Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

Design description

Belenko particular aircraft was brand new, representing the very latest Soviet technology ??? in 1976, MiG-25 is 12 year old, next step is MiG-31 and Su-27 was in service.

The aircraft was built of a nickel-steel alloy and not titanium as was assumed (though some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft massive 64,000 lb (29,000 kg) unarmed weight. ???? F-12 is same time with MiG-25, is same purpose. F-22 made by 98% titan. F-12 excel MiG-25 ????

Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name Foxfire) radar had enormous power — about 600 kilowatts. Is 600 kilowatts ?????

............................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huyphuc1981 nb (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Six hundred kilowatts, yes. Killed small animals, like rabbits from 500 steps away when turned on at the ground. The radar consumed so much power, it had to be cooled with alcohol evaporation to avoid overheeat problems. Belenko said MiG-25 airfilds were the happiest places in the whole USSR due to unlimited access to pure spirit (~ vodka for all practical purposes of hetting drunk). 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article mentions the material Nickel alloy (inconel) steel was used extensively on aircraft. Inconel is a nickel based super alloy, not a type of steel. Editing for correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketpencil (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fastest successful ejection

I removed the following text:

• Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat; the last versions, though, used an early variant of the K-36 seat. The speed record for a successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1-equipped MiG-25.

According the the ejection seat article, this record is held by an SR-71 which broke up at Mach 3.25. That statement is unsourced, however, so I can't vouch for the speed at which they were traveling. The incident definitely occured, though.--Adamrush (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The ejection was not successful per se, because one of the SR-71 crew died and only the other person lived. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the pilot, Lockheed employee Bill Weaver, does not remember how he got out and his seat was still in the wreck, it probably can't be classified as an ejection. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as an escape. See Crickmore, Paul, "Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird", Motorbooks International, 1986, p75.Flanker235 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

unsupported claims.

Here is one "If a Mach 3 bomber were to enter American service, it would have been nearly invulnerable to Soviet air defense."

So, according to author of this statement, soviet SAMs were slower than Mach 3? Don't think so. Example? S-200, clearly, bomber wouldn't be able to manuevre much at mach 3, this missile would be able to intercept anyway. So, claim that Mach 3 bomber was invulnerable to soviet defences is at best false. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. An M3 bomber flying reasonably high is virtually invulnerable to a SAM because once the SAM is out of boost phase it can only use its tiny winglets to manouevre. The bomber can use its comparitively large wings to turn, it will easily out turn the missile. That is why the Russians turned to nuclear tipped SAMs, although even there the bomber did not need much advance warning to evade them. A similar problem applies with AAMs launched at high altitude. Greg Locock (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole problem doesn't matter a damn. Soviet SAM, even the earliest S-75 (SA-2) systems were already designed with nuclear warhead launch capability. If things got serious, you could tip the missiles with atom and blast yankee bombers out of the air without much aiming needed. The SA-5 Gammon was 5 mach fast and manouverable enough to be able to hit big iron, like a B-52, even if just conventional warhead was used. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is SAM coverage is hemispherical, which means the faster and higher the target moves the smaller the engagement envelope will be. The present day F-22 use speed and altitude as a means to evade SAMs, aided by stealth of course.Wikinegern (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a novel called 'Foxbat' by James Barrington (Pan. 2008. ISBN9780330519403) which contains in it the claim that the aircraft was originally intended to intercept ICBMs. Author claims that he found this information from "...several unofficial sources..." which he does not reveal.Graham1973 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Authors like Barrington, or Clive Cussler makes things up to make their books. Remember that they write fiction:) Especially that claims of real world facts is part of that work of fiction. Wikinegern (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Changes to the article have been made to make it sound as if Soviet/Arab use of MiG-25s never flew over Israel, only the Sinai and the Suez. Comically enough, I have a source that states differently, though I am not sure how to add it, or how to cite books in the ref templates. "Jane's Fighter Combat in the Jet Age" (ISBN 0004708229) states on page 108 that

Following a number of sorties along the Suez Canal, a Mig-25R made a provocative long-range overflight of Israel on 10 October [1971] which the IDFAF were unable to counter. However, when a Soviet 'Foxbat' attempted a repeat overflight on 6 November the Isrelis were ready with a pair of stripped down F-4Es, armed with Sparrows.

The book goes on to describe the failure of the Israeli defense, proably due to missile fuse technology unable to cope with the Mach 3 speeds of their targets. Following this, Jane's does state that further flights prior to the 1973 war were over the Sinai, rather than Israel. These were all aircraft based in Egypt, though remaining Soviet. On the following page, Israel's successful intercept of Syrian marked MiG-25s flying over Lebanon is described.

Now, Jane's fully admits that the majority of flights were not over Israel itself, but at least two of them (10 October and 6 November of 1973) were. This source seems as good to me as those listed in this article so far on the subject. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fine source. Please add some text on that with that reference. I had mainly referenced the Mach 3.2 flight with my book. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In Yefim Gordon's book he makes the claim that MiG-25Rs did in fact overfly Israel's airspace.ZeroSnake (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Air-combat fighter vs. interceptor - what's the difference?

