Author Topic: Mig25 mach 3 capable? (Read 10455 times)

mjolnir · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2004, 10:15:47 PM »

SR 71 is listed as Mach 3.5+ (unclassified). I've heard through the grapevine from guys who've flown them that it's a pretty conservative number compared to the no-kidding top speed. A truely beautiful aircraft if ever there was one.

On a side note, I think the SR-71 pilots flew high enough to technically be qualified to wear astronaut wings, although I don't think they ever did.

RTR · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2004, 11:15:22 PM »

Roscoroo, I seem to remember that as well, from my old airforce days, come to think of it.

Seems to me I recall something about a Foxbat (pilotless) entering western airspace in the 70's (or early 80's?), in Europe.

Was escorted and seen to crash in the North Sea. Not 100% sure, but the story had something to do with overspeeding engines. If its true, I can't figure out why the pilot would bail, but ..eh? who knows.

Skull, you really shouldn't do that with the water. Sometimes people want to drink that stuff, or use it to cut poor scotch.

Cheers,
RTR

Roscoroo · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2004, 11:59:46 PM »

I think some of the guys are thinking about the YE- 155 / 266 (whatever it was called) which was like a Mig-25 and it did set alot of alt and speed records in its time.

now it did go faster then mach 3- 3.5 and 120k -128k something like that .(im not shure on the actual facts here so dont get all quotie on me )

Some of the russian facts are kinda vague ..

LLv34 Jarsci · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2004, 01:29:59 AM »

I remember reading from somewhere that the Recon version could go that 3.5 Mach. Althought it would need a whole western Europe to turn 180 while wanting to go back...

Boroda · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2004, 07:23:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Skull12, the Mig-31 is basically a land based F-14, desiged to protect Russia in much the same way as the Tomcat protect a CVBG, carrying a powerful radar, lots of fuel and long-range missiles capable of engaging low level bombers and cruise missiles. It is a purely defensive weapon and only issued to the defence regiments of the Russian air force.

In fact MiG-31 were built not for the airforce (VVS), but for aircraft defence corps (PVO).

MiG-31 was an outstanding plane for 1977. First phased-array radar, capable of fireing missiles at 4 targets at a time.A wing of four 31s formed a "network" with data link providing a 700km-wide shield, using targeting information from each other. All this things were highly integrated into PVO structure, a complex shield, covering all ranges, altitudes and target types.

MC_Honky · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2004, 07:31:09 AM »

Ya but it probably fell apart in mid-air because of quality control "issues." All commie iron looks good on paper ..but when it comes to the real deal- they lawn darts.

LePaul · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2004, 08:44:50 AM »

Ugh, where's my bookmarks...I read the Foxbat could come close, but had severe engine woes, as some of you pointed out. I also read it didnt handle terribly well

Further, if it was going to "intercept" something that fast, it would suffer some severe drag penalties with external ordinance (missiles), wouldnt it?

Dinger · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2004, 09:33:32 AM »

Yeah, probably Honky. And American-built planes probably shoot down MiGs before they even retract their red-white-and-blue landing gear.

That scientist's description of the MiG-25 is great. To be able to design something that reliable with manufacturing that questionable shows true genius.

Nilsen · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2004, 10:08:40 AM »

Russians have a rep for designing things that actually work and work well. Instead of using hightech computer driven stuff that are very fragile they rely on simple solutions that work in real life and are practical. You saw it in WW2 with their war designs and later during the cold war when they had funding. (and of course...sputnik and mir)

Take their jets.... designed with sturdy landing gear and intakes positioned high vs f-16's /eurofighter with their low intakes. This means that the russian planes like Su-25 etc...etc.. can take of from rough makeshift runways while the f16 and eurofighter needs alot of people "sweeping" the long paved runway so stuff wont get sucked in or tires getting flat.

However russian military equipent where usually not designed for long life.

