Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

I dont think one carrier is enough for a Powerfull country like russia.

Russia hasn't had the investment and support infrastructure right now to operate more than one carrier so having ten right now would be pointless... they would spend all day tied up on the pier with no crew and no aircraft to operate from them.

A good strong navy will make Russia a more powerful global country... it doesn't happen the other way around.

Build another medium AC based on the kuznetsov with the granit missiles (or an updated version of it) and the AC wont need Much escorts.

It would be an enormous mistake to put heavy AShMs on their new carriers... they should certainly have 4-6 UKSK launchers, but loading them with land attack cruise missiles and anti sub missiles makes rather more sense as the aircraft on board could deliver air launched anti ship missiles to targets much further away than any ship launched missile.

Kuznetsov with Granits still needs escorts... and without its Granits will still need escorts but with more space for aircraft will offer better protection for the ships escorting it.

And then you Will always have atleast one AC ready for deployment when needed.

Not possible right now... it makes more sense to build up the rest of the fleets first to allow any new carriers to be properly used.

Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparative to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.

Which should be about 2018. Navalised PAK FA could be ready for naval use by 2022 and naval light 5th gen fighters perhaps 5-6 years after that.

Keep in mind that the smaller lighter cheaper 5th gen light fighter is not in limbo... the avionics for PAK FA are in the Su-35 and the avionics for the new stealth light fighter will likely be used in the Mig-35. Experience and production tools and skills can be applied directly to the new aircraft which will be stealthy by virtue of its airframe design no being based on a Mig-29.

Lets face it... the current plans of the US Navy show the stealth fighter on Russian ships will only need to contend with 4th gen western fighters... Rafale on French carriers, F-18 on US carriers, and the F-35 on the UK carriers and the F-35 as a strike aircraft on US carriers... the F-18 being replaced by the F-35 as the naval strike aircraft and relegated to fighter... replacing the F-14.

Fairly odd progression where the F-14 is the carrier fighter and the A-6 is the strike aircraft with the F-18 first replacing the A-6 as strike aircraft and then the F-14 as fighter is now to be replaced as the strike aircraft and will just be a fighter again.

Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Russia don't have friendly ports nor bases around the world like the USA. They need a strong autonomic battle group, able to sustain heavy attacks and able to powerful strike back.

A new Russian carrier should have nuclear propulsion, electromagnetic catapults, AESA radar system, most advanced multirole fighters (T-50K or MiG-XXK), advanced helicopters, first class ASW and AEW aircraft and UCAV/UAV. There is time enough to get it right, they don't need to hurry.

Small carriers are for smaller navies. Russia has great interests in the Arctic region and must control the passages to the Arctic from both, the Atlantic and the Pacific, side.
They also need carriers in the southern regions of the Oceans for support of their blue water fleets.

GJ Flanker wrote:Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Russia don't have friendly ports nor bases around the world like the USA. They need a strong autonomic battle group, able to sustain heavy attacks and able to powerful strike back.

A new Russian carrier should have nuclear propulsion, electromagnetic catapults, AESA radar system, most advanced multirole fighters (T-50K or MiG-XXK), advanced helicopters, first class ASW and AEW aircraft and UCAV/UAV. There is time enough to get it right, they don't need to hurry.

Small carriers are for smaller navies. Russia has great interests in the Arctic region and must control the passages to the Arctic from both, the Atlantic and the Pacific, side.
They also need carriers in the southern regions of the Oceans for support of their blue water fleets.      

If you mean heavy as in supercarrier heavy i disagree. A Kuz is 55k ton- so maybe a 65-70k ton vessel would suffice if we are
expecting a supercarrier length service life (40 -50 years) out of it. The extra tonnage would be good for upgrading the AC over
the years.
Regarding a strong autonomic battle group, I think nuke power for the whole battle group is necessary.
Also about VLS, I agree with GarryB, heavy ashms are no longer needed in the AC. I would put S-500/400 in VLS tubes buried
in the deck, maybe squeeze them with the EMALS.

GarryB wrote:

I dont think one carrier is enough for a Powerfull country like russia.

Russia hasn't had the investment and support infrastructure right now to operate more than one carrier so having ten right now would be pointless... they would spend all day tied up on the pier with no crew and no aircraft to operate from them.

A good strong navy will make Russia a more powerful global country... it doesn't happen the other way around.

Build another medium AC based on the kuznetsov with the granit missiles (or an updated version of it) and the AC wont need Much escorts.

