announced DCS MiG-29A

[norbot]

3 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

So MiG-31s could not match US planes?

Did I understand that correctly?

The MiG-31 was built as an interceptor. Having to take down American bombers, the 31 was very fast and flew very high, but the maneuverability was rather mediocre. So not really a match against American fighters of that era.

[Pavlin_33]

16 minutes ago, norbot said:

The MiG-31 was built as an interceptor. Having to take down American bombers, the 31 was very fast and flew very high, but the maneuverability was rather mediocre. So not really a match against American fighters of that era.

Yes it had max 5G limit if I remember correctly and yes it was designed to be high and fast, but this does not mean it can't efficiently counter threats like an F-15 for example.

We saw it downing a MiG-29 over skies of Ukraine, so it's more then capable of performing other tasks than just intercepting bombers.

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-31 is a 1980s aircraft that ceased production in 1994. So no, aside from the radar it did not match US planes in technology.

Well it could fly higher and faster, had a phase array radar and long range missiles, with capability of engaging 4 targets simultaneosly - I would hardly call this not being able to be an pair.

Edited August 2, 2024 by Pavlin_33

[draconus]

Semantics. MiG-31 equipped with R-33 is a serious threat no NATO aircraft will take lightly.

[falcon_120]

Agreed, also maneuverability is a strentgh that can be diminished or reduced in a bvr fight. To put it in other words, i could bvr in a F16 without pulling more than 5g the whole combat. As long as you respect the timelines and do not enter the MAR you dont need 9gs...

im sure a mig31 with r33 was/is a serious opponent to a aim120b carrier.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

We saw it downing a MiG-29 over skies of Ukraine, so it's more then capable of performing other tasks than just intercepting bombers.

Yes, it can intercept fighters, too. That doesn't put it on par with US aircraft as far as overall capability is concerned, and it's definitely not most people who want modern red air are asking for. It's a flying SA-10 site more than an F-14 equivalent. The point is, the most advanced fighter in widespread service in Russia in the early to mid-2000s was the Su-27S. You will not find a direct counterpart to F-16C in "red" air forces until well into 2010s.

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes, it can intercept fighters, too. That doesn't put it on par with US aircraft as far as overall capability is concerned, and it's definitely not most people who want modern red air are asking for. It's a flying SA-10 site more than an F-14 equivalent. The point is, the most advanced fighter in widespread service in Russia in the early to mid-2000s was the Su-27S. You will not find a direct counterpart to F-16C in "red" air forces until well into 2010s.

I dunno, F-14 was designed for fleet defense, and Aegis was a factor in it becoming obsolete, so flying SAM site is a pretty good comparison I think. Su-27SM, Su-30MKK/MKI all began operation in early 2000s. Are they a small lightweight fighter? No, but in 1992-94 you get MiG-29S, which has 90 km radar range, Fox 3, is that not good enough as a F-16C counterpart at the time of introduction? 

MiG-29K, an aircraft I personally believe is technologically at least on par with F-16C/18C, was introduced in 2009. 
 

For F-16C, Until it gets AMRAAM, it has AIM-7 for BVR only against MiG-29 from 1984 with 80 km radar, 35-70 km missiles, and HOBS/HMS combo. Was it equal to F-16C in every way at the time? No. Did Russian aviation basically lose ten years in the 90s? Yes, but I think saying F-16C has no equal until mid 2010s, is ignoring some of the subtleties, and larger airframes F-16C would face 

If you mean 2007 F-16C block 50 we have in DCS, then yes, I agree not until MiG-29K, Su-27SM3, are equals really ins service. But  until then you also have things like 30MKI and MKK from 2001, does dual seats and large size disqualify it from being considered an equal? I guess it’s semantics and exactly what we are arguing 

Edited August 2, 2024 by AeriaGloria

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

 is that not good enough as a F-16C counterpart at the time of introduction? 

MiG-29K, an aircraft I personally believe is technologically at least on par with F-16C/18C, was introduced in 2009. 
 

