Arthur, if you are english,

you could have seen some episodes of Monthy Python Flyng Cyrcus.
In one of them or one of their films there was an encounter between a laical philosophist and a cardinal in a tv studios. The anchorman (Jhon Cleese) said: “tonight, inshead to dicussun the existence or not of God this two champions will dispute it on this ring in a wrestling match” and so did. I don’t remember however who win.

Another joke was the football match between greeks and germans philosopist, won by a goal of archimedes.

So i think that when that’s enough to neverending discussions the dear old manner to solve it ( i rate well also the duels with guns like happened in Barry Lyndon’s films) is all considered much more satisfactory that say non-stop : I ve got reason! You are not professional! You are wrongh!! I’m right! You…!!

regs.

my only guess is: well, someone has seen the demential film “the plane?” where terrorists (the films is 20 years old!!) passed free at the metal detector with a machinegun at the hands while an old woman was arrested because she had something in the bag of metallic..

well, the russian defence forces are so as well?? It arrives a truck charged of explosives. The dialog with police could be this:”hi, we are terrorists and we have the fireworks for the opening of the schools this september” “Ok, you can pass but you have the right light broken”.

How hell this happened? I heard that the terrorist had stored a lot of explosives already in the school, they had become, the entire population hadn’t a clue of 40 men and women armed until the theets and then the so called special forces alpha has “saved” the hostages worse than the infamous thaetre of Moskow. Theere is something wrong in Russia, it’s sure. It’s much worse that discuss about the defects of Migs.

If someone is interested on films about terrorism, there is one with Sean Connery of 20 years ago talking about the rapport between-WMDs, mass.media,arab terrorist, kamikazes(included women) and american politics. I don’t remember the title but when someone talks about the impossibiltiy to prewiev all this happens now i laugh really. This is the films applied to reality.

About the colonials wrongs of the western nations. Well, we can discuss from crusades onward, we must remember that the fall of Jerusalem was causing the death of 90000 muslims due to the “cristhians” crusaders (can they burn in the hell) etc. etc.

The problem is that this happens even now. The African wars are often originated and inducted by western countries or multinationals. Alliende didn’t fall for nothing foreign interests.
And above hall, despite the checenia is a old problem for the russians the war in Checenia aren’t an old problems. 200000 deads in a pop. of 1 milion in the past 10 years make them very actual but the slaughter there isn’t couvered by TVs. The “Black widows” checens are origined by other horrors stories. so, it’s really a hell of situation , and like Arthur said, there is added the problem of the guys that send gasoline on the fire talking about xenofoby and similar things. All this without a credible leadership in the world. There will be hard times on this way, sadly.

And now, something completely different..

If someone would take care,, i’d suggest some things to evalue about Mig 23 and 25.

– As previously said, i am very interested to learn more about the tecnical of teh R-29-35-11 engines. It is much known about the R 11-13-25, Al-21 but i cannot find anithing about the flogger engine. So, atleast in this regard flogger is right, there is shortage of important particulars in these aircraft discussions.

Another shortage is the rates of manuavrability of these fighters. It was said there is the availability of manuals of the flogger. I have publications of the diagrams for the Phantom, so if someone has figures similar for the floggers (diagram as the speed turn-height-speed etc.) i am rather interested to see them. I haven’t enough memory to download all the flogger manuals, sadly, by internet.

-about these fighters: what about the range and endurance? This could be interesting. Perhaps that the mig 23 E has the same weapon system of the Mig 21, but it has more range with 4 misiles than the fishbed with 2, doesn’t it? This is
important because the only mode of the fishbed to have decent weapons load is to carry only one fuel tank, if the range is needed, there must are 3 tanks but only 2 weapons. The same about the air-to ground misions: what
range with 2000 kg of bombs ? better than fishbed with 1000 kg?

– I always liked the MS-E flogger. It was unfurtuned to meet with so modern western fighters but it wasn’t bad. for some airforce, the range is important more than the agility and so they used even Su-22 with AAMs insthead of fishbeds.

The MS was a typical kind of low graded export version, but better than other kind of fighters of the early 70’s. The frenchs made the F-1A, without a search radar at all. The US send to Germany the F Phantom with the radar fully but without any radar missile. the soviets tried to not lose totally capability like search radar and radar guided missiles, only downgraded from medioum to short the range of missiles and radars. If the things in pratically were not totally satisfactory, peace. But with the flogger airframe the soviets didn’t done a waste like happened with the M F.1A or the F-4F.

