Talk:Mikoyan MiG-31/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Folks, Radar

folks, are you sure it has a passive radar??? --jno 15:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked in my MiG: Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design book by R.A. Belyakov and J. Marmain and it says that the S-800 Zaslan (no mention of the Zaslan-M) was just a phased-array look down/shoot down. No mention of it being passive or not. -- Lost Cosmonaut 04:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Zaslon" (barrier, screen, covering force), not "Zaslan" (was sent to)... i'd comment the word out so far. --jno 14:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I get for only glancing at the book quickly lol. -- Lost Cosmonaut 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the MiG-31 uses a PESA radar set. -Shamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.214.223 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

length

the length in metres is wrong, should be something about 20 metres, same with the wingspan

hm-hm. all the numbers look strange. what i could find is:

wingspan, m 13.46 length, m 22.69 height, m 5.15 wing area, m2 61.60 mass, kg

empty 21820

normal takeoff 41000

max takeoff 46200

engines 2 turbofans with AB D-30F-6 max thrust, kN

no AB 2 х 91.00

with AB 2 х 152.00

max speed, km/h

at 17500 m alt 3000 (M=2.82)

at low alt 1500

practical range, km

without extra tanks 2150

with extra tanks 3300

combat range, km

at supersonic speed 720

at subsonic speed 1200

at subsonic speed with additional fuel tanks 1400

at M=1 with one refuelling 2000

flight time, hrs

with refuelling 6

without refuelling 3.5

practical ceiling, m 20600 max overload 5 crew 2 --jno 09:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm "pro" for merge

The only reason to keep it separate is to keep the articles a bit consize... --jno 10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

author is clueless

This author has bad grammar and also a poor understanding of the aircraft.

He refers to MiG as "Military-industrial group", not Mikoyan-Guryevich. He also says the plane was made in MAPO, Russia. MAPO is a company, not a city.

The author also says that the mig-31 is highly maneuvrable. This plane is an interceptor is is actually very unmaneuverable.

Also, the term "bisonic" is used. I think he means transonic, but the mig-31 is not designed for transonic (operation near the speed of sound).

This shouldn't be merged. It should be deleted.

I nuked the MiG-31B article and redirected here. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Really cool things can be found here :-)
But I want to note that MiG-31 is "highly maneuvrable" as compared to MiG-25 which was replaced.
And "bisonic" shoud be read as "Mach 2", I believe. :-) --jno 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in armament

The armament section says that the MiG 31 had a cannon added and also says that it had one removed, compared to the MiG 25. Does anyone know which is right? --Apyule 08:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Both are right. It says that the basic MiG-31 has a cannon whereas the improved MiG-31M trades it for additional AAMs. --Victor12 13:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

links vs references

Folks, do we need actual quotes in every page? When one read, say, russian page, should he quote the source? Or just use information from it providing backlink? --jno 09:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need actual quotes but we need cites. When one reads, say, a Russian page, and takes a piece of information from it, and inserts it in English into the article, one should provide a link to the Russian page at the piece of information, citing it as the source. Check out WP:CITE for info. TomTheHand 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But I afraid, I've added many info providing liks only (I didn't know about the ref tag that days)... --jno 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mach 2.44 (1,860 mph) at altitude

So the aircraft can only do mach 2.44 ey? Guess all it has to offer is weapons systems. Seriously though, isn't the whole premise of the aircraft it's outlandish speed? I'm changing this to Mach 2.83, the engine redline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JaderVason (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

It is about Mach 2.4ish if you use the sound of speed at Sea Level with the high-level speed of the aircraft, which is a little over 1200km/h. The speed of sound slows with altitude. At the higher operating altitude of the MiG-31, when it achieves its 3000km/h class speed, it is about Mach 2.83. Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditching the errors, and updating with current public info

Guys, there are some serious errors on the article, like current aircrafts are being upgraded to Izdelye 05 (MiG-31M). That's plain wrong. The upgrade life is spanned into two programs, MiG-31BM with SBI-16AM radar, new MFD's, multirole capability and such, and "deep modernization", which will carry whole new radar set, R-37M missiles, and such...

