What do you consider 9 kills with 0 losses?

From Wiki, but citing an article Air and Space Magazine.

BS, iraqi losses are very clear after their release of their records in 2003;

Iraqi airforce had 22 MiG-25P/PDs. Iraqi airforce lost only one MiG-25PD in August 6th 1986; after -stupidly- failing to detect an F-5E over Tabriz, it got hit by gun fire. It made it back to its base, but written off after a heavy landing. Two additional written off due to accidents; one due to an incident before take off, and another due to heavy landing. By 17 January 1991, Iraqi still had 19 MiG-25PD/PDSs in active service. Of those, 14 were lost in Gulf War, and 5 survived. Numbers are clear, so no BSing about F-14 beating MiG-25. There are stories, some are very consistent about some F-14’s did fired Phoneixes, but clearly, none actually hit their targets.

In total, 12 MiG-25RBs were delivered to Iraqi AF. Two MiG-25RB was lost to F-14s in 1982 and 1986, another to a SAM in 1983. In 1990, Iraq had 9 MiG-25RBs, 6 lost in Gulf war, and 3 Survived.

Interceptor variants of MiG-25 never engaged F-14, because MiG-25PDs always directed by GCI controller, and Tehran was out of range of GCI radars, it never operated there. MiG-25Ps did encountered F-4 many times during the war, and numerous F-4s were shot down (with R-40s, of course) with no losses, which supports my point, not yours.

Um, of course you can compare these radars. I hate to break it to you but antenna diameter is not a measure of performance independent of other factors, and even if the Mig had the theoretical performance advantage the real-world advantage would have to account for each aircraft’s RCS. (where here again the Mig-25/31 measures up poorly)

Then you can compare an E-3 Sentry with a Grippen’s radar performance on the basis that RCS of Grippen is much smaller. Before discussing MiG-31, I would like to hear your comments about F-16 vs F-15 in radar detecting/tracking ranges first. I want to know are you desperately biased, or simply misinformed.

You are ignoring PESA vs mechanical steering, 231% aperture area, 300%+ antenna gain, superior resolution, far quicker scan times, double advertised detect/track range of Zaslon (compared to APG-63), and bragging about RCS of two non-VLO aircraft (with similar external dimensions and similar airframe designs) and external armament.

I am biased toward real world results. The AIM-7 has dozens and dozens of confirmed air to air kills, including at least two Mig-25s.

The R-40 was absolutely not intended for use against fighters, we have numerous sources stating that. The AIM-7 on the other hand has scored kills on many dozens of fighters and a target at 40k would be well within it envelope.

Real world results? Belonging to similarly equipped infrastructures, F-4E+AIM-7 combination met MiG-25P+R-40 combination. In each encounter (4 that I know of), F-4Es consistently got shot down, MiG-25P remained untouched.

I had actually started writing a long detailed response, and then I realized what a waste of time it would be. We have the actual combat results of the Mig-25 in the Iran/Iraq war and Desert Storm/NFZ. We have the results of an evaluation with the participation of an actual Mig-25 and pilot. We have the testimony of the pilot himself…. yet you find none of these convincing and would prefer to believe what you want. Go ahead I suppose, just don’t expect me to join you in fantasy land.

You are trying to prove MiG-25 is a garbage because F-15 did beat it. Once again, technologially speaking, F-15 (even armed with AIM-7F/Ms) is a leap ahead of MiG-25. You may base your assesment on their introduction, or service dates but that is technologically irrelevant. There is two years between first flight of F-18E and F-22A. What you are trying to do is to prove F-18E is garbage because F-22 can beat it.

Your logic = compare Su-27 and F-4E, F-4E loses, F-4E is piece of sh*t. Compare MiG-29 with F-5E, F-5E, loses, F-5E is worthless. Then you go on to say MiG-25P cannot beat F-4E, based on the fact it was not designed for it; I never said it was *designed* againist fighters, I said it can be/is effectively used againist fighters. Both technical/theoratical comparison, and Real world results you uphold supports my argument and screams you are wrong. Dont bother a long detailed response, before digesting the fact MiG-25 belongs to same generation as F-4, which it consistently defeated, not F-15.

Setting up for an R-40TD attack? Again, those missiles are IR guided and are thus limited in lock on range. At best, from a rear hemisphere the lock on range is probably not more than 15 km (probably less as the number which seems to be a valid approximation for the newer R-27ET) and realistically (i.e. not a one on one situation) you would not want to merge with the enemy flight in a MiG-31.

