By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 05:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SFC is not enough to justify supercruise, add more weight to the Raptor and you will see it will reduce range and will be forced to use more fuel.
Yes it is , if you add tremendous ammount of weight to the Raptor ( like 20k) then your current engines will be as good as a can of Beer (stale beer) and the raptor would loose supercruise and wont remain a fighter anymore ( thrust to weight ratio will be severly degraded ) . So Sfc or no Sfc your engines would be useless for the raptor .
The MiG-31 is a piglet it weights around 21 tonnes at empty weight, the F-22 is much lighter in that sense, materials play an important part in supercruise, the PAK-FA will be light enough due to new materials like the F-22 did
The Mig-31 also carried 4000kg or around 33% more fuel , didnt need the T2W ratio of a fighter , cruised at 67,000 feet for its intercepts whereas for its current performance raptor stays at 45K.
you might be thinking the F-119 is the super engine, but is is more advertizing than any other thing, the D-30, might be less economical but to calculate how economical you have to check two important aspects
One is SFC at full afterburner, example the AL-31 has a lower SFC than the D30 however it has lower yields so in reality it is more expensive in terms of fuel, second is what engine setting it`s used at what speed.
And that proves the point exactly , the Al-31 has a lower Sfc but lower yeilds ?? I dont understand ? it is suffeceint to power the Flanker so where does the yeild come into play ??
It is very important to consider drag because air resistance impacts the fuel consumption, the MiG-31 in that aspects fairs well, it would not fly at Mach 2.35 for slightly more than 30 minutes if it would not have low drag and good SFC.
And it needed to be to be able to become an effective INTERCEPTOR !!
You still havent grasped the difference of comparing an INTERCEPTOR TO A FIGHTER !! Maybe you'll never learn!
second is what engine setting it`s used at what speed.
Yes but when you engage Afterburner the Sfc shoots at an alarming level even if it is low compared to other engines its value compared to non afterburner for the same engine shoots over the roof!!!
second is what engine setting it`s used at what speed.
Exactly in this case you are using a engine setting that is in afterburner as compared to an engine setting in non afterburner , which would you think would yeild better results ???
The problem why the Mig-31 doesnt hold water is because it is A INTERCEPTOR SAME WAY WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT THE SR-71 WHEN DEALING WITH THE RAPTOR - the sr71 for all accounts can fly longer and faster then the mig-31 but it cannot be compared to the raptor because it is a recce platform , the mig-31 is a interceptor and fast and high interceptors are nothing new ( the -25 and -31 just pushed them to new levels) because given the requirments of the range,manuevrability,payload,altitude and weight you could make them go fast for long with afterburner by packing enough fuel and letting the weight ripppp just like you did with the mig-25 , mig-31 and sr-71 However the ALL ASPECT FIGHTER did not have the luxury to be able to fly extremely high , not manuver , be very very heavy , have low t2w ratio etc etc that is why we didnt see the Su-27 , F-15 , F-16 , F-18 , Su-30 , M2k etc doing high supersonic prelonged flights for any decent distance with their loads . However fast forward to the F-22A , PAKFA ,EF typhoon and you have engines that are not only able to give you that advantage where you can replicate the INTERCEPTOR LIKE ( note i say like the -31 and sr-71 but not at that level) perfromance and advantage of being able to fly at high mach speeds for long periods and still do it at a level of 40-45K , (with an airframe that in the case of f-22 and PAKFA is still heavy as compared to su-27 and f-15 , carries high weight of fuel due to stealth and yet ) , dont sacrifise manuverability , meet all your low Signature requirments , maintain a best T2W ratio out of all the competition and still manage , this has been made possible by the F-119 and the AL-41 for their figthters respectivly .
