The SR-71 and MiG-25 are both limited by temperature at first. 😉
The SR-71 is red-lined at Mach 3,2 and the MiG-25 at Mach 2,83.
The SR-71 travels with Mach 3-3,2 up to 90 minutes.
The MiG-25 travels with Mach 2,35 up to 40 minutes. Mach 2,6 possible but limited to 20 minutes. Mach 2,83 is the dash-speed for a few minutes only.
Both aircraft could pass the red line, for the SR-71 it was Mach 3,5 and for the MiG-25 it was Mach 3+, but doing so outside the safe envelope by that.
The Ye-266/Ye-266M were tweaked with some more heat-resistend material in certain areas and limited to essential avionics only. 🙂

Both are limited by temperatures and stability, which is also very important.

For example, A-12 and YF-12 are slower than SR-71 because of stability constraints.
You have old data for Mig-25. That applies only for prototype. In service version can fly unlimited time at 3000 km/h ( 2,83 M ), fuel quantity permiting with external stores !!!

SR-71 can not ever pass beyond 3,3 Mach and that only with special permission before flight, when atmosphere temperature permits.

But why not discuss your ML data.
I am a subscriber of AWST too. Now we can look into those data.
14600 kg to 14800 kg given for JG-9 examples ex GDR. 13000 kp max AB R-35 = 0.89 to 0,88
AWST: 26800 NTOW 0,73 ratio
Spike: 26570 NTOW 0,71 ratio
I can not see that Mike Spick used wrong numbers to let the F-14A look better.
In the 70s the TF-30 falls short of exspectations, but the engine matured over the years, when the bad opinion about was perpetued. The USN was looking for money to get the best available engines for its Tomcat. When succeed in that the Cold War comes to an end 1986-9. The beginning “AIM-120 age” superseded the F-14D. – The late Iranian examples and USN-Libya showed that the Tomcat is not hampered by the lower ratio really, as combat experiences during the 80s showed.
The speed envelope of the MiG-23 is from Mach 1,1-2,35
The speed envelope of the Tomcat is from Mach 1,2-2,4
Intresting for the BVR scenario only.
Typical dogfight scenarios of the 70s-80s with limited AAMs and WVR-rules were below Mach 0,85. Here the TF-engine is at its best against compared to a pure jet. The constant moving automated sweep allows the Tomcat always the best drag to thrust-ratio, which offset most times an inferior weight/thrust ratio, painfully teached to F-15 drivers following a Tomcat into a lower-speed turning fight.
I give in, that decades before I dreamed of a Super-Tomcat with strongest possible engines too. But in the meanwhile I learned, that power without control is nothing in real combat.
Today the former “dogfight” is done by AAMs and have to be outsmarted by the fighters defence-suit. Positioning, high energy level and situation awarness through superior sensors are decesive. Even the strongest engine will not help out in time, when the energy level has dropped dangerous low.
So most AFs are putting money in a avionic upgrade at first. Stronger engines are no longer a top priority.

As you probably know, AW & ST is serious magazine with emphasis on aviation engineering and with respected authority.

I will give you some data of Mig-23 ML from AW ST:

Specific exess power for 1g, 0,9M, 15 Kf: Mig-23 have 560 fps. F-4E have 402 fps.
T/W, normal T.O.W. : Mig-23 have 0,89. F-4E have 0.76 ( 0,75 newer Blocks).

F-14A is worse than F-4E in T/W, ( 0,73 early versions and 0,71 latter).

You do not have to defend Tomcat’s engines. They are terrible. Even american Congres discussed about it. They did not change them because shooting from distance with Phoenix have been considered prime mission for F-14.
USN-Libyan conflict do not give true picture of F-14. It had all aspect missiles, Libyans did not.
Armed with missiles of similar capabilities, F-14A have no chance.

Did you know that TF-30 engines are designed for USN MISSILER fighter. That tells you all.

At low speeds also TF-30 engines are extremely dangerous and needs constant care. Matter is even worse when you consider than F-14A itself have bad behavior at high angle of attacks.
Only F-14D with British flight control system (introduced wery late, in 1998) improve high ALPHA behaviour.

High T/ W is essential. Look F-22, F-16, F-15, Typhoon etc.

“to produce a very manouverable bird, that even F-15 drivers do not care to slow down and turn with.”

Source: MODERN FIGHTER COMBAT by Mike Spick

That is true but only at very low speed range. It applies only for instantaneous turn.
As you know, F-14A is underpowered and it losses speed and height rapidly in any hard turn, especially at medium and higher speeds.

Its problem is not only low engine thrust but it has very bad engines, not designed for fighters and maneuvering flight at all. They are very, I repeat, very sensitive for slightest airflow disturbances. Pilot have to fly engines, not the aircraft, all the time.

Even with lifting body it is not good as Mig-23, because difference in wing loading is too much.
For normal combat T.O.W. F-14A has 515 kg/m2. Mig/23 ML has 380.

In T/W difference is also too much: 0,73 for F/14A and 0,89 for Mig.

Mig-23 was formerly underrated in western literature. Now, it is known that it was better fighter that any before advent of F-16 and F-15.

Against F-14A, well tuned Mig-23 had the edge in dogfight.
F-14 is underrated fighter with very low T/W ratio at sea level and at higher altitudes it is even worse because of very bad engine internal thermodynamics.

Simply, it has low climb and acceleration and bad sustained turn at medium and high altitudes. Its only virtue is Phoenix missile.

SR-71 have max possible speed, in service, of 3,2 Mach and max altitude of 85000 ft.

That will tell every SR-71 pilot.
Speed is limited by engine thrust, directional stability and compressor inlet temperature.
Altitude is limited by engine thrust and directional and longitudinal stability.

It is poor zoom climber because it has very limited stability at high speeds and can easily depart from controlled flight. Max possible angle of attack is also miserable.

A-12 and YF-12 were even worse.

I don’t think tsahl ever published this (yet), but several sites give detailed lists.

Try http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/IAFclaims.html

Yes, I know about that site.
I am curious about Beka valley, june 1982 kills. There are 68 claimed kills.

Could you explain that ?