LevshaFinding a name that meant the same in all four languages, that didn’t have a latin/German/Anglo root, and didn’t upset the boxheads too badly was a long and complex process.
So they finally compromised on the language issue and gave and gave the aircraft a wind themed name from the Japanese language. I doubt if Europe’s car manufacturers will ever be so keen to give their products names from the same source.
Mind you; keeping with the wind theme and the Japanese language, the Europeans could have chosen the well known Japanese expression for “Divine Wind”
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the… “Eurofighter Kamikaze”!!! :diablo: :diablo:
it occurs to me I haven’t the faintest idea what the Germans named their aircraft . Sure you’ve got the Bf-109, Fw-190, Me 262 etc. but did they have names or were the names always given in German?
Wasn’t the the Me-262 called the Swallow (Vogel), if my memory serves me correctly?
LevshaJust a small notice. The kill “mushroom” of SA-4 and SA-5 was small at speeds above Mach 2+ and heights above 20 km+ , when the SU was really huge. There was no way for the SU to cover the artic-circle with that. The USA and Canada did not even consider that for cost-reasons!
Wouldn’t it have been practical for the Israelis to have used the Nike Hercules missile as a defence against the MiG-25R, if we are presuming that the Hercules has the necessary performance to catch the spyplane.
Israel is a much more compact landmass than the old Soviet Union –it wouldn’t have taken that many launchers to cover all of Israel’s borders, would it?
LevshaI hope all of those members who think the Foxbat hasn’t a hope in hell of intercepting theSR-71 are also willing to concede that the F-15 has no chance of intercepting the MiG-25R.
In fact, it seems to me that the MiG-25 has the advantage. When flying at mach 2.8, the MiG doesn’t have much of an endurance or range but I think the F-15 flying at mach 2.4 has an endurance much worse, I think it’s about 2 or 3 minutes at the very most. The Foxbat’s turbojets are probably more efficient at full afterburner at high altitude than the F-15’s low bypass turbofans. Coupled with the fact that the R-40s have a far superior flight performance than the AIM-7 and it become obvious that the MiG-25 has the easier job
What is the range of a AIM-7 Sparrow fired at mach 2.4 and 65,000ft compared to the R-40RD being fired from mach 2.8 and 75,000ft anyway?
LevshaQuote from Rocky
In what ways were the R-40TD and R-40RT improved over the older model
Both the R-40RD and R-40TD are developments of the original R-40 “AA-6 ACRID,” created after the original missiles technology were compromised when Belenko defected to Japan in a MiG-25 in 1976. The R-40RD uses the SARH guidance system of the R-24, which is itself a development of the R-23 – better known in the West as the AA-7 APEX. The R-40TD is the infra-red homing version, with an improved homing head. I think it may be the first all-aspect heat seeker in Soviet service
Along with this; the new AI radar for this “new” MiG-25 was developed from the MiG-23’s (ML?? MLD??) Sapfir-23 – becoming the Sapfir-25, presumably with a wider diameter antenna and greater power output for improved seeking range
So you can say that the Soviets created a new uncompromised variant of the MiG-25 in the shortest time simply by lifting a lot of the radar and weapons electronics from late version MiG-23s
Quote from Sens
About ‘snap-up’ cababilities see the F1/M2000/530 combos against Mach 3 targets.
What’s a French missile got to do with MiG-25s trying to shoot down SR-71s?
Mind you, the R-24R is alleged to be able to ‘snap up’ (or down) so probably the A-40RD could as well.
LevshaActually it would have. Even if the bomber and fighter had similar top speeds the fighters still stood a chance of catching the bomber if the fighter had a height advantage and could dive on the bomber.
From Sens
The AA-6 were IR and SARH-variants. When the MiG-25s reached a cone behind the SR-71 in time, the AA-6 could succeed. Even a SR-71 could not outrun a Mach 4 AA-6 within that few kilometers.
From BIGVERN1966
I think the nearest a Mig 25 got on a stern chase was either was 5 NM or 5 Km.
Aah, but this wouldn’t apply to the MiG-25 for two good reasons. Firstly; the Standard MiG-25 airspeed is by most accounts limited to a maximum speed of around mach 2.83 (quoted above somewhere) due to airframe and powerplant considerations, regardless of whether the MiG is flying level or in a steep dive.
