Mig-31 as the ultimate fighter ?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

More valid question is IMHO can AIM-120 even operate at 25000 meters? Sure an armed MiG-31 can not fly in level at 25000 meters, but it can easily climb, fly for a few minutes with minus SEP and then descend.

For a similar discussion about MiG-25 I had posted this:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126978-How-many-F-22-would-it-take-to-shutdown-MiG-25RBS-reconn-flights&p=2079616#post2079616

see the last part how R-27RE's performance is affected with altitude. IDK about AIM-120, but A/B/C/C-5 has shorter legs than R-27RE, so it should peform even worse.


Depends on what it's intercepting. If the item it's intercepting has sod all manoeuvrability at that altitude, then yes. It won't turn very fast, but then neither will the target. But after a 5 mile climb against a target 30km away it will likely have lost a lot of energy but then the air is very thin wrt drag. The furthest kill to date is from 35km away with an AIM-120C fired by a Dutch F-16.

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 are interceptors not fighters, it's important to note the difference. Interceptors are mainly targeted against bombers and spy planes not enemy fighters.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

The MIG 31 is a 40 year old design, as I & many others have already said.
The best Q is if I parked with an F-22, next to your MIG-35, at a drive through.
Who would pick up the most "Birds" ?????????

The MiG because the intakes are bigger and birds at drive throughs are really fat.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

MiG-25 can cruise at 25000+ meters only if it is very light. At 24 tons, its ceiling is 22500 meters. At 28 tons while carrying 4x FAB-500-62 bombs, it is 21500 meters and top speed drops to M2,7. When fully loaded to 35 tons, and having 5000l centerline tank, its ceiling is just above 15000 metes, and top speed around M1,7.

I have no solid data about MiG-31, but I assume when armed with 4 R-33s and 2xR-40s, it should behave similarly to MiG-25 with 4 FAB-500s. It should cruise at around 21500 meters (70000 feet) at M2,5. If pushing for M2,6+ it needs to stay at less than 19000 meters (62000 feet).


i think missiles are alot less drag than bomb , and the mig-31 is a much newer design compared to mig-25 so it's kinematic aspect should be somewhat better , if not alot better than mig-25 , even if the cruise speed is mach 2.5 only it still much superior to any other fighter , btw mig-31 can carry 6 R-37 and 2 R-40 at the same time
62k feet is not that high, even AIM-7M missile has the capability to reach it, so it is no where close to being invulnerable. However I agree on the conclusion to a degree; its missiles and kinematics combined with zalson radar will provide much better kill range and NEZ to any other 4, 4+ gen fighters; be it F-15 or Eurofighter or anything. It can fire its missiles before the enemy, and if something not goes accordingly to the plan, it can retreat at will without punishment. And this is not a longshot, a MiG-31 can approach to 30-40 kilometers distance to those types, and still have enough energy (speed and altitude) to run away safely. A pair of R-33 or R-40 missiles fired from 30 kilometers will surely have some excellent Pk.

Aim-7 have alot bigger wing compares to R-77 , Aim-120 or meteor so it maneuver much better at high altitude , also what if the mig-31 decide to cruise at mach 2.6 at 70K feet then the enemy's missiles will never going to reach it

And no, bigger missile does not equate to unmaneuverable awacs killer. A Su-27 is way bigger and 6 times heavier than a MiG-15. I doubt anyone is foolish enough to claim MiG-15 is better in agility. Engineers can design a R-33 sized missile more maneuverable than IRIS-T, if they want; only issue is the costs.

Also comparing MiG-31 with F-14 is wrong. In terms of top speed an ceiling, F-14 is inferior to F-15, not even comperable to MiG-31. F-14 is just another fighter, albeit armed with AIM-54s. Then again, this comes to the discussion we are having in "missile evasion tactics" thread. Sure AIM-54 has impressive range, but without aircraft kinematics to back it up its effectiveness is doutbful. This is not an issue for MiG-31+R-33/R-40 combination where it has advantage in both kinematics and missile ranges to all 4/4+ gen fighters


agree , but i think it have advantage over the 5 gen as well

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

My dear sir, this is a promotional video – an advertisement. We cannot take it seriously as a statement of missile capability.