Compare it to the fishbed.
The MS was a better interceptor, because the speed and range, but a worse dodfighter because the agility and the dimensions.
But i would add, the flogger is more agile both with the minimum angle wing at low speed both the high speed and higherangle wing at supersonic speed. the intermediate rates of speed is uncouvered because the angle wasn’t ideal (45).

In addition, the MS in a far better fighter-bomber than the fishbed. However is also a more complex aircraft.
So, it was an improvement over the fishbed but not too much and in every chase, it was more complex to maintain, just like the current ge. of fighters.

About the lack of succes of the flogger modernized. It’s the same of the most part of the contemporaney aircrafts: why, as example, the Skyhawk has the radar of the F 16 or the engine of the Hornet while the much modern Coursair II is almost extinct?
The same could be said for many of the tanks of the inermediate generations. like the M 60, Chieftain and T.62, all less liked than the previous gen. of tanks like the M 48 or Centurion. This was due to the cost-effectivity not enough high: as example, a M60A1 was almost like a M48 with diesel and 105mm gun, but the cost was 400000 $ to 122000 of a M48A3 (with diesel but not stilll the 105mm). Seen the currently state of teh most of ex soviet countries, if there aren’t money to modernize or maintain the flogger this don’t susrprise me. The only displause is for me thatr the Germany hadn’t retained atleast for a couple of years the flogger (and fitter) fleet kindly had from DDR. We could write very interesting pages now if it was happened!

About the range and capabilities of the flogger. There was an incursion a bit unlucky but always great of teh floggers to Theeran at teh beginning of the was. These fighter, BN version, were able to reach Teheran flyng (at lo level?) atleast 520 km and return then. So, this mean an incusrion in warm atmosphere (more hungry engines, less trhust) for atleast 1040 km, almost all if not all flied in low levels!! And without any air ref.!! Not only, we must think to
– the effective range was higher, the floggers didn’t flown in strigh line
-the atmosphere wasn’t ideal to the maximum engine efficency
-the short distance flown in iraqui airspace (50?100km?)
-the reserve (5′?) for emergences.

Given that, the floggers BN can strike over 500 km deepth in a huge country like Iran ( the distance Paris-London is only 320 km or so ) and the maximum theorical range at low levels could be around 700 km i’d say, more if the fghter flies higher. This, obviousely, with minimum loads, but it’s something. The BN wasn’t so improved than the Mig 23 standard. Not only, but the Mig 27 was even improved also in the endurance (!). I rate that teh fishbed isn’t able to do more than a third of this range done by BN floggers, so also this aircraft is another underrate and unlucky Mig. If then it was downed by Hawk, Tomcats or Phantom, who bother? Even english loose a third of their Harriers in only 2 months in the Falklands. In 200 air-to ground missions they had 5 or 6 downed and many damaged, a rate of 3%, just like the first 100 hours of Desert Storm for the Tornado fleet. ( the Jaguar, insthead hadn’t a single loss!). Ans this without Tomcat, Fulcrums or Phantoms chasig them. I doubt that the S.H. flogger fleet had a similar average losses. But none has siad that the harriers or the Tornado are crap or failures, so i’d say the PR is important in the aircraft as well, also as who win the war.

About the project of Foxbats or floggers.

I’d propose these vaiation on the projects:

For the floggers: what if they had a wing fixed, like the fishbed or the other prototype (the vertiacl take off flogger)? it could be lighter, simpler and agile and definitively better despite the loss of hte opportunity to change the wing angle? Another words, the vaiable wing worths? Or was better a aircraft like the J 8 ( with a bigger wing).

Second, if insthead to built the flogger the soviets developed a fighter from the fishbed like the Mirage F 1? So, there was the availability of the R 25 engine, even powerful than the Atar 9K 50. If the soviets built a fighter fatter, with 4000 lts of fuel insthead of 3000, a long nose and R -25 engine, they could have a Miragerovky almost powerful than the flogger but cheaper and lighter?

The Foxbat. Let’s say that the sov. built a fighter capable more to cruise at supersonic speed than to reach extreme speed. Let’s say that they accepted a max speed of 2,4 mach, but R 29 engines, with 3 tons more trhust than the r 15 toghever, building the aircraft with alluminiom insthead the titanium or steel. If so, they had a fighter with 3 tons more power, maybe 3 tons less weight, cheaper, sure much more agile. A sort of F 15, i’d say!
This snature the meaning of the foxbat? Why not, in the 60’s the trheat of tri-sonic bomber was already passed, the B 58 was almost phase out.
Above all, the meaning of my idea is this: The foxbat with these 2 engines could been not a simple supersonic fighter. It carried in its belly smething as 15000 liters of fuel, inshtead of 4500 for the single engine- Mig 23. How could be the range, supersonic or subsonic? How many Km range with 1,5 mach cruise speed? The Eagle has only 7000 lts around. Its engines are better for subsonic cruise, not for supersonic.
I think that this change could really producet amazing perforamnces, even if the max speed and max level were lower, no othe supersonic fighters could reach such perforamnces (let’s say 1000 km range at 1,5 mach or 800 at 2 mach if not more).

opinions? comments? My drug reforger is rather interested.

several questions:

1-what were the differences between the ML and MLA?

