Greater manoeuvrability than that of the AIM-7 was an AMRAAM design requirement.

the aim-120 may be more agile than aim-7 but just at low and medium altitude , just like ESSM is alot more agile compared to RIM-7 at sea level , but u can’t have a missiles that more agile at all altitude

The simple comparison you have made does not take into account the higher speed of AMRAAM compared to AIM-7, or that fact that while AMRAAM is steered by moving tail surfaces (an efficient control method), the AIM-7 was steered by the less effective scheme of moving wings.

they both have speed of mach 4 , aim-120 is not any faster

Slava is not on par with arleigh burke;
For anti-shipping, 3 Slavas pack more anti-shiping capability than the entire fleet of arleigh burkes.
For land strike, Slava has half the missiles a standard burke usually carries, but this is irrelevant to the scenario anyway.
As for air defense, Slava has 64 long range and 40 short range AD missiles which is more comperable to Ticonderogas, with the ability to direct 8 long and 4 short range missiles at once, they triple ticos and quadruple burkes in multi-target engagement capability.
With 6 point defenses, they triple the Ticos and burkes too.

i like russian weapon but to be fair i dont think any other system can beat Aegis in multi target ability

The heart of the AEGIS systems is an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-functional phased-array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a capability of over 100 targets

http://navysite.de/weapons/aegis.htm
Arleigh Burke have 96 VLS cell and since 4 ESSM can be packed in each cell Salva can’t beat that

If that is, I rest my case about MiG-25, as we are talking about MiG-31. And will make a new case; if one aircraft posses higher survivability to enemy missiles than the enemy and can carry a) missiles with better ranges b) more numerous comperable missiles, with sufficient avionics to fully utilize them, doesn’t that equate to better BVR performance; as long as we stick to 4/4+ gen?

Putting aircraft names aside, one with higher survivability and longer ranged missiles will perform better, no? Because that plane will shoot first, make enemy loose SA and energy while evading missiles, and go on firing. If all else fails, it can survive to retreat.

totally agree , that what iam trying to say too

To “detect” a ship, even a satelite feed or an estimate of targets bearing fed by radio is sufficient.

we dont have a working satelite that can target a moving target ( same problem for JDAM only stationary target ) , how you get target bearing if you can’t detect him due to radar horizon , normally talking about ship battle ( with out AWACs or aircraft carrier ) i think very long range missile is quite useless

Most anti-ship missiles go with inertial guidance first, and switch to radar guidance after they find a target. Larger, longer ranged (and practically more expensive) missiles like Slava’s P-500 or Kirov’s P-700 are much smarter: they work in groups, one climbs to (relatively) high altitude first, detect enemy ships with anti-radation or home-on-jam, than dive and cruise at low altitude on inertial guidance. When missile group close into target task force, one missile pops up with active radar homing, prioritize and designate targets to all other missiles nearby and dives to low altitude again. Missiles switch their individual active-radars only 15-20 km away from target. Those missiles can strike targets 600+ km away without any need of off-board guidance.

climb up will make them very vulnerable cause the SPY-1 can detect them and launch SM-2or SM-6 , even if P-700 dive down after that SM-2 can still find them due to IR seeker ( sm-6 can do the same with radar seeker ) , at low altitude P-700 cruise at mach 1.6 so it will take very very long to reach the enemy ship

As for SM-2, IR seeker is designed to fight off saturation attacks, I dont know if they have any use for targeting other ships.

i did read some where that they can be used for antiship ( dont have the link now but iam sure they able to )

Here is a somewhat dramatized version of the engagement:

http://youtu.be/zmYkHKGRXVA?t=13m15s

Here is some video of the second of the two Mig-25 kills. (note the part about afterburner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ5N58z9UUM

Of course this didn’t actually happen.

the mig-25 was flying very low , tried a turning dogfight => got shot down due to poor trained pilot

On the contrary, all modern anti-ship cruise missiles posses over the horizon capability. While most sea based SAMs can be used againist ships, this requires guidance by a illumination/fire control radar, SPG-62 for the missiles you mention. This means direct visual contact with the target is necessary, and as such, ADGM missiles have little use in modern ship to ship combat, other than emergency situations.

yeah but then to detect , attack sth over the horizon the ship would need support from AWACs , fighter or heli
also the SM-2 now do have IR guide for attack ship over horizon just the same ways as anti ship missile like agm-119

Like I and others explained, the difference would be 3-4 km at best. Vertical difference: 4 km, range: 50km, simple trigonometry question to determine the angle; MiG-31 will not look to top of anything.

fair enough

Ok, so this thread is pretty obviously a waste of time at this point so I am done.

I will leave by saying that while the Mig-31 is most certainly a superior aircraft to a Mig-25 they are very comparable aircraft in terms of their speed and altitude performance and operational concept. If 1970s era F-14s with AIM-54 and AIM-7 and 1991 era F-15Cs with AIM-7 were able to bring down Mig-25s then I think an F-22 armed with AIM-120C7s or AIM-120Ds would feel pretty good about its odds.

i have explained so many times why the old F-15 was able to shot down mig-25 , it have nothing to to with technical aspect of each aircraft but factor like support , pilot
also like explained before missiles with big wing like Aim-54 , Aim-7 actually turn alot better than aim-120 at high altitude
the only reason why you leave is because you can’t make any logical argument why iam wrong

How far can each fly supersonic? How important is the ability to do it without afterburner? How far could SR-71 fly supersonic, & did it ‘supercruise’ in modern terms?

Perhaps what matters most isn’t whether afterburners are being used, but how far, how fast.

dont know about SR-71 but mig-31 can cruise 650 miles at mach 2.6 , F-22 can cruise 100 nm at mach 1.7 , F-35 can cruise at mach 1.2 for 150 miles

That model of MiG-31 was a one-off prototype and not put into production. Comparison made in this thread have been against aircraft that are in actual production and squadron service. We could always bring out the F-22A vs. the upgraded MiG-31BM and I still say the fight is over before the MiG-31 knew what hit it.

how the f-22 can shot down the mig-31 if it’s missiles can’t even turn at the altitude where mig-31 is flying ? , and mig-31 have L-band radar + IRST so stealth will not be a problem , not to mention the higher altitude help it see the target where their RCS is biggest

Sorry, but this is not how the US thinks/plans/operates. Back when the AMRAAM was being designed the good old USSR was absolutely the threat and the Mig-25/31 was a big part of the air to air threat. There is zero chance the US would have developed and fielded a missile that they did not believe was capable of bringing down a Mig-25. Even after the Cold War Mig-25s remained in the holdings of multiple potentially hostile states, including Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

Finally, it isn’t like it is a mystery how the Mig-25 would perform in combat. Iraq used them extensively in the Iran/Iraq war and to fairly good effect, though not without losses. By the time the Iraqis flew against the coalition in 1991 and later over the no-fly zones the Iraqis had plenty enough experience with the Mig-25 to know how to employ it in combat.

Over the course of their operational use Mig-25s have been brought down by AIM-7s, AIM-54s, and an AIM-120. Now here we are on the internet learning that they are invulnerable to all Western weapons… :rolleyes:

Mig-25 isnot the same as mig-31 it like compare an f-4 to F-22 , mig-25 wasnot designed for long cruise at very high speed like mig-31 , it can only fly at high speed for short period of time before detroyed it’s own engine , also Iraqis’s mig-25 lack proper maintenance thus missiles , engine dont work well , they also lack ECM , RWR and radar as i can remember , not to mention that a single mig-25 have to go against hundreds of US’s fighter , AWACs , jamming aircrafts so it not a surprise if they got shot down