Military Review

The superiority of the MiG-31 over the F-22, or American absurdity

54

Translation difficulties?



There is an American edition called Military Watch Magazine. It positions itself as a supplier of "reliable and in-depth analysis of military affairs throughout the world." In a Russian-language publication, mention can be made of the publication being based in Scottsdale, Arizona. And he considers himself “critical” in relation to the US military-industrial complex.

In itself, this should neither surprise nor alarm. There is nothing wrong with the fact that American observers are trying to critically evaluate the programs that spend billions of taxpayer money. Moreover, many of these programs ended in nothing: just remember Future Combat Systems. And others, for example, Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, repeatedly shifted and revised.

However, some points still cast doubt on objectivity. In April Military Watch Magazine published material «MiG-31BSM Foxhound vs. F-22 Raptor: Which Heavyweight Jet Would Reign Supreme in Air to Air Combat? ”, Which was brought to the attention of“ Rossiyskaya Gazeta ”, the official press agency of the government of the Russian Federation.

Even a cursory glance is enough to understand how “unsuccessful” the F-22 is. The authors did not leave a fifth generation fighter a single chance in a battle with the old Soviet MiG-31 interceptor. True, the argument raises many questions.

“... with a weight of about 29 kg, the F-400 can use one of the largest and most powerful radars weighing about 22 kg. However, the MiG-554, weighing about 31 kg after refueling, is capable of carrying an even larger radar, which provides a greater detection range, "

- quotes "WG" the words of the author of Military Watch Magazine.

It is interesting to know, since when has the effectiveness of airborne radar stations been determined by their mass? And since when did the old Soviet Zaslon radar station (albeit in a modernized form), which they began to develop as far back as the 60s, begin to have a greater detection range than that installed on the F-22 AN / APG-77? The latter, recall, is equipped with an active phased antenna array and has 1500-2000 receive-transmit modules: it embodies all the achievements of American progress in this area. Of course, it is possible to admit the presence of certain "childhood diseases", but they probably were solved long ago.

We can, of course, talk about nominal indicators of detection range: however, is it appropriate to give them, given that even generation 4+ fighters (Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale) have significantly reduced radar visibility in comparison with old aircraft, and the number of “invisibles” issued »F-35 has long exceeded five hundred units.

In general, the ability of the Barrier to somehow detect these vehicles at a great distance for obvious reasons is a big question. Probably, the MiG-31 is even less likely to show itself in close air combat: the aircraft for this has not been created, in principle, and is practically devoid of the qualities necessary for a multi-functional fighter.

Further more.

“However, perhaps the most significant advantage of the MiG-31 weapons is its range. R-37 is a larger missile capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 400 km. Even the range of the latest AIM-120D missiles is less than half of this range. The range of the MiG-31’s weapons is likely to be even greater, since the flight characteristics of the aircraft also play a role. ”

- says the material.


The problem is that the effectiveness of air-to-air missiles is not determined by their maximum launch range: with a high degree of probability, launching a rocket from a maximum distance will end in nothing. In general, the question of the number of R-37 missiles in the Russian Air Force is, to put it mildly, debatable: many sources directly indicate that there are no such forces in the arsenal of the air forces (here, however, the author does not undertake to prove anything specifically). As for the standard interceptor missile, R-33, then it has a maximum overload of the attacked targets of 4g, which makes it almost impossible to defeat highly maneuverable targets, primarily modern fighters.

In addition to the above facts, you can find no less "entertaining." For example, that the MiG-1975, manufactured since 31, “will last longer” than the F-22 (they began to operate in 2005). Or that the highly specialized interceptor is “more universal” (!) Of the American fighter. In the latter case, the authors recall the “Dagger” X-47M2, but forget that the specially modernized aircraft, the MiG-31K, is deprived of the possibility of using standard air-to-air weapons as the carrier of this missile. As for the idea to equip the MiG-31BM with new bombs and missiles of the "air-surface" class, then this initiative, most likely, has remained just an initiative. In general, the modernization of drill MiG-31 to the level of MiG-31BM is best called budget. This is a conditional analogue of the modernization of the Su-27 to the level of the Su-27SM and tanks T-72B to the level of T-72B3.


