The long range maneuverable missile you're descbribing is the MBDA Meteor. It's basically the "I win" button of aerial combat today. It uses a traditional rocket boost motor combined with a solid fuel ramjet sustainer that has a super long burn time due to the impulse advantage that an airbreathing engine gets over a rocket.
The R37 is called Axehead as far as I know. The Mig31 can really launch this thing with high energy. A mach 5 missile launched at Mach 2 from angels 50 is something to consider. But most importantly, this thing (R37M) flies balistic so it falls on it's prey from angels 100, no RWR warning cause it comes from the RWR dead zone with TWS lock as well, Dangerous.
MIG 31 is a fast interceptor. It’s weapons options are impressive for what it is. But I never saw myself worrying about the MIG-25 or 31 when I was in F-14’s with the AIM-54C esp if I could engage BVR. And while the AIM-54C was big and heavy and we paid a drag penalty for the pylon, the missile was highly capable…and had an end game capability that made it very effective even against high G fighters…the warhead was huge…you didn’t eject if you got hit by this… And AI will add capabilities but there is no free lunch for computing power…I am concerned we depend too much on it now for fighter aircraft.
As you can see by the F-4 Phantom.. impart enough KE to a brick and it’ll fly lol 😆.. actually a nice plane ✈️ That’s what gives the Mig-31 the edge. It’s imparting a significant supersonic ke advantage on launch from high altitude… the Ukrainians using R-27 have no counter… they can’t get up to altitude either without the CAP picking them up. Hence the majority of Ukrainian activity is at low level and launching storm shadows and harms… often successfully it should be said. Nearer the FEBA the RUSAF is also low level or bomb lofting. Hence the development of the FAB-500 glide bomb kit
I mean you shouldn’t have to because ideally you wouldn’t go up against one. The design doctrine was to intercept bombers and spy planes across the vast landmass of the Soviet Union and engage it with long range missiles and its powerful radar.
The AIM-54 was great on paper, but I'm very skeptical of its capabilities in reality. U.S. combat experience with the missile is 2 duds and a miss, and plenty of people who claim to have experience with it in live fire exercises report pretty dismal reliability as well. The Iranians reportedly had better luck. Maybe it was the drier conditions, or the lack of carrier traps that helped keep the missiles serviceable, but they also have some wild claims, like killing 3 aircraft with 1 missile. For that reason I tend to believe their claims are highly exaggerated. I don't know anything about the AA-9's reliability, the data just doesn't exist, but the evidence just doesn't let me go along with the claims that the AIM-54 was some wonder weapon.
To answers your question the WSO of the Mig-31 had a pretty important role. Operating the radar of a Mig-31 is likely closer to operating the PESA radar of a SA-10/S-300PS those radars still require a ton of work for the crew furthermore the big thing for the mig-31 when it entered service was to basically be a giant datalink node for other fighters like Su-27s. So that guy in the back is also reading a big old F-14 style TID and trying to send data link tracks to flight members some of it automatic some of it manually.
Its an impressive do it all system. Its command and control as well as long range force projection. It can hold off enemies at 100+ miles. Sure, the hit probability is low, but taking that risk is not something any pilot wants to do. Within that 100 mile zone all other assets can work comfortably.
As a JSTARS crewmember, the MiG-31 was something we would have worried more about than something like a Su-27 (back when I was self-loading baggage in the early 2000s).
I’ve heard and seen a few Ukrainian accounts about facing the MiG 31 and the RM-37. They have used them exactly as you described, hang back and lob missiles at range. They have a very low kill rate but they don’t need to have it higher. It tactically limits the Ukrainian Air Force cause they have to worry about long range missiles constantly. That being said I think the Ukrainians are doing a good job at working around that cause it has obviously not stopped them from operating.
Ukraine can't stop them from operating, but they can put some wear and attrition on the airframes. Mig-31 is only rated for 3500 flight hours, less than half of comparable western jets.
It will be interesting to see how the F-16 comes into the dynamic. I know that the F-16 brings JSOW and SDBs and Ukraine already have the JDAM-ER which they use regularly and I know that the main mission of their MIG-29 and SU-27s is with the AGM-88 but my question is this. Will Ukraine realistically be able to use the AGM-65? They lob S-13s about 2km from the front then drop low and I know that the maverick has got about 12km of range at most hieghts but I don't know if the F-16s Flir will lock onto a target at that range.
@@brookwhiteman9810 I don't think attacking individual moving targets is going to be the most effective use of the F-16. As you mentioned attacking tactical and strategic targets with glide bombs and cruise missiles is probably the most important mission. The F-16 should be able to react quickly and take out temporary troop and vehicle concentrations since it can hand of targets to its munitions in the air, but who knows maybe Ukraine can surprise us once again. Just the threat of a few Meteor missiles on some of the F-16 would severely impact the free reign Russian aircraft have if they stay inside Russian airspace.
@@kilianortmann9979 yes I mean the most Instant impact it will have is it's radar and the amraam but also the ability to use the AGM-88 to its full potential, it should mean that it can be more effective at creating holes in Russia's air defence. The F-16 is a huge game changer in terms of countering helicopters as the Ka-52 needs to be within around 13km of its target to engage. The ultimate goal for Ukraine is to hit russian air bases enough so that russian aircraft is constantly being based further and further away and then to push russias air defence line back so that eventually Ukraine can perform direct fire missions with their remaining soviet airframes.
Lol the only reason why MiG-31s are operating in Ukraine is to test missiles like the Kinzhal. The Russians have demonstrated from day one that they controlled Ukrainian airspace with S-400 systems located in Belarus. The Ukrainians have no large strategic aircraft that MiG-31s are actually designed to shoot down.
When I was in the Air Force, it was always my opinion that the MiG-31 was an underrated aircraft, even when it was only carrying AA-9s (AA-13s obviously make it more dangerous). It's really hard to overstate the impact of very high speed/altitude. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people made/make the mistake trying to make a "fair" comparison, by assuming the MiG-31 and its opponent will be in similar flight regimes (altitude, airspeed), when that is almost certain not going to be the case. As for defending against an AA-13, outmaneuvering a missile, any missile, is way down on the list on ways I'd like to beat a threat. Ideally, I'd want to beat it with stealth, so it doesn't even know I'm there, then probably with jamming, where it knows I'm there, but can't get a fire control solution, then kinematically, where pK drops to 0, finally, out-maneuvering the missile or hoping the self defense jammer and counter-measures defeat its logic are at the very bottom of the list.
Exactly. Lemoine started to trash it ... but I just love Gonky's humility and technical acumen to reign it in ... and from there we got a great discussion ... (one of my favorites actually). And for those able, treated to some info if you don't mind reading btwn the lines.
The Su27/35 is the definition of a self escort strike. People call it a fighter and forget that it is a big plane that is doing what the F18 is doing AND what the F15 is doing. You are right the MiG 31 is pretty much an F14 but better and more modern. You could give the missile a nick name "hand of god" because you will never see it coming if it is in fact targeting you. One of the advantages of the Hyper-sonic missiles is that it narrows the margin of error a SAM sight has. It has to predict its trajectory farther and intercept earlier and faster than before, thus limiting its margin to maneuver. Pretty much if a SAM sight had a 80% intercept rate before, it now has more like a 20% intercept rate. I think Millenium7 had a great analysis of what hypersonics do to SAM radar systems and how it makes SAM's useless. In other words, its very hard to defend from this missile. If you go COLD it will out run you. That is the danger. If you push, it will hit you even faster than you think. Think about it, at mach 5, a missile covers 100 miles in ONE MINUTE. Lets say your EWS can't warn you till the missile is within 40-50 miles and the hypersonic was fired in TWS. Its a big missile with a massive radar/seeker. It will cover that 40 mile's in under 30 seconds. What are you going to do? Maneuver? Sure, that gives you a 50/50 chance. If you go COLD you are done. You turn into a snake going left right left right hoping it missiles, which it probably will. But now for 30 seconds you are doing nothing but avoiding. Now take that whole concept and pair it with an actual fighter force. Lets say 2 Su35's with one Mig 31. The hypersonic will keep you defensive within a 100 mile radius and the fighters can get up close and personal. The amount tactics that open up when your opponent and comfortably get close to you is ENORMOUS. So because our little american brains only think about "missile success rate" and stuff, its hard to wrap your head around that the missile DOESN"T NEED TO HIT YOU. All it needs to do is push you defensive over, and over, and over, and keep you far enough away to allow other assets to comfortable perform their jobs. In the end, it doesn't matter if you fire 1 missile or 10 missiles, a kill is a kill. Its like racing. Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning. And when you can crank out missiles for 1/10th the cost of NATO, this strategy long term is effective, and that is what people miss.
Rally MIG 31 is one of the most overlooked plane. And as its speed, radar and 400km missle are its most famous features they weren't the most important. MIG 31 was not just a replacement for MIG 25, it came as a part of Soviet who sale air defense tactics. First most obvious improvement were the engines, which were much smaller and more efficient, which gave great radius boost. In the Soviet doctrine these aircraft had to patrol the endless border in inhospitable places. An typical airwing consisted of 4 planes that spread 200km appart and that way control area 800km wide and 400km deep. And here comes their most important and innovative feature.... these 4 planes had data link between each other , not only that but the could share targeting information with lower tear fighters like MIG29, SU 27 and even MIG23 . So the commander of the MIG31 squad could designated targets, but even shoot the weapon. So we have Rader signal from one direction and AA missiles hit from another. This tactic was prepared in case NATO decided to implement air strike against USSR of the type we saw against Ygoslavia and Iraq 1991. And I am quite sure that such an attack would have been rappeled with great success.
