FalconDudeThat doesn’t really sound like a hugely successful career. The enemies were hardly ‘top notch’ peer adversaries by any measure and the fact that last gen destroyers were seeing these things 150 miles away (if that’s true) is even more worrying for stealth aircraft.
Well not so much. The inherent weakness of VLO and LO designs to L-band ( and lower) radars was always known. It is the reason Russians did not immediately panic really.
Russians always knew they would have some general warning of impending US bomber ingress into their airspace. guiding dozens of (even simply obsolete) fighters to the general vectors (or possible vectors) would be enough to intercept some or most of them given the size of Soviet Union/Russia.
The problem with these radars is not picking up. The problem is targeting!. To put it simply you can’t use these radars easily, effectively for targeting.
Targeting is tricky even for L-band ground stations, much more for AWACS and possibly near impossible for L-band aircraft born radars.
So if you know the guy is there, but can’t hit him with anything, doesn’t help much.
FalconDudeFirst it was Greek spies alerting the Serbians and now other excuses.
eerrr WHAT?
FalconDudeYeah they tried to improve the radar with the RP-25M. The ambitious upgrade to the Smerch was a failure (see point #2 on technological over-reach), that was why the Mig-31 carries the RP-31 Zaslon. As for the rest of the short comings, they required extensive reworking of the airframe, hence Mig-31.
Just trying to follow (and better understand) your reasoning here. So would you consider the F-104 to be a “flawed” aircraft too?
FalconDudeI would defend the assessment of the Mig-25 as a flawed aircraft due to the following:
1. It was designed for a singular mission, deny access to Soviet airspace to high altitude/Speed bombers. It relied GCI to vector to target. Even though the RP-25 Smerch-A was powerful, it was very limited. The Mig-25 would not have been able to counter the low level penetration tactics of B-1B, F-111 lacking look down/ shoot down ability and inability to distinguish targets from ground clutter. So in essence, it would have been limited in it’s intended mission of protecting the USSR from strategic bombers.2. It was limited tactically from performing any missions other than interception (besides reconnaissance, where it was a success, but different variant than the fighter). It’s range was short, it lacked versatility, limited types of weapons it could carry. I will ignore it’s combat record since other than GW1 and Bekaa valley, definitive proof of kill/loss ratio is spotty.
3. Most telling, the aircraft was being replaced in front line PVO units by the Mig-31 less than a dozen years after it entered service.
(P.S. flawed does not mean failure, the Mig-25 found usefulness as a recon bird. If you look at other examples I posted of similarly flawed western aircraft, they share one or more characteristics: 1. designed for a specific role or mission, when that mission changed/evolved, they lacked adaptability. 2. Technological over-reach, they were hampered operationally: too complex, mechanically unreliable, etc 3. short service life: they replaced in primary mission by more capable platform)
Ok, that is a better argument, still a bit over fetched though as simply an upgrade of radar could have been enough to make it not flawed according to this line of reasoning. Also I think Balenko’s defection had a lot to do with the aircraft being replaced rather than upgraded so soon.
FalconDudeStill again, numerous errors.
The Mig-25 entered service at nearly the same time as the F-14 and F-15.
Further, what you continue to fail to address is the fact that experts, including a Mig-25 pilot, tested the aircraft against Western fighters and determined empirically that it was little threat to them. (which matches what common sense would tell you once you understood the Mig-25’s performance characteristics. Early in the Mig-25’s development many in the West greatly overestimated what it would offer, essentially believing it would be something like a faster F-14 that blended the capabilities of a specialized interceptor with those of a true fighter.)
I think what is failed to be addressed is that the MiG-25 was a weapon. Some claimed it was a flawed fighter. According to what logic? That it couldn’t dogfight with an F-15 (which at the time of its induction couldn’t shoot the MiG-25 down either)? I would have to say that the A-7 can’t dogfight an F-15 either, does that make it a flawed aircraft?
I don’t think the MiG-25 pilot, would use his MiG in that way outside the scope and context of a test. I don’t think in any MiG-25 mission briefing, a bunch of pilots would say, hey there should be a bunch of F-15s at that location at that time, let’s mix it up with them.
