MWM: MiG-31 interceptors can no longer counter NATO aircraft

29 2026 June 34 707 69

Russian MiG-31 interceptors, once considered the best in their class, are no longer capable of effectively countering NATO air forces, according to Military Watch Magazine (MWM). The publication notes that the introduction of F-35 fighters into NATO service has significantly increased the Alliance's ability to counter Russia's Aerospace Forces.

As noted in the publication, the Tu-160 and MiG-31BM are in limited service and are considered elite aircraft. Production of the Tu-160 in Russia recently resumed, but with significant delays, while the MiG-31BM has not been produced since 1994 due to a lack of funding, and the development of its successor has been significantly delayed. The Tu-160 and MiG-31 are the fastest and heaviest strategic and tactical combat aircraft in the world, respectively. They represented the pinnacle of Soviet military aviation until the collapse of the state in 1991 prevented the implementation of equally ambitious programs.

While the MiG-31 has been significantly superior to NATO combat aircraft in Arctic regions for decades, with the introduction of the F-35 fighter jet into service with the Royal Norwegian Air Force and other NATO countries, the once-advanced interceptors are increasingly falling behind in their capabilities.

– writes MWM.

As an example, the publication cites the situation that occurred on June 22 of this year, when the Royal Norwegian Air Force scrambled two fifth-generation F-35A fighter jets to intercept and identify a group of two Tu-160 strategic bombers, escorted by two MiG-31BM interceptors, over the Barents Sea.

Subsequently, as noted in the material, Russian aircraft continued to fly in international airspace over the Norwegian Sea as part of a 16-hour long-range strategic patrol.

The F-35s took off from Evenes Air Base as part of NATO's readiness and rapid response mission. After spotting the Russian aircraft, Norwegian pilots followed and tracked it until it left NATO's area of responsibility.

– says the publication.

It was emphasized that the interception was part of NATO's routine air policing mission, which ensures the timely detection and tracking of unidentified or undeclared friendly military aircraft operating near allied airspace.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

DDD5555

+ 13

29 June 2026 11: 56

Well, we still need to figure out who's lagging behind whom... The "penguin" isn't much of a flyer.
1. Alexey Vladimirov
  
  -14
  
  29 June 2026 12: 47
  
  Before you start reviewing US aircraft from the couch, compare the quantity and quality of the US and Russian Air Forces. The Russian Federation has 3450 aircraft, most of which were purchased by the USSR. The fifth generation is represented by the Su-57, eight of which are in production. According to the latest open source information, the purchase of 76 Su-57s has begun, but the production time is unknown. Now the US Air Force has 12,450, one in five is a drone. The fifth generation is represented by the F-35. A program to purchase 3500 F-35s has begun, with over 1000 already purchased. And that's just US aircraft, not including NATO aircraft.
  1. smtm
    
    + 14
    
    29 June 2026 13: 38
    
    This isn't about who has more of them; the article is specifically about the MIG-31.
  2. Toptygin
    
    +6
    
    29 June 2026 13: 56
    
    The Aerospace Forces already have at least 38 Su-57 fighters in production. Two have been built for Algeria, and four more are under construction.
    1. Alexey Vladimirov
      
      +3
      
      29 June 2026 15: 53
      
      That's a lot, compared to 1000 F-35s. The US is panicking. 😆
      1. GR777
        
        +2
        
        29 June 2026 22: 57
        
        Hey, horse, your dear Fu-35s are launching without radars, have you heard that or can't you hear it from your couch?
  3. DDD5555
    
    +5
    
    29 June 2026 14: 39
    
    Did you confuse warm with soft?
    Well, to avoid getting up twice, they wrote about two squadrons of 57s back in the spring
  4. Joker62
    
    +7
    
    29 June 2026 14: 42
    
    Quote: Alexey Vladimirov
    Before you start reviewing US aircraft from the couch, compare the quantity and quality of the US and Russian Air Forces. The Russian Federation has 3450 aircraft, most of which were purchased by the USSR. The fifth generation is represented by the Su-57, eight of which are in production. According to the latest open source information, the purchase of 76 Su-57s has begun, but the production time is unknown. Now the US Air Force has 12,450, one in five is a drone. The fifth generation is represented by the F-35. A program to purchase 3500 F-35s has begun, with over 1000 already purchased. And that's just US aircraft, not including NATO aircraft.
    