Some stuff should be corrected, and new info should be posted, too. Plus extensive info about each variant, 01/01DZ, B/BS, M, BM, FE, D... Zb10948 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranian MiG-31s

I removed the Iranian AF as a current operator, the Soviets (later Russians) didn't export their advanced interceptors. They didn't export the Su-15 and definitely wouldn't have exported the Mig-31. (MiG-25s maybe, but not 31s) Anynobody 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there have been no known exports to Iran. There have been rumors of sales, but the Russians have steadfastly denied it. I believe we have a POV editor trying to plump the Iranian air forces. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right too, and further their proof was meant to be the picture of one at an air show. Which is a Russian Mig-31, it has the same black and white stripes on the side of the intake going back to the exhaust AND I also noticed a Su-27 in the background which is another plane they don't have. Anynobody 06:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The original image upload noted that it was a MiG-31B in the image name and the caption said so as well until a separate edit was made to change it to an E. I've fixed that, but it's probably moot. It's unclear whether the editor has clear rights to the photo, so it'll probably be deleted as the first one was. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is probably doomed, which is kind of too bad since it's a somewhat cool image. Anynobody 06:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

While I normally abhor the mention of pop culture in these articles, I do think we need to work in a mention of the Firefox movie. That movie is the whole reason many people know about a "MiG-31," even if it is the wrong one. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Mig-31 were the same kind of plane as the one in Firefox, it would be more appropriate... but I remember seeing that movie as a kid, and the scenes of Clint Eastwood dodging around through canyons and other extreme maneuvers, were closer to being an Su-27 series plane. Or a Mig-29 series. Kind of like the way the movie Top Gun was way off with its imaginary "MiG-28," a tiny little black-painted f-5. I think the movie was just figuring on 31 being the next upcoming project and guessing about it. The movie also is one of many responsible for spreading the mistaken notion that planes can perform agile combat maneuvers at Mach + speeds. This widespread fantasy can be seen in current video games like Hawx and Ace Combat, which allow players to make turns that would kill the pilot within seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"as late as" 2010?

I'm a little puzzled by the statement that "it is likely that it will continue serving as late as 2010". Firstly, it's entirely unsourced, with no indication of what the basis such a date could be given, and secondly, because it sounds like a massive underestimate, if there's no clear successor already in place. Anyone able to improve this at all? Alai (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is certainly false. The MiG-31 will continue in substantial numbers till 2020, if they speed up BM deliveries even past 2020. -Shamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.214.223 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ASAT

Some of these were modified for an anti satellite role in the early 80s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto-cannon not canon!

> Unlike the MiG-25, the MiG-31 has an internal cannon, a six-barrel, 23 mm GSh-6-23 with 800 rounds of ammunition, mounted above the starboard main landing gear bay. <

This is wrong. The original MiG-31 variant has a fixed built-in autocannon, but there is no internal ammo for it. If you want to use the gatling for cruise missile hunt or similar task, you have to strap on a 260 rounds external canister to the side of the fuselage.

There is definitely no 800 rounds ammo capability for the 23mm on the MiG-31. Just think about the sheer size of such large amount of rounds! The american A-10 Warthog has about 1050 rounds internally for its 30mm gatling and the munition's drum magazine takes up almost half of the fuselage's volume. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 800 round thing is new to me as well, but 260 rounds is repeated in many sources. You'll have to reference the "external canister" stuff. As for your Warthog logic analogy, well the obvious reply is that the smaller and lighter Eagle clearly found room for 940 20mm rounds, so I won't really put it past the Foxhound to have found a stashing place for 800 23mm, 260 much more so. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The A-10s ammo drum and cannon and drum probably take up 1/2 the internal volume. Mikoyan lists a 30 mm cannon for the MiG-31E. Maybe that's a typo or something to do with exporting. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

putting that many cannon rounds on a high-speed missile platform would be a waste of resources. While the '60's assumption that cannons and dogfighting would become obsolete were wrong, there are few opportunities to use a cannon effectively at supersonic speeds, and the foxhound is not capable of maneuvering to the six of many aircraft at lower speeds. Sure it makes sense to put lots of rounds in a USAF Eagle. Not on a pure interceptor though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Furball