I think, the "Big deal" nowadays is, that the MIG-31 can haul the Kinzhal missile. It is a derivative of the Iskander missile, (which could be Nuclear-tipped), and has almost twice the speed and 3 times the range of an R-37. It's not an AA-missile though. For what it was supposed to do, the MIG 31 is pretty brilliant. The capability to give a Missile a little more oomph from a high-speed aircraft from high altitude, is pretty neat to have. The R-37 can be lobbed by many other Russian planes. But the Kinzhal is restricted to the Mig-31 and SU-34.Where the missile's performance is clearly in favour of the MIG. I don't think, handling or maneuverability was that important, when all it should do, was to intercept spy planes. The 800 rounds of 30 mil was a surprise amount though. Given the fact, that it was able to outrun it's own bullets once they started to slow down. Not unlikely with these huge intakes.
There was a US carrier based aircraft back in the 60s that was being tested and during one of its flights where they (I can’t for the life of me remember the name of the thing, think it had a delta wing design but don’t quote me) test fired the guns, this very thing happened with the rounds if I recall. Pilot survived, aircraft….no.
The Mig-31 is the best possible lauch platform for a hypersonic missile. They launch Kinzhals at 60k ft at M2.5. Whilst su34 and Backfire are also official launch platforms, rhey are rarely used as they can't launch it with that much energy. I think that's why Americans have struggled to even get an air launched ballistic missile because they can only launch it from a bomber so they'd have pitiable range.
As in the missile is pulling 8g? That’s not really a full picture of maneuverability either. Because the the radius of a turn doing Mach 5 at 80,000 feet is a lot different than 8g at 300knots at 15k feet.
The R-37 is outdated and has been replaced by the R-37M. When the R-37M reaches hypersonic speeds a plasma bubble is formed around the missile which makes it invisible to radar.
"Hypersonic" sounds cool, but "super-duper sonic" would have been better. And then after that, "extra-super-duper sonic." Mover, if you need me to edit your sci-fi novel, you just let me know.
Probably worth mentioning that there is a legitimate distinction to be made between super- and hypersonic flight regimes, it's not just a buzzword. Supersonic is an aerodynamic regime, hypersonic is a thermodynamic regime. Obviously there's a gradual crossover between the two and the R37 doesn't feature the blunt body design that full on hypersonic flight demands, so we can reasonably conclude that the R37 only operates at hypersonic speeds for short periods of time and/or only just reaches the lower end of the hypersonic regime
I saw a clip a few weeks ago with a Ukrainian Mig 29 pilot who said that one of the biggest problems they have is the stone age radar in the Mig 29, they can't even see the jets that are shooting at them, added to that, the Mig 29's RAWR gear is basically none existent means they are just about flying blind in a long range missile enviroment.
The report is clear. The Mig-31 is imparting significant energy to the R-37M. There were eight CAP zones established. It lofts the R-37M into Ukraine from Russia… scary…
Foxhound is an updated husky MiG25. Question is, throughout the 500 they have, how many are updated to the most modern versions? Im gathering that all it can do is see large RCS's at a longer distance and with the new missiles can launch them from longer ranges. As for anything that we have that is low observable, they can't see it from a distance that favorable to them.
Food for thought, when a MiG-31 takes to the sky, all of air-raid sirens in Ukraine go off. Not just a few regions, the entire country gets put on alert. Ukrainians take this jet very seriously.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325I think they're using sirens for any attacks, the mig31 is nothing special about it. Sirens are a way to inform people of an incoming attack or disaster, of any kind. In reportage, even simple artillery attacks are activating the sirens.
@@josephking6515People are always making it as the mig31 is a big deal, as many other aspects about russian military things, when the Ukraine war already shown there were only propagandas. Even before the Ukraine war, famous experts or engineers, were already saying the russia military equipments were overhyped by the internet communities. The mig31 wouldn't stand a chance almost against NATO fighter jets, mig31 is a short lifespan aircraft, that's many of them crashed in recent years, and this number increased since the Ukrainian war. It's far from being a reliable machine, as its predecessor the mig25.
@@pinayinfrance2642 for missile attacks they activate sirens only in regions through which missiles fly. For MiG-31, they activate sirens in the entire country from the moment it goes up to the moment it lands.
@@Etha-xi8ei I know they've hit a couple helicopters at near max range, but I dont know the specific claim for the Su27, except that it was in excess of 100km.
We don't actually know the launch platform, just know that it was made by a R-37M on a Ukrainian Su-27. Russian sources claim it was a Su-57 (unlikely), but the RUSI (UK Gov) report doesn't mention the launch platform at all.
Was never meant to mix it with fighters , but to take down bombers from long range! The Mig-31K which carry the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, is meant for ground strike at very long range!
Mover, I'm really interested in your comment about continued production of the Viper. I've always been fascinated by the F-16XL, and think that the USAF would have been in a far better position today if they had gone more or less "wall to wall" with the bigger version of the Viper, and kept the Eagles for OCA/DCA missions. With hindsight being 20/20, do you think that we would have been better off today had we done that due to the speed/payload/range? What would we have lost?
I think there's a little mistake in the article about the MiG-31...Well I think there're plenty of mistakes, but nevertheless. The Space Tourism plane was the MiG-25, up until the complete retirement of the MiG-25 fleet, for ~15 000 USD you could get to 24 km or 80 000 feet, but that's something never coming back. Interestingly enough, one of the companies offering the "Edge of Space '' experience explained that after retiring the MiG-25, the high altitude flights would be only with MiG-29, not MiG-31, because of the poor visibility from the WSO's seat. I think that was a nice way of saying - the Russkies have plans for the 31's, and western tourists ain't part of them. Anyway the current production model is called the K-37M (product 610M), with max range of ~189 miles, the 100 miles is for the export variant. The brochure says that it can turn at 8g, who knows what that means. As for the speed of the thing it says just ~6M or Mach 6...
8Gs as in it can hit a target pulling upto 8Gs , meaning lets say the r37 is fired at a su27 , the su27 has to pull more than 8Gs to have a higher % to dodge it.
The Mig31 is probably one of the most uniquely capable fighters in the world. It's also a rare resource even though many exist. They aren't making new ones.
I don't know if Mover just made this video too late or if he missed it, but there was the longest air to air kill in October. The missile was an R-37M and it was reportedly at 217km, 117NM, the target was a Flanker. You can read about it on London Politica.
the r-37 (aa-13) can and does turn. that's how it has taken out so many su-27s trying to get away. It has a sustainer motor so its still burning way way out when you think it is just falling out of the sky and a few moves will cause it to run out of energy. also it's got active radar on terminal. it's a beast. only way to get away is to run if you figure it out quick enough.
Who cares? In civil aviation, or western military aviation, knots (KT) are used for speed; those are nautical miles per hour, hence distance is in nautical miles (NM). 200 km is 108 NM.
If it spikes a pilots radar, can't you just notch back and forth until it loses energy or tracking, also would it's speed prevent it from turning fast?
you can but are you really willing to bet a xx million dollar jet and a pilot to test that theory when your pilot can simply go cold once they get locked (failing the mission but atleast they can join another mission).
From what I understand, mig31’s get really high and really fast over Russia and launch these as far as they can into Ukraine, yes the probability of kill is relatively low, if works at keeping the Ukrainians on their toes. I think it was a su57 that got the longest confirmed air to air kill with this thing, 217km
The other factor here is, if Ukraine does get F-16s, they’re not going to be Charlie and Delta models. They’re earlier versions with mods. Not the same thing at all. Plus, there are numbers out there showing the number of Mig-31 kills. They’re at the top of the list (at last check), over SU-27, SU-31, SU-34, SU-35, etc, etc.
@@mikemontgomery2654 Upon implementation of the MLU program the cockpit and avionics in the F-16AM/BM models were exactly the same as the F-16C/D Block 50/52. They have the same potential. Whether they are on par with each other nowadays depends on how much the specific countries kept updating them. Belgium has implemented the Scorpion HMCS and Carrapace passive RWR etc. They also have AIM-9X and AIM-120-C7 which are pretty capable. (Same for other countries) What are you referring to when you say "limited"?
@@MrDieing the sensors aren’t quite as capable, despite the upgrade. The bigger problem for them tight now, is mostly their age. High-time airframes that will deteriorate pretty rapidly. I’ve been watching it happen with the CF-18. Despite the upgrades to these F-16s, the Charlie’s have left them in the dust, comparatively. Add to that, they have to contend with the Mig-31’s ability to see them first and shoot at them. That’s going to be a problem.