    And what is the combat readiness of "your" vaunted machines like the F-35???
    I can tell you - as of today, the combat readiness of these machines, even new ones, does not exceed 30%!!!
    And the norm should be above 80%!
    So lie down, sofa esperd, and chew popcorn!
    1. Alexey Vladimirov
      
      -2
      
      29 June 2026 15: 56
      
      What are you talking about, my dear fellow? Did the US Secretary of Defense report to you about the F-35's poor combat readiness, or did you just make this up while lying on your couch? 😆 I'm thinking the latter...
  5. Igor M.
    
    -3
    
    29 June 2026 16: 19
    
    Alexey Vladimirov, they write that we already have up to 45 Su-57s, up to 160 Su-35s, 120 Su-30s, and over 100 MiG-31s. But, in fact, we also have modernized MiG-29s and Su-27s, at least 200 combined. And then there are up to 200 Su-34s. So, it turns out that our combat aviation consists of over 800 aircraft. Considering that they will also be supported by powerful air defenses, the overall situation looks good.
    1. JD1979
      
      -9
      
      29 June 2026 17: 57
      
      Anything older than the Su-30SM is a flying cinder block. That is, the only aircraft capable of countering modern NATO aviation are the Su-30SM/SM2, Su-35, Su-57, and MiG-31. That's it. The Su-27 of all modifications is junk, the MiG-29... almost all of it is junk, except for the latest modifications, and even then, the radar is still pretty weak. The MiG-35 simply doesn't exist, although it's really an airborne T-34, which can be stuffed into any suitable takeoff location. The Su-24, 25, and 34 can simply be ignored—they're not aircraft, they're pieces of crap that, if the air force loses, are easier to destroy on the ground than to send their pilots to a senseless death.
      And considering that a lot of planes were lost during the non-war years and many are already reaching the end of their service life, the real figures are not 800, but at best 300-350, that's at best.
      1. Igor M.
        
        +1
        
        30 June 2026 02: 14
        
        JD1979,
        
        Anything older than the Su-30SM is a flying cinder block.
        
        They write that, for example, we modernized the MiG-29 to generation 4++. That is, the same as the Su-30SM.
        
        counter modern NATO aviation
        
        NATO's aircraft aren't all modern. They're a hodgepodge of aircraft from different manufacturers and generations.
        The MiG-35 is still the same 4++ generation. It was reported that several of them are flying over Moscow to shoot down UAVs.
        The Su-34 is a modern fighter-bomber. It's the workhorse of the Air Defense Forces. It launches FABs from the UMPK. The aircraft has a powerful radar, the maneuverability of a fighter, and is armed with a cannon and air-to-air missiles.
        Well, firstly, not that much was lost. And secondly, production of the Su-34, Su-35, and Su-57 aircraft not only continues, but is constantly increasing.
        
        JD1979
        
        -1
        
        2 July 2026 02: 37
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        They write that, for example, we modernized the MiG-29 to generation 4++. That is, the same as the Su-30SM.
        
        They write a lot of things on the fence, too. But realistically, only four, I think MiG-35s, could survive there. All 29 early production aircraft are flying targets.
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        Su-34 is a modern fighter-bomber.
        
        It's modern only in terms of production year, but in terms of functionality... it's like hauling a couple of sacks of potatoes in a Kamaz truck. The only thing it can do that others can't is tow three-ton trucks, but that's more of a PR stunt than a real necessity. What it can't do is literally everything the Su-30SM and Su-35 can, thanks to their abysmal radar; they're a dead giveaway when faced with any fighter equipped with an AIM-120, Meteor, or similar.
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        The workhorse of the SVO.
        
        Well, yes, when there are no cars, you have to transport things in KamAZ trucks.
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        The plane has a powerful radar.
        
        He has nothing, he can only do something on the ground, from everything else his 30 and 354 cover him
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        its fighter maneuverability
        
        Yeah, yeah, yeah, with what kind of specific thrust is that? 0,56, I think? Seriously? It's a bomber in a fighter's body, with a Zaporozhets engine and the weight of a BelAZ. Calling it a fighter...
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        and it is armed with a cannon and air-to-air missiles.
        
