Which is better BVR platform between Mig-31 and Su-35S?

Vanessa1402

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
10 April 2021
Messages
133
Reaction score
57
Both Su-35S and Mig-31 can now carry the super long range RVV-BD (R-37). Mig-31 can cruise at much higher altitude and speed while Su-35S has much better radar and IRST. So generally, is the advantage in avionic of Su-35S enough to counter the kinematic advantage of Mig-31?.
Moreover, what give Mig-31 such extreme speed?. The wing sweep doesn't seem extreme compared to Mirage or F-14 or Mig-23. And many other aircraft has variable inlet.
 
The table does not take into account the speed of reaching the interception distance and the ability to carry a heavy ballistic missile
With some assumptions, the Su-35S exceeds the MiG-31 by almost three times in total combat effectiveness
No offense, but is everything in fractions of 1000 km? It's a really strange notation. And why are top speed and cruise speed switched?
 
Undoubtedly the mig-31. Its kinematics, massive radar to burn thru any interference, powerful datalinks and very potent upgraded R-33 missiles still make it king when it comes to interception. I remember in an interview someone jokingly said it is an airborne sam system.

It and the F-14 are top tier predators of the air.
 
Undoubtedly the mig-31. Its kinematics, massive radar to burn thru any interference, powerful datalinks and very potent upgraded R-33 missiles still make it king when it comes to interception. I remember in an interview someone jokingly said it is an airborne sam system.

It and the F-14 are top tier predators of the air.
Su-35 has better radar. And also can carry R-37.
 
Undoubtedly the mig-31. Its kinematics, massive radar to burn thru any interference, powerful datalinks and very potent upgraded R-33 missiles still make it king when it comes to interception. I remember in an interview someone jokingly said it is an airborne sam system.

It and the F-14 are top tier predators of the air.
Irbis-E far excess Zaslon-M in detection range and they can use the same kind of missile
16924CD6-6E01-46A7-9E15-D4F81B165C1D.jpeg
B99C72E3-3B58-4B4C-8732-B08915588899.jpeg
5585DDED-95FD-4D13-915C-1467A7AEBC61.jpeg
 
Irbis-E far excess Zaslon-M in detection range and they can use the same kind of missile

Just goes to show how the modern Irbis-E of the Su-35 can outperform the Zaslon-M radar of the MiG-31 in range.
 
It outperforms Zaslon-M (with 1.4m antenna diameter), Zaslon-AM (an upgrade of Zaslon-A as part of MiG-31BM MLU), and obviously OG Zaslon-A on vanilla MiG-31.
 
It outperforms Zaslon-M (with 1.4m antenna diameter), Zaslon-AM (an upgrade of Zaslon-A as part of MiG-31BM MLU), and obviously OG Zaslon-A on vanilla MiG-31.
While it can be obvious that Su-35S has better avionics than Mig-31. Neither side have significant RCS reduction measures. It appear that both aircraft can detect the other from outside their missile range. In which case, is the radar advantage still valuable?
 
Actually, Su-35 does have RCS reduction measures. IIRC Sukhoi claimed that Su-35 frontal RCS is 1m2. MiG-31 doesn't have them at all. And we don't compare them in vacuum, but as platforms in real world scenarios.
 
Actually, Su-35 does have RCS reduction measures. IIRC Sukhoi claimed that Su-35 frontal RCS is 1m2.
Do you have the link to that?
I only have heard about the plasma stealth screen for Su-35, but I don't think it went to production
 
The "plasma screen" called "Malibu" was intended for the bomber "ed.54C".
Do you have some source which I can read about it?, my Google search just give randome results
In the Su-35S, all the leading edges are covered with a radio-absorbing material Without external pylons, this reduces the RSC by about half.
TBH, I'm quite skeptical of that, the leading edge is not that much of a strong reflector, at least when compared with the fire control radar antenna and engine first stage.
 
The Irbis radar antenna is mobile and can take a position that reduces the RSC
In the picture, measures to reduce the RSC for the Su-47 "Berkut" aircraft
You mean face away from the target slightly? Many fighters with fixed radars have them partially tilted away from the forward position for the same reason.
 
