Belenko never flew a Mig-25P, and had never even seen R-40TD or R-40RT missiles.

In what ways were the R-40TD and R-40RT improved over the older models?

MiG Pilot

“The data Belenko supplied in response to the first quick queries also seemed surprising and, at first, contradictory.
What is the maximum speed of the MiG-25?
You cannot safely exceed Mach 2.8, but actually we were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. You see, at high speeds the engines have a very strong tendency to accelerate out of control, and if they go above Mach 2.8, they will overheat and burn up.”…

“What is your maximum operational altitude?”
That depends. If you carry only two missiles, you can reach 24,000 meters [78,740 feet] for a minuteor two. With four missiles, 21,000 meters [68,900 feet] is the maximum.
What is the maximum altitude of your missiles?
They will not work above 27,000 meters [88,580 feet].
Then you cannot intercept the SR-71 [the most modern U.S. reconnaissance plane]!
True; for all sorts of reasons. First of all, the SR-71 flies too high and too fast. The MiG-25 cannot reach it or catch it. Secondly, as I told you, the missiles are useless above 27,000 meters, and as you know, the SR-71 cruises much higher. But even if we could reach it, our missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 if they are fired in a tail chase. And if they are fired head-on, their guidance systems cannot adjust quickly enough to the high closing speed.”

MiG Pilot: The final escape of Lt. Belenko by John Barron c. 1980

Lightning? Mirage III? Draken?

Yes, I should have included them as well. But, like the F-104, the Lightning couldn’t turn well; the Mirage was good at high altitude, but it bled too much energy in turns with that big delta wing, and I think the Draken would have too.

I think we are on the same page here? As I said the F-4 was more versatile with the F-8 being the better dogfighter close in……………..really a good high-low mix for the period. Much like the F-15/F-16 of today……… :rolleyes:

I don’t think so. Besides being faster and having a vastly better radar with four to six BVR missiles, the F-4 also had a better rate of climb, better thrust/weight ratio, a second crewmember to provide better situational awareness, and although its instantaneous turn rate was inferior, the F-4 had a better sustained turn rate.
On the other hand, the F-8 had a better wing loading and a GUN.

France’s purchase of the F-8 was probably a mistake, since the order was placed at the very end of the production run, just as the USN was phasing out the F-8. In truth, France’s F-8s were probably obsolete from the day they were ordered.

What choice did France have? The F-4 and F-14 were probably too big for a French carrier.

Wouldn’t a RAT be somewhat daring on a high-supersonic airframe? And how would they achieve supersonic speeds and global range at the same time?

I wasn’t thinking that you had to stick the RAT outside the aircraft. Just scoop some air from the main intake, send it through and expanding duct that would slow it to subsonic speeds, and then run it through an internal RAT. I suppose you could stick the RAT in the main intake duct just ahead of the engine, but that would probably mess up the airflow in the engine.

…basic aerodynamic – you must avoid the contact of supersonic shock wave with wing and that is because all super and hypersonic planes are highly swept (triangular) in shape.

Like the F-18 and the Bell X-1??? 😉

…Global Hawk does not have enough electric power to feed all required eqipment. But what about this plane? How the hell can ramjet produce energy when it doesnt have any moving parts?!? The only propulsion concept that can do it is magnetohydrodynamic plasma-chemical scramjet engine…

Or any aircraft with a ram air turbine.