Wheras it isnt hard and too tough to get fast and long intercepts using interceptors by playing around with advances in engine effeceincy doing so at a level, performance , size of a ALL ASPECT FIGHTER is a totally different ballgame which has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE FOR THIS CAPABILITY WITH THIS LEVEL OF QUALITY
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 05:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just consider that the D30 has at max military power more thrust than a Klimov RD-33 or a EJ-220 at full afterburner tell me if that is not economical
how did you calculate that ?? it doesnt do more then mach 0.85 at max military power but i dont know how you came up with that !!!
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 05:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how did you calculate that ?? it doesnt do more then mach 0.85 at max military power but i dont know how you came up with that !!!
It is very easy see the real yields at military power the MiG-31 has 91KN, the Eurofighter at full afterbuerner has 90kn and the MiG-29 has only 86KN.
The D30 is an engine that is closer to the F-119 than any other engine, why do you think the S-37 Berkut uses it?
The D30 is the closest thing to the AL-41.
There also one big diference between the MiG-31 and the SR-71, the MiG-31 is an interceptor armed with AA-12, AA-8 and AA-9, the SR-71 carries none of those systems, the MiG-31 can rely on its weaponry and if the Russians for example detect the F-22 even as difficult it is means the AA-9 or even the R-37 will make a difficult situation to the F-22, the MiG-31 at least can run from the F-22, can fly faster at a sustained speed, has an IRST system. an after Mach 1.5 even at mach 1.7 needs the afterburner try to out run the MiG-31 beyond those speeds with the F-22
In few words an upgraded MiG-31 offers the best modern defence against the F-22, the I-21 will be on par but until that time the MiG-31 and MiG-29OBT are the best team work to beat the F-22.
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 05:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is very easy see the real yields at military power the MiG-31 has 91KN, the Eurofighter at full afterbuerner has 90kn and the MiG-29 has only 86KN.
The D30 is an engine that is closer to the F-119 than any other engine, why do you think the S-37 Berkut uses it?
The D30 is the closest thing to the AL-41.
Just because it was the closest thing to it doesn't make it one. The first Blackbird(s) temporarily flew with J-75s but that sure as hell didn't make them J-58s.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 05:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is very easy see the real yields at military power the MiG-31 has 91KN, the Eurofighter at full afterbuerner has 90kn and the MiG-29 has only 86KN.
again not a fair comparison the EF typhoon is a FIGHTER and so is the MIG-29 whereas the Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR !!! Dont you get it ?? They are smaller engines , much much smaller , it is like saying that the F-135's total afterburner thrust is twice that of ef's afterburner thrust!! However the EF's engines and the Mig-29's engine able their respective fighters to act FIGHTERS which need high thrust to weight ratio , does the Mig-31 have that ?? Can the mig-31 do the same manuvers and give similar results at 40-45K ?? to get T2W ratio parity you'd need to up the damn engine thrust so much that the Sfc would suffer thereby loosing on performance , i know it wont be fair to add all that capability to the Mig-31 as it is an interceptor but that is the entire point i am trying to make - apples to orranges!!!
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 05:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just because it was the closest thing to it doesn't make it one. The first Blackbird(s) temporarily flew with J-75s but that sure as hell didn't make them J-58s.
That is a poor answer, of all modern military engines only the D30 can achieve similar specifications to the F-119, Russia powered the S-37 for such a reason, the S-37 was lighter and more agile, the future S-37 development is the PAK FA this fighter will emboddy the best russian technologies but the D30 was used to simulate an F-22 type fighter.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 05:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
again not a fair comparison the EF typhoon is a FIGHTER and so is the MIG-29 whereas the Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR !!! Dont you get it ?? They are smaller engines , much much smaller , it is like saying that the F-135's total afterburner thrust is twice that of ef's afterburner thrust!! However the EF's engines and the Mig-29's engine able their respective fighters to act FIGHTERS which need high thrust to weight ratio , does the Mig-31 have that ?? Can the mig-31 do the same manuvers and give similar results at 40-45K ?? to get T2W ratio parity you'd need to up the damn engine thrust so much that the Sfc would suffer thereby loosing on performance , i know it wont be fair to add all that capability to the Mig-31 as it is an interceptor but that is the entire point i am trying to make - apples to orranges!!!