It would be an enormous mistake to put heavy AShMs on their new carriers... they should certainly have 4-6 UKSK launchers, but loading them with land attack cruise missiles and anti sub missiles makes rather more sense as the aircraft on board could deliver air launched anti ship missiles to targets much further away than any ship launched missile.

Kuznetsov with Granits still needs escorts... and without its Granits will still need escorts but with more space for aircraft will offer better protection for the ships escorting it.

And then you Will always have atleast one AC ready for deployment when needed.

Not possible right now... it makes more sense to build up the rest of the fleets first to allow any new carriers to be properly used.

Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparative to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.

Which should be about 2018. Navalised PAK FA could be ready for naval use by 2022 and naval light 5th gen fighters perhaps 5-6 years after that.

Keep in mind that the smaller lighter cheaper 5th gen light fighter is not in limbo... the avionics for PAK FA are in the Su-35 and the avionics for the new stealth light fighter will likely be used in the Mig-35. Experience and production tools and skills can be applied directly to the new aircraft which will be stealthy by virtue of its airframe design no being based on a Mig-29.

Lets face it... the current plans of the US Navy show the stealth fighter on Russian ships will only need to contend with 4th gen western fighters... Rafale on French carriers, F-18 on US carriers, and the F-35 on the UK carriers and the F-35 as a strike aircraft on US carriers... the F-18 being replaced by the F-35 as the naval strike aircraft and relegated to fighter... replacing the F-14.

Fairly odd progression where the F-14 is the carrier fighter and the A-6 is the strike aircraft with the F-18 first replacing the A-6 as strike aircraft and then the F-14 as fighter is now to be replaced as the strike aircraft and will just be a fighter again.

Your making a mistake the US currently has 2 f 18 aircraft one for fighter and one for strike but there is a big difference between f-18 hornet and f-18 super hornet the super hornet replaced the f 14 and the hornet replaced the a-6/a-7 BUT the most modern air wing on carriers is the one stationed in Japan 2 squadrons of f18f super hornet (strike) s and 2 squadrons of f 18E super hornets.(fighter)

Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

I pretty much agree with everything you said in that post, though I would not want to see the Russians try to build 100,000 ton carriers like the US.

60-70K ton would be the biggest they should go and I would support more exotic technologies as well... like huge airships for AEW/AWACS, and UCAVs.

There was talk about the new carriers being subsurface, surface(sea and land), air, and space combat ready, so naval S-500s and S-400s will be part of the armament too.

I also agree they need nuclear propulsion for all their carrier group vessels for long endurance and speed where needed... they need new compact but powerful reactors that are as safe as they can possibly be.

Small carriers are for smaller navies.

There is a correlation between weight and cost, but also in deployment of aircraft... they want the smallest lightest carrier with the most aircraft on board... the best combination.

Your making a mistake the US currently has 2 f 18 aircraft one for fighter and one for strike but there is a big difference between f-18 hornet and f-18 super hornet the super hornet replaced the f 14 and the hornet replaced the a-6/a-7 BUT the most modern air wing on carriers is the one stationed in Japan 2 squadrons of f18f super hornet (strike) s and 2 squadrons of f 18E super hornets.(fighter)

Hornets hornets hornets... call them stealthy and triple the price but at the end of the day they are the same plane.

The F-35 will replace the Hornet in the strike role, but the external weapon capacity of the Hornet will mean it will remain the fighter of choice.

With all that great info you give ,my final opinion is that I don't care what AC the Runavy builds as long as it has AWACS capability. However in the future I believe ACs will start being obsolete due to big detectibility and improvements in SAMs and land attack cruise missiles.


Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.

dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.

collegeboy16 wrote:dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.

They wont be the first to be Shotdown because they see the fighters coming from a long distance and the fighters Will have enough time to come while the AWACS is maybe retreating when you have a super carrier AWACS aircraft are a MUST.

However in the future I believe ACs will start being obsolete due to big detectibility and improvements in SAMs and land attack cruise missiles.

Why do you think stealth technology can't be applied to air craft carriers?

Is the B-2 less stealthy than an F-22 or more stealthy?

In fact EM catapults should greatly reduce the IR signature of the modern carrier and the technology could be applied to tube artillery at sea and on land.

Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.

How will those stealthy ships find those stealthy aircraft and stealthy carriers? Do you not think that any sensor that a stealthy small ship can carry would not be as useful as the sensor a very large ship could carry which means the large ship detects the small ship first and can open fire first?