Su-27 flight manual states R-27T/TE can be fired without using lock command to its maximum ranges, but “aircraft itself must maneuver so that missile will be pointed to no more than 15 degrees bearing of the target for confident capture by the IR seeker after launch.” Manual recommends such usage for head-on engagments. As missile is not LOAL or command directed, its one way to be certain target won’t leave the IR seeker’s 15 degree cone. Fire one from at 70-80 km to a inbound targets path, it will acquire lock at 10-15 km.

I honestly don’t know if R-40TD also has such ability, but as its primarily designed for long range missions in mind, I believe its safe to assume it does. Fire one R-40TD first and a R-33 later at 50-60km. R-33 will be in an effective kill range, and R-40 will surely acquire lock onto a maneuvering aircraft.

The AA-9 missile being guided to target by another MiG-31 is pure nonsense.

Nonsense to you, but MiG-31s DO have this capability in both target illumination, and during command/mid-course update phase. Its not magic, even Su-27S can do it with R-27R/REs: it can even redirect missiles already in the air to different new targets. MiG-29 using the same R-27R missile possibly have this ability too, but I haven’t looked at its manuals about it.

It does make sense to compare 4th and 5th generation fighters. There are endless threads about exactly that on this board.

Anything can be compared, real life effectiveness or economics or etc can be discussed to death. However technical/technological comparison is plain stupid. Each generation of fighers are designed to defeat the previous generation.

…and again, I think you are grossly overestimating the Mig-25/31’s advantages over their contemporaries and the implications of those advantages.

And you are grossly underestimating the other advantages of MiG-25/31 have.

The Mig-25 was fast, but a dog in every other respect.

MiG-25 was fast, PLUS, it had better sensors (Smerch Radar +Lazur datalink vs APQ-120), missiles (R-40R/T vs AIM-7D/E) , and supersonic kinematics in all parameters (climb, acceleration, top speed, ceiling), at the cost of *slightly* worse supersonic maneuverability. I don’t get what part of this do you not understand?

It was designed to attack bombers, and avoid fighters. The same is true of the Mig-31.

I don’t disagree about the mission of MiG-31, I point out, the qualities it posses do make it a good BVR platform, there is a difference.

It improved on the Mig-25’s weaknesses, but it would be badly overmatched trying to fly against an F-15.

Again lets compare 1990’s F-15 with 1990’s MiG-31;

-Sensors: APG-63 versus Zaslon is laughable comparison from the start. Plus, F-15 had no datalink in 1990s, whereas MiG-31 had two way datalinks to both other aircraft and GCI controllers. When working together, one side will have AWACS-like situational awareness, excellent coordination between aircraft, otherside wont.

-Missiles: At the fall of SU; F-15 had only AIM-7Ms, MiG-31 had R-33, R-40R/T missiles at its disposal. While F-15 has TWS, it could engage only 1 target at the same time. MiG-31 can engage 4 targets with R-33s, plus if range allows IRST lock, additional two with R-40Ts. MiG side has option to firing its missiles much earlier, or wait for the effective kill range; Combined with sensor advantage, MiGs can split-up, some providing target illumination with their multi target engagement ability, some launching their missiles at shorter ranges; kinematic advantage would shrink AIM-7s already tiny effective range, and allow MiGs more room to close-in or withdraw at will.

-Kinematics: When supersonic; MiG-31 had better climb acceleration top speed, and ceiling; it also had superior sustained turn performance but inferior instantenious turn performance due to lower G limits. This combined with sensor and missile advantage, will ensure MiG side stays at much higher energy state, able to outrun missiles. F-15 do have superior ITR, having 0,5 deg/s superior turn rate at M1.5 wont help evading a missile anyway.

So really, what advantage does F-15 have? Bias aside in late 1980s, a flight of MiG-31 would have simply played with equal number of F-15s at BVR.

Ok, turn your question around now. If the Mig-31 was so great, why develop the Su-27?

Cost effectiveness? Like I’ve stated, all those platforms provide unique capabilites. A MiG-29 can nicely perform CAP at SU territory, A Su-27 could fly deep into EU conducting Fighter Sweeps, or escorting attack aircraft. A MiG-31 intercepts incoming threats with little response times.

The Mig-31 is an anti-bomber platform. That is what it was built to do, not engage fighters.

