Home
Latest images
Register
Log inGarryB wrote:
Perhaps they might have some export orders in mind that makes new production necessary...
+94
Scorpius
Atmosphere
Podlodka77
Finty
Krepost
ALAMO
Gomig-21
Broski
Mir
Russian_Patriot_
lancelot
lyle6
gbu48098
marcellogo
jhelb
TMA1
owais.usmani
Backman
11E
limb
Rodion_Romanovic
GunshipDemocracy
ali.a.r
Tsavo Lion
Isos
Luq man
Hole
hoom
miketheterrible
LMFS
PapaDragon
archangelski
mnztr
nastle77
AMCXXL
ATLASCUB
Azi
bojcistv
Singular_trafo
Dorfmeister
Svyatoslavich
SeigSoloyvov
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
ult
eehnie
SuperEtendard
AlfaT8
Walther von Oldenburg
JohninMK
max steel
BlackArrow
higurashihougi
franco
Berkut
d_taddei2
nemrod
putinboss
Giulio
Honesroc
RTN
Kyo
Mig25
kvs
Big_Gazza
Mike E
Cyberspec
magnumcromagnon
Werewolf
mack8
CaptainPakistan
collegeboy16
gaurav
Firebird
Zivo
Sujoy
a89
dino00
flamming_python
KomissarBojanchev
Arrow
Corrosion
victor7
SOC
TR1
Mindstorm
medo
George1
Viktor
Russian Patriot
Austin
sepheronx
GarryB
Stealthflanker
Admin
98 posters
MiG-31BM/Κ Interceptor/Attack aircraft: News
Berkut- Posts : 190
Points : 215
Join date : 2015-05-05
higurashihougi
higurashihougi- Posts : 3377
Points : 3464
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
Correct me if I am wrong but there was an export version named MiG-31E... but of course it has inferior avionics and radars.
Guest- Guest
Talk about making one some time ago. But never went through.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.
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
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.
MiG-31 was from the beginning designed for operations over Arctic region to replace old Tu-128 there. It have specially designed undercarriage to operate from snow/ice covered airstrip, similar have Viggen and Su-34. MiG-31BM, which will be stationed in Arctic airbases, are not new build and will serve there for at least two decades. Plane is heavy and material of undercarriage could show signs of tired material and they decide to replace them with new ones, that they will not lost planes because of breaking of undercarriage legs. Anyway, it is wise to replace all tired components with new ones.
GarryB- Posts : 40434
Points : 40934
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
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...
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...
Giulio- Posts : 181
Points : 206
Join date : 2013-10-30
Location : Italy
Once there was the Avro Arrow in Canada, theoretically very close to the Mig-31.
Afaik, the Mig-31 landing gear is built especially to distribute the weight during high-speed takeoff and landings. A Mig-31 weighs more than a Tu-124 and lands at 350-300 Km/h. The Mig-25 had a single large wheel, but it did not weigh 40 tons. The Mig-31 does not have a single large wheel, but two twin wheels. The landing gear configuration of the Mig-31 is similar to the multi-axis configuration of a truck, not only for distribute the weight, but above all for the longitudinal stability during high speeds, above all if with the chute-brake. Many trucks have the last wheel lifted up and, when the load is heavy, that wheel goes down to touch the ground. People thinks that it is for the weight, actually it is also for longitudinal stability in the bends, when loaded. The Mig-31 is similar and afaik he is the aircraft with the most comfortable landing of the world. In the Arctic the lateral wind can be very strong, it could overturn trucks, so during operations with strong wind and wet runway it needs a special landing gear. In order to protect the main landing gear at high speeds and also to create less resistance with the gear out, the Mig-31 has ventral airbrakes in front of the gear.The Mig-31, like other aircrafts, is not licensed for dirty runways. The dirty runways should be treated BEFORE operations and, if the meteo is not satisfactory, the aircraft directs on the alternate airport. Only if strictly necessary, the operations with prohibitive weather are authorized. With a Mig-31 is like landing with a civil liner, but at 300-350 Km/h, in blind conditions error possibility = zero.
