So you know the source and did the claim despite that.
I did mention that records and did compare that with the operational values.
They did work hard for the records and did get the honor related to that.

Claim what?I just repeat what was said by the people that worked on the planes and was involved in development.And i ask you again for the hole sentence.”as result….”.Result to what?When you pick just certain word you can easily get the result you want.And let me quote again someone from OKB MiG:
“The speed of over Mach 3 can be reached without causing a damage to the aircraft and there is even no need for inspection after such flights.”
Belyakov, OKB MIG chief designer.

*cough* modified engines *cough*

So?If you have something on mind,write it.Don’t be shy.

The MiG-25 had insufficient lateral control and the engine exceeded its RPM limit when going beyond Mach 3. Have you ever compared the prototype MiG-25 to the production model? What’s your conclusion? Lateral stability becomes a huge issue at Mach 3.
Any remedy to this problem would have compromised the performance of the aircraft in other parts of the flight envelope. There is simply no way of building a compromise between subsonic patrol duty and Mach 3 capability, especially not with the crude technologies employed on the MiG-25 initially.

The issue with insufficient lateral control is not that great.The plane becomes more “heavy”.At speeds greater than Mach 2.6, throttle control must be precise to keep the engines from overspeeding,and modified engines for E-166M showed that this issue can be solved.There was allready remedy for this high M number sickness and that even helped aerodynamicly.And btw where is the requirement for subsonic patrol?MiG-25 was never disigned with that in mind.You contradict yourself:

One can think whatever one likes to think about it, but fact is that the MiG-25 was not intended as Mach 3 cruise aircraft but as M2-2.5 cruise aircraft with dash capability.

And what crude technologies?I didn’t know that aerodynamic can be crude.

Not confirmed by OKB MiG. “… as a result… did not go beyond the computational phase.”

What do you actualy mean?Put the hole sentence.Because according to the same bureau,the reason this “improved” MiG-25 was abandoned is that there was no factory that can produse the new engine and also there was higher priority towards new MiG-31.

The Ye-155M alias Ye-266M did set some ‘time to climb’ and ‘altitude’ records.

You mean that all-time record of 37650m ?Or that 37080m with 2 tons?For me “some” is just small word for such achievement.

The two most heavily defended cities in the world at that time, Hanoi and Haiphong had their air defenses obliterated.

So what about Moscow?

I think the aircraft that Tupolev may have gotten canned was the improved T-4MS design?

The reason that is given is this.The first batch of 10-12 T-4 planes cannot be prodused in the Tushin factory and the goverment desided that the planes can be produced in Kazan.But at this time the factory makes Tu-22.Tupolev affraid to lose,pushed for the “simple” modification Tu-22M.The order for production never came…
T-4MS is different story.In short words.In the competition for long range supersonic bomber Sukhoi is declared the winner.Losers are Tupolev and Myasishchyev.But after short dispute the commision(led by Dementiev)decided that Sukhoi have enough burden with the development of the future T-10 and the bureau cannot accept the task.All project materials must go to Tupolev.Tupolev refused to accept them.After decision that all bureaus must develop UAV,Sukhoi developed Korshun and lost 2 years in doing so.

That one isn’t crap…

Maybe i used too strong word and didn’t explain well.I just find this 1000 figure too high.As an example in Vietnam USA counts more than 8000 SAM missile launches,Soviet data give 6806.And as you said Blackbird never(maybe) was against something more capable than S-75.You know how limited this system is against this type of targets and that most early modification are even uncapable of intercepting targets with speed of 2300+ km/h.

T-4 is not response to the Valkyrie.It was designed for anti-ship use.
And MiG-25 was designed to deal with M2+ bombers like the Valkyrie,no just against one reconnaissance aircraft.

Radar range is nice and easy to understand, but I cannot imagine how a single pilot tries to adjust his radar manually while watching in a 3″ green&black scope

They use HUD…

Very useful for tracking and engaging a target, very clumsy for searching – but then again, the Flogger is no dogfighter and was NEVER ment to be one.
Here is more:
“Another MiG-23 evaluation finding in the U.S. and Israel reports was that the MiG-23 has a HUD that doubles as a radarscope, allowing the pilot to keep his eyes focused at infinity and work with his radar. It also allowed the Soviets to dispense with the radarscope on the MiG-23. This feature was carried over into the MiG-29, though in that aircraft a cathode ray tube (CRT) was carried on the upper right corner that can act as a radarscope as well. Western opinions about this “head-up radarscope” are mixed. The Israelis were impressed, but an American F-16 pilot criticizes it as “sticking a transparent map in front of the HUD” and not providing a three-dimensional presentation that will accurately cue a pilot’s eyes to look for a fighter as it appears in a particular direction.”

and at the same time fly the aircraft

Here is quote from martinez:
“The recommended mode of the SAU-23 is the “dempfir” mode, because it is improving the handling characteristics, enhances longitudinal and lateral stability at high angles of attack and bank, damping of induced periodic oscillations in the lateral control channel, making the artificial stick-feel system proportional to control surface deflections, so it decrease HELL a lot of pilot workload, which may be always very excessive during ACM. The “dempfir” mode should be ON during the whole flight.”

And because i’m too lazy,here is one good thread with LOTS of info:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25.0.html
and one book:
http://depositfiles.com/files/2386199

SFC is nothing static, it is a function of Mach number, thrust setting and altitude.

Here is data for R15B-300.The regime is with afterburner.
On the left SFC.Down is the Mach number.All other data is height in kilometers.

No time to give you the details of related systems to hit something. That MBTs did field a special ammo (depleted uranium) to give the kinetic energy and related kill capability.

Don’t waste your time.I had enough info.Your post just show how little knowledge you have.Here is test conducted in Germany against T-72M1,wich is the so-called “monkey” version of T-72.Basically very little modified T-72A.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html
And you are from Germany so i am amaized that you missed that.Because you should know that improved T-72,T-64 and T-80 cannot be penetrated from 105mm gun in the turret and front lobe.

But in daily live they were seperated strictly and seen as occupier mostly.

It depends for wich country you are talking about.In Bulgaria there were no Soviet bases.