_j

Contents

Introduction ......... . ... . ... . . . ....... . . . 3

Part 1. TAKING SHAPE

Foxbat Becomes Foxhound .. . . . . . . ... 9

Part 2. THE KENNEL

Foxhound Versions .. . . .. . . ... . . . . . . 37
M ikoyan M iG·31
© 2005 Yefim Gordon Part 3. MIG-31 IN ACTION
Original translation by Sergey & Dmitiry Komissa rov
Homeland Watchdog . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 103
ISBN 1 85780 219 5
Part 4. FOXHOUND VERSUS TOMCAT . . . 139
Published by Midland Publishing
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, England
Tel : 01455 254 490 Fax: 01455 254 495 Part 5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN,
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
SYSTEMS & ARMAMENT
Midland Publishing is an imprint of The MiG-31 in Detail . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. 157
tan Allan Publishing Ltd

Worldwide distribution (except North America):

Line Drawings . ... . . . . . ... . . .. ...... .... . 202
Midland Counties Publications
4 Watl ing Drive, Hinck ley, LE1 0 3EY, England
Telephone: 01455 254 450 Fax: 01455 233 737 Colour Drawings . .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 214
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
www.midlandcountiessuperstore.com
Record Achievements . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 223
North American trade distribution:
Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc
39966 Grand Avenue, North Bra nch, MN 55056
Tel: 651 277 1400 Fax: 651 277 1203
Toll free telephone: 800 895 4585
www.specialtypress.com
Acknowledgements
This book is illustrated w ith photos by
Yefim Gordon , Vyacheslav Martyniuk, Nikolay The author wishes to thank the photographers (notably
Popov, Victor Drushlyakov, Sergey Skrynnikov,
Vyacheslav Martyniuk) who provided photographs for this
Sergey Sergeyev, Ernest Katayev, T. Shia, as well
book . Several photos were supplied by the late Sergey
as from the archives of RSK MiG, Yefim Gordon,
ITAR-TASS, the Voyeninform Press Agency, Skryn nikov, one of Russia's best aviation photog raphers,
World Air Power Journal and the Russian Aviation who was tragically killed in an ai rcraft crash in 2003.
Research Trust. Special thanks go also to Nikolay Popov who fu rni shed a
lot of valuable material.
Line drawings by Andrey Yu rgenson,
Oleg Put'makov and Polygon
Finally, cred it is due to the translators (Sergey and Dmitriy
Colour artwork by Sergey Yershov Komissarov) who are my partn ers in many book projects.
Without their assistance the book would never have
Printed in England by tan Allan Printi ng Ltd appeared .
Riverdene Business Park, Molesey Road ,
Hersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG
This book relies on unclassified sources (books and
All rights reserved. No part of this magazines published in Russia, the UK and the USA);
publication may be reproduced, see bibliography section at the end of the book .
stored in a retrieval system, transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical or photo-copied , recorded
or otherwise, without the written
permission of the publishers.
Introduction
For years , the northern and eastern borders of however, cannon-armed subsonic intercep-
the USSR were well guarded by Mother tors could no longer cope with high-flying and
Nature herself; the vast expanses of water and fast targets. Two approaches were pursued:
ice made them inaccessible for any foes. the first was to equip production tactical fight-
Things changed dramatically in the late 1940s ers with airborne intercept (AI) radars and air-
with the advent of strategic bombers pos- to-air missiles (AAMs) , while the other option
sessing intercontinental range . was to design dedicated interceptors from
Since then , the Soviet leaders regarded scratch , tailoring them to the PVO 's needs.
the creation of a highly effective national air The adoption of the aerial intercept
defence system capable of protecting the weapons system concept by the Soviet mili-
country from any attack as a top-priority task. tary in the mid-1950s was of prime importance
With the onset of the Cold War the Soviet for the Soviet Air Defence Force. The inter-
Union found itself at odds with nations pos- ceptor was now regarded as part of an inte-
sessing strategic bombers and cruise missiles grated system comprising the aircraft as such
capable of carrying one-megaton nuclear (that is, a missile platform) , AAMs , Al/fire con-
warheads which were capable of wiping out trol radars and ground-based guidance sys-
nearly all key industrial and military targets of tems. The first Soviet aerial intercept weapons
the USSR within a very short time. Effective systems to enter squadron service were the
countermeasures had to be developed pronto. ones based on the subsonic Mikoyan/Gure-
The first Soviet surface-to-air missile vich MiG-17PFU and the Yakovlev Yak-25K.
(SAM) systems - the S-25 Toongooska and Later, the supersonic MiG-19PM , Sukhoi Su-9,
S-75 Vo/khov (both named after Russian rivers Su-11 and Yak-28P were fielded nationwide.
and known to the Western world as the SA-2 Yet again these aircraft could effectively inter-
Guideline) - had limited range and a kill alti- cept an incoming target at a distance of sev-
tude not exceeding 20 km (65,620 ft). Thus, eral hundred kilometres from base, at best. A
they could only be used for point defence of totally new type of aircraft was required for
major cities and military bases. SAMs were combating aerial attackers at distances in
not enough to protect the vast country that the excess of 1,000 km (620 miles) and altitudes
Soviet Union was. Conversely, missile-armed in excess of 20,000 m (65,600 ft) .
aircraft could destroy the attackers while The first attempt to create such an inter-
these were still a long way from the Soviet bor- ceptor was undertaken by Semyon A. Lav-
ders. Manned interceptors were thus an effec- ochkin 's OKB-301 in the second half of the
tive solution for covering the huge expanses 1950s. (OKB = opytno-konstrooktorskoye
of Siberia and the Soviet Far East where build- byuro - experimental design bureau ; the num-
ing a lot of SAM sites was impossible. Thus the ber is a code allocated for security reasons.)
task of building a chain of air defence radars The La-250 had a design endurance of more
along the frontiers and fielding new intercep- than two hours in subsonic mode and a top
tors capable of patrolling the borders for an speed of 1,600 km/h (990 mph). Yet the test
extended time received the highest priority. programme was plagued by accidents which ,
The first Soviet interceptors for the nation's together with troublesome equipment and
Air Defence Force (PVO - Protivovozdoosh- unsatisfactory handling, caused the trials to
naya oborona) were developed in the late drag on for years and eventually led to the
1940s and early 1950s. By the mid-1950s, cancellation of the programme. Now the PVO
4 MiG-31

high command found itself in a nice fix . There- MiG-21 tactical fighters. In the late 1950s the
fore , Artyom lvanovich Mikoyan 's OKB-155 OKB tried its hand at 'heavy' designs. The first
was instructed to start work on superfast, of them - the 1-75, Ye-150 and particularly the
ultra-high-flying heavy interceptors. (In this Ye-152 series - suffered an ignominious fate .
context, 'heavy' means that the aircraft is These aircraft, capable of destroying almost
larger and heavier than the 'light' interceptors any target at altitudes of up to 22,000 m
adapted from single-seat tactical fighters . (72, 180ft) and ranges of up to 1,000 km (625
Another reason for this term is that the 'heavy miles), did not progress beyond the prototype
interceptors' are dedicated aircraft whose stage due to development problems and con-
only mission is to destroy the enemy aircraft at stantly changing requirements . The S-75
long range ; they are not designed for close-in SAM 's success on 1st May 1960 when Fran-
combat. ) cis Gary Powers ' Lockheed U-2 was shot
The Mikoyan OKB gained fame as a down was undoubtedly a major contributing
'fighter maker' in 1949 when the famous factor ; the Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrusch-
MiG-15 was brought out; this was followed by chov's bias towards rocketry killed off many a
the equally successful MiG-17, MiG-19 and promising aircraft. (The Ye prefix means
yedinitsa - 'unit', that is, 'one-off' aircraft, and
was used to designate Mikoyan fighter proto-
types right down to the MiG-25 .)
Still, the threat posed by USAF's large
strategic bomber force had to be countered ,
and the Mikoyan OKB persevered . The devel-
opment work of the late 1950s and early 1960s
was not in vain . The mighty Tumanskiy
R15B-300 afterburning turbojet with a reheat
thrust of 10,150 kgp (22,380 lbst) was verified
on the Ye-152 series and finally entered pro-
duction ; major progress was also made in
radar and air-to-air missile technology . Thus,
many of the technological prerequisites for
the birth of a high-speed long-range intercep-
tor were there by 1960. What actu ally trig-
gered its appearan ce was yet another roun d
in the arms race .

The Mikoyan/ Gurevich

•
MiG-17PFU, an upgraded version
of the cannon-armed MiG-17PF,
was one of the first Soviet all-
weather interceptors to feature
missile armament. This view
shows the characteristic twin
radomes of the RP-5 radar and
the four RS-1 -U missiles on
underwing launch rails .

...
The subsonic MiG-17PFU was
gradually supplanted by the
supersonic MiG-19PM. Both
types are shown together here,
with a dolly loaded with RS-1-U
(the ones with tracers at the
wingtips) and RS-2-US AAMs in
the foreground; the missiles are
facing alternatively left and right
and feature protective caps over
the noses. Both aircraft had fairly
modest capabilities,
necessitating development of
more modern interceptors.
 Introduction 5

~
A magnificent vi ew of a f ully
armed MiG-19PM as It banks aw ay
f rom the camera ship, showing off
its sleek lines and sharply swept
wi ngs. Fighters operated by th e
Soviet Air Defence Force (PVO)
normally had blue t act ical codes
as shown here.

Two PVO pilots sprint toward s

their Mi G-21 interceptors. The
aircraft in the foreg round is a
Mi G-21 PFS w ith a narrow-chord
fin , while the other one is a lat er
M iG-21 PFS with a broad-c hord
~ fin . Both versions were operated

f
"'
~
exclusively by the PVO;
nevertheles s , the aircraft have
~ red t actical codes.
~ .....______..o...;__,.....,....., ...
In February 1961 the Central Committee of
the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet
Council of Ministers issued a joint directive
tasking the Mikoyan OKB with developing an
aircraft designated Ye-155; interceptor and
reconnaissance versions designated Ye-155 P
(perekhvatchik) and Ye-155R (razvedchik)
respectively were envisaged . The actual
development work started on 1Oth March
1961 . Designed around a pair of R15B-300
engines, the Ye-155P had a powerful Smerch-
A (Tornado-A) radar with a detection range of
100 km (62 .5 mil es) and was armed with a
quartet of R-40 medium-range AAMs. Th e first
________
_"

prototype Ye-155 P interceptor was comp leted

~
Two MiG-23Ms in air superiority
grey camouflage armed w ith
IR-homing R·13M missiles are
prepared f o r a night sortie. The
aircraft w as operated both by
the A ir Force (VVS) and the Ai r
Defence Force (PVO) , but these
t wo machines are PVO aircraft
(red codes notwithstanding)
because the R· 13M AAM was
on the PVO's inventory only.
Note the ' Excellent aircraft'
maintenance award badge on
the far aircraft.
6 , MiG-31

command link system connected with the

radar and enabling the aircraft to be directed
to the target area automatically or semi-auto-
matically.
Officially the MiG,25P was cleared for ser-
vice by a directive of the Council of Ministers
dated 13th April 1972. By the mid-1970s it
made up the backbone of the PVO 's intercep-
tor inventory. After converting to the MiG-25P,
PVO units stationed near the borders suc-
cessfully intercepted Lockheed SR-71A spy-
planes approaching sensitive areas. The
Blackbirds could have been shot down ,
despite the USAF's allegations to the con-
trary , and the only reason why they weren 't is
that no order to fire had been given . Anyway ,
the SR-71 sand U-2s stayed clear of the areas
where MiG-25Ps were based .
... in the summer of 1964, making its first flight After Lt. Viktor I. Belenko 's widely publi-
An atmospheric night shot of a on 9th September - soon after the Ye-155R cised defection to Japan in a MiG-25P on 6th
Sukhoi Su-9 interceptor. The four
prototypes featuring 'camera case ' noses. September 1976 the Soviet air defence force
RS-2-Us are not fitted here, but
the two underfuselage drop In 1971 the interceptor entered full-scale found itself in a predicament again. The Amer-
tanks are. The Su-9 entered production as the MiG-25P and was code- icans had studied the MiG-25P in detail;
service in 1958 and remained in named Foxbat by NATO. Its Smerch-A1 unless the design was drastically upgraded ,
service for many years. Note the (RP-25) radar could search and track targets the type's combat efficiency would be far too
lengthwise positioning of the
either autonomously or using ground inputs low. To correct this , it was decided to develop
aircraft on the flight line, as was
customary in the PVO in the relayed via the Vozdookh-1 (Air-1) command a new weapons control system for new-build
1960s. link. After that , target lock-on , aircraft guid- aircraft and retrofit it to existing ones. Hence
ance towards the launch point and data feed the Mikoyan OKB developed a comprehen-
to the missiles' warheads occurred auto- sive upgrade in a remarkably short time. The
matically. The weapons load consisted of four Smerch-A radar was replaced by a new
R-40 missiles (two radar-homing R-40Rs Sapfeer-25 (Sapphire) /RP-25M radar. An
and two IR-homing R-40Ts). The MiG-25P infra-red search & track (IRST) unit coupled
was fitted with the Lazoor' (Prussian Blue) with the radar made the weapons system less

~
The Su-15TM was the ultimate
production version of this
aircraft and formed an important
component of the PVO's fighter
fleet until the late 1980s. This
view illustrates well the cranked-
delta wing planform of the '™-
susceptible to enemy ECM and enabled the nated MiG-25PDS (for perekhvatchik, dora- ...
aircraft to make 'sneak attacks ' without botannw v stroyu - field-modified intercep- Another Su-15TM carrying two
R-8 AAMs (a heat-seeking R-BT
switching on the radar. An all-new ground- tor). A small number of MiG-25Ps were
to port and a radar-homing
based command system and a new identifi- exported to Iraq , Libya, Syria and Algeria; R-8R to starboard) and two
cation friend-or-foe (IFF) set were installed. some of them are reported to have seen UPK-23-250 cannon pods on
The aircraft carried upgraded R-40TD/R-40RD action in various local wars. the fuselage pylons. The yellow
missiles with almost twice the range. code is noteworthy.

Work on the new interceptor, designated

MiG-25PD (dorabotannw - modified) pro- ...
A pair of R-40TD AAMs under
gressed very fast. Several prototypes com-
the port wing of a MiG-25PD.
pleted their test programme in 1978 and the
type entered production in Gor'kiy that year.
This MiG-25PD, '306 Blue',
In 1979 the new version was officially added
carries a pair of R-40RDs inboard
to the inventory and stayed in production until and four R-60s on APU-60-2
1982; all early production aircraft were paired launch rails outboard.
updated to MiG-25PD standard and redesig- T
8 Introduction

range and outdated weapons systems. There-

fore, the Mikoyan OKB proposed developing
the MiG-25PD into a long-range interceptor
capable of patrolling alone over the vast north-
ern wilderness and defending industrial cen-
tres effectively.
The aircraft was to have long range and a
cruising speed of about 3,000 km/h (1 ,864
mph) and to be capable of destroying multiple
targets (including cruise missiles) in a single
sortie. The crew was to include a pilot and a
navigator/weapons systems officer (WSO) .
The idea was supported by the government
and the PVO command.
Three basic versions of the new aircraft
designated Ye-155MP were considered , dif-
fering only in wing design as the fuselage , the
lateral air intakes and twin fins were borrowed
.a. In 1968 the Soviet government issued a from the MiG-25 in as-is condition . Version A
'53 Blue', one of the Su-30 directive ordering the Mikoyan OKB to design had three-spar trapezoidal wings featuring
interceptors operated by the
and build three versions (interceptor, strike small leading edge root extensions (LERXes);
Russian Air Defence Force's
Combat & Conversion Training and reconnaissance) of an aircraft designated Version B featured variable-geometry wings ;
Centre at Savasleyka AB. The Ye-155M. Initially the aircraft was merely an while Version C was a tailless delta with ogival
aircraft carries four R-27RD upgraded MiG-25; by the early 1970s, how- wings of increased area.
missiles, two of which are ever, the objective was somewhat different. Until 1st May 1960, when the U-2 met its
suspended on the tandem
The USSR had long been suffering from inad- match near Sverdlovsk, the Western world did
centreline pylons.
equate air defence of the Polar Regions. Air not rate the Soviet air defence force. The
bases with powerful avionics and navigational Mikoyan OKB did a lot to change this , and a
facilities were few and far between in the major contribution was made by the aircraft
north. The existing air defence radars could which is the subject of this book - the MiG-31
only detect low-flying targets at close range. heavy interceptor; a type which , alongside the
The MiG-25PD, Su-15TM and Tupolev Tu-128 single-seat Su-27P and a handful of two-seat
interceptors equipping the PVO units sta- Su-30s, currently makes up the backbone of
tioned up north were hampered by limited Russia's air defence force.

~
The Su-27P is one of the Russian
Air Defence Force's principal
types today. Here the aircraft is
shown with the maximum
possible ordnance load - ten
R-27 medium-range AAMs (in
both lA-horning R-27T and semi·
active radar-homing R-27R
versions), two R-73 short-range
lA-horning AAMs and cannon
ammunition.
MiG-31 9

PART ONE

TAKING SHAPE
Foxbat Becomes Foxhound
10 MiG-31

of their test programme, OKB-155 was already

The Preliminary considering projects of future fighters that
Development Projects would eventually replace this aircraft. To this
end, Nll-339 (alias NIIR - Naoochno-issle-
The MiG-25 programme influenced not only dovatel'skiy institoot rahdiostroyeniya , Radio
foreign aircraft design practices, but most of Equipment Research Institute) , a Ministry of
all the Mikoyan OKB 's own designs. The Fox- Electronics Industry (MRP - Ministerstvo rah-
bat served as a stepping stone towards a dioelektronnoy promyshlen-nosti) division ,
heavy interceptor unparalleled anywhere in had begun development of a new weapons
the world. The Soviet leaders were interested control system in keeping with a directive
in such an aircraft for the Soviet Air Force issued by the Communist Party Central Com-
(WS - Voyenno-vozdooshnwe seely) , and mittee and the Soviet Council of Ministers. The
with good reason. WCS comprised a powerful Smerch-100 fire
As noted earlier, by the time the Ye-155MP control radar and the K-1 00 long-range air-to-
programme was launched the USSR had long air missile.
been suffering from inadequate air defence of Officially the experimental plant No .339
had been reorganised to become NIIR in
1962. Yet, for all practical purposes, the insti-
tute's establishment dates back to November
1958, when a team of engineers headed by
Fyodor F. Volkov, a talented designer of air-
borne radars and missile radar seeker heads,
came to work for OKB-339. In the early 1960s
Volkov launched a large-scale research and
development effort in search of new design
A the Polar Regions. Airbases with good navaids principles for fire control radars intended for
A schematic drawing of the were few and far between in the High North. fighters. These included first and foremost the
K-100 air-to-air missile which The existing network of air defence (AD) radars task of giving the fighters 'look-down/shoot-
lost out to the K-33.
was capable of detecting low-flying targets down' capability (that is, the ability to destroy
only at close range , and the aircraft types targets flying below their own flight level , when
One of the Grumman YF-14A equipping Air Defence Force units stationed ground clutter gives false radar returns , com-
prototypes (note the red wings up north were hampered by limited range and plicating target tracking and lock-on) .
and long nose probe) carrying a
outdated weapons control systems. The Smerch-1 00 multi-purpose radar's
lull complement of AIM-54
As early as 1965, when the Ye-155P proto- project development stage was completed at
Phoenix missiles.
,. types of the future MiG-25P were in the midst the end of the 1960s. Among other things ,
Mikoyan 's OKB-155 projected the Ye-155PA
(MiG-25PA) heavy interceptor making use of
this radar , K-1 00 AAMs and uprated
R15BF-300 engines. The aircraft was to be
capable of intercepting targets flying at alti-
tudes of 100-30,000 m (330-98,420 ft) and
speeds up to 4,000 km/h (2,484 mph).
Concurrently, OKB-115 headed by Alek-
sandr Sergeyevich Yakovlev and OKB-1561ed
by Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev also worked
on long-range heavy interceptor projects. In
1965 the Tupolev OKS completed the
advanced development project (ADP) of the
'148' (Tu-148) long-range interceptor built
around the same Smerch-1 00 radar and
K-1 00 AAMs as a prospective Tu-128 replace-
ment. Like its forerunner, the Tu-148 was a
fairly large aircraft, allowing a large-diameter
radar scanner to be installed (the version of
the Smerch-1 00 radar intended for the Tu-148
had a radar dish diameter of 2 m/6 ft 6'f, in) .
The MiG-25PA and the Tu-148 were intended
Taking Shape 11

primarily for protecting areas scarce in air-

fields and intercepting enemy bombers a long
way from the Soviet borders - for example,
above the Arctic Ocean as they came sweep-
ing across the North Pole from the USA.
Yet , by the end of the 1960s, the
Smerch-1 00 weapons control system no
longer met the current requirements. In the
USA, thanks largely to the introduction of
state-of-the-art new technologies, a more
capable weapons system comprising the
AN/AWG -9 fire contro l radar and the AIM-54A
Phoenix AAM had been developed and incor-
porated on the Grumman F-14A Tomcat ship-
board interceptor. It allowed the interceptor to
detect targets at long range , tracking more
than 20 targets at a time while attacking sev-
eral of them simultaneously. The potential
adversary 's offensive weapons systems we re
becoming increasingly more sophisticated ,
featuring new active electronic countermea-
sures (ECM) equipment for disrupting the
work of not on ly AD radars but of fighters' fire
control radars as well. Hence the top brass of
the Soviet Ministry of Defence and the WS ,
who were responsible for formulating the
operational requirements for aircraft-based air
defence systems , decided the time was ripe
for a new aerial intercept system.
Development of the new-generation aerial
intercept system , which received the designa-
tion S-155 , was triggered by the joint Com-
munist Party Central Committee/CofM
directive No.397 -152 of 24th May 1968. The
system was intended first and foremost for
countering the threat posed by the new-gen-
eration foreign strike and reconnaissance air-
craft - that is, the General Dynamics FB-111 A
fighter-bomber and the Rockwell International
AMSA (Advanced Manned Strike Aircraft),
which eventually emerged as the B-1 bomber -
by cruise missiles which, like the two above-
mentioned aircraft, were capab le of ultra-
low-level terrain-following flight, and by the
Lockheed SR-71 spyplane capab le of Mach 3
flight at 20,000 m (65,620 ft) and higher. The aerial intercept system had begu n some time ...
same directive tasked OKB-155 (which , after ahead of the abovementioned directive; this General Designer Artyom
1. Mikoyan and Merited Test
the death of Artyom I. Mikoyan, was now included advanced development projects of
Pilot Aleksey V. Fedotov (Hero
headed by his former first deputy Rostislav all three versions listed above. Initial ly th e air- of the Soviet Union) , two men
Apollosovich Belyakov) with designing and craft was to be merely an upgraded MiG-25; who contributed a lot to the
building an advanced version of the MiG-25 by the early 1970s, however, the objective was development of OKB·155' s
designated Ye-155M (modifitseerovannw - somewhat different. new-generation interceptors.
Judging by the look on their
modified , or modernizeerovannw - updated) . The Mikoyan OKB proposed developing
faces, they appear to be saying ,
Three variants (interceptor, tactical strike and the MiG-25PD into a long-range interceptor 'Can we make a better aircraft
reconnaissance) were envisaged . capable of patrolling alone over the vast north- than the F-14 over there, Artyom
Actually , as was often the case , develop- ern wi lderness and defending key ind ust rial lvanovlch? - I'm sure we can.'
ment work on various elements of the S-155 centres effectively. Th e aircraft was to have
12 MiG-31

•
One of the reasons for the
long range and a top speed of about 3,000
km/h (1 ,864 mph) and to be capable of
tail design, the fuselage structure and the
MiG-25's characte ristic lateral air intakes
future MiG-31's development
destroying multipl e nuclear weapo n delivery remained virtual ly unchanged. Version A had
was the Rockwell International
B-1 bomber. One of the vehicles (i nclu ding cruise missiles) in a single three-spar trapezoidal wi ngs featurin g small
B-1A prototypes is depicted sortie. Th e crew was in creased to two - the LERXes. Vers ion B had variable-geometry
here in a rather unusual pil ot and a navigator/weapons systems oper- wi ngs, wh il e Version C was the most uncon-
camouflage scheme. ator (WSO). The idea was supported by the ventional , utilising a tai ll ess-delta layout with
government and the PVO command . ogival wings of increased area resemb ling
As already mentioned, three alternative those of the Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic trans-
The small but highly general arrangements of the interceptor ver- port (or rather those of the MiG-2 11 'Analog '
capable General Dynamics sio n beari ng the manufacturer's designation subscale technology demonstrator for the
F-111 Aardvark fighte r-
Ye-155MP (modifitseerovannw perekhvat- Tu-144).
bomber was another potential
chik- that is, Ye-155M , interceptor) we re co n- Th e engineeri ng team responsible for the
adversary for the MiG-31.
,. sidered. Differing mainly in wing and vertical development of the new interceptor included
Gl eb Ye. Lozino-Lozinskiy, V. A. Arkhipov ,
Ko nstantin K. Vasi l'chenko and Anatoliy A.
Belosvet. For the first time in Soviet figh ter
design practice it was decided to equip the
fighter with afterburning turbofans - specifi-
cally, the D30F-6 developed by the Perm '-
based OKB-19 under Pavel Alekseyevich
Solov 'yov - and all-new main landing gear
units with multi-wheel bogies permitting oper-
ation from Class II (u npaved) airfields. Lozino-
Lozi nskiy was appointed chief project
engin eer, with Arkhipov as his deputy. The
aerodynamic calculations and the subse-
quent support of the new interceptor's flight
tests were the responsibility of Yu. S. Pakho-
mova, A. M. lgnat'yev, G. I. Davidenko, Z. F.
Vanyushkina and A. V. Gorlov.
In parallel with the Ye-155M P interceptor
version , which bore the in-house code
izdeliye (product) 518, the Mikoyan OKB
wo rked on the Ye-155MF tactical reconnais-
sance/strike version (F = fronto voy - 'front-
Taking Shape 13

line', used attributively; in this case , tactical)

and the Ye-155MR pure reconnaissance ver-
sion (R = [samo/yot-] razvedchik - recon-
naissance aircraft). The three versions were to
differ mainly in armament and equipment. The
original project envisaged side-by-side seat-
ing for the pil ot and WSO under a cano py not
unlike that of the Grumman A-6 Intruder. In
order to obtain the required range and
endurance the engineers initially gave priority
to the 'swing-wi ng' version ; for the same rea-
son the fighter was originally to be powered by
either the brand-new RD36-41 M afterburning
turbofans developed by Pyotr A. Kolesov at
the Rybinsk-based OKB-36 or RD-19M after-
burning turbofans. As the design work pro-
gressed , some of the radical innovations
proposed initially (such as the VG wings) were
rejected ; yet the new fighter moved stead ily
away from the MiG-25 until eventually all they
had in com mon was the general arrangement
and similar dimensions.
In keeping with the same Communist Party
Central Committee/CalM directive No.397-
152 the Nll-339 institute (NIIR) was tasked with
developing the Ye-155M P's weapons system .
This was to be a new-generation system
enabling the interceptor to attack several tar-
gets at a time. At that time the MiG-25P's
weapons system was at the closi ng stage of
(alias KB rahdiostroyeniya , Radio Equipment
Design Bureau) and merge this establishment
•
For years the Mach 3 Lockheed
SR-71 Blackbird was the bane of
its trials. It included the RP-25 Smerch-A fire with Nll -339 in order to pool resources. The new
the Soviet Air Defence Force's
control radar developed by Nll-339, with Fyo- entity was renamed NPO Fazotron (naoochno- existence. Yet, the Blackbird' s
dor F. Volkov as ch ief designer, and the proizvodstvennoye ob 'ye-dineniye - 'Ph aso- creators could hardly have
seeker head for the K-40 semi-active radar tron ' Scientific & Production Association). foreseen that the Soviet Union
homing (SAR H) air-to-air missile redesignated Yuriy N. Figurovskiy was appointed General would eventually develop an
'anti-Blackbird' in the shape of
R-40R after entering production. (RP = rah- Director and General Designer, with V. K.
the MiG-31 .
diopritsel - 'radar sight'; this was the Soviet Grishin as his first deputy and Chief Designer;
term for fire control radars .) For the first time in the two also became the top executives of
the world Ye. Ghenishta, the project chief of NIIR . Thus the two R&D establishments that
the missile's seeker head, had made use of had sprung up in 1958, when Nll-17 split in
the monopulse radar data processing method two, were reunited . Th e new enterprise set to
which markedly improved the missile's guid- work developing a new multi-channel long-
ance accuracy and ECM resistance. At the range aerial inte rcept system b uilt around
same time Nll-339 was goin g fu ll steam ahead th e Ye-155M P interceptor and th e K-33 AAM;
with the development of the RP-23 Sapfeer-23 th e system was desig nated Zas/on (Shield, or
(Sapphire-23) radar and the PRGS-23 semi- Barrier).
active radar seeker head (poluaktivnaya rah- NPO Fazotron - to be precise, its
diolokatsionnaya golovka samonavedeniya) Zhukovskiy branch (the Radio Equipment
intended for the new MiG-23 Flogger tactical Design Bureau) - was assigned responsibility
fighter; work on the Taifoon (Typhoon) radar for the entire weapons control system (WCS)
for the Sukhoi Su-15T interceptor had also of the Zaslon aerial intercept system, includ-
begun. The new assignment, coupled with ing the radar and the K-33 missile's seeker
these current programmes, was more than head . The missile itself was developed by the
Nll-339's team cou ld handle. Vympel (Pennant) Design Bureau which was
Hence in 1969 the Ministry of Electronics then headed by A. L. Lyapin; Yu. K. Zakharov
Industry decided to resume fire co ntrol radar was th e K-33's project chief. Th e integ ration of
design work at the Zhukovskiy-based OKB-15 th e Zas lon aerial intercept system's co mpo-
14 MiG-31

counterparts. The Soviet system was

designed for territorial air defence of a nation
where airbases and air defence system elec-
tronic installations were scarce. This necessi-
tated an enhanced ability to operate
independently, longer detection/intercept
ranges and the ability to protect larger areas,
and multi-channel targeting capability for the
entire ordnance load carried by the aircraft.
The first task the designers took on was to
work out ways of giving the radar 'track-while-
scan ' and multiple target attack capability .
Existing radars with mechanically scanned
antennas lacked this capability. The AN/
AWG-9 - the most powerful and refined radar
in its class - was an exception, but even it
could track several targets and guide missiles
to them only within a very narrow sector.
Since the Ye-155MP interceptor was sup-
posed to be armed with four K-33 long-range
SARH missiles, the objective was to give it the
ability to attack four targets at once. Since
high-priority threats had to be identified and
attacked first, the number of simultaneously
tracked targets had to be greater than four.
The maximum number (ten) was determined
by the sum of the time periods needed for
tracking each target and by the scanning time.
The width of the scanned area was to
ensure coverage of a zone 200 km (124 miles)
wide measured at the radar horizon ; in this
case a flight of four interceptors could cover
an area up to 800 km (496 miles) wide. The
detection range against a target with a radar
cross-section (RCS) of 19 m' (204.3 sq ft) -
which matches that of the SR-71, one of the
toughest targets to intercept for the Soviet
PVO - was to be 180-200 km (111-124 miles) ,
that is, several times longer than for any Soviet

Rostislav A . Belyakov became

• nents (that is, development of their interaction
principles and the determining of the compo-
interceptor type then in service .
After analysing possibilities open to them ,
head of the Mikoyan OKB after nents' performance targets) was the domain in 1969 the designers of the Ye-155MP 's
its founder's death and
contributed immensely to the
of the State Research Institute for Aircraft weapons control system took an extremely
development of the MiG·31 . Here Systems (GosNII AS - Gosoodarstvennw daring decision by the day's standards: the
he is seen with the two Gold Star naoochno-issledovatel'skiy institoot aviatsi- radar antenna would be fixed and the beam
Orders that go w ith his two Hero onnykh sistem) , one of the Soviet aircraft would be scanned electronically. This was
of Socialist Labour titles. industry's key R&D establishments. another 'world 's first' - such systems had not
For the first time in Soviet practice, the been used hitherto on fighters and the task
enterprise designing the fire control radar held was extremely complex. (It may be noted that
overall responsibility for the future intercep- phased-array radars using an electronically
tor's entire armament system due to the need scanned beam would be used on some West-
to integrate its operational modes. It may well ern aircraft, including the B-1 B bomber and
be said now that this approach paid off com- the Lockheed TR-1 high-altitude reconnais-
pletely, allowing the system 's design features sance aircraft, from the early 1980s. However,
to be carefully optimised. all the early Western phased-array radars
The design philosophy of the Zaslon sys- were designed for ground mapping , not for
tem was markedly different from that of its US aerial intercept.)
Taking Shape 15

A Gleb Ye. Lozino-Lozinskiy (left) was the Ye·155MP's first project chief, with Vasiliy A. Arkhipov (right)
as his deputy. Their role in the development of the MiG·31 cannot be played down.

Development of the p hased-array antenna of antenna but also managed to co nvince

for the Zaslon system was led by chief th e d ecision makers in the govern ment
designer B. I. Sapsovic h and NPO Fazotron's th at ph ased-array radars offered major advan-
ch ief engineer S. A. Pecherin. The latter not tages and should be developed . NPO
only organised production of the new type Fazotron's Chief Designer V. K. Gris hin exer-

......
Konstantin K. Vasil'chenko .

...
Anatoliy N. Belosvet. These two
OKB-155 designers were heavily
involved in the MiG-31 's
development from the outset.
16 MiG-31

The photos on this page depict cised overal l scientific and technical direction, trol radar incorporated a three-channel
Tu-1048 CCCP-42454 which wa s whi le integration issues were handled by A. I. (search , target tracking and identification
used by the Flight Research
Fedotchenko, Chief Designer of the Zaslon friend-or-foe) antenna system and a digital
Institute (LII) as an avionics and
weapons testbed for the MiG-3 1- WCS. A major contribution was also made by processor with narrow-band Doppler filtration .
The Zaskin radar was installed in Yuriy I. Belyy who later became head of the The antenna was a monobloc phased array
place of the navigator's station, breakaway NI IP. featuring rapid electronic beam scanning .
while modified pylons from a A lengthy quest by trial and error followed Other 'firsts' for a Soviet interceptor included
Tu-1 6K missile carrier (with
as various engineering so lutions were tested the WCS's pulse-Doppler data processing,
launch rails) were fitted for
carrying K-33 AAMs _A test and rejected. It was not until 1975 that a satis- continuous sampling target illumination , a
launch of a K-33 is pictured on factory phased-array antenna - the fourth ver- tactical information display and a digital data
the right. Note also the ram air sion developed - was available for testing on processing system based on the A-15A
turbine-driven generators and an actual aircraft (an avionics testbed) . (Argon-15) mainframe computer developed
test equipment heat exchanger
For the first time in the world 's airborne by the Electronic Computing Equipment
,.
under the forward fusel age_
radar design practice, a long-range fire con- Research Centre (NITsEVT - Naoochno-
issledovatel'-skiy tsentr elekfronno-vychis-
litel'noy tekhnikl} . This computer, which was
later built in quantity in Kishinyov, Moldavia,
was not particularly fast , to say the least (the
\
maximum speed was 200,000 short opera-
tions per second) ; yet it was the only indige-
nous compact digital computer available at
the time, so it was basically a 'take it or leave
it' choice . At that time the A-15A mainframe
computer was used on 50 types of Soviet mil-
itary hardware.
On the other hand , the phased-array
antenna (designated 81 .01 M in production
form) remains something of a 'golden stan-
dard' to th is day as far as the basic em ission
parameters are concerned . It was the world 's
first radar antenna capab le of working in two
wavebands (X-band and L-band) ; in effect, it
consisted of two separate phased arrays, one
for each waveband , integrated into each other
and giving a scan angle of ± 60°. (It should be

~ ~
~ ~
"§ "§
~
a:
~
&!
~
u:
E
.2'
u:
Taking Shape 17

noted that the first Western fighters to feature

phased-array radars - the Dassault Rafale and
the Mitsubishi F-2, both of which represent the
so-called Generation 4 Plus - entered pro-
duction in the 21st century, when the subject
of this book had already been in service for
two decades.)
The radar forming the core of the Zaslon
WCS (it received the product code BB in its
production form) consisted of the following
subassemblies:
• a transmitter;
• a receiver;
• a pulse generator with a synchronisation
system ;
• an interface for integration with the air-
craft's other avionics ;
• a digital data processing system ;
• a data recording system used for status
monitoring and mission debriefing .
Inevitably, since NPO Fazotron was break-
ing new ground with the Zaslon system , the
complexity of the task to be solved and the
lack of prior experience led to errors, and
design shortcomings came to light during the
development and test phase . The unsatisfac-
tory units had to be redesigned and new pro-
totype modules manufactured.
The main difficulties encountered in
designing phased-array radars consisted in
ensuring the required low noise level for the
transmitters and wide dynamic range for the lem that had to be solved was that the har-
receivers , as well as ensuring target detection monics of the transmitter's signal lay within
"'
The 81.01 phased-array antenna
of the Model 88 fire control radar
and tracking at various ranges. As designers' the receiver's Doppler range , creating false
fitted to the MiG-31.
ideas changed in the course of the radar's radar returns.
development, so did the design. Seven vari- Another problem was that the powerful
ants of the phased-array antenna were devel- vacuum tubes used in the radar's transmitter
oped , manufactured and tested consecutively; turned out to be rather troublesome. Work on
the best of them had an area use quotient of improving the reliability of these components
0.45-0.5 within a broad frequency range. The (and of the transmitter as a whole) continued
theoretical principles of phased-array antenna unabated. Four versions of the transmitter for
design were formulated and new phased- the Zaslon system's radar had to be designed
array antenna design techniques evolved; and tested until the results were satisfactory.
these included special software for calculat- The data processing system of the Zaslon
ing the antenna's parameters on a computer. was built around the A-15A (Argon-15) digital
When designing the radar's transmitters mainframe computer which was responsible
the engineers at NPO Fazotron relied on the for the radar's functions , among other things.
experience gained with the S-75 Koob (Cube) The Radio Equipment Design Bureau devel -
surface-to-air missile system where the mis- oped a digital databus linking the mainframe
sile 's seeker head worked in continuous emis- computer with all other components of the
sion mode and the target illumination channel WCS ; the Ye-155MP was the first Soviet
was characterised by a low noise level. Unlike fighter to feature such a databus .
the SAM 's guidance system , however, the A complete and fully operational radar was
future interceptor's fire control radar was to installed in an anechoic chamber at GosNII AS
operate in pulse mode and use a much together with an electronic device emulating
broader frequency band , and the noise level radar returns which was linked to the radar's
was required to be even lower. A major prob- pulse generator; this device, codenamed
18 MiG-31

...
An early desktop model showing
a provisional arrangement of the
K-33 AAMs under the fuselage of
the Ye-155MP .

......
Another provisional model with
the K-33s arranged in side-
by-side pairs in a large recess
in the interceptor's belly-
almost an internal weapons bay.
Not only did this require
changes to the air1rame and
the landing gear (note the
narrower air intakes and the
twin-wheel main gear bogies
instead of four-wheel units) but
the missiles are also rather
different, featuring shorter and
recontoured fins and rudders.

