weapons of mass destruction anyone? incubator babies? probably better not talk too much about “reliability” “honesty” and such frivolities 😉

Here is a somewhat dramatized version of the engagement:

http://youtu.be/zmYkHKGRXVA?t=13m15s

Here is some video of the second of the two Mig-25 kills. (note the part about afterburner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ5N58z9UUM

Of course this didn’t actually happen.

A few thoughts on that;

1) Well they would say that wouldn’t they, as their kit is going to arm the F35

Since I am not aware of any missiles that are unique to the F-35 I think it is likely this supplier expects to see their weapons on multiple platforms.

2) Being an ancilliary supplier what exactly gives them such insight into the capabilities, what LM tells them?

It is safe to assume that their insight into the F-35’s capabilities is vastly greater than yours and that their information will be coming through official channels.

3) Frankly it’s the sort of marketing speak that has been heard about all “new” kit since time immemorial; what makes the sensor capabilities of the F35 so unique so as to perclude porting them to another platform, that could be flying higher and faster?

That is why we are still fighting with bows and arrows right? Because new weapons are just “marketing” after all and nothing really changes.

As for a faster/higher flying platform… what makes you think the advantage gained would be worthwhile? Internet forums seem permanently rooted in the thinking of the late 1950s and early 1960s. (witness the ongoing Mig-31 thread…) The Mig-25/31, YF-12, Avro Arrow, XF-108, and XB-70 rule the skies. They are simply too fast and too high-flying to be engaged by the likes of F-15s, Eurofighters, Rafales, Su-27s or even F-22s. :very_drunk:

I don’t think you could find a pilot that wouldn’t like greater speed or altitude performance if it came without costs, but it doesn’t, and the F-35 will offer similar real-world speed to an F-18 or Rafale. Not the fastest thing in the sky perhaps but fast enough to get the job done.

In fact only one MiG25 was ever shot down by the western alliance (the one with the AMRAAM) and that was because the MiG25 was on a “ferry flight” from one base to another. For the next 10 years the MiG25 would roam the southern “no fly zone” (oh, even flying into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) with impunity and have many more futile attempts at shooting it down with AMRAAM and AIM54s. The most dangerous weapons against the MiG25 is usually a technical failure that makes it slow down / reduce altitude… and that’s pretty much how the iranians shot down the 4-5 MiG25PDS/RB during 7 years of non-stop combat… still they flew many thousands of missions without fail into dense air defences (and WITHOUT supporting AEW / SIGINT / SEAD etc…)

Hence the viability of using high altitude / high speed fighter / bomber / recon plane is valid even in the era of stealth IMHO. Had Syria obtained their 8 MiG31Es and got some R37M on them… they would have been formidable against Israel, having the ability to harass israeli planes as they were taking off from their bases whilst being beyond the range of their CAPs in the air… not to mention the effect on the operations of Israeli AEW / SIGINT aircraft (forcing them to fly further away from Syria and reducing their coverage over Syrian airspace), which gives a “breather” for syrian aircraft to operate more easily and reduce the SA of the Israeli planes slightly.

I suggest some research. All three Mig-25 kills by the USAF are very well documented, the one killed by AMRAAM was not on a ferry flight, and the Iraqis were most certainly not “roaming the southern no-fly zone with impunity.”

Let me appeal to reason for a moment. If the USAF had actually found that the Mig-25 was untouchable because it was just sooo fast and flew sooo high… why wouldn’t the USAF have developed its own similar aircraft? Certainly the technology is/was available if they thought a need existed…

What were the numerical odds?
What supporting infrastructure did each side have?
What was the expertise of each pilot?

To me, a 1:2 ratio given the overall operating environment says much about the qualities of the MiG-25.

It is easy today to look back at Desert Storm and see that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. At the time however there was considerable speculation about how the “green” USAF/USN would perform against the experienced Iraqi air and air defense forces, whose number included many with recent experience against the US trained and equipped Iranians. Remember in the 1980s and early 1990s the gap between the Iranian air force and the USAF/USN was much smaller than it is today. Certainly the USAF had large numbers of F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, but it still included F-4s and F-14s in significant numbers and was still fighting with AIM-7/9/54.

I am not saying that anyone serious was predicting that the Iraqis would win, only that many predicted far higher losses on the Coalition side than were actually suffered.

My point is that even in experienced hands the Mig-25 proved to be a virtual non-factor. They flew a few missions, harassed the coalition, scored one kill and lost two Mig-25s in the process. I am not saying that the Mig-25 was a bad aircraft in 1991. I think you could make a solid argument that it was the most effective aircraft in Iraqi service, but it was certainly not able to engage the coalition with impunity… and this was before AMRAAM entered service. The additional kill over the no-fly zone further illustrates that the Mig-25, while an impressive aircraft by some measures, was not free engage and disengage with impunity as some here seem to want to believe. (and yes, that kill “counts” … The Iraqis knew very well that by challenging the no-fly zone they were instigating a potentially lethal engagement.)

Funny, considering a kirov or a slava along with their task forces pack 500++ air defense missiles; layered in long, medium short and point defense ranges. Slava alone can direct 8 missiles at their targets at once, not to mention sovremennys (2 at once) udaloys (4 at once) and other escorting ships. How many hornets can a CVBG deploy? 24? 36? No, the threat is pretty valid, its just the US Navy choses to ignore it. Thats a rather long and irrelevant debate in this topic.

I will repeat, these were not considered a particularly challenging threat for carrier based air to take out. Without proper air cover, including some form of airborne radar these ships would have been sitting ducks. Yes, on paper they have a pretty impressive array of weapons but in practice the US would have been free to strike at will and the end result would not have been in doubt.

