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

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.

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.

. 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.

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.

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.