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

Tarnaev might be an idiot, but i wouldn't call Kvochur an idiot (at least, not on aviation matters).

All eyes on Korotkov now.

Same article on arms-tass.su

The structure of the Russian Air Force after repair back several hundred interceptor MiG-31 - Member Tarnaev

This thing has nothing to do with some guy who may not or may be an idiot. This is something Russian scientiests/military experts/economists/high ranking military and political officials

have been vigorously discussing for a years now and I have been writing about it on several occasions in the past telling that this is precisely what might happen.

What do you think Viktor, do they talk about the hundreds of first generation MiG-31s now stored, to be overhauled and upgraded, IN ADDITION to the BMs and BSMs currently contracted (anywhere from 90 to 120)? How well and for how long do you think those MiGs have been stored (mostly in open air if i'm not mistaken)?

Mig-31 is mostly heavy nickel-steel alloy- it shouldnt have deteriorated that much in years.
This new Mig-41 tho would require more advanced materials like Titanium and propulsion tech too.
I think it would be rather bigger than Mig-31, makes more sense to build a bigger more capable aircraft in the onset
,something of a high-low interceptor mix. The Mig-41 would take care of the most dangerous targets like
cruise missile carriers while the Mig-31 would stop leakers.

AFAIK the limiting factor of the Mig-25 and Mig-31 was the engines.

At speeds above about mach 2.4 they were time limited... at mach 2.83 to 5 minutes of flight, mach 2.6 to 20 minutes, mach 2.4 unlimited.

The airframe... while likely not the most efficient aerodynamically (improvements likely possible these days) should be able to handle much higher speeds.

Having engines able to operate with a lot or bypass air working like a ramjet would take a lot of stress and work off the engine and allow much more efficient flight at much higher speeds for much longer periods.

New 5th gen variable cycle high speed Turbofan/ramjet engines would allow much higher speed, though I suspect weapons will likely become internal to reduce drag and improve separation performance etc.

Returning old Mig-31s to service should not be too much problem... most of the electronics will be replaced anyway so its condition after storage wont be too much of an issue. If you can imagine taking a computer box from the mid to early 1980s and replacing all the internal components... motherboard, memory, CPU, power supply, HDD, optical drive etc there wont be much you would keep.

mack8 wrote:What do you think Viktor, do they talk about the hundreds of first generation MiG-31s now stored, to be overhauled and upgraded, IN ADDITION to the BMs and BSMs currently contracted (anywhere from 90 to 120)?

I think yes.

mack8 wrote:How well and for how long do you think those MiGs have been stored (mostly in open air if i'm not mistaken)?

I really dont know but If General Staff thinks those can be reactivated than I guess they are still in good condition.

To be clear this mach 4.3 speed is rather interesting...

at such speeds a ramjet engine would be needed, but that also means new materials and engines need to be developed.

the Mig-25 had 11 ton thrust engines and was very heavy with mostly steel contruction. the Mig-31 introduced a lot of titanium and lighter materials in places that weren't subject to heating. I suspect the Mig-41 will likely add ceramic materials in hot spots and rather more use of heat resistant titanium.

the use of engines that operate as turbo fans at low speed and then use bypass air as ramjets at high speed should result in rather excellent performance... perhaps something like the drawings shown in the past for long range interceptor:



If accurate it sounds like the plan is for the Mig-31 to operate till about 2028 with rather more of the old airframes upgraded while a new model is developed.

If the PAK DA is a subsonic flying wing at least this Mig-41 at mach 4.3 will be exploring high speed in engines and airframes, so along with work on hypersonic missiles there should be a lot of experience by 2030 for perhaps faster aircraft to get the go ahead.

MIG 41 to be based on the MIG 31

http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/05/mig-41-mig-31-replacement/?utm_content=bufferf9d92&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

According to the famous experimental pilot Anatoliy Kvochur, the MiG-41 is to be capable of reaching speeds above Mach 4, even Mach 4,3. That would make the plane faster than the (now retired) American SR-71 Blackbird. Currently, the Foxhound is capable of flying at speeds of Mach 2.8.

Nevertheless, while developing a Mach 4+ replacement for the Foxhound, the Russians will to continue the modernization program of the Foxhounds, overhauling over 100 aircraft.

MiG-31 is an interceptor based on MiG-25 Foxbat, with a combat radius of 720 km. A group of four Foxhounds is able to control an area that is 1000km wide; 190 MiG-31s are currently in service within the Russian Air Force, 100 of those are still flyable.

The only part of that article that claims the MiG-41 is to be based on the MiG-31 is the title. While a big, Mach 4 interceptor would actually be a good idea for northern Russia, able to cross distances quickly to make an intercept and theoretically letting you have a smaller fleet, and thereby saving some cash, the idea that you can just modify a MiG-31 to get a Mach 4 interceptor makes very little sense.

