I don’t think that Russians devote much time with hypothetical scenarios about how the horders of their old Flankers will face the hordes of Raptors. Any large conflict like that would end up in a massive exchange of kindest nuclear regards and everyone knows that very well.

While I don’t deny financial supremacy of US Armed Forces over Russian military, US, too, could have used the money spent on Raptor programme someplace else. In a situation where you need a BIG searchlight to find one HMMWV in Iraq adequately equipped to withstand a direct encounter with an IED, keeping and maintaining a force of aircraft having no real use other than scoring on Red Flag, where a replacement milspec screw costs more than a fully functional Kalashnikow rifle, is pretty much blatant ignoration of one’s own fellow soldiers..

I think nobody disagrees that the obscene amounts spent on aircraft do not compare with the reality of war, where peoples lives are wasted (American but also Iraqi and Afghani by much higher numbers) due to shortcomings that could have been addressed with a fraction of that money.

But if we widen our view like that, we can question the need for an air force at all.

What I wanted to point out is that the RuAF has clear and imminent shortcomings, and these are not the open flank in northern Siberia (which was indeed a major shortcoming until the mid 80ies). It suffered more losses in a 5 day campaign versus Georgia than NATO did in a 5 week campaign versus Serbia. To project power on its direct neighbors (and that is what Dear Leader Putin wants to do), he needs armed forces that can effectively do such conflicts. If Georgia was equipped with anything close to a real air defense (like latest Hawk versions, not talking of Patriot), its air space would have been effectively denied to RuAF.

Armchair generals like echonine and manson_322 would then sent the mighty MiG-31 to patrol the air space above 40kft (lower altitudes wouldn’t be a good idea) and keep it free of F-22.

So before I update MiG-31s, I rather fit latest ECM gear into Suchoi 25 and replace the crappy Suchoi 24 with more recent types.

though the gripen is designed to be maintained by conscripts, those conscripts are well-educated swedish conscripts. it’s very much a stuffed-to-the-gills high tech design. not at all what the OP is looking for. but then, maybe what the OP is looking for is not what today’s jets are, but more like yesterdays jets 😉

The concept of an F-5A, MiG-21MF or Mirage III is not suitable today any more.
These aircraft would have horrendous losses against even limited air defences, and be very uneffective strikers. Only if you specifically procure aircraft not to fight a war, then those aircraft still do the job (see: South America).

Times have changed, a 4ship formation Eurofighters can clear the sky from such limited aircraft with impunity. Today you’ll need radar, BVR, ECM and datalink. that all needs to be integrated. That adds the cost.

You can skip the Mach 2 performance though.

I never denied the fact that a fleet of upgraded MiG-31s is an absolute waste of money… But for handling whole fleets of enemy bombers which never come anyway they surely are good enough 😉 Just like Raptors handling whole fleets of fighters, which, too, never come 😉

While the Pentagon actually learned that and cut the Raptor at approx. 200 units. Procuring less would be industrially stupid. The funds are obviously put on the F-35. Additionally, the USAF keeps their aircraft constantly modernized in numbers (not something like four upgraded aircraft a year like this SMT stuff).

The MiG-31 is already procured and paid for, there is no industrial base it keeps alive. The future of Russian military aviation is the Suchoi 27 and derivatives until a new fighter is developed.

The MiG-31 – despite being a very useful aircraft and deadly adversary for incoming bombers in the 80ies – is today of no use but remains a high maintenance aircraft.

i was under the impression from way back when that the main purpose of TVC was to help with high-altitude high-speed maneuvering because the air is too thin at 60k+ for the control surfaces to be very effective

You can pitch an aircraft with TVC, but in order to have a noticeable change in inertial velocity vector (that is what we call a turn), you need lift as engines cannot provide that accelerations/forces and would be too wasteful. Pitching your aircraft is great in some occasions, but your velocity vector will actually give a sh!t about it (see Cobra).

Just imagine an aircraft wants to do a 3g sustained turn, that is the wings provide lift that equal 3 times the weight of the aircraft. Even a very powerful aircraft does not have more than half of its weight as thrust at 30k ft. So it could (with engines swept fully vertical) at best add another 0.5g.
So, TVC helps agility but not necessarily maneuverability.

Always helpful to have a basic grasp of flight physics before getting laid by some fancy brochures.

I like it that the Russian general primarily insists that they had the first PESA radar, which is a s relevant as who had the first gameboy, and makes a line to the modern AESA radars, which play in a totally different league.

The whole thing is something between nationalistic over-confidence, marketing effort and politics pointed at his own people (he needs money and despite the petroleum wealth the Russians are still stingy on wasting their money on cold war remains).

The best idea of the Russians would be to cut the crap and sent the MiG-31 to the scrap yard as soon as possible. That frees resources to get newer and more versatile fighters. As there is no need for MiG-31 types any more, any more spending is effectively wasted.

How the hell is an interceptor with an RCS the size of a football stadium, poor manuverability and a radar thats acts like a lighthouse any match for a Raptor?

Given the stealthiness of the F-22 and the limited visibility from a MiG-31 cockpit, there is a remote chance of a mid-air collision, in which the stainless steel 40t gross weight MiG-31 will have a clear advantage.

I wonder how the two of them, F-15E and Su-34, compare cost wise, which is the cheaper?

Difficult to say. Russian aircraft are traditionally quite cheap in procurement.
Reason is – besides lower labor costs – the fact that development costs are already paid for.
If procured under American system the low number of aircraft built so far would push the unit price to a very high level.

I think when looked at technically the Su-34 will have a slightly higher unit price due to increased size. The F-15 and its engine are very proven designs and can look back on nearly 1500 produced units, the Suchoi 34 would have to go through some years of teething problems and climb up the learning curve.

5 meaningful posts in a row.
We are heading for a record.