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

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.

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.

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.

They seem to be getting called Aerospace Defence Forces or VKO.

Note how they specifically say Russian Air Force in the article .

No mention of MiG-31 OR PAK-FA going to VKKO.

I suspect you may be right, however I think that while the Mig-31s etc that used to be part of the PVO will now be under the command of the VKO...

The 30 odd Mig-31s mentioned in a recent article that were on 24 hour alert would receive targeting information and launch commands from the VKO rather than the VVS, which on the whole likely reduces duplication.

There is little point in having separate VKO and VVS airfields.

Latest Air International has update on Mig-31 Upgrade

Mig-31 Foxhound....Russias Mighty Interceptor - Piotr Butowski

High Res --->  http://www.4shared.com/rar/eUqhm4uX/Foxhound.html

Mig-31-1
Mig-31-2
Mig-31-3
Mig-31-4
Mig-31-5

Interesting, but why does Piotr suggest the domestic R-37M will have the same range as the export RVV-BD?

If the new upgrade is specifically for the Mig-31BM and has been waiting for the clearance of the R-37M and most importantly the upgraded radar can track 24 and guide missiles against 6 targets at once it makes one wonder if they will leave the belly positions as they are, or adapt them for the new missiles the upgrade is optimised for.

I have seen quotes of 280km for the range for the Russian missile and it wouldn't surprise me if they adapted the belly shape to allow 6 missiles to be carried conformally there instead of 4.

I would expect as their primary interceptor that at some stage a new radar antenna might be worth considering... it certainly has the nose capacity for a large antenna and all the necessary cooling equipment needed.

Most likely the true capability of R-37M is a classified subject and he would have been told to refer to export figures rather then giving the true figures , in his new book Russian Air Force he puts a figure of ~ 280 km for R-37M plus Active/Passive Seeker.

Also the new missile R-77M in development is interesting , has a new motor and in the same book he mentions the range of missile as 140 km.

So we will see 3 variants of R-77 in service

R-77 --- 80 km
R-77-1/RVV-SD --- 110 km
R-77M ----- 140 km

No.

In Russian service any original R-77s will have expired.

They will likely go for a domestic version (ie catered to specific Russian IFF codes etc) of the RVV-SD for most operational aircraft like Su-27s and upgrades and Mig-29s and upgrades, while the new R-77M will likely be for Mig-31BM and PAK FA and Su-35 and Mig-35 if the latter makes it into production.

The newer aircraft and Mig-31BM being able to take advantage of the extra reach of the new missile.

I rather suspect that the standard models of the R-77 they put in service will have dual active and passive homing options and that perhaps they will expand the range to include IIR guidance as well for use against stealthy aircraft at extended range.

GarryB wrote:In Russian service any original R-77s will have expired.

Define original , the last variant widely used in operation in major airforces of world are the R-77 with a range of 80 km , the RuAF would be operating the same.

The newer variant is R-77-1/RVV-SD is just early entering production

From the Book of Yefim Gordon , Russian Air Force on Mig-31M Upgrade Weapons

The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.

The K-37 ( R-37 ) uses inertial midcourse guidance with radio command correction switching to semi-active or active guidance homing during terminal phase.

The R-33S now has active radar homing with a kill range of 160 km , and kill probability against target pulling 4G is described as 60-80 %.

Another interesting thing described for modernised Mig-31BM is that it allows support of exotic combat scenario , like attack targets with other fighter missile , i.e take over guidance of AAM launched by other fighters without switching on their radars.

The Mig-31BM can track 24 targets and can attack 6 priority targets with long range R-37M missile . the maximum target detection range of radar is 240Km , has pictures of cockpit of modernised Mig-31BM

The R-37 missile is designed to be dynamically unstable and boast of enhanced agility

It seems in April 1994 the K-37 achieved a "world first" by destroying an aerial target at more than 300 km during a test launch

GarryB wrote:Interesting, but why does Piotr suggest the domestic R-37M will have the same range as the export RVV-BD?

Probably because it's the R-37M range as used by the MiG-31BM, given that it has a 240 km radar range. That doesn't preclude the missile from having an excess of performance that a different aircraft with a longer-range radar could exploit.

SOC wrote:

GarryB wrote:Interesting, but why does Piotr suggest the domestic R-37M will have the same range as the export RVV-BD?

Probably because it's the R-37M range as used by the MiG-31BM, given that it has a 240 km radar range. That doesn't preclude the missile from having an excess of performance that a different aircraft with a longer-range radar could exploit.

I suspect BM can pick up a large target (bomber, whatever) at more than 240km, so why the needless limit on the missile as it applies to the BM?
Not that it really matters, the chance of a shot where it would run out of range, is miniscule.

Define original , the last variant widely used in operation in major airforces of world are the R-77 with a range of 80 km , the RuAF would be operating the same.

The newer variant is R-77-1/RVV-SD is just early entering production

The first R-77 was a Soviet missile with its active radar homing seeker made in the Ukraine.

By the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union I very much doubt the missile was in service or the inventory of the Russian AF, and considering the only active aircraft in the Russian AF that could actually use the R-77 were the Mig-29S (Mig-29C) fighters I don't think it entered service in any numbers apart for those used for testing.

Vympel developed the design and made several hundred in the RVV-AE form for export, but I rather doubt the Russian AF spent any money on buying some because they had very little money to actually spend anyway.

They will likely have bought a batch for testing new fighters like the Su-35 and Mig-29SMT and Mig-29M and other aircraft that can use the weapon but I rather doubt it went into service.

The new RVV-SD will likely be the new production standard R-77 and will likely replace any previous models they might have had.

If you look at it in rifle terms when the AK-100 series is available you don't keep buying the old AK-74... you buy the AK-74M which is the AK-100 series model of full length barrel rifle in 5.45mm calibre.

Probably because it's the R-37M range as used by the MiG-31BM, given that it has a 240 km radar range. That doesn't preclude the missile from having an excess of performance that a different aircraft with a longer-range radar could exploit.

I assumed the 240km radar range was against 3 m square or 1 m square fighter type targets and that the bread and butter targets for the missile like tankers and awacs and jstars could be engaged at greater ranges.

The specs are for 280km against an 8g target...

I suspect BM can pick up a large target (bomber, whatever) at more than 240km, so why the needless limit on the missile as it applies to the BM?
Not that it really matters, the chance of a shot where it would run out of range, is miniscule.

And another point is mentioned in the article that a Mig-31BM can guide/control missiles launched from other aircraft, so a Mig-31BM that has just taken off that is almost 300km from a group of 6 targets could launch its missiles and then land again and rearm while another Mig-31BM that is 200km from the target group can individually guided each weapon to each target... and as they impact it can launch its own missiles to engage any survivors...

I would add that if anyone bought the Mig-21-98 then with a 60km range radar and R-77 missiles it would be in the same boat.

Having the ability to kill beyond your vision is the situation anyone who has held a rifle should understand.

How much does a real 'lean and mean' Mig-21-98 should cost. In terms of abilities, which 4+ generation fighter would it match up with.

Also, wonder why countries like China, India or Iran do not buy Mig-31BMs. It is the first layer of defense against cruise missiles attack on IAD of any country. 4 of them are a mini AWACS on their own.

Mig-21-98 was an upgrade proposed in 1998.

Today you could probably do much better, but I think a complete restart from scratch would be worth considering too.

The Mig-21 was small and relatively simple and cheap to operate.

It could go fast, but not particularly far and not with a very large load.

The obvious point now is that large loads are less necessary as weapons become more capable.

A single plane with a single guided bomb can be used against a target that in the 1980s would have taken 20 Mig-21s carrying only bombs to attack and still not guarantee a hit.

I would think a new engine, perhaps an Al-31 or RD-333 or related, but with the AB tuned down for engine commonality and reduced fuel consumption, plus perhaps a new more sophisticated larger wing with more weapon pylons... perhaps even change to a delta wing.

But there I go making it more and more expensive and eventually you look at the result and you realise you have turned it from a light aircraft into a medium aircraft.

I think the key is to not add more engine power and to keep weight to an absolute minimum.

Move the air intakes to above and behind the cockpit (for takeoff from rough strips) with a ramp intake on the belly for normal flight. Enlarge the nose and put the biggest radar antenna you can fit there and make it an AESA... it will cost a little more but the advantage in performance will be worth it.

Otherwise keep the existing aerodynamics and perhaps add wingtip missile launch positions for R-73s.

Replace the twin 23mm cannon with twn barrel 30mm cannon with 250 shells.

Give it modern fly by wire controls and modern avionics etc and it will be as good as an F-16 for a fraction of the new F-16 cost.

It wont be stealthy and it wont defeat F-22s or F-35s, but it can be used to police your airspace and do most things real airforces use fighters for.

In a scrap it is small and with the right paint scheme would be difficult to spot.

Mig-31BM is not cheap and is not a multirole aircraft... it is an interceptor pure and simple.

Not sure about its history with Iran but I would suspect any Iranian interest would meet with very strong Israeli and US opposition... for obvious reasons.

Mig-31BM is not cheap and is not a multirole aircraft... it is an interceptor pure and simple.

I have heard Mig-21s being sold for $1M and throw $4M for upgrades and for $5M one has a mean fighter armed with R-33s to R-77s. African nations should consider these instead of buying F-16s with downgraded export versions.


