Andraxxusspecially adapted E-155 variants.
Specially adapted = addition of oxygen bottle for zoom climb and thats it. Record breakers Ye-155R-1 and R-3 and Ye-155P-1 were the prototypes of MiG-25R and P variants; nothing more, nothing less. They had no airframe or engine modifications. In fact, they did go on with flight tests after the record attempts and IIRC Ye-155P-1 (or R-1?) was lost in an accident afterwards.
How often did the MiG-25 reach Mach 2.83 in Iraqi service against the Iranians, or against USAF F-15s from 1991 onwards?
No idea but no MiG-25P was lost to Iranian aircraft, and stories about MiG-25 eluding half dozen missiles during gulf war would make me assume it did go fast enough.
AndraxxusWhere is your evidence for this?
According to Red Star series MiG-25 Foxbat book; “Missions were flown at maximum speed and 17000-23000m“, “As an excuse for their inability to intercept the elusive MiGs, the Israeli air defences stated that the object was clocked at M3.2”, “On one occasion Aleksandr Bezhevetz exceeded the speed limit to get away from pursuing phantoms; the flight data recorder showed that the Mach limit had been more than tripled (possibly meaning the redlined area between M2.5 and M2.83)”, “Other sources state that it was VVS pilot Krasnogorsky who should walk away with the record as he reached 3400 km/h (equals M3.21) in one of the sorties. This was dangerous because the airframe could be damaged by overheating, but careful inspection of the aircraft showed no apperant damage. Still the pilot recieved an unambigious debriefing after this incident”. Plus; “By then, Tumanskiy OKB had extended engine running time in full afterburner from three to eight minutes and then to 40 minutes. Thus virtually all sorties could be flown at maximum thrust; the R15B-300 turbojects proved reliable enough and gave no problems in the hot Egyptian climate”.
No MiG-25RB is going to be doing M3.2 carrying any bomb-load for sure.
Flight manual states it can do M2.72 with 4 FAB-500s on standard day, its limited to M2.83 because the risk of friction heating the bomb release cartridges. Maybe it can if we are looking the way you do; A 20 degrees colder air, and pilot takes the risk of going past the limits… Certainly capable of this if something not breaks up. See my point?
I am not doubting that M2.3 for F-106 and M 2.83 for MiG-25 are almost never performed because of strain on the airframe and engine, although there may be cases in actual combat when they could be called upon to do so.
I am not doubting for F-106 either, because it wasn’t designed for it. F-106’s M2.0 = MiG-25’s M2.83; operational limit. F-106’s M2.0+ is probably as rare as MiG-25’s M2.83+. See the underlined text in the quotes above.
Don’t know about the F-106. But what about the F-22, F-35 and T-50, it would be a useful feature, wouldn’t it?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Perhaps tiny fuel tanks, that would replace 3 Amraams on a F-22, or a single weapon bay on F-35 or T-50. Reaching further with less payload and maintaining VLO at the same time should be a great flexibility for mission planners.
AndraxxusNo standard front-line MiG-25 could fly at Mach 3.2 – any standard non-adapted USAF F-106 should be able to do Mach 2.3
No standard F-106 can do M2.3 repeatedly, any better or more reliably than MiG-25 does M3.2; It will break the aircraft/engines at one point because manufacturers themselves say so. If this isn’t the case, can you tell my why there is such limit? Looking backwards from your perspective, any standard front-line MiG-25RB can do M3.2; because aircraft can do so without any modification, can land safely afterwards, and fly again.
Speaking of range; MiG-25 doesn’t have impressive range at any subsonic or supersonic speeds, because it was designed as such. Back in 60-70s it was complemented by Tu-28, which could sustain supersonic speeds for 2+ hours.
When soviets wanted to mix 3 hour endurance of Tu-28 and armed M2.83 capability of MiG-25, MiG-31 born; an aircraft that could really sustain M2.0+ speeds for quite some time.
Question; is there a fuel tank for F-106’s internal bay? Perhaps solely for ferry purposes?
