on the F-14s early Link4 system, but I don't know who is better- an F-14D or a MiG-31(latest upgrade) for the air control/intercept mission.

 

The problem with the MiG-25 is its armament. The MiG-25's R-40's don't have a range comparable to the AIM-54. This is of course if Wikipedia is to be believed. Yes, yes, I know wiki stats for missiles are practically worthless because you aren't given any information about the launch parameters. But with a difference in range of over 100km, even on wiki, it at least gives us an indication that the missiles have vastly different range capabilities. The MiG-31's R-33's seem, at least on the surface, more comparable to the AIM-54.

 

Edit: Please someone tell me I'm wrong! I'd love to see a MiG-25 that can compete with the F-14 in long range BVR in DCS >.<

Edited May 15, 2015 by AussieGhost789

[Exorcet]

The MiG-25 is impressive as an interceptor any day. It's radar was pretty much unjammable inside of 20 miles, and its missiles were designed to operate in a heavy jamming environment. It has the performance to catch everyone up high and take 4 shots at you.

I don't know that much about the 25's avionics besides the fact that the 31 kept them from being upgraded. Jamming at 20+ miles would probably leave the plane vulnerable to AMRAAM or similar missiles. I wouldn't think its own ECM is as good as 4th+ gen. The speed is a big strength though, as shown in Desert Storm. It would probably help the MiG more with defense than offense as its endurance is poor.

[Greekbull]

While I think the Mig25 and 31 might be close on paper it shouldn't be a comparison at all in the air. That MIG airframe was terrible and couldn't turn to save it's life. It sure made us design the F-15 because we thought it was a threat...till one defected and we saw it was nothing to fear at all. If your intercepting big bombers the Mig might be a decent choice but even then it would likely fall short. If you were going into a fight with other fighters it would be no comparison at all....F-14 any day!

[Farlander]

While I think the Mig25 and 31 might be close on paper it shouldn't be a comparison at all in the air. That MIG airframe was terrible and couldn't turn to save it's life. It sure made us design the F-15 because we thought it was a threat...till one defected and we saw it was nothing to fear at all. If your intercepting big bombers the Mig might be a decent choice but even then it would likely fall short. If you were going into a fight with other fighters it would be no comparison at all....F-14 any day!

 

An airframe is bad because it cant do hard turns? If i follow that way of thinking, then the F-16 sucks because it cant go mach 3 :lol:

 

You really think that being able to go mach 2.8-3 wont help you in defeating missiles?

[King_Hrothgar]

While I think the Mig25 and 31 might be close on paper it shouldn't be a comparison at all in the air. That MIG airframe was terrible and couldn't turn to save it's life. It sure made us design the F-15 because we thought it was a threat...till one defected and we saw it was nothing to fear at all. If your intercepting big bombers the Mig might be a decent choice but even then it would likely fall short. If you were going into a fight with other fighters it would be no comparison at all....F-14 any day!

 

By that logic, we should all still be flying biplanes.

[captain_dalan]

In regards to the original post....

The only similarity i see in the these AC is the reach of their sensor/weapon system package. Aside from that, they could hardly be more different. Both in role, design and performance.

 

The MiG was designed and used as PVO (or air defense) interceptor and the 31 added some significant patrol range. Their main goal was to protect large areas of scarcely populated border regions from strategic bomber incursions. Their performance was directed towards completion of that goal.

 

The F-14 was designed and used as maritime air superiority/fleet defense fighter. Landing on carrier and taking off of them, loitering at distant CAP points for extended periods of time and tangoing with potential bandits were the main goals. The design features reflect these goals.

 

Sure, you can try to classify all of them in the broad "interceptor" role, but if you do this based on the fact that they can all do it at some level of proficiency, then you can do it for most fighters well. Pretty much every bird designed for air to air can perform intercepts in one form or another. :book:

[Dudikoff]

The MiG was designed and used as PVO (or air defense) interceptor and the 31 added some significant patrol range. Their main goal was to protect large areas of scarcely populated border regions from strategic bomber incursions. Their performance was directed towards completion of that goal.

 

More significantly, it added long range missiles and an advanced radar system with long range look-down/shoot-down capability (which the 25 didn't have and 25PD added, albeit at relatively short range) to be able to detect, track and simultaneously engage low flying targets (e.g. cruise missiles or some low flying bombers). And (in response to the original post) it couldn't simultaneously engage 6 targets since it only had 4 R-33 missiles (the MiG-31M was supposed to have carried 6 R-37 missiles which would have also added active-radar terminal homing).

 

In that bomber/cruise missile interception, the F-14 and MiG-31 were somewhat similar (though F-14 could have carried up to 6 Phoenix missiles). The difference was that F-14 was also designed to be a fighter, while the MiG-31 was a pure interceptor which had the advantage of higher top speed and much higher cruise speed IIRC.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Dudikoff

[captain_dalan]

(the MiG-31M was supposed to have carried 6 R-37 missiles which would have also added active-radar terminal homing).

 

Was? What happened to it?

 

...much higher cruise speed IIRC.

That would depend on altitude i guess. And what you consider to be a cruising speed. And which model. After all lightly loaded F110 engined F-14 could go supersonic without using AB. But if you think of the best "economy" cruise, then yes, the tomcats generally cruised at around mach 0.75.

