Military Review

Sky Fighter. Perspectives of the MiG-31 interceptor

258



- Well, what are your impressions?

- I remember the enormous efforts on the control stick - my hands ached with the habit, especially with full refueling. Extremely gluttonous pepelats. Awkward at medium heights. When accelerated in the stratosphere to 1,8M - comes to life. On landing, it is better than anyone I have ever flown on, only to adapt to speed. In general, the sturdy generation 4 aircraft.

- Could you fight on it?

- As a high altitude interceptor. Easily.

- And go to the MiG-31 against the "Raptor"?

- Pure suicide.

- It is logical. Too different planes for different tasks ...

- Quite the opposite - they have one task: “sweep out” the enemy Aviation from heaven, cover a group of planes or airspace in a given square. All of them are purebred Fighters. Airplanes to gain superiority in the air. Nobody forbids the pilot of the “Reptor” to shoot at the MiG-31, and the MiG to shoot down the “Reptor” or any other enemy aircraft. Another thing is that Iglam and the Reptors can handle any task of the Fighter, while the highly specialized 31st is not able to repeat much of what the Reptor or the domestic Su-27 can do ...

- You're just an incorrigible pessimist. The combination of speed and altitude characteristics of the MiG-31 is unique, and today has no analogues among modern fighters.

- Speed ​​... The fact that the 31-th can accelerate to 3000 km / h does not give him exactly any advantage in the fight with the "Raptor" or F-15C. There are very different factors involved.

- Doubt in the capabilities of the radar "Barrier"?

- You see, what a trick here: air combat is not a joust. We got up in the corners, waved our spears, rushed towards each other ... No! Real air combat is a group fight. I will not be alone, but from the other side there will probably be several groups — destructive links, strike machines, AWACS ... Tell me, what does my “Barrier” against 9-meter radar “Sentry” mean? He has operators and liaison officers on board the 15-20, but does my single navigator / operator in the back cockpit “work on a lot”?



Sky Fighter. Perspectives of the MiG-31 interceptor

On board the upgraded long-range radar detection and control aircraft (AIR), A-50U

- You are a pessimist, definitely. After all, you are not alone in battle either - similar to the A-50 long-range radar detection aircraft are in service with the Russian Air Force, by the 2016 they promise the A-100 Premier with active PAR.

- Yes. But then what is the meaning of the MiG-31 with its super-radar?

“Well, you see ... the more you know, the more you know, you can detect the enemy earlier.”

- What does it matter when there is an ARL plane next to it?

- Imagine that the connection with A-50 was interrupted ... interference, software crash on its board or something like that. And you - once! and own powerful radar, sees targets for 300 km!

- If the AVAKSA is not near, and the enemy has it, we are guaranteed the end. "Barrier" is not a panacea here. Consider the difference in radar power and sensitivity (look again at MiG and A-50), many times greater possibilities for classifying and selecting targets and pointing other fighters at them, and finally, for AWACS, there is a full view and tracking in azimuth, unlike radar Barrier, which sees targets in the 90 ° sector (comment of the whole sector of the review is 160 °. Angle of view 90 ° +/- deviation of the HEADLIGHT on 35 ° in each direction). The escort sector is already 70 °.

- Listen, I met such numbers on the Internet. The upgraded MiG-31BM, equipped with a radar, close to its capabilities radar Zaslon-M (created in 1980-x Zaslon-M did not go into the series), is able to detect the target with 19 ESR. meters at a distance in 320 km. Cool?! By the way, what is the goal with EPR 19 square meters?

- A-10 "Thunderbolt". Much depends on the angle and the availability of weapons on the external sling.

Effective scattering area (EPR) - determines the properties of an object to scatter an electromagnetic wave. Depends on the size and configuration of the target, the properties of its material, the length and polarization of the radar wave, and the direction of irradiation. The increased value of the EPR means greater radar visibility of the object, reducing the EPR makes it difficult to detect.

- It turns out that 31 has a huge advantage - it is not only capable of detecting targets at a distance of three hundred kilometers, but also attacking them with P-37 missiles. No one in the world has anything like it!


MiG-31 with a removed nose fairing at a foreign air show.
The public was surprised by the radar "Barrier" with a phased antenna array.




- If we omit the topic of the availability of P-37 and experience of their use in combat units, it turns out something like this: when irradiated from the front hemisphere, the MiG-31 has an EPR within 20 ... 25 square. meters F-15C with suspended missiles has an EPR within 10 square. meters Even with a certain advantage of the “Barrier” over foreign radars AN / APG-63 (V) 1,2,3 - who can detect the enemy earlier?

- Why does 31 have such a huge EPR? I heard that the Su-27 family of aircraft has a minimum ESR within 5 square. meters, on the new versions of the Su-30 and Su-35, it is reduced to 4 square. meters



- Firstly, the glider itself MiG-31 - there 25% lifting force is provided only by the shape of the fuselage. Huge air intakes, engine compressors. Can you imagine how all this "shines" when irradiated from the front? Again, aerodynamic ridges, retractable fuel rod, pylons, rockets on the external sling - I'm not talking about the X-NUMX-meter “logs” of the P-4 weighing 37 kg. Finally, the quality of the assembly and fitting of the parts of the flashlight and plating — in those years when the 600 was created, it seemed insignificant.

- Incredible. 5-fold difference compared to the "dryers"!

- Do not forget, those figures that you cited by Su-27 refer to its minimum EPR - without suspensions, when irradiated strictly in full face. With clusters of rockets under the wing and at 3 / 4 angle, the ESR values ​​of the Su-27, Su-35 and F-15C may well grow to 15 square. meters - this figure appears in the calculations of the domestic Air Force. In any case, it is much lower than that of 31.


Su-35

- Do you want to say, MiG-31 and F-15C notice each other at the same distance?

- Exactly. And it's not a fact that 31 will be able to take advantage of its advantage in the form of P-37 super-missiles.

- How about other foreign fighter jets?

- In the case of the compact F-16, everything is much more complicated - the value of its minimum ESR is estimated at 3 sq. meter Even with the suspension, it is unlikely to be larger than the 5. In the theory of "Barrier" should detect a similar target from a distance of 120-180 km - depends on the specific configuration of the target, interference and energy potential of the receiving-transmitting path. But you do not forget that the detection, assured capture and tracking necessary for missile guidance are different things. No matter what happens, the hunter has turned into a game - the likelihood is high that the F-16 will release AIM-120 before it can be noticed by the MiG-31. Especially in the presence of external targeting with AVAKS.

- Hefty AWACS need to "throw" the first. He probably has an EPR, like the B-52 - more 100 square. meters!

- Easy to say. AWACS does not go in the first line - it patrols far behind, often does not invade the battle zone at all.

- It seems to me that the MiG should in any case have a tactical advantage due to its high speed and flight altitude. Consider that the rudders of the American AIM-120 rocket are cut off to be placed in the internal compartments of the F-22 - in a discharged atmosphere at an altitude of 17-20 km they will become ineffective. MiG will be able to come off relatively easily.

- It is on the one hand. On the other hand, the laws of aerodynamics are valid for all. 31 also has a restriction on maneuvers in the stratosphere.

- Can you remember what is the maximum allowable overload at high altitudes?

- It is impossible to forget. 3,3G. With an altitude of 17 km and speed 2,2M.



- Clear. You do not know what the value of the EPR in the "Raptor" or F-35? On the Internet there are numbers from 0,0001 to 0,3 square. meters Which one is closer to real?

- Nobody really knows. Most likely, hundredths of square meters. meters from the front hemisphere.

- Yes, superficially, "Raptor" should have a ESR lower than that of any of the fourth-generation aircraft. “Tapered” shape of the fuselage, parallel faces and edges, V-shaped vertical tail, besperepletny lantern, internal suspension arms, gray smooth surfaces, without radomes of radio engineering devices, cracks, rivets, etc. radio-contrast elements ...

“That's why I say - in the case of the Raptor, the focus with the P-37 rocket hitting 300 km will not work - the Vulture cannot simply be detected at such a distance.

- And in general will succeed?

- We have never worked out the interception of similar targets. The only thing I know is the confident capture and tracking of a low-flying cruise missile, similar to Tomahawk, with the 1 ESR EPR. meter is carried out at a distance of 20-30 km. But keep in mind that these data are valid only when targets are detected against the background of the earth's surface.

- Can you see better against the ground?

- On the contrary. "Barrier" is much better at seeing objects at medium and high altitudes.

- Clear. Those. you want to say that ...

- That in the real world any of the domestic and foreign fighter-interceptors of the 4 / 4 + generation has similar capabilities for conducting air combat at long and medium distances. In this case, the same Su-27 has an advantage over the MiG-31 due to its lower visibility and high chances of winning in the melee.

- In general, the concept of the use of Mig-31 provides for participation in "dog dumps"? He also has a built-in 23 mm gun.

- You mean close maneuverable combat? No, because it is considered that this is not his task. Very doubtful decision.

- Why not?

- Because the group fight usually goes into melee. Consider, found each other from a distance of 100-200 km, exchanged missiles, moreover, the probability of hitting the P-33 target in the field conditions is estimated at 0,7. The approach speed - 2-3 thousands of kilometers per hour. If the opponents do not turn away - in a couple of minutes they will meet face to face. What awaits in this case 31-th, I think, does not need to be explained.

- Not required. But did the creators of the MiG-31 really not take this option?

- You understand, 31 was created in 1970 for completely different tasks. Destruction of armadas of missile-carrying bombers in the sky over the Arctic, countering SR-71 “Blackbird” high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, destruction of reconnaissance balloons ... Nowadays there are no more such threats - SR-71 wrote off 20 years ago, balloons became non-outcast - just open Google Maps . By the way, the gun at 31 was just designed to shoot balloons, not for firing at enemy fighters. The only time practical shooting from it was practiced in Gromovo in 1988. Now the operation of the gun on the 31-th prohibited.

- Tell me straight - is the MiG-31 out of date?

- Well, why so soon. Just a highly specialized interceptor fighter. In a certain sense, the aircraft is outstanding - 20 years ago had no analogues in the world at all according to the capabilities of its avionics ...

- What about the F-14 “Tomcat” with deck registration?

- It looks like, but not analog. The American interceptor was noticeably inferior to the MiG in its LTH. With the advent of the MiG-31B modification and the P-37 missiles, the Yankees also lost the advantage in long-range combat.

- The last Tomkat was written off in 2006 year.

- Yes. The need for Tomcats has disappeared. I say that both the MiG-31 and Tomkat were created under completely different conditions: the exchange of missile strikes at large distances, the interception of supersonic targets in the stratosphere, races at extreme speeds and altitudes. When they were created, no importance was attached to specialized AWACS aircraft. Missile euphoria (hello F-4 "Phantom"!), Disregard for maneuverability - this is not a "front-line" fighter, but an interceptor: he was armed with air defense forces, a sort of flying air defense missile system. Completely different tactics and concepts of air combat, fair for the Cold War times. But who needs it now, when the emphasis is on universality, stealth, super-maneuverability, and the functions of the AEW and UM are transferred to specialized aircraft based on Boeing and IL-76. Try to put the 31-th for export - no one will take even for nothing. Not because the plane is bad in something, but because the very same India or Malaysia simply do not have such threats, for which the MiG-31 is “sharpened”. In addition, it is quite voracious and expensive to operate.

- Then what is the point of having a MiG-31 with the composition of the Russian Air Force? According to representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the upgraded MiG-31BM will be exploited right up to the 2028 year.

- The meaning is simple: there is nothing to replace them. The 31s make up a third of the Air Force fighter-interceptor fleet, and if we write them off we’ll generally stay with a bare sky.

- It turns out that it is still premature to write them off ... Perhaps the situation will be corrected by a large-scale modernization of the existing park?

- So it is - there is a gradual modernization of the park on the MiG-31BM project. The aircraft will become more versatile, will be able to apply high-precision weapon and attack ground targets.

- How about using the MiG-31 as a “radar hunter”? High speed and altitude make it invulnerable to most outdated medium-range air defense systems. (note this does not apply to the C-300 and "Patriot")

- Including.


MiG-31BM. Cockpit



MiG-31BM. Navigator's cabin


- "Glass" cabin?

- Yes, now the pilot has an indicator of a tactical situation - if earlier he felt like a cab driver for the navigator, he will now be aware of all the events. ILS replaced the old PPI. Radar "Zaslon" and on-board electronics have been upgraded, now the MiG will be able to simultaneously accompany up to 10 targets and attack the six highest priorities.

- And a lot of these in the ranks?

- To date, a couple dozen, the general plan provides for the modernization of 60 machines.

- So we live!

- Little by little. Well, come on: For the fact that the number of takeoffs was equal to the number of landings!



Author:
258 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from our city
    Lech from our city 15 October 2013 07: 27
    +3
    Yeah not bad .
    It is necessary to draw conclusions for our politicians and the military on how to proceed with this area of ​​aviation.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 15 October 2013 11: 28
      24
      here it’s for someone, but politicians are definitely not worth making conclusions regarding aviation. otherwise we’ll lose it completely. let them just finance and don’t put it in their pocket.
    2. Airman
      Airman 15 October 2013 19: 36
      +3
      I didn’t understand who Kaptsov was interviewing, even if he would name and name. Or is it a conversation with oneself?
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 15 October 2013 21: 00
        +8
        Quote: Povshnik
        I didn’t understand who Kaptsov was interviewing, even if he would name and name. Or is it a conversation with oneself?

        In the fall, schizophrenics exacerbate. Oleg, apparently, too often arguing with imaginary opponents, did not pass without a trace laughing So soon experts will deprive us of the opportunity to read works of genius for a while ...
        So one could forgive him a similar style of presentation, but again the Americans in his imagination are slightly superior to us. And they have less EPR, and better than Avax!
        But, as they say, for every sage is quite simple.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 16 October 2013 00: 33
          +2
          Quote: bot.su
          And they have less EPR, and better than Avax!


          Is it not so?
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 16 October 2013 08: 59
            +1
            I just wanted to write exactly the same comment, and saw that everything was already written before us)

            Indeed, both are better for the Americans. If only because they already have the Raptor in service, and the AWACS electronics are better than ours. But there are not many raptors, and the T-50 is on its way. But what are the prospects for domestic AWACS aircraft is not entirely clear.
          2. nerd.su
            nerd.su 16 October 2013 23: 46
            +3
            Quote: patsantre
            Is it not so?

            Yes, that’s not the point. The Germans in WWII technology was also better in many respects. Did not help. German industry failed. These are things of the past days, but this is a vivid example of the fact that superiority in certain technical aspects does not guarantee victory. The totality of all characteristics is important.
            And in general, my comment is not about that. Rather, it is about the fact that the author uses a not very honest trick. smile Not having a direct relationship to aviation (in one of the discussions, I realized that he is the same wiki-pilot as I am, and his hasty statements are easily refuted if you dig deeper in the internet, because he himself digs shallowly) Oleg conducts a dialogue as if from the name of the pilot, undermining the credibility of our aircraft "with our hands." All these
            - And go to the MiG-31 against the "Raptor"?
            - Pure suicide.

            Tell me, what does my Barrier mean against the 9-meter Sentry radar? He has on board 15-20 operators and liaison officers, but how many “only” does my only navigator operator in the rear cockpit?

            like one-sided. The enemy is omnipotent, and we do not have any AWACS aircraft or ground-based radars. This is either a panic fear, or ...
    3. Civil
      Civil 16 October 2013 06: 46
      0
      Already kilometers of kamenta on this issue :-)
    4. Aksinya
      Aksinya 23 October 2013 18: 41
      +2
      The development and adoption of strategic cruise missiles in the United States put on the agenda the question of creating a successor to the Tu-128 aircraft in the USSR - a barrage interceptor capable of fighting a new threat. A promising aircraft was created, first of all, to cover the territory of the USSR from a strike by cruise missiles from the Arctic, where there was no continuous radar field. The radical differences of the new interceptor from the MiG-25 were the presence of a crew of two people, the installation of new dual-circuit engines with an afterburner; sighting and navigation complex, radar and weapons of a new generation. R-33 long-range missiles with a maximum range of targets of 120 km were used as such weapons, and the range of use in height from 25 m to 28000 m with exceeding or lowering the target relative to the carrier is up to 10 km.
      The key element determining the effectiveness of the aviation complex was the Zaslon radar, the world's first phased array antenna system (PAR) installed on a serial combat aircraft.