Five five


Of course, the above examples could be attributed to the difficulties of translation, but in reality the official press organ of the Russian government quite accurately stated the essence of the article. That is, Rossiyskaya Gazeta in this case cannot be blamed for the incorrect presentation of the material.

In general, the idea in itself to compare the old Soviet interceptor and the relatively new fifth generation fighter deserves special attention. Obviously, these are aircraft of different eras: MiG-15 and F-15 can be compared with the same success. That is, this does not mean that the MiG-31 is bad, but its time is objectively coming to an end. By the way, recently, Russia has been paying more and more attention to this recently, speaking of creating a promising MiG-41 or transferring functions to the 31st Su-57 fighter, which, however, is not yet in service.


It is worth saying that this is not the first attempt by Military Watch Magazine to compare modern (and not only) weapons. So, earlier the military magazine made a rating of the best tanks in the world, which immediately included two Russian combat vehicles - the T-14 Armata and the T-90M Proryv.

And in 2018, the publication devoted to fifth-generation fighters, or rather, the advantages of the Russian Su-57 over the F-35, caused great resonance. “This is reflected in its (Su-57. - Avt.) Speed, flight altitude, sensors, missile equipment, range and maneuverability - in all characteristics, where a heavier Russian fighter has superiority,” RIA citesNews»Words Military Watch. Needless to say, such estimates quickly scattered across the Runet. “In the USA, they recognized the superiority of the Su-57 over the F-35,” is how Lenta titled her material.

However, American citizens are unlikely to hear about the shortcomings of the F-35 and the advantages of the Su-57. Despite the increased interest in the magazine from the Russian-language media, the author of the material does not remember that any of the major Western media outlets ever referred to Military Watch.

All this, of course, raises uncomfortable questions, but at the same time suggests the real origins of the “strange” publication on the F-22 and MiG-31. It remains to add that Military Watch Magazine was born relatively recently: the earliest materials are dated 2017. True, the publication considers a fairly wide range of issues and goes far beyond comparing Russian and American combat aircraft.
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 11 May 2020 06: 17 New
    11
    And who is stronger, a bear or a shark?
    1. really
      really 11 May 2020 06: 32 New
      10
      The owner of the zoo and water park laughing
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 11 May 2020 08: 11 New
        13
        True, the argument raises many questions.

        Dear author, unfortunately, your argument is also so-so
        Of course, may be allowed the presence of certain "childhood diseases", but they, probablyhave long been resolved.
        ,
        And here are the interesting performance characteristics of the radar from you:
        it embodies all the achievements of American progress in this area

        Two articles standing together laughing
      2. Cypa
        Cypa 11 May 2020 08: 26 New
        +1
        and who is roofing him
    2. evgenii67
      evgenii67 11 May 2020 10: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: Krasnodar
      And who is stronger, a bear or a shark?

      There is more likely a shark or killer whale, an elephant or a rhino.

      Now, if Apache and the Shell were compared, then yes - a bear and a shark
    3. ppgt90
      ppgt90 11 May 2020 14: 41 New
      +7
      From the point of view of banal erudition the primacy of a ram in front of a new gate.
      1. Fevralsk. Morev
        Fevralsk. Morev 11 May 2020 15: 53 New
        +1
        I do not agree. Depending on the thickness of the boards on the gate. Or the steepness of the horns. As well as the weight of the ram itself and the qualifications of the gate builder. :-)
    4. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 11 May 2020 20: 39 New
      +2
      By the way, I don’t know about sharks, but in the Arctic, a polar bear can get to the killer whale for lunch
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 11 May 2020 20: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        By the way, I don’t know about sharks, but in the Arctic, a polar bear can get to the killer whale for lunch