@@mikemontgomery2654 They only gotta last until #russiaTerroristState is forced out of or under Ukrainian soil. Then they can work on building their airforce with new aircraft tailored to their conditions and needs. Possibly the best option; Thank you Sweden. 👍
Is it likely that aircraft flying at low altitude to avoid being held at threat by integrated air defence, are by virtue of the low altitude leaving themselves more vulnerable to the Mig-31/R-37 combination? Based on your outline of the aircraft and missile, I'm assuming that they're intended to see and shoot anything the ground based systems cannot.
Mig-25 shot down F-18C in Iraq with a radar and missile that's far behind even R-33, not to mention R-37. So there's that. F-18 didn't laugh and avoid.
That's the plane that makes sense to Russia. It is a huge country and they want to cover it somehow. With it's powerful radar and link, let's not forget it was the first operational aeroplane with really functional link and data sharing back at the beginning of 1980s, four planes could cover 900-1000 km width, it is, sort of, self containing AWACS.
Those MIG 31 air frames are in good shape, so I think they are going to be in operation after MIG 41 were put in service, also you are not talk about the MIG 31K adapted to launch the Kinzhal missile.
Isn’t there a “suppression” factor as well? A mig31 at 100 miles keeping its adversary defensive might just ruin their mission profile and force them bingo fuel? Maybe that’s optimistic.
The GSh-6-23 in the MiG-31 is, as the name suggests, a 23mm gun. So the caliber and ammo capacity are still remarkable for a fighter, but it's no Warthog ;-). The rate of fire is all the more impressive, though. It's a friggin laser!
They need to invest in “stealthing “ the F-14 like they did to the F-15! A fraction of the cost and oodles more multipurpose capabilities than the F-35!
The Silent Eagle wasn't purchased by anyone because it never achieved low observability. Putting internal weapons bays and canting the vertical stabilizers on a 4th gen airframe isn't nearly enough to lower its RCS to 5th gen levels. The F-35 you criticize has an RCS of 0.0001m2, the Silent Eagle most likely had an RCS comparable to that of the Su-57 which is a non-stealthy propaganda air show queen. In other words, we'll trust the DoD on these matters over some random Top Gun fan on TH-cam
going from radar cross section of a HOUSE to a radar cross section of a semi truck really isnt worth the investment when you have access to platforms with RCS of a bumblebee and a tennis ball ... making aircraft stealth inst just slapping some paint on it, you have to redesign its air intake, wing geometry, control surfaces even cockpit to achieve stealth and redesigning existing airframe to achieve that is simply NOT worth the effort ...
A fraction the cost? They retired the F-14 because it took ~60h maintanance for every flight hour, more then any other US jet. Thats about 5 times more then the F-16 requires.
NEZ is apparently impressive for an Active AIm-54C+ shot within 11 miles, even though its still a 1000lb missile. That replacement 135 pound blast frag warhead lays serious hurt. You'd want to get that 1000 pound missile off the jet prior to the merge. Too bad you couldnt jett the heavy assed launch rails. Desert Storm didnt carry more than 2. The VID requirements made AIM-54 moot. The belly full of semi recessed AIM-7 and glove mounted AIM-9 with gun allowed Mach 2+ top speeds in a 1976 jet. We do need a modern F-14'ish jet. Large, lotsa gas new big stick. AIM-260?
I thought it was funny how they stopped themselves before accidentally giving away classified information. But I suspect that the U.S. military does have a missile that does something similar to the R-37(AA13) that we are keeping very classified. I suspect that it's probably something like an upgraded Patriot missile modified to be launched from an aircraft. That being said, there's such a thing as diminishing speed when it comes to the speed of the missile. Hypersonic and maneuverability are two words that don't go together. The heat generated by air friction especially at lower altitudes (or any altitude) would be difficult to manage I would imagine. However, a hint was given to the solution of this problem in one of the pictures of a Russian missile in this video. In the picture of the AA-12 Adder at 4:51, it shows that the missile has what looks like air brakes on it. Those may however just be steering fins as I saw that the SpaceX Falcon 9 has similar porous panels that are apparently for steering. Nevertheless if a hypersonic AA or SAM missile with air brakes got close to a target, deploying air brakes to slow itself down would allow for vastly better maneuverability. If they do this to the R-37 (AA-13) AA missile, that would make the turning capability of that missile potentially much better and thus make it a vastly more deadlier missile. So my question is, does the AA-13 have air brakes on it??? Air brakes (that are ejected after use as they would be too hot to fold back into the missile) coupled with thrust vectoring could potentially make it an incredibly deadly missile. To bypass the heat issues with traditional airbrakes, reverse firing rockets could be used instead similar again, to the SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.
no they dont, they are frantically trying to finish AiM-260 to come back to parity with MDBA Meteor and so far falling behind schedule even on that ... as it is the US abandoned serious AA missile development after the USSR fell apart while the European nations continued development which now leaves US with about two decades of tech gap to what is being put on planes in the Europe... IRIS-T and Meteor is the deadliest missile loadout in the world right now...
@@Asghaad That's as far we know via public information. I'm quite sure there are classified projects that we're not aware of. It would be advantageous to not let the Russians and Chinese know that we have something far better in order to decimate an opposing air force in the opening days of a war.
@@wigon no, US is currently being embarassed by Euroepans by not being able to match theyr missile capability if they had anything better they would show it because the whole US doctrine is that of INTIMIDATION ... you cant intimidate Russia or China by a weapon system that they do not know about ... its also why there is "enough" information about the NGAD fighter program to make other parties "worry" about the capability that US will have in the future the only projects US wouldnt want to be public to be aware of are "doomsday" weapons - biological and chemical ... for conventional weapons its in theyr interest for the oponents to know about so they are AFRAID of them which means that if they had anything to match or outpace the Meteor we would know about it... instead they are making themselves look even more of a fools by going behind the schedule on the AiM-260 ...
The Mig-31 is a big bird with a big radar, and the R37 has some legs. At a basic level, the intent is that a group of MiG-31s with R-37's can go after an E-3, definitely get a mission kill, and have a very good chance at a hard kill. That none of the Mig-31's return home is beside the point. If your in a 707, the R-37 is dangerous, if you're in a Mig-29, it's still a problem you have to avoid. Russia has launched hundreds of R-37's vs Ukrainian fighters. They have lots of mission kills, and very few hard (but not 0) hard kills to show for it. As long as the Russians have R-37's in inventory, this is going to be a problem that the Vipers can't do much about, and the R-37 will contribute to slow attrition of the Vipers. Add some Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen with Meteors to the mix, and the Mig-31's start to suffer from attrition more than the Ukrainians.
that could be the case in age of 4th gen aircraft, not when you would have Raprtos and Lightnings screeneing the AWACS at much further distances or Typhoons that are still low observable armed with Metors that can match your range ... it was good design for its day but as usual times moved on and trying to go fast and high is basically suicide today, unless you are going up against someone who lacks latest capabilities like Ukraine for now ...
abut 2-3 times as much as is normal for a fighter ... while firing much larger caliber than is usual. Its probably the logic of the jets intercepting the escorts with missiles then finishing the bombers with guns - hence larger caliber rounds much more likely to down big target like a bomber with more ammo she isnt winning any maneuvering fights anyway so bit more weight is not that big of a concern
I mean the phoenix is supposedly capable of mach 5 according to wikipedia... And it was a fox-3, even though the radar it had was perhaps questionable... So yeah, bring back the TOMCATS!!!
The air to air losses suffered by Ukraine 2023-2024 are said by some sources as to be mainly caused by MiG-31s and the R-37. I see no reason why an F-16 would be immune to it a A-A missile radar guided that goes faster than Mach 4.
The MiG-31 can just guide a missile fire from a Su-35 that is 30 miles from the target instead of firing its own missiles from 120 miles aways. Making it go pitbull at max speed vs limbing in at barely supersonic, reducing enemy's reaction time.
There's been 1 shoot down of a Ukrainian Mig-29 at around 120 miles with an R37, confirmed. It went down around 90 miles from the contact line, unless you think Russia was flying above Ukraine proper. That's about all the details I know about the incident but its enough to confirm the lethality of the system at long ranges.. There have been reports of other Ukrainian aircraft being shot down from long ranges but only this one has been confirmed, to my knowledge. There could be others that have been confirmed that I just haven't heard of.
It was shortly after this incident that Ukrainian aircraft were reported to be flying exclusively at very low altitudes, even well away from the front. That bit of information suggests that they've lost more than one aircraft from long range fire.
Isn’t the r37 meant to shoot down AWACS? I’m sure it can hit a fighter but I don’t think Russia is telling their pilots to waste r37’s on fighters. The missile’s “estimated” specs are scary but it’s speculation.
8:40 I have played with Jester enough to know that AI RIOs still need A LOT of work to be viable. That F-14E hypothetical better have Heron's Falco because Jester ain't good enough.
R-37M can make you more defenseve when you are in a fighter. When Mig-31 is pared with Su-27 family it can really be a serious problem for any fighter group. Su-27 is in front and Mig-31 is in back. With it's speed and ang long rage high speed missile it can attack any fighter. It will make you defenseve and allow su-27 po position itself better. And mig-31 can simply outrun you. It can flank you. It is a very good airplane.
