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

Su-35S can replace MiG-31?

Not really... I doubt they will make enough to replace the Su-27s, let alone the Mig-29s.

The fact that they have committed to upgrade the Mig-31s to BM standard suggests they are not planning to replace it with anything till at least 2025.

In my opinion PAK FA would be replacement for Mig-31. It have long range, supercruise, powerful AESA radar, long range air to air missiles, etc. PAK FA is single seater, but the lack of second crew member is not a problem, because of high automatisation and powerful electronics inside PAK FA. Actually PAK FA will be a backbone of air defense fighters / interceptors as is Mig-31 now. Su-30 and Su-35 will be more fighters for tactical air force.

The whole point of a stealth fighter is to fight other stealth aircraft on near equal terms or to exterminate LO and non stealthy fighters without them knowing what hit them.

Putting them on border patrol to fighter bombers and cruise missiles is an enormous waste of potential.

Su-35s and PAK FAs together would be a potent force against all sorts of threats, but their focus will be defending Russian airspace from enemy fighters and fighter bombers.

The Mig-31 combines high speed and long range missiles... the 280km range missile mentioned is the R-37M missile, which is the domestic version of the RVV-BD recently revealed.

B-52s and B-2s don't operate radar looking for enemy interceptors as that would give their location and presence away.

That means there is absolutely no advantage to having a stealthy interceptor.

Given the choice of a Su-35S and a Pak Fa, the Flanker would make more sense, but as there will be so few of them likely to make it to service then it makes rather more sense to put them up against F-35s and F-22s than B-52s and B-2s.

IF B-2 and B-52 will fly into Russian air space in war, than they will absolutely have escort of F-22 fighters, so in this case stealth fighter in air defense units is sensible. On the other hand US F-22 also intercept Russian Tu-95 near Alaska. PAK FA is quite proper plane for that job to operate over large Russian territory. Maybe they could work with mix units with Su-35 and Mig-31BM, where they could work as escort fighters in peace time and not to expose PAK FA to foreign ELINT.

F-22s simply don't have the flight range to escort B-52s or B-2...

They will more likely be tasked with patrolling US airspace trying to track down cruise missiles before they reach their targets... a difficult job as much of the countryside will already have been obliterated by ICBMs and SLBM impacts.

F-22 is designed for fighting with enemy air force in enemy air space to achieve air superiority. For patrolling US air space stealth is not that needed. In the case of B-2 and B-52 intruding Russian air space, there will also be F-22 to fight with Russian fighters. So stealth for PAK FA will be needed to avoid F-22 and shot down incoming B-2 and B-52 or to take battle with F-22 and leave bombers for other fighters.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2012 TO ALL!

Mig-31s have a flight radius at mach 2.4 of 720km, and will normally operate at that speed during an interception. That means they can fly up to 20 minutes out and 20 minutes back at mach 2.4... the F-22s will not be able to do very much.

A lot will depend on what distance Mig-31BM could see F-22. Of course in home air space Mig will have assistance of AWACS and ground early warning radars on the other hand F-22 will also have assistance from AWACS.

But that is the point isn't it?

How long would NATO AWACS last near Russian airspace?

The Russian Mig-31s don't need to protect all of Siberia, because for most of Siberia there is nothing to defend/protect.

Any AWACS aircraft loitering would be ideal targets for 280km range R-37M missiles... not to mention 400km range S-400 missiles... the F-22s would spend more time trying to protect AWACS aircraft than they would protecting the bombers.

Can an F-22 even target an R-37M missile or S-400 missile coming in at 5-6 times the speed of sound near vertically onto and AWACS?

The Mig-31s will be using their radars and IRSTs scanning for targets... the standard procedure is to fly 200km apart to link their radars into a chain to create a virtual radar 1,000km across able to detect targets in a box 1,000 x 400km, now that means that there will be plenty of radar overlap, so targets will be spotted from the side as well as the front... and the F-22 is not so stealthy from the side as it is from the front.

One feature of the F-22 is its ability to supercruise and fly for long periods at high speed and and high altitude... the advantage of the high ground.

The problem for the F-22 is that the Mig-31 is one of the few aircraft that routinely flies much much faster on normal operations, so a radar silent F-22 zipping around at mach 1.5 in supercruise wont be able to keep up with Mig-31s zipping around at mach 2.4....

Trying to match that speed the F-22 will rapidly run out of fuel.

The Mig-31 is often criticised for having a flight radius of only 750km, but no other interceptor could fly 1,500km at mach 2.4.

