Using the MiG-25/31

[argosy]

I doubt its mined, but still...I'm not that crazy or stupid. I'll probably buy some sheeps and let it to them to check things out )))).<br />Btw, if someone is interested... Srbs are selling their MiGs at discount prices. Mostly Migs-21, but some others also available(mostly ex-Yogoslavian Orao, Galeb, Super Galeb...). I've heard 15 000 $ will get you a MiG-21. Don't think its in best condition, but keep in mind that ex-yugoslavian airforce had the best service crash records for MiGs-21

 

[davf]

With the exception of the Arrow comments, I think we are both in agreement then. My point regarding Concorde was that I did not agree with the criteria you were outlining. The comment I read (but cannot find the reference for) regarding the Starfighter stated they would flightplan for cruise above Mach 1. Not a burst or dash speed, but a sustained 60+ minute cruise. <br /><br />As I have said from the start, however, I do agree that the F22 is the first <i> operational </i> combat aircraft (discounting unarmed recce aircraft) that can cruise at a meaningful supersonic speed with a full weapons load.<br /><br />As for the Arrow, discussion on it is somewhat of a flight of fancy but the flight test program did verify much regarding performance. While there is a GREAT deal of sensationalistic crap out there, there are a few good sources of information that can be found regarding the flight test program, the results of which did indicate the ability to cruise supersonically (although barely) in the underpowered Mk 1 version. We'll never truly know the performance of the Iroquois powered Mk 2 version (the first of which was ready for flight when the program was cancelled), however the engine itself was fairly well characterized. The engine was well suited to supersonic cruise. I am quite prepared to take the word of the chief engineer that it was capable of cruising to the battle supersonically without the use of afterburner. <br />"Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation" by Randall Whitcomb, Vanwell Publishing Limited,<br />"Avro CF-105 Mk.1 Pilot's Operating Instructions and RCAF Testing /Basing Plans", forward by LtCol TFJ Leversedge, the Boston Mills Press, content taken from the applicable declassified Avro and RCAF documents.<br /><br />Incidentally, this is probably the best Arrow website. Material is posted from the chief designer as well as what I would consider to be other reputable sources.<br />http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/index.</safety_wrapper

 

[davf]

I'd love a Mig 15 for the backyard. Doesn't have to fly. Can you get me a deal? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Just kidding... I couldn't afford it.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I was thinking of the possibility of using the MiG-25/31 in launching (micro)satellites.</font><br /><br />I just saw this thread and I have not read everything so I apologize up front if I am being redundant. <br /><br />The short answer is "yes", you can use either MiG-25 or 31 to launch "micro-sats". The question is, however; how big of a "mirco-sat"? The answer depends on the first stage aircraft (in this case, MiG-25/ 31) as well as the 2nd stage rocket performance. Put if this way, if we can launch the Pegasus rocket using a big, slow, subsonic airplane like the L1011, why can't you launch micro-sats using a faster, lighter, and go higher altitude with MiG-25/ 31 or even the SU's?<br /><br />In general, the faster and higher you can go with a first stage aircraft, the less one has to do with the 2nd stage rocket == />> lighter rocket or bigger payload (micro-sats). Trouble is, if you go too fast and too high, your first stage aircraft becomes very expensive to build and operate. That's the problem with the U.S. air-launch community, we always try to go higher and faster therefore spending incredible amount of money on the first stage aircraft and ended up getting the programs canceled. <br /><br />How much payload can you put up depending on where you are launching from. In general, for the due East low earth orbit (LEO), the closer to the equator you launch the less energy you need to get to orbit. Does your "2,000 kg payload" include the 2nd stage rocket? Also does this "payload" go to orbit, or they were just a part of bomb that can be carried by the aircraft? Without having the details numbers, I can't tell you what your payload to LEO will be, but they sounds more than just "micro-satellites". <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[argosy]