      The aircraft was officially unveiled in 1991 at the Paris Air Show. The result of the study of the MiG-31 by foreign experts was summed up by a special exhibition issue of the Flight magazine - Air Show Daily, after being shown at the Paris air show: “Outwardly, the MiG-31 looks like its predecessor - the MiG-25, but this is a completely different machine, which uses all the advantages of modern electronic equipment. MiG-31 is a powerful fighter, thanks to its multi-angle detection systems, it is able to destroy any enemy aircraft at any height. MiG-31 cannot be compared with any other new generation fighter. It makes no sense to look for any signs of the Stealth stealth concept or unusual aerodynamic forms in it; it’s just a “war horse”.
      In September 1983, new interceptors took up combat duty in the Far East - at the Sokol airport, Sakhalin Island. The regiments receiving the new interceptors covered two directions of the likely “main strike” with cruise missiles - the Arctic and the Far East.
      Donald Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, said: “The MiG-31 is superior to any American fighter, including the F-15, and has the best avionics, the best radio command guidance, control and communications system, the best controlled air-to-air missiles, has a greater speed and range; the Soviet Union releases these fighters as the main fearsome force. "

      It is necessary to expand the MiG-31 fleet and commission its new modifications. In conditions of the enormous extension of our borders and the discontinuity of radar fields, only MIG - 31 as an aviation interception complex is capable of closing air borders in the North, South and Far East. Today it is the only complex capable of destroying both nuclear-powered cruise missiles and jammers.
      1. mvg
        mvg 25 October 2013 15: 57
        0
        before self-promotion. but from the side of the fight for the budget. and from our side too. there will be something to saw. interview with a combat pilot. retirement campaign.
  2. Su-9
    Su-9 15 October 2013 07: 41
    +9
    Everything is on the case. Especially about the advertised interception of "only" from 300 kilometers. Although, of course, the style of "interviewing yourself" smiles. I would like in more detail about the real combat advantage of the BM - what is modified is understandable - but it is not clear how this solves at least some of the problems raised in the article.
    Again, in my opinion, when a bomber is made a fighter out of the 31st, this is profanity, it would be good to train pilots to intercept, but use the R-37mi normally, and the tasks are to teach how to strike ground targets.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 07: 50
      -62 qualifying.
      Quote: Su-9
      but it is not clear how this solves at least some of the problems raised in the article.
      Again, in my opinion, when a bomber is made from a 31st fighter, it’s a profanity

      it's time to write off "unparalleled" trash from the late 1960s
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 15 October 2013 10: 27
        +9
        Write off yes, it is necessary, but they must be replaced first.
        1. Tektor
          Tektor 15 October 2013 22: 38
          -1
          Write off yes, it is necessary, but they must be replaced first.
          The closest replacement is the T-50.
          1. Santa Fe
            15 October 2013 22: 45
            0
            Quote: Tektor
            The closest replacement is the T-50.

            Is the Su-35 worse?
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 16 October 2013 00: 34
              0
              It would be no worse, PAK FA would not have been created.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. gispanec
        gispanec 15 October 2013 11: 14
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        it's time to write off "unparalleled" trash from the late 1960s

        you go and teach the mattresses what ... when and where to write off .. the aircraft carriers do not give you peace there and continue to scam people, so there is no aviation and the machines are crooked and boots made of not genuine leather ..
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 15 October 2013 22: 00
          +2
          It seemed to Kaptsov that one object for hatred seemed not enough.
      5. Walker1975
        Walker1975 15 October 2013 11: 45
        +1
        I was always surprised (although I understand the reasons for all this indecency) of the number of simultaneously operating models of the main tanks and fighters, first in the USSR and then in the Russian Federation. It is clear that a terrible headache in the provision, storage of spare parts for each model, the selection of specialists for maintenance and training of pilots.
        1. POBEDA
          POBEDA 15 October 2013 13: 51
          +2
          I agree! And in the Strategic Missile Forces the same story. In this sense, the Americans are great, they have only 2 missiles, minuteman-3 and trident-2. And we have? R-36MUTTH / M2, UR-100N, RT-2PM, RT-2PM2, RS-24, blue, mace .. this is a waste!
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 15 October 2013 16: 17
            0
            Quote: POBEDA
            I agree! And in the Strategic Missile Forces the same story. In this sense, the Americans are great, they have only 2 missiles, minuteman-3 and trident-2. And we have? R-36MUTTH / M2, UR-100N, RT-2PM, RT-2PM2, RS-24, blue, mace .. this is a waste!

            I fully support, it is necessary to strive to reduce the nomenclature. And not only in the strategic nuclear forces, but also in general models of weapons designed to perform the same tasks.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 15 October 2013 18: 28
          +2
          The USSR Air Defense IA was armed with: MIG-21bis, pfm, SU-15tm, MIG-23P, ML and MLD, after revision, removing the sign of work on the "ground", MIG-25pds and MIG-31.
      6. Odysseus
        Odysseus 15 October 2013 19: 43
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        it's time to write off "unparalleled" trash from the late 1960s

        It’s too categorical. You can write off, but what can you change it with? Su-35S still doesn’t have the MiG-31’s capabilities in height and speed, the R-37 doesn’t carry (maybe not yet) and most importantly they are going to be released in too small a quantity in order to close all the holes.
        The T-50 is not clear when and in what quantity it will appear, the R-37 will most likely not be worn.
        The Mig-31BM in conjunction with the A-50U for Severs is quite an actual and necessary aircraft.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 21: 17
          -4
          Quote: Odyssey
          You can write off, and how to change it?

          4+ multirole fighter jets
          Quote: Odyssey
          Su-35S still does not have the capabilities of the Mig-31 in height and speed

          Odysseus, this argument doesn't work. In reality, the MiG-31 does not have any advantage in height and speed - it will not work with missiles to fly at three strides, they will collapse. and flight altitude - who needs it in the era of air-to-air missiles?
          Quote: Odyssey
          the main thing they are going to release in too small a quantity in order to close all the holes.

          Well, there is nothing to share. both options look bad - or fly on outdated junk. or fly on holidays on a couple of dozen brand new "dryers"

          There is a third option - to rearm the Su-35 army in the required number, but it is unacceptable for kremlezhuliki
          Quote: Odyssey
          R-37 does not carry (maybe not yet)

          Sense from them?
          Who will be able to detect the Raptor or at least the Super Hornet at a distance of 200-300 km?
          Quote: Odyssey
          The Mig-31BM in conjunction with the A-50U for Severs is quite an actual and necessary aircraft.

          Why is Su-27/30/35 not suitable in conjunction with the A-50U?

          They like me))) Su-30MKI, though with the Indian Air Force identification marks
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 16 October 2013 16: 26
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            4+ multirole fighter jets

            For Russia, with its vast open air defense systems, interceptor fighters are vitally important. I recall the USSR had about 3000.
            But then the situation with air defense systems and radar was much better.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In reality, the MiG-31 does not have any advantage in height and speed - it will not work with missiles to fly at three strides, they will collapse. and flight altitude - who needs it in the era of air-to-air missiles?

            Well, now it definitely does not, because of problems with the flashlight. The height gives some advantage for an aircraft with a powerful radar, but on the whole I agree. I, too, the theses about the "energy perfection" of the MiG-31 always seemed dubious.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Sense from them?
            Who will be able to detect the Raptor or at least the Super Hornet at a distance of 200-300 km?

            Well, the Super Hornet will not fly to us from the North. Who can you not know about this)) There will be no sense in R-37 against stealth aircraft, but in all other cases a long-range missile for an interceptor is a useful thing. The problem is different, they are not in combat parts ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There is a third option - to rearm the Su-35 army in the required number, but it is unacceptable for kremlezhuliki

            The trouble is that the Kremlin flies destroyed the production base - where to produce Su-35 in large quantities and who will do it?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Why is Su-27/30/35 not suitable in conjunction with the A-50U?

            Why not fit? The Su-27 and Su-30 were originally interceptor fighters. But the Su-27 was used in the USSR air defense together with the Mig-31 (the Su-30s just started to produce, the USSR disintegrated), and flying in the Mig-31 group with a powerful At times, the Barrier was like flying air defense systems.
            Now the Su-27 with the Sword is absolutely outdated. As for the Su-30SM, it is more needed as a drummer (if it is modified with an aiming container), in addition, it has the same drawback as the Mig-31-large EPR, plus Su-30 no long-range missiles.
            I like the idea of ​​using the Su-35 as an interceptor, especially since Irbis has difficulties in working on the ground, and as a first-line fighter, he will quickly become obsolete - again, a large EPR (although less than that of the Su-27 / 30- smeared RPM).
            But with the Su-35 we again rest against the issue of a weak production base.
            Thus, the modernization of the Mig-31 at the moment is almost the only way to somehow cover the sky from the north and east.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 October 2013 21: 57
      0
      The MiG-25, which was similar in purpose and design, had modifications of the RB - reconnaissance bomber. Thanks to my PNK, they very accurately placed even free-falling bombs at a target from a great height.
    3. Saburov
      Saburov 15 October 2013 22: 07
      18
      As a military man, I consider the article a duck and a setup, apparently the pilot was a fictitious one or ordered someone else such an article, first of all the 31 high-altitude interceptor, and what is the high-altitude interceptor and what tasks does it have, I often visited Perm at the Sokol airbase (the current name) 6980-2 aviation group, so first of all the 31y, that is, the 25y was created as an element of the air defense and missile defense system for intercepting, targeting and guiding anti-aircraft missiles at ballistic targets, so it is not surprising why it has such radar and weapons, secondly it has group battle mode, for high-quality and interference-free operation and guidance of up to 12 fighters, one 31 with a wing from 12 fighters controls monstrous territory, thirdly it is an airplane that can be instantly thrown into air defense holes, hence the high speed, the author naively believes that Avaxu will allow the primary targets of our air defense to reach the targets of the AWACS, they will be fired on in the first place, and no escort aircraft will save him, but after that 31 will come into play and the advantage, I think already it’s not necessary to clarify on whose side it will be, this article proves only one thing that someone really doesn’t like that 31 is still in service and fulfills its tasks brilliantly, even the American Drozd merged when 31 went.
      1. smirnov
        smirnov 16 October 2013 01: 30
        +1
        A worthy answer to the "pilot", the comparison of the air defense interceptor and the American fighter was also surprised.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 October 2013 02: 42
          -2
          Quote: smirnov
          Comparison of an air defense interceptor and an Amer fighter.

          it's hypocrisy guys

          they are all fighters. Practice has shown that multi-purpose aircraft su-27 and f-15 are more effective than highly specialized monsters like MiG-31 and F-14
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 59
            +2
            Interestingly, where is the application experience? For example, 1971 several 25x were immediately flown to Egypt, where they carried out reconnaissance flights from the Cairo West airport over the Sinai Peninsula occupied by Israel and along the coast of Israel and all Israeli attempts to intercept them were unsuccessful.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 October 2013 03: 28
              0
              Quote: Saburov
              For example, in 1971, several 25s were urgently flown to Egypt, where they carried out reconnaissance flights from the Cairo West airport over the Sinai Peninsula occupied by Israel and along the coast of Israel and all Israeli attempts to intercept them were unsuccessful.

              Well...
              Risk repeating the same trick these days? Even on the Mig-31BM
              Quote: Saburov
              Interestingly, where is the application experience?

              All local wars of the last 30 years.
              As a result, the F-15 serves and will still serve for 15 years.
              Its almost the same age - F-14 - decommissioned in 2006

              The new F-22 also does not seek to become an "air defense interceptor", preferring to develop abilities for combat at all distances
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 16 October 2013 03: 40
                +1
                With an electronic warfare aircraft it is quite possible, although there were precedents in Europe and off the coast of Japan.
      2. BBM
        BBM 16 October 2013 07: 32
        +1
        Quote: Saburov
        I, as a military man, consider the article a duck and a setup, apparently the pilot was fictional or ordered someone else such an article, firstly the 31st high-altitude interceptor

        but the majority of "nyashek" do not think so. Although I agree with you.
    4. BBM
      BBM 16 October 2013 07: 25
      0
      Quote: Su-9
      Again, in my opinion, when a bomber is made a fighter out of the 31st, this is profanity, it would be good to train pilots to intercept, but use the R-37mi normally, and the tasks are to teach how to strike ground targets.

      Yes? but why and just do use these r-37s learned to fly and okay, why complicate things? that's about your logic. But in general, all over the world, such expensive aircraft for production and maintenance are trying to load to the fullest and use all their potential capabilities. For example, after the MIG-25 lost its original priority goal - VALKIRIA - it was imprisoned for a whole range of tasks from a reconnaissance aircraft to an air defense suppression aircraft and a bomber. The same thing with the F-15. By the way, Iraq very effectively used the 25th when scouring Iran's oil terminals.
  3. Kubatai
    Kubatai 15 October 2013 07: 58
    41
    I see the author. Who I interviewed, I don’t see.
    I agree with 300 km everything is not beating .. but as soon as about the advantages of a moment, they have avax, how are the minuses so fatter than an elephant ..
    We take for example the Boeing E-767 from 1998 in operation (fresh) - the target detection range is -320 ... so where will it be in service with raptors to see a moment from 300 or is it still far behind?
    The fact that upgrading the Mig31 is undeniable, but the fact that a special interceptor fighter (the only one in the world capable of shooting down missile defense) is not relevant today - forgive the bust. (IMHO)
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 10: 33
      12
      The fact is that the author showed in an interview that the machine is already outdated and it is necessary to upgrade not the existing samples, but to process the design itself.
      Remove the rivets, fit the seams, kotopotiruyte the rod of the fuel receiver (really well, where such pornography?),

      put rockets in special stealth casings, cover with special paint to reduce radio stealth, well, etc.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 15 October 2013 11: 34
        +1
        Sergeant, support. and your login specifically written so?))
        It's just that in the case of all of the above, the upgrade will not be cheap. You need to change the technical assembly process, which is expensive. One flashlight like that of a "vulture" will not be very cheap.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 15 October 2013 13: 07
          +4
          And what to do, the T-50 will not be able to perform such specific functions, there will not be enough traction, and these engines are really not in the world of competitors now, therefore, an airplane is needed.
          And about the login ... I forgot to switch to Russian, and then I thought: - Ah yes, okay, even cool.
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 15 October 2013 15: 05
            +1
            if I’m not mistaken, the MiG-31 is heavier than the T-50, and their engines are very similar in thrust. This is where you compare the D-30 and AL-41F. But as we know, product 117 is being developed and is already being tested on one of the PAK FA, which will be 20-30% more powerful and + R&D is being conducted on new generation engines. In general, comparing everything, the t-50 should have much more lifting force and traction.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 15 October 2013 15: 17
              +1
              Well, if the T-50 can replace it, then why not?
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 15 October 2013 16: 05
                +1
                it’s just correctly noted in the article that today there is no replacement and writing off such a fleet of unique aircraft is at least stupid. While the ranks of the T-50 replenish, then just the 28th year will approach, look and write off.
            2. BBM
              BBM 16 October 2013 07: 51
              0
              Quote: silver_roman
              D-30 and AL-41F

              it's like comparing ... with a finger the ability to work Al-41F at an altitude of over 30 km is from the field of unscientific fiction. Also, at a height of y and at a speed above 2.2 mach, his thrust drops very strongly, that is, he is not a competitor for the D-30.
    2. AVV
      AVV 15 October 2013 14: 38
      +2
      The time will come when 31 will have to be changed with new equipment, but so far there is nothing to do, so modernization is necessary, if you also need to install a more powerful radar, then you will get a good hunter for AWAX !!!
    3. e3tozy
      e3tozy 15 October 2013 16: 44
      +5
      I agree. The MiG-31s ​​were also created to intercept thousands of topogres. Although in the USSR, air defense was much better, and even that was not enough. Now neither air defense, and the 31st are chopped. But their axes are dark, and there are many strategists. These are the primary goals of the MiG 31, especially from the north.
    4. Gari
      Gari 15 October 2013 17: 43
      14
      Quote: Kubatai
      the fact that a special fighter interceptor (the only one in the world capable of shooting down missile defense) is not relevant today - forgive me

      Once again I write my comment
      In 1987, unique exercises were held in the north of the country. The reconnaissance and shock group consisted of A-50, a tanker plane and two experienced Su-27 and MiG-31, equipped with a system for in-flight refueling. They performed loitering in the Barents Sea right up to the North Pole and intercepting the planes of a potential enemy.

