It is designed to counter Blackbird also, not only XB-70.

You are obviously misled by some cheap literature.

In fact, it was discovered, after Japan landing, that it is very advanced interceptor with no western equivalent, in terms of propulsion, weapon systems and performance.

It had the most powerful radar in the world, which no one could jamm, it has very high performance missiles, which have speed of more than 7 Mach after launch (combined missile and a/c speed), so that they have to be made of titanium, has very advanced digital computer, and able to execute all fighter maneuvers (which no other Mach 3 a/c can do), and most important of all, it denied Americans from using SR-71 in its intended role (to spy russians), as the American general Keegan say.

So, it was the SR-71 which, because of Mig-25, never fulfiled its intended role.
And because of extraordinary Mig-31, it was retired from service entirely.

Look what American general Keegan said:

Oh god … where do I start fanboy?

I am very well read in the literature – maybe better then you. The mainstream literature all state how crude and primative Belenko’s Foxbat was. This doesn’t mean that Western airforces were not impressed with the outright performace of the aircraft, but you are mixing powerful with sophisticated which it just wasn’t.

For example the radar wasn’t just behind the state of the art it was very primative (even had valve technology). On the other hand its raw power would of been handy to burn through heavy ECM something that would of worried the Soviets. You keep coming back to its amazing manouvreability at Mach 3, frankly this shows you have no understanding of basic aerodynamics. At high altitude and Mach no aircraft can fling it around the sky, the most that it could do in the thin air is to change its heading.

You keep on coming back to the SR71, it was never intended as an interceptor so I don’t know why you have a hang up over its supposed failure in that role.

Finally neither the Mig25 or Mig31 ever stopped or even deterred the SR71 from doing what it wanted. It was an aircraft that operated at Mach 3 for sustained periods. Off Russia SR71’s would operate a race track up and down the border over the sea passing by Sweden. There was no way that Russian Mig25/31 could intercept on the up leg of the mission so the tactic they operated was to try and lay a trap on return leg. They only ever managed to get a Mig31 there once to try an intercept and even then it would of been a marginal shot.

Everyone have to bear in mind that the MiG-25 is the only Mach 3 combat a/c.
The western nations failed in that field. The YF-12 was experimental a/c only, never destined to success, because of its sensitive propulsion system and weak airframe.

On the other hand, the Russians succeded to make Mach 3 multi role combat a/c, and not only that but to build it in great numbers, to sell it abroad and even to offer it for civilian flights !!!

To build such a/c it was necessary to satisfy many contradicting requirements:

1-propulsion system which can tolerate such extreme temperatures and at the same time not to be sensitive to intake airflow disturbances, permiting fighter maneuvers.

2- airframe which can endure such temperatures and also 11g overloads without breaking, and high dynamic pressures, permiting 1300 km/h sea level speed.

3-long range radar and electronics which can endure 300 degrees C temperatures. Not easy to do. The B-58 Hustler suffered radar failures at 130 degrees C.

4-underwing titanium plated long range missiles which can withstand such extreme enviroments.

5-and all this combined with ability to maneuver as normal figher a/c, rolls, loops,Immelmans, zoom climbs, split-S, fast dives, etc,etc,

These are, from engineering point of view, contradicting requirements almost impossible to satisfy.
Every aircraft designer knows that.

The fact is that the west failed and the Russians succeded to solve these engineering problems.

Firebar please now this is getting childish! The Mig-25 is an amazing achievment which can’t be taken away from the Russian aviation industry but you really over egging its capabilities.

As for the West not fielding a Mach 3 interceptor, well they could if they wanted. In the end it was decided that missiles were the way forward and there wasn’t a requirement for a fighter with that performance, nothing to do with a failure in Western aerospace development. The YF-12 was a spy plane first and foremost the missile capability was developed to meet a threat that never was. The Mig-25 was only developed because the Soviet Union thought that the XB-70 was going to be fielded.

When Victor Belenko defected with a Mig 25 to Japan Western airforces were shocked with how primative it was. In effect it was a fighter designed to intercept a Mach 3 bomber with the help of GCI and then burn through heavy jamming with its powerful but crude radar to get a missile off.