MOSCOW, March 25 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Kazakhstan have pondered the project of launching small satellites into space from the Russian fighter MiG-31, the spokesman for Roskosmos (Russian Space Agency) has told RIA Novosti on Friday. <br /><br />"At the meeting in the Kazakh capital Astana on March 23, Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Danial Akhmetov and director Yuri Solomonov of the Moscow-based Heat Engineering Institute discussed the creation of the Ishim aerospace rocketry system. It intends the launching of small satellites with the help of Russian the MiG-31 fighter", the Roskosmos spokesman said. <br /><br />Ishim is designed for injecting small non-military spacecraft into the near-earth orbit. <br /><br />"Essentially, Ishim work is this: the MiG-31 rises to the required altitude with an attached small-size rocket carrying a satellite. Separated from the plane, the rocket, powered by its engine, orbits a spacecraft weighing up to 160 kilograms", the Roskosmos explained. <br /><br />Director and general director of the Heat Engineering Institute Yuri Solomonov stressed that Russia and Kazakhstan have all it takes to unfold the system. <br /><br />"We have planes, airfields and our institute can in a short time design and manufacture the new rocket with a solid-fuel engine, which is a guarantee of its dependability and avoids the use of toxic components", he noted. <br /><br />Kazakh Prime Minister Danial Akhmetov has instructed the Kazakh Aerospace Committee and the Informatics and Communication Agency to set up a working group for comprehensive feasibility study and realization of the Ishim system, Roskosmos said. <br /><br />So it seems they are good for 160 kilos in orbit. Not bad.<br />I wonder if this are the numbers for a "stock" Mig-31, or will those MiGs be stripped down for better performance.<br /> Tu-160 wouldn't be a bad choice either, for a carrier aircraft. But more expensive...

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">... the MiG-31 rises to the required altitude with an attached small-size rocket carrying a satellite. Separated from the plane, the rocket, powered by its engine, orbits a spacecraft weighing up to 160 kilograms</font><br /><br />OK. 160 kilo sounds a lot more credible than 2,000 kilo <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I wonder where the rocket will be mounted on the MiG-31? This 2nd stage rocket will undboutly be the size much like the Pegasus (big rocket !!). Will you hang it under the belly between the landing gear? That will limit the diameter of rocket. Also, will this affect the take off characteristic of the MiG-31? If the rocket is long enough, will the tail-end of the rocket scrape the ground as the aircraft tilt its nose upward? <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br />Another consideration is how will hanging a big rocket (big aero drag) as such affect the aerodynamic lift characteristic of the MiG-31? Will it still have enough lift to go above Mach 2.5 ? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[argosy]

the rocket is currently under development. But in several texts I've read they classify it as a 10-ton solid rocket. Pretty big. Yes, the rocket would be mounted under the belly.<br />Maybe they could fix the problem of the diameter of the rocket by installing a dropable landing gear fixed on the rocket which would drop as soon as the plane would fly.<br />As for the drag...well, MiG-25 was able to reach M2.83 fully armed with 4 very big rockets(considerable drag).<br />MiG-31 is equipped with more powerfull engines and they will probably upgrade it to have even more boost.<br />And I hope they'll downgrade the weight. Much can be saved by dropping weapons and radar systems. Adding more composites and titanium would also be great.

 

[mlorrey]

Yes, dropping unnecessary systems will save a lot of weight, particularly the radar, although doing so will mandate equal weight stripping in the rear of the plane, since most aircraft already carry ballast in the nose for CoG adjustments. I suspect a good solution for them would be to move ECS equipment to the avionics bays, and make the ECS compartment behind the cockpit a fuel tank. Moving the fuel moment forward should solve the problem.<br /><br />The could also enlarge the horizontal stabs or the wing trailing edge surfaces to move the center of lift further aft along with the CG change.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

The MiG-31 already carries its most important weapons semi-retracted under its belly, so I don't think you have to worry about the undercarraige. If you look at diagrams of the MiG-31 you will see that the wheelbase is extremly wide. This was designed because even the massive Foxhound had to be able to operate from snow covered and semi prepared airfields.<br /><br />I assume that the MiG-31D will be used as blueprint for the eventual launcher. The MiG-31D, of which two aircraft were build, was the ASAT version of the Foxhound. It had most of its avionics and internal computers removed and the underwing and underbelly pylons removed. Instead a single pylon, semi received under the belly, was fitted. To increase stability, LERX were enlarged and large wingtips were fitted for increased high alpha capability. The MiG-31Ds were stored in the early 1990s. <br /><br />How they solve the CoG problem I dont know, the radar and computer a really heavy. If I remember correctly the "digital" computer alone weighed up to two tonnes. Maybe even the second crew member can be crapped, to save even more. <br /><br />I assume that Kazakstan will provide a number of MiG-31s from their stock (they have 30, which they hardly use) and that the upgrades will be performed at the Mig Nizhny Novogrod plant. <br /><br />

 

[propforce]

