0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
1,257 $
COLLECTED IN SEPTEMBER

Drills In Stratosphere: Russian MiG-31 Intercept Potential Intruder

Donate

Drills In Stratosphere: Russian MiG-31 Intercept Potential Intruder

A screenshot from the video

The Russian Defense Ministry’s TV channel Zvezda released a cockpit video from a Russian MiG-31BM drilling in the lower stratosphere for during a military exercise.

The military drill was held over the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia’s Pacific region.

One of the MiG-31s played the role of an intruder that violated Russia’s airspace at maximum speed and altitude. Another fighter jet took off to intercept it.

the Pacific Fleet reported that to make the challenge more difficult, the intercepting jet had to locate its opponent without any help from ground control.

MORE ON THE  TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Simon Bernstein

    Mig-31 dwells in comparison to the F-22. F-22 can reach same altitudes, super cruise/travel faster/ everything. F-22 could spot the F-22 from over 250km away and engage it with AIM-120D

    • grumpy_carpenter

      And your point is?

      • occupybacon

        The point flew right above your head because F-22 it’s stealth

        • Raptar Driver

          I thought Jews don’t like pork, you’re missing out belly crawler.

          • occupybacon

            Putin made your food invisible so you can’t find it

        • World_Eye

          Ah stealth you mean the Invisible aeroplane. Oh yes yes I know now, you look at it but you don’t see it. Yes I remember what that Stealth means. Cool.

          • occupybacon

            Like the aircraft carrier that is a heavy-missiles-carrier-aircraft-to-water-launcher Admiral Kuznetsov

        • Icarus Tanović

          Not really to S-300…

          • occupybacon

            As seen in Syria every day.

        • The comment is hysterical. Your conclusion requires one of two assumptions. First, that Russians are suicidal in designing an entire strategy to have a suicidal charge against invisible US planes. Second, that the Russians have a plan for tracking stealth planes, by using for example advanced sensors on their jets. Maybe the russians are delusional, about their strategy, or maybe they overestimate their ability to detect the f22/f35, but if in fact they are correct, the Russian jets are going to be a significant challenge for both the f35 and the f22. It is obviously stupid to compare interceptors and a dog-fighting aircraft. That aside, funny comment.

          • occupybacon

            Ok so it’s funny or hysterical and suicidal (Your own words)?

          • You seem like a partial dummy, read it again

        • grumpy_carpenter

          What’s the point of comparing an interceptor that was first flown in 1975 and whose mission was to shoot down B-52 to a state of the art air superiority fighter?

          As it stands the Mig 31’s mission in the current Russian setup is to launch long range cruise and anti-shipping missiles. These missiles have ranges greater than the F-22 itself. That’s all they do …. fly high and fast and launch missiles. Of course they can be shot down by an F-22 but they fly at close to mach 3 inside Russian controlled airspace so the question is can the F-22 shoot it down before the missile gets launched.

          • occupybacon

            Yeah, I compare ‘news’ about vintage planes that should be in museums with actual news about actual planes.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            In museums? Why? These are weapons of war not consumer fetish items …. well at least not unless you’re a fanboy.

            Unlike the USA the Russians still have a place in their air defence system for interceptors. Perhaps the US no longer has them because the Russians chose missiles over manned aircraft as a means to attack the USA back in the 1970.s while the USA went all in on stealth.

            The Mig 41 is set to replace the Mig 31 as their primary interceptor by the mid 2020’s and the Russians have repurposed the Mig 31 as a cruise misssile platform. great idea from my perspective. At mach 2.3 and a service ceiling of 82,000′ it adds significant range and speed to the KH-31 and Kinzhal.

            The Russians are getting the best use of tax dollars by repurposing a perfectly good airframe into a new weapon.

          • occupybacon

            When will that mig 41 be flying first? or it’s just anime bullshit?

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Mid 2020’s.

          • occupybacon

            So what do you think, American bombers have bombs like in WW II, they don’t have missiles?

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Sure they do but it’s a question of logistics and geography.

            Look at a map of the USA then look at Russia. To attack Russian cities and military assets you have to penetrate Russian airspace before you can launch missiles because all but a few assets are far inland.

            The major cities and assets in the USA are strung along both coasts. Russian cruise missiles can be launched from international airspace or even from Russian airspace in the case of Alaska and parts of Washington (the parts with the nuclear sub pens, Boeing and microsoft)

            Russia has also developed much longer range and faster missiles than the USA …. the USA OTOH went all in on beating Russian air defences with stealth and ignored missile development for the last 40 years.

          • occupybacon

            That’s where you are wrong, the stealth technology is not meant to attack Russia, the same as the aircraft carriers, it is made to deter smaller countries to believe they could inflict heavy losses to American pilots.

