firebarBy locking up a target, opening the bay doors, and ejecting the weapon? They did that at least seven times, by the way, three of them at OR OVER Mach 3.2. And the USAF-flown record flights were with equipment, albeit not missiles.
What? Are you insinuating that the FOXBAT’s radome was able to survive at Mach 3, but the YF-12s wasn’t?
Prove me wrong then. Where’s your almighty source stating that 1-the YF-12’s radomes melted, and 2-that the AN/ASG-18 was not a pulse-doppler LD/SD system. On that note, the AN/ASG-18 was the first pulse-doppler radar in the US, it had a PRF of 250 kHz and an output of 5 kilowatts.
.
I said earlier that YF-12 has attained 3,13 Mach in record flight. This was its maximum. In record flights, all unneccessary equipment are deleted.
How it could fire missiles at 3,2 Mach ??
Can’t you see that it is a pure propaganda.
I did not say that ASG-18 has not been a pulse doppler radar.
It simply did not work as expected because it was an analog system.
Read something about pulse doppler radar theory, that is the first step if you want to know something about that matter.
firebarThat one really made me laugh.
Wow it can’t maneuver! It was NEVER DESIGNED TO MANEUVER!
The laugh doesn’t help. It is a reality.
Of course that YF-12/ SR-71 are not designed to maneuver.
But, can’t you see, that it theirs great vice compared to Mig-25.
Imagine a fighter (YF-12) which is not designed to maneuver !!!
A fighter which could not do a simple loop !!!
It is ridiculous design. It could never enter service.
firebarThe F-22 program needs money for its production, so we can read a lot of fantasies of its capabilities.
But remember F-14.
It was a super fighter in all open literature when it entered service and needed money for production.
Now, we can read from its pilots that it is in fact “a lumbering, underpowered aerial truck with very bad dogfight capability.”
So, bear that in mind when you talk about F-22.
firebarThe B-1B is 0.75 sq meters. So is the SR-71A for that matter.
The british radar operators have detected SR-71 from the distance of ” 400 km” when it came to Farnborough airshaw.
firebarThe Serbs never tracked that F-117. They knew the timing of NATO strike packages.
Sure it was tracked. After that, F-117 avoided known SAM sites.
firebarCare to explain just how the MiG-25 is a stealth target?
The Mig-31, like Mig-25, has a radar working in 2 frequencies. This helps detection of stealth aircraft.
There is no equivalent in the west.
firebarFirst off let me point out to the person who brought up the F-117 and SA-3 incident. At no time, did the Low Blow radar ever pick up that F-117. The Serbs had figured out NATO flight patterns, altitudes, and times they would be arriving. That incident has nothing to do with the F-117 being easily detectable, etc, etc.
The SAM-3 had a modified radar. It was not old Low Blow radar.
Do you think that american attack tactics is so inflexible ?
A serious “Aviation week” magazine say: “The F-117 was lost because EA-6B radar jammer has been at longer distance from F-117 than required.”
It is a proof that F-117 can not survive without specialised radar jamming aircraft in vicinity.
firebar
Max dry speed of YF-22 was 1,58 Mach achieved in tests with more sweep wing and lower aspect ratio with smaller wing span.
The production version can do 1,4 Mach dry.
Also, operational ceiling is in 60 000 ft range.
firebar1. Anyone claiming F-117 was totally invisible before 1999 is, for lack of a better word, a moron.
2. What are these sources that mysteriously changed their terminology after 1999? A book written after 1999 shouldn’t be expected to copy word for word from one written in 1995 anyway.
You obviously believe nothing at all from “west sources”…
The MiG-25 isn’t exactly a multi-role aircraft. Each variant is highly specialised, just like the Blackbird variants were. The MiG-25P isn’t going to use ARMs. The MiG-25BM isn’t firing R-40s.
.
Many aviation magazines claimed that, among them “Aviation week and space technology”, a serious and respected magazine.
Of course that I believe in western sources. These sources are my main sources. Like NASA and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA. Things like that. I am an aeronautical engineer, and I have sources which are not available to you.
The open literature is full of missinformations, because, politics is always involved in it. Like current need of more money for F-22 production.