        Yeah, the gun is great, too bad it won't reach its intended range, and the missiles... Well, the missiles are just for laughs, but with its radar, it can only engage air-to-air missiles with an ARL homing head without any ability to correct them after launch, meaning 99% of the time they'll be a dud in electronic warfare.
        
        As much as I've been a fan of Sukhoi aircraft since childhood, the Su-34 is simply crap in today's world. Its only justification is its significantly lower price compared to the Su-35, but even then, it's better to build a plane three times smaller than the Su-35s than to churn out something that won't even fly off the airfield, like in 2022, when they stopped flying to prevent everyone from being shot down.
        
        Quote: Igor M.
        Well, firstly, not that much was lost. And secondly, production of the Su-34, Su-35, and Su-57 aircraft not only continues, but is constantly increasing.
        
        And the figures for these deliveries barely cover the losses and subsequent write-offs due to service life expiration, and there will be a lot to write off. We need to produce 100 aircraft per year of the 35s alone and 100-150 Su-30SMs, not counting the Mi-35s, of which at least 400 per country are needed to have any chance of surviving the first phase of any modern conflict—the struggle for airspace control. And with the current composition, this is a losing battle, after which all those "magnificent" Su-34s and older Su-24s, and other highly specialized junk, are left in storage or blown up to prevent pilots from being turned into kamikazes.
        And this is reality, no matter how much the turbopatricks are burned by it.
        
        Igor M.
        
        0
        
        2 July 2026 16: 41
        
        JD1979,
        
        All 29 early issues of flying targets
        
        They've been modernized. They're armed, among other things, with R-37s, which can destroy enemy aircraft at long range. And they'll use KABs to harass ground troops.
        
        what others can't do is haul three-ton trucks
        
        The Su-34 can carry up to 8 tons on 12 hardpoints. Specifically, it can carry four FABs with a multipurpose antitank missile (UMPK) and two UMPB missiles. It can also carry air-to-air missiles at a range of up to 130 km and boasts excellent maneuverability.
        
        Well, yes, when there are no cars, you have to transport things in KamAZ trucks.
        
        We use both Su-25s and Su-30s. Even MiG-29s can carry CABs.
        
        Yes, yes, with what specific thrust?
        
        He performs aerobatics.
        
        The aircraft's airframe is equipped with an all-moving canard, which provides additional controllability and stability when flying at low altitudes, making this attack aircraft comparable in dynamics to light fighters.
        
        just for laughs at the missiles with its radar
        
        It can carry a more powerful radar in an external container.
        He has R-73, R-77, R-27, and R-37 with a suspended radar.
        
        Su-35 due to the scavenger radar
        
        It is now being replaced with a radar, like on the Su-57.
        
        corpse upon meeting with any fighter
        
        They write that the F-35 is now being made without radars at all, since they are not available.
        
        With the current line-up it plays like a whistle
        
        There's no harm in dreaming. There's still that collection of old wrecks in NATO.
  6. goncharov.62
    
    -2
    
    29 June 2026 16: 28
    
    Be careful not to break your forehead...
  7. svoroponov
    
    +2
    
    29 June 2026 16: 35
    
    The US won't accumulate all its aircraft in one place. Also, read up on the combat readiness of American aircraft. And for some reason, only quantitative data is given in units. You can compare the characteristics of the aircraft... The MiG-31 has a target detection range of up to 600 km, and the range of its long-range missiles is up to 400 (there is an example of a Ukrainian pilot being shot down by a similar missile at a range of 362 km). What about the F-35? Even taking stealth into account, the F-35 still loses to the MiG-31 in terms of lock-on range and weapon use, even taking into account the latter's stealth. And the MiG-31 has more advanced capabilities for destroying various aircraft, not just airplanes... We also have various Su-27s.
    The article is simply written for a Western audience: reassuring.
    And one more thing about interception. Interception is when an enemy is detected and landed at its own airfield or destroyed. What they wrote to us is escort. Especially escorting aircraft flying along an air route during the ferrying of aircraft from airfield to airfield in neutral airspace or along designated air corridors. Then, the aircraft scramble to intercept or escort when ground-based radars detect the flight, and then simply guide them until the aircraft are visible from the aircraft's radar or visually. How the aircraft themselves will operate without guidance in combat zones is a question. So the article is simply propaganda.
2. Mihail7591
  