Besides, the Soviets only ever commissioned three Slavas, all in the early 80s. Even if we assumed these three ships were on par with the latest Arleigh Burkes produced 30 years later, and even if we assumed Russia could get all three fully mission capable and out to sea at once, what threat do you think they would present to the US Navy?

Zero chance? AIM-120 is also a product of compromises, you cant build a missile that would both work at high and low altitudes very well, and stay lightweight. Its an improvement to AIM-7 and thats it. Its not an I win button.

Yes, a missile is full of compromises. If you think the US would have designed their next generation BVR weapon without the Mig-25/31 being part of its target set you know nothing about how the US operates. The US is not simply going to say “gee, yeah, they have around 1,000 of those planes but we don’t have anything that can target them. I hope they don’t fly them against us if we end up at war…”

It isn’t and doesn’t need to be an “I win button.” It need only be combat effective and I see zero reason to doubt its capability to bring down a Mig-25/31.

Like you said it isn’t mystery. In overal course of the arab israeli clashes and gulf war, out of 50+ AIM-7/120 missiles fired, only 4 hit their targets (<8% success rate). Another two downed after the war ended, which I dont count for air-air victory. And these are actually aircraft managed to fire their missiles. In how many intercept attempts they couldn’t even fire at MiG-25, I leave this to your imagination. Records speaks for itself; Does this confirm your point, or mine?

As a recon aircraft the Mig-25 proved survivable, but we can’t evaluate whether it was accomplishing its mission based simply on its ability to escape.

During the Iran-Iraq War the Mig-25 did prove capable in its primary interceptor role, but a number were lost in combat to AIM-7 and AIM-54 missiles, proving beyond any doubt that they were not capable of operating with impunity even against 1970s era Iranian aircraft and missiles.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War the Mig-25 was ineffective. In a limited number of sorties Mig-25s achieved one kill, and lost two aircraft. Once again the Mig-25 was proven to be vulnerable to the AIM-7.

In the engagements that followed the Gulf War, which absolutely count, another Mig-25 was brought down, this time by an F-16 armed with an AIM-120A.

So here we are, 20+ years later, learning that Mig-25/31s are not threatened by AIM-120s. Give it up, even by internet standards this is embarrassing.

I never said invulnerable. I am saying it is nearly invulnerable in set of given conditions. When conditions change, so does the end results.

In a given set of conditions? Perhaps you mean conditions other than real world combat operations where they proved quite vulnerable?

You need to see these kills from a perspective similar to P-51D vs Me262. Quite a few Schwalbes got shot down by piston fighters due to various circumstances (prior to landing, right after take-off, lucky shot, rookie pilot), and while I am pretty sure the Mustang would even have a positive record vs the Messerschmitt, it does not change the fact that Me262 was visibly superior to P-51D in most parameters.

:rolleyes:

This is hardly a case of P-51s orbiting a German airfield late in the war…

Most of the Mig-25s shot down in combat were by the Iranians. Even if we ignore those kills and focus on the US kills the Mig-25 was on the offensive in each case. They entered each engagement at a time and place of their choosing and simply weren’t that effective.

What this is is yet another case of internet enthusiasts having trouble putting spec sheet numbers into context. A higher top speed and altitude simply don’t convey the advantage that people around here would like to believe.

With the same analogy a curious question: Why US Navy retired Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? It doesn’t make sense going againist slavas or sovremennys, with only legacy harpoons.

Honestly, the threat was essentially gone. If the US needed to sink such ships they would rely on air launched Harpoons which were seen as more than sufficient given the inability of those ships to protect themselves adequately against air strikes. Now that China is rolling out credible fleet air defense in the form of its new DDGs and carrier the US is once again developing a proper long-range ASCM.

Matter is even more concerning, with the removal of harpoon launchers, a late Arleigh Burke has no means of sinking a tiny missile boat -like nanuchka III- at stand-off ranges, and with the removal of both CIWSs, it has no point defense at all to survive the missiles it may launch.

These were not removed and simply left un-replaced. The plan was to use RAM and ESSM. My understanding is that all Arleigh Burkes will receive a CIWS, and may already have done so actually.

Answer is pretty simple i believe. No nation developed enough to take on an US AF/Navy equipment is insane enough to go againist it. Like somebody stated, MiG-25/31 will never be a threat to USAF, as they will be brought down on the ground.

Sorry, but this is not how the US thinks/plans/operates. Back when the AMRAAM was being designed the good old USSR was absolutely the threat and the Mig-25/31 was a big part of the air to air threat. There is zero chance the US would have developed and fielded a missile that they did not believe was capable of bringing down a Mig-25. Even after the Cold War Mig-25s remained in the holdings of multiple potentially hostile states, including Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

Finally, it isn’t like it is a mystery how the Mig-25 would perform in combat. Iraq used them extensively in the Iran/Iraq war and to fairly good effect, though not without losses. By the time the Iraqis flew against the coalition in 1991 and later over the no-fly zones the Iraqis had plenty enough experience with the Mig-25 to know how to employ it in combat.

Over the course of their operational use Mig-25s have been brought down by AIM-7s, AIM-54s, and an AIM-120. Now here we are on the internet learning that they are invulnerable to all Western weapons… :rolleyes:

so sad, they were close if you count the 2008 bowman and the 2009 article that told them enough, as everyone else also knew…but they can claim it if they want to, it still doesn’t alter they were way out on the C
Why do you just repost stuff you have been shown is wrong…isn’t that trolliing?

That is a good question honestly. It does not speak well of some here when they continue to post and re-post the same debunked links and slides as if they were fact.