Did you read (and comprehend) the whole post? There’s a reason why they (the U.S.) didn’t put the YF-12 into service: They believed (correctly) at the time, Russia had no bombers fast enough to justify such a fast (and expensive to maintain) interceptor like the YF-12. It wasn’t because it failed at what it was designed to do, as you seem to try and hint at by saying Mig-25s and Mig-31s have been massively produced, yet the YF-12 hasn’t.

And, what you say about the SR-71 not being deployed where the Mig-25 was, doesn’t mean it was a fact that it’d intercept it; but rather, most likely due to the U.S. government not wanting to even risk it being shot down! Simply for intelligence that would be obtained in a non-wartime situation, would not be very wise.

And don’t say ‘fighter’, because the Mig-25 / Mig-31 and YF-12 weren’t fighters, but interceptors <– huge difference. 😉

What about this fellow?

The reason both the B-70 and the Sukhoi T-4 were cancelled was besides economics the very real fact SAMs could do so much damage that this expensive aircraft had no future in an age of ICBMs, the MiG-25 was to the contrary cheap and effective for its price tag

True, but if you think the U.S. couldn’t do the same by making an equal, and even better, interceptor, then you’ve never heard, nor read about, the YF-12? It was the interceptor version of the SR-71, and did fly at mach 3.2 while successfully firing 6 AIM-47 missiles, in all. The last AIM-47 missile fired from the YF-12, flying at mach 3.2, was done at 74,000+ feet, hitting a drone flying 500 feet above the ground. 😉

The USAF ordered 92 YF-12’s to go into production; do you know why the U.S. government didn’t go through with it? They had reason to doubt that Russia had bombers fast enough to justify the USAF flying such a fast interceptor, like the YF-12. lol It’d have been a huge waste of money if/when we did figure out Russia had no mach 3+ bombers. And rightly so, the U.S. government guessed correctly. I still wish they put 1-2 of them into service, just for the record. 😀

But at least it did fly, and was tested successfully against drones flying 500 ft. above the ground, from 74k feet.

Anyway, just because it didn’t enter service, doesn’t mean we didn’t have the capability to easily surpass that of the Mig-25. 😉

Hehehehe yes yes
of course yeah yeah the MiG-31 is better than the YF-12 first there are around 390 MiG-31 built, second after the MiG-31 was deployed all the SR-71 never intruded where MiG-31 were stationed and third there were 1200 MiG-25s built.

The SR-71 proved the YF-12 simply was not the best option as a fighter.

again not a fair comparison the EF typhoon is a FIGHTER and so is the MIG-29 whereas the Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR !!! Dont you get it ?? They are smaller engines , much much smaller , it is like saying that the F-135’s total afterburner thrust is twice that of ef’s afterburner thrust!! However the EF’s engines and the Mig-29’s engine able their respective fighters to act FIGHTERS which need high thrust to weight ratio , does the Mig-31 have that ?? Can the mig-31 do the same manuvers and give similar results at 40-45K ?? to get T2W ratio parity you’d need to up the damn engine thrust so much that the Sfc would suffer thereby loosing on performance , i know it wont be fair to add all that capability to the Mig-31 as it is an interceptor but that is the entire point i am trying to make – apples to orranges!!!

The point is the MiG-31 can be armed; agility is not the only way you can shoot down aircraft, air to air missiles are important missiles like the AIM-9X, Python V or ASRAAM even used by MiG-31s or MiG-21 can shot you down even if you fly a F-22 or Eurofighter, long range missiles such as the R-33 or R-77 can do the same for the MiG-31 than a MiG-29 armed with R-73 check tha Russia has not sell any MiG-31 due to the advanced of the design.
See that even less advacend MiG-25s were difficult to beat and few were shot down many times speed eluded AIM-120 and AIM-7s, the MiG-31 is far better and also armed with a fixed weapon.

how did you calculate that ?? it doesnt do more then mach 0.85 at max military power but i dont know how you came up with that !!!

It is very easy see the real yields at military power the MiG-31 has 91KN, the Eurofighter at full afterbuerner has 90kn and the MiG-29 has only 86KN.

The D30 is an engine that is closer to the F-119 than any other engine, why do you think the S-37 Berkut uses it?

The D30 is the closest thing to the AL-41.