For F-16C, Until it gets AMRAAM, it has AIM-7 for BVR only against MiG-29 from 1984 with 80 km radar, 35-70 km missiles, and HOBS/HMS combo. Was it equal to F-16C in every way at the time? No. Did Russian aviation basically lose ten years in the 90s? Yes, but I think saying F-16C has no equal until mid 2010s, is ignoring some of the subtleties, and larger airframes F-16C would face 

If you mean 2007 F-16C block 50 we have in DCS, then yes, I agree not until MiG-29K, Su-27SM3, are equals really ins service. But  until then you also have things like 30MKI and MKK from 2001, does dual seats and large size disqualify it from being considered an equal? I guess it’s semantics and exactly what we are arguing 

 

MiG-29S was produced in tiny numbers. Su-30MKI went to India. Su-30MKK went to China. MiG-29K went, again, to India. China is on the "red" team, but India isn't really (undisputed masters of fencesitting is what they are). None of those were in service in Russia until after 2010. They made better fighters for export than they had for themselves. Fox 3 came to the Viper before 2000s, so my statement is true of any post-90s Viper. Sure, MiG-29A could throw down with any heaters only Viper, but with the -29S being canceled, it couldn't keep up during the era DCS is set in.

The F-14, while it was designed, first of all, for fleet defense, is very much not just a flying SAM site. For one, it is fully capable of engaging fighters in BFM, which MiG-31 can't do. Also, it can't carry a lot of bombs, while F-14 was designed for that role from the start (yes, even the A, they planned to pitch it to the USMC). MiG-31 is limited to interception, unless we consider the recent modification which can also launch the Kinzhal.

[AeriaGloria]

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-29S was produced in tiny numbers. Su-30MKI went to India. Su-30MKK went to China. MiG-29K went, again, to India. China is on the "red" team, but India isn't really (undisputed masters of fencesitting is what they are). None of those were in service in Russia until after 2010. They made better fighters for export than they had for themselves. Fox 3 came to the Viper before 2000s, so my statement is true of any post-90s Viper. Sure, MiG-29A could throw down with any heaters only Viper, but with the -29S being canceled, it couldn't keep up during the era DCS is set in.

The F-14, while it was designed, first of all, for fleet defense, is very much not just a flying SAM site. For one, it is fully capable of engaging fighters in BFM, which MiG-31 can't do. Also, it can't carry a lot of bombs, while F-14 was designed for that role from the start (yes, even the A, they planned to pitch it to the USMC). MiG-31 is limited to interception, unless we consider the recent modification which can also launch the Kinzhal.

You see before words like “ not on par with,” or “is not a counter part” were being used, To me that does not mean “isn’t equal in some ways,” but roughly similar, with the end result depending more on how it is used. 
 

F-16C gets AMRAAM in 1992, that’s 8 years of MiG-29 having the longer stick in addition to its WVR edge. MiG-31 is here in 1984 before F-14D or AIM-54C 

If we want to bring production numbers, who operates what, and turn this into a “who would win war at certain dates based on number of airframes, or if both countries fight a battle with only these two aircraft they have at the time” then there’s not much I can say.

For example, I do not subscribe to the idea that the MiG-31 only being capable of 5 G is somethIng that makes it “not comparable/on par with F-16/F-14” because it gains quite a lot of capability from not focusing on BFM. Speed, missile payload, PESA and wide angle IRST, data link with other assets such as Su-27, EWR, and MiG-23P. There is a lot of advantages over western airframes at the end of Cold War, even iF those advantages were eroded away. 
 

Does F-14/16 get PESA/AESA before 21st century? Did F-14D with its IRST, fielded in 1991 , operate in comparable numbers to MiG-31 at the same timeframe? Was it able to offload targets digitally to other platforms with less radar range? If our MiG-31 crew is at the same level as say our F-14/16 crew, will the MiG-31 just happily merge against their training and into a situation they know has the odds against them? Is anything western at the time  able to intercept at Mach 2.8 over 20 km?
 

Are we putting equal emphasis on BVR/WVR? Are we going to assume the western pilots are better from more flight hours?

