Terroristic Countries will have MiG-31

F 15's have shot down Mig 25's before sos pped and altitude really isn't goign to do much for the MIG 31.

Well, a Mig-25 is widely believed to have taken out an F-18 during the Gulf War, using it's ability to pull off short bursts of very high speed to elude the US CAP. So I wouldn't say the 31, with greater range, better radar and and better weapons fit, was no threat at all. A major threat no, at least not in the numbers either country could actually afford.

A few Mig 31's with Russian long range anti-AWACS missles could be a significant worry for US planners though.

Err... That Mig-25 shot down the Hornet because the F/A-18 didn’t have AWACS support and didn’t have situational awareness to the point where it could maneuver and engage the Mig from an advantage. One fighter, a Hornet, next please. And just for good measure I will repeat again that the Mig-31 (any version) is not a threat to the F-22 and F-35 nor to the USAF, unless we are taking unrealistic numbers here.


[edit on 31-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

I think people are missing something obvious about the MiG-31 threat. The MiG-31 is fast, but the Russians switched the emphasis away from speed (MiG-25) instead to distance-intercept and endurance - the MiG-31 is a Tomcat equivelent.

And it's greatest assets are a whopping great phased array radar in the nose, air-air-refueling and long ranged AA-9 Amos missiles:


When it entered service in the 1980s its radar was conceptually way ahead of anything in operational service in the west. Foxhunter eat your heart out.

Even if the MiG-31s are not modernised they present a real threat to US aircraft. But modernisations are very possible including upgraded (maybe active as oposed to passive) radar, and the AA-13 "Arrow" missiles which have a range of about 300km (!). And R-37 test firings have demonstrated the ability to hit cruise missile style targets at extended ranges and even use mid-cause guidence from a third party platform - something I've not heard any Western missile do.





[edit on 31-7-2006 by planeman]

Well Russia needs income too, so I think this is a good move for them. Plus I like the Mig-31. It's a nice airplane and it's a competent fighter/interceptor.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Err... That Mig-25 shot down the Hornet because the F/A-18 didn’t have AWACS support and didn’t have situational awareness to the point where it could maneuver and engage the Mig from an advantage. One fighter, a Hornet, next please. And just for good measure I will repeat again that the Mig-31 (any version) is not a threat to the F-22 and F-35 nor to the USAF, unless we are taking unrealistic numbers here.

So the MiG had AWACs support, and had hundreds of other fighters in the air backing him up?


Just because the "bad guy" didn't cruise across the nose of the hornet with a big sign saying "kill me" doesn't mean the engagement is not credible.


It says more for the MiG-31 being able to get a kill in such circumstances than any reciprocal kill recorded by an F-15 (or similar) in that same war as the odds were weighed heavily to one side.

Westie, why does the F-18 need AWACS to kill a target with HUGE RCS, inferior radar, inferior missiles??? By all means the F-18 should have great advantage in BVR. Don't tell me the MiG got him in a dogfight

Originally posted by DalairTheGreat

Terroristic countries will have Mig-31

Now this I think is objectionable to say the least.

It is a matter of perception as to who or which country is 'Terrorist'. For most of them, the US of A and UK are the terrorist countries.

Don't tell me the MiG got him in a dogfight

The Mig apparently got him with smart tactics, using his vastly superior speed to keep himself out of the F-18's radar cone and missile range, and positioned himself for a rear aspect attack. Without the aid AWACS or anything but his own radar apparently. Smart pilot, inflicting casualties on a vastly superior force and getting away with it.

Originally posted by xmotex
The Mig apparently got him with smart tactics, using his vastly superior speed to keep himself out of the F-18's radar cone and missile range, and positioned himself for a rear aspect attack. Without the aid AWACS or anything but his own radar apparently. Smart pilot, inflicting casualties on a vastly superior force and getting away with it.

From that I assume the RWR on the Hornet didn't work as planned?


Interesting that in one of the few times aircraft engaged with the AWACs support, it was the MiG that won.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by xmotex

Don't tell me the MiG got him in a dogfight

The Mig apparently got him with smart tactics, using his vastly superior speed to keep himself out of the F-18's radar cone and missile range, and positioned himself for a rear aspect attack. Without the aid AWACS or anything but his own radar apparently. Smart pilot, inflicting casualties on a vastly superior force and getting away with it.

I was being ironic, I know he didn't get him in a dogfight.
So if a smart Iraqui pilot with a MiG-25 can play cat & mouse with a Hornet, what can a smarter Russian pilot with a MIG-31 do?

P.S. by 'smarter Russian pilot' I don't imply that Russians are smarter than Iraquis, just that they are better trained in general.

We have to make sure that the israeli terrorists dont get any !

