Going mach 2 or more with 9 tons of bombs isn't easy even for the mig-25.
It would beed in flight refueling to go back to the base.
Not sure about the MiG-25, but for the MiG-31RB the difference is not that much... having 1.5 ton bombs on four wing pylons and two more conformally mounted on the belly means drag is not actually much different than when carrying 8 R-33s, so the flight radius at high supersonic speed does not really change much and of course flying towards the Ukraine border at mach 2.6 burns lots of fuel and the flight radius is probably about 700km or so, but the return flight can be subsonic and probably double that flight range.
I would also love to see “ballistics” of drop at such speed. It would be easier to have a glide bomb with a booster if range is needed.
A toss release from 18km altitude at mach 2.6 would be interesting, but I doubt existing glide kits could be used at such speeds and at such altitudes...
I always thought they should have kept some 48 mig-25 and upgrade them for multirole missions. Its speed was a true advantage over the battlefield.
The MiG-31 can do the same job better... with more bombs.
As carrier of glide bombs. Not Kinzhal.
The only model MiG-25 that can carry bombs was the MiG-25RB, whereas the MiG-31BM is supposed to be able to carry up to 9 tons of bombs (6 x 1.5 tons).
Kinzhal is a very expensive weapon vs glide bombs. I doubt MIG-41 will carry kinzhal. more likely Tsirkon.
I suspect the MiG-31BM with 1 ton to 1.5 ton bombs with glide kits specially for high speed high altitude release... perhaps even toss release profiles to maximise delivery distance performance would be a cheap way to deliver weapons at targets at enormous distances... 200-300km or so, with the accuracy of a glide kit guidance unit.
Lol Russia won't fight NATO with s-400. At best some nuks equiped 40N6 will be launched but nothing less.
If HATO wants to get involved... even with air power then Russia needs to stamp down hard and that would require tactical nukes or at the very least hypersonic missiles aimed at assets in HATO countries where those aircraft are operating from, or they will just continue to escalate.
Of course I can't see HATO just sending planes to Ukraine with HATO pilots alone, they might try a grab for Kaliningrad, which could really get messy and any HATO troops massed up to take Kaliningrad or to enter the conflict in Ukraine as "peacekeepers" would also require those massed troop and armour targets to get nuked.
Ukraine sending troops to kill Russians does not justify nukes but a HATO invasion of Kaliningrad or to help Kiev in Ukraine does justify the use of tactical nukes on HATO countries territory.
Russia was too fast at retiring good plateforms and not upgrafing them.
They lack a numbers plane... it should have been the MiG-35 because it is modern and can use all their new missiles and weapons and will eventually have a modern AESA radar and IRST and targeting pods, but I suspect they want to skip a generation and see what MiG can come up with in terms of a cheap light 5th gen fighter... if they can get moderate stealth with low operational costs and an affordable price even if it is the size of a LIFT then it makes sense to wait for that to produce in numbers to fill gaps and also use wingman type drones to bolster numbers, but at the end of the day making lots of LIFT sized numbers 5th gen fighters like the MiG one or Checkmate if MiG fail is going to fill their only real problem.
For the west their lack of a unified IADS is their problem and their advantage in aircraft numbers will rapidly be whittled away in a conflict against a peer enemy.... so good for colonial conflicts against peasants, but not good for the fights they have been picking recently.