Mig-31 as the ultimate fighter ?

Member for

5 years 11 months

Posts: 2,012

In my opinion Mig-31 appear to be a very good 6 gen fighter mig-31 can achieve max altitude of 123,524 ft , and reach a top speed of mach 2.83 even with 2 fuel tank and 6 missiles making it virtually immune to any other fighters , even the very modern one such as F-22 , F-35 , su-27s ,PAK-FA , Eurofighter ( because at high altitude the air is very thin so the small fin of AA missiles like aim-120 , R-77 or Meteor will be useless they willnot be able to turn at all , and also they have to climb such a long distance that they will loss most of their energy to intercept the very fast mig-31 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31 also since the mig-31 fly at much higher altitude and faster speed ,it's missiles will have much superior energy , thus have extremely long range and , harder for enemies to evade even if both side use the same missile , the superior altitude also help mig-31 to see enemy from the top which have alot bigger RCS so stealth fighter like PAK-FA , F-22 or F-35 willnot be a problem ( apart from IRST ,Mig-31 also have actual L-band radar unlike the su-27s ) so in my opinion there is nothing can beat the mig-31 in BVR the Mig-31 may seem like it very weak in WVR when it run out of missiles as it turn very slow and can only sustain 5 G ( a bit better than F-35 ), however contrast to popular belief turn rate is not the most important factor in dogfight , WW I and WW II battles shown that boom and zoom fighters will win against burn and turn fighter most of the time because they can dictate the engagement (ex : hell cat vs zero )so the most important factor in dogfight actually is speed and acceleration , since the top speed of mig-31 is mach 2.83 even with 6 missiles, it alot faster than any other fighter , and with the thrust/weight ratio of 1.30 http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html it simplyhave acceleration better than most , if not all fighters ( included F-22 and Eurofighter ) what your opinion about this ?
Original post
Profile picture for user Voodoo

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 161

Welcome to the forums.... By the looks of your very first thread you should fit in well with such astute members as Palembang, Goldust, and JSR. Nice start!
Profile picture for user Freehand

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 980

Mach 2.83 with external fuel tanks? Got a source? I think the MiG-31 is a great interceptor, but wouldn't want to have to do ACM against an F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, Mirage, Typhoon or whatever with it.
Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 6,437

The Mig-31 is not without compromises. If you wanna go SuperSonic, well then watch you mission range decrease likewise.. even those 16.000kg of fuel wont keep you in the air for long With the AB lit up. Lets be honest, the Foxhound does play an important role in maintaining and controling Russias airspace, especially in the Far-East where AirBases and other Strategic sites are few and far between in such vast region. The Mig-31 is a great assets for defence, playing on network from Land station, AWACS, and Flankers. But as far as using the Mig-31 in any offensive campagin, its weakness would be exploited quite frequently..

Member for

6 years 7 months

Posts: 783

surprisingly none of the old MiG25 operators signed up to buy them (except Syria's aborted attempt). Libya, India, Iraq, Algeria... all ex/current MiG25 operators who could in theory afford the MiG31s...

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 5,373

6th gen :very_drunk:

Member for

5 years 11 months

Posts: 2,012

The Mig-31 is not without compromises. If you wanna go SuperSonic, well then watch you mission range decrease likewise.. even those 16.000kg of fuel wont keep you in the air for long With the AB lit up. Lets be honest, the Foxhound does play an important role in maintaining and controling Russias airspace, especially in the Far-East where AirBases and other Strategic sites are few and far between in such vast region. The Mig-31 is a great assets for defence, playing on network from Land station, AWACS, and Flankers. But as far as using the Mig-31 in any offensive campagin, its weakness would be exploited quite frequently..
the disadvantage of mig-31 is that it quite expensive and have bad turning ability , however like i have explained turning isnot the most important thing in dogfight since WW II , also the range of mig-31 is quite impressive, even at mach 2.35 it can still have combat radius of 720 km with internal fuel , alot better than any other fighter ( especially the one like Mig-35 , Typhoon , gripen or F-35 )
Mach 2.83 with external fuel tanks? Got a source? I think the MiG-31 is a great interceptor, but wouldn't want to have to do ACM against an F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, Mirage, Typhoon or whatever with it.
mig-31 is not good at turning so in traditional dogfight it will lose , but battles in WWII shown that aircraft with superior speed and acceleration will more likely to win against agile aircraft ( P-40 , hell cat win against Zero ), the mig-31 is obviously the fastest fighter nowadays and with thrust/weight of 1.30 i dont think any other fighter could beat it in acceleration =>dominance in WVR and probably i dont have to explain why no other fighter can beat it in BVR

Member for

5 years 11 months

Posts: 2,012

surprisingly none of the old MiG25 operators signed up to buy them (except Syria's aborted attempt). Libya, India, Iraq, Algeria... all ex/current MiG25 operators who could in theory afford the MiG31s...
as far as i know the mig-31 is not for exported ( same as F-22 )
Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 4,939