Ookrop (Dill) , was specially developed for the

Zaslon system. This testing technique allowed
the system 's operation to be verified. Ground
test rigs at GosNII AS also served for carrying
out the radar's ECM resistance trials almost in
full; new design features making new-genera-
tion radars more resistant to ECM were
evolved and verified at the same time.
The Zaslon weapons control system - to
be precise, the radar making up the core of
the system - was to detect targets with an RCS
of 16 m' (172.0 sq ft) at a maximum range of
200 km (124 miles). Maximum tracking range
for a medium bomber-sized target - such as
the Tupolev Tu-16 bomber - was to be 120 km
(74.5 miles) ; maximum tracking range for a
fighter-type target was to be 90 km (55.9
miles) in head-on mode and 70 km (43.5
miles) in pursuit mode. The Zaslon WCS was
to enable concerted action by a flight of inter-
ceptors when target information was intermit·
... tent or limited to a single report ; this would
Yet another desktop model
allow the aircraft to operate in areas only par-
showing how the Ye-1SSMP
would have looked with K-100
tially covered by AD radars.
missiles. Note the considerably Thus the Soviet Air Defence Force received
shorter weapons bay. the capability to repel massive enemy air raids
Taking Shape 19

(including those carried out at low altitude) ,

the interceptors attacking their targets in
head-on and pursuit modes. New techniques
of attacking enemy aircraft in an ECM envi-
ronment were implemented, as was the ability
to guide other Soviet fighters featuring less
sophisticated radars to aerial targets (the
Ye-155MP was to act as an airborne early
warning and command post) . Other
advanced combat functions included the pos-
sibility of two interceptors simultaneously
attacking a top-priority threat and the possi -
bility of transferring the guidance of a missile
fired by one interceptor to another aircraft.
While in a head-on attack success
depended largely on the performance of the
interceptor's radar, during an attack in pursuit
mode the adversary could be alerted by his
radar homing and warning system (RHAWS)
that he was under attack even before the inter- resistance were assessed, including the abil-
ceptor had a chance to fire . After that, the tar- ity to single out a target in a group (that is, "'
The R-33 long-range AAM in
its ultimate form- the MiG-31's
get could switch on its active ECM system , to discern between the real target and IRCM
principal weapon. Note the
negating the efficiency of the interceptor's decoys) against various backgrounds. Build- longer span of the folding
radar. To increase the chances of a 'kill ' the ing on the results of these tests , the system 's rudders and the lateral antennas
designers of the Zaslon weapons control sys- hardware and software were progressively immediately ahead of the fins.
tem utilised a layout already used on other refined . (It may be said now that the trials pro-
interceptors, supplementing the fire control gramme was completed in 1980 and the 8TP
radar with an infra-red search & track unit. IRST was officially adopted by the Soviet Air
Development of the Ye-155MP 's IRST Force in 1981 as part of the MiG-31 's avionics
(known as 8TP in production form ; TP = suite.)
tep/opelengahtor - heat seeker) was 'subcon- Debugging of the Zaslon WCS was per-
tracted out' to the Gheofizika Central Design formed by the Radio Equipment Design
Bureau led by D. M. Khorol' in 1970. (The des- Bureau with the assistance of GosNI I AS and
ignation 8TK (teplovoy kanahl [sistemy nave- of NPO Fazotron 's other divisions. Generally
deniya] - IR channel of the guidance system) the order was as follows: the modules of the
was also quoted .) The main function of the radar set were tuned and delivered to the 'cus-
IRST was to enhance the interceptor's stealth tomer', then the various completed subsys-
by allowing it to launch an attack in pursuit tems were tuned , whereupon the subsystem
mode without revealing itself by switching on was tested on a ground rig at the Radio Equip-
the radar. It was assumed that , after the aircraft ment Design Bureau and finally at GosN II AS .
had been guided within range of the target by Additionally , the systems were tested in flight
an automated ground controlled intercept on avionics testbeds .
(GCI) system , the IRST would detect the target Speaking of testbeds , the Zaslon WCS
and track it with sufficient accuracy for launch- was put through its paces on two Tupolev
ing IR-homing missiles. Tu-1 04 twin jet medium-haul airliners suitably
The specifications to which the 8TP was converted by NPO Vzlyot (Take-off) , another
designed envisaged that the IRST would only notable avionics house. Since the radar was
be used at high altitude. Hence the unit was installed in a large conical radome supplant-
installed in a cylindrical housing that was nor- ing the Tu-104 's glazed navigator's station ,
mally stowed in the forward fuselage under- these aircraft earned the sobriquet Booratino
side, swinging down into the airstream when (the Russian equivalent of Pinocchio) , cour-
activated. A drum with a'Set of mirrors revolv- tesy of Air Marshal Yevgeniy Ya. Savitskiy. The
ing in one direction focused the thermal image first aircraft, which entered flight test in the
on a heat sensor cooled by liquid nitrogen. spring of 1973, served for perfecting the func-
Prototypes of the 8TP IRST commenced tion of controlling the phased-array antenna
bench testing in 1977. Target tracking dynam- and refining the target search and detection
ics and infra-red countermeasures (IRCM) process. The second 'Pinocchio ', which
20 MiG-31

... tems development work by mathematical

Academician Vevgeniy A. analysis and on ground rigs - both before and
Fedosov, Director of GosNII AS.
in the course of the interceptor's state accep-
As was often the case, the
institute's input was decisive in
tance trials ; it also analysed the test results
shaping the weapons system of and drew conclusions.
the new interceptor. A major achievement made by the cre-
ators of the S-155 aerial intercept system was
the large-scale automation of the interceptor's
GCI guidance, target attack and control
modes throughout the mission. The automa-
tion of trajectory plotting and following
allowed all possible aircraft/weapon guidance
modes to be implemented and the intercep-
tion range to be maximised for targets flying
within a wide range of speeds and altitudes.
In order to solve the completely new and
extremely complex tasks of debugging the
interceptor's mission avionics, verifying com-
bat modes, performing systems integration
and assessing the aircraft's combat potential
the institute's Section 2 developed and built
joined the first aircraft in the autumn of 1975, the new KPM -1550 ground test and simulation
was generally intended for verifying the complex (kompleks polunatoornovo mod-
Zaslon WCS as a whole , although initially it, e/ee-rovaniya). This involved the assistance of
too, served for verifying various functions the institute's Sections 9 and 11 , as well as the
(including target detection and tracking). avionics ' designers (NIIR) . The KPM-1550
The radar's integration with the K-33 mis- served as the prototype for subsequent
siles ' seeker heads was performed at a later generations of avionics test and simulation
stage. This time it was not a Tu-1 04 but anum- complexes , laying the foundation of a well-
ber of fast combat aircraft that served as the developed network of means for testing and
avionics/weapons testbeds ; this stage of the integrating the avionics developed for Soviet
tests involved actual missile launches. Unex- fighters in the 1980s and 1990s.
pectedly, the equipment, which functioned For the first time on a Soviet fighter , com-
beautifully on the ground, often refused to puters were used in the Zaslon WCS , the auto-
work on the combat jets; it eventually tran- matic flight control system and the navigation
spired that the operation of the WCS 's com- suite; these were verified on the KPM-1550
ponents was affected considerably by how installation, as was the cockpit indication sys-
they were located on the actual aircraft. tem. Among other things , the specialists
As already mentioned , GosNII AS was working at GosNII AS 's Section 2 participated
responsible for integrating the elements of the in the development of techniques for a coor-
S-155 aerial intercept system and supporting dinated multiple-aircraft attack, working out
the development of the Ye-155MP interceptor, the algorithms and writing the software that
the Zaslon WCS and the K-33 missile. The allowed the aircraft's computer to prioritise
greatest contribution to the institute's involve- targets and assign the order in which they
ment in the S-155 programme was made by were to be attacked by a group of intercep-
the laboratory under I. B. Tarkhanov (who also tors . The same team also worked on the
had overall responsibility for the programme) group leader's tactical information display
and by Section 2 employees V. S. Zinich , and selected the most rational tactical infor-
L. Ye. Shirokov, 0 . L. Perov, L. Ye. Bakhanov, mation presentation modes.
A. R. Lanskiy and V. A. Orlov. Work on the The KPM-1550 ground test and simulation
K-33 AAM was performed by Section 4 complex was used !Doth for demonstration
(R. D. Kooz 'minskiy, A. S. Sinitsin et a!). The purposes (that is, to impress various Soviet
work performed by GosNII AS included devel- Government, MoD and Communist Party
opment of working algorithms for the WCS bosses who were given a 'ride' in the as-yet
and other mission avionics, and assessment non-existent aircraft) and for training test
of the S-155 aerial intercept system 's combat pilots and navigators from the Mikoyan OKB
capabilities. Later the institute performed sys- and the Red Banner Soviet Air Force Research
Taking Shape 21

Institute (GNIKI WS - Gosoodarstvennw kras- led by Ye. M. Bausin but later passed to
noznamyonnw naoochno-issledovatel'skiy another team. The intensity of the research
institoot Voyenno-vozdooshnykh see/) . peaked in 1974-79 when A. S. Sinitsin super-
The multi-aspect job of creating and veri- vised it; other participants of the programme
fying the Ye-155MP interceptor's systems and included Ye. A. Sevast'yanov, B. N. Sel 'yanov,
assessing its combat potential was handled M. Kh. Aisin, V. T. Pekov, A. M. Ivanov,
by several GosNII AS sections - Nos 2 (which I. V. Kashevarova eta/. The institute performed
did the main part of the job) , 4, 1, 13, 9 and 10. extensive mathematical analysis and bench
It involved a large group of top-notch special- testing of the missile's seeker head ; the mis-
ists, many of whom were later awarded gov- sile 's control system was put through its
ernment decorations for their contribution ; paces on a dynamic test rig and the guidance
project leader I. B. Tarkhanov received the system 's interaction with the interceptor's
State prize for this programme in 1981. mission avionics checked out. Concurrently
As already noted , the K-33 missile was GosNII AS assessed the combat efficiency of
developed by the Vympel OKB headed by both the K-33 missile (as a constituent part
A. L. Lyapin , with Yu . K. Zakharov as project of the S-155 aerial intercept system) and the
chief. This ultra-long-range AAM featured system as a whole ; this job was handled by
semi-active radar homing (SARH) and folding Section 2 under the direction of Ye. I. Chis-
fins; the latter feature allowed the missile to be tovskiy , P. V. Poz'nyakov, I. B. Tarkhanov ,
carried semi-recessed in the fuselage under- 0. L. Perov and others.
side. The SARH seeker head achieved target Meanwhile, work on various components
lock-on after the missile had been fired ; until of the S-155 aerial intercept system pro-
then the missile was guided by an inertial sys- ceeded at dozens of other design bureaux
tem (the inertial guidance phase made up 10- and research establishments of several indus-
20% of the trajectory length). The K-33 was to try branches. Thousands of specialists and
make large-scale use of titanium alloys ; the shop floor workers were involved in the cre-
launch weight was 491 kg (1 ,0821b) , including ation of this system - a task of paramount
55 kg (121 lb) for the warhead. The maximum importance.
effective 'kill' range was 120-130 km (74.5- Coming back now to the development of
80.75 miles); the missile was to be effective the interceptor itself, one of the crucial
against targets flying at altitudes of 50- requirements was the ability to destroy low-fly-
28,000 m (164-91 ,860 ft) and speeds up to ing cruise missiles at long range . The reason
3,700 km/h (2,300 mph) and the 'kill ' proba- was that the cruise missiles could be
bility against a target making 4G evasive equipped with nuclear warheads , and a pos-
manoeuvres was 60 to 80%. sible detonation of such a warhead would
GosNII AS also undertook R&D work on wipe out the attacking interceptor or SAM site
the K-33 ; this was originally done by a team at several miles ' range.

...
The Solov'yov D30F-6S
afterburning turbofan.
22 MiG-31

...
The competing Tu-148 heavy
interceptor with variable
geometry wings was developed
by Andrey N. Tupolev's OKB-156.
This three-view represents an
early project configuration
featuring the Smerch-1 00
weapons control system and
armed with four semi-recessed
K-33 missiles. The rather
sluggish-looking aircraft
resembles the F-111, apart from
\._
the mid-set wings and tandem
cockpits.

~
~
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ ~
~

The key factors shaping the Ye-155MP's pared to the RP-23 Sapfeer-23 radar fitted to
design were : the MiG-23 tactical fighter, the new radar
• the availability of the new Solov'yov D30F offered twice the detection range , plus large
afterburning turbofan having much better fuel scanning angles in both azimuth and eleva-
efficiency as compared to contemporary tion , the ability to track ten targets (which were
Soviet fighter engines, especially in subsonic shown on the tactical information display) and
flight modes; guide K-33 long -range missiles to four of
• the development of the Zaslon WCS them . Priority targets were designated auto-
featuring a phased-array radar and the A-15A matically (as per the parameters entered
Argon digital mainframe computer. As com- into the computer) or manually by the crew ;

C AMOJT[T TY - 148
~r.ulll ( ' • 10')- ~6oo
I'II JU U
~ -.•.n ~""',. l' ·!6,_
tOO.,.
C KPbiJIOM ll:JM[IlR[MOil CTP[JTOBilllllOCTil
..,.,.,. ,. ~~~· - !2.'"
&1o1C411 1 t l ! 11 _ 7, 5 ..
•o•c• •• c c: • --- ~•·

Jlto r AT£nw
3KWODJIK 2 .. CIIOMIIII
CWCHWA IOOPVIKfHWA " ·"'•·" :""" .3ACnOH" o 4 PAKUbl K·33
60 '
... I
!lnfTHblW I!C
H C TOnnwaR 2\8•
A rather more elegant later MRKCWWAObHAA CKOPOCTb C PIIKHRMW _ _ _ 2500"'/"tt;
project version of the Tu-148 I- JIRObHOCTb OOOfTA nPRKTW~fCXAQ (W•Q&S) _ _ 4600 ••
looking like a scaled-down OPCJIOOIKUTfObHOCT b OOOUR OPRKTW~fCKRR 5 .,..,.
OOTOOOK OPA • TW~f CK WW 17000•
Tu-22M34 bomber. This version
JI OWH R PAl6H R ('·"'- ·• t 1 21"C ) 1350 •
was to feature the same Zaslon
weapons control system and the
JI OWKA OP06HA ,, .,.._ . .. t .•21'C) 1200 •
KOM6WHWI>08RHHblU PY6flll OfPfliATA (V~ •1800":r..) 1650 ••
~
~
same K-33 missiles as fitted to 8.
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ ~

the MiG-31 .
Taking Shape 23

• the availability of th e new K-33 long- were met by installing D30F-6 afterburning
range AAMs ; turbofans developed by OKB-19 under Pavel
• the greatly enhanced air-to-ground and Alekseyevich Solov'yov in Perm' . The D30F-6
aircraft-to-aircraft data exchange capabilities ; (forseerovannw - uprated or, as in this case,
• the increased mission time (on-station afterburning) was derived from the 6,800-kgp
loiter time) and the accordingly increased (14,990-lbst) D-30 Srs 2 non-afterburning tur-
crew workload which necessitated the provi- bofan powering the Tu-134A/Tu-134B
sion of a second crew member - the weapons short/medium-haul airliner. By installing an
systems operator; afterburner and making other changes the
• the provision of new navigation equip- OKB managed to increase the maximum
ment, including an inertial navigation system ; thrust to 15,500 kgp (34, 170 lbst) .
• the provision of more advanced commu- Design work began in 1972. Three years
nications and identification friend -or-foe (IFF) later the Mikoyan OKB extensively modified
equipment. two Foxbats - a MiG-25P interceptor and a
In fairness , it should be noted that the MiG-25RB reconnaissance/strike aircraft -
Tupolev OKB also offered a version of its pro- into engine testbeds powered by D30F-6s.
jected Tu-148 heavy interceptor featuring the The conversion involved increasing the cross-
Zaslon WCS and the K-33 AAMs. Designated section of the engines ' inlet ducts , since the
Tu-148-33, this aircraft was intended for D30F-6s had a greater mass flow than the
destroying enemy aircraft flying at up to 3,500 MiG-25's standard Tumanskiy R15B-300
km/h (2,138 mph) and 26,000-28 ,000 m afterburning turbojets. Designated izde/iye 99,
(85,300-91 ,860 ft). Yet in the early 1970s the the testbeds received new construction num-
Soviet military expressed their preference for bers (990001 and 990002) and were appro-
an in-depth modernisation of the MiG-25P to priately coded '991 Blue ' and '992 Blue '
take the Zaslon WCS. respectively.
Full-scale design work on the Ye-155MP at (Note: Unlike Western military aircraft,
the Mikoyan OKB began in 1972. In its specific which have serials allowing positive identifica-
operational requirement for the new intercep- tion , since 1955 Soviet (and subsequently
tor the Air Force demanded above all an CIS) military aircraft have two-digit tactical
increase in range and endurance (on-station codes which, as a rule , are simply the aircraft's
loiter time) ; on the other hand , the speed and number in the unit operating it, making posi-
service ceiling target figures were almost tive identification impossible. Three- or four-
unchanged as compared to the MiG-25P. The digit codes are usually worn by development
aircraft was to have a maximum interception aircraft (in which case they still tie in with the
range of 700 km (434 miles) when cruising at c/n or the manufacturer's line number, or refer
2,500 km/h (1 ,552 mph) or Mach 2.35; at sub- to an in-house designation) or aircraft serving
sonic speed the maximum interception range with training units. On military transport air-
was extended to 1,200 km (745 miles) . The craft , however, three-digit tactical codes are
envisaged automated data link/tactical infor- usually the last three of the former civil regis-
mation exchange system was to enable tration ; many Soviet/Russian Air Force trans-
groups of fighters to control the vast stretches ports were, and still are, quasi-civilian.)
of Soviet territory in the High North and Far The engine entered quantity production at
East lacking adequate coverage by AD the Perm ' Engine Production Association
radars. Realising the high complexity of the (PPOM - Permskoye proizvodstvennoye
Zaslon WCS , the military consented to an obyedineniye motorostroyeniya) in 1976 as
increase in the number of crew members. Of the D30F-6S (the S suffix stood for sereeynw -
course it would be utterly impossible for a sin- production , used attributively) and completed
gle pilot to fly the aircraft while keeping an eye joint state acceptance trials in 1979. ('Joint '
on the tactical situation , monitoring the air- means that they were held jointly by the
craft's numerous systems and taking deci- manufacturer - in this case , OKB-19 - and the
sions whether to attack the target or not; the customer.)
WSO would take over some of these func- The designers of the K-33 missile and the
tions , allowing the pilot to concentrate on the aircraft's navigation and targeting suite had to
flying. tackle a host of tough engineering problems.
As already mentioned, the requirements of A peculiarity of the K-33 's guidance system
ensuring the specified range and endurance was that the missile featured an inertial navi-
coupled with adequate speed performance gation system (INS) which guided it during the
24 MiG-31

initial phase of the flight until the radar seeker tioning system receivers. A defensive avionics
head got a lock-on. Thus the accuracy of the suite comprising electronic countermeasures
missile was affected not only by the operation (ECM) gear and active/passive infra-red coun-
of the radar seeker head but also by INS errors termeasures (IRCM) gear for protection
which , in turn , depended in no small degree against radar-homing and heat-seeking mis-
on the accuracy of the launch point co-ordi- siles respectively was also envisaged.
nates fed into the INS. In turn , the errors on the Integration of the various avionics modules
launch point co-ordinates were affected by with the airframe and with each other was
the error margins of the aircraft's navigation performed by Mikoyan OKB engineers V. V.
and targeting suite, which needed to be min- Solopov, 0 . P. Beloborodov, K. V. Badanova,
imised. To make matters worse , there was Ye. N. Yefimov-Sosnovskiy, N. V. Goryacheva,
another task which the designers of the navi- I. V. Sergeyev and G. I. Rabinovich. Team
gation and targeting suite had to solve, 1056 of Section 105, which was responsible
namely navigation in the Polar regions . The for systems theory research and was headed
general belief is that determining one's posi- by A. A. Goryachev, developed the opera-
tion and plotting the correct course near the tional and control algorithms for the inter-
North Pole is complicated by the unreliable ceptor.
operation of the magnetic compass in these For close-in combat the Ye-155MP was to
high latitudes, but in reality things are much be armed with a 23-mm (.90 calibre) Gryazev/
more compl icated . Shipoonov GSh-6-23 six-barrel Gatling can-
The Ye-155MP 's requisite long endurance non with 260 rounds. It had a linkless ammu-
created another stumbling block: the accu- nition feed system and a normal rate of fire of
racy of the INS was directly affected by the 6,000 ±500 rounds per minute which could
period of its operation. As time passed, the be increased to 8,000 rpm in case of need.
INS started generating errors which some- The muzzle velocity was 700 m/sec (2,300
times could not be corrected by means of ft/sec). The GSh-6-23 cannon was to be
celestial or satellite navigation. Hence new mounted on the side of the starboard air
high-precision primary data sensors (gyros intake trunk, just aft of the starboard main
and accelerometers) were needed to ensure landing gear unit.
the required accuracy of the INS. The new method of accommodating the
Sure enough, the designers managed largest missiles in the Ye-155MP 's weapons
to sort out all of these numerous and often range - the K-33 AAMs were to be carried in
conflicting requirements, but a side effect tandem pairs semi-recessed in the belly - cut
of this was that the interceptor's navigation the aircraft's overall drag considerably. During
suite turned out to be not only effective launch the missiles were to be ejected verti-
but highly complex as well. At the test and cally downwards by pantographic carriers/
debugging stage the navigation suite caused launch rails to make sure they were safely
a lot of aggravation for both its creators and away from the carrier aircraft when the rocket
the test crews. Apart from the INS, the motor fired and the seeker head was acti-
nav/attack suite included long- and short- vated. In addition to the four underfuselage
range radio navigation systems (LORAN and hardpoints, two pylons were provided under
SHORAN) and an air data system. This com- the wings ; these could carry four short-range
bination of subsystems utilising differing AAMs on double launchers, two medium-
physical principles allowed overall navigation range AAMs or two 2,500-litre (550 Imp gal)
accuracy to be increased considerably thanks drop tanks. A team led by Yu. I. Levkin within
to a specially developed data processing the Mikoyan OKB 's Section 209 (which was
algorithm . responsible for the armament) developed the
The interceptor's navigation suite included ventral pantographic carriers/launch rails for
the SAU-155MP automatic control system the K-33 AAMs, the drop tanks' attachments
(sistema avtomaticheskovo oopravleniya) and jettison system , and the passive ECM/
and the KN-25 integrated navigation system IRCM chaff/flare dispensers.
(kompleks navigatsionnyy). The latter con- The side-by-side seating arrangement
sisted of two IS-1-72A inertial navigation envisaged initially soon gave place to a tan-
systems, a Manyovr (Manoeuvre) digital dem arrangement with a narrower canopy
processor, an A-312 Radika/-NP SHORAN, an featuring individual aft-hinged portions for
A-723 Kvitok-2 (Receipt-2) LORAN , and the two cockpits. Due to the strong kinetic
Tropik and Marshroot (Route) global posi- heating of the aircraft at high speeds a special
Taking Shape 25

kind of Plexiglas (type S0-200) was devel- engine in the event of surge; it also automati-
oped and subsequently produced for the cally activated the igniters and the oxygen
Ye-155MP; it was capable of withstanding uni- supply if the engine ran roughly or flamed out.
lateral heating up to +220°C (+428°F) for a The system was activated in all flight modes
brief period. by the engine surge sensor and by the missile
Like all contemporary Mikoyan aircraft launch commands given by the crew.
(and other contemporary Soviet tactical air- A special test equipment suite designated
craft , for that matter), the Ye-155MP was to be SOK-UBD (sistema obyektivnovo kontrolya
equipped with K-360 Srs 2 'zero-zero ' ejec- oochebno-boyevykh deystviy - combat train-
tion seats developed and produced by NPP ing objective assessment system) was devel-
Zvezda ('Star' Scientific & Production Enter- oped for checking the operation of the Zaslon
prise) led by Guy I. Severin. WCS during the MiG-31 's flight tests and in
The mission avionics included a TKS-2 service. The Mikoyan OKB participated
secure data link system for tactical informa- actively in its development.
tion exchange (telekodovaya sistema) , Pre- Research into the acoustic loads acting on
riya (Prairie) and Makhovik (Flywheel) secure the thin-skinned structural elements of the
voice link equipment and a lightweight and wings and air intake assemblies, as well as
compact ARK-19 automatic direction finder into the effect of these loads on the airframe 's
(avtoma-ticheskiy rahdioko mpas) replacing fatigue life, became an important line of work .
the bulky and heavy ARK-1 0 ADF used hith- The Mikoyan OKB 's structural strength
erto. For the first time on a Soviet fighter, the department had to spend a lot of effort to
Ye-155MP featured an MN-61 A/maz (Dia- obtain the required service life from the thin
mond) automatic voice annunciator warning steel panels of the air intake structure. Air-
the crew of critical failures (fire etc.) and dan- frame vibrations with frequencies of several
gerous flight modes. Special built-in guidance hundred hertz caused fatigue cracking of the
system and communications antennas, welded joints; it took a lot of research on
unique to the Ye-155MP and optimised for its ground rigs and flying testbeds to make sure
airframe design, were developed ; in order to that the subsequent operation of production
reduce the number of aerials it was intended MiG-31 s would be safe. Mikoyan OKB engi-
to install the Poto k (Stream) antenna-feeder neers Yu. V. Moolyukin, V. N. Bookin and
system catering for the radio navigation , intra- I. N. Skazko made a major contribution to this
group co-ordinate determination and data link research.
systems. This work proceeded with the active Meeting an order from the Mikoyan OKB,
involvement of Mikoyan OKB engineers I. M. the Kiev-based Looch (Ray, or Beam of light)
Soob-botin , V. I. Yelmanov , N. S. Bychkov, design bureau developed the RIU display/
K. N. Kolyada , N. F. Sedova, A. S. Zhirnov and recording device (reghistreeruyu-shcheye
Ye . G. Semyonova. inditseeruyushcheye oostroystvo) for the
To ensure stable engine operation and Ye-155MP. This device simultaneously
optimise the fuel flow the engine control sys- recorded the indicated parameters in text for-
tem was designed to include the RED-3048 mat on heat-sensitive film , obviating the need
digital control unit. It was effectively the first for special deciphering equipment.
Soviet full authority digital engine control Thus by the mid-1970s the multitude of air-
(FADE C) system ; it ensured more precise fuel craft, electronics and defence industry enter-
flow control than the traditional hydrome- prises involved in the S-155 programme had
chanical fuel control units (FCUs), with due completed the entire scope of research and
regard to such variab les as altitude, Mach development work on the aircraft and its sys-
number, kinetic heating of the airframe, tems . In its ideology and performance the
engine rpm and engine air pressure. The S-155 aerial intercept system , comprising the
APD-48 automatic engine starting control Ye-155M P heavy interceptor, the Zaslon WCS
panel was developed specially for the D30F-6 and the K-33 AAM , had no direct counterpart
turbofan ; so was the SKP-48 engine monitor- in the outside world and excelled contempo-
ing system (sis tema kontro /ya za parahme- rary Western aircraft.
tramt) which indicated current and maximum The main versions which existed at the PD
permissible values for engine rpm and turbine stage are described in brief below; some of
temperature. them progressed as far as the advanced
The BSP-48 surge prevention system development project (ADP) and fu ll-scale
automatically throttled back the affected development stages.
26 MiG-31

c
0

"s
E
~

This desktop model shows an ""

early project configuration of the
Ye-155MP. The aircraft
represents a radical departure
from its MiG-25 ancestor,
featuring variable-sweep wings
and a single fin and rudder
(both obviously patterned on
the MiG-23 tactical fighter).
Note also the four-wheel main
gear bogies.

c
0

~ ~
<!)
The Ye-155MP model with the E
'cij
wings at maximum sweep. >-

~
A different model of the same
basic project in take-off/ landing
configuration with the wings at
minimum sweep. Note the
folding ventral fin (shown
unfolded for clarity) and the
addition of a brake parachute
housing at the base of the fin.
The colour scheme is also
slightly different.
I •
Takmg Shape 27

c
~0
"'E
~
...
A different early project
configuration of the Ye· 155MP.
At a first glance it differs from
the models on the opposite page
only in having side-by-side
seating for the two crew instead
of tandem cockpits and twin·
wheel main gear bogies.

~
The 'side-by-side' model with the
wings at maximum sweep. Note
the K·100 AAMs.

~
This upper view of the same
model emphasises the large area
of the all-movable tailplanes.
28 MiG-31

•
An interesting comparison of
the two preliminary design
configurations. When the
models are shown together it
is immediately apparent that
there's more to it than just
cockpits. The tandem·cockpit
version has a very much shorter
landing gear wheelbase due to
the forward·retracting nose unit.
Note also the different shape of
the vertical tail and the air
intakes .

...
This upper view shows clearly
c the difference in wing and
0
"E
0 tailplane shape and aspect ratio
"'~ and the wings ' placement
>- relative to the horizontal tail.
Taking Shape 29

...
These lower views of the
side-by-side (left) and
tandem-seat versions show
the difference in the placement
of the weapons (K-100 and
K-33 missiles respectively) .
Note that the side-by-side
version's air intakes, while being
of necessity narrower, have
a longer aperture to ensure
the required mass flow.
Another difference is that the
side-by-side version has a
single ventral fin folding to port
to provide adequate ground
clearance during take-off and
landing, while the tandem-seat
version has twin inward-folding
ventral fins (shown here in
fully deployed position, as they
would be with the landing
gear retracted).

c
Another comparative view of the 0

two variable-geometry ADP "

c3
versions of the Ye-155MP.
,. E
~
>-

c
0

""'
0

E
~
30 MiG-31

Ye-155MP Interceptor Project

(Variable-Geometry Wing Version)
One of the early Ye-155M P design studies was
a cross between the MiG-23 and the MiG-25 .
The air intakes with horizontal airflow control
ramps were simi lar to the MiG-25's but more
aerodynamically refined . The crew of two was
seated in tandem cockpits under a common
canopy strongly reminiscent of the McDonnell
Douglas F-4 Phantom II.
Th e shou lder-mounted variable-geometry
wings and the tail unit featuring a single
fin/rudder assembly and a prominent fillet
were quite similar to those of the MiG-23. To
ensure adequate directional stability , two
large ventral fins were provided ; they folded
when the landing gear was extended, again in
similar manner to the MiG-23.
The aircraft had a tricycle landing gear but
the main units were unusual in having four-
wheel bogies with small wheels to reduce run-
way loading , enabling operations from dirt or
ice stri ps. The nose unit had twi n wheels.
The aircraft was powered by two Solov'yov
D30F afterburning tu rbofans. The armament
consisted of three or four K-33 long-range air-
to-air missiles semi-recessed in the lower fuse-
lage. Additional short-range missiles cou ld be
carried on pylons under the fixed wing gloves.
The variable-geometry wings not only
improved field performance but increased on-
station loiter time in certain flight modes. How-
ever, the sweep change mechanism increased
empty weight and structural complexity ;
besides, unlike the MiG-23, the aircraft was not
intended for dogfighting where 'swing wings'
might confer an advantage. Hence develop-
ment of this version was soon abandoned .

......
The izdeliye 518 preliminary
design project represented a
break from the VG projects,
reverting to twin tails and fixed-
sweep wings .

...
Numerous versions of izde/iye
518 were developed. The
'518-22' shown here has large
downward-folding (!) leading-
edge root extensions deployed
for low-speed flight only.

~
Apart from the LERXes, the
'518-22' was remarkably similar
to the eventual MiG-25MP
prototype.
Taking Shape 31

Ye-158 Interceptor Proj ect

This PO project envisaged a twin-engined
two-seater tail less delta with ogival wings. It
never materialised.

Ye-155MP (lzdeliye 518-21)

Interceptor Project
A new project version bearing the in-house
designation izdeliye 518-21 was proposed in
1968. In keeping with Communist Party Cen-
tral Committee/Council of Ministers directive
No.397-152 issued on 24th May 1968 the air-
craft was to commence joint state acceptance
trials in the fourth quarter of 1971. However,
further research showed that izdeliye 518-21
would be overweight and short on rate of
climb and service ceiling ; hence the develop-
ment of this version was discontinued and a
redesign ensued.

"'"'
Another project configuration,
the '518-55', had an open
weapons bay. Curiously, the
cockpit appears to provide
plenty of room for the pilot but
no room at all for the weapons
systems operator's head.

"'
Thi s view shows that the
'518-22' had a rather different
wing planform (quite similar to
that of the MiG-29 fighter , in fact)
and a totally different fuselage .

...
Another aspect of the '518-55'; the
short wheelbase is noteworthy.
32 MiG-31

A A Ye-155MP (/zde/iye 518-22) • the wings were equipped with LERXes

These two views clearly Interceptor Project and leading-edge flaps;
illustrate the wing planform and
Wo rk on a version of the Ye-155MP project • the wings now had a three-spar structure
the weapons bay of the '518-55'
with side-by-side placement of designated izde/iye 518-22 commenced in instead of the MiG-25's two-spar structure for
the K-33 missiles; the latter 1969. Two years later the choice of fixed-geom- added stiffness and the air intake trunks were
represent the definitive version etry trapezo idal wings, tandem seating for the also stiffened , increasing the maximum indi·
w ith short strake-like fins and crew and semi-recessed carriage of the K-33 cated airspeed at low altitude ;
folding rudders. Note also that
missiles had been finalised . Unlike the MiG-25, • the landing gear was totally reworked ,
t he ventral fi n (shown deployed
on page 23) i s f olded here f o r however, the izdeliye 518-22 featured promi- the forward-retracting main units featuring
take-off and landing. nent leading-edge root extensions (LERXes) twin-wheel bogies with smaller wheels to cater
and leading-edge flaps. The powerplant con- for the higher all-up weight. The wheels on
sisted of two D30F-6 afterburning turbofans each bogie were located in a staggered-tan-
which were much more fuel-efficient than the dem arrangement, the forward wheel being
MiG-25's R1 58 -300s, especially in subsonic located inboard and the rear wheel outboard ;
flight. These features were later incorporated in during retraction the bogie rotated nose-up
the Ye-155M P advanced development project around the oleo to lie inverted. The twin-wheel
known as izdeliye 83 - th e aircraft wh ich even- nose unit retracted aft, not forward. The for-
tually reached the hardware stage. ward mainwheel wel l doors were forward-
In the course of detai l design the hinged, doubling as airbrakes;
Ye-155MP turned into a totally different aircraft • the internal fuel capacity was increased
whose simi larity to the MiG-25P was limited to and provisions were made for large under-
the general arrangement and overall dimen- wing drop tanks .
sions. In its izdeliye 518-22 (later izdeliye 83) But, of course , the 'cherry on the cake' was
form the Ye-155M P differed from the MiG-25P the interceptor's Zaslon WCS and the K-33
in the fo ll owing ways (apart from the power- long-range AAMs which , for the first time in the
plant, armament and WCS) : Soviet Union , were carried in a semi-recessed
 ...
This display model, again
marked '155MP', is just one step
away from the Ye-155MP's final
project configuration. The
folding LERXes of the '518-22'
are still there but the rear
fuselage has been revised;
note the small conical fairings
at the base of the fins
(probably housing electronic
countermeasures equipment).

These two views of the same

model show the wing planform
with the LERXes deployed for
take-off and landing/low-speed
c flight and the outward-canted
0
~
0 fins. Note the conical radome
"'
E
,. ,.
whose shape was yet to change.
~
34 MiG-31

~
The model of the penultimate
Ye-155MP project with the wings
in cruise configuration with the
LERXes folded to lie flat against
the sides of the air intake trunks.

arrangement. A GSh-6-23 cannon was Ye-155MP (lzdeliye 518-55)

installed on the starboard side of the fuselage. Interceptor Project
The mission avionics included a The general arrangement group of the
retractable IRST pod under the nose, an INS Mikoyan OKB s preliminary design (PO) sec-
with floating gyros and SHORAN/LORAN sys- tion considered this version of the Ye-155MP
tems having their own digital computer. An under the project code izdelye 518-55. The
APD-518 data link system (apparatoora aircraft was a cross between the MiG-25 and
peredachi dahnnykh) was provided , allowing the eventual MiG-31 , combining the forward
the aircraft to exchange target data with and centre fuselage of the latter with the tail
ground command posts, other interceptors unit of the former, except that the wings were
and airborne early warning and control more like those of the MiG-29 fighter
(AEW&C) aircraft. Four K-33 air-to-air missiles were carried
Another view with the LERXes semi-recessed in the fuselage ; the main land-
folded. Note the revised canopy Ye-155MP (lzdeliye 518-31) ing gear units had twin-wheel bogies with the
providing more headroom for the Interceptor Project wheels placed in line, as on the Swedish
WSO and the four-wheel main
This was another twin engined two-seat inter- SAAB JA37 Viggen The trapezoidal wings had
gear bogies - another feature
that would change before the
ceptor project. Regrettably no further informa- large LERXes and a kinked trailing edge This
Ye-155MP materialised. tion is available on how this aircraft looked or arrangement was fairly close to what the
T its design details. MiG-31 eventually looked like.
Taking Shape 35

...
Apart from the basic interceptor
version, the Ye-155M was to
have a tactical strike version
designated Ye-155MF
(frontovoy) . The aircraft featured
a radically redesigned forward
fuselage with side-by-side
seating and a short conical
radome. The shape of the wings,
featuring small fixed LERXes,
matches that of the actual
MiG-31. Four Kh -58 air-to-surface
missiles are suspended on the
wing pylons.

A three -quarters front view of

the Ye-155MF. The shape of the
cockpit canopy resembles that
of the Grumman A-6 Intruder.
T

c
0

~
"''ai
E
>-
 ~
A side view of the Ye-155MF,
showing the long nozzles of the
DJOF-6 engines as fitted to the
actual MiG-31.

Ye-155MF Tactical Bomber Project the navigator/WSO a better field of view. The
As the Mikoyan OKB's general arrangement landing gear was also similar to the MiG-31 's,
section started work on the drawings of the featuring a twin-wheel nose unit and twin-
Ye-155MP interceptor (the future izdeliye 83) wheel main gear bogies with a staggered·
in the early 1970s, someone suggested dust- tandem wheel arrangement. The armament
ing off the 1960s idea of developing the was carried on four wing hardpoints -
MiG-25 into a tactical bomber. Designated typically four Kh-58 (ASCC AS-11 Kilter) anti-
Ye-155MF (frontovoy - frontline , ie tactical) , radiation missiles - and in fuselage bays
the aircraft was capable of penetrating enemy which could house up to twelve 250-kg
air defences at high supersonic speed , (550-lb) bombs.
neutralising air defence radars and hitting However, the Ye-155MF lost out to a more
Another view of the same model.
high-priority targets with bombs and air-to- attractive proposal put forward by the Sukhoi
The Ye-155MF would have been a
real scary monster, looking
ground missiles from high altitude OKB- the swing-wing T-6 tactical bomber (as
definitely nose-heavy. Generally The Ye-155MF was quite similar to the the Su-24 was known in-house). and the pro-
such models tend to show little eventual MiG-31, except for the wider forward ject was shelved . Only much later did a strike
regard for accuracy, but the fuselage with the two crew members seated version of the Foxhound materialise in the
large nosewheels visible here form of the MiG-31 F/MiG-31 FE projects and
side-by-side under a large canopy with indi-
suggest a reinforced nose gear
vidually hinged portions in similar manner the MiG-31 BM multi-role aircraft developed in
,.
unit was envisaged.
to the Sukhoi Su-24 tactical bomber to give the 1990s (see next chapter).
PART TWO

THE KENNEL
Foxhound Versions
38 MiG-31

Ye-155MP Interceptor Prototypes erably reworked derivative of the D-30 com-

(lzdeliye 83) mercial turbofan developed by the Perm '-
In 1972 the Mikoyan OKS embarked on the based OKB-19 in 1963 for the Tu-134
development of a radically different version of short-haul airliner. This was not a simple addi-
the MiG-25P/PD interceptor - the Ye-155MP tion of an afterburner and an axisymmetrical
(to be designated MiG-25MP in service) . A lot convergent/divergent nozzle to the basic D-30
of alternative layouts came into consideration. Srs I; the D-30F incorporated a multitude of
Once the optimum one had been chosen , design changes and improvements. Develop-
work got under way on the detail drawings; at ment of the new engine began in 1972, almost
The first prototype Ye-155MP, this stage the new interceptor received a sep- concurrently with the aircraft it was to power.
izdeliye 83/1 (appropriately arate in-house product code , izdeliye 83 - The D-30F was characterised by a high tur-
coded '831 Blue'), nearing
which , interestingly, was lower than the bine temperature and a high overall engine
completion at the Mikoyan OKB's
prototype manufacturing facility
MiG-25P's (izdeliye 84). Despite the lower top pressure ratio (EPR) which assured high fuel
in Moscow. As was customary at speed and service ceiling as compared to the efficiency in supersonic mode at both high
the time, the shop walls are MiG-25P/PD, the new aircraft could meet the and low altitude. The D-30F was put through
bedecked in portraits of higher demands for an advanced interceptor its paces on the two izdeliye 99 engine test-
Communist Party Central
posed by the PVO more fully . beds - modified MiG-25s coded '991 Blue'
Committee members and
slogans exhorting the staff to
The Ye-155MP was designed around two (izdeliye 99 No.1 , c/n 990001) and '992 Blue'
work industriously. Solov'yov D-30F afterburning turbofans. As (c/n 990002). Upon retirement the latter air-
already mentioned, the D-30F was a consid- craft was dismantled , serving as a cutaway
"
The Kennel 39

instructional airframe at the Moscow Aviation The Ye-155MP interceptor was a two-seat ...
Institute to this day. fourth-generation aircraft with enhanced oper- Another view of the izdeliye 83/1
in the assembly shop. The
As described in the preceding chapter, the ational capabilities as compared to the
aircraft is jacked up for landing
new interceptor was to feature an all-new MiG-25. Its mission was to intercept high- and gear operation tests.
armament system built around the Zaslon low-flying agile and non-agile targets (includ -
phased-array radar which was expected to ing those flying at ultra-low altitude) in head-
outperform any existing fire control radar. The on and pursuit mode while travelling at high
addition of a second crewmember (the supersonic speeds. The aircraft was to be
weapons systems operator/navigator) not capable of doing this around the clock, in fair
only facilitated the operation of the more com- or poor weather, regardless of the active or
plex weapons system but also eased the psy- passive ECM the enemy might set up.
chological strain on the pilot during long The fuselage and air intake trunks con-
patrol missions, especially overwater flights - tributed a sizeable amount of lift; in some flight
the pilot no longer felt he was 'all alone over modes this share could reach 50%. The rela-
the briny'. Besides, the provision of a tele- tively thin swept wings were cambered and
scopic control stick and a pop-up forward featured small LERXes. Being aware that the
vision periscope in the rear cockpit obviated MiG-25's tests and operational service had
the need for a specialised trainer version. revealed insufficient wing torsional stiffness,
The detail design stage lasted several the designers reworked the Ye-155MP 's wing
years ; the Mikoyan OKB's General Designer structure, introducing a third spar. The aero-
Rostislav Apollosovch Belyakov exercised dynamic camber delayed the onset of tip stall
overall control of the Ye-155MP programme. at high angles of attack in subsonic mode,
The result of these efforts was an aircraft with improving lateral stability. The LERXes had a
unmatched capabilities. Despite its apparent leading-edge sweep of 70° and served to
similarity to the MiG-25P/PD, the new aircraft enhance manoeuvrability at high AOAs . The
was different in virtually every aspect, be it wings featured four-section leading-edge
aerodynamics (which were more refined) , flaps used for increasing lift in on-station loiter
structural design , powerplant, armament or mode ; the trailing edge was occupied by two-
avionics. section flaps with a maximum setting of 30°
40 -- ·· MiG-31

"'
-- --
and ailerons with deflection limits of ± 20°. To arrangement, the front wheels being mounted
The first prototype Ye-155MP at improve the lift/drag ratio in subsonic cruise a inboard of the oleo and the rear wheels out-
Zhukovskiy during special configuration was used , the LE and TE board (unlike, say, the SAAB JA/AJ 37 Viggen
manufacturer's flight tests.
flaps being set 13° and 5° respectively , the where the wheels were situated in line) . This
ailerons drooping 5° at the same time . Only design allowed the bogies to somersault dur-
Another view of '831 Blue', the trailing-edge flaps were used (at full 30° ing retraction , tilting nose up to occupy the
showing the dummy R-33 deflection) for take-off and landing . smallest possible space ; another bonus was
missiles semi-recessed in the The tricycle landing gear featured a twin- the dramatically reduced runway loading ,
belly (note that the rear pair is
wheel nose unit (which, unlike the MiG-25's, which allowed the interceptor to operate from
set lower than the forward one)
and the nozzle petals of the
retracted aft, not forward) and forward-retract- ad hoc dirt and snow/ice runways. The main-
D30F-6 engines. ing main units with twin-wheel bogies. The lat- wheel wells were closed by tandem doors, the
... ter utilised an unorthodox staggered-tandem forward-hinged forward segments doubling
The Kennel 41

as airbrakes. In supersonic flight the airbrakes

could be used at high altitudes , but not at low
altitudes due to dynamic pressure/structural
strength limits.
Striving to achieve the maximum possible
rate of climb, the Mikoyan OKB initially used
the so-called 'knock-knock-come-on in' sys-
tem for the Ye- 155M P prototypes' main gear
doors (that is, the forward door segments-
cum-airbrakes opened only when the landing
gear was in transit). Thus the designers tried
to minimise the fighter's drag , thereby reduc-
ing the time required for take-off. Later, how-
ever, this feature was dropped , all wheel wel l
doors remaining open when the gear was
down.
The crew escape system made use of the
proven Zvezda K-36DM zero-zero ejection
seats . The K-36DM had a mechanical ly trig-
gered ejection gun; the Mikoyan OKB said no
to an electric firing mechanism because it was
more prone to failures.
While developing the aircraft as such, its
engines and radar, the designers had to over-
come a host of technical problems and cut
through miles of bureaucratic red tape. All of
this caused prototype construction to be
delayed. At a conference of the PVO 's top
command in 1975 it was pointed out that in
spite of the 33 (!) government directives con-
cerning the MiG-25MP issued to date, the air-
craft still hadn't entered service.
The two prototypes were built at the
Mikoyan OKB 's experimental production faci l-
ity, MMZ No.1 55, in Moscow. Meanwhile, the
manufacturing documents were progres-
sively issued to the Gor'kiy aircraft factory
No.21 for the purpose of building a low-rate
initial production (LRIP) batch of MiG-25M Ps
to be used in the trials programme. Appropri-
ately coded '831 Blue' (that is , izdeliye 83
No.1 , or izdeliye 83/ 1, as it was known at the
OKB) , the first prototype was rolled out and
ready for testing in mid- 1975. It lacked the try. Instead of the envisaged Zvezda K-36DM
radar (which was substituted by test equip- ejection seats, both cockpits were equ ipped
"'
Mikoyan OKB chief test pilot
Aleksandr V. Fedotov, seen
ment) , some other avionics items and the with KM-1M seats designed in-house. The for-
here in his G-suit and full -face
cannon. As originally built and flown the ward sections of the air intakes were easily p ressure helmet designed fo r
aircraft had stock MiG-25RB wing panels detachable for maintenance access to the high altitudes. He wa s the
featuring a sharp leading edge with neither equipment inside the fuse lage. Ye-1 55MP's f irst project te st
LE flaps nor LERXes. Later the prototype was In August 1975 the management of the p ilot, making the 83/ 1's maiden
fli ght on 16th September 1975.
rewinged , receiving the intended wings with Mikoyan OKB appointed the company's chief
leading-edge devices and drooping ailerons. test pilot Aleksandr V. Fedotov, Hero of the
Unlike later production MiG-31 s, the Soviet Union , as the MiG-25M P's project test
MiG-25M P's forward main gear doors/air- pilot and S. G. Polyakov as engineer in charge
brakes were part of both the undersurface and of the tests and V. N. Kichev as the aircraft's
the fuselage side, opening outwards and mechanic . On 16th September that year
down at 40° to the aircraft's plane of symme- '831 Blue ' made its successful first fl ight with
42 MiG-31

Fedotov at the controls and V. S. Zaitsev in the

back seat; the manufacturer's flight test pro-
gramme had begun.
One by one, Mikoyan OKB test pilots Pyotr
M. Ostapenko, Boris A. Orlov, Aviard G. Fas-
tovets , Valeriy Ye . Menitskiy and Toktar 0 .
Aubakirov joined the flight test programme.
The second prototype MiG-25MP, '832 Blue'
(izde/iye 83/2) , was completed with a full
avionics fit, including the radar with a Model
B1.01 phased-array antenna, and a full arma-
ment system . The aircraft made its maiden
flight in May 1976 in the hands of Pyotr M.
Ostapenko ; at the end of the year it was turned
over to GNIKI VVS in Akhtoobinsk to undergo
state acceptance trials , which are described
later in this chapter.
Around 1979 the first prototype MiG-25MP
('831 Blue ') was transferred to Lll where it
served as an engine testbed , helping to refine
the production-standard D30F-6 engine.
Eventually the aircraft ended up as a ground
instructional airframe at one of the Soviet Air
Force's flying colleges - probably the one in
Daugavpils, Lithuania.