Pazo you should look up the avionics and weapons of the standard F/A-18 at the time (91) it’s not that impressive, there’s no "great advantage". Again giving Middle Eastern countries such as Iran or Syria a few Mig-31s (any version) will not make a huge difference in a war against a modern air force.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Pazo you should look up the avionics and weapons of the standard F/A-18 at the time (91) it’s not that impressive, there’s no "great advantage". Again giving Middle Eastern countries such as Iran or Syria a few Mig-31s (any version) will not make a huge difference in a war against a modern air force.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Oh I have, and as far as I remember in 91 the F-18 was being promoted as having the most advanced avionics of any current fighters (as well as a new level of situational awareness). Even if we account for the usual exaggerations of American sources(and Discovery Channel ) it still should have had a better radar than the 'export' version of a 60's Russian fighter. Given the fact that the MiG-25 is hardly stealthy and roughly twice as big as the Hornet, plus the avionics suit is based on vacuum tubes, don't you think the Hornet should have had "DECISIVE EDGE" even without AWACS support? You should look up the avionics and weapons of the MiG-25, they are ancient.

Now, the MiG-31 has 80's avionics... So, trust me, in the right hands and numbers it WILL make a difference even against an Alien invasion, it can't win a war on its own, but it can cause enough damage to make the aggressor think twice the next time around.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Pazo]

Please stop speaking out you’re A, now the Hornet had no AWACS support as such all it takes is good positioning by the Mig-25 pilot. Like I said before the Hornet at the time did not have a "decisive edge" to the point where it could avoid a shoot down from a Mig-25PD if it was out of position. No matter how ancient you want to the avionics and weaponry of the Mig-25PD to be fact is they aren’t 60’s tech and they are capable of shooting down other fighters given the right circumstances. What’s interesting here is that the Mig-25 wasn’t able to shot down any other US fighters, I wonder why? And this might be of interest to you, look up the shoot down of Mig-25 by an F-16.

And we’re discussing ME countries here, as such we have to take into account their possible numbers, training, and weaponry. The Mig-31 won’t be effective against newer platforms, especially when used by the ME countries in question. By effective I mean capable of causing considerable losses, not shooting down the occasional one or two fighters.

Well my A probably knows more than you do so I might just keep using it. Please don't compare Iraqui MiG-25 with PD's for the Russian AF. And yes, compared to Western avionics, the MiG-25 (including PD) is 60's tech. Don't try to run away from the fact that you tried to diminished what that Iraqui pilot did, just because the Hornet didn't have big daddy E-3 to hold its hand.
Yes, the MiG-31 will not make a significant impact in the hands of ME pilots and the small numbers the ME countries can afford. But then again, that's all the USAF is used to fighting- untrained pilots, in old aircraft, and at a 1:20 disadvantage. Maybe that's why the 'official' US stathistics for Vietnam claim the USAF downed 10 times more MiGs than Vietkong ever had
The only times they got a real taste for opponent they were humiliated by the IAF and Luftwaffe.

Originally posted by Pazo
Well my A probably knows more than you do so I might just keep using it.

Please if your so immature as to keep bringing rhetoric based upon partisanship and hatered then for your sake you shouldn’t.

Originally posted by Pazo
But then again, that's all the USAF is used to fighting- untrained pilots, in old aircraft, and at a 1:20 disadvantage. Maybe that's why the 'official' US stathistics for Vietnam claim the USAF downed 10 times more MiGs than Vietkong ever had
The only times they got a real taste for opponent they were humiliated by the IAF and Luftwaffe.

Whatever, I see where this is going, if you truly believe the above then you are even more ignorant toward the USAF than I thought. :shk:

So the Terrorist Countries will just buy Mig-31s to replace thier Mig-25s?

Guess they just want to update thier aircraft inventory

Westie, you are the one who brought A's in the discussion so I don't know what did you expect me to answer you. You DID try to diminish what the Iraqui pilot achieved and there is no way I'm going to let that fly. If you are going to make unfounded statements, at least be consistent. First you said(on another thread) that better radar and lower RCS give a DECISIVE EDGE in BVR. Well the F-18A/B/C/D(I think we're talking C here) has HUGE advantages in both areas (even by Russian data). But for you that is NOT decisive edge. If you need an excuse why the F-18 was shot down please look somewhere else, bad positioning sounds more credible although from what I've heard the MiG was in front of the Hornet at first, if I'm wrong, that's your explanation, don't go saying the Hornet didn't have the avionics.
About my ignorance about the USAF, tell me where was the last time they had proper opponent in a war. Even in WWII they had insane numerical advantage. Only in Korea they got a run for their money and that was only from the handful of Russian "volunteers".
Asking why the Iraquis didn't shoot down more than a couple planes is like askind why the USAC only shot one plane at Pearl Harbour(yes 1, and the pilot was shot down by another Zero in the next second, Maybe if Ben Affleck was there...
) It's not fair you see.
So tell me when did the USAF have a proper opponent and I'll accept I'm ignorant, OK?

Originally posted by Pazo
I was being ironic, I know he didn't get him in a dogfight.
So if a smart Iraqui pilot with a MiG-25 can play cat & mouse with a Hornet, what can a smarter Russian pilot with a MIG-31 do?

You do realize that the Mig-25 has a clear speed advantage over the F-18 Hornet. The Hornet has a top speed in the Mach 1.8 to Mach 2 region. The Foxbat on the other hand is in the Mach 3 class. If the Mig pilot drew the F-18 into a speed compatition, he won right there.

Remember, the Mig 25 was origionally built to try to intercept the SR-71 Blackbird, not to dog fight.

Tim