wrightwingThey still have a lot of life left on the airframes, so it makes sense.
wrightwingAs others have pointed out, his book was a slam at Western defense policies,he clearly had/has a political motive.
And being a “former intelligence officer” doesn’t mean much.
Was he any good at it? (If he was, why is a “former”? 😀 )
(as an aside, I was walking a flightline with a newly graduated 2nd Lt intelligence officer. She called a F-18 an F-16.
Of course she knew better…even “pros” make mistakes).First rule of critical thinking: Just because it’s printed doesn’t mean it’s true.
Always consider the source. 😀
+1
and if the source has a .ru in it, I’d be wary wary careful.:cool:
wrightwinghttp://www.spyflight.co.uk/foxb.htm
http://everything2.com/node/961488
“That said, this aircraft is often derided as a faker. The Soviet Union was, for some time, able to successfully maintain the image that this aircraft was a highly manoeuvrable, fearsome interceptor capable of maintaining mach 3+ and flying ranges in excess of 2,000km. Neither of these proved to be the case and numerous other deficiencies made themselves apparent over time, although the illusion may have been maintained for far longer (notwithstanding collapses of one’s system of governance) had a defector not handed one to the West.”
Powerplant
The Foxbat is powered by two Tumansky R-15B-300 afterburning turbojets which develop 22,500lbs of ‘wet’ (afterburning) thrust each. These could propel the Foxbat to a maximum speed of at least mach 3.2 in a clean reconnaissance configuration (i.e. no weapons stores), although pilots were supposedly forbidden to exceed mach 2.5 without permission and the mach gauge for the MiG-25P (Foxbat-A) redlines at mach 2.8.(17) These engines initially had a shockingly bad operational life of 150 hours, since they were derived from single-use engines for drone aircraft; later improvements increased this to 1000 hours, better but still poor by contemporary standards.
“The MiG-25P suffers in performance and endurance compared to the MiG-25R because of the extra weight it must carry: after a MiG-25P in testing suffered a 70mm wing flex when performing a 5G turn at maximum speed and crashed, designers imposed a speed limit of mach 2.83 on the the aircraft, and also maximum flight times within certain speed ranges. Flight time (fuel permitting) up to mach 2.4 was unlimited but speeds of mach 2.4-2.65 were limited to 15 minutes, and speeds of mach 2.65-2.83 to 5 minutes. The MiG-25 Viktor Belenko brought to the West in 1976 was a brand new Foxbat-A. It had a redline speed of mach 2.5 and a maximum range far less than believed, particularly if flying at supersonic speed. As it was, flying low-level with minimal manoeuvres, Belenko was barely able to reach Hakodate airport in Japan from Chuguyevka (on the eastern edge of Russia) without running out of fuel.”
“Performance
There is no dispute that the Foxbat has an extraordinary top speed, rate of climb and maximum altitude, particularly for a fighter-size aircraft. However analyses frequently cite the poor handling of the aircraft at high speed and its relatively primitive construction. The aircraft is heavy, it does have a short range at high speed and it does handle sluggishly compared to contemporary Western designs. However, many commentators omit that most aircraft handle poorly at high mach and that as an interceptor the MiG-25 doesn’t have to handle well. It was never intended for intercepting anything but bombers and high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, neither of which are renowned for their agility.
That said, the MiG-25’s published 4.5G limit (2.2G with full tanks and weapon loadout) is believed only to exist to satisfy safety regulations; the airframe is widely reported to have a slightly more-respectable ‘without deformation’ handling limit of 5.0-6.5G. Either way it is considerably less puny when one considers it applies throughout the Foxbat’s entire speed range. How many aircraft can pull 4Gs at mach 2.5? One one occasion, during dogfight training a Foxbat was inadvertantly subject to 11.5G stress without breaking up, although the airframe had to be written off due to deformation.
Furthermore, given the strict handling limits of the A-12 and SR-71s at cruising speed (supposedly around 1.5-2.0 gees) there is little chance of either outmanoeuvring a Foxbat (Kelly Johnson, designer of the SR-71 has spoken to this effect), and I have no doubt the larger XB-70’s handling limits are stricter still. This is where the higher top speed of the Western aircraft pays off, as they would be able to use it to escape engagement. The MiG-25 can reportedly only maintain high machs (mach 3+) and high altitudes (over 80,000ft) for short periods. The Foxbat’s greedy Tumansky turbojets also limit its range and flexibility considerably, in both interceptor and reconnaissance variants.
