i know its theirs they just called it different in mig-mapo, LFI.

I-2000, Integral, Integral-2000, Vityaz, and Vityaz-2000 were all conceptual designs put forth by the Mukhamedov OKB.

Nevertheless, this page is pretty actual (i.e. see that claim “Page last modified: 15-08-2007”). I agree about the info here is really patchy.
By the way, take a look of this table:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-300-list.htm

Not very accurate but it gives an idea about the evolution of this prolific family.

There’s still a glaring error on that page, they’re focusing on a lot of the export designators and ignoring native designators like 48N6D rather than 48N6E2. Then there’s the simple fact that there has never been an SA-10E…the SA-10C was the new S-300PM-1 with the TOMB STONE radar and 48N6 missile. The -10D used the 48N6D. Both were redesignated SA-20A/B. SA-10B covered both the S-300PS and S-300PM variants, as well as the export S-300PMU.

Man you really defend the SR-71 as the greatest aircraft built,

Where am I doing that? I never claimed it was the greatest aircraft in the world, just that your knowledge of the history of the MiG-25P, the history of the F-12B, and the delineation between ADC and TAC is stunningly limited.

man realize this, as a fighter the YF-12 was limited, yeah very limited, so limited that Lockheed could not re-assign a new role for it as a fighter.

Of course it was limited as an interceptor (not a fighter). It was designed that way for ADC. If you had any understanding of the mission of ADC you’d realize that the F-12B was suited for ADC service, but not TAC service. Just like the F-106. The Tu-128 wasn’t able to be re-tasked as a fighter either, it was a pure interceptor armed only with the R-4, but that didn’t make it a failure, did it?

For you is irrelavant the success of the MiG-25 because clearly the MiG-25 was good enough to shot down a F-18 almost 27 years after it first flew see that the F-18 is a very agile aircraft a Boyd`s type of aircraft, and the MiG-25 is basicly not agile it depends in speed to carry out its missions as an interceptor .

Irrelevant as the F-12B was not a fighter.

Could have the YF-12 achieved the same feat?

Irrelevant as the F-12B was not a fighter.

the MiG-25 was a better interceptor because was designed as a mass produced aircraft not as a extremely expensive low production aircraft.

Without going into a comparison of the technical capabilities of the weapons systems on either aircraft, the point is irrelevant as the funds for the F-12B were already there, as I have explained previously, and you have ignored constantly.

The AA-6 and AA-8 were designed to kill aircraft at different altitudes speeds and overloads, the MiG-25 succeed because its missiles could shot down a vast range of aircraft ranging from F-4, B-70, F-15s and F-18s.

Irrelevant as the F-12B was not a fighter.

Your only defence is say the YF-12 had only one role and the reality is the YF-12 was ill suited for air combat and that killed it, it was not good enough to be offered as a MiG-25 killer, it faded away in history as straight flight missile carrier with a very expensive price tag.

Of course it was ill suited for air combat maneuvering. It was never designed for that role. It was never intended nor offered as a MiG-25 killer.

In fact Boyd did not recommend such types of aircraft, he wanted an F-16 type aircraft that could use excess thrust to engage and disengage at will in air combat, an aircraft that could shake off easily any pursuer.

Which would have been overkill for an interceptor. Stop talking about tactical fighters engaged in ACM and get with the program and find something actually relevant.

To kill the MiG-25 the F-X supporters used his theories to develop the F-15, the fighter mafia knew the YF-12 needed to be kill in order to have extra funds, they did not want a sluggish YF-12 niether were going to advocate for it

Again, you are acting in total and complete ignorance of the fact that the F-12B already had funding, and that was after the FX program began. One did not affect the other.

What i am arguing is the technical merits of the YF-12 did not allow it to survive defence cuts

What defense cuts? It already had funding approved. Reference my previous point.

use his mathematical formulas and you will see the YF-12 was not the best aircraft to fight the MiG-25 and that is the reason Boyd demanded an agile fighter every thing is basicly acceleration related to force either in angular velocity or vertical turning

Which is totally irrelevant as the F-12B was not intended to fight the MiG-25, a point you continuously ignore in order to continue propagating your opinions regarding the FOXBAT.