 

We could go on forever like this! Does Phoenix beat R-33 in range? Yes. Did F-16C get AIM-120A in 1992? Did MiG-29S get R-77 in 1991 while having R-27 variants since 84? Yea. Is MiG-29/31 comparable in role and use to F-14/16? I believe so. Does Russia begin to lose the advantages they inherited from USSR because of economy until modernization post-2010? Of course 

 If you include China on red side like you mention, and take into account how these assets are supported and used, it becomes more grey? I think so, especially say 2005-2010. 

Or are the US jets also not comparable to USSR jets in certain ways also? For a long time they are lacking HOBS TVC missiles with HMS, AESA/PESA, IRST focus, or a widely deployed  and cross platform compatible GCI datalink unless you want to pit F-106 against MiG-29/31?

Is MiG-31 designed for BFM or meant to be used that way? Or perhaps is it’s lack of maneuverability a compromise to fly faster and higher than any Western fighter with the first PESA and likely the longest range IRST of the Cold War. Does F-14 being designed to carry bombs/rockets in the rare event it was needed mean it wasn’t built or designed to be a Long range missile carrier like MiG-31? 
 

I apologize for making this such a long message. I just can’t accept that a missile being shorter ranged, or having AMRAAM after 92, or low production numbers and lack of domestic sales automatically disqualify any MiG from being comparable. But I completely understand that if real war broke out, the advantages of these eastern platforms will have the odds stacked against them. 
 

How about, 4 MiG-31 against 4 F-14, 4 MiG-29 against 4x F-16C. Equal skill and tactical situation. Are they “comparable” or on par? Are the F-14/16 pilots going to dismiss MiG-31 as not having an advantage and to not worry since it will be easy to kill it WVR if Phoenix doesn’t work? What if it’s 1987 and MiG-29 has R-27R against AIM-9 only F-16C?

US vs USSR/Russia? Sure US will win. Does that have a lot to do with economy and logistics? Sure. Personally, I find economics and logistics somewhat boring, and airplanes much more fun to talk about. 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

There is a lot of advantages over western airframes at the end of Cold War, even iF those advantages were eroded away. 

But you're talking about late Cold War all the time. Discussion is about "modern" DCS timeline, which is smack dab in the middle of a period in which Russian aircraft production really wasn't at its best. Half of your post is arguing about how things were before USSR fell, at best or right after. This doesn't enter into discussion about modern-era DCS modules. If nothing else, it proves the point that to get true peer to peer combat, you need to go back to late Cold War.

In that timeline, 4 MiG-29 vs. 4 Viper would handily go to the Viper with its AMRAAMs. 4 F-14 vs. 4 MiG-31 would likely to to the Tomcat, as all they have to do is survive BVR. Against an airframe like this, the best option is to banzai across the MAR and force a WVR engagement. Which, with Phoenix outranging the R-33, the F-14 is very well set up to do. Add to it that the F-14 we have is not the latest model, that would be F-14D, with an even better radar, fancy HUD and MFDs.

Also, I'm talking in context of DCS multiplayer, and there, players would find assets like MiG-25 or MiG-31 disappointing. Between its limited WVR capabilities and its weapons, the MiG-31 would still be fighting from a position of disadvantage most of the time. Not to mention, its cockpit design is far from modern, and its datalink does not compare favorably to Link-16 (it's more like Tomcat's Link-4). My point is, at this point in the timeline, there's no "red" aircraft (other than prototypes) that would have a glass cockpit, Fox 3 and all that, maybe except the Su-30MKK. At the same time, the US had a full fleet of Block 52 Vipers, Hornets, Strike Eagles, and the F-14 was still alive and kicking.

[draconus]

9 hours ago, TKhaos said:

The R-33 did have a slight advantage on speed at Mach 4.5, compared to the AIM-54A/B Mach 4.3 but then that changed with the AIM-54C which had a reported speed of Mach 5.

Just to bring down the myths. No Phoenix cold reach 5M. That one was theorethical NASA computation only for a lower weight test Phoenix.

4.3M could probably be reached with a max speed and alt shoot of the production AIM-54.

C version got guidance and CCM improvements mostly with same engine Mk47 or the other Mk60 but there was no range advantage.

Speaking of ranges - there's no point in presenting any numbers without shot parameters or even specifying what kind of range it is while US and Russia do use different definitions.

[AeriaGloria]

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

But you're talking about late Cold War all the time. Discussion is about "modern" DCS timeline, which is smack dab in the middle of a period in which Russian aircraft production really wasn't at its best. Half of your post is arguing about how things were before USSR fell, at best or right after. This doesn't enter into discussion about modern-era DCS modules. If nothing else, it proves the point that to get true peer to peer combat, you need to go back to late Cold War.

In that timeline, 4 MiG-29 vs. 4 Viper would handily go to the Viper with its AMRAAMs. 4 F-14 vs. 4 MiG-31 would likely to to the Tomcat, as all they have to do is survive BVR. Against an airframe like this, the best option is to banzai across the MAR and force a WVR engagement. Which, with Phoenix outranging the R-33, the F-14 is very well set up to do. Add to it that the F-14 we have is not the latest model, that would be F-14D, with an even better radar, fancy HUD and MFDs.

Also, I'm talking in context of DCS multiplayer, and there, players would find assets like MiG-25 or MiG-31 disappointing. Between its limited WVR capabilities and its weapons, the MiG-31 would still be fighting from a position of disadvantage most of the time. Not to mention, its cockpit design is far from modern, and its datalink does not compare favorably to Link-16 (it's more like Tomcat's Link-4). My point is, at this point in the timeline, there's no "red" aircraft (other than prototypes) that would have a glass cockpit, Fox 3 and all that, maybe except the Su-30MKK. At the same time, the US had a full fleet of Block 52 Vipers, Hornets, Strike Eagles, and the F-14 was still alive and kicking.

In my Cold War timeline, what AMRAAM is the F-16 using before 1992….

F-14 fighting MiG-31, how are they going to push MAR/WVR against a plane that will be cruising at Mach 2.35-2.8 at 20 km? Even a MiG-31 can barely hit its G limit at 20 km if you pull all the way back on the stick, and I don’t think much else will be able to pull much G or catch a MiG-31 up there if the 31 doesn’t want to be caught 

Tell me, If MiG-31 has Link 4 equivalent in 84, when was Link 16 introduced in F-16? 
 

Yes in 2000-2010, equal numbers/skill, redfor is getting slammed, not contested. But I don’t think MiG-31 is such an easy catch 

It is a lack of comprehensive upgrades and production of new models, in addition to classification making them hard to model, and Bluefor pilots often outnumber Reddit pilots 2:1 online, that leads to our curbstomp situation. But when MiG-29/31 are introduced, I definitely believe they are comparable and remain so for some time 

[Dragon1-1]

22 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

In my Cold War timeline, what AMRAAM is the F-16 using before 1992…

In what timeline is 1992 "mid-2000s"? Also, in what timeline is that year relevant to a discussion about mid-2000s?

22 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

F-14 fighting MiG-31, how are they going to push MAR/WVR against a plane that will be cruising at Mach 2.35-2.8 at 20 km?

They won't, because MiG-31 does not "cruise" at Mach 2 at 20km. To reach that kind of speed and altitude, it needs full burner and a lot of room to climb and accelerate. More than we have in DCS on most maps, in fact. So this capability is largely irrelevant. In a typical DCS scenario, it'd be hard pressed to go much faster and higher than Tomcat usually does. It's closer to an armed SR-71 than to the F-14 when it comes to how it's flown.

22 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

It is a lack of comprehensive upgrades and production of new models,

...and that's really my whole point. Nothing to do with classification (it's IP licensing which was holding up ED making the MiG for a long time, not government veto), and everything to do with the fact there's simply no good red counterpart for most BLUFOR aircraft. Consider that you keep going back to a specialized interceptor that, while quite capable, is still 80s tech.

Also, we're not getting a MiG-31 in DCS, as far as I know. Even if the phased array wasn't classified, it's probably too much of a one trick pony, not to mention it's a two seater that requires even more crew cooperation than the F-14 does. MiG-29 will be great for Cold War scenarios, and if we get Su-27S, it'll match up quite well with the F-14. We don't have the F-16A, and the period accurate F-15C is FC3, though I hope someone will eventually make it in FF.