@@skyraider87 More like its designed and suposed to be operated at supersonic speeds mostly... supercruise means you can go supersonic without AB wich makes it much more efficient ..but doesnt mean you will go allways (or most of the time) in supercruise.. where the Foxhound lives there
@@skyraider87 Sorta.... But with full AB...ALL THE TIME...at least until you reach target altitude. (You need a lotta oomph to get a nearly 50ton plane to 100k feet in a reasonable amount of time). You gotta look at it that way: From the MIG-31 Pilot's perspective at max altitude, an airliner looks TWICE as small, as to you watching the same Airliner from the ground, while IT flies at max altitude.
@kosher That's why the mig31 lifespan is very short also btw. All the very high speed aircrafts built in the world, were only throwable machines, not reliable and ended with very bad crashing statistics. After burners are actually burning deteriorating the aircrafts faster, that's they invented supercruise, which the mig31 isn't even capable from memory.
Its important to note that this thing was able to attack 4 targets simultaneously at long range at high speed in early 80s. Unlike F14 it wasnt limited at zone in which group of targets need to be to be attacked simultaneously for radar to support track. Also what it ended up doing is shooting down fighters in Ukraine. Like F14 did in Iraq-Iran war. Getting close to it is problematic. "Its for bombers" is something that real life proves wrong. Also datalink was a big thing on this plane back in the day.
Pretty clear that a MiG-31 is not designed for a dogfight with the likes of a F-16 in a dogfight but in Ukraine as it was previous US conflicts it's the one (missile) you don't see is the one that gets you (& if a missile is moving mach 5+ warning time would be very short). At least one Ukrainian Air Force official mention a few months back the R-37 was the greatest threat to the Ukrainian AF & had taken down a variety of their (fighter & attack) aircraft. Gonky relayed a good point from a Tomcat pilot, '"Were targeting & shooting things that don't even realize their being targeted yet." Such has been a problem for the Ukrainian AF to date as well. The MiG-31 is (supposedly) able to shoot down low flying cruise missiles so targeting a 4th. gen F-16 not that much different than a MiG-29 opponent. Will be curious with the Viper introduction what sort of electronic warfare equipment will come with them. Helpful to the Ukrainians is at least one R-37 has fallen rather intact into their hands and I'm sure thoroughly pawed over to find out the missiles capabilities (& possibly effective countermeasure). Thanks to the host Gonky & Mover for this discussion!
12:18 Last I checked the cost of a brand new F-35 had just slightly edged below that of a brand new f-16. Why would we ever keep making f-16s when you can get a stealth fighter with a magic eye than can see in 360°, jam with its own radar, and act as its own AWACS?
@@CWLemoine I expect you will be able to make better sense of this than me: I don't know why there's such a huge spread in reported unit costs for the f-16... but it looks like Bulgaria paid a unit cost of $162m for block 70 F-16s, while Taiwan paid more like $108m. Different sources appear to put the cost of an F-35A between $80m for lots 15-17 (maybe it's missing sustainment costs?) and $108m (lots unsure).
I'm very curious to know, if anybody finds out! It doesn't really *matter* to me like it may matter to some... lI have no direct stake in this, other than, y'know relying on a functional Air Force to make sure we don't get bombed 😝 But it's also a very interesting thing to follow over time to see as a former skeptic of the f-35, that it achieves the goals we thought were never gonna happen, and surprises me with some of the capabilities
Something to always remember about Russian military equipment - what the Russians say it can do does not mean it can actually do it. In real world combat MiG-31 has not fought anything other than old MiG-29s. Let's see how they fare against the F-16s.
@@tumelochana345 I think there was 1 F-16 lost to friendly fire? Can’t say I’m too worried about competing with Russia. Half their Navy has been sunk by a country that doesn’t have a Navy
@@pushups2345 It wasn't friendly fire, got hit by a Su-57 using R-37M from over 200km. CNN much, in a modern war, you'd pee you pants fighting a nation like Russia. The US military has never had to deal with an adversary that can fire 20 000 rounds of artillery daily. I doubt you've seen any combat, probably an armchair general.
Pretty sure the r37m has way more energy than an aim 54 given it has a whole 600knots speed advantage Seeker should be better too more on par to the amraam than the old a seeker
I'm not sure if any hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles can currently be carried by fighters, but these things are a pretty big threat to ships also. Adversary nations have had many decades to design missiles that can defeat/evade AEGIS and either sink or get mission kills on carriers, and they have succeeded.
The only nation that might have hypersonic glide vehicles capable of striking American ships is China, Russia has not demonstrated any such technology. The Khinzal family of ballistic missiles are not real hypersonic weapons
6:16 I get what you are saying but if that was 100% true then Ukrainian mig29 would not be getting shot down by them, it's the environment that they are being used in that makes the difference since no 4th gen fighter no matter how agile can only fly low to avoid getting wacked by Russian anti air and that makes them easy pickings for the mig 31 and worst of all by the time these migs know they are getting shot at is when the missiles is coming down at them with very little time to do anything
The long range maneuverable missile you're descbribing is the MBDA Meteor. It's basically the "I win" button of aerial combat today.
It uses a traditional rocket boost motor combined with a solid fuel ramjet sustainer that has a super long burn time due to the impulse advantage that an airbreathing engine gets over a rocket.
+ it can reattack if it misses and still has energy
And it has cruise control like an SUV.
your telling me it can go behind enemy lines on me?!@@lat78610
Exactly. If only they didn't cost a fortune.
@@lat78610 that goes for every modern missile equipped with two way datalink capability
The R37 is called Axehead as far as I know. The Mig31 can really launch this thing with high energy. A mach 5 missile launched at Mach 2 from angels 50 is something to consider. But most importantly, this thing (R37M) flies balistic so it falls on it's prey from angels 100, no RWR warning cause it comes from the RWR dead zone with TWS lock as well, Dangerous.
This
Facts. A missile coming from the top down at that speed with no warning sheesh
I see the Russian trolls are here.
@@warboyrb Nice Russian propaganda there.
@@zeitgeistx5239explain...
MIG 31 is a fast interceptor. It’s weapons options are impressive for what it is. But I never saw myself worrying about the MIG-25 or 31 when I was in F-14’s with the AIM-54C esp if I could engage BVR. And while the AIM-54C was big and heavy and we paid a drag penalty for the pylon, the missile was highly capable…and had an end game capability that made it very effective even against high G fighters…the warhead was huge…you didn’t eject if you got hit by this…
And AI will add capabilities but there is no free lunch for computing power…I am concerned we depend too much on it now for fighter aircraft.
The R-37 is basically their phoenix. It's about a foot longer and the warhead is a few pounds heavier at 135 lbs with a range of 200 miles at Mach 6.
Well the F14 doesn't exist in our arsenal and now the russians can do what we did to us.
As you can see by the F-4 Phantom.. impart enough KE to a brick and it’ll fly lol 😆.. actually a nice plane ✈️
That’s what gives the Mig-31 the edge. It’s imparting a significant supersonic ke advantage on launch from high altitude… the Ukrainians using R-27 have no counter… they can’t get up to altitude either without the CAP picking them up. Hence the majority of Ukrainian activity is at low level and launching storm shadows and harms… often successfully it should be said. Nearer the FEBA the RUSAF is also low level or bomb lofting. Hence the development of the FAB-500 glide bomb kit
I mean you shouldn’t have to because ideally you wouldn’t go up against one. The design doctrine was to intercept bombers and spy planes across the vast landmass of the Soviet Union and engage it with long range missiles and its powerful radar.
The AIM-54 was great on paper, but I'm very skeptical of its capabilities in reality. U.S. combat experience with the missile is 2 duds and a miss, and plenty of people who claim to have experience with it in live fire exercises report pretty dismal reliability as well.
The Iranians reportedly had better luck. Maybe it was the drier conditions, or the lack of carrier traps that helped keep the missiles serviceable, but they also have some wild claims, like killing 3 aircraft with 1 missile. For that reason I tend to believe their claims are highly exaggerated.
I don't know anything about the AA-9's reliability, the data just doesn't exist, but the evidence just doesn't let me go along with the claims that the AIM-54 was some wonder weapon.
To answers your question the WSO of the Mig-31 had a pretty important role. Operating the radar of a Mig-31 is likely closer to operating the PESA radar of a SA-10/S-300PS those radars still require a ton of work for the crew furthermore the big thing for the mig-31 when it entered service was to basically be a giant datalink node for other fighters like Su-27s. So that guy in the back is also reading a big old F-14 style TID and trying to send data link tracks to flight members some of it automatic some of it manually.
Its an impressive do it all system. Its command and control as well as long range force projection. It can hold off enemies at 100+ miles. Sure, the hit probability is low, but taking that risk is not something any pilot wants to do. Within that 100 mile zone all other assets can work comfortably.
As a JSTARS crewmember, the MiG-31 was something we would have worried more about than something like a Su-27 (back when I was self-loading baggage in the early 2000s).
I’ve heard and seen a few Ukrainian accounts about facing the MiG 31 and the RM-37. They have used them exactly as you described, hang back and lob missiles at range. They have a very low kill rate but they don’t need to have it higher. It tactically limits the Ukrainian Air Force cause they have to worry about long range missiles constantly. That being said I think the Ukrainians are doing a good job at working around that cause it has obviously not stopped them from operating.
Ukraine can't stop them from operating, but they can put some wear and attrition on the airframes. Mig-31 is only rated for 3500 flight hours, less than half of comparable western jets.
It will be interesting to see how the F-16 comes into the dynamic. I know that the F-16 brings JSOW and SDBs and Ukraine already have the JDAM-ER which they use regularly and I know that the main mission of their MIG-29 and SU-27s is with the AGM-88 but my question is this. Will Ukraine realistically be able to use the AGM-65? They lob S-13s about 2km from the front then drop low and I know that the maverick has got about 12km of range at most hieghts but I don't know if the F-16s Flir will lock onto a target at that range.
@@brookwhiteman9810 I don't think attacking individual moving targets is going to be the most effective use of the F-16. As you mentioned attacking tactical and strategic targets with glide bombs and cruise missiles is probably the most important mission. The F-16 should be able to react quickly and take out temporary troop and vehicle concentrations since it can hand of targets to its munitions in the air, but who knows maybe Ukraine can surprise us once again. Just the threat of a few Meteor missiles on some of the F-16 would severely impact the free reign Russian aircraft have if they stay inside Russian airspace.
@@kilianortmann9979 yes I mean the most Instant impact it will have is it's radar and the amraam but also the ability to use the AGM-88 to its full potential, it should mean that it can be more effective at creating holes in Russia's air defence. The F-16 is a huge game changer in terms of countering helicopters as the Ka-52 needs to be within around 13km of its target to engage. The ultimate goal for Ukraine is to hit russian air bases enough so that russian aircraft is constantly being based further and further away and then to push russias air defence line back so that eventually Ukraine can perform direct fire missions with their remaining soviet airframes.
Lol the only reason why MiG-31s are operating in Ukraine is to test missiles like the Kinzhal. The Russians have demonstrated from day one that they controlled Ukrainian airspace with S-400 systems located in Belarus. The Ukrainians have no large strategic aircraft that MiG-31s are actually designed to shoot down.
When I was in the Air Force, it was always my opinion that the MiG-31 was an underrated aircraft, even when it was only carrying AA-9s (AA-13s obviously make it more dangerous). It's really hard to overstate the impact of very high speed/altitude. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people made/make the mistake trying to make a "fair" comparison, by assuming the MiG-31 and its opponent will be in similar flight regimes (altitude, airspeed), when that is almost certain not going to be the case.
As for defending against an AA-13, outmaneuvering a missile, any missile, is way down on the list on ways I'd like to beat a threat. Ideally, I'd want to beat it with stealth, so it doesn't even know I'm there, then probably with jamming, where it knows I'm there, but can't get a fire control solution, then kinematically, where pK drops to 0, finally, out-maneuvering the missile or hoping the self defense jammer and counter-measures defeat its logic are at the very bottom of the list.
Exactly. Lemoine started to trash it ... but I just love Gonky's humility and technical acumen to reign it in ... and from there we got a great discussion ... (one of my favorites actually).
And for those able, treated to some info if you don't mind reading btwn the lines.
These videos where you guys discuss stuff like this are PURE GOLD. 🤘🏻🇺🇸
The Su27/35 is the definition of a self escort strike. People call it a fighter and forget that it is a big plane that is doing what the F18 is doing AND what the F15 is doing.
You are right the MiG 31 is pretty much an F14 but better and more modern. You could give the missile a nick name "hand of god" because you will never see it coming if it is in fact targeting you.
One of the advantages of the Hyper-sonic missiles is that it narrows the margin of error a SAM sight has. It has to predict its trajectory farther and intercept earlier and faster than before, thus limiting its margin to maneuver. Pretty much if a SAM sight had a 80% intercept rate before, it now has more like a 20% intercept rate. I think Millenium7 had a great analysis of what hypersonics do to SAM radar systems and how it makes SAM's useless.
In other words, its very hard to defend from this missile. If you go COLD it will out run you. That is the danger. If you push, it will hit you even faster than you think. Think about it, at mach 5, a missile covers 100 miles in ONE MINUTE. Lets say your EWS can't warn you till the missile is within 40-50 miles and the hypersonic was fired in TWS. Its a big missile with a massive radar/seeker. It will cover that 40 mile's in under 30 seconds. What are you going to do? Maneuver? Sure, that gives you a 50/50 chance. If you go COLD you are done. You turn into a snake going left right left right hoping it missiles, which it probably will. But now for 30 seconds you are doing nothing but avoiding.
Now take that whole concept and pair it with an actual fighter force. Lets say 2 Su35's with one Mig 31. The hypersonic will keep you defensive within a 100 mile radius and the fighters can get up close and personal.
The amount tactics that open up when your opponent and comfortably get close to you is ENORMOUS.
So because our little american brains only think about "missile success rate" and stuff, its hard to wrap your head around that the missile DOESN"T NEED TO HIT YOU. All it needs to do is push you defensive over, and over, and over, and keep you far enough away to allow other assets to comfortable perform their jobs.
In the end, it doesn't matter if you fire 1 missile or 10 missiles, a kill is a kill. Its like racing. Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning. And when you can crank out missiles for 1/10th the cost of NATO, this strategy long term is effective, and that is what people miss.
The best comment ever. People forgot the purposes and paint a scenario of their liking
Very objective comment ! Thank you.
Rally MIG 31 is one of the most overlooked plane. And as its speed, radar and 400km missle are its most famous features they weren't the most important. MIG 31 was not just a replacement for MIG 25, it came as a part of Soviet who sale air defense tactics.
First most obvious improvement were the engines, which were much smaller and more efficient, which gave great radius boost. In the Soviet doctrine these aircraft had to patrol the endless border in inhospitable places. An typical airwing consisted of 4 planes that spread 200km appart and that way control area 800km wide and 400km deep. And here comes their most important and innovative feature.... these 4 planes had data link between each other , not only that but the could share targeting information with lower tear fighters like MIG29, SU 27 and even MIG23 . So the commander of the MIG31 squad could designated targets, but even shoot the weapon. So we have Rader signal from one direction and AA missiles hit from another.
This tactic was prepared in case NATO decided to implement air strike against USSR of the type we saw against Ygoslavia and Iraq 1991. And I am quite sure that such an attack would have been rappeled with great success.
I think, the "Big deal" nowadays is, that the MIG-31 can haul the Kinzhal missile. It is a derivative of the Iskander missile, (which could be Nuclear-tipped), and has almost twice the speed and 3 times the range of an R-37. It's not an AA-missile though. For what it was supposed to do, the MIG 31 is pretty brilliant. The capability to give a Missile a little more oomph from a high-speed aircraft from high altitude, is pretty neat to have. The R-37 can be lobbed by many other Russian planes. But the Kinzhal is restricted to the Mig-31 and SU-34.Where the missile's performance is clearly in favour of the MIG. I don't think, handling or maneuverability was that important, when all it should do, was to intercept spy planes. The 800 rounds of 30 mil was a surprise amount though. Given the fact, that it was able to outrun it's own bullets once they started to slow down. Not unlikely with these huge intakes.
There was a US carrier based aircraft back in the 60s that was being tested and during one of its flights where they (I can’t for the life of me remember the name of the thing, think it had a delta wing design but don’t quote me) test fired the guns, this very thing happened with the rounds if I recall. Pilot survived, aircraft….no.
@@schaddenkorp6977 F-11F-1F Super Tiger
The Mig-31 is the best possible lauch platform for a hypersonic missile. They launch Kinzhals at 60k ft at M2.5. Whilst su34 and Backfire are also official launch platforms, rhey are rarely used as they can't launch it with that much energy. I think that's why Americans have struggled to even get an air launched ballistic missile because they can only launch it from a bomber so they'd have pitiable range.
@@danielthuku8192 we just havent really cared... same with a high altitude interceptor that eats itself alive.
F11F@@schaddenkorp6977
R-37 is clamed to be capable to hit targets maneuvering with 8Gs. Not an amraam, but still pretty hard to outmaneuver
As in the missile is pulling 8g? That’s not really a full picture of maneuverability either. Because the the radius of a turn doing Mach 5 at 80,000 feet is a lot different than 8g at 300knots at 15k feet.
So it can't turn is what you're saying. 8gs for a missile that fast is basically hitting 8gs with nearly any type of hard maneuver.
@@danh6720 as in the target is pulling 8G
I have read that the robot needs to be able to pull 6 times of what the target can pull.
That is why IRIS-T is made to pull 60g
The R-37 can't hit anything small that's trying to avoid it. It was designed for large aircraft like refuelers and AWACS
Love this type of video guys. Love to learn what I can.
The R-37 is outdated and has been replaced by the R-37M.
When the R-37M reaches hypersonic speeds a plasma bubble is formed around the missile which makes it invisible to radar.
And highly visible to any kind of thermal detection technology.
"Hypersonic" sounds cool, but "super-duper sonic" would have been better. And then after that, "extra-super-duper sonic." Mover, if you need me to edit your sci-fi novel, you just let me know.
😆😆
I’d like to request adding “triple-extra-super-insanely-sonic” as the next step up. Even works as an acronym, TESIS.
