MiG-31 anti RADAR

Discussion in 'Weapons Systems Tech.' started by weinace, Mar 9, 2011.

  1. weinace

    weinace Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    retired - at last!!!!
    Location:
    Yorkshire UK
    Good evening everyone!

    Would the MiG-31 in the anti RADAR role carry all Kh-31 missiles or all Kh-58 missiles or could it carry a mixture of the two?

    Thanks and regards,

    weinace:p
     
  2. -echo-

    -echo- New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    No . Both MiG-31 and MiG-31B can`t carry any air to ground weapon .
    Only MiG-31M can , but this model did not entered service .
     
  3. vanir

    vanir Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne
    31M is the 1992 series proposal, didn't enter production and had no air-ground initially planned, but it would go that way later if it entered production. New Foxbats MiG-25BM (anti radiation) were still being produced until 1985 and would remain in service until at least 1995 (in practise until about 1998 although Su-24 mostly took over this role).

    The Foxhound remained out of development until 1998 when the VVS tactical bureau was convened (following a major restructure of the air forces), and the 31BM "full scale modernisation" was proposed for existing Foxhound-A in service (about 445 then, about 370 a decade later), the idea was to make it a multirole and extend service life to 2015 or so. In the west we love the Flanker but in Russia they really love the Foxhound. It's really the Foxhound that got no expense spared in design or equipment fit, unlike both the Flanker and most definitely the Fulcrum. The Foxhound would always only go to the PVO and that's like Federal government competing with the States for funding, the Feds will win every time. They could write themselves an open cheque with the Foxhound, it was far more limited with the other two.

    Anyway the 31BM has full air-ground capability except tv guidence, it can basically carry anything an Su-25 Frogfoot can. The export version, 31FE has tv guidence, Russians will use the Su-24 for that role.
    The 31BM will most certainly replace the 25BM Foxbat. It has so much energy at all heights the Foxhound has very good comparative survival chances against SAMs so it's a natural choice. Contrary to popular belief the Foxhound handles no differently to a full weighted Phantom in the agility stakes, it's really not that bad...it just can't compete with lightweight composites. Media claims the Russian Air Force stated it can carry Kh-25 and Kh-31 missile types for SEAD, plus the full array of current, modern AGM weapons (the 25BM carries only Kh-58 or 500kg dumb bombs, it's basically an RBT with ECM instead of recon gear). Independently I read a VVS release that said it cannot carry tv guidence but the export version can, but it can also carry R77 like the original 1992 31M proposal (in common with Su-27SM current service update also largely completed).

    The first two were received by VVS Lipetsk in March 2008, the contracts were signed and money did change hands. More recently I've read in Ukrainian media that most of the fleet was currently updated, about 350 units. It was regarded a priority to get HOTAS, datalink/fire control updates and make them multirole, according to Russian authorities.
     
  4. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Cool info about the MiG-31, vanir.
    Is there an good on-line source about the upgrades Foxhounds received post Cold war?
     
  5. vanir

    vanir Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #5 vanir, Dec 6, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
    I started off between a 94 Janes I have and one of the media watch sites, they're sensationalist but sometimes just transliterate international press releases so that's about the degree of their veracity: not too bad sometimes, pure propaganda other times. Global security .org I think had some Russian press, but the most recent entry is 2008 iirc. Try that road, Ukrainian and Caucasus region/Don Valley press is also good for nice objective info on what's going on with Russian local geopolitics/armamants programs. Around that area the journalists have been exposed to the Georgian crisis and Chechen issue so they have a sense of responsibility to report accurately and work with quotes.

    Given their build time and service conditions puts them roughly five years ahead of the Eagle fleet for serviceable longevity in my guestimate. They really look after these well and don't fly them very much, just enough to keep type-qualified (so far not a single engine has ever failed even on a bench and TBO is very long). In 1992 the DF30 set a reliability record "of several hundred thousand flying hours without the slightest engine failure" according to MOKB.
    At high mach it does a little SR71 style bypass (uses the inlet tunnel but nowhere near as much), bumps to 186.1kN and cruises at 2.35M indefinitely until the fuel runs out (edit, note this was demonstrated with 4 R33 missiles and combat equipped but otherwise clean) (725km total at this speed on internal demonstrated, from wheels up/touchdown). Sprints to 2.83M design limit are claimed by Mikoyan and pilots to be troublefree except for airframe heating due to some more fragile avionics in modern warplanes. Its design limit is right at the point where you have to get creative with engineering, the Foxhound sticks just below the mach threshold where it suddenly would cost ten times as much to make airworthy, and it has advantages as having the only reliable 2.5+M design speed in service in the world. Even the Eagle is speed restricted normally to 1.78M (engine management override to go faster, then fill out forms, the engines have to be fully teared down upon landing...).

    The old Foxbat was operated like that, except its speed restriction was 2.5M for normal operation unless cleared by a ground controller for unsafe operation, but engine overspeeding was common in this condition and engine life was at best 150 hours for the interceptors, the Eagle has it trumped big time on that. The Ukrainians in the 1978 PD midlife update of the Foxbat, Stavka discovered local pilots had to be completely retrained and converted to Foxbats from scratch. Because replacement parts weren't altogether reliable and engine life was so low in nearly ten years the entire Foxbat fleet had logged next to no flying hours. They literally forgot how to fly them for fear of wearing them all out and getting shot for treason or something. They were all great with the Floggers.
    The 80s version Foxbat though has about 1200hrs TBO but that wasn't the main update, they switched from the old valve fire control set (lol pre-solid state an everything, the US examiners in Japan must've been laughing their heads off when they pulled Belyenko's apart...but actually it was a method in madness, valve fire sets can't be jammed, you cannot ecm an old Foxbat, no chance but its horrible weapons aren't going to hit you or anything) to a flogger based one with pulse doppler but poor target discrimination and just no computer power at all and added chaff/flares (good luck seeing anything out the cockpit to chaff or flare about). Exports didn't get the new radar set, gives you an idea what the silly iraqis were working with against composites and eagles. I mean jeez, I'd run too.
     
Loading...

Share This Page