The top speed of the MiG-25 is an area of contention; setting aside the maximum allowed speed of mach 2.5, a Foxbat was definitely clocked exceeding mach 3 over a middle-eastern country (possibly Israel, Iran or Egypt) and MiG-25s have reportedly outrun Western aircraft and missiles during the 1991 Gulf War (see previous section). However many sources report that the engines have quite primitive throttle control (they are derived from cruise missile engines) and are prone to instability at high machs, with a tendency to keep accelerating until they burn out:
“The problem is that the engine begins to act like a ramjet at speeds in excess of Mach 2.5 or so, and the turbine’s speed is increasingly dictated by the flow through the propulsion duct rather than by fuel control.”(15)
Backing this up are several reports (including by a fellow noder) that the engines of a Foxbat were destroyed by exceeding mach 3 and had to be replaced on landing:
“In terms of speed, MiG-25 can fly at mach 3.2 but after that flight – and it will be short one, I don’t know how long but it will be short one – but after that flight you must change its engines.”
-Viktor Belenko
“Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed.”(10)
“…at speeds of Mach 2.8 or more the engines tended to run out of control and burn up. There were tales in the West that Foxbats that did fly at Mach 3+ for an extended period needed an engine swap when they came back down. “(11)
“When I was in Europe training on the MiG 21 and 23 I spoke with a few pilots who had flown the ’25 and they without exception stated that in order to go Mach-3 the engines were subsequently scrap. Serious overtemps.” (15)
One can’t help but wonder why an aircraft capable of such high speed would be designed with metaphorically clipped wings, or rather engines:
“…it would be totally absurd to design a highly sophisticated a/c, employ 11 pounds of pure silver(!!) to insulate its engine compartments and not employ a relatively inexpensive device to avoid overspeeding the engines.”(10)
…although the above viewpoint is not expressed elsewhere, suggesting that the MiG-25’s performance is indeed crippled in this way. The fact that this aircraft was developed on quite a tight schedule also seems to back this up, as does the use of steel in the airframe rather than the development of improved titanium manufacturing processes first. Sources frequently mention a supposed Soviet propensity to go with what is available when designing equipment, rather than developing suitable technical advancements first.
This brings us to another point of criticism about the Foxbat: its construction. It was mostly hand-welded, had rivet heads that weren’t countersunk and it was made from nickel steel, something that was unheard of in a time of aluminium fighter jets and the all-titanium A-12 and SR-71. The MiG-25 does have titanium protection for areas where heat builds up at high speed (i.e. leading edges of wings and fuselage), but Russia’s ability to manufacture titanium in quantity was fairly limited when the MiG-25 was designed. Aluminium – the most common metal used in aircraft construction – is not suitable for high-mach applications, as air friction at that speed can produce heat in excess of 300°C and aluminium gets too soft at that temperature.”
“Celebrity Deathmatch: Foxbat vs. Blackbird
Okay, I’ll say right off the bat that this is really a foregone conclusion, but somehow this doesn’t make the proposition any less compelling. Despite its age and relatively low sophistication, the MiG-25 and its younger brother the MiG-31 Foxhound would still be the main potential opponents for the SR-71 if it were still operational. All three aircraft have exceptional top speeds and service ceilings, and although the CIA/USAF have never acknowledged SR-71 overflights of Russia took place there is little doubt that they did.
It is actually very unlikely the two aircraft would ever get close enough for there to be any kind of interception to speak of, given the Blackbird’s cruising speed and altitude. After his defection, MiG-25 pilot Viktor Belenko stated that the SR-71 flew too high and fast for the MiG-25 to intercept it, suggesting that the SR-71’s altitude capabilities are not only in excess of its published cruising altitude of circa 75,000ft, but of the service ceiling of the Foxbats as well. Although the AA-6 missiles the Foxbat carries are fast enough to catch an SR-71, the MiG-25’s maximum altitude is severely retarded when carrying missiles, meaning it cannot get close enough to fire them.
