At least, we do have some rough data from US sources about the F-22A.
200 nm supercruise and 620 nm subsonic for a real mission.
400 nm supercruise and 200 nm subsonic for a real mission.
With a fuel-load of 11900 kg (+2 ETs) 1600 nm subsonic.
To do supercruise, the fuel consumption does double in general.

Could you show the source?

What size force is it going up against, to require >1000 to be effective? Does an Air Force have to have >1000 Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Flankers, Fulcrums, F-15s, etc… to be effective? Define effective.

Oh yeah, we saw the effective in Georgia crisis last year, US has no more F-22s to restrain Russia.:diablo:

I have no idea where these two AFB are, but according to the RANGE, the supercruise radius of Raptor really is shorter than MiG-31, and the speed is less also.
Although someone here is not please to see this truth and expect this thread could be closed as early as possible

Do you know what radius means? That link gives a requirement and a demonstrated performance of a mission with a 100NM leg each way supercruising. That’s a total of 200NM. Plus, that is with wasting 620NM (310NM each way) subsonically. It could supercruise for an extended portion of that leg if needed, it is not limited to 200NM of supercruise flight. That was just a mission concept to be demonstrated.

Oh, that was a mission concept to be demo, so you have any evidence to prove the actual performance will be greater than the concept? maybe less not greater.
Plus, even 100NM×2, sitll shorter than MiG-31:dev2:

I surmise could 3000 L external fuel tanks pairwise be loaded on inboard pylons?

For the aerodynamic design the planform based on, we have to say what the senator submitted is true, but for avionics with high suspicious.

The MiG-23 was not useless, but was used in the wrong way. It was never a “stand alone” air superiority fighter. First role was that of an interceptor.
When the design started, the F-4 was the yardstick and it does belong into that generation.
F-4, Viggen, Mirage F1

If the MiG-23 primitively was an intercepter, then why Soviet developed 3 models interceptor contemporily? The Yak-28 was not in our count yet.

BTW, I saw many memebers in this topic said that accelleration of MIG-23 was unforgetable, but how fast the angle of wing swept turn, I wonder.

Combined with the other obvious advantages of the MiG-31
– inability to engage in any maneuvering fight
– biggest target in all domains
– clearly identifiable radar signature (best friend of all RWRs)
– unable to deliver air2ground ordnance
– very expensive to procure and operate
– missiles designed to hunt bombers
the radius becomes quite irrelevant.

You are a true fanboy.

All you pointed in which only first one was reasonable, but I wonder what’s maneuverability should be in definition of Supercruise?

The Mig-31 has an internal fuel capacity of >36,000 lbs, an empty weight of >48,000 lbs & a MTOW of >100,000 lbs!

I suppose your next argument is going to be that the F-22’s speed/range is unimpressive because of the Concorde (176,880 lbs of fuel, 173,500 lbs empty & 408,000 lbs MTOW). :rolleyes:

So please give a limitation of fuel capacity in definition of supercruise.