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

So in translate: there is a modernization variant, in which we move from mechanical steering system to electric.
Elektrodistancionnyj full meaning is that you drive something using electric signals emitted from a distant source

Still not 100% clear... are they talking about replacing a conventional hydraulic system with electric motors, or are they talking about a fly by wire system controlling hydraulic actuators, or FBW with electric actuators?

Hopefully the latter and all Russian.

GarryB wrote:Still not 100% clear... are they talking about replacing a conventional hydraulic system with electric motors, or are they talking about a fly by wire system controlling hydraulic actuators, or FBW with electric actuators?

Hopefully the latter and all Russian.

User TR1 (very knowledgeable in Russian weapons) says there should be a FBW equipped MiG-31 flying for some 5 years already, I have asked about more details. I would assume we talk about electric flight controls, but not necessarily electric actuators, the first of which should be applied in a few years to the second stage Su-57, if I am not wrong. Of course that would be even better, but would mean a deeper modernization and would probably not produce such a big return as the FBW, specially considering the compromises high speed design places in low speed operation (TO and landing to start with) due to wing loading, lift profile and others. A computer helping with that would be very nice to increase the operational safety of the plane and may even allow (just throwing the idea) to carry Kinzhal or similar weapons on interceptor configured airframes. We will see.

As said before, IMHO they could change everything inside that plane and still get a premium, relatively cheap and unmatched interceptor. Radar, engines, systems, onboard computers and what not. This incremental way costs peanuts compared to new platforms, it allows designers to learn step by step with a great control of risks and still gets quite a sizeable amount of the advantages a new design would provide. Given the survivability of these planes is not given by their stealth but by speed/altitude and tactical awareness, which is provided by the IADS even against LO threats, the high RCS shaping is not such a big disadvantage and the expediency of the modernization of the old platform is even higher than in other cases. With a modernized MiG-31 in the fleet, there is no hurry to come up with the PAK-DP and a proper job can be done in the time that is necessary, the same way it was done with the PAK-FA thanks to the Su-35S

Article on the subject. Key points below.

"The country is now carrying out trials of the upgraded MiG-31 fighter-interceptor with a fly-by-wire control system, managers of the Sokol Aircraft Plant told Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko during his visit to the facility on November 25

Krivoruchko inspected the unit’s production capacities and checked the pace of work on repairing and upgrading MiG-31 fighters. He also held a meeting on completing the defense procurement plan, as part of his working trip to the Volga area.

“There is an option of upgrading this aircraft where we switch from the mechanical to the fly-by-wire control system, which yields a host of computers mounted on the plane,” said Sokol Aviation Enterprise

The fighter’s onboard equipment will be totally replaced; the combat plane will also be examined for flaws in order to replace corrosion portions that could account for 15 to 50 percent of the total weight. The fighter’s canopy, as well as all of the wiring and rubber parts, will be entirely overhauled.

Sokol’s main duty now is to carry out substantial repairs on the MiG-31 fighter-interceptor, as well as a heavy upgrade to the MiG-31BM level, which has been a work in process since 2007.

One of the most potent variants of the MiG-31 is the MiG-31BM. It is a multifunctional long-range fighter aircraft with high speed and the ability to kill both air and ground targets.

Upgraded avionics, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, liquid-crystal color multifunction displays (MFDs), a robust on-board computer system, digital data linkages, and phased array radar are all included in the variant. It has the capability of intercepting 24 targets at once.

The MiG-31 is equipped with four long-range Vympel R-33E air-to-air missiles. The R-33 can be launched in inertial navigation mode to shoot at the target from a long distance.

For initial acquisition and mid-course updates, it can be directed in semi-active radar homing (SARH) mode. The Cold War-era warplane was designed to take out huge, fast targets like the American SR-71 Blackbird, B-1 Lancer bomber, and B-52 Stratofortress.

The aircraft is also equipped with four short-range R-60MK missiles and two Bisnovat R-40TD1 medium-range missiles. A six-barrel 30mm internal cannon (Ghs-6-23M) is installed above the starboard main landing gear bay of the aircraft. The cannon contain 800 rounds of ammunition and can fire at a rate of over 10,000 rounds a minute.

