MiG-31 Foxhound

[gadeshi]

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.

It's because high speed LA flight is the most effective way to survive fighting adequate enemy with adequate AD system.
Stealth will help in colonial wars, with adequates not.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[The enlightened]

It's because high speed LA flight is the most effective way to survive fighting adequate enemy with adequate AD system.

Why so? Higher Altitude will give more range to AShM as well as AAM's to potentially defend from enemy fighters whilst allowing you to escape quicker post-launch. Detection is compromised from a sea-level radar, but US/NATO do have airborne AEW.

Stealth will help in colonial wars, with adequates not.

What?

 

[gadeshi]

Why so? Higher Altitude will give more range to AShM as well as AAM's to potentially defend from enemy fighters whilst allowing you to escape quicker post-launch. Detection is compromised from a sea-level radar, but US/NATO do have airborne AEW.

What?

Just take a piece of map and try to draw just one heavy AD systems Regiment duty zone, place all the detection systems, draw their sensitivity radiuses and you will know what

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[gadeshi]

USAF generals (not PR guys) say that stealth is Reconaisence, Reconaisence, Reconaisence, Planning, Planning Planning, and only then low RCS.
It's because low RCS is not an invisible cloak. It allows you to sneak or infiltrate into enemy airspace using gaps in AD systems and RF surviallance sensitivity fields, which are common in lesser countries AD.
But when you deal with Chinese, European, American or (at worst case ) Russian AD, you will be forced to count on your speed and ability to hide to reduce the AD fire systems "working time" because adequate foes have AD with no gaps in sensors fields
So, you must hide-run-hide low altitude flight to reduce AD working time between they detect you and you go to a safe "dead zone". It will give you significant chances to survive in opposite to trying to be stealthy on mid or high altitudes in high density AD fields.

 

[The enlightened]

USAF generals (not PR guys) say that stealth is Reconaisence, Reconaisence, Reconaisence, Planning, Planning Planning, and only then low RCS.
It's because low RCS is not an invisible cloak. It allows you to sneak or infiltrate into enemy airspace using gaps in AD systems and RF surviallance sensitivity fields, which are common in lesser countries AD.
But when you deal with Chinese, European, American or (at worst case ) Russian AD, you will be forced to count on your speed and ability to hide to reduce the AD fire systems "working time" because adequate foes have AD with no gaps in sensors fields
So, you must hide-run-hide low altitude flight to reduce AD working time between they detect you and you go to a safe "dead zone". It will give you significant chances to survive in opposite to trying to be stealthy on mid or high altitudes in high density AD fields.

This only concerns ground-based AD. There do happen to be these too you know.

Onyx-carrier has no chance to escape detection.

 

[gadeshi]

Orly???
So why all the modern ASMs are low-altitude flyers (at least have LA terminal phase)?
Yes, Onyx carier will be detected, but being LA flyer it has more chances to use its speed and LA position (being under the enemy heavy AD NE altitude zone) to buy itself some additional minutes (even dozen of seconds) to reach a launch zone and make a launch.
Being undetected or not is not a question. The question is to make it or not being detected.

 

[The enlightened]

According to DRDO chief, BrahMos in traditional High-Lo trajectory has a max range of 300km and in Hi-Hi 600km. But only 120km in Lo-Lo. Which altitude would you choose as launching aircraft?

Orly???
So why all the modern ASMs are low-altitude flyers (at least have LA terminal phase)?
Yes, Onyx carier will be detected, but being LA flyer it has more chances to use its speed and LA position (being under the enemy heavy AD NE altitude zone) to buy itself some additional minutes (even dozen of seconds) to reach a launch zone and make a launch.
Being undetected or not is not a question. The question is to make it or not being detected.

Are you saying that the launch aircraft should sacrifice itself to defeat the ship. This may not be applicable everywhere

 

[The enlightened]

So why all the modern ASMs (at least have LA terminal phase)?

To spoof semi-active radar guided SAM's. Lock will be broken if the incoming missile disappears below the horizon for even a second.

 

[gadeshi]

1 - Yes, Onyx/BrahMos has 550km HA and 350km Hi-Lo range. So, the carrier should make a short supersonic jump from 15-30 to 500-1000m, launch Onyx in the trajectory highest point, and than flee from the launch line supersonic, on LA as well. Onyx after start will climb 15km using its booster, fly 250km and then drops itself to 3-5m to heat the target after 100km LA supersonic leap. Carrier will be far away from launch zone then and will not be a high priority target for AD, which will be quite busy catching heavy, maneuvering supersonic ASM
2 - See explanations in p.1

 

[gadeshi]

To spoof semi-active radar guided SAM's. Lock will be broken if the incoming missile disappears below the horizon for even a second.