You are just giving excuses, if you have seen the formulas i have just posted you will see Basicly mathematically speaking agility is defined as the thrust minus the drag devided by the lift and the product of this, multiply it by Speed.

Now ifi you put also weight you will see that heavier the aircraft and with lesser thrust, drag and weight will affect the general angular speed and vertical turn that fighter can achieve.

The YF-12 was heavy compared to the F-15 had less power and less lift then the F-15 was a 9G fighter while the other could not even pass 3Gs.

Now you have two fighters to deal with the MiG-25 one is not agile but has good missiles of long range and Mach 3 plus speed, in the other hand you have a Mach 2.5 fighter with medium range missiles but 9G capability which fighter the USAF should finance?

Irrelevant as the F-12B was not intended to combat fighter aircraft or the MiG-25.

Answer the F-15 fact the YF-12 was cancelled the F-15 took over the duty of killing MiGs.

Irrelevant as both aircraft were the products of entirely separate programs and not intended for the same roles.

the YF-12 could not evolve beyond a single niche therefore could not justify its existance

Funny, the single-role interceptors of ADC had no problems justifying their existance. Nor did the U-2, SR-71A, C-5, and others.

Or are you saying that every aircraft the USAF bought was multi-role? What air-to-air weapons does the B-2 carry? What ISR package is fitted to the C-5?

if other missions would had been demanded

They weren’t. The requirement the F-12B was intended to fulfill was for a strategic interceptor and nothing more.

in the other hand the F-15 can basicly fight at long range, medium range, short range and bomb as one of the best aircraft in the world the USAF was not going to waste money in a very limited aircraft with lack of agility and no adaptability, so like dinosaurs the YF-12 got extinct.

Irrelevant as the F-12B was already an offshoot of an existing platform, demonstrating its use in multiple roles. The USAF had already requested and received Congressional funding for the F-12B, so saying they weren’t going to spend the money on it is also an outright fabrication, or an outright lie, depending on your motive.

let us see one important aspect, both the MiG-25 as the YF-12 were developed to intercept Mach 3 bombers, both were intended to be produced in the same roles and combat niches:

MiG-25R:SR-71, MiG-25P:YF-12 see that basicly both nations did not deploy Mach 3 bombers, then why the Russian put into service the MiG-25P and the americans did not put in to service the YF-12?

Probably because you have no idea about why the MiG-25P was conceived. It was conceived to intercept Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft, and that comes direct from the former General Designer of OKB MiG, who is infinitely more credible than you are. As a Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft did end up in service, just not the A-12 the MiG-25P was intended to counter, it made sense to still procure it, didn’t it?

The SR-71 tried to spawn different versions but it was not successful the A-12 and YF-12 never achieved operational status

The A-12 was operational, but by that time there was a fight in the DoD over the airborne strategic reconnaissance mission. The USAF wanted their own two-seat version, the R-12 (later redesignated SR-71), and there was a number of budgetary and policy meetings debating the merits of operating both the A-12 and the SR-71, or just one. In the end the USAF took over the strategic reconnaissance mission, and as it turned out the A-12 was withdrawn from use by the CIA as soon as enough SR-71s were around (namely deployed to replace BLACK SHIELD A-12s at Kadena) to fulfill the reconnaissance needs.

I know the only thing you want to do is defend the greatness of the SR-71

That has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. This is about your inability to grasp the simple concept that Boyd’s theories were applied to tactical fighters, of which the interceptor fleet was not a part of.

you can not accept the failure of the YF-12 and A-12 and the fact that they were cancelled to stop funneling money to projects that did not have enough technical merit and or high cost effectiveness.

I already told you that the F-12B had the money. McNamara didn’t want the aircraft, despite the wishes of the USAF, so he refused to release the funds. If the whole program had no merits, feel free to explain why the same airframe was allowed to be produced for reconnaissance.

The MiG-25 was different, it proved worthed of being build in large numbers, it was affordable even for third world nations to operate and purchase, Algeria, India, Syria and Iraq flew MiG-25s, no Sr-71 was ever exported.

So the B-1B is a better strategic aircraft than the Tu-160 because it is around in greater numbers? I wouldn’t buy that if it was free, personally.