The article "Actual tasks of stealth technologies" describes some methods of reducing the RSC used on Sukhoi fighters.
1. absorbent coating of the air intake channel
2. covering the front edges
3. electro-magnetic screen inside the radar cone

Article in Russian https://disk.yandex.ru/i/z16XaZYGqEImoA
i have seen that article before, I just don't know whether the plasma screen ever ưent anywhere. Seem like it just got cancelled. Not even Su-57 have it
 
The article "Actual tasks of stealth technologies" describes some methods of reducing the RSC used on Sukhoi fighters.
1. absorbent coating of the air intake channel
2. covering the front edges
3. electro-magnetic screen inside the radar cone

Article in Russian https://disk.yandex.ru/i/z16XaZYGqEImoA
i have seen that article before, I just don't know whether the plasma screen ever ưent anywhere. Seem like it just got cancelled. Not even Su-57 have it

I heard a rumour years ago that the Russians were very close in flight testing plasma stealth on the MiG 1.44 and it would have gone on the MiG 1.42 had it been successful.
 
The article "Actual tasks of stealth technologies" describes some methods of reducing the RSC used on Sukhoi fighters.
1. absorbent coating of the air intake channel
2. covering the front edges
3. electro-magnetic screen inside the radar cone

Article in Russian https://disk.yandex.ru/i/z16XaZYGqEImoA
i have seen that article before, I just don't know whether the plasma screen ever ưent anywhere. Seem like it just got cancelled. Not even Su-57 have it

I heard a rumour years ago that the Russians were very close in flight testing plasma stealth on the MiG 1.44 and it would have gone on the MiG 1.42 had it been successful.
A-12 used to have a plasma generator as far as I know
 
Project Kempster is well-documented as tested on a Lockheed A-12 but wasn't put into service.
 
Ok. Thanks. Note however that if I am reading that thread and the documents etc contained within correctly, it would imply that:
  1. It was only ever fitted as a trail not a permanent fit, and
  2. It didn't necessarily work as predicted.
 
Mig-31.


I'll let a guy who worked on F-22 explain why:

F-22 simply takes the high/fast, look down/shoot down precedent set by MiG-31 a step further. MiG-31 made the USAF's manned penetration bomber fleet obsolete overnight. (That is why B-1s were de-certified from the nuke role and only 21 B-2s were built). If you want to best an F-22, you need a jet capable of M=3 at 90K ft and a comparable avionics suite.


Of course U.S. Air Force is not stupid, hence the new B-21 will fly much higher then B-2 can.

And of course Russian Space-Air force is also not stupid, hence the PAK-DP will fly much higher and faster then Mig-31 can.

:D

It's a perfect example of a weapon and a counter-weapon and a counter-counter-weapon....
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to fly higher than B-2 for B-21 the latter needs engiens that have lower bypass ratio with comparable thrust. That will impact fuel efficiency and as result, range.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to fly higher than B-2 for B-21 the latter needs engiens that have lower bypass ratio with comparable thrust. That will impact fuel efficiency and as result, range.
Depends of L/D ratio too, U-2 for example. From what's been floating around, the B-21 more or less has no RCS though.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to fly higher than B-2 for B-21 the latter needs engiens that have lower bypass ratio with comparable thrust. That will impact fuel efficiency and as result, range.
You are absolutely correct if you assume that the maximum takeoff weight of B-2 and B-21 is the same.

There are many indications that B-21 is lighter then B-2. So you need less thrust for B-21 then what B-2 needs.
 
Mig-31.


I'll let a guy who worked on F-22 explain why:

F-22 simply takes the high/fast, look down/shoot down precedent set by MiG-31 a step further. MiG-31 made the USAF's manned penetration bomber fleet obsolete overnight. (That is why B-1s were de-certified from the nuke role and only 21 B-2s were built). If you want to best an F-22, you need a jet capable of M=3 at 90K ft and a comparable avionics suite.
Firstly, that guy (Djcross from Keypub) didn't work on F-22
Secondly, Mig-31 was also much older than Su-35S. It can be argued that Su-35 with Irbis-E and RVV-BD does the samething.
Thirdly, B-2 was introduced after Mig-31, so he is also wrong on that
 
Mig-31.


I'll let a guy who worked on F-22 explain why:

F-22 simply takes the high/fast, look down/shoot down precedent set by MiG-31 a step further. MiG-31 made the USAF's manned penetration bomber fleet obsolete overnight. (That is why B-1s were de-certified from the nuke role and only 21 B-2s were built). If you want to best an F-22, you need a jet capable of M=3 at 90K ft and a comparable avionics suite.
Firstly, that guy (Djcross from Keypub) didn't work on F-22
Secondly, Mig-31 was also much older than Su-35S. It can be argued that Su-35 with Irbis-E and RVV-BD does the samething.
Thirdly, B-2 was introduced after Mig-31, so he is also wrong on that
And fourth, even if you raise B-21 altitude it wouln't make a difference for MiG-31. In fact, it might be even more covenient for Mig, as missile doesn't have to go in more dense air loosing more energy.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom