Large SAM bodies don’t appear to suffer the same shortfall of a heavy AAM body. It must be different magic pixie dust on the SAM body.

I don’t know where you got that idea honestly. Long-range SAMs of 60s and 70s vintage were also very minimally capable against fighter class targets, especially at long ranges.

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.

When two aircraft enter service separated by only 3-4 years it is reasonable to compare them. Especially if those two aircraft subsequently see combat against each other with one of them decisively beating the other. (F-14 over Mig-25 in Iran/Iraq war)

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

No, I am really not. The Mig-25/31 are fast, and that is it, period.

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?

I don’t really see any reason to believe the Mig-25/31 had better sensors than its Western competitors. It certainly had a big radar, but the Soviets consistently lagged the West in both radars and computers.

I would certainly give the edge to the West in missiles. The R-40 was again big missile, but totally unsuitable for use against fighters. It was optimized for use against big unmaneuverable targets at long range. The simple fact that even against its intended targets Soviet doctrine called for two to be launched at each target doesn’t suggest great faith in the missile on the part of the Soviets. The AIM-7 for all of its initial struggles in Vietnam ultimately proved a very effective weapon accounting for numerous kills in multiple wars.

The Mig-25/31 did not have an advantage in acceleration, speed, or ceiling except under the narrowest of circumstances, circumstances that would not occur in the real world. You have to separate spec sheets from reality. You don’t enter an engagement at M2+ and 50K+ feet…

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.

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.

Much of this is quite simply factually inaccurate, particularly your characterization of the relative kinematic performance. Top speed is not the same thing as acceleration.

The F-15 will out-accelerate the Mig-25/31 anywhere under M2. Similarly it will crush the Mig-31 in both sustained and instantaneous turn performance anywhere where a fight might actually take place. The 1991 engagement between the F-15s and Mig-25s is a perfect example of what you could expect. The Migs entered the fight faster, but were on the defensive from the first turn and were shortly shot down. The best possible outcome for the Migs would have been to escape… at no point did they have the prospect of actually getting into a position of advantage themselves.

By 1992 the AMRAAM was operational, and a Mig-25 provided the first demonstration of its efficacy.

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.

Your devotion to your version of reality is kind of endearing in a way, but it has little to do with the real world. There hasn’t been a single window where sending Mig-31s against F-15s would be a good idea. What part about the Mig-31 being designed to engage bombers and cruise missiles is lost on you? Its principal armament would very likely be next to useless against an F-15 and we already know the reverse is not true. Further, if the US agreed even slightly with your assessment they would have developed a counter to the Mig-31 back in the 80s….

No-one disputes the fact that the Rafale is a great airplane, and more potent (imho) than the Gripen C/D. However the future Gripen will be a new plane, designed 20 years (+) after the Rafale… hence in that context, the Gripen is the coolest plane simply because it’s new.;)

The Gripen E is not a new plane, it is an extensive upgrade to an existing design, similar to what was done with the F-16 Block 60.

Just an addition to your post – its mission is/was not only to intercept bombers, but (even more importantly) cruise missiles as well. This is why it needed an advanced radar suite capable of tracking low flying cruise missiles and guiding long range missiles at multiple targets simultaneously. And I guess this is why they will upgrade it and even develop a successor as the cruise missile threat gets ever more significant with the Arctic polar cap melting.

True

I meant Cost/impunity ratio. It was much cheaper to build and operate when compared to SR-71, yet just as survivable. It possibly was expensive than Mirage F-1CR but it provided exponentially greater survivability.

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

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.

In combat against F-14s, 15s, and 16s the Mig-25 proved less than impressive. Those are admittedly newer aircraft from a generational standpoint, but all were in production (and of course service) simultaneously with the Mig-25 and are certainly a valid comparison from that standpoint.

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?

The Mig-25 entered service in 1970. Generations are useful when discussing fighters, but absolute dates is what really matters here. The Mig-25 beat the F-14 into service by all of four years, and the F-15 by six years.

There may have been a brief window when the Mig-25 had a meaningful advantage over Western aircraft, but even if that was the case the advantage quickly vanished.

In real world engagements the Mig-25 proved anything but untouchable…

The legacy of the Mig-25, above all else, is that of the wonder plane that wasn’t. For all the hype and conjecture about its capabilities, the reality is that it was a fatally flawed design that ultimately achieved little at great cost.

I think the 25 was of more use as a recce platform. Also had a SEAD role.

It was built as a very high speed interceptor and later adapted to act as a recon platform.

As a dogfighter it is completely useless, the best it could hope to do would be escape, but even there its very high top speed does not necessarily translate into the ability to disengage at will. (as demonstrated by the several Mig-25s shot down in the early 1990s.)

There has always been a lot of fascination with this aircraft, but its real-world performance has never justified it.

crickets…

:rolleyes: