Some definitions "Stealth" and "Supercruise"

[gf0012-aust]

MiG:
However, there are some different way to enlarge range/combat radiuse. One is carrying more fuel, especially internal fuel for reduce aero-drag.

How can you carry more internal fuel to increase range - it has an empirical limit. Once you have full internal then you have to either mid air refuel or go external - the latter means sacrificing weapons points

The MiG-31 loading over 16tons internal fuel could give a range langer than F-22 while both of them during supersonic flight,

There is no direct relationship between internal storage and absolute range between the 2 aircraft. Esp if we are talking about supercruise (as opposed to supersonic)

moreover, the supersonic MiG-31 flew is faster than F-22.

what has aircraft top speed had anything to do with modern aircraft design and combat survivability in complex battlespace since 1989?

modern air combat in complex battlespace has more to do with survivability than top speed. It's about manouvre, about sensor anticipation, sensor awareness.

The US and USSR lost interest in top speed as a benchmark for combat aircraft after Vietnam and right up to about 1989.

 

[DarkDuke]

How can you carry more internal fuel to increase range - it has an empirical limit. Once you have full internal then you have to either mid air refuel or go external - the latter means sacrificing weapons points

Do you have any idea what does Internal Fuel mean? What I pointed of course was full internal fuel. You can compare two, one is half internal fuel the other is full internal fuel.

There is no direct relationship between internal storage and absolute range between the 2 aircraft. Esp if we are talking about supercruise (as opposed to supersonic)

Yes, I see what you mean. But more fuel you carrying, more range you get, if other conditions are comparable.

what has aircraft top speed had anything to do with modern aircraft design and combat survivability in complex battlespace since 1989?

modern air combat in complex battlespace has more to do with survivability than top speed. It's about manouvre, about sensor anticipation, sensor awareness.

The US and USSR lost interest in top speed as a benchmark for combat aircraft after Vietnam and right up to about 1989.

The MiG-31 can do "supercruise" maintain its speed at 2.4M, whereas its top speed is 2.8M
Even F-22 can go supercruise at 1.7M, which still less than MiG-31.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do you have any idea what does Internal Fuel mean? What I pointed of course was full internal fuel. You can compare two, one is half internal fuel the other is full internal fuel.

and your usage of the term is incorrect.

Yes, I see what you mean. But more fuel you carrying, more range you get, if other conditions are comparable.

ferry range, combat range etc.... again range means little as it has to be relevant to theatre and threats.

The MiG-31 can do "supercruise" maintain its speed at 2.4M, whereas its top speed is 2.8M
Even F-22 can go supercruise at 1.7M, which still less than MiG-31.

read the response again. speed has little to do with combat effectiveness or relevance in modern combat.

the Mig31 family are unable to meaningully sustain any supersonic speed as they don't have the same engineering robustness as contemp military aircraft (let alone an F-22)

It's a meaningless measurement - esp with modern threat sensor and missile systems

again and again we have this nonsense where platforms are thrown up as examples of technology strength when its about relevance as well as combined systems events.

It's why we ban these discussions as we get frustrated with people not understanding the basics of modern weapons packages and contemp warfare.

This thread is not going to derail into another "x" vs "y" comparison - esp when the basics are not understood.

Thread closed until further notice.