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

GarryB wrote:
Perhaps they might have some export orders in mind that makes new production necessary...  

higurashihougi wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but there was an export version named MiG-31E... but of course it has inferior avionics and radars.

GarryB wrote:The standard undercarriage of the MiG-31 is already designed for rough strips... the two main wheels are offset so the front one doesn't create a depression and the second wheel doesn't dig deeper and bottom out the aircraft.

Perhaps they might have some export orders in mind that makes new production necessary...  

Certainly the new Aerospace forces will want some and with the 300km range AAMs the Air Force might want some of its own as anti AWACS/JSTARS/Troop transport use.

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

Dude, no one will sell MiG-31 and no one will buy a plane that is not sold. There is no MiG-31's to sell. The production is over, and producing landing gear components wouldn't magically bring production back, there isn't a gram of logic in that. No one is talking about bringing back MiG-21 or MiG-23 production just because components for it are still made.

It is almost as if people turned off their logic or something.

JohninMK wrote:This is what happens when aircraft deployment dates are political events. This is the start of a very long and detailed, factual, article. If perchance you are a F-35 customer reading this you should be a bit worried. This is not what you want your potential adversaries to be reading, especially the sales teams at Eurofighter and Dassault.

The Marine Corps triumphantly declared its variant of the F-35 combat ready in late July. In the public relations build-up, the recent demonstration of its performance on the USS Wasp was heralded as a rebuttal to the program’s critics.

But a complete copy of a recent memo from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) — obtained by the Project On Government Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act — reveals that a number of maintenance and reliability problems “are likely to present significant near-term challenges for the Marine Corps.”

The Marine Corps named this demonstration “Operational Test One,” but it turns out it wasn’t actually an operational test, “in either a formal or an informal sense of the term.” To count as an operational test, conditions should closely match realistic combat conditions.

But DOT&E found the demonstration “did not — and could not — demonstrate that Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it was ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured.”

The details buried inside the report’s annexes also show just how much trouble the crew faced in attempting to keep the F-35s selected for the demonstration flightworthy. Before the demonstration even began the Marine Corps had to swap out one F-35B with another “due to a fuel system fault that would have been impractical to fix at sea given the maintenance workload.”

In combat, not only would this kind of replacement be impractical, it would likely be impossible.

http://warisboring.com/articles/the-marines-f-35s-are-not-ready-for-combat/


It is early days but this does seem a rushed operation. How about these comments? My highlight.

DOT&E noted that the reliability of the aircraft used in the demonstration varied widely. One plane in particular, BF-37 seemed useful only to test the skills of the embarked maintainers. It flew only one actual mission during the test, and even that brief flight required an emergency diversion to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. In fact, only two of the planes, BF-23 and BF-38, could be relied upon to remain airworthy. The majority of the demonstration’s flights were made by this pair.

BlackArrow wrote:

JohninMK wrote:This is what happens when aircraft deployment dates are political events. This is the start of a very long and detailed, factual, article. If perchance you are a F-35 customer reading this you should be a bit worried. This is not what you want your potential adversaries to be reading, especially the sales teams at Eurofighter and Dassault.

The Marine Corps triumphantly declared its variant of the F-35 combat ready in late July. In the public relations build-up, the recent demonstration of its performance on the USS Wasp was heralded as a rebuttal to the program’s critics.

But a complete copy of a recent memo from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) — obtained by the Project On Government Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act — reveals that a number of maintenance and reliability problems “are likely to present significant near-term challenges for the Marine Corps.”

The Marine Corps named this demonstration “Operational Test One,” but it turns out it wasn’t actually an operational test, “in either a formal or an informal sense of the term.” To count as an operational test, conditions should closely match realistic combat conditions.

But DOT&E found the demonstration “did not — and could not — demonstrate that Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it was ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured.”

The details buried inside the report’s annexes also show just how much trouble the crew faced in attempting to keep the F-35s selected for the demonstration flightworthy. Before the demonstration even began the Marine Corps had to swap out one F-35B with another “due to a fuel system fault that would have been impractical to fix at sea given the maintenance workload.”

In combat, not only would this kind of replacement be impractical, it would likely be impossible.

http://warisboring.com/articles/the-marines-f-35s-are-not-ready-for-combat/


It is early days but this does seem a rushed operation. How about these comments? My highlight.

DOT&E noted that the reliability of the aircraft used in the demonstration varied widely. One plane in particular, BF-37 seemed useful only to test the skills of the embarked maintainers. It flew only one actual mission during the test, and even that brief flight required an emergency diversion to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. In fact, only two of the planes, BF-23 and BF-38, could be relied upon to remain airworthy. The majority of the demonstration’s flights were made by this pair.

Marine Corp F-35B probably has a better serviceability than RuAF MiG-31BM, who knows?

max steel wrote:US planes servicing is quite costly everyone knows especially if it is F-35 .

GarryB wrote:The reports in the news I have read seem to suggest they are swapping out F-35s in the testing phase because they are so unreliable they can't guarantee any one of them will be ready to fly for testing... that sounds pretty bad to me.

There are no such issues with the MiG-31BM... it is certainly not cheap to operate but if it was such a maintainence dog it would have been retired long ago... like the SR-71 was multiple times... and then brought back because its capabilities are unique and useful.

BlackArrow wrote:You have never seen a report on the MiG-31's serviceability, have you? I believe it's a maintenance hog.

GarryB wrote:The MiG-31BM is an updated digital interceptor with largely modernised electronics and systems.
There are certainly likely older components still present in its design but most of the avionics have been upgraded and replaced with new systems... I suspect you are referring to 1980s MiG-31s.

JohninMK wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Since we're going on about the Mig-25/31 i might as well add this.

Thanks although it is OT. That link was the 25, this is the 31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L-FBWPmQcw

sepheronx wrote:Aircraft plant "Sokol" handed over the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, two modernized MiG-31