  +1
  
  29 June 2026 14: 11
  
  And he doesn’t need to, he’ll launch 3-4 missiles from a distance of 100-70 km and calmly fly back.
3. aslanxnumx
  
  0
  
  29 June 2026 14: 45
  
  The penguin flies and shoots down cruise missiles.
  1. KOPA
    
    -1
    
    29 June 2026 16: 38
    
    on the fort? )))
    1. aslanxnumx
      
      +1
      
      29 June 2026 17: 27
      
      We're pretending to be someone.
      Putin told you that everything is fine.
  2. DDD5555
    
    0
    
    30 June 2026 07: 15
    
    Can it knock down a deep underground bunker? The 31st has already "knocked down"
  3. Joker62
    
    0
    
    30 June 2026 16: 38
    
    Quote: aslan642
    The penguin flies and shoots down cruise missiles.
    
    F-35, i.e. "penguin" shoots down cruise missiles???
    Did you eat the fish soup??? Or are you spouting nonsense to people???
    But the "penguin" himself was thrown to the ground more than once.
    1. aslanxnumx
      
      0
      
      30 June 2026 20: 25
      
      The Israeli Air Force reports that an F-35I fighter jet intercepted a cruise missile. The incident occurred in late 2023. The specific air-to-air missile used is unknown, but experts say it was likely an AIM-9X Sidewinder. It is guided to its target using an infrared seeker that detects engine heat from aircraft, helicopters, drones, and even cruise missiles.
Igor Degtyarev

+8

29 June 2026 12: 00

Some speculate, others believe. During the conflict with Iran, the US military lost or damaged at least 42 aircraft, with losses reaching $29 billion.
1. Alexey Vladimirov
  
  -6
  
  29 June 2026 12: 51
  
  For the nearly trillion-dollar US budget, this is a mere trifle. And yes, next year their budget will grow to 1,5 trillion. And let's not forget that defense firms have received multi-billion dollar contracts for the purchase of the latest missiles and aircraft, so the losses in Iran aren't really losses at all, but rather the decommissioning of old weapons and the upgrading of arsenals.
  1. Igor Degtyarev
    
    +3
    
    29 June 2026 13: 20
    
    You're not talking about trillions, but about the fact that it could turn out in any way, and before that, what if they didn't buy anything, there weren't any contracts?
  2. svoroponov
    
    +2
    
    29 June 2026 17: 20
    
    It won't grow. The legislators refused. And you have to look at the articles of association where they're piling it on. And then there's the cost of various R&D projects and other things, including the cost of military equipment. It's incredibly expensive. So, judging by the total cost, the enterprise is useless. Besides, a significant portion of the budget will go to covering losses and expenses, and a significant portion will also be pocketed.
Anatoly-68

+ 22

29 June 2026 12: 00

As an example, the publication cites a situation that occurred on June 22.

--And what happened on June 22? Two Tu-160s were flying, they were accompanied by a pair of MiG-31s, a pair of F-35s were raised to intercept them, which

After spotting the Russian aircraft, Norwegian pilots followed and tracked it until it left NATO's area of responsibility.

--And from this comes the far-reaching conclusion that "MiG-31 interceptors can no longer counter NATO aircraft"?? By what complex logical path? And when we intercept NATO reconnaissance aircraft escorted by their fighters, will we draw the opposite conclusion?
1. DDD5555
  
  +9
  
  29 June 2026 14: 48
  
  Apparently, the MiG-31 was supposed to incinerate the penguin with a laser right on takeoff or null-transport away from them to Siberia, and since it couldn't, it "can't resist." In short, it's nonsense.
Roman070280

+3

29 June 2026 12: 46

The Tu-160 and MiG-31 are the fastest and heaviest strategic and tactical combat aircraft in the world, respectively. represented the pinnacle of Soviet combat aviation development until the collapse of the state in 1991 prevented the implementation of equally ambitious programs.