MiG-31 Production-Standard
Interceptor (lzdeliye 01)
The Ye-155MP was undoubtedly superior to
all interceptors then in Soviet Air Defence
Force service as far as range , armament and
the capabilities of the avionics suite were con-
cerned . Therefore, as early as 1974, with sev-
eral years of trials still to go , a decision was

...
The forward fuselage and nose
gear unit of the '83/ 1'. This view
shows well the interceptor's
canopy design, the twin landing
lights and the taxi light built into
the forward nose gear door
segment.

~
The centre fuselage of the '83/ 1',
showing the unusual staggered·
tandem main landing gear
bogies and the forward main
gear door segments suspended
on skewed hinges to act as
airbrakes - a feature of the two
prototypes.
The Kennel 43

taken to launch full-scale production of the

new interceptor at aircraft factory No.21 ,
named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze, in Gor'kiy
- the plant which had built the MiG-25 earlier.
(In post-Soviet times it became the 'Sokol'
(Falcon) Nizhniy Novgorod Aircraft Factory.)
The production version of the MiG-25M P
received a new service designation , MiG-3 1.
Changes to the manufacturing drawings
(based on the early test resu lts) were made
and the tooling up for production was done
concurrently with the tests of the Ye-155M P
prototypes. In 1976 the Gor'kiy aircraft fac-
tory's own design bureau - the second in the
plant's history - was organised in keeping
with an order signed by the Minister of Aircraft
Industry; it was headed by Chief Designer Ye.
I. Mindrov. design was altered so that th e airbrakes .44
In 1977 the first two production MiG-31s became small er but opened to a greater Upon completion of the flight
test cycle the first prototype
rolled off the assembly line in Gor'kiy . Known angle, moving in th e ve rtical plane parall el to
Ye-1 55MP was transferred to the
at the factory as izdeliye 01, the prod uction the plane of symmetry. Flight Research Institute (LII) at
version differed from the two prototypes as fo l- Soviet/Russian aircraft production is nor- Zhukovskiy for use in various
lows. The TE flap span was increased , while mally organised in batches containing a more research and test programmes.
horizontal tail area was reduced by deleting or less constant number of aircraft. Batch 1 of
the so-called 'knives ' (bendable trim tabs) on the MiG-31 consisted of on ly two aircraft - the
the trailing edges of the all-movable tai lplanes above-mentioned fi rst p rod uction machines.
(stabilators) ; the angle between the stabilator Typically of Soviet aircraft after 1973, the
axles and the fuselage axis was also reduced , actual co nstruction numbers (man ufacturer's
as were the stabilator travel angles. The verti- serial numbers) of prod uction MiG-31 s do not
cal tail arm was increased by moving the tell much , the eleven-d igit c/n end ing in a
fin/rudder assemblies aft. The main gear door computer-generated five-digit sequence
44 MiG-31

...
A rare air-to-air shot of the first
Ye-155MP. Note the photo
calibration markings on the air
intake trunk .

...
This interesting close-up shows
the wool tufts attached to the
rear fuselage of the '83/1' for
airflow visualisation. Note also
the boattail shape of the fuselage
between the engine nozzles.

~ ...
Left to right: Pilot Pyotr M.
Ostapenko, Hero of the Soviet
Union; navigator Boris A. Orlov,
Hero of the Soviet Union; and
navigator Vladimir S. Zaitsev.
These Mikoyan OKB airmen flew
the MiG-31 at the early test
stage; Zaitsev received the HSU
title posthumously ...

~
Mikoyan OKB chief test pilot
Aleksandr V. Fedotov signs a
flight assignment form. He was
killed in a MiG-31.
The Kennel 45
46 MiG-31

meaning nothing at all so as to avoid revealing production-standard aerodynamics. Like the

"'
'0 11 Blue', the first production
MiG-31 (f/n 0101 ). The diffe rent
how many have been built. Hence the aircraft first prototype, it had no radar, being used for
have a parallel system of four-digit fuselage stability/handling , fatigue and structural
main gear door desig n is
obvious, the airbrakes now numbers (line numbers) for in-house use con- (dynamic strength) tests. The second aircraft
deploying vertically dow n. Note sisting of the batch number and the number of was fully equipped and intended for checking
the photo calibration marki ngs the machine in the batch . Thus the fi rst pro- the capabilities of the aerial intercept weapons
on the fuse lage. duction MiG-3 1 re leased by the factory in the system as a whole.
late spring of 1977 was coded '011 Blue' (f/n Batch 2 comprised three aircraft coded
'202 Blue' (c/n N697001 02176, f/ n
0202) , the fourth producti on 0101), while the second aircraft ('012 Blue ') '201 Blue' through '203 Blue ' (f/ns 0201 , 0202

,
MiG -31 (izdeliye 01 ). manufactured in th e autumn of 1977 was f/n
0102. '01 1 Blue' was the first MiG-3 1 featuring
and 0203); Batch 3 consisted of five machines
('301 Blue' through '305 Blue', f/ns 0301
The Kennel 47

...
Although '202 Blue' was used for
live weapons tests, the black
bands on the R-33 missiles
carried in this particular flight
identify them as dummies. The
fairing of the cannon on the
starboard side is clearly visible.

~
This full frontal of '202 Blue'
illustrates the MiG-31's large-
area boxy air intakes and the
staggered track of the
mainwheels reducing the ground
pressure during (theoretical)
soft-field operations.

'202 Blue' was one of several

examples involved in the
MiG-31 's state acceptance trials.
Note that the photo calibration
markings and the blue/white trim
on the intakes are different from
the prototypes and '011 Blue'.
T

"'
~

"'
L-----------------------------------~--~----------------------------------------------------------------~ ~
<f)
48 MiG-31

through 0305) . These eig ht interceptors were

also earmarked for test and development pur-
poses. All of these aircraft had pale blue codes.
Stage A of th e MiG-31 's joint state accep-
tance trials - that is, the manufacturer's flig ht
tests performed chiefly by the OKB - com-
menced in May 1977. At this stage the pro-
duction aircraft of Batch 2 and most of Batch
3 (f/ns 020 1 through 0203 and 0301 throug h
0303) joined the programme one by one as
they we re released by the factory. Mikoyan
OKB engineers L. I. Sviderskiy and E. K. Kos-
troobskiy were the engin eers in charge for the
MiG-25MPs w hich also took part in the state

Another aspect of '202 Blue'"'

cruising above the clouds,
showing the wing f ences and the
brake parachute fairing .

~
After completing the state
acceptance trials programme
MiG-31 '202 Blue' sat unwant ed
for several years at the ANPK
MiG hardstand in Zhukovskiy
until it was finally donated to
the Russian Air Force Museum
in Monino.

~
Snowbound, the f ourth
production MiG-31 s its in t he
open-air display at what i s now
t he Central Russian Air Force
Museum. The calibration
markings and decorative
blue/white trim have been
removed .
acceptance trials . Overall technical super-
vision on the part of the OKB was exercised by
S. G. Polyakov (later succeeded by Kostroob-
skiy) ; A. B. Anosovich , A. M. Gherasimov,
1.1. Kostyukovich, V. S. Yegorov, S. A. Bood-
kevich , B. M. Chak and A. M. Gherasimenko
as the engineers in charge ; OKB engineers V.
A.Potoorenko , B.A. Krasnov, B. S.Losev, and
specialists V.I. Kichev, V. M. Stroochkov,
V. Ye. Starostin, V. V. Pripistsov, Yu. I Pet-
rookhin , V. N. Pastukhov, V. S. Tomashevich ,
and others became involved with the pro-
gramme later.
The joint test team included dozens of spe-
cialists representing not only the Mikoyan
OKB but also 'subcontractors ' and affiliated
enterprises from the MAP, MAP and MOP
frameworks and from GNIKI VVS who pre-
pared the aircraft for , and participated in , the
trials . An especially significant contribution
was made by the specialists of NIIP responsi-
ble for the debugging of the Zaslon weapons
control system. Virtually the entire flight test
staff of the Mikoyan OKB took part in the trials
of the MiG-31.
The testing of the initial production
MiG-31s was by no means trouble-free . The
engines were especially troublesome , requir-
ing constant modifications and improve-
ments. On one occasion '011 Blue' suffered
an engine failure and Boris A. Orlov barely
managed to land the crippled aircraft . Both
the manufacturers and the test crews were
aghast when they saw what had happened; as
the engine came apart the fragments knocked
out one of the hydraulic systems and many
other equipment items - Orlov had been
extremely lucky to make it back to base.
Stage A was completed in December 1978
and GNIKI VVS issued a so-called preliminary
conclusion clearing the Ye-155MP for full- Blue ' made its first flight from the factory's ...
scale production as the MiG-31. Production Sormovo airfield on 27th April 1979. This sequence of stills from a
cine film shows an R-33 missile
really got going in 1979. That year the factory As mentioned in the previous chapter, in
being launched by MiG-31
released the final Batch 3 aircraft, '305 Blue ' addition to the Ye-155MP (MiG-25MP) proto- '302 Blue' (f/n 0302) .
(c/n N69700104801 , f/n 0305) , which was the types and the first production MiG-31 s the tri-
first MiG-31 to feature the intended K-36DM als programme involved several avionics and
ejection seats; all previous aircraft had been weapons testbeds. Specifically, two Tu-1 04
fitted with the old KM-1 M seats. (Note: In airliners converted in 1970 and 1972 for test-
MiG-31 sans suffixe c/ns, 697 is a code for air- ing the Zaslon radar ; and a MiG-21 and the
craftfactory No.21 (later changed to 384) , 001 tenth MiG-25P interceptor (the MiG-25P-1 0)
means izdeliye 01 (an extra zero is added to modified in 1970 and 1973 respectively for
preserve the usual three-digit product code testing the K-33 AAM. A MiG-25PU two-seat
format used in construction numbers) and the trainer served for verifying the SAU-155MP The emblem of the Sokol
aircraft factory in Nizhniy
rest is the 'famous last five' meaning nothing automatic flight control system and the KN-25
Novgorod (formerly the Gor'kiy
at all ; the first two and last three of these dig- navigation suite in 1975. Finally, there were aircraft factory No.21) which
its accrue independently. The c/n is stencilled the two izdeliye 99 engine testbeds converted built many Mikoyan types,
on the port wall of the nosewheel well.) '305 in 1976. including the MiG-31.
50 MiG-31

~
The pictures on these pages provide a rare
possibility to visit the MiG-31 's 'action stations'
during a missile attack. Here, a look inside the
WSO 's cockpit shows the main radarscope with
reference lines marked on it. So far so good-
no enemies in sight.

~
Alert! A target blip has appeared on the
radarscope. The diagram at the bottom represents
the fighter itself; the area in front of the fighter's
own blip is probably the guaranteed kill zone for
short-range IR-homing missiles. The curved
hatched line at the top marks the limit of the
Zaslon radar's detection range .

..
A diagram from the pilot's
head-up display, with the
aiming pipper in the centre,
surrounded by scales marking
the range and altitude.
The Kennel 51

Another view through the PPI-70V HUD of the MiG-31 as the aircraft
closes in on the target .

....
The crucial moment as the pilot holds hi s thumb on the mi ssile
launch button on the stick ...

...
... and pushes it. Off goes the missile!

An R-33 missile streaks away towards the target, belching a long

sheet of flame •• •
.
.2
... ~c
~0
<.>
... and finds its mark. Pop goes the target! E
...... ~
52 MiG-31

... Stage B of the state acceptance trials

Mikoyan OKB test pilot Valeriy began in the spring of 1979, involving testing
Ve. Menitskiy, who became chief
of the weapons system as a whole (primarily
test pilot after Fedotov's death in
a flying accident. Menitskiy did a the weapons control system and the arma-
lot of test work on the MiG-31. ment as such). Like Stage A, it was held at the
GNIKI WS facility in Akhtoobinsk (at Vladimir-
ovka AB). The state commission appointed for
the MiG-31 's trials was chaired by Air Marshal
Yevgeniy Ya. Savitskiy, the then Commander
of the PVO's fighter arm and who had been a
fighter pilot in the Great Patriotic War.
Gradually more Mikoyan OKB pilots -
A. Krootov , Anatoliy N. Kvochur, Roman P.
Taskayev and others - started test flying the
No longer airworthy, MiG·31 '303
MiG-31 , which had entered full-scale produc-
Blue' (fin 0303) languishes at the tion by then . On the whole the tests pro-
MAPO MiG flight test facility in ceeded satisfactorily, although all manner of
Zhukovskiy in the mid-1990s, problems kept cropping up. On one occasion
surrounded by other retired
cracks appeared in the fuselage as the aircraft
fighters and the company's
'hacks'- a Vak-40K feederliner
was pulling 5 Gs in a turn at Mach 2.6 and
and an An-32 transport. 15,000 m (49,21 0 ft) with Krootov at the con-
trols. On another test mission , aimed at
"" exploring the aircraft's structural strength , the
nozzle petals of both engines failed when the
MiG-31 was cruising in supersonic mode at
low altitude. All failures and defects were care-
fully analysed and corrective measures were
taken.
Speaking of pilots, more than once did
they render invaluable help, saving their
stricken aircraft by virtue of their exceptional
bravery and skill. Taking the interceptor to the
limit meant that the pilot had to go to the limit
as well , which required stamina and good ath-
letic training. Kvochur, for instance, few sev-
eral five-hour missions to determine the
aircraft's top speed and service ceiling. Imag-
ine spending five hours in a pressure suit and
oxygen mask , sitting strapped tightly into an
ejection seat.. .
The first production MiG-31 was simply
jinxed . Having had a narrow escape during
Stage A of the trials, it ran out of luck
during Stage B. On 20th September 1979,
'011 Blue ' was flying a routine test mission
from Vladimirovka AB with pilot Pyotr M.
Ostapenko and WSO Leonid S. Popov (using
the call sign '631 '). Shortly after take-off the
Rl-65 audio warning system (dubbed 'Rita' by
the pilots) alerted the crew that the port engine
was on fire . Notifying the tower, Ostapenko
shut down the affected engine and made for
home. The aircraft was fully fuelled and doing
1,000 km/h (621 mph) at 7,300 m (23,950 ft);
the all-up weight was too high for an emer-
gency landing , but jettisoning the fuel without
knowing what was really burning and where
The Kennel 53

would be unwise, to say the least. With a large

fuel load and one engine out, the MiG-31
could only maintain level flight in afterburner
mode; since reheat had to be cancelled in the
event of an engine fire anyway, the aircraft
started losing altitude. Twenty seconds later
things got worse: the synthesised voice of
'Rita' announced that the other engine was on
fire. Relighting the port engine, the pilot now
shut down the starboard one, but the latter
would not deliver more than 80% thrust and
the turbine temperature started rising steadily.
When it became critical the starboard engine
was restarted in order to give the port engine
a chance to cool down. Yet the altitude was
getting inexorably lower and the starboard
engine began overheating , too. When it
became obvious they were not going to make
tracking the flight of the two aircraft as they
closed in on each other; care had to be taken
•
Redolent with Cold War intrigue,
it back to base, with no chances for a suc- to preclude mid-air collisions , since the trials this shot shows MiG-31
'305 Blue' (c/ n N69700104801,
cessful off-field landing , the crew ejected at programme included assessment of target
1/n 0305) on final approach to
350 m (1 ,150ft) - the minimum possible alti- tracking at minimum range , which meant the Zhukovskiy. This aircraft was the
tude . The emergency had lasted 6 minutes 54 separation between the target and the inter- first Foxhound to be equipped
seconds; the crew's actions were later judged ceptor could be as low as 1 km (0.62 miles). with Zvezda K-360 zero-zero
to be entirely correct. The major problems encountered while ejection seats. Note the no-load
GNIKI WS test pilots joined the action in testing the Zaslon weapons control system position of the main gear bogies
1977. The testing of the Zaslon WCS was were caused by the need to test the system 's with the noses up.

accompanied by more than its fair share of performance in a multiple-target environment.

problems (this is described in more detail Several targets came in head-on , maintaining
below) . Among other things , the instrumented prescribed intervals in the 'formation '; the
test range in Akhtoobinsk had to be re- intervals were selected to make sure that the
equipped so that the initial distance between targets would remain within the radar's field
the interceptor and the target in a head-on of view at all times, especially in 'look-
'232 Blue', a production MiG-31
engagement would exceed 200 km (124 down/shoot-down ' mode when the radar delivered to the Mikoyan OKB for
miles). New telemetry pick-up and trajectory beam was slanting downwards. As a rule , the further test work.
measurement systems had to be installed for test missions associated with the WCS were T
54 MiG-31

pit, yawning with boredom and not knowing

what to occupy myself with. We had been fol-
lowing a heading of 090° magnetic for about
half an hour, cruising at optimum speed and
altitude. Somewhere out there ahead of us
there were supposed to be four target drones
flying in a strip 50 km [31 miles] wide. There
was not a soul in the air; you got the feeling you
were completely alone in the boundless sky.
[ .. .] At length I could stand it no longer and
pushed the intercom button.
'Kolya (the short/familiar form of the name
Nikolay - Auth .), I'm sick and tired of sleeping.
How are you doing back there? What are you
doing?'
'I'm asleep,' my navigator N. Volkogonov
said in a low voice.
'Well I never!' - I was unable to contain my
surprise. 'We 're both asleep! Who 's working,
then? '
'The Zaslon is, in automatic mode. So far
we have to sit back and wait. ·
I looked at the weapons selector panel
once again. Everything is armed and the mis-
siles are ready for launch. Another five minutes
passed in silence. Suddenly a target 'blip '
appeared on the HUD glass, accompanied by
an 'Attack' marker and a range scale.
'Target One, top priority threat, at 11
o 'clock. Get him, captain,'- I heard my navi-
gator say.
I change course to get my pipper onto the
target and immediately find myself within
range. Tally-ho ! Away goes the missile !
No sooner is the missile off the rail than a
second target pops up, away to the right. I
make a vigorous turn and put the aircraft into a
dive to keep the pipper on the target. The tar-
get is 40 km [24.8 miles] out and the maximum
launch range is 30km [18.6 miles]. With seven
or eight seconds to spare, I have time to check
the engines. 'So, that means the next two are
going to be even lower-priority threats and I
will have time for manoeuvring,' - I thought
... combined ones , involving the checking of calmly as I fired the second missile. Twenty
This still unpainted MiG-31 several of the radar's parameters at once. seconds later it was all over.
carries a pair of R-40TD missiles
After successful sorties in which the targets 'Captain, all four bad guys are down, let's
on the wing pylons. The key to
this puzzle is that the interceptor
were destroyed , even highly experienced go home. There 's nothing more we can do
was photographed during a pilots were awed by the new interceptor's here,' - Nikolay's satisfied voice comes
pre-delivery test flight from the capabilities. This is how Col. V. N. Kandaurov , through the headphones.
factory airfield (Gor'kiy- holder of the Merited Test Pilot grade and 'Yep,' - I answer. - 'It was easy to the point
Sormovo) and the missiles
Hero of the Soviet Union title , recounts the of being disgusting. '
are in fact dummies.
days when he test flew the MiG-31 in his book
A Runway As Long As A Lifetime: Nonetheless, it was exactly the operation of
How did a live weapons test mission look the Zaslon WCS in general and the radar in
in which four target aircraft were actually particular that the customer (the PVO) voiced
destroyed, you may ask? Well, I sat in the cock- the greatest complaints about. Here it has to
The Kennel 55

be said that Section 13 of GosNII AS played a employees and the staff of I. B. Tarkhanov's ...
major part in supporting Stage B of the trials laboratory (which was part of the institute's Another MiG-31 making a pre-
and debugging the Zaslon WCS. A special Section 2) requested permission to fly in the delivery test flight, quite
possibly its first, and without
team of analysts composed of GosNII AS staff testbed , too. To do so they needed a special
missiles in this instance. It was
and employees of the OKBs responsible for permit from Lll , which was issued after a thor- common practice at Soviet
the system 's components was set up to ough medical check , a theoretical training aircraft factories to apply the
assess the results of the trials in Akhtoobinsk. course followed by an exam and , in theory at paintwork after the aircraft had
It was headed by V. S. Zinich who contributed least, a parachute jump training course - just made at least one test flight.

a lot to the research work done at all stages of in case they would have to bail out. Only half
the new weapons system 's development. of the applicants were fit enough to pass the
Section 13's direct involvement in the devel- medical check ; on the other hand , they were
opment of the S-155 aerial intercept weapons saved the trouble of jumping.
system dated back all the way to 1974 when it In 1975, even before the MiG-31 entered
analysed the test results obtained on a state acceptance trials , a large team of GosNII
Tu-104LL avionics testbed featuring compo- AS employees started developing software
nents of the Zaslon WCS. designed for data processing on the M-6000
State commission chairman Air Marshal digital computer. Originally programmes and
Yevgeniy Ya. Savitskiy visited the analytical data to be processed could be loaded into the
team more than once at the testbed 's current M-6000 only by means of punched tape , and
base to check up on progress. Following the the work efficiency was accordingly very poor,
example of Chief Designer V. K. Grishin , who despite the lots of time and effort spent.
flew in the Tu-1 04LL whenever he had a Later, in 1976, thanks to Section 13's efforts,
chance , several GosNII AS Section 13 the Soviet Union 's first primary flight data
 dramatically. Since the tasks which the com-
plex was to fulfil were extremely varied (includ-
ing radar performance testing in various
modes, testing of the cockpit indication sys-
tem , navigation suite and data link system,
systems integration , training , pre-mission and
post-mission simulation etc.) , a separate Gas-
Nil AS team was assigned to each of the
BTC's aspects.
In early 1977 the complex 'came alive '. The
S-3-800 ground test rig was linked to the
appropriate mathematical models, allowing
work on assessing the radar beam's stabilisa-
tion accuracy to get under way. The greatest
successes were achieved in 1978 in various
aspects ; 30% of the BTC 's operational time
processing complex permitting automatic was devoted to radar performance testing and
"'
An early artist's impression of data entry from the K60-42 magnetic flight 21 % to integrated task simulation ; 20% of the
the MiG-31 published by the
data recorder was built in Akhtoobinsk and time was downtime while the hardware was
Western aviation media. The
drawing is reasonably accurate,
the algorithms of secondary data process- being repaired ; while another 17% was spent
being based, no doubt, on ing/mathematical analysis were implemented on exploring the radar's very high frequency
satellite imagery. The major on the YeS-1 022 computer. (The computers in radiation. GNIKI WS engineers R. B. Yugai
inaccuracies are in the cockpit question were stationary affairs housed in sev- and S. P. Zinchenko participated actively both
area; also, external tanks (which eral large cabinets.) in the development of the BTC and in the
are ferry tanks, not drop tanks)
can be carried on the inboard
It deserves mention that the Council of research work performed on it.
pylons only. Ministers had issued a directive requiring a One of the toughest tasks performed on
bench testing complex (BTC) to be created at the BTC was the pre-mission simulation of the
GNIKI WS for supporting the testing and simultaneous tracking of four targets , with
refining of the S-155 weapons system. Among simulated launches of four K-33 missiles; the
other things , the BTC was intended to be used complexity was partly due to the requirement
for the following: that all four missiles were to be guided simul-
• pre-mission and post-mission simulation taneously. As a bonus , this complex assign-
in order to specify and refine the mission pro- ment made it possible to solve isolated tasks ,
file and perform a qualitative analysis of test such as the priority threat selection algorithm
flight results ; and the possibility to alter the target destruc-
• training the flight crews involved in the tion sequence without taking up additional
trials , primarily for the purposes of teaching time for the attack.
them to use the data presentation/control The mainframe computer of the Zaslon
environment in the cockpits, practising vari- WCS featured a 'resident' electronically simu-
ous mission profiles before the real thing , lated target, which allowed the radar's opera-
simulating specific malfunctions and working tion and missile guidance mode to be tested
out ways of countering them ; on the ground . Apart from the airborne
• performing specific tasks envisaged by (radar-assisted) target search mode, the BTC
the operational mode simulation programme made it possible to emulate other ways of
developed for the S-155 weapons system guiding the interceptor towards the target
(this was part of the flight test programme); (ground-controlled guidance and guidance
• verifying the system 's built-in data from another aircraft) without using the
recording equipment used for debriefing or Vozdookh-1M automated GCI system. The
accident investigation ; flight crews took part in all stages of the work.
• maintaining a 'hot reserve' of the sys- To allow concerted action by groups of air-
tem 's electronic components and modules craft to be verified , the APD-518 data link sys-
(that is, keeping them in working condition, tem was included in the BTC 's structure. By
regardless of whether or not they were used means of an external aerial the system main-
for simulation purposes. tained communications with development air-
In late 1976 the efforts to build a full-scale craft flying test missions. In one-way data link
BTC in Akhtoobinsk featuring virtually the mode the aircraft would relay its co-ordinates
MiG-31 's entire avionics fit were stepped up to the BTC ; these were then indicated on the
The Kennel 57

tactical situation display. This mode made it A. Orlov and Leonid S. Popov. Flying from
possible to check the performance of the PVO airbases beyond the Arctic Circle, the
APD-518 and verify the complex technique of MiG-25 was escorted by Tu-128 Fiddler inter-
group operations without having to fly a sec- ceptors from the fighter regiments at
ond aircraft. The BTC also served for testing Amderma and Nar'yan-Mar as a safety mea-
the data link system 's ECM resistance , allow- su re in case the experi mental navigation
ing the number of test sorties to be reduced equipment shou ld fai l. On e such mission on
appreciably. 17th July 1978 nearly ended in disaster when
The actions of GosN II AS Section 13 in the two escorting Tu-128s colli ded in mid-air.
support of the S- 155 aerial intercept weapo ns One Fiddler mad e it back to Nar'yan- Mar; the
system 's flight tests continued th roughout the other dived into the Arctic Ocean 60 km (37.25
state acceptance trials programme. miles) from the shore, out of contro l, but the
On 15th February 1978 a unique flight crew ejected safely and we re rescued by a
experiment was successfully held in Soviet ship.
Akhtoobinsk ; it involved detecting and track- In October 1978 a US surveillance satellite
ing ten aerial targets (Tu-16 and IL-28 recorded the successful destruction of a low-
bombers) flying at widely different altitudes in flying target drone by the new Soviet inter-
a strip about 150 km (93 miles) wide. On 28th ceptor. This fact was dragged into pub li c view ,
August 1978 a MiG-31 destroyed fou r remote- and the Pentagon's p ress secretary Thomas
control led target drones in a four- missil e Ross, who had stated ju st a month earlier that
salvo. 'there is no evidence that the Soviets are
At the end of Stage B a quartet of MiG-31 s capable of shooting d own cruise miss il es or
demonstrated the possibility of group action target drones sim ulating such missiles', had
to repel a hypothetical air raid against to eat his words .
Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad). Ten radio- The joint state acceptance trials of the
controlled target drones 'attacked ' the city , MiG-31 interceptor, the Zaslon WCS and the
spreading out across a swathe 100 km K-33 AAM were duly completed in December A brand-new and still unpainted
(62 miles) wide ; all ten were shot down. 1980. The missile was added to the inventory MiG-31 is caught by the camera
Stage B also included checking out the as the R-33 or izdeliye 41 0; at the same time on final approach to Gor'kiy-
Sormovo after a test flight. The
operation of the navigation suite in extreme the manufacturer (the Vympel OKB) launched
different shades of metal give
northern latitudes. Before that the navigation a programme to upgrade the missile which the aircraft a very patchwork
suite had been put thro ugh its paces on a co n- co ntinued until the late 1980s. Fin ally , on 6th appearance.
verted two-seat MiG-25 trainer by Boris May 1981 the Soviet Council of Min isters ...
58 MiG-31

Three views of a typical production MiG-31 coded '62 Blue'. Aircraft operated by the Soviet Air Defence Force typically had blue two-digit
tactical codes. The auxiliary air intake doors and other upper surface details are clearly visible in the picture on the right. 'f A .,..
The Kennel 59
60 MiG-31

issued a directive officially clearing the new Vasil 'chenko became Director of Lll in 1985,
aerial intercept weapons system for service. this position passed first to Anatoliy A.
Production MiG-31 s had a weapons con· Belosvet and then to Eduard K. Kostroobskiy .
trol system upgraded in accordance with the In early 1980 a handful of MiG-31 s were
trials results ; it included an MFBU-41 0 multi· delivered to an operational PVO unit for eval·
function missile control module (mnogo· uation . Full-scale deliveries began in 1982;
foonktsionahl'nw blok oopravleniya ; the 41 0 the early 1960s-vintage Tu-128 was the first
is an allusion to the R-33 's product code) type to be replaced by the new interceptor in
designed under the supervision of I. Akopyan. first-line units. The first units to receive the
The engines also differed considerably from MiG-31 were stationed in the Moscow Air
those powering the prototypes , the produc· Defence Zone , in the High North and in the
tion version being designated D30F-6S. Soviet Far East.
The efforts of those who created the The new type 's service entry was marred
MiG-31 did not go unrewarded . NPO Fazotron by accidents - both fatal and non-fatal. The
Chief Designer V. Grishin received the Hero of engines and the fuel system proved equally
Socialist Labour title - the civic equivalent of troublesome at first. On one occasion MiG-31
the prestigious Hero of the Soviet Union title - '303 Blue' (f/ n 0303) , piloted by Valeriy Ye.
for the development of the Zaslon fire control Menitskiy, suffered a fuel line failure , the pipe
radar ; the enterprise itself was awarded the bursting at the seam where a connector used
Order of the Labour Red Banner, a very high for fuel pressure monitoring during ground
distinction. The contribution made by NIIP to runs was installed . Fuel under pressure
the development of the S-155 aerial intercept gushed into the engine bay through a breach
weapons system can be judged by the fact about 80 mm (3 in) in diameter; only the
that 184 of the 400 aircraft industry employees D30F·6 's lower operating temperature in
who received government awards for this pro· cruise mode as compared to the MiG-25's
gramme were NII P employees. Several Gas· R15B·300 prevented a massive fire. Seeing
Wheels caught in mid-retraction, Nil AS specialists received government the fuel supply was dwindling rapidly , the
'74 Red', one of several MiG-31s awards for their part in the creation of the K-33 crew decided that the fuel jettison valve had
operated by the Russian Air (R-33) missile, A. S. Sinitsyn being awarded opened uncommandedly. As the pilot headed
Force's 929th State Flight Test
the October Revolution Order. back to base, shortly before landing the jet ran
Centre, takes off on a
demonstration flight from In a manner of speaking, the MiG-31 pro- out of fuel and the engines quit. Menitskiy
Vladimirovka AB, Akhtoobinsk, at pelled many men to high places and positions ordered his WSO V. V. Ryndin to eject, but
the 'open hou se' on the occasion endowed with high responsibility. Soon after Ryndin replied that he would do it only if there
of the Centre's 75th anniversary the interceptor's maiden flight Gleb Ye. was no alternative, and then only together
in 1995. Note how the main gear
Lozino-Lozinskiy became head of NPO Mol· with his pilot. They did not have to ; Menitskiy
bogies rotate nose-up as the
gear retracts. niya. In 1976 Konstantin K. Vasil'chenko was managed a safe off-field landing not far from
... promoted to MiG-31 project chief; when the base .
Inspection of the other four Batch 3 aircraft
showed that they all shared the same defect in
the fuel system . After this emergency landing
PVO Aviation Commander Air Marshal Yev-
geniy Ya . Savitskiy filed a report to the Com·
munist party Central Committee, urging that
Menitskiy be awarded the Hero of the Soviet
Union title . Yet , Menitskiy did not receive the
award on that occasion because the Mikoyan
OKB wished to keep the incident secret, as it
was caused by faulty design for which the
OKB 's engineers could , and should, be pun·
ished . Alas , the saying that the heroism of
some people is due to others ' negligence is all
too true ..
Still , the narrow escape of '303 Blue '
~
i> allowed the Mikoyan OKB to resolve many
"'i>
!Jl problems which potentially endangered the
lives of MiG-31 crews in first-line units. Among
1l' other things, a redesign of the fuel system was
W L---------------------------------------------------------~
The Kennel 61

undertaken; the changes were to be verified

on the third production MiG-31 , '201 Blue ' (f/n
0201 ), which was by then a long-servi ng 'dog-
ship' with many hours on the clock. The deci-
sion to use a well-worn aircraft led to tragedy;
on 4th April 1984 the modified MiG-31
crashed, killing Mikoyan OKB chief test pilot
Aleksandr V. Fedotov and WSO V. S. Zaitsev.
This was one of the first post-modification
flights ; the mission was to check the fuel
usage sequence. Less than two minutes after
take-off a light lit up on the fuel status indica-
tor panel , showing that the port wing tank was
empty. The 'starboard wing tank empty ' light
followed suit 30 seconds later, followed by the
light for the No.5 fuselage tank on the third
minute of the flight and the indicators for both
fin torsion box tanks on the fifth minute. The
pilot opted for an immediate emergency land-
ing , supposing that the fuel line was ruptured
somewhere ahead of the engines. As the air- angle-of-attack indicator; these useful fea- ...
craft completed the downwind leg of the land- tures were introduced later on the MiG-31 B '74 Red' makes a formation
flypast with a MiG-23UB trainer
ing pattern , the flying control officer informed (see below).
(the latter with the wings at 45•
the pilot that the jet was not streaming fuel After Fedotov's death in harness Valeriy intermediate sweep) during the
(which could mean that all fuel was already Ye. Menitskiy was appointed the Mikoyan event. Note the orange-coloured
gone). Fourteen minutes into the flight, when OKB's new CTP. He had done a lot to make efflux stained by nitrous oxide, a
the aircraft was doing 700 km/h (434 mph) at the MiG-31 's service introduction with the result of using nitrous fuel.

1,200 m (3,940 ft) and about to turn onto final PVO as smooth as possible.
approach , the warning lights for the Nos 1, 2 As already mentioned, most production
and 6 fuselage tanks came on simultane- MiG-31 s were equipped with K-36DM ejection
ously. The incessant low fuel warnings rein- seats which , unlike the KM-1 M, possessed full
forced the pilot 's conviction that a fuel leak at zero-zero capability. The first aircraft so
a rate of about 1 ,000 kg (2,200 lb) per minute equipped , the abovementioned '305 Blue ',
had developed. When the fuel management underwent a large-scale dynamic strength
system indicated that available fuel was down test programme to see how the airframe stood
to 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) , the pilot, believing that up to the operational loads. In so doing the
this amount might be insufficient for the land- wings , air intake trunks and engine firewalls
ing , decided to 'cut a corner'. As he made a were reinforced on this aircraft, a new brake
turn at 550 km/h (341 mph) , the MiG-31 stalled parachute container and a new fairing
and flicked into a spin. There was not enough between the engine nozzles were fitted , and
altitude for recovery and the pilot initiated an the radar was removed to make room for test
ejection - too late. The aircraft slammed into equipment. Carrying dummy R-33 missiles,
the ground just as the canopies came off - the MiG-31 '305 Blue' effectively became the pat-
ejection guns had no time to fire . tern aircraft for mass production as far as the
After this crash the Mikoyan OKB began a airframe was concerned , undergoing tests in
series of tests to explore the MiG-31 's behav- Zhukovskiy and Akhtoobinsk. Maximum-
iour in dangerous flight modes. In particular, speed and maximum G-load missions were
OKB test pilots Boris A. Orlov, Aviard G. Fas- flown by Valeriy Ye. Menitskiy, Igor' P. Volk
tovets and Valeriy Ye. Menitskiy performed a and other pilots. Eventually, however, this air-
spin trials programme. The result was anum- craft was also lost in a crash , with the crew
ber of recommendations concerning aero- captained by P. Gladkov ejecting safely.
batic manoeuvres in such a large and heavy One of the MiG-3 1's weaknesses was its
aircraft. The reader should keep in mind that relatively high landing speed. At a landing
the MiG-31 had been designed for beyond weight of 26,600 kg (58,640 Ib) , the approach
visual range (BVR) engagements, not for speed was 285 km/h (177 mph) , exceeding
close-in dogfighting. This is why originally it 300 km/h (186 mph) if the aircraft carried a lot
had neither a stall warning system nor an of unused fuel and unexpended ordnance.
62 MiG-31

first production interceptor to have a phased-

array radar . The latter was capable of detect-
/ ing targets around the clock, in any weather,
at altitudes between 50 and 28,000 m (165-
91 ,860ft) ; it enabled engagements in head-on
and pursuit modes and had 'look-
down/shoot-down ' capability over both land
and water. The radar could track up to ten tar-
gets at a time while guiding missiles to four pri-
ority threats within a sector of ± 70° in azimuth
and + 70°/-60° in elevation . The infra-red
search & track unit all owed targets to be
tracked covertly and infra-red homing missiles
to be used. Tactical situation displays in both
cockpits gave the crew situational awareness.
Special electronic support measures (ESM)
~
Former Mikoyan OKB test pilot
equipment protected the interceptor from
Roman P. Taskayev took part in enemy ECM.
the cross-country test flights The principal armament comprised four
involving in-flight refuelling that R-33 long-range AAMs with inertial initial guid-
were part of the MiG-3 1's test ance, mid-course heading correction and
programme. He now works for
active radar homing at the terminal guidance
the Yakovlev Aircraft Company.
phase. Th is guidance algorithm was a 'world
As already mentioned , fu ll -scale produc- first'. The missiles were carried semi-recessed
tion of the new interceptor in Gor'kiy began in in the fuselage on pantographic racks. Other
1979. Despite the initial seri es of crashes , the weapons options included two R-40TD (or
MiG-31 proved to be a fairly reliable aircraft in R-40T) medium-range IR-homing AAMs or
operational service. Very few engin e fires four R-60M agile short-range IR-homing
were experienced in the course of trials and AAMs , all on underwing pylons.
normal operations due to the engines ' lower Mission success was ensured by a unique
operating temperature as compared to the weapons control system . The MiG-31 's avion-
R15B-300. ics suite allowed it to act as an airborne com-
The aircraft's capabilities as an interceptor mand post or 'mini-AWACS ' if need arose. A
were truly unique. The MiG-31 was the world's flight of four MiG-31 s, with the flight leader act-
ing as an ABCP , could swap information on
targets detected within a swathe up to 800 km
(496 miles) wide . The aircraft in the flight could
distribute multiple targets between them or
pass target information to the leaders of other
interceptor flights ; all data exchange pro-
ceeded in automatic mode, using secure
channels. Three MiG-31 s loitering in a desig-
nated area could provide full-time 360° cover-
age. The aircraft was capab le of guiding up to
three MiG-23P , MiG-25PD, MiG-29 or Sukhoi
Su-27 fighters to their targets without reveal-
ing their presence by switching on the radars .
The variety of tasks performed by the inter-
ceptors was made possible in no small
degree by the crew of two . The main reason
for adding a second crewmember was the
need to efficiently use the fairly complex
weapons control system . The pilot (captain)
~
was responsible for making the decisions,
Mlkoyan OKB test pilot Aviard G.
Fastovets also participated in the wh il e the navigator/WSO made all necessary
long-range flights that took the preparations for the engagement, working the
MiG-31 over the North Pole. data processing system controls in the rear
The Kennel 63

cockpit. He plotted the aircraft's course and caused MiG-31 production to be discontinued
corrected it if necessary, processed target because the Russian Ministry of Defence had
information, surveyed the airspace around the no funds to order more. The production run
aircraft on the tactical situation displays and totalled 505 aircraft, more than 300 of which
selected the targets in priority order. Using the remained on strength with the Russian Air
telescopic contro l stick and rudder pedals, he Force at the turn of the century . Nowadays
cou ld fly the aircraft in case of need. many of these aircraft have been mot hbal led
For the first time in the Soviet Union, semi- due to reorgan isations in t he Ru ssian air arm
autonomous action by groups of aircraft was (the merger of th e formerly separate Ai r Force
possible, given continuous information or just and Air Defence Force) wh ich saw many units
single notification about the target. This made disbanded - more often than not to cut costs .
it possible to use the new aerial intercept According to press reports , 43 MiG-31 s were
weapons system in areas with gaps in AD taken over by the Kazakh Air Force.
radar coverage, such as the High North. PVO
units equipped with the type received the MiG-31 Interceptor with IFR
capabi lity to organise concerted action by Capability (lzde/iye 01 DZ)
virtue of the automatic data exchange system ; The MiG-31 was th e subject of a constant
the maximum interception range was as much improvement effort. On e of the deficiencies
as 720 km (447 miles) from the base. revealed in ope rational service, especially up
As compared to its predecessor, the North, was its clearly in ad equate range. Pro- This MiG-31 coded '10 Red ',
MiG-31 was much more fuel-efficient in sub- duct ion interceptors based in Monchegorsk shown here at Kubinka AB near
so nic cruise ; this made the crew feel more on the Ko la Peninsu la had to shadow Western Moscow, represents the izdeliye
01 DZ version featuring in-flight
confident when returning from a sortie, espe- recon naissance and anti-s ub marine warfare
refuelling capability. The
cially during overwater flig hts or lengthy mis- aircraft at up to 1 ,000 km (620 miles) from their retracted IFR probe is visible on
sions that took them a long way from home. home base, but the PVO wanted more. Even the port side of the nose ahead
However, the interceptor also had some seri- as the joint state acceptance trials were in of the w indshield. Note the
ous weaknesses; for instance, range was progress, state commission chairman Air Mar- Mikoyan OKB badge on the air
intake, despite the fact that, at
reduced sharply if one of the engines fail ed. shal Yevgen iy Ya. Savitskiy mused that it
the time, the at the aircraft did
The break-up of the Soviet Union and the wou ld be fine to extend the interception range not belong to the Mikoyan OKB.
ensuing political and economic turmo il all the way to th e US border. Th is wish later
"
64 MiG-31

...
Front view of the same MiG-31.
For quick identification on the
flight line operational MiG·31s
often had the tactical code
repeated on the nose gear door.
APU -60·2 twin launchers for R·60
short-range AAMs are attached
to both wing pylons.

