Su-35S will challenge MiG-31BM for air superiority because it’s created for that role and can basically match the latter in everything save power. If you have four of each approximately 500km apart at opposing air bases you have a pretty good matchup. The Su-35S is going to sortie all four at a time whereas the MiG-31 will need to alternate pairs just to match sortie rates. The MiG-31BM pair is going to link together to form a pretty air tight bubble between the bases, whereas the Su-35S force will be unable to contest headon. Rather they will exploit the MiG-31BM pair and their limited ability to scan the entire area around their own base while also trying to pickup threats in the middle. Su-35S is going to push ASM attacks at the origin of the MiG-31BM flights using pincer strikes and the occasional straight line charge to keep them honest. The MiG-31BM pair will be most vulnerable rotating ingress and egress between stations. And there are too few to provide effective supporting fire if one gets isolated.

Really it’s a game of attrition, not raw performance. MiG-31BM is not a high sortie aircraft in comparison.

The OP was pretty well dismissed long ago because only black projects would be able to do this exercise of the mind. I’m sure even F-22A couldn’t do it. And turn around times for long trips are nontrivial. Not that aircraft aren’t normally assigned to one crew at a time, so a seat swap is implausible… The only other aircraft that could sustain supersonic speed for such a long trip are all duly retired.

An A-12 used by the CIA is assumed to be retired, but it’s about the only realistic option.

Are you reading the link? The Mach 2.7 was attained by attaching a pair of highly modified J85’s and filling up the bay with exotic fuels. It was not anything more than a concept project to improve jet performance at multiple Mach speeds. this wouldn’t be much help on production aircraft.

Edit: rascal used an extended bay, so I got it confused with another supersonic program.

J75 pretty much limited all fighters that used it to Mach 2.3, although the Thud didn’t even reach that speed. I don’t think early F100’s would have offered any performance increase at high altitude. J75 was large and took up a lot of space and was very heavy compared to modern engines. I don’t think any amount of imagination fixes the top speed limits during its career.

On the other hand, missile technology has really made a leap. F-106 had four Falcons and a small nuke, available in two forms neither over six miles in range. The ultimate J75 user was XF8U Crusader III that carried three streamlined AIM-7 and four pylon-mounted AIM-9. The Typhoon, roughly the same size as F-106, could carry four streamlined AIM-120 and up to eight more missiles underwing.

If a newer F-106 had been introduced in the 1970’s I would think streamlined Sparrow missiles in the two-seater are probably the most likely choice. The Falcons probably get replaced by Sidewinders, at most four possible in a new bay. No nuke. Integrate the gun perhaps in a wingtip. The J75-P5A used in the XF8U gives you a bump in maximum weight possible. You could stretch the fuselage in all three dimensions for the two-seater so that it adds some fuel to make drop tanks less necessary.

I can’t imagine the EFT’s were not without penalty like they claim, but if they were they should have been integrated into the wing itself. That way they could have been stiffened to allow for ordnance dangling off them like on the Mirage III/5 supersonic tanks.

It always seemed like such a waste to use them for target practice. I cannot imagine an engine refit in the late 80’s instead and new avionics wouldn’t have been prudent. An old guy told me at an air show they don’t make them like the F-106 any more. He said the 6,000 hours for F-15 was nothing compared to what they could have squeezed out of the F-106. (He said that of course not knowing F-15E are projected out around 15-18k hours today.) F-106 with the early F119 would have given P&W time to hone them before strutting them out in the F-22A. I always though the vulcan was overkill and they could have used an integrated revolver to save weight and space. And a couple of Sparrow with Sidewinders seemed like a more potent package than Falcons. Two or three AMRAAM sound better yet than the pair of Sparrows. Ahhh, what could of should of would of…

F-106 had some issues, the biggest being pretty limited in its role. I personally thought the airframe was pretty robust and made sense. But four micro AAMs for armament was pretty restrictive. Imagine the range F-35 would have had with a payload requirement of 1500 pounds…total.

In reality it had been five AAM, until around the early 70’s when they replaced the center nuke with a cannon.

Try this blog

http://bharatkalyan1.rssing.com/chan-6237423/all_p146.html

The MiG-41 proposal looks like an modernized YF-12A clone. I see no real value in the canard as all manuevers save for takeoff and approach will involve very incremental control surface changes. I would rather have canted, all moving rudders for general control and saw-edge levcons for low speed manuevers. I think it would end up like a cross between J-31 and YF-12A, but using outboard diamond intakes. And the craziest thing is I’d want two engines that push the bomber destroyer up to about Mach 1.5, but then get augmented by a fuel sipping engine for supersonic acceleration beyond.