      The A-50 detected far-reaching targets, transmitted a radio link to the MiG-31, which performed a supersonic throw and a supersonic interception of targets reaching far distances.
      After that, he went for refueling, and finished off an enemy that broke through, su-27.

      The exercises showed: these two planes perfectly complement each other and it is impossible to say that one of them can perform the functions of the other. These two topics must coexist

      Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/15752
  4. lotar
    lotar 15 October 2013 08: 26
    +8
    To compare the military equipment created, each for its own task is not the best idea. Any war is, first of all, the coordinated work of all the armed forces, where each one complements each other.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 October 2013 22: 09
      +1
      But with the understanding that any army is a complex interaction of various forces. a big problem. just read his writings on naval matters.
  5. NC1982
    NC1982 15 October 2013 08: 52
    +9
    Why are the Raptor and the MiG-31 suddenly pitted against their heads? They have different tasks, the MiG was created to protect long-range defense lines, primarily from high-altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft in the Arctic skies, and the interception of the CD, the Raptor's flight range is not at all the same to overcome the Arctic or the Pacific Ocean, the probability of meeting these aircraft multiplied by zero. In addition, we have someone to meet "Raptors", if anything ...
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 15 October 2013 09: 05
      +8
      on the topic and content of the article


      1. NC1982
        NC1982 15 October 2013 09: 36
        +2
        Class! Until 1998, we also fluttered such things, there was such a 763th IAP, one of the first in the Union to master the MiG-31 ...
        That’s what, what’s left ... (the truth is MiG-25PU, but not the point)
        1. pensioner
          pensioner 15 October 2013 15: 21
          +1
          It seems to me that this is a MiG-25 in Yugorsk ...
          1. Jarilo
            Jarilo 15 October 2013 23: 30
            0
            Quote: retired
            It seems to me that this is a MiG-25 in Yugorsk ...

            Exactly, Yugorsk (p. Komsomolsky), as if yesterday was ...
          2. NC1982
            NC1982 16 October 2013 07: 08
            +1
            He is! The 31st Migi was transported to Perm in Savino, and the 25th was left in eternal storage in Yugorsk, an eternal flame burns under it, the central monument of the city, all weddings always stop at it ...
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 15 October 2013 12: 12
      +6
      Quote: NC1982
      Why are the Raptor and the MiG-31 suddenly pitted against their heads?

      Agree
      Quote: NC1982
      the "Raptors" flight range is not at all the same to overcome the Arctic or the Pacific Ocean

      It is a mistake to consider the USA as a purely overseas adversary. They have bases around our borders.
    3. bif
      bif 15 October 2013 16: 33
      +7
      Quote: NC1982
      Why are the Raptor and the MiG-31 suddenly pitted against their heads? They have different tasks, the MiG was created to protect the long-range defense lines, primarily from high-altitude bombers and intercept the CD ..

      And the tasks of the Raptors ... Assimilate a many billionth budget.
      Article minus. 1. Constantly refer to the characteristics of the Raptor and its capabilities, which have not been used by anyone anywhere and have not been proven by anyone, except of course the developers themselves. It's all the same that comparing a real person with a fairy-tale character is at least incorrect and professional. 2. Constant references to AWACS and the use of its characteristics when comparing with the MiG ... Why? What does he have to do with it? If you already admit the presence of his "behind" the Raptors, then take the trouble to also admit the A-50, although it is easier to compare specific aircraft models, all other things being equal, if, of course, you strive to be objective and claim a scientific approach. I hope the author normally perceives healthy criticism and draw conclusions for the future.
    4. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 October 2013 22: 13
      +1
      I repeat, this is the author's position - to compare warm with sweet and build your "conclusions" on the basis of this comparison.
  6. UVB
    UVB 15 October 2013 09: 03
    +5
    Question to the experts. Recently, when there was a lot of controversy over the future fate of the MiG-31, I have repeatedly heard from high-ranking officials in uniform that the 31st now cannot reach speeds above 1500 km / h, as the cab lights cannot withstand heating. Is this true? Do they lose their properties with age, or have they replaced enemies with bad ones?
    1. Katsin1
      Katsin1 15 October 2013 09: 38
      -6
      Of course, the enemies tried ... Americans and Masons ... Warriors :-)
      1. gispanec
        gispanec 15 October 2013 11: 20
        10
        Quote: Katsin1
        Americans and Masons

        where are the mattresses ... all the Jews did .... they are specialists in dirty tricks
    2. Alex 241
      Alex 241 15 October 2013 18: 33
      +3
      The problem with uneven heating of the lamp, which as a result of thermodynamic heating can lead to cracking.
  7. Katsin1
    Katsin1 15 October 2013 09: 36
    -3
    Quote: NC1982
    Why are the Raptor and the MiG-31 suddenly pitted against their heads? They have different tasks, the MiG was created to protect long-range defense lines, primarily from high-altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft in the Arctic skies, and the interception of the CD, the Raptor's flight range is not at all the same to overcome the Arctic or the Pacific Ocean, the probability of meeting these aircraft multiplied by zero. In addition, we have someone to meet "Raptors", if anything ...



    And who can meet the Raptors?
    1. yanus
      yanus 15 October 2013 09: 50
      +9
      Quote: Katsin1
      Quote: NC1982
      Why are the Raptor and the MiG-31 suddenly pitted against their heads? They have different tasks, the MiG was created to protect long-range defense lines, primarily from high-altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft in the Arctic skies, and the interception of the CD, the Raptor's flight range is not at all the same to overcome the Arctic or the Pacific Ocean, the probability of meeting these aircraft multiplied by zero. In addition, we have someone to meet "Raptors", if anything ...



      And who can meet the Raptors?

      Severe Russian weather. The raptors will cry and fly home, tint their nails.
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 15 October 2013 15: 43
        +1
        ... The raptors will cry and fly home ... at an altitude of not more than 6000 m so as not to suffocate.
    2. NC1982
      NC1982 15 October 2013 10: 07
      +3
      Have you heard about the Su-35S? You look for it or give a link?
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 15 October 2013 11: 48
        +1
        And how many of these cars are there in Russia?
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. gispanec
      gispanec 15 October 2013 11: 22
      +7
      Quote: Katsin1
      And who can meet the Raptors?

      to a stupid question and a stupid answer .... my brother ... he can meet
    5. Altona
      Altona 20 October 2013 18: 27
      +1
      Ground defense will meet them fully equipped ... No need to worry ...
  8. saag
    saag 15 October 2013 09: 42
    0
    I wonder why exactly the MiG-31 is "sharpened" for intercepting cruise missiles, the radar, as can be seen from the above, is not very capable of detecting targets against the background of the earth, the vehicle itself is heavy and voracious, and the cruise missile is a subsonic target, why these targets cannot be solved other machines, but the emphasis is on what is the MiG-31 capable of doing?
    1. Kubatai
      Kubatai 15 October 2013 10: 09
      +7
      "Zaslon" sees CD against the background of the ground .. and as far as I know, no one else .. speed allows you to intercept ..
      20-30 km is the distance of certain defeat ..
      I see the situation like this (for intercepting cr) - the satellite constellation detects the launch of cr, moment 31 goes to the interception area (here you have the speed), it captures and defeats targets ...
      Specialists let them refute or confirm ..
      1. Santa Fe
        15 October 2013 21: 07
        0
        Quote: Kubatai
        speed allows you to intercept ..

        What is still speed?
        Quote: Kubatai
        Zaslon sees the CD against the background of the earth.

        And what's the point? Yankees launch them in hundreds; no MiG-31 is enough

        Exit the tomahawk from the mine. And this is just the bow of one destroyer!

        Quote: Kubatai
        "Zaslon" sees CD against the background of the earth .. and as far as I know, no one else

        Any aviation radar with a synthesized aperture (simply a mapping mode)

        The same AN ​​/ APG-70 radar that the F-15E has been equipped with since the mid-1980s

        And here is a radar image of the radar AN / APG-81 of the F-35 fighter
        Let the shadows in the picture do not bother you - this is not from the sun, this is a reflection of radar waves
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 15 October 2013 21: 18
          +4
          Oleg you exaggerate again, hundreds of tomahawks and a lone MiG-31
          1. Santa Fe
            15 October 2013 21: 20
            0
            Quote: Alex 241
            lonely MiG-31

            even a squadron. what will it decide?
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 15 October 2013 21: 24
              +2
              Oleg in your scenario, what do you think, what forces will be alerted. And the update-518 can even interface with the MiG-23 through the command line control Lazur.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 15 October 2013 21: 43
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Is the squadron of the 31st intercepting a swarm of at least 100 axes?

                  No, of course Oleg.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  By the way, how far is the Barrier (even M) superior to the Beetle or Irbis?

                  Here, Oleg, you don’t even bother, the open press is mostly advertising statements. Yes, and the level of readiness of Zhuk and Irbis, so to speak, is doubtful.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    15 October 2013 21: 49
                    -2
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    No, of course Oleg.

                    It turns out that the 31st is useless as a "hunter" for V-1 tomahawks
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    And the level of readiness of the Beetle and Irbis, so to speak, is doubtful.

                    Okay, once again I’ll make an unpatriotic gesture - how do the performance characteristics of the latest AN / APG-63 versions correlate with the PAR, APG-77 and APG-81 with the Mig-31BM screen?
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 02
                      +2
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      It turns out that the 31st is useless as a "hunter" for V-1 tomahawks
                      Oleg, take 12 planes in the suspension variant 4 ranged missiles and 4 maneuverable close combat, given the likelihood of defeat (take the average) 0.7. I would not say that they will destroy all 100. Yes, they will destroy most of them, but not a hundred. I mean that the raid will be foreshortening.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2013 22: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        I would not say that they will bring down all 100.

                        it’s enough that a part will break through.
                        air defense systems of the country and, probably, the airfield from where the Migi took off - kayuk

                        Yankees repeat volley in half an hour - carriers and SLCMs

                        As far as I understand, such a scenario is useless against the modern RF - the Soviet nuclear shield still protects the country. But the hypothetical conflict of NATO vs Saud. Arabia (imagine that the Saudis are buying our weapons) ... here, of course, it’s interesting - how many instant-31 will the Saudis need to fight off the missiles
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 38
                        +1
                        Oleg, well, we again examined the 12MiG scenario against hundreds of missiles, we didn’t take into account either ZRV or anything else. It turns out to be close to what is in the video. laughing
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        here, of course, it’s interesting - how many mig-31
                        The question is, how many Saudi pilots can fly this machine?
                      4. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 59
                        +4
                        Interesting information on MiGs: The story of the MiG-25P interceptor hijacked in Japan is widely known. Less well-known is the fact that the Americans studied the MiG-25RB reconnaissance. "RB" came to the United States after the operation to impose democracy in Iraq.

                        In July, 2003, the Americans at the Iraqi airbase Ap-Takkadum, found several dozens of Iraqi airplanes bombarded with sand. Two MIG-25RBs (RBT, 25105 serial number and RBS, 25105 serial number) attracted the most attention. To release the scouts had to remove 70 tons of sand. At least one MiG (No. XXUMX) was delivered to the Wright-Patterson base. After studying the aircraft was transferred to the US Air Force Museum in Dayton.


                        After the 1991 war, the Iraqi MiG-25RB never stopped flying. In the "zero" years, "RB" performed reconnaissance flights over Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordanian F-16A to intercept the "RB" were unable to. In 2003, the US Air Force raised the F-15 to intercept a reconnaissance aircraft, but while the fighters were gaining altitude, the Iraqi reconnaissance aircraft left Saudi Arabia’s airspace. Interception again did not ask. The veteran aircraft was a real threat to the security of the United States.
                      5. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 01
                        +1
                        MiG-29

                        As is known, the collapse of the USSR and the entire Eastern bloc turned into a real feast for US technical intelligence services, but it didn’t go further than the evaluation tests and, probably, a series of comparative battles with American fighters.

                        In the early 1990s The US Air Force conducted an evaluation test of one MiG-29 fighter, provided by the Bundesnemans, and in 1997 the United States bought two MiG-29UBs in Moldova, 14 combat “9-13” and six “9-12”. After leaving the USSR, Moldova “inherited” the fighter aircraft of the 86th guards Borisov Red Banner Order of Suvorov, the fighter aviation regiment stationed in Marculesti. By the way, this was the only naval aviation regiment armed with MiG-29: the 86th IAP was handed over to sailors in 1989. According to the official version, the United States purchased MiGs from Moldova so that the Moldavians would not sell fighters to Iran. However, not all aircraft were bought - six 29 left in Moldova. All purchased MiGs were delivered to the Wright-Patterson airbase by d-17 aircraft from October 20 to November 2, 1997.

                        The fighters were in very poor technical condition, having stood for several years in the open air without proper maintenance - the planes were not even put into conservation. Presumably, most of the ex-Moldavian 29's in the United States were repainted in camouflage, which was close to the original (that is, Soviet) camouflaged Russian Air Force, but the MiG-29 squadron in the US Air Force did not exist at that time.

                        The fate of ex-Moldavian MiGs, for the most part, is not known. In the open sources, the same photos of several fighters put on display are “walking”.

                        One MiG-29 is in the US Air Force Museum at Pima Air Base. A lantern was removed from this aircraft, which, allegedly, was required for the 29 go flying at the Grum Lake airbase. In April 2000 of the MiG-29 in the colors of the Moldavian Air Force was photographed at the Tyndall airbase. One MiG-29UB hit the National Air Intelligence Center at Wright Patterson Air Base. The issue of transferring MiGs to “aggressors” was considered, but putting the entire fleet of the US Air Force 29's in flight condition was considered an excessively expensive event. Nevertheless, several aircraft still flew into the air. Most likely, they were used in various experimental programs for testing new weapons systems. In particular, the MiG-29 in flight was seen in the area of ​​Grum Lake.

                        It is safe to say that the Americans flew and fly MiGs and Su, but is there a big question in the US Air Force that is similar to the 4477 squadron ... But the Constant Peg program was also preceded by an estimated MiG test.

                        By the way, the Detachment 353rd Test and Evaluation Group division still exists. Unofficially, it is called the "Red Eagles", and are in service with the MiG-29 and Su-27
                      6. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 03
                        +1
                        Soo in usa

                        In 1961 (or in 1963), the Air Defense Air Force pilot overtook the Su-9 interceptor in Abadan, Iran. Information about this incident is minimal. The aircraft in a disassembled form was delivered to the USA within a day, and the pilot was sent there as well.

                        No information on the use of the Su-4477 22 squadron was found. However, several Su-22 tests in the United States passed. Two Su-22 (20 + 25, 30914 and 25 + 33 31203) were received by the United States in Germany from 1991.

                        Su-27 appeared in the USA after the disbandment of the 4477 squadron. Several times (exactly at 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2009), Su-27 was photographed from a very long distance around the Groom Lake Spotter base. In 2003, along with the Su-27, aviation photographers filmed MiG-29. A video made in the Groom Lake area of ​​2003 was posted on YouTube - Su-27 in flight.

                        The topic “Su-27 in the USA” is quite hotly discussed in the American specialized forums. Participants agree that the Su-27 were and is, their number in the USAF does not exceed four. It is worth noting the participation in the discussions of not only highly advanced aviation enthusiasts, but also veterans of the 4477 squadron - that is, information to a certain extent can be trusted.

                        It is said that the first Su-27 came to the USA back in the 1990-s. Allegedly, one aircraft for a not very long time, for testing, provided Ukraine. Su-27 delivered the Ukrainian An-124 Ruslan to the USA and back. In addition, participants in discussions at British and American aviation forums mention familiarization flights and air combat flights that are pilots of the US Air Force in the 1990. performed in Ukraine. How reliable this information is is the question.
                        Two Su-27s (single and twin) were bought in Ukraine by Prude Aurcraft. The aircraft underwent repairs, during which military equipment was dismantled from them, and the inscriptions in the cockpits were made in English. "Drying" re-painted in a new "chopped" camouflage of the Ukrainian Air Force. Both fighters are certified by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); certificates were received in December 2009
                    2. BBM
                      BBM 16 October 2013 07: 38
                      0
                      I agree 100%. The facts that you bring about once again show that the Mig-25 (and 31 is its pre-battered version) has a strategically important advantage - because of its speed, it can both enter the battle under favorable conditions and exit it (escape). He always has the initiative. But this does not understand the local dry woodpeckers.
    2. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 21: 42
      0
      Quote: Alex 241
      And the APD-518 can even interface with the MiG-23 through the command line control Lazur.

      I understand that this is about the connection between the MiG-31 and Su-27 and link16?

      By the way, how far is the Barrier (even M) superior to the Beetle or Irbis? And is it worth the need for an entire type of interceptors for this radar, which (mig31) can do nothing more

      Quote: Alex 241
      Oleg in your scenario, what do you think, what forces will be alerted

      the number of axes will increase in proportion to the priority of the task and the conditions of the theater

      Is the squadron of the 31st intercepting a swarm of at least 100 axes? clean to a minimum - one Ohio discharged stores



      even at P-33 airfields
  9. BBM
    BBM 16 October 2013 07: 42
    -1
    just tell me honestly, supergrob-100 aka pogost-100 is ours. Poghosyanmining rules and all that isn’t from him is this terrible heresy? because it’s so written in your training manual.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 16 October 2013 07: 48
      0
      Quote: BBM
      just tell me honestly, supergrob-100 aka pogost-100 is ours.

      You say so. Do you feel jealous or bad when new planes are launched in Russia? Russia goes forward, in small steps, but forward, but where Ukraine is moving is a big question.
  • bask
    bask 15 October 2013 22: 01
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    Oleg you exaggerate again, hundreds of tomahawks and a lone MiG-31

    Hi Sash.
    In response to hundreds of tomahawks, hundreds of medium and short range missiles.
    And OTK, Iskander, the range is really small.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 06
      0
      Hi Andryush, yes a full-fledged scenario of escalation of the conflict.
      1. bask
        bask 15 October 2013 22: 26
        +2
        Quote: Alex 241
        but a full-fledged scenario of escalation of the conflict.

        As far as I know from friends flyers.
        MiG-31, while the coolest interceptor in the world.
        In my unprofessional opinion, it is a pity that everything rested on the creation of the T-50.
        We need a new MiG interceptor, the 5th generation.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 33
          +2
          Andryukh always avoid the word best in the world, in skillful hands undoubtedly a formidable weapon.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 15 October 2013 13: 36
    +4
    Yes, because in the 70s, there were all kinds of F-15s and Soviet counterparts in this regard, everything was mega sad. Now, in theory, the Su-35S should be dragging, but it still needs to be configured.
  • pretorianec
    pretorianec 15 October 2013 09: 50
    +2
    history reference



  • nod739
    nod739 15 October 2013 10: 20
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    it’s time to write off

    did you mean to replace?
    1. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 21: 00
      +1
      Quote: nod739
      did you mean to replace?

      Yes. For conventional multirole fighters
      1. poquello
        poquello 15 October 2013 23: 10
        +2
        While the tomahawks are in service, and these birds are needed, to finish it off through the shells, etc.
  • saag
    saag 15 October 2013 10: 30
    +1
    Quote: Kubatai
    "Zaslon" sees CD against the background of the earth .. and as far as I know, no one else ..

    Here's how, for some reason I thought that, for example, Bars could do it, which is already on the Su-30 or there the Beetle with Irbis, something here in my opinion related to lobbying for interests
    1. Kubatai
      Kubatai 15 October 2013 11: 20
      0
      ogums .. here are additional opportunities for modernization.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov 16 October 2013 01: 07
        +2
        Apparently here people are far from military affairs, since they draw conclusions on the characteristics from Wikipedia, you are familiar with such systems as Tuman-34RLP or Spectrum-23 LP-3, for those who are not dedicated to these are electronic warfare systems, which are still under the stamp from the end of 80x, the first one is fine makes a flare on Avax radio receivers, such blots practically make it blind, the second one was tested in combat conditions in Iraq in 1991 14 tomahawks for which it worked 6 of which they went from a distance not reaching the goal of the order of 45-60 km, the rest was a complete loss of control ii, all of these fundamental fundamentals of electronic warfare were already laid down in 60-70, but now the electronics are shoved by a lot and the more complicated the electronic filling, the easier it is to work from outside, so everything according to Lomonosov’s law, if it’s gone somewhere, means somewhere arrived.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 10
          +1
          And what are you talking about systems under the heading? Delete your post, just checked, there is no information about these systems in open sources!
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 16 October 2013 01: 15
            -1
            Everyone knows the name, but no one knows how they work. Moreover, they are on several modules, and even the assemblers and engineers did not understand the methods of synchronization and connection, only the developer knew this. And about the signal encoding and encryption of pulse frequencies and talk don't have to.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 20
              +1
              I say the post, you never know who knows here! We only deal with open information here!
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 16 October 2013 01: 32
                0
                So you don’t look on the Internet, but go to exhibitions, teach, read military specialized literature, visit defense industry enterprises, talk with engineers, talk to officers who, in practice, will also learn a lot of interesting things, everyone knows about 15П014 , but no one knows about the filling and even what it is called.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 36
                  0
                  What disassembles you from a sense of self-worth that you are merging information here?
                  1. studentmati
                    studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    What disassembles you from a sense of self-worth that you are merging information here?


                    Clinic, Sash.
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 51
                      +1
                      This is worse, it must be banned tightly, it is not known that the next time he starts dumping here!
                      1. rudolff
                        rudolff 16 October 2013 01: 59
                        +2
                        Calm, buddy, the main calm! So you loaded me with your top secret so yesterday that I rummaged at midnight and looked for details of the incident in Memphis! At the same time I met Saab 340! good
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 03
                        +1
                        Hi buddy, I kind of put everything out there, there is a photo with English text, with a superficial translation everything seems to coincide with the version of the unsuccessful towing. But I can’t put up with this case. Just no words!
                      3. rudolff
                        rudolff 16 October 2013 02: 08
                        +2
                        Yes, I see that you are boiling. Because Memphis remembered to defuse the situation.
                      4. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 10
                        +1
                        All ore stops, I wrote everything to this connoisseur of secrecy in an extreme post.
                      5. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 16 October 2013 21: 30
                        +1
                        Incidentally, American intelligence has a department for collecting information from open sources. A lot of information is shoveled and the whole picture of specific products is gathered for crumbs.
                        And if you still know what to look for ...
              2. Walker1975
                Walker1975 16 October 2013 10: 59
                0
                Well, for example, that in the 70s the latest secret system was developed, so it disabled the electronics of arriving UFOs;)
          2. Saburov
            Saburov 16 October 2013 01: 50
            +4
            No, of course, I don’t often visit the site, so sometimes, once honestly, I just stumble upon a stubborn position every time, military illiteracy, comparisons of airplanes not by pilots and engineers, comparisons of tanks not by tankmen and mechanics, and so on, and at the same time, such convincing the conclusions are that I am already scratching myself in the most modest places, there’s some kind of pimple kid who never even saw the sleeves and proves that the Raptor or some other lizard sees further, shoots better and generally he, he knows his exact characteristics which q Even the pilots of this plane do not know what to do about the information war and unwillingness to learn from young people, you want to learn how to correctly assess the combat capabilities of military equipment, to start go to the Army or graduate from an institute for some useful profession, for rocket science, for example, to be honest, let it be a lesson for those who do not understand that the Motherland has its own secrets.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 56
              +3
              Quote: Saburov
              that the Motherland has its own secrets.
              Did you take the oath? Strictly keep military and state secrets ...... do you remember these lines? Have you read the "hundredth" and 80th orders on secrecy?
            2. studentmati
              studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 56
              0
              Quote: Saburov
              just every time I come across a stubborn position, military illiteracy, comparisons of aircraft not pilots and engineers


              To get started, get to know your opponents who is who. IngЕner is spelled with "e", if we speak in Russian.
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 02
                +1
                I didn’t spot it, I'm sorry, I made a mistake in the word, I took the oath back in the distant 82, and about the disclosure of the State secrets, do not be offended, but I know better than you.
              2. Alex 241
                Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 08
                0
                I’m not even going to discuss this topic, I’m not a green kid, so as not to be a quiet guy: I warned the site administration, the decision is yours, you are responsible for the consequences. I warned you twice.
              3. Saburov
                Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 15
                +1
                http://www.kbradar.by/text/pages-view-75.html Вот поинтересуйся ,это лишь маленький прибор,сделанный на основе одного модуля Тумана.
              4. Alex 241
                Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 18
                0
                Hey ??? !!!! You really are so tight or did not bite today!
              5. Saburov
                Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 24
                -1
                Either you don’t know how to read, or you didn’t understand that the information on the topic of electronic warfare doesn’t even fit on the Internet, much is still only in specialized books, but you’ll be rude to me in half to bite you.
              6. Alex 241
                Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 28
                0
                Kusalka breaks! You yap and balabol!
      2. studentmati
        studentmati 16 October 2013 02: 11
        0
        Quote: Saburov
        but about the disclosure of State secrets, do not be offended, but I know better than you.


        Sorry, but you can know us better under one single condition, if you served together! Who you are?
      3. Saburov
        Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 20
        +2
        Let me leave this unanswered? Do not be offended? And since interest arose, I realized that it was not so simple.
      4. Alex 241
        Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 22
        0
        Yeah, a secret physicist, the main one on skeet!
      5. Saburov
        Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 28
        0
        Well, if you think CTMC released secret physicists, then no words.
      6. Alex 241
        Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 33
        0
        My friend was finishing it, so I have an idea about PTMC.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 16 October 2013 02: 26
    0
    You say "A" and "B". I never take offense at anyone. Life is much more interesting than wasting it on resentment. Or are you backing down?
  • Saburov
    Saburov 16 October 2013 02: 36
    +1
    So everything is clear, fun with you, my son told me here that it turns out I’m talking not with people, but with forum trolls, so I’m finishing this permanent, exotic talk.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 16 October 2013 02: 38
    0
    Quote: Saburov
    it turns out I'm not talking to people


    Each has its own level of self-conceit and pride ... Thanks for the conversation! Sorry if offended.
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 41
    +1
    What an advanced son turns out to be. San and what is exotic?
  • studentmati
    studentmati 16 October 2013 02: 49
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    What an advanced son turns out to be. San and what is exotic?


    Young people are always dear to us .... But with the continuation of the problem.

    "Excessive" I suppose that the son meant the word with the root "excess"? Grammatical mistakes are common among the generation of the early 90s (engineer), but for an oath sworn at 82 it is extremely wrong.
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 16 October 2013 02: 53
    0
    Sanya I don’t understand, our tankers Kars, Lech, Serega, Zhenya followed them into fire and water, but all in one leg out of step.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 16 October 2013 02: 58
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    Sanya I don’t understand, our tankers Kars, Lech, Serega, Zhenya followed them into fire and water, but all in one leg out of step.


    Even if I don’t have certain knowledge, but there is a certain upbringing, I will never, even in an unconscious state, fix the Hero's star below or at the level of other awards.
    I consider this fact decisive.
  • Saburov
    Saburov 16 October 2013 03: 17
    0
    Yes, guys, it’s a matter of difficulty, first of all, you have very mediocre knowledge in the Russian language of infancy, as the words are inclined, and the accessory apparently did not understand, just like what is a lexeme, aleatoric, iambic, trochee, dactyl and many other things, yours life is dull and scarce, since you draw all the knowledge from the line of the search engine, since you can’t even distinguish the form of the Second World War, and even more so who is in this form
    Alexander Nikolaevich Saburov (1908 — 1974) - Soviet military leader, major general, commander of a partisan formation, Hero of the Soviet Union (1942). Member of the CPSU (b) since 1932 year.
    Alexander Nikolaevich Saburov was born on July 19 (August 1) on 1908 in the village of Yarushki, Sarapulsky district, Vyatka province (now Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic). In 1933 — 1936 he worked as the chairman of a collective farm in the village of Polovets Berdichevsky district of Zhytomyr region of the Ukrainian SSR.
    With 1936 - political worker in the Red Army.
    In 1936 — 1938 he served in the NKVD, on the eve of World War II - the head of the fire department in Kiev.
    Appointed Commissioner of the 4th Special Forces Battalion of the NKVD (formed on 12 on August 1941 of the year, mainly from students of the UITLK courses) under the command of State Security Lieutenant P. A. Dobrychev. The battalion took up positions in the city of Irpin. When retreating from Kiev, the battalion was surrounded and was defeated on September 21 during an attempt to break through the village of Kharkivtsi, six people survived. 19 October led a partisan detachment created in the village of Podlesnoe of four soldiers and five commanders of the defeated parts of the Red Army.
    From March 1942 until April 1944, he commanded a guerrilla unit, which operated in the Sumy, Zhytomyr, Volyn, Rivne and other regions of Ukraine, as well as the Bryansk and Oryol regions of Russia and in the southern regions of Belarus.
    By personal order of I.V. Stalin, in the 1942 year, Saburov became part of the underground Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) U. Since October, 1942 - chief of staff from the leadership of the partisan movement of the Zhytomyr region, was a member of the Zhytomyr regional committee of the Communist Party (b) U. In the summer of 1944, he headed the NKVD Directorate of the Drogobych Region, organized the fight against banditry and Ukrainian nationalists.
    In the 1950's, he was in leadership work in the internal affairs bodies of the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR.
    Member of the USSR Supreme Council 2 — 4 convocations (1946 — 1958 year).
    A.N. Saburov died on April 15, 1974 of the year. He was buried in Moscow at the Novodevichy cemetery (plot No. 4).
  • poquello
    poquello 16 October 2013 18: 43
    +1
    Quote: studentmati
    Quote: Saburov
    just every time I come across a stubborn position, military illiteracy, comparisons of aircraft not pilots and engineers


    To get started, get to know your opponents who is who. IngЕner is spelled with "e", if we speak in Russian.