The MiG-25 was a weapon. You plan to use it as it should be used and you try to play to its strengths. A MiG-25 can be quite disruptive for any enemy of the day. I would like to remind you that western missiles were marginally (on average) better or not that even back then. So taking that into account, the speed and weapons load of the MiG-25 made it another thing to be concerned with during operations.
Speed and long range kinematics of its weapons (at the time) would make it a threat for a number of operations. And you have to remember that you don’t actually have to kill the enemy to gain an advantage. You can simply ruin their plans or stop them from achieving their goals.
I think that makes it far from flawed, but rather …just right for the time.
FalconDudeEconomical in which way? Definitely not when it comes to fuel or maintenance costs.
Everything is a function of distance, cargo , fuel. For very short distances ,prop planes may prove to be more economical than jets but as the cargo and the distance increases, the jet beats the curve.
FalconDudeThe problem with super powerful propellers is supersonic blade tips. Curved blades on current projects to mitigate the problem are extreme noise makers. The MV-22 has a tremendous thrust to weight ratio, yet still only pushes 350 knots due to the physics of its propellers. What offers tremendous TWR at hover speed doesn’t have the pitch for high speed performance. If MV-22 was fitted with blades for transonic speeds then it couldn’t hover at low speed.
Let’s not forget that jets tend t o be more economical too.
FalconDude[QUOTE=topspeed;2139186]
It would be very polite to provide source for this insert. So super sonic aeroplane is size of a battle ship in radar…was F-22 RCS measured while it was stationary ?
Ok…I found it myself; http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/07/thunderscreech/
It is all speculative opinion of the author of the story….no fact to base it upon.
Anyway I agree…a plane with P-51H standard version power to weight ratio going 670 mph…must have been a lame presentation…anyway you look at it….or was it ?
Also it was super sonic in a dive..unlike any other propeller driven AC.
To put an end to this quest, no, a prop driven plane no matter how powerful it was, would not be able to sustain supersonic flight. The aerodynamic problems associated with the exposed prop are enormous and would pretty much rattle the contraption to pieces.
A friendly advice. You are obsessed with ratios. That’s not where the secret lies in the cases you are focusing on.
FalconDudeapples to apples and oranges to oranges. Different planes to different tasks/missions.
FalconDudeAs valid as comparing 4th gen F-16 (still in production) to 5th gen F-35, or 2nd gen MiG-21 (still in service) to 5th gen F-22. I understand your point, but I disagree. What is truly comperable to F-14/F-15/F-16 is MiG-31. Then again, until the introduction of AIM-120A in 1991; MiG-31 had better radar+datalink, better missiles (at least equivalent to AIM-54), and better BVR kinematics than all those types. Maneuverability? F-15C has a supersonic G limit continiously varying from 4.8 to 6.6Gs between 20k to 40k feet and M1.0 to M2.2; MiG-31 had 5G limit throughout its envelope. It has excellent supersonic sustained turn performance; able to pull 5,6 deg/s at M1.4 (altitude not given), compared to F-15C’s 5,2 deg/s. Except the fact 4th gen aircraft do posses some ability to evade R-33 missiles, what I’ve said about F-4/5 vs MiG-25 is also true for F-15/16 vs MiG-31. However in last 20 years, F-15/16 continiously get upgraded, and MiG-31 didn’t.
If MiG-25 is fundementally flawed, then why would russians prefer developing MiG-31 to replace it? They could have easily built more Su-27s? Or right now, why they seek to upgrade their MiG-31s, and want to develop a dedicated successor to it? They could simply maintain and upgrade larger portion of their Su-27 fleet, and replace it altogether with PAK-FA, instead of developing a new interceptor. Its OK for western aviation guys say MiG-25 is fundementally wrong; as the reason OR the result of not having something comperable; but Russians must find it useful and they are still happily using them, even at the cost of having less money enough to operate/build/upgrade more of their Su-27s and MiG-29s. This MUST mean something.
Someone once said, don’t use cannon to kill a mosquito. The analogy is also valid at its counterpoint. Don’t use a spear gun to sink a battleship.
If all things are accounted for, the MiG-25 and the MiG-31 are very specific weapons. The countries in which the MiG-25 was deployed and used during war operations could not use them in the way they were originally intended to be used.
I very much doubt even today’s F-15s and F-16s could counter effectively a threat by properly used MiG-25s (let’s say F-15s escorting bombers) or MiG-25s attacking an enemy congested theatre of operations over a battlefield say… If the MiG-25 ( theoretically) could use modern weapons things could be ugly.