A very large target is easier to hit but also is harder to sink... a huge transport ship carrying balsa wood or ping pong balls would be impossible to sink unless you could make it catch fire.

dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.

To have them on a carrier... by definition they can't be the size of a 747. The Naval PAK FA will likely have 360 degree radar capability, though an AWACS aircraft that is heavier with larger sensor arrays and larger fuel tanks to allow longer endurance at high altitude also makes sense.

If you operate your AWACS aircraft above your primary air defence cruiser it will likely be rather safer than you might think...

They wont be the first to be Shotdown because they see the fighters coming from a long distance and the fighters Will have enough time to come while the AWACS is maybe retreating when you have a super carrier AWACS aircraft are a MUST.

Indeed the whole purpose behind adding dedicated air power to a naval group is to extend the vision of the fleet with AWACS aircraft and also extend the air defence ring well beyond the horizon. Air based sensors are better able to detect at long range low flying threats, but more importantly in peace time and in war time it can send out aircraft to investigate and deal with any potential problem without risking a ship.

Why do you think stealth technology can't be applied to air craft carriers?

Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal

In fact EM catapults should greatly reduce the IR signature of the modern carrier and the technology could be applied to tube artillery at sea and on land.

   This is not the way you detect an AC anyway

Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.

This will never happen because there are already extremely convenient weapons to put an AC at rest. Missiles like DF-21 or really long range cruise missiles like the Russian ones is all it takes.

How will those stealthy ships find those stealthy aircraft and stealthy carriers?

The primary tool are satellites. Then you have a much narrower area to scan. Obviously the principal target, like in WW2, are not the planes but the ship itself.

Hannibal Barca wrote:
Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal

I think the concrete on top of the the AC deck would be a good ram.

Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal

Actually flat is the simplest shape to make something stealthy... look at the F-117s shape before they got high speed computers to calculate curves...

Think of it in terms of window panes... the small flat panes on the Mi-28 means that a bright light like the sun will reflect strongly only along very small specific angles and not very well at any other angle. The curved canopy of the Mi-24 however will show a sun reflection from most angles because the transparency is curved and the suns reflection is reflected over a wide range of angles.

This is not the way you detect an AC anyway

Currently it is one if the easiest... not many large heat sources in the middle of a dark ocean... a wide field of view scan of the north atlantic for instance in IR would reveal only a few dozen objects hot enough to register... when you only have to manually check a few dozen your job of finding a carrier suddenly become much easier... in comparison scanning a radar image would show every larger cruise ship, every large tanker, every large gas tanker, and every large container ship... much longer to find the carrier.

I think the concrete on top of the the AC deck would be a good ram.

Concrete does not absorb radar. Real RAM would be a much better choice.

AC deck is *always* full of people and equipment, from various carts, tractors, hoses to helicopters, planes (with exposed landing gear and other non VLO treated bits); not to mention the features of the deck surface itself - tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

It's really a radar return heaven for X band radars.

eridan wrote:AC deck is *always* full of people and equipment, from various carts, tractors, hoses to helicopters, planes (with exposed landing gear and other non VLO treated bits); not to mention the features of the deck surface itself - tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

It's really a radar return heaven for X band radars.

up really really high in the sky i doubt if any of those realtively minute features wouold spoil the realtively flat top IR or radar wise.

Actually flat is the simplest shape to make something stealthy... look at the F-117s shape before they got high speed computers to calculate curves...

Think of it in terms of window panes... the small flat panes on the Mi-28 means that a bright light like the sun will reflect strongly only along very small specific angles and not very well at any other angle. The curved canopy of the Mi-24 however will show a sun reflection from most angles because the transparency is curved and the suns reflection is reflected over a wide range of angles.

Please, let us stop here your attempt to prove that an aircraft carrier deck is actually the ideal shape for a stealthy ship

Currently it is one if the easiest... not many large heat sources in the middle of a dark ocean... a wide field of view scan of the north atlantic for instance in IR would reveal only a few dozen objects hot enough to register... when you only have to manually check a few dozen your job of finding a carrier suddenly become much easier... in comparison scanning a radar image would show every larger cruise ship, every large tanker, every large gas tanker, and every large container ship... much longer to find the carrier.