The Mig-25 as a weapon platform, as a design, is multi role aircraft, which can be used in many roles. That is its value. A Mach 3 multi mission design.
That is something that Blackbird aircraft never could.
Do you understand that its weakness is in propulsion system, a mixed compression type. With it, any fighter maneuver is excluded. The loops, rolls, even zoom climb.
firebarYF-12 was stable enough to successfully fire missiles at 75,000 feet and Mach 3.2. The production F-12B would have had no ventral fins anyway.
I’ve researched armed Blackbird variants.
Missiles travel much faster than Mach 3. They even did back in the 60’s. Now, if missile radomes ccan survive those kinds of temperatures, there’s no reason to think aircraft radomes can’t either. That should be simple enough for you and Venik to understand.
The YF-12 achieved 3,13 Mach in record flight without any equipment.
It is curious to me, how it could successfully fire missiles at 3,2 Mach !!!
It is true that some missiles are faster than Mach 3, but do you understand that missile radomes must withstands such temperatures for seconds only. The Mig-25 and YF-12 radomes were not expendable. So, do not compare that.
I said earlier, digital radar technology was not present in YF-12 time. Do not deceive yourself about its pulse doppler capabilities.
If you researched Blackbird variants, you should know that theirs alert times are measured in hours.
firebarThe max speed of AA-6 is always Mach 4 kept till burn out of motor.
The launch speed is adding just some distance for the AAM. (kinematic range)The MiG-25s to MiG-31s varies from 648 to 810 kts at s.l.
The MiG-29/F-16/F-15 are all capable of ~ 800 kts at s.l.
The 1300 km/h are Mach 1,06 or the same speed as the MiG-21J.To detect low level intruders in ground-clutter, your are in need of an enormous amount of computing power. It is decessive, when it comes to practical radar range against nominal radar range. Here the USA is still in lead by a fair margin.
The IDF-AF F-15A/B/C/Ds are all dual-use capable.
The MiG-25 is an easy victim for a Patriot system or F-15-AIM-120/Mirage-2000/Matra 530 combos now, when its low level performances are just average.
The speed of a missile always adds to launching aircraft speed.
How do you imagine that added speed only adds to just some distance, without speed increase ?
Do you know that kinematic range of the missile grossly depends of speed ?
It is true that Mig-25 has 1,06 M speed at s.l., but it is not bad at all.
BAC Lightning has the same speed at s.l. and F-8 is much slower.
The 800 KT for some aircraft is pure theoretical, rounded value.
Record for speed at s.l. still holds modified F-4 with 1,17 Mach.
The F-15/ Mig-29 have 1,15 M at s. l. and F-16 is much slower, not in the same class.
American ace Cunningham say that he couldnt catch Mig-21 in 1972 after long chase. So, do not believe to everything you read.
There are many misinformations.
For example, F-104G is restricted to 750 KT at s.l. just like Mig-21MF.
Regarding radars, russians have established a big lead in radar computing technology with electronicaly agile, phased array Zaslon radar. It takes enormous computing power to make such radar workable.
Also, Israelis have a nasty experience with efficiency of the russian radars, SAM-6 in 1973 war, when there was no cure against it. The only solution was to physically overrun them.
IDF F-15A,C may be are dual role, but american versions are not.
The only system which is a threat to high flying, high speed Mig-25 is HERCULES SAM, but it is a stationary system. The PATRIOT lacks capability against targets at above 20 km traveling at such speeds.
The AMRAAM missile never, in any test, demonstrated efficiency against Mach 3 targets at above 20 km. Some Mig-25s have been downed by AMRAAM but only at much lower, non cruising, heights of Mig-25.
firebarHow come American program data is propaganda, while Russian claims are to be taken as absolute fact?
Wow, so the aircraft is worthless because it can’t do something it wasn’t designed for.
There were seven guided launches from a YF-12A. Six missiles passed within lethal range of their targets, one failed because of a missile component problem. I’ve got a video of an AIM-47 launch, and a few pictures of AIM-47s hitting targets, and the damage done to said targets. But I guess those are all forgeries.The only problem with the radome was the loss of directional stability from the cut-back chines. This was solved by adding the three ventral fins.