Two more views of

MiG-31 /izde/iye 01DZ '10 Red' .
The black area on the underside
of the nose immediately aft of
the radome is an anti-glare panel
preventing disruptions in the
operation of the retractable infra·

,. ,.
red search & track (IRST) unit.
The Kennel " · · · · 65

materialised as a version of the MiG-31 featur-

ing in-flight refuelling(IFR) capabi lity, utilising
the probe-and-drogue system .
The retractable L-shaped refuelling probe
was located ahead of the cockpit windshield ,
offset to port. It was stowed at all times except
during contact with the tanker, disrupting the
contours of the aircraft very little and requiring
the addition of a very small fairing .
The IFR system underwent lengthy trials
on several aircraft, including a pair of one-off
modified Foxbats - the MiG-25PDZ ('45 Blue')
and the MiG-25RBVDZ (coded '68'). The DZ
suffix added to the original designations
denoted dozaprahvka - refuelling . The Mikoyan
OKB experimented with both port and star-
board side locations of the probe before
settling for the former option.
The first Foxhound to feature an IFR probe
was MiG-31 f/n 3603 (quite possibly coded '77
Red' and fitted with cine cameras) ; th is was
actually a dummy installation, as the probe
was not con nected to the fuel system and fuel
transfer was impossible. The aircraft served
for testing the probe actuation mechanism
and for 'dry runs ' with the refuelling tanker.
The two MiG-25 IFR system testbeds had fea-
tured a micro-throttle system enabling minute
engine power adjustments to facilitate con-
tacts with the tanker's drogue. Initial tests
showed that the IFR-capable MiG-31 did not
need this system , as the standard th rottles
allowed contact to be made without any diffi-
cu lty. Nevertheless , the micro-throttle system
was fitted anyway to enhance flight safety and
make the pilots fell more comfortable.
V. S. Yegorov was appointed engineer in
charge of the tests. The greater part of the test
programme was performed by OKB pilots in
Zhukovskiy, foll owed by further testing in
Akhtoobinsk at the hands of GNIKI WS pilots.
The next development aircraft was another
Batch 36 MiG-31 , '368 Blue' (f/n 3608). Th is
aircraft featured a fu lly functional IFR probe
and fuel transfer system ; however, it lacked
the system wh ich automatically monitored the
quantity of fuel transferred .

....
Three more aspects of t he same aircraft.
The IFR-capable izde/iye 01 DZ retained the
original mission avionics of the MiG-31 /izde/iye
01 which were replaced by a more capable
weapons control syste m on the MiG-31 B.
66 MiG-31

ever cross-Polar flight in an interceptor, top-

ping off their fuel tanks twice from an Ilyushin
IL-78 tanker; the route took them from the
fighter base at Monchegorsk (Murmansk
Region) to the North Pole and thence to
Anadyr' (Oogol 'nyy airport) on the Chukotka
Peninsula over areas with few navigation aids
and no landmarks. The aircraft was airborne
for 6 hours 26 minutes, the pilots using the
LORAN system to navigate.
Another notable flight covering a distance
in excess of 8,000 km (4,970 miles) was made
in autonomous navigation mode with two fuel
top-ups and an elapsed time of 8 hours 40
minutes. Two simulated targets were 'inter-
cepted ' on that occasion, including one over
the North Pole; the aircraft's systems func-
tioned perfectly. The duration of the flight with
IFR capability was limited only by the crew's

This company-owned I FA-

• Long-range missions involving in-flight
refuelling necessitated the provision of a long-
physiological limitations.
In training sorties the IFR-capable MiG-31
capable MiG-31 received this range radio navigation (LORAN) system. Thus intercepted targets with extreme efficiency at
stylish colour scheme and code
'374 White' (c/ n N69700121496)
the first fully equipped example was MiG-31 distances up to 2,200 km (1 ,365 miles) from
for the type's international debut '592 Blue' (f/n 5902). The aircraft was fitted the base. Among other things, the crew of
at the 1989 Paris Air Show. with a new fuel metering system and a test Toktar 0. Aubakirov checked the operation
programme was held in which both Mikoyan of the navigation suite in extreme northern
OKB and military test pilots participated . OKB latitudes where various natural magnetic
test pilots Roman P. Taskayev and Toktar 0 . anomalies are present.
Aubakirov and test navigator Leonid S. Popov At the Gor'kiy aircraft factory the IFR-capa-
bore the brunt of the testing , making ultra- ble version of the MiG-31 received the product
long-range flights in the High North. On 30th code 'izde/iye 01 DZ' (for dozaprahvka) ;
July 1987 Taskayev and Popov made the first- strangely enough , the addition of the IFR sys-

~
ANPK MiG chief test pilot Valeriy
Menitskiy discusses a test flight
he has just completed with ANPK
MiG designers at Zhukovskiy.
The aircraft in the background is
the same MiG-31 '374 White'.
The Kennel 67

...
A fine air·to·air of '374 White'
taken during a high-altitude
flight .

....
MiG-31 '374 White' was
displayed statically and in flight
at the MAKS-93 airshow in
Zhukovskiy.

When the aircraft appeared

again at the MAKS-95 airshow,
the colour scheme had been
modified by the addition of a

,.
Russian flag on the rudders.

tem did not affect the service designation in

any way. The new version entered production
in 1990, staying in production for a year until it
was succeeded by the more refined MiG-31 B;
the production run was small (about 45 air-
craft). Outwardly izdeliye 01 DZ differed from
the initial production version only in having an
IFR probe to port, which was quite unobtru-
sive when stowed.
Flown by Mikoyan CTP Valeriy Ye . Menit-
skiy, the IFR-capable MiG-31 was displayed
many times both in flight and statically at the
international airshows at Paris-Le Bourget,
Farnborough , Berlin-Sch6nefeld (ILA) and
Zhukovskiy (MAKS).
68 MiG-31

'77 Red' (possibly f/ n 3603)

•
was operated by the Mikoyan
OKB as an IFR system testbed.
Note the unobtrusive photo
calibration cross aft of the port
main gear unit.

~
Front view of MiG-31 '77 Red '
w ith the probe deployed. Note
the c ine camera 'egg' installed
on top of the port air intake to
c apture the refuelling sequence;
it is also visible in the photos
above and below.

Another view of the same

aircraft, showing the deployed
IFR probe. The object on the port
forward fuselage hard point may
be a test equipment pod.
T
The Kennel 69

MiG-31 B Interceptor The wo rk went ahead in two directions. .l

(lzdeliye 018, lzdeliye 12) Firstly, the Mikoyan OKB and its subcontrac- The same aircraft with the IFR
Apart from extending the MiG-31 's range , the tors wo rked on the radical ly upgraded probe in stowed position. The
pod on the port forward fu selage
Mikoyan OKB and its partners consistently MiG-31M featuring an all-new weapons sys-
hardpoint looks like an R-33
worked on improving the interceptor's arma- tem ; however, this aircraft would take a lot of missile minus fins and rudders.
ment. The need to do so was due in no small time to test and perfect, to say nothing of
degree to leaks of sensitive information about series product ion . Hence the designers made
the MiG-31 to the West. In 1985 one an attempt to boost the combat potential of
A. Tolkachov , a spy working for one of the the interceptor then in production .
Western intelligence agencies, was arrested Additionally, a sizeab le list of recommen-
in Moscow; the investigators found out that he dations for upgrading and refining the MiG-31
had passed valuable information on the spec- were made, proceeding from the resu lts of the
ifications of the MiG-31 's avionics and arma- state acceptance trials. These recommenda-
mentto his Western 'employers' . Tolkachov's tions were combined with a number of new
actions were even more damaging than Viktor features developed by the Mikoyan OKB
Belenko 's notorious defection to Japan in a and the Gor'kiy aircraft factory in the 1980s to
MiG-25P in 1976. As a result , the design form an upgrade package turning the basic
bureaux had to step up their efforts to equip MiG-31 sans suffixe into a new version desig-
the production MiG-31 with a new weapons nated MiG-3 1B (curiously, there never was a
system. MiG-31 A).

...
'77 Red' in its latter days, sitting
forlornly at Zhukovskiy in non-
airworthy condition around 1998.
The large shed is one of many
used to protect sensitive new
hardware from being seen by US
surveillance satellites.
70 MiG-31
The Kennel 71

ANPK MiG flight crews in front of

•
a MiG -31 B prototype at the GNIKI
VVS flight test facility in
Akhtoobinsk. Left to right:
navigator Leonid S. Popov, test
pilot Valeriy Ve. Menitskiy, test
pilot Aleksandr Vu. Garnayev,
test pilot Sergey P. Khazov and
test pilot Pavel N. Vlasov .

...
'592 Blue' (f/n 5902) , one of the
MiG-31 B prototypes, on a
routine test flight .

...
Another air-to-air of '592 Blue',
showing the outer wing pylons
used for R-60 short-range AAMs .

......
The views on the opposite
page show the same MiG-31 B
prototype in almost fully armed
condition. Dummy R-40R radar-
homing missiles (used by the
MiG-25 but NOT the MIG-31!) are
carried on the inner wing pylons.
The red/white chequered R-33 in
the port forward ventral position
is an instrumented test round.
 ...
Outwardly '368 Blue' (f/ n 3608)
appears to be a MiG-31 B.
Actually, however, it is a probe-
equipped MiG-31 used by GNIKI
VVS for perfecting the
Foxhound' s in-flight refuelling
system; it lacks some of the
equipment the MiG-31B should
have (see pages 26 and 27) •
...

This three-quarters rear view

of '368 Blue' shows the
characteristic 'solid' nozzle
shrouds of the D30F-6S engines
powering production MiG-31s
(compare with the photograph
on page 5) .
......

c
~ L ·-·';"'"'""'111"..
0

"'
E

~ ~--------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------d
The Kennel 73

.t. MiG-31 '368 Blue' takes off on a demonstration flight. T Another view of '368 Blue' as it completes its landing run •

~
[;
["

.
Jl
~

L---------~~------------------------~~----~--------~----~--~~----~------------------------------------~ i
74 '" - , MiG-31

Of course, the heavy MiG-31 lacks the agility of tactical fighters such as the F-16, but it is still capable of aerobatics, as illustrated here by
'368 Blue' performing a barrel roll. The wing LERXes improve the aircraft's low-speed agility and handling.
The Kennel 75

The principal changes introduced on the

MiG-31 B were as follows :
• the upgraded RP-31A weapons control
system (alias Zaslon-A or S-800A) ;
• the use of improved R-33S long-range
AAMs featuring a longer 'kill' range and provi -
sions for a nuclear warhead(!) ;
• the use of alternative additional weapons
(IR-homing missiles) carried on wing pylons -
either two R-40T/R-40TD medium-range AAMs
or four R-60M short-range AAMs on paired rails ;
• the addition of an IFR system as used on
the MiG-31 /izdeliye 01 DZ;
• the provision of new tactical information
and weapons control modes (' downloading '
target information to ground command posts
or other aircraft - not necessarily sister ships,
'tandem guidance' in which another aircraft's
fire control radar is used for guiding the inter- MiG-3185 interceptor .l
ceptor's missile etc.); (lzdeliye 01 BS) MIG-31 BS '46 Blue' is seen here
seconds before becoming
• an upgraded navigation computer com- As noted above, in addition to manufacturing
airborne at Savasleyka AB.
patible with LORAN and satellite navigation new MiG-31 Bs the Gor'kiy (or rather Nizhniy
systems (including A-723 Kvitok-1 LORAN) to Novgorod) 'Sokol' aircraft factory performed
enhance navigation accuracy in high latitudes; upgrade work on operational MiG-31s sans
• more capable ECM systems to offset the suffixe . These aircraft had the same avionics/
progress of Western radar technology ; weapons fit as the new-build izdeliye 01 B/
• an Ekrahn (Screen) common built-in test izdeliye 12 but lacked the latter version 's refu-
equipment/crew alerting system (BITE/CAS) elling probe, which could on ly be fi tted to new
replacing the existing RIU system . The Ekran aircraft with a revised forward fuselage struc-
system was developed by the El ektronpribor ture. Thus the capabi lities of existing MiG-3 1s
(= electronic device) Scientific & Production were enhanced at minimum cost.
Complex in Kiev , the Ukraine , and produced By analogy with the MiG-25PDS, which
by the Pribor Scientific & Production Enter- was a MiG-25P upgraded to MiG-25PD stan-
prise in Kursk , Russia. dard, the updated Foxhounds were desig-
The aircraft's control system was also nated MiG-3 1BS, the S denoting stroyevoy (in
updated. GNIKI WS test pilot Col. Vladim ir this case , operational) to distinguish such air- Another view of '46 Blue' after
landing, showing the absence of
Shushunov, Hero of Russia, made a major craft from new-build 'Bs. Outwardly the
the IFR probe on the MiG-31 BS
contribution in this area. updated aircraft was unchanged; you had to and the deployed forward view
The MiG-31 B (izdeliye 01 B) superseded look into the cockpits to tel l it from the orig inal periscope in the rear cockpit.
the MiG-31 (izde/iye 01 DZ) , to which it was version.
outwardly all but identical , on the production "
line in 1990. The product code was later
changed to izdeliye 12 and the factory code in
the c/n was altered at the same time ; thus , a
well-known MiG-3 1B demonstrator belonging
to the Mikoyan OKB ('903 White') is c/n
N38401208786.
Concurrently the Mikoyan OKB and the
Soviet Air Force launched a mid-life update
(MLU) programme to upgrade existing
MiG-31 s sans suffixe to MiG-31 B standard. A
MiG-31 B coded '068 Blue' - one of several
development aircraft operated by GN IKI W S -
was demonstrated to the press in the spring of
1992 when the then Russian Air Force Com-
mander-in-Chief Pyotr S. Deynekin paid a visit
to the institute .
76 MiG-31

MiG-31 /Sokol Factory Upgrade a document called 'Programme of measures

Demonstrator to improve the manufacturing and mainte-
Buil ding on the experience gained with the nance efficiency, increase the reliability, pro-
MiG-25, wh ich was fairly easy to build and long the service life and reduce the structural
maintain , the 'Sokol ' plant's Chief Designer weight of izdeliye 01 '.
Ye . I. Mindrov drew up a list of measures Coded '503 Blue', the aircraft was rather
aimed at cutting the MiG-31 's structural different from stock production MiG-31s. The
weight, reducing the aircraft's manufacturing main differences included a wraparound
labour intensity, increasing the internal fuel frame less windscreen , the lack of dorsal blow-
capacity and improving the manufacturing in doors on the air intake trunks , greater inter-
and maintenance efficiency . In so doing he nal tankage (the Nos 1/2 and 5/6 fuselage
enlisted the support of A. N. Gherashchenko tanks were merged) , a new brake parachute
(Director of plant No.21) and Mikoyan OKB fai ring , additional centreline hardpoints for
General Designer Rostislav A. Belyakov. semi-recessed missile carriage and so on .
In support of these measures MAP and the The design documents for the upgrading
Air Force signed a joint resolution in June of MiG-31 '503 Blue ' were competed in 1980.
1978 earmarking MiG-31 c/n N607001 07607 The conversion took place at the 'Sokol ' fac-
(f/n 0503) for conversion; they also endorsed tory's prototype construction shop, and on

...
No, this MiG-31 does NOT have a
nose air intake with a conical
centrebody; quite s imply, the
radome is removed and the nose
of another fighter is visible
beyond! Still, '051 Blue' is indeed
highly unusual. Though it
pretend s to be the first prototype
MiG-31M, it is neither f ish nor
fowl, being a regular M iG-31
airframe (ex-'503 Blue')
extensively modified f o r t esting
some features of t he radic ally
different MiG-31M . It is seen
here at Zhukovskiy in the
m id -1990s after being withdrawn
from use .

...
Another vi ew of the retired
'051 Blue', still substantially
intact, showing the metal cover
re placing the removed radome
(t hat 's what looks like a ' highly
polished air intake lip' in the
upper photo) . Note the one-p iece
f rameless windshi eld, t he
fusel ag e spine which is a c ross-
breed between that of t he MiG-31
and t he MiG -31M, t he retenti on
of the standar d nose gear with a
f orward door segment
incor porating the landing/t axi
lig hts, and the photo c alibration
m ark ings.
The Kennel 77

29th December 1983 Mikoyan CTP Al eksandr MiG-31M Experimental Interceptor

V. Fedotov finally made the first fl ight in this (lzdeliye 05)
"'
The condition of the 'hybrid
prototype MiG-31M' deteriorated
aircraft from Sormovo airfield. Yet th e head Developme nt of th e mu ch-im proved MiG-31M
steadily during the years of
office in Moscow decide that the conversion (modernizeerovannw - updated) began in dereliction.
offered no major advantages over the stan- 1983 pursuant to a joint di rective issued by th e
dard aircraft; besides, '503 Blue' suffered fro m Communist Party Central Committee and the
several apparently insurmountable prob lems, Council of Mi nisters. This d ocument ordered
including a disadvantageous CG position. the Mikoyan O KS to develop an aerial inter-
Thus, while many of the new features did find cept weapo ns system featuring new ultra-
their way into production , no more ai rcraft long-range AAMs (then un der developm ent at
were built to this standard. However, the air- This view of the dumped
th e Vympel Machinery Design Bureau) and
'051 Blue' shows the phased-
craft became a stepping stone towards the new medium-range AA Ms. In ad dition to array radar antenna with the
MiG-3 1M and was subsequently used for test pack in g a g reater p unch, the ai rcraft was to concealing cover gone.
and research purposes . feature a more advanced avionics suite.
"
 .l Known in house as izde/iye 05, the • new E8M/ECM equipment forming a
This striking s hot shows '052 MiG-31M was intended for BVR combat at united defensive avionics suite was installed
Blue', t he f irst true prototype of
extreme ranges and for controlling a large and provision was made for active jammers.
the MiG-31M. The much thicker
nose and fatter spine are readily group of earl ier-model interceptors . It differed The new RP-31 M (Zaslon-M) WC8 was
apparent. So are the r edesigned from the MiG-31 B mainly in the following built around a radar featuring a new phased
cockpit canopy, the altered fin s aspects: array of larger diameter (1.4 m/4 ft 7'/a in) . The
featuring identical (and sm aller) • a new RP-3 1M (Zaslon-M) weapons principal armament comprised six R-37 mis-
dielectric portions, the new R-37
contro l system was instal led , offering signifi- si les having ultra-long range (up to 300 km/
long-range AAMs carried under
t he fu selage and t he new wing cantly longer target acqu isition range and a 186 miles) . The capabi lities of the Zaslon-M
pylons (the latter carry dummy greater number of targets detected and WC8 were 1 .5-2 times higher as compared
R-73 short-range AAMs in t his tracked ; to the potential of the production MiG-31 s.
c ase). Th is airc raft wa s • new armament consisting of six new R-37 Zaslon WC8 Target acquisition range was
ultim ately destroyed in a crash.
AAMs having longer range as compared to increased to 360 km (223 miles) and 'kill '
the R-33/R-338, supplemented by R-77 (RW- range to 200-230 km (124-142 miles); the
AE) medium-range AAMs, was integrated. number of targets tracked simultaneously
Production R-338 missiles could be carried rose to 24, six of which could be attacked at a
instead of R-37s; in that case the interceptor's time . The MiG-31M also featured a new opto-
performance wou ld be marked ly red uced , electronic targeting system comprising a new
but even so it would be higher than the IR8T and a laser rangefinder.
MiG-31 B's; Th e new missiles created by NPO Vympel
• satellite navigation equipment was (Pennant) were not only markedly superior to
added ; the R-33 in performance but also utilised a
• the aircraft was powered by upgraded completely different control system (they were
D30F-6M engines; statically unstable, which helped enhance
• the interior of the W80 's cockpit was their agility) . Active radar homing was used at
revised; the terminal guidance phase. Like the R-33s,
• internal fuel capacity was increased and the R-37s were semi-recessed in the fuselage
a new IFR system was provided, with a underside but located closer together (in two
retractable probe on the starboard side; rows of three) . In high gross weight configu-
The Kennel 79

ration the six R-37s were augmented by four pre-production batch of MiG-31 Ms at the
R-77 highly agile medium-range AAMs on Gor'kiy aircraft factory for use in the trials pro-
underwing pylons; these had a maximum 'kill ' gramme. The first example built (c/n 050101 -
range of 100 km (62 miles) and a manoeu- izdeliye 05, Batch 01, first aircraft in the batch)
vring G limit of 12. Since the MiG-31M was was the static test airframe known as 'izde/iye
intended for engaging the targets at extremely 05 stat' . As construction of the prototypes
long range , the designers decided to dis- progressed , it transpired that there was a
pense with the cannon. comp lete surplus radar; it made sense to
The instal lation of the new weapons and install it in an aircraft for test purposes.
WCS led to a massive redesign of the air- Accordingly it was decided to convert the
frame. Thus, the greater diameter of the radar aforementioned MiG-31 '503 Blue' which had
antenna necessitated an appropriate increase had already been extensively modified at the
in the diameter of the forward fuselage and the initiative of the Gor'kiy factory (the 'pre-M '). A
radome ; this , in turn , required the extreme new forward fuselage section was con-
nose to be angled 7° down in order to ensure structed at MMZ No.155 (the OKB 's experi-
adequate cockpit visibility. The canopies of mental plant) in Moscow and mated with the
both cockpits were redesigned ; the forward 'beheaded ' fuselage of '503 Blue'; appropri-
cockpit featured a one-piece wraparound ate changes were made to the fuselage spine
windshield , which again improved the pilot's and other elements. The result was a unique
field of view . Since the WSO 's cockpit was no hybrid which , though it superficial ly resem-
longer fitted with a second set of flight con- bled a MiG-31M and featured the same radar,
trols , the rear canopy windows were reduced differed from the 'M - and from the production
in size and reshaped , and the forward vision MiG-31 sans suffixe/MiG-31 B, for that matter -
periscope was deleted . The fuselage spine in many ways . For instance, the wing LERXes
running from the cockpits to the brake para- were of the old type (with a straight leading
chute container was much fatter, housing an edge), while the fin fillets were virtually non-
additional300 litres (66 Imp gal) of fuel. All-up existent. This development aircraft was
weight was increased to 52 tons (114,640 Ib). recoded '051 Blue ', which very probably
One of the M iG-31 M prototy pes
necessitating the installation of uprated meant 'izdeliye 05, flying prototype No.1'. taxies past the control tower at
D30F-6M engines. Adding weight to the above theory , '051 Z hukovskiy in the late 1980s,
Changes were made to the wings and tail Blue ' converted in Moscow commenced flight showing the IRST fairing
surfaces. The wing LERXes were enlarged , tests ahead of the new-build examples manu- under the nose and the d iffe rent
receiving a curved leading edge; provisions factured in Gor'kiy . The maiden fl ight took nose gear door design
(the landing/taxi lights are
were made for installing cigar-shaped active place on 21st December 1985 with pilot Boris
attached to the nose gear oleo) .
ECM pods at the wingtips . The shape of the A. Orlov and WSO Leonid S. Popov at the con-
Compared to the 'first-
vertical tails, including the fin fillets, was also trols. Yet, as mentioned above, this aircraft generation' MiG-31 , the MiG-3 1M
revised . was neither fish nor fowl ; the first real MiG-31M appears extraordinarily well -fed.
Many systems and equipment items were was '052 Blue' which took off a year later, on T
designed anew; thus the refuelling probe was
relocated from port to starboard , the greater
diameter of the nose allowing it to be stowed
completely . Much of the avionics comp lement
was new; for instance, the WSO 's workstation
featured four new-generation rectang ular
displays. The retractab le IRST pod on the for-
ward fuselage underside of the MiG-31 sans
suffixe and MiG-31 B/BS gave place to a new
integrated IRST/LR system with a pod that
protruded rather more when retracted . Inter-
estingly, the increase in all-up weight caused
virtually no deterioration in the anticipated top
speed and service ceil ing as compared to the
'first-generation ' MiG-31.
The PVO command showed a strong inter-
est in the new interceptor whose capabi lities
exceeded by far all previous versions of the
Foxhound. Therefore it was decided to build a
80 MiG-31

'053 Blue', the second true prototype MiG-31M, resting between test missions at GNIKI WS (VIadimirovka AB, Akhtoobinsk). Note the IFR probe relocated
to starboard, the lack of the cannon, the dielectric port fin leading edge, the wingtip ECM fairings and the characteristically curved fin root fillets. T • I>