    What do you want to say? IMHO a typical Soviet error, who taught English.
  • Santa Fe
    16 October 2013 02: 47
    +1
    Quote: Saburov
    Fog-34RLP or Spectrum-23 LP-3,

    Mossad thanks you for your cooperation! soldier
    Regards, Ophir Katzman
    1. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 16 October 2013 07: 28
      +3
      What could the Mossad know? System name? This is open information, I do not see anything that could fall under the definition of "disclosure of state secrets." Why did they attack the person? For disagreeing with your opinion? He expressed his own opinion, I agree with him on this issue, in our time, with such an abundance of electronics, relying on only flight performance characteristics and open information about the performance characteristics of radars is at least not reasonable. Electronic warfare means are taking place and how events will develop with their active use by the opposing sides, none of us can reliably predict. It has long been known that all supersystems of satellite navigation can be neutralized with a bucket of nails in orbit (exaggerating, for those who did not understand), and all are equal at once. Compass and map rule at once hi And AWACS is also possible to score with interference, and there is much more to which an ordinary citizen is not supposed to know.
      But ... it's all the lyrics smile Not about that I wanted to say. Let's not behave like traders in the bazaar. Most of the people here are in communication, those who are not indifferent to our homeland and this is good. Knowledge and opinions may be different, but still let's live together drinks
  • Forest
    Forest 15 October 2013 10: 48
    +9
    "- Imagine that the connection with the A-50 was interrupted ... interference, software failure on board or something like that. And you - once! and its own powerful radar, sees targets for 300 km!
    - If there is no AWACS nearby, and the enemy has one, we are guaranteed the end. "-compared the F-15, without Avax with the MiG-31, but the F-15 turned out all the same with the Avax - miracles lol
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2013 11: 00
    17
    Quietly with myself, I have a conversation :)))) laughing
    There is only one thing that amazes me - are there any more threats from the North Pole? And stratobombers, if anything, won't fly from there? And the missiles from them? And "tomahawks" from the northern seas do not threaten us?
    Shy ...
    Yes. But what then is the meaning of the MiG-31 with its super-radar?

    “Well, you see ... the more you know, the more you know, you can detect the enemy earlier.”

    - What does it matter when there is an ARL plane next to it?

    AWACS for the interceptor will not heal the enemy. He will give the coordinates of the enemy aircraft, but his interceptor will shoot down himself. And for this we need a radar, and - powerful. Even SDs with AGSNs require adjustments on the marching section, and AWACS will not do this for the interceptor. And the enemy electronic warfare is not inclined to doze off, so that the AWAC does not remove the need for a powerful radar in any case
    1. yanus
      yanus 15 October 2013 11: 23
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      AWACS for the interceptor will not heal the enemy. He will give the coordinates of the enemy aircraft, but his interceptor will shoot down himself. And for this we need a radar, and - powerful. Even SDs with AGSNs require adjustments on the marching section, and AWACS will not do this for the interceptor.

      Actually, the latest modifications of AWACS and missiles can do this.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2013 12: 01
        +4
        Quote: yanus
        Actually, the latest modifications of AWACS and missiles can do this.

        Not yet, as far as I know. I was looking not only for me, but also for people who were fluent in English from English sources, but found nothing of the kind.
    2. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 22: 10
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Only one thing surprises me - and what, from the North Pole there are no more threats?

      is it necessary for these threats to be 31?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And the missiles from them? And "tomahawks" from the northern seas do not threaten us?

      not. it is a tactical weapon, against the modern RF it is useless


      Ksati, how many axes will the MiG-31 squadron intercept in one take-off? And how many axes can one Ohio submarine release?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      in no case removes a powerful radar

      in Su-30 / 35 it is, of course, weaker than in the decrepit 31
      I don’t bring foreign samples anymore - the Raptor and Lightning radars, for the creation of which (AN / APG-81) a group of developers almost got a Nobel Prize in physics (military subjects, no way)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2013 08: 42
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        is it necessary for these threats to be 31?

        No, not necessarily. But Mig-31 is fully consistent with these tasks. What do you propose? Instead of upgrading 60 Mig-31 (I don’t know the price of modernization, but even 20 million greenery per plane, total 1,2 billion) order 60 Su-35С (100 million dollars for the plane, total - 6 billion) For solving one and the same instead of paying 1,2 billion as many tasks as 6 billion? Nafua, Monsignor?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        not. it is a tactical weapon, against the modern RF it is useless

        I say strange laughing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ksati, how many axes will the MiG-31 squadron intercept in one take-off?

        And why - for one? Axes in almost any conflict were used not once, but daily.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ksati, how many axes will the MiG-31 squadron intercept in one take-off? And how many axes can one Ohio submarine release?

        60 MiG-31BM fighters with a readiness ratio of 60% (i.e. 36 vehicles can take off into the air) can carry up to 288 missiles (or even more, I did not understand how many missiles a BM carries, but at least 4 under the fuselage and 4 on wing, it can be seen from the photo) that with a probability of knocking down an ax of 0,9 (and it will be so, the conditions are polygon) gives us 259 knocked down axes. This is more than half of the ammunition load of 3 nuclear submarines "Ohio", which is not bad at all.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in Su-30 / 35 it is, of course, weaker than in the decrepit 31

        Su-30/35 are "slightly" more expensive than upgrading the MiG-31. If you read specialized literature, then perhaps note that the appearance of the F-22 did not lead to the withdrawal of the F-15 from the Air Force. Nobody throws old, but useful weapons into a landfill just because more modern models have appeared.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 October 2013 13: 52
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          order 60 Su-35S ($ 100 million per aircraft, total - 6 billion)

          40 Su-30

          The Su-35 has an OVT - a rather dubious solution for combat units. Extra expensive gadget. which a) no one knows how to use b) time-consuming to maintain
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And why - for one?

          Because Ohio's PLARK, as usual without warning, discharged 22 of its mines towards a conditional enemy
          MiG, catch
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          (and it will be so, the conditions are polygon)

          conditions are NOT polygon. this is war
          different electronic warfare, raptors in the air, etc.

          60 blinks is 1/2 of the average country’s air force. But this is not enough to hold off a volley of three SSGNs - despite the fact that the Yankees will certainly make a little more effort against a country that is capable of setting 60 mig-31s than when shelling Libya. They have different carriers and axes, JASSM and others. They have no plans - the current plans for using Mig as a hunter for the Kyrgyz Republic are profanity. In those days, when this phrase was expressed, the Yankees used ABL and the number of SLCMs released hardly exceeded two hundred for the entire war
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Su-30/35 are "slightly" more expensive than upgrading the MiG-31

          So they can do much more. Moreover, the Su-30 is cheaper to operate.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          the appearance of the F-22 did not lead to the withdrawal from the F-15 Air Force

          but the appearance of F / A-18E / F led to the withdrawal of F-14

          universal vehicles of the 4th generation (as opposed to highly specialized ones) turned out to be extremely long-livers - not a single generation has served so long in the "first line" of the Air Force

          ps / downloaded Pavlov's monograph on pr. 956. The ship turned out to be really not as bad as it is painted. - not much to give way to Burke 1 series
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2013 15: 24
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            40 Su-30

            Instead of 60 Su-35? :))
            In fact, Oleg, the calculation is very simple. There is a certain New Airplane (NS) and there is 60 Mig-31. At the same time, for the cost of one NS, you can upgrade 5 Mig-31 to Mig-31БМ.
            If we assume that 40 NS is able to replace 60 Mig-31БМ (which is far from a fact, by the way, but let's say), then it turns out that if we write off Mig-31 as scrap, and instead of them we take 40 NS, we will have to pay the cost 200 upgrades of Mig-31BM (1 NS = 5 of upgrades, 40 * 5 = 200) But in this case, if 40 NS perform the tasks of 60 Mig-31 and all. And this is not optimal.
            If we already have the funds to purchase 40 NS = 200 upgrades of Mig, it is best to upgrade 60 Mig-31 to Mig-31БМ, and for the remaining 200-60 = 140 of the cost of upgrades, buy another 140 / 5 = 28 НС
            I clearly explained? With the funds you need to spend on acquiring 40 Su-30 that will perform 60 Mig-31BM tasks it is much better to upgrade the 60 Mig-31BM (and nehai do their tasks themselves) and buy 28 Su-30 which can perform other tasks, or support Mig-31 in the performance of their tasks :))))
            You see, Oleg, nobody canceled the tasks of intercepting the Kyrgyz Republic. And Su-30, Su-35, PAK FA, T-1000 or even a scaly star ... ehhkm ... a cross-winged star wars can solve one problem in one place :)) And if they solve this problem, then no other they can no longer do tasks. So all their multifunctionality sharply loses value.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            conditions are NOT polygon. this is war
            different electronic warfare, raptors in the air, etc.

            The fact of the matter is that no. We have a northern border. And on that border - no raptors, no F-15, no Avax - no one at all. Because the United States does not have air bases at the north pole, and aircraft carriers do not tuck into the Arctic. From there, only the Kyrgyz Republic from submarines or from strategic bombers can fly to us. That is, surprisingly, it turns out that our Northern border just needs a cover that can be provided by pure interceptors, like Mig-31.
            This is a key issue. Either we need to defend ourselves against the Kyrgyz Republic along our northern coast, or not. If - it is necessary, then there Mig-31БМ can quite solve these problems. If it’s not necessary, then another completely conversation
            1. Santa Fe
              16 October 2013 17: 02
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              40 NS will complete the tasks 60 Mig-31 and all

              MiG-31 is not an independent combat unit. Unlike Su-27 / 30 / 35 capable of fighting at any distance
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              So all their multifunctionality sharply loses value.

              standardization and unification of the air force fleet
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              From there, only KR from submarines or from strategic bomber can fly to us

              and what do you suggest?
              establish a network of aerodromes with Mig-31 throughout the NSR))

              cost / probability ratio of sowing. directions
              if the Yankees decide to fight with the Russian Federation - the strike of the Kyrgyz Republic to the pole in the taiga and the plague of reindeer herders will be the lesser of evils.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Either we need to defend ourselves against the Kyrgyz Republic along our northern coast, or not.

              A developed network of air bases in the far north and regular air patrols ... no one needs this for 20 years. Neither us nor the US Air Force
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 11: 05
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                MiG-31 is not an independent combat unit. Unlike Su-27 / 30 / 35 capable of fighting at any distance

                The only question is that in the north, machines that can conduct air combat at any distance are not too needed. Their opponent is the Kyrgyz Republic, and he will not spin dances
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                standardization and unification of the air force fleet

                In the long term - it is possible and even most likely, but while the Mig-31 have not yet developed their resources, it makes no sense to lay out a bunch of dough for standardization
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                and what do you suggest?
                establish a network of aerodromes with Mig-31 throughout the NSR))

                It was like that in the USSR.
                It may not be necessary around the entire perimeter, but it’s necessary to cover certain areas (areas where silo-based ICBMs are deployed, industrial centers).
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                cost / probability ratio of sowing. directions
                if the Yankees decide to fight the Russian Federation - a strike of the Kyrgyz Republic to the pole in the taiga and the plague

                Oleg, from the north you can hammer for anything, from Moscow to Vladik, including my native Ural :))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                A developed network of air bases in the far north and regular air patrols ... no one needs this for 20 years. Neither us nor the US Air Force

                That was the key question. If you think that nobody needs this, then the article should have been deployed in this perspective - MiG-31 would have been effective against missiles in the north, but now nobody needs it for that reason.
  • report4
    report4 15 October 2013 11: 06
    +5
    Again, some "expert on everything in the world," expresses his opinion)?
    Although the "article" is an unambiguous minus because there is neither the name of the interviewee nor his data.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 15 October 2013 18: 23
      0
      I fully support that type of myself.
    2. e3tozy
      e3tozy 15 October 2013 19: 10
      0
      Remembered! The other day, when we at the forum discussed the number of SU-34s that were put into service this year, I decided to go on sites looking for more detailed information on the history of the creation and operation of the F-111. In the course of the play, I came across a very similar article. This hopeless whining crashed about slop missiles, etc.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 15 October 2013 19: 18
        0
        There, just a person laid out data from one of the air forums, now I’ll try to find http://modern-warfare.livejournal.com/632661.html http://www.forumavia.ru/forum/9/6/2032188349179099588761316428396_1.shtml
  • The comment was deleted.
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 15 October 2013 11: 07
    +2
    Strange article.
    In fact, the purpose of the MIG-31 is not clear. I think the Kyrgyz Republic will not be limited. UAVs can be registered with ease here. They are mainly mine all subsonic, they are not able to conduct maneuverable combat, and that I think and should use 50e for each UAV not to fly into the air. Well, to put against Rapotor 31st is possible only from hopelessness. There are not many raptors, and as soon as they appear in the reach zone of our borders, I think they will quickly increase the grouping to counter them. Few people left our air defense systems. wink
    1. clidon
      clidon 15 October 2013 19: 42
      +3
      Raptors of 180 pieces, this is not so little. And for the Mig-31, the main task remains not only the Kyrgyz Republic and their carriers, but also strategic scouts (both manned and unmanned). Tactical enemy aircraft should not be corny in their area of ​​action, simply without passing along the radius.
      1. Santa Fe
        15 October 2013 20: 59
        -1
        Quote: clidon
        but also strategic reconnaissance (both manned and unmanned).

        What are these?

        And why was MiG-31 needed for these purposes?
        Quote: clidon
        Tactical enemy aircraft should not be corny in their area of ​​action, simply without passing along the radius.

        What can scare US tactical aviation? In addition to the S-300 air defense system? (and then not for long)
        1. clidon
          clidon 15 October 2013 21: 42
          +2
          What are these?

          At least U-2S and Global Hawk with modifications.

          What can scare US tactical aviation? In addition to the S-300 air defense system? (and then not for long)

          Vestimo than - tactical fighters.
          1. Santa Fe
            15 October 2013 21: 52
            -1
            Quote: clidon
            At least U-2S and Global Hawk with modifications.

            To intercept them you need a plane flying at an altitude of 20 km at three speeds of sound?
            Quote: clidon
            Vestimo than - tactical fighters.

            But not like the 31st Mig

            Although usually the Yankees destroy Tomahawks airfields in the very first hours of the war
            1. clidon
              clidon 16 October 2013 05: 49
              0
              To intercept them you need a plane flying at an altitude of 20 km at three speeds of sound?

              Of course it doesn’t hurt. Given that the Mig-31s themselves are not so many, and the distances that they protect are quite long.