MiG-31BM can accommodate the AA-12 Adder missile and various Russian air-to-ground missiles (AGMs) such as the AS-17 Krypton anti-radiation missile (ARM).

The combat efficiency of MiG-31 fighter-interceptors will increase threefold following substantial repairs and upgrades, claims Sokol.

“Meanwhile, the upgrade, in which the onboard radio-electronic equipment is fully replaced with advanced technology envisages using the latest air-launched weapons, which will boost the plane’s combat efficiency by about three times,” the Sokol management said.

New variants of the Foxhound, according to Aleksandr Osokin, head designer at the Sokol Aircraft Plant, where MiG-31s are repaired, are around 2.6 times as capable as the original Cold War-era planes.

The aircraft were meant to intercept not just all types of enemy aircraft, from bombers and observation planes to fighters and airborne early warning jets, but also missiles, with the aircraft being particularly capable of intercepting low-altitude cruise missiles.

Now with the latest upgrade, the capability is expected to rise manifold. The fly-by-wire systems are computer-controlled. The “hands-on” design allows pilots to get a clear, tactile sense of how the aircraft handles aerodynamic forces as it flies. This will enhance the combat power by restricting the number of manual controls that the pilot otherwise has to perform.

https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-ground-breaking-mig-31-fighter-interceptor-aircraft-modified/?amp

User Tsar has this to say to paralay's questioning of the reasons behind the FBW

the motive for such a serious alteration

it is quite obvious: avionics will significantly improve, and the alignment will float. To abandon the lead counterweight in the nose and put EMF. At the same time, at supersonic, the balancing resistance will be slightly reduced, also bread.

If there is indeed some ballast at the plane's nose to give it natural stability, then it is obvious that removing that weight and entrusting the FBW to cope with the resulting reduced stability of the plane is a serious advantage. The point about the supersonic trimming is also quite relevant for the -31, if they manage to tune the stability of the plane for minimum drag at cruising speed, they could nicely increase service ceiling and range, or maneuver performance at cruising altitude.

Regarding the engines: izd. 30 should be ca. 1400-1500 kg, compared to ca. 2000 kg for the D-30F6, so that would be a whole ton of weight being removed, and actually after the CoG, where it contributes to the instability of the plane and needs further counterweight at the nose. So, an even bigger amount of weigh could be removed, a lighter radar could be used and so on. The resulting improved wing loading, induced drag etc would produce substantial benefits in the flight characteristics of the plane.
The AB section of the current engines is huge, coherently with their use in normal flight at high speeds, but the idea with izd. 30 would be to make use of their supercruising capability to avoid that downside. Regarding other characteristics, they are 7 m long vs ca. 5 m of the izd. 30, and have an inlet diameter of 1 m for 150 kg/s mass flow. If the izd. 30 or some variant of it can be used and keep similar cruising speed (2.35 M) in dry settings, the improvement of the plane's performance would be very significant. Specially its ability to intercept missile carriers before their release points (see range of newer US CMs approaching 1000 km and hence beyond current supersonic combat radius of the MiG-31) and also to dash against high value targets (AWACS, ISR, tanker planes) at long distances would turn it into an even more crucial asset for the air defence. Add a multimissile like the one announced in development for interceptors to that equation and the result could be outstanding.

A further consideration regarding the engine is that, if what we know about PAK-DP is true, the engine will need to be an ABVCE or after-burning variable cycle engine. If the izd. 30 is already a VCE, it may already operate in a similar fashion, by idling or reducing the flow though the core between 2 - 3 M. Probably modifications would need to be made, which could be used as intermediate step towards the propulsive solution of the PAK-DP

Below some details about the conversion from a two stream VCE (YF120) into an ABVCE for the RTA program:



To some people making the argument that there is no need to modernize the MiG-31, when the PAK-DP is already under development since last year at least: that is a typically US MIC type, BS kind of argument. In reality it works exactly the other way around, in order to reduce the program and technical risks it is a necessity to start with the MiG-31, as PAK-FA program so clearly proves.

To some people making the argument that there is no need to modernize the MiG-31, when the PAK-DP is already under development since last year at least: that is a typically US MIC type, BS kind of argument.