I wouldnt be so disheartened Planeman. What you’ve actually done is to show people how vital it is to correctly define the scope of a project before embarking on the basics of the design. Also what happens when project definition is ill-thought out how quickly capability-creep takes a project out of all bounds of sense even though the ‘individual steps’ may seem almost plausible.

You started this with the premise that the RN needed a new escort to fit into the CVF taskgroup going forwards. In reality most of this designs itself based on the limits around it. Seeings AAW is covered by the t45’s for the next two decades at least, and the ageing T22B3/T23 fleet is going to present a Fleet ASW gap with a secondary ‘DLG’ requirement the roles required of this escort are manifest. These roles also define the sensors that will be employed and, therefore, the hull numbers in the class.

There are only eight 2087 towed array sonars in the escort fleet, so, the RN’s next ASW combattant class numbers 8 hulls only!. 8 hulls is too few to be risking them inshore chasing down SSK’s and we arent going to be affording an allround competent GP frigate for C2 when we cant afford to send T23’s on deployment today. That means the new 2087 ships must be capable of as much standoff ASW as we can provide them with. Standoff ASW for the RN means Merlin HM1 and so the new escort MUST be an aviation-weighted design. Noting that sentence used the word ‘escort’ and not ‘carrier’ as this still needs to be a vessel capable of consorting HVU’s and NOT an HVU itself in need of escort!.

So we have already pre-defined mission, sensors, performance, armament, hull numbers and only, realistically, have cost/logistics/supportability left as a variable. By that I mean can we provide a hull that services all the pre-defined criteria for a price that can be met by the defence budget. Thats the challenge and it, I’m afraid, is not met by the kind of fancy pentamaran through-deck CGH’s you want to draw. I would like to see what your design package could do with the below concept though:

Essentially the same concept as I put through above, but, pared down to provide as much pull through from T45 and the decommissioning Dukes.

• 170m x 21m
• BAE155 fwd
• 48-cell VLS (4xA70/2xA43)
• ARTISAN MRR
• REMSIG 30mm’s port/starboard
• Phalanx-1B port/stbd
• re-uprated WR21 IEP propulsion – after turbine set resited fwd so uptake intrusion into hangar minimised.
• 50m flight deck/40m hangar – 3 Merlin HM1 surge airgroup.
• SONAR2087

Essentially still a big ship, knocking on cruiser sized, but nothing really ‘big-ticket’ expensive. No PAAMS so saving of near £200mn on T45 before stretch costs. Sensors/weapons transferred across, mostly, from T23. A43 cells for theoretical quadpack CAAMS, 32 LACM capable cells for meaningful secondary land-attack capability. Hul stretch allowing for increase in dieso and avcat bunkerage, air ordnance stores etc. Cant see why this wouldnt be considerably cheaper than T45. C1 sorted IMO!

That hits the nail nicely on the head, adaptable enough to meet several needs and pulling plenty of equipment from the big RN spares bin.

I like the idea of having the a43 VLS cells in there as well, we can shove what ever missile we want in them within reason so for normal day to day duties CAAMS it is but as I have said before if we did suddenly find ourselves in a big shooting war there is no reason why we couldn’t drop ASTER30 into the cells and allow the Type45 to deal with targeting via a datalink. Its what the Americans are doing with the integration of CEC capability (the RN is looking in joining that) where the big AEGIS platforms use the lower tier asw platforms as spare missile silos.

In effect for the price of a frigate without all that expensive area radar stuff you get a spare AAW asset!:D

yes, why not? Gives the S1850M 3-D air surveillance radar a frontal arc. Sampson would be higher up obviously.

Typo, SM-3 ABMs as voted

Similar to
“Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)
The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is an attempt to reclaim the prized center space of the hull while increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the entire missile battery and the loss of the ship in the case of a magazine explosion. The system scatters pods of VLS around the outer shell of the ship having a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS would be directing the force of the explosion outward rather than ripping the ship in half. Additionally this design keeps the loss of missile capacity down to just the pod being hit”

Skyguard 35mm CIWS as voted, their purpose is to shoot down incoming American missiles in blue on blue situations

And whilst your about can it be plated in Gold with diamond encrusted propellers.

My word this whole exercise in committee design has turned almost into a comical farce.

Of course the UK defense budget can support this all singing and dancing frigate with abm capability…