The point is the MiG-31 can be armed; agility is not the only way you can shoot down aircraft, air to air missiles are important missiles like the AIM-9X, Python V or ASRAAM even used by MiG-31s or MiG-21 can shot you down even if you fly a F-22 or Eurofighter, long range missiles such as the R-33 or R-77 can do the same for the MiG-31 than a MiG-29 armed with R-73 check tha Russia has not sell any MiG-31 due to the advanced of the design.
See that even less advacend MiG-25s were difficult to beat and few were shot down many times speed eluded AIM-120 and AIM-7s, the MiG-31 is far better and also armed with a fixed weapon.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 05:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
of all modern military engines only the D30 can achieve similar specifications to the F-119
other then the F-120 i would say yes i agree with that statement !!
Russia powered the S-37 for such a reason
Probably not , the S-37 was a tech demonstrator and needed power etc given a PAKFA type weight ( considering that f-22 class and russians are usually a bit over weight which they compensate more then well with thrust) the D-30 is grocely underpowered .
BTW any real specific on the D-30 , most i could find was the total thrust , nothing on T2W ratio's etc etc
considering that the F414 etc have reached 9:1 T2W ratio one can only imagine that the F-119 ( nearly 40k thrust) should be much better in that regard due to simply use of lighter materials and effeceincies .
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 05:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point is the MiG-31 can be armed agility is not the only way you can shoot down aircraft, air to air missiles are important missiles like the AIM-9X, Python V or ASRAAM even used by MiG-31s or MiG-21 can shot you down even if you fly a F22 or Eurofighter, long range missiles such as the R-33 or R-77 can do the same for the MiG-31 than a MiG-29 armed with R-73 check tha Russia has not sell any MiG-31 due to the advanced of the design.
See that even less advacend MiG-25s were difficult to beat and few were shot down many times speed eluded AIM-120 and AIM-7s, the MiG-31 is far better and also armed with a fixed weapon.
then why use a fighter at all ?? why not just have a all interceptor force ?? why is the PAKFA not something like a Modern 21's century Mig-31 type but rather a 21st century su-27 ??There is a reason why ALL FIGHTER are still there and the interceptor has not killed them by now and that is due to all aspect performance ( much better at manuvering threats , much better at manuevering itself , more balance in BVR,WVR , lower cost of operation and procurment etc etc etc) !! An interceptor cannot be a substitute for a FIGHTER however a fighter can make up the capability ( the USAF has been doing it and russia by in large will be doing it with the PAKFA ) and you'll never know it , obviosuly if my enemy masses a force for high ranged bombers then i will almost have to have a interceptor but if the bomber with cruise missile threat is gone then i'll take the figther any day
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 05:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There also one big diference between the MiG-31 and the SR-71, the MiG-31 is an interceptor armed with AA-12, AA-8 and AA-9, the SR-71 carries none of those systems,
True, but if you think the U.S. couldn't do the same by making an equal, and even better, interceptor, then you've never heard, nor read about, the YF-12? It was the interceptor version of the SR-71, and did fly at mach 3.2whilesuccessfully firing 6 AIM-47 missiles, in all. The last AIM-47 missile fired from the YF-12, flying at mach 3.2, was done at 74,000+ feet, hitting a drone flying 500 feet above the ground. ;)
The USAF ordered 92 YF-12's to go into production; do you know why the U.S. government didn't go through with it? They had reason to doubt that Russia had bombers fast enough to justify the USAF flying such a fast interceptor, like the YF-12. lol It'd have been a huge waste of money if/when we did figure out Russia had no mach 3+ bombers. And rightly so, the U.S. government guessed correctly. I still wish they put 1-2 of them into service, just for the record. :D
But at least it did fly, and was tested successfully against drones flying 500 ft. above the ground, from 74k feet.