        Like a shark - a killer whale, fighting off its group, they can be defeated only by the crowd)).
  2. Ravil_Asnafovich
    Ravil_Asnafovich 11 May 2020 06: 34 New
    0
    When the enemy scolds, then we are doing everything right, and when he praises, well, then everyone knows.
  3. Dmitry from Voronezh
    Dmitry from Voronezh 11 May 2020 06: 50 New
    +6
    Well what can I say? The publication does not have travel analysts, so they write nonsense. The questions are not to those who wrote this, but to those who started this "walk" on the Runet.
  4. sterx20072
    sterx20072 11 May 2020 07: 05 New
    +2
    Khroshi in the sense of twenty lard dolars! Just yesterday! Otherwise, everything is gone!
  5. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 11 May 2020 07: 15 New
    +2
    Let us compare it is not a pity, both planes have their own buns.
  6. knn54
    knn54 11 May 2020 07: 33 New
    +3
    Everything is so everything.
    - The MiG-31, unlike the F-22, is able to take off from ice airfields, which is a big plus for the conditions of the Arctic war.
    - The Russian aircraft have an infrared search and tracking system, which the F-22 does not have.
    -A warhead of a Russian rocket weighs 60 kg, and an American - 20 kg.
    The MiG-31 is capable of flying at altitudes of more than 21 km and at high speeds, which allows it to launch missiles with higher kinetic energy, which increases their flight range.
    I think that the MAIN THING:
    Another significant advantage of the MiG-31 are lower operating costs compared to the F-22. The American fighter on this indicator was among the most expensive aircraft. Its maintenance costs taxpayers $ 700 million.
    1. opus
      opus 11 May 2020 20: 07 New
      0
      Quote: knn54
      - The MiG-31, unlike the F-22, is able to take off from ice airfields, which is a big plus for the conditions of the Arctic war.

      but what does it give?
      we do not have separate airdrome-building battalions, Dalstroy Ministry of Internal Affairs and a lot of things
      Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor V.M., who studied the problem of using ice cover for airfields and crossings Kozin in his monograph claims that “the creation of a network of alternate airfields on the ice of the Arctic Ocean turned out to be as shown by the experience of the organization and operation of the drifting station "SP-1", impossible ". He also reports on flights from the ice of the Il-28 and Tu-16 bombers. But landing on it showed that “when braking, a heavy car was drifted to the sides. In addition, the high salt content in the ice made it loose, which caused such strong shaking during takeoff and landing that it was impossible to control the readings

      Quote: knn54
      -The presence of a Russian aircraft infrared search and tracking system,

      The 8TP heat locator is frankly old. It is unlikely that he will help him with his EPR and I signature
      Quote: knn54
      -A warhead of a Russian rocket weighs 60 kg, and an American - 20 kg.

      and the mass of the missiles themselves? compare
      they will soon switch to a direct needle hit
      Quote: knn54
      The MiG-31 is capable of flying at altitudes of more than 21 km and at high speeds, which allows it to launch missiles with higher kinetic energy, which increases their flight range.

      -Of course, without the R-37 it is "able to fly" there
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 15 May 2020 12: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      Everything is so everything.
      Another significant advantage of the MiG-31 are lower operating costs compared to the F-22. The American fighter on this indicator was among the most expensive aircraft. Its maintenance costs taxpayers $ 700 million.


      Read your quotes fully and thoughtfully:
      "The cost of its operation over forty years of life is about 550 million dollars."

      40 years.

      13 million 750 thousand a year with the cost of an hour of flight of 60 thousand dollars - this is only 230 hours of flight.

      But the cost of an hour includes all associated costs: this includes the payment of the salaries of pilots and technicians, and all spare parts, and the provision of equipment for technicians and fuel.

      Do you really think that the 2-seater huge MIG-31 aircraft:
      - with prohibitively voracious engines that consume fuel for 1 million rubles per hour of flight,
      - maintenance of military camps for pilots and technicians,
      - spare parts, equipment and fuel ..
      will cost less ????
  7. mark2
    mark2 11 May 2020 07: 54 New
    +7
    It positions itself as a supplier of "reliable and in-depth analysis of military affairs throughout the world."

    Like this site.
    the author of the material does not remember that any of the major Western media outlets ever referred to Military Watch.

