and this, for the RB version

Where did you find this document? It more or less answers some questions about the range of the KAB-500S when dropped from a MiG-25/31

You wrote it. It is a claim and nothing more. Even a lucky shot under best conditions is questionable in that case.
About the F-15 it was the better climb-performance to reach a firing point, the radar and AIM-7 variant, what may have risen propability.
For the F-14 it was the radar and AIM-54 at first. For both you have to add ample warning time or to be airborn already! Otherwise the chances will go to zero.
The conditions set for such interceptions are that the MiG-25R is approaching the intercepting fighters!!!!!

The reason that I asked was because it seems to me that the the MiG-25 platform was in many respects just as capable as the SR-71. The MiG-25R may have been slower – but that’s irrelevant if the West’s fastest fighters (Lightning, F-4, F-14, F-15) were still too slow to catch up on it. Consequently there would be no need for the MiG spy plane to fly any faster than M=2.2, helping to increase useful range (what the MiG-25R really needed was a refueling probe)

Why did of the pilot of the MiG-25 which first flew over Israel in 1973 push it to M=3.2. The F-4s in Israeli service wouldn’t have had the chance to catch up on if the MiG was flying a whole Mach number slower.

Try reading the book “By Any Means Necessary” by William E Burrows if you want to receive an understanding of the issues when carrying out reconnaissance overflights over the territory of a nuclear superpower. President Eisenhower was extremely wary of the political consequences of a U-2 spy plane being forced down over Soviet territory when he was giving permission for such missions in the 1950s and one should try to remember the serious political crisis that occurred when Francis Gary Powers was eventually shot down in 1960. It was a political and propaganda nightmare for America at the time. But an interesting part of the book was when it touched upon what Eisenhower’s reaction would have been if the Soviet Union tried to carry out such overflights over the USA. To quote the book…

“Nothing would make him [Eisenhower] request authority to declare war more quickly than violation of our air space by Soviet aircraft,” his son, John, quoted him as saying at a National Security Council meeting in 1959. page 238

The Americans probably didn’t think the benefits of SR-71 flights over the USSR as been worth the risks involved in losing such an aircraft over the USSR, regardless of how much the Americans thought the odds of such an eventuality ever happening. There was no need to provoke the Soviets by carrying out the sort of overflights over their territory that would have been deemed completely unacceptable, if carried out over the territory of the USA.

This, of course would not stop the Americans from over flying the client states (unhindered) of the Soviet Union; nor would it stop the Soviet Union or India from flying their MiG-25s over Israel or Pakistan (also unhindered)

But we’ve had this SR-71/MiG-25 discussion already on the forum.

Nobody wants to talk about the photo and SLAR versions of MiG-25R?
I’m not sure about the usefulness of the MiG-25 as an interceptor but I should think the MiG-25 was the greatest tactical reconnaissance plane ever. And one that was also impossible to intercept by any Western power (while we’re talking about the invulnerability of the SR-71).

it is true there were faster aircraft, but none was built in large numbers as the MiG-25 was, none was operational with weapons or bombs, in that the SR-71 as an aircrat could neither defend it self or attack and that was even worst compared with the MiG-31, in few words the MiG-25 and MiG-31 can kill the SR-71 but the SR-71 the only thing it can do is run and run in reality the MiG-25/31 series are predators while the SR-71 is pure pray

Using the same logic, do you think the B-2, F-117, Tu-160, B-1B, C-5 Galaxy, An-124, C-130, and any other number of bomber, transport, maritime patrol, reconnaissance or any type of support aircraft not much capable of “defending itself” and which possibly make up the majority of an air arms numerical strength are consequently of no use in modern warfare and should be deleted at once.

What are the air to air capabilities of those MiG-25s used in the reconnaissance and SEAD roles? How did they hope to “defend themselves”?