To be fair they stopped funding upgrades of the MiG-25 when the MiG-31 was being developed... there was talk of fitting the 15 ton thrust engines of the MiG-31 into the MiG-25 which at the time had 11 ton thrust engines, but as both aircraft were speed limited to mach 2.83 there was not a huge amount of point upgrading the MiG-25 when the better engines might have extended range it was more important to get more MiG-31s into service.

Of course I agree that upgrades to the MIG-31 should continue... they can test stuff they plan to use in the replacement aircraft the same way they tested 5th gen stuff in the Su-35 and MiG-35 for their next gen replacements, but in this case teh MiG-31 is in widespread use so benefits to improving its performance and capabilities could be more immediately deployed.

From what I have read about the new S-550 it seems to be a smaller missile optimised for hit to kill intercepts of ICBMs and Satellites and I very much think such features would make it benefit from an air launch too.

Being launched at 18km altitude above the thickest part of the atmosphere and also moving at mach 2.5 would greatly extend its range and performance and the mobility of carrying it on a supersonic fighter cannot be discounted either.

stuff sent to talking bollocks thread in general chat section.

lancelot wrote:I doubt will be that easy to replace the engines. On paper the Izd. 30 has more than enough thrust. But the engine dimensions are totally different.
Also given that the Izd. 30 is still under development I think it is premature to assume known weight and thrust numbers for it are accurate.
The radar on the MiG-31BM is supposedly already an upgrade of the original one. It has a larger diameter antenna and upgraded processor.

Yes they are very different indeed, I am just making the point that the izd. 30 is a supercruising engine, possibly a VCE, and that using that technology in the MiG-31 could lead to substantial improvements in the capacities of the plane and make it future-proof. The current supersonic combat radius of the plane is something like 700 km, if it was possible to make it cruise without the AB, that distance would substantially increase and place any potential NATO air power operation at the Russian borders under such additional pressure (in terms of range) that their effort would most likely fail completely.

Whether the propulsion of the PAK-DP will be tested on the -31 or not is to be seen, but, given the izd. 30 is a smaller engine than the D-30F6, a substitution does not look as unfeasible as it would be the other way around. We will see, suffice to say that the potential is there. The main unknown IMHO is what kind of modifications would be necessary for the flight regime of the MiG-31 and efforts they would imply.

We already know they intend to use the Izd. 30 engine core for the PAK-DP. But the sections around the engine core (gas generator) could be totally different yes. I assume the aircraft will be optimized for Mach 3+ speed otherwise there is little point in developing it given the Su-57 already exists. It should be a design optimized for speed, range, and heavy payload. The only way to achieve that should be with either a variable cycle engine or some other sort of hybrid engine.

The fact that there was talk about 4 M and that programs based on VCEs have been executed for exactly that speed makes me think we have a clear propulsive candidate for the PAK-DP.

The MiG-31 can indeed be used as a platform to develop the avionics, radar, weapons, and even engines for the PAK-DP. To borrow your analogy they used the Su-35 as a platform to test the first stage engines. But if you look at the avionics and radar they are brand new on PAK-FA. I suspect they might go around the other way on the PAK-DP. Test avionics and radar upgrades first on the MiG-31 and then use all new airframe and engines for the PAK-DP. Similar to how MiG-25 used the Tu-128 Smerch radar.

It depends on what do they need to test and therefore what they want to use in the PAK-DP that is different to what could be deployed in the -31. Main logical differences would be that PAK-DP should be bigger, faster, longer ranged with bigger payload for taking care of hypersonic/space threats, which by their nature travel extremely fast and therefore need superior kinematics from the intercepting platforms, which translate directly in bigger size and more fuel. So the airframe of the PAK-DP should be further optimized for range and speed, but it does not mean that an intermediate propulsive step (say a 3 M engine) could not be tested on the -31. The radar and avionics of the Su-35 being different from the PAK-FA: yes, it was an intermediate step, intended also to be a cheaper platform, and in particular the radar had a different concept because Russia at that time had no mature AESA technology. Today it may be a different story, based on the Byelka, Tikhomirov could create a very powerful radar for the MiG-31, probably without huge efforts. Again, the huge growth potential of the MiG is there, but we don't know what the VKS deems appropriate in terms of costs and efforts to modernize the fleet. If they consider the parallel operation of the plane with the DP for a long time, similar to what we see with the Su-35 and PAK-FA, then they may see it expedient to spend more efforts and go beyond simple airframe overhauls and substitution of analog avionics.