AndraxxusIf you think these give the limits of the Six, well, you are very naive.
Then you call MiG-25 what? M3.2+ aircraft?
The first problem with pilot claims is that there is really NOTHING scientific about them. On STD DAY with standard engine trim (without Vmax) F-15A can only do M2.24 when clean. At 10 degrees below standard day, F-15A can do M2.45. Just 10 degrees celcius colder air increases top speed by M0.2+ Now we also know MiG-29 can do ~M2.32 on standard day, and I do claim MiG-29A is faster than F-15A. You say manual is wrong, and fill me with BS of pilot claims that F-15 did M2.5+ on some occasions. I don’t say they are lying (which is also a probability); F-15A can do it with ease even with conformal AAMs, when its on cold winter day when air -30 degrees. Then people take this discussion to another form of idiocy; “As MiG-25 can do M2.83, and F-15 can do M2.5, there is no real speed difference between them”. I will simply say F-15 at STD+10 degrees celcius tops out at M1.95, while MiG-25 did M3.2 on hot egypt deserts.
The other problem is some are naive enough to say “X is not actually a limit, as aircraft can exceed this”. By definition; if some value is limited below sth, it indicates exceeding it is possible, but dangerous and not allowed for some reason. Going from the same ratio above; Su-27 or MiG-29 can easily go M2.5+ given the air is cold enough, provided pilot is willing to exceed airframe limits, aircraft won’t explode if pilot tries this once or twice.
BTW there is no suprise F-106 beats F-4 when they are fully armed and flying with EFTs, according to their flight manuals.
AndraxxusNeither pilot or manual is wrong. Bear in mind I said F-106 is limited to M2.0, just as the same way MiG-25/31 is limited to M2.83. Possible reason is the phenomena manual calls “stall-buzz” which limits pilot to “slow throttle movements (only) between min and max AB” above M1.7. Manual says as mach number limits are approached stall buzz is likely to occur.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231176[/ATTACH]
So theoratically judging by this graph, F-106 should be able to exceed Mach limits and reach M2.2, or even M2.3+ on a cold day, but if slightest maneuver or throttle movement leads to compressor stall and a ruined engine, this has no use.
AndraxxusAccording to its flight manual, F-106 is limited to M2.0 from 35k feet to 50k feet. Its max ceiling is 55k feet. With 2×360 gals, F-106 has max speed of M1.9 at around 38000 lbs.
In short there is really nothing to compare. Its performance its comperable at best to F-4, F-15 etc. Both MiG-31 and MiG-25 can go M2.83 with their full AAM payload. MiG-25RB can go M2,7+ even with 4xFAB-500M-62 bombs hanging from its pylons.
AndraxxusIf you hold a laser to a camera -all automatic mode- it will simply tighten its diaphragm or increase its shutter speed, and you will clearly see the laser source. Now imagine if such technology is developed, how easily a modern IRST can be developed to counter it.
AndraxxusDistance between california to alaska is roughly 3600 km. No current aircraft can fly supersonic for that range. MiG-31 with a pair of inflight refuellings is your best bet. Or a CFT equipped F-15C if inflight refuelling is out of question.
AndraxxusBTW two additional points.
1- SARH missiles does not necessarily require lock before launch. R-24R, R-33, R-40R/RD R-27R/RE 5V55 etc etc all fly in INS and/or command guidance and use SARH at terminal guidance.
2- ARH missiles can be guided as SARH if transciever on board the missile is not powerful enough but the launching platform’s is. They would switch to ARH when they are close enough. Combined with two-way datalink, ARH missiles can also be guided as TVM instead of SARH during middle phases.
AndraxxusSimply launching a missile on a ballistic trajectory has always been possible for US aircrews, but perhaps the Soviets used idiot proof safeguards. LOAL really involves traveling to a point in 3-dimensional space in such a way the seeker has a valid opportunity to track the target.
Of course, but what would be the point that? Back in 90s an AIM-9M had no meaningful kinematic range for such use, and lack of HOBS seeker would mean it would have little chance of acquiring its target during ballistic flight. Neither could be said for R-40T/TD or R-27T/TE. Those missiles do have INS too.