    I will say more. Even in such a trash like Zen, articles and links to the VO website ceased to come across. I’m not talking about others, because VO refers to the opinion of publishers who
    positions itself as a supplier of "reliable and in-depth analysis of military affairs throughout the world", which are not actually such.
  8. demiurg
    demiurg 11 May 2020 08: 04 New
    +2
    One hundred percent sign. If the military-industrial complex begins to lament that the USA has a tank / bmp / ​​airplane / there is sucks that are about to fall apart, from old age and squalor, wait for multibillion investments in research in this area.
    And after all, despite the fact that 80 percent of the money will go nowhere (or rather, very much where), no one will be posting villas of the US senators who have been sitting in the Senate for generations since almost civil war.
    They are democratically elected, 3-4-5 generations in a row. #this other # understand it right.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. smaug78
    smaug78 11 May 2020 09: 10 New
    +3
    The superiority of the MiG-31 over the F-22, or American absurdity
    the absurdity of comparing these two aircraft of different classes. And it doesn’t matter who does it: Americans or an author trying to perform in the spirit of "well, stupid Americans" ...
    1. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 11 May 2020 20: 40 New
      +2
      Why is the ridiculous mig-31 interceptor means it should intercept everything that flies
  11. sivuch
    sivuch 11 May 2020 09: 11 New
    +4
    It seems that the author does not know that the edition 520 has a maximum overload of 8g. As for the detection ranges, it is clear that no one will give exact numbers, and even with specific conditions, but such a factor plays for the Mig-31 as the size of the fairing, and hence the diameter of the antenna. Perhaps more peak power. The rest is probably in favor of the raptor.
    here a little about 520
    https://vk.com/topic-14964099_22344201?offset=140
    That is, in fact, a new missile with a new (but still PA radar) GOS, a new engine and a new a / dynamics. Moreover, it was produced not at the DMZ, but in Tushino for 8 years, up to 96 years.
    Moskvitelev writes that at 33C, among other things, increased target overload
    http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/178496-mig-31-gonchaya-derzhit-sled.html
    The development of the R-33 missile was entrusted to the State Pennant Design Bureau Vympel. Initially, the rocket was designed to destroy targets with an overload of up to three to four units. At that time, this was explained by the need to destroy such basic targets as a strategic bomber, tactical and carrier-based aircraft, strategic cruise missiles, that is, low-maneuverable targets. Naturally, this requirement led to a decrease in the available missile overload, its maximum ranges and altitude of target destruction, and effectiveness.
    The “groundlessness” was corrected in the further development of long-range missiles (ed. 520, 620 of subsequent modifications, etc.) by changing their balancing characteristics, increasing energy and traction, increasing the operating time of the power unit, which led to a significant increase in their combat capabilities.
    Some sources, such as this one, give 8g for regular 33
    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-102.html
    Here, a friend writes the same a little more
    http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/22380-перспективный-авиационный-комплекс-фронтовой/page__st__540
    That is, 8g is also possible for the old R-33, but the probability of falling
    1. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 11 May 2020 22: 31 New
      +2
      Perhaps more peak power. The rest, probably in favor of the raptor