Probably worth mentioning that there is a legitimate distinction to be made between super- and hypersonic flight regimes, it's not just a buzzword. Supersonic is an aerodynamic regime, hypersonic is a thermodynamic regime. Obviously there's a gradual crossover between the two and the R37 doesn't feature the blunt body design that full on hypersonic flight demands, so we can reasonably conclude that the R37 only operates at hypersonic speeds for short periods of time and/or only just reaches the lower end of the hypersonic regime
@@c1ph3rpunk If we're going to get technical, it's "extra-super-duper-sonic-to-the-max", and then comes TESIS.
First fighter to have an AESA radar was the Mitsubishi F-2A with the J/APG-1 radar
Would be great to have threat briefs on the J-10 and J-20!
I saw a clip a few weeks ago with a Ukrainian Mig 29 pilot who said that one of the biggest problems they have is the stone age radar in the Mig 29, they can't even see the jets that are shooting at them, added to that, the Mig 29's RAWR gear is basically none existent means they are just about flying blind in a long range missile enviroment.
Good paper out on this aircraft by Dr Justin Bronk at RUSI.
Worth a read..
The report is clear. The Mig-31 is imparting significant energy to the R-37M.
There were eight CAP zones established. It lofts the R-37M into Ukraine from Russia… scary…
If Dr Wonk writes it, it's a good read.
Can you get Justin Bronk on the show? Would be a very interesting matchup to listen to!
Can we have one on the R27 family as well
I want to hear an episode discuss tactics for shooting down drones with manned aircraft.
-APKWS A2A
-20mm GG vs Shahed drones
-Old AIM-7 Sparrows
Yesssss, exactly!
This podcast is the best on the net!
Foxhound is an updated husky MiG25. Question is, throughout the 500 they have, how many are updated to the most modern versions? Im gathering that all it can do is see large RCS's at a longer distance and with the new missiles can launch them from longer ranges. As for anything that we have that is low observable, they can't see it from a distance that favorable to them.
I like this threat brief take, i hope you do more.
Food for thought, when a MiG-31 takes to the sky, all of air-raid sirens in Ukraine go off. Not just a few regions, the entire country gets put on alert. Ukrainians take this jet very seriously.
I rather think they are taking the missile that the aircraft is carrying seriously rather than the aircraft itself.
@@josephking6515 it the only one carries that missile, thus this plane is the only one that can turn on air sirens in the entire country
@@victorzvyagintsev1325I think they're using sirens for any attacks, the mig31 is nothing special about it. Sirens are a way to inform people of an incoming attack or disaster, of any kind. In reportage, even simple artillery attacks are activating the sirens.
@@josephking6515People are always making it as the mig31 is a big deal, as many other aspects about russian military things, when the Ukraine war already shown there were only propagandas.
Even before the Ukraine war, famous experts or engineers, were already saying the russia military equipments were overhyped by the internet communities.
The mig31 wouldn't stand a chance almost against NATO fighter jets, mig31 is a short lifespan aircraft, that's many of them crashed in recent years, and this number increased since the Ukrainian war. It's far from being a reliable machine, as its predecessor the mig25.
@@pinayinfrance2642 for missile attacks they activate sirens only in regions through which missiles fly. For MiG-31, they activate sirens in the entire country from the moment it goes up to the moment it lands.
Mover would just have an R2 unit in the back seat😊
Great analysis
F-14 Echo...single seat variant. Classic Mover! :-)
11:46 "get in a phonebooth..."
How many people here know what a phonebooth is? 😅
What aircraft did scare you or have you on edge back in the day?
Mover & Gonky just thought up the use case for EB-1B AWACS
He can likely outrange you and if he does not CHOOSE to close with you you will not catch him from behind.
Also, it might be high flying but with our AIM120 D, isn't it much more on our side of favorability, range wise?
R-37M is twice the range to Aim-120D
Its got a 60kg warhead 😐
It does have at least one Su27 kill, from over 100km.
That's what i thought as well.
IRIAF's Aim54s also have lots of kill against (only) fighter.
Actually, over 200 km. (the Russian claim, AFAIK is 216).
According to the UK, the kill was from 180Km. According to Russia, the kill was from 216Km.
@@Etha-xi8ei
I know they've hit a couple helicopters at near max range, but I dont know the specific claim for the Su27, except that it was in excess of 100km.
We don't actually know the launch platform, just know that it was made by a R-37M on a Ukrainian Su-27.
Russian sources claim it was a Su-57 (unlikely), but the RUSI (UK Gov) report doesn't mention the launch platform at all.
I think I read somewhere that AFU pilots are anyway restricted to flying mostly at lower altitudes(
Was never meant to mix it with fighters , but to take down bombers from long range! The Mig-31K which carry the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, is meant for ground strike at very long range!
Mover, I'm really interested in your comment about continued production of the Viper. I've always been fascinated by the F-16XL, and think that the USAF would have been in a far better position today if they had gone more or less "wall to wall" with the bigger version of the Viper, and kept the Eagles for OCA/DCA missions. With hindsight being 20/20, do you think that we would have been better off today had we done that due to the speed/payload/range? What would we have lost?
@13:03 Hornet driver calls Eagles 'real fighters.' You heard it, I heard it, everyone heard it. See ya in the cons boys.
Copy shot!
I think there's a little mistake in the article about the MiG-31...Well I think there're plenty of mistakes, but nevertheless. The Space Tourism plane was the MiG-25, up until the complete retirement of the MiG-25 fleet, for ~15 000 USD you could get to 24 km or 80 000 feet, but that's something never coming back. Interestingly enough, one of the companies offering the "Edge of Space '' experience explained that after retiring the MiG-25, the high altitude flights would be only with MiG-29, not MiG-31, because of the poor visibility from the WSO's seat. I think that was a nice way of saying - the Russkies have plans for the 31's, and western tourists ain't part of them.
Anyway the current production model is called the K-37M (product 610M), with max range of ~189 miles, the 100 miles is for the export variant. The brochure says that it can turn at 8g, who knows what that means. As for the speed of the thing it says just ~6M or Mach 6...
Despite me loving the Froggie, the only way you can get it up to 24 km is to strap it to a Falcon Heavy :D@@zenithplyrzreg6405
8Gs as in it can hit a target pulling upto 8Gs , meaning lets say the r37 is fired at a su27 , the su27 has to pull more than 8Gs to have a higher % to dodge it.
The Mig31 is probably one of the most uniquely capable fighters in the world. It's also a rare resource even though many exist. They aren't making new ones.
Man ! You guys make me feel old ! Oh wait ! I am ! DOB 1956.😂😂😂
Love the show. P.S.
I lt them tell me no in 77.🤷🏻♂️😀
I don't know if Mover just made this video too late or if he missed it, but there was the longest air to air kill in October. The missile was an R-37M and it was reportedly at 217km, 117NM, the target was a Flanker. You can read about it on London Politica.
Unconfirmed.
@@CWLemoine How do we normally go about confirming an air to air kill? How do we do the same for a highly politicized war?
We don’t. At least not yet.
@@CWLemoine Is 177 km confirmed? LOL
@@jov7733 no.
R 33 wasnt a active radar homing missile instead the successor of R 33 the R 37 is the active variant
They have some 800 frogfoots in store as well. Lots of reserves with one more mission in them still.
These things are wild.
MIG-31, about the fictional “Firefox” with thought controlled weapons. Enjoyed the video.
the r-37 (aa-13) can and does turn. that's how it has taken out so many su-27s trying to get away. It has a sustainer motor so its still burning way way out when you think it is just falling out of the sky and a few moves will cause it to run out of energy. also it's got active radar on terminal. it's a beast. only way to get away is to run if you figure it out quick enough.
You been watching too many Growling Sidewinder vids dude.
Nonsense.
R37M... which is an improved version of the R37. Whatever that implies...
Guys, the missile used by the Mig-31 in the Ukrainian war is not air-to-air, it is hypersonic against ground targets, it is called Kinzhal.
The R-37 is Hypersonic AND an air to air missile. Mach 5-6. Kinzhal is Mach 10+
That's MIG 31K. BM version are interceptors.
200 km is 124 miles.
Who cares? In civil aviation, or western military aviation, knots (KT) are used for speed; those are nautical miles per hour, hence distance is in nautical miles (NM). 200 km is 108 NM.
If it spikes a pilots radar, can't you just notch back and forth until it loses energy or tracking, also would it's speed prevent it from turning fast?
you can but are you really willing to bet a xx million dollar jet and a pilot to test that theory when your pilot can simply go cold once they get locked (failing the mission but atleast they can join another mission).
From what I understand, mig31’s get really high and really fast over Russia and launch these as far as they can into Ukraine, yes the probability of kill is relatively low, if works at keeping the Ukrainians on their toes. I think it was a su57 that got the longest confirmed air to air kill with this thing, 217km
Yes, it was a Felon!. In a real war.. rekordhit!
Vipers are actually still being produced (Block 70/72).
Yes, we know.
The other factor here is, if Ukraine does get F-16s, they’re not going to be Charlie and Delta models. They’re earlier versions with mods. Not the same thing at all. Plus, there are numbers out there showing the number of Mig-31 kills. They’re at the top of the list (at last check), over SU-27, SU-31, SU-34, SU-35, etc, etc.
they have been upgraded to the c block 50 standard
@@yujinhikita5611 I know. They’re still limited compared to the C, mostly in sensors and weapons integration.
