Hmmm, PAK-FA?

Probably not ready in 10 years from now. I think you’ll end up buying gripens, just as we will… I don’t know if there will be NEW F-16s in 10 years time, but either that or gripen… And since you will be entering Partnership For Peace programme, I doubt your airforce will end up buying russian planes… Even if they do, MiG-35 would be the only choice…

Hey, what about the G-4 upgrade programme… Any news? How much G-4s is in flightowrty condition?

Which F-16 variant and which Gripen Variant, bearing in mind that SAAB are now pursuing the Gripen-N

F-16 probably used, maybe ADF, which would be replaced by something newer/more capable in 15 years from purchase(F-35:confused: )…

Or a new gripen, probably C/D model… But, since the deal includes delivery around 2011, possibly the N model, if it gets alive.

BTW, what are the upgrades in the N model. I know it has some extended range, a slightly different design, which we wouldn’t need anyway(the range)… Besides that, any engine/radar/ammo/software upgrades?

This is what Gordon’s book says about the F-15 encounter…

Shortly afterwards the roles in the cat-andmouse
game were reversed. Two Syrian Air
Force MiG-21s provoked a couple of Israeli
AF/DF F-15s which gave chase. Two MiG-25Ps
took off to intercept the Eagles; one attacked
the F-15 head on, the other tried for a flank
attack. The first MiG-25 failed to fire its missiles
after losing the target lock-on and was shot
down by the F-15 flight leader. The other MiG
got a good lock-on and destroyed the wingman
with two R-40 missiles at about 40km (25 miles)
range. That was the last time Syrian MiG-25Ps
engaged in combat.

one question i have about the gorgeous Foxbat is pilot workload. with such a high perfomance type i would think the old bird was a bit of a handful to fly, the reccie birds must have been a nightmare, flying at 2000mph operating cameras must of been quite challenging. the interceptor must have been a bit better as they are ground controlled. in other words was was it like to earn a living flying a brute like a Mig-25.. all said and done i bet it is pretty amazing.

MiG-25 had a outstanding autopilot. Very advanced for the time, digitaly controlled. And the plane itself was pretty easy to fly and very, very reliable. For example, only one PD was ever lost to an accident while flying at high speed, when its radome disintegrated. Very reliable and trouble-free plane.

On the MiG-25 it’s said that the fire control computer cannot compute a solution for firing the missiles in the case of a head on attack – I should think especially so in head on attack were both aircraft have a combined speed of M=6. This is the alleged case for the MiG-25P, whatever about the MiG-25PD.

MiG-25P fire control computer did however menaged to compute a firing solution for a MiG-25R in a head-on encounter. There’s no big difference in speed between R version and the blackbird. They used the R version to simulate airplanes like the A-12 and SR-71.

I do not know the cruise speed of how long it can keep it, but probably can supercruise a while at perhaps Mach 2.3 like the MiG-31

MiG-25 is limited only by the amount of fuel spent at certain speeds. During egypt missions, they regularly cruised at M2.5-2.8, although Gordon says that at first(early production and preproduction) they were limited to several minutes above M2.4-M2.6(offcourse, this is for the R/RB versions).

Here are 3 other proposed versions of the MiG-25/31…

First is the variable wing geometry version of the MiG-25R…

Ye-155R high altitude, high speed
VG reconnaissance aircraft
In one of the preliminary design studies the
Mikoyan OKB attempted to marry the MiG-25 to
a VG wing. Besides having a swing-wing, the
aircraft differed in having a crew of two – a navigator’s
station with small rectangular lateral
windows was located in the nose ahead of the
pilot’s cockpit. The shape of the wings and horizontal
tail was reminiscent of the General
Dynamics FB-111A tactical bomber. At maximum
sweepback the wing panels combined
with the stabilators effectively formed a delta
wing, improving the aircraft’s speed capabilities.
At minimum sweep, manoeuvrability,
endurance and especially short field performance
were improved considerably.
This arrangement further increased the aircraft’s
maximum take-off weight (MTOW).
Besides, the Ye-155R was intended for high
speed and high altitude photographic reconnaissance
and Elint duties, and good manoeuvrability
was of little use to it. Nor was short
take-off and landing (STOL) performance
called for, as the aircraft was to operate from
standard airstrips. Finally, the navigator was
deemed unnecessary and a single-seat configuration
was adopted for the reconnaissance
version, so the swing-wing two-seater was
abandoned.