This line, "Despite the stronger airframe, the Foxhound is limited to a maximum of 5 'g' at supersonic speeds. It is not designed for close-combat or rapid turning." makes it seems as though rapid turning and close combat are things that occur at supersonic speeds, which would be largely inaccurate. How about the aircraft's g-loading at subsonic speeds, where dogfighting normally occurs?JaderVason 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Normally MiG-31 will not engage its targets in dogfight. One can take it as a flying air defense SA-missile system. --jno 10:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that any attempts at knife fighting in a MiG-31 had better be up against something without a knife. After some thought, I wonder if the clumsy MiG-31 can even pull 5G's at less than supersonic speeds. JaderVason 01:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not so clumsy as one may guess. At least, not so clumsy as MiG-25 was :-) But, anyway, it's a heavy interceptor, and not, say, an air superiority fighter. --jno 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on my recent discovery of the Mig-25's manueverability, I think the Mig-31 can probably pull 5g's with ease at subsonic speeds. One Mig-25 destroyed itself by pulling 11.5 G's in a dogfight training session. JaderVason 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what needs to be found out is twofold. First, just what kind of limit is the 5-g restriction — an operational or an airframe (or other) limit? (E.g., although it's not a concern at 5-g, we know that there is a human-tolerance limit that is based upon cockpit ergonomics and flightsuit capabilities. Also, given the large size of some of the missiles carried and the strength of the pylon and hardpoint attachment, the resultant torques placed on them at higher g's might have been a problem.) Certainly, given a "stronger airframe", one would expect a sturdier, more g-tolerant aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just the "published" tolerance; the 4.5G Mig-25 can safely pull 5-6 G's without any deformation danger. That Mig which pulled 11.5G's actually stayed in one piece, but twisted itself up something nasty, I hear.

the listed tolerance is also for sustained turns, keep in mind. Mig-25's have survived temporary overloads including going over 11 for a short period. As for dogfighting, whether g-forces are a factor depends on your plane's maneuverability at 200 to 300 kts. If a plane can maneuver at 250kts, it is not going to hit even 5g in any turn. 300 is usually safe. G forces rapidly become higher as you increase speed up to 400kts. Whether the 31 could handle a low-speed fight depends on what it's up against. F-16, no, because the f-16 can maneuver with agility right at the edge of the g envelope, pulling 9 g's sustained somewhere between 300 and 400. Against a predator drone, one of Iraq's mig-25's had no trouble at all. Unfortunately the 31 and 25 don't maneuver well at 300kts or below. Unlike, say, Su-35, whose low-speed flight tricks aren't the high-g stuff people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much propaganda ?

As well as many other topics in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanev (talk • contribs) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the Mikoyan MiG-31 is really not "most advanced interceptor fielded by the Soviet Union before its dissolution.". The soviet army had different machines for different reasons. Thus, for example, for procuration of air domination over europe was the role for MiG 29. The MiG 31 has different (and it had) role. Sorry for my english... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.184.73 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Different roles, different type of aircraft. The MiG-31 is an interceptor aircraft and was the latest and greatest one from the Soviet Union. Air superiority (dogfighting) is different role and is what the Su-27 and MiG-29 were designed for. I'm sure they do interception at times too. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but "latest and greatest" is not "most advanced" from logical point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.184.73 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if one ignores greatest. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No space for discussion. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.184.73 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The MiG-31 was based on the MiG-25 and improved on the older interceptor. Try using 4 tildas (~~~~) to sign your posts. Done here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with this: "Soviet manufacturing limitations forced the MiG-25 to use nickel steel for 80% of its structure." This is not even close to truth. Typical stupid american propaganda. As we well know, the titanium for SR-71 was bought from USSR, so what is this "manufacturing limitations"? The reality is that high-speed aircraft, built from titanium by available technologies at the time, will cause certain "features" such as leaking fuel tanks on SR-71. This is totally unacceptable for soviet high-command, since they always require reliable war machines built for real combat, not for internet discussions. The pursuit for reliability, and simple field maintenance is the real reason soviet engineers to choose nickel-steel alloys, not "manufacturing limitations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanev (talk • contribs)

Next: "inefficient turbojet engines resulted in a very short combat range at supersonic speeds". Read article about Tumansky R-15 and fix this nonsense. Those engines was built for certain purpose and they have good efficiency on modes they are designed to operate (very high altitude and very high speed). Reconstructor 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Engine nozzles?

