Naval MiG-25/31

T

torginus

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
27 October 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
42
I just had a brainwave - the F14 was an interceptor aircraft with a huge range and long loiter time, whose main task was fleet defence. The MiG-25/31 does share the powerful radar, huge range and carries loads of fuel. My quest is were they ever considered by the Soviets for a similar fleet defense role? If not, how did their fleet defense needs, or was this thing not a necessity for Soviet doctrine?
 
torginus said:
I just had a brainwave - the F14 was an interceptor aircraft with a huge range and long loiter time, whose main task was fleet defence. The MiG-25/31 does share the powerful radar, huge range and carries loads of fuel. My quest is were they ever considered by the Soviets for a similar fleet defense role? If not, how did their fleet defense needs, or was this thing not a necessity for Soviet doctrine?
Click to expand...
Soviet doesn't really have an aircraft carrier that Mig-25/31 can take off and land from so No
 
1) They didn't have a suitable carrier. I'm not sure anyone has a carrier that could launch and recover a MiG-25 / 31.
2) You'd be very brave to attempt takeoff from a carrier, (assuming a large carrier with catapults, which the USSR didn't develop), and suicidal to attempt to land.
 
torginus said:
I just had a brainwave - the F14 was an interceptor aircraft with a huge range and long loiter time, whose main task was fleet defence. The MiG-25/31 does share the powerful radar, huge range and carries loads of fuel. My quest is were they ever considered by the Soviets for a similar fleet defense role? If not, how did their fleet defense needs, or was this thing not a necessity for Soviet doctrine?
Click to expand...
Do you expect the MiG-25/31 to operate from a carrier, or patrol over the fleet from land bases?
 
As fun as a ZELL MiG-25 off the fantail of a Kiev (so the efflux is directed seaward) is fun to contemplate, was a fleet interceptor necessary? The USSR made a deliberate choice not to emulate the US carrier doctrine. Soviet vessels didn't exactly want for SAMs and CIWS and seemed (to me at least) to come from the best defence is a good offence school of thought. It is difficult to launch an alpha strike when there are several Shipwrecks on a reciprocal heading!

@starviking raises another interesting possibility but shore-based defenders are going to either be of little use beyond a certain range or else limit the use of a fleet tethered to the shore.

So my meandering answer is yes the Soviets could have chosen to develop a fleet defence interceptor but at massive expense (what gets cancelled for it and the associated carriers?) and the end result wouldn't be a MiG-25/-31 anymore. I'd envision something closer to a VG Flagon (in form not fitment) to be more likely. FWIW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Designs for proposed variable geometry (swing wing) MiG-25 (scroll down the linked thread for some more details) and MiG-31s may be of interest here. By the way, shouldn't this thread be over in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section?
 
With thrust vectoring and a pair of Harrier forward cold-air lateral exhausts (taken from the two engine fans) maybe you could get that massive thing STOL, but no VTOL by any mean.
I'm tempted to say "the Su-27 was navalized" but the MiG-25 & 31 are like big led blocks: little wings and massive weight.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
The USSR made a deliberate choice not to emulate the US carrier doctrine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the US never replicated the sort of threats (multi-regimental raids by naval medium bombers with large AShMs) that drove the USN to adopt the Outer Air Battle framework. And without that conceptual framework, the Soviets didn't feel the pressing need to explicitly mirror the E-2C/F-14 complex.

Ironically, since the end of the Cold War, the USN has rolled around to something closer to the Soviet approach, putting the bulk of the fleet air defense into surface ships (the ubiquitous AEGIS), freeing the carrier air wing for more offensively minded tasks. Which is one reason why the USN doesn't seem to be desperate to build an F-14 follow-on capability for the Super Hornet, for example.
 
Still B-52s were wired to carry Harpoons. In passing, this must have pissed Gorshkov tremendously, imagine.

The Soviets "We spent a fortune in naval missiles, including launched from a navy bomber force."
en.wikipedia.org

Soviet Naval Aviation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
269 bombers
Click to expand...

The Americans "Sure dude. Excellent idea. We just strapped USN Harpoons on USAF B-52s and, tadaaaaam: a naval bomber force at bargain price."

193 B-52G and 102 B-52H: boom, 295 anti-ship bombers.
 
Archibald said:
193 B-52G and 102 B-52H: boom, 295 anti-ship bombers.
Click to expand...
Slightly overstating SAC’s commitment to supporting the Navy. Only 30 B-52Gs were modified for Harpoon during the 80s and were based out of Maine and Guam. B-52Hs were not even conventional capable until the mid 90s. Joe Baugher quotes 19 B-52H were modified into Harpoon slingers. Sorry to be party pooper Archie.


At least now every modernized, JASSM capable B-52 can carry LRASM right?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom