MiG-31BM/Κ Interceptor/Attack aircraft: News

medo wrote:



Front seat and back seat of RuAF Mig-31BM. Not so many LCDs as in prototype.

The previous prototypes had the entire old cockpit torn out- this is a cheaper and easier solution.

Though, I wonder if its not easier to just gut the whole cockpit and slap in those big SU-35 MDFs.

Interesting is, that they didn't replace RWR with newer one.

Interesting is, that they didn't replace RWR with newer one.

Well to be fair it is the old display we can see, and can't tell what new antenna and sensors are actually fitted.

Would have liked to have seen more MFDs, but I guess the focus would be the radar and new missiles.

More 3 mig 31bm to Russian Air Force

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4126/81237179.da/0_86d81_28d3f001_XXXL.jpg

MiG-31 WSO trainer cockpit.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4117/81237179.da/0_86d83_bc8be438_XXXL.jpg

BM WSO trainer.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5638/81237179.da/0_86d82_b4b53099_XXXL.jpg

BM pilot's cockpit.

The famous russian clock is now in the middle of 31BM WSO cockpit.

It could also raise the possibility of a new modification for the Tu-22M3M and a new role.

With a new type of multiple weapon ejector rack along the engine intakes perhaps with pod aerodynamic fairings to reduce drag the Backfire could become a multirole aircraft.

The PAK FA and Su-35 both are multirole in that they can be interceptors and fighters and medium range strike aircraft, so it makes a lot of sense to make existing upgraded aircraft multirole too... the Tu-22M3M could be the land and maritime strike and theatre nuclear bomber it was, but you could add Jammer, and heavy long range interceptor to that capacity too.

They did anticipate a Tu-160P dedicated interceptor version of the Blackjack when it was still in production, well now they have lots of Backfires, but the Backfire role can now be performed also by the Su-34 at the lower end of range and payload and the Blackjack and Bear at the upper end of the payload and range scale.

Adding another string to the Backfires bow makes a lot of sense... they could be used for very long range interception roles and having 4 crew means round the clock operation limited only by the amount of fuel the aircraft can carry... and considering the low weight of AAMs it should be able to remain airborne for quite some time. Equally with START I and START II expired now then the Backfire should be allowed its inflight refuelling capability back.

They are talking about two fifth generation engines they are working on... the Type-30 for the PAK FA... perhaps the other engine is for the PAK DA, which means that early models could be tested in Blackjacks and Backfires to improve their performance and reduce their operating costs by the unification of all the engine types. In fact put a set of propeller blades out the front of two and upgrade the Bear with two 5th gen turboprop engines and have total commonality and put a huge fan engine on the front and make a super turbofan for a heavy transport aircraft too.

It could also raise the possibility of a new modification for the Tu-22M3M and a new role.

Is there enough money to keep them? they could rely on retired aircraft for spares, but it's not a cheap aircraft to run. Those variable geometry wings would probably need a lot of maintenance.

MIG 31 at Perm

MiG-31BM

http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/65178_45511219_34c%201.jpg

http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/143473_85333619_01-01-01perm%20ab-apr2013-25blue.jpg

MiG-31B looking nice itself.

http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/143473_85333619_01-01-01perm%20ab-apr2013-01blue.jpg

Picture of armed Mig-31BM is excellent. Will it also use R-77?

. Will it also use R-77?

Almost certainly.

The new digital R-27s should be a huge improvement over the older models, but there is still a significant gap in performance between the R-27 and R-77. Of course the R-27 still has flexibility going for it with its passive homing models and two motor choices.

We have seen that long and medium range AAMs are being tested now, which presumably means the R-77M and/or the ramjet powered model.

I would think that a ramjet model would not take them this long to perfect... after all the Kh-31 has been in service for a while as have many combined rocket ramjet powered missiles in Soviet and Russian service. Perhaps they have taken a further step and gone for scramjet propulsion and extended range and speed.

For BVR missiles a great weakness of the very long range missiles is long flight time giving the target too much time to move out of the kill zone. A Mach 8 scramjet powered missile would minimise that escape window.

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2013/04/11/newinterceptor/

Russian air force order development of new interceptor to replace Mig-31 after 2020.

That's a surprising development. So, will it be large and fast like the MiG 31?

Internal carriage of BVR weapons, large AESA, and VLO frame could make this a real killer. I hope that's what we see on the finished product.

For years now heated debate has been raging between Russia PVO theoretician, generals, scientists, Almaz-Antey guys,

economists, PVO generals, economists and politicians. The idea is to form a conception under which Aerospace Defense Forces will function.