              But not like the 31st Mig

              No, this is the case for the Su-27 with the family and the promising T-50

              Although usually the Yankees destroy Tomahawks airfields in the very first hours of the war

              This is what S-300 and Mig-31 will protect from.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 15 October 2013 11: 18
    +9
    This gloating gov ** nuke from the promised land smiles at me. What are you so gloating about or in Jo ** ne still sverbetsya sword of Prince Svyatoslav. So tell me that your leaders crap one's pants when it came to selling only five MiG-31s ​​to Syria, because it’s such a fucking naughty car that it’s flowed so fast.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 October 2013 22: 31
      +1
      Just the leaders still remember how the 25th flew with impunity over the Golan and Sinai, and how they could not do anything with them.
  • gispanec
    gispanec 15 October 2013 11: 27
    0
    the whole essence of the liquid massons is that they would not give a shit ..... because they are after all the descendants of the gods, sl-but conclusion ?! the Russian industry can produce only or almost, but only top-quality products cut off .... and they are sure of this
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 15 October 2013 11: 35
    +4
    Yes, I once was not an anti-Semite and always with great respect for the Jewish people. I am against Shawak, in fact, who have nothing to do with the Jews, but rather really really to the Jews and Zionists smelly.
    1. berimor
      berimor 15 October 2013 15: 14
      +2
      Poor, poor, great and mighty Russian!
      Or maybe you are a foreigner?
    2. gispanec
      gispanec 15 October 2013 15: 20
      -3
      Quote: kapitan281271
      and always with great respect for the Jewish people.

      and I always hated ..... the Lenins made a revolution for us ... the Trotsky and Sverdlovs ... all the Jews .... they were given the state, and from the moment of its proclamation, they are constantly at war with all neighboring countries ... .. yes they crucified Christ, the Romans only obeyed the order! .. and now half the poganov of the Government of the Russian Federation liquid mass .... on the count of all
      1. alex shnajder
        alex shnajder 15 October 2013 18: 08
        0
        Christ, he seems to be a Jew too))) it does not bother you)))
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 15 October 2013 19: 51
          0
          Quote: alex shnajder
          Christ, he seems to be a Jew too))) it does not bother you)))

          Well, if it’s for the mother. If on the father - then Greek. And if you consider him the son of God ... God, what is a Jew?
      2. biznaw
        biznaw 15 October 2013 21: 29
        0
        About Lenin is not proven ...
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 15 October 2013 22: 44
        0
        My friend, and you take an interest in the creators of Soviet weapons. You will see an interesting picture: there will be a lot of Jews. For example - Gurevich, this is the one with Mikoyan.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 22: 54
          0
          Gurevich, Ilyushin, Mil, Lavochkin ... all had ambiguities in the "fifth column"
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 55
            0
            Which does not detract from their merits.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 15 October 2013 11: 45
    10
    More dumb articles are hard to imagine! What are the "dog dumps"? Still, it is extremely obvious: the MiG-31 is the same AWACS, only in orders closer to the battle at much higher altitudes and speeds (to ensure survivability and inaccessibility). Its purpose is to direct fighters (or missiles) at targets, this is the main, and the secondary one is to hit those targets that it can hit independently, such as Tomahok, but only in the absence of other fighters capable of intercepting. And this is not enough. Though the most important role is to drive away their AWACS (etc.) away from the battlefield !!!! Wear ultra-long-range RVVs for this. And in this case, the MiG-31 itself needs support and protection. Hence the simple conclusion: the MiG-31 should, at a minimum, be able to fly high and quickly, be the "eyes" of other fighters that remain stealthy, distinguish targets at the maximum possible distances, and be an element of a network-centric situational awareness system.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 20: 55
      0
      Quote: Tektor
      MiG-31 is the same AWACS, only in the orders closest to the battle at much higher heights and speeds

      Inflamed consciousness of a schoolboy
      Quote: Tektor
      Its purpose is to direct fighters

      Did the MiG-31 have a data exchange network with the MiG-29 and Su-27?
      Quote: Tektor
      Although the most important role is to drive away their AWAXes (etc.) away from the battlefield !!!!

      To do this, you need to go through the battle formations F-15 and F-16, which are induced by AWACS behind them)))
      Quote: Tektor
      be the "eyes" of other fighters, secrecy

      Stealth !!!

      otherwise, to maintain stealth from AWAX, you need to crawl on the ground
      Quote: Tektor
      MiG-31 must at least be able to fly high and fast

      bullshit, the speed of all aircraft with rockets suspended under the wing SAME ~ 1.2 ... 1.8 Mach. Otherwise, heat will destroy the ammunition

      Or does the great strategist Tektor offer to drive the MiG-31 into battle unarmed? request

      But, as you can see, the children liked the fairy tale - the completely crazy comment Tektor received a lot of approvals
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 15 October 2013 21: 04
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        missiles suspended under the wing SAME ~ 1.2 ... 1.8 Mach.
        I welcome Oleg, here it’s not so much a matter of heating as speed, at high speed, when maneuvering, the seeker may not have time to measure the angular velocity of the line of sight, each seeker has a field of view angle.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 21: 25
          +2
          Quote: Alex 241
          here it’s even not so much a matter of heating as speed, at high speed, when maneuvering, the GOS may not have time to measure the angular velocity of the line of sight, each GOS has a field of view angle.

          Thank. A lot of subtleties - can make an article request only serious on this topic in the style of "10 Myths of the Air Force" or something similar
          it’s more useful for children to understand technology than to once again discuss what Hilary Clinton said
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 15 October 2013 21: 27
            +1
            Do Oleg, it should be interesting.
      2. Tektor
        Tektor 15 October 2013 23: 08
        0
        Did the MiG-31 have a data exchange network with the MiG-29 and Su-27?
        The answer to "shell-shocked antiquity" - Yes, through the A-50.
        To do this, you need to go through the battle formations F-15 and F-16, which are induced by AWACS behind them)))
        And ours has a void behind it ... except for the SPRN (racquets are seen there at distant lands), including the space segment, as well as the radar coverage of the territory and the seas. It’s strange.
        Stealth !!!
        These stealth, such stealth !! Any radar from 60-70 sees them beyond the horizon ...
        Otherwise, heat will destroy the ammunition
        This is a problem of ammunition, not a platform. Give TK for the appropriate time BP ...
        Of course the MiG-31 lacks "stealth" ... This problem also needs to be solved, paint them or what? Metamaterial ...
        And we should not forget about the anti-satellite direction, like the missile defense element.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 16
          +1
          Do not paint, the whole problem is the geometry of the airframe.
        2. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 23: 35
          +1
          Quote: Tektor
          The answer to "shell-shocked antiquity" - Yes, through the A-50.

          This system was called APD-518, a digital data exchange network of the USSR Air Force
          THX. Komradu Alex241
          Quote: Tektor
          These stealth, such stealth !! Any radar from 60-70 sees them beyond the horizon ...

          It was not about the Raptors, but about your imagination:
          Quote: Tektor
          be the "eyes" of the rest of the stealth fighters

          how to maintain stealth under the gaze of the radar of the enemy AWACS? request lol
          Quote: Tektor
          Give TK for the appropriate time BP ...

          Here's how you do it - come.
          In the meantime, the MiG does not have any advantages in speed in a real battle. Unless unarmed
          Quote: Tektor
          except for the SPRN (racquets are noticed there at distant lands), including the space segment

          Radio horizon? No, have not heard
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 41
            +1
            Oleg to close this topic once and for all: Any suspended type of ammunition imposes restrictions on the carrier in terms of speed, height, overload and other parameters, then excuse the closed information.
          2. Tektor
            Tektor 16 October 2013 11: 22
            0
            how to maintain stealth under the gaze of the radar of the enemy AWACS?
            The answer is no, but only for today. Hint: 3M-25 Meteorite (P-750), a strategic universal missile - a system of invisibility due to flight in a plasma cloud. Moreover, it is possible to create a plasma cloud absorbing radio waves due to special overlays for the glider skin: electrets. The electret creates an electric field due to the deep implantation of ions, which interbreeds with the Earth's magnetic field and generates a corona discharge - a plasma without the need for on-board power. You can hide even an aircraft carrier ...
            Here's how you do it - come.
            Slightly paraphrasing: "Everything has already been done before us." Rockets must be suspended in a "faceted", for example, triangular, stealth container.
            Radio horizon? No, have not heard
            SPRN - traveling wave stations: long waves are reflected from the ionosphere and allow you to look far beyond the radio horizon. And in the long waves of stealth - gu @ no, sorry for my French.
            Well, why is the T-50 better than the Su-35: it just flies higher, faster and further.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 October 2013 14: 11
              0
              but what about a physics textbook for grade 9?
              Quote: Tektor
              Hint: 3M-25 Meteorite (P-750), a strategic universal missile - a system of invisibility due to flight in a plasma cloud

              How does a plasma cloud prevent the detection of radar objects?))
              Plasma itself is an excellent conductor. Meteors flying in a cloud of plasma (real, from outer space, the speed of entry into the atmosphere from 10 to 72 km / s) are perfectly visible on radars
              Quote: Tektor
              Rockets must be suspended in a "faceted", for example, triangular, stealth container.

              Here's how to do it and hang it under the Mig-31 - come, we will discuss it
              Quote: Tektor
              The electret creates an electric field due to the deep implantation of ions, which interbreeds with the Earth's magnetic field and generates a corona discharge - a plasma without the need for on-board power. You can hide even an aircraft carrier ...

              Where did you read this pseudoscientific horror?
              Quote: Tektor
              SPRN - traveling wave stations:

              Are there any standing radio waves?
              Quote: Tektor
              SPRN - traveling wave stations: long waves are reflected from the ionosphere and allow you to look far beyond the radio horizon

              What does this have to do with the Air Force?

              Over-the-horizon radars are capable of detecting a 60-ton Trident-2 ingot flying over the other side of the Earth. But to control the airspace at a distance of 5000 km in the interests of the Air Force ... alas, this is impossible. It’s impossible to establish them closer - they are blind, they don’t see objects near (after all, the wave must reach the ionosphere and reflect)

              In addition, there are only a few units beyond the horizon — all the rest: Don, Voronezh — ordinary radars with headlamps, see targets only above the horizon

              Don-2N
              1. Tektor
                Tektor 16 October 2013 22: 12
                0
                Where did you read this pseudoscientific horror?
                Yes, in the year 1983 commercials in LETI.
            2. andrei332809
              andrei332809 16 October 2013 14: 18
              0
              Quote: Tektor
              Hint: 3M-25 Meteorite (P-750), strategic universal rocket

              I apologize, but who told you such garbage? ZM-25 - Chelomeevskaya cruise missile. True, good-6000 km on the map, supersonic ... one boat in the middle-earth, and all of Europe at a glance. Humpbacked, bastard, agreed to include it in the contract. and before leaving the series there were only two launches
              1. Tektor
                Tektor 16 October 2013 22: 00
                0
                I apologize, but who told you such garbage?
                - I did not understand the question. "http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/chelomei/p/750/meteorit.htm"
  • Russ69
    Russ69 15 October 2013 11: 45
    +7
    I've been pinned in recent times by such articles, especially comments on them. Get out an article praising the MiG-31 (and they were). And in the comments there is a lot of enthusiasm, a demand to revive production, which was recently discussed. Now the article is critical and comments have gone (not all of course) exactly the opposite, let's cut everything and generally the plane sucks ... smile
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 15 October 2013 18: 56
      +3
      According to many military experts, only combat aviation systems based on the modernized types of the MIG-31 aircraft can close the gaping "gaps" of the country's aerospace borders, especially in the North, North-East of the country, in Siberia, where the key energy complexes for the economy, oil - and gas production, as well as in the Arctic zone. At present, Russia does not have other means capable of fulfilling this task and will not have it in the foreseeable future.

      That is why, since the beginning of the current spring session of the State Duma, I and my comrades have been closely engaged in the problem of reviving the unique fighter-interceptor, which until the mid-90s was produced at the Sokol aircraft manufacturing plant in Nizhny Novgorod. We went to this plant and other enterprises of the military-industrial complex involved in the modernization and repair of this type of aircraft and their engines (Pravdinsky Radio Plant in the Nizhny Novgorod Region, Aviadvigatel Design Bureau and Perm Motor Plant in the Perm Territory, a number of enterprises in Moscow and Moscow areas), held meetings with pilots, scientists, designers and military experts.

      As a result of the work carried out, it turned out that the data on the lack of engines circulated by opponents of the MiG revival are untrue for them - over 600 of these engines are stored in the repair fund, which after reconditioning can be installed on military aircraft. The aircraft manufacturing enterprises still retained production facilities, technological infrastructure, the staff of experienced specialists and the documentation necessary to resume work on the production and modernization of aircraft. According to experts, this can reduce overall production costs by more than a third.

      On April 11, 2013, in the State Duma at the initiative of the Communist Party faction and the State Duma Committee on Defense, parliamentary hearings were held on the use of combat aircraft systems based on the MIG-31 aircraft in ensuring the country's aerospace defense and the need for their further production. The hearings were attended by deputies of the State Duma, representatives of the military-industrial complex under the Government of the Russian Federation, the Security Council, the Ministry of Defense, other state bodies and the military-industrial complex. Here is a link to the full material: http: //kprf.ru/dep/gosduma/activities/117790 .html
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 15 October 2013 19: 04
        0
        Passion for MIG 31
  • tangage
    tangage 15 October 2013 11: 52
    +1
    Quiet with myself, I'm talking?
    It is strange that there is no surname of the author of the article.
    This suggests that the author himself is afraid of open questions to him on the topic.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 15 October 2013 12: 00
    10
    Honestly, I'm not special. But I observe this trend. As soon as the question seriously arises of some of our weapons that really have no direct analogue in the West, articles appear on how these weapons are useless. That is why we need ground ICBMs, then the anti-ship missiles Basalt and Granite are absolutely useless in modern naval combat, why do we need missile-cannon anti-aircraft missiles, then the S-400 has no chance against the F-22. I don’t know, of course, this can also be a discussion, but vague doubts torment me.
  • FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 15 October 2013 12: 19
    +4
    So, after modernization, they seem to have to be able to exchange data in a group, build a spaced radar network, which in theory should almost at all times increase the likelihood of detecting inconspicuous targets and hide their own presence.
    1. UVB
      UVB 15 October 2013 14: 51
      +3
      As far as I know, it was originally created for actions in a group, and even then the planes could exchange data with each other through a closed channel, and any of them could attack by the commands of the head, remaining silent in the mode itself. This is its cardinal difference from the MiG-25. Or am I wrong?
      1. FunkschNNX
        FunkschNNX 15 October 2013 15: 34
        0
        I don’t know, maybe she can; I won’t pretend to be an aviation guru, I’ve seen the 31st only from afar :-)
      2. Alex 241
        Alex 241 15 October 2013 18: 49
        0
        From the MiG-25 only the layout, the rest is a fundamentally new aircraft.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 15 October 2013 12: 35
    +4
    Quote: cth; fyn
    The fact is that the author showed in an interview that the machine is already outdated and it is necessary to upgrade not the existing samples, but to process the design itself.
    Remove the rivets, fit the seams, kotopotiruyte the rod of the fuel receiver (really well, where such pornography?),

    put rockets in special stealth casings, cover with special paint to reduce radio stealth, well, etc.