Based on where the crew was (in cockpit, in alert facility), alert time would have been between 5 and 20 minutes.
The SR-71’s record was 2193mph, or Mach 3.31.
Problems were eventually worked out for the most part using computerized intake and bypass controls. The problems initially stemmed from the fact that the pilot had to manually adjust the intake spike and bypass door configuration in flight.
About propaganda, note this: The F-117 has been invisible to radar in all american literature until its shooting down 1999. After that all sources say that it has only reduced radar visibility.
That is propaganda.
I can quote a lot of such things about F-14 capabilities from early sources, such high alpha capability,etc, but it is another story. That was a pure propaganda, also.
Do not tell me that you believe in everything you read about west airplanes from west sources.
You say: SR-71 is not designed for that and that. It is the point.
You can not say SR-71 is better than Mig-25, because Mig-25 is designed to be a multi role aircraft and SR-71 is simply high speed flying fuel tank, totaly unmaneuverable, unable to do even a zoom climb.
Unstart problems with its engines were never solved. In a mid seventies, SR-71 did get digital intake control system, but it only reduced unstart problems, never solved it fully.
You do not understand theory of jet engines. Its problem is in mixed compression type propulsion.
Ventral fins did not solve problems of YF-12 unsatisfactory directional stability, only reduced it. And it had a very serious problem with radome melting.
Even B-58 had problems with radome at 2 Mach. Because of very high heat its radar did not work at about 2 Mach.
Alert time of Blackbird family is several hours.
SR-71 record speed is 3,31 Mach, but in service it is limited to 3,2.
The same speed which Mig-25 has demonstrated over Israel in operational conditions.
Never forget that Mig-25 can also, bomb targets from heights of over 20 Km, which is unbelievable capability.
firebarThe faster SR-71 can avoid a MiG-25 simply, when changing course and foiling the intercept attempt of MiG-25 by that. At such speeds 1 minute flying-time is enough to outdistance every AAM from MiG-25.
The MiG-25 has to be in the air at similiar height and speed.Below the tropopause the MiG-25 is slower than most intercepters and useless against low level intruders. At lower levels the the F-15 offers a similar speed and radar-performances to the MiG-31 for much less operating costs and is more versatile.
SR-71 has no chance to run away from Mig-25. Bare in mind that AA-6 has Mach4 speed above launching aircraft speed of 2,8 Mach. Do not deceive yourself. I said again, Mig-25 was designed for SR-71 type targets.
Mig-25 certainly has not to be at similar height. Even TU-28 did have capability to shoot at targers about 10 km higher that own level.
Below the tropopause, Mig-25 is also one of the fastest, with 1300 Km/h IAS.( said Belyakov, Mig chief designer). In contrast to this SR-71 has a pathetic 540 miles/ hour max at s.l.
I do not see how F-15 radar can be compared to electronicaly agile Zaslon radar.
Do you understand that scan time of APG-70 radar is 13 seconds for whole sector, and that of Zaslon is in milisecond range.
Because of that, F-15 has TWS mode only in small radar scanning area.
Mig-31, on the other hand, has TWS mode in whole radar scan sector, which permits simultaneous shooting at low and high level targets.
First american similar radar is APG-63 V2 used on 18 F-15C for operational testing only, from 2000, but with much smaller range.
Mig-31 has 700 km combat radius at 2,4 Mach.
Do you know what is combat radius of F-15 at 2 Mach ?
F-15C more versatile ? It does not carry any bombs or anti radiation missiles, like Mig-25/31. (only F-15E does, but it is primary a bomber.)
firebarThe turning radius of a MiG-25 is 40-50 km at ~ Mach 2,35 – 2,5 . Maneuver at high speed has nothing to do with, what we do know from subsonic fighter combat. At such speeds fighters are reduced to launching platforms only. Led by an advanced CGI to an intercept point and use the powerfull radar to burn through ECM in time of launch for AAMs. Below Mach 2 every MiG-21 or MiG-23 can outturn a MiG-25 with ease. Without high-speed and high-flying targets a MiG-25 interceptor becomes useless. So it was replaced by MiG-31s with better performances at low and medium heights. The better look-down capability makes it usefull against dumb cruise missiles, stand-off weapons fired and maybe a B-52. Against maneuvering low level intruders with ECM the MiG-31 is of limited use too. That is the reason, why China and India did not buy MiG-31s from Russia. On offer since 1989.