And the STOL version…

Ye-155R high speed reconnaissance
aircraft with auxiliary lift engines
In contemplating possible configurations of the
Ye-155 project the Mikoyan designers tried
making use of the small RD36-35 turbojet
developed in the Rybinsk engine design
bureau under Kolesov. The engine was a lift-jet
intended to improve the field performance of
combat aircraft.
In the early 1960s, work on the MiG-23
multi-role tactical fighter was proceeding in the
Mikoyan OKB in parallel with the Ye-155 programme.
One of the projected versions of the
MiG-23, designated Izdelye (product) 23-01,
made use of lift-jets installed in the fuselage. To
test the feasibility of this combined powerplant,
a production MiG-21 PFM was converted into a
technology demonstrator called Izdelye 23-31.
(See the companion volume MiG-21 ‘Fishbed’
by Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston, published
by Aerofax). The strengths and weaknesses of
the combined powerplant concept were not yet
fully studied at the moment, and it was then that
this concept was applied to the Ye-155R.
The RD36-35 lift-jets were located almost
vertically on both sides of the fuselage spine
with the port group being shifted slightly relatively
to the starboard one (two locations were
considered). The engines breathed through
intakes with aft-hinged covers which closed
flush with the fuselage topside in cruise flight.
Like the swing-wing version, the ‘STOL Foxbat’
had a crew of two, with the navigator sitting
ahead of the pilot in a compartment with small
rectangular windows. In general, the lift-jets
were of little use to the reconnaissance mission.
They reduced range appreciably as they
decreased the internal fuel volume – hence the
STOL version was dropped as impractical.

And the model of the Ye-155MF tactical bomber
As the general arrangement group started work
on the drawings of the Ye-155MP interceptor
(the would-be Izdelye 83), someone had the
notion of developing it into a tactical bomber
capable of puncturing enemy air defences at
high supersonic speed, neutralising enemy
radars and hit high priority targets with bombs
and air-to-ground missiles from high altitude.
The aircraft was designated Ye-155MF (F –
Frontovoy – ‘front line’, ie tactical) and was quite
similar to the would-be MiG-31, except for the
wider forward fuselage with the two crew members
seated side-by-side in similar manner to
the Sukhoi Su-24 ‘Fencer’ to give the navigator/
WSO better visibility. The armament was
carried on four wing hardpoints (typically four
Kh-58 – ASCC ‘AS-11 ‘Kilter’ – ARMs) and in
fuselage bays (12 x 250kg/550lb bombs). However,
the Ye-155MF lost out to a more attractive
project proposed by the Sukhoi OKB.

The max. supersonic with such was never mentioned.

I digged up this in Gordon’s book…

The fin tanks were deleted on late production
aircraft in the mid-1970s, restricting fuel tankage
to the wings and fuselage. The 5,280 litre
(1,173 Imp gallon) drop tank also impaired performance
a good deal, still it was rarely jettisoned
when it ran dry. No bombs could be
carried when the drop tank was fitted.

and this, for the RB version

The Big and heavy SR-71 is not the exception it will pull like an airliner 2 or 3Gs when it fllies at Mach 3.5

Mach 3.5? The fastest I’ve seen is Mach 3.3x teritory for the SR-71, and about 3.29 for the A-12. That particular flight of the A-12 was almost fatal for the plane and the pilot, since the instruments were showing M3.16, but they later discovered that instruments were faulty. Almost all of the hydraulic fluid evaporated, circuits were fried and wires had to be replaced.
Usually the SR-71 cruises at M3.2, and M3.3 is possible if the outside air temperature is low enough.

Do you have the slightest idea about heat-stress and the related demands in material and cost. So much about your guessing about higher speeds.

No I don’t, but Yefim Gordon does…and to qoute…

…The Mach 2.83 speed limit imposed on the
MiG-25 was purely theoretical, since the aircraft
had the potential to go [/b]faster from the very start[/b]
High speeds reduced lateral stability and service
life, but there were cases of pilots exceeding
the speed limit without harming the aircraft.
Therefore, the designers intended to reach a
Mach 3.0-3.2 top speed so that the MiG-25
could outperform its arch-rival, the SR-71A –
the world’s fastest recce aircraft. This could be
achieved by fitting the MiG-25 with more powerful
and fuel-efficient engines….

In the mid-1960s the Mikoyan OKB was working
on an interceptor project referred to as the
Ye-155PA. This aircraft was to be capable of
destroying targets flying anywhere between
100 and 30,000m (328 – 98,425 ft) at speeds of
3,500 to 4,000km/h (2,187 – 2,500 mph). To this
end, it was to be equipped with the brand-new
‘Smerch-100’ radar, later renamed ‘Zaslon’
(Shield), and armed with the equally new R-100
missiles. The powerplant consisted of two
R15BV-300 turbojets with an improved high
altitude performance (Vysotnyy – high altitude)
which would take the aircraft to Mach 3.5…

So I guess, if one of the designers says that the aircraft had the potential to go faster from the very start, I don’t see the reason not to believe him. He specifically said that the limit was imposed due to instability of the airplane at higher speeds, not due to heat-stress(however he notes that some aluminium parts of the airframe would have to be replaced with either titanium alloys or composite materials) or engine problems.
And we know that the airplane itself was redisigned several times for stability issues specifically.
Take one thing into consideration also. MiG achieves its top speed at lower altitudes than the SR-71/A-12, where the air is somewhat thicker, giving it a higher drag and heating issues. Still it menages to do M2.83 fully armed and loaded.
I’m not familiar with the blackbird design, but can anybody say what is the blackbird’s top speed at MiGs-25P(D) operational altitude of around 60 000 feet? Is it M3.2 also or does it drop?