The promotional video for my DSLR camera did not show an elderly short-sighted academic fighting his way through a long series of menus and sub-menus. No, it showed a handsome young photographer effortlessly photographing pretty girls in exotic locations.

i know but then both side have advertising not only the russian , and i have not seen any aircraft maneuver 9G at > 50K feet

What we often forget when talking about maximum speed is the process of actually getting there. A MiG-31 isn't going to turn to run particularly fast at high altitude even subsonic/transonic. If already at high supersonic speeds we're looking at a turn radius the size of a county.

do you have anything to support that statement ? the turn radius may be 2-3 km but that no where the size of a country

you can't apply tactics of WW2 fighters taking advantage of slight manoeuvering or accelleration capabilities to modern dogfight.

At dogfight altitudes and speed, the mig-31 will turn like a brick, won't out accelerate any descent 4th generation fighter (not to mention fox2 missiles), will have the crappiest SA you can imagine due to poor visibility and will be a target easy to spot and target due to its huge size.
A mig-31 deciding to enter a dogfight with, let say a F-16, will be dead after the first turn.

Don't fool yourself, any Mig-31 pilot with a bit of common sens will disengage and return to base when he runs out of BVR missiles.


why can't I ? WW 2 have much better turn range and turn radius compared to jet fighter , the different between their speed ( hell cat vs zero ) also not as much as the different between speed of mig-31 and other modern fighter but WW II fighter still managed to use speed to their advantage
it not really a dogfight in common sense , the mig-31 will make head on a pass and run away ( with it's much superior speed ) then when the enemy is ways out of range , it will turn and come back
btw range of long range missiles like Aim-120 , R-77 , meteor against target running away at mach 2.5 is probably 100 meter , and a R-73 or Aim-9 simply dont have speed to catch the mig-31

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

The F-15 and its successor are more than capable of intercepting aircraft. They are also capable of engaging them in actual air to air combat vs. making an offensive pass or two. The eagle's combat record speaks for itself.

f-15 go against weak opponent , crap missiles , no radar , no RWR , no ECM

A WVR fight between a Mig-31 and a modern 4th generation fighter would look something like this:

http://youtu.be/4g4_jzqBJnA?t=28s

Of course the F-4 in this test can turn substantially tighter than could a Mig-31... the point is it would be no contest at all. The F-4 would have had to get its nose all the way around to the F-15, and even though the F-15 was hardly turning it never came close. Even if its opponent lacked a helmet mounted sight the Mig-31 wouldn't have a chance. Flying against a fighter that did have a helmet mounted sight would be nothing more than an expensive way to commit suicide.

You could also look up the account of the WVR engagement between Mig-25s and F-15Cs in 1991. The F-15s took the advantage from the beginning and controlled the fight until the end.

top speed of aim-9 is mach 2.5 it will not be fast enough to catch the mig-31 , the mig-31 will be out of range long before the missiles complete the turn , and if you want to talk about missiles the mig-31 can carry r-40 too which have much longer range , speed , more suited for high altitude or it can carry R-73 as well with superior launch speed + altitude => missiles from Mig-31 have much better chance of intercepting f-15

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

I took the data from MiG-25 flight manual. Your comment is true, however with each missile and fuel, F-15 or Typhoon has less than advertised ceiling too. Another issue is MiG-25/31 are designed to operate near their ceiling, and high speeds. They are rated for M2.83 and typical intercept mission is always above M2.5. While F-15 is rated to M2.5, how often does F-15 exceed M2.0? IIRC some F-15C airframes completed their service life without even exceeding M2.0 once, which was one of the explainations why F-22 had lower speed requirements.