    But you are aware that the same rivets were taken into account in the operation of the aircraft glider and licking leads to unforeseen results. The same Americans used to conduct an experiment, took and completely smoothed and polished the serial glider. After that, it stopped flying normally, almost ditched the crew .And even after their improvements under the stealth f-16 and f-15 program, many pilots began to spit in the direction of these models. Nothing passes without a trace, you have to pay for everything. (Less EPR, worse flying qualities.) Therefore, it is easier to build a new airframe. And yet, both f-22 and f-35 have problems with them It’s close to melee, because the Americans do not even suppose their use in this aspect, only long distances.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 13: 12
      0
      All that you wrote, I meant, it is clear that when changing you need to balance the car, and not just tap the hammer and you're done.
  • scientist
    scientist 15 October 2013 12: 38
    -1
    The article is somehow incomprehensible. So many problems are highlighted, as if Poghosyan ordered her. Recently, attacks on MiGs have become more frequent.
    But fortunately this is the opinion of the pilot, who, as a rule, is not very familiar with technology, and theories are generally ignorant.
    I will give an example. During the start of the US Operation Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein called Gorbachev and asked for support from aviation and equipment. At that time in the north of Iraq there was a Russian base on which the MiG-31 regiment was based. Gorbachev told Saddam well, and he himself gave the order to immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq. The regiment began to rise in the air and turn in the direction of the Union. When they began to rise on the radar screens, an advanced group of American aircraft appeared, it seems FA-14, because it was they who were used to break through the air defense systems. It was decided to destroy them, so that the rest of our aircraft could safely fly away. 4 rockets were fired and a group of 4 aircraft was simultaneously destroyed. The Americans attributed these losses to piloting errors and technical malfunctions, the planes exploded at the same time, and none of the American pilots understood what happened.
    Here was such a short and demonstrative battle, which for some reason is not advertised anywhere, and I found it by accident when I rummaged in the secret archives when writing a dissertation.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 15 October 2013 13: 10
      +7
      Something very similar to a propaganda tale. To begin with, if Gorbachev wanted to quietly withdraw aircraft from Iraq and not interfere with the Americans, then they would give him a corridor. Did they make sense to attack Soviet planes? Who and who would take responsibility for making the decision to open fire on American aircraft? Suppose rockets were fired from Soviet aircraft. Suppose even that the Americans were shot down, but the fact that the Americans did not even understand anything causes a slight surprise. There was a bunch of ships, Avaxs, satellites, and nobody point blankly noticed Soviet planes before launch, and most importantly after ... and they continued to fly invisibly ...
      1. scientist
        scientist 15 October 2013 14: 17
        0
        Quote: Walker1975
        Americans do not even understand anything is a little surprising. There was a bunch of ships, Avax, satellites

        The speed of the rocket is very high, much higher than the bullets, especially since in the final section of the trajectory the engines are already switched off and it flies by inertia, even a trace is not visible. You can only notice the fact of undermining.
        One MiG-13 can simultaneously attack 6 targets, launching 4-8 rockets in the 4th target is not a problem at all.
        HABAC, ships and satellites is not an all-seeing eye. The blow was delivered from the South and Southeast. The AWACS sees low-altitude targets at a distance of 100-150 km. Carabls with their radars are generally not able to see the air situation in northern Iraq, even at high altitudes. Satellites are not online broadcasts for you; you need to decrypt a picture in good weather conditions. Deciphering night shots in the infrared range is in principle a very difficult task.
    2. clidon
      clidon 15 October 2013 19: 07
      0
      And the regiment of the Tu-160s in the north of Iraq was not littered anywhere? You cannot distinguish science fiction or science fiction from fables. For there were no MiG-31s ​​in Iraq, and there couldn’t be any. For Iraq did not belong to the air defense of the USSR.
    3. Odysseus
      Odysseus 15 October 2013 19: 56
      +4
      Quote: scientist
      Here was such a short and demonstrative battle, which for some reason is not advertised anywhere, and I found it by accident when I rummaged in secret archives when writing a dissertation

      Where do you get such fenced grass? smile
      MiG-31 (!) In the north of Iraq (!!) in 1991, shooting down F-14s (!!!) which are used to break through air defense (!!!!), and then quietly flying away to the USSR, this is very ....
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 15 October 2013 13: 48
    0
    From the point of view of intercepting bombers and supersonic reconnaissance aircraft, AWACS aircraft are not involved here at all, they are effective only when a small tactical zone is illuminated, although here the defending side may have a network of ground radars that any Avax will smoke on the sidelines. Bombers are really no longer an argument, like scouts, in this regard, the MiG-31 is a relic, very advanced in its time.
  • scientist
    scientist 15 October 2013 14: 01
    +6
    MiG-31 was created as an air defense aircraft. Trying to compare it with the air force is stupid.
    To begin with, its main purpose is to intercept high-speed low-altitude targets (cruise missiles) and airplanes of breakthrough air defense systems at the maximum distance from the olfactory facility. It is simply not intended for obscure air battles in the enemy's sky or gaining air superiority. Now it’s not 41-45 years old, if you lost your superiority, then it is useless to conquer it, airfields and important objects will already be destroyed. Hence the need for maximum speed for a maximum interception range, so far unavailable to air force aircraft. By the way, this is the only aircraft whose cruising speed is supersonic that they are now trying to get at 5th generation aircraft.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 14: 17
      +2
      In vain they began to call it cruising supersonic, if they called the afterburner supersonic, many things would fall into place in hot heads.
  • Sars
    Sars 15 October 2013 14: 16
    +5
    Participants in the Arctic Choice exercises "MiG-31 would be dispersed great! So what is the dispute? Allegedly, the MiG does not see the Raptor! Or maybe there is no Raptor (in the form as they say about it)."
  • scientist
    scientist 15 October 2013 15: 09
    +3
    it is highly likely that the F-16 will launch the AIM-120 before the MiG-31 can notice it. Especially in the presence of external target designation with AWACS.

    The declared range of the last modification AIM-120D intended for the F-22A Raptor is only 180 km, which roughly corresponds to the old P-33. The launch range of the R-37 for the MiG-31 is 300 km.
    External target designation with AWACS will allow the F-22 to only reach the target. But in order to launch, it is necessary for the F-22 radar itself to capture the target. AN / APG-77 range of detection of 300 km, range of defeat 180, radar station Barrier M detection range of 320 km, range of defeat 180 km.
    Missile launch for external target designation has been implemented so far only in the MiG-31. This is when rockets run out in the group of one of the planes in the group, but he holds the target in capture, then he can use the rockets of another plane in the group. Sometimes a part of the CVC equipment and the communication system of the head MiG-31 were placed on a ground loading station and interfaced with the ACS Rubezh. The group of aircraft was reduced from 4 to 3. In this case, long-range ground-based radars made it possible to automatically carry out target designations as well as DRLO systems. Only much more reliable and cheaper, which is very important for the sudden reflection of the IOS. In addition, the low visibility of the Raptor and other Stealths does not work for ground-based radars that operate in the UHF and UHF range. The stealth in this range glows very well. So when working with ground-based ACSs, the fighter will in any case receive target designation much earlier and will reach the target with the optimal course and angle.
  • scientist
    scientist 15 October 2013 15: 16
    +2
    MiG-31 has an EPR in the range of 20 ... 25 square meters. meters. F-15C with suspended missiles has an EPR within 10 square meters. meters.

    the difference in EPR is 2 times, according to the formula of radar location, the range will decrease by the root of the 4th degree out of 2x. Which at a distance of 300 km is approximately 50-60 km. Those. in fact, they will find each other at the same time under equal conditions.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 15 October 2013 15: 49
    13
    The article is informative, but the author, speaking about MIG31, missed several important points, including the following:
    1. MIG31 was the first USSR fighter capable of exchanging information about the tactical situation in the air, formed on the basis of the data of its sensors (radar, infrared) with other similar aircraft in the group and creating a single field of detection of airborne vehicles on a wide front. Naturally, such a field does not at all replace the ARLND type A50 radar field, but it can be quite decent to supplement it.
    And even when MIG31 was created, there were no AKRLDN in the USSR. Tupolev "Liana" does not count as these were not AKRLDN but just flying radars. In addition, these radars turned out to be completely ineffective and were quickly removed from service. And on the whole, the hope for an "uncle" who will see everything and lead him where necessary is good either in peacetime or in local conflicts, when a "man with a gun" is fighting against AWACS. In principle, getting AWACS is not a big problem. The detection range (theoretical) for MIG21 targets is about 400 km, practical times 1.5 - 2 less. Therefore, it will not be able to graze too far from the line of contact. Moreover, his radar "shines" like a beacon in the night. And therefore, a long-range missile defense system from the GOS will fully reach AWACS and will be able to dump it from heaven.

    2. MIG31 at the time of its adoption was, perhaps, the only means capable of at least somehow fighting the Tomahawk-type missile defense system. his radar "Zaslon" possessed (in addition to a decent detection range) also quite good capabilities for selecting small targets such as KR against the background of the Earth's surface. Himself had to participate in the development and testing of ground elements of the interception complex of the KR based on MIG31. The test results were pretty decent.

    Of course, we all age over time, and technology is aging even faster, but it is too early to write off MIG31, especially since there is no worthy replacement for it yet. The main thing is not to set him "bad" tasks like maneuverable air combat at short distances. But to plug holes in the airspace with them where there are no ground-based radars and AWACS yet and it is not known when they will be "very useful to eat"
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 15 October 2013 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      1. MIG31 was the first USSR fighter capable of exchanging information about the tactical situation
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 15 October 2013 19: 01
        +1
        .........................
  • e3tozy
    e3tozy 15 October 2013 17: 31
    +2
    Su-35 and T-5o, these are heavy multifunctional complexes, and the 31st heavy barabovy interceptor, specially imprisoned for intercepting axes and strategists. They were released for in large quantities. They naively hope that the 250 T-50 will be enough at the same time to work on the communications of the enemy, at command posts. AWACS, naval groups and immediately intercept hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of axes and the same strategists and tactics. We have very few aircraft. And Unas is strangled on the 29th, and now they have reached the 31st.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 15 October 2013 18: 19
      +3
      Even on the first MiG-31s, when targeting and assigning targets to attack, Barrier singled out and appointed AWACS as the primary target.
    2. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 20: 39
      -1
      Quote: e3tozy
      And Unas strangle the 29th,

      There is a reason.
      For such a highly specialized fighter, there are no intelligible tasks.

      Unlike the full-fledged Sukhoi fighters or the F-16 and F / A-18 universal killers, which they like to compare with the MiG-29
      1. e3tozy
        e3tozy 15 October 2013 22: 48
        +2
        That's exactly the 29th was an air defense stylet from which there was no antidote. and now with new engines, avionics, and if its center section, like that of the Su-35, is brought to 12-14g, even if it has sacrificed a ton of weapons, in close combat it will not be equal even among the fifth generation. And you are going to throw heavy and expensive Su-16 and T35 in a pack of F-50s. This is from the battleship on the motor boat main caliber. It’s criminal to crush a design bureau that has won two wars in the air. Or someone having gained power over both design bureaus decided to take full advantage of this.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 23: 12
          0
          Quote: e3tozy
          Bring Su-35 to 12-14g

          I can do that too. hold the beer ...
          Quote: e3tozy
          even sacrificing a ton of weapons

          even sacrificing a pilot
          Quote: e3tozy
          It’s criminal to crush a design bureau that has won two wars in the air.

          nothing is eternal under the Moon
          where is Aleksandar Kartvelishvili’s design bureau - the creator of the legendary P-47, F-84 and F-105?
          Quote: e3tozy
          And you are going to throw heavy and expensive Su-16s and T35s in a pack of F-50s

          why not? F-16 is worth it
          1. e3tozy
            e3tozy 16 October 2013 00: 52
            +2
            You first go broke. It’s stupid to throw such machines into a meat grinder, diamonds of which you will have a couple of hundred, and which will have so much work (and F-16 they have more than one thousand), and you have a light, cheap and very evil specialist in these matters aside . In Vietnam, a pipe with an MiG-21 engine broke through the most I do not want a heavy multi-purpose and advanced Phantom at that time. Do not feed yourself with illusions, the 29th is needed in large quantities, Russia has a very large sky. And about KB. Close, and write on the tablet: ,, The aircraft of this design bureau won more than a thousand air battles, his name became a household name, but he was killed by his own, with a knife and in the back. Good night.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 October 2013 02: 24
              0
              Quote: e3tozy
              It’s foolish to throw such diamonds into a meat grinder that you will have a couple of hundred

              Nobody will throw them in a meat grinder. Only when absolutely necessary.

              Export is another matter - we have nothing like the universal master F-16
              1. Firstvanguard
                Firstvanguard 16 October 2013 08: 13
                +1
                we have nothing like the universal master F-16

                MIG-29/35 not? The glider is at least no worse, everything else is a matter of avionics. You just need to work on it. So there won’t be anything like it if we bury Migi ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 October 2013 14: 21
                  0
                  Not only. erroneous layout - two engines on a light front-line fighter - expensive to maintain, the engine "gobbled up" the entire payload, reduced the flight range

                  As one of the MiG specialists at Farnborough said, if we had such a reliable and high-torque engine like Pratt & Wheatley, we would not hesitate to design a single-engine aircraft
                  Quote: Firstvanguard
                  everything else is a matter of avionics. You just need to work on it.

                  the key word is just

                  Navigation AN / AAQ-13 and sighting AN / AAQ-14 containers of the LANTIRN system (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night).
                  It combines radars and front-view infrared imagers, a laser range finder, optical target tracking sensors and a rocket line of sight correlator. It can be used on any combat aircraft of the US Air Force, used since the mid-1980s
                  1. Firstvanguard
                    Firstvanguard 16 October 2013 19: 00
                    0
                    erroneous layout - two engines on a light front-line fighter - expensive to maintain, the engine "gobbled up" the entire payload, reduced the flight range

                    Please provide data on the radius of the MIG-29 and F-16 with the same armament load. Just please do not compare the MIG-29 of the first issues with the Falcon of the latest modernization.
                    As for the erroneous layout, I would not be in a hurry with such conclusions, even combat-training aircraft twin-engine layout of a dime a dozen. And they continue to be purchased in many countries. But one of the main criteria for UBS is the moderate cost of maintenance. Perhaps there are complaints about the engines, because nothing is perfect. They can and should be modernized and / or changed to fundamentally new, still a decent amount of gliders.
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 15 October 2013 17: 42
    +2
    Wait to cheat.
    An indispensable thing to launch low-orbit satellites (and to intercept).
    In modern warfare, who controls the cosmos wins the earth.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 00: 02
      +2
      ABOUT...................................
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 16 October 2013 00: 07
        +1
        Hi Lesh, it’s a pity that this is all left in Kazakhstan.
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 00: 16
          0
          Hi, Sasha. Remained or not left .. and so a good idea.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 16 October 2013 00: 21
            +1
            Yes Lesh, maximum return, minimum cost! I remembered: And Peter the Great looks sadly, what have you done to the country!
            1. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 00: 39
              +1
              Promptly to throw into orbit some kind of "Eye" or electronic warfare transmitters on atomic batteries. Now our atomic scientists are advancing in the field of mini-reactors. Such a Northern Lights can be arranged soldier
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 16 October 2013 00: 44
                +2
                Lesh even restore the orbital grouping, that would be the case!
                1. Thunderbolt
                  Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 00: 50
                  +2
                  There will be personal responsibility and it will be, everything will be fine. We will answer asymmetrically, work is underway bully
                2. studentmati
                  studentmati 16 October 2013 00: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: Alex 241
                  Lesh even restore the orbital grouping, that would be the case!


                  This matter is more important, I think!
                  And with nuclear reactors there were already projects. As far as I remember, one of them fell to Canada, and the remaining 30 were transferred into orbits with a period of fall to the Earth from 300 to 600 years.
                  1. Thunderbolt
                    Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 00: 57
                    0
                    Quote: studentmati
                    one of them fell to Canada, and the rest
                    the rest will fall a little south)))
                    1. studentmati
                      studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 01
                      0
                      Quote: Thunderbolt
                      the rest will fall a little south)))


                      And who by that time will control the territories "much to the south"? So I don’t know?
                  2. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 16 October 2013 00: 57
                    0
                    Something I recall Sash, our Cosmos collided with an American satellite.
                    1. studentmati
                      studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Alex 241
                      Something I recall Sash, our Cosmos collided with an American satellite.


                      I don’t remember the details. Year 77-78, you have to dig.
                      1. Thunderbolt
                        Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 01: 06
                        0
                        http://www.testpilots.ru/2009/02/stolknulis-sputniki/
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 07
                        0
                        Sanya is the one about whom he wrote later in my opinion in 2009.
                      3. studentmati
                        studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Sanya is the one about whom he wrote later in my opinion in 2009.


                        I understand you, Sash. I mean it was our early projects, I read about them in paper format, I remember the teachers from Mozhaika wrote or what? The source is open, I prevent professional vigilance. Rummage, throw off, if interested?
                      4. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 17
                        +1
                        Sanya, as usual, thank you very much!
                      5. studentmati
                        studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Sanya, as usual, thank you very much! I’ll see for sure that I’ve heard something, I’d like to know more!


                        I wrote about professional vigilance, not yet reading your comment on certain systems. What is it? Probably a coincidence again? Or?
                      6. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 26
                        +1
                        Sasha, yes, many people want to rush on a machine gun cart in the Chapaev’s father’s hat, so I’m saying what a warrior! I’ll check a hundred times before writing that I won’t blurt out anything.
                      7. studentmati
                        studentmati 16 October 2013 01: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        And here everything is on a silver platter, pull the tongue and continue on!