When we talk of Mig-25 maneuverability, this reffer to supersonic speeds only. It would be too much to ask of Mach 3 aircraft to maneuver with subsonic fighters. But among Mach 3 planes, it is supermaneuverable considering that such speed requires a lot different aerodynamics than usual.
Agility is also important factor. This is ability of airplane not to departure in a high and abrupt maneuvers. Mig-25 is very good in this respect too.
SR-71 family are so bad in that respect that thay can not even do a zoom climb, because departure would be sure thing.
For interceptors, speed is always needed. There are many situations when distant target should be intercepted fast.
The F-16/F-18 would be useles against such targets. That is why F-15 is the best american fighter.
Regarding Mig-31, it is strategic interceptor not intended for selling.
Like F-22.
firebarFor one, the F-12 was never designed to maneuver, it was intended to intercept bombers at extreme range.
Secondly, saying the MiG-25 had better avionics and weapons is simply not true. The AIM-47 was the most powerful AAM in the world when it was tested, and it far outstripped the R-40 in terms of technical capability. It had a range of over 100 NM. In one test an AIM-47 fired from a YF-12A cruising at over 75,000 feet and Mach 3 hit a B-47 target flying at low altitude and took out a 3-foot portion of the tailfin (the missile carried no warhead). Also, the AN/ASG-18 was the first pulse-doppler look-down/shoot-down radar set in the world. It could track a target at ranges of over 100 NM, and could even track ICBMs (testing was done on this showing that the F-12 could have been used to intercept ICBMs, although no weapons were fired as they were tracking launches out of Vandenberg). Also, consider the fact that an F-12 was fully capable of autonomous operation. How succesful would a MiG-25 been if it was removed from a heavy GCI environment?
The MiG-25 is capable of Mach 3 speed at the expense of its engines. Top operational speed is Mach 2.83, so the MiG-25 is not a true Mach 3 aircraft now, is it?
Computerized inlet spike and bypass door operation greatly reduced the problems the Blackbird had with sensitive engine problems. Also, again, the aircraft was not intended to be maneuvering, so claiming that since the MiG-25 can maneuver makes it a better aircraft is highly spurious.
Better speed envelope at high level? Are you joking? The SR-71’s world speed record is Mach 3.31, well faster than any MiG-25 has ever seen.
The MiG-25 is decidedly not more advanced than the Blackbird family, for one. Secondly, the SR-71 and A-12 were very useful as reconnaissance platforms. All this smells of is a serious case of bias to me, which is not backed up by a single bit of fact.
I see that you have a lot of old propaganda literature. Do not believe all what you read. In this area you have to have a technical knowledge to fully understand a matter.
You say that YF-12 was never designed to maneuver. That is the point.
Did you realise that it is far easier to build an aircraft which is only designed for speed at streight line than one designed for speed and maneuvering.
ASG-18/ AIM-47 combination never worked. The test you mentioned was not succsessful. These are only teils.
You have to know something of radar design theory. Pulse-doppler radars worked well only with digital technology, and at that time this was not present yet. So, stories about super capabilities of ASG-18 are pure fantasy.
This was the reason, also, why F-4J radar did not work well either, until digital AWG-10A appeared.
Also, did you know that YF-12 suffered from radome problems at 3 Mach. It melted at that speed and problem was never solved.
Aircraft alert time was several hours and that rendered it totaly insuitable for intercept work.
It’s speed in record fight was 3.13 Mach. In service it would have been much slower.
Even SR-71 is very sensitive to unstarts and YF-12 was awful in that respect.
On the other side, Mig-25 has speed of 3000 km/h with 4 enormous missiles and with the most powerful radar in the world. It demonstrated over 3 Mach operationaly and that without any problems with engines, as said by Mig chief designer. So, do not yield to propaganda stories about its engines.
Regarding autonomous operations, do not worry, Mig-25 has INS and doppler nav system.
Sign In