MiG-31 is meant to operate line abreast in flights of fours and in groups of flights to scan for cruise missile barrages. Even selecting the weapon fired by the flight can be managed intelligently, to balance out the weapons loads with the best pK.
Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 1,344

MiG-31 does not fly with external tanks. This circus we see only in war ;) [ATTACH=CONFIG]222265[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
mig-32.JPG 151.78 KB
Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 6,437

For such a huge jet, 720 km is not that great of a mission range, its better to trottle Down and conserve fuel, and only use high Mach when absolutly needed. The way i se it, the main Con about Mig-31 is its weapon array.. thos R-33E missiles are not well suited for today threats. It can carry other missile on its wing pylon, but at the cost of drag. Thos R-33 can be used to spooke enemy fighter and make them disengage, but something tells me they are expensive and are of a Limited supply..

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 184

no, it is very old plane. third generation body with fourth generation radar.

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 1,059

The Mig-31 is the best, and now the only, interceptor still flying. Hopefully, if Russia does build a new interceptor to replace the Mig-31, it will be able to turn and burn and not just go fast in a straight line.

Member for

6 years 7 months

Posts: 783

as far as i know the mig-31 is not for exported ( same as F-22 )
yes it is available for export.
Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 4,939

Haavarla- You really do not like the MiG-31. Those missiles you are saying to be ill-suited were designed to pick off targets from an awful long distance and flying at various speed and altitudes. There is no reason to suspect its any more expensive than AIM-54 or any less deadly. The Phoenix was purchased at nearly the same overall numbers as Sparrow III during its production.
Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 6,983

You are betting an awful lot on BVR missiles for MiG-31 to engage top fighters, but their efficiency drop very rapidly 8 sec after launch.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 8,850

as far as i know the mig-31 is not for exported ( same as F-22 )
How would you explain the MiG-31E version, then? (E for eksport, AFAIK) http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_MiG-31E_lg.jpg
Profile picture for user Freehand

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 980

the disadvantage of mig-31 is that it quite expensive and have bad turning ability , however like i have explained turning isnot the most important thing in dogfight since WW II , also the range of mig-31 is quite impressive, even at mach 2.35 it can still have combat radius of 720 km with internal fuel , alot better than any other fighter ( especially the one like Mig-35 , Typhoon , gripen or F-35 ) mig-31 is not good at turning so in traditional dogfight it will lose , but battles in WWII shown that aircraft with superior speed and acceleration will more likely to win against agile aircraft ( P-40 , hell cat win against Zero ), the mig-31 is obviously the fastest fighter nowadays and with thrust/weight of 1.30 i dont think any other fighter could beat it in acceleration =>dominance in WVR and probably i dont have to explain why no other fighter can beat it in BVR
I think the MiG-31 would be short work for an F-15 or later western fighter. We also have to consider the person in the cockpits of each aircraft. I think western pilots are more current than their Russian counterparts. The MiG-31 could be the best fighter in the world, but if it has an inexperienced pilot, then it has very little capability.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 8,850

I think the MiG-31 would be short work for an F-15 or later western fighter. We also have to consider the person in the cockpits of each aircraft. I think western pilots are more current than their Russian counterparts. The MiG-31 could be the best fighter in the world, but if it has an inexperienced pilot, then it has very little capability.
Assuming equal pilots, what advantage would F-15 have over the MiG-31? Slower speed, lower altitude, weaker sensors, shorter weapon range.. Except maneuvrability, what speaks for the Eagle?
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 13,434

Haavarla- You really do not like the MiG-31. Those missiles you are saying to be ill-suited were designed to pick off targets from an awful long distance and flying at various speed and altitudes. There is no reason to suspect its any more expensive than AIM-54 or any less deadly. The Phoenix was purchased at nearly the same overall numbers as Sparrow III during its production.
The R-33E is a big, heavy missile designed for long range. It's semi-active, with a fixed thrust solid fuel motor (quoting the website of the people who sell it). This is OK for engaging targets which can't do much in the way of evasion, such as cruise missiles or bombers, & the powerful radar may be able to burn through ECM better than an active radar missile, but it doesn't look to me like something very effective against most fighters.
Profile picture for user Freehand

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 980

The F-15 would not be going into any engagement blind, it would have AWACS supports as I assume the MiG-31 would have. The AMRAAM may not have the R-40's range but it can get the Eagle close enough to be moderately safe and have a decent kill probablility. The trick would be to get the Foxhound into a dogfight. The Eagle cannot go up to 80,000' but the Foxhound is not going to fly/fight at that level. It would probably top out at 60K-65K where the Eagle has a much better chance of a shot. I'm still not buying the Mach 2.8 top speed for the MiG-31. I have heard it is more like Mach 2.4 and that is something the Eagle can handle.