Actually this deathmatch probably wouldn’t end in any deaths at all, unless pride counts. The Foxbat would probably make a good initial stab at pursuit and in a dogfight (not that one could take place by any definition, at that speed) could easily outmanoeuvre it but if it were detected, the Blackbird pilot could simply nudge the throttles on his J-58s and outrun the Foxbat and any missile it fired. In a head to head engagement, even if the MiG-25 were flying at low speed, the SR-71 could in all likelihood fly right through its engagement envelope (the 50km range of its radar) and past it before the radar had time to lock on!”
wrightwingTotal sensationalist journalist BS. Give me an S-300P or even S-200 battery and I’ll drop FOXBATs like flies. FLIES.
Iranian Tomcat pilots certainly weren’t scared of nor had any problems swatting them down either. If you want to determine just how effective the MiG-25P was, we should really look at it’s kill/loss ratio. An unsurpassed aircraft of such awesome performance and excellent capability must surely have a dominant kill/loss ratio, right?
+1
The fact that Foxbats HAVE been shot down negates the claim that no missile could catch it. The fact that NO SR-71s have been shot down should also count for something in any objective comparison.
wrightwingIt can do Immelmans, rolls, split S, loops, all fighter maneuvers, thanks to its unique propulsion system and excellent handling abilities.
And it does it so securely that the Russians even offer any civilians to fly it.!!!
It is surely incredible for a Mach 3 aircraft.
Can anybody imagine Blackbird flights offered for civilians and for maneuvering!!!!
The USA didn’t need hard currency the way Russia did, which is why you’d never see rides being sold on SR-71. I’m not sure why you’re trying to compare an interceptor with a spy plane, as the Mig didn’t have the same capabilities in that role. In terms of agility, are you suggesting that the Mig 25 is performing the maneuevers that you mentioned while flying at Mach 3?
You still haven’t addressed things like turn radius, turn rates, roll rates. With the exception of speed and altitude, there isn’t any fighter flying today, that couldn’t out handle the Mig 25. I would guess even an F-111 could out manuever a Mig 25. It’s obvious you’re a fan, but perhaps a little more objectivity might be in order.
wrightwingThat applies to Blackbirds propulsion system, as it used mixed compression which suffers from unstarts, by its nature.
As for Mig-25, it is maneuverable at subsonic speeds also. You may note that it has variable geometry lower intake lip. It is used to control airstreem at lower speeds, at higher angle of attacks. It is very complex system used also to control intake airspeed at higher speeds.
That was not found in any west fighter.
It has special vanes which control airstreem in the middle of airduct, also not found in any west aircraft.
Because of that, it do not suffer from unstarts.
When you combine that with transsonic compresor, with no western equivalent (as has been noted in International Defense Review after Mig examination in Japan 1976), you will get the picture about Mig-25s propulsion system.
It is one incredible solution. A propulsion system capable of Mach 3 and in the same time capable of all normal fighter maneuvers: loops, rolls,split-s, zoom climbs, etc.
That is something not found in any western Mach 3 aircraft, whether in service or experimental.
Since the 90s high resolution pics can be bought for the fraction of cost by a manned system.[/QUOTE]
The satelites can not possibly replace tactical maned reconn a/c. They are too inflexible, can not be returned to the same spot fast, have no such short alert time, etc,etc.[/QUOTE]
So what are the instantaneous, and sustained turn rates, roll rates, turn radius, etc… for the Mig 25? Just because it has a strong airframe, doesn’t mean that it’s nimble.
wrightwingMain Page: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/media-center/mediakits.html
Compare to –
Umm…..nope
No supercruise…in the F-35 brochure
And there are other A/C(s) which have demoed supercruise, up to Mach 1.5 when clean, and up to Mach 1.2+ with load of 6 AAM and one centerline drop tank.
Super maneuverability is also requirement for some A/C even with an external A-A load. To pull sustain supersonic High-G’s
So you have the 4.5+++ gen A/C..(Has Reduced RCS but Lacks VLO and internal carriage)
F-35 5th Gen (going by the LM brochure):
LO/VLO
Agility
Integrated AvionicsF-22
VLO
Extreme Agility (Has TVC compared to the F-35, and some insane turn rates)
Integrated Avionics (Does the F-35 have some like AN/ALR-94? And who knows what else F-22 has)
Impressive Supercuise (Official as much as Mach 1.72 and unofficially Mach 1.8+, but not as much as Usain Bolt :p :D)Like I said before, if the F-35 is 5th gen, then the F-22 is 5++ gen
F-22/F-35 is not like your F-16/F-15 duo…..Differences appear to be much bigger…
The F-22 has exceeded its performance requirements though, so just because supercruise wasn’t one for the F-35, doesn’t mean that it absolutely cannot.