What its built to do, provides some unique qualities to engage any aircraft at long range. F-15 was never built as an attack aircraft; but its size, payload ability, gave it such capability. Your logic dictates F-15E should never have existed.

If the Soviets thought they were facing a few F-15s, they would send Su-27s, not Mig-31s.

Wrong. In times of real war, both types would work together and MiG-31s would direct Su-27s; this is one of the primary missions of MiG-31 anyway.

Look at it this way. It would be a fairly trivial matter for the US to resurrect a platform like the F-106. (as a clean slate design) A pure delta wing, an F119 or two… a modern AESA radar and perhaps some air launched Patriot PAC-3 missiles… it would be pretty fearsome interceptor… but there just isn’t much demand for such a platform.

Theories. In practice MiG-31 DO exist, and Russians scrapped and wasted their own versions of F-15 and F-16s at the cost of keeping some of the MiG-31 fleet operational. If there is no demand for such platform, why not just retire MiG-31 fleet, and maintain/operate/upgrde more MiG-29s or Su-27s? I believe for each retired MiG-31, Russia could have maintained two additional Su-27s, or perhaps four additional MiG-29s.

I don’t know how you could conclude that it was “just as survivable.”

Simple; Performance gap between MiG-25R and its potential adversaries (F-4E, Mirage F-1C or newer F-15/16/18) is much greater than the SR-71 and its potential adversary (MiG-25P or newer MiG-31)

Not THAT pointless. In the first years of operation of MiG-25, IDF aircraft tried to intercept Egyptian MiG-25RBs on many different occasions, some attempts involving more than 40+ aircraft, shooting missiles at it. None were succesful in downing one. A full squadron of Mirage F-1CRs couldn’t have survived at such hostile territory. MiG-25 proved just as invulnerable as SR-71 in its early years, and it costed much less; overall 1100+ MiG-25 airframes produced compared to 32 SR-71s..

As a single MiG-25, most definately not; but it provides unique capabilites that MiG-23 and MiG-21 couldnt provide. Depending on circumstances, a single MiG-25 could chase and kill a supersonic bomber when a hundred MiG-23s can’t. This is important when that bomber could be armed with a dozen nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

No they didn’t. As always there are a handful of fanboy types who refuse to accept anything but their own personal version of reality but the consensus on the Mig-25 among those who understand the subject is that it compromised far too much in pursuit of top speed. The simple fact that nobody choose to emulate its design philosophy should be evidence enough of that simple truth.

Excluding rare sheer luck events, no aircraft in its own generation (F-4, F-5, Kfir, Mirage F1, MiG-23, Su-15) has been able to succesfully engage the MiG-25. Opposite cannot be said for MiG-25. This means something to anyone with some logic too.

Even its direct successor, the Mig-31, accepted compromises in speed in favor of better all around performance.

Firstly, no; MiG-25 was designed to go M2.83 with its air to air payload of 4xR-40s. Ability to exceed this speed limit is neither desired or useful feature. MiG-31 could reach M2.83 with 4 R-33s and 2xR-40s. IDK which is faster when exceeding their limits, but MiG-31 is just as fast when on a high speed intercept mission, and could carry more missiles while doing so. At lower part of the flight envelope MiG-31 is considerably faster than MiG-25 too.

Secondly, even if you weren’t factually wrong, your logic is flawed; Successor or not, MiG-31 is designed to counter much different type of emerging threats. What is good for its time does not mean it will necessarily carry on to the next generation. According to your analogy: as F-35 lacks kinematics of F-16, emphasis on CAC performance is plain stupid, and LM guys corrected their mistake in its direct successor….

Ask yourself this; what gives an edge in BVR combat? Sensors, missiles, climb rate, speed, ceiling?

MiG-25 has;
-much better Radar than ANY of its generation counterparts, it also had one-way Lazur datalink to GCI controller stations, when nothing else had something comperable.
-better BVR missiles,
-better climb performance,
-better acceleration and far better top speed,
-far higher operating altitude, (higher than the AIM-7D/E’s target envelope)

than ANYTHING of its own generation. On any slightest criteria means for an intercept mission or BVR combat, MiG-25 has clear edge over its generation counterparts. As for apperant lack of maneuverability, it didn’t matter: F-4Es with 8.5G rated airframes has 5,05G limit at supersonic flight when loaded with 4x AIM-7s and 4xAIM-9Ps and on full internal fuel load. At M2.0 this goes down to 4,6Gs, and at M2.2 its 3Gs. So when conducting an intercept mission or during a BVR engagement, no 3rd gen fighter had a maneuverability to evade an incoming missile. MiG-25P at least has the ability to see first, shoot first, and run away if all else fails. Flying its operating altitude, it has complete immunity to early AIM-7s, R.530 simply because they lack the operating altitude to reach it. In fact, first BVR missiles that could at least capable of reaching a MiG-25P at its operating altidude is AIM-7F introduced in 1976 and Super 530Fs introduced in 1979.

