Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
MiG-31 being a serious threat? Sure it's fast, but is burning out it's fuel reserves in less than 5 minutes really the best tactic for an endurance battle?

They better hope that they get one shot and their one shot doesn't miss because if they have to come over again they'll be out of fuel before they know it.

Shattered OUT...

I think your significantly underestimating the fuel reserves of the MiG-31

From elsewhere:

I was reading a book that had pilot interviews from the KAL 007 incident. Those who remember it may recall that in the days following the US sent a squadron of F-15s from Alaska along with an E-3 to either Japan or SK don't recall which, and were told in not so many words to be aggressive and if the opportunity presented itself, to make an example. Fortunately cooler heads higher up found out and immediately put the brakes on THAT attitude but in the meantime the USSR sent some Mig-31s into the area as a counter. In the words of one of those Eagle pilots "the Mig-31s made the run down (about 600 miles IIRC) at Mach 2.6". Mach 2.6 for 600 miles is nothing to dismiss whether they used afterburners or not. This isn't meant to start a pissing contest of "who would have won the Migs or the Eagles" but just to point out that if you've got the gas and you don't need to manuever then what does it matter?

The man that posted that is American, and not prone to posting crap.

Originally posted by FredT
The phased array in the Mig 31 while powerfull may be able to pick up the Raptor within the kill range of a AIM-120C which is 65 miles...

I think you are seriously underestimating the stealth capabilities of the F-22 Raptor. I would be surprised if even a NATO AWACS could detect the F-22 at that distance, maybe an AEGIS (ship borne radar) but not anything else.

The AWACS would see the Mig-31 as soon as it takes off directing escorting fighters to vector. Given that the F-22 will not be detected by the Mig-31 (therefore the Mig does not know to change vector to avoid interception) it can get into a good position to attack (the F-22 isn't slow either). As for escaping an AMRAAM, it has to know one is in the air and from what vector to be able to outrun it. No doubt against such a target the missiles NEZ will be lower but if the Mig-31 is inside the AIM-120D's NEZ then no matter what it does it will be shot down.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by FredT
The phased array in the Mig 31 while powerfull may be able to pick up the Raptor within the kill range of a AIM-120C which is 65 miles...

I think you are seriously underestimating the stealth capabilities of the F-22 Raptor. I would be surprised if even a NATO AWACS could detect the F-22 at that distance, maybe an AEGIS (ship borne radar) but not anything else.

The AWACS would see the Mig-31 as soon as it takes off directing escorting fighters to vector. Given that the F-22 will not be detected by the Mig-31 (therefore the Mig does not know to change vector to avoid interception) it can get into a good position to attack (the F-22 isn't slow either). As for escaping an AMRAAM, it has to know one is in the air and from what vector to be able to outrun it. No doubt against such a target the missiles NEZ will be lower but if the Mig-31 is inside the AIM-120D's NEZ then no matter what it does it will be shot down.

And of course the Russians are far too dumb to be able to figure that out and direct development of their equipment accordingly - Honestly, the things the propaganda of invincibility will make people say!

Why does everyone in America assume that the rest of the world is filled with imbeciles. If only the world and, in particular, battle management were so simple. Hey, man just roll out the magic bullet!

The whole point is that the use of the MiG-31 increases the commitment required to protect the AWACS, but if you really think for one moment that the same number of F-22s can do the job then, by all means lobby your congressman!

The MiG-31 is not interested in killing Raptors, it wants to kill the AWACS - the onus is on the Raptors to prevent the MiG-31 getting a shot (and the MiG-31 has a top speed almost 1.5 times that of the F-22 - good luck on the intercept.)

Why do you imagine that so much military money is going into hypersonic research - because a faster attacker is so much more difficult to intercept!

I'm old enough to remember the same things being said about the F-4 and AIM-7 over Vietnam. More often than not the AIM-7 just fell off the rails and failed to light up. Welcome to the real world, folks.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 20/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mig 31's top speed isn't 1.5 times higher than the F-22. It's more like M2.8 vs. M2.42(or better).

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Honestly, the things the propaganda of invincibility will make people say!