To intercept the Mig-31 the F-22 will have to supercruise, to supercruise it will need to fly high, flying high over Russia is dangerous and makes you visible to ground based radar and airborne IRST systems.

Agree, Mig-31 have its quality on its own. Working together with Flankers and ground air defense ti is hard nut to anyone.

With such a large country I really don't see a Mig-31 as an extravagance.

I even think it would be worth replacing.

If they make the PAK DA able to supercruise, and able to carry enormous amounts of fuel and weapons it would be an ideal platform...

Most importantly if it is a flying wing configuration a full span leading edge wing AESA radar should have quite impressive performance, while the nose mounted radar will also be very large and the capacity for missiles plus a 4 man crew it should replace 3-4 aircraft with the ability to deal with a lot of threats at once.

Certainly even today a few Flankers with their wing mounted L band AESAs and large numbers of ready to launch AAMs would make it a potent aircraft to support the Mig-31s.

MiG-31 is intended for AWACS and strategic bombers killer. I think its importance has been reduced since there is a shift from strategic bombers to ICBMs and SLBMs. As an example, USA has decided to reduce the number of their nuclear cruise missiles. In 2007, the USAF announced its intention to retire all of its AGM-129 ACMs, and to reduce the ALCM fleet by more than 500 missiles, leaving 528 nuclear cruise missiles (AGM-86 ALCM). The AGM-129 ACM chosen because it has reliability problems and also higher maintenance costs. The reductions are in part a result of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.

PAK-FA and Su-35 have greater range than MiG-31 and of course greater combat ability than the heavy and low maneuverable MiG-31. I think modernized MiG-31s will perform only special tasks for airspace defense purposes.

Do you really think that USA will risk to send their B-52 bombers (with multiple aerial refuelings) to cross Siberia and hit targets there? Of cours no. I think they will send them to hit either pacific coast targets or at conflicts in middle east if a war happens there and Russia and USA will be involved. B-2 can carry only B-61 bombs so it will be used at a secondary nuclear tactical role if it is needed far away from Russian borders.

MiG-31 is intended for AWACS and strategic bombers killer. I think its importance has been reduced since there is a shift from strategic bombers to ICBMs and SLBMs. As an example, USA has decided to reduce the number of their nuclear cruise missiles. In 2007, the USAF announced its intention to retire all of its AGM-129 ACMs, and to reduce the ALCM fleet by more than 500 missiles, leaving 528 nuclear cruise missiles (AGM-86 ALCM). The AGM-129 ACM chosen because it has reliability problems and also higher maintenance costs. The reductions are in part a result of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.

The nuclear triad in the US remains balanced... the new START treaty limits both sides to 1,500 warheads, which pretty much means 500 cruise missiles, 500 ICBMs, and 500 SLBMs.

The Russian forces are undergoing the same shift, though the actual numbers might be slightly different.

You have to keep in mind that a stealthy nuclear armed cruise missile is a luxury. A stealthy conventional missile can be used against Baby Milk factories in Yemen, but a nuclear armed one can't.
At the end of the day when a nuclear armed cruise missile is used it will be after its carrier aircraft has flown for 8 hours from its base to its launch point somewhere over the north pole.

Add another 3 hours and 45 minutes (800km/h for 3,000km) to 6 hours and 25 minutes (800km/h for 5,000km) and by the time the cruise missiles are penetrating enemy air space to hit their targets most of the radars and airfields will still be burning from the ICBMs and SLBMs that detonated 12-15 hours before.

Don't need to be stealthy to penetrate those air defences...

PAK-FA and Su-35 have greater range than MiG-31 and of course greater combat ability than the heavy and low maneuverable MiG-31.

Actually both the PAK FA and Su-35 will have shorter flight radiuses than the Mig-31 at mach 2.4, and speed and altitude are more important for an interceptor than manouver capability.

An AAM launched from high altitude and high speed will arrive much faster to its target and with more energy to hit that target.

I think modernized MiG-31s will perform only special tasks for airspace defense purposes.

The Mig-31 will operate within the Space and Air Defence forces.

The boss at the company that makes the S-300 and S-400 and will make the S-500 series missiles has said that the next generation ABM missiles will be air launched... That tells me they do think the Mig-31 has a future and will have a future replacement.

Do you really think that USA will risk to send their B-52 bombers (with multiple aerial refuelings) to cross Siberia and hit targets there?

Of course they will... they only have to get to 3,000km from their targets.

To fly them from Europe they wouldn't need strategic bombers... F-15Es could cross the border and hit european Russia.

B-2 can carry only B-61 bombs so it will be used at a secondary nuclear tactical role if it is needed far away from Russian borders.

It will strike Russian military targets like ports and cities with bombs.

medo wrote:IF B-2 and B-52 will fly into Russian air space in war, than they will absolutely have escort of F-22 fighters, so in this case stealth fighter in air defense units is sensible. On the other hand US F-22 also intercept Russian Tu-95 near Alaska. PAK FA is quite proper plane for that job to operate over large Russian territory. Maybe they could work with mix units with Su-35 and Mig-31BM, where they could work as escort fighters in peace time and not to expose PAK FA to foreign ELINT.

F-22 does not have that much combat radius to follow and protect B-2/B-52, its range is quite small.

-F-22s simply don't have the flight range to escort B-52s or B-2...

They will more likely be tasked with patrolling US airspace trying to track down cruise missiles before they reach their targets... a difficult job as much of the countryside will already have been obliterated by ICBMs and SLBM impacts.

Rigth to to point GarryB !!

Hearing,in 2012 ,all those odd "Gulf-War-like" scenarios foreseen for an hypothetical (....for not say apocalyptical) war between Russia and USA leave me literally speechless.

1) In a similar full scale conflict any branch of both Armed Forces except the first two segments of Nuclear Triad (ground based hardened silo/mobile ICBM and SLBM) and the strategical ABM systems of both countries , will have an importance varying from microscopic to not existant.
Both Russia and USA ,at today, between first strike warning and the detonation of the last ICBM'RV of the retaliative counterattack, are literally capable to reduce over 95% of the enemy's populated or stategically important territories in radioactive vitreous deserts in no more than 26 minutes........26 MINUTES IN TOTAL !!! .
That is the main motivation for which in START treaties air-delivered nuclear weapons are computed as 1/8 of a strategic ballistic missile carrying the same potential yield ; in spite of this "bonus" for the third branch of nuclear Triad its percentage's share continue to very quickly and progressively shrink in the total figure allowed by those diplomatic agreements (the difference in effciency, time to delivery ,reliability and destructive power is simply too crushing between the type of delievry systems named).
Airfields of both sides, hardened ones included, would be totally obliterated by RVs with single thermonuclear detonation's yields equivalent to 15 to 20 times the Hiroshima's Bomb before even the first pilot would have even only put its helmet on ...that is the very sad reality of a similar apocalyptic scenario.

2) Even not imaging a war immediately going full scale between the two powers , but an international crisis progressively evolving toward a full confrontation (a situation which would leave some space also to Air Forces and Ground Forces for "play some card" in the conflict), the only capability pertaining to Air Forces that could find some employment would be almost exclusively strategic cruise missiles delivered from thousand of kilometers of distance .
No "surprise attack" ,naturally would be possible for both sides. In a similar scenario ,in fact, both nations would be totally aware, -i remember that here, in fact, we don't talk of Iraq or Syria or Serbia etc.. - and in real time (thanks to space-based assets and OTHR with several thousand of Km of ranges) even of the preparations for an air attack, its composition, its eventual incoming vector (if you choose to don't destroy them before) and even rough positional data of any asset involved from the take-off !!! . Is important to note that all what just said would be totally independent form the eventual LO/VLO design of the assets involved (both shaping solution and RAM ,in fact, are totally ruled out by 70-80 degrees radar waves ionospheric reflection in decametric bands ,or even worse, optical/IR space based assets ).
Moreover the likely shift to nuclear warheads of all long range SAMs positioned on the nation borders or in the layers at defence of strategically important sites,(and here Russia would enjoy a very wide advantage ,being by far the greater owner at world of tactical nuclear warheads and ,among those, in particualr of warheads purposely designed for advanced SAM systems for similar unlucky scenarios... ) ,over the drastic increase of theirs nominal range limits - up to more than double, don't have any necessity anymore to maintain energy to deplete in the corner phase for chase and intercept manoeuvring targets- would allow them to overcome also the only disadvantage of the assets previously cited : allowing those SAMs systems to employ without any problems the rough positional data provided by Early Warning assets for air attack neutralization . - Only to give an idea of what we talk here ,is sufficient to say that even only three S-300PM's missiles with a thermonuclear warhead - normally 150 Kilotons ..19 times Hiroshima Bomb... - detonating at a preprogrammed spaced point in the space for maximum efficiency , taking into account that at altitude detonation yield increase and that aerodynamic vehicles ,with theirs very low structural hardness, high destruction-susceptibility of theirs aerodynamic surfaces to atmospheric hypercompression/expansion and high fragility of theirs electronic components, represent very ,very, very soft targets, should be capable to obliterate whole incoming air fleets in a range of some dozen of Km !!!