Edited August 4, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[AeriaGloria]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In what timeline is 1992 "mid-2000s"? Also, in what timeline is that year relevant to a discussion about mid-2000s?

They won't, because MiG-31 does not "cruise" at Mach 2 at 20km. To reach that kind of speed and altitude, it needs full burner and a lot of room to climb and accelerate. More than we have in DCS on most maps, in fact. So this capability is largely irrelevant. In a typical DCS scenario, it'd be hard pressed to go much faster and higher than Tomcat usually does. It's closer to an armed SR-71 than to the F-14 when it comes to how it's flown.

...and that's really my whole point. Nothing to do with classification (it's IP licensing which was holding up ED making the MiG for a long time, not government veto), and everything to do with the fact there's simply no good red counterpart for most BLUFOR aircraft. Consider that you keep going back to a specialized interceptor that, while quite capable, is still 80s tech.

Also, we're not getting a MiG-31 in DCS, as far as I know. Even if the phased array wasn't classified, it's probably too much of a one trick pony, not to mention it's a two seater that requires even more crew cooperation than the F-14 does. MiG-29 will be great for Cold War scenarios, and if we get Su-27S, it'll match up quite well with the F-14. We don't have the F-16A, and the period accurate F-15C is FC3, though I hope someone will eventually make it in FF.

 

Exactly, DCS is one discussion. MiG-29S not being relevant from low production miners is another

One of the great things about the MiG-25/31 airframe though is its high speed efficient, 25 can get 1800 km range from cruising at Mach 0.9, or 1600 km from cruising at Mach 2.35. In MiG-25 manuals, Mach 2.35 is quite literally considered the most optimum high altitude cruise. It will not need to use full burner for it. MiG-31 also has the benefit of aerial refueling. 

Its engines seem to be not as powerful at high altitude, but at the cost of increased efficiency and power down low, where it is just as fast as MiG-29/Su-27 on the deck. It will get apparently 1,450 km at Mach 0.8 10 km cruise, and 720 km combat radius at Mach 2.35 20 km cruise.

But anyways, it appears we are essentially at agreement. When MiG-29 “A” releases however, I will have as much fun as possible pushing it as much as it can in both old and new scenarios. 

[okopanja]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They won't, because MiG-31 does not "cruise" at Mach 2 at 20km. To reach that kind of speed and altitude, it needs full burner and a lot of room to climb and accelerate. More than we have in DCS on most maps, in fact. So this capability is largely irrelevant. In a typical DCS scenario, it'd be hard pressed to go much faster and higher than Tomcat usually does. It's closer to an armed SR-71 than to the F-14 when it comes to how it's flown.

You do not need much space to reach Mach 2 within 7-8 minutes with flanker, you just need to do circular climb and be careful with the stick not too pull lots of Gs.

Would be interesting to see Mig-25/31 with their huge engines at the same task.

Yes, you will spend a lot of fuel, but it is easily doable.

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They won't, because MiG-31 does not "cruise" at Mach 2 at 20km. To reach that kind of speed and altitude, it needs full burner and a lot of room to climb and accelerate. More than we have in DCS on most maps, in fact. So this capability is largely irrelevant. In a typical DCS scenario, it'd be hard pressed to go much faster and higher than Tomcat usually does. It's closer to an armed SR-71 than to the F-14 when it comes to how it's flown.

I call BS. Yes they cruise at 2.35M at 20km. They climb pretty good like 9min to 20km and they can go higher. Its high speed combat range is reported around 400nm so quite usable in every DCS map if you ask me.

So it maybe not comparable to other nimble fighters but It's far from pig like SR-71.

[Dragon1-1]

51 minutes ago, draconus said:

I call BS. Yes they cruise at 2.35M at 20km.

This is not cruising, they use afterburner to maintain that speed. Yes, it can go pretty far that way, but at that speed and altitude, it covers its 400nm combat radius in less than 20 minutes. "Cruise speed" usually means you can maintain it for longer than that. 

MiG-31's actual cruise speed is subsonic, just like most other aircraft of the time. At Mach 0.8 and 10km its combat range is over 1300nm. That is what we usually call cruising. 

