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

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

SuperEtendard wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

Like my country Argentine!

We have a huge country to protect and a litle problem in the South Atlantic.

A problem call Typhoon and F-35B (in the near future).

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

Dude, no one will sell MiG-31 and no one will buy a plane that is not sold. There is no MiG-31's to sell. The production is over, and producing landing gear components wouldn't magically bring production back, there isn't a gram of logic in that. No one is talking about bringing back MiG-21 or MiG-23 production just because components for it are still made.

It is almost as if people turned off their logic or something.

eehnie wrote:

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

Dude, no one will sell MiG-31 and no one will buy a plane that is not sold. There is no MiG-31's to sell. The production is over, and producing landing gear components wouldn't magically bring production back, there isn't a gram of logic in that. No one is talking about bringing back MiG-21 or MiG-23 production just because components for it are still made.

It is almost as if people turned off their logic or something.

The MiG-31 is still officially offered to export. You can see it in this link:

http://www.roe.ru/mmc/index.html

(See Export Products -> Aircraft Materiel -> View Catalog -> Fighters, Bombers and Combat Trainers)

Not sure if it would be new or used units, but Russia is offering the MiG-31.

I would not count the MiG-31 as totally out of production.

medo wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well for countries with large areas of territory that want low numbers of aircraft to provide decent coverage like Iran, Canada, Australia, Indonesia... the MiG-31 would be ideal.

Imagine some new builds with belly mounts optimised for 6 weapons, plus perhaps three wing pylons on each wing plus a wing tip pod for ESM pods.

That would be 6 belly mounted R-33E or R-37ME (RVV-BD) missiles, plus say four RVV-SD medium range missiles and two RVV-MD short range missiles for export aircraft... quite a potent load for each aircraft...

Dude, no one will sell MiG-31 and no one will buy a plane that is not sold. There is no MiG-31's to sell. The production is over, and producing landing gear components wouldn't magically bring production back, there isn't a gram of logic in that. No one is talking about bringing back MiG-21 or MiG-23 production just because components for it are still made.

It is almost as if people turned off their logic or something.

The MiG-31 is still officially offered to export. You can see it in this link:

http://www.roe.ru/mmc/index.html

(See Export Products -> Aircraft Materiel -> View Catalog -> Fighters, Bombers and Combat Trainers)

Not sure if it would be new or used units, but Russia is offering the MiG-31.

I would not count the MiG-31 as totally out of production.

Considering, that Kazakhstan is also MiG-31 user, you could see ROE as supplier of supplies for MiG-31 in Kazakhstan and this could be a reason to have it in their catalog, but I don't think Russia offer MiG-31 to anyone as it is no more in production and RuAF reactivate them for their Arctic region.

sepheronx wrote:I mean, replace a lot of the metal with composite materials to lighten the aircraft as well as increase strength/durability.

Berkut wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I mean, replace a lot of the metal with composite materials to lighten the aircraft as well as increase strength/durability.

Have you checked lately what speeds MiG-31 is supposed to fly at?

Berkut wrote:And how stable do you think composites would be at M2.8? Point being; replacing metal to composite panels would be useless on MiG-31 and would not offer any extra performance but rather give worse performance.

sepheronx wrote:

Berkut wrote:And how stable do you think composites would be at M2.8? Point being; replacing metal to composite panels would be useless on MiG-31 and would not offer any extra performance but rather give worse performance.

I thought composites were generally lighter and stronger than Titanium?

I am just saying it would also help with RCS reduction, at least that was the main selling point for newer jets that replaced most metal on surface with composites.  But that doesnt deter me from wanting to see newer made MiG-31's

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Berkut wrote:And how stable do you think composites would be at M2.8? Point being; replacing metal to composite panels would be useless on MiG-31 and would not offer any extra performance but rather give worse performance.

I thought composites were generally lighter and stronger than Titanium?

I am just saying it would also help with RCS reduction, at least that was the main selling point for newer jets that replaced most metal on surface with composites.  But that doesnt deter me from wanting to see newer made MiG-31's

Went over something related in my university not so long ago. I would like to take a shot at relating these concepts. Metals like titanium are a lot more versatile than composites. For example, titanium has higher ranges of elasticity and it still handles heat remarkably well. Composites like ceramics (honestly don't know about their usage in aircraft fuselages) can handle high temperatures even better but have low ranges of elasticity. At the performance envelope that MiG-31 is capable of (such high linear speeds and still able to pull some rather tight maneuvers), composites may not be able handle what the MiG-31 is capable of.

George1 wrote:

franco wrote:Last batch of Mig-31BM's for the 2015 order turned over to the VKS;

"November 25, 2015 in the flight-test facility PJSC" NAZ "Sokol" was handed over to the final batch of upgraded MiG-31, the Russian Defense Ministry in 2015 state defense order, "- said in a statement.

how many BMs we have till now?

ult wrote:5 more Mig-31BSM have been delivered.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1601799.html