See my post in missile evasion tactics post. http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?127154-Missile-evasion-tactics&p=2079937#post2079937

I dont know of your confidence, but I am 100% confident that in a scenario where a AIM-120B equipped F-15 face an R-33 armed MiG-31, AIM-120 will have 0% success rate, and R-33 will at least have possibility of having 0+%.

Irrelevant of guidance, F-15Cs equipped with AIM-120B/Cs will not have any greater succes rate againist R-27RE/TE equipped Su-27s, or vice-versa, simply because neither can get close to other to enable it's missile have some sufficient energy for terminal maneuverability. This is the prime reason virtually no R-27R missile ever shoot down an aircraft. Both sides have comperable kinematics, and exact same missiles.

SARH guidance is not flawed in anyway, on the contrary, its far more effective for a given seeker size to track a target. A derivative of SARH, TVM is used on S-300 or Patriot systems to succesfully kill targets 3 times the range AIM-120 even capable of reaching.

Why should it run if it manages to fire its missile? R-33 or R-40 missile is way faster than anything out there, All pilot needs to do is to maneuver aircraft to the edge of its radar coverage. +/- 70 degrees azimuth and -60 degrees elevation helps here.

Also your assumption about turn capability is wrong. At high mach numbers, all other 4th gens will have very little excess power to sustain a turn. Instantenious turns are also problematic, because G limits are more restirictive at high speeds. For example, F-15 (55000 lbs) at 20k feet is limited to just 4,8Gs at M1,05, or 6,5Gs at 40k feet M2,2. MiG-31 with 5G limit will have comperable (sometimes better sometimes worse) instantenious turn rates and with its great excess power, better sustained turn rates.

WVR capability of MiG-31 maybe nonexistant, but its high supersonic maneuverability, climb and turn peformance will easily put F-15, Typhoon or F-22 to shame.

totally agree

The AIM-120D is reported to have a considerable range over its stablemates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Air-to-air_missile_versions

a missile with small fin like aim-120 simply useless at altitude where mig-31 operate caused they can't turn , unless you have mini rocket like on the PAC-3 , also i really doubt the range of Aim-120D, they have exactly the same size of fuel and a smaller fin , quite same weight the different in range may be 20 km at most
aim-120A max range should be 20 km , and for Aim-120D it be 40 km (air breathing missiles like meteor will have much longer range , however at 70K feet the air is too thin for them )

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

What I find somewhat curious is that you would conclude, despite the Mig-25's real world performance in combat where a number were brought down, that it would somehow be a dominating aircraft against a far newer and more capable weapon.

Look at it this way, if the US believed that the Mig-25/31's speed and altitude capabilities would render the AMRAAM ineffective against them, why would the US still be flying with AMRAAM as its sole long-range weapon? It doesn't make a bit of sense given that both the Mig-25 and the Mig-31 have been high profile "threat aircraft" for 40+ years... (and indeed the US has 3 Mig-25 kills, one of which was brought down by an AIM-120)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ5N58z9UUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrYcxXIg5fI

mig-25 that was shot down have crap missiles , dont have radar , RWR , ECM also the pilot wasn't trained properly
and the mig-25 still managed to shot down 1 f-18 and escape from 10 f-15 , and US military dont always have the right choice or solution to everything , they even choose the F-35 as a 5 gen fighter ( a F-35 can only reach mach 1.6 , carry 2 AA missiles , and only maneuver at 4.6 G which is even less agile than mig-31 ) , the main reason for the Aim-120 still in use is that they are cheap and not many country have mig-25 , only Russian have Mig-31

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,912

Firebar anyone? :)

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 472

Kinda pathetic that Keypubs is now attracting the likes of Tu 160 and mig-31bm. Reminds me of F-18Growler. I can only hope that they're trolling and not being serious.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 508

the only advantage the MIG-31 has in combat is its speed, long endurance, long radar detection range and long range air-to-air missiles (R-33, AA-9 Amos).
there have been tests in Russia in the 90's to offer an upgraded version as a SEAD platform (Mig-31BM and E) but never got any orders.

as an interceptor, it is in a class of its own, but in close-range combat its a sitting duck.
i would not concider it a 6th Gen fighter. 4th Gen, yes.