Anyway, just because it didn't enter service, doesn't mean we didn't have the capability to easily surpass that of the Mig-25. ;)
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
other then the F-120 i would say yes i agree with that statement !!
Probably not , the S-37 was a tech demonstrator and needed power etc given a PAKFA type weight ( considering that f-22 class and russians are usually a bit over weight which they compensate more then well with thrust) the D-30 is grocely underpowered .
BTW any real specific on the D-30 , most i could find was the total thrust , nothing on T2W ratio's etc etc
considering that the F414 etc have reached 9:1 T2W ratio one can only imagine that the F-119 ( nearly 40k thrust) should be much better in that regard due to simply use of lighter materials and effeceincies .
of course the F-119 has to be a better engine, but many data it is speculative at best for the F-119, the D30 must likely is inferior in some aspects but that won`t make the MiG-31 not one of the best interceptors and the best non Western weapon to beat the F-22 at BVR combat and aircraft that can fly at fast speed for a relatively long time even surpassing the F-22 at speed of Mach 2.35
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 06:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
too bad the ruaf doesnt see it that way!! the interceptor isnt a one all do all sollution if it would have been then we wouldnt have seen F-22A but something like a stealthy mig-31 in the USAF and similar aircraft in the RuAF but even had the cold war progressed ( remember F-22 is a cold war product) things would have been similar , but russia in addition to the PAKFA would have had mig-31 and posibly something more advanced because of the clear and imminent Bomber thread from the US!!!
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, but if you think the U.S. couldn't do the same by making an equal, and even better, interceptor, then you've never heard, nor read about, the YF-12? It was the interceptor version of the SR-71, and did fly at mach 3.2whilesuccessfully firing 6 AIM-47 missiles, in all. The last AIM-47 missile fired from the YF-12, flying at mach 3.2, was done at 74,000+ feet, hitting a drone flying 500 feet above the ground. ;)
The USAF ordered 92 YF-12's to go into production; do you know why the U.S. government didn't go through with it? They had reason to doubt that Russia had bombers fast enough to justify the USAF flying such a fast interceptor, like the YF-12. lol It'd have been a huge waste of money if/when we did figure out Russia had no mach 3+ bombers. And rightly so, the U.S. government guessed correctly. I still wish they put 1-2 of them into service, just for the record. :D
But at least it did fly, and was tested successfully against drones flying 500 ft. above the ground, from 74k feet.
Anyway, just because it didn't enter service, doesn't mean we didn't have the capability to easily surpass that of the Mig-25. ;)
Hehehehe yes yes
of course yeah yeah the MiG-31 is better than the YF-12 first there are around 390 MiG-31 built, second after the MiG-31 was deployed all the SR-71 never intruded where MiG-31 were stationed and third there were 1200 MiG-25s built.
The SR-71 proved the YF-12 simply was not the best option as a fighter.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
then why use a fighter at all ?? why not just have a all interceptor force ?? why is the PAKFA not something like a Modern 21's century Mig-31 type but rather a 21st century su-27 ??There is a reason why ALL FIGHTER are still there and the interceptor has not killed them by now and that is due to all aspect performance ( much better at manuvering threats , much better at manuevering itself , more balance in BVR,WVR , lower cost of operation and procurment etc etc etc) !! An interceptor cannot be a substitute for a FIGHTER however a fighter can make up the capability ( the USAF has been doing it and russia by in large will be doing it with the PAKFA ) and you'll never know it , obviosuly if my enemy masses a force for high ranged bombers then i will almost have to have a interceptor but if the bomber with cruise missile threat is gone then i'll take the figther any day
The reason is not there are no needs for a 21st century MiG-31, the reason is aircraft programs are becoming more expensive and you need multirole aircraft instead of highy specialized aircraft like the MiG-31.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 06:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But why are they highly specialized ?? I thought they are the jack of all trades ? kick anyone1's A$$ down in BVR be it stealth figther with a 125nm 1^2 m detection LPI radar and alr-94 and still hold its own with modern weaponry in WVR like Pyhon 5 etc etc ?? they should be the perfect sollution , infact being able to cover mach 2.423 you wont need as many to cover the same airspace .
