Russia to field MiG-31 replacement by 2020 - Commander.

Rian ^

[cunning_fish]

MOSCOW, April 11 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Air Force is hoping to receive a new long-range fighter-interceptor by 2020 and retire its existing fleet of MiG-31 interceptors by 2028, Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said on Thursday. “We have started development of a new aircraft of this type and I think we can develop this plane before the state armament program ends in 2020,” Bondarev said at a meeting with Russian lawmakers. “The new plane should replace the existing fleet by 2028,” he said. Bondarev spoke out against restarting production of the MiG-31, which was stopped 20 years ago, saying the country needs a totally new interceptor to meet modern requirements. The Russian Air Force has 122 MiG-31 interceptors in service and more aircraft in reserve, he said.

[cunning_fish]

The MiG-31, the fastest fighter-interceptor in service anywhere in the world, has recently been the subject of a comprehensive upgrade to MiG-31BM standard. The MiG-31BM has a range of 900 miles (1,450 km) on internal fuel, which can be extended to 3,355 miles (5,400 km) with air-to-air refueling.

The modernized version boasts upgraded avionics and digital data-links, a new multimode radar, color multifunction cockpit displays, and a more powerful fire-control system. It can simultaneously track up to 10 targets. The two-seat MiG-31 can intercept targets up to 124 miles (200 km) away thanks to its advanced radar and long-range missiles. The Air Force said in 2012 it was testing a new long-range missile for the MiG-31, which analysts who spoke to RIA Novosti said was likely to be the K-37M, also known as RVV-BD (NATO AA-X-13 Arrow). The Russian Air Force has previously said it intends to take delivery of up to 60 MiG-31BMs by 2020, under a contract signed with United Aircraft Corporation in 2011. MiG-31 interceptors are an integral part of a comprehensive aerospace defense network being created in Russia to thwart any potential airborne threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles.

[Chode]

the pilot better hope he never needs to see whats behind him...

[Vendome]

Target acquired ...

[Paleo Conservative]

The MiG-31, the fastest fighter-interceptor in service anywhere in the world, has recently been the subject of a comprehensive upgrade to MiG-31BM standard.

I was curious what does the "BM" mean?

[GeronL]

Butt Mulch?

[null and void]

ping

[Oztrich Boy]

I was curious what does the "BM" mean?

"Big Modernization" (Bolshaya Modernizatsiya)

[X-spurt]

In all likelihood it will be no different than all the other “ruski’d up copies”, it will not stand the test of real combat.

[cunning_fish]

In fact they have various confusing abbreviations. There was a Mig-31bm version in earlier 80s and it was a 'РЭБ' - radio-electronic warfare aircraft or jammer and anti-AWACS, anti-radar platform. Recent one probably stands for 'deeply modernized' with long range bvr missiles and fire control to use it.

[cunning_fish]

C’mon. Mig-31 is a one nice aircraft. It is believed to be a reason for SR-71 retirement at the time.

[PotatoChop]

Just as soon as the Russians and the Chinese compare notes from the “stealth” plans they stole from or were given to them by this communist in the WH, they will build their own version of the F-22 Raptor, much like the stealth drone this WH gave to Iranians, subsequently the Chinese and the Russians!

Nether Country even thought about building a stealth fighter until the United States flew their F-117 in the 1980’s.

Wait for it, their so called new plane will look almost identically like our F-22!

[PotatoChop]

BM=Bowel Movement?

[X-spurt]

Come ON .... what’s the survival rate for Russian made junk up against USA aircraft and tanks?

SR-71 retired because it was no longer needed as satellites were able to do a better job for lower cost.

No one except civilians are fearful of Russian made arms (because that is exactly what their design and purpose is). As said, they do not stand the test of real combat against a peer.

[cunning_fish]

>>>No one except civilians are fearful of Russian made arms (because that is exactly what their design and purpose is). As said, they do not stand the test of real combat against a peer.<<<

Liberal lies. Ask Iran and Pakistan. US-made armor and aircraft made some nice smoking wrecks and lawn darts against Soviet gear in Iraqi and Indian hands. Is it a proof of domestic gear’s inferiority?

What you mean as a ‘pear’? A 2000-strong AWACS-backed coalition airforce against a few dozen Iraqi fighters back in 1991? LOL.

[spetznaz]

Don't bother Cunningfish. Some will always use the performance of the US led coalition against a ragtag Iraqi airforce that didn't even have radar warning receivers in their planes as the litmus test. That's like using the performance of a professional basketball team against an all-girl kindergarten softball team.

While US equipment definitely has a superlative edge in most areas, many here forget that edge was primarily as a response to then current and expected threats. If the opponent only fielded 'crap' that wouldn't be the case. Using their train of logic I guess one could say the F-16 is crap since Indian MiG-29s were making Pakistani F-16s turn tail and run. The Viper must be crap, right? Or maybe it is because the Indian Fulcrums had modern radar and missiles with BVR capability, while the Pakistani F-16s in that incident only had WVR sidewinders. Nah ....let's use FR 'logic' and call the Viper 'crap' (even though the F-16 has a record only surpassed by the F-15).

