hopsalotHow does it different from a MiG-31 strike at an awacs or a tanker group with R-37s? “Dart in” fast, avoid enemy fighters launch missiles and withdraw. This is not off topic at all, it is what T-50 will also be capable of.
Lets review, a reconnaissance aircraft will make every effort to avoid enemy fighters. It will plan its missions to avoid enemy defenses in general and fighters in particular. If opposition is detected during a mission a recon plane will seek to avoid it and/or abort its mission entirely.
A fighter trying to engage an escorted high value asset would have to close with that target and its escorts. This is the exact opposite.
This is laughable. In desert storm, MiG-25 is used 4 times in air to air combat.
1- On 17 Jan, two MiG-25s engaged two F-18Cs and shot down one, and withdraw.
2- On 17 Jan, two MiG-25s attacked two F-15Cs and the escorted EF-111 with missiles, EF-111 withdrew, F-15C pursued, along with two additional F-15s, Of the 10 missiles fired, none catched the MiG-25s.
3- On 18 Jan a single MiG-25 eluded 8 escorting F-15Cs and attacked the EF-111 EW aircraft. This succesful mission kill resulted in a SAM kill of a bombing aircraft, I dont recall type.
4- On 19 Jan two MiG-25s engaged F-15Cs, F-15s evaded the missiles and in ensuing dogfight, shot down MiG-25s with AIM-7s.-3 out of 4 records, point out high survavibility due to speed: in three incidents, MiG-25s did retreat, and in one, theys simply didnt attempted, and entered a dogfight instead.
-On all 4 records, MiG-25 were aggressors, and fired before the enemy, and at the target they chose.
-On all 2 records, MiG-25 were inferior in numbers to much newer F-15Cs, one occasion, outnumbered 8 to 1 yet survived.
-Of total (at least) 9 R-40 missiles fired, One resulted in downing of F-18C, and two resulted in mission kills of high value targets.
Those are the four engagements that are regularly discussed. Do you have a source that says those were the only four?
This is more than impressive record. In the end, Iraqi lost. What else were you expecting?
Gee, I don’t know, maybe killing a high value target? There is value in disrupting an opponent but considering the Mig-25 is an interceptor it should be graded on more than its ability to survive an engagement by running away.
Worse comes to worst, MiG-25 can run away after firing its missiles. A 1991’s F-15C simply cant do the same againist a Eurofighter. So my logic dictates, Even if Mig-25 is -obviously- inferior to 1991’s F-15C, it has higher survivability to Eurofighter than F-15C. Simple as that.
In reality there isn’t much that can run down an F-15 intent on running away and that has kept its speed up. In straight-line speed the F-15 and Eurofighter are similar. Even if we were talking about a slower fighter like an F-18 it is very problematic to run down a fleeing opponent. It takes huge amounts of fuel and you are running away from your base/tankers while he is running toward his. You also run a very real risk of running into some better fueled, armed, and generally ready opponents while you are focused on chasing your target.
Here is the relevance to this post; What you neglect to see is MiG-25 is 3rd generation interceptor. No other 3rd gen fighter was able to shoot it down in Iran-Iraq war, (that I know of, feel free to correct me) yet it did shot down numerous F-4 and F-5s. Its speed was a troubling asset even againist 4th gen fighters. Out of only 4 usages againist 4th gen adversaries, 3 were succesful because of its speed, and 1 was unsuccesful because its speed wasn’t utilized.
According to the always infallible Wikipedia Iran lost ~10 Mig-25s to F-14s during the Iran/Iraq war and one of those kills was shared with an F-5. Who knows? People have made an effort to research the Iran/Iraq air war and it is pretty dicey due to the absence of reliable sources on both sides.
In the engagement where the two Mig-25s were shot down they most certainly did use their speed as they entered the engagement at super sonic speeds. They used poor decision making in trying to turn with F-15s, but they were going fast when they did it…
You also missed the F-16/Mig-25 engagement over the no-fly zone. (First AMRAAM kill.)
What is the bottom line? I have nothing against the Mig-25 and don’t doubt that in capable hands it was a dangerous aircraft in its day, but I also believe that its speed advantage is greatly over-stated both in its extent and its tactical significance.
Due to this, in my opinion, speed is a very important tactical asset, and proven by MiG-25 to be so.
Sure, speed is nice to have.
As such, I concluded MiG-31 as a 4th gen fighter, with similar cons/pros to MiG-25 (compared to its generation), will prove much dangerous than any other 4th gen fighter in BVR, and will pose same threat to slower 5th gens, just like MiG-25 was to 4th gens. (In short, I see MiG-31s attacking an tanker escorted by F-35s will have very high chances of success)
Here we disagree, there are several 4th generation fighters that would present a greater BVR threat.