3)Appear completely clear ,therefore, that the only viable task for Air Forces of both sides in a similar slowly-degrading war scenario,would be the delivery of strategic range cruise missiles's salvo, coming from airfields out of reach of enemy's in-theatre offensive means .
In fact even only preparing an offensive air operation redeploying aircraft and corollary assets in an airfield more near the opposing borders ,to mount a sustainable "air campaign" would be the best way...for offer to the opponent an easy chance to reduce this airfield with all the aircraft and crew present to a sprawl of smoking craters employing ,concentrated, overwhelming offensive assets , obviously already present and ready in this theatre.


Soviet analysts had considered just a similar scenario when choosed the technical requirements for MiG-31 . As a matter of fact, its primary and ,by far, more crucial, role was not gulf-war-like-scenarios bomber or AWACS hunting, but strategical cruise missile hunting .
Them represented the first layer of cruise missile defence the task of which was to "dilute" even the most concentrated saturating cruise missile attack ,to allow more internal layers of URSS air space defence (anyhow by far the most advanced and dense on the planet) to confidently neutralize the attack.


At today the actual fleet of F-22s, as well foreseen by GarryB ,in an hypothetical progressively worsening crisis resulting in an open conflict against Russia, would be almost surely forced at cover, at full time, the role of cruise missile hunting (salvo after salvos of K-102 delivered by high supersonic Tu-22M3s and Tu-160s from....5000-5500 km of distance from theirs targets !! ) , obviously with efficiency in this particular role much inferior to the MiG's highly optimized heavy interceptor.

In fact while the radar of the F-22 would be ideal for the anti cruise missile role, the Su-35 would be rather better in the sense that it also has a good radar, but it also has the missile capacity to fire upon a lot of targets before needing to rearm.

The Mig-31 has a choice of armament options, but the most common is four underbelly R-33s... perhaps now 4 R-37s, with the two common options of R-60s or R-40TD missiles.

The R-60s are restrictive in that when they are carried the Mig-31 cannot fly at mach 2.4 for 40 minutes, but are mainly used for low level chase downs of cruise missile targets... along with the gun.

The R-40TD missiles on the other hand are used for high flying fast targets like the SR-71... the Mig-31 would position itself in front of the SR-71 and would fire its R-40TDs head on at them after a zoom climb.

The new Mig-31BMs will not only have a longer reach with R-37M missiles, but will also carry the R-77 AAM which will have much longer range and be much more effective against cruise missile targets.

Regarding strategic bombers, they might seem to be the weakest link in the nuclear triad, but their visibility and the ability to call them back make them useful tools.

Nothing says I mean business than arming your strategic bombers and sending them out to holding positions with inflight refueling tankers ready to attack.

If that works then they can be called back and you avoided war.

Also in peacetime they can be also used as conventional bombers in smaller conflicts... which again is something you can't really do with ICBMs and SLBMs.

Plus it is great fun stirring up the British having a flight of Tu-160s appearing off their coastline... especially since they withdrew all their Nimrod AWACS aircraft from service...

The Mig-31 will operate within the Space and Air Defence forces.
Τhat means that the 60 MiG-31BMs will not be part of air force?

The Mig-31 will operate within the Space and Air Defence forces.
Τhat means that the 60 MiG-31BMs will not be part of air force?

You raise a good question... much of the talk about upgraded Mig-31s has come from the Russian Air Force, yet it will be the Space and Air Defence forces that will take over the role... all of the PVOs assets will be transferred to the VKO.

The PVO was the air defence forces and was part of the Russian Air Force... along with DA or long range aviation (bombers and transports and AWACS), Frontal Aviation (fighters and fighter bombers and light strike and CAS aircraft). The other air craft users were naval aviation... part of the navy (VMF), and Army aviation which was attack helos, which are currently under the control of the Air Force.

It could be possible that in addition to Air Force Mig-31s being converted there will be VKO Mig-31s converted.

Much of the speculation about the slow pace of upgrades for the Mig-31 was based around the uncertainty about who would control the VKO... whether it was the Space Forces or the Air Force.