As you mentioned, one can also bring out the performance of American made arms/materiel/armor in the hands of the iranians against the Soviet Iraqi materiel. I guess that proves American equipment being used by non-Americans is 'crap,' right? Or maybe the logical (non FR) reason is the Iraqis, with the Russian advisors, were better trained than the Iranians who had tossed their American advisors after the revolution.

Another example is the Israeli experience against Soviet SAMs and anti-tank missiles in the hands of the Egyptians. Over a hundred aircraft destroyed and 400 tanks killed before the Israelis came up with battle tactics that turned the tide of the war and enabled them to absolutely destroy the Arab armies.

Maybe the F-18 is crap. Of the 44 coalition aircraft lost in combat against the crap Iraqi IADS, an F-18 flown by LCDR Scott Speicher was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25. Considering the FoxBat is even 'crappier' than the FoxHound, that must make the F-18 truly Special, right? Or maybe the logical truth is in the fog of war the brave Navy pilot found himself in a bad situation.

My point is - US equipment definitely is superior in most metrics (including some critical ones that are truly important). The US has also had good performance in the last couple of decades against powerful luminaries like Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and recently Libya and a special forces campaign in the northern parts of Uganda. However, ineffective use of foreign weapons by third world countries doesn't make the weapons useless. Unless, of course, ineffective use of American weapons by the likes of Iran and Pakistan means American weapons are 'crap' (which we know is not the case).

Come think of it though ....India, using crap weapons, did manage to take half of Pakistan away leading to the creation of Bangladesh. Interesting performance considering the use of crap against American weapons.

[cunning_fish]

>>>Maybe the F-18 is crap. Of the 44 coalition aircraft lost in combat against the crap Iraqi IADS, an F-18 flown by LCDR Scott Speicher was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25. Considering the FoxBat is even ‘crappier’ than the FoxHound, that must make the F-18 truly Special, right? Or maybe the logical truth is in the fog of war the brave Navy pilot found himself in a bad situation.<<<

AFAIK, 44 aircraft are combat losses of USAF&USN only. Iraqis also downed 7 British fighters, 1 Italian and 1 Kuwaiti jet.

At the same time Iraqis lost 36 jets in combat.

Not only they had a first AA-kill in battle (RIP poor Speicher), they actually shot more coalition aircraft than they lost themselves.

[X-spurt]

What?? another Kenyan claiming one thing and proving out to be something totally different?

I always get a charge from poking you bunch of ruski lovers who show up every time.

Proof of Russian junk is in the pudding my FRiend.

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

So, if the proof’s in the pudding, which is a more representative case for you: the various Indian - Pakistani conflicts since 1971 or the various engagements of the U.S. against our various 3rd world adversaries (as listed by Spetsnaz) over the same period?

[spetznaz]

The fact his only response was 'you are a Kenyan nah nah nah nah-nah nah' shows the limits of his facts (and his thinking). I'd say the experience of the Indians vs the Pakistanis (especially how half of Pakistan was converted into Bangladesh) and the Iraqis vs Iranians provides more of a peer to peer analysis than the pounding of the Iraqis (or other amazingly 'powerful' countries like Grenada and Somalia) by a qualitatively and quantitatively superior force. I also believe he takes my saying that US equipment is superior in aggregate to competing foreign systems (eg Russian, Israeli, European, etc) as meaning the foreign systems are crap. That shows an inability to think beyond binary ...where X being better means Y is crap, when in the real world X being better can still have Y being good. He took my saying that American equipment is better (it is) to meaning foreign analogues are crap (they are not ....Arlington says so). Fortunately most adults let go of that sort of binary thinking in late middleschool.

Finally, I put more credence into the investment of the US into cutting edge systems and strategies over him/her/it. The investment of the US into super weapons like the Raptor (to maintain a definitive edge over Russian fighters that were expected then and are only starting to come now), the Seawolf (edge over submarines expected then and coming now), B2 (abilityto penetrate sophisticated IADS), etc, show preparation against foreign capability. If it was crap they'd just maintain equipment necessary to defeat 'powerful' countries like Panama and Afghanistan and not bother with pathetic weaklings like China and Russia.

Anyways, during the cold war there was debate between A-10 and Apache crews ....about which system would survive longer if the balloon ever went up and the Soviets came streaming across the Fulda Gap. I know many here think foreign systems are crap, and that any attempt to inject logic is 'being a Ruskie lover,' but facts are facts. The fact is the US has superior weaponry. That's a fact. The fact is foreign systems are not crap. That's a fact. The fact is the US has defeated FAR WEAKER countries decisively. That's a fact. The fact is a country like India, using Soviet weaponry, has defeated a PEER COUNTRY like Pakistan (leading to the loss of half of Pakistan) even though Pakistan had US equipment and advisors. Which is a more telling metric? An NBA team defeating a kindergarten school, or two college basketball teams playing each other? Who should brag more?

[tanknetter]

But will the new plane’s weapons’ systems require the pilot to think in Russian?