There also one big diference between the MiG-31 and the SR-71, the MiG-31 is an interceptor armed with AA-12, AA-8 and AA-9, the SR-71 carries none of those systems, the MiG-31 can rely on its weaponry and if the Russians for example detect the F-22 even as difficult it is means the AA-9 or even the R-37 will make a difficult situation to the F-22, the MiG-31 at least can run from the F-22, can fly faster at a sustained speed, has an IRST system.
an after Mach 1.5 even at mach 1.7 needs the afterburner try to out run the MiG-31 beyond those speeds with the F-22

In few words an upgraded MiG-31 offers the best modern defence against the F-22, the I-21 will be on par but until that time the MiG-31 and MiG-29OBT are the best team work to beat the F-22.

you quoted a post of mine that didnt even mention the Mig-31 but talked about the manuveraibility of the f-22 and you right a para on the mig-31 doing mach 2+ for 30 minutes something that everyone has known for years!!

Bring_it_on

At after burner settings at very low power a single engine will burn at least 5000kg of fuel, at full afterburner a single engine can burn up to 18000kg of fuel in one hour

The MiG-31 carries around 16,000kg of fuel and has two engines, that is not enough even for an engine at full afterburner setting.

The MiG-31 even if it uses afterburner at Mach 2.35 has an economical engine, because must be using the engine at very low afterburner other wise it would spend all its fuel in few minutes.

The Raptor is quoted as having Supercruise at beyond mach 1.5 far bellow the Mach 2.35 the MiG-31 can do it in fact almost with a Mach of difference.

We are not calculating the MiG-31 flying time at Mach 1.5 and what engine setting it has but it must be quit economical and the flying time long enough

The Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR of the purest sence NOT COMPARABLE TO THE F-22 , su-27 or EF typhoon which are all aspect fighters .

Ummmm dont you have to proove your claim that you laid down that the mig-31 can supercruise ???

High yeild yes but high yeild at both aspects , at military power aswell as at dry power , what the F-119 has been designed to do is to narrow the gap between max dry power and max wet power so that the advantages that are gained from high thrust are also available at lower engine settings .

So tell me the data for max dry setting for the F-119?
tell me the sources that says how long the MiG-31 can fly at mach 1.5?

i will give you some dat and you can figure out how long it can fly the most likely at Mach 1.5

The MiG-31 can fly a normal mission for at least 3.6 hours, it has a range of 1400km flying at 2500km/h fully armed with 4 R-33, it has a range of 2400km at Mach 0.8 without fuel tanks.

You can calculate that if the MiG-31 flying at Mach 0.8 (that is around 800-900km km) flies at least 3 hours calculate the range at the speed at Mach 1.5.

Of course this is not a mathematical method but it gives you a more less fair idea the MiG-31 flying at Mach 1.5 must have more than the 30 minutes flying time at mach 2.35 and less than the 3 hours flying time at Mach 0.8

What aircraft is a 44,000lb thrust AL-41 with a vectoring nozzle flying on? (44k because that’s what’s been claimed for it in the past).

I think you do not understand why Russia is behind in fighter technology, Russia at this moments has almost all the technologies for a fifth generation fighter but they lack an airframe that combines all those technologies.

The MiG-31 has supercruise at least for 30 minutes it will fly at Mach 2.35, no other Russian aircraft will do that however lacks stealth and supermanoeuvrability, probably the F-22 has a more economical and modern engine.

The MiG-29OVT and Su-35BM are at least as agile as the F-22 but they have not supercruise or stealth Probably the SU-35 has some degree of supercruise .

Now in 2006 Russia is working on at least one F-22 equivalent and one F-35 equivalent and updating the Su-35 to Eurofighter level .

The MiG-1.42 was a Eurofighter equivalent but Russia decided to go for the F-22 equivalent and halted further work on the MiG.1.42 at least as we know it because the new MiG I-21 might have some degree of MiG-1.44 ancestry.

Russia`s test pilot was the creator of the Pugachev Cobra, the F-22 can do it albeit with thrust vectoring the most likely, without thrust vectoring the Su-27 can do it, the F-16 also can do the Cobra but also with thrust vectoring.

Russia has shown at least in technology is almost on par and sometimes ahead.

however economically the US has the money to build what in Russia at least up to now have only been prototypes.

How come yeilds are being taken as those to be at DRY SETTINT ??? you realize that the max thrust available is only available in AFTERBURNER right ??

okay give me the dry settings for the F-119?