Edited August 4, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[Pavlin_33]

@Dragon1-1 don't get me wrong, but you are cherry-picking arguments in order to drive some point that US aiplanes of the erra could not be opposed by the Soviets.

Anyway real life is not a DCS server where individual people are having a pi**ing competition and trying to be the next top gun.

You are looking at it through a prism of DCS and that can give you a distorted image. Number one task of airforce pilots is to deny airspace, and no to collect medals. If you achieve this by sending a baloon, then what does it matter how you did it? Gross exaggeration, but you get the point.

[AeriaGloria]

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This is not cruising, they use afterburner to maintain that speed. Yes, it can go pretty far that way, but at that speed and altitude, it covers its 400nm combat radius in less than 20 minutes. "Cruise speed" usually means you can maintain it for longer than that. 

MiG-31's actual cruise speed is subsonic, just like most other aircraft of the time. At Mach 0.8 and 10km its combat range is over 1300nm. That is what we usually call cruising. 

 

I see 720 km and 1450 km for combat range. Which would be 400 nm for high alt high speed and  780 nm for 10 km Subsonic cruise. So not quite as big a difference as 400 vs 1300. 
 

With aerial refueling, the advantages from the height in missile/sensor range and descent, I’m not too concerned that wouldn’t make it a “counterpart” or “on par.” But alas, it won’t be in DCS for maybe decades. 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

@Dragon1-1 don't get me wrong, but you are cherry-picking arguments in order to drive some point that US aiplanes of the erra could not be opposed by the Soviets.

By the Russians (USSR fell before 2000). And my point is, and always was, that US had a technological lead on Russia in mid-2000s, and therefore it is futile to look for symmetric counterparts to mid-2000s US modules among the Russian aircraft, because at the time, no such thing existed. It's not dev bias, Russian laws or anything, just technical reality of that specific period. That's the only point I ever tried to make. I'm looking through a prism of DCS because we're playing DCS.

To deny airspace IRL, Russia would have used, first of all, what they're using in Ukraine today: SAM sites. MiG-25, was a solution to protect the vast tracts of Siberia that were impractical to plaster with SAM sites, and the MiG-31 is a modernized derivative with slightly expanded mission profile. They would be supplementing the SAM screen, not trying to establish air superiority over hostile territory. The frontline fighters were, in mid-2000s, Su-27S and MiG-29A, the latter being more or less exactly the same as what we're getting, maybe with a commercial GPS unit strapped on.

6 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

So not quite as big a difference as 400 vs 1300. 

I seem to have mixed up values in km and nm. Difference is not as big, but consider that it takes about two hours to get all the way across the subsonic combat range at Mach 0.8, compared to under 20 minutes for the supersonic dash. Since that one was about the exact definition of "cruise", then it's important to consider both time and range.

Edited August 4, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[AeriaGloria]

“F-14 was for fleet defense. It would never fly over a hostile nation or partake in offensive operations…..” 

In Ukraine today, 3rd parties have claimed MiG-31 achieving aerial victories up to 217 km of range with R-37M. That is, if you wanted to bring Ukraine present day into this. 
 

It may be intended as a flying SAM sight, but I don’t think that means it is always used as a defensive force only. 
F-14 was not meant to be used as mobile AWACS, but Iran liked using it that way. 
 

I love tactics and using these how they were intended to be used, but I don’t think that pegs into quite such a narrow role as “it wouldn’t have frontline sorties.” 
 

But okay, if 720 km/400 nm is short at 20 km and Mach 2.35 with aerial refueling, what is the range of F-15 or F-16 maintaining supersonic at 30-40,000 feet? I don’t know of any way to access that info; but might be interesting comparison. Might see if I can find supersonic range for MiG-29 

21 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

By the Russians (USSR fell before 2000). And my point is, and always was, that US had a technological lead on Russia in mid-2000s, and therefore it is futile to look for symmetric counterparts to mid-2000s US modules among the Russian aircraft, because at the time, no such thing existed. It's not dev bias, Russian laws or anything, just technical reality of that specific period. That's the only point I ever tried to make. I'm looking through a prism of DCS because we're playing DCS.