It has turned out the Space Forces get control and will be in control of all air and vacuum above Russia, while the Air Force will be split into the 4 districts subordinate to local district commands.

In the end it is actually likely that both the Air Force and the VKO will operate the Mig-31BM, so numbers of about 100 Mig-31BMs by 2020 for the Air Force (including those already upgraded and these 60 new upgrades) may not include upgraded numbers for other services.

I think with VKO, air defense could again become independent branch as it was in times of USSR and Russia in the beginning. Mig-31 was always only part of IA PVO (fighter aviation of air defense) as Su-15 before and never part of VVS (air force). It is quite logical, that Mig-31BM will be transfered to VKO, because it is designed for that kind of structure. In my opinion PAK FA could also be part of VKO as its predecessor Su-15 was or Su-27 which served on both IA PVO and VVS.

The PVO operate a mix of fighters and interceptors and had a range of PVO only SAMs.
The PVO operated separately from the Air Force, and had its own custom designed aircraft...

The Su-9 and Su-11 and Su-15, plus the Tu-128 and Mig-25 and Mig-31, as well as the Yak-25 were designed specifically for the PVO, but the PVO also used other aircraft like Mig-23s, Mig-21s, Su-27s etc etc.

I would suspect that the combination of the Space defence forces and the air defence forces will result in a larger budget and more custom designed planes to replace the Mig-31, as well as existing aircraft.

I would think that the Mig-31 will serve them well for the next decade or even up to 2030, and that larger longer range aircraft will be likely... an interceptor variant of long range bombers is something common in Soviet military history, though actually getting it off the drawing board has been harder.

With the new PAK DA being developed it is rather likely they will want to combine a stealthy but efficient flying wing design with something that can supercruise all the way... which would combine large internal volume (for weapons and fuel) in a way that small strategic payloads of weapons with the extra weight capacity taken with extra fuel to give strategic range, or extra weapons and reduced fuel for theatre missions where a heavy conventional payload would be useful.

These features plus a full length leading wing edge AESA long band radar array for finding stealth targets and a crew of 4 to manage a huge AESA radar and perhaps also control UCAV drones that will operate with the aircraft from remote airstrips could be possible by 2025.

Perhaps even a civilian commercial airliner model for economic supersonic flight over the atlantic, the pacific and around Russia.

More than 30 MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic interceptor aircraft are on round-the-clock high-alert duty every day protecting the Russian airspace from airborne threats, Air Force spokesman Col. Vladimir Drik said.

“They [the MiG-31s] scramble every time they receive warnings of a potential violation of the Russian airspace, including the appearance of foreign weather balloons in the stratosphere,”Drik said on Saturday .

The official said the MiG-31s are usually accompanied by highly-maneuverable Su-27 Flanker fighter jets, which provide protection for heavy interceptors.

MiG-31 interceptors are an integral part of a comprehensive aerospace defense network being created in Russia to thwart any potential airborne threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/

According to various sources, about 500 MiG-31s have been produced since serial production began in 1978, approximately 370 of which remain in service with the Russian Air Force.

Russia plans to upgrade more than 60 MiG-31 interceptors to the MiG-31BM version by 2020.

The modernized version is fitted with upgraded avionics and digital data links, a new multimode radar, color multi-function cockpit displays, and a more powerful weapons-control system. It can detect airborne targets at the range of 320 kilometers (200 miles) and simultaneously track up to 10 targets.

The modernized version is fitted with upgraded avionics and digital data links, a new multimode radar, color multi-function cockpit displays, and a more powerful weapons-control system. It can detect airborne targets at the range of 320 kilometers (200 miles) and simultaneously track up to 10 targets.

And more importantly with the upgrade the Mig-31BM aircraft in Russian service should be able to carry the new R-37M from which the RVV-BD is based.
The Domestic R-37M has a flight range of 280km, which is rather impressive, and considering the export model can engage targets turning at 8gs, the domestic model might have slightly better performance.

A target pulling 8gs is turning very hard, and apart from the F-15 there are few aircraft that can pull that many gs with a full weapon load.

As an example most carrier based planes with folding wings can generally only manage 7gs without risk of structural damage.

Is there any site with information for VVKO?

Only news reports so far which is frustrating.

I can't read Russian so I am limited to English speaking websites.

(BTW AFAIK it is VKKO which translates to Space and Air Defence Forces)

From PVO (Air Defence Forces) and VKO (Space Defence forces) joining into the VKKO or Space and Air Defence Forces.