Large chunk of those have been arguing that ADF needs a specialized fighter in role of an interceptor. I believe ADF will in future

take even bigger chunk of budget as it is considered more and more important in defense of the country with each passing year.

I just dont get it why do they think PAK-FA is not up to the role or perhaps some future interceptor would have much different

requirements so entirely new plane would be needed.

This is interesting.For a week or so I've been meaning to put up a "next gen Mig-31" post ie asking how people thought an interceptor would be different if it was designed today.
I know the 31 is a big favourite of a lot of people here, but I think it is starting to seem dated in some ways.

But the q remains, what will the replacement be like. I remember seeing the 1990s suggested replacement. It had huge air intakes at the top/above- infront of the tail.
A little weird looking perhaps.

I wonder what its spec will be? Stealth, speed, cruise speed, load capacity?
Whats interesting is that out of the vast numbers of Mig-31s built, so many of them are still usable. What will the use for the old interceptors be? Are they saleable? Convertible?

Will be interesting to see.

One side point is that China is already supposedly developing a large stealth fighter, which *could* be similar to a new Ru interceptor..

Bearing in mind the Mig-31 could do Mach 3.2 or was it 3.4, but with ruining the engines, I wonder the top speed of the next gen plane? Ofcourse new engine AND airframe tech is very impressive... But will stealth considerations hinder speed?

PS another consideration is how a new interceptor might work with a mini-squadron of drones. Maybe even high speed drones..

Speed and long range are the most valuable assets an interceptor has... most ordinary fighters can manage one or the other but not both.

I a related article I read they said they had been working on a flying wing delta design based on the Mig-31... sort of like the F-16XL, but obviously based on the Mig-31 design but there was not enough money so it was shelved.

One of the main errors in talking about a replacement of the Mig-31 is to talk about stealth... the Mig-25 and the Mig-31 would not benefit from stealthy airframes as they will be operating very powerful radar scanning for threats and targets almost continuously so stealth is an expensive waste of money.

I would actually suggest that one of the best replacements for the Mig-31 would be a supercruising Tu-22M3 with an AESA radar and redesigned weapon bay and belly hardpoints for semiconformal missile pylons able to carry 24 long and medium range AAMs.

New engines and a redesigned, modern wing that generates more lift and optimised for super cruising at speeds of mach 1.4-1.8 or so, with dash speeds of Mach 2.5 or so... with a fixed wing design to reduce costs and complexity. A Tu-22M3MXL would be very interesting...

GarryB wrote:Speed and long range are the most valuable assets an interceptor has... most ordinary fighters can manage one or the other but not both.

I a related article I read they said they had been working on a flying wing delta design based on the Mig-31... sort of like the F-16XL, but obviously based on the Mig-31 design but there was not enough money so it was shelved.

One of the main errors in talking about a replacement of the Mig-31 is to talk about stealth... the Mig-25 and the Mig-31 would not benefit from stealthy airframes as they will be operating very powerful radar scanning for threats and targets almost continuously so stealth is an expensive waste of money.

I would actually suggest that one of the best replacements for the Mig-31 would be a supercruising Tu-22M3 with an AESA radar and redesigned weapon bay and belly hardpoints for semiconformal missile pylons able to carry 24 long and medium range AAMs.

New engines and a redesigned, modern wing that generates more lift and optimised for super cruising at speeds of mach 1.4-1.8 or so, with dash speeds of Mach 2.5 or so... with a fixed wing design to reduce costs and complexity. A Tu-22M3MXL would be very interesting...

Interesting stuff Garry. I think that the Tu-22 suffers from ageing problems like the Mig-31 does.However there's still life in the bird yet ofcourse.

I wonder if we're going to see a change to military doctrine, with the mass of new tech since 31's introduction, which was ofcourse before the stealth era.
A replacement Tu-22 and replacement Mig-31 could potentially share some characteristics, as could the Pak-Fa IMO.

My concern is that a replacement 31 could be open to attacks from an F-22 or similar.
Yes I know it could spot an F-22 quickly. But what about 2 F-22s flying together. The Mig 31 thinks its shot the one down, only 2 find a second one creep up on it..

My option would be a collaborative defence. Ground SAMs and radar. Air superiority Pak Fas and the legacy jets. Air radar. The usual stuff.

However, I would look at drones as being the additional eyes and ear.
Maybe have stealth planes switching powerful radar on and off.
Also an array of radar balloons and ofcourse satellites.

In other words a unified system of command and surveillance.
I think you can see its a different tactic to the interceptor being a "no stealth because of its radar" type of plane. My concern is... what if the non-stealth Mig-31 replacements were taken out..?