Here's some info on the MiG-31D from Janes I retrieved some times ago so it may not be upto date.<br /><br />Janes <br />Two MiG-31D (Type 07) dedicated anti-satellite models (numbered 071 and 072) were produced and flight-tested in 1986, with ballast instead of radar in nose, a flat fuselage undersurface without recesses, large winglets above and below wingtips, and underwing Vympel ASAT missiles<br /><br />MiG-31S: <br />Commercial small satellite launch variant, with Fakel OKB Micron missile capable of delivering a 100 kg (220 lb) payload into a 200 km (124 mile) orbit or a 70 kg (154 lb) payload into a 500 km (311 mile) orbit. The type could also launch the Aerospace Rally System rocket-powered suborbital glider, for astronaut training, upper atmosphere research or space tourism<br /><br /><br />Weights and Loadings<br />Weight empty 21,820 kg (48,105 lb)<br />Internal fuel 15,500 kg (34,170 lb)<br />Max T-O weight: <br /> with max internal fuel 41,000 kg (90,390 lb)<br /> with max internal fuel and two underwing tanks 46,200 kg (101,850 lb)<br />Max wing loading 750.0 kg/m2 (153.61 lb/sq ft)<br />Max power loading 152 kg/kN (1.49 lb/lb st)<br /> <br /><br />Performance<br />Max permitted Mach No. at height 2.83<br />Max level speed: at 17,500 m (57,400 ft) 1,620 kt (3,000 km/h; 1,865 mph)<br /> at S/L 810 kt (1,500 km/h; 932 mph)<br />Max cruising speed at height M2.35<br />Econ cruising speed M0.85<br />Landing speed 141 kt (260 km/h; 162 mph)<br />Time to 10,000 m (32,810 ft) 3 min<br />Service ceiling 20,600 m (67,600 ft)<br />T-O run at max T-O weight 1,200 m (3,940 ft)<br />Landing run 800 m (2,625 ft)<br />Radius of action with max internal fuel and four R-33 missiles: <br /> at M2.35 388 n miles (720 km; 447 miles)<br /> at M0.85 647 n miles (1,200 km; 745 miles)<br /> at M0.85 with two underwing tanks 782 n miles (1,450 km; 901 miles)<br /> at M0.85 with two underwing tanks and one flight refuelling 1,185 n miles (2,200 km; 1,365 miles)<br />Ferry range, max inte <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Well, an asat weapon is a far cry from an orbital launcher for a 160 kg payload. The USAF had an asat missile launched from the F-15 (and one earlier for the F-106 also). The ASM-135A was a two stage missile, made up of a Lockheed SR75 SRAM first stage, and an Altair III (from the Scout) upper stage, putting a small interceptor warhead into a 15,000 mph suborbital intercept trajectory. It was successfully tested once, in 1985, but never operationalized with a planned asat squadron of 20 planes, due to treaty concerns. It was 1180 kg, 17 feet 9.5 inches long. It was designed to hit targets as high as 1000 km at apogee. Its one test flight intercepted a retired satellite at 555 km altitude.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

 

[spacefire]

I'm reading the article in the latest AW&ST on this.<br />The Mig31D will have modified engines and will perform a zoom-climb before launching the missile.<br />An Il- 76 aircraft will also be used, for guidance. I guess because the Mig31 will be stripped down like previous posters have said.<br />The wing tips have 'end plates' to provide stability at high AOAs. <br />Payload will range from50kg-160kg and altitudes from 200-1200km, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[edawg]

bump. i need this thread for my project =)

 

[edawg]

any idea on how high a mig-31 can place 160kg? in orbit? or is it a suborbital trajectorty?

 

[mdodson]

"How good or bad would be if you would be using carbon fibre to build planes?"<br /><br />Hope you've caught some news in the past ten months about the 787 and A350 XWB. Just be careful if you get over 300 F!

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>bump. i need this thread for my project =) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Sigh <<shaking head />>... I wish I had it so easy when I was in school <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mdodson]

"in orbit? or is it a suborbital trajectorty"<br /><br />I vote suborbital. The MiG gets you to a nice altitude, but you still have to gain a lot of velocity, and do a circularization burn 45 minutes later to actually be in orbit. Unless you only want to get 20 kg out of the 160 into orbit.<br /><br />Are you up to a B- yet? (grin)

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Hope you've caught some news in the past ten months about the 787 and A350 XWB.</font><br /><br />Yeah, Boeing and Airbus have bought the entire world supply of carbon fiber for the next five years or so. <br /><br />The cost of bike frames is going through the roof, some of the time you cant buy carbon fiber at almost any price. Some manufacturers have started switching to bamboo of all things!