Talk:Mikoyan MiG-31/Archive 2

I believe that the to altitude record is incorrect
This article states... "and set a time to height record of 4,000 m in 4 minutes, 11.78 seconds" This doesn't seem like much of a record - I think a stripped down P-51 could likely make it to 4K meters in 4 minutes. Based on a reference I found here...

http://everything2.com/title/MiG-25+Foxbat

I believe the record should be 40,000 m in 4 minutes, 11.78 seconds though the link is talking about a lesser Mig-25 record. We need a good reference for this one and I have not been able to find one. However, I did find a bunch of references to the "4,000 m in 4 minutes, 11.78 seconds" and believe that the Wikipedia entry is being referenced with the false information. To be clear, 4,000 m in 4 minutes is ridiculious and should be removed if it can't be correctes with a real reference. If there are no objections I am going to remove it. Ericpol (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the entire section as none of it had a reference and was clearly wrong but my suspition that it should have been "40,000" meters is also wrong as the max altitude record it set is less than that. Ericpol (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My removal didn't work and I don't know how to make it permanent. This information is clearly false and has been sited at other sites. 216.10.144.10 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All official FAI records can be checked on the FAI website. The record mentioned here of 4 min, 11.78 seconds, seems to refer to the official FAI record set by Alexandr Fedotov on 17 May, 1975. The record is for time to climb to 35,000m and was set in the E-266M, which was the MiG-25 used specifically for record attempts. The current record, according to the FAI, has the following status: "ratified - retired by changes of the sporting code". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.9.96 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Permission to replace main photo?
I found a photo of a MIG-31 in Flight that I would like to replace the main image with. I am making this entry per the request on the main page.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Air_Force_MiG-31_inflight_Pichugin.jpg Articseahorse (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good in-flight image and it has proper permission for use. The current infobox image can be moved to later in article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Articseahorse (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake photographs ?
The previous banner photo (here) is almost certainly fake, especially considering this photo was supposedly taken the same day by the same photographer yet shows differing hull numbers.

Therefore I have replaced the photo with one that is legitimate. Dziban303 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What date are do you think that the photo was taken on? Because the photos that get uploaded from flicker seem to automatically posted with the dates that they were uploaded, not taken. Is there anything else that make yous suspect the photo of not being genuine? Also there are two aircraft in both photos. Making it possible to take photos of two different aircraft on the same day. Articseahorse (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the photo links so that they work a bit better. Unician &nabla; 09:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Both Pichugin images have proper licensing. Maybe the 2 MiG-31s in the first photo switched positions in the 2nd photo.  There needs to be more solid justification here, imo.  I feel the infobox should use an image with a better view of the aircraft than this one. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaward radar?
It is claimed to have limited astern coverage, possibly due to drag chute housing above and between the engines

That statement is a non-sequitur, as a drag chute obviously has no ability to act as a radar. I suspect the statement is trying to say that there is some speculation that a smaller radar is mounted in the drag chute housing. But is such speculation being made? And why is it speculation, the 31 is a fairly easy aircraft to visit, does no one know for sure?

I suspect that this is older information from the era before the plane was widely available for study. Can we get some refs on this?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * After some article history detective work, I found the the original sentence was "It is claimed to have limited astern coverage (perhaps the reason for the radome-like protuberance above and between the engines)." This was completely unsourced at the time, and existed for several years before this diff in which it was first changed. The sentence was changed in the next edit to the current phrasing, and wasn't modified after the addition of the source. As such, I don't think the source supports the sentence at all, and I've removed it as OR/speculation. Thanks for mentioning this. - BilCat (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of MiG-25 construction
The MiG-25 used 80% nickel steel in its structure to allow welding. Interesting, I guess, but this is an article about the MiG-31. What is the relevance of this facticle? I'd normally expect something about the MiG-31's construction following this, e.g. "The MiG-31, in contrast, uses 50% Unobtainium in its construction", but the paragraph ends there. NelC (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

