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

While a big, Mach 4 interceptor would actually be a good idea for northern Russia, able to cross distances quickly to make an intercept and theoretically letting you have a smaller fleet, and thereby saving some cash, the idea that you can just modify a MiG-31 to get a Mach 4 interceptor makes very little sense.

The thing is that anything that replaces the Mig-31 will likely have very similar features... a huge radar... two huge engines at the rear... possibly a large delta wing more like the PAK FA wing perhaps with internal weapons and a change in sweep to make the higher speed sustainable.

Personally I think the main changes will be a modest size increase, internal weapons carriage, whopping great big AESA in the nose and possibly large long band AESA in the wing leading edge for finding stealth planes. Lower profile cockpit for at least two crew with simplified wing layout... no need for horizontal tails or lots of manouvering surfaces for such a high speed aircraft... and finally a variable cycle engine times two that operates as a high bypass turbofan for takeoff and landing and as a ramjet or scramjet in flight.

the biggest necessary change is the engines and modest refinement of the general aerodynamics.

the use of IRST and nose mounted AESA radar and wing mounted long wave radar mean stealth is a little redundant but some radar signature reduction would be useful as long as it doesn't make the aircraft too expensive to make or maintain.

A nice spoiler on the back

Don't forget the racing stripe and the fluffy dice hanging from the mirror...

Seriously though a Mach 4.3 aircraft is a plane that approaches 5,000km/h... 2 hours to travel 10,000km... I wonder if they will make a business jet version....   

I wonder what sort of range boost a RVV-BD would get from a Mach 4.2 launch from 30,000m...

There was a plan to use the Mig-31 with a large belly mounted rocket to launch micro satellites.

A Mach 4 aircraft with a large delta wing shape that hopefully allows higher flight altitudes would be even more efficient... you could rent it out to universities around the world... strip all the unnecessary stuff... with most vehicles the most energy is expended at the start of launch because it is mostly propellent and getting all that weight moving burns a lot of energy.

Watch most heavy rockets launch satellites and they start off accelerating fairly slowly, but over time they slowly get faster and faster, but they are burning fuel at an enormous rate to do this.

Launching the rocket from near the top of the atmosphere and already very supersonic should make the system much better as a launcher... meaning heavier payloads can be delivered, but also light payloads could be launched to higher orbits.

Launching closer to the equator means the spin of the earth gives more speed as well.

...What would you say if the Mig-41 had a built in nuclear carrying capability? Flying that high at that speed could greatly increase the capabilities of nuclear tipped cruise missiles but of course they would need to be updated to handle such speeds, and not considering nuclear treaties, perhaps hypersonic cruise missiles? I suspect the Mig-41 will be a fairly large aircraft at least as big as the Su-34, their will be room for many kinds of armaments (except ground attack missiles), perhaps they could develop an aerial launched lighter with less propellant versions of Iskander-M?

Nuclear weapons are effective because they are so powerful, but because they are so powerful no one will want to use them first... so they are at the same time very effective but also unusable.

The next best thing to powerful is precise. With modern guidance and controls a modern high speed missile can be very very accurate, which can make it as effective as a nuke but usable... unlike a nuke.

If you look at the progression of air power... in WWII if you wanted to blow up a whole factory you sent enormous numbers of bombers all full of bombs... the numbers to hit several factories in a single city was comparable to the number you would sent to destroy the city.

Even after several attacks the damage to the factory in question might be ineffectual and more attacks needed.

As technology improves however the number of aircraft needed greatly reduces with more accurate navigation, more powerful bombs, aircraft able to carry much heavier payloads, etc etc.

Russia is currently at the point where a few dozen aircraft where a few have guided bombs and the rest are there to hide and protect the others can get the job done.. most likely on the first time.

A few well timed cruise missile attacks could also have the same effect.

The future of air power will be when a single PAK DA can fly through at medium altitude... destroy several targets with individual guided bombs and leave the area without ever being detected or confronted.

Using nukes on the other hand makes it all unusable and therefore not much use.

A Mach 4 capable large aircraft would be rather interesting as a support aircraft for fighters... a large aircraft with jamming equipment able to fly ahead of a strike package and jam and attack ground and aerial threats out to long range would be an interesting asset... it could pass back live data regarding enemy radar positions and aircraft for the strike package to avoid and perhaps carry a range of self defence missiles based on Morfei to defeat the large heavy long range SAMs that would be launched to engage it.

There was a bomber version of the Mig-25 (Mig-25RB), and a similar proposed Mig-31 model able to carry specially fused 1,500kg bombs that could be carried and released from the belly (x4) and the wing points (x2) at mach 2+ speeds.

Imagine a mach 4 bomber/jammer/recon aircraft... and the smaller lighter unmanned recon drone based on it...   

I think a lot of this Mig 31 replacement revolves around the massively powerful new engines and ligghter airframe than the Mig31. But it will be very intersting to see what has been done with airframe heat control materials etc.

The old Mig-25 was heavy... largely nickle steel to maintain strength when very hot.

A new aircraft with the hot spots made of lighter materials like titanium or even ceramics would be very interesting and engine power is not actually that critical.

The Mig-25 could fly at mach 2.83 and only had 11 ton thrust engines... the Su-27SK has a loaded weight of about 23 tons and two 12.5 ton engines, while the Mig-25 has a loaded weight of about 36 tons and two 11 ton thrust engines... which one should be faster?

What is not obvious is that the engines are different... the Flanker has fuel efficient turbofans while the Foxbat has turbojets.

As mentioned above fitting a full sized S-500 to the belly of the Mig-41... note that is a hint too... the Su-34 is the replacement for the Su-24, while the Il-476 replaces the Il-76, it is common for replacement aircraft to share something in the designation...

Anyway, fitting an S-500 to a plane that can fly to perhaps 30km altitude and mach 4 speed would greatly increase the max altitude performance of the S-500 in terms of anti satellite ability.

Imagine replacing a solid rocket booster with a scramjet motor and large fuel tank to allow enormous horizontal acceleration before vectoring up at enormous speeds...

Wasn't there a report that they were planning to upgrade 100 by 2020 or am I confusing it with the Tu-22M3M upgrade?

Notice in that link it is the Aerospace Defence forces that seem to be driving Mig-31 development. The VVS seems happy with the Su-35 and PAK FA programmes and are neglecting the 31 a bit I think.

Hense it will be... in my opinion, the VKKO that drive the MiG-31 upgrade and replacement programme... and rightly so... she was always a PVO bird.

This seems to me to mirror the situation with CAS aircraft with the existing aircraft upgrade Su-25SM getting a further upgrade... to be followed by a new replacement probably in 10 years or so time.