Are you absolutely sure there were no plans to export Blackbirds? Go research that one.

the YF-12 could not have even been re- tasked to kill another slower Mach 3 fighter in order to justify its program

So? Who cares? It wasn’t intended for that role, was it?

yeah they could not prove the program was worthed to continue and become operational in order to intercept another Mach 3 fighter with their AIM-47 AAMs.

The USAF wanted it, Congress gave them the money for it, but McNamara didn’t want the aircraft. And the weapon system must have had some merit, or else it wouldn’t have been modified and ultimately ended up on F-14s.

Yeah SOC there is the big difference while the Russian never deployed any Mach 3 bomber they still continue the MiG-25 program because the aircraft was justifiable even when the B-70 was cancelled.

The Russians found a use for the MiG-25. So? That has no bearing on the F-12B at all.

Boyd pressured to make the anti-MiG-25 aircraft an agile fighter and in many ways the F-15 and MiG-25 look alike proving the wisdom of that airframe and aerodynamic configuration.

Boyd wanted FX to be an agile aircraft as the MiG-25 was believed to be a maneuverable air superiority fighter, and the FX was the counter to that. Notice how the F-12B doesn’t even enter into that argument, as it had received USAF go-ahead and funding from Congress after the FX program had gotten underway. I guess the USAF believed there was a need for both aircraft, probably because they were intended for different roles in different branches. How are your erroneous concepts more credible than the USAF. Were you there in 1967 when the USAF was trying to procure the F-12B and FX?

Yeah they operate 13 aircraft of which 5 were lost in accidents , those were not operational aircraft those were test aircraft, the MiG-25R was build in more numbers and india alone had more MiG-25R than the US A-12

Foreign FOXBAT fleets have nothing to do with why the CIA halted A-12 operations. I already explained that bit to you.

The MiG-25 was used as a fighter, and remember it was an interceptor in reality because it has not internal gun, the MiG-25 is in that sense no different from the F-4.

So? So the Russians were as wrong as the West about the value of cannons on fighter aircraft.

The MiG-25 shot down an F-18 with AA-6s Acrids and according to other claims even F-4 and F-15s but well that is another matter.

So? It was fielded and did its job in combat. That has nothing to do with the F-12B.

Would had the YF-12 been an affordable aircraft it would had ended up as the MiG-25 killing fighters .

No it wouldn’t. it wasn’t equipped for it. ADC was not tasked with that role. The FX was specifically intended to replace the F-4 in the air superiority role, that was going ot be the next MiG killer. Not the next purpose-built ADC interceptor.

Boyd was smart enough to see the need for the F-15 was well justified, up to a level the MiG-25 was limited to hit and run tactics and much later in the 1990s with AIM-120 and lack of upgrades an iraqi MiG-25 fell to even an F-16, hit and run tactics limit the ability of an aircraft to get rid off of an incoming Air to Air missile.

Yes, the perceived need for the F-15 was justified, based on Western overexaggerations of the FOXBAT’s performance. Yes, Boyd called for maneuverable fighters. That still has not a thing to do with the F-12B, which was designed outside of Boyd’s concepts.

Was the F-15 a better aircraft than the MiG-25 as an over all fighter the answer is yes it was.

Irrelevant.

Was boyd right yes he was

And his correct theories had nothing to do with strategic air defense.

the A-12 was retired after only 29 operational missions and five aircraft were lost in accidents

And I already explained why the aircraft was retired. You’ll be interested to know that during the NICE GIRL fly-off evaluation between the A-12 and the SR-71 the A-12 was found to have a better photographic reconnaissance suite, but I guess all of that test data must have been faked to prove that the A-12 wasn’t a failure in the eyes of people not working in the aviation industry.

The fact that the Russians fly modifed bombers for recon work (as opposed to the U.S.’s C-135 variants and P-3s…ooh scary!!!:rolleyes: )
is one reason why the story has achieved so much media attention.
To the media a Bear is a bomber.

The BEAR in the image with the EF-2000 is a BEAR-H, the Tu-95MS strategic missile carrier.

Besides the helmet ruling that out—the J-11 pilots use a different helmet—the arrangement of the back view mirrors would rule out an Su-27.

Yeah I was looking at something wrong. It is definitely not a J-10 though, look at the image below. It doesn’t match anywhere near what is in the photo.