transliteration
МиГ-31 был оснащен РК-RLDN и APD-518 [ 3 ] цифровые безопасные DATALINKS. RK-RLDN канал передачи данных для связи с опорных центров. APD-518 канал передачи данных позволяет полет четырех самолетов МиГ-31 для автоматического обмена радиолокационных генерируемые данные в пределах 200 [ 55 ] км (124 миль) друг от друга. Она также позволяет другие самолеты с менее сложных авионики, [ 56 ], например, МиГ-23,25,29 / Су - 15,27 [ 10 ] должны быть направлены на цели осквернена МиГ-31 (максимум 4 (большой дальности ) для каждого самолета МиГ-31). Аналогично [ 57 ] комплекс S - 300 самолетов с группой APD-518 может: доля данные, полученные с помощью различных радаров разных направлениях (активного или пассивного сканирования излучения) и обобщения данных. То есть, цель может быть обнаружен пассивно (через шум поставлена, чтобы защитить себя / активный поиск радар (цель)) и (или) активны одновременно из разных направлениях (активный поиск радар МиГ-31). И каждый самолет имеет APD-518 будет иметь точные данные, даже если он не участвует в поиске [ 58 ]. [ 59 ] [ 60 ]

постановка на охрану - 4 ракеты большой дальности + ракеты 4 ближний / средней дальности (включая R-77 средней дальности). [ 51 ] взаимодействуя с наземной автоматизированной цифровой системой управления (АСУ «Рубеж» Операционная радиус 2000 км, может управлять несколькими группами самолетов), режимы дистанционного направленные, полуавтоматические действия (координации поддержки), однократно, а также: направить на целевые ракеты, запущенные с другого самолета. Цифровой иммунная система обеспечивает автоматический обмен тактической информацией в группе из четырех перехватчиков, дистанционного одна от другой на расстоянии 200 км и направленный на целевую группу борцов с менее мощных авионики (в этом случае самолет выполняет роль Точка наведения или повторитель). [ 10 ]


 * a rough translation. nor any AWACS and F-22 or even with the help of ground stations. Can not do anything like this (as far as I know) it should be in the article. If you believe that. something that the has added a poor transliteration, indicate your doubts more specifically

MiG-31 was equipped with the RK-RLDN and APD-518 [3] digital safe DATALINKS. RK-RLDN data channel for communication with the reference points. APD-518 data channel allows the flight of four MiG-31 for the automatic exchange of radar data generated within 200 [55] km (124 miles) from each other. It also enables other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics, [56], such as the MiG-23,25,29 / Su - 15.27 [10] should be allocated for defiled MiG-31 (a maximum of 4 (long-range) for each MiG-31). Similarly, [57] complex S - 300 aircraft with a group of APD-518 can: share data obtained using different radar different directions (active or passive scanning radiation), and integration of data. That is, the target can be detected passively (through the noise set to protect yourself / active search radar (target)) and (or) are active at the same time from different directions (active search radar of the MiG-31). And everyone plane has APD-518 will have accurate data, even if it is not involved in the search [58]. [59] [60]

Arming - 4 long-range missile missiles + 4 near / medium-range (including the R-77 medium-range). [51] interacting with the ground automated digital control system (ACS "Boundary" Operating radius of 2,000 km, can control multiple groups of aircraft), remotely directed, semi-automatic action (coordinating support), once as well: to send to the target missiles launched from another aircraft. Digital immune system allows the automatic exchange of tactical information in a group of four interceptors, remote from one another at a distance of 200 km, and aimed at the target group of fighters with less powerful avionics (in this case, the aircraft serves as the target point or repeater). [10]

89.105.158.243 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC) +2.61.35.177 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

2 + 2 = 4, but not two + two = unclear??
To know or not to know?

The MiG-31 is equipped with sr-you ECM radar and infrared ranges.[32] Interceptor MiG-31 is capable of performing combat tasks. The MiG-31 was equipped with RK-RLDN and APD-518[25] digital secure datalinks. The RK-RLDN datalink is for communication with ground control centers. The APD-518 datalink enables a flight of four MiG-31 to automatically exchange radar-generated data within 200[58] km (124 mi) from each other. It also enables other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics,[59] such as MiG-23,25,29/Su - 15,27[11] to be directed to targets spotted by MiG-31 (a maximum of 4 (long-range) for each MiG-31 aircraft). Similarly[60] complex S-300 aircraft with a group of APD-518 can: share data obtained by various radars from different directions (active or passive scanning radiation) and summarize the data. That is, the target can be detected by passively (through noise posed to protect themselves / active search radar (target)) and (or) the active simultaneously from many different directions (active search radar MiG-31). And everyone aircraft has APD-518 will have exact data, even if it is not involved in the search.[25][27][10] arming - 4 long-range missiles + 4 short-range/medium-range missiles (including R-77 medium-range).[32] interacting with ground-based automated digital control system (ACS «Rubezh» Operating radius of 2000 km, can control multiple groups of planes), operating modes remote aiming, semi-automated actions (coordinate support), singly, and also: to direct on the target missiles launched from the other aircraft. Digital immune system provides the automatic exchange of tactical information in a group of four interceptors, remote one from another at a distance of 200 km and aiming at the target group of fighters with less-powerful avionics (in this case the aircraft performs the role of guidance point or repeater).[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.198.17 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mig-31 can intercept the SR-71?
I want to challenge the sections that claim the statements and sources that claim that the Mig-31 can and did Intercept a SR-71 over Russia. The Mig-31 would have the exact same problems as theMig-25 would.

''First of all, the SR-71 flies too high and too fast. The MiG-25 cannot reach it or catch it. Secondly … the missiles are useless above 27,000 meters [88,000 feet], and as you know, the SR-71 cruises much higher. But even if we could reach it, our missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 if they are fired in a tail chase. And if they are fired head-on, the guidance systems cannot adjust quickly enough to the high closing speed.

''Moreover, Belenko’s missiles would have not worked because “most air- to-air missiles are optimized to maneuver in the thicker air below around 30,000 feet in order to shoot down an enemy plane,” former Blackbird pilot Col. Richard Graham explained in his book SR-71: The Complete Illustrated History of the Blackbird. “Firing at the SR-71, cruising at 75,000 feet, the air is so thin that any maneuvering capability of the missile is practically nonexistent.''

The operating manual for the SR-71 can be found here to confirm this.

Also given that the past history of misinformation about the Mig-25, should make the claims about the Mig-31 suspect.