Inaccurate intelligence analyses caused the West to initially believe the MiG-25 was an agile air-combat fighter rather than an interceptor.

This needs to be clarified for the layman - what's the difference? Tempshill (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

An air-combat fighter or an air superiority fighter is designed to combat other fighter aircraft and maintain control of the sky. It has dogfight capability, tends to be maneuverable, and armed with missiles or a gun capable of engaging other fighter aircraft. This is what the West initially feared the MiG-25 was capable of. Instead, it is a pure interceptor, designed to get to altitude and target area with extreme speed, and defend against an incoming attack of bombers. It has speed, it has missiles capable taking down low maneuvering targets, but itself is a poor platform for maintaining supremacy over any airspace. It defends cities, not air. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer an Interceptor is designed for speed not maneuvability. A fighter is designed for maneuvability and less speed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

re: History channel (UK) documetary 'Secret Superpower Fighters'

Claimed that details of the Avro Arrow were used to design the MiG-25. This confirmed when a MIG25 defected to Japan and they where able to examine it. As well as looking very similar it used Titanium in all the same places as the Arrow.

Does anyone have anymore information on this?

What it the Soviet/Russian military policy on "Official Information"? Is there a time period after which the information is declassified? eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/02/mi5-defence-of-the-realm-book NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sry, but in Y. Gordons book on the MiG 25 there is not one line on the Arrow. No surprise really, you don't build airplanes by copy-and-paste.--Wikinegern (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever told the Soviets that you don't build airplanes that way. They have a long and documented history of doing just that. Not only in aviation, but copying other types of weaponry directly from western powers through the Soviet's vast intelligence operations. Saremei (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Like what?Wikinegern (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Future work on the page

I think there should be new separate sections for the Interceptor and Recce variants. The part on belenkos defection should perhaps either be reduced or incorparated in another section. As it is the only reason it still is there is because the article in itself is not of high enough quality yet. Also a section about the aircrafts performance seems a good idea. Afer all it was exactly that which made its fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Radar note.

I remember the 1981-82 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft stating (from the report regarding Belenko's aircraft) that of the 600W output of the MiG-25's radar, "much of it was devoted to antijam resistance and not range." That's as exact a wording as I can remember without having a copy in front of me.120.28.113.233 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

600W sounds far more correct than 600KW. Wikinegern (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The US analysis of Belenkos A/C

Is it available on-line? That would be great as right now the section look too much like something from the rumor mill on various WWW forums. I consider heavy editing or outright deletion.Wikinegern (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Western intelligence and the MiG-25

"The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines.[13] A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight resulted in the destruction of its engines."

This is probably not as dramatic as it sounds, since I can find no record of a resultant crash. Seems more likely that the turbine inlet would have exceeded its fatigue safe temperatures and the engine was likely rendered unserviceable and scrapped.

Also, any Western assessment of the combat efficacy of the MiG-25 needs to be tempered by the fact that the vast majority of Foxbats flown against the West have been poorly employed. They have usually been encountered at around 25,000 ft where they would naturally be very vulnerable the US teen series fighters. It should be remembered that this is not within the MiGs best performance envelope. At 70,000 feet and Mach 2+ it would be a very much tougher proposition.Flanker235 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A few problems. First, "destruction of engines" doesn't mean "fall out of the sky and crash." It means that the engines are no longer repairable or usable. They might have been able to make it back to a base for landing, but damage to things like the turbines may have been so high that the engines needed to be fully replaced before the aircraft could fly again. The engines were therefore destroyed by operation at Mach 3.2. As for "combat capabilities," you are defending combat capabilities that do not mirror actual air combat conditions. That the Foxbat operates "well" at 70,000 feet and Mach 2.5 doesn't give it much advantage in combat when it has to drop to 25,000 feet and 500 miles per hour to find and engage any opponents. This is an aircraft designed as a high altitude interceptor, not an air superiority fighter. Similarly, the MiG-3 was a poor combat aircraft when compared to other designs (such as the Yak-3) even though it could operate well at high altitude. This is precisely because combat on the Eastern Front did not take place at the altitudes the MiG-3 was suitable for. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The engines were damaged/burned-up in the Sinai overflight. The text in the reference for that sentence suggests it made it back to base OK. That's why the text says "resulted in" their destruction. The MiG-25 is an interceptor and as such is not really designed for dogfighting. -fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Never the less, destroitya is simply incorrect. While it would severely damage the turbines, often irreperably, guaranteed destruction is false. 68.80.26.12 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cited Source 404

Source 10 ([1]) results in a 404. 68.80.26.12 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This article desperately needs Citations

I read this article in depth and it is in severe need of real citations. Hardly any of the claims of fact have any basis other than the article itself. Someone needs to rewrite this article with proper citations.

Thanks!

Asdef123 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, you're stating the obvious. You did notice all the cite needed and other tags, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning a major and thorough rewrite of the article. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)