firebarNot necessarily. You’re trying to tell me that they would have held a missile from the late 50’s for the F-14, which entered service in the first half of the 1970’s? If we followed that logic we’d all still be shooting radar beam riding weapons like the ALKALI at each other. The AWG-9 and AIM-54 were actually developed almost in concert with the AN/ASG-18 and AIM-47, as they were originally intended for the F-111B anyway.
Comparison with ALKALI is not correct.
In case of AIM-47, this was a brand new missile intended to enter service for the first time, and it is very unusual to cancel a brand new missile, and design similar but entirely new AIM-54.
Something was deeply wrong with basic design of AIM-47.
If the AIM-47 design had been correct it could have been improved with years with new electronics, new rocket engine etc, just like AIM-54 has been improved.
A great money has been invested in AIM-47 and it was canceled just like that.
One miss in seven guided firings from a YF-12A and it’s completely unreliable? That’s a laugh.
It doesnt mean much. Remember that all targets in tests were cooperative.
A real combat is something else.
firebarOh, and about Barron’s book…either it’s factual, or it isn’t. Decide which, and then see what happens.
There is no black and white world.
Such is this book. It is a mixture of real figures and deceiving propaganda.
For example, in this book it is stated that the max range of MiG-25 is 1200 km.
In fact it is 1750 km with 4 R-40 missiles at 2,35 mach speed. With drop tank it is more than 2100 km.
And the story about its engines after 3 Mach speed. This is totaly false, as many sources, including MiG chief designer Belyakov, say.
firebarSo you’re admitting that FOXBAT cannot perform a look-down intercept with 74,000 feet of difference in altitude then?
Soc, with 2 R-40 missiles, the Mig-25 has 24 km ceiling and, what is also very important and is often overlooked, it can stay at 27 km height couple of minutes, with slight zoom climb at 3 to 5 degrees climb angle.
It is well documented in various pilot reports.
The Russians offer commercial flights to 90.000 ft !!!
Uh, the AIM-47 was cancelled because the F-12B was cancelled. The AN/ASG-18 and AIM-47 served as the basis for beginning development on the newer AWG-9 and AIM-54.
Cancelation of YF-12 was not the reason to cancel the AIM-47.
It could have been used for F-14, had it been successful.
Its reliability, in fact, made it totaly unuseful.
Note that even much newer AIM-54C proved to be ineffective in real combat.
firebarSure the R15 need no water/methanol;)
The water methanol injection nozzles build in for a joke in the duct!
It is not water methanol injector. It is a vortex generator to energize airstream before compressor.
There is no water there.
The only difference between R15B-300 and R15BD-300 is the TBO (150h–>1000h) 😀
Besides that, the R-15 BD-300 has much more endurance at max power than B-300.
The BD-300 turbine is made of better material.
And the worldrekord E-266M is more a MiG-31 and powerd with Turbofan Solowjow D-30F and not with R15s;)
Not true. Check it better.
firebarAnd was the FOXBAT 74,000 feet above the SR-71A? I’m going to go out on a limb and say…no.
Remember that in John Barron book” MiG Pilot”, Belenko say that MiG-25 can go to 21 km with 4 missiles and 24 km with 2 missiles.
Also, its powerful R-40 missiles can easily overrun the SR-71 at 24 km altitude.
firebarMore input, maybe (the production model would have been altered slightly), but it’s not like the YF-12A was a completely new design. That’s my point, that the USAF wasn’t starting from square one when they built the YF-12A prototypes. Hell, even the AN/ASG-18 and GAR-9 had been undergoing testing for years before they were stuck in the three Blackbirds.
But it was only 7 missile tests before it was decided to cancel the project.
The AIM-47 missile was cancelled , because it was not live to expectations, and completely new one, AIM-54, had been developed for F-14.
The AIM-47 was apparently a failure.
firebarCompare A-12 and SR-71
Single seat, rather than 2 seater SR-71
Shorter range than SR-71 (2,500 v 3,250)
Max altitude higher (95,000 vs 85,000 feet)
Faster than SR-71 (Mach 3.35 as opposed to Mach 3.2)
These are old times deception stories.
It was revealed later that J-58 propulsion system of Blackbird is limited to 3,2 Mach.
The 3,3 Mach is allowed only for special occasions, like for record flight attempts at lower ambient temperatures.
In the first time MiG-25 Mach 2,83 archivabel only for 3 minutes and later for 8 minutes.