Modern radars, let alone satellites, can detect an AC from hundreds if not thousands of kilometers away. No IR detector can come even remotely close to this ranges.
This is not WW2. If you are against a semi-decent opponent e.g. Iran or Pakistan they will try to take you down before you ever reach 1000 kilometers from their missile silos.
Else you will land your strike first, not risking to get closer, since your jets are already well inside their operational ranges.

Please, let us stop here your attempt to prove that an aircraft carrier deck is actually the ideal shape for a stealthy ship

The basic shape is flat, but as mentioned above it is a working environment with lots of clutter.

Stealth does not mean no radar return. Stealth means less radar return to the antenna that is scanning. In X band there are plenty of things you can do to various items to reduce or divert their return to disguise the presence of the ship... the sea surface has plenty of features that move on it too.

tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

There are plenty of materials that do not reflect radar energy that could be used, I am not talking about existing decks being stealthy... just like existing non stealthy planes are not stealthy either. Stealth has to be part of the design.

No IR detector can come even remotely close to this ranges.

Many of the early warning satellites used by the US and Russia use IR sensors to detect launches of ICBMs and SLBMs.

Any heat source on the background of cold space coming up over the horizon tends to stand out... a steam catapult in the middle of a cold ocean also stands out... even if it is not as hot as a rocket exhaust plume.

The basic shape is flat, but as mentioned above it is a working environment with lots of clutter.

Stealth does not mean no radar return. Stealth means less radar return to the antenna that is scanning. In X band there are plenty of things you can do to various items to reduce or divert their return to disguise the presence of the ship... the sea surface has plenty of features that move on it too.

I know how a radar works.
Nobody ever thought of an AC with stealth characteristics that can even remotely resemble an AC as we know it today.
I already told you , major parts negate design characteristics. It's not only the deck that creates the signal itself. Is the hull altogether that is designed to carry such a deck.

Many of the early warning satellites used by the US and Russia use IR sensors to detect launches of ICBMs and SLBMs.

Any heat source on the background of cold space coming up over the horizon tends to stand out... a steam catapult in the middle of a cold ocean also stands out... even if it is not as hot as a rocket exhaust plume.

I said that I speak about conventional sensors. From planes, for missile guidance from ground bases, such staff. I don't even take satellites into account cause it is simply impossible to hide an aircraft carrier from satellites. US navy don't even try to hide their deployments. It is futile.
Since Vietnam war the problem of US opponents were never that they didn't know where the ACs where but that they didn't had the capability to reach them.
Anyway I said, I don't think that an EM catapult can enhance the defensive capabilities -on practical level-  due to the fact that minimize heat emissions.


BTW What's the point of talking about stealth ACs above if we are talking about satellites which "see" the huge deck vertically...   

Nobody ever thought of an AC with stealth characteristics that can even remotely resemble an AC as we know it today.

The Russians are designing new carriers that will likely be operational for 40-50 years... I suspect they will take radar signature into consideration... they are making Nakidka for their armoured vehicles to reduce IR and radar signature... I would suspect some effort for their new billion dollar carriers.

I already told you , major parts negate design characteristics. It's not only the deck that creates the signal itself. Is the hull altogether that is designed to carry such a deck.

The Kirov class ships are the size of the carriers we are talking about... they had hulls as well and were considered very stealthy for their size.

These new carriers don't need a RCS of a marble or anything... reducing the RCS from 400 square metres to maybe 50 could mean the difference between detection at 5,000km and detection at 500km... reducing the range and reliability of detection and tracking is enough.

US navy don't even try to hide their deployments. It is futile.

Yeah... the US Navy does nothing at all to conceal the position of their carriers and carrier groups... perhaps you might like to look up the term EMCON.

Anyway I said, I don't think that an EM catapult can enhance the defensive capabilities -on practical level- due to the fact that minimize heat emissions.

If a steam catapult generates a large IR signature then it would make sense that an EM catapult would be an improvement... especially as it can adapt its stroke in real time.

For different aircraft with different payload and fuel weights and different ordinance requirements a very specific load setting on a steam cat is required. Set the wrong number and the undercarriage gets ripped off or the plane ends up in the water.

An EM cat can monitor the acceleration and adapt its force so if it is not going fast enough to take off safely it can add power to the stroke to give the aircraft the best chance of getting airborne.

This makes it rather safer... and in terms of battle damage not having lots of high pressure very hot steam pipes through your ship is also a good thing too.

BTW What's the point of talking about stealth ACs above if we are talking about satellites which "see" the huge deck vertically...