_;
The Kennel

.. ..---- ..
~~~--~ ~~~~~ ....~ ~~~
~
c
0
u
0

"'
~==~~~~~~~~~~ ~
E
 ~
A head-on view of '056 Blue', the
fifth true prototype MiG-31M, on
the ramp at Akhtoobinsk in 1992;
this was the last of the
prototypes to be completed in
the same configuration as '052
Blue'- Note the ogival shape of
the LERXes and the four dummy
R-77 (RW-AE) medium-range
missiles with characteristic
lattice-like rudders carried on
the wing pylons.

27th December 1986 - again with Orlov at the acceptance trials. The third , fourth , fifth and
controls. This aircraft conformed to the MiG-31M sixth prototypes (coded '053 Blue' through
specs in both structure and equipment; unfor- '056 Blue ') were structurally identical to the
tunately it was eventually lost in a crash. second aircraft. The seventh and final proto-
A three-quarters front view
As the prototypes were released by the type , '057 Blue' (c/n N721 001 06137). incor-
factory, one by one they were flown to porated changes made at the customer's
of the same aircraft.
,. Akhtoobinsk to participate in the joint state request and as a result of the initial trials ; in
The Kennel 83

Two more views of MiG-31M '056 Blue' sharing the ramp with two of its stablemates- a MiG-29 and a 'first-generation' MiG-31 .
Once again, the rear triplet of buried R-37 missiles is more exposed than the forward row.
84 MiG-31

~
A still from a documentary movie showing
Mikoyan OKB employees beside MiG-31M '056
Blue' with both cockpits open.

~
The same aircraft parked beside a MiG-31 sans
suffixe in OKB demonstrator colours ('374 White'
or '903 White') at Vladimirovka AB, Akhtoobinsk,
during the 'open house' on occasion of GK Nil
WS's 75th anniversary in 2005.

Another view of '056 Blue' at the anniversary

celebrations in Akhtoobinsk. Note the steel jet
blast deflectors at the edge of the parking ramp.
T
The Kennel 85

...
The final MIG-31M prototype, '057 Blue', sits at
Machoolishchi AB near Minsk on 13th February
1992 during a special military aviation hardware
display staged for the benefit of the CIS heads of
state and military top brass .

...
The same aircraft taxies in at Zhukovskiy past an
llyushin/Beriyev 'aircraft 976' telemetry pick-up
aircraft (CCCP-76456), an Ilyushin IL-76
transport, an IL-62M of long-defunct Moscow
Airways (RA-86515) and an IL-18 as it arrives
from Akhtoobinsk for the MAKS-97 airshow.
Note that the IFR probe is deployed.
T
86 MiG-31

particular, the wings were tipped with ECM

pods sporting small delta fins projecting up
and down at the rear to improve directional
stability. Apart from the loss of the second pro-
totype, the first flying example ('051 Blue') was
dismantled upon completion of the trials , as
was the static test article.
Having got off to a good start, the tests of
the MiG-3 1M effectively ground to a halt in the
late 1980s/early 1990s when actual weapons
trials began. The designers' wish to create an
ultra-long-range missile surpassing the Amer-
ican AIM-54 Phoenix in all respects (the R-37)
proved the proverb about good intentions.
With so many guidance modes incorporated
into the seeker head , it proved impossible to
ensure adequate reliability while keeping size

•
The final prototype, '057 Blue',
incorporated substantial changes
based on the results obtained
with the previous MiG-31Ms,
including wingtip-mounted ECM
pods with stabilising fins.

~
Close-up of the MiG-31M's
cockpit canopies.

MiG-31 M '057 Blue' in the static

park at the MAKS-99 airshow.

"'
The Kennel 87

and weight within the rigid limits imposed by gramme were insufficient, of course . The ...
the customer. As a result, after launch the money was 'spread out thinly' over a multi- Another view of the final
MiG-31M at the MAKS-97.
R-37 invariably proved to have a mind of its tude of programmes; the aircraft design
own, going just about anywhere except in the bureaux acting as general contractors allo-
Head-on view of '057 Blue'.
direction of the target. cated only a small proportion of what little
Unlike the earlier prototypes,
Due to the economic downturn caused by was available to the subcontractors responsi - the IRST is completely buried
the disintegration of the Soviet Union , the ble for the engines, avionics, systems and when not in use.
meagre funds allocated for the MiG-31M pro- armament. As a result , it was the lack of a high-
88 MiG-31

~
This three-quarters rear view of
MiG-31M '057 Blue' shows the
nozzles of the D30F·6M engines
and the dielectric rear portions
of the wingtip ECM pods. Lateral
antennas are mounted about
half-way along their length .

quality 'fillin g' that prevented the 'pie' fro m On 13th Feb ruary 1992 MiG-31M '057
being 'baked ' - in other words, the MiG-3 1M Blu e' was demonstrated to the political and
and the oth er Generation 4 + combat aircraft military leaders of Russia and some other
A rear view of the MiG-31 M . (the Su-27M , the MiG-29M and later the member nations of the Commonwealth of
Unlike the 'first-generation'
izde/iye 1 .44 fifth-gen eration fi ghter) were Independent States (CIS) at Machoolishchi
versions, there is no exposed
unable to complete, or even begin , their state AB near Minsk, Belorussia, along with the
brake parachute housing.
,. acceptance trials. other latest Soviet military aircraft. The data
The Kennel 89

placards in front of the aircraft were draped MiG-31 BM Interceptor ...

over with black cloth to conceal the 'top (lzde/iye 01 BM) This view illustrated the shape
and size of the wingtip fins
secret' figures from the journalists, who When state fund ing of military programmes
enhancing directional stability.
arrived in force ; obviously glasnost' (the new was reduced to a trick le after the break-up of The ECM pods protrude a great
Soviet policy of openness) still had a long way the Soviet Union and purchases of the deal ahead of the wing leading
to go in 19921 The first public appearance of MiG-31M became impossible, in 1997 the edge.
the same aircraft took place at the MAKS-95 Mikoyan OKB launched a programme to
airshow in Zhukovskiy on 22nd-27th August upgrade the MiG-31 Bs operated by the Russ-
1995. ian Air Force to a new multi-role vers ion des-
In April 1994 Russian President Boris N. ignated MiG-31 BM. The aircraft was to
Yel'tsin sent a te legram to the creators of the possess both a much-en hanced cou nter-air
MiG-31M and its weapons system , congratu- capabi lity and a strike capab il ity.
lating them on the successful live air-to-air
weapons trials at ultra-long range . For the first
time in the world a missile fired by a MiG-31M
had destroyed a target drone at 228 km (141
miles) range .
Still , despite the success of the initial
tests , the highly effective weapons system
comprising the MiG-31M aircraft, the Zas lon-
M WCS and the R-37 missile proved too costly
and did not enter production because the
Russian Ministry of Defence cou ld not afford
to order it. However, some features of the
MiG-31M were later incorporated into yet
another upgrade package developed for the
MiG-31.
The MiG-31M (izdeliye 05) served as the
basis for two more advanced versions desig-
...
Close-up of the MiG-31M's port
nated izdeliye 058 and izdeliye 05BM. No fin. The increased-chord rudders
information on these aircraft has been extend beyond the fins' trailing
released for publication so far. edges.
90 MiG-31

...
'58 Blue' (c/ n N38401214306) ,
the prototype of the multi-role
MiG-31 BM , was converted from
a regular in-service MiG-31 B. The
addition of several new modules
into the weapons control system
g ives the MiG-31 BM air-to-
ground capability for no
reduction of its counter-air
c apabilit ies .

...
The photographs on pages 91 -93
show the MiG-31 BM prototype
during tests. The blue st r ipes
on the radome are explained
by the fact that the radome
was borrowed from MiG-31
'374 White', the demonstrator
wearing that spec ial colour
scheme.

The main changes were as follows. The R-338 and R-37) , air-to-surface missiles
This view illustrat es the radar was to be upgraded in order to extend (Kh-25, Kh-31 , Kh-59, Kh-29) and guided
Kh-31 P anti-rad iation missiles the acquisition range against controlled and bombs (KAB-500 and KAB-1500), with a total
on the M IG-318M' s inboard
ballistic aerial targets and enable detection of ordnance load of up to 8 tons (17,640 lb). The
w ing pylons. R-77 (RW-AE)
air-to-air missiles are carried small surface targets on land and at sea. The new AAMs were to expand the targets ' speed
on the outer pylons. weapons range was to be updated significantly and altitude envelope, enabling the destruction
T by integrating new AAMs (including the R-77 , of such targets as theatre and intermediate-
The Kennel 91

c
~0
"'E
~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----J ~
92 MiG-31

5
~
"E
~ L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
The Kennel 93

c
0

~
~
E
L---------------------------------------------~--------~~--~--~----------~~--._--------~----------------~~
94 MiG-31

installed on the right-hand side of the pilot's

instrument panel. There were more radical
changes in the WSO 's cockpit which had
three such LCD screens . These could display
all manner of information (tactical situation
overview, navigation data, radar imagery, a
'bomb 's eye view' generated by TV-guided
bombs/missiles etc.). The forward cockpit
also featured a new head-up display devel-
oped jointly by NIIP and NPO Fazotron .
The combat efficiency of the upgraded
MiG-3 1BM in co unter-air mode was 2.6 times
higher as compared to the baseline intercep-
tor. The aircraft was expected to be capable of
intercepting targets travelling at speeds up to
Mach 6; other performance parameters were
likewise improved.
Two prototypes were to participate in the
trials programme, whereupon a fleetwide con-
version programme was to begin . The first
prototype was converted from a new MiG-31 B
coded '58 Blue' (c/n N38401214306) in 1998;
it was officially unveiled at Zhukovskiy on 12th
January 1999 together with the Mikoyan '1.44'
fifth-generation fighter technology demon-
strator. Same year '58 Blue' was in the static
park at the MAKS-99 airshow on 17th-22nd
August, featuring a grey/white/blue striped
radome borrowed from a company-owned
... range ballistic missiles, hypersonic and trans- MiG-31 demonstrator in a special colour
'072 Blue', the second prototype atmospheric vehicles. scheme (most likely '374 White ').
of the highly specialised
The cockpits were to be equipped with Operational MiG-31 Bs and 'BSs were to be
MiG-31 D- a launch platform for
an anti-satellite missile. This large colour multi-function displays (MFDs) upgraded to MiG-31 BM standard . However,
view shows well the curved and multi-function control keypads. The Russia's financial troubles and the conse-
LERXes (which are identical to avionics architecture was to include state-of- quent lack of funding for the programme
those of the MiG-31M) and the the-art data processors and multiplex data- meant that the costly full-scale tests of the
absence of the ventral recesses
buses. Finally, new ECM gear was to be fitted . MiG-31 BM were never performed. The Russ-
for the R-33 missiles.
The aircraft was to feature an upgraded ian MoD was more worried about keeping
weapons control system incorporating the existing aircraft airworthy; allocating funds for
know-how accumulated in the development a costly upgrade was out of the question in the
of the RP-31 M (Zaslon-M) . In particular, the late 1990s when Russi a was still suffering from
radar set was to feature a new receiver and a the 'Black Monday' (17th August 1998) bank
new signal processor. This increased the crisis . The idea of upgrading the Foxhound
acquisition range to 320 km (198 miles) and was dusted off in the early years of the new
maximum 'kill ' range to 280 km (174 miles). century, but so far no information has been
The upgraded radar was capable of tracking forthcoming on the programme 's progress.
up to 15 targets and guiding missiles to six pri-
ority threats at once. The avionics suite fea- MiG-31 D Experimental Interceptor
tured a MIL-STD-1553B databus. (lzdeliye 07)
The Roosskaya Avionika (Russian Avion- In 1987-89, when anti-missile defence (AMD)
ics) Joint-Stock Co. developed a completely programmes were strong ly on the agenda,
new layout for the MiG-31 BM 's cockpits. The the Mikoyan OKB built two prototypes of
chief shortcoming of the existing layout was a highly specialised version of the MiG-31 .
the pilot's lack of tactical situation awareness: The aircraft was designated MiG-31 D and
the pilot had no idea what the WSO was doing known in-house as izdeliye 07 ; accordingly
until the latter told him . On the MiG-31 BM a the two aircraft were coded '071 Blue' and
6x8" multi-function liquid-crystal display was '072 Blue '.
The Kennel 95

The MiG-3 1D was a suborbital launch vehi-

cle for an anti-satel lite ballistic missile carried
enabled automatic course correction as
ordered by the ground control centre. Accel-
••
Caug ht by the camera as it
becomes airborne from runway
on the fuselage centreline; thus it was the erating in level flight, the aircraft was to pull up
12 at Zhukovskiy, MiG-310
Soviet counterpart of the US system based on into a zoom climb , maintaining the correct '072 Blue' displays clearly the
the McDonne ll Doug las F-15 Eag le fighter and altitude, speed , trajectory angle and geo- huge delta-shaped wing
the ASAT missile known as a suborbital ballis- graphic co-ordinates wh il e following a pre- endplates and extended-chord
tic kinetic kill ve hicle (SBKKV) . The MiG-31 D planned time schedu le. rudders e nhancing directional
stability and control in the
featured mission avionics enabling the com- The MiG-31 D differed from the basic
rarefied air of the high altitudes
plex flight path wh ich the aircraft was to foll ow izdeliye 01 primari ly in lacking the latter's where the launch was to take
in order to set the missile's inertial navigation armament and WCS. The recesses in the fuse- place.
system for launch. The aircraft's avionics also lage underside for the R-33 missiles were
96 MiG-31

~
Another lower view of the
MiG-310. The LERXes served not
so much to improve low-speed
handling but rather to generate
additional lift at high altitude.
Note the black and white photo
calibration markings.

>
0
rn
~

~
0
~
The MiG-31 D leaves a sooty L-------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 5
trail as it comes in to land at
Zhukovskiy. Judging by the eliminated ; the LERXes were enl arged , featu r- cialised weapons system at the Mikoyan OKB
shape of the nozzles and ing the same curved shape as on the was supervised by V. M. Polyakov.
the area between them, th MiG-3 1M. To ensure directional stab il ity with Merited Test Pil ot Aviard G. Fastovets flew
aircraft may be powered by the th e SBKKV in place, larg e delta-shaped end- the MiG-3 1D on its maiden flig ht. Th is was to
uprated D30F-6M engines. The
centreline pylon for the anti·
p lates were fitted to the wings; th ese prom ptl y be the last aircraft which he tested ; in 1990 fail-
earn ed th e nickname tasty (webbed feet, or ing health fo rced Fastovets to give up flying .
,.
satellite missile is not fitted.
fli ppers). Develop ment of t he MiG-3 1D's spe- In fact, as early as 1987 the medical examin-
ers had banned him from flying any aircraft
wh ich did not have dual controls (that is, so
that anoth er pilot wou ld be there to take over,
sho uld Fastovets feel unwell). Now the
MiG-31 D was not supposed to have dual con-
trols; however, Mikoyan OKB chief test pilot
Valeriy Ye. Menitskiy was fi rm in his belief that
on ly a top-notch pil ot such as Fastovets was
to take the machine (which was expected to
be quite a handful) up on its first flight. Hence
t he prototype had to be fitted with a second
set of co ntrols in order to comply with the
medics' requ irements.
Th e two prototypes underwent tests for
several years ; besides Fastovets , the MiG-31 D
was flown by Anatoliy N. Kvochur , and the
greater part of the programme was performed
on '072 Blue'. In the early 1990s, however,
the prog ramme was put on ice due to lack of
funding.

MiG-31S Suborbital Launch System

(Project)
Th e MiG-3 1D served as the basis for a subor-
bitallaunch system designated MiG-31 S. The
aircraft was to carry a small space launch vehi-
cle for placing small sate ll ites into low Earth
orbit. In this case the requirements concern-
ing the launch co-ordinates and the setting
accuracy of the rocket's INS were much less
stri ngent.
The Kennel - 97

Promising ways of further upgrading the

MiG-31 included further extending the inter-
ceptor's range , installing a radar with an active
phased array and implementing the bistatic
radar detection principle for detecting and
attacking stealth aircraft with a low radar sig-
nature. The prototypes and production Fox-
hounds participated in a multitude of R&D
programmes involving interception of targets
flying at ultra-low level, exploration of radar
returns from the ground , guidance using
satellites and over-the-horizon (OTH) target-
ing radars etc. Some of the test and develop-
ment versions are described below.

MiG-31 LL Ejection Seat Testbed

A single MiG-31 coded '79 Red ' (c/n
N69700115548) was modified for testing ejec-
tion seats and training flight crews in ejection
procedures. This aircraft was known as the
MiG-31LL (letayushchaya laboratoriya - lit.
'flying laboratory' ; this Russian term is used
indiscriminately for all sorts of testbeds and
research/survey aircraft). The aircraft
belonged to GNIKI WS , which was renamed
the Russian Air Force 's 929th State Flight Test
Centre named after Valeriy P. Chkalov (929th
GUTs Gosoodarstvennyy lyotno-ispy-
tahtel 'nyy tsentr) in the early 1990s.
Outwardly the MiG-31 LL differed from
standard machines in lacking the glazing on
the inter-canopy crash frame and having small
camera pods at the wingtips to record the definitely moth-eaten lion 's head. This is obvi- ......
ejection sequence. On 11th-16th August 1992 ously a pun on the aircraft's testbed role : the Though it is not obvious in
these views, MiG-31 '79 Red'
the aircraft was displayed statically at the Russian for 'bald lion' is lysyy lev , which
displayed at MosAeroShow-92
MosAeroShow-92 in Zhukovskiy with a stan- abbreviates as LL (standing for letayushchaya is the MiG-31 LL ejection seat
dard canopy over the rear cockpit. Curiously, laboratoriya, of course). In September 1995
the MiG-31 LL sports nose art in the shape of a the aircraft had another show performance, ,.
testbed,
98 MiG-31

MiG-31 FE Multi-Role Tactical Fighter

(Project)
In 1995 the Moscow Aircraft Production Asso-
ciation (MAPO MiG) unveiled yet another
prospective version of the MiG-31 at the 41st
Paris Air Show. Designated MiG-31 FE (F =
frontovoy - in this context, tactical) , the aircraft
was to have revised armament and new avion-
ics enabling it to use most of the air-to-surface
missile types on the Russian Air Force inven-
tory.
The principal armament consisted of
Kh-31 P and Kh-25MP anti-radiation missiles
for the suppression of enemy air defences
(SEAD, or 'Wild Weasel ') role , or active radar
homing Kh-31 A missiles for the anti-shipping
demonstrating the ejection of a dummy from role. Tactical strike weapons included two
At MosAeroShow-92 in August "' the rear cockpit during the take-off run at an Kh-59M air-to-surface missiles or three Kh-59s
1992 the MiG-31 LL carried a full
'open house' at Akhtoobinsk on occasion of sans suffixe featuring TV guidance ; three of
complement of missiles- which
had nothing to do with its the former GNIKI WS 's 75th anniversary. the lighter Kh-29L or Kh-29T ASMs (with laser
testbed role. Note the absence of or TV guidance respectively) could also be
the usual glazing in the inter- MiG-31 Buran Approach Technique carried. Alternative ordnance loads included
canopy section and the bald lion Testbed three 1 ,500-kg (3,31 0-lb) KAB-1500L or
artwork on the air intake, which
A MiG-31 coded '97 Red ' was used by Lll for KAB-1500TK laser- or TV-guided 'smart
conceals a pun hinting at the
aircraft's mission. verifying the landing approach technique bombs ' or eight 500-kg (1 ,102-lb) KAB-500Kr
developed for the Soviet Union 's ill-fated guided bombs. The laser designator or TV
Buran (Blizzard) space shuttle. The technique guidance equipment was to be carried in pod-
involved a very steep approach followed by a ded form. The maximum warload was 9,000
flareout at extremely low level. kg (19,840 lb), which equals six FAB-1500
high-explosive 'dumb bombs '.
MiG-31E Export Interceptor The Zaslon WCS was retained for use
At various times such nations as Iran, Syria, against aerial targets, working with R-37 , R-77
Libya and China showed an interest in the and R-73 long-, medium- and short-range
MiG-31. Therefore, as early as 1987 a produc- AAMs respectively. The MiG-31 F could also
tion MiG-31 B (c/n N38401208786) was con- carry a mixed ordnance load for attacking
verted into the demonstrator of an export both ground and aerial targets (for instance,
version designated MiG-31 E (eksportnyy - four Kh-31 P/As and four R-77s); the air-to-sur-
export, used attributively). The aircraft face weapons would be carried under the
received distinctive blue/white trim over the fuselage while the AAMs would be carried on
standard overall grey colour scheme and the wing pylons.
tactical code '903 White'. The MiG-31 F's airframe and powerplant
The MiG-31 E was armed with four R-33s were to be virtually identical to those of the
(in an export version) and two or four 'dogfight production interceptor; according to the cus-
missiles' on underwing pylons. The avionics fit tomer's specifications the aircraft could be
(notably the IFF and ECM systems) was based on either the 'first-generation ' Fox-
altered . hound or on the 'second-generation '
The MiG-31 E's roles included acting as an MiG-31M. The maximum take-off weight was
airborne command post for other fighter types, 50 tons (110,230 lb). Range on internal fuel in
such as the MiG-21 , MiG-23 and MiG-29, subsonic cruise was estimated at 2,500 km
which were in service with the air forces of the (1 ,550 miles) , increasing to 3,000 km (1 ,860
nations listed above. Therefore, even the pur- miles) with drop tanks , or 1,200 km {745
chase of a couple of MiG-31 Es could bolster miles) in supersonic mode. The speed figures
the customer nation's air defence appreciably. were expected to be similar to those of the
'903 White ' made its public debut at the standard aircraft, with a 3,000-km/h top speed
"'
The 'bald lion' artwork carried on ILA-92 airshow at Berlin-Schbnefeld . After-
wards it participated in numerous other
at high altitude and a supersonic cruising
speed of 2,500 km/h. Western avionics could
the air intakes of the MiG-31 LL
ejection seat testbed. shows, including MAKS-99. be integrated at the customer's request.
The Kennel 99

~
The same aircraft at the GNIKI
WS facility in Akhtoobinsk, its
home base, in 1994. This time
there are no more missiles.

Further views of the MIG-31 LL at

the Akhtoobinsk test centre. The
cylindrical wingtip pods house
video or cine cameras recording
the ejection sequence. For
ejection seat tests the rear
canopy is replaced by a special
open-top fairing. The kinked
shape of the photo calibration
markings on the fins makes it
possible to measure the angle iiiiiiiliiiiii~ ~
which the seat assumes after
leaving the cockpit. "'~
TT !f.
100 · · MiG-31

MiG-31 Interceptor- Version Development Diagram

~ 'V..o. ' MIG-310(07)

~~

Series production

In-service upgrades

~
MiG-31 LL '79 Red' begins its
take-off run at the 'open house'
at Vladimirovka AB, Akhtoobinsk,
on occasion of the 929th GLITs's
75th anniversary in 1995. Note
the open rear cockpit occupied
by a dummy in a 'bone dome'
(for appearance's sake) .
 ~
Another view of the MiG-31 LL
as it comes back after the
demonstration flight. The empty
rear cockpit and the powder
stains immediately aft of it are
easily visible. Most of the
Soviet/Russian ejection seat
testbeds were operated by the
Flight Research Institute; the
MiG-31 LL was the only such
aircraft operated by the former
GNIKI WS (now 929th GLITs) for
checkout purposes.
102 The Kennel

"'
The MiG-31 LL makes a flypast
during one of the many air
events at Moscow-Tushino
airfield, its airbrakes deployed to
reduce speed.

~
Close-up of the port wingtip
camera pod of the MiG-31 LL.
MiG-31 103

PART THREE

MiG-31
IN ACTION
Homeland Watchdog
104 · -~ "· · ·- ~ "' · · .... ··" ~ · · -·· · MiG-31

Arkhangel 'sk, another area packed with sensi-

tive military installations. The SR-71 's great
altitude of flight, coupled with the exceptionally
high speed , made it virtually invulnerable. Sur-
face-to-air missiles had practically no chances
of hitting the high-flying Mach 3 reconnais-
sance aircraft. Infringement of the Soviet air
space by the USAF aircraft stationed at
Kadena AB in Japan and by US Navy carrier-
borne aircraft also became more frequent. The
MiG-23P and Su-15TM interceptors which
formed the backbone of the Air Defence Avia-
tion in the Far East were no match for the high-
altitude super-fast SR-71 s; nor could they
oppose on equal terms the brand-new
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle, Grumman
.a. The new interceptor was particularly needed F-14A/D Tomcat and McDonnell Douglas
A brand-new MiG-31 makes a F/A-18 Hornet fighters . Only long-range air-to-
by the Soviet Air Defence Force units in the
pre-delivery test flight. The
country's northern areas and in the Far East. air missiles launched by a high-altitude, high-
aircraft is unpainted, save for the
ventral anti-glare panel required The air defence situation in these areas had speed interceptor could hit the Blackbird and
for checking out the IRST. deteriorated considerably . The US Air Force's oppose other modern spyplanes at long dis-
Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird reconnaissance tances. Consequently, the MiG-31 was vitally
Another MiG-31 photographed needed for protecting the areas beyond the
aircraft had been intruding into the Soviet air-
during pre-delivery tests. The
space (not least over the militarily sensitive Polar circle and in the Soviet Far East.
aircraft appears to be painted
grey but the markings have yet areas of the Kamchatka Peninsula and the By the autumn of 1980, when the MiG-31 's
to be applied. island of Sakhalin) for quite some time , and in test programme was basically completed ,
T the North they penetrated as deep as the first production interceptors had already

>
0
X
ro
~

~
2
D

~
> L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
MiG-31 in Action 105

reached some first-line units of the PVO .

However, the first units to receive the new
interceptor were the training regiment of the
PVO 's 148th TsBP i PLS (Tsentr boyevoy pod-
gotovki i pereoochivaniya /yotnovo sostava -
Combat Training and Aircrew Conversion
Centre) at Savasleyka AB and the 786th lAP
(is trebitel'nw aviatsionnw polk - Fighter Air
Regiment) stationed at Pravdinsk; both loca-
tions were not far from Gor'kiy (now renamed
Nizhniy Novgorod) . It was in these units that
the new MiG-31-33 aerial intercept system
underwent service trials. In January 1982
the aircrews of the 174th Pechengskiy Red
Banner lAP named after Boris F. Safonov (the
honorary appellation was given for the unit's
part in defending the city of Pechenga during
the Great Patriotic War) started their conver-
sion training. The regiment stationed, in
Monchegorsk on the Kola Peninsula, had pre-
viously flown the Yakovlev Yak-28P, convert- new Su-27P and the MiG-31 they quickly made
ing fully to the MiG-31 in 1983. In September the Blackbird crews realise it was best to stay "'
A MiG-31 coded '36' is seen on
approach to Gor'kiy-Sormovo,
1983 the new MiGs also arrived in the Far East, away from the Soviet borders. As an example
t he fac t o ry airfield.
namely Sokol AB on Sakhalin (not to be con- one can cite an intercept which took place on
fused with the identically named international 8th March 1984: a pair of MiG-31 s blocked an
airport in Magadan , which is much further up SR-71 so effectively over neutral waters that it
north). In the fighter units of the Air Defence had to return to base without fulfilling its
Force Aviation the MiG-31 supplanted the assignment.
Su-15TM and the Tu-128, which were getting Gradually several other Air Defence Force
long in the tooth . fighter regiments were re-armed with MiG-31 s.
The regiments equipped with the new inter- In the European part of the country the regi-
ceptors covered two directions of probable ments were based at Amderma , Gromovo,
strikes by a potential adversary - the Northern Kotlas , Monchegorsk, Morshansk, Pravdinsk ,
and the Far Eastern directions. However, the Savasleyka AB , Arkhangel'sk-Talagi (which is
first combat task to be tackled by the intercep- both the city's principal airport and a fighter
tors was counteracting the SR-71 . The Black- base) and Khotilovo AB. Conversion of the
birds used a harassment tactic, intruding into pilots took place at the 148th TsBP i PLS .
Armourers p repare to hook up
Soviet airspace to a depth of several dozen The first evidence about the 'MiG-25MP'
R-33 m issiles to an operational
kilometres and challenging the Air Defence interceptor had reached the West much earlier - MiG-3 1.
System to undertake actions in response . The as far back as 1976, when the notorious ...
very short time spent by these aircraft over the
territory of the USSR made it practically impos-
sible to shoot them down by a surface-to-air
missile; yet, the radar systems of the PVO were
switched to combat alert mode, and the oper-
ational parameters of the systems were com-
fortably recorded by a US ELl NT aircraft flying
outside the Soviet Union's territorial limits.
Initially the introduction of the new inter-
cept system into the USSR Air Defence units
did not result in bringing down the number of
flights of NATO aircraft along Soviet borders,
yet the cases of these aircraft approaching the
borders became less frequent. For example,
before 1984 the pilots of the 365th (or possibly
777th) lAP, flying the Su-15TMs, proved impo-
tent against the SR-71s; with the advent of the
106 MiG-31

defector Viktor Belenko said that the Mikoyan

OKB was workin g on a two-seat version of this
aircraft . Reliable inform ation about the new
interceptor's capabi lities was not yet available,
ID
but, proceedi ng from the knowledge about the
~
.l' progen ito r of this derivative, the new Soviet
interceptor was tentatively al located the NATO
"iii reporting name Super Foxbat.
l
z
In 1983 the US Department of Defense
pub lished three-view drawings of Soviet air-
~
~ L-----------------------------------------------------------------~ craft based on pictures received from surveil-
lance satellites. Of all the provisio nal images of
advanced Soviet combat airc raft that were
published in Western magazines in the early
1980s, the 'Super Foxbat' bore closer resem-
blance to the actual machine than the others.
Some publications even surmised that the
three-view drawing had been produced on the
basis of far better-quality pictures obtained
through intelligence agents rather than the
satellite imagery. US satellites pinpointed at

......
MiG-31 '24 Blue' was intercepted and photographed
over international waters by the pilot of a Royal
Norwegian Air Force/331 Squadron General
Dynamics F-16A. This was the Western world 's
first face-to-face encounter with the Foxhound.
Note the wake vortices streaming from the wingtips .

...
Another picture of a MiG-31 over international
waters taken from a shadowing Western fighter.
This example carries a full complement of four
~ R-33s and four R-60Ms .
.l'
~
c MiG-31 '99 Blue' heads a line-up of several sister
.~
ships on the flight line at Pravdinsk. This was one
f
0
z
of the first photos of the MiG-31 to be released by

} ~----------------------------------------------------------------~ ,.
t he Soviet media.
MiG-31 in Action 107

......
An operational MiG-31 coded
' 10 Blue' taxies at its home base,
again carrying a full weapons
load of four R-33s on the
fuselage hard points and four
R-60Ms on APU-60-2 paired
launchers on the wing pylons
..,
108 · MiG-31

•
This air-to-air was made by
'friendlies', not NATO shadowers.
This MiG-31 coded ' 15' carries
only a pair of empty APU-60-2s .

...
Another MiG·31 photographed
from a sister ship.

~
m
MiG-31 '36 Blue' flies high above
~
zm
5 L-------------------------------------------------------------------------~
,.
the clouds in 'clean' condition.
MiG-31 in Action 109

least two intercepts of aerial targets simulating dozen metres (less than 300ft) . Analysis of this .;.
cruise missiles in the area of Akhtoobinsk , information enabled experts to conclude that With characteristic mountains
in the background, a MiG-31 is
where the Red Banner Air Force Research the new interceptor possessed considerab ly
serviced on a snowbound ramp.
Institute (GK Nil VVS) was based . In one of the enhanced effectiveness as compared to the The aircraft is on quick-reaction
two cases the interceptor which was flying at MiG-25P; its main mission was determined as alert duty, with a full set of
an altitude of 6,000 m (19,680 ft) shot down an the interception of low-flyin g targets with the missiles.
aerial target at an altitude of 300 m (980 ft) ; in help of long-range ai r-to-air missil es. In
MiG-31 '01 Blue' sits in an earthen
the other case the target was flying at an mid-1982 the 'Super Foxbat' received the revetment at a wintry airbase.
extremely low altitude of the order of several definitive re porting name Foxhound. T
110 MiG-31

In the autumn of 1985 the MiG-3 1 was the coast of Eastern Fin mark provin ce of north·
"'"
Published in the mid· 1980s by observed in Europe, too - the pilot of a Gen- ern Norway . The photos were published in all
the Tekhnika i Vo 'orouzheniye
eral Dynamics F-16A Fightin g Falcon fighter the leading aviation magazines of the world
(Equipment & Armament)
magazine, these were the first from the Royal Norwegian Air Force 's 331 st and were accompanied by profuse com-
colour photos of the MiG-31 Squadron took photographs of the new ments. The Americans made no attempt to
published in the USSR. Soviet interceptor ove r international waters off conceal that they were worried by the devel-
MiG-31 in Action 111

opment of new weapon systems in the USSR

that could match the performance of their
superior to any US fighter, including the F-15,
and had more capable avionics , including a
•
Coded '31 Blue', this probeless
Foxhound sits in f ront of a
Western counterparts. Donald Lehman , US better GCI guidance, control and communica-
hardened aircraft shelter (HAS)
Deputy Defense Secretary responsib le for tion system , better air-to-air missi les, and pos- on a Far Eastern airbase. Note
command , administration , communications sessed greater speed and a longer combat
and intelligence, declared that the MiG-31 was radius . ,.
the thickness of the doors.
112 - - MiG-31

The intensity of the interceptors' opera-

tions peaked at the Far Eastern and northern
borders of the USSR . This can be vividly exem-
plified by the statistics of just one PVO regi-
ment based at Kamchatka, which converted to
the MiG-31 s early in th e second half of the
1980s: in 1987 the regiment's pilots flew 214
missions to ward off reconnaissance aircraft,
and in 1988 there were 825 such missions.
Much nuisance was caused by SR-71 s, Lock-
heed P-3 Orion anti-submarine warfare aircraft
and Boeing RC-135 spyplanes. The area of the
Kola Peninsula also constantly received the
attention of NATO's intelligence services. In
1987 the pilots of the 174th lAP carried out 203
missions to accompany foreign aircraft
that were flying along the Soviet border; this
figure included 69 missions to repel the SR-71
reconnaissance aircraft operating out of
RAF Mildenhall in the UK. In 1988 the intensity
of the combat work further increased : there

......
This early-production MiG-31 coded '96 Blue'
(c/n N697001 06125) served as a ground
instruction al airframe at the Junior Air Speci alist
School , a tech staff school in Solntsevo, a suburb
of Moscow. Jacks are positioned below the
aircraft for training the cadets in jacking
procedures. Note the HAS in the background (the
cadets had to be taught how to work inside them)

.,
and the very early M iG-25 with wing endplates .
MiG-31 in Action 113

were 436 missions (86 of them for inter-

cepting the Blackbirds) ; in 1989 the number
of intercept missions fell to 270. Apart from
intercepting real targets , the pilots of the
Monchegorsk-based regiment took part in var-
ious exercises, including the Sever-87
(North-87), Otrazheniye-88 (in his context,
Rebuff-88) and others. In the course of these
exercises the possibility of basing the opera-
tional MiG-31 sat an ice-covered airfield on the
Zemlya Frantsa losifa (Franz Josef Land) arch-
ipelago was tested .
Working alongside the aircrews of the
174th lAP were the MiG-3 1s from the Kem '-
based 365th lAP and the Amderma-based
72nd GviAP (Gvardeyskiy istrebitel'nw
aviatsionnw polk - Guards Fighter Air Regi-
ment). The 72nd Regiment received its
MiG-31s in December 1986, and on 27th May
of the following year one of the regiment's
squadrons went on combat duty on the new
interceptors for the first time. That same day
the first combat sortie was flown. A crew com-
•
M iG-31 s sit in front of their shelters at a Wearing G-suits and GSh-5 full -face
dispersal area. The HASs were usually pressure helmets, the crew of this MiG-31
prising pilot Guards Captain Yu. N. Moiseyev
arranged in groups of three. radiates confidence and experience.
and WSO Guards Captain 0. A. Krasnov ...
 ...
Fully armed MiG-31 '21 Blue'
takes off on a real-life patrol
mission from a Siberian airbase.
The high-tech aircraft makes a
striking contrast with the very
primitive runway markers made
of planks that have probably
been there for years; however,
the base's navigation aids were
obviously not all that primitive if
such aircraft operated from
there.

A MiG-31 is 'unbuttoned' for

routine maintenance at the
regimental maintenance shop.
Interestingly, the technician is
wearing a camouflaged field
uniform instead of the regulation
black fatigues.
~

intercepted an SR-71 and prevented it from

fulfilling its reconnaissance mission.
It would be untrue to say that Soviet pilots
treated the MiG-31 with 'great respect'. Unfor-
tunately, there were reasons for that. The loi-
tering sorties were of long duration ; in
anticipation of this the designers had taken
some steps to reduce the fuel burn. However,
these steps and the acceptable specific fuel
consumption of the engines did not solve the
problem . Should one of the engines fail , the
good engine began to guzzle so much fuel
that range was drastically reduced. More often
than not the loitering flights were performed
over water expanses; Soviet fighter pilots were
not accustomed to long-duration flights over
the sea, and they often experienced psycho-
logical discomfort in flight. Powerplant reliabil -
ity played a crucial role in this case.
However, there were also other reasons for
the initial distrust towards the MiG-31. In com-
parison with its predecessors the MiG-31
proved to be rather strict in handling and dis-
inclined to forgive pilot errors. Nonetheless,
many pilots were not too zealous in studying
the intricacies of the new hardware. Experi-
enced pilots with a 'holier-than-thou ' attitude
showed no enthusiasm for conversion train-
ing . It was dangerous to fly the 'thirty-one ' on
the off-chance, yet, not all pilots and senior
officers found it necessary to consult the flight
manual.
Still , while some pilots mastered the new
machine reluctantly, others were enthusiastic
about it. The transition to the new machine
MiG-31 in Action 115

proceeded rather smoothly in the air regiment

stationed at Komsomol'skoye AB (1984) and
in the Bratsk-based 350th lAP (1988-89) These
were the so-called 'youth regiments ' which
were staffed to a considerable extent by recent
graduates of flying schools who had not yet
'lost the knack' for learning. In addition, the
successful mastery of the new interceptor by
these regiments was faci litated , strange as it
may seem, by geography: in the outback cor-
ners of the North and the Far East there was lit-
tle else that might serve as a pastime.
The ground crews , too , were somewhat
slow in getting accustomed to the new
machine. After the 'medium-sized' Su-15TM ,
MiG-23P and MiG-25PD, the MiG-31 seemed
huge and tall. Only technicians who had
chanced to work on the Tu-128 were an excep-
tion: small wonder, since the Fiddler was
dimensionally twice as big as the Foxhound. WSO Kravchenko was flying a mission over .l
Russian aeronautical magazines cited an inci- the Barents Sea when a fire broke out in one of Out in the open in front of its
shelter, this MiG-31 is readied for
dent that happened in December 1988, when the engines. The efforts to extinguish the fire
engine starting, with a ground
an unwary technician was sucked into an air were not entirely successful , but the crew dis- power cart parked nearby.
intake. played exceptional nerve and presence of
The MiG-31 posed qualitatively new mind and brought the aircraft safely to base. This immaculate MiG-31 was
demands both for aircrews and for ground per- The pilot and the navigator were awarded the photographed at Kubinka AB
sonnel; in consequence , operation of the air- Order of the Combat Red Banner and the west of Moscow. While the type
was never based there, MiG·31s
craft was not free from accidents - both fatal order of the Red Star respectively. Sadly, in the
periodically visited Kubinka for
and non-fatal - and incidents. summer of 1989 Major Kudryavtsev tragically demonstration to political and
On 8th August 1988 a crew consisting of lost his life during exercises while practising
pilot Guards Major Kudryavtsev and navigator/ the use of R-33 AAMs. ,.
military bosses.
116 MiG-31

...
MiG-31 '11 Blue' taxies out for a
sortie. Soviet/ Russian airbases
are generally characterised by a
poor-quality apron and runway
surface.

Another view of ' 11 Blue'. Note

the white stripes on the
nosewheel used for checking
that t he lyre sits tight on the
wheel disc.
,.
MiG-31 '33 Blue' taxies out for a
proficiency training sortie. No
m i ssiles are carried, although a

,.,.
pair of APU -60-2s is fitted .
MiG-31 in Action 117

~
Another Foxhound
'goes hunting', lit by the
afternoon sun; the landing gear
is just beginning to retract.

~
MiG·31 '32 Blue' seen on short
finals after a training sortie was
previously operated by another
unit and wore a different tactical
code; the digits are clearly
applied over a patch of lighter
paint where the previous code
had been painted out.

~
This MiG·31 seen at the holding
point, with the 'piano keys' of the
runway immediately ahead, has
an unpainted brake 'chute
housing.
118 MiG-31

.....
MiG-31 '30 Blue' taxies at a
Siberian air1ield on a wonder1ul
sunny winter's day. The aircraft
carries a full complement of four
R-33s and four R-60Ms.

The same aircraft is prepared for

a m ission. Note that the snow
has only been cleared from the
spot on which the aircraft is
parked; everywhere else the ~~~~~~..........................~__J}
."'
apron is absolutely covered with
~
hard-packed snow. z
T
L-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 5

.
5 L_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
MiG-31 in Action 119

On 19th July 1989 a 72nd lAP MiG-31 Five seconds after the lift-off, as the under-
coded '95 Red ' (c/n N38400151519) crashed carriage was retracted at 400 km/h (249 mph) "'
MiG-31 '30 Blue' taxies in after
near Amderma airport (which was also the reg- lAS and an altitude of 25m (82 It) , the warning the flight, streaming its twin
iment's home base) at 1414 hours local time brake parachutes. No missiles
system indicated a fire in the port engine.
appear to have been expended
during a check-up flight after a biennial sched- Flight control officer Lieutenant-Colonel V. S.
this time.
uled maintenance check. The aircraft had Borisov noticed an unusual sheet of flame
been manufactured on 3rd April1987 and had coming out of the port engine nozzle and gave
logged 196 hours total time since new; there orders to cancel the reheat. The pilot com-
had been no overhauls. plied, throttling back the port engine to flight

...
Another view of the same aircraft
after the parachutes have been
released and recovered.
 idle as soon as the minimum safe altitude was
reached .
Two and a half minutes after the take-off the
fire warning system indicated a fire in the star-
board engine. When a further 30 seconds
elapsed , the pilot shut down the port engine,
closed the fuel shut-off cock and activated the
fire suppression system . However, the thrust
of the starboard engine running at full military
power was already insufficient, and the indi-
cated airspeed began to bleed off slowly. The
pilot had to engage the afterburner of the star-
board engine again , switching it off at a speed
of 600 km/h (373 mph) and at an altitude of
670 m (2,120 ft).
After that the airspeed began to drop
again , this time at a much higher rate .
Attempts to engage the afterburner again were
of no avail. At a speed of 340 km/h (211 mph)
and at an altitude of 520 m (1,705ft) the crew
(pilot Guards Captain Nikolay V. Kravtsov,
deputy squadron commander ; navigator/
WSO Guards Captain M. A. Gorboonov) was
"'
Eleven MiG-31 s on the flight line of the PVO Combat
compelled to eject to safety; the aircraft dived
into the ground and exploded .
& Conversion Training Centre at Savasleyka AB.
Only a few aircraft carry the unit's badge. Examination of the wreckage showed that
the fire was caused by a fuel leak in the port
.... engine bay as a result of faulty repairs . When
The badge of the PVO Combat & Conversion
Training Centre is based on the 'double eagle' the fuel piping dismantled for the purpose of
featured on the Russian coat of arms. replacing a fuel flow regulator was being put in
place again , a sealing gasket was damaged ;
To prevent the glazing from being damaged by the
after engine start-up the fuel pressure blew the
sun's UV radiation, the cockpit area is draped in
tarpaulins when the aircraft sits parked for a long
gasket. When the port engine was shut down ,
time. the flame from it was sucked into the starboard
engine bay due to air ejection and pressure
differential. The fire heated the cables control-
ling the convergent-divergent nozzle, causing
an uncommanded opening to maximum aper-
ture setting and , as a consequence , loss of
thrust at full military power. The pilot failed to
grasp what had happened and did not make
use of the emergency nozzle closing feature ;
as a result, the speed fell below the minimum
control value .
As a matter of fact, most of the problems on
the MiG-31 were associated with the power-
plant. The designers succeeded in reducing
the engines ' operating temperature to virtually
half of the value typical of the MiG-25, yet
engine fires did occur. Initially it was the cool-
ing turbines that were at fault. They had
caused no problems on the development
machines, but in series production the factory
started turning out turbine blades of inferior
quality. With the turbine operating at 40,000
rpm , the blades broke off and wrought havoc
in the engine bay, causing a massive fire . The
MiG-31 in Action 121

cause of these fires cou ld not be determined voke a flight incident or accident. However,
for a long time: as a rule , all that remained of persistent shortage of fuel in the units and the
the crashed aircraft was a big crater. A stroke resulting low number of flight hours logged in
of luck helped solve the problem. In Priozyorsk the fighter air regiments made it possible to
a fire broke out when a MiG-31 was beginning forget about this problem for a while.
its take-off run. The flight control officer was Nevertheless, notwithstanding the fuel
quick in ordering the pil ot to abort the take-off. shortage and low flight hours logged by air-
The aircraft overran the runway and was crews, the Ru ssian MiG-31s co ntinued flying
destroyed by the fire, but what little remained combat patrol mi ssions. For example, in 1994
of it enabled the investigators to trace the a crew comprisi ng Maj or A. N. Pshegoshev
cause of the fire to the cooling turbine with its and Captain V. V. Velichko from a fig hter unit
defective blades. This unit was then modified based at Yelizovo airport, Petropavlovsk-Kam- ...
The badge of the said squadron -
by installing armour plating which could not be chatskiy, prevented an infringement of the
a fox with an ace of d iamonds.
pierced by the runaway blades. Later a cooling state border by a US-registered Cessna 550 Such nose art was generally
turbine of an all-new design was installed. Citation II business jet. frowned upon.
After the introduction of in-flight refuelling Slackening of control and failure to con-
capability on the MiG-31 (izdeliye 01DZ) and duct timely repairs of the hardware resulted in
MiG-31 B the flight endurance came to be lim- incidents and crashes also in the 'post-pere-
ited not by the hardware but also by crew stroika ' period when the pil ots had consider-
fatigue which caused the airmen to be less ably fewer oppo rtunities to practise t heir fl yin g
attentive and made it difficult to carry out th e skills than before the restructuring.
mission effectively. Moreover, during a flight of On 1Oth March 1993 a MiG-31 interceptor
such a long duration , elementary physical based on Kamchatka suffered an incident dur-
necessities of the crew members could pre- ing a night fl ight at an altitude of 11 ,000 m
vent them from fulfilling the task. Nobody had (36,080 ft).
given thought to this in the USSR, but even a On 31st May 1995 a MiG-31 crashed in the
crewman 's need to relieve himself could pro- vicinity of Komsomol 'sk-on-Amur, on the right-
hand bank of the Amur river. Immediately after
take-off a fire broke out in one of the engines;
More artwork on a MIG-31 . This airc raft visiting
the crew succeeded in getting the machine
...
Savasleyka AB belongs to the Guards Air Another unit badge worn by the
Squadron named after M. N. Sementsov and safely away from a residential area and then same aircraft; the eagle holds the
based In the Siberian city of Kansk. T ejected safely. slightly altered city crest of Kansk.
122 MiG-31

...
A MiG-31 climbs away, showing the juicy afterburner flames and Another fine take-off shot. Note the flaps set for take-off and the open
creating a tremendous racket.
,
auxiliary air intake door s.
MiG-31 in Action 123

The training centre at Savasleyka does a lot of

flying on the MiG-31 -and, apart from training, it
flies actual combat duty as well, protecting
Moscow. The unit's IFR-capable MiG-31 Bs are
mostly coded in the 7x range. Note the light blue
shade of the tactical code on '73 Blue'.

~
Another MiG-31B from Savasleyka, '72 Blue' ,
cruises high above the Russian countryside near
Nizhniy Novgorod. Training missions were
normally flown in unarmed configuration.

~
Several MiG-31 Bs operated by the same unit have
codes in the Sx range. On this aircraft the second
digit is partly obliterated by weathering, making
identification impossible.
124 MiG-31

.l
The leader of this pair of MiG-31 Bs has made
contact with the starboard drogue of an Ilyushin
IL-78M three-point refuelling tanker ('50 Blue',
c /n 1003403068, f/n 7707), while his wingman
prepares to engage the port wing drogue.

~
The IL-78 (illustrated here by another IL-78M,
'32 Blue', c / n 1003403079, f/ n 7710) can refuel
two tactical aircraft at a time. The centre UPAZ-1M
pod with a higher delivery rate is used for
refuelling heavy aircraft.

~
MiG-31 B '75 Blue' about to 'hit
the tanker' is seen here from the
aerial refuelling system
operator' s station of an IL-78M.
The black and white stripes on
the hose are each 1 m (3 ft 3 in)
long, serving to show how much
of the hose has been paid out.
MiG-31 in Action 125

"'
MiG-31B '52 Blue' takes on fuel from the port UPAZ·1A pod of an '74 Blue' is caught by the camera a second before it makes contact
IL-78M. Note the runway of ' hometown' (Savasleyka AB) visible with the drogue.
above the aircraft.
"
126 MiG-31

...
MIG-31 B '78 Blue' taxies out for
an afternoon sortie at
Savasleyka .

...
Another sunset shot at the
same location. Like most of
the Foxhounds operated by the
Savasleyka unit, '76 Blue' has
the tactical code repeated on
the nose gear door.

Most of the MIG-31 Bs based at

Savasleyka have the tactical
codes applied In a darker shade
of blue (appearing almost black
in the falling afternoon light.
Note the blotch on the fin where
some artwork has obviously
been painted out.

"
MiG-31 in Action 127

..
MiG -31B '76 Blue' on final
approach. Curiously, the taxi
light is on but not the landing
lights.

X
0

l
::;
~
"Rl

L-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ !
Another view of '76 Blue' a few
..
seconds before touchdown. The
periscope is of necessity
mounted on tall struts to give an
adequate view over the nose in
this nose-up attitude.

A magnificent shot of MiG-31B

'72 Blue' as it completes the
landing run, its twin cruciform
brake parachutes deployed.
Soviet (Russian) brake
parachutes are typically orange
and white.

"
128 MiG-31

...
'81 Blue' was one of the last
MiG-31 Bs to be delivered to
Savasleyka AB. It is seen here
'cleaning up' as it takes off on
another mission .

...
A nice afternoon shot of '72 Blue'
as it opens its airbrakes to keep
formation with the camera ship.

The day's mission accomplished,

MiG-31 B '51 Blue' taxies in past
two sister ships, a Su-30 and an
Antonov An-26 transport. Note
the open brake parachute
housing.
T
MiG-31 in Action - --- - , · 129

On 6th September of the same year, when

a MiG-31 was firing AAMs , the aircraft per-
formed an uncommanded sharp roll and
flicked into a spin due to the failure of a missile
to leave the port wing pylon. Attempts to
recover from the spin proved futile , but the
crew survived.
In the summer of 1996, when practising a
landing after a simulated engine failure , yet
another MiG-31 collided with an obstacle dur-
ing an attempt to execute a go-around. The
crew ejected , but one of the crew members
was killed.
On 15th January 1997 an aircraft belonging
to the 51st lAP crashed in the vicinity of the
town of Oktyabrskiy, Arkhangel 'sk Region.
Both crew were killed. The crew (Major Vasiliy
Strizhel'nikov and Captain Yuriy Shcher-
banyov) stayed with the aircraft to the end ;
after a lengthy search the remains of the bod-
ies were found at the crash site 12 km (7.45
miles) from the Kuloi railway junction. On the tually immediately, and the flight data recorder
day of its crash the MiG-31 took off from an air- was recovered.
"'
Five MiG-31 Bs from Savasleyka
make a formation pass over the
base in the town of Savvatiya (near Kotlas) for One more MiG-31 interceptor crashed in
public grandstand at Poklonnaya
a routine training flight. Approximately at 1130 the Tver' Region, near the town of Borisovskiy, Gora in Moscow during the 1995
hours Moscow time the interceptor crashed on 26th September of the same year. The VE-Day celebrations.
into the ground from the altitude of more than aircraft had taken-off from Khotilovo AB for a
11 ,000 m (36,090 ft). Eyewitnesses said that training flight; at 1911 hours Moscow time a The flight line at Savasleyka AB.
Note how the interceptors'
the fighter had disintegrated while still air- fire broke out in the starboard engine. All
tactical codes are writ large on
borne. The impact created a crater more than attempts to extinguish the fire proved unsuc- the nozzle covers for quick
15 m (50ft) in diameter and 6 m (20ft) deep. cessful. Six minutes later the crew ejected ;
The search-and-rescue effort was started vir- 30 minutes later it was picked up by the ,.
identification.
 A search-and-rescue service and hospitalised made in 1989-90) , at Omsk-Severnyy
Toting four dummy R-33s and for examination. The burning aircraft fell in a airport (64th lAP, seven machines delivered in
two dummy R-40TDs, ANPK wooded and swampy area in the vicinity of the 1987, a further 12 before 1990 and two
MiG's demonstrator aircraft ('903
base, causing no harm to anyone. MiG-31s (izde/iye 01DZ) , in Bratsk (350th lAP,
White', c/ n N38401208786)
makes a demonstration flight. In all, 35 accidents and incidents took five machines delivered in 1988 and a further
Note that '903 White' has a much place in the course of the MiG-31 's squadron 12 before the end of 1989; later transferred
thinner Russian flag augmenting service up to the year 2000; this includes 12 to Perm '), in Rostov-on-Don (83rd lAP, deliver-
the Russian Air Force insignia as fatal crashes. According to the conclusions ies made in 1993), at Khotilovo AB (790th
compared to the similarly
made by the investigating panels, 19 of them lAP, deliveries made in 1993-1994) , at
painted '374 White'.
were due to crew error. Perm'-Bol 'shoye Savino airport (?64th lAP,
According to information from various MiG-31Bs/BSs delivered in 1993·1994), in
publications (including the Internet and refer- Kansk-Yoozhnyy (MiG-31 Bs delivered in
ence books published in Great Britain and 1993) , at Noril'sk-Aiykel ' airport (delivered in
the USA) , by the late 1980s the MiG-31 1991 , possibly transferred to Kansk later) , in
equipped regiments based at nearly 20 air- Morshansk (the 153 rd lAP, the MiG-31s
fields over the vast territory of the Soviet (izde/iye 01 DZ) delivered in 1990), in Amderma
Union . At different times they saw service with (72nd GviAP, deliveries made in 1987, possi-
units stationed in Pravdinsk (?86th lAP, deliv· bly transferred to Kotlas).
eries made in 1981-82; MiG-31 Bs were based During the Soviet period the MiG-31 s were
there later) , Monchegorsk (174th GviAP, deliv- also based in Kazakhstan , including the air-
eries made in 1982-83) , Komsomol 'skoye AB fields in Sary-Shagan (12 MiG-31 Bs were
(near the township of Sovetskiy, Tyumen ' delivered in 1991) and in Semipalatinsk-1
Region , deliveries made in 1984) , at (356th lAP , Zhana-Semey airfield , the first
Arkhangel 'sk-Talagi airport (51 8th lAP, deliv- batch delivered in 1986, then the MiG-31 Bs
eries made in 1985), at an unnamed airfield on were transferred to this airfield from Sary-
the Kamchatka Peninsula (?77th lAP, deliver- Shagan).
ies made in 1987-88), at Petropavlovsk-Kam- The majority of modifications and all repair
chatskiy (Yelizovo airport, deliveries made in work on the interceptor were carried out at the
1986-87), at Chugooyevka AB (deliveries aircraft repair factory in Rzhev .
MiG-31 in Action 131

The MiG-31 's first official appearance outside

the Soviet Union took place in the shape of a
model which was demonstrated in the Soviet
pavilion of a trade fair in Manila in November
1990. There were plans to show the real inter-
ceptor at the IDEX military hardware exhibition
in Dubai in January 1991 , but the Gulf War
caused the exhibition to be postponed to
October; for this reason the international debut
of the aircraft took place at the 39th Paris Air
Show in June of the same year. Sporting a
special display colour scheme with blue trim
and the tactical code '374 White ' (c/n
N69700121496) , the Foxhound touched down
at Le Bourget airport on 10th June with
Mikoyan ANPK (OKB) chief test pilot Valery
....
a:
Menitskiy at the controls; the second crew
member was navigator Yuriy Yermakov. The ~------------------------------------------------------------~
... ~
interceptor took part in demonstration flights international air shows , including those held in
'903 White' poses at one of the
during the last days of the show, making low- Canada, the United Arab Emirates (IDEX) and
Western airshows in company
level passes over the airfield and performing Germany (ILA) . The interceptor was acknowl- with the Yak-42F research
several aerobatic figures. edged as the most advanced aircraft of its kind aircraft (CCCP-42644). Note the
The MiG-31 did not miss the air show in in the world - at present, no other country pos- canvas covers over the canopies.
Dubai in October; on their way back from this sesses an aircraft that can match the MiG-31 in
air show a group of Soviet aircraft, including terms of take-off weight, armament and maxi-
the MiG-31 , 'dropped in ' at Teheran to demon- mum speed.
'903 White' pictured at the
strate the hardware to the Iranians . In 1992 the Demonstration of the heavy interceptor in moment of rotation at
interceptor was demonstrated in Britain at the flight did not provoke any rapturous com- Zhukovskiy as it takes off
Farnborough International '92 airshow. The ments , but specialists estimated it at its true from runway 12.
MiG-31 repeatedly took part in various other worth , noting especially its by-pass engines, ...
 ...
MiG-31B '30 Blue' makes a
spectacular (and ear-splitting)
formation take-off from
Zhukovskiy's runway 12 with two
of its stablemates belonging to
RSK MiG, single-seat MiG-29
Fulcrum-C '506 Blue' and two-
seat MiG-29UB '304 Blue', during
one of the Moscow airshows.
Note that the lighter MiG-29s
have required less runway length
to become airborne and are
'cleaning up' already.

...
MiG-31B '903 White' makes a high-speed dash
during the demonstration flight .

..
The same aircraft lands on Zhukovskiy's runway
30 after completing the display routine.
MiG-31 in Action 133

...
Russian Air Force MiG-31 sans
suffixe '83 Red' is seen at
Nizhniy Novgorod during a
defence industry trade fair . Note
the striped dummy R-40TD
missiles under the wings. The
impressive air-to-air and air.fo-
surface weapons array in the
foreground applies to the
MiG-21·93 on the right, not to the
MiG-31.

'70 Red ', another Russian Air

Force MiG-31 sans suffixe, is
shown here in the static park of
the Business Aviation-2001
airshow at Pushkin near St.
Petersburg on 5th August 2001 .
Despite the MiG OKB badge, this
is not a company-owned
'dogship' but a regular in-service
machine.

"
134 MiG-31

The Soviet delegation made no secret of

the motives which prompted the sending of
such a classified aircraft to Paris. Deputy Min-
ister of Aircraft Industry V. Ivanov modestly
noted: 'We hope that our display will help you
to find the partnership you need with the
USSR .'
Unfortunately, only one partner was found -
it was China. At the end of May 1992 a Sino-
Russian agreement was concluded providing
for the equipment of the People 's Liberation
Army Air Force (PLAAF) with 24 MiG-31s in a
version capable of in-flight refuelling. Deliver-
ies of the first five interceptors were scheduled
for June 1992. There were plans for subse-
quent assembly of these aircraft under licence
weapon control system and the armament: the at the Shenyang Aircraft Industry Company
"'
This MiG-31 B was part of a large six-barrelled cannon and the R-33 missiles. In (SAIC) . The first Chinese-built MiG-31 was
display of Russian Air Force Paris the interceptor was shown in the static scheduled for roll-out in late 1994. Plans called
hardware which also included a
park with the radome detached , exposing its for the manufacture of four fighters per month
Su-27, a MiG-29 of the Strizhi
aerobatic team and an An-124 main 'operational instrument' - the phased- up to the year of 2000. However, by the
Ruslan heavy transport. Note the array radar antenna. Indeed, the antenna mid-1990s China revised its plans, opting for
advertising sticker of the attracted enormous interest. Even after having the acquisition and licence manufacture of
Novolipetsk Iron & Steel Works seen the antenna with their own eyes, some another Russian fighter - the Su-27SK/Su-30.
(NLMK) which sponsored the