Mig -31s trying to attack an aircraft escorted by F-35s would be rolling the dice in a big way. It is unlikely they would have any means of detecting the F-35 escorts and would just have to race in and hope for the best.
The F-35s meanwhile would not simply be flying off the wing of the aircraft they were protecting… they would be stationed well ahead of their charge and would need only move to interpose themselves between the target and the Mig-31.
Given that the Mig-31 is anything but stealthy the F-35s could expect to track it at long ranges giving them plenty of time to react. The Mig-31 could not do the same with the F-35s, see where this is going?
Edit: A simple question. Even today, could a lone Eurofighter or Rafale or anything 4+ gen, can attack and force withdraw on a Su-24MR escorted by 8x MiG-25PDs?
This is really getting silly, yes. Using the criteria for success you use for the Mig-25 over Iraq wherein the Rafale or Eurofighter need only harass its enemy and run away there is no reason to think this would not succeed. A Mig-25 may be faster than either a Rafale or a Eurofighter in a theoretical top speed run, but in actual combat it is not going to run either of those two down from behind over any meaningful distance. (Nor does it make any sense that Mig-25s would be escorting anything….you might consider the implications of the fact that Mig-25s were never used in such a manner.)
hopsalotIt depends. Speed is exactly as valid as it was before. A M5.0 combat aircraft would be next to unbeatable today even if its design was 50 years old and lacked any stealth, whatsoever.
Great, so all we have to do is dust off the YF-12 and we are good then huh? :eagerness:
Sometimes this forum is like a time warp back to the 1960s, at least in terms of thinking about air power.
hopsalotDude, I was not referring to any performance or ability of the Mig-25/31….Just the CONCEPT of operations….What i meant to say was that F-22 and T-50 both give you the best of both worlds…I.e. the ability to maintain high supersonic speeds (Mach 1.6+) for tactically significant distances, as well go low and slow thanks to the awesome ability to turn and fight with any tactical fighter…It does not take an advanced degree in aerospace to understand the ATF concept of operation, which wanted a FAST stealth fighter that could maintain high supersonic speeds in military power so that it enjoys a huge kinematic advantage compared to the fighters it is replacing or will encounter. That sort of persistent speed was not possible with previous generation of crafts as massive tradeoffs with range had to be made through AB use.
That was the context in which i brought the Mig-25/31 to the argument, you can replace this with any other craft capable of maintaing high speed for long distance and it would still fit the picture i was trying to present.
We are talking about the Mig-25/Typhoon comparison raised by Andraxxus.
Point is, higher speed is proven to make aircraft more survivable in BVR environment. For a Eurofighter pilot, going againist an F-4 or a Mig-23 is target practice. Going againist a blk30 F-16, eurofighter has an edge in virtually all parameters. However MiG-25 is different in that it can fire before Eurofighter does -which would depend on circumstances- and it can retreat at will. That is I would call a greater threat.
hopsalotYou are right, F-16 is long in the tooth and has no edge on any parameter any longer compared to modern fighters, beside operational cost.
it need a replacement.
So if i were to draw up a replacement, i would not have a requirement on 2×2000 lb bombs,
it would be 2×1000 lb bombs, and those bombs would be thinner and longer, like a missile shape,
this would shrink the waist line substantially, a smaller engine, a lighter fighter, cheaper, faster, more agile, better acceleration and lower wing load, with focus on A2A,
with a far and away better shaped body for speed
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220511[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]220512[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]220513[/ATTACH]
A new airframe that would require new air to ground ordnance to be developed for it to fit its unusual weapons bays? The idea is a complete non-starter.
There are other potential approaches for a more air-to-air optimized design that would have better prospects, but it would require someone to step forward with a lot of money and nobody in Europe right now is willing to direct spending at defense.
hopsalotYou are carrying that to excess 🙂 The original conversation was about T-50, in first place. Then BIO mentioned some similarity with MiG-25/31 when it comes to ability to fly high and fast. The topic has now degraded to “MiG-25 vs Typhoon” which is, frankly, a quite absurd comparison.
I would agree that it is a fairly absurd comparison, but I am trying to see what he is getting at. My feeling is that this is another case of people overestimating both the tactical applicability of extreme speed and the extent of the Mig-25’s advantage.
hopsalotYou dont get the point. Aircraft mission was recon, it past the defenses, and conducted it. If mission was shooting down an awacs, it would be just as succesful. However some quotes from desert storm:
No, you still aren’t getting it. A recon mission is planned from the start to avoid contact with enemy fighters. It is one thing to dart in and out briefly at a time and place of your choosing and another thing entirely to go after a heavily defended asset. It also isn’t completely clear the extent to which the Mig-25 recon flights were “penetrating” defenses. Crossing a border is one thing, but again, that isn’t the same thing as going anywhere at will.
Does these count as succesful engagements?