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 932

Look at it this way, if the US believed that the Mig-25/31's speed and altitude capabilities would render the AMRAAM ineffective against them, why would the US still be flying with AMRAAM as its sole long-range weapon? It doesn't make a bit of sense given that both the Mig-25 and the Mig-31 have been high profile "threat aircraft" for 40+ years... (and indeed the US has 3 Mig-25 kills, one of which was brought down by an AIM-120)

With the same analogy a curious question: Why US Navy retired Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? It doesn't make sense going againist slavas or sovremennys, with only legacy harpoons. Matter is even more concerning, with the removal of harpoon launchers, a late Arleigh Burke has no means of sinking a tiny missile boat -like nanuchka III- at stand-off ranges, and with the removal of both CIWSs, it has no point defense at all to survive the missiles it may launch.

Answer is pretty simple i believe. No nation developed enough to take on an US AF/Navy equipment is insane enough to go againist it. Like somebody stated, MiG-25/31 will never be a threat to USAF, as they will be brought down on the ground.

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 932

i think missiles are alot less drag than bomb , and the mig-31 is a much newer design compared to mig-25 so it's kinematic aspect should be somewhat better , if not alot better than mig-25 , even if the cruise speed is mach 2.5 only it still much superior to any other fighter , btw mig-31 can carry 6 R-37 and 2 R-40 at the same time

Debatable, because aerodynamic FAB-500-62s are much smaller than R-33 or R-40 missiles. Also with turbofans instead of turbojets, MiG-31 may even have inferior performance to MiG-25, its impossible to know without solid numbers, which I dont have. R-37 is not yet in service, and it may never enter at all. Current aramament of MiG-31 is R-33S, and i believe it will be until someone decides to upgrade it with RVV-BDs. I believe R-37 upgrade -even if possible- at this stage is not logical. Because in current state MiG-31 already has a clear edge (in terms of attack range) over all legacy fighters. With the development of LO, VLO targets, russians need to upgrade its sensors, not missiles. If it cant achieve a succesful target lock, it cant shoot, no matter the missile range, If MiG-31 had the means to detect F-22 at 150+km it would still be lethal with R-33s. With BM upgrade mainly focused on upgrading avionics, i believe russians think the same way I do, not to an extent to defeat 5th gen to keep costs minimal, but to combat LO 4+ gen fighters like typhoon rafale etc.

Aim-7 have alot bigger wing compares to R-77 , Aim-120 or meteor so it maneuver much better at high altitude , also what if the mig-31 decide to cruise at mach 2.6 at 70K feet then the enemy's missiles will never going to reach it

Agreed, but meteor may have slight advantage to others, due to ramjet maintaining sufficient speed at terminal stage so that its smaller fins would be effective.

agree , but i think it have advantage over the 5 gen as well

Advantage when running away from them, but that if MiG-31 pilot sees incoming missile or target lock in its RWR. However MiG-31 has no means to shoot F-22 in BVR. It has R-40T/IRST combination, or it could close in so zalson would pick it up, but those are rather difficult to utilize when enemy is repeatedly missiles at you.

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 932

as an interceptor, it is in a class of its own, but in close-range combat its a sitting duck.
i would not concider it a 6th Gen fighter. 4th Gen, yes.

MiG-31 is not 6th gen obviously, but i believe its charactheristics mostly are. A time will come where technology will come to a level thath missiles will really do what they are supposed to do and maneuverability will become obsolete. Next gen fighters, as a result, will be very much like MiG-31, supersonically cruising flying bricks with long endurance, great sensors and missiles, use long range missiles to take out other targets at BVR, use HOBS missiles with 360 deg coverage in WVR; and efficiently drop high precision weapons at high speed/altiude.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 355

+1 to the keypub Triumvirate, JSR Palembang and the new guy.
oops I forgot goldust

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 980

MiG-31 is not 6th gen obviously, but i believe its charactheristics mostly are. A time will come where technology will come to a level thath missiles will really do what they are supposed to do and maneuverability will become obsolete. Next gen fighters, as a result, will be very much like MiG-31, supersonically cruising flying bricks with long endurance, great sensors and missiles, use long range missiles to take out other targets at BVR, use HOBS missiles with 360 deg coverage in WVR; and efficiently drop high precision weapons at high speed/altiude.