      There is nothing to do with peak power, the Barrier is essentially a “flying” textbook on radar in terms of “chips” in signal processing, so what’s for whose benefit the rest is not clear at all, given the American tendency towards primitivism.
  12. bar
    bar 11 May 2020 09: 34 New
    +8
    Eksperds from the reputable "resource Sohu" made their way to the United States? But it’s not sad, it’s sad that VO is seriously discussing articles of such muddy “resources”. So not for long and ourselves to be among them :(
  13. strelokmira
    strelokmira 11 May 2020 12: 53 New
    +2
    Well, clearly The National Interest has opened a new branch called - Military Watch
  14. ppgt90
    ppgt90 11 May 2020 14: 38 New
    +3
    Some nonsense.
    1. Fevralsk. Morev
      Fevralsk. Morev 11 May 2020 15: 55 New
      -5
      The author of the article farts in the water.
  15. I will tell
    I will tell 11 May 2020 15: 47 New
    0
    Good article about misinformation. stop
  16. Fevralsk. Morev
    Fevralsk. Morev 11 May 2020 15: 50 New
    -4
    Mao Dzedong said, I do not remember literally, that the main thing is not a weapon, but a fighter fighting with these weapons. There are many examples when the enemy was defeated with obsolete weapons (Vietnam). The main thing is the incentive of a fighter. For what, he is ready to give his life, for Abramovich’s yacht, for Solovyov’s villa, for the beggarly pension of his parents or for the State (like the USSR). And so, in your articles, you can endlessly measure writing ... by us, who is longer, thicker and further pissing.
    1. Vasily Ponomarev
      Vasily Ponomarev 11 May 2020 18: 21 New
      0
      > when the enemy was defeated with obsolete weapons (Vietnam)
      well, it’s probably not the soldiers who won, they then lost all the wars (we also had everything in Afghanistan), but those 58 thousand dead were enough for their people to go to the white house
      1. CTABEP
        CTABEP 11 May 2020 18: 46 New
        +1
        Quite right, having lost 650 thousand killed in the WWII, the United States "did not fight," and having lost 58 thousand in Vietnam, "washed with blood." And it’s strange to talk about obsolete weapons in Vietnam - the latest Soviet air defense systems and fighters, quite capable and not old artillery - obviously they didn’t fight against M-16s with hand-held grenades and hand grenades.
        1. Vasily Ponomarev
          Vasily Ponomarev 11 May 2020 18: 58 New
          0
          > having lost 650 thousand dead in WWII
          can the question be, where did you get this data?
          > USA "didn’t fight", and having lost 58 thousand "washed their blood" in Vietnam
          the fact of the matter is that in Vietnam, the uss lost only half as much as in the first world war, and this is just a local war, although not only because of the losses there, everything is a little more complicated, so your statement is not entirely clear
          > Yes, and it’s strange to talk about obsolete weapons
          I didn’t say anything about this, the USSR supplied northern Vietnam with the most modern weapons, take the same moment21, then this was the country's practice
          1. CTABEP
            CTABEP 11 May 2020 19: 09 New
            +2
            can the question be, where did you get this data?

            I apologize, I was mistaken, 418 thousand killed and 74 thousand missing - about half a million. Which is 9 times bigger than Vietnam anyway.

            the fact of the matter is that in Vietnam, the uss lost only half as much as in the first world war, and this is just a local war, although not only because of the losses there, everything is a little more complicated, so your statement is not entirely clear


            It is not entirely correct to compare kmk with PMV.

            so your statement is not entirely clear


            I simply agreed with your idea that it was not the US soldiers and officers who lost the war in Vietnam. First of all, she was lost at home. Which, of course, does not beg a drop of the fighting qualities and mood of the Vietnamese.
            1. Vasily Ponomarev
              Vasily Ponomarev 11 May 2020 21: 11 New
              0
              I agree, but anyway, reading the history of that conflict, you understand that all the same, those hippies who were against the war turned out to be right, there were a lot of people through opu
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 12 May 2020 08: 18 New
            0
            USSR supplied northern Vietnam with the most modern weapons, take the same moment21
            deeply mistaken (however, not only you - every 2-3 months you have to carry out explanatory work). Read the work of Sergei - he described in detail.
            1. Vasily Ponomarev
              Vasily Ponomarev 12 May 2020 08: 20 New
              0
              > deeply mistaken
              Well, maybe I didn’t climb deep into this topic, but can I at least explain a little here what?
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 12 May 2020 08: 40 New
                0
                Until the Vietnamese decided which of the older brothers is closer to them — the USSR or China, they did not send anything modern from the air defense technology. It would be like sending directly to China for study. Therefore, they were not supplied with Cuba, Shilka (at least until the mid-70s), 125th complexes - until 72 years. Even the S-75 was not - there were the SA-75, which is not the same thing.
                1. Vasily Ponomarev
                  Vasily Ponomarev 12 May 2020 08: 45 New
                  0
                  > SA-75, which is not the same
                  but is it the same with 75 only at the automobile base? Yes, and if you take not only air defense systems, but with aviation?
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 12 May 2020 09: 07 New
                    0
                    not the same. The main difference between the SNR 10cm range (for S-75 - 6cm)
                    As for the DRV aviation, it played too small a role - just look at the number of downed planes. And, NYA, the Vietnamese themselves preferred the Chinese J-6 (i.e. MiG-19)
                    1. Vasily Ponomarev
                      Vasily Ponomarev 12 May 2020 10: 15 New
                      0
                      okay, thanks, by the way, did you know that during the vietnamese us artillery ammunition was used up more than in the second world war?
  17. Sarkazm
    Sarkazm 11 May 2020 20: 36 New
    0
    Radar "Barrier" is the first serial in the world with a phased array, but passive. The MiG-31 is generally a unique machine, and not only because it repeated the characteristics of the predecessor of the MiG-25, and its ILS, and the heat finder, the exchange of information between the machines in the group, all this is also unique and advanced for its development time.
    A heavy fighter interceptor is not intended for maneuverable air combat, but taking into account the capabilities of the upgraded MiG-31BM, it is able to successfully conduct long-range missile combat with modern fighters of the 5th generation. Indeed, much has been said precisely that our Su-27 - 35, MiG-33/35 fighters are significantly inferior to the F-22 and F-35 in this, and with the MiG-31 the situation is such that the latter can be destroyed before will be able to realize their advantages. They will rush right up to our fighters, here they have no advantages over the Su-27 - 35, MiG-33/35.