@@mikemontgomery2654 Upon implementation of the MLU program the cockpit and avionics in the F-16AM/BM models were exactly the same as the F-16C/D Block 50/52. They have the same potential. Whether they are on par with each other nowadays depends on how much the specific countries kept updating them. Belgium has implemented the Scorpion HMCS and Carrapace passive RWR etc. They also have AIM-9X and AIM-120-C7 which are pretty capable. (Same for other countries) What are you referring to when you say "limited"?
@@MrDieing the sensors aren’t quite as capable, despite the upgrade. The bigger problem for them tight now, is mostly their age. High-time airframes that will deteriorate pretty rapidly. I’ve been watching it happen with the CF-18. Despite the upgrades to these F-16s, the Charlie’s have left them in the dust, comparatively. Add to that, they have to contend with the Mig-31’s ability to see them first and shoot at them. That’s going to be a problem.
@@mikemontgomery2654 They only gotta last until #russiaTerroristState is forced out of or under Ukrainian soil. Then they can work on building their airforce with new aircraft tailored to their conditions and needs. Possibly the best option; Thank you Sweden. 👍
Is it likely that aircraft flying at low altitude to avoid being held at threat by integrated air defence, are by virtue of the low altitude leaving themselves more vulnerable to the Mig-31/R-37 combination? Based on your outline of the aircraft and missile, I'm assuming that they're intended to see and shoot anything the ground based systems cannot.
Su-35 also has it, wouldn’t that be a bigger threat
Mig-25 shot down F-18C in Iraq with a radar and missile that's far behind even R-33, not to mention R-37. So there's that. F-18 didn't laugh and avoid.
That's the plane that makes sense to Russia. It is a huge country and they want to cover it somehow. With it's powerful radar and link, let's not forget it was the first operational aeroplane with really functional link and data sharing back at the beginning of 1980s, four planes could cover 900-1000 km width, it is, sort of, self containing AWACS.
Yes! This is what we need. Like Sub Brief or McBeth, good osint by knowledgeable people that give some truth between all assumptions.
McBeth is a shameless propagandist who constantly lies by omission or strawman.
Those MIG 31 air frames are in good shape, so I think they are going to be in operation after MIG 41 were put in service, also you are not talk about the MIG 31K adapted to launch the Kinzhal missile.
Yes, of course, MiG-41 🍿🤣
Mig-41 is vaporware, as is every other project the Russians have claimed to be wonderweapons in the last 20 years including the Su-57 and T-14
Isn’t there a “suppression” factor as well? A mig31 at 100 miles keeping its adversary defensive might just ruin their mission profile and force them bingo fuel? Maybe that’s optimistic.
Loved this great breakdown on the mig31. Guys I am from before you were born😂
The GSh-6-23 in the MiG-31 is, as the name suggests, a 23mm gun. So the caliber and ammo capacity are still remarkable for a fighter, but it's no Warthog ;-). The rate of fire is all the more impressive, though. It's a friggin laser!
For BM version the canon is removed.
They need to invest in “stealthing “ the F-14 like they did to the F-15! A fraction of the cost and oodles more multipurpose capabilities than the F-35!
The Silent Eagle wasn't purchased by anyone because it never achieved low observability. Putting internal weapons bays and canting the vertical stabilizers on a 4th gen airframe isn't nearly enough to lower its RCS to 5th gen levels. The F-35 you criticize has an RCS of 0.0001m2, the Silent Eagle most likely had an RCS comparable to that of the Su-57 which is a non-stealthy propaganda air show queen. In other words, we'll trust the DoD on these matters over some random Top Gun fan on TH-cam
going from radar cross section of a HOUSE to a radar cross section of a semi truck really isnt worth the investment when you have access to platforms with RCS of a bumblebee and a tennis ball ...
making aircraft stealth inst just slapping some paint on it, you have to redesign its air intake, wing geometry, control surfaces even cockpit to achieve stealth and redesigning existing airframe to achieve that is simply NOT worth the effort ...
A fraction the cost? They retired the F-14 because it took ~60h maintanance for every flight hour, more then any other US jet. Thats about 5 times more then the F-16 requires.
Oh another ass pulling expert.
Won't be much use because there are photonic radars coming in
I learned the NATO name like you guys and have a hard time with the civilian names.
NEZ is apparently impressive for an Active AIm-54C+ shot within 11 miles, even though its still a 1000lb missile. That replacement 135 pound blast frag warhead lays serious hurt. You'd want to get that 1000 pound missile off the jet prior to the merge. Too bad you couldnt jett the heavy assed launch rails. Desert Storm didnt carry more than 2. The VID requirements made AIM-54 moot. The belly full of semi recessed AIM-7 and glove mounted AIM-9 with gun allowed Mach 2+ top speeds in a 1976 jet. We do need a modern F-14'ish jet. Large, lotsa gas new big stick. AIM-260?
Congrats, You described the EX
I thought it was funny how they stopped themselves before accidentally giving away classified information. But I suspect that the U.S. military does have a missile that does something similar to the R-37(AA13) that we are keeping very classified. I suspect that it's probably something like an upgraded Patriot missile modified to be launched from an aircraft. That being said, there's such a thing as diminishing speed when it comes to the speed of the missile. Hypersonic and maneuverability are two words that don't go together. The heat generated by air friction especially at lower altitudes (or any altitude) would be difficult to manage I would imagine. However, a hint was given to the solution of this problem in one of the pictures of a Russian missile in this video. In the picture of the AA-12 Adder at 4:51, it shows that the missile has what looks like air brakes on it. Those may however just be steering fins as I saw that the SpaceX Falcon 9 has similar porous panels that are apparently for steering. Nevertheless if a hypersonic AA or SAM missile with air brakes got close to a target, deploying air brakes to slow itself down would allow for vastly better maneuverability. If they do this to the R-37 (AA-13) AA missile, that would make the turning capability of that missile potentially much better and thus make it a vastly more deadlier missile. So my question is, does the AA-13 have air brakes on it??? Air brakes (that are ejected after use as they would be too hot to fold back into the missile) coupled with thrust vectoring could potentially make it an incredibly deadly missile. To bypass the heat issues with traditional airbrakes, reverse firing rockets could be used instead similar again, to the SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.
no they dont, they are frantically trying to finish AiM-260 to come back to parity with MDBA Meteor and so far falling behind schedule even on that ...
as it is the US abandoned serious AA missile development after the USSR fell apart while the European nations continued development which now leaves US with about two decades of tech gap to what is being put on planes in the Europe...
IRIS-T and Meteor is the deadliest missile loadout in the world right now...
@@Asghaad That's as far we know via public information. I'm quite sure there are classified projects that we're not aware of. It would be advantageous to not let the Russians and Chinese know that we have something far better in order to decimate an opposing air force in the opening days of a war.
@@wigon no, US is currently being embarassed by Euroepans by not being able to match theyr missile capability
if they had anything better they would show it because the whole US doctrine is that of INTIMIDATION ... you cant intimidate Russia or China by a weapon system that they do not know about ...
its also why there is "enough" information about the NGAD fighter program to make other parties "worry" about the capability that US will have in the future
the only projects US wouldnt want to be public to be aware of are "doomsday" weapons - biological and chemical ... for conventional weapons its in theyr interest for the oponents to know about so they are AFRAID of them
which means that if they had anything to match or outpace the Meteor we would know about it... instead they are making themselves look even more of a fools by going behind the schedule on the AiM-260 ...
f14e you say? oh you tease!!
The Mig-31 is a big bird with a big radar, and the R37 has some legs. At a basic level, the intent is that a group of MiG-31s with R-37's can go after an E-3, definitely get a mission kill, and have a very good chance at a hard kill. That none of the Mig-31's return home is beside the point.
If your in a 707, the R-37 is dangerous, if you're in a Mig-29, it's still a problem you have to avoid. Russia has launched hundreds of R-37's vs Ukrainian fighters. They have lots of mission kills, and very few hard (but not 0) hard kills to show for it. As long as the Russians have R-37's in inventory, this is going to be a problem that the Vipers can't do much about, and the R-37 will contribute to slow attrition of the Vipers.
Add some Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen with Meteors to the mix, and the Mig-31's start to suffer from attrition more than the Ukrainians.
that could be the case in age of 4th gen aircraft, not when you would have Raprtos and Lightnings screeneing the AWACS at much further distances or Typhoons that are still low observable armed with Metors that can match your range ...
it was good design for its day but as usual times moved on and trying to go fast and high is basically suicide today, unless you are going up against someone who lacks latest capabilities like Ukraine for now ...
10.000 rounds per minute and 800 rounds, thats 4,8 seconds of firing or roughly 10 half second bursts. Is that alot in a modern jet?
abut 2-3 times as much as is normal for a fighter ... while firing much larger caliber than is usual. Its probably the logic of the jets intercepting the escorts with missiles then finishing the bombers with guns - hence larger caliber rounds much more likely to down big target like a bomber with more ammo
she isnt winning any maneuvering fights anyway so bit more weight is not that big of a concern
I mean the phoenix is supposedly capable of mach 5 according to wikipedia... And it was a fox-3, even though the radar it had was perhaps questionable... So yeah, bring back the TOMCATS!!!
