Discussion in 'Military Aviation' started by gadeshi, Sep 17, 2015.
This is the theme for MiG-31 Foxhound and its (possible) derivatives discussion.
Isn't it a derivative/development of Foxbat .... would love a thread on foxbat...... My personal favorite.
Yes, but it's completely different type that utilizes major aerodynamical ideas of it's predecessor - MiG-25.
I can say, it is 4-th Gen MiG-25 implementation.
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Thanks ... please post the specs.... I'd like to see max thrust and max g .... and maybe a comparison with MiG 25 ... it was rumored to have bared 11g although that left the airframe permanently damaged.
Current wing weapons stores for MiG-31B/BZ with P-72-2 twin-railed launcher (for R-60/60M):
and new (universal) ones for MiG-31BM, with P-72 launchers (R-73RMD-1/2 or R-74M):
and AKU-410 built-in fuzelage catapult launchers (for R-33/33S):
and its modern analogue AKU-610 for MiG-31M/BM (for R-37 and Item 610/810):
MiG-31BM on maintenance stand:
The MIG-31 was designed for a single purpose, which was as a quick reaction long range interceptor.
It's in this role it performs best!
We could look at a brahmos armed version as a long range maritime strike aircraft.
How about 2 squadron of Mig 31's for Indian Navy stationed out of Andaman base...
No chance to make a good strike from a dedicated interceptor.
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
It would have to be modified, that enormous nose holds a very powerful PESA , maybe a version with maritime tracking instruments could be developed.
Maritime strike aircraft will defer from interceptor not by radar only
The best 3M55 Onyx carier maritime strike is Tu-22M3M and Tu-22M4.
In 30 characters or more
Strike (even maritime/deep one) mus can fly on extremely low altitudes supersonic being loaded, must can cary large caliber weapons units (MiG-31 cannot) conformally or internally to maintain speed.
MiG-31 is designed for high-altitude (18-22km) Mach3 leap to launch zone, detect targets and launch LRAAMS.
That's it. MiG-31 is a flying heavy AD launcher
Actually a suitably modified MIG-31 would be able to carry at least a couple of brahmos on the centreline.It's known to be able to carry up to six clubs each.
Imagine a flight of 9 of these launching a54 club volley at Karachi.
Modernized variants of the aircraft can be equipped with anti-radiation missiles Kh-31,Kh-25MR or MPU (up to six units), anti-ship Kh-31A (up to six), air-to-surface class missiles Kh-29 and Kh-59 (up to three) or Kh-59M (up to two units), up to six precision bombs KAB-1500 or eight KAB-500 with television or laser-guidance. Maximum mass of payload is 9000 kg
Heh, you have been mislead by Google writers which have smashed all the products in one dish
MiG-31 was not designed for multirole/strike in any case. MiG-25RB (Reconaisence Bomber) was, but it had completely different design.
There was MiG-31M type upgrade programme (closed) which allowed to increase R-33/33S number up to 6 and introduced new R-37 LRAAMS + R-77 MRAAMS usage. No Caliber (Club) or the others! No centerline pylons (all the positions were R-33/37 dedicated MKUs). Kh-29 requires PK-9 datalink pod, ARMs like Kh-31 - special ESM/ECM suits capable of ARMs target designation, which are excessive for an interceptor.
And of course, MiG-31 had too many differences from generic MiG-31 to be one type.
A plane that can fly high and fast cannot fly low and fast?
I don't see Su 30SM having weapon bay. Do you?
Looks like a software problem.
1 - Low altitude flight requires special optimized AD layout to reduce specific wingspan and increase specific wing load (to reduce low altitude turbulence impacts) which is quite different from high altitude requirements. High altitude air has much lower density than low altitude one, so the drag and thermal impact on low altitude will be higher. Su-30SM is a compromised variant for Navy units that need strike with strong fighter capabilities rather than dedicated strike.
2 - Strike flies like mongoose, long time sneaking LA relieph to hide from AD systems, HA interceptor flies like a bullet on rather less distance, making launch and returns subsonic. Different usage concepts require different airframe and engines optimisations.
I can take that. But tell me, why such emphasis on low altitude flight? Higher altitude, more kinetic energy, more potential energy, no? I can understand LoS masking but at least your enemy has airborne AEW. And then there is not much possibilities for terrain masking in the ocean.
Separate names with a comma.