Yes, and this makes SM2/3 effective range twice shorter because they are optimized for high and medium altitude targets interception.

 

[The enlightened]

1 - Yes, Onyx/BrahMos has 550km HA and 350km Hi-Lo range. So, the carrier should make a short supersonic jump from 15-30 to 500-1000m, launch Onyx in the trajectory highest point, and than flee from the launch line supersonic, on LA as well. Onyx after start will climb 15km using its booster, fly 250km and then drops itself to 3-5m to heat the target after 100km LA supersonic leap. Carrier will be far away from launch zone then and will not be a high priority target for AD, which will be quite busy catching heavy, maneuvering supersonic ASM

By that time you are already detected by E-2C/D, and Hornets scrambled. Fortunately they are shit at giving chase but you are still going to be flying in their face for a while before turning back.

Yes, and this makes SM2/3 effective range twice shorter because they are optimized for high and medium altitude targets interception.

At 300km, BrahMos/Onyx will be engaged by SM-6 which has an active seeker.

 

[gadeshi]

1 - Hornets will do nothing to you - will don't make it before you launch. You will not go straight forward by 1 plane without strong ECM support in your lines. ECM will make your day buing you additional 100km to fly to launch point and spoiling theirs
2 - SM6 will not find you or your missile on that range without external guidance aid (proven by US trials). ECM will do their task extremely heavy in addition to low altitude, great range and constant group maneuvers.

 

[Yumdoot]

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.

I thought you were just pulling his leg so did not reply. But yes as he says Mig31 is almost never going to be a maritime attack aircarft, unless you are a small country of which there are many. Unfortunately smaller countries do not seek such aircrafts ususally.

Mig31 and its base Mig25 are designed to climb fast and then stay up there for oblique photography from great altitudes. This will for example allow you to picture any and even all spots of interest inside the whole of Pakistan while flying along the international border, in just one flight and most AAMs are not going to be able to make much difference to its flight path. You may get cloud cover obstructing your view and you can chose another angle a few kilometers from the best one available. This is how Mig25 operated. Mig 25 also had for some time the altitude record in a zoom flight. Where you go straight up and for some time are able to go much much above your service ceiling.

Now you can use these characterstics to design a AAM platform that can be made available at a very short period of time though only for a short period of time will you get your AAM platform. The AAMs can be heavy and long ranged and the combination of planes speed and the long range of the AAM will keep the pilot safe but will present serious problems for intruding bombers and even for the intruding air-dominance fighters. Even if detected you cannot do much about it. Think of this like placing an Akash-SAM battery to any place in a 1400 km two way linear pattern (plane flys only about 700+ km when flying at top speeds) and being able to sanitize a 1200-1600 two way axis (centered from air base) in about 7 minutes. And doing this with the benefit of close networking with the other ground based and aerial air-defence platforms. Detecting and tracking multiple incoming bogies it is quite a challenge and cheap.

Now the engineers designed the aircraft for that purpose.

Maritime strike on the other hand, considering Indian context, will require very very long ranges and endurances, even if it is able to detect only a smaller number of targets. Over land you have several air bases to cover for your return landing. But over sea you will lose the aircraft and the crew if your aircraft cannot take punishment or does not have long legs. Then the Maritime Strike aircraft should be able to out-range any fighter cover that the enemy flotilla has. Then the radar too should be very long ranged and with reasonable resolution to ID the ships and prioritize the ships it is about to attack. Then the payload capacity should be immense to house several Klubs or Brahmos. Then the approach may have to be at lower levels for some very long times, else the enemy will send in fighters or the SAMs may be ready for taking out the cruise missiles. This extensive lower level flying will burn fuel like a Megatron. In future you may see good use of VLO tech on these Maritime strike aircrafts for this reason allowing ingress at higher altitudes.

Mig31 is not going to cut it for India. Even Su34 is inadequate. Minimum we require is Tu22M or the best would be a Tu160 sized plane. However in future, better enemy radars are going to make things difficult for even Tu160s. Currently if the Indian Navy needs to kill an enemy ship at sea it has options like IL-38SD, Tu142, P-8I Poseidon.

For shorter range action a few Maritime strike Jags are there, then there are the Su-30MKIs for just such a purpose. For covering the fleet you have Mig29Ks. So there is enough for current needs.

 

[Yumdoot]

1 - Hornets will do nothing to you - will don't make it before you launch. You will not go straight forward by 1 plane without strong ECM support in your lines. ECM will make your day buing you additional 100km to fly to launch point and spoiling theirs
2 - SM6 will not find you or your missile on that range without external guidance aid (proven by US trials). ECM will do their task extremely heavy in addition to low altitude, great range and constant group maneuvers.