For such an informed forum, I am often surprised by how weapon systems are judged by how able they are to dogfight. Some planes were never meant to dogfight.
FalconDudeAgain, few words from a Soviet MiG-23M pilot, who flew in GDR(sorry, quick google translate):
” By 1979, the MiG -23M in the 16th VA considered obsolete type (and it’s just five years after receiving them! ) . In other fighter regiments already received far more advanced MiG- 23ML “
” after 1982 the MiG -23M as a fighter in the ETO is already outdated finally , and the 35th Aviation Regiment became a fighter- bomber . Accordingly, changed the content of his training, radar scopes on airplanes have been disabled , and the former pilots now practiced interceptor missions to destroy ground targets. “
Why would the radar scope be deliberately disabled? Even if I am in a bomber, I’d still like to know what’s around me.
FalconDudeI just answered above, they aren’t modernizing. 😉
Well. For SM3 modernization there is plenty of information that it is being done. There isn’t, and never was, any information that Su-27UB’s are being modernized too, so your question came entirely out of the blue.
Now. Su-27S/P is being modernized to SM3 standard at KnAAPO. Su-27UB like “52” are being repaired at 20’th ARZ (Pushkin). Geographically they are separated by the whole country. 20’th ARZ does not do any modernization, they just fix frames. Not only do they not do modernization, Su-27UB modernization is simply not needed.
War Is Boring is a horrible, horrible site. Written by 2 year olds unable to think logically.
There is no mystery. RuAF are in bad need of two seater flankers, modernized or not. Why? To train pilots, the same reason why they are buying Su-30M2’s.
Training pilots is the first priority, weapon capability comes second in Su-30M2 case. Those pilots are trained either for vanilla Su-27’s or Su-27SM’s.
Obviously for Su-30SM it is different although also true to some extend, but this time it will be used to train pilots for Su-35S and not vanilla flankers.
No mystery. It is all simple and straightforward. They are buying Su-30M2’s out of need. Same is true with Su-30SM although there they are able to get a good weapon system and training device for even more capable weapon system (Su-35S). In turn Su-35S pilots will then convert to T-50’s, and so on.
MiG-31’s are not allowed to fly at those speeds currently. There is a severe speed cap imposed due to windscreen and canopy age. That is from VVS commander, and i got it also confirmed from a MiG-31BM pilot*. There is a program in place to produce new windscreens/canopy.
*And from the info i got from him, other than the speedcap, lets just say MiG-31BM is a bitchin’ plane…
Bitchin’ good or bitchin’ bad?
FalconDudeHere is the empty weight estimate !
I am working on the Hippiäinen. It will fly on solar alone too..top speed 70 km/h !
The rear wheels you have in your design, have struts and supports which are too short for a safe landing. You don’t have enough aft clearance to make a three point landing.
FalconDudeThat is a stick-man drawing that shows nothing.
If you cannot show what type of hydraulic system is used, with space taken up by it, both up and down, it is just another silly impossible gimmick due to the laws of physics as is your entire aircraft.
Your scale drawing are not to any known scale but when one presents an impossible gimmick that is to be expected.
I am giving your concept as much respect as it deserves.
Topspeed has a dream! We should not put him down for it. We can’t just point out the inefficiencies of his train of thought when they occur. You can rest assured that as he finds out more and more about aircraft design, his plane will get bigger and bigger.
FalconDudeTo verify that it presents an RCS too small to lock on, you have to test it first. I am sure you have access to no special software that allows you to design components and predict the impact they will have to RCS from the design stage. You have no specialized (it seems) knowledge on materials. A 9.5g structural limit is not something easily achieved. The very fast jets have special alloys that allow them to sustain the heat from the extreme speed.
Furthermore, your pilot has extremely limited rearward visibility which is essential in close aerial combat and a turning fight, the way he is seated he will not even be able to turn his head.
Cooling is a very important part of modern avionics. Redundancy is also.
Practically invisible radar means absolutely nothing to IRST and your older technology engines emit a pretty powerful IR signature. Due to the small airframe and lack of cooling the IR signature has a good chance of being visible from head on too.
I am convinced there are a tonne of other problems too as Andraxxus has mentioned.
Sign In