I had a book called Red Star Rising about Soviet Jet aircraft which suggested that all Mig 31 encounters photographed up to that point (just prior to fall of Soviet Union) had shown different nozzles on the port and starboard engines of the aircraft. Was this just misinterpretation, or were different engines being flow etc? Aftoor (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea. It could just be slight differences between the nozzles or something. Looks like Red Star was a series of books by Yefim Gordon. Here's one of them: Russia's Military Aircraft of the 21st Century (Red Star) ISBN 1857802241. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, could it be something like the F4 Phantom where pilots routinely ran different throttle settings on the two engines to avoid the 'smoke zone'? This would probably make the nozzles appear different. Aftoor (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The book was Red Star Rising: Soviet Fighters by Doug Richardson (just found one on Amazon) ISBN 0600564371 Aftoor (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Max. speed ?

The article's claim of 3.03Mach for MiG-31 top speed is ridiculous. This plane has the engine core from the Tu-134 jetliner, an early low-ratio turbofan, which is impossible to run at that speed. Also, the MiG-31 dropped the total steel nature of the MiG-25 and a lot of it is aluminium, which would melt away at M3!

The max speed of MiG-31 is somewhat lower, 2.8Mach, but the usual speed is just 2.3 - 2.4 Mach to save on engine and airframe life. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The cruising speed is Mach 2.35, but that seems more to allow it to carry the R-40TD missiles (the max speed with them is Mach 2.35 = ~2500km/h at that height (Gordon). The official Max speed is Mach 2.83 (Gordon), but then, MiG-25s with the same official speed have brushed as high as 3400km/h. As for the aluminum, it'll likely be placed only where there is less frictional heating. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mikoyan lists a Mach 2.83 (3,000 km/h) for the MiG-31E. I changed it to that and add the low level speed. Mach 2.83 was the engine limit on the MiG-25. So maybe that's all they felt they needed on the MiG-31. I'll check my books tonight to see if that's a similar engine limit for MiG-31. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone obviously got their speeds confused, Mach3.03 would be equivalent to 3,700km per hour. I think they meant 3,003km per hour which is Mach 2.8 and yes it is capable of that, MiG-25's have been clocked at Mach 3 in Syria, I'm sure the 31 can pull that off as well; albeit seriously shortening the life of it's engines. Gamer112 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The predecessor of the aircraft (MiG25) did move above Mach 3.2, black box confirmed it when the pilot landed and an American radar recorded it. What happened was that his engine did not have a limiter so it overclocked and started acting like a ramjet, when he landed half the engines and the entire intakes were melted away. Considering that the MiG31 has upgraded engines (150kn compared with 100kn) with better materials (high stress fan blades, work on body etc), it's not unfeasible that it can hit Mach 3. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The MiG-25 pilot’s manual limits the speed at Mach 2.83 only for thermal reasons: the A/C can withstand higher temperature, but it would reduce the life of the airframe and engines. The most exposed areas are protected with titanium, but the Plexiglas deteriorates rapidly over M2.83. However, if the pilot found lower temps than usual can exceed that limit. There are other speed restrictions (each type of missile has a different restriction). The red line on the machmeter is not present in the latest versions of Mig-25/-31, many pilots have exceeded Mach 3 and FL750 in combat exercises (there are Russian documentaries that explain these facts), the FL675 must be understood as maximum operating altitude for combat, not the absolute ceiling. In wartime, the maneuverability and speed restrictions do not apply: in combat a Mig-25/-31 can reach more than 5 G... Finally, indicate that the Mig-25/-31 have evolved over the years.

PS. The Israeli radars clocked Mig-25 at M 3.2. The first Tumansky R-15 overheated and self-destructed beyond Mach 3, but the engine was improved (strongest materials, better fuel control, lubrication and heat dissipation ...) and the latest version is quite reliable at any speed.

Adarech 8/19/2010 85.58.4.37 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)