The same happened to the U.S. in Vietnam. F-4's were missile carriers that were easy targets for VPAAF MiGs. The Navy created Top Gun as a way to re-orient pilots to dog fighting.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

With the same analogy a curious question: Why US Navy retired Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? It doesn't make sense going against slavas or sovremennys, with only legacy harpoons.

It doesn't expect to fight ships at llong range with ship-launched missiles. That's seen as a job for submarines & aircraft.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

the only advantage the MIG-31 has in combat is its speed, long endurance, long radar detection range and long range air-to-air missiles (R-33, AA-9 Amos).
there have been tests in Russia in the 90's to offer an upgraded version as a SEAD platform (Mig-31BM and E) but never got any orders.

as an interceptor, it is in a class of its own, but in close-range combat its a sitting duck.
i would not concider it a 6th Gen fighter. 4th Gen, yes.

i have already explained why it not a sitting duck in close combat , can you please read all the post before comment

With the same analogy a curious question: Why US Navy retired Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? It doesn't make sense going againist slavas or sovremennys, with only legacy harpoons. Matter is even more concerning, with the removal of harpoon launchers, a late Arleigh Burke has no means of sinking a tiny missile boat -like nanuchka III- at stand-off ranges, and with the removal of both CIWSs, it has no point defense at all to survive the missiles it may launch.

Answer is pretty simple i believe. No nation developed enough to take on an US AF/Navy equipment is insane enough to go againist it. Like somebody stated, MiG-25/31 will never be a threat to USAF, as they will be brought down on the ground.

well actually SM-2 , ESSM and RAM can all be use for anti ship , a salvo of them would still be quite deathly and since ship are affected a lot by radar horizon , a long range anti ship missiles on a ship isnot very useful

Debatable, because aerodynamic FAB-500-62s are much smaller than R-33 or R-40 missiles. Also with turbofans instead of turbojets, MiG-31 may even have inferior performance to MiG-25, its impossible to know without solid numbers, which I dont have. R-37 is not yet in service, and it may never enter at all. Current aramament of MiG-31 is R-33S, and i believe it will be until someone decides to upgrade it with RVV-BDs. I believe R-37 upgrade -even if possible- at this stage is not logical. Because in current state MiG-31 already has a clear edge (in terms of attack range) over all legacy fighters. With the development of LO, VLO targets, russians need to upgrade its sensors, not missiles. If it cant achieve a succesful target lock, it cant shoot, no matter the missile range, If MiG-31 had the means to detect F-22 at 150+km it would still be lethal with R-33s. With BM upgrade mainly focused on upgrading avionics, i believe russians think the same way I do, not to an extent to defeat 5th gen to keep costs minimal, but to combat LO 4+ gen fighters like typhoon rafale etc.

mig-31 fly at much higher altitude so it more likely look at enemy from the top rather than head on and all aircraft have much bigger RCS from the top even the stealth one , also the Mig-31 have L-band radar which mean stealth of F-22/35 or PAK-FA are basically useless


Agreed, but meteor may have slight advantage to others, due to ramjet maintaining sufficient speed at terminal stage so that its smaller fins would be effective.

at medium , low altitude meteor may be superior to any other long range AA missiles due to it's engine however at high altitude like 70-80K feets the air is too thin for the Meteor's engine to work
The same happened to the U.S. in Vietnam. F-4's were missile carriers that were easy targets for VPAAF MiGs. The Navy created Top Gun as a way to re-orient pilots to dog fighting.

that due to ROE and also viet nam mig was guide by ground radar which mean they have advantage in SA and able to sneak up behind the F-4

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

With the same analogy a curious question: Why US Navy retired Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? It doesn't make sense going againist slavas or sovremennys, with only legacy harpoons.