How about RAM coating on the deck of the carrier layed out to look like standard shipping containers... the surface will be flat, but the radar and IR signature might make it look like a fully loaded container ship...

GarryB wrote:

BTW What's the point of talking about stealth ACs above if we are talking about satellites which "see" the huge deck vertically...

How about RAM coating on the deck of the carrier layed out to look like standard shipping containers... the surface will be flat, but the radar and IR signature might make it look like a fully loaded container ship...

That's camouflage, not stealth.

The most common way to make something stealthy, at least according to most people's understanding of the subject, is for an article in AW&ST (Aviation Week) calling that thing "stealth".

The Russians are designing new carriers that will likely be operational for 40-50 years... I suspect they will take radar signature into consideration... they are making Nakidka for their armoured vehicles to reduce IR and radar signature... I would suspect some effort for their new billion dollar carriers.

Ford class is not known to be any better than Nimitz. Of course we are speaking about designing not camouflage or jamming or thermal staff.

The Kirov class ships are the size of the carriers we are talking about... they had hulls as well and were considered very stealthy for their size.

These new carriers don't need a RCS of a marble or anything... reducing the RCS from 400 square metres to maybe 50 could mean the difference between detection at 5,000km and detection at 500km... reducing the range and reliability of detection and tracking is enough.

My point is. Nobody ever changed an aircraft carrier design so that can seriously reduce RCS due to this. Kirov is huge but is not negated by design constrains. Zumwalt went a few steps further. Also a heavy class.

Yeah... the US Navy does nothing at all to conceal the position of their carriers and carrier groups... perhaps you might like to look up the term EMCON.

It is not really relevant with our discussion but can radio silence help in modern warfare? I doubt.

If a steam catapult generates a large IR signature then it would make sense that an EM catapult would be an improvement... especially as it can adapt its stroke in real time.

For different aircraft with different payload and fuel weights and different ordinance requirements a very specific load setting on a steam cat is required. Set the wrong number and the undercarriage gets ripped off or the plane ends up in the water.

An EM cat can monitor the acceleration and adapt its force so if it is not going fast enough to take off safely it can add power to the stroke to give the aircraft the best chance of getting airborne.

This makes it rather safer... and in terms of battle damage not having lots of high pressure very hot steam pipes through your ship is also a good thing too.

Did I ever said that EM is not a step forward? I just said that IR reduction is not even the zeroth advantage in terms of significance. By the way from wikipedia:

Advantages

Compared to steam catapults, EMALS weighs less, occupies less space, requires less maintenance and manpower, is more reliable, recharges more quickly, and uses less energy. Steam catapults, which use about 614 kilograms of steam per launch, have extensive mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic subsystems.[4] EMALS uses no steam, which makes it suitable for the Navy's planned all-electric ships.[12] The EMALS could be more easily incorporated into a ramp.[4]

Compared to steam catapults, EMALS can control the launch performance with greater precision, allowing it to launch more kinds of aircraft, from heavy fighter jets to light unmanned aircraft.[12] EMALS can also deliver 29 percent more energy than steam's approximately 95 megajoules, increasing the output to 122 megajoules.[4] The EMALS will also be more efficient than the 5-percent efficiency of steam catapults.[2]

So a lot of pluses indeed but not the IR thing. Like when you said that having a maximum ceiling of 60000ft instead of 55000ft or a maximum speed of 2.4 mach instead of 2.2 mach would give a better range to your missiles. Yeah right, but come on..

That's camouflage, not stealth.

Why should terms matter?

The RCS of US stealth aircraft are described as being like birds or small marbles... is that stealth or camouflage?

The most common way to make something stealthy, at least according to most people's understanding of the subject, is for an article in AW&ST (Aviation Week) calling that thing "stealth".

I am talking about the next designs for Russian carriers, not US hype and marketing.

Ford class is not known to be any better than Nimitz. Of course we are speaking about designing not camouflage or jamming or thermal staff.

I thought we were talking about Russian next generation air craft carriers... I really don't see how US carrier designs are relevant.

My point is. Nobody ever changed an aircraft carrier design so that can seriously reduce RCS due to this.

Excellent point... following the same logic the attempts to reduce radar cross sections of Mig-35s and Su-35s over the Mig-29 and Su-27 respectively and the fact that a stealth fighter has never been put in service previously by the UK, France, or Russia means that the PAK FA will not be a 5th gen stealth fighter...

Perhaps your logic is not totally correct?