Figuring it out and developing systems to counter it are two different things, how many western AWACS have been shot down in operational history? Even while operating with hostile Mig-25's in the vicinity. By the way, since when did Russian enter this discussion.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
The whole point is that the use of the MiG-31 increases the commitment required to protect the AWACS.

Not really, AWACS will always be in the vicinity of friendly fighters. Given that the F-22 is the premier air to air fighter of the USAF it will be present in any conflict where the OPFOR has an AF. Regardless of whether or not the enemy has Mig-31's.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
The MiG-31 is not interested in killing Raptors, it wants to kill the AWACS - the onus is on the Raptors to prevent the MiG-31 getting a shot (and the MiG-31 has a top speed almost 1.5 times that of the F-22 - good luck on the intercept.)

It's not 1.5 but I digress. Anyway, top speed is meaningless if you cannot see your enemy. The Mig-31 will not know where the F-22 is while the Raptor will be aware of the Mig-31's presence as soon as it gets airborne. With that kind of advantage it is easy to dictate the terms of engagement. And to position yourself for a missile shot in such a manner that allows you to get within missiles NEZ while still remaining undetected.

The location of the Mig-31 will be know so will it's vector given the location of the AWACS. It has no choice but to approach for an attack, all the F-22 has to do it wait for the moth to come to the light, figuratively speaking of course. Hmm... I wonder if using conventional fighters and even AWACS in this manner (as bait) with VLO platforms in support is something that's being considered...?

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Welcome to the real world, folks.

Welcome to 2007, and this is not Vietnam, those systems were the first of their kind and were expected to do way too much. Nothing is perfect but the systems of today are much more capable than their historic counterparts.

WW
Could the threath caused by Mig-31 attempting to close in on AWACS be enough to draw F-22s into the engagement envelope of the S-300 Batteries that Syria has just ordered from Russia?

WW

westpoint is a `patriot` and thus believes the invincibility of the US warmachine - the small fact that 10 missiles were fired at a MiG-25 in GW1 including AIM-120 and all missed is of no importance as that was 16 year ago and thus must be out of date technology - oh and a mig 25 shot down an F/A-18 as well but hey.

And obviously the rules of warfare that have remained unchanged for thousands of years, in spite of all who have tried to change them, are suddenly nullified by America's newest magic bullet.

Too much BS, I'm outa here....

Have fun in fantasy land, folks.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 20/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by Harlequin
westpoint is a `patriot` and thus believes the invincibility of the US warmachine - ...is of no importance as that was 16 year ago and thus must be out of date technology...

Harlequin, that's your great contribution? Comments on me and less than irrelevant past combat events? Anyway, for your information I don't believe anything is invincible, but to deny that certain systems (by virtue of their design) have a very clear advantage when it comes to combat is ridicules.

By the way, it's true that non of those systems mentioned above currently exist in that same specific configuration. And some current systems were not even around at all during that time. Anyway, as far as 1991 goes, overall no AWACS were lost and only one US fighter was shot down via A2A, not too bad...

The combat performance of a Mig-31 operated by the Syrian AF (who don't have a great combat record) is likely to be somewhat less impressive than it would be if operated by the Russians as part of the Russian air defense grid.

Speed still offers significant protection, as the performance of that Iraqi Mig-25 in Gulf War 1 makes clear. And the Mig-31 has speed in abundance. I wouldn't put it on any kind of a par with the F-22 as an air superiority machine, but as a fast, long-range interceptor, it's nothing to sneeze at.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Has it not been established that the F-22 is good for evading fire-control radar, but not long wave search radar.

Established? No. Hinted at, yes.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You continually overestimate the effectiveness of the stealth technology on the F-22.

I only go by that real world results have indicated. Even when the OPFOR has been given an AWACS they still could not detect the F-22 at useful ranges.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Its RCS is brilliant from certain azmuthal angles (which gives you the quoted -40 odd dB), and good from others - doesn't make it undetectable, far from it.

It has all-round stealth (RCS reduction), more and less from certain angles, of course. As for being undetected, hopefully you don't take me for that much of an imbecilic.

Anyway, even if the F-22 is not optimized for long wave radar it does not mean the range at which it will be detected by those radars will be the same as a conventional fighter. As far as the scenario above goes, being optimized for high frequency is not a handicap.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
A squadron of MiG-31s would be able to cause some serious headaches for a carrier group limited to F/A-18s (be they legacy or 'super' hornets).

You really don't like the Hornet series do you? Anyway, despite our different views on the Super Hornet why would the USN not be able to use it's impressive radar and missile systems in this scenario?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyway, despite our different views on the Super Hornet why would the USN not be able to use it's impressive radar and missile systems in this scenario?

You mean ship based?


The lower the intruder is, the less warning the ship has. Sea-skimmers and all that.




A carrier groups traditional strength is its ability to project power.


If say, a Nimitz class ship is carrying only F/A-18s - and they are facing off to MiG-31s (capable of carrying ASM and AAMs), that power projection is pretty much out the window - and the CVBG is reduced to little more than a SAG.


Its actually probably in the Navy's long term interest to get their arses handed to them in such a scenario - because the USAF will be close enough for backup. When the dust settles, a proper inquest will be held into why such a failure as the -18 airframe was developed into the E/F shambles. Then they may get a true 21st century fighter.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Established? No. Hinted at, yes.

Taking those hints and also the airframe limitations re the laws of physics - its established

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I only go by that real world results have indicated. Even when the OPFOR has been given an AWACS they still could not detect the F-22 at useful ranges.

Dare I say it - those are not real world - they are simulations and drills.


Also, I don't believe the AWACs to be a long wavelength radar (certainly compared to ground based stations)

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It has all-round stealth (RCS reduction), more and less from certain angles, of course. As for being undetected, hopefully you don't take me for that much of an imbecilic.

All-round stealth... yeap, but you can expect at least a 100x rise as you move away from the forward quadrant and around the aircraft.

Sorry, yeah, the undetected was a slip - I only meant as far as search radar goes.

Originally posted by WestPoint23[
Anyway, even if the F-22 is not optimized for long wave radar it does not mean the range at which it will be detected by those radars will be the same as a conventional fighter. As far as the scenario above goes, being optimized for high frequency is not a handicap.

Yeap - but in the context of MiGs avoiding F-22s, the MiGs dont have to see where they are - GCI does.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Honestly, the things the propaganda of invincibility will make people say!

Figuring it out and developing systems to counter it are two different things, how many western AWACS have been shot down in operational history? Even while operating with hostile Mig-25's in the vicinity. By the way, since when did Russian enter this discussion.
......

excellent debate displayed after 23 joined with 316
I just point that Wombat as the name showed is a superiorman who belong to allied nation of USA.
I'm warning here, This is the last time window that provide US navy to go bomb nuclear station in Iran before Iran get MiG-31.
The radar on MiG-31 is powerful enough to detact cruise missile, which even killed rabbit far distance 40 meters from, why it has no capability to catch F-22? Does stealth means undetectable in English? I don't think so, the rather that MiG-31 will not face F-22 whereas will be facing the aircraft just is SH.

Originally posted by FredT
The phased array in the Mig 31 while powerfull may be able to pick up the Raptor within the kill range of a AIM-120C which is 65 miles but the D varient has a projected range of at least 100 miles.

Sorry for the late entry into the topic, but you have to remember something really important. The MiG 31 has been getting some serious upgrades lately, and one of the most dangerous is the AA-X-13 Arrow. In fact, the latest MiG 31 variant has been modified with this in mind; it's been given 6 fuselage ports for the Arrow. This, combined with its continually improving radar, give it the capability to put a very large dent in something.

By now, I'll bet that a couple of you out there are wondering why the AA-X-13 is so dangerous. The reason it's so dangerous is because it's an evolution of a previous R-33. This particular toy is an asset killer. This Arrow is made to be launched over 300 kilometres. This is bad for AWACs. Oh, and for comparison, that is bout 180 something miles. I'm not putting down the D-Slammer, but I'm just saying if a couple MiG 31s did a high-altitude intercept and launched a couple of these monsters an an AWACs, things would be difficult since the F-22, although incredible, may not be able to catch the escaping Foxhounds in a sufficient length of time.

As far as I know both the D-Slammer and the AA-X-13 are in about the same stages of development. But don't quote me on it, because I'm not entirely sure. I just know that they're designs based on effective predecessors, and are expected to be very, very dangerous.