More MiG-25s

Thanks for the pictures.

Never seen that good a picture of the Ye-155R before…….

Keep them coming guys……please!

Here are some

No the F-15 is the logical next step in the F-4 lineage. Apart from the twin tailfins it resembles the F-4 layout in many ways. Especially tail surfaces and wing layout. Engine position. Engine numbers. The F-22 is the next step up from a F-15.
It might be shocking but design wise even the mighty F-14 has some parts from an F-4.
It is not just about the form.

Btw deltas are not deltas. There is huge difference from a F-102 / Mirage III to a Mirage 2000 to a EF or Rafale.

Conventional stable delta, relaxed stability delta, close coupled rcanards with relaxed stability delta design.

On the other hand I must say, that the VG layout of the MiG-23 was actually even less succesfull, while the conventional design of the F-4 is still flying today.

Check that in the F-4 the horizontal taiplanes have an anhedral, while outer wing parts have a dihendral due to the high setting of the horizontal tail caused undesirable non linear pitch moment characteristics at high AoA .

These is due to the tail being above the nozzles on a fuselage extension quit high above the wings.

These features you do not see on the F-15, niether the inlets with vertical ramps or single fin

The F-15 has a TWR higher than the unity too the F-4 has not a TWR higher than the unity

The F-15 has a high set wing while the F-4 a low set wing.

The F-4 aerodynamically speaking has a different configuration to the F-15.

[QUOTE=MirageIII]

Fighters like the Mirage III were obsolete by 1968, the IAI Kfir upgraded the Mirage Family to higher levels, neverthelss the Mirage G4/8 and Mirage F2 were not deltas and none was purchased, the fighter that replaced the Mirage F1 was the Mirage 2000 another delta.
The Mirage 2000 relaxed stability was the main new advantage that gave to the Mirage 2000 delta layout a new opportunity to compete with the tailed Mirage F2 and VG wing Mirage G and Mirage G4/8 prototypes and fixed the Mirage III flaws in order to replace the Mirage F1

Ask the Egyptian Air Force, Syria and Jordan!! they might not share your opinion about being obsolete. At that time the Mirage III was still holding its own, do not forget that countries like South Africa, Australia, Switzerland and Spain were at that time taking delivery of the Mirage III. They are reputable Air Force and would not have taken in service an obsolete plane as their front line fighters.

The Kfir came later on in the 70’s, if you ask French fighter pilots in the late 60’s and early 70’s they were quite satisfied with their “obsolte” plane. The Mirage F-1 was not requested by the French Air Force, it was proposed by Dassault and it was taken in service. The Mirage IIIRS did won a Photo Recon competion in Belgium in 2004 against more modern planes!!!

Please try to see i am not saying the aircraft turned obsolete for one night to the other, but definitively by 1968 new fighters were looming in the Horizon that by the time they were fielded the Mirage III was obsolete, the french understood that and new the Mirage F1 was supposed to fix the Mirage III flaws and keep the dynasty up to date.

By 1969 the F-14 and MiG-25 programs were very well advanced, the SAAB JA-37 was getting ready for enter into service.

On the contrary in my opinion I feel the MiG-23 and the F-4 has a better aerodynamic configuration than the Mirage III. There is a pretty darn good reason why every other country other than France dumped the tail less pure delta design pretty quick, went swept wing (F-4), or tailed delta (MiG-21). Deltas are very efficient in moving at high speeds, but really proves to be a drag at slow speeds and tend to bleed speed quickly in turns. An F-4 or MiG-23 will will probably have better sustained turning than a Mirage III or any derivative. Deltas also tend to have high landing and take off speeds. Its design configuration is really in need of aids like fixed or variable canards, stakes, wing crank, variable camber from adjustable leading edge slats, double elevons and so on.

The pluses of deltas is being efficient at high speeds, gives you a large wing area for low wing loading, its ability to store lots of fuel in the wings giving you good range for a plane of its weight, and it produces a light but very tough and sturdy airframe right to the wing tip. The last part makes these planes simple but durable workhorses.

True but the Mirage III gave way to the Mirage NG, Atlas Cheetah and IAI Kfir, these canard delta configuration has been widely used on 1980s fighters such as the Eurofighter, JAS-39, J-10, Rafale, IAI Lavi, MiG 1.44 while the F-4 last influeced fighter　ｆlew in 1984, this was the J-8II, but the vast majority flew in in the late 1960s as the MiG-23 and Sepecat Jaguar did or early 1970s as the Mitsubishi F1/T2 did but these aircraft are now obsolete.

The VG wing is also forgotten thanks to advancements in aerodynamics and after the MiG-29 and F-15 no important US or Russian aircraft had VG wing.