Secondly; the maximum ceiling of an armed production MiG-25 is around 70,000ft, as SOC mentioned above, while the typical operational ceiling of a SR-71 could be up to 85,000ft, in which case the MiG will never get above the Blackbird to be able to dive upon it.
So even if the Foxbat maneuvers itself in to a position 5 km behind the SR-71 it’s still going to be flying at mach 0.4 slower and perhaps 15,000ft below the American. Those R-40s AAMs better have one hell of a good “snap up” ability to catch that spyplane.
Just to give you an example; In the 1970s, Concorde was used by NATO to find out how easy it would be for the various NATO air defence fighters to intercept the SST while it was cruising at around mach 2+ and 65,000ft. I forget which types were involved but I believe only theF-15 and the RAF Lightning were the only two types capable of catching up on the Concorde, even though the other types were ostensibly 2nd or 3rd generation mach 2 types also – strictly speaking no slower or lower flying than Concorde – but they just didn’t have the margin of performance above the airliner to compete.
On paper the Mitsubishi Zero-Sen was probably as fast as if not faster than the B-29 bomber with a similar if not better ceiling, but in the last tear of the Pacific War the Zero had great problems even reaching the B-29. One tactic of the Japanese pilots was to attack the bomber from head-on and to ram the enemy aircraft. This was because the Japanese fighter often had to be stripped down of all superfluous weight including parachutes and the aircraft guns – if it was to reach the B-29’s altitude (correct me if I’m wrong on the details, I’m just recalling from distant memory). No margin of performance you see.
LevshaWell, well – a total of 237 posts coming from the usual suspects and some others, debating whether a Foxbat could in fact catch up with a SR-71. Well, all I can say is, that if there is indeed so much fuel for doubts about the MiG’s ability to even reach the very target it was designed for – well then one would have to regard the Foxbat as a design failure, because an interceptor’s ability to catch up and over-haul its main potential targets is its most basic and fundamental design parameter that it has to be able to achieve – and be able to achieve it by a considerable margin. Otherwise it’s a failure
And the ability to achieve this design parameter should be obvious to everyone, even before the intercepter/air-defence fighter ever enters service
An analogy; There were many instances when the Supermarine Spitfire wasn’t able to shoot down that elusive German bomber, usually because of defensive fire from the bombers’s gunners, but if the Spit’s top speed was 10% less than that of a Heinkel He-111, well then we would have agree that the fighter has no hope in hell of shooting down the invader.
It’s the same with jets. Century series aircraft like the F-101 and F-102 all possess the necessary speed, acceleration, range and ceiling to be able to catch up and overtake the potential targets they were designed top take on – such as the Tu-95 BEAR and M-4 BISON. We automatically expect the fighters to be able to this much at least – but of course there are instances when there may be failures in other areas – we don’t expect the fighter jets to be successful 100% of the time. But if these interceptors were 10% slower and lower (capable of only… oooh, around 450kts and 30,000ft say) than the Soviet bombers – well then we would have to regard them as failures – even if the still had the same radars and AIM-4 missiles.
I think we can all agree.
The MiG-25 – perhaps the world’s very first interceptor which actually flies slower and lower than the very target aircraft it was created to shoot down – can’t catch up on the SR-71.
LevshaIn that they were successfull at first. When a few MiGs started their hit and run attacks, all surprised US-fighters dropped their bombloads for selfdefence. Doing so they lost their mission. When the US-flyers learned that NV intention, they sent in task forces. Even doing so they limited their offensive capabilities, because a part of that task-forces have to be escorts. The NV had the choise to engage such task-forces or not. They even had the choise of the number of own fighters to engage US-flyers. So the US-flyers were forced to be prepared for the worst case most of the time. The NV-flyers had the luxery, that their ABs were off-limits for the attacking US-fighters. Add to this the advantage to have the US-fighters over your home-turf and all the related support. Even under optimum conditions the NV results were limited.
I believe the Vietnamese Air force may have shot down between 120 and 140 US aircraft in the Vietnam War, which averages out at about one aircraft every 3 or 4 weeks of the wars duration. I don’t remember the figures but I believe the US military lost a lot more aircraft in accidents in S.E. Asia in the same period. US pilots were probably more afraid of bad weather than they were of the North Vietnamese air force.