Disrupting an enemy strike package is a success, but again, that is an isolated success in a conflict where the Mig-25s proved ineffective in general. If you want to argue that Mig-25s weren’t totally useless then I would of course agree with you. What I don’t see is any particular support for the argument that they had the capacity to “blow through” escorting fighters and destroy high value assets. I would argue that they tried, and in at least one case might have come fairly close, but never actually succeeded.
1x SARH missile + 1x IR missile. Remind you, those missiles downed an F-18, and easily attacked F-15Cs on many occasions before F-15C did, outranging them in a denser EW environment than any Eurofighter could ever provide. Also, I am not saying it will win againist a Eurofighter. I am saying it has better chances of winning than any other 3rd gen fighter, and most 4th gen fighters. There is a big difference.
“easily attacked F-15Cs on many occasions before the F-15C did” Meaning what exactly? They didn’t score any kills, so how does this validate the concept? If a Mig-25 had zero success against AIM-7 armed 1991 F-15Cs, then why would you expect it to do any better against a Eurofighter?
I would also be interested in seeing some support for the assertion that Mig-25s “easily attacked F-15Cs on many occasions before the F-15C did.”
hopsalotduring iran-iraq war = only one MiG25PDS was shot down during 7 years of combat (actually Iraqis consider that loss to have been an accident, but anyway).
During 1991 desert storm = none AFAIK (the two US kill claims NOT VERIFIED BY IRAQIS)
After desert storm = 1 shot down by F16 armed with the brand new AMRAAM… it was a “new surprise weapon”… but subsequently during the 1990s as Iraqis adjusted their tactics and systems the AMRAAMs became increasingly ineffective too and easy to bypass despite the Iraqis having very bad SA.The only disadvantage of the MiG25 was in its sensors and armaments… with updated PESA radar + EW suite and new ARH long range AAMs (METEOR?) + Short-mid range (MICA?) missiles for the pilot as well as some improvements in fuel consumption / additional fuel… the MiG25 could still be a potent interceptor today. and it certainly has the electricity generating capacity and the internal space to accommodate a lot of upgrades… but you cannot “bolt on” stealth or low fuel consumption or other “modern” designs… hence the PAK-FA. But will the PAK FA maintain the climb rate and acceleration of the MiG25/31? doubtful.
:very_drunk:
Come on man, do some research. The Iran/Iraq kill claims are hard to document(certainly more than 1) but the Gulf War and no-fly zone kills are well documented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ5N58z9UUM
hopsalotAgain, if you want to talk about bombs, then we got nothing to argue about. F-35 will be a better striker than F-16, for sure… for bombing runs raw performance like acceleration is hardly relevant.
Once again, I am talking about the F-35 predominantly in the A-A role for air forces like Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, etc.
I also don’t get where you got the idea that those forces need an aircraft “predominantly” for air to air. All of those forces require a multi-role aircraft because they are all essentially single type forces. (or will be in the future)
Unless you are willing to argue that these countries should abolish their land forces completely because wandering bombers are their only defense concern a multi-role fighter is a necessity. Even in a defensive scenario having a fighter that can threaten enemy infrastructure and staging areas is valuable.
hopsalotI couldnt agree more
disagree here, most want cheap fighters, optimized for A2A
So buy more F-16s, or Gripens, or FA-50s… somehow I don’t see that happening.
hopsalotOn your typical Afghanistan/Libya adventure, its easy, i calculate CPFH, how many hours it takes over the entire campaign, and cost of bombs,
the only uncertainty here is how many countless months or years it gonna take, the lower operational cost the better. F-16 win big time
This is a ridiculous approach to take. You don’t build an air force to fight Afghanistan, if you did you would need little beyond attack helos and Super Tucanos…
If that is really what you want to advocate then fine… we agree the F-35 is not the ideal aircraft for Afghanistan. If you want to talk about an air force with the capability to go up against an adversary with a working air defense system and fighters of its own…
This is your typical DS i take it, and by far and away more difficult to predict, first comes the same costs as in the A-stan/Libya,
but then add how many missions would F-16 need support where F-35 does not? how will F-16 & F-35 solve survivability issues?
does both have to jettison to dodge a missile? which one turn and accelerate better without bombs?
how many missions could F-35 do with bombs that required stand-off munition from F-16, what is the difference in cost of those two, and how many bombs was it
a/c destruction will weigh in significantly in final cost
Cruise missiles can not replace manned fighters. The best cruise missiles available today are still very limited in their ability to find and engage targets in a dynamic scenario. They are also far to expensive to use on anything but very high value targets.
hopsalotAgain, if you want to talk about bombs, then we got nothing to argue about. F-35 will be a better striker than F-16, for sure… for bombing runs raw performance like acceleration is hardly relevant.
Once again, I am talking about the F-35 predominantly in the A-A role for air forces like Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, etc.