            If there is a direct war between USA and Russia I assure you the ICBM’s from the subs can reach any city in the middle of any continent. And it’s the last thing we should worry about.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “That’s where you are wrong, the stealth technology is not meant to attack Russia, the same as the aircraft carriers, it is made to deter smaller countries to believe they could inflict heavy losses to American pilots.”

            Oh I get it …. you’re a kid … you don’t remember the 1970’s.

            Stealth was developed during the cold war (1970’s – 80’s) to penetrate Soviet protected airspace. Up until the fall or the USSR all US aircraft were built to take on the Soviets. In those days even the Vietnamese had Soviet air defences manned by Red Army technicians. There were no “insurgent” wars being fought at that time … they all started with 9-11. Yes they have the potential to save pilots lives, not against insurgents but agains weapons like the S-125 manned by Soviet technicians in Vietnam. USA lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam.

            US carriers have been the backbone of the US Navy since WW2. They don’t have a plan B, they never did and I doubt they ever will …. too much invested, too big to fail. Carrier borne aircraft during wartime would be busy hunting down the Soviet navy, mining harbours and sub hunting. They don’t really work for power projection against the Soviets but they can be effective at bottling up the Soviet Navy and keeping supplies from reaching port. That was the theory anyway until the Soviets developed the supersonic anti-shipping cruise missile in the 1970’s and the US carriers were ordered to head south to save their asses in the event of war.

            If Russia did a bolt out of the blue attack on the USA you would see a combination of Cruise missile and ICBM’s used in a coordinated fashion ie they arrive in a specific order or all at the same time in a volley. Don’t forget they would also have to get all the US strategic airfields, bases, supply nodes and ports at the same time.

            SLBM’s are second strike weapons because of a submarine’s ability to hide. They only get used as a retaliation to a first strike in traditional doctrine.

          • occupybacon

            “Up until the fall or the USSR all US aircraft were built to take on the Soviets. ”

            They were built to take on Soviet made airplanes and other weapons, not the Soviets themselves, there are nukes for that.

            “There were no “insurgent” wars being fought at that time”
            “Oh I get it …. you’re a kid”

            LOL, there were a lot of proxy wars, back then, Russian and American planes met in many proxy wars, a small example North Yemen vs South Yemen, but they are a lot and they will met again.

            “They don’t have a plan B, they never did and I doubt they ever will …. too much invested, too big to fail.”

            What do you mean by this? USA can’t continue a war if they lose all their aircraft carriers?

            “the Soviets developed the supersonic anti-shipping cruise missile in the 1970’s and the US carriers were ordered to head south to save their asses in the event of war.”

            So they were keeping their aircraft carriers at the North pole and now they moved a bit south? Are you dreaming/drinking vodka now?

            ” you would see a combination of Cruise missile and ICBM’s used in a coordinated fashion ie they arrive in a specific order or all at the same time in a volley. Don’t forget they would also have to get all the US strategic airfields, bases, supply nodes and ports at the same time.”

            You dream too much at the end of the world, no wonder Russia has the highest suicide rate in the World, I guess it helps you forget a bit in what shithole robbed by reckless oligarchy are you living…try to watch more comedy

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “LOL, there were a lot of proxy wars, back then, Russian and American planes met in many proxy wars, a small example North Yemen vs South Yemen, but they are a lot and they will met again.”

            Yes there were a lot of proxy wars but the US military doctrine at the time was to be able to fight the Chinese and Soviets at the same time. Except for Vietnam proxy wars weren’t fought by the US military like they are today. The USA and Soviets mostly provided aid, weapons and training.

            An insurgency is an armed uprising while a proxy war means that someone else is in your corner supporting you. A country can be a proxy to both an insurgency or a conventional war but proxy and insurgency mean two different things.

            The USA changed doctrine in 2001and part of that change was to become a force that dealt with insurgencies instead of simply a combat force. Instead of fighting 2 major wars they needed to be able to fight small insurgencies all over the world while at the same time time fighting major regional wars. This is where you see Strykers, HUMVEEs, special ops, air strikes and coalitions as well as the infamous Littoral combat ship .

          • occupybacon

            In our current discussion the difference between insurgency and proxy is irrelevant as we are speaking about Russian made conventional weapons meeting American made conventional weapons, Su-57 could meet F-35 the same as American bombers met Soviet interceptors and SAMs in Vietnam and Soviet tactical bombers met American Stingers in Afghanistan, so on. F-22 and F-35 never meant to bomb Russia.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Yes but a countries military doctrine determines who a country intends to fight, where they intend to fight them and what mission any particular weapon. An Su-57 and an F-35 meeting head to head over Syria with no other weapons or support is entirely different than meeting up with the entire force structure behind them. You might think they would fight each other but the F-35’s role could be to provide intel to other planes to engage the Su-57 while the Su-57,s orders are to ignore the F-35 and go after Tankers and AWACs. The Russians may have a SAM that has better odds of taking out F-35 or they may be able to jam it while on the US side F-22s guarding the tankers may target the Su-57.

