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

so.. MiG-31's currently in service would use "what it was" ... do VVS have stocks of spare engines in case of Engine Damages ?

TBH i kinda dislike this news

Hope it is OK to raise this thread after so long.

The engine the Mig-31 uses is actually related to the engine used in the Il-76 series aircraft, including the AWACs aircraft and the tanker aircraft. Plus the Tu-154 and other aircraft.
It is also used in the Albatross jet powered amphibous aircraft that the navy is slowly putting into service to replace the Mails and Mays.

The D-30s in these civilian aircraft don't have an afterburner and are not optimised for supersonic speed, yet the improved models of the subsonic engine like the PS-90A have a dry thrust of 16 tons and a greatly improved (ie reduced) fuel consumption rate.

It makes you think that if they applied the improvements to the military engine that they made to the subsonic engines the performance of the Mig-31 would be even better.

Of course the Mig-31 is in service in relatively large numbers but they also have large numbers in storage that they can draw spares from.

Perhaps they might even look at how the improvements to the engines for the T-50 go and possibly fit the resulting 5th gen engines into it.

With the Mig-25 they had the new engines developed for the Mig-31 that they could have used in the Mig-25 for testing, but they didn't. I think 15 ton thrust turbojets from the Mig-31 would have made the Mig-25 quite a performer as its standard engines are 11 ton thrust engines.

As you can probably tell from my choice of Avatar it is one of my favourite aircraft.

Do you think it would be possible to fit a new 5th gen engine to the Mig-31s to keep them viable?

Hunting B-2s and B-52s over the arctic does not require an expensive stealth design and with a new AESA radar and more fuel efficient engines like the proposed Al-41s supposed to get 18 tons thrust and able to supercruise would make the Mig-31 an even more efficient interceptor.

I have read an article that suggested that the T-50 will fly with upgraded older generation engines with development of more powerful and more efficient 5th gen engines possibly taking up to 10 years to develop, but when they are ready that it will be useful because in the words of the person being interviewed (sorry, I can't remember the name) by that time ie 2020 or so, there will be two seat, strike, and naval variants of the PAK-FA that will be heavier and need more powerful engines.

T-50s will be more expensive to buy and to operate than a non stealthy aircraft and I think having stealthy T-50s waiting for an attack that in my opinion will not come if we all stay rational that keeping the Mig-31 in service makes a lot of sense.

The T-50 might actually do a better job, but I think the Mig-31 would already be doing a good job and it would free up T-50s to replace aircraft more in need of replacement like the old Flankers and Fulcrums that don't get upgrades.

What I am trying to say is that this drive to get rid of obsolete equipment out of service should not become a striptease where everything Soviet is dumped as junk and replaced with something new just because it is new.

The Mig-31 is a capable interceptor complex and with recent upgrades it should remain capable of performing the role it has been performing since it was introduced.

BTW regarding the Mig-25, its engines were truely impressive, and they were the fastest flying pure turbojets ever made.
The SR-71 could fly significantly faster, but its turbojet engines provided little thrust as most of the air bypassed the engine where fuel was added and burnt so it acted like a ramjet engine rather than a turbojet.

Equally the T-50 is going to be expensive so I doubt the Russian AF will buy more than 400 by 2025. Production of fighters will have to skyrocket to replace existing types, with the BM modification the Mig-31 should be viable to 2030... remember the USAF is keeping its B-52s till 2050.

Rather than start a new thread on the Mig-31 I thought this might fit here:

Russian air force completing MiG-31BM modernization program

The Russian air force is completing a modification program for its MiG-31 interceptor aircraft to the MiG-31BM standard, the force's commander Col.Gen. Alexander Zelin said on Friday.

"The air force is currently carrying out the vital task of deep modification of the MiG-31 aircraft to MiG-31BM standard. This task is being successfully carried out," he said.

The MiG-31BM is fitted with upgraded avionics and digital datalinks, a new multimode radar, color multi-function cockpit displays, a new, more powerful computer and ability to carry new air-to-air and possibly air-to-surface missiles such as the AS-17 Krypton anti-radar missile.

Information on display next to a MiG-31BM in 2009 associated the aircraft with air-to-air missiles including the Vympel R-73 (AA-11 Archer), R-77 (AA-12 Adder), and R-33S (upgraded AA-9 Amos) and the K-37M (AA-X-13 Arrow).

The air force is also accepting other new aircraft, including the Su-34 strike aircraft, the forthcoming Su-35, the Yak-130 advanced trainer, and Ka-52 and Mi-28 helicopters, he said.

Manufacturer's tests are also underway on the Sukhoi T-50 fifth generation fighter prototype.

