The overall modelling of the Foxbat and Foxhound are not at all what I had expected and do not reflect a detailed knowledge of their construction. It is necessary to concede there are many misconceptions and disinformation regarding these MiGs in particular, notably in regards to their actual performance limitations and operational characteristics, primarily with the Foxhound.

Firstly, the RB and RBT Foxbat variants are capable of achieving their maximum airframe restriction (Mach 2.83) with a full load of four underwing bombs. So for a start RB and RBT Foxbats can select bomb loadouts and are designed as a dual role recon-precision bomber.

At speeds above Mach 2.6 the engines have a tendancy to overspeed and throttle control must be precise to prevent "runaway rpm" which may result in speeds exceeding Mach 3 with the later Tumansky engines (flying clean), naturally resulting in the destruction of the engines and potential loss of the aircraft (a few occasions where this has happened the pilots have managed to return the aircraft, ref: Egyptian Foxbat-B 1973 where speeds of up to Mach 3.2 were monitored by Israeli ground stations and reported to US intelligence).

Later interceptor variants, the PD and PDS were outfitted with the same later Tumansky engines, improving engine life from 150hrs to 1000hrs, engine overspeeding notwithstanding. Pilots were generally instructed to keep airspeeds below Mach 2.5.
Their use as a strategic interceptor was as a potential one-shot application of cruise missile and (ambitiously) A-11/SR-71A interception, plus all other potential strategic threats.

Their low altitude performance is compounded by an inherently inept design for "thick air manoeuvrability" and the inability to achieve supersonic speeds at sea level. As a big, solid steel aircraft, compared to the composite/honeycomb construction of US post-1972 fighter-interceptors their typical combat altitude performance might be likened to that of a brick. What they are like in any counter-air operation is an unsophisticated, manned missile with excellent "boom and zoom" capabilities but shocking performance at low altitudes.

They can't manage to keep in turn with F-15's at low altitudes, with transonic speeds as I manage to render in Lock-On. What they can do is outmatch any other 70's aircraft comfortably in climb rate, with an overall operational altitude with two missiles of some 78,000 feet (for two minutes), burn through ECM with awesome (though unsophisticated and short ranged) radar power and send those missiles to 88,000 feet.

Early MiG-25P's didnt' even have lookdown-shootdown capability.

The MiG-25MP/MiG-31 Foxhound fixes all these problems in one foul swoop. Its final development model, the MiG-31M is a 1990 aircraft and has all the significance of any front line combat warplane of that era. Full and dedicated ECM station, phased array and very sophisticated radar with a good range, high power and even the ability to track targets below and just to the rear of the aircraft, for a limited over the shoulder weapons fire capability.
Its engines are the primary difference, both far more powerful and sophisticated than the original Tumanskys, the Aviadvigatels are designed specifically to be oversped by up to 140% maximum nominal, augumented thrust (for a total of over 41,000lbs of thrust apiece). They have none of the reliability issues of the Tumanskys and have demonstrated hundreds of thousands of flying hours at bench testing under all conditions, without failure.

The main weapon system is a circa. 90 mile range R-37 active-RG missile package similar to the AIM-54 Pheonix. I believe early variants R-33 long range missiles may have been semi-active guided, similar to the US AIM-47 Pheonix missile system originally proposed for the YF-12A interceptor and salvaged by the Tomcat, although some sources have suggested these are also active-radar guided.

The entire airframe had been rebuilt with stronger construction designed to primarily improve low altitude performance and increase range. It was further developed in the MiG-31M.

It's stronger and has an effortless sea level top speed of around 1.4 Mach, with the same 2.83 Mach airframe safety limitation at high altitude, although much as the MiG-25 it is entirely conceivable that much higher speeds are attainable at pilot discretion, although this is inherently dangerous.

Basically the MiG-25s in Lock-On should be switched in sea level performance with the MiG-31 at the least, and acceleration plus rate of climb uprated slightly, and all Foxbat/Foxhounds should have their high altitude performance remodelled based on post Cold War technical specification and an abandonment of late Cold War presumptions as to their overall effectiveness when misused as a counter-air fighter.
Essentially, performance of the MiG-25PD and RB loadouts need to be revised and a consideration for the fact the MiG-31 finally delivered what the original Foxbat had promised would really make the game more fun in the historical fantasy genre.

Neither could really compete in a dogfight with typical US fighters at sea level, but the situation is reversed once they start gaining altitude and high Mach, the Foxhound a very dangerous (if limited) opponent indeed.

hmmm, fascinating. Although I beleive that the Phoenix missile has alway sbeen designated the AiM-54.

I have made extensive posts on this forum already about the way the MiG-31 and MiG-25 are implemented in the game, you can tell by the graphics they used that they didn't spend that much time on them. I would of course like to see a MiG-31B(refueling probe and slightly upgraded electronics) actually implemented as flyable in the game, unfortunately there are some problems to be overcome before that could happen.

1.Apearently the weapon deployment procedures are still classified so some of the combat systems would have to be guessed at by the developers.

2.It is a two seater and it would require extensive cockpit and avionics modelling for each seat making it a difficult aircraft to model accurately.

3.Most of the ED effort is going into more versatile and modern weapon systems so they are probably much more likely to model something like an Su-30 or MiG-29KUB.

Although there probably will never be a sim that does a flyable MiG-31 justice I believe that ED IS doing their best to improve the Foxhounds/Foxbats as AI aircraft, there are even new models and textures for the R-33 that will be implemented with the next patch for flaming cliffs, maybe it is too much to hope that there will be new aircraft models and AI too.

Thank you vanir it is nice to have some one els post about the Mig-31.