Articseahorse (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What would be the problem to intercept a 3.8M SR-71 with a 5M R-40? After all, a plane faces the same problems maneuvring as a missile, except a missile can afford larger control fins. (Not to mention that your link has multiple issues like a claim that Zaslon had a range of 55 miles or that "dismantling revealed that the Mig was considered almost a rocket"). Danvolodar (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The max stated range of a R-40 is 60km. The max stated speed is Mach 4.5(1531m/s).  The Max stated speed of an SR-71 is Mach 3.3(1123m/s)(in Sled Driver, the author claims to have hit 3.6, but I'll stick to the claimed speeds).  Assuming the R-40 can maintain mach 4.5 for its full 60km range(missiles usually glide on the back half of a shot at a long range target), which it almost certainly cannot, it will cover the 60km in 39 seconds(60,000m/1,531m/s).  The R-40 will close with the SR-71 at 409m/s.  The max distance the mig could be when it fires is 15,950m from the SR-71.  All of this assumes that the Mig has managed to get directly behind the SR-71.  This is compounded by the fact that a Mig cannot hit mach 3+ while carrying weapons, and it cannot match the SR-71's altitude in level flight while carrying weapons, so either the pilot has to get within 10km of the SR-71 to get a chance at a shot, or its going to have to zoom climb, meaning its trading speed for height, making the intercept that much more difficult.  The end result, yes it is probably technically feasiable for a Mig-31 to get an intercept on an SR-71, but its extremely difficult, and the margins are extremely small.  In order to have a real chance at getting the SR-71, the Mig would likely need to be within 5-10km at the same altitude, and making that happen with a slower plane that needs to zoom climb to get to the altitude is extremely difficult, and would have been fairly easy for the Blackbird to ruin the intercept by just maneuvering a few degrees left or right when it sees the mig start its climb.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:1402:C:7196:1EAF:8A9B:8EA1 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is common knowledge (amongst aerospace enthusiasts) that Swedish Airforce JA-37 Viggens (Mach 2.1 fighters with a ceiling of less than 60,000 feet) routinely performed successful practice intercepts of SR-71 Blackbirds flying the "Baltic Express" route profiles during the cold war. As one of the Viggen pilots stated "In total I have five hot intercepts against the SR-71 to my credit. All can be described as successful. I was visual three times. On a couple of occasions the SR-71 was contrailing; this was very useful because you could do a visual check to ensure you ended up in the right spot". One thing that is commonly incorrectly assumed is that the intercepts have to take place from behind, when in fact they were mostly head on. So therefore any speculation that the faster, higher flying MiG-31 with its far more sophisticated avionics could not intercept an SR-71 is just pure nonsense. There is a good book that is pre-viewable on google books (when I have time to find it, I'll update this edit) that actually has maps of intercept profiles and very good evidence (including interviews with ex-Soviet AF pilots) that Soviet MiG-31's stationed on the Baltic Coast during Soviet times accomplished the same practice intercepts of the SR-71s as the Swedish Viggen pilots. 5.56.31.175 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Intercept" of the SR-71 is nonsense. It just could not happen. The Swedes did it as practice, yes -- the Swedes are allies and have never been a threat (hence the allowed contrails). Brian Shul, a retired pilot of the SR says quite clearly in his book, "The TDI now shows us Mach numbers, not only new to our experience but flat out scary. Walt says the DEF panel is now quiet, and I know it is time to reduce our incredible speed.  I pull the throttles to the min 'burner range and the jet still doesn't want to slow down.  Normally the Mach would be affected immediately, when making such a large throttle movement, but for just a few moments old 960 just sat out there at the high Mach." "High Mach" was 3.5+. There's no telling how fast they were going. Bottom Line: if they were threatened, they were gone. Jason.r.newell (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)jason
 * Contrails are not something that aircraft can engage or disengage (or "allow"), they are a product of atmospheric conditions, such as temperature and pressure, or usually water vapour forming in the engines. 195.16.77.115 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ^^agreed, however the pilots know the adjustments in speed and altitude necessary to avoid. Jason.r.newell (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but there is one thing that seems to have been omitted from all the arguments in the above "thread" regarding the MiG-25's original design, which was to intercept the B-70 bomber which flew at the same speeds and altitudes as the SR-71. Why is it non-sense that the MiG-25 (or the more modern MiG-31), which was designed to intercept a Mach 3 bomber flying at 80,000 feet, could not intercept an SR-71 ? 195.16.77.115 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are many records of MiG-31 (and MiG-25) intercepts of SR-71 flights. The "intercept" was not to within cannon range - but to position the MiG within potential missile lock-on range.  Refer: , , , This one though indicates that the MiG-25 found it difficult to position for a potential lock-on:
 * Farawayman (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, makes sense, MiG-25 did have far more primitive avionics that used thermionic valves, but the MiG-31 was a lot more advanced. Number 4 is very interesting reading indeed, (although off topic, I found the part about the pilots storing clothes in the spare SR-71 bays quite bemusing). There is also another good book link posted by another editor above that is very good too Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions. I missed that one when I read through this thread. It describes a scenario where a Soviet MiG-25PD always intercepted the SR-71 from 1.6nm behind before "breaking off", meaning that it probably achieved the necessary missile lock as you mentioned.195.16.77.115 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you provided tries to render in Cyrillic for me! Will look for it in EN.  Thanks.  Farawayman (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I pasted that straight from another editors link, should work, appears in EN now. Strange as it did render in EN for me originally. I corrected by above post too, that was a MiG-25PD, had "MiG-31" on the brain, so to speak! The PD version of the MiG-25 was much more capable than the original versions. The wiki article for that variant states MiG-25PD - Improved single-seat all-weather interceptor fighter aircraft, which entered service from 1979. Fitted with R-15BD-300 engines and new N-005 Saphir-25 (RP-25M) Pulse-Doppler radar with look-down/shoot down capability, based on the radar of the MiG-23ML. Could be fitted with four R-60 air-to-air missiles replacing outermost two R-40 missiles. Late examples fitted with an undernose IR search and track system. NATO designation Foxbat-E. Belenko did defect in 1976 with a less capable, older variant, which would explain his statements in Number 4. 195.16.77.115 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In his book "Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions", author Paul F. Crickmore explains how the SR-71 was intercepted no fewer than 85 times. Crickmore interviewed pilots from both sides. No Blackbirds were ever fired upon and none overflew Soviet territory. Flanker235 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