For both the MiG-25 and MiG-31 the top speed limitations are engine based so having an engine that can run like a ramjet for long periods at very high speeds would be rather interesting.

I would expect a ramjet optimised engine would actually burn less fuel for the same level of thrust at high speed which would mean being able to fly rather faster for rather longer, which would obviously have a rather enormous impact on flight range and flight speed.

Would be interesting to see how much faster the airframe could operate normally at, and certainly the replacement of the heavier parts of the airframe and structure with the new heat resistant aluminium alloys they have developed should be rather interesting... but of course how much is too much.

It is a bit like making a bog standard 4th gen fighter less of a barn door on radar, there is a lot you can do for an aircraft not designed from the outset to get rid of serious corner reflectors, but you can only go so far before it gets very expensive and with external weapon stores it is never going to match a real 5th gen fighter designed from the outset for stealth.

Using it for testing can justify spending a little bit more because the value is in both improving the existing type and also making the future aircraft more solid and proven and reliable because you are actually mass flight testing new stuff that is going in to it potentially for years before you first flight of your new aircraft.

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/first-kinzhal-equipped-mig-31k-aviation-regiment-formed

Video of the periscope on MiG-31

How good and important to Russia this interceptor is we can compare that with service life from other fighter jets, strike aircafts, etc built in the last years of USSR and in the first years of Yeltsin era;
* MiG-29 (9-12, 9-13, 9-51) will be retired in the next few years; Su-27 also including those modernized into SM (except SM3), and Su-24M and Su-24M2 will be retired in the next few years. Even those 'algerian' MiG-29SMT stationed earlier in Khalino airport near Kursk are no longer in service. Yes, Su-27 will still live in the form of those 12 Su-27SM3, 19 Su-30M2, 113 Su-30SM + more ordered, 125 + Su-34 and many more are ordered as is the case with Su-35S - more ordered and 100+ delivered. But all of those types were built in the last 12 years, first ones were Su-34's.
* MiG-31; NOPE, it will go through another modernization. Still the best aircraft in the World in terms of highest service ceilling and its faster than any other aircraft, plus powerfull Zaslon-M radar.  One of the best Soviet aircraft projects together with Su-27 family (Su-30SM/34/35S) and Tu-160. Only Su-25 will go into next decade with MiG-31. But Su-25 will be replaced with S-70 Okhotnik (UCAV's) which will get its flight instructions from Su-57.
Time goes on but MiG-31 will stay for some time with us, at least until 2040. Next decade is reserved for arrival of his his succesor and MiG-41 will become operational in the first half of the 2030's , and later on it will fully replace all MiG-31's. t

Podlodka77 wrote:How good and important to Russia this interceptor is we can compare that with service life from other fighter jets, strike aircafts, etc built in the last years of USSR and in the first years of Yeltsin era;
* MiG-29 (9-12, 9-13, 9-51) will be retired in the next few years; Su-27 also including those modernized into SM (except SM3), and Su-24M and Su-24M2 will be retired in the next few years. Even those 'algerian' MiG-29SMT stationed earlier in Khalino airport near Kursk are no longer in service. Yes, Su-27 will still live in the form of those 12 Su-27SM3, 19 Su-30M2, 113 Su-30SM + more ordered, 125 + Su-34 and many more are ordered as is the case with Su-35S - more ordered and 100+ delivered. But all of those types were built in the last 12 years, first ones were Su-34's.
* MiG-31; NOPE, it will go through another modernization. Still the best aircraft in the World in terms of highest service ceilling and its faster than any other aircraft, plus powerfull Zaslon-M radar.  One of the best Soviet aircraft projects together with Su-27 family (Su-30SM/34/35S) and Tu-160. Only Su-25 will go into next decade with MiG-31. But Su-25 will be replaced with S-70 Okhotnik (UCAV's) which will get its flight instructions from Su-57.
Time goes on but MiG-31 will stay for some time with us, at least until 2040. Next decade is reserved for arrival of his his succesor and MiG-41 will become operational in the first half of the 2030's , and later on it will fully replace all MiG-31's.  t  

MIG-31 brought a lot of the bells and whistles that are considered "modern" right now. Networking with secure datalinks was a feature it had before many fighters out there, automatic target distribution, as well as merging data between radar, IRST (Range obtained via triangulation could ensure a stealthy fire solution), and other platforms, heck, it was the first air to air vehicle carrying a phased array. On top of the outstanding kinematics, it was probably the height of cold war BVR, maybe rivaled by Su-27 because agility still matters in BVR.

Nice shot that

Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo

franco wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:In 2020, 4 MiG-31BMs from Savaslayka appeared in Lipetsk
Now, according to the satellite (google maps), there are up to 15 operational MiG-31s at Lipetsk,
https://www.google.com/maps/place/55%C2%B026'24.0%22N+42%C2%B018'36.0%22E/@52.6381378,39.4602227,206m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d55.44!4d42.31?hl=en


It seems that the whole squadron of 12 MiG-31BM has moved from Savasleyka to Lipetsk and maybe there are also some MiG-31K

It is possible that now, the Savaleyka base has become available to host the Su-57

Does anyone know how to obtain recent satellite images of the Savasleyka airbase ?? (for free)
the images from google and yandex are the same for 2 or 3 years

any information or image about it will be welcome

I still cannot get any new images either but in lieu of the notice of a Mig-31K regiment being formed perhaps Savasleyka is it's new home?

No, the the most likely is that the regiment he is referring to is the 712th IAP of Kansk, which was announced long ago as being armed with MiG-31Ks, probably referring to the 3rd squadron. (at the moment there is only one squadron of MiG-31K with red numbers 88 to 99 that seem to be for Kansk due to the color of the tail number)

The other places to put MiG-31Ks are the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet,
I don't think there are enough MiG-31DZs to build more sites since the number of MiG-31DZs actually made seems to have been about 45 units .

The other MiG-31 regiments have a 3rd Su-35 squadron in the case of Khotilovo and Vladivostok and only the Perm regiment would remain to be armed with a 3rd squadron.
There is also the possibility of modernizing MiG-31 to MiG-31K from normal MiG-31, without refueling probe, but I really don't know if there are enough left to get the 3rd esciadron for 6 regiments since we would go to 72 MiG-31K totaling more than 230 MiG-31

On Savasleyka, this aerodrome is a subsidiary of the 4th Training Center based in Lipetsk, the question is whether it will host the operational conversion unit of the Su-57

AMCXXL wrote:
No, the the most likely is that the regiment he is referring to is the 712th IAP of Kansk, which was announced long ago as being armed with MiG-31Ks, probably referring to the 3rd squadron. (at the moment there is only one squadron of MiG-31K with red numbers 88 to 99 that seem to be for Kansk due to the color of the tail number)

The other places to put MiG-31Ks are the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet,
I don't think there are enough MiG-31DZs to build more sites since the number of MiG-31DZs actually made seems to have been about 45 units .

The other MiG-31 regiments have a 3rd Su-35 squadron in the case of Khotilovo and Vladivostok and only the Perm regiment would remain to be armed with a 3rd squadron.
There is also the possibility of modernizing MiG-31 to MiG-31K from normal MiG-31, without refueling probe, but I really don't know if there are enough left to get the 3rd esciadron for 6 regiments since we would go to 72 MiG-31K totaling more than 230 MiG-31

On Savasleyka, this aerodrome is a subsidiary of the 4th Training Center based in Lipetsk, the question is whether it will host the operational conversion unit of the Su-57

The best solution would be if the tests of the MiG-31 with FBW would allow to unify the BM and K, or essentially enable the BMs in the VMF-MA to carry the naval strike role besides the AD one. They are already at the right locations to prevent undue approaches to Russian territory from the sea and would allow to increase the number of Kinzhal carriers, given the limited amount of airframes available for retrofit.

The heart of the Mig-31, the D-30F6 engine, has been in operation since 1978.

Scorpius wrote:
The heart of the Mig-31, the D-30F6 engine, has been in operation since 1978.

Like some avant-garde art.

It seems repairable.