Does corn grow faster when MiG-31 overflies it with Mach 2.35?

actually stealth was born when they knew low flying was not the best way to survive. the B-1B is not more surviveable than the B-2 or it is?
The Tornado is not more surviveable than the F-117 or it is?

Low flying is better than high flying, as long as you are visible to enemy air defense. When the enemy air defense is old and crappy enough, good ECM might save your day. See Vietnam 1972 and Serbia 1999.

Against bombers and cruise missiles SARH is no handicap if you can achieve multi-target capability by using a phased array radar. Look at the AIM-54, during mid-course it is SAR-guided as well, the ARH terminal phase was most likely required to enable simultaneous engagements. For fighter targets this probably makes the AIM-54 more lethal, but as you say that’s not at all what the MiG-31 is about anyway.

SARH can also have advantages, as the radar energy to illuminate a target is much higher (note that although range is often given with 100km and more, these ranges refer to high subsonic speeds of both target and fighter, and the actual distance when the missile strikes the target is usually below 50km, giving the fighter’s radar enough “punch” for illumination).

The reason to go SARH for the Soviets was probably available technology.

My guess:
> aircraft with less on-board sensors due to “net-centric warfare”
> residual dogfight capability
> same speed envelope as F35

I doubt that there is a need for next generation fighter. The airframes and engines have come to a point where real advance is hard to achieve. The requirements change, but many things can be retrofitted in existing aircraft. Eurofighter, F16 and F-35 are perfect platforms for the next 20 to 30 years.

I dunno guys, it always seems to degenerate into competitive refute of certain modern warbirds combat capabilities, the Flanker is no good, or the Eagle is no good, or the Foxhound is no good and the Foxbat was a waste of money.

Problem is that some people – and unfortunately you are one of them – combine a very optimistic view of some hardware with a general lack of understanding of the most basic flight physics.

I start with the big g-question: It is a structural thing, but also an aerodynamic thing. The -25 and -31 have lower structural limits, possibly with a higher reserve factor (that is very Russian). The aerodynamics of both aircraft are solely optimized on 1g-cruise flight. Therefore it might achieve its structural limit briefly, but will generate so much drag that it slows down tremendously. Short: if a Foxhound/Foxbat turns, it quickly becomes a sitting duck.

Second thing: high Mach numbers. People seem obsessed by the MiG-31s Mach number limit and the range. And they think this is an advantage. Actually, it isn’t, at least not really. The time and fuel required to get above Mach 2 is prohibitive, and the advantage is small. Mach 2 translates into 50000ft altitude, that is, even the dumbest sensor will identify you. You are a bright target for any missile, and at the same time you are limiting the effectiveness of your own sensor as it needs to constantly look into the ground (yes, PD-radars filter ground clutter, but the effective performance is reduced).
Going M2+ for a Foxhound would invite maneuvers by the F-15 to bracket the Foxhound. The flight path becomes easily predictable (aircraft cannot really turn when being supersonic). And the F-15 doesn’t even need its radar: the radar of the -31 is so powerful that any RWR in 100nm distance will pick up the signal.

All I wanted was the concession that under some conditions a Foxhound is a genuine threat to a modern force, conditions which are the entire purpose of effective military strategum and combat tactics.

I think nobody doubts that. But inventing a scenario which is extremely unlikely doesn’t help your favorite aircraft. Fully correct is: entering an airspace which is protected by Foxhound (preferably helped by an AWACS) is dangerous, even for a modern fighter.

Yet for example…there seems to be this ridiculous contention the Foxhound is like the Blackbird as a dogfighter. It aint. It’s nothing like that.

The Foxhound surely is better than the Blackbird when it comes to turning, which can be outmaneuvered by any airliner. But the Foxhound still is worse than any fighter it could meet. It also is the by far largest target in the sky. Any Foxhound driver going dogfight is either desperate or stupid.
That the Blackbird is highly overrated by many people is another story, those who consider the YF-12 the perfect interceptor have apparently the same mind set as air force generals in the early 1960ies.