And from 1972 it was 40 minutes.
[/QUOTE]The MiG-25 need many water and alkohol for turbine cooling and trust.[/QUOTE]
Not true.
Its water/alcohol supply is for electronic cooling only. To keep its radar and other avionics working in 300 degrees C ambient temperatures.
Shutdown MiG-25
* 13 Feb 1981 Syrien Foxbat-B Libanon shutdown by israel F-15A Eagle.
* 29 Jul 1981 Syrien Foxbat-B shutdown by israel F-15A Eagle.
* 1 Jun 1982 – Syrien Foxbat-B shutdown by israel F-15 Eagle.
* 31 Aug 83 – Syrian Foxbat-B shutdown by israel F-15C.
* Golf War I two MiG-25 shutdown and many destroyed.
* 25 Dec 1992 one MiG-25 shutdown by F-16.
This is from west sources.
Do you have Russian sources about that ?
firebarTo the extent that the F-14 or F-15 prototypes were “undeveloped”, sure. The YF-12A wasn’t a demonstrator, it was a production prototype, no different from any other production prototype.
The YF-12 is classified as an experimental interceptor.
If you want to get into the fire control system, did the FOX FIRE ever show the ability to hit a target flying 74,000 feet below the MiG-25? And I mean “hit”, that shot actually hit the QB-47 target.
The MiG-25 in service shawed many times its ability to intercept and shoot down SR-71. That is the mission which it has been developed for.
There are many reports that the MiG-25 pilot had its sight locked on SR-71 and the only thing which saved SR-71 was that no order to fire had been given.
Remember that titanium R-40 is a missile specially designed for that type of targets.
So it’s okay for different FOXBAT airframes to be produced for different roles, but not the Blackbird?
It is not a question of is it ok or not, but was it possible for that particular airframe.
let’s compare the MiG-25 and the A-12. The A-12 demonstrated a sustained speed of over Mach 3.2 for 74 straight minutes. Can your precious FOXBAT match that?
As you probably know, the A-12 and YF-12 carried far less fuel than SR-71.
The max demonstrated range of A-12 had been about 2700 km.
You can check this.
Regarding MiG-25 range, with R-15 BD-300 engines, it can fly at max power for 40 minutes. So it is fuel limited only.
Early R-15 B-300 engines have been limited to 5 min at max power, but this was soon extended.
firebarPlease. The YF-12A was ordered into production, but McNamara refused to release funding because he favored the F-106X program. The USAF wanted the F-12B. I doubt they’d have ordered a total failure into production.
It was not fully developed for production. For example, note that it never demonstrated to be able to shoot at targets at more that 35 miles.
Big deal, it wasn’t designed to perform any mission at low level.
That is because it was not designed to be multi mission aircraft, unlike MiG-25.
Not really. Compare the range of the Blackbird at Mach 3 to the range of the FOXBAT at Mach 2.83.
Remember that SR-71 had 38 tons of int fuel. So it is not fair camparison.
It was a flying fuel tank.
Compare MiG-25 with A-12. Their range was not so different.
The max demonstrated range of A-12 was 2700 km.
firebarSays you, but not anyone asociated with the TAGBOARD program…
That is not my imagination. Read some textbook about ramjets.
The YF-12 carried the AIM-47, so that makes two missions, air intercept and reconnaissance. It was tested in an ABM role, could the FOXBAT track and engage ICBMs?
The MiG-31 is tested in ASAT role.
But that is not the point. You must note that YF-12 was a failure, an undeveloped aircraft. Much like XB-70. And because of that it can not be compared to mass produced service plane.
It is like Sukhoi T-4. That aircraft is also not fully developed and we can not be certain how it would perform in service.
Who cares? That has nothing to do with being “extraordinary aircraft is capable of flying many missions”.
Why do you think so ?
The low level bomber has to be fast. And at low level Blackbird had the speed like commercial airliner. So at low level it is useless.
The extraordinary thing is to have aircraft with 3 Mach high level speed and at the same time 1300 km/h speed at low level.
That is, from engineering angle, a quite remarkable achievement.
firebarThe ramjet wouldn’t function below Mach 3 anyway.
It can function at high subsonic speed.
So was the Blackbird family.
How is that ?
Could the Blackbird carry bombs or anti radar missiles ?
What is its max speed at sea level ?