Just paint it Red, it will probably go Mach 3.4 from that alone.

A nice spoiler on the back (to make sure it doesn't go too high) and Mach 3.6 is doable.

While a big, Mach 4 interceptor would actually be a good idea for northern Russia, able to cross distances quickly to make an intercept and theoretically letting you have a smaller fleet, and thereby saving some cash, the idea that you can just modify a MiG-31 to get a Mach 4 interceptor makes very little sense.

The thing is that anything that replaces the Mig-31 will likely have very similar features... a huge radar... two huge engines at the rear... possibly a large delta wing more like the PAK FA wing perhaps with internal weapons and a change in sweep to make the higher speed sustainable.

Personally I think the main changes will be a modest size increase, internal weapons carriage, whopping great big AESA in the nose and possibly large long band AESA in the wing leading edge for finding stealth planes. Lower profile cockpit for at least two crew with simplified wing layout... no need for horizontal tails or lots of manouvering surfaces for such a high speed aircraft... and finally a variable cycle engine times two that operates as a high bypass turbofan for takeoff and landing and as a ramjet or scramjet in flight.

the biggest necessary change is the engines and modest refinement of the general aerodynamics.

the use of IRST and nose mounted AESA radar and wing mounted long wave radar mean stealth is a little redundant but some radar signature reduction would be useful as long as it doesn't make the aircraft too expensive to make or maintain.

A nice spoiler on the back

Don't forget the racing stripe and the fluffy dice hanging from the mirror...

Seriously though a Mach 4.3 aircraft is a plane that approaches 5,000km/h... 2 hours to travel 10,000km... I wonder if they will make a business jet version....   

I wonder what sort of range boost a RVV-BD would get from a Mach 4.2 launch from 30,000m...

SOC wrote:The only part of that article that claims the MiG-41 is to be based on the MiG-31 is the title.  While a big, Mach 4 interceptor would actually be a good idea for northern Russia, able to cross distances quickly to make an intercept and theoretically letting you have a smaller fleet, and thereby saving some cash, the idea that you can just modify a MiG-31 to get a Mach 4 interceptor makes very little sense.

I think by "based on Mig-31" they may mean based on design experiences and flight data by Mig-25 & Mig-31.

Hehe put some S-500 on Mig-41 and you have a very,very capable ASAT capability. heck, this thing could be adapted for sub-orbital flight with more scramjetty engine- we can take the fight to those alien mofos that sit back and mock us from edge of atmosphere.   

collegeboy16 wrote:Hehe put some S-500 on Mig-41 and you have a very,very capable ASAT capability. heck, this thing could be adapted for sub-orbital flight with more scramjetty engine- we can take the fight to those alien mofos that sit back and mock us from edge of atmosphere.   

Interesting idea, and because it would be on a Mig-41 flying Mach 4.3 the missile could be made lighter because it would need less propellant.

There was a plan to use the Mig-31 with a large belly mounted rocket to launch micro satellites.

A Mach 4 aircraft with a large delta wing shape that hopefully allows higher flight altitudes would be even more efficient... you could rent it out to universities around the world... strip all the unnecessary stuff... with most vehicles the most energy is expended at the start of launch because it is mostly propellent and getting all that weight moving burns a lot of energy.

Watch most heavy rockets launch satellites and they start off accelerating fairly slowly, but over time they slowly get faster and faster, but they are burning fuel at an enormous rate to do this.

Launching the rocket from near the top of the atmosphere and already very supersonic should make the system much better as a launcher... meaning heavier payloads can be delivered, but also light payloads could be launched to higher orbits.

Launching closer to the equator means the spin of the earth gives more speed as well.

GarryB wrote:There was a plan to use the Mig-31 with a large belly mounted rocket to launch micro satellites.

A Mach 4 aircraft with a large delta wing shape that hopefully allows higher flight altitudes would be even more efficient... you could rent it out to universities around the world... strip all the unnecessary stuff... with most vehicles the most energy is expended at the start of launch because it is mostly propellent and getting all that weight moving burns a lot of energy.

Watch most heavy rockets launch satellites and they start off accelerating fairly slowly, but over time they slowly get faster and faster, but they are burning fuel at an enormous rate to do this.

Launching the rocket from near the top of the atmosphere and already very supersonic should make the system much better as a launcher... meaning heavier payloads can be delivered, but also light payloads could be launched to higher orbits.

Launching closer to the equator means the spin of the earth gives more speed as well.

...What would you say if the Mig-41 had a built in nuclear carrying capability? Flying that high at that speed could greatly increase the capabilities of nuclear tipped cruise missiles but of course they would need to be updated to handle such speeds, and not considering nuclear treaties, perhaps hypersonic cruise missiles? I suspect the Mig-41 will be a fairly large aircraft at least as big as the Su-34, their will be room for many kinds of armaments (except ground attack missiles), perhaps they could develop an aerial launched lighter with less propellant versions of Iskander-M?