PS basically something larger and less agile than a Pak-fa, but probably faster. Expensive yes, but the basis for a very flexible platform. After all, the Mig-31 wasnt cheap when introduced, and its part of an expensive network eg S-400, 500 etc anyway.
Maybe an advanced Mig-31 replacement is actually the most cost effective way.

I doubt miG-31 would have to go against f-22 commonly since the raptor has very limited air to ground or nuclear capability. A more likely target for a MiG-31 would be a B-2,b-52 or an AWACS rather than trying to destroy enemy air superiority fighters.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I doubt miG-31 would have to go against f-22 commonly since the raptor has very limited air to ground or nuclear capability. A more likely target for a MiG-31 would be a B-2,b-52 or an AWACS rather than trying to destroy enemy air superiority fighters.

Ofcourse yes. But its possible a stealth plane would attempt to neutralise the Mig-31 yes? And then the Mig-31 could relay info to various places to destroy the invaders.
I was probably a bit confusing in my post.

Mig-31 was up to now only Russian plane, that could carry anti-sat missile. Mig-31 was in Soviet times interceptor of IA-PVO (fighter of independent air defense). With creation of VKO, which also include space defense, replacement of Mig-31 with new dedicated plane have sense. It will be most probably bigger, faster and will fly higher than PAK-FA and will most probably have larger weapon bay to place big anti-sat missile inside. Its targets will not be only bombers, AWACS planes, cruise missiles, but also satellites in low orbits and warheads from ballistic missiles in near space.

Interesting stuff Garry. I think that the Tu-22 suffers from ageing problems like the Mig-31 does.However there's still life in the bird yet ofcourse.

The Mig-31 is still the best at what it does... no other aircraft on the planet can fly to a target 1,400km away at mach 2.4 and then fly 1,400km back to base at mach 2.4 with air to air missiles.

If you look in the thread about S-400 and S-500 missiles you might spot that they mention a future model of the S-500 as being an AAM for intercepting ICBM warheads in space... you are going to need a big aircraft for that, and you are going to need to have external weapons carriage... which makes any talk of stealth pointless.

Speed and range.

A replacement Tu-22 and replacement Mig-31 could potentially share some characteristics, as could the Pak-Fa IMO.

It would be nice to combine requirements with existing programmes, but a supercruising PAK DA would be more use than a PAK FA design...

My concern is that a replacement 31 could be open to attacks from an F-22 or similar.

The speed and height the Mig-31 and any replacement would operate would make the threat from F-22 fairly limited... even if there were F-22s operating anywhere near the Mig-31 or its replacement.

Yes I know it could spot an F-22 quickly. But what about 2 F-22s flying together. The Mig 31 thinks its shot the one down, only 2 find a second one creep up on it..

How exactly would an F-22 creep up on a mach 2.4 Mig-31?

My option would be a collaborative defence. Ground SAMs and radar. Air superiority Pak Fas and the legacy jets. Air radar. The usual stuff.

The new Mig-31 replacement will be for the Aerospace defence forces, which has control of thousands of ground, air, and space based radars all networked. The Mig-31 and its replacements job is interception. Any threat of F-22s will be dealt with using PAK FAs and S-400s.

My concern is... what if the non-stealth Mig-31 replacements were taken out..?

How would that happen? A coalition of NATO suddenly takes over all of Russian airspace? Unlikely. BTW F-22s don't operate in pairs... operating in pairs requires a datalink which would give away their position... F-22s operate alone. They can receive data from a network but if they contribute to that network they reveal their location and presence.

Maybe an advanced Mig-31 replacement is actually the most cost effective way.

It doesn't need expensive stealth coatings or design... that reduces design and operational costs dramatically to start with.

It can use a huge AESA and IRST and it can use new engines for the PAK FA. It doesn't need to be super manouverable... speed and range are important so it will have a high fuel fraction along with powerful but fuel efficient engines.

The new engines for the PAK FA are variable cycle so using them in such a way to allow them to operate with bypass air acting like a ramjet should allow very high flight speeds without excessive reduction in range.

x2 to Medos' post.

In the S-400 and S-500 thread it is mentioned that there will be AAM versions of the S-500 for hitting ICBMs in mid course... you will need a big aircraft for that and speed is always important for interception.

George1 wrote:Mig-31B (About 140 i think) where made between 1991-1994, so they have still life i believe

That's for sure, specially, because they didn't fly much in the nineties and in the beginning of this century. They have a lot of flying hours before them. I hope they will modernize a whole fleet to BM standard.