Modern ships will be targeted by a variety of weapons including optically, IR, and radar guided systems and reducing their signatures in IR, optical and radar frequencies will be considered beneficial. Of course an invisible carrier is not possible but reducing signatures by several orders of magnitude in addition with decoys and jamming can make the vessel much safer.

Making them invisible to AWACS aircraft or enormous antenna arrays in space might not be possible, but AWACS aircraft and satellites can't sink a carrier... you need a missile or weapon and if you can defeat the sensor on that you can survive.

It is not really relevant with our discussion but can radio silence help in modern warfare? I doubt.

Radio and radar silence does not mean everything turned off... if you can detect your enemies emissions without making any of your own you have the advantage of knowing where he is and him not knowing exactly where you are... an enormous advantage most military leaders would kill for.

So a lot of pluses indeed but not the IR thing.

Of course... spewing out 614kgs of steam will not be noticed by the various PASSIVE IR sensors on all new Russian fighters and on several of their satellites and most of their MPA aircraft... if Wiki doesn't mention it then it can't be important...   

Like when you said that having a maximum ceiling of 60000ft instead of 55000ft or a maximum speed of 2.4 mach instead of 2.2 mach would give a better range to your missiles. Yeah right, but come on..

The difference is that when a Mig-31 is the mach 2.4 aircraft and the F-15 is the mach 2.2 plane the Mig-31 probably reaches mach 2.4 on every other mission where as the vast majority of F-15 pilots might get to mach 2.2 once or twice in their careers.

The Mig-31 was designed to operate at mach 2.4 on most interception missions... the F-15 has a paper top speed of mach 2.2 but almost never achieves it because it burns up a lot of fuel very rapidly.

High altitude high speed launch of missiles compared to low altitude low speed launch is a multiplication factor of about 5 or 6 for most missiles... Launched at low altitude and low speed a missile like R-73 would have an effective range of 7km or 8km. High altitude high speed and it is more like 45km.
For R-27E missiles the low altitude launch would likely have an effective range of maybe 20km, but a high speed high altitude launch range of 80-90km.

High altitude high speed launch of missiles compared to low altitude low speed launch is a multiplication factor of about 5 or 6 for most missiles...

Do you have data to back this? I find it crazy, probably simply impossible.
A high attitude launch is, lets say 15km. A low attitude, let us say, 1km. 14km of extra dynamic energy.
Even if you manage to pass all of this additional energy to extra range I doubt that you can gain 60 km.
This would mean that even with 100% efficiency, which is hardly possible,
that the total Work a rocket's engine can produce is 5-6 TIMES LESS than the dynamic energy you gain by this extra 14 km or about 2.5 kilometers.
TOTAL CRAP blatantly. You can easily launch an R-73 to hit a plane 3km higher that your altitude, let alone the total energy being such..

Do you have data to back this? I find it crazy, probably simply impossible.
A high attitude launch is, lets say 15km. A low attitude, let us say, 1km. 14km of extra dynamic energy.

I live near a city called Dunedin. To the north about 300km away there is another city called Christchurch. When I fly to Christchurch the little 767 spends most of the first 15 minutes climbing to about 10,000m and then it descends.

Can you work out why a jet powered plane spends all that fuel climbing only to start descending again to land?

Very simply rocket and jet engines are much more efficient in the thin cold air at high altitude. There is less drag on the aircraft/missile, and that means it can fly faster for less fuel burned... not only that any fuel burned climbing to altitude can be recovered by gliding down again.

The difference is that with a missile launched at high speed and high altitude it means much higher flight speed and much longer flight range.

Look up the max range of an AAM and if the specs are honest they will say the ideal engagement is launched from high altitude high speed at a target that is head on and closing.

The Vietnam era Sidewinder had a range of about 15km at medium altitude against a target in full AB, but at low level in a monsoon you couldn't get a lock at 2km.

GarryB wrote:
The Mig-31 was designed to operate at mach 2.4 on most interception missions... the F-15 has a paper top speed of mach 2.2 but almost never achieves it because it burns up a lot of fuel very rapidly.

The MIG 31 has never seen a battle whereas the F 15 has actively participated in all the NATO war campaigns ever since it was inducted by the USAF .

I suspect GarryB your source for information on MIG 31 must be some half baked literature mostly found in Asia and of late in Russia . Those guys have never been part of any armed forces . Those guys live in their Mom's basement and wear slippers to work