One can only guess what heights we could have reached by today.
In the meantime, the result is out the window.
1. Inquisitor
  
  0
  
  29 June 2026 13: 38
  Quote: Roman070280
  One can only guess what heights we could have reached by today.
  In the meantime, the result is out the window.
  
  As long as you're alive, you can always change everything. But not by whining.
  
  NO FATE
  1. Roman070280
    
    0
    
    29 June 2026 13: 52
    
    As long as you're alive, you can always change everything. But not by whining.
    
    Putin's guards are too good, even for a Terminator... although the idea is sound.
    1. svoroponov
      
      -1
      
      29 June 2026 17: 25
      
      Why are you so interested in Putin's security? Do you have something against him?
      1. Roman070280
        
        0
        
        29 June 2026 18: 18
        
        You have strange questions..
        I wasn't interested in Putin's security.
        Of course, everyone in the country has something to say against him.
        
        P.S.. It's a pity there are no terminators..
      2. The comment was deleted.
2. Igor M.
  
  -3
  
  29 June 2026 16: 29
  
  Roman070280, the US also uses a lot of old bombers. Just recently, their B-52 crashed, killing all eight crew members. The economy has to be lean, so even though we're building new Tu-160s, we fly much more often with the older Tu-95s, which are the cheapest to operate.
  
  what heights could we have reached by today?
  
  And we have achieved it. For the first time in history, we have weapons that the West lacks.
  
  In the meantime, the result is out the window.
  
  The Su-34, the Su-35, and the Su-57 are all very capable aircraft. Our Su-30, too, was very popular. It's in service with 11 countries.
  1. Roman070280
    
    0
    
    29 June 2026 18: 19
    
    And we have achieved it. For the first time in history, we have weapons that the West lacks.
    
    The West also has plenty of bots like you.
  2. aslanxnumx
    
    -1
    
    30 June 2026 07: 47
    
    F 16 is in service with 25 countries, F15 with 6 countries, F18 with 8 countries.
    And as with weapons that the West does not have, Russia has been conducting a strategic military operation for the fifth year.
    And as there are no analogues to our air defense system, more than 30 percent of our oil refineries have been put out of action.
    More to list
    1. Igor M.
      
      -1
      
      30 June 2026 18: 53
      
      aslan642, remember that the F-16 and F-18 first entered service back in 1978.
      And the F-15s were even earlier – in 1974. That's exactly what I was talking about. They should have been put in a museum long ago, not used in combat.
      1. aslanxnumx
        
        0
        
        30 June 2026 20: 30
        
        And what we have at the level of the latest modification of the F16, a donut with a hole.
        The F15 can compete with the Su34 in terms of efficiency.
        
        Igor M.
        
        -1
        
        1 July 2026 23: 02
        
        aslan642, found an article on the topic about the dire state of the US Air Force:
        
        US Air Force becomes oldest and smallest in modern history
        https://topwar.ru/285453-krizis-amerikanskih-vvs-ugrozhaet-strategicheskomu-jadernomu-sderzhivaniju.html
rotkiv04

+5

29 June 2026 13: 19

It's unclear from this example whether the MiGs failed to detect the penguins in time or what else extraordinary happened other than our bombers being escorted by NATO fighters? The fact that NATO aircraft outnumber Russian aircraft has long been clear.
1. Igor M.
  
  -3
  
  29 June 2026 16: 00
  
  rotkiv04, we're not planning to fight NATO on their territory. And on ours, our fighters will be supported by our air defenses. And besides the MiG-31, we have many more of the latest Su-35 and Su-57 fighters. And their production is constantly increasing.
  1. rotkiv04
    
    0
    
    29 June 2026 16: 17
    
    Thank you, Captain Obvious, for clarifying this for me, the ignorant one. Now to the point: did you read my question properly? Or has the manual misled you again?
2. svoroponov
  
