Talk:Mikoyan MiG-31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Folks

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

I looked in my MiG: Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design book by R.A. Belyakov and J. Marmain and it says that the S-800 Zaslan (no mention of the Zaslan-M) was just a phased-array look down/shoot down. No mention of it being passive or not. -- Lost Cosmonaut 04:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Zaslon" (barrier, screen, covering force), not "Zaslan" (was sent to)... i'd comment the word out so far. --jno 14:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That's what I get for only glancing at the book quickly lol. -- Lost Cosmonaut 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] length

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

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

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

empty 21820
normal takeoff 41000
max takeoff 46200

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

no AB 2 х 91.00
with AB 2 х 152.00

max speed, km/h

at 17500 m alt 3000 (M=2.82)
at low alt 1500

practical range, km

without extra tanks 2150
with extra tanks 3300

combat range, km

at supersonic speed 720
at subsonic speed 1200
at subsonic speed with additional fuel tanks 1400
at M=1 with one refuelling 2000

flight time, hrs

with refuelling 6
without refuelling 3.5

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

[edit] I'm "pro" for merge

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

[edit] author is clueless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Contradiction in armament

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

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

[edit] The Furball

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

Normally MiG-31 will not engage its targets in dogfight. One can take it as a flying air defense SA-missile system. --jno 10:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that any attempts at knife fighting in a MiG-31 had better be up against something without a knife. After some thought, I wonder if the clumsy MiG-31 can even pull 5G's at less than supersonic speeds. JaderVason 01:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not so clumsy as one may guess. At least, not so clumsy as MiG-25 was :-) But, anyway, it's a heavy interceptor, and not, say, an air superiority fighter. --jno 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on my recent discovery of the Mig-25's manueverability, I think the Mig-31 can probably pull 5g's with ease at subsonic speeds. One Mig-25 destroyed itself by pulling 11.5 G's in a dogfight training session. JaderVason 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think what needs to be found out is twofold. First, just what kind of limit is the 5-g restriction — an operational or an airframe (or other) limit? (E.g., although it's not a concern at 5-g, we know that there is a human-tolerance limit that is based upon cockpit ergonomics and flightsuit capabilities. Also, given the large size of some of the missiles carried and the strength of the pylon and hardpoint attachment, the resultant torques placed on them at higher g's might have been a problem.) Certainly, given a "stronger airframe", one would expect a sturdier, more g-tolerant aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's just the "published" tolerance; the 4.5G Mig-25 can safely pull 5-6 G's without any deformation danger. That Mig which pulled 11.5G's actually stayed in one piece, but twisted itself up something nasty, I hear.

[edit] links vs references

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

We don't need actual quotes but we need cites. When one reads, say, a Russian page, and takes a piece of information from it, and inserts it in English into the article, one should provide a link to the Russian page at the piece of information, citing it as the source. Check out WP:CITE for info. TomTheHand 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. But I afraid, I've added many info providing liks only (I didn't know about the ref tag that days)... --jno 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture

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

[edit] Mach 2.44 (1,860 mph) at altitude

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

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

[edit] Ditching the errors, and updating with current public info

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

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

[edit] Iranian MiG-31s

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "as late as" 2010?

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

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

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