American engineers continued to allege that it Its main advantages were seen in its being
show.
was a usual slotted antenna with mechanical multifunctional and super-agile - qualities that
scanning . The most serious criticism voiced would come to good use under all circum-
by Western specialists concerned the quality stances.
of the welding seams in the fighter's airframe With regard to its combat capabilities the
structure, the set of navigation lights etc. Yet, MiG-31 aircraft is, indeed , the best in the world
the most realistic appraisal of the aircraft was in its class. It has taken part in numerous exer-
given in the special issue of the Airshow Daily cises and experiments, in the course of which
which noted that , although bearing some unique information has been obtained on the
superficial resemblance to its predecessor - possibilities of using the over-the-horizon
the MiG-25, the MiG-31 was a completely dif- (OTH) targeting radars for guidance over dis-
MiG-318 '77 Blue' was in the ferent machine capable of destroying any hos- tances of thousands of kilometres from the
static park during an 'open tile aircraft at any altitude, thanks to its target , on the interception of anti-shipping mis-
house' at Savasleyka AB on
all-aspect target detection systems. It was siles flying at a height of a few metres over the
occasion of Aviation Day
celebrated on the third
stated that the MiG-31 could not be compared sea surface, and of cruise missiles with a low
Sunday of August. directly to any other new-generation fighter - it radar signature, on the study of the influence
T was just a good 'warhorse '. of the underlying surface on the intercept pre-
cision , etc.
For example, the 174th lAP took part in the
Sever-87 (North-87) military exercise in the
course of which four crews carried out their
combat mission and then , as mentioned
above, landed at an ad hoc ice airfield on
Franz-Joseph Land . Four MiG-31s visited this
airfield again during the Otrazheniye-88
(Rebuff-88) exercise. In addition , in 1986-88
crews from the Monchegorsk-based regiment
flew escort missions with Tupolev Tu-95MS-6
Bear-H strategic missile strike aircraft.
One more tactical flying exercise incorpo-
rating research purposes and dubbed
Voskhod-93 (Sunrise-93) was conducted by
the Russian Air Force between 17th and 21st
MiG-31 in Action 135

·~
Probeless MiG-31 '68 Red ' (c/ n
N38400190127) was displayed
statically at Chkalovskaya AB
during the Aviation Day 'open
house' on 18th August 2002.
,.

c
0
"0
0

"'
E
~
136 · , · · · ,.. ""' ·· · ·"~ ··· ·· · · ·· · MiG-31

lished in the Russian press. A check-up was

conducted at the Sary-Shagan test range (in
the vicinity of Lake Balkhash): the site simulat-
ing a target was known , but the time of arrival
of a cruise missile to the target and the direc-
tion from which it would come were unknown .
To protect the site , four Su-27P fighters were
loitering at the baseline altitude of 5,000 m
(16,400 ft) ; a similar mission was also per-
formed by four MiG-31 s, of which three
machines provided full 360° coverage with
overlapping and one machine co-ordinated
the actions of the group. The crew of one of the
MiG-31 s noticed an incoming Tu-16, the
cruise-missile carrier , already some 200 km
(124 miles) away. The MiG 's WSO could
clearly see on his display that a second 'blip '
detached itself from the 'blip' of the carrier air-
.i. May 1993; it featured a redeployment of ten craft ; it 'vanished ' instantly due to the differ-
Appropriately coded '31 Blue',
Sukhoi Su-24M Fencer-0 tactical bombers ence in the radar signature of the carrier and
this early-production probeless
MiG-31 is preserved at its
and Su-24MR Fencer-E tactical reconnais- the missile. However, the approximate direc-
birthplace, the Sokol aircraft sance aircraft, four Su-27 fighters , six tion was already revealed , and some time
factory at Nizhniy Novgorod- Tu-95MS-6 strategic bombers and eight later, at a distance of 70 km (43 miles), the
Sormovo. MiG-31 B interceptors from the European part cruise missile flying at an altitude of about
of Russia to the Far East with four air-to-air 50 m (160ft) was detected and destroyed.
refuellings from 13 Ilyushin IL-78/IL-78M A similar result was achieved by pilots of
Midas-Al B tankers en route. the 174th lAP over the Barents Sea when a
From the second half of December 1994 a MiG-31 , forestalling the competing Su-27P,
complement of MiG-31 and Su-27 interceptors was the first to detect and destroy an R-6 anti-
ranging from two to six aircraft, together with shipping missile that had been launched from
an llyushin/Beriyev A-50 Mainstay-A AWACS a submarine and was flying close to the water
aircraft, carried out combat patrol missions surface.
over Chechnya for some time during the First These experiments received an additional
Chechen War. impetus after the radical reduction of the uni-
Another early-production MiG-31 At present the MiG-31 is the world 's only fied Air Force (incorporating the previously
preserved for posterity - and aircraft capable of effectively combating the separate Air Defence Force) which resulted in
again not readily accessible. '32
General Dynamics AGM-109 Tomahawk or a part of the country 's territory being stripped
Blue' is an exhibit of the base
Boeing AGM-86 ALCM air-launched cruise of its fighter and SAM cover. Experiments with
museum at Savasleyka.
,. missiles. The following information was pub- long-range flights were resumed in the Air
Force. On 1st July 1998 pilots of the former
PVO 's 148th Red Banner Combat Training and
Aircrew Conversion Centre at Savasleyka AB
carried out a non-stop flight of unprecedented
complexity for research purposes, covering a
distance of 8,500 km (5,283 miles) in ten
hours. The flight was routed over the Euro-
pean part of Russia. In the course of the flight,
fulfilment of combat tasks was practised suc-
cessively near the southern , northern and
western borders of the country . Apart from
coping with the technical complexity of a long-
duration flight , the exercise was intended to
fulfil some other tasks. A victory in modern
warfare , especially with the modest and even
dwindling forces available, can only be based
on the interaction of various means comple-
menting each other. It was precisely the joint
MiG-31 in Action 137

group actions that were practised in the

course of carrying out the tactical mission
envisioned by the research flight.
It was the northern section of the route that
posed special difficulties in this respect. To
intercept the designated adversary simulated
by one of the pairs a mixed group was formed ,
comprising nine aircraft: an A-50 AWACS air-
craft, two MiG-31 B interceptors from the 786th
lAP, four Su-30 interceptors from the 148th
TsBP i PLS and two IL-78 tankers . The A-50
was flying a patrol mission in a designated
area; it monitored the air situation in a large
area and brought all the aircraft into a single
group. The MiG-31 s, which had taken off from
the airfield in Pravdinsk, were flying in the for-
ward echelon ; making use of their unique
radar, they located the targets at a distance of
up to 200 km (124 miles) and relayed the infor-
mation to the Su-30 pilots from Savasleyka.
hasty service introduction of the MiG-23ML
Flogger-G - a lightweight version of the MiG-23 -
•
'96 Blue' (c/n N69700106125), the
MiG-31 that used to be a teaching
The fast and agile Su-30s flying some 60 km did not make it possible to thoroughly study its
aid in the Solntsevo tech school,
(37 miles) behind the MiGs were ready to combat capabilities; therefore , these studies is now on display at the Central
engage their afterburners and attack the were continued as a matter of extreme Russian Air Force Museum in
adversary, although the MiGs themselves urgency under the guidance of Air Marshal A. Monino. Curiously, the pylons
could destroy many targets simultaneously N. Yefimov, using a fighter regiment based at are displayed separately from
the aircraft.
with their R-33 missiles. Vaziani (Transcaucasian Military District).
The simulated interception was success- Involved in this work were also the pilots of the
fully carried out at the latitude of Arkhangel 'sk . Tactical Aviation 's 4th TsBP i PLS in Lipetsk, as
At the moment of interception the aircraft well as the designers of the Sapfeer-23 (Sap-
which posed as the 'adversary' were flying on phire-23) fire control radar.
a course corresponding to the direction from The main purpose of the research con -
which bombers and cruise missiles might be sisted in studying the capabilities of the radar
attacking Moscow from the north. The tactics during intercepts conducted over mountain-
thus tested can be used at any time over the ous areas. In the course of the work the flights
entire territory of Russia and the adjoining were transferred to Nasosnaya AB (not far
waters. from Omsk) where the 64th lAP was based. In
Organisation and conduct of the flight was the course of several flight days studies were
carried out under the guidance of former Chief made of the possibility of guiding the
of the Fighter Aviation of the Air Force Major- MiG-23ML fighters to their targets by means of
General Victor Aksyonov and former 148th commands sent from a MiG-31 which was
TsBP i PLS Chief, Colonel Stanislav used as an AWACS aircraft. For this purpose
Kishenkov. The unique character of the four MiG-31s which were passing service tests
research mission consisted in the fact that for at that time temporarily deployed to Nasos-
the first time standard service fighter units of naya. The results of interaction of the two
the Air Force had carried out a flight of ten fighter types proved clearly unsatisfactory
hours' duration (!) and practised combat train- (later the 64th lAP re-equipped with MiG-31 s,
ing tasks in the skies of three (!) regions of a but in the spring of 1988, following the restruc-
vast country. turing of the Russian Air Force and the Air
For the sake of justice one must note that Defence Force, the regiment was disbanded).
during the initial stages of introduction of the Once again, successful 'combat experi -
MiG-31 into service the unique capabilities of ence' with the MiG-31 was obtained in the
this fighter could far from always be put to period between 31st August and 4th Septem-
good use. That was the case , for example, ber 1998 over the Ashuluk test range (near
when the reason for the rather unsuccessful Astrakhan '). This place was chosen for joint
actions of the MiG-23 fighter in the course of exercises with the participation of air defence
the Syrian Air Force's combat operations units from Belorussia, Kyrghyzstan , Kaza-
over Lebanon in 1982 was investigated. The khstan and Russia. Interestingly, the Air
138 MiG-31 in Action

Defence Forces of Kazakhstan were repre- lance of 100 km (62 miles) from the limits of the
sented there by three MiG-31 interceptors. international waters. This flight stirred much
Indeed , in addition to the Russian Air Force, interest on the part of the Japanese military.
the MiG-31 serves with the Air Force of Kaza- The reconnaissance aircraft succeeded in
khstan. As far back as 1988 the 356th lAP spotting an additional 12 radar sites that had
based at Zhana-Semey airfield near Semi- not been put into action when this area was
palatinsk converted to the new interceptors, overflown previously by single aircraft.
and after the break-up of the USSR the Semi- At present the Fighter Aviation of the Air
palatinsk-based MiGs were included in the Defence Forces of Russia is equipped mainly
complement of the Kazakhstan Air Force. with the interceptors featuring a modernised
Some other important tasks as well were armament system (MiG-31 Band MiG-31 BS).
practised during exercises held in the Far East A considerable part of the earlier-production
in mid-September 1999. The MiG-31 B inter- machines (MiG-31 s sans suffixe) have been
ceptors using long-range AAMs shot down consigned to storage at Lipetsk. Also the
under adverse weather conditions a Malakhit manufacturer - the Sokol aircraft plant in
(Malachite) target missile launched from the Nizhny Novgorod - has agreed to receive the
Moroz small missile boat. The main purpose of aircraft that have to be kept in storage after
the exercise consisted in practising the inter- being withdrawn from use. This is a logical
action of the Air Force fighter aviation and the step from the plant, which bears in mind an
Naval forces. The 1999 exercises, unprece- eventual modernisation of the interceptors for
dented in their scale for the Russian Armed the Russian Air Force.
Forces, became a direct response to NATO Pilot training is conducted , as before, at
'Shine your light on me.' aggression in Yugoslavia. Savasleyka AB , albeit the air unit which is
Seriously, th is fantastic dusk In the course of another episode a pair of based there no longer carries the proud and
shot of '70 Blue' shows that the Tu-22MR Backfire-C reconnaissance aircraft renowned name of the 148th TsBP i PLS. In
Foxhounds and their crews are
taking off from Vozdvizhenka AB and escorted connection with merging of the Air Force and
ready for action around the clock
and in any season. by the MiG-31 s performed a flight within the the Air Defence Forces the Centre was dis-
... inner perimeter of the Sea of Japan at a dis- banded and its functions were transferred to
the 4th TsBP i PLS of the former Tactical Avia-
tion which is now called simply the 4th TsBP i
PLS of the Air Force. The MiG-31 Bs that were
based at Savasleyka still remain there , but one
cannot rule out that one more round of some
sort of restructuring (in fact, reduction) will seal
their fate.
The MiG-31 has been put on show in sev-
eral Russian aviation museums. For example,
the Central Russian Air Force Museum in
Monino south of Moscow boasts two exam-
ples - a development aircraft coded '202 Blue '
(c/n N69700102176, f/n 0202) and a machine
coded '96 Blue' (c/n N697001 06125, f/n
unknown) , before being consigned to the
Museum , had been used as an instructional
airframe at the now disbanded PVO Junior
Aviation Specialist School in Solntsevo (on the
south-western outskirts of Moscow). Pre-
served on the territory of the Sokol plant in
Nizhniy Novgorod is a MiG-31 with the sym-
bolic tactical code '31 Blue '.
In 1999 a monument was inaugurated at
the entrance to Arkhangel 'sk-Talagi airport to
honour the pilots flying in the northern lati-
tudes ; mounted on a high plinth is a MiG-31
interceptor which had served in the 518th
Berlinskiy lAP ; this unit was awarded the
Suvorov Order.
MiG-31 139

PART FOUR

FOXHOUND
Versus
TOMCAT
140 MiG-31

A production F-14A-65-GR (BuNo

• A total of 505 MiG-3 1 interceptors in various
versions had been bu ilt in the USSR before
tics of the production F-14A were initially con-
sidered to be adequate for such a relatively
158621) operated by the US
production ended. About 300 of these aircraft heavy aircraft. Moreover, at the US Navy's
Navy's Pacific Missile Test
Center at NAS Point Mugu, are currently in service with the Russian Air Top Gun ' Fighter Weapons Training Center,
Californ ia (note the PMTC badge Force, another 43 being in service with the Tomcat crews come out on top in mock com-
o n t he tails) wi th the w ings at Kazakh Air Force. By comparison , 557 F-14A bat with the lighter and far more agile Northrop
minimu m sweep and a pair of Tomcats in t he same class had been manu- T-38A Talon combat trainer, albeit they had to
AIM-7 Sparrow radar homing
factured fo r the US Navy. use special tactics to win.
missiles on the wing glove
pylons. Note t he recesses under According to trustworthy Russian sources, Although the MiG-3 1 was not specifically
the fuselage for more Sparrows, the combat potential of the F-14A and its designed in response to the Tomcat, its devel-
the centreline hardpoint and the weapons system eq uals 60 to 70% of the opment began almost immediately after the
shape of the conver gent- MiG-31. As for th e other production Western F-14A's appearance in 1972. Later, however,
d ivergent nozzles at full military
fighters {the Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) the continuing growth of the potential adver-
power.
F-15, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing (McDon- sary's offensive capability and the advent of
nel l Doug las) F/A-18, Dassault Mirage 2000, long-range cruise missile forced the Soviet
Panavia Tornado F.3 etc.) , in the opinion of designers to stand up to the challenge from
Russian experts, comparing their capabilities abroad - a situation they had found them-
with those of the MiG-31 in beyond visual selves in more than once. As was the case
range (BVR) missile combat is simply inap- with the American interceptor, the latest
propriate . Soviet interceptor's new avionics suite and
Th e YF-14 prototype made its maiden new armament were its main 'selling points '.
flight on 21st December 1970; del iveries of ini- In fact the MiG-3 1 was the world 's first pro-
tial production aircraft to the VF-1 and VF-2 duction combat aircraft to feature a phased-
fighter squadrons wh ich were part of the array radar. Its main weapons consisted of
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enter- four R-33 long-range semi-active radar hom-
prise 's carrier wing in October 1972. The ing missiles. These were augmented by two
world 's aviation commun ity was vastly R-40TD medium-range AAMs with semi-active
impressed when the results of the Tomcat's IR homing , four R-60M short-range heat-
weapons system trials were disclosed ; in seeking AAMs and a 23-mm GSh-6-23 internal
June 1973 the Tomcat managed to destroy an cannon .
aerial target on a reciprocal heading at 203 km The virtually permanent presence of the
(126 miles) range! The dynamic characteris- potential adversary 's offensive forces (strate-
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 141

gic bombers, carrier groups and missile- the F-14A with six AIM-54As was published in
armed nuclear submarines) along the north- the Russian press by the nation's leading
ern and Far Eastern borders of the Soviet experts in aircraft systems design. The com-
Union compelled the Soviet designers to cre- parison showed that the MiG-31 's service
ate an aerial target interception complex that ceiling was 1 ,500-2,500 km (4,900-8,200 ft)
closely paralleled the MiG-25 in ideology but higher than that of the F-14A. The MiG-31 's
utilised much more advanced technologies. maximum Mach number at altitudes above
Born when the Cold War was at its coldest, 13,000 m (42,650 ft) was 2.82 versus 2.35 for
the MiG-31 and the F-14A remain uniquely the F-14; at 17,000 m (55,770 ft) the Russian
capable aircraft to this day as far as their mis- interceptor was 670 km/h (416 mph) faster
sions, functions and performance are con- than its US counterpart. On the other hand , at
vened ; moreover, they were born of much the altitudes between 5,000 and 13,000 m
same concept. Both aircraft are two-seat long- (16,400-42,650 ft) the MiG-31 is slower than
range supersonic interceptors capable of the F-14. Thus, the Foxhound is a high-altitude
lengthy patrolling and interception of aerial interceptor while the F-14 is optimised for
targets at extreme ranges. They are also the destroying aerial targets at low and medium
world 's only fighters to be armed with long- altitudes. In order to gain an advantage over
range air-to-air missiles (the R-33 and the the F-14 at these altitudes the Russian inter-
AIM-54 Phoenix). The aircraft are equipped ceptor needs to fly 3,000-4,000 m (9,840-
with highly efficient avionics, first and fore- 13, 120 ft) above the adversary; yet you have
most the weapons control systems (the to give credit to the MiG-31: thanks to the
'Zaslon' and the AN/AWG-9 respectively). D30F-6 turbofans it is much better off at low
Both aircraft were in production for a long time and medium altitudes than its forerunner, the '72 Blue', a production MiG-318
and remain an important component of their MiG-25, whose R15B-300 turbojets were opti- operated by what was then the
respective nations' air defence forces into the mised for high supersonic speeds and PVO's 148th Combat &
Conversion Training Centre at
21st century. stratospheric altitudes.
Savasleyka AB. Note the
A comparative analysis of the performance The MiG-31 's main advantage over all deployed forward view periscope
parameters and manoeuvrability characteris- other currently existing interceptors is its ability in the rear cockpit.
tics of the MiG-31 with four R-33 missiles and to cruise at high Mach numbers for extended ...
142 MiG-31

.a.
MiG-31 '903 White', a company demonstrator in the same colour scheme as '374 White', 'cleans up' after take-off with a full weapons load of
four R·33s under the fuselage and two dummy R-40TDs on the wing pylons. The black IRST anti-glare panel under the nose is easily visible.
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 143

"§
'l
~
0
Q_

~
i?
~
,·~
.e
Q_

u;
~
g
"
I

t
J. "'
A US Navy Tomcat shows off its power in a vertical climb with the wings at sa• maximum sweep and six Phoenix missiles on the pylons.
The bulky AIM -54 requires special adapters to be fitted to the fuselage hard points.
144 MiG-31

4 periods. Th us, the combat radius at Mach frame made of heat-resistant steels (50%),
An Islamic Iranian Air Force 2.35 on internal fuel (without drop tanks) is duralumin (33%) and titanium (17%) is
F-14A·GR (6027) takes on fuel .
720 km (447 mi les). Th e ti me to effect such a wrapped around 16,300 kg (35,930 lb) of jet
The Tomcat's IFR probe is fully
retractable. maxim um-rad iu s intercept mi ssion and retu rn fuel with a high flash point. Consider that at
to base is onl y 40 minutes - an unprecedented ranges of 300, 500 and 700 km (186, 31 0 and
figure in modern fig hter aviation. 434 miles) the advantage over the F-14 is
A com parison of the MiG-31's and F-14's 1 minute 6 seconds , 3 mi nutes flat and 26 min-
efficiency as weapo ns delivery platforms utes 12 seconds respectively! Thus the report-
based on the time-to-range parameter ing name Foxhound turned out to be an apt
showed that the MiG-31 was superior to all one - and a compliment (contrary to the inten-
versions of the F-14. Given the same condi- tions of those who gave it) .
tions (ambient temperature etc.) , the Russian At the speeds and altitudes at which most
interceptor's maximum interception range is present-day fighters typical ly operate, how-
2-2 .5 times greater. Al so, th e MiG-31 attains a ever, the high-speed , high-altitude operation
given intercepti on range much quicker , the is nothing out of the ord inary. The combat
MiG-31B '52 Blue' about to take advantage g rowing rapidly as the range rad ius in subsonic mode (Mach 0.85) without
on fuel from an IL-78. increases; this demonst rates the overwhelm- drop tanks is 1,200 km (745 miles), increasing
" ing advantage of the Soviet design whose air- to 1 ,400 km (870 miles) with drop tanks .
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 145

The F-14 's range with drop tanks is 3,300

km (2,050 miles). The combat radius with six
AIM-54 AAMs at optimum altitude is 1,200 km .
If the mission is combat air patrol with one
hour's on-station loiter time at maximum
range from the carrier, the combat radius is
reduced to just 660 km (410 miles). In this
case , however, the aircraft's speed when
attacking an incoming target is Mach 1.3.
Obviously the F-14 per se is much more
fuel-efficient than the MiG-31. The ferry range
of both aircraft is similar, being about 3,300
km , but the Russian fighter has a fuel burn of
5.56 compared to only 2.62 kg/km (9.31b/mile)
for the US fighter - thanks mainly to the latter's
more fuel-efficient engines.
In a nutshell , the design of the MiG-31 and
the F-14 embodies fundamental differences
resulting from the different tactics formulated
as early as the two fighters ' preliminary devel-
opment stage. The Russian fighter is ideally full afterburner (both in level flight and in a ...
suited for intercepting fast targets at long climb) are far superior to the F-14A's; in sub- View from a tanker's aerial
refuelling system operator's
range in quick-reaction alert mode (or, in the sonic mode these characteristics are about
station as an F-148 in a
case of the MiG-31 B with in-flight refuelling equal. The MiG-31 's sustained turn rate at temporary three-tone camouflage
capability , in patrol mode as well). The F-14, speeds above Mach 1-1 .2 and altitudes (applied with a broom!) nudges
on the other hand, is designed for air defence between 5,000 and 10,000 m (16,400-32,800 closer, preparing to make
in combat air patrol mode, patrolling the air- ft) are 50 to 100 per cent higher than the contact. Note the drop tanks on
the additional hardpoints under
space at a considerable distance from the air- Tomcat's. Thus, in order to gain an advantage
the air intake trunks.
craft carrier; this makes it possible to keep a over the latter in horizontal and vertical
potent CAP with rapid reaction capability aloft manoeuvrability the MiG's crew needs to go
for a fairly long time. On the other hand , if a supersonic first.
carrier group is suddenly attacked by, say, a In constant-speed climbing manoeuvres The F-14's undernose pod
formation ofTu-22M3 Backfire-C strike aircraft the MiG-31 is superior to the F-14A in maxi- houses the IRST and the
AN/ALQ-100 ECM antenna.
carrying Kh-22 stand-off anti-shipping mis- mum bank angles, trajectory angle, turn and
Note the red anti-collision light,
siles, chances are that the F-14s standing on climb rates. a feature often found on Western
ORA duty on the carrier's deck will not be able A comparison of the power characteristics, fighters but not on Soviet ones.
to come within interception range in time to time required and tracks followed during ...
ward off the attack.
The American experts ' confidence in the
F-14A's adequate thrust and acceleration
characteristics lasted until the autumn of 1983 -
and was shaken when the first operational
MiG-31 s made their appearance in the Soviet
Far East. Even though the Foxhound clearly
was not designed as a dogfighter, during their
frequent encounters with US Navy fighters
during patrol missions the Soviet crews would
sometimes demonstrate the MiG-31 's ability
to outrun the Tomcat to their US colleagues . It
has to be admitted , though, that the Foxhound
stands virtually no chances against the Tom-
cat in a dogfight, since the MiG-31 's G limits
and maximum turn and roll rates are much
smaller than the F-14A's almost throughout
the speed and altitude envelope.
On the other hand, the MiG-31 's sustained
turn characteristics at supersonic speeds in
146 · · · MiG-31

September 1986. Even though the maximum

total thrust was increased by nearly 30%, this
did little to improve the fighter's maximum
speed. This is probably due to the increased
aerodynamic drag in the engines ' inlet ducts
and especially in the extension jetpipes which
had to be lengthened by 1.27 m (4ft 2 in) to
accommodate the shorter F11 0 engines. On
the other hand , acceleration and climb were
improved dramatically. Suffice it to say that
with an all-up weight of 25,500 kg (56,200 lb)
the F-148, as the F-14A Plus is known since
May 1991, climbs to 18,000 m (59,050 ft) in
just 50 seconds with maximum fuel but no
external stores. By comparison , a similarly
configured MiG-31 requires 7.9 minutes to
reach 10,000 m (32,800 ft).
As already mentioned , clearly the Russian
heavy fighter would be in for a hard time in
close-in fighting for which it is not optimised.
Still , let's imagine how the scenario would
develop if the red-starred 'dog' and the Amer-

From 1982 onwards many F-14s

• climb and acceleration shows that the
MiG-31 's ascendancy over the F-14 is
ican 'cat' engaged in a frightful free-for-all and
analyse both fighters ' efficiency in a dogfight.
were equipped with an AN/AXX-1 achieved at the expense of a much higher fuel We would have to consider such factors as
television camera set (TCS) under
consumption. This comes as no surprise, current thrust/weight ratio for each specific
the nose for stand-off identification
of aircraft not responding to IFF, since the Soviet fighter was designed for flight mode, wing loading, current lift/drag
with an AN/ALQ-126 jammer much higher speeds from the outset. ratio (as a measure of the current Mach num-
antenna underneath. Of course , it is hard to say for sure whether ber and angle of attack) and permissible lift
the Foxhound was the catalyst, but it was coefficient (as a measure of the permissible
The boat-tail fairing of an F-140, exactly in the mid-1980s that Grumman Aero- angle of attack).
showing the arrester hook, fuel space started work on upgrading the F-14A's The standard engagement conditions
jettison pipe, AN/ALQ-165 RHAWS
powerplant; this effort resulted in the F-14A used for dogfighting efficiency comparison
antenna (in the domed fairing) and
an AN/ALE-39 chaff/flare dispenser Plus powered by General Electric F11 0· are an altitude of 3,000 m (9,840 ft) , a speed
GE-400s rated at 12,250 kgp (27,000 lbst) in of Mach 0.85, half-filled internal fuel tanks, four
,.
(with room for another).
full afterburner which entered flight test in short-range air-to-air missiles and a full
ammunition supply for the built-in cannon(s) .
The main factor characterising a fighter's effi-
ciency in close-in combat is the G limit in a
sustained turn . The higher, the better; this
means the pilot can pull higher Gs and make
tighter turns without a catastrophic drop in
speed which would make the manoeuvre
impossible.
It should be noted at once that the two
fighters' G limit ratio is 1.48 in favour of the
F-148. In other words, if the MiG-31 enters a
4-G turn without losing speed , the F-148 can
follow it, pulling 6 Gs - also without losing
speed . Generally, a MiG-31 crew would be ill
advised to enter a prolonged dogfight against
the F-148 at high subsonic speeds where
modern fighters make the most of their agility.
In the rather unlikely event that the dogfight
commences at supersonic speeds, when the
manoeuvrability of any fighter leaves much to
be desired, the superfast MiG-31 will have
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 147

sustained turn characteristics which are only mistake the MiG-31 's crew could make; the ...
The port wing pylon of an F-14
10-15% lower than the Tomcat 's and a lot will adversary would surely try to slow down and
(suitably kinked to clear the main
depend on the initial turn trajectory - at least his advantage in G limit would be even higher gear door) carries an ejector
at the beginning of the skirmish . than the aforementioned figure of 1 .48 times . rack for an AIM-7 and a launch
However, the probability of such a scenario If you cannot get at your opponent's tail in rail for an AIM-9 Sidewinder
is very low indeed. Consider that the agility of sustained turns , and one or two tight turns 'on IR-homing missile.

a fighter is highest at high subsonic speeds the spur of the moment' might prove decisive ,
F-14A-125-GR BuNo 161621 /
(which applies to the MiG-31 as well). If the the available G limits come into consideration . NL-200 of VF-111 'Sundowners'
dogfight begins at supersonic speeds, trying However, at high subsonic and supersonic lets loose with an AIM-54C.
to maintain a high speed would be the worst speeds the available G limit is determined by
"'
148 MiG-31

The MiG-31 is not compatible with the R-73

short-range AAM ; for close encounters it is
armed with the less sophisticated R-60M heat-
seeking AAMs which are inferior both to the
R-73 and to the AIM-9M Sidewinder in terms
of power/ballistics, agility and infra-red coun-
termeasures resistance. As it is, the R-60M no
longer meets current requirements regarding
all-aspect engagement capability ; as com-
pared to state-of-the-art 'dogfight missiles' it
may be termed as having limited all-aspect
engagement capability (it is intended for self-
defence or for attacking low-manoeuvrability
targets at close range).
In a nutshell , dogfighting is expressly not
recommended for Foxhound crews , and the
crew's best choice is a 'hit-and-run' tactic -
to make aU-turn and depart in full afterburner
... the fighter's operational G limit which is 7.5 for before they come within range of the adver-
A live R-40TD medium-range all versions of the F-14 and 5.0 for the MiG-31 sary's weapons if the MiG-31 fails to score a
heat-seeking missile under the
(that is, the ratio is again 1.5 in favour of the 'kill ' at long range.
starboard wing of a MiG-31.
Tomcat).
Also, in supersonic mode the F-14 can Weapons Control Systems Compared
have a higher wing sweep than the MiG-31 Since the MiG-31 and the F-14A are both long-
(68° versus 41 °). This means the American rangefast interceptors, they are both intended
interceptor has higher induced drag , which mainly for beyond visual range (BVR) missile
allows it to bleed off excessive speed quicker attacks against large aerial targets such as
and initiate a tighter turn. bombers , transports, airborne early warning
A comparison of the available G limits at and control (AEW&C) aircraft, aerial refuelling
speed between Mach 0.3 and Mach 0.6 also tankers and so on. The results of BVR combat
gives a ratio of 1.47 in favour of the F-148. depend largely on the performance of the
The port wing pylon of this Thus it is highly inadvisable for the MiG pilot to interceptor's mission avionics suite (target
MiG-31 carries an APU-60-2 initiate a series of manoeuvres below Mach acquisition and lock-on range , target tracking
adapter for two R-60M short-
0.6, as it causes the Mach 3 fighter to lose stability and ECM resistance) , as well as on
range heat-seeking AAMs. The
variance in the colour of the two
speed abruptly and far more rapidly than the the performance of its long- and medium-
missiles' seeker heads is adversary. This rapid loss of speed and the range AAMs . Interception range is another

,.
noteworthy. onset of critical angles of attack may prove
fatal for such a large and sluggish aircraft.
crucial parameter; this is where the intercep-
tor's speed, rate of climb (time to height) and
acceleration time to high Mach numbers
come into the picture.
It should be noted that the performance
figures of the F-14 's AN/AWG-9 fire control
radar published in the Western aeronautical
press in the mid-1970s were positively stag-
gering. The specified target acquisition range
in head-on mode was no less than 315 km
(195 miles) ; the radar was reportedly capable
of tracking 24 targets while guiding missiles to
six priority threats! Later, however, the West-
ern media published a more modest guaran-
teed 'kill' range figure of 185 km (115 miles) .
At a glance, the performance of the
MiG-31 's Model 8B radar appears far less
impressive, with an acquisition range in head-
on mode of only 130 km (80.75 miles) and a
capability to track ten targets while attacking
six priority threats. It is also heavier than the
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 149

American radar . Yet , don't let's make hasty

conclusions. The major difference between
the two radars lies in the antenna design - that
is, the beam scanning principle employed .
The mechanically scanned antenna of the
AN/AWG-9 allows the radar to either scan the
airspace ahead according to a preset pro-
gramme, tracking targets intermittently as it
moves, or to track a single selected target
continuously. In contrast , the phased-array
antenna of the Modei8B radar making up part
of the RP-31 (Zaslon) weapons control system
allows the beam to be moved almost instantly
to any given point of the radar's field of view.
The difference in antenna types has influ-
enced the overall structure of the AN/AWG-9
and RP-31 (Zaslon) weapons control systems.
Since the former's mechanically scanned
antenna cannot provide for simultaneous illu-
mination of several targets is such a way as to
allow terminal guidance of the missiles , the
Hughes Aircraft company utilised semi-
active/active radar homing seeker heads on
the AIM-54A and AIM-54C to provide multiple lion of 15-20 m' (161.3-215.0 sq ft). Smaller .a.
target attack capability. In contrast, the Zaslon aircraft (that is, fighter-type targets) with an This diagram illustrates the field
of view of the MiG-31's Model BB
WCS utilises only semi-active radar homing RCS of 3-5m' (32.25-53.76 sq ft) can only be
fire control radar.
when attacking multiple targets. The electron- detected by the American radar at a maximum
ically scanned beam ensures the required distance of 130-140 km (80.75-87 miles) , Besides attacking aerial targets
target illumination time. which is much the same as for the Russian on its own, the MiG-31 can pass
target information to 'friendly'
It should be noted that the AN/AWG-9 's radar. By comparison , a target with an RCS of
fighters at up to 200 km (124
advertised acquisition range applies to 10m' (1 07.5 sq ft) is detected by the MiG-31 's
bomber-type targets with a radar cross-sec- radar at up to 280 km (17 4 miles). ,.
miles) range.

_,.---,..s SR-71 A

MIG- 31 8-52

B-IB
~

~
AGM-868

MIG-31
150 MiG-31

...
The pilot's cockpit of an F-14A.
The instrument panel features
two large displays, one of which
is the Vertical Display Indicator
{VDI). Note the vertical strip
gauges to the left of the displays.

~
The weapons systems operator's
workstation of the F-14A is
dominated by the Tactical
Situation Display, with a detail
data display and the weapons
selector panel above it.
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 151

c
0

1l
"'
E
~

...
In comparison, the MiG-31's front
cockpit appears unsophisticated,
with conventional electro-
mechanical instruments
throughout; the primary flight
instruments are grouped in a neat
T shape. The white line down the
middle is used for aligning the
control stick during spin
recovery. The turquoise colour of
the instrument panel, typical of
Soviet aircraft, reduces pilot
fatigue, easing the strain on the
eyes. Note the sticker on the
instrument panel with the
aircraft's callsign (RA-27552)
used for working with civil air
traffic control centres.

~
The WSO's cockpit of the MiG-31
has a centrally mounted radar
display, with the tactical situation
displays on the right and back-up
flight instruments on the left.
 ment. It should be noted that the Model 8B
radar's accuracy in measuring these parame-
ters is several times higher than the
AN/AWG-9 's. This accounts for the fact that
US Navy F-14s never managed to score a 'kill '
with their Phoenix missiles in actual combat
against Libyan aircraft during the skirmishes
in the Gulf of Sidra in 1982-84 and against Iraqi
aircraft during operations Desert Storm (1991)
and Desert Fox (1999). In the latter case a pair
of F-14Ds fired two AIM-54Cs at a pair of Iraqi
Air Force MiG-25P interceptors which , unsur-
prisingly, successfully evaded the missiles.
The reason for this embarrassing perfor-
mance is evident; by fitting a radar with rather
E E E limited capabilities (due to the emitter's low
.X .X
.X
0 0 0 power and hence limited range and a small
0 0 0 field of view) the designers of the AIM-54 suc-
<D C\1 co
ceeded only in achieving a price hike but not
an improvement in efficiency. As the AIM-54's
seeker head goes from semi-active to active
radar homing mode, the target aircraft's
RHAWS usually gives the pilot timely warning
that the type of radar threat has changed. The
target then immediately turns on a reciprocal
heading , losing altitude and causing the
AIM-54 to lose lock-on immediately; the
seeker head's narrow field of view leaves the
missile no chances of tracking the target.
The constant SARH principle used by the
Model 8B radar in conjunction with the R-33
missile offers far greater advantages, since
the missiles fired by the MiG-31 are constantly

"'
This diagram shows how a flight
Also , even though the Model 8B radar has
shorter potential detection range than its US
controlled by the interceptor's armament con-
trol system. The F-14 appears to have run into
of four MiG-31 scan keep a strip
up to 800 km (500 miles) wide
counterpart , the electronic beam scanning problems with its advertised multiple target
under control. compensates for the difference in range dur- tracking/attack capability; there is no other
ing target tracking. For all practical purposes explanation of the fact that all USN Tomcats
the two weapons control systems have identi- currently in service have had their AN/AWG-9
cal target tracking/weapons guidance range. radars replaced with AN/APG-71 radars capa-
However, the Model 8B radar's phased-array ble of tracking only ten targets while guiding
antenna gives it a truly overwhelming advan- missiles to eight priority threats. The
tage as regards the multiple target tracking AN/APG-71 's capabilities are similar to those
and engagement area. The orthogonal pro- of the upgraded Russian radar forming part of
jection of the radar's field of view is only 420 the experimental MiG-31M interceptor's
square degrees for the American radar versus RP-31 M (Zaslon-M) WCS. In the course of tri-
18,200 sq deg for the Soviet unit! This of als the MiG-31M demonstrated its ability to
course means it takes a much larger number shoot down low-flying targets (cruise missiles)
of Tomcats than of Foxhounds to defend an at 280 km (174 miles) range! As for the
area of a given size. It is equally obvious that AN/AWG-9 , trials showed its inability to suc-
in the same tactical situation the MiG-31 will cessfully guide missiles to more than two
be capable of attacking a lot more targets than targets at a time, which again is explained
the F-14A. by poor accuracy in determining the targets '
Due to the different scanning methods current co-ordinates .
employed the two radars utilise different data Speaking of which , it was exactly this fac-
processing methods during target detection tor that led the American designers to reduce
and target range/angle co-ordinate measure- the AIM-54C 's maximum launch range to 150
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 153

km (93 miles). This range is achieved by giv- were so unexpectedly impressive that the ...
ing the missile a maximum speed of Mach 6. Soviet Air Force and Air Defence Force Gen- A Rus sian Air Force MiG-31
eral Headquarters represe ntatives wou ld not tucks up its undercarriage a few
The Soviet interceptor cannot boast such a
seconds after becoming airborne
long reach: the R-33 has a maximum launch believe them until they received the official from Savasleyka AB. No external
range of 120 km (74.5 miles) , accelerating to range instrumentation data read outs. stores are carried on the eight
Mach 3.5-4. On the other hand, the American It has to be said, however, th at the Tom- hardpoints, although the inboard
missile's high speed does not give it any tan- cat's punch has been vastly increased by the w ing pylons carry APU-60-2
racks. Note how the main gear
gible advantage over the Soviet one; whi le integration of the AI M-120 AMRAAM
bogies somersault as they
having a similar launch weight to the R-33 (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile)
retract; note also the unit badge
(463 kg/ 1,020 lb and 480 kg/1 ,058 lb respec- featuring active radar homing . The AMRAAM on the air int ak e.
tively), the AIM-54 is powered by a solid-fuel decidedly outclasses the R-40TD which is the
rocket motor offering the largest possible MiG-31 's medium-range weapon . True
impulse but a very short burn time . This effec- enough , Russia has a similar missile - the
MiG-31 '51 Blue' flies w ith the
tively means the motor burns out at the crucial R-77 (aka RW-AE), dubbed 'Amraamski ' in the
airbrakes partly open to keep
moment of the attack , the missile being pro- West, but no information is forthcoming about formation with the camera ship.
pelled towards the target at the te rminal guid - this weapon being fielded in any quantity ...
ance stage by inertia alone. If the target as
much as starts climbing, the chances of a 'kill '
are obviously greatly diminished ; if the target
unleashes electronic countermeasures or
takes evasive action, 'kill ' probability starts
approaching zero.
Now, the power and ballistic parameters of
the upgraded Russian R-33S AAM used on
the upgraded MiG-31 B and MiG-3 1BS have ~

I"
been improved vastly. Suffice it to say that
during trials in the summer of 1989 the R-33S
showed a substantial improvement over the "~
~
baseline R-33 sans suffixe in both 'ki ll ' range
and 'kill' altitude. In fact , the altitude results
~------------------------------------------------------------~ !
 US Navy fighters often wear
• worth mentioning. Li kewise, no proof is avai l-
able so far of the R-77 being integrated on the
cessing system of the RP-31 (Zaslon) WCS
includes the Argon-15 digital mainframe com-
striking colour schemes, as
MiG-31 as part of a mid-l ife update, despite puter with an input-output device and spe-
illustrated by this pair of F-14As
operated by VF-124 'Gunfighters' the many claims from RSK MiG and the Russ- cialised digital/analogue modules performing
from USS Nimitz. Note the anti· ian Ministry of Defence that the upgraded preliminary processing of the data supplied
collision lights under the nose MiG-31 BM is capable of carrying up to fou r of by the radar and the IRST. Both systems obvi-
and at the lin tips (port, front; these missiles on underwing pylons. ous ly utilise an hierarchical structure and
starboard, rear) positioned to
A few words need to be said about the share the same design principle.
provide full 360" coverage.
components of both interceptors ' weapons A comparison of the CDC-54008 and
control systems. The infra-red search & track Argon-15 mainframe computers shows that
units (the Foxhound's Model BTP and the the former is superior in such aspects as
Tomcat's JR) share the same operational processor speed and memory. On the whole,
modes : autonomous mode, joint operation however, the weapons control systems of
with the radar, search, si ngle-target tracking the MiG-31 and the F-14 have broadly com-
and bu ilt-in test mode. Neither IRST is capa- parable performance. Where the Soviet sys-
ble of tracking several targets at once. The JR tem lags behind is primarily in size and weight
automatically defi nes the number of targets (the Argon-15 mainframe computer is bulkier
within the radar's resol ution limits; the Soviet and heavier) and in the parameters of the
BTP is capable of showing the number of tar- visual display system . This is largely compen-
gets only in visual mode. sated by the higher capabilities of the phased-
The mission is handled by the AWG-9 's array radar and the appropriate target data
digital data process ing system utilising sev- processing capability in single-target mode;
eral specialised analogue processors, the in multiple target mode the MiG-31 's radar
CDC-54008 digital mainframe computer and actually has better performance than the
a system of interfaces . The digital data pro- F-14's.
Foxhound Versus Tomcat 155

Combat Capabilities and Efficiency

The aerial intercept systems built around the
MiG-31 and the F-14 are designed to fulfil a
wide range of missions associated with
destroying hostile aerial vehicles. In the case
of both fighters , the two main missions are the
interception of aerial targets within a wide
speed and altitude range , regard less of the
target's evasive action and electronic coun-
termeasures , and destruction of enemy fig ht-
ers in beyond-visual-range combat.
One of an aerial intercept system's key
parameters is the interception zone (the area
within which the aircraft can destroy incoming
targets at average range with the required 'kil l'
probability) . Considering all of the above, it is
obvious that the upgraded MiG-31 surpasses
the Tomcat as far as target speeds are co n-
cerned , especial ly in pursuit mode, thanks to
its wider speed envelope. On the other hand,
the F-14 comes out on top as far as target alti-
tude is concerned thanks to the AIM-54
Phoenix missile's higher G limits. It has to be
meter of its effi cie ncy. Th e co mbat potential is
regarded as th e ratio of the number of aircraft
•
Three MiG-31 Bs pass over
Moscow in Vee formation on 9th
said , though, that the F-14 is markedly inferior used to fu lfil a give n missio n to th e number of
May 1995 during the grand
in a head-on BVR missile engagement when aircraft lost to enemy action , providing th e lat- parade on occasion of the 50th
flying above, or at the same altitude as, the ter does not exceed a specified limit (after all , VE-Day anniversary.
MiG-31. This is due to the latter's larger multi- every 'friend ly' aircraft lost is one too many!).
ple target attack zone and longer launch The combat potential may also be assessed
range of the upgraded R-338 missile, which as the ki ll -to-loss ratio during a missio n.
gives the MiG-3 1 ascendancy in medium- to Acco rdin g to estimates made by th e Ru ssian A pair of MiG-31 Bs from
Savasleyka cruises over the
long-range combat. MoD's 2nd Central Research Inst itute, the
Russian countryside near
An aerial intercept system 's combat co mbat potential of th e F-14A equals 60-70% Nizhniy Novgorod.
potential may be regarded an integrated para- of th e MiG-31 's combat potential. T
156 Foxhound Versus Tomcat

Powerplant 2 x Solov'yov D30F-6 2 x Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-412A

Thrust, kgp (lbst):
dry 9,500 (20,940) 5,600 (12,345)
reheat 15,500 (34,170) 9,480 (20.900)
Internal fuel supply, kg (lb) 15,500 (34,170) 7,460 (16,446)
Maximum take-off weight, kg (lb) 41 ,000-43,000 (90,390-94,800) 31 ,000-33,000 (68,340-72, 750)
Thrust/weight ratio at take-off 0.76 0.72
Maximum speed, km/h (mph):
at sea level 1,450 (900) 1,450 (900)
at altitude 3,000 (1 ,863) 2,350 (1 ,460)
Minimum control speed, km/h (mph) 450 (281) 400 (250)
Service ceiling , m (ft) 20,600 (67,580) 18,500 (60,690)
Glimit 5 7.5
Target interception range on internal fuel , km (miles):
in afterburner mode 720 (447) at Mach 2.35 250 (155) at Mach 1.5
at full military power 1,250 (776) at Mach 0.8 800 (497) at Mach 0.8
Weapons control system RP-31 (Zaslon) AN/AWG-9
Radar antenna Phased array Slotted array
Bean scanning range:
azimuth ±70' ±65'
elevation +70'/-60' ±60'
Number of targets tracked at a time 10 24
Number of targets attacked at a time 4 6
Multiple target tracking zone, sq deg 18,200 420
Fighter-type target* detection range, km (miles):
head-on mode 120-130 (74.5-80. 75) 130-140 (80.75-87) t
pursuit mode 45-60 (28-37.25) 60 (37.25)
WCS data displays:
pilot's cockpit PPI-70V HUD, ITO-L HUD, 2 tactical info displays
tactical info display

WSO's cockpit tactical info display, 2 cathode-ray tube displays

overview display
Mainframe computer Argon-15 CDC-54008
IRSTsystem 8TP JR
Armament control system SU0-31 AN/ASN-92
ECM/ESM suite:
radar homing and warning system Beryoza-ML AN/ALR-45
chaff/flare dispensers APP-50 AN/ALE-39
active jammer AN/ALQ-126
Command/data link equipment APD-518, KRU ASW-27
Armament:
long-range AAMs 4 x R-33 61 AIM-54A Falcon
medium-range AAMs 2 X R-40TD 6 1AI M-7F/E Sparrow
short-range AAMs 4 X R-60M 21 AIM-9 Sidewinder
cannon (calibre, mm/no. of rounds) Gryazev/Shipoonov GSh-6-23 (23/260) General Electric M61 A1 Vulcan (20/675)
bombs 14 xMk84

*Radar cross-section 3 m' (32.25 sq ft); t Some sources state the AN/AWG-9's acquisition range as 240 km (149 miles)
- MiG-31 157

PART FIVE

STRUCTURAL DESIGN,
SYSTEMS & ARMAMENT
The MiG-31 in Detail
158 MiG-31

Type engine and equipment servicing. Overall

Twin-engined two-seat heavy interceptor. length 20.62 m (67 It 7'/a in), maximum cross-
section area 5.7 m' (61.3 sq It).
Structurally the MiG-31's airframe is broadly Technologically the fuselage consists of
similar to that of the MiG-25. Part of the struc- numerous welded and riveted panels and is
ture is made of aluminium alloys capable of divided into the forward fuselage (nose probe
withstanding operating temperatures of to frame 3) which includes the cockpit section ,
150°C (300°F) ; areas subject to strong kinetic the avionics bay aft of the cockpits (frames 3-
heating at supersonic speeds are made of tita- 4), the air intake section (frames 2-6), the fuel
nium and stainless steel. The latter material tank bay (frames 4-12) , the aft fuselage
accounts for 50% of the structure, with tita- (frames 12-14) which incorporates the engine
nium and aluminium making up 16% and 33% bays, and the tailcone aft of frame 14. The
respectively ; the remaining 1% is other mate- fuselage has 57 frames and webs ; the princi-
rials. The structural elements are mostly pal load-bearing frames are Nos 1 to 6, 68, 7,
joined by automatic and semi-automatic spot 9, 10, 10A, and 11 through 14.
welding and argon-arc welding. The fuselage structure is made of VNS-2 ,
VNS-5, El-878, SN-3 El-703, VNL-3 and VL-1
Fuselage high-strength stainless steels, 019 and
Monocoque stressed-skin structure with a VAL-10 high-strength aluminium alloys , and
cross-section changing from circular (at the OT4-1 , VT-20, VT-21L and VT-22 high-
front) to oval with the longer axis vertical (in strength titanium alloys.
the cockpit area) to almost rectangular (near The forward fuselage up to frame No 4 is
the air intakes) to oval with the longer axis hor- made chiefly of riveted aluminium and
izontal. The fuselage features a detachable includes a dielectric radome, a radar set bay
conical dielectric radome and numerous (web No 1 to frame No 1) , the cockpits (frames
removable or hinged access panels for 1-3) and an avionics bay (frames 3-4).
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 159

...
The forward fuselage of a
MiG-31 . The small dielectric
panels near the cockpit are
unpainted here.

The tandem cockpits are pressu rised and Th e cockpits are separated by a sloping
fitted with ejection seats. They are enclosed bulkhead (frame 2) and a 10-mm panel of
by a common canopy with individual aft- A0-120 Pl exiglas. The aft cock pit termi nates
hinged sections which can be partially in a likewise sloping bulkhead (frame 3); the
opened at taxying speeds up to 30 km/h (18 bulkheads serve as attachment points for the
mph) . The WSO 's canopy has a retractable ejection seat rail s.
forward vision periscope enabling him to fly The detachable fibreglass radome is
and land the aircraft. The windshield side attached to web No. 1 by nuts and bolts. Bays
quadrants, the glazing of the hinged sections below and aft of the cockpits house navigation
and of the section in between are made of 10- and com munications equipment, as well as
mm ("/, in) S0-200 heat-resistant Plexiglas part of the electric system com ponents. The
(steklo organicheskoye) . The optical ly fl at nosewheel well is located between frames 1A
bird proof windscreen is a 36-mm (1"/, in) and 3V. Th e fuselage sides incorporate
The nose of MiG-31 f/ n 3608,
sandwich of three layers of silica glass with attachments for the air intakes and crane han-
electric de-icer fi lm. dling lugs. ,.
showing the stowed IFR probe.
160 MiG-31

Th e centre fuselage section between

frames 4 and 12 is a welded structure of high-
strength stainless steel incorporating attach-
ments for the wings , air intakes, main gear
units, engines, fins and missile ejector racks.
Th e MiG-3 1's air intakes are much larger
and more comp lex than those of the MiG-25.
They are stressed-skin structures with load-
bearing removable panels. The inlet ducts
start at frame 2 and extend along the fuselage
sides to frame 6; the cross-section changes
from rectangu lar at the front to circular
between frames 6 and 7 (at the engine com-
pressor faces) . The air intakes have sharp lips,
the side panels slanting aft in profile. Intake
cross-section is adjusted by movable lower
lips and horizontal flow control ramps to
ensure stable engine operation throughout
.l The cockpits of a probeless MiG-31 (izdeliye 01 ) with both canopies closed. the speed and altitude envelope. The ramps'
actuators are controlled by the ARV-27 auto-
matic intake control system (avto maht
regooleerovaniya vozdookhoza bornika) .
The upper part of the centre fuselage and
the space above the inlet ducts house seven
integral fuel tanks (this portion of the fuselage
is referred to as the fuel tank section). The
lower centre fuselage houses fuel system
compo nents.
The centre fuselage (fuel tank section) is
the section subject to the greatest stress and
strain, as it is it absorbs the load from the
wings, tai l unit (via the aft fuselage) and land-
ing gear, as well as the external aerodynamic
loads and the air pressure in the inlet ducts
and fuel tanks. It is the main structural com-
ponent the entire airframe is built around. The
fuel tank section incorporates ten mainframes
.l The cockpits of an IFR-capable MiG-31 (izdeliye 01 DZ) with both canopies open. (Nos 4 to 6, 6B, 7, 9, 10, 1OA, 11 and 12) and
is made of high strength stainless steel (grades
VNS-2 , El-878, VNS-5 , SN-3 and VN L-3).
The gradually tapering fuselage spine
housing the contro l runs extends from the
cockpit canopy to the brake parachute con-
tainer. Hydraulic, pneumatic and air-condi-
tioning equipment is located in bays along the
fuselage sides.
The rear fuselage incorporates attachment
points fo r the fins and stabilators (frames 13
and 14) , as well as for the afterburners; it also
accommodates some engine accessories.
Three equipment bays faced with ATM-3 heat
insulation are located in the upper aft fuselage
between frames 12-13, 13-14 and 14B-14V.
These house control system, fuel system and
hydraulic system components. The tailcone
consists of a centrebody welded from El-703
.l Another view of the open canopies. Each canopy is actuated by twin hydraulic rams. steel and a detachable outer portion .
Structural Design, Systems & Armament · - "' ·· "" · 161

...
The cockpits of MiG-31M '056
Blue'. The one·piece curved
windscreen is clearly visible. The
glazing area is increased in the
front cockpit but reduced in the
rear cockpit, as there is no
longer any provision for the
back-seater to fly the aircraft.

'11 Red', a probeless MiG-31

(izde/iye 01), undergoes
refurbishment; every access
panel and port on the fuselage is
open for inspection. Note the
green heat insulation blankets
on the insides of the avionics
bays' access panels.
~

Wings
Cantilever shoulder-mounted wings of trape-
zoidal planform with small leading-edge root
extensions (LERXes). Leading-edge sweep
41 °02' on most of the span and 70°30' on the
LERXes; aspect ratio 2.93, taper 3.14, inci-
dence 0°, anhedral 5°. Wing span 13.456 m
(44ft 1'/, in); total wing area (including centre
section but excluding LERXes) 61.6 m'
(662.36 sq ft) , the detachable wing panels
accounting for 41.0 m' (440.86 sq ft).
The wings are one-piece three-spar struc-
tures featuring camber and thin airfoils with a
sharp leading edge - TsAGI P44M at the roots
and TsAGI P1 01 M further outboard. Thick-
ness-to-chord ratio is 3.7% at the roots, 4.1 %
at mid-span and 4.48% at the tips.
The wings are fitted with four-section lead-
ing-edge flaps (deflected 13°), two-section
flaps 2.682 m (8 ft 9"/, in) long (max deflec-
tion 30°) and two-section flaperons 1.7 m (5 ft
6"/" in) long (maximum deflection ±20°). The
flaperons may droop 5° in which case they are
deflected 15° up and 25° down. Total flap area
is 5.8 m' (62.36 sq ft).
The wings are attached to the fuselage by
six fixtures each; each wing incorporates two
integral fuel tanks The wing spars, stringers,
ribs and skins are made of VNS-2 and VNS-5
high-strength stainless steel and OT4-1 and
VT-20 titanium sheet. Besides the three spars,
the front false spar and rear stringer are the
main longitudinal structural elements. The trail-
ing edges of the flaps and flaperons have a
"" 162 - MiG-31

~
A hangar? A shed? No sir! These are the sad
remains of a MiG-31 which was scrapped alter
running out of service life. More precisely, this is
the centre fuselage section seen from the rear. In
the middle is one of the integral fuel tanks. The
walls and other structural members feature
stiffening ribs; note the fuel line at the bottom of
the inter-tank bulkhead and the hollow fuselage
spine on top. The 'tunnels' on both sides used to
accommodate the engines' inlet ducts.

~
Another view of the same hulk shows the air
intakes. The insides of the air intakes' inner faces
(with Vee-shaped fairings connecting them to the
forward fuselage sides) and the front wall of the
No.1 fuselage fuel tank are never seen unless the
aircraft is 'beheaded' like this.

~
The starboard air intake of the MiG-31 . The
straight edge of the outer lace makes an
interesting contrast with the complex curvature of
the inner lace.

~
This view of the port air intake illustrates well the
sharply raked outer lace. Note the ECM antenna
fairing near the leading edge.
 Structural Design, Systems & Armament 163

·~
The lower lips of the air intakes deflect
downwards on the ground and in low-speed flight
to maximise the airflow.

The centre fuselage and main landing gear units.

Note the cannon fa iring just aft of the starboard
main gear unit.
~~T

The open brake parachute housing of a production

MiG-31. The housing forms the rear ex1remity of
the fuselage spine.
T

c
0
~
0

"'E
~ -'---~-------=--
 ...
Upper view of the centre fuselage. The covers
forming the fuselage spine have been removed for
maintenance, revealing the wiring and the yellow
fuel lines housed inside. Note the angular
wing/fuselage fairings.

,. ...
The forward doors of the mainwheel wells double
as airbrakes. All landing gear doors remain open
when the gear is down.

c
0 Rear view of the port forward main gear
"E
0
(!)
door/airbrake. Note the weight-saving holes in
E
~ ,.
the inner skin of the door.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 165

c
0

~
(!)
E
~
...
The port wing panel, showing the
boundary layer fence and the
wingtip-mounted RHAWS
antenna. Note that the aileron
terminates some way short of
the wingtip .

...
The port aileron seen from
below. The ailerons are
manufactured in two
independently actuated sections
which move in concert; the push-
pull rods of the outboard
sections are located below, while
those of the inboard sections are
located above.

The undersurface of the

starboard wing. Note that the
flaps are also built in two

,.
sections.

c
0

~
(!)
E

~------------------------~~----------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~
166 MiG-31

c
0
"E
0
(!)
E
~

"'
The starboard vertical tail; the dielectric fin cap conceals an "'
The port vertical tail. Note that the dielectric fin cap is larger on the port fin and
antenna, and a strake aerial is installed below. the leading edge is also dielectric, accommodating an additional antenna.

The rear fuselage underside. The aircraft is jacked up for a wheel change. The canted ventral fins with dielectric forward portions are easily seen.
T
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 167

......
The MiG-31 ' s fins sometimes
served as 'billboards', as
illustrated by these examples at
Savasleyka. Left: the badge of a
Guards air squadron named after
M . I. Sementsov (a fox with an
ace of diamonds); right: the logo
of the Rusavia publishing house.
These views show well the fin-to-
fuselage joint.

.,

c
0

"0
"'E
~~~~------~~~~------~~--------~L-------~~~ ~
... ...
The inboard face of the port fin; the navigation light has been The outer face of the starboard fin , showing the assorted aerials.
removed.
 ......
Top left: The starboard main landing gear unit,
showing the bogie frame, the jury strut inboard of
the oleo leg, the ventrally positioned rocking
damper and the relative position of the wheels.
The front wheels are positioned inboard so as not
to hamper the bogie's rotation during retraction , a
measure that allows the bogies to stow in the
smallest possible space.