Zarya (Moscow Region), August 13 (RIA Novosti)

source: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100813/160190708.html

I would love to see a nice clear photo of the K-37M, as most photos I have are not very good.
Anyone have a photo of one sitting in front of the aircraft on a stand with other missiles next to it?

Regarding new radar and missiles the articles above mention the new missiles in the form of the R-73, R-77, R-37M as well as other air to ground missile types (the Mig-31B carries only the AA-8 or R-60 short range IR guided missiles, and R-40TD or AA-6 Acrid long range IR guided missiles (the former for shooting down large slow aircraft or small cruise missiles, while the latter is likely for use against the SR-71 type targets), and of course the R-33 AA-9 Amos missiles in the belly).

To effectively use the R-37M properly the radar range would need to be at least 400km, though that range would be against large aircraft like AWACS and transports and JSTARs etc. An AWACs using its radar will be no problem for even a Mig-29/-35 to engage with a long range weapon like the R-37M simply because it is broadcasting an enormous amount of energy that can easily be detected from very long range.

From what I have read on K-37M (AA-X-13 Arrow) it is a upgrade to existing R-37 by adding a booster and increasing its range phenomenally and introducing a dual mode Active/Passive seeker.

Any active radar can just listen for emissions, I have read it uses a combined active radar and IIR seeker specifically for engaging AWACS aircraft. An AWACS aircraft not only has a very powerful radar, but that radar generates a lot of heat when in use so even if they turn off the radar the radar remains hot for quite some time. BTW thanks for the link to the book, very interesting.

Viktor wrote:What about new radar for MIG-31BM and new missiles. Anybody has some news or info?

well for MiG-31BM ... hmm as far as i read for some sources.. like Yefim Gordon's books and Overscan's now missing "Guide to Russian Avionics"

The MiG-31BM will use new Zaslon RADAR .. hmm i'm not sure whether it will still be called as "Zaslon S-800" or maybe "Zaslon AM" but one thing for sure.. it's not Zaslon M , MiG-31BM will still retain its old 1,1 meter diameter Kalinigrad V-8 Phased Array Antenna But it will have new processing hardware based on Zaslon M technology which increased range to 320km's .


Hmm and for this Image




Well have the "K-30", "K-77" and the "K-77M" made ..?

The original Zaslon radar had rather limited computer processing power which greatly limited its range performance though its design was such that the volume of area it could search was phenomenal.
The Zaslon-M did have a bigger antenna but most of the improvement was in the increased processing power.

The BM model Foxhound has much better electronics behind the radar antenna which not only improves range performance but also adds different functions.

Regarding that drawing of the missiles, in all the drawings I had seen previously the R-77M had a fatter body with a larger more powerful rocket motor (like the R-27E models use a more powerful rocket motor to extend range). There was talk of changing from the grid fins at the tail to triangular fins to reduce drag for the cost of loss of terminal manouver capability.
The K-74 is the updated R-73 that seems to have already been revealed today as the RVV-MD.
The K-30 is a new lock after launch missile for the T-50 for internal carriage because missiles like R-74 can't be used from internal weapons bays because they can't lock on before they are launched from inside the weapon bay.
The K-30 is also supposed to have a gimbled rocket nozzle so it only needs minimal wing surfaces for stability which is obviously also good for internal storage.

As far as I know the K-37M depicted is actually a K-37 as it is clearly not fitted with a booster rocket.

The bottom missile looks like a simple mockup of the missile above it.

I thought with the reducing number of airfields that a larger interceptor would be a good idea.

Right now the only sensible option would be the Tu-22M3... with an enormous radar and a belly covered in AAMs of all types it would have the speed and range and endurance and its radar aperture should allow long range detection of even low observable targets.
Add a really big IRST, and the 4 man crew should make it a very effective long range interceptor.

Another option would be the Tu-160P interceptor model proposed but there are too few airframes for that.

I don't think an interceptor model of the Su-34 would have enough range, but a jammer version of the Tu-22M3 might also be useful. I remember reading about a jammer version of the Tu22M3 that was tested but the Il-76 model it competed against had much more power and was more effective in the role if slower and larger.

Building a new aircraft from scratch would not be cheap, but might offer the advantage of better aerodynamics and new engines making the resulting aircraft able to super cruise which should extend range and improve interception performance.

Most supersonic fighters can only achieve supersonic speeds for short periods of a few minutes at most because it burns up fuel and heats the plane externally.
The Mig-25 and Mig-31 were exceptions in that they were designed to fly supersonically for most of their flight time... the Mig-31 could fly about 40 minutes at mach 2.4 based on fuel levels. It was restricted by external heating to 5 minutes at mach 2.6 and mach 2.85 was the limit for the engines. If mach 2.85 was exceeded the engines overheated and after landing had to be trashed.