            Understanding a countries military doctrine is like understanding their constitution. You get an idea of their military objectives and start seeing the military as systems instead of individual weapons that fight head to head.

            The F-22 and F-35 were both concieved in the 1990’s after the fall of the Soviet Union under Clinton win-hold -win doctrine. At the time Russia wasn’t considered a major threat. The F-22 was never meant to bomb anyone …. I’m sure it’s capable of ground attack but it’s role is as an air superiority fighter while the F-35’s primary role is as a fighter / bomber / AWAC …. not fighting head to head with the Su-57.

            Changes are coming. Officially they haven’t published and changes from the Rumsfeld doctrine however the USA have to turn back to being able to fight 2 wars against peers, which is going to be very costly for US taxpayers. Those far flung bases that were assets during the Rumsfeld years are now extremely vunerable to missile attack with even the Houti’s having ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones.

          • occupybacon

            I agree with the second part of your comment, however when I said that Su-57 and F-35 will probably meet in the near future, I meant they will be sold to another rival countries or I would have said F-22 instead of F-35. I’m very curious on the outcome of this meeting. But F-22 is superior to Su-57 at this very moment, it has many years of improvements. I can’t stress more that neither F-22 or F-35 were never meant to strike Russia.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            I get into this same discussion with carpenters around power tools and equipment. Some carpenters like to argue that yellow tools are superior to red tools or visa versa.

            These are usually carpenters who don’t do large scale jobs, don’t have many employees and don’t have the cost reporting data to make an informed decision and are influenced by articles, promotional materials or in other words the ‘branding’ of the tools.

            My argument to them is that tool colour or ‘branding’ isn’t what’s important but it’s how the tools or machinery fits your system and what’s asked of it.

            I currently have in the center of my shop a $10,000 Chinese made saw that’s a knock off of an Italian saw that costs $25,000. The Italian saw is a superior machine. It can run three shifts a day for 10 years before wearing out …. the Chinese knock off wouldn’t last 6 months under these conditions. Other than that no one can tell the difference between a piece cut on my saw and one on an Italian saw.

            Some cabinetmakers are aghast when they see a cheap Chinese saw in my shop however I run my saw maybe 10 hours a week on average. It’s the center of my shop but my shop isn’t the center of my business … field installations are. Most of my competitors show up on the job site with tools of one colour or another bought at Home Depot. I use a lot of specialized tools imported from Europe and a lot of custom made fixtures that were far more expensive than tools from HD but speed me up considerably compared to my competition. This is where I invested, this is where I make my money.

            The same goes for military aircraft or any other weapon. We live in the age of combined arms warfare. it’s the system and how the weapons fit into that system that count not head to hear comparisons. The F-22 may be a superior weapon in the hands of the USAF but it may be an overbuilt waste of money in the Russian system of warfare where defence is the focus instead of gaining air superiority during an invasion.

          • occupybacon

            Agree

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “What do you mean by this? USA can’t continue a war if they lose all their aircraft carriers?”

            The Carrier is the center of US naval strategy. Without aircraft the navy is half blind isolated and defenceless. Of course they still have helicopters, drones and missiles but much more vulnerable with much less reach.

            “So they were keeping their aircraft carriers at the North pole and now they moved a bit south? ”

            Nope. I never said that. The second fleet patrolled the Atlantic from the Arctic to the Caribbean. There used to be a carrier group that patrolled from Iceland to the Barents Sea keeping track of Soviet Subs. Those guys figured they had an hour to live if the shooting started so the unwritten order was to turn south and run and hope you get out of range.

            “You dream too much at the end of the world, no wonder Russia has the highest suicide rate in the World, I guess it helps you forget a bit in what shithole robbed by reckless oligarchy are you living…try to watch more comedy”

            Touche …. yank.

    • Jacob Wohl’s Nose

      is it true the navy uses your nose as an anchor for its ships?

    • Raptar Driver

      The F-22 isn’t an interceptor, different missions, go back to Jew school and learn more about cutting foreskins.

    • Rhodium 10

      F-22 dont have enough range to fly and escort B2 who want to penetrate inside central Russia…for 2 reason: 1º Anchorage base in Alaska would be destroyed by cruise missile so no F-22 can take from there.. without escorting B2…Mig 31 have free hands to chase a subsonic bomber the B2 easy to track with powerful ground radars deployed in Russia…2º F-22 dont have enough range to reach central Russia even if Alaska airbases havent been destroyed!

      • Icarus Tanović

        Far, far from that, from reaching Central Russia. I’m not sure if they can reach territory norrh of DPRK.

    • bla

      Look yet another zio-jew hasbara troll, blocked !!