I officially call for the PAKFA to be cancelled in favour of a stealthy mig-31!!
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 06:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did you read (and comprehend) the whole post? There's a reason why they (the U.S.) didn't put the YF-12 into service: They believed (correctly) at the time, Russia had no bombers fast enough to justify such a fast (and expensive to maintain) interceptor like the YF-12. It wasn't because it failed at what it was designed to do, as you seem to try and hint at by saying Mig-25s and Mig-31s have been massively produced, yet the YF-12 hasn't.
And, what you say about the SR-71 not being deployed where the Mig-25 was, doesn't mean it was a fact that it'd intercept it; but rather, most likely due to the U.S. government not wanting to even risk it being shot down! Simply for intelligence that would be obtained in a non-wartime situation, would not be very wise.
And don't say 'fighter', because the Mig-25 / Mig-31 and YF-12 weren't fighters, but interceptors <-- huge difference. ;)
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did you read (and comprehend) the whole post? There's a reason why they (the U.S.) didn't put the YF-12 into service: They believed (correctly) at the time, Russia had no bombers fast enough to justify such a fast (and expensive to maintain) interceptor like the YF-12. It wasn't because it failed at what it was designed to do, as you seem to try and hint at by saying Mig-25s and Mig-31s have been massively produced, yet the YF-12 hasn't.
And, what you say about the SR-71 not being deployed where the Mig-25 was, doesn't mean it was a fact that it'd intercept it; but rather, most likely due to the U.S. government not wanting to even risk it being shot down! Simply for intelligence that would be obtained in a non-wartime situation, would not be very wise.
And don't say 'fighter', because the Mig-25 / Mig-31 and YF-12 weren't fighters, but interceptors <-- huge difference. ;)
What about this fellow?
The reason both the B-70 and the Sukhoi T-4 were cancelled was besides economics the very real fact SAMs could do so much damage that this expensive aircraft had no future in an age of ICBMs, the MiG-25 was to the contrary cheap and effective for its price tag
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But why are they highly specialized ?? I thought they are the jack of all trades ? kick anyone1's A$$ down in BVR be it stealth figther with a 125nm 1^2 m detection LPI radar and alr-94 and still hold its own with modern weaponry in WVR like Pyhon 5 etc etc ?? they should be the perfect sollution , infact being able to cover mach 2.423 you wont need as many to cover the same airspace .
I officially call for the PAKFA to be cancelled in favour of a stealthy mig-31!!
Speed is in research ramjets will be used the next generation of stealth aircraft that will have speeds like the MiG-31 including low visibility do not consider speeds is out of the question but at this level still economics and technical feasability influence what aircraft programs have priority
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 06:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You surely mean beyond 5th or 6th gen right!! that is pure speculation , your guess or mine is miniscule as compared to what is going on in secret in the US or russia!!! So we cannot safely predict what the next big thing will be wether ramjet , scramjet , DEW firing gigantor or what not!!!
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You surely mean beyond 5th or 6th gen right!! that is pure speculation , your guess or mine is miniscule as compared to what is going on in secret in the US or russia!!! So we cannot safely predict what the next big thing will be wether ramjet , scramjet , DEW firing gigantor or what not!!!
That proves you that still a MiG-31 replacemnet is not out of the question but surely cheaper and more feasable fighter programs are being finance now such as the F-22 or I-21
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 05:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it is , if you add tremendous ammount of weight to the Raptor ( like 20k) then your current engines will be as good as a can of Beer (stale beer) and the raptor would loose supercruise and wont remain a fighter anymore ( thrust to weight ratio will be severly degraded ) . So Sfc or no Sfc your engines would be useless for the raptor .