Centre left: The main gear oleos are canted

outwards and inclined aft when extended. Each
mainwheel well is closed by three doors.

Bottom left: This view shows the bogie rotation

jack on top of the bogie, the brake mechanism
inside the front wheel, the cooling vents in the rear
wheel and the cannon fairing with blast gas vents.

•
The port stabilator/luselage joint
bonded honeycomb structure; the LE flaps
have a riveted structure. Each wing has two
Top, centre and below right: Typically of Soviet
combat aircraft, the nose gear unit features a large
mud/ snow/ slush guard for wet season (and
and ventral fin. attachment points for a missile pylon and two possibly soft-field) operations. The forward nose
more for a 'wet' pylon designed for carrying a gear door segment incorporates two landing lights
drop tank (and also 'dogfight missiles'). and a taxi light. Note the aft-mounted breaker strut
and the cylinders of the steering
mechanism/ shimmy damper on the oleo strut.
Tail Unit
Cantilever twin-fin tail unit. The low-mounted
The port stabilator of a MiG-31 horizontal tail consists of slab stabilisers (sta- box of each fin doubles as an integral fuel tank.
undergoing refurbishment; the bilators) of riveted construction. Leading edge The rudders are attached to the fins on three
structure is coated with primer, sweep 5°22', anhedral 1°25', span 8.75 m (28 hinges each. The detachable fin tip fairings are
hence the odd green colour. The ft 8'/, in) , area 9.82 m' (1 05.59 sq ft) The lead- made of glassfibre/Textolite composite and
unpainted leading edge sheath
ing edges are covered with titanium skin and enclose antennas. The leading edge fairings
made of heat-resistant steel is
clearly visible. are left unpainted . are also detachable; the port fin leading edge
T The twin vertical tails consist of fins with is riveted from 019 duralumin while the star-
inset rudders. They are canted outboard 8° and board fin leading edge is made of Textolite.
The port and starboard have a total area of 15.6 m' (167.9 sq ft) ; lead- Two ventral fins canted outboard 12° are
stabilators; the raked tips are
ing-edge sweep is 54°. The vertical tails have a attached to fuselage frames 12-14. They are
thus profiled to increase the
tailplane's resistance to flutter. riveted structure and are identical , except for likewise of riveted structure and have dielec-
...... the leading edges and tip fairings. The spar tric forward sections .
 Structural Design, Systems & Armament 169