Afaik, the Mig-31 landing gear is built especially to distribute the weight during high-speed takeoff and landings. A Mig-31 weighs more than a Tu-124 and lands at 350-300 Km/h. The Mig-25 had a single large wheel, but it did not weigh 40 tons. The Mig-31 does not have a single large wheel, but two twin wheels. The landing gear configuration of the Mig-31 is similar to the multi-axis configuration of a truck, not only for distribute the weight, but above all for the longitudinal stability during high speeds, above all if with the chute-brake. Many trucks have the last wheel lifted up and, when the load is heavy, that wheel goes down to touch the ground. People thinks that it is for the weight, actually it is also for longitudinal stability in the bends, when loaded. The Mig-31 is similar and afaik he is the aircraft with the most comfortable landing of the world. In the Arctic the lateral wind can be very strong, it could overturn trucks, so during operations with strong wind and wet runway it needs a special landing gear. In order to protect the main landing gear at high speeds and also to create less resistance with the gear out, the Mig-31 has ventral airbrakes in front of the gear.The Mig-31, like other aircrafts, is not licensed for dirty runways. The dirty runways should be treated BEFORE operations and, if the meteo is not satisfactory, the aircraft directs on the alternate airport. Only if strictly necessary, the operations with prohibitive weather are authorized. With a Mig-31 is like landing with a civil liner, but at 300-350 Km/h, in blind conditions error possibility = zero.
Berkut- Posts : 190
Points : 215
Join date : 2015-05-05
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.
Guest- Guest
I think you are misunderstanding GarryB. I understand that he is simply saying that an aircraft on par with the MiG-31 would be ideal for those countries because the role that the MiG-31 plays fits well within those countries needs.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.
GarryB- Posts : 40434
Points : 40934
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Thank you Ivan...
The difference between restarting production of the MiG-31 and restarting production of the MiG-21 or MiG-23 is that the MiG-31 is still the best aircraft for the job and for the foreseeable future for many countries.
the problem is that production of the old aircraft is not so likely to be restarted because the actual demand is low despite the potential demand being very high.
Australia and Canada will end up buying enormously expensive F-35s that will be no where near as capable of defending their air space as a MiG-31, while who knows what Iran will do... they might even want upgraded f-14s for all we know.
Good old politics getting in the way of sensible decisions... not only would replacing their Hornets in the 1990s with Su-35s and also replacing their F-111s with Su-34s, they could co-produce some MiG-31s now and spend a small fraction of what they will spend on Super Hornets and F-35s.
But the Aussie leadership hate the Russians... as does the Canadian leadership... so Russia has its supply of MiG-31s and likely wont get any more until a replacement is ready.
The difference between restarting production of the MiG-31 and restarting production of the MiG-21 or MiG-23 is that the MiG-31 is still the best aircraft for the job and for the foreseeable future for many countries.
the problem is that production of the old aircraft is not so likely to be restarted because the actual demand is low despite the potential demand being very high.
Australia and Canada will end up buying enormously expensive F-35s that will be no where near as capable of defending their air space as a MiG-31, while who knows what Iran will do... they might even want upgraded f-14s for all we know.
Good old politics getting in the way of sensible decisions... not only would replacing their Hornets in the 1990s with Su-35s and also replacing their F-111s with Su-34s, they could co-produce some MiG-31s now and spend a small fraction of what they will spend on Super Hornets and F-35s.
But the Aussie leadership hate the Russians... as does the Canadian leadership... so Russia has its supply of MiG-31s and likely wont get any more until a replacement is ready.
BlackArrow- Posts : 155
Points : 133
Join date : 2013-05-17
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- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
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?
US planes servicing is quite costly everyone knows especially if it is F-35 .
BlackArrow- Posts : 155
Points : 133
Join date : 2013-05-17
max steel wrote:US planes servicing is quite costly everyone knows especially if it is F-35 .
US planes expensive to keep flying? First I've heard of it. Doesn't tally with what one sees around the world.
No one has any real experience with the running costs of operational F-35s - little is known about it.
GarryB- Posts : 40434
Points : 40934
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
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.
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- Posts : 155
Points : 133
Join date : 2013-05-17
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.
You have never seen a report on the MiG-31's serviceability, have you? I believe it's a maintenance hog.