The A-10 on the other hand is a very good example of outstanding american combination of rugged design and hightech. Hopefully tha Joint Strikefighter will be as ruggid as it is high-tech.

I belive Lockheed Martin and Mig/Sukoi could come up with a solid plane with excellent avionics and sensors.

Toad · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2004, 10:23:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

So a clean Mig-25 would indeed be able to wing with an SR-71 ... albeit for a short time.

I can tell you they TRIED to intercept the SR several times during one month I spent flying RC's in the Sea of Okhotsk in the late '70's.

They failed. Given the speed of the SR, the reaction time, the Mig's ability and the range of the A2A missiles, they never got it done. Despite missile shots taken when at their max altitude, the SR never had a problem with the MiG-25.

Wing with the SR at altitude and at speed? Possible probably in theory but never in an antagonistic setting in RL.

MC_Honky · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2004, 10:32:06 AM »

I used to think that the La-7 "was all that and a bag of chips." Then I bought a book about La-7's and was surprised to find out that "many examples arrived in the field-fresh from the factory- completely unusable because of quality defects...further more- they were prone–even low time examples- to complete structural failures.” In addition, “Poisonous gas often escaped into the cockpit- creating a very hazardous situation.”
All of these things can never be modeled in a Sim or show up in data tables- but they make all the difference.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2004, 11:02:59 AM »

Have to agree here to say that that the mig could never INTERCEPT an SR71. By they time he got to altitude to catch him he'd be out of fuel and the SR71 would be long gone.

and from somone who works on jets I'd have to say it would be way too expensive to even try if you have to overhaul the engines after flight.

It's a good thing the russians make one of the best ejection seats cause the quality of their airframes is crap!

Boroda · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2004, 11:08:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen10
The A-10 on the other hand is a very good example of outstanding american combination of rugged design and hightech. Hopefully tha Joint Strikefighter will be as ruggid as it is high-tech.

Soviets and Americans had different concepts of shturmoviks (close ground support ACs). Americans made a dumb plane with smart weapons, while Russians made smart plane with dumb weapons. Now guess why Su-25s in Chechnya fly with non-guided rockets and FABs (dumb bombs).

A-10 will be limited to cannon when it will run out of expensive guided weapons. Su-25 will be always able to hit a sewer (cloaca) hatch with a 250kg (as they did in 1995 blowing up Chechen bunkers in Grozniy).

DoctorYO · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2004, 11:12:33 AM »

Toad is correct. most likely the Russians would scramble a flight to engage the SR, But considering the speed at which the SR flys I think the only solution they could have a possibility to score a hit would be from the forward 45 deg of the SR.

This is a problem, considering the SR pilot most likely could detect radar emissions of a another plane trying to intercept it, the SR would just change its vector away from whatever was using its radar for a lock..

Once the vector change happened then the missles would be out of range due to a 90 deg to rear quarter shot...

Im shure this threw the russians into fits..

But just my opinion..

DoctorYO

Gunslinger · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2004, 11:14:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Soviets and Americans had different concepts of shturmoviks (close ground support ACs). Americans made a dumb plane with smart weapons, while Russians made smart plane with dumb weapons. Now guess why Su-25s in Chechnya fly with non-guided rockets and FABs (dumb bombs).

A-10 will be limited to cannon when it will run out of expensive guided weapons. Su-25 will be always able to hit a sewer (cloaca) hatch with a 250kg (as they did in 1995 blowing up Chechen bunkers in Grozniy).

Key word here "when it will run out of expensive guided weapons"

I'm not sure of the ord. capacity of the the SU25 but I know the A10 can carry a watermelon load of ord.

BUT, Its primary reason for being was to destroy commie tanks in europe during WWIII. Not for blowing up sewers (allthough it is mighty capable)

Also there is nothing stopping the A10 from carrying "dumb" weapons at all. I think it has proven itself more than enough on the battle field. Ask any A10 driver that's ever taken damage how much they love their airplane
cool damage pics of A10s