In any case if making a turn comparison, the Foxhound turns much more like an Eagle than a Blackbird. But then if we compared the Foxhound among familiar interceptor warbirds it is much closer to a Phantom for handling than an Eagle. It’s pretty much exactly halfway between a Phantom and a Tomcat.

You don’t help your case with such comments. I have doubts you have any idea on the true performance of the Foxhound, you have some static load factor limits and trying to argue with that.
In fact, the Foxhound will bleed energy dramatically when it pulls anything more than 2g (take a look at the MiG-25 aerodynamic manual to understand lift-induced drag by supersonic-optimized wings). A Foxhound will lose in any performance category except top speed against either Phantom, Tomcat or Eagle. When it tries to turn supersonic, it will be subsonic within 20 seconds.
Not that Phantom or Tomcat are that good performers, the F-14A is actually overrated by many. But they are real fighters. The fact that the USA can put an equal/better sensor package (AWG-9) with a better weapon (AIM54) on an aircraft of lower weight (F-14A), achieve in most categories (except max Mach and supersonic range) same or better performance than the MiG-31, start and land this aircraft from a carrier and still achieve service-entry even before the MiG-23M … is just the lead the USA had in terms of technology plus sometimes a good understanding of the right set of requirements (the F-111B/F-14A actually started as requirement-catastrophe). Nobody needs to feel challenged by that, the Soviets achieved a lot given their limited resources and technological limitations.
The MiG-31 flew first in 1975 … when the F-14A was operational.

In the exact same transonic turn attempt/conditions a Phantom will do 3G, a Hornet or a Tomcat will do 7G, an Eagle or Viper will do 9G and a Foxhound will do 5G.

Again, with quoting of structural limits you don’t achieve a point, maybe versus the other laymen lurking here. A Foxhound is a very bad turn performer due to aerodynamic configuration.

Some general words, before the Russian aircraft lobby strikes back with even more Yefim-Gordon approved performance dreams:
The Foxhound was a very good aircraft, it was the aircraft the Soviets needed so desperately. It combined a good range and endurance (nothing exceptional, but for the previous Soviet standards a break through) with exceptional sensors (again: for Soviet standards which considered a radar with limited look-down capability in the mid 1970ies as great achievement) . The Foxhound could outperform any aircraft that was likely to enter its airspace (say: bombers, fighter bombers (F-111, tornado) without fuel to maneuver [> see Falkland to learn how nimble fighters become targets as their fuel does not allow them to fly anything than straight]). In combination with other aircraft it could possibly be used as force multiplier (say: mini-AWACS, like the Iranian F-14s).
Its missiles were much better than anything the Soviets had before (Soviets build notoriously bad air2air missiles until late 70ies). Possibly not as good as the AIM54 due to SARH terminal guidance, but we must remember what was the standard in the late 1970ies in Soviet air defense:
MiG-25P (some already PD), which utterly depended on ground surveillance. At the same the aircraft had short legs, no endurance and due to its tricky engines probably a bad sortie rate (I doubt that a MiG-25 generates more than one sortie per day).
Su-15TM: a much more suitable aircraft, still limited sensor capability and limited endurance. Basically the useful part of the MiG-25PD.
MiG-23P: probably the best suited although not specifically designed as interceptor. The fact that this “frontal fighter” was adopted as interceptor in the 70ies speaks for the rather limited capabilities of the existing aircraft. The -23P lets the MiG-25PD appear to be ready for the scrapyard.
Oh, and my most favorite: the Tu-128. An aircraft comparable to the B-58.