haha
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/r40/r40.shtml 60 km 1979! up to 80 http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/r40.html

http://aviaros.narod.ru/r-40.htm heigh 500-30 000 m 4,5-5,5 M NOT 4.5! http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=117871 4.5-5,M http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/r40.html NOT 4.5! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.198.17 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Det-4 Blackbirds flying from England were not briefed to intrude into Soviet airspace, so the idea that MiG-31s deterred them from doing so is unsound. In addition they did not fly at maximum performance. On the North Cape and Gulf of Finland routes they flew at Mach 2.8 at 70,000ft, the same profile they flew when deliberately offering a target to US F-15s on intercept exercises. (And if they busted those exercise limits for fun, the F-15s didn't get a result.) On the Inner German Border route, they flew subsonic. Apart from being flown at sub-optimal performance, the missions were also flown at regular and predictable times, to give the Soviets an opportunity to respond. NATO probably learnt more about the MiG-31 and the Soviet air defence system than the Soviets learnt about the SR-71. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than laughing off the possibility, you would do better to read Crickmore's book. Flanker235 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Speed compared with MiG-25
MiG-25:

High altitude: Mach 3.2[8] (3,470 km/h, 2,170 mph); Mach 2.83 (3,200 km/h, 1,920 mph) continuous engine limit

Here we have the same:

High altitude: Mach 2.83 (3,000 km/h, 1,860 mph)

Is the MiG-31 altitude another one which does cost 200 km/h (~124.27 mph)? Its not much at all I know, but I'm just interested... must be strange for the pilot, with around 2,500 km/h and a radius of just 720 km and also only at reduced speed of Mach 2.35 (around 2,500km/h I guess) he can't even fly 20 minutes before he has to return, slightly more than 15 minutes, and with extreme limited speed of Mach 0.8 the radius of 1,450 km still is not really great, but at Mach 0.8 it lose the reason it was created for (extreme fast interceptor) and its driving an strong engined Mercedes or Porsche with 50 km/h on the Highway,

I think Mach 0.8 in this case is around 800 km/h if 2.83 is 3,000 km/h and I think the fastest World War 2 turboprop fighters reached almost 700 km/h or even in very few cases in light weight versions and special octane fuel (rare or even very rare for Nazi Germany or Japan) over 700 km/h, maybe even over 750... Kilon22 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Serial production started in 1979.
Serial production started in 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.1 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's already been in the article; see Mikoyan MiG-31. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