Hornets are not an issue. But in future SM-6 will be. Currently I admit, its not. I think even for next 10+ years they will keep needing the external inputs for over the horizon SM-6 usage.

In any case Brahmos type missiles would be maneuvering, in general be very agile, very undetectable, attacking in packs with only one radiating any kind of RF and then the approach would be from multiple axis, unlike the very short legged GMQs against which the SM-6 got tested.

 

[Yumdoot]

Hawkeye itself is a lucrative target.

 

[gadeshi]

Hornets are not an issue. But in future SM-6 will be. Currently I admit, its not. I think even for next 10+ years they will keep needing the external inputs for over the horizon SM-6 usage.

In any case Brahmos type missiles would be maneuvering, in general be very agile, very undetectable, attacking in packs with only one radiating any kind of RF and then the approach would be from multiple axis, unlike the very short legged GMQs against which the SM-6 got tested.

Moreover this, you should look at the Russian and American drills plans and normatives.
US believes that if they shoot down one or two standard targets, they are OK.
Russian typical drill includes 10 waves 10 different (AD/ballistic) targets each drill strike defence per divizion and they must shoot them all for excellent and 2 targets left from 100 as a good.
So, SM 6 effectiveness in real action (massive heavy, maneuverable, supersonic missiles strike extensively augmented with ECM) is a big question...

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[gadeshi]

I thought you were just pulling his leg so did not reply. But yes as he says Mig31 is almost never going to be a maritime attack aircarft, unless you are a small country of which there are many. Unfortunately smaller countries do not seek such aircrafts ususally.

Mig31 and its base Mig25 are designed to climb fast and then stay up there for oblique photography from great altitudes. This will for example allow you to picture any and even all spots of interest inside the whole of Pakistan while flying along the international border, in just one flight and most AAMs are not going to be able to make much difference to its flight path. You may get cloud cover obstructing your view and you can chose another angle a few kilometers from the best one available. This is how Mig25 operated. Mig 25 also had for some time the altitude record in a zoom flight. Where you go straight up and for some time are able to go much much above your service ceiling.

Now you can use these characterstics to design a AAM platform that can be made available at a very short period of time though only for a short period of time will you get your AAM platform. The AAMs can be heavy and long ranged and the combination of planes speed and the long range of the AAM will keep the pilot safe but will present serious problems for intruding bombers and even for the intruding air-dominance fighters. Even if detected you cannot do much about it. Think of this like placing an Akash-SAM battery to any place in a 1400 km two way linear pattern (plane flys only about 700+ km when flying at top speeds) and being able to sanitize a 1200-1600 two way axis (centered from air base) in about 7 minutes. And doing this with the benefit of close networking with the other ground based and aerial air-defence platforms. Detecting and tracking multiple incoming bogies it is quite a challenge and cheap.

Now the engineers designed the aircraft for that purpose.

Maritime strike on the other hand, considering Indian context, will require very very long ranges and endurances, even if it is able to detect only a smaller number of targets. Over land you have several air bases to cover for your return landing. But over sea you will lose the aircraft and the crew if your aircraft cannot take punishment or does not have long legs. Then the Maritime Strike aircraft should be able to out-range any fighter cover that the enemy flotilla has. Then the radar too should be very long ranged and with reasonable resolution to ID the ships and prioritize the ships it is about to attack. Then the payload capacity should be immense to house several Klubs or Brahmos. Then the approach may have to be at lower levels for some very long times, else the enemy will send in fighters or the SAMs may be ready for taking out the cruise missiles. This extensive lower level flying will burn fuel like a Megatron. In future you may see good use of VLO tech on these Maritime strike aircrafts for this reason allowing ingress at higher altitudes.

Mig31 is not going to cut it for India. Even Su34 is inadequate. Minimum we require is Tu22M or the best would be a Tu160 sized plane. However in future, better enemy radars are going to make things difficult for even Tu160s. Currently if the Indian Navy needs to kill an enemy ship at sea it has options like IL-38SD, Tu142, P-8I Poseidon.

For shorter range action a few Maritime strike Jags are there, then there are the Su-30MKIs for just such a purpose. For covering the fleet you have Mig29Ks. So there is enough for current needs.