JohninMK- Posts : 15576
Points : 15717
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
Any aircraft from that time that pushed the technology then available to its limits is almost certainly going to need a lot of maintenance, especially after decades of service and certainly in comparison with newer planes with sub-systems specifically designed to minimise said maintenance. I would have thought that the MiG-31 fell into this category, much like the Tomcat, but unlike the USN and its Tomcats, Russia has not been able to fund a replacement so it fits into your SR-71 category, unique and useful.BlackArrow wrote: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.
You have never seen a report on the MiG-31's serviceability, have you? I believe it's a maintenance hog.
The real problem with this F-35 episode is that these were brand new, low maintenance, probably hand picked, aircraft with stupendous, cost no object, logistics support from both within the military and from the manufacturer.
GarryB- Posts : 40434
Points : 40934
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
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.
The AH-64 was and is a bit of a hanger queen and the new stealth fighters... you need to cut open panels to access any internals on the aircraft and then when you are finished you have to tape up the closed panels and repaint RAM over top to ensure stealth is retained... it takes a dozen hours for the RAM to cure and harden so it can take up to 40 hours for routine maintainence that requires access to internal components... and if you don't bother then the aircraft stops being stealthy...
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.
The AH-64 was and is a bit of a hanger queen and the new stealth fighters... you need to cut open panels to access any internals on the aircraft and then when you are finished you have to tape up the closed panels and repaint RAM over top to ensure stealth is retained... it takes a dozen hours for the RAM to cure and harden so it can take up to 40 hours for routine maintainence that requires access to internal components... and if you don't bother then the aircraft stops being stealthy...
higurashihougi- Posts : 3377
Points : 3464
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
BlackArrow wrote:You have never seen a report on the MiG-31's serviceability, have you? I believe it's a maintenance hog.
At least MiG-25/31 design works. MiG-25/31 is the mightiest air fighter in this world, and its basic design set the standard for MiG-29/35, Su-27...37, and F-14/15/18/22/35.
Meanwhile, F-35 is a useless weapon only to be served as s3xtoy. It is slower than MiG-19. It may not outcompete F-16 in dogfight. The DSI is just similar to conical inlet used in MiG-21. And its stealth cloak cannot escape modern Russian radars.
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.
Actually I believe none of the Western countries can ever dream about MiG-25/31 radar. MiG-31 radar is the mightiest airborne radars for fighter. And when a group of MiG-31 synchronized their radar toghether and used L-band to scan the area, I highly doubt that F-35 can escape.
Walther von Oldenburg- Posts : 1725
Points : 1844
Join date : 2015-01-23
Age : 33
Location : Oldenburg
- Post n°418
Re: MiG-31BM/Κ Interceptor/Attack aircraft: News
Walther von Oldenburg Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:55 pm
MiG-31 was not created for fighting other fighters. It was created as a high altitude interceptor of bombers and missiles to plug a gap in Soviet AD system.
GarryB- Posts : 40434
Points : 40934
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The MiG-31 and MiG-25 were intended for both high flying recon aircraft and low flying bombers and cruise missiles.
Even the B-2 will fly low to try and evade Russian radar.
Even the B-2 will fly low to try and evade Russian radar.
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
Since we're going on about the Mig-25/31 i might as well add this.
JohninMK- Posts : 15576
Points : 15717
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
Thanks although it is OT. That link was the 25, this is the 31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L-FBWPmQcwAlfaT8 wrote:Since we're going on about the Mig-25/31 i might as well add this.
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
- Post n°422
Marine Corp F-35B probably has a better serviceability than RuAF MiG-31BM, who knows?
AlfaT8 Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:07 pm
i know, i only posted part 1, if the reader wanted to continue they'd go to part 2 on there own.JohninMK wrote:Thanks although it is OT. That link was the 25, this is the 31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L-FBWPmQcwAlfaT8 wrote:Since we're going on about the Mig-25/31 i might as well add this.
sepheronx- Posts : 8810
Points : 9070
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Aircraft plant "Sokol" handed over the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, two modernized MiG-31
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
sepheronx wrote:Aircraft plant "Sokol" handed over the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, two modernized MiG-31
I hope those new MiG-31BM will go to Rogachevo air base in Novaya Zemlya island.
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Short video of MiG-31BM launching R-73 missiles.