Mach 4.3?

This is rather a surprise.. and a good one too. I wonder how far the tech used in developing other projects.

Mach 4.3 is developing a fair bit of heat, and not that far off hypersonic. I wonder if this, with missile development will allow a full hypersonic plane to be developed as a next stage.

I also wonder how this tech could be converted to other planes such as advanced passenger jets, a faster pak-da variant etc.

I think a lot of this Mig 31 replacement revolves around the massively powerful new engines and ligghter airframe than the Mig31. But it will be very intersting to see what has been done with airframe heat control materials etc.

...What would you say if the Mig-41 had a built in nuclear carrying capability? Flying that high at that speed could greatly increase the capabilities of nuclear tipped cruise missiles but of course they would need to be updated to handle such speeds, and not considering nuclear treaties, perhaps hypersonic cruise missiles? I suspect the Mig-41 will be a fairly large aircraft at least as big as the Su-34, their will be room for many kinds of armaments (except ground attack missiles), perhaps they could develop an aerial launched lighter with less propellant versions of Iskander-M?

Nuclear weapons are effective because they are so powerful, but because they are so powerful no one will want to use them first... so they are at the same time very effective but also unusable.

The next best thing to powerful is precise. With modern guidance and controls a modern high speed missile can be very very accurate, which can make it as effective as a nuke but usable... unlike a nuke.

If you look at the progression of air power... in WWII if you wanted to blow up a whole factory you sent enormous numbers of bombers all full of bombs... the numbers to hit several factories in a single city was comparable to the number you would sent to destroy the city.

Even after several attacks the damage to the factory in question might be ineffectual and more attacks needed.

As technology improves however the number of aircraft needed greatly reduces with more accurate navigation, more powerful bombs, aircraft able to carry much heavier payloads, etc etc.

Russia is currently at the point where a few dozen aircraft where a few have guided bombs and the rest are there to hide and protect the others can get the job done.. most likely on the first time.

A few well timed cruise missile attacks could also have the same effect.

The future of air power will be when a single PAK DA can fly through at medium altitude... destroy several targets with individual guided bombs and leave the area without ever being detected or confronted.

Using nukes on the other hand makes it all unusable and therefore not much use.

A Mach 4 capable large aircraft would be rather interesting as a support aircraft for fighters... a large aircraft with jamming equipment able to fly ahead of a strike package and jam and attack ground and aerial threats out to long range would be an interesting asset... it could pass back live data regarding enemy radar positions and aircraft for the strike package to avoid and perhaps carry a range of self defence missiles based on Morfei to defeat the large heavy long range SAMs that would be launched to engage it.

There was a bomber version of the Mig-25 (Mig-25RB), and a similar proposed Mig-31 model able to carry specially fused 1,500kg bombs that could be carried and released from the belly (x4) and the wing points (x2) at mach 2+ speeds.

Imagine a mach 4 bomber/jammer/recon aircraft... and the smaller lighter unmanned recon drone based on it...   

I think a lot of this Mig 31 replacement revolves around the massively powerful new engines and ligghter airframe than the Mig31. But it will be very intersting to see what has been done with airframe heat control materials etc.

The old Mig-25 was heavy... largely nickle steel to maintain strength when very hot.

A new aircraft with the hot spots made of lighter materials like titanium or even ceramics would be very interesting and engine power is not actually that critical.

The Mig-25 could fly at mach 2.83 and only had 11 ton thrust engines... the Su-27SK has a loaded weight of about 23 tons and two 12.5 ton engines, while the Mig-25 has a loaded weight of about 36 tons and two 11 ton thrust engines... which one should be faster?

What is not obvious is that the engines are different... the Flanker has fuel efficient turbofans while the Foxbat has turbojets.

As mentioned above fitting a full sized S-500 to the belly of the Mig-41... note that is a hint too... the Su-34 is the replacement for the Su-24, while the Il-476 replaces the Il-76, it is common for replacement aircraft to share something in the designation...

Anyway, fitting an S-500 to a plane that can fly to perhaps 30km altitude and mach 4 speed would greatly increase the max altitude performance of the S-500 in terms of anti satellite ability.

Imagine replacing a solid rocket booster with a scramjet motor and large fuel tank to allow enormous horizontal acceleration before vectoring up at enormous speeds...

Hey Garry, it looks like they might use hypersonic vehicles attached to hardpoint pylons of interceptors to intercept what looks like a theater range ballistic missile. They show a cgi animation of such a scenario at the 8:10 mark of the video:

http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=564068

http://russianplanes.net/images/to134000/133974.jpg

Just a nice photo.