2- The swing wing of MLD how positions have? what angle? The 33 is substitute or toghever with teh 45deg. angle?

3-there is someone that know the tecnical caracteristics of the engines of the floggers? Wheig,trhust or so? I cannot find anything on the web.

someone knows about their engines? R29 and R15

HI SOC,

i have heard also that there was a upadate program of the Mig 25, but it was stopped. Perhaps that the modifies were included also the R33? It was at the end of the 80’s.

Sens, do you say that the performances of th foxbat weren’t of advantage? Do you know the troubles that few foxbats done to the allied in 1991? They had 2 planes downed but they were authors of the downing of a F 18 also, and seems that in another situation they fired at the eagle before that these fired at the foxbats.
In 1999 they were able even to avoid AIM 54C and AIM120 sometimes only climbimb over that missiles insthead to turn. And if you check the career of the foxbat in the Iraqi air force you will see that this was the only plane with a positive excange with the phantoms. The Tomcats managed to shot down several of them but only 12 or so foxbats were downed in the entire war and the Tomcats were in real big trouble everytime that they tries to reach one of them. Sometimes happened, 1 time at year, but in general the tomcats were in light configuration with 1 or 2 aim 54 and 2 aim 9 or 7, i guess few fuel also. No other iraqui plane could do this and everychase this cannot made impossible for these fighter-bomber-recce planes to reach targets well inside the Iran,a big country and avoid the HAWK missiles almost always and the iranian fighters as well. And these missions were performed hundreds of times in that war. No other plane can do the same. So, are you still contincted that such planes weren’t useful wit hteir high performances?

insthead, i’d propose these 2 other solutions:
1-take a number of fighting falcons by the immense reserve of these plane of AMARC.
2-upgrade the Phantoms with new anti-gravity engines and laser guns
3-introduced finally in service one of the national secret project called “Goldrake” or “Mazinger” or “Gundam” on whic nobody has clue, except the model scaled 1:100 that i’ve got in my room of the second of them, misteriously fallen from the sky once time ago.

yes , Sens, the macchi was useless against flyng fortress, but when you have to counter such trehats and you have at the hand only this how you do? The same with the foxbat. Try to put at 12000 and 1,5 mach anf jaguar or F-5 and will see how that supersonic fighters can “outmanouvre” the foxbat. The same for the Phantom if the foxbat goes to mach 2 and-or 15000mts. The main problem is the difficult to learn how means the manouvrability of a plane: there are several factors taht can improved than can lowered it. example: if the phantom is at the level perhaps tha it is capable to put a 90 deg. turn in 10 sec or less, the foxbat will do the same in 14-15 sec.
If you are at 12000mt. and over mach 1,5 the phantom at 2 g could employ something as 40 sec. or more, and at 15000 even worse. The foxbat could turn with 4 g and probably that is enough to turn in less than 20 sec.

These could be approximative, but gives the idea of the problems to compare the agility of two so different type of planes: the foxbat is really “of another world ” respect to a normal fughter even if the difference of speed is not so great (2,2 vs. 2,8 mach). The problem is that the phantom above mach 1 and 12000 mt struggles to reach 1,5-1,8 G while at less altitude, ex. 10000 mts. it is more agile. But few thousands of mt and at the stratosphere even the powerful phantom is in very trouble with the foxbat.
this for the tecnic, i don’t say that this fighter is multirole or so. But sure, if all the battles on the air were fought at such altitudes and speed, relly the foxbat here could make the dogfighter role: that the turn radius is atleast 15 km is another story…so forget the acrobaitc display at low levels, there nobody can do the same and almost all the aircrafts flies straight.
Naturally, it could be interesting to know how narrow that foxbat at 12 gs had turn: sure it could done a new record for a supersonic turn!

How the foxbat had performed if the B 52s go at 2 G evading manouver: 1- the foxbat can always shoot at the B 52 before it turn, and the missiles should be able to reach a manouvering bomber 2- the foxbat will try to go to the tail of the B 52 and controll everything it could do 3- the foxbat could always slowing and better fullow the B 52 manouvers. I expect that it is able to do it also because the pilot has a better wiev of the bomber than the bomber can see the fighter.