    About the rocket. R-37M (publ. 610M) passed state tests in 20011-2014 and adopted.
    1. Catsoi
      Catsoi 12 May 2020 02: 54 New
      +1
      So the main feature of the raptor with the penguin is the fight at a long distance, and here the fun begins :)
      By the way, I agree with MW - it is possible and necessary to compare avionics by mass :) And most importantly:
      And since when did the old Soviet Zaslon radar station (albeit in a modernized form), which they began to develop in the 60s, began to have a greater detection range than that installed on the F-22 AN / APG-77. The last one is equipped with active phased array antenna and has +1500 receiving and transmitting modules: it embodies all the achievements of American progress in this area.

      If we compare element by element, then the Barrier has the following performance characteristics: a multi-channel system that includes two independent electronically-controlled gratings with 1700 emitters in X-band and transponders L-band with 64 transmitterscombined into a single antenna [3]. The diameter of the antenna is 1,1 m, it is fixed for scanning in the direction of +/- 70 degrees horizontally and + 70 / -60 degrees vertically [4].
      Barrier-M has a diameter of 1,4 meters (there are more elements, respectively) and an increased detection range (up to 400 km for targets with an EPR of 20 m²). Tracks up to 24 targets at a time, allows you to aim weapons at 6 targets. In April 1994, it was tested with the R-37 missile, which hit the target at a distance of 300 km [7].
      Barrier-AM is an improved version that uses the more modern TsV-400 “Baguette-55” instead of “Argon-15A” [8] [9].
      And most importantly: PFAR is by definition more powerful than AFAR, since AFAR still has problems with cooling elements. This is its advantage and Barrier-M is more powerful than AN / APG-77, especially the simplified version of AN / APG-81 installed on the F-35. Compared to the powerful "Raptor" radar, the APG-81 electronic miracle has modest dimensions и less energy.
      The advantages of AFAR are multitasking and greater reliability.
      So to merge Mig-31 in comparison with F22 / F35 - too early :)
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 12 May 2020 08: 28 New
      0
      One dude confidently claimed that they were not officially accepted, although everyone saw them in the video from Kansk.
    3. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 13 May 2020 11: 49 New
      0
      but taking into account the capabilities of the upgraded MiG-31BM, it is able to successfully conduct long-range missile combat with modern fighters of the 5th generation. Indeed, much has been said precisely that our Su-27 - 35, MiG-33/35 fighters are significantly inferior to the F-22 and F-35 in this, and with the MiG-31 the situation is such that the latter can be destroyed before will be able to realize their advantages.