AndraxxusI think there is a misunderstanding regarding LOAL; From what I understand, LOAL indicates some ability of missile to head towards target without acquiring lock; It maybe for HOBS firing to align target into seeker cone, or fly for some time (via datalink or lofting or just flying straight) to get target into seeker’s range.
IDK about R-24T; but R-27T/TE versions are technically not LOAL; they can be fired without lock command but the aircraft itself must maneuver to align missile’s seeker to the target. I am reasonably sure relatively obsolete R-40T and R-24T missiles operate in same fasion. Such implementation would be much simpler, and for BVR shots, it would be pretty effective still.
As for the original question; as flare launched, missile will see two IR dots seperating from a single source. Missile does not chose to lock onto flare or aircraft. Flare is a just as large source of IR returns, and what missile sees is its original IR source seperates into two. Missile then must use complex algorithms which compares original IR source trajectory to both IR sources to decide which is the target and which is not. IIR helps as seeker has means of identifying its target, but its not foolproof either; IR seekers have no means of reducing gain, half dozen flares launched in succession will still flood any seeker.
AndraxxusComparing different aircraft to prove the point is flawed because there are a hundred other variables and most of your ideas and assumptions are wrong, or at very least, unsubstantiated guesses.
assuming Cd0 = 0.015 and k = 0.2
This just made my day ROFL.
While I took the data from MiG-29 manual, to examplify;
Please stop making me prove things I know for an absolute fact.
Your absolute facts are utter horsesh*t as always.
Play with THE FACTUAL Cl/Cd graph for MiG-29 for various wing areas. MiG-29 for example cannot perform better 9G turns if it had larger or smaller wings (Guess what, MiG engineers know optimisation), so lower wing loading or higher wing area is not directly an indication of maneuverability or even only STR performance. Or you can stick with your foolish emprical formulae all you want, my last post on this issue, as I have concluded -twice- you are beyond reasoning, and I won’t poison this thread talking to wall such as yourself.
AndraxxusYou’re ignoring the fact that a higher wing loading requires a far higher Cl and Cd has a non-linear dependence on Cl (Cd = Cd0 +kCl^2)
On the contrary, that is the prime reason why CdA is higher and deltas like Mirage 2000 sustain turns poorly when compared to F-16 or MiG-29. Ive posted Cl/Cd graph from the MiG-29 manual. Play around by taking numbers directly from it instead of formulae. You will see MiG-29 will have much higher drag around M0,85 9G turns if its wing area is doubled. As mrmalaya says, its unnecessary to discuss it further, however.
AndraxxusAnd thus bleeding less energy giving highe sustained turn rate.
I disagree; low wing loading translates to low Cd true, but also translates to high A. For delta’s, total CdA has been higher than conventional wings. One reason no one used it in the past. However; Typhoon has sufficient thrust to give comperable STR at subsonic speeds, and use all the advantages of canard-delta configuration at supersonic regime. I don’t agree on the part Typhoon has substentially better maneuverability than legacy 4th gen fighters.
Speaking of AOA limits, 20 deg limit will not affect any fighter aircraft’s combat performance, because they would be sticking much less AOAs. Sure, MiG-29 achieves its maximal turn at 26deg AOA, but its quickest sustained turn at 9Gs is at 12deg AOA. F-16 and Su-27 also sustains their 9G turn at ~10-11 deg AOA.
As dogfight is hardly about sustained 9G turns alone, where aircraft would also making turns at 5-7Gs, AOA requirement is even lower.
AndraxxusIf those things restrict the bird bellow 20, then they are useless.
Not if we are talking about energy-maneuverability; An F-16 is limited to 15 deg if its pulling 9Gs, to 20,4deg if pulling 7,33Gs. High-alpha hardly is a proof or necessity of high maneuverability. With its -unnecesarily- low wing loading Typhoon should not require as much AOA as F-16 for example, to make the same turn.
Sign In