New role of MiG-31
New role is added to MiG-31 who can perform role as Attack aircraft with new Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missile. Loesorion (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reliable published source that specifically labels the MiG-31 an attack aircraft. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you call aircraft with role to fire air to land or air to sea missiles or rockets? I do not see in info table from where you removed "attack aircraft" that his "interceptor" role is backed with source but it is not deleted. Role is something based on capabilities not on names or first role of aircraft that changed during time. How about before deletion and reverting of my edits three times you had referred to talk page here? You where noted to go to talk page before your second edit and this was opened in talk before your second revision of my edit in this article. MiG-31K and MiG-31BSM are both capable of attacking ground and sea targets and that makes them attack aircraft. Read - Attack aircraft article for better understanding of definition of attack aircraft and you are asking for source for obvious things, I don't mind you looking for source or more explanations but your deletions where not about that. You started editing my edit not because source but because I quote you :"originally designed and used solely as an interceptor". and I have in history page of this article refereed you to go here to Talk with my best intention to explain my stance to someone who is obvious less knowledgeable about MiG-31 roles - that could be seen from yours "solely as an interceptor" explanations for deletion of my edit.

So if you don't know something you could ask before editing my post three times I would gladly help. If you need source for obvious thing you could read about that here and I quote from source: "It should be noted that initially the aircraft was an interceptor rather than a carrier of air-to-surface weapons" and "With the Kinzhal, the MiG-31 interceptor has assumed its new role of an attack aircraft. Incidentally, its predecessor, the MiG-25, was also upgraded to get the capability of striking ground targets with free-fall bombs." and I must noted that even without this source it was obvious thing to notice that MiG-31K is attack aircraft. To conclude this discussion I will say MiG-31K is attack aircraft without any air to air weapons for now and MiG-31BSM is multi-role aircraft with intercept and ground attack capabilities or roles depending on mission specific armament. Nothing is fixed or eternal in life, best regards. Loesorion (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Altitude
The article says Fedotov took one to 37650m in 1977

The Fedotov article says that flight was a MiG-25M. The MiG-25 article says that plane went to 37650m in 1977 with Fedotov

So I'm assuming the MiG-31 article is wrong, but obviously I don't know enough to be definite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petsco (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What numbers is the trust to weight ratio based on?
I looked at the numbers for the aircraft's weight and thrust, and can't find a combination of these that give a thrust/weight ratio of 0.85. Dry thrust with empty weight gives the closest at 0.87, but I don't think that most other specification sections of other Wikipedia articles of military jets use empty weight for thrust/weight calculations. Afterburner thrust with gross weight gives 0.75, which leads me to think that this may have been a typo. Should this be changed, or am I missing something? and should some clarification be added as to what the thrust/weight ratio is based on, perhaps similar to the specification section of F-4 Phantom article?

Independently firing long-range air-to-air missiles.
The article mentions that the MiG-31 and Iranian F-14s, are the only airplanes that can do this. Without further explanation of what it actually means I find it highly unlikely. I interpret it as they don't need any external assistance to fire their missiles, but wouldn't that be a minimum requirement for all modern aircraft?Amphioxi (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all can do it. Some Western craft can link to an AWACS or other sender to extend the lock on range and fire blind, but all of them can fire independently. 46.208.194.232 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

'Efficiency of modernized MIG-31BM is 2.6 times greater than basic MiG-31' How is that possibly calculated?
In the MIG-31BM variant section, this claim is made:

Efficiency of modernized MIG-31BM is 2.6 times greater than basic MiG-31

With no mention of how such an efficiency increase could be calculated, the listed source makes the same claim but also contains no proof or evidence, leaving it as just a floating sentence. The source itself doesn't list the author or source of that info, and reads more like a propaganda piece.

How could such a claim even be calculated? 46.208.194.232 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

D-30F6 potentially more powerful than stated?
Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications (jet-engine.net) suggests that D-30F6 produces 20,944 lbf dry and 41,843 on afterburner. If anyone can find another source that verifies the thrust available on the MiG-31 that would be great. Sqrt(-1)magsqrt(-1)nary (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)