The Mig-31 also carried 4000kg or around 33% more fuel , didnt need the T2W ratio of a fighter , cruised at 67,000 feet for its intercepts whereas for its current performance raptor stays at 45K.
And that proves the point exactly , the Al-31 has a lower Sfc but lower yeilds ?? I dont understand ? it is suffeceint to power the Flanker so where does the yeild come into play ??
And it needed to be to be able to become an effective INTERCEPTOR !!
You still havent grasped the difference of comparing an INTERCEPTOR TO A FIGHTER !! Maybe you'll never learn!
Yes but when you engage Afterburner the Sfc shoots at an alarming level even if it is low compared to other engines its value compared to non afterburner for the same engine shoots over the roof!!!
Exactly in this case you are using a engine setting that is in afterburner as compared to an engine setting in non afterburner , which would you think would yeild better results ???
The problem why the Mig-31 doesnt hold water is because it is A INTERCEPTOR SAME WAY WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT THE SR-71 WHEN DEALING WITH THE RAPTOR - the sr71 for all accounts can fly longer and faster then the mig-31 but it cannot be compared to the raptor because it is a recce platform , the mig-31 is a interceptor and fast and high interceptors are nothing new ( the -25 and -31 just pushed them to new levels) because given the requirments of the range,manuevrability,payload,altitude and weight you could make them go fast for long with afterburner by packing enough fuel and letting the weight ripppp just like you did with the mig-25 , mig-31 and sr-71 However the ALL ASPECT FIGHTER did not have the luxury to be able to fly extremely high , not manuver , be very very heavy , have low t2w ratio etc etc that is why we didnt see the Su-27 , F-15 , F-16 , F-18 , Su-30 , M2k etc doing high supersonic prelonged flights for any decent distance with their loads . However fast forward to the F-22A , PAKFA ,EF typhoon and you have engines that are not only able to give you that advantage where you can replicate the INTERCEPTOR LIKE ( note i say like the -31 and sr-71 but not at that level) perfromance and advantage of being able to fly at high mach speeds for long periods and still do it at a level of 40-45K , (with an airframe that in the case of f-22 and PAKFA is still heavy as compared to su-27 and f-15 , carries high weight of fuel due to stealth and yet ) , dont sacrifise manuverability , meet all your low Signature requirments , maintain a best T2W ratio out of all the competition and still manage , this has been made possible by the F-119 and the AL-41 for their figthters respectivly .
Wheras it isnt hard and too tough to get fast and long intercepts using interceptors by playing around with advances in engine effeceincy doing so at a level, performance , size of a ALL ASPECT FIGHTER is a totally different ballgame which has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE FOR THIS CAPABILITY WITH THIS LEVEL OF QUALITY
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 05:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how did you calculate that ?? it doesnt do more then mach 0.85 at max military power but i dont know how you came up with that !!!
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 05:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is very easy see the real yields at military power the MiG-31 has 91KN, the Eurofighter at full afterbuerner has 90kn and the MiG-29 has only 86KN.
The D30 is an engine that is closer to the F-119 than any other engine, why do you think the S-37 Berkut uses it?
The D30 is the closest thing to the AL-41.
There also one big diference between the MiG-31 and the SR-71, the MiG-31 is an interceptor armed with AA-12, AA-8 and AA-9, the SR-71 carries none of those systems, the MiG-31 can rely on its weaponry and if the Russians for example detect the F-22 even as difficult it is means the AA-9 or even the R-37 will make a difficult situation to the F-22, the MiG-31 at least can run from the F-22, can fly faster at a sustained speed, has an IRST system.