wrightwing:confused:What makes you think that any enemy aircraft would enter dogfight with eight PGMs hanging under the wings? LOL, I have yet to see that anywhere in the near future! 😉
I suspect the requirement wasn’t it’s ability to outperform other bomb laden aircraft in WVR combat. I’m guessing what was meant that it’s A/A performance would be second only to the F-22.
wrightwingWhich F-4 variant was the best in terms of the A/A role in the 70s? The F-4E with the APQ-120, the F-4J with the AWG-10, etc…?
wrightwingLM any other say F-35 is 5th gen plane…..
IMVHO,
it is NOT a 5th gen plane…..
F-22 is the ONLY 5th gen plane… Does the F-35 count?
F-22
All Aspect Stealth
Supercruise
Integrated Avionics (I am still waiting for an answer regarding whether the F-35 has an equivalent to the F-22’s CIP. F-22 can support up to 3 IIRC)
Super Maneuverability (Not low speed nose pointing, but sustained supersonic, high G’ maneuvering)
MaintainabilityHow many of the above features does the F-35 have?
I guess the question to ask isn’t so much which of the capabilities are shared between the 2 aircraft, but what is the definition that LM is using to define 5th Generation. It’s my understanding that the F-35 will have at least 3 of the 5 capabilities(Integrated Avionics, High manueverability and Maintainability). What isn’t known is how stealthy it is in comparison, or what it’s sheer performance numbers are. I suspect that it will still have a pretty high cruising speed due to its high thrust and clean configuration.
wrightwingSeeing as how the question was which fighter was best, and not which multi-role aircraft was best, I’ll limit myself to the A/A arena.
The F-15A and F-14A had the best A/A avionics in the 70s, and each had certain advantages which depending on the situation(F-15 -sheer performance/F-14 BVR and gas) could give them an advantage over the other, so it’d come down to the pilot.
The F-4, Mirage F1, Viggen, Mig 23, F-16, would be the next tier.
In terms of the F-4 models, which one do you feel was superior in the A/A role, and why? F-4E/F-4J, etc…?
wrightwingI say, the Mig-25, as aircraft, is multi mode platform.
The Mig-25RB and Mig-25P are versions of MiG-25 !!!If you think of one particular plane, note that RB version can be used for:
-Low and medium altitude tactical reccon.
-High altitude strategic reccon.
-Bombing from low, medium or very high altitudes.
-Stand-off attacks with antiradiation missiles.A multi role by any standard.
The SR-71 was capable of only one of these roles.
How many Foxbats have been shot down vs. SR-71s?
wrightwing🙂
I’d agree that it would be foolish to assume a 1:1 replacement, but the problem with only 183 airframes is A- hours on the airframe B- attrition C- the number of locations that can be supported simultaneously with F-22s, should the need arise. The 381 number that the Air Force wants, makes more sense, in sustainability over a 30-40yr lifespan.
wrightwingOf course not.
The 123.000 ft altitude is achieved in zoom climb. It is not operational ceiling, but it shows us tremendous performance capability compared to other fighters.
I said earlier that Mig-25’s 11 G demonstrated is ultimate G, not cleared for service. But it anyway shows us great structure strengts.Just as reports of F-4, pulling 11g in some combat situations, and staying in one piece although suffering some damage, show us great strength of F-4.
What about the fact that while capable of M3.2, this destroys the engines as they’re exceeding their redline, and M2.8 is the realistic top speed while clean. I don’t see a Mig 25 with combat load cruising over M2 for 1800+ KM.
wrightwingYeah, we all know that, but the technical papers , reports etc, all the official papers tells M1.4-1.6
“today i flew the 22’s at M1.7″…yesterday i did only at M1.3, oh yeah i reached the M1.7 in a dash dive….or ..it was a cold day, nice temperature to fly
“today i flew my F-4 at M2.6”
“today i flew my F-18 at M2”
that happens for all..and why he said “today”
really, guys try to be a bit more serious
Come on..
“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners…”
At no point in time did the General mention that he did so due to optimal weather conditions, being in a dive, etc… Additionally, he wasn’t making a comparitive statement(i.e. yesterday I flew at M1.3, etc…). The important take away here is that he said he did it without afterburners.
Sign In