Now, what was the threat: supersonic high flying aircraft like B-58 and possibly B-1A. The Soviets were perfectly prepared for this threat. Unfortunately, it never really existed. The B-58 was scrapped in the early 1970ies (and it was always dubious it any could actually reach the Soviet union given its limited range). The B-1A never made it into service.
The only remaining threat were pathetic 20 to 30 year old B-52s flying at 300kts and 500ft. Laughable.
But wait: these B52s could actually take the entire Soviet air defense apart. Each carried up to 20 SRAM-missiles. These could be launched at known air defense installations (SRAM were always nuclear!). The lack of interceptors with real sensors and their limited endurance meant that the Soviets had big problems to actually find the B52, especially when first radars are switched off by nuclear warhead. And the B52 carried big ECM.

The MiG-31 more or less “killed” this threat as it could cover wide distances searching for low flying targets (even subsonic at 30k ft it had a huge speed advantage over low flying B52s). When the B-1B entered service, the MiG-31 still was a good asset, although the B-1B had vastly better survival chances than the B52 (double the ground speed at low altitude, radar cross section reduced by 90-99%, even better ECM).

So, nothing bad about the Foxhound, but just don’t try to make it a fighter by guessing about its performance, especially when understanding of flight physics is zero.

Schorsch, range is more than 1500km with 4x R33 at 2.35 Mach max sust cruise on internal fuel. It’s just over 2500km at 0.85 Mach economy cruise same config.
Ferry range without weapons and two ferry tanks under wings is 3300km.
Combat radius at 2.35 Mach armed is 720km. Unrefuelled max endurance is 3h36m, with on station loiter refuelled in flight is 6-7hrs.
Figures released by Mikoyan, published by Janes.

Again, 400nm radius and 800nm range (means fuel exhausted after the 800nm) at internal fuel when flying supersonic is not that unique.

Also the Foxbat is far from impotent. You really need to have a read over Israeli pilot reports about it.

It was great in flying straight and fast at high altitude for about half an hour.

A lot of US warbirds (Eagle and Viper excepted) have reduced load limits supersonic, so the 5G rating of the MiG isn’t really so bad considering Mikoyan claims it is the supersonic limit. In a lot of ways the nickel steel main frame is better than titanium at anything short of hypersonic speeds, and overall its structure isn’t really very far removed from the Tomcat, although it is certainly a different kettle of fish to the honeycomb/composite types in transonic CWC and wouldn’t even have their initial climb rates (has a killer sustained climb though and will get to 2.35M nose up).

The MiG-31 is largely conventional aluminum. That is how they made a useful aircraft out of the show-off but impotent MiG-25.

Point is it can manoeuvre, for example somewhat better than a Phantom at pretty much any speed.

Nonsense. A Phantom will eat the -31 for lunch in WVR.

Its speed performance goes all the way to sea level where it has recorded 1400km/h which is easily en par with Eagles, Vipers, Fulcrums and Pigs (triple-1s), which normally reign supreme at low alt in the speed performance stakes.

Top speed is for laymen, acceleration and energy conservation is for experts. The -31 is far away from anything maneuverable given its wing loading and aerodynamic configuration.

The cruise gate on its aviadvigatels is wide and Mikoyan advertises with aerial refuelling it can run around at 2.35M all day or dash to the airframe limitation of 2.82M, most aircraft that advertise a 2+M top speed see more like 1.8M at best in service trim and there is little doubt Mikoyan’s claim isn’t hollow, considering they demonstrated 2.8M on a Foxbat that was loaded with four 500kg bombs once. The Eagle is normally speed limited to 1.78M for example, loaded just about any supersonic fighter is doing great to nudge 1.5M.

When going supersonic the -31 gonna have a huge fuel consumption, too. It might hold that speed a bit longer than other aircraft, but what you write is wishful thinking.

Suprised to see that Lufthansa assigns their best crews to a particular type of A/C,I always assumed that crews picked their assignments(including routes,and A/C types)by bidding on jobs determined by seniority,I thought this was pretty much universal(at least in the west)Is this just a US practice?

Let me correct my statement: only the better pilots are accepted for MD11, of course only if they apply.