In fact; if the USAF’s figures are to be believed, no other aircraft has had more missiles launched against it or interceptors attempting to catch it, with no losses suffered, as had the SR-71. Proof of its “self defence” abilities if any were needed…

Trust me, if Russia had mach 3 bombers, and was a big threat to the U.S. in that way, you’d see Lockheed F-12s (or their successor) flying today. That wasn’t the case, however, and thus they were never put into service.

America’s first planned mach 3 interceptor the F-108 Rapier wasn’t actually intended for Soviet supersonic bombers – for such aircraft weren’t imagined when the Rapier was conceived in the late 1950s, it was in fact intended for use against subsonic types like the Tu-95 BEAR and M-4 BISON – the idea being to intercept these bombers as far away from North America’s shores as possible, before they could even get near to America’s cities. (If I do faintly recall…)

Some of the above ex-soviet countries only inherited their Foxbats after the break up of the Soviet Union, it’s doubtful whether they flew them at all.

As for the Arab countries, – they just take delivery of every single type of aircraft that the Soviets would allow for export, including such exotic types as the Il-76, Tu-16, Tu-22, Su-24, and of course the MiG-25, without any rhyme or reason to their choices.
It’s debatable whether some of these countries could afford to or even knew how to actually gain the maximum benefit from such aircraft.

This is an aircraft which for the most part has seen service with either

A) Countries with a large percentage of the world’s oil resources, i.e. Libya, Iraq.

b) Countries with a large percentage of the world’s population, i.e. India

c) Countries which can qualify in both in both of the above categories, i.e. the USSR

What ever way you look at it, the MiG-25 is not an airplane for the financially faint of heart!!

like most Russian program, already flying mean it will fly in 10 years, then on year 11 be stored at museum or become part of aerobatics team.

If the RVV-AE-PD doesn’t get to see the light of day you can be sure of one thing – it won’t be the fault of the Russian aerospace industry, if it’s going to be anyone’s fault it will be the fault of the Russian Armed Forces ministry who will refuse to hand over to necessary cash to introduce it into service. Remember; the original RVV-AE-PD has seen very little service with the Russian air force – most of their aircraft are not compatible with this missile. The only investment the Russian air force has seen in aircraft and equipment since the break up of the Soviet Union has been the upgrade of some MiG-29s which can now accept the RVV-AE-PD along with perhaps extra funding for the Tu-160.

MiG-23MLD has recently posted some photos of the ANSAT MHR helicopter in the air. I saw a mock up of this machine at MAKS 2005 and at the time I didn’t think this aircraft would ever fly. One should thank the people who work in the Russian aerospace industry for allowing this to happen, despite the very poor salaries they receive and a lack of direction from the Russian military.

But generally speaking, in order for a country to attain successful overseas sales for its aerospace products, the military of that country should already have accepted these products into service and acquired a lot of experience in its use.

What the difference between an AH-64 and a Mi-28? About 3 million flying hours!

If the Russians don’t see fit to buy Russian military products why should anyone else?

[

QUOTE=MiG-23MLD]
Easy you are saying the Mi-24 armed like this is less capable than a lightly armed Gazzele

In 1982 in Lebanon the HOT armed Gazelle would have been a more capable tank buster than the Mi-24s in Syrian service at that time. Manually guided MCLOS first generation ATGWs such as the SS-11 or the AT-2 SWATTER had a respectable probability of a kill when launched from the ground by a highly trained operator. But the US army was very unhappy with the performance of SS-11 in Vietnam when launched from helicopters, while according to the Iraqis, the SWATTER had a pk of only around 9% in the war against Iran, when launched from the Mi-24.

On the other hand, SACLOS missiles such as the HOT and TOW have proven to have a high level of effectiveness when they have been used.

The Soviets were always hesitant to supply their own SACLOS missile the ‘AT-6 SPIRAL’ Shturm-B to its client states in the early 1980s, but I believe this missile had its own reliability problems as well, as revealed when examples were taken from former Warsaw Pact countries after the cold war and tested on American proving grounds.

Mind you, I know which helicopter I would rather be sitting in over a busy battlefield