Round and round we go… You want to reduce this whole thing to a discussion of acceleration and minimally loaded turn performance because that is how you like to rank fighters.
Real world operators are looking at the F-35’s stealth, sensors, datalinks and range and concluding that those are the attributes that will differentiate fighters in the 21st century.
Are you really proposing that an F-16 would do a better job air to air than a F-35? I suppose its speed might offer some small advantage in a point defense role, but in essentially all realistic scenarios the F-35 would be expected to dominate an F-16.
The F-35 is what it is, a strike optimized fighter with more than enough air to air capability to be a substantial upgrade over the types it is replacing. For some reason people around here only seem to want to talk about X vs Y imaginary fighter duels… :eagerness: For most real world operators the F-35 is exactly what they need and want.
hopsalotLogically we can assume the F-22 being not a credible threat because it, too, doesn’t have a track record to talk about…
No, what I am doing is pointing out that the AMRAAM’s success rate in combat is very high by any reasonable standard. A weapon does not need to kill a target every time you pull the trigger in order for it to be effective in combat.
People around here seem to be quite willing to assume what they want about Russian/Chinese missiles but in most cases there is little data at all available, and what of it is available doesn’t suggest they offer anywhere near similar performance to the AMRAAM.
hopsalotMiG-25’s followed back to base and killed on approach to home are not really comparable. MiG-23’s have also been downed and claimed to be MiG-25’s. Add in the Iraqis feared pilots leaving for the border so they took off under low fuel conditions.
I don’t think a MiG-25 is untouchable from Typhoon. I wouldn’t want to take that bet as Typhoon was geared for altitude and speed, too.
I am honestly not sure what you are saying here. The Iran/Iraq war, Desert Storm, or the no fly zones? Mig-25s were killed during each and under a variety of circumstances.
hopsalotCan you Plz care to explain that part & how??
well then we should rather buy typhoon rather PAK-FA.:highly_amused:
CHEERS
Sure, the Typhoon brings many of the same things to the table in that it is fast and agile. Its speed and stealth would be somewhat less than a PAK FA, but with Meteor it has a far more deadly missile that would present a major threat to both any high value target as well as any escorting fighters.
hopsalotWhy? MiG-25RB mission is to penetrate enemy defense, take some photos and escape alive. It did this superbly, and anything of its generation couldnt stop it. According to your analogy, U-2 is also unsuccesful because it didnt bomb anything?
We are talking about fighters shooting down high value airborne assets. A reconnaissance plane is doing something fundamentally different.
One aircraft is required to intercept a non-cooperative target that is escorted by fighters itself, the other will avoid enemy fighters at all cost, even if that means it aborting its mission completely.
From the original article:
The T-50, on the other hand, is apparently being designed to blast through defenses in a fairly straight line, relying on front-only stealth features, high altitude, sustained speed and long range to swiftly fire long-reaching missiles at vulnerable targets deep behind enemy lines—without the help of aerial tankers, of which Russia possesses few.
According to the Air Power Australia think tank, the J-20 could be “employed offensively, to punch holes through opposing air defenses by engaging and destroying defending fighter combat air patrols, AWACS/AEW&C aircraft and supporting aerial refueling tankers.”
We are not talking about recon missions here.
Track record is nothing without considering the circumstances. If we take kill/loss ratio, even Harrier is just as succesful as F-15 in air dominance, just less frequently used. Considering circumstances, a pair of 20 year old MiG-25s going againist hundreds of fighters, ships, AWACS, ELINT, and EW aircraft, -all having the most recent in military technology- and shooting one F-18 without suffering a loss is a miraclous performance.
One successful engagement is hardly a miraculous performance. The survival of the Mig-25 in question was a product of miscommunication/fog of war on the allied side. Sometimes that happens.
There is also more to the Mig-25’s history than Desert Storm and the no-fly zones. Iraq made extensive use of the Mig-25 against Iran with decidedly mixed results. Kill claims are unreliable in general, and particularly so in the Iran/Iraq war, but available evidence makes it clear that Iraq’s Mig-25 were hardly untouchable.
Are you aware that there is video of the Iraqi Mig-25 shootdown of the Predator on the internet? See it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuJrk5vBfA
Point is, higher speed is proven to make aircraft more survivable in BVR environment. For a Eurofighter pilot, going againist an F-4 or a Mig-23 is target practice. Going againist a blk30 F-16, eurofighter has an edge in virtually all parameters. However MiG-25 is different in that it can fire before Eurofighter does -which would depend on circumstances- and it can retreat at will. That is I would call a greater threat.
I disagree completely. A Mig-25 is faster and if it has sufficient situational awareness it can run away. What the Mig can’t do is press the engagement and win against a Eurofighter, especially considering that it is armed with thoroughly obsolete semi-active missiles.
Sign In