                        This is wrong! stop
                      8. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 01: 32
                        0
                        Sasha, I remember how a cadet went downhill with a description of the MiG-21 ASP-21PF sight under the heading of a chipboard, although the sight was decrypted a long time ago, legally secret, no, actually chipboard. Seven skins were lowered from the guy, and they sent him to such sands ,God forbid.
  • egor 1712
    egor 1712 15 October 2013 17: 43
    0
    Who is this specialist who gave this interview is just nonsense; "speed ... The fact that the 31st can accelerate to 3000 km / h does not give him absolutely any advantages in a fight with the Raptor or the F-15C. There are completely different factors influencing ???? Speed, maneuverability is the key to victory in the sky. ...
    1. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 20: 24
      -2
      Quote: egor 1712
      Speed, maneuverability is the key to victory in the sky ....

      No maneuverability

      LTX MiG-31
      Max. overload - 5G
      Rate of climb - 160 m / s
      The wing load is 600 kg / sq. m (better when less)
      Thrust-to-weight ratio - 0,8

      LTX F-15C
      Max. overload - 9G
      Rate of climb - 250 m / s
      The wing load is 350 kg / sq. m
      Thrust-to-weight ratio - 1,0

      An attempt to enter the MiG-31 in close maneuver combat will end in defeat for the MiG-31
      Unlike the Su-27 or Igla, who are able to effectively fight at any distance

      The fact that the MiG-31 in a "spherical vacuum" is 400 km / h faster than the Igla in reality does not mean ANYTHING. Vehicles in a combat configuration, with suspended missile weapons on external hardpoints never accelerate faster than 1,2-1,8M, otherwise thermal heating will destroy the missiles
      1. biznaw
        biznaw 15 October 2013 21: 54
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        with suspended missile weapons on the external nodes of the suspension never accelerates faster than 1,2-1,8M, otherwise thermal heating will destroy the rockets

        This argument is not the first time, but does it not come out of your postulate that a rocket will never crash an airplane because of thermal destruction. ???
        Mig31 champion !!! Not a single rocket will catch up, burn. MIG is an ideal air defense system, missiles are not needed, with their wings chop everything that will fly into the cabbage ...
        1. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 22: 05
          0
          Quote: biznaw
          a rocket will never crash an aircraft due to thermal destruction. ???

          how much time does the rocket spend in free flight?
          and how many tens of minutes / hours hang under the wing?
          +
          Quote: Alex 241
          at high speed, when maneuvering, the GOS may not have time to measure the angular velocity of the line of sight, each GOS has a field of view angle.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 15 October 2013 22: 15
            +2
            ..........................................
            1. Santa Fe
              15 October 2013 22: 34
              0
              Quote: Alex 241
              ..........................................

              Lepota
            2. Alex 241
              Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 27
              +1
              Someone didn’t like the photo laughing
              1. studentmati
                studentmati 15 October 2013 23: 32
                0
                Quote: Alex 241
                Someone didn't like laughing.


                A worried fifth point, probably? Hi Sasha.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 35
                  0
                  Hi Sash, apparently the head sounds politically incorrect laughing
                  1. studentmati
                    studentmati 15 October 2013 23: 39
                    0
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    ...head...


                    Does the GSN seem to look more abusive to someone? laughing
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 44
                      0
                      Okay, let’s say you are 31 on the topic.
                      1. studentmati
                        studentmati 16 October 2013 00: 03
                        +3
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        You are 31 in the subject.


                        Who would talk about the topic?
                        My opinion is that the MiG-31 can be classified as such creations of the Soviet school in the air, such as Zil-131 on the ground, a manned Union in Cosmonautics. Simple and unpretentious hard workers, sometimes pulling a strap that is too strong for themselves, but doing it with great dignity and pride for their creators.
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 00: 15
                        0
                        Well done San! We must remember a good toast turned out! good
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. BBM
      BBM 16 October 2013 08: 24
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The fact that the MiG-31 in a "spherical vacuum" is faster than "Igla" by 400 km / h in reality does not mean ANYTHING


      well, just a stoned dryer. the difference in the maximum permissible speed for the F-15 and Mig 31 is 0.6 Mach and this is not at all 400 km / h Citizen lied to In addition, in order for the F-15 to accelerate to such a speed, he needs to climb the ceiling at 17-20 km and for this bird means - to burn half the fuel. And he obviously won't be able to do it with bombs on the suspension like on your "baby"
  • saag
    saag 15 October 2013 17: 43
    -1
    In my opinion, to organize the interception of cruise missiles in a separate area, because they will not be able to launch parallel aircraft with one AWACS and almost any interceptors, the same Su-27 as the most common, even the Yak-130 can be adapted cheaply and cheerfully
  • bandabas
    bandabas 15 October 2013 19: 33
    +4
    I read the article several times. I did not find it. with whom the author spoke. I believe that the MiG-31 is still a unique high-altitude interceptor. with a strong radar, capable of directing "Vedov" to the enemy. There are no analogues in the WEST. Until then.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 20: 34
      -1
      Quote: bandabas
      There are no analogues in the WEST.

      How did you get it with your "has no analogues" (here I appeal to everyone who likes to repeat this phrase)

      Link 16 (TADIL J) is a type of military tactical data exchange network that is close to real. Used by the USA and NATO countries. It is a communication, navigation and identification system that supports the exchange of data between tactical command, aircraft, ships and ground units. Communication is carried out at ultra-high frequency decimeter waves. Frequency hopping provides security. Link 16 provides the transmission of graphic images, text messages, as well as two channels of voice transmission at a speed of 2,4 and / or 16 kbit / s. Link 16 is defined as one of the digital services within the framework of MIDS. (multi-function information distribution system) described in NATO's Standard 5516. The Link 16 network itself is described by US Department of Defense Standard MIL-STD-6016.

      Used since the 1990s

      An incomplete list of NATO's land, sea, and aviation equipment integrated into the Link 16 network:

      Some examples of platforms currently using the Link 16 capability are:
      Aircraft:

      P-3C Orion
      F / A-18 Hornet
      F-15 Eagle
      F-16 Fighting Falcon
      F-18 Super Hornet
      Eurofighter Typhoon
      Dassault Rafale
      Dassault Mirage 2000
      Saab Gripen
      Panavia Tornado
      E-2C Hawkeye
      E-3 Sentry
      MH-60S / R NavalHawk family helicopters
      E-8 Joint STARS
      EA-6B Prowler
      EA-18G Growler
      EP-3C Aries
      Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint

      Ships
      US carrier battle groups
      French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91)
      Italian aircraft carrier cavour (550) and Giuseppe Garibaldi (551)
      Royal Navy Ships, French, Italian, Spanish, Norwegian, Netherlands and German frigates

      Ground vehicles
      VESTA (Verifiëren, Evalueren, Simuleren, Trainen en Analyseren); a minivan with radiotower used for training purposes [1]
      Missile defense systems
      Arrow
      Patriot ICC and Battery Command Post (BCP)
      THAAD
      SHORAD
      Jtags
      Joint Land Attack / Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensors (JLENS)
      Networked weapons
      SDB II
      JSOW-C1
      Command and control
      Joint data network
    2. BBM
      BBM 16 October 2013 20: 44
      0
      Learn the materiel. First of all, there is the very first F-15 (its subsequent modifications were mainly drafted with the expectation of impact capabilities on the ground) and F-14 (they really cut it), but certainly worse. BUT there is still an F-22 that is better and significantly.
  • ruslan207
    ruslan207 15 October 2013 20: 09
    +2
    Actually, in the transfer of wings of Russia, the designer of the MIG-31BM was asked the question: who will have time to press the Mig-31BM missile launch button first or the rapper the designer said the MIG pilot
    1. Santa Fe
      15 October 2013 21: 27
      -3
      Quote: ruslan207
      Actually, in the transfer of wings of Russia, the designer of the MIG-31BM was asked the question: who will have time to press the Mig-31BM missile launch button first or the rapper the designer said the MIG pilot

      Well, what else would he say in the transfer of Wings of Russia
  • anushin10ru
    anushin10ru 15 October 2013 20: 31
    -1
    E NATO TO REPRESENT HYPOTHETICALLY WIDE-BASED WAR BY USUAL ARMS OF RUSSIA AND THE USA, AND Rather, NATO UNITS, OUR AIR FORCES WILL NOT LONG LAST. THEY ARE ASKED BY US AND QUALITY AND QUANTITY. The USSR Air Force could have withstood even a huge amount of LA and air defense equipment. WE ARE ALREADY ALREADY DISCONTINUED IN THE MILITARY RELATIONS OF THE COUNTRY. WE RESERVE THE RESIDUES OF NUCLEAR SHIELD OF THE USSR. NEW WEAPONS ARE VERY SMALL. MIG 31 THE PLANE IS OUTSTANDING, BUT NOW THEY ARE TOO LITTLE AND THEY ARE OLD.
  • e3tozy
    e3tozy 15 October 2013 20: 46
    +1
    A barging interceptor of this class will be relevant until the end of the century, and the Yak-130, MiG-29, Su-27, these 31st aircraft can aim at targets and even use their missiles. Question to specialists. ,, Improved data exchange channels can allow a pair of fighters to implement the principle of bipositional radar, in which the transmitter and receiver are separated by a considerable distance and which allows you to fix weak radiation, "invisible". Helium nitride-based receiver and transmitter modules are being developed that work with a wider spectrum of radiation and which negate the advantage of radar absorbing materials. If you can explain, is that so?
    1. Aeneas
      Aeneas 15 October 2013 23: 08
      +2
      I think if the receiver and transmitter are separated by a considerable distance, then at least 3 receivers will be required to determine the coordinates of the target repeat If the microwave range, because long-wave radars can carry receivers and transmitters for tens of kilometers, but they have a different purpose, and they can’t detect all kinds of cruise missiles yes
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 15 October 2013 23: 13
        0
        About 8TK do not forget.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 October 2013 23: 37
          0
          Sasha, what is it?
          1. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 16 October 2013 08: 29
            0
            I'm not Sasha, but still. CE heat direction finder soldier
  • The comment was deleted.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 15 October 2013 22: 48
    +4
    Some kind of advertising campaign: instant sucks, su-fore.
    I have not read such a set of nonsense for a long time.
  • Aeneas
    Aeneas 15 October 2013 22: 58
    +8
    The AWACS EPR is very large, and ground-based radars (Sky, Defense) will "see" it for many hundreds of km (about 500), while the higher it flies (and this is a necessity for the effective operation of radar reconnaissance and communications equipment), the better it is "it is seen". So the means of RTV of the air defense troops may well issue target designation to the MiG-31, even without the latter using its onboard radar, or target designation of the A-50. And do not forget about the RTR means, and if AWACS is detected, they will be even more effective than the radar, because the reconnaissance range is much (several times) greater than the radar detection range, besides, the RTR means are practically impossible to detect. One senior colleague of mine told me that while serving at the RTR Tamara station near Murmansk, they discovered B-52s over Britain, and here no EPR mattered. For RTR stations detect targets from the emitted signal of an air attack vehicle (airborne radar, communications, navigation), while the signal characteristics of the radio equipment of each aircraft are largely different and there is a possibility of target selection. And of course, AWACS cannot be in radio silence, because in this case the very meaning of the existence of such aircraft ceases ... And then the MiG-31 enters the stage! Receiving target designation from ground-based air defense systems, "the Moor can do his job," and, having destroyed bombers and air command posts with his "long arm," will calmly retire.
  • voliador
    voliador 16 October 2013 00: 22
    0
    Great aircraft with its combat missions.
  • Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 16 October 2013 03: 23
    0
    Many thanks to the author for the article! Very interesting and informative. Mig 31 workhorse, which continues to plow to protect our Slavic sky!
  • hook
    hook 16 October 2013 05: 16
    +1
    He served the state in the Naval Aviation-Aerodromes of Knevichi-Sovkhoz near Vladivostok. MiG25 (31) -the main defender of the borders was. Barring at an altitude of 17-20 kilometers, he controlled about 2000 km in the square of the sea. The boats were guided by the MiG. Pilots, yes, were unhappy with the interceptor performance characteristics. He had an extremely powerful engine and several cases of loss of consciousness by pilots were recorded due to ignoring the rules of high-speed flight in a straight line. His afterburner loaded the pilot up to 9 hours. There on the 31st restrictions were already inserted.
  • hook
    hook 16 October 2013 06: 37
    +2
    Sorry-now again argued with the caste (pilots) -so they are sure that on the MiG 31 they will leave the missile defense of any NATO ship. The most important thing is to give target designation to headquarters and to reach the airfield. Here is such a VMA interceptor. For 31 approaching to an altitude of 25 km at a speed of 2 mach is a trifling matter, and for a caste, it is a matter of honor to sustain such a feint.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 October 2013 14: 41
      0
      Quote: hook
      that on the 31 MiG they will leave the air defense missile of any NATO ship

      well

      On February 21, 2008, the SM-3 rocket was launched from the Lake Erie cruiser in the Pacific Ocean and hit a satellite located at an altitude of 247 kilometers, moving at a speed of 27,3 thousand km / h (7,6 km / s).
      The Russian government has accused the United States of conducting weapons tests in the interest of creating a missile defense system, including the ability to destroy foreign satellites.


      Launch of SM-3 rocket from Aegis destroyer of the Japanese Navy "Congo"
      1. hook
        hook 16 October 2013 16: 00
        0
        Calculated simply. This rocket does not have enough fuel to reach the first space velocity. The trajectory is predictable. MiG1 (25) -will leave from it. Caste will sweat losing his sight, but will not go to intercept. They in the Naval Aviation hang tanks with kerosene and not weapons. The main thing is to give target designation to the headquarters and hold on to the airfield without losing the car which has kerosene for 31 minutes of afterburner.
        1. hook
          hook 16 October 2013 17: 23
          0
          By the way, they have even less alcohol than kerosene, although there is a lot (50 liters) compared to other fighters. Loitering and observation are carried out at speeds of about 700 km - higher - do not allow the characteristics of the equipment - it is calculated 3 hours of patrol. Alcohol is used to cool instruments and at supersonic speed is consumed in minutes and the plane "goes blind"
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2013 16: 25
        +4
        CM-3 cannot be used to destroy aircraft :)))
        The satellite could fly at a speed of at least 7,6 km / s, at least 17,6 km / s :))) The task of the rocket is not to "catch up and intercept", but just to put the kinetic interceptor on the road to the satellite :)) to block the path of the leopard maybe a snail - the only question is how long it takes to warn the snail so that it can crawl to the path along which the leopard is running :)))
        1. Santa Fe
          16 October 2013 16: 53
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          SM-3 cannot be used to destroy aircraft

          just an example of the fact that neither high speed nor flight altitude are salvation from modern air defense systems

          USA-193 is the ultimate case
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          CM-3 cannot be used to destroy aircraft :)))

          For aircraft there is a SM-2ER block 4
          and the LTH MiG-31 with suspended missiles is equal to any other aircraft
  • BITL_DJUS
    BITL_DJUS 16 October 2013 08: 54
    +1
    Article, duck.
  • Walker1975
    Walker1975 16 October 2013 10: 56
    0
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Quote: BBM
    just tell me honestly, supergrob-100 aka pogost-100 is ours.

    You say so. Do you feel jealous or bad when new planes are launched in Russia? Russia goes forward, in small steps, but forward, but where Ukraine is moving is a big question.


    I believe in my bright future with normal relations with neighbors
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 16 October 2013 15: 16
    +1
    The people forgot to mention that the MIG31, among other things, was supposed to be used to put various military and civil aircraft into low Earth orbit, as well as a flying platform for launching anti-satellite missiles, similar to what the USA implemented on the basis of Ф15 .

    More information on the sites http://army.lv/en/mig/894/332 and http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon.

    Those. this "litak" has not yet exhausted its possibilities. The main thing is to implement them wisely.