I have seen some drawings and models of follow ons for the Mig-31 but have not heard anything concrete.

The way the AF people talk these days it is possible that the replacement for the Mig-31 will be UCAVs carrying heavy long range AAMs with tethered aerostats carrying radars and satellites with radars detecting incoming bombers and vectoring the UCAVs to intercept.

The differences were more pronounced with the Su-27 version of the Flanker, because even with its good radar it was still largely tied to ground controllers.
The Mig-31 with its ground control intercept radar operator in the rear cockpit was more independent and with its ability to datalink with other Mig-31s a flight of 4 aircraft flying 200kms apart could cover over 1,000km of airspace in one sweep looking for targets from just above the ground to high up in the atmosphere.
The original Mig-31 was seriously lacking in computer processing power but the design of its radar allowed it to scan an enormous volume of airspace and being a passive Phased array it scanned electronically so it could cover that enormous volume of airspace in a fraction of a second.

It is hard to emphasise enough the importance of speed for an interceptor. The Su-27 can fly at mach 2.35 on paper and can carry an enormous fuel load, but lacks the endurance of the Mig-31. I rather doubt that any Su-27 has flown at more than Mach 2 for more than 2-3 minutes whereas the Mig-31 will fly 20 minutes out and 20 minutes back at mach 2.4.
Striking targets early means having to deal with a bomber full of bombs or cruise missiles.
Getting there later means having to deal with a dozen or more cruise missiles for each aircraft.
Another aspect is the weaponry with the R-33 being a rather better long range weapon for use against bombers than the R-27ER. The R-40TD is also a better weapon if the threat is an SR-71 because the Mach 5 R-40TD was designed to engage fast and high targets and has large wings and control surfaces for manoeuvring at high altitudes... the main reason for keeping it in service is to engage SR-71 type threats in a head on engagement scenario. The R-60Ms also carried are not for use in engaging fighters, they are for running down cruise missiles from behind.
The upgrade of the Mig-31 will allow R-73 and R-77s to be carried which would be more effective at shooting down cruise missiles. The R-37 of course will give a whole new capability in taking down any ISR threats from long range.

Well there is certainly still room for growth for the Mig-31.

Right now the processing capability has been addressed but it still uses a PESA radar and the engines are reliable enough, but the fact that they were used as substitute engines for 5th generation engines (ie representing power but not the fuel efficiency or maintainence cost reduction of real 5th gen engines) suggests that the Al-41 might be nearly interchangable so when the new engines for the T-50 are perfected the knowledge gained could be applied to the AL-41 to make it a fully operational 5th gen engine for Su-35s and perhaps Mig-31s and Su-34s. It will be a little too big for the T-50, but it raises the possibility of a single engine light fighter replacement perhaps based on something MIG might come up with after the T-50 is more solid.

Now a more powerful engine is not much use to the Mig-31 in the sense that it is engine limited and can't really go much faster, but the higher thrust of a 5th gen Al-41 engine might allow the Mig-31 to supercruise at very high speed because it is a very low drag design.
This will extend interception range and general range performance considerably.

Regarding a 5th gen replacement for the Mig-31 it is not particularly urgent as a 5th gen fighter will only add AESA radar and be a bit slower.
The Stealth and internal stowage of the 5th gen aircraft will be a bit redundant as the radar will be straining to find any possible targets.

I have read that the MIG design bureau has a lighter cheaper 5th gen fighter design that is being held till the T-50 is mature and starting to enter service. The purpose of the MIG design is numbers and for roles where a T-50 isn't needed.

The Al-41 was the original power plant for the PAK-FA when it was the MFS. It was going to be a Flanker sized aircraft or slightly bigger.
The T-50 is actually smaller than the Flanker so the Al-41 no longer fits so they are applying the technology they would have applied to the Al-41 and are developing a slightly smaller engine.

As such it would not make a huge amount of sense to develop the Al-41 just for a Mig-31 upgrade, but the fact that they could also use it in Su-35s and Su-34s which will remain in service for a while might make it worth developing.
It could then be used in a larger 50 ton class interceptor to finally replace the Mig-31 if there is going to be a manned replacement.
Of course the Tupolev company might suggest a Tu-22M variant as competition but it would be a much larger more expensive aircraft to buy and operate.
Regarding a 5th gen Mig I think they could do it, a cheap simple 5th gen light fighter that could make up numbers. It could have a more bomb truck focus to act more like the US uses F-16s in the air to ground role, but then I think the SKAT would also be ideal for such a role.

I have read that now that all the design bureaus are together in UAC that they will be working together on UCAVs and that a Tupolev design called the Tank will be built instead of Migs SKATE. A High altitude UCAV called S-62 will be developed by Sukhoi and other design bureaus are working on their own different competing models.