      Everything is mixed up in a heap ... The "Barrier" from the Mig-31 is not a champion in terms of detection range, and long-range explosive missiles have a painfully "complex" guidance system with drawbacks regarding the "concealment" of the guidance process. Therefore, if in your opinion, the Su-35S with the Irbis, which has a much greater detection range than the Barrier, loses the F-22, then the MiG-31 will also lose to it.
  18. Uncle Izya
    Uncle Izya 11 May 2020 20: 41 New
    +1
    Why is the ridiculous mig-31 interceptor means it should intercept everything that flies
  19. eklmn
    eklmn 11 May 2020 22: 07 New
    0
    From the article:
    “That is, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta in this case cannot be blamed for the incorrect presentation of the material.”
    But Rossiyskaya Gazeta can be blamed for reprinting info from a source that is not trusted by readers.
    There are a lot of discussions about trust / distrust of MWM on Google, one article here:
    “How trustworthy or not trustworthy is Military Watch magazine?”
    One of the comments:
    “There is no editorial review, and most of what they publish is filled with errors. I think this is some Indian guy’s blog, presented as a “magazine” ”
  20. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 12 May 2020 00: 19 New
    0
    Without even reading deeply, in what situation will these two machines have the task of knocking each other down without support from the ground?
  21. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 12 May 2020 08: 06 New
    -3
    Quote: knn54
    -A warhead of a Russian rocket weighs 60 kg, and an American - 20 kg.


    R-33 - Phoenix rocket stolen from the Americans. And the original Phoenix rocket is famous for not having hit the target at all a single time while it was in service. Neither in Libya, nor in the Iran-Iraq war, nor in the Desert Storm. Moreover, in almost all cases, the enemy did not even suspect that he was attacked. Maybe its manufacturers would say in justification that the idea of ​​the missile was to shoot down the Soviet Tu-22s before reaching the launch line, think about attacking an American aircraft carrier. Those. for such a specific operation, it might have helped, but who knows, in real life such a meeting did not happen. Therefore, the Americans got rid of the Phoenix quickly and without regret. Apparently, the MiG-31 is also helpless against any fighter.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 12 May 2020 08: 30 New
      0
      Well, yes - a stolen missile with a different guidance system.
  22. +5
    +5 12 May 2020 09: 48 New
    0
    The comparison is of course idiotic. I think that the F22 will make the Mig31BM if a fight happens between them. But as an interceptor for stratobommers and their missile defense systems as well as AWACS any 31st is better.
    1. Voyager
      Voyager 12 May 2020 11: 26 New
      0
      Quote: 5-9
      I think that the F22 will make the Mig31BM if a fight happens between them.

      It depends on the conditions of use. In the case of early exposure to the F-22, the Mig-31 is more likely to get out of this battle alive, while the F-22 has less.
    2. Outsider
      Outsider 17 June 2020 23: 08 New
      0
      Of course worse. Incomparably worse. Especially for low-flying stealth-KR.
      Comparing the Barrier to the APG-77 (V) 1 is not even funny.
  23. Voyager
    Voyager 12 May 2020 11: 28 New
    -1
    Or that the highly specialized interceptor is “more universal” (!) Of the American fighter. In the latter case, the authors remind about the “Dagger” X-47M2, but they forget that a specially modernized aircraft, the MiG-31K, acts as the carrier of this missile

    Well, actually it is. The platform itself, as it turned out, can work in much wider ranges of applications than the F-22.

    And so almost the entire "article", some kind of kindergarten.
  24. silver_roman
    silver_roman 13 May 2020 01: 05 New
    0
    this is a typical yellow pulp fiction so that some Yankees would not be bored to poop laughing .
    No more. They look for the capabilities of radars in kilograms, rockets with their maximum range so capitalistically). The main thing is to call hype. You should not even look for logic. it's akin to a betman versus a superman).
    Objectively, these planes are foolish to compare. MiG - 31 is an interceptor, today it is a component of air defense for intercepting all sorts of tomahawks and other mucks, plus an excellent platform for a dagger.
    In general, it’s funny to imagine the MiG 31 in close air combat. It's like passing a Nurburgring on a dragster wassat
  25. Misha_an26
    Misha_an26 15 May 2020 12: 48 New
    0
    Yes, this comparison is beyond words.