  +1
  
  30 June 2026 19: 00
  
  When flying along such corridors, our aircraft are well aware that they will be accompanied by NATO air defense fighters. They know the airfields they take off from, their type, armament, and overall capabilities. Furthermore, in this region, our air traffic control center and military personnel see all aircraft-type aerial targets at altitudes of 30-50 meters and above, practically tracking them immediately after takeoff. And if military aircraft are flying along these routes, they are informed of how many foreign aircraft are approaching, their altitude, and from what direction. So our escort fighters already knew in advance who and what. There are ways to respond, if necessary.
  But from experience, foreign pilots don't want to fight or even provoke ours. They'll fly parallel, flap their wings in greeting, and then fly off.
Anton Kuzmin

+ 10

29 June 2026 13: 30

A stupid article by people who have no clue about aviation.
Sergey Latyshev

+2

29 June 2026 13: 31

"Peremoga"
The fact that the MiG-31 cannot compete with any modern fighter jet one-on-one has been written about for a long time here.
He is an interceptor - to catch up with something, launch missiles and shoot it down.
It was not originally intended for maneuverable combat.

The situation described is common. Like free training with "partners."
1. Igor M.
  
  -5
  
  29 June 2026 15: 58
  
  Sergey Latyshev, but we also have the latest Su-57s and Su-35s. They can catch up and engage in maneuver combat.
  1. aslanxnumx
    
    0
    
    30 June 2026 07: 48
    
    Who, yourself.
2. svoroponov
  
  +1
  
  29 June 2026 17: 33
  
  I don't like nonsense. Judging by the technical specifications, the MiG-31 is actually quite good – it has an excellent radar and very good missiles. As for aerial combat? That depends on the pilot's training. In Iraq, my MiG-31, or rather MiG-25R, while on aerial reconnaissance mission, engaged two pairs of American F-15 fighters during an attempt to intercept it. It evaded all the missiles. Ultimately, it managed to destroy a couple of those aircraft and was shot down by a third pair that came to the rescue of its own as it was disengaging from the battle after running out of fuel. And keep in mind, it was a reconnaissance aircraft.
next322

+7

29 June 2026 13: 48

Complete nonsense! This article is aimed at complete idiots who have no knowledge of aviation whatsoever... The MiG-31BM will be the best in its class for another ten years.
1. Konstantin Konstantinovich
  
  -1
  
  29 June 2026 17: 06
  
  I fully support! But, I have a question: which has greater speed, the MIG-31 or the SU-57, in real time and with equipment???
  1. DDD5555
    
    0
    
    30 June 2026 07: 16
    
    The 31st is faster, though a little slower than its dad, the 25th.
Igor M.

-3

29 June 2026 15: 55

In fact, the author couldn't explain why the MiG-31 wouldn't be able to counter NATO aircraft. The MiG-31 still significantly outperforms the F-35 in both speed and service ceiling. Moreover, the MiG-31 uses our longest-range missile, the R-37. This means it could safely knock out the F-35 from afar.
On the other hand, the MiG-31 is now increasingly used as a carrier for Kinzhal hypersonic missiles for ground strikes.
It's a strange way to phrase the question, that we're only going to fight NATO with the MiG-31. We have far more new Su-57s and Su-35s. They both outperform the F-35s in speed and can carry R-37 missiles. And the Su-57 also outperforms the F-35s in terms of operational ceiling.
So what the author was trying to say remains a mystery to me. That the MiG-31 is already in short supply? It's an old aircraft after all. But we have plenty of other new fighters.
1. aslanxnumx
  
  -2
  
  30 June 2026 20: 39
  
  More than 1300 F-35s were produced, and about 60 Su-57s.
  The number of NATO combat aircraft is 3300 aircraft, we have 1232 aircraft.
  1. Igor M.
    
    +1
    
    1 July 2026 23: 10
    
    aslan642, but they're shipping them incomplete—without a radar. They're using a mockup instead. So, it's just fiction and PR, since a significant portion of the F-35s are incapable of combat. I linked in another post that the US Air Force is rapidly shrinking and aging. New production isn't keeping up with attrition. And the NATO Air Force isn't exactly a shining example either, being a collection of disparate, aging aircraft.
    Our Air Force, on the contrary, is constantly expanding. And our pilots regularly gain combat experience, including with Western aircraft from the Ukrainian Air Force. Plus, our air-to-air missiles have a much longer range than Western ones. Western pilots, however, have no experience fighting modern Russian equipment.
    1. aslanxnumx
      
      -2
      
      2 July 2026 07: 33
      
      And we have a lot of pilots.
      Do you at least know the pilots' flight qualifications?
      1. aslanxnumx
        
        -2
        
        2 July 2026 07: 34
        
        There is a shortage of officers; after completing courses, ranks are awarded.
      2. Igor M.
        