[Dudikoff]

Was? What happened to it?

 

It was never built except a few prototypes? And the missile system was not put into service? I remember it took years for them to make them hit targets at all, but I don't know what was the final status of it. They are working on its successor, the RVV-BD which seems to be based on it, but I don't know what's changed except definitely some non-Russian made components were replaced.

 

That would depend on altitude i guess. And what you consider to be a cruising speed. And which model. After all lightly loaded F110 engined F-14 could go supersonic without using AB. But if you think of the best "economy" cruise, then yes, the tomcats generally cruised at around mach 0.75.

 

I've read that the MiG-31 can cruise at Mach 2 or over at altitude so this is what I was referring to. I don't have any official data regarding this, but I assumed there is some truth to that as this is what the plane was designed for. The F-14B engines were much better at altitude compared to TF-30s, but I'd still expect the MiG-31 to keep its advantage.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Dudikoff

[captain_dalan]

 

I've read that the MiG-31 can cruise at Mach 2 or over at altitude so this is what I was referring to. I don't have any official data regarding this, but I assumed there is some truth to that as this is what the plane was designed for.

 

Wasn't that the 25? Or did the new engines not change the performance all that much?

[Greekbull]

I'm sorry buy just going fast isn't going to win the MIG 25/31 any battles. It will help it escape...but not shoot anything down. Look at what happened in the Gulf War. Fact is the MIG was built for speed but it doesn't have good avionics or performance outside of that straight line speed. And the ability to go Mach 2.8-3 didn't do them any good against F-15s...and there are a lot of reports it didn't help it much against Iranian F-14s either...

[Dudikoff]

Wasn't that the 25? Or did the new engines not change the performance all that much?

 

I searched for where I read this about the supersonic cruise and found some figures are given here, like a combat range of 370 NM at the cruising speed of 2.35M, though I'm not sure how reliable the data is:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Foxbat-Foxhound-92.html

 

They say MiG-25 engines were optimized for sustained high speed on afterburner, but this consumed a lot of fuel as they were turbojet compared to the more fuel-efficient turbofan ones on the MiG-31, hence the improved range. That high speed optimization was also why they had problems reaching high speed at low altitudes.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Basher54321]

The MiG-31 is on a different planet to the MiG-25 regarding avionics / weapons performance - and still has a cruise speed of around M2.4 and top end at M2.8.

 

The MiG-25 Red Line is M2.8 at 60,000ft+ - great if intercepting high alt bomber - absolutely useless if the target is flying low and consider the P in the 70s had no look down capability.

 

The MiG-25 G limit of 4.5/5 whatever is actually pretty good at 60,000 ft.

 

A Vmax chart in a Russian MiG-25 manual puts the top end at M2.8 - but at 39000 ft top end falls to M1.8 and at sea level top end is M0.9 - which seems consistent with other sources (such as Yefim).

 

If that's the case I would put this down to high drag, relatively low T/W and engines optimised for high altitude / speed. So in one case of Desert Storm the MiG-25 was trying to run at ground level from F-15s that were not only faster on the deck but could out accelerate it as well.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Basher54321

[Frostie]

The MiG-25 shouldn't even be in this debate it's comparison is like an F-5 in an F-15vsSu-27vsF-5 debate, out of its depth.

[turkeydriver]

I don't know that much about the 25's avionics besides the fact that the 31 kept them from being upgraded. Jamming at 20+ miles would probably leave the plane vulnerable to AMRAAM or similar missiles. I wouldn't think its own ECM is as good as 4th+ gen. The speed is a big strength though, as shown in Desert Storm. It would probably help the MiG more with defense than offense as its endurance is poor.

 

This topic should be an interceptor comparison purely-not commenting on the fighter portion. Interceptors intercept bombers and HVA, not other fighters. Russia knew it couldn't compete with the technology ability of the United States but it didn't rely on pilot decision making and training, rather strict adherence to ground control directions. To this end, the MiG-25 didn't need a long range radar. The fact that its unjammable inside 20nm means it can lock and kill bombers no matter what defensive ECM they have. The allied coalition most assuredly was jamming responsively on the opening night of GW1, a MiG-25 had no problem tracking a flight of F-18s, locking on one, and shooting it down. The MiG-25 also probably holds the record for surviving the most engagements. While the F-14/F-15/F-16 community have had their share of MiG-25 kills, they and the F-4 have also racked up an impressive amount of AIM-7 and AIM-120 shots that missed because they didn't have the energy to close the engagement.

WVR, the MiG-25 is a target, at altitude and speed, unless you're head on with him, you most likely wont kill him.

 

Let's not forget an old MiG-25 had no problem killing a predator drone with a face shot.....

[captain_dalan]

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Foxbat-Foxhound-92.html

 

Nice read, thanks :thumbup:

[Dudikoff]

To this end, the MiG-25 didn't need a long range radar. The fact that its unjammable inside 20nm means it can lock and kill bombers no matter what defensive ECM they have. The allied coalition most assuredly was jamming responsively on the opening night of GW1, a MiG-25 had no problem tracking a flight of F-18s, locking on one, and shooting it down. The MiG-25 also probably holds the record for surviving the most engagements.

 

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).

Edited May 16, 2015 by Dudikoff