c
0

~
"'
E

~~~~~~~~~------------------~--~ ~

c c
0 0
'2
0 ~
"'E "'E
~ ~~~~--~~--~--~~~~----------~~ ~

c
0

~
"'E
L-----~-~~~-=~~==~:=~~--------~ ~
c
~0
"'E
~ ~---....;.;,;,.;....;.-

A Solov'yov 030F-6S
afterburning turbofan on a
transport dolly at a maintenance
shop. This view shows well the
long afterburner casing ; a pan on
wheels is placed under the
nozzle to capture any oil dripping
from the afterburner assembly •

...
The axlsymmetrical convergent·
divergent nozzle of the D30F-6S.
Several nozzle petals are
missing (as they should be- see
opposite page!) , revealing the
inner row of petals.

Three-quarter s front view of the

030F-6S, showing the ventrally
located accessory gearbox and
the fixed air intake spinner.
T

c
0

~
"'
E

~ ~--------------a-~~--~
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 171

Land ing Gear

Hydraulical ly retractable tricycle type; wheel
track 3.638 m (11 ft 11'/, in) , whee lbase
7.113 m (23ft 4 in) . The levered-suspension
aft-retracting nose unit is equipped with twin
660 x 200 mm (25.98 x 7.87 in) KT 176 whee ls
and a mud/snow/slush guard. The forward-
retracting main units have twin-wheel bogies
with 950 x 300 mm (37.54 x 11 .81 in) KT- 175
wheels in a staggered-tandem arrangement
(front wheel inboard , rear wheel outboard).
During retraction the bogies rotate nose-u p
around the oleos to lie inverted in a horizo ntal
position under the engines' inlet ducts. All
units are equipped with oleo-pneumatic
shock absorbers and all wheels are fitted with
brakes.
The nosewheel well is closed by a forward
door segment linked to the oleo (and incor-
porating landing and taxi lights) and two lat-
eral door segments . Each mainwheel we ll is
closed by a forward-hinged panel , which
opens on ly while the gear is in transit, a main
door and a small rear door segment (both out-
ward-open ing). The forward mainwheel well
doors double as airbrakes with a total area of
1.39 m' (14.9 sq ft) which can be deflected 39°.
In addition to the wheel brakes, two cruci-
form parach utes with a total area of 50 m'
(537.6 sq ft) are provided to shorten the land-
ing run; these are extracted by two drag
chutes each with an area of 0.05 and 1 .5 m'
(0.53 and 16.12 sq ft) respective ly. Th e brake
parachute container is located dorsal ly
between the engine nozzles and opens
upwards.

Powerplant
Two Solov'yov D30F-6S afterburning turbo-
fans (often referred to in paperwork as D30F-6
or izdeliye 48) rated at 9,140-9,270 kgp "'"'
A 2,500-litre (550 Imp gal)
(20,400-20, 690 lbst) at full military power and auxiliary fuel tank under the port
14,965-15,510 kgp (33,400-34,620 lbst) in full wing of a MiG-31- Such tanks are
afterbu rn er. Th e MiG-31M is powered by fitted for ferry flights only_
uprated D30F-6M engi nes.
The D30F-6S is a two-spool turbofan with "'
As thi s view shows, the MIG-31's
a fixed-area subsonic air intake, a five-stage engines are placed so close that
axial low-pressure (LP) co mpressor, a ten- the nozzles overlap, requiring
stage axial hi gh-pressure (HP) com pressor, a several outer petals on each
engine to be removed and
can-annular co mbustion chamber w ith 12
special fairings to be fitted
flame tubes, two-stage axial HP an d LP tur- above and below the gap.
bines (the former has air-coo led blades), an
afterburner and a co nvergent-divergent ....
The MiG-31M Is powered by
axisymmetrical supersonic nozzle. Th e after-
uprated 030F-6M engines which
burner features a core/bypass fl ow mixer and can be identified by the ' solid'
a ring-type flame holder. Th e nozzle is full y outer nozzle shroud with no
adjustable, with active co ntrol of the subso nic visible petals-
172 MiG-31

flow petals by means of 18 hydraulic rams and

aerodynamic contro l of the supersonic flow
petals. Th e divergent part of the nozzle incor-
porates special suction relief valves admitting
outside air to eliminate exhaust gas flow pul-
sations.
Bypass ratio 0.55 in dry mode or 0.52 in
reheat mode, overall engine pressure ratio at
sea level 7.05, maximum tu rbine temperature
1 ,660°K; specific fuel consumption 0 72
kg/kgp ·hr (lb/lbst·hr) in dry mode or 1.9
kg/kgp· hr in reheat mode. Engine dry weight
is 2 416 kg (5 ,3261b).

Control System
Mechanical flight control system , with
hydraulic actuators throughout. The MiG-31
sans suffixe (izdeliye 01 and izdeliye 01DZ) ,
MiG-31 B and MiG-31 BS have dual controls
allowing the WSO to fly and land the aircraft;
this feature is eliminated on the MiG-31M .

......
The stowed IFR probe on MiG-31 '77 Red', the first
probe-equipped example .

...
The IFR p robe of '77 Red ' in deployed posit ion ; the
ti p is angled slightly downward because it has to
be that way to f it inside the forward fuselage
cont our. Note the fairing around t he probe.

,. ...
Another view of the deployed ref uelling probe as
f itted to the Mi G-31 (izde/iye 01 DZ) and MiG-31 B.

The deployed IFR probe of Mi G-31M '057 Blue'.

The MiG-31M has a different probe which is offset
to starboard , not to port, and stows completely
inside th e f atter nose, hence the door attached to

,.
t he probe.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 173

Fuel System
Fuel is carried in seven integral tanks in the
fuselage , four more in the wings and two more
in the fins ; total internal fuel capacity is 18,500
litres (4,070 Imp gal). Two 2,500-litre (550 Imp
gal) drop tanks can be carried on the inboard
wing pylons , increasing the total capacity to
23,500 litres (5, 170 Imp gal). Normal ly the air-
craft carries 13,700 litres (3,014 Imp gal) of
fuel in the Nos 2-5 fuselage tanks , the wi ng
tanks and half-fill ed drop tanks . Mi nimum mis-
sion fuel is contained in the Nos 3 and 4 fu se-
lage tanks and the wi ngs.
The Nos 1 and 2 fuselage tanks occ upy
the space between frames 4 and 6; the No.3
tank is located between frames 6-7, th e Nos 4
an d 5 tanks between frames 7- 11 and the Nos
6 and 7 tanks between frames 11 and 12B. A
coolant tank adjacent to the No.7 fu el tank is
located between frames 12-13.

Armament
The main weapons option of th e MiG-3 1 sans
suffixe (izdeliye 01 and izde liye 01 DZ) co m-
prises four R-33 long-range air-to-ai r missi les
carried in tandem pairs semi-recessed in th e
fuselage underside on AKU -410 pantographic "'
The MiG-31's most common weapons complement is four R-33 long-range AAMs under
ejector racks. Th e R-33 has semi-active radar the fuselage and four R-60M short-range AAMs on twin APU-60-2 racks under the wings.

homing (SARH ), a lau nch weight of 480 kg

The armament of the MiG-31 B: four R-33s, four R·60Ms, two R·40TDs and cannon ammo.
(1,060 Ib), incl udi ng a 47-kg (103-l b) high- ...
174 MiG-31

... ~

The R-33 long-range AAMs are carried under the

fuselage , and the forward pair is ... well, more
semi-recessed than the rear one. Note the special
cut-outs near the air intakes for the missile's fins.

The rear pair of R·33s is set lower and is, in fact,

almost completely exposed. Note the folded upper
pair of rudders.
~

explosive/fragmentation warhead , and a range

of 120 km (74.5 miles).
Alternative weapo ns fits are three R-33
mi ssiles in fuselage bays and two R-40TD (or
R-40T) medium-range IR-homing AAMs car-
ried on underwing pylons (the fourth R-33 is
replaced by an APP-46TD guidance system
pod for the R-40s); or four R-33s and two or
four R-60M short-range IR-homing AAMs on
underwing pylons on single APU-60-1 or dou-
ble APU -60-2 launch rail s.
Th e R-33 long-range AA M was designed
for multi-chan nel guidance and tailored for a
fighter equipped with a phased-array radar
which is capable of guiding SARH missiles to
several targets at once. In the event of a mul-
tiple-target attack each missil e is guided in
intermittent mode, as the radar illuminates the
targets consecutively and part of the operat-
ing time is spent on scanning the airspace for
possible new targets.
The R-33 's semi-active radar seeker head
features a processor which predicts the angle
speed of the target viewing line. The processor
receives in puts on the initial target range, clos-
in g speed and the angle speed of the target
viewin g line before launch . A peculiarity of the
R-33 's seeker head processor is that it comes
into play after the stabi lisation system has neu-
tralised the post-launch osci llations. Therefore
the missil e must reach a predesignated point
before the processor is activated, and target
range , closing speed and the angle speed of
the target viewing line two seconds after the
launch are computed on board the fig hter.
Th e R-33 's radar seeker head makes use
of a gyroscopic stab ilisation system utilising
angle speed sensors. Target lock-on can be
achieved after the missil e has covered one-

...
The R-33 is quite a large weapon. This view shows
the large ogival radome of the semi-active radar
seeker head, the flush transmitter and receiver
aerials of the radar proximity fuse aft of it (three
on each side) , the long, low aspect ratio fins and
the aft-mounted rudders of greater span. Only the
upper pair of rudders has the folding feature.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 175

~
Another view of the rear pair of R-33 AAMs under
the MiG-31's belly. The stencil on the radome says
'Fragile- glass'; actually it is fibreglass, of course.

third of the trajectory. This ability is due partly

to the accurate assessment of the angle
speed of the target viewing line exhibited by
the interceptor's radar (the error margin is
0.01-0.03 deg/sec).
The Doppler seeker head is characterised
by the strict correlation of its functioning with Main Specifications of the R-60M
the target illumination periods which equal 20
milliseconds. Target search is performed Aerodynamic layout Tail-first, with canards and rollerons
within this time frame ; until the next target illu- Overall weight, kg (lb) 44 (97)
mination period the seeker head is locked for Warhead weight, kg (lb) 3.5 (7.7)
incoming signals and the signals generated Body diameter 0.12 m Wf, in)
by it are computed on the basis of the pre- Length 2.1 m (6ft 10'/ain)
ceding measurements. Lock-on range for a Stabiliser span 0.39 m(1 ft 3"/, in)
medium bomber-sized target (such as a ThrusVweight ratio, kgp/kg (lbsVIb) 57
Tu-16) isabout90 km (56 miles) ; together with Powerplant Single-mode solid-fuel rocket motor
the inertial guidance phase this makes for a Targeting algorithm Pursuit mode targeting with ± 12' target lead
maximum launch range of 120-130 km (74.5- Guidance system Thermoelectrically cooled infra-red seeker head
80.75 miles) . Maximum target speed, km/h (mph) 2,500 (1 ,550)
The R-33 has a normal aerodynamic lay- Target altitude, m 30-20,000 (1 00-65,620)
out with aft-mounted rudders and a conven- Max launch range in pursuit mode, km (miles) 8 (5)
tional airframe design ; the layout and Min launch range in pursuit mode, km (miles) 0.25 (0.15)
aerodynamics were influenced by the need to Max target manoeuvring Gforce 8
enable semi-recessed carriage .

Aerodynamic layout Normal, with lattice wings Normal

Overall weight, kg (lb) 177 (390) 520 (1 ,150)
Warhead weight, kg (lb) 21 (46) 47 (103)
Warhead type Multiple shaped-charge Fragmentation
Body diameter 0.20 m (7'/• in) 0.38 m(1 ft 2"/, in)
Length 3.60 m (11 ft 9"/.. in) 4.15 m (13ft 7"/.. in)
Stabiliser span 0.7 m (2ft 3'/, in) * 1.12 m(3ft 7"/.. in)
ThrusVweight ratio, kgp/kg (lbsVIb} 79 73
Powerplant Single-mode solid-fuel rocket motor Dual-mode solid-fuel rocket motor
Seeker head field of view ±180' ± 60'
Guidance system Inertial guidance with mid-course Inertial guidance, switch to semi-active
correction, switch to active radar radar homing for terminal guidance
homing for terminal guidance
Maximum target speed, km/h (mph) 3,600 (2,236) 3, 700 (2,300)
Target altitude, m (ft) 20-25,000 (65-82,020) 50-28,000 (164-91 ,860)
Maximum launch range
in head-on/pursuit mode, km (miles) 60/20 (37.25/12.4} 120/40 (74.5/24.8)
Minimum launch range
in pursuit mode, km (miles) 0.3 (0.18) 2.5 (1.5)
Maximum target manoeuvring Gforce 12 3-4

* folding stabilisers
176 MiG-31

"'
An R-40TD on a ground handling dolly with a
protective cap over the seeker head .

......
An R-40TD IR-homing medium-range AAM on the
port inboard wing pylon. The missile has both
movable canards and inset ailerons on the fins.
Note the lateral nozzles and the red protective cap
over the aft-mounted aerial receiving mid-course
guidance signals from the aircraft's radar •

...
An R-40TD on display at an airshow; the IR seeker
head is visible.

Another view of the R-40TD on the wing. The

modular design of the body is clearly visible
(some sections are painted, others are not); again
there are flush aerials for the radar proximity fuse
on both sides of the body.

"
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 177

..
A pair of R·460M I A-homing
'dogfight missiles' on an APU-60·2
rack attached to the starboard
inboard wing pylon. The outboard
missile is carried on a horizontally
positioned launch rail, hence the
ventral wiring conduit is clearly
visible here. Note the rollerons
built into the fins •

..
Two more R·60Ms on the port
side APU-60·2. The APU-60·2
comes in two non-
interchangeable versions
(port and starboard). Note the
differently coloured seeker
heads .

..
An R·60M on a display stand.
This view shows the fixed
canards ahead of the rudders,
the flush fuse aerials and the
cable connecting the missile to
the weapons control system .

..
Another R·60M on display at one
of the Moscow airshows.
§ ~~~
-e0
"'
E

~ L---------------------------~---=~~
...
Six R-37 ultra-long-range AAMs under the belly of
MiG-31M '056 Blue' at Akhtoobinsk. Note that the
missiles are painted differently; the orange-
painted ones are probably instrumented test
rounds .

....
During its first public appearance at the MAKS-97
MiG-31M '057 Blue' also carried six R-37s.

c
0

~
"'E
~
........
Two views of the port R-37 in the rear row under
the fuselage of MiG-31M '057 Blue'. Outwardly the
R-37 appears similar to the R-33 to which it is
related; however, it has differently shaped fins and
rudders (the latter are triangular, not trapezoidal).

This view shows clearly the positioning of the

R-37s three-abreast under the MiG-31M's
fuselage. Note that the forward row is positioned
immediately aft of the nosewheel. well and the
nose gear doors feature special bulges to fit
around the r adome of the centre missile!

"

c
0

~
"'
E
~
>-
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 179

c
0

~
"'E
--~~~----~~~----------------------------------------~~

Another view of the R-37s under the fuselage of

'056 Blue'_ The paintwork on some of the missiles
shows signs of considerable wear and tear.

~
A pair of R-77 (RW-AE) medium-range AAMs
under the wing of MiG-31M '057 Blue'. These
missiles are quite obviously dummies, lacking
rocket motor nozzles. The R-77 is immediately
recognisable by the lattice-shaped rudders which
create minimum drag when aligned but generate a
considerable side-force when deflected. c
0

~
"'
E
~
~
The GSh-6-30 six-barrel Gatling cannon is installed
in a fairing above the starboard mainwheel well.
The fairing is empty on this preserved example
and part of the gun cowl is missing. Note the
ogival nose fairing which rotates out of the way
before firing, the blast gas suction louvres and the
spent case ejector chute.

c
Two more views of the four R-77s carried by the 0

MiG-31M on widely spaced small pylons under the ~

,.,.
outer wings. "'
E

--------------------------~~
 '-*

•
A Kh-58U anti-radiation missile (inboard) and a dummy R-77 AAM A Kh-31 P ant i-radiation missile (inboard) and a dummy R-77 AAM
under the starboard wing of the MiG-31 BM p rototype ('58 Blue').
,.
under the starboard wing of MiG-31 BM '58 Blue'.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament ···--·-·-~,.-··---~· ---~-~---·-- 181

c
0
1?
0

"'E
~

•
The photos in the top row and above right show the main (inboard) wing pylons of MiG-31 ' 10 Red ' with APU-60-2 missile adapters attached;
the APU -60-2s are marked ' 10PR' (pravyy- starboard) and ' 10LV' (levyy- port). Shown above left is one of the detachable outer wing pylons.

A view under the belly of a MiG-31 B with R-33 missiles attached.

"
182 MiG-31

targets at up to 300 km (186 miles) range. The

number of long-range AAMs is increased from
four to six by placing two more pantographic
ejector racks on the centreline. The R-37 has
a launch weight of 450 kg (990 Ib) and a 60-kg
(130-lb) warhead ; all four stabilisers fold ,
unlike the R-33 where only two of the four sta-
bilisers have this feature .
Additionally , four R-77 (RW-AE) AAMs can
be carried on underwing pylons. The R-77 has
a launch weight of 175 kg (3851b) and a range
of 90 km (56 miles) .
The multi-purpose versions (MiG-31 E/
MiG-31 FE and MiG-31 BM) can carry up to six
Kh-31 P, Kh-25MP or Kh-25MPU anti-radiation
missiles, up to three Kh-59 or Kh-29T TV-
guided air-to-surface missiles or up to two
Kh -59M ASMs , up to six 1,500-kg (3,31 0-lb)
KAB-1500 guided bombs or up to eight 500-
kg (1 , 102-lb) KAB-500 bombs .
The MiG-31 sans suffixe (izdeliye 01 and
izdeliye 01DZ) , MiG-31 Band MiG-31 BS have
a 23-mm (.90 calibre) Gryazev/Shipoonov
The upgraded MiG-31 B and MiG-31 BS
"'"'
Another view of the port inner can carry up to four R-338 missiles with higher
GSh-6-23 or GSh-6-23M six-barrelled Gatling
cannon with linkless feed in a fairing above the
wing pylon with an APU-60-2.
performance and provisions for a nuclear war- starboard mainwheel well. The rate of fire is
head . 8,000 rpm and the ammunition supply is 260
A drawing of the R-60M missile.
This drawing is NOT to the same
"' On the MiG-31M the weapons range is fur- rounds. Each round weighs 200 g ; muzzle
ther expanded by the integration of R-37 ultra- velocity is 700m/sec When the cannon is not
scale as the drawings below.
long-range AAMs and R-77 (RVV-AE) in use the muzzle is closed by a door to
T medium-range active radar-homing AAMs . As reduce drag. The MiG-31M has no cannon .
A drawing of the R-40TD compared to the R-33 , the R-37 had higher
medium-range IR-homing AAM
with a long-burn rocket motor.
manoeuvring G limits , longer launch range
and better ECM resistance, especially when Avionics and Equipment
TT used against low-flying targets or groups of Weapons control system: The MiG-31 sans
A drawing of the R-40T medium-
aircraft. Thanks mainly to the more powerful suffixe (izdeliye 01 and izdeliye 01 DZ) have an
range IR-homing AAM on the
pylon. Note the different tail rocket motor with a much longer burn time RP-31 (S-800) Zaslon weapons control sys-
fairing with the mid-course and the completely new control system archi- tem featuring both radar and IR targeting
guidance aerial. tecture the R-37 enables the aircraft to attack capability . Aerial targets can be detected at a
range of 120-130 km (74.5-80.75 miles). Max-
imum tracking range for a medium bomber-
sized target is 200 km (124 miles) in head-on
mode and 120 km (7 4.5 miles) in pursuit
mode; maximum tracking range for a fighter-
type target with a minimum RCS of about 2 m'
(21 .5 sq It) is 90 km (55.9 miles) and 70 km
(43 .5 miles) respectively . The WCS is built
around a phased-array fire control radar with
field of view of ± 70° ( ± 120° in certain modes)
in azimuth and + 70°/-60° in elevation. Hence
the radar confers a look-down/shoot-down
capability - also against targets incorporating
stealth technology, helicopters and cruise
missiles.
In conjunction with the interceptor's other
avionics the RP-31 Zaslon WCS provi des the
following capabilities :
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 183

A
The side views depict, top to bottom: the R-33; a wingless version of the R-37 carried on the centreline hard point by MiG-31M '056 Blue'; and
the standard R-37 with the rudders deployed and folded. The rear views depict the R-33 (left and far left) and the R-37 (right and far right).
184 MiG-31

II·: I[ ~ P1313-AE ..;!l301 ~

<::::::::JI· I~ "I

I I

i. • engagement of aerial targets singly and as mation or the image on the tactical situation
Three different versions of the a group in ground controlled intercept, airborne display), target selection and distribution (by
R-77 (RW-AE) medium-range
guidance and autonomous (search) modes; the flight leader, in the latter case), attack
AAM. The one in the middle has
shorter rudders.
• control of the actions of aircraft in a group commencement and completion;
from the group leader's aircraft during the • displaying navigation/attack information
main phases of the action , including target in various co-ordinate systems on the TSD;
approach , attack and breaking off the attack; • manual entry and relay to the wingmen of
• uploading target data from the group target co-ordinates , designated target infor-
leader's aircraft to an automated ground con- mation , control commands , flight mode and
trol system (AGCS); formation keeping commands;
• tracking ten targets at a time while attack- • missile launch with initial target data down
ing four priority targets; loading while the missile is still on the pylon ;
• displaying target data and information on • zeroing in on enemy ECM aircraft and
other aircraft in a group (supplied by the radar, attacking them;
IRST, AGCS and the wingmen) on the tactical • target tracking within a 140° sector.
situation display (TSD) ;
• generating and displaying data source The RP-31 Zaslon weapons control system
A drawing of the Kh-31 P anti- designators, the trajectories of the targets and includes a target search/track subsystem, a
radiation missile carried by the
the wingmen on the TSD ; weapons selector (armament control) subsys-
MiG-31BM. The Kh-31A anti-
shipping version is outwardly • generating and displaying data enabling tem and weapons interface modules. It is
combat formation-keeping , data search (in linked to the aircraft's principal avionics by the
,.
identical.
manual mode or using incoming target infor- automatic control system , the navigation suite,

liD )( '

-
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 185

•
The pilot's cockpit of the MiG-31. The control stick is omitted for clarity. The weapons systems operator's cockpit of the MiG-31.

"
186 "- ~ - " MiG-31

5
"E
0

"'E
~ ~------=-~~~--~L----

The pilot's cockpit of ' 10 Red',

an IFR-capable MiG-31 (izdeliye
01 DZ). The top of the instrument
panel is occupied by the PPI -70V
head-up display. Note the
ventilation nozzle on the right-
hand side of the windshield
frame.

~
The WSO's cockpit of MiG-31
(izdeliye 01DZ) '10 Red'. Again ,
there is a ventilation nozzle
under the external stores
selector panel (above the
radarscope); the rubber-bladed
cooling fans that used to
be typical of Soviet aircraft
are no more.
Structural Design, Systems &·Armament --··-·--··-- ... - " 187

..
The forward cockpit of the
MiG-31 LL ejection seat testbed
('79 Red ').

The rear cockpit of MiG-31 LL

'79 Red'. Note the telescopic
emergency control stick
immediately ahead of the red
ejection handles of the WSO's
K-36DM ejection seat.
~

c
0
"E
0

"'E
~
188 ~ - - ,, - · MiG-31

...
Another view of the rear cockpit
of MiG-31LL '79 Red '. The aircraft
appears to have a perfectly
standard instrument panel with
all the usual switches,
radarscope and tactical situation
display.

The starboard console in the

forward cockpit of MiG-31LL
'79 Red'.
T

c
0
"E
0

"'
E
~ --_,....,..-,
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 189

"'
The pilot' s cockpit of a MiG-31 B.
The instrument panel is is rather
different from that of the MiG-31
sans suffixe.

~
Another view of the instrument
panel in the MiG-31 B's forward
cockpit. The bank of switches at
the top is for the HUD.
The former PVO training centre
at Savasleyka AB has a MiG-31
flight simulator. This is a view of
its forward cockpit. Note the
canvas covering the open
cockpit when not in use .

....
The rear cockpit of MiG-31 flight
simulator at Savasleyka AB.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament , ' ,m, __ ,. , "" • "., , • •• • • · 191

...
The cockpits of the MiG-31M are
markedly different from those
of the 'first-generation' MiG-31;
the forward cockpit of '056 Blue'
is illustrated here. A small
radarscope is provided at the
top of the instrument panel.
Interestingly, the intense
turquoise colour normally found
on Soviet aircraft (civil and
military alike) has given way to a
Western-style medium grey
shade.

The starboard console in the c

0
forward cockpit of MiG-31M ~
'056 Blue'. "'E
.J.L.Ill.l:.._..........._ _ _ _ ____j ~
"

c
0

~
"'E
"">-
192 MiG-31

~
The forward cockpit of the
MiG-31 BM prototype '58 Blue'.
Note the two multi-functional
liquid-crystal displays - a large
one on the main instrument
panel and a smaller one with a
keypad on the starboard
console.

~
The WSO's cockpit of the
MiG-31 BM boasts no fewer than
four MFDs- three large ones on
the main instrument panel
(identical to the one up front)
and a smaller one with a keypad
(of a different type) on the
starboard console.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 193

•
The avionics bay on the port side of the MiG-31 's
forward fuselage. The open panels (normally held
in place by Dzus fasteners) provide almost
unrestricted access. Note the IRST pod on the left.

~
This panel under the starboard LERX gives access
to a small avionics bay with line replaceable units
(LRUs) featuring handles for extraction and
carriage.

More avionics bays on the starboard side of the

nose .
...
Another view of the port side avionics bays.
More panels hinge open on the underside .
... ~

c
0

""'
0

E
~
194 MiG-31

the on-board part of the AGCS , the IFF system

Main Specifications of the RP-31 (S-800) Zaslon Weapons Control System (the IFF interrogator is part pf the WCS) and
Target altitude, m (ft) 50-30,000 (164-98,425) the air-to-air/air-to-ground data link system.
Maximum target speed, km/h (mph) 3, 700 (2,300) The target search/track sub-system com-
Number of targets attacked simultaneously 4 prises a radar channel (the Model 8B
Flight automation in combat mode Automatic and GCI controlled flight, 'Leningrad ' phased-array fire control radar) ,
SAU-155MPACS an infra-red channel (the Model 8TP IRST) , a
Armament: digital computing system built around the
Long-range missiles 4 x R-33 A-15 'Argon-15 ' mainframe computer, an indi-
Max launch range in head-on/pursuit mode, km (miles) 120/40 (74.5/24.8) cation system and control panels.
Medium-range missiles 2x R-40D For the first time in the world , the long-
Max launch range in head-on/pursuit mode, km (miles) 40/20 (24.8/12.4) range fire control radar forming part of the
Short-range missiles 4 x R-60 Zaslon WCS features a three-channel antenna
Max launch range in head-on/pursuit mode, km (miles) -/8 (-/5) system combining search, track and IFF chan-
Cannon 1 X GSh-23-6 nels; it is the Model B01 monobloc phased
Calibre/ammunition supply 23 mm/260 array with rapid electronic beam scanning.
Radar Modei8B 'Leningrad' with 8.01 Another 'world first' in this class is the use of a
phased array narrow-band digital Doppler filter. The MiG-31
Target detection range (target RCS =3 m'/32.25 ft~ , km (miles): was the first Soviet fighter whose WCS featured
head-on mode 120-130 (74.5-80.75) pulse-Doppler signal processing, a tactical sit-
pursuit mode 45-60 (28-37) uation display and a digital processor.
Target detection range (bomber-type target), km (miles): Radar operation is enabled by the A-15
head-on mode 180-200 (111-124) (Argon-15) digital mainframe computer which
pursuit mode 60-80 (37 -50) also controls other functions of the WCS.
Number of targets tracked simultaneously 10 Together with the enhanced input/output
Field of view: devices, the mainframe computer forms the
azimuth ±70' on-board digital data processing system
elevation +70/-60' (DDPS). This performs all operations associ-
IRST 8TP ated with the radar channel of the WCS and all
Target detection range in pursuit/head-on mode, km (miles) 40/- (24.8/-) operations associated with computation and
Displays PPI-70V HUD, IT0-1 , IT0-2 precision guidance.
tactical situation displays With each movement of the radar beam the
Mainframe computer A-15 (Argon-15) DDPS controls the phased antenna array, sets
Data link systems: up the radar receiver strobes, forms the fre-
air-to-ground 5U15K-11 'Raduga-Bort MB' quency grid for a spectrum analysis of the
air-to-air APD-518 received signal and performs secondary data
ESM suite: processing. It also harmonises the operation
radar homing and warning system SP0-15LM 'Beryoza-LM' of the radar's modules and is linked to the
chaff/flare dispenser UV-3A (APP-50) Modei8TP infra-red search & track (IRST) unit.
The DDPS downloads target data to the
missiles' seeker heads, controls the fighter in
automatic control mode, enables concerted
action by a group of fighters and displays
flight/targeting and tactical information on the
displays of the cockpit indication system.
The software can be upgraded rapidly by
re-recording the RAM magnetic rings {discs).
Parallel and serial data ports are provided .
The cockpit indication system comprises a
PPI-70V head-up display (pilotazhno-pri-
tsel'nw indikahtor - flight/sighting display)

...
The retracted Model BTP IRST pod under the nose.
The pod swivels down and to starboard; the
dielectric forward section is opaque and is made
up of multiple sectors.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 195

and a small IT0-1 tactical situation display

Main Specifications of the Model 88 "Leningrad' Fne Control Radar
(indikahtor takticheskoy obstanovki) in the
pilot's cockpit, a larger IT0-2 tactical situation Scan angle in elevation/azimuth:
display in the WSO 's cockpit, a dual radar/ in 5.5 seconds 5'/45'
IRST channel display, an interface module in 8.7 seconds 20'/90'
and a power unit. Field-of-view centre travel limits ±35'
The PPI-70V HUD shows alphanumeric Tracking area- half-cone with an angle of:
and graphic information on a cathode-ray upper hemisphere 140'
tube (CRT); the image is then transferred to a lower hemisphere 130'
semi-transparent reflector via a col limating Beam movement time to any position, ms -1.3
system. The high-power projection tube obvi- Dynamic range of the receiver, dB 80
ates the need for a rubber sunb lind even in Width of the antenna's scatter pattern 2.5'
backlight conditions. The IT0-1 and IT0-2 tac- Mean power output of the radar transmitter, kW 2.5
tical situation displays are rapid-action direct Power output of the target illumination channel transmitter
vision CRT displays utilising alphanumeric in constant emission mode, kW 2.0
and graphic formats. Besides being much Reception coefficient, dB 5.5
smaller, the IT0-1 differs in displaying fewer Antenna diameter 1.1m
information parameters and having a bright- (3ft 7'/.. in)
ness enhancement feature with a light senso r Power consumption, kW:
to guarantee readabil ity in the forward cockpit 200 V/400 Hz AC 31
which has a much greater glazing area and is 27VDC
not shaded. The tactical situation displays
utilise special cathode-ray tubes w ith an opti-
cal window allowing the screen image to be
photographed from the inside without ham- Main Specifications of the A-15 (Argon-15) Mainframe Computer
pering observation. In the course of an
upgrade new vibration-resistant colour CRT Efficiency, operations per second - 100,000
displays giving a clear picture even in back- Random access memory (RAM) capacity, kb 4
light conditions were fitted. Read-only memory (ROM) capacity, kb 72
The WSO 's cockpit features a dual Power consumption, W 250
radar/ IRST channel display whose electron ic Mean time between failures (MTBF), hours 500
beam control units are d irectly connected to Weight, kg (lb) 53 (116.8)
the output channels of the radar and IRST
respectively. T he repetition freq uency is 50
Hz, which makes for normal data perception.
The interface modu le connects the HU D
and tactical situation displays to the WCS 's
data bus; it also records , stores and regener-
ates the images on the displays with a preset
afterglow imitation time.
The Model 8TP infra-red search & track
(IRST) unit is install ed in a cylindrical pod nor-
mally stowed in the forward fuselage u nder-
side, swingi ng out on ly when in use. It is lin ked
w ith the radar and enab les the aircraft to make
covert scan ning of the forward hemisp here
and covert attacks (that is, without revealing
its positio n by using radar) , providing target

Another view of the Model BTP IRST on one of the

company-owned demonstrators ('374 White' or
'903 White'), showing the shape of the pod.

~
The IRST pod of the MiG-31M (in this case, '056
Blue') has a more elongated tail and protrudes
more into the slipstream when stowed.
 If a target is designated for attack , the IRST
Main Specifications of the Model BTP IRST
locks on to the target which is nearest to the
Scan angle in azimuth/elevation: centre of the small field of view and automati-
in azimuth 120' cally tracks it, feeding information on its view-
in elevation 40' ing angle to the WCS. The average detection
Tracking area: range in pursuit mode against a fighter-type
upper hemisphere 140' target with the engines at full military power is
lower hemisphere 130' about 40 km (24.8 miles) .
Resolution, minutes 15 The communication and monitoring mod-
Power consumption, kW 1.3 ule of the WCS generates the necessary com-
Mean lime between failures (MTBF), hours 350 mands in accordance with the missile launch
Weight, kg (lb) 124 (273) preparation sequence. The actual launch
preparations and launch are carried out by the
weapons selector subsystem (WSS) which
information for the R-40TD and R-60M IR- includes a logical/automatic control module, a
homing missiles. It also enhances the air- stores indicator panel , a missile selector (arm-
craft's capabilities in an ECM environment. ing) panel and a ground weapons preparation
The IRST unit's field of view is ±60' in azimuth panel. The WSS supplies the WCS with infor-
and +6'/-13' in elevation . Depending on the mation on the type , location and quantity of
WCS 's mode of operation , a large or small weapons carried , enables pre-setting of the
field of view is formed within these limits; its weapons use modes on the ground (with the
centre is determined by the radar, the AGCS option of selecting between these modes in
or the WSO who moves the field-of-view cen- flight) , indicates the selected weapons' status
tre marker on the display by means of a mini- and remaining quantity, and automatically
joystick. If the radar is selected as the primary activates another missile if an armed missile of
source of target data, the WCS gives the IRST the same type fails to leave its launch rail for
target directions ('where to look'), using the some reason. The missiles are selected by the
One of the two camera pods at radar tracking data; the field of view is ±3' x WSO by flipping the appropriate arming
the wingtips of the MiG-31 LL ±3' with respect to the target viewing line. An switches on the weapons selector panel and
ejection seat testbed. The
identical small field of view is formed similarly fired by the pilot in beyond visual range (BVR)
camera window is visible in the
middle; the navigation light is
if the IRST is selected as the primary source of mode by pushing the 'fire' button on the con-
positioned well aft. target data and the target is selected manually trol stick. There is also a switch in the forward
TT by the WSO. cockpit enabling the pilot to use the 'fire ' but-
ton for attacking targets which are within
visual range.
The WSS communicates with the WCS via
digital information exchange channels. Its
specialised digital processor handles missile
arming and launch tasks.
The MiG-31 B and MiG-31 BS have an
upgraded RP-31A (S-BOOA) Zaslon-A weapons
control system. The MiG-31M has an RP-31 M
(S-BOOM) Zaslon-M WCS.

Flight and navigation avionics: The flight and

navigation suite includes the SAU-155MP auto-
matic flight control system (or SAU-155MP-03,
depending on the version) with the SOS-3M-2
flight mode limit indication system (sistema
ogranichitel'noy signalizah-tsii) and the KN-25
navigation suite. The latter enables the MiG-31
to operate in the Arctic regions lacking ground
navigation aids; it comprises:
• a duplicated IS-1-72A inertial navigation
system (INS) ;
• a Manyovr-V (Manoeuvre-V) digital
processor;
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 197

• an A-312-10 Radikai-NP or a A-331

SHORAN system ;
• an A-723 Kvitok-2 (Receipt-2) LORAN
system (installed from the outset on MiG-31
c/n N38400171519 and from c/n
N38400181345 onwards and retrofitted to
MiG-31 s sans suffixe being upgraded to
MiG-3 1BS standard);
• an SVS-2Ts-1 air data system (sistema
vozdoosh nykh signah /ov) ;
• a BSFK-2 combat heading setter system
(boye vaya sistema formiro va niya koorsa);
• an A-312-09 Radikai-OVK relative posi-
tion determination (RPD) /formation-keeping
system (OVK = opredeleniye vzaim nykh
ko 'ordinaht - mutual co-ordinate determina-
tion) ; •
The port w ingtip ECM pod of
• a Tropik LORAN system with an error Mi G-31M '057 Blue'. The forward
margin of 0.13-1.3km (0.08-0.8 miles) over a and aft extremities are dielectric,
2,000-km (1-240-mi le) stage; and a third antenna is positioned
• a Marshroot (Route) LORAN system with amidships to give full 360' ECM
coverage. Note the forward
an error margin of 1.8-3.6km (1.1-2.2 miles)
position of the navigation light.
over a 2,000 to 10,000-km (1 ,240 to 6,21 0-
mile) stage;
• a PA-4-3 automatic moving map display
(MMD; PA = planshet avtomatichecskiy);
• a BK-43 interface module (blok kommu- ...
nikahtsit); Th e multiple rod aerials of th e
IFF system ahead of the cockpit
• PKN-1 and PKN-2 navigation suite con-
windshield.
trol keypads.
The flight and navigation avionics suite • an APD-5 18 secure data link/tactical
also includes an ARK-19 automatic direction inform ation exchange system ;
finder , an RV-15 (A-03 1) rad io altimeter and an • an RK- RLDN secure digital data link
A-611 marker beacon receiver (with options system ; The front ends of the air intake
trunks of the 'first-generation'
for installing the MRP-61 or the older MRP-56 • an R-862 UHF radio ;
MiG-31 carry ECM antennas
marker beacon receiver) instead. • an R-864 HF radio ; covering the forward
• an R-855UM radio ; hemisphere.
Communications suite: The MiG-31 sans suf- • an SPU -9 intercom ; T ...
fixe (izdeliye 01 and izdeliye 01 DZ) are fitted • a Potok-NKR (Stream-NKR) antenna-
with the following communications equipment: Th e f orward portions of t he
feeder system ;
ventral fin s house som e of
• an 11 86 (5U 15K-11 Raduga-Bort-MB) or • a P-591 audio (speech) warning device antennas serving the
11 G6 Spektr ground-controll ed intercept indicating dangerous flig ht modes and critical communications suite.
command link system ; fai lures. T
198 MiG-31

... ESM equipment: SP0-15LM Beryoza-LM Data recording equipment: RIU registering/
The MiG-31 B's weapons arsenal radar homing and warning system (RHAWS). indication device, Tester-UZL flight data
arrayed in front of it. Front row:
recorder and MS-61 cockpit voice recorder.
four R-60M short-range
IR-homing AAMs, with 30-mm
IFF equipment: SR0-2P (izdeliye 6202) IFF The RK-RLDN secure digital data link sys-
ammunition for the GSh-6-30 transponder and, depending on the version , tem (rahdiokomahndnaya liniya dahl'nevo
cannon in the middle. Rear row: SRZ-2P (izdeliye 6232) , SRZ-2P3 or navedeniya - long-range radio command
two R-40TD medium-ran ge IR· SRZ-035M (izdeliye 035M) IFF interrogator; guidance line) serves for interaction with
homing AAMs on a common
the latter model was fitted from the spring of ground command posts.
ground handling dolly, flanked
by four R-33 long-range radar-
1991 onwards. An S0-69 ATC receiver is also MiG-31 s sans suffixe (izde/iye 01 ) up to
homing AAMs on individual fitted . and including Batch 81 were manufactured
dollies. All missiles have
protective covers over the
seeker heads and proximity fuse
aerials.

~
Another view of the weapons
array in front of MiG-31 B
'77 Blue' at Savasleyka AB. The
bulk of the interceptor's main
weapons is clearly illustrated.
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 199

..l ~ E

if ~··;o;o:;:;:::::::::::'"l' ~
--~------------------------------1~
~
~----------------~------------------~----~~~~=-~----~~~===-=-----------------------~ }
with the 11 86 Raduga-Bort-MB (Rainbow-Air- analogue signals and single commands . The ...
craft-MB, alias 5U15K-11) GCI command link command link system comprises a receiver, a One more view of the Foxhound's
weapons. The 44-kg (97-lb)
system and the APD-518 secure data link sys- decoder, an interface and a control panel .
R-60Ms can be hooked up
tem enabling aircraft in a flight to swap target The APD-518 digital secure data link manually, while the other missiles
data generated by their WCS. From Batch 82 enables a flight of four MiG-31 s to swap data obviously require powered lifts
onwards (izdeliye 01 DZ) the 11 G6 Spektr generated by their weapons control systems if (the R-33, for instance, weighs
(Spectrum) GCI command link system was fit- the aircraft are within 200 km (124 miles) of 520 kg/ 1,150 lb) .

ted instead ; it was also retrofitted during each other. It also enables other aircraft with
upgrade to MiG-31 BS standard. The com- less sophisticated avionics, such as the
mand link system serves for receiving and MiG-25, to be directed to targets spotted by
decoding queries from the automated the MiG-31 , in which case the latter acts as a
ground-based IFF system , receiving informa- 'mini-AWACS '. The system comprises an
tion on the target(s) and the interceptor and input module/encoder, a decoder/output
targeting/guidance commands from AGCS module, a control panel and the A-312-10
stations, and decoding the received informa- Radikai-NP SHORAN system.
tion for the on-board data processing and pre- The APD-518 can relay information from
sentation systems. The data received by the the flight leader to his wingmen and back,
5U15K-11 (Raduga-Bort-MB) system is fed from the leader of a group to the leader of
into the SAU-155MP automatic flight control another group and from the leader of a group
system , the A-15 Argon-15 digital mainframe to a ground command post. The information
computer and the PPI-70V HUD. is relayed via the SHORAN system ; the
The system works with the Roobezh-M digital data processing system of the WCS
(Frontier-M) , Looch-2 (Ray-2, or Beam-2) and acts as the source and the recipient of the
Vozdookh-1M (Air-1M) automatic GCI sys- data. The APD-518 has no control panel of its
tems featuring Lazoor'-M (Prussian Blue-M) own , receiving commands from the control
and Raduga-SPK data link systems. The infor- panels of the RP-31 Zaslon WCS and the
mation is received by the command link sys- A-312-09 Radikai-OVK relative position deter-
tem as sets of codes containing targeting/ mination/formation-keeping system. The con -
guidance data, single commands and target trol module generates the signals controlling
co-ordinate support for semi-autonomous the data input/output and transmission
operation . The information is fed into the processes and the self-test and monitoring
RP-31 Zaslon WCS as a digital serial code , function.
200 MiG-31

Main Specifications of the MiG-31 (lzdeliye 01/01 DZ), MiG-31 Band MiG-31 BS

Length, including nose probe 22.668 m (74 It 5 in)

Wing span 13.456 m (44 It 2'/2 in) *
Horizontal tail span 8.74 m (28 It 8 in)
Height on ground 5.15 m (16 It 10'/2 in) t
Wing area, m' (sq It):
including centre section/excluding LERXes 61 .6 (663)
excluding centre section 41 .0 (441 )
Empty weight, kg (I b) 21 ,820 (48,100)
Take-off weight, kg (lb) :
with max fuel/no external stores 36,700 (80,91 0)
normal (with four R-33 missiles and normal fuel, no drop tanks) 37,100 (81 ,790)
The Zvezda K-36DM Srs 2 zero-
zero ejection seat with the
normal (with four R-33 missiles and max fuel, no drop tanks) 41 ,000 (90,390)
characteristic 'rip yer balls off' max (with four R-33 missiles, max fuel and two PTB-2500 drop tanks) 45,900-46,200 (101 '190-1 01 ,850)
ejection handles - a feature that Landing weight, kg (lb) 26,600 (58,640)
minimises the time required to Fuel capacity, litres (Imp gal):
shift the pilot's hand from the
full , with/without drop tanks 23,500/18,500 (5,170/4,070)
stick or throttle to the handle. The
cylinders flanking the headrest
normal 13,700 (3,014)
house telescopic stabilising in drop tanks, 2 X 2,500 (2 X 550)
booms with drogue parachutes. Fuel load, kg (lb):
Note the seat harness and the full ,with drop tanks 20,550 (45,300)
cross on the dummy's helmet
full, no drop tanks 16,350 (36,045)
used for measurements during
ejection trials .
Thrust-to-weight ratio at normal take-off weight, kgp/kg (lbst/lb) 0.76
...
The information exchange between inter- When two flight leaders communicate ,
ceptors takes place in accordance with cyclo- their data exchange with their respecti ve
grams. Two modes are possible; in the joint wingmen and the ACGS is interrupted .
operation mode the APD-518 and A-312-09 The TKS-2 secure data link system ensures
systems use a common cyclogram , while in two-level tactical information exchange within
autonomous mode the APD-518 uses its own a joint task force comprising up to four flights,
cyclogram . In the former case the digital data each of which consists of four aircraft. The
processing system of the WCS uses the RPD exchange between the leader of the joint task
cycle to determine on what side of the inter- force and the flight leaders takes place at the
ceptor the receiver aircraft is and which higher level ; the time separation principle is
antenna of the A-312-10 Radikai-NP SHORAN used and the system is tuned to inter-group
system (port or starboard) is to be used for exchange frequency. In turn , the flight leaders
transmission . The autonomous mode is used communicate with their respective wingmen
if the SHORAN system fails ; in this case the at the lower level , using their own frequencies .
cyclogram changes , as the system has to The leader of the joint task force is also a flight
transmit the same information during two leader, with three wingmen of his own.
half-cycles to both port and starboard. The MiG-31 has a total of 67 antennas and
These four data exchange algorithms aerials . The electric system features genera-
are possible : tors with a total output of 92 kW to cater for the
'group ' (information exchange varied electric and electronic equipment.
between the flight leader and a wingman in The MiG-31M differs significantly from the
a flight of three or four MiG-31 s) ; preceding versions in avionics fit ; more up-to-
' pair exchange' (information date navigation and communications equip-
exchange between the leader and the ment is used, including satellite navigation
wingman in a pair of interceptors) ; systems .
• 'leaders' exchange ' (information
exchange between the leaders of two or Crew Rescue System
more different flights) ; All versions of the MiG-31 are equipped with
• 'solo ' (periodic uploading of information Zvezda K-36DM Srs 2 zero-zero ejection
from a solitary interceptor to the automated seats. Early d evelopment aircraft had KM-1 M
ground control system. seats with a limited operational envelope .
Structural Design, Systems & Armament 201

Wing loading at normal take-off weight, kg/m' (lb/sq ft) 666 (136)
Maximum speed, km/h (mph):
at 17,000 m (55,770 ft) and above 3,000 (1 ,864)
at sea level 1,500 (932)
Max indicated airspeed with R-40TD and R-60 missiles, km/h (mph) 1,200 (745)
Max lAS with drop tanks at 10,000 m (32,810 ft) Mach 0.9
Max lAS with deployed forward-vision periscope, km/h (mph) 700 (434)
Cruising speed, km/h (mph):
supersonic 2,500 (1 ,553)
subsonic 900 (559)
Unstick speed, km/h (mph):
with a 37,100-kg take-off weight 345 (214)
with a 41 ,000-kg take-off weight 365 (226)
Landing speed at a 26,600-kg landing weight, km/h (mph) 280-285 (173-177)
Maximum Mach number 2.83
Maximum Mach number with R-40TD missiles 2.35
Service ceiling with four R-33s and 2,300 kg (5,070 lb) of fuel remaining, m (ft) 20,600 (67,585)
Climb time to 19,000 m(62,335 ft) with four R-33s and normal fuel, minutes 7.9
Rate of climb, m/sec (!Vmin):
w. 31 ,000-kg (68,340-lb) TOW, 'clean', in full a/bat 2,000 m(6,560 ft)/Mach 0.9 174 (34,240)
w. 31 ,000-kg TOW, 'clean', at 15,000 m (49,21 0 ft) and Mach 2.35 140 (27,550)
w. 35,000-kg (77,160-lb) TOW, with missiles, at 15,000 m and Mach 2.35 115 (22,630)
Maximum range with four R-33 missiles, km (miles):
at Mach 2.35 1,400 (869)
at Mach 0.8 without drop tanks 2,150-2,400 (1 ,335-1 ,491)
at Mach 0.8 with drop tanks 2,850-3,000 (1 ,770-1 ,864)
Ferry range, km (miles) 3,300 (2,050)
Intercept range, km (miles):
supersonic 720 (447)
subsonic, no drop tanks 1,200 (745)
with drop tanks 1,400 (870)
with drop tanks and one refuelling t 2,000 (1 ,242)
Endurance:
unrefuelled 3.6 hours
with one refuelling t 6-7 hours
Glimit:
with 6,000 kg (13,230 Ib) of fuel or less 5.0
at Mach 0.8-1.5, no drop tanks 4.5
with drop tanks 2.5
Permissible flight time with R-60 missiles, minutes:
at Mach 2.35 , 2
at Mach 2.2 , 8
at Mach 0.9 with drop tanks , 60
Take-off run at 37,100 kg (81, 790 lb) take-off weight, m (ft) 950 (3,120)
Landing run at 26,600 kg (58,6411b) and with brake parachutes deployed, m (ft) 800-900
(2,620-2,950)
Landing angle at 26,600 kg TOW 13'
Turn radius, m(ft):
w. 34,000-kg (74,955-lb) AUW, in full alb at 5,000 m (16,400 ft) and Mach 0.8 2,900 (9,510)
w. 34,000-kg AUW, at 1,000 m (3,280 ft) and Mach 0.67 1,200 (3,940)
Altitude gain in a 'yo-yo' manoeuvre initiated at 500-1 ,000 m, m(ft) 5,000-8,000
(16,400-26,250)
Maximum dive angle 45'

* Different manuals state a different figure - 13.464 m; t A Mikoyan brochure states 6.15 m (20ft 2'/• in);
t MiG-31 (izdeliye 01 DZ) and MiG-31 B
202 MiG-31
MiG-31 203
204 MiG-31

-- .,
~

~
0
Ill.,
;:
·:;:.,
·-Ill
.,
·:;
.,
., c -
~

.,·v; .,...
~
~

"' -
0 0
.c a.
~ .,
~:
-ct:
c<Jl
!e:
c .,
£~
MiG-31 205
206 MiG-31
A MiG-318 with four R-33 AAMs and two PTB-1500 ferry tanks.

A MiG-318 development aircraft ('592 Blue', f/n 5902) with dummy R-33 and R-40RD AAMs.
The MiG-31 demonstrator owned by the Mikoyan OKB ('374 White').

One of the two MiG-31 D prototypes without the anti-satellite missile.

210 MiG-31

M'
0

"'
0

"
....-
~

0
"'....
0
00
....
"'z"'
u"
·.,
:I
iii
u;
E
::;
;;;
dJ
:i
~
"'
Q.

~
~
Q.

~ "'
~
.li,..
..,:5
:I
~ iii
M
"'
J:
.... "'
?
MiG-31 211

-.,
iii"
M

"'
?
:;
~
M
ci
:E
0
.,;I
·:;;
1: ,...
f
u.. "'
?
212 ~ · · · MiG-31 ·
MiG-31 · · · 213
'831 Blue' , the first prototype Ye -155MP (izdeliye 83/ 1).

'011 Blue' (f/ n 0101), the first production MiG-31 (izdeliye 01) .
'11 Blue', an early production MiG-31 based in the eastern regions of Russia.

MiG-31 '61 Blue' carries the ' Excellent aircraft' badge (a maintenance award) and
three 'kill' stars - most probably awarded for live weapons training.

~==
'--'
 MiG-31 '08 Red' is named Boris Safonov in memory of a famous Soviet Navy/North Fleet
Air Arm fighter pilot, Twice Hero of the Soviet Union, killed in action during World War
Two. The prototype-style blue flash on the intakes is also noteworthy.

"'-- ~ EOPI1C•~
" ("i) CAcfJOHOB **

~
In spite of the Mikoyan OKB badge worn on both air intakes, MiG-31 (izdeliye 01 DZ) '10 Red'
is an operational aircraft, not a company-owned test ship.
'072 Blue', the second prototype MiG-310 (izdeliye 07) .

'79 Red ' (c/ n N69700115548), the MiG-31LL ejection seat testbed operated by
GNIKI WS. The bald lion artwork is a pun on the aircraft's testbed role.
218 MiG-31
MiG-31 · 219
Front and side views of MiG-318 '903 White'. Note the badge of the manufacturer (the 'Sokol' Nizhniy Novgorod Aircraft Factory) on the intake.

.~
~
MiG-318 '74 Blue', one of several operated by the training unit at Savasleyka AB.
Note the unit badge on the air intake.

The MiG-318M prototype, '58 Blue' (c/ n N38401214306). The blue-striped radome was borrowed
from MiG-31 '374 White'.
MiG-31M '052 Blue', the second 'true' prototype.

MiG-31M '057 Blue' (c/ n N72100106176) , the final prototype incorporating a number of changes.
MiG-31 223

Record Achievements
The MiG-31 's high performance was obvious
from the outset. However, due to the secrecy it
was shrouded in, the aircraft was not able to
contribute to the noble cause of setting world
records until more than 20 years after its official
service entry. (In passing , this fact speaks for
itself: even now the Foxhound's capabi lities are
unmatched!)
On 31st July and 1st August 2003 two crews
of the Russian Air Force 's 929th State Flight
Test Centre set no fewer than 22 Class C-1 L
world records in an early-production MiG-31 ,
flying from their home base at Vladimirovka AB ,
Akhtoobinsk . (Class C-1 L means fixed-wing
aircraft with a take-off weight of 35,000-45 ,000
kg/77, 160-99,210 lb.) One crew consisted of
pilot Col. Vladimir Goorkin and WSO Co l.
Aleksandr Kozachemko ; the other crew
comprised Col. Sergey Seryogin and Co l.
Aleksey Pestrikov.
The aircraft had not been modified in any
way for the record attempts and carried a
representative warload of four R-33 missiles
and a full complement of cannon ammunition. ...
The crews did not take any special train ing for Col. Vladimir Goorkin and Col. Aleksandr Kozachenko after receiving their world record
certificates.
the records either. Also , the weather was not
very favourable , with ambient temperatures of
more than +30°C (86°F). Nevertheless, some The world record diploma issued by the FAI to testify that Vladimir Goorkin and
of the records (incidentally, set by the Aleksandr Kozachenko set a Class C·1L world record on 1st August 2003 by climbing

Foxhound's precursor, the MiG-25) were

bettered considerably. For instance , the climb
,.
to 6,000 m (19,685 ft) in 1 minute 50 seconds.

time to 12,000 m (39,370 ft) was reduced by a

factor of three ; the maximum altitude with a F EDERATION A ERONAUTIQUE I NTERNATIONALE
payload was improved by more than 5,000 m
(16,400 ft} , reaching 21 ,690 m (71 ,160ft) .
What's more, this is not the MiG-31 's limit.
929th GUTs pilots are confident that the aircraft
can still set more than 30 world speed , altitude
and rate-of-climb records.

Nou11 aouuignh c.ertifions que 'OlaOimir Gur&.in & <t\le:ranOer

'KozaGhen&.o
&n toua ~c. \uae G~ ll ( ~o io n• : motu ou b'c.ollegt entre 35000 el 45000ig l Grou pe 33~: turborhc.leur

ont Hobli le 1" noQt 2003 sur !niG-31

te 1tec;orb bu ID.onbe auioant : "Gempa 6e month b 6000m ; 1 min 50 sec.

~ "'ohtubinao <'Ruuiel
l EPR£S IOENT lE SECRETAIRE GEN~FW.. DE LA FA I lE PRtSIOENT OEL.AF.AI
224 --· · " MiG-31

Bibliography
60 Years of the Mikoyan Design Bureau: Military Aviation - Aircraft, Helicopters, Missiles & MiG-25 Foxbat and MiG-31 Foxhound: Y Gordon;
Tsentr Aviatsii i Kosmonavtiki , Moscow, 2000. Rockets (A Handbook), Volumes 1 and 2; Potpourri , Midland Publishing, 1997
Minsk, 1999.
MiG Aircraft (1939-1995): R. A. Belyakov and J. Marmain; MiG Aircraft Since 1937: B Gunston andY Gordon;
AVICO-Press, Moscow, 1996. Aircraft at International Airshows in 1992-1998: Putnam , 1998
Edited by Academician Yevgeniy A. Fedosov;
The Combat Aircraft of the Russian Air Force Jane'sAIIthe World Aircraft: 1987-88,1991-92,
GosNII AS Scientific & Publishing Centre, Moscow,
(A Brief Reference Book). Vladimir ll'yin; 1995-96, 1999-2000,2001-02,2003-04.
1993-1999.
Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika, 1997, Issue 8.
Jane's Aircraft Upgrades: 1998-99, 2001-02 , 2003-04.
My Life in the Sky. A Test Pilot's Recollections:
The State Research Institute of Aircraft Systems, 1946-96:
V. Ye. Menitskiy; OLMA-Press, Moscow, 1999.
Historical Essays edited by Academician Y. A. Fedosov ;
GosNII AS Scientific & Publishing Centre, Moscow, 1996. A Test Pilot's Notes: Boris A. Orlov; AVI CO-Press,
A Brief Reference Book on Russian & Ukrainian Aircraft
Moscow, 1994.
Other Sources of Information
and Helicopters: Vladimir ll'yin and Mikhail Levin ; Aviatsiya Special-Mission Aircraft: V. N. Shoonkov; Harvest,
i Kosmonavtika , 1995, Issue 5. Minsk, 1998. The official advertising materials of Russian defence
industry enterprises, the Rosvo'orouzheniye and
The Combat Aircraft of the Russian Air Force: Modern Military Aircraft: V. N. Shoonkov; Harvest, Rosoboronexport State Companies and the official
Vladimir ll'yin; Russian Air Force{fsAGI , 1999. Minsk, 1997. catalogues of the Moscow, Paris and Farnborough
The Encyclopedia of Modern Fighters: M. Levin and The History of Aircraft Weapons: Aleksandr B. Shirokorad; Air Shows held in 1989-2004.
V.ll'yin; Hobby· Kniga, Moscow, 1994. Harvest, Minsk, 1999.
The materials published in the Nezavisimoye Voyennoye
The Arms of Russia, Vol.2 - The Aircraft & Weapons MiG-31: Fiction and Fact; A Nadezhdin; Obozreniye (Independent Military Review) and Krasnaya
of the Russian Air Force (A Catalogue): Ed by P. S. Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika , 1996, Issue 6. Zvezda (Red Star) newspapers, the Kryl'ya Rodiny
Deynekin; Military Parade, Moscow, 1996.
MiG-31 Foxhound: Air Fleet Herald, 1996.
(Wings of the Motherland), Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika
The Russian Air Defence Force's Aircraft Component & (Aviation & Spaceflight), Voyennyy Parad/Mifitary Parade,
Technological Progress - The Past, Present & Future The 'Suitcase' from the 'Food Mart': MiG-31 - Air Fleet, Aviapanorama, Aviatsiya i Vremya (Aviation &
Perspective of Combat Systems. Edited by Academician The Story of the World's Best Air Defense Fighter: Time), Ves'nik Aviatsii i Kosmonavtiki/Aerospace Herald ,
Yevgeniy A. Fedosov; Drofa, Moscow, 2001. Aleksandr Larionov; Mir Aviatsii, 1999, Issue 3. Ves'nik Vozdooshnovo Flota/Air Fleet Herald , Tekhnika i
Vo'orouzheniye (Hardware & Armament), M-Hobby,
MiG: The Fleeting Moment Between Past & Future - MiG-311nterceptor: Performance, Armament,
Flight International, Aviation Week & Space Technology,
70 Years of the 'Sokol' Nizhniy Novgorod Aircraft Service Experience and Equipment:
Air International, Air Forces Monthly, World Air Power
Factory: Restart; Moscow, 2002. www.aviation.ru I Airbase - Hangar - Armament.
Journal, Jane's Defense Weekly, Air & Cosmos ,
An Encyclopedia of Russian Aviation: Edited by The Progress of the MiG Fighters ' Armament: Flieger Revue and Flug Revue magazines.
S. D. Bodroonov ; National Association of Aircraft Boris Korolyov, Yuriy Polooshkin ; Military Parade ,
Instrument Design , St. Petersburg, 1999. 1999, Issue 35. Information sourced on the Internet.

SOVIET SECRET SOVIET/RUSSIAN OKB YAKOVLEV

PROJECTS AIRCRAFT WEAPONS A History of the Design Bureau
Bombers Since 1945 Since World War Two and its Aircraft
Tony Buttler & Yefim Gordon Yefim Gordon Y Gordon, S & D Komissarov

We hope you enjoyed

this book . ..
Midland Publishing titles are edited
SOVIET
SECRET PROJECTS
BOMBERS SI NCE 1945
WOKB
YAKOVLEV
and designed by an experienced and
enthusiastic team of specialists.
We always welcome ideas from authors
or readers for books they would like to
see published.
In addition. our associate, Midland
Counties Publications, offers an
exceptionally wide range of aviation,
military, naval and transport books and
videos for sale by mail-order worldwide.
For a copy of the appropriate catalogue,
or to order further copies of this book,
and any other Midland Publishing titles,
please write, telephone, fax or e-mail to: First of an intended three volumes, This book examines the development of Starting life in 1927, with Aleksandr
Midland Counties Publications details many of the jet bomber projects different classes of weapons carried by Sergeyevich Yakovlev's first aircraft, the
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, drawn between the late 1940s and the SovieVRussian aircraft. The chapters AIR-1 , the OKB produced aircraft such
Leics, LE10 3EY, England present day and shows just how creative deal with missiles developed by various as the Yak-4 light bomber, Yak-6 light
Tel: (+44) 01455 254 450 the design bureaus could be. A large bureaux, including Vympel, Raduga and transport and Yak-1 fighter. The latter
Fax: (+44) 01455 233 737 proportion came from the Tupolev Zvezda: AAMs, from the RS-1-US of the was the progenitor of a series including
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com design bureau, but Myasishchev, Sukhoi 1960s to the latest 'fire and forget' R-77 the Yak-7, Yak-9 and Yak-3. Post-war
www.midlandcountiessuperstore.com and Yakovlev are also represented. (RW-AE) featuring active radar homing, the Yak-15 fighter evolved into the Yak-
US distribution by Specialty Press- Access to original archives from the and ASMs from Mikoyan's KS-1 anti- 17 and Yak-23. Other successful types
see page 2. bureaux has ensured a level of in-depth shipping missile of the 1950s to 'smart included the Yak-25 tactical twin jet,
coverage and accuracy never weapons', such as the laser-guided Yak-18 trainer, Yak-40/42 airliners,
previously possible. Raduga Kh-29L and TV-guided Kh-29T. Yak-24 tandem-rotor and Yak-38 VTOL.
Hardback, 282 x 213mm, 176 pages Hardback, 282 x 213mm, 208 pages Hardback, 280 x 216mm, 384 pages
190 b/w photographs, 6pp of colour, 343 b/w photos, 31 pp of colour, 733 b/w photographs, 12pp of colour
plus 86 line drawings plus 85 line drawings over 100 drawings
1 85780 194 6 £24.99 1 85780 188 1 £24.99 1 85780 203 9 £40.00