You realize it's been shooting down ukranian jets like a turkey shoot. US has never fought a near peer
The air to air losses suffered by Ukraine 2023-2024 are said by some sources as to be mainly caused by MiG-31s and the R-37. I see no reason why an F-16 would be immune to it a A-A missile radar guided that goes faster than Mach 4.
The MiG-31 can just guide a missile fire from a Su-35 that is 30 miles from the target instead of firing its own missiles from 120 miles aways. Making it go pitbull at max speed vs limbing in at barely supersonic, reducing enemy's reaction time.
I don't know if what you're talking about the mig31 is even true, but one thing is sure, the mig31 is scared about the Meteor missile.
guys worry about the S-500
There's been 1 shoot down of a Ukrainian Mig-29 at around 120 miles with an R37, confirmed. It went down around 90 miles from the contact line, unless you think Russia was flying above Ukraine proper.
That's about all the details I know about the incident but its enough to confirm the lethality of the system at long ranges.. There have been reports of other Ukrainian aircraft being shot down from long ranges but only this one has been confirmed, to my knowledge. There could be others that have been confirmed that I just haven't heard of.
It was shortly after this incident that Ukrainian aircraft were reported to be flying exclusively at very low altitudes, even well away from the front. That bit of information suggests that they've lost more than one aircraft from long range fire.
Isn’t the r37 meant to shoot down AWACS? I’m sure it can hit a fighter but I don’t think Russia is telling their pilots to waste r37’s on fighters. The missile’s “estimated” specs are scary but it’s speculation.
Our missile naming scheme of other countries is doo doo. AA-11 sounds like dookie
yes the r37m isnt intended for fighters it does hold the longest range a-a kill on a fighter at 149 miles on a su27
Allegedly. Unconfirmed.
@@CWLemoine ah alr didnt know but if so still pretty cool
I want my Super Tomcat
They just took down 36 fighters in 8 days, from faaaar away. Not even visible on other radars
8:40 I have played with Jester enough to know that AI RIOs still need A LOT of work to be viable. That F-14E hypothetical better have Heron's Falco because Jester ain't good enough.
R-37M can make you more defenseve when you are in a fighter. When Mig-31 is pared with Su-27 family it can really be a serious problem for any fighter group. Su-27 is in front and Mig-31 is in back. With it's speed and ang long rage high speed missile it can attack any fighter. It will make you defenseve and allow su-27 po position itself better. And mig-31 can simply outrun you. It can flank you. It is a very good airplane.
The back-seater's main job may be just monitoring the political conformance of the pilot's actions.
The Foxhound is currently the only aircraft for which supersonic is a normal mode backward fighters can only be supersonic for a short time
You mean supercruising?
@@skyraider87 More like its designed and suposed to be operated at supersonic speeds mostly... supercruise means you can go supersonic without AB wich makes it much more efficient ..but doesnt mean you will go allways (or most of the time) in supercruise.. where the Foxhound lives there
@@skyraider87 Sorta.... But with full AB...ALL THE TIME...at least until you reach target altitude. (You need a lotta oomph to get a nearly 50ton plane to 100k feet in a reasonable amount of time). You gotta look at it that way: From the MIG-31 Pilot's perspective at max altitude, an airliner looks TWICE as small, as to you watching the same Airliner from the ground, while IT flies at max altitude.
@kosher That's why the mig31 lifespan is very short also btw. All the very high speed aircrafts built in the world, were only throwable machines, not reliable and ended with very bad crashing statistics.
After burners are actually burning deteriorating the aircrafts faster, that's they invented supercruise, which the mig31 isn't even capable from memory.
ngl, having a gun in a bvr interceptor sounds kinda pointless
Bring back the Tomcat
bud F-35 will have TomCat for dinner, why waste money on an obsolete platform ...
Its important to note that this thing was able to attack 4 targets simultaneously at long range at high speed in early 80s. Unlike F14 it wasnt limited at zone in which group of targets need to be to be attacked simultaneously for radar to support track. Also what it ended up doing is shooting down fighters in Ukraine. Like F14 did in Iraq-Iran war. Getting close to it is problematic. "Its for bombers" is something that real life proves wrong. Also datalink was a big thing on this plane back in the day.
Speculative at best. Nothing in this war is confirmed.
@@CWLemoine Sadly number/names of deceased MiG29/Su27/Su24 pilots is known from public statements. And is valid enough to paint a grim picture.
@@TheGranicd yes, but causes and missile capes are largely speculative.
@@CWLemoine True.
Pretty clear that a MiG-31 is not designed for a dogfight with the likes of a F-16 in a dogfight but in Ukraine as it was previous US conflicts it's the one (missile) you don't see is the one that gets you (& if a missile is moving mach 5+ warning time would be very short). At least one Ukrainian Air Force official mention a few months back the R-37 was the greatest threat to the Ukrainian AF & had taken down a variety of their (fighter & attack) aircraft. Gonky relayed a good point from a Tomcat pilot, '"Were targeting & shooting things that don't even realize their being targeted yet." Such has been a problem for the Ukrainian AF to date as well. The MiG-31 is (supposedly) able to shoot down low flying cruise missiles so targeting a 4th. gen F-16 not that much different than a MiG-29 opponent. Will be curious with the Viper introduction what sort of electronic warfare equipment will come with them. Helpful to the Ukrainians is at least one R-37 has fallen rather intact into their hands and I'm sure thoroughly pawed over to find out the missiles capabilities (& possibly effective countermeasure). Thanks to the host Gonky & Mover for this discussion!
12:18 Last I checked the cost of a brand new F-35 had just slightly edged below that of a brand new f-16. Why would we ever keep making f-16s when you can get a stealth fighter with a magic eye than can see in 360°, jam with its own radar, and act as its own AWACS?
Is it not double the cost?
@@CWLemoine I expect you will be able to make better sense of this than me: I don't know why there's such a huge spread in reported unit costs for the f-16... but it looks like Bulgaria paid a unit cost of $162m for block 70 F-16s, while Taiwan paid more like $108m. Different sources appear to put the cost of an F-35A between $80m for lots 15-17 (maybe it's missing sustainment costs?) and $108m (lots unsure).
Ongoing running costs?
I'm very curious to know, if anybody finds out! It doesn't really *matter* to me like it may matter to some... lI have no direct stake in this, other than, y'know relying on a functional Air Force to make sure we don't get bombed 😝
But it's also a very interesting thing to follow over time to see as a former skeptic of the f-35, that it achieves the goals we thought were never gonna happen, and surprises me with some of the capabilities
Something to always remember about Russian military equipment - what the Russians say it can do does not mean it can actually do it. In real world combat MiG-31 has not fought anything other than old MiG-29s. Let's see how they fare against the F-16s.
Your F-16s are already burning. Your military has also only fought farmers and goat herders, it's not like you've experienced real modern warfare.
@@tumelochana345 I think there was 1 F-16 lost to friendly fire? Can’t say I’m too worried about competing with Russia. Half their Navy has been sunk by a country that doesn’t have a Navy
@@pushups2345 It wasn't friendly fire, got hit by a Su-57 using R-37M from over 200km.
CNN much, in a modern war, you'd pee you pants fighting a nation like Russia. The US military has never had to deal with an adversary that can fire 20 000 rounds of artillery daily. I doubt you've seen any combat, probably an armchair general.
@@tumelochana345 You have an odd grasp of the English language, sir
@@pushups2345 I'd feel the same if I had no other concrete response.
Pretty sure the r37m has way more energy than an aim 54 given it has a whole 600knots speed advantage
Seeker should be better too more on par to the amraam than the old a seeker
yes it does, the only missile in oiperation today that squares in range to the 37 is the Meteor.
Mig 31 does not have WSO, it is a "shturman" = Navigator.
russian WSO is a RISO lol . 😂😂. best line of the episode .
Explain to me why you guys dislike 2 seater fighters
yes 100% bring back the f14s
Ukraine's whole air operations are limited to a couple air bases on Poland's border.
F-16s are still in production...
Didn't say otherwise.
I'm not sure if any hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles can currently be carried by fighters, but these things are a pretty big threat to ships also. Adversary nations have had many decades to design missiles that can defeat/evade AEGIS and either sink or get mission kills on carriers, and they have succeeded.
The only nation that might have hypersonic glide vehicles capable of striking American ships is China, Russia has not demonstrated any such technology. The Khinzal family of ballistic missiles are not real hypersonic weapons
Lol wut? There has never been a reputable case of a hypersonic missile hitting a moving target at sea. Not once.
The Kinzhal is supposed to have anti-ship capability. It's a modified Iskander missile that the MiG-31 carries
@@vovin8132 And announced to be carried on the SU-34 shortly. Which would more than double the capacity, Russia can carry now.
@@Gunni1972 It would be interesting to see but not sure if it would work. MiG-31 is a big plane, so it can carry a big missile.
6:16 I get what you are saying but if that was 100% true then Ukrainian mig29 would not be getting shot down by them, it's the environment that they are being used in that makes the difference since no 4th gen fighter no matter how agile can only fly low to avoid getting wacked by Russian anti air and that makes them easy pickings for the mig 31 and worst of all by the time these migs know they are getting shot at is when the missiles is coming down at them with very little time to do anything