I don’t know what part of this is fanboyism, but I don’t see a single reason WHY a MiG-25 should prove inferior to its generation counterparts in a BVR engagement?

Some personal thoughts;

NOTAR; Apart from obvious noise reduction advantages, I think NOTAR is a bad idea; For this system to work, its still necessery to have gearbox assembly, a driveshaft and variable pitch fan to generate the necessary airflow, so it does not have any definite mechanical advantages. Plus, fan is now located inside the fuselage, and there is a need for inlet and exhaust ducts, taking away valuable internal space, which could have been better spent for fuel, avionics armament etc, or simply for making the helicopter smaller.

Coaxial; As for coaxial design I disagree about it being any more complex than a conventional design. Lets compare AH-64 and Ka-52 from engineering POV.

AH-64 has 4 bladed main rotor, which contains a stationary swashplate, connected to rotating swashplate, which is then connected to 4 pitch control links. Those control links are individually connected to rotor blades. Rotating swashplate has 2 scissor links to the rotor hub. stationary swashplate is controlled by two control rods for cyclic motions and has a scissor link to hold it in place. Transmission to the tail has a driveshaft and a gearbox at the back. Within the tail rotor hub, there is stationary swashplate, rotating swashplate and 4 pitch control link assembly, as rotor, but tail rotor has only collective pitch control, so it has only one control rod.

On Ka-52, From bottom to up; the assembly begins with a stationary swashplate with two control rods, and hold in place by single scissor link. Stationary swashplate is first connected to a rotating one, which has 3 pitch control links connected to bottom rotor blades, and additional 3 rods connected to the middle swashplate. Bottom swashplate has single scissor link to rotor hub to hold it in its place, and middle swashplate has a single scissor link, so it rotates at the same speed of bottom rotor. Connected to middle swashplate, there is a rotating swashplate, which has 3 control links to upper spider swashplate. This spider has coaxial control rod for rudder control, and 3 pitch control links connected to the upper rotor blades.

To compare Ka-52 vs AH-64, respectively;
5 swashplates, vs 4 swashplates.
3 scissor links vs 3 scissor links.
12 linkages vs 11 linkages. (6 pitch + 3 upper/lower rotor connection + 3 control) vs (8 pitch + 3 control)
0 gearboxes vs 1 gearbox and driveshaft (apart from turboshaft/rotor gearbox)

Ka-52’s design adds one simple linkage and a swashplate, and removes a gearbox and a driveshaft. So mechanically speaking I don’t think Coaxial design is any more complex than a conventional design. Speaking of rotor, maybe, but definately not as a complete design.

Plus, despite being 40% heavier than AH-64, Ka-52 has smaller rotor diameter, and only way to lethally wound a coaxial design is to hit its rotor assembly.

I disagree about coaxial designs being slower. Generally, limiting factor for helicopter speed is leading rotor blade speed. Higher the rotor tip speed = slower the top speed. Coaxial design also provides inherent stability as counter rotating rotating rotors will balance out the unequal lift generated at high speeds. On a level flight, Ka-52 is faster than AH-64, for example.

Not to mention there are many factual errors. Whole point of adding VLSs to perry class frigates in GENESIS upgrade is the integration of ESSM.

And people still fail to understand what happened regarding the cancellation about MILGEM and domestic LPD project. Its the contract to *shipyard* that has been cancelled, NOT the projects themselves. In Tuzla region, there are currently 29 shipyards actively building ships. RMK Marine is just one of them. With 50000 tons weight and 180m length capacity RMK is neither largest, or in anyway special for construction of MILGEM ships. Largest shipyard in Tuzla region the Tuzla Shipyard have 109000 tons and 350m length capacity, for example. Its simply a matter of time the bidding will go to another shipyard, and the production will go on. Worst comes to worst, TSK has its own military shipyard in Gölcük that can easily construct those ships.