The VG wing was an aeronautical fashion from 1966 to 1974 in fighters such as the MiG-23, F-14 and Panavia Tornado ADV and from 1964 to 1981 in bombers and attack aircraft such as the F-111, Su-24, Su-22, MiG-27 or B-1B in fact the last VG wing aircraft to fly was a Bomber the Tu-160 Blackjack and this was in 1981.

The MiG-23 and F-4 configurations have been abandoned early in the 1970s only retaken in the very old fashion J-8II, but as aerodynamic configurations their influence was limited till the 1970s.

The Mirage I Delta aircraft has evolved from the very early 1950s to the late 2000 when the MiG-1.44 flew, the Delta was first tested in 1953 with the F-102 and the canard delta combination in 1967 with the JA-37 Viggen.
The Mirage 2000, Kfir C2, Dennel Cheetah, Mirage 4000 are good examples that still are evolving in Europe with the Rafale, JAS-39 and Eurofighter and in China with the J-10.

The Mirage III family gave way to a limited but effective fighter the Mirage F1 but later ruturned to the delta with the Mirage 2000 thanks to relaxed stability and later to full moveable foreplanes in the Rafale via the Mirage 4000.

Really no comonality.

2 engines in a big fighter with long range and BVr missiles. High power to weight ratio for a heavy. Even the F-14 has a direct lineage to the F-4, although they used the vg wings to adress some porblems encountered in the F-4.

You just look at the outer form of an aircraft, but that is tellig nothing.

Please that is not a way to say a lineage.

The Russian Su-17 and Su-22 are a lineage, the Su-9, Su-11 and MiG-21 represent another lineage, TsAGI worked a common design concept that Mikoyan and Sukhoi adapted to especific requirements, the MiG-29, Su-27/30/33,35/37 and Su-34 are another lineage all come from the same TsAGI aerodynamic common configuration.

The Dassault Mirage is another lineage.

Mirage I, Mirage II, Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage V/50, Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Mirage F1 and the Mirage G8 all are a lineage named MIRAGE

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 are a lineage.

the Tu-160 and B-1A also come from the same aerodynamic fashion for bombers in the 1970s despite they are build by different companies and countries.

you must be dreaming to say that the F-4 gave way to the F-22.

First the F-22 is a stealth fighter which in fact share more traits with the F-117 and the B-2 than with the F-4.

the F-15 has more in common with the A-5, F-14 and MiG-25 than with the F-4.

The F-4 has an ancestry in the F-101 and F-3H-2

The real F-4 ancestors and relatives are thoses, check that those aircraft are real ancestors that already had all the features that the F-4 has and that were further perfected in the F-4

The F-4 is the jewel in the crown of all the naval Mc Donnell aircraft where their engines were a separate element independent of the Fuselage, you can see that the F-3H-2, F-101 Voodoo and F-4 had an independent fuselage from their engines where the vertical fin and tailplanes are fixed ala Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B

Ouf merci Mirage III!!! Je crois qu’il essaye de dire (je vais essaye de traduire ca a l’air repetitif…)
“qui a construit les SAM et les avions qu’utilisait le Vietnam du nord ?”
Combien d’avions et de SAM avait le vietnam dans les années 60 ? et l’URSS ? et le pacte de Varsovie ? (je résume c’est toujours la meme phrase avec des trucs rajoutés a chaque fois…)
The Mirage III was obsolete at the end of the 70’s. Upgrades are useful , but at a moment, you need a new aircraft (otherwise, you loose you share of the market…). The new aircraft was the Mirage 2000.

I can explain you easily in this way:

There are two kinds of aeronautical design, the revolutionary and the evolutionary, the Revolutionary is when the next generation has very little in common and the technologies applied to the new generation aircraft are totally new, in few words a leap forward in technology or Technological breakthroughs in combat aircraft technologies; Evolutionary is self explaining, it means an upgrade or enhancement of the previous proven aircraft design concept with new technologies.

the Revolutionary examples are the F-4 and the F-15, both aircraft share very few technologies and the design is a totally new aircraft, other examples are the F-16 and the F-35 or the F-15 and the F-22.

The Evolutionary example are the Su-7 and the Su-17/22/20, the MiG-29 and the Su-34, the Mirage III and the Mirage 2000.

In the case of the F-15 and F-4 you can see that the F-15 airframe does not have any thing in common with the F-4.

The F-15 and F-22 have very little in common, the F-22 has thrust vectoring, the F-15 has not, the F-22 has STEALTH applied, the F-15 has not, the F-22 has supercruise the F-15 has not.

The F-22 has so many new technologies that a F-15A and a F-22A have
nothing in common, beside the fact the F-22 and F-15 have double canopies, are tailplane fighters, have twin engines and twin vertical fins both aircraft are totally different in design