Was it strong enough to be used for tactical bombing at low altitudes ?
One Mig-25 has achieved 12 G during pull up and had landed safely with wings bent.
Was that possible in Blackbird ?
Not to speak of readines rate.
That’s one I haven’t heard before, but it wouldn’t be all that suprising given the extra weight.
That is figure from F-15E manual.
firebarFlawed logic. MiG-25s are built in dedicated versions. The MiG-25P has no more or less air-to-ground capability than an F-15A or F-15C, or F-14A. The MiG-25 can perform various tasks, but only when built as a dedicated airframe. THe MiG-25BM, for example, can perform SEAD missions, but it isn’t going to be firing AAMs at anybody.
We are talking here as MiG-25 as aircraft platform.
This extraordinary aircraft is capable of flying many missions.
On the other hand, the F-14 and F-15 ( until specialised F-15E ) were incapable of bombing, recconaissance or anti-radar missions.
That is the point.
By the way, the max speed of F-15E without any payload is 1,8 Mach.
firebarHow do you explain this then:
A good picture, but do you know that D-21 drone engine supplemented the Blackbirds engines for high speed flights.
The Blackbird is incapable of even break sonic barrier, with D-21 attached, with own engines only.
firebarSeeing as how the F-15A or C have no SEAD capability, that’s a pretty stupid question.
Not realy. It reflects the fact that F-15A, F-15C or F-14A are inflexible, not multi role aircraft.
The MiG-25 is capable of many roles, in spite of beign much older design.
The mere fact that one Mach 3 aircraft is capable of such many roles, is outstanding, from the engineering point of view.
firebarFirebar,
The point about the 80,000lbs fuel load is that if we assume that the SR carried a minimum fuel load for the records, say 40,000lbs to be safe, then the % overall weight difference between a 1t payload and a 2t payload are in the region of low single digit %..thus unlikely to create a huge speed differential…Perhaps that makes more sense of what I meant..
True, but in such counting even 5 tones represent no high percentage, and 5 t payload is not nearly possible for SR-71.
The point is that internal fuel can not be counted as payload, otherwise the SR-71 could have carried more that 20 t of payload for record flights. !!
What really intrigues me however is that NONE of the E-266 or E-266M records break the 3000km barrier..which makes an interesting counterpoint with the 3000km claims.
If we consider that 2980 km/h has been achieved in closed circuit with 2 t of payload, then we can assume that in steight line without payload, it could have certainly achieved 3,2 M.
Note that YF-12, in closed circuit with 2 payload, achieved only 2718 km/h.
I also note that in the literature that the designer of the MiG-25 expressed the reduction in stability of the MiG 25 above M2.85.. again an interesting counterpoint to the claims of a ‘reliable’ 3000km/h. The literature also makes not mention of the speed being ‘armed’ as opposed to ‘clean’.
The lack of a 3000km/h speed in the records also tends to debunk the claim that without bombs or missiles it was faster…
Every aircraft have stability reduction at very high speeds. The question is where is this stability unacceptable.
There are many sources which state its speed as 2,83 M with missiles or bombs.
.. Yes the MiG 25R could fly that quickly, but it was perhaps not a routine speed.
The 3,2 Mach in MiG-25 is , of course, not routine speed, as the 3,3 Mach of SR-71 is not routine.
Also I wonder for how long, in time and distance; this speed was maintained…as crossing Israel is hardly a long distance task.
The limit for R-15 engines is 40 minutes in max power, so, fuel quantity is limiting factor.
As for inflexbility..who gives a damn? The SR was designed to perform the strategic recon role…it did that perfectly well…no demand for tactical recon role, so no capability…so where’s the issue?
The issue is that the MIG-25 is much more useful aircraft.
In fact it is the only multi mission, mullti role Mach 3 aircraft.
The MiG-25 was an interceptor, it required extensive modification in order to carry out the recon role, creating the Mig 25R, one cannot do the other’s role. So not so multi-role afterall…
But it is the same aircraft type. Both are MIG-25. We are talking here of an aircraft platform.
The anti radar role was a post introduction adaptation, not a designed- in flexibility…its like the F-14 being used as a recon platform, perfectly capable but an add-on role.
Sure, but no other Mach 3 aircraft is so versatile.
And when you have a very expensive aircraft, you can not expect to have many of them.
The point is, from the engineering point of view, to make as cheap the aircraft as possible, to do the job.
Sign In