I’d say the biggest problem for American airpower wasn’t in reaching their targets but finding and identifying them.
Levsha“The F-102 issue is rather moot as well”
Perhaps not to Fred Wiggins who was killed in that ONE F-102. Why did the U.S. send what all of us (I’m assuming this…) armchair airmen consider to be a lousy weapons system in the first place? The air force F-4’s relied on the AIM-4 until Col. Robin Olds and Gen. Chappie James took initiative to re-wire their F-4’s to accept the AIM-9 used by the navy. The Falcons were made by Hughes who also made the fire control system in the F-102 and F-106, so using the AIM-4 made sense. But if that missile had proven to be so unreliable why were they used by F-4’s?
I think the reason they sent the F-102 to S.E. Asia was because there suddenly arose a need for a fighter to fill in a gap in air defences in 1967 and the ANG F-102s just so happened to be available at the time – it was better than nothing. Unfortunately the F-102 was really only suitable for intercepting bombers advancing on North America, the role it was originally designed for. I don’t know if the basic F-102 or F-106 airframe was anyway lacking in comparison to other aircraft used in that theatre but it would have been a good idea to have them adapted for carriage of the sidewinder at least; and I think the powerful MA-1 AI radar that they carried could have been useful.
You know, the only aircraft that could have taken on the MiG-17/MiG-19 in a close in dogfight on equal terms was probably the F-86 and I can’t imagine what sort of payload it would have carried all the way to Hanoi and back – if indeed it had the range to complete such a round trip. For the Americans to be able to carry out most of their strike missions they had to use an aircraft big enough to possess the necessary range and payload along with the required navigation/attack systems (why do you think the USA and Britain built so many 4-engined bombers inWWII – not for their dogfighting qualities?).On the whole I think the F-105 and F-4 possessed the best of all these qualities to carry out their missions while possessing just enough agility, acceleration and armament to get themselves out of trouble when (rarely) bumping into MiGs. What other aircraft could have replaced these two aircraft in that time period? The Canberra/B-57, the Il-28 BEAGLE, Yak-28 BREWER? I’d like to see those aircraft in a dogfight with a MiG-17 or an F-86
Quote from swerve
Fair enough. Wouldn’t argue with that. But I was merely pointing out that F-104s had met MiGs in combat, in response to a post that said they hadn’t.
I understand, but it’s an unfair assertion that others do make all the time.
LevshaPakistani F-104s fought Indian MiG-21s in 1971. Depending on who you believe the score was 2-0 or 4-0 to the MiGs.
It’s a bit unfair to compare the F-104 in Pakistani service with that of the MiG-21 in Indian service in 1971. The Indian air force had already taken delivery of over 200 of the MiG in the previous 10 years and had become well experienced on the type. They even had their own production and overhaul facilities for the type – spare parts were not a problem. The Pakistanis, on the other hand, had very few F-104s in service for the 1971 war, perhaps no more than 8, with the Americans having placed an embargo on spare parts for the type in the preceding years. Many of there pilots didn’t have the necessary hours on the type like the Indians had on the MiG-21. I wouldn’t make too many assumptions about the Starfighter on basis of the 1971 war anymore than I would make any negative assumptions on the MiG-21 because of its performance against the Israeli air force in the same period.
LevshaIf having to choose between the F-102, F-104 and F-106 which would you really want to bring to the air-to-air party? The 102 lost against the MiG in Vietnam. The 104 was an interceptor with the rear quarter weapons not unlike the F-8 but no where near as nimble. The 106 would have beat the performance of the the 102 and 104 hands down. That jet would have been my choice over both of the others.
It’s funny you should refer to those 3 century series fighters been brought to the air-to-air party.
Don’t forget to mention the other century series fighter which did actually play a massive role in the Vietnam air war – the F-105. The Thud’s alleged to have shot down around 27 aircraft in SE Asia – far more than it’s own losses in air to air, – which is pretty ironic really, considering that the F-105 was never designed primarily for the air to air role (it was originally designed for tactical nuclear strike) unlike the dedicated a2a century series you mentioned above. If only the F-102/F-104/F-106 had been used to the same extent as the F-105 they might have gained a much better better combat record.