an after Mach 1.5 even at mach 1.7 needs the afterburner try to out run the MiG-31 beyond those speeds with the F-22
In few words an upgraded MiG-31 offers the best modern defence against the F-22, the I-21 will be on par but until that time the MiG-31 and MiG-29OBT are the best team work to beat the F-22.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 05:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just because it was the closest thing to it doesn't make it one. The first Blackbird(s) temporarily flew with J-75s but that sure as hell didn't make them J-58s.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 05:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
again not a fair comparison the EF typhoon is a FIGHTER and so is the MIG-29 whereas the Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR !!! Dont you get it ?? They are smaller engines , much much smaller , it is like saying that the F-135's total afterburner thrust is twice that of ef's afterburner thrust!! However the EF's engines and the Mig-29's engine able their respective fighters to act FIGHTERS which need high thrust to weight ratio , does the Mig-31 have that ?? Can the mig-31 do the same manuvers and give similar results at 40-45K ?? to get T2W ratio parity you'd need to up the damn engine thrust so much that the Sfc would suffer thereby loosing on performance , i know it wont be fair to add all that capability to the Mig-31 as it is an interceptor but that is the entire point i am trying to make - apples to orranges!!!
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 05:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is a poor answer, of all modern military engines only the D30 can achieve similar specifications to the F-119, Russia powered the S-37 for such a reason, the S-37 was lighter and more agile, the future S-37 development is the PAK FA this fighter will emboddy the best russian technologies but the D30 was used to simulate an F-22 type fighter.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 05:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point is the MiG-31 can be armed; agility is not the only way you can shoot down aircraft, air to air missiles are important missiles like the AIM-9X, Python V or ASRAAM even used by MiG-31s or MiG-21 can shot you down even if you fly a F-22 or Eurofighter, long range missiles such as the R-33 or R-77 can do the same for the MiG-31 than a MiG-29 armed with R-73 check tha Russia has not sell any MiG-31 due to the advanced of the design.
See that even less advacend MiG-25s were difficult to beat and few were shot down many times speed eluded AIM-120 and AIM-7s, the MiG-31 is far better and also armed with a fixed weapon.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 05:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
other then the F-120 i would say yes i agree with that statement !!
Probably not , the S-37 was a tech demonstrator and needed power etc given a PAKFA type weight ( considering that f-22 class and russians are usually a bit over weight which they compensate more then well with thrust) the D-30 is grocely underpowered .
BTW any real specific on the D-30 , most i could find was the total thrust , nothing on T2W ratio's etc etc
considering that the F414 etc have reached 9:1 T2W ratio one can only imagine that the F-119 ( nearly 40k thrust) should be much better in that regard due to simply use of lighter materials and effeceincies .
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 05:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
then why use a fighter at all ?? why not just have a all interceptor force ?? why is the PAKFA not something like a Modern 21's century Mig-31 type but rather a 21st century su-27 ??There is a reason why ALL FIGHTER are still there and the interceptor has not killed them by now and that is due to all aspect performance ( much better at manuvering threats , much better at manuevering itself , more balance in BVR,WVR , lower cost of operation and procurment etc etc etc) !! An interceptor cannot be a substitute for a FIGHTER however a fighter can make up the capability ( the USAF has been doing it and russia by in large will be doing it with the PAKFA ) and you'll never know it , obviosuly if my enemy masses a force for high ranged bombers then i will almost have to have a interceptor but if the bomber with cruise missile threat is gone then i'll take the figther any day
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 05:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, but if you think the U.S. couldn't do the same by making an equal, and even better, interceptor, then you've never heard, nor read about, the YF-12? It was the interceptor version of the SR-71, and did fly at mach 3.2 while successfully firing 6 AIM-47 missiles, in all. The last AIM-47 missile fired from the YF-12, flying at mach 3.2, was done at 74,000+ feet, hitting a drone flying 500 feet above the ground. ;)
The USAF ordered 92 YF-12's to go into production; do you know why the U.S. government didn't go through with it? They had reason to doubt that Russia had bombers fast enough to justify the USAF flying such a fast interceptor, like the YF-12. lol It'd have been a huge waste of money if/when we did figure out Russia had no mach 3+ bombers. And rightly so, the U.S. government guessed correctly. I still wish they put 1-2 of them into service, just for the record. :D
But at least it did fly, and was tested successfully against drones flying 500 ft. above the ground, from 74k feet.