Honestly, the threat was essentially gone. If the US needed to sink such ships they would rely on air launched Harpoons which were seen as more than sufficient given the inability of those ships to protect themselves adequately against air strikes. Now that China is rolling out credible fleet air defense in the form of its new DDGs and carrier the US is once again developing a proper long-range ASCM.

Matter is even more concerning, with the removal of harpoon launchers, a late Arleigh Burke has no means of sinking a tiny missile boat -like nanuchka III- at stand-off ranges, and with the removal of both CIWSs, it has no point defense at all to survive the missiles it may launch.

These were not removed and simply left un-replaced. The plan was to use RAM and ESSM. My understanding is that all Arleigh Burkes will receive a CIWS, and may already have done so actually.

Answer is pretty simple i believe. No nation developed enough to take on an US AF/Navy equipment is insane enough to go againist it. Like somebody stated, MiG-25/31 will never be a threat to USAF, as they will be brought down on the ground.

Sorry, but this is not how the US thinks/plans/operates. Back when the AMRAAM was being designed the good old USSR was absolutely the threat and the Mig-25/31 was a big part of the air to air threat. There is zero chance the US would have developed and fielded a missile that they did not believe was capable of bringing down a Mig-25. Even after the Cold War Mig-25s remained in the holdings of multiple potentially hostile states, including Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

Finally, it isn't like it is a mystery how the Mig-25 would perform in combat. Iraq used them extensively in the Iran/Iraq war and to fairly good effect, though not without losses. By the time the Iraqis flew against the coalition in 1991 and later over the no-fly zones the Iraqis had plenty enough experience with the Mig-25 to know how to employ it in combat.

Over the course of their operational use Mig-25s have been brought down by AIM-7s, AIM-54s, and an AIM-120. Now here we are on the internet learning that they are invulnerable to all Western weapons... :rolleyes:

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

Sorry, but this is not how the US thinks/plans/operates. Back when the AMRAAM was being designed the good old USSR was absolutely the threat and the Mig-25/31 was a big part of the air to air threat. There is zero chance the US would have developed and fielded a missile that they did not believe was capable of bringing down a Mig-25. Even after the Cold War Mig-25s remained in the holdings of multiple potentially hostile states, including Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

Finally, it isn't like it is a mystery how the Mig-25 would perform in combat. Iraq used them extensively in the Iran/Iraq war and to fairly good effect, though not without losses. By the time the Iraqis flew against the coalition in 1991 and later over the no-fly zones the Iraqis had plenty enough experience with the Mig-25 to know how to employ it in combat.

Over the course of their operational use Mig-25s have been brought down by AIM-7s, AIM-54s, and an AIM-120. Now here we are on the internet learning that they are invulnerable to all Western weapons... :rolleyes:

Mig-25 isnot the same as mig-31 it like compare an f-4 to F-22 , mig-25 wasnot designed for long cruise at very high speed like mig-31 , it can only fly at high speed for short period of time before detroyed it's own engine , also Iraqis's mig-25 lack proper maintenance thus missiles , engine dont work well , they also lack ECM , RWR and radar as i can remember , not to mention that a single mig-25 have to go against hundreds of US's fighter , AWACs , jamming aircrafts so it not a surprise if they got shot down

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

MiG-31 is not 6th gen obviously, but i believe its charactheristics mostly are. A time will come where technology will come to a level thath missiles will really do what they are supposed to do and maneuverability will become obsolete. Next gen fighters, as a result, will be very much like MiG-31, supersonically cruising flying bricks with long endurance, great sensors and missiles, use long range missiles to take out other targets at BVR, use HOBS missiles with 360 deg coverage in WVR; and efficiently drop high precision weapons at high speed/altiude.

Ahhh, you've omitted one thing.

DIRCM should evolve to a level where they are able to fry seeker heads, meaning things could devolve to the good 'ol dogfight!