LevshaActually, the Russians either were very smart or simply got lucky. Kitty Hawk was hooked up to an oiler when the incident occurred.
Our squadron didn’t have alert duty that day, bummer, so I told him to find out
who did and to get their ass moving up to the flight deck (only alert 7’s are you actually sitting
on the flight deck ready to go, alert 30’s means you are in the ready room).
Where’s the realistic operational training and intelligence information to be gained from carrying out a stunt like that on a ship that’s on a low state of alert during peace time? All the Russians have learned is that it’s quite easy to creep up on a ship when it’s not expecting it. Zero intelligence value.
If the Russians could have repeated the same trick when the carrier was on a heightened state of alert, i.e. an F-14 CAP in the air well then you could say that they’ve learned something, It would certainly be a bit more realistic.
Where there any AEGIS cruisers around, It was a pity the USS Vincennces wasn’t around? :diablo: :diablo:
Why try to humiliate the Americans like that anyway?
I’m sure the Americans could easily humiliate the Russian Navy (or anyone else’s) in a similar fashion if they really had the need, but it’s hardly good politics, now is it?
Incidentally; how easily would a Super Hornet have intercepted that Su-24MR – if an SH was already in the air?
LevshaQuote from Harry
What is the point of the seriousness of this “dispute”? To prove that no matter how highly trained a pilot is, a WVR kill of an F-22 is impossible/fake/fabricated/cheating?
Quote from sferrin
think it speaks for itself. Virtually the second that thing came out it was plastered all over the net with captions to the effect of “looks like the $400 million dollar Raptor isn’t so good after all”. Not too many people were content to let it lie Not only that many on BOTH sides of the arguement were curious just what in fact DID happen.
So what if an F-22 gets whacked by one of its inferiors now and again. It happened once and it’s going to happen again many times in the future. The ancient and pedestrian F-5 in the “Top Gun” air combat school is still able to hold its own in WVR air combat training against various 4th generation aircraft when the conditions are right. Who still remembers the gun camera film of an RAF Lightning with an USAF F-15 in its crosshairs from 2 or 3 decades back. All this proves is that older but perhaps smaller and more agile aircraft can indeed get a kill in DACT in some conditions but certainly not in the majority of conditions. Not only is the f-22 going to get whacked by USN F/a-18s but also by Belgian F-16s, Polish MiG-29s, Greek Mirage 2000s etc just like the F-15 got waxed during NATO DACT by F-5s, F-4s, Lightnings, Drakens, Mirages, etc; when the conditions were right for these aircraft…
LevshaThere is already a superbly matched airframe existing for a pair of RD-33s and it’s called the MiG-29. If Iran needs to produce a new aircraft that would require the power of 2 RD-33s why not take out a licence production agreement on the MiG-29, which is already in Iranian service, instead of wasting time, money and brains on converting a fifty year old design like the F-5
Does Iran see itself predominately operating 4th, 4.5th or 5th generation aircraft in its air force in 10 years time? If so, the only source of these of these aircraft is going to be Russia and China. Iran is never going to develop an equivalent technology airplane in that time at the rate they’re going.:rolleyes:
LevshaWell, trying to see a future for the basic F-5 airframe isn’t as far fetched as it may seem. After all the F-20 Tigershark was a development from this airframe and it was regarded as capable as the f-16 in many respects. Some pilots who flew the F-20 said it was overall better than the F-16.
If the Iranians wanted to create their own Tigershark they could have replaced the 2 J85s with a “single” RD-33 (closely comparable to the GE F404) and upgraded the radar to a Zhuk or similar (if it will fit). A fly by wire system might be beyond the Iranians but foregoing FBW should keep the costs down. The single RD-33 would mean no twin-fin tail but that wasn’t a problem for the F-20, was it? What are the advantages of the twin-fin anyway?
Incidentally; why have we got 2 threads on this same subject running back to back?
LevshaCertainly the CV 990 was claimed in the ’60’s to be the fastest airliner in service.
Hardly surprising. After all, it’s powered by the same engines that powered the F-104 starfighter and B-58 Hustler. They weren’t exactly lethargic either.
Incidentally; I’ve often read that the Tupolev Tu-154 was the fastest airliner. Whether we’re talking about absolute top speed or maximum cruising speed I can’t remember.
Sign In