Anyway, just because it didn't enter service, doesn't mean we didn't have the capability to easily surpass that of the Mig-25. ;)
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
of course the F-119 has to be a better engine, but many data it is speculative at best for the F-119, the D30 must likely is inferior in some aspects but that won`t make the MiG-31 not one of the best interceptors and the best non Western weapon to beat the F-22 at BVR combat and aircraft that can fly at fast speed for a relatively long time even surpassing the F-22 at speed of Mach 2.35
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 06:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
too bad the ruaf doesnt see it that way!! the interceptor isnt a one all do all sollution if it would have been then we wouldnt have seen F-22A but something like a stealthy mig-31 in the USAF and similar aircraft in the RuAF but even had the cold war progressed ( remember F-22 is a cold war product) things would have been similar , but russia in addition to the PAKFA would have had mig-31 and posibly something more advanced because of the clear and imminent Bomber thread from the US!!!
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hehehehe yes yes
of course yeah yeah the MiG-31 is better than the YF-12 first there are around 390 MiG-31 built, second after the MiG-31 was deployed all the SR-71 never intruded where MiG-31 were stationed and third there were 1200 MiG-25s built.
The SR-71 proved the YF-12 simply was not the best option as a fighter.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reason is not there are no needs for a 21st century MiG-31, the reason is aircraft programs are becoming more expensive and you need multirole aircraft instead of highy specialized aircraft like the MiG-31.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 06:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But why are they highly specialized ?? I thought they are the jack of all trades ? kick anyone1's A$$ down in BVR be it stealth figther with a 125nm 1^2 m detection LPI radar and alr-94 and still hold its own with modern weaponry in WVR like Pyhon 5 etc etc ?? they should be the perfect sollution , infact being able to cover mach 2.423 you wont need as many to cover the same airspace .
I officially call for the PAKFA to be cancelled in favour of a stealthy mig-31!!
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 06:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did you read (and comprehend) the whole post? There's a reason why they (the U.S.) didn't put the YF-12 into service: They believed (correctly) at the time, Russia had no bombers fast enough to justify such a fast (and expensive to maintain) interceptor like the YF-12. It wasn't because it failed at what it was designed to do, as you seem to try and hint at by saying Mig-25s and Mig-31s have been massively produced, yet the YF-12 hasn't.
And, what you say about the SR-71 not being deployed where the Mig-25 was, doesn't mean it was a fact that it'd intercept it; but rather, most likely due to the U.S. government not wanting to even risk it being shot down! Simply for intelligence that would be obtained in a non-wartime situation, would not be very wise.
And don't say 'fighter', because the Mig-25 / Mig-31 and YF-12 weren't fighters, but interceptors <-- huge difference. ;)
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about this fellow?
The reason both the B-70 and the Sukhoi T-4 were cancelled was besides economics the very real fact SAMs could do so much damage that this expensive aircraft had no future in an age of ICBMs, the MiG-25 was to the contrary cheap and effective for its price tag
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Speed is in research ramjets will be used the next generation of stealth aircraft that will have speeds like the MiG-31 including low visibility do not consider speeds is out of the question but at this level still economics and technical feasability influence what aircraft programs have priority
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You surely mean beyond 5th or 6th gen right!! that is pure speculation , your guess or mine is miniscule as compared to what is going on in secret in the US or russia!!! So we cannot safely predict what the next big thing will be wether ramjet , scramjet , DEW firing gigantor or what not!!!
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That proves you that still a MiG-31 replacemnet is not out of the question but surely cheaper and more feasable fighter programs are being finance now such as the F-22 or I-21