At $50-60 million each, I think having 8-10 Foxhounds should be a good investment for IAD and especially if the country is not too big in size like Iran. With long range capable Awacs killer missiles, IrAF can give some serious headaches to Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

I can't believe Russia bows down to threats from Israel and US. Mig-31 is more of a defensive weapon.

Btw, is it true that Israel has the capability to jam or neutralize S-300s and that too by BAE Suter type program? There have been stories that they threatened Russia with 'S300 neutralization' if they are sold to Iran and thus smashing the S300 market globally. Russia did back off from selling these to Iran eventually.

When has Russia bowed to threats from Israel? On the opposite, Russia nods when Israel whines, then does what it will do anyways.

[quote]I have heard Mig-21s being sold for $1M and throw $4M for upgrades and for $5M one has a mean fighter armed with R-33s to R-77s. African nations should consider these instead of buying F-16s with downgraded export versions. /quote]

I would think that a Mig-21 upgrade would appeal most to countries that already have Mig-21s in service.

Already having it in service means they already have the aircraft, they have the support infrastructure and a spare parts pool and pilots and support crew already trained and familiar with the aircraft.

A few upgrades to greatly improve performance and capabilities without costing too much make a lot of sense, but for a new customer it would probably make more sense to buy something like the Yak-130 modified to have a nose mounted radar.

They could buy a batch of 200 or so, with 2/3rds having two seats for use as trainers and light strike/attack roles, and the remaining 1/3rd as single seater light fighters, perhaps with a better radar and RVV-SD and RVV-MD missiles, and a belly mounted gun position.

It is subsonic, but with the single seat model you could probably take out the two engines and replace it with an RD-33 or something, which will make it supersonic and give it commonality with any Mig-29s you might also have.

At $50-60 million each, I think having 8-10 Foxhounds should be a good investment for IAD and especially if the country is not too big in size like Iran. With long range capable Awacs killer missiles, IrAF can give some serious headaches to Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

I would think Iran is largely thinking of the US, Israel and Iraq as problems on her borders.

Iran should take steps to improve relations with Turkey... steps towards Saudi would likely be a waste of time...

I can't believe Russia bows down to threats from Israel and US. Mig-31 is more of a defensive weapon.

It was the Yeltsin years... he pretty much agreed to and signed everything they put in front of him.

Fortunately that has changed.

Putin knows Yeltsin gained very little for his actions... the west simply didn't respect Russia and saw his compliance and weakness.

Putin reminds the west that Russia is not obliged to do anything it doesn't want to.

Btw, is it true that Israel has the capability to jam or neutralize S-300s and that too by BAE Suter type program?

The West, lead by Israel and the US invested a lot of effort to stop Russia delivering the S-300 systems Iran bought.

Being able to jam an old model S-300 you got from the Ukraine is one thing, but any computer specialist will tell you that hackers hacking into a system have an advantage that they just need to find one weakness.

My exCIA lecturer on Computer Security once told me that computer security is like securing a high rise building... you need to ensure external and internal doors that should be closed and locked remain so, but to actually be able to use the building as a working facility doors and windows need to be able to be opened by the people who need to open them when they need to open them. That means giving lots of different people different levels of access for different periods of time while keeping unauthorised people out.


But that works both ways... an attacking force will have a network of information and command and control that can also be hacked and manipulated. Needless to say as weakneses are found they are closed or can be monitored and made into a trap... imagine the next Israeli raid into Iran they hack into the air defence network and as the strike package approaches they turn the sector of the main radars that would otherwise detect the strike package off and freeze the image of the sector so those watching the radar in that sector see a frozen image that is empty... but when the strike package is deep into Iranian territory... surrounded by air defence systems that are not on alert because their main radar has not detected the threat... suddenly the hack is blocked and the radars are restored to full coverage and suddenly the strike package is visible in the middle of Iranian territory.

The bombers/strike aircraft would have to dump their payloads and get out of there as fast as they can...

Then they will find out how far those old obsolete Iranian missiles have been upgraded...

There have been stories that they threatened Russia with 'S300 neutralization' if they are sold to Iran and thus smashing the S300 market globally. Russia did back off from selling these to Iran eventually.

S-300 is no longer in production, so the effect on exports would be negligible.

Besides any weakness they might exploit to defeat any particular model of S-300 can be nullified with an upgrade modification. Passive sensors can be added, decoys, anti jamming systems... even defeating the air defence network wont help because each system can operate independently as a separate system.

victor7 wrote:Btw, is it true that Israel has the capability to jam or neutralize S-300s and that too by BAE Suter type program?

So they claim. But, if they really had this ability, I doubt they'd be so quick to tell everyone about it. Plus, if they could render the system ineffective somehow, then why not watch and laugh as Iran wastes its money on the things? They certainly do not fall into the "cheap" category. And, the rest of the world would think Iran was "safer", potentially dropping oil prices. Which Israel would also benefit from, as an oil purchaser.