Question for those far more knowledgeable than me:

What do you think of the T-50s rate of climb performance compared to the MiG-29 (let us say 9-13), assuming same TWR?

A question depending on many variables.. rate of climb is the ability to gain energy of the aircraft. dE = m * g * dH also equals to dE = 1/2*m*dV^2, where dV stands for change of velocity with respect to time, or simply acceleration. So in short we all fall back to simple formula of F = m * a.

For an aircraft F = Thrust – Drag. If we put into former formula, and divide both sides with mass, Thrust/mass – Drag/mass = acceleration. As Lift equals mass for 1G flight condition, and equal TWR, acceleration is only determined by the overall Lift/drag ratio of the aircraft, which cannot be -accurately- spaculated with present info. That said;

Assuming T-50 has same airfoil of MiG-29, means they will have similar Cd at similar AOA conditions, which should occur at low level high speed conditions. This will lead to conclusion wing area is the only thing that determines the drag. Overly generalizing, with ~207% wing area, PAK-FA will have more than double the drag of MiG-29 9.12 at lower altitudes.

Assuming 152 kN engine thrust, T-50 has 187% thrust of MiG-29. Proportionally comparing, PAK-FA will have slightly inferior Thrust/Drag ratio, and wont have same rate of climb of 9.12 MiG-29A.

With increasing altitude, T-50 will be able to utilise its lower wing loading to achieve noticably smaller AOAs, leading to increased L/D ratio and decreased Cd. At such conditions, odds should slowly move into T-50’s favour.

However, I don’t think PAK-FA will have same TWR of MiG-29, and I don’t think it will use such thin airfoils as MiG-29.

I don’t think the G forces for the wing root spar is counted like this in the first place.

So if the wing has 6 attachment points along the fuselage…each attachment gets 161 500 N / 6 = 27000 N ( ie 2700 kg/attachment point ). If you have 8 attachment locations you get 2000 kg per point …this force then points directly up from the attachmet point….sorta like Mercedes sedan car weight in each point…but in two joints..one is being pulled and the other pushed..just like the spar caps…you may figure how that eases the task !

Modern compostite spar cap here; http://www.pddnet.com/articles/2013/04/there%E2%80%99s-new-twist-wind-blades

“Sum of thickness of all wing spars”, not each component. For a rough 2d calculation, it doesnt matter if you find the sum first and divide it into # of spars, or divide the net force to each spar, and calculate individual loads.

The wing itself with fuel load is loaded along the wing.

If the wing is stressed skin it has less stress on the spar area also.

I also figure the weight ( empty ) can be reduced to 5000 kg..and some 8500 kg Mtow.

Since the fuselage is kinda like lifting body it also lifts making the wing root stress lesser in positive G case.

So if the wing with fuel is 950 kg each you have for 6500 kg loaded weight 4600 kg weight for the wing root divided by 2..but since the fuselage lift 1/4 of the total you have 3450/2 ie 1720 kg load for the each wing root ( about 17 000 N ) for 1 G…ie 9.5 x 17 000 N = 161 500 N.

I thought I’ve said “in roughest form”. If you are going for specifics, Lift center will be in front of the gravity center, having more loads on forward spars, and torsional stresses etc etc, which can only be analised by FIA. Then there will be fatigue analysis, 10000 continious repetitions with no environmental effects will reduce tensile strength of aluminium to half. A wing spar endures far more than 10000 repetitions, which are also not continious but randomized, at varying temperature conditions. Wood or similar materials will have MUCH inferior fatigue limits, and less resistance to temperature changes; prime reasons why no one is using them in aeronautics these days.

My point is even by roughest skeching mathematics, possibility of building a wooden 9G aircraft is nonexistent. You can rightfully debate “bending” calculation is not 100% accurate, because it isn’t. Its there to show how far you are off in some of your ideas. If you are looking for “accurate” then you have to go for the torsional and shear stresses, along with the tension/compression forces due to pressure differences at various points of the airfoil, which will possibly rip off wooden skin panels.

Lower wing loading and higher speed result higher ceiling. F-16 also has no fuse lift.

Higher speed = no, due to previously stated reasons. Fuselage lift = supposed to be included in wing area. Either you are calculating your wing area wrong, or you did it right, and your wing area is same as F-16, including body lift.

Lower wing loading = It has nothing to do with ceiling. MiG-31/F-15 or F-16/A-10 comparison will easily reveal this.