        0
        
        2 July 2026 16: 47
        
        aslan642, I knew you were working for enemy intelligence.
        
        aslanxnumx
        
        -2
        
        2 July 2026 18: 11
        
        Yeah, if you don't have brains...
AC130 Gunship

+3

29 June 2026 16: 52

What's the article about? That an aircraft designed in the early 21st century is technically superior to a heavily modernized 1960s aircraft?

Quote: Igor M.
In fact, the author couldn't explain why the MiG-31 wouldn't be able to counter NATO aircraft. The MiG-31 still significantly outperforms the F-35 in both speed and service ceiling. Moreover, the MiG-31 uses our longest-range missile, the R-37. This means it could safely knock out the F-35 from afar.
On the other hand, the MiG-31 is now increasingly used as a carrier for Kinzhal hypersonic missiles for ground strikes.
It's a strange way to phrase the question, that we're only going to fight NATO with the MiG-31. We have far more new Su-57s and Su-35s. They both outperform the F-35s in speed and can carry R-37 missiles. And the Su-57 also outperforms the F-35s in terms of operational ceiling.
So what the author was trying to say remains a mystery to me. That the MiG-31 is already in short supply? It's an old aircraft after all. But we have plenty of other new fighters.

To guide the "longest-range" missile to a target, that target must first be visible on radar. And if an F-35 has a reflection like a goose on the radar, the radar is unlikely to identify it. Americans Stealth technology in aviation has been actively pursued for the last 50 years...
AC130 Gunship

+3

29 June 2026 16: 58

The guys who scribble such nonsense are paid by the number of characters in the text. The more you write, the more you earn.
I'm throwing a new topic at the author: a comparison of the Tu-160 and the B1B. You can make a nice profit by proving with numbers that the Tu-160 can fly faster and weighs more, but that the B1B's wing angle is sharper. And that it can also carry conventional bombs.
Vasily)

+1

29 June 2026 17: 24

The MiG-31 is the fastest aircraft of all time. This is a Western lie.
Shelest2000

+1

29 June 2026 20: 41

The Royal Norwegian Air Force scrambled two F-35A fifth-generation fighter jets to intercept and identify a group of two Tu-160 strategic bombers escorted by two MiG-31BM interceptors over the Barents Sea.
Subsequently, as noted in the material, the Russian planes continued their flight

I still don’t understand what exactly made it impossible for the MiG-31 to counter NATO’s F-35s?
So the Norgs flew under our MiGs' tails, sniffed the exhaust, and so what? Is that a victory? Did the crests bite them? 0_o
1. twice-born
  
  0
  
  29 June 2026 21: 34
  
  No, rather, the Bandar-logs only bit that Western "expert" who came up with such delusional conclusions!
Atlanta

0

30 June 2026 07: 14

The article is about nothing. For fans of the F35.
Andrey Andreev_2

-1

30 June 2026 09: 35

Everything is moving toward the conclusion that neither aviation nor tanks will play a decisive role in the new war. The sooner the General Staff and the leadership realize this, the better!
Dejan Barich

0

1 July 2026 01: 23

Military Watch Magazine (MWM) is an American publication and the content of its articles is appropriate
Dmitry Volkov

-1

1 July 2026 05: 17

What can one add, the MiG-31BM is a flying S-400 air defense missile system, and writing disparaging remarks about the Fu-35, which originated in the USSR, is due to ignorance and inexperience.
As an understanding pilot myself, I would like to point out that the MiG-25 platform may see a continuation, and the stainless steel aircraft technology may be in demand in the MiG-41.
And what the MiG-25M can do, no other aircraft in the world can do to date.
akarfoxhound

0

1 July 2026 08: 44

Imported morons, quantitatively - yes, there are a shitload of NATO ones, but in terms of performance characteristics, your F-35 is crap compared to my 31m.