Good point though...
Tu-22M is ideal for US CAGs destruction purposes, all the other tasks are inadequate for it, so Russian Navy has chosen to use Kh-31AD armed Su-30SM for generic maritime strike role. 4-6 250km ranged 3.5M missiles on each plane would be more than enough to kill anythind except Nimitz-class carrier. But CAGs are a Tu-22M's prey.
As for Su-34, it is ideal for land attack purposes on euro-strategic ranges (1000km combat radius Lo-Lo-Lo/1560km Hi-Lo-Hi). Its main purposes are deep tactical ALCM strike and SEAD/DEAD.
The only field for Su-34 in India is Strategic Force as a deep conventional and nuclear strike. Su-34's capabilities make it a strategic bomber for India. But not a maritime strike for sure.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Yumdoot]

As for Su-34, it is ideal for land attack purposes on euro-strategic ranges (1000km combat radius Lo-Lo-Lo/1560km Hi-Lo-Hi). Its main purposes are deep tactical ALCM strike and SEAD/DEAD.
The only field for Su-34 in India is Strategic Force as a deep conventional and nuclear strike. Su-34's capabilities make it a strategic bomber for India. But not a maritime strike for sure.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Agree with you on first part about but no there is little sense in using Su-34 as a strategic bomber. We already have the Su-30MKI which after conversion with Strategic Forces will do the job of Su-34 to the extent we need it to.

And we will not require more than 40 of these modified Su-30MKIs, which our government is already working on. Our Seas are vast and an aircraft this size is not going to be good enough. The north has a vast Tibet and there too the Su-30 sized aircraft is good only for strikes within Tibet. In any case strikes beyond tibet will require us to carry multiple cruise missiles. And Pakistan does not deserve a Su-30MKI. So no point going beyond 40.

What we may need is to mount enough of Brahmos / Nirbhays, onto real maritime strike and bomber aircrafts, of the stealthy kind. Something like the PAKDA. Western stuff is too costly and that forces the Defence Minister to compromise on numbers for all 3 branches of armed forces. We are running short of surface fleet too.

PAKDA will be ideal in the sense, 20 of these, modified for Indian Navy' use, would make it impossible for any flotilla to come into IOR, without consent.

Something the size of PAKDA will also allow Indian Navy to have its own version of Continuous Airborne Alert Patrols over IOR, during difficult times. Flying for long durations supported by mid air refueling - that would add immeasurably to the Triad and make the first strike against us redundant.

Oh, sorry forgot we are in the Mig31 thread.

 

[gadeshi]

Agree with you on first part about but no there is little sense in using Su-34 as a strategic bomber. We already have the Su-30MKI which after conversion with Strategic Forces will do the job of Su-34 to the extent we need it to.

And we will not require more than 40 of these modified Su-30MKIs, which our government is already working on. Our Seas are vast and an aircraft this size is not going to be good enough. The north has a vast Tibet and there too the Su-30 sized aircraft is good only for strikes within Tibet. In any case strikes beyond tibet will require us to carry multiple cruise missiles. And Pakistan does not deserve a Su-30MKI. So no point going beyond 40.

What we may need is to mount enough of Brahmos / Nirbhays, onto real maritime strike and bomber aircrafts, of the stealthy kind. Something like the PAKDA. Western stuff is too costly and that forces the Defence Minister to compromise on numbers for all 3 branches of armed forces. We are running short of surface fleet too.

PAKDA will be ideal in the sense, 20 of these, modified for Indian Navy' use, would make it impossible for any flotilla to come into IOR, without consent.

Something the size of PAKDA will also allow Indian Navy to have its own version of Continuous Airborne Alert Patrols over IOR, during difficult times. Flying for long durations supported by mid air refueling - that would add immeasurably to the Triad and make the first strike against us redundant.

Oh, sorry forgot we are in the Mig31 thread.

Yeah, India does not have the need do destroy European BMD sights and/or destroy US/NATO Air Defence, so Su-34 with its 1000km Lo-Lo-Lo can be excessive. Su-30SM/MKI cannot fly low altitude for long time, especially being significantly loaded, but India will barely have the targets needing low terrain supersonic break-throughs.
So, Su-30 MKI should be enough for SF. I want only say that the ONLY field where Su-34 can serve in IAF is SF due to its combat radius and exceptional LA capablities and endurance.

As for Tu-160 or PAK DA, they eare and will be a dedicated strategic ("DoomsDay") bombers. All the other tasks are low priorities for them. Of course, they can do conventional strikes, but it won't be a primary or even equivalent role. It will be a part of "Escalation Theory" actions (Escalation Theory is a military doctrine of incremental Nuclear forces usage starting from Flag Demonstrations and ending with a Dooms Day).

And yeah, this is MiG-31 topic, but breaking MiG-31 myths is the part, isn't it?

 

[apple]

Mig31 and its base Mig25 are designed to climb fast and then stay up there for oblique photography from great altitudes.

Aren't you meant to be the forum's new expert on Russia and the Soviet Union.

Mig 31 was designed for, and from what I'm aware was exclusively used by, the Soviet Air Defence Force, it wasn't used by the Air Force nor was it sold outside of the Soviet Union. The Mig 25 was also for the Air Defence Force, which took precedence over the Soviet Air Force.

Don't think the Mig 31 was ever used for reconnaissance and it was the secondary use of the Mig 25.