To deny airspace IRL, Russia would have used, first of all, what they're using in Ukraine today: SAM sites. MiG-25, was a solution to protect the vast tracts of Siberia that were impractical to plaster with SAM sites, and the MiG-31 is a modernized derivative with slightly expanded mission profile. They would be supplementing the SAM screen, not trying to establish air superiority over hostile territory. The frontline fighters were, in mid-2000s, Su-27S and MiG-29A, the latter being more or less exactly the same as what we're getting, maybe with a commercial GPS unit strapped on.

I seem to have mixed up values in km and nm. Difference is not as big, but consider that it takes about two hours to get all the way across the subsonic combat range at Mach 0.8, compared to under 20 minutes for the supersonic dash. Since that one was about the exact definition of "cruise", then it's important to consider both time and range.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2024 by AeriaGloria

[Pavlin_33]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

By the Russians (USSR fell before 2000). And my point is, and always was, that US had a technological lead on Russia in mid-2000s, and therefore it is futile to look for symmetric counterparts to mid-2000s US modules among the Russian aircraft, because at the time, no such thing existed. It's not dev bias, Russian laws or anything, just technical reality of that specific period. That's the only point I ever tried to make. I'm looking through a prism of DCS because we're playing DCS.

That's something else. I agree on this.

[Ronin_Gaijin]

Daily MiG-29
Slovakian MiG-29UB 9.51

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

But okay, if 720 km/400 nm is short at 20 km and Mach 2.35 with aerial refueling, what is the range of F-15 or F-16 maintaining supersonic at 30-40,000 feet? 

This is not likely to be in any manual, but it can be figured out experimentally. Go up in the Viper or the F-15C, get up there and note the fuel flow indicator with burners on, and the mach number you get. Once you have that, it's simple arithmetic to get how long you can fly like that on a full tank (since AAR is a thing, you don't need to account for takeoff). Calculate TAS from mach using either the formula, an online calculator, or the switch in the jet while you're there. Remove a reasonable bingo value from your fuel load to get combat range.

Also note, I didn't say the MiG-31's supersonic dash is short ranged. I said it can't be called a cruise, because you typically don't cruise for 20 minutes. In fact, it probably compares well to the Viper, which is notorious for its short legs. Supercruise in fighters wasn't a thing until F-22, and before then, Concorde, Tu-144 and SR-71 were pretty much the only aircraft capable of it AFAIK, and that's only if you consider the "afterburner" on the SR-71 to be a full-on ramjet that just happened to be integrated with the turbine. Turns out, going supersonic and staying there without an afterburner isn't trivial.

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This is not likely to be in any manual, but it can be figured out experimentally. Go up in the Viper or the F-15C, get up there and note the fuel flow indicator with burners on, and the mach number you get. Once you have that, it's simple arithmetic to get how long you can fly like that on a full tank (since AAR is a thing, you don't need to account for takeoff). Calculate TAS from mach using either the formula, an online calculator, or the switch in the jet while you're there. Remove a reasonable bingo value from your fuel load to get combat range.

Also note, I didn't say the MiG-31's supersonic dash is short ranged. I said it can't be called a cruise, because you typically don't cruise for 20 minutes. In fact, it probably compares well to the Viper, which is notorious for its short legs. Supercruise in fighters wasn't a thing until F-22, and before then, Concorde, Tu-144 and SR-71 were pretty much the only aircraft capable of it AFAIK, and that's only if you consider the "afterburner" on the SR-71 to be a full-on ramjet that just happened to be integrated with the turbine. Turns out, going supersonic and staying there without an afterburner isn't trivial.

The calculation can get you the ball park number but it'll be always longer than that since the loss of fuel makes you lighter and you need less and less power to keep your M number. Because of that many non-supercruise aircraft can easily supercruise when light enough.

One thing to add about MiG-31 or alike either in DCS or IRL - it'd be used as necessary whenever possible like all other aircraft end up to be used, not only factory made assumptions and air force plans.

[Ronin_Gaijin]

Daily MiG-29
Slovakian MiG-29AS 9.12A