Mig25 mach 3 capable?

[Toad]

Originally posted by hyena426

1. A Mig-25 or Mig-31 has never fired a missile at an SR-71.

Don't know about the MiG-31, but I am reasonably certain that this is incorrect in the case of the MiG-25.

[Nilsen]

im sure we will learn more in the years to come...i guess alot of the info about events during the cold war is still classified.

I do know that radar observations made by the norwegian airforce is still classified for the most part. But there are however confirmed reports that radar operators have tracked some very fast stuff over northern russia. mach3+ and to big to be missiles or the _"stealthy"_ Sr71

[Toad]

Ignoring the ROE item, I see. I don't blame you.

There were a lot of "safe havens" for NV aircraft where they couldn't be pursued and destroyed.

Two ways to look at it I guess.

In the early years of the Vietnam war, the US was not achieving the level of superiority in air- to-air warfare that it had enjoyed in previous conflicts. By 1968, concerned about the relatively low kill rations achieved in Southeast Asia, Captain Frank Ault, serving withe the Naval Air Systems Command, recommended the formation of a graduate level school to train a nucleus of fighter crews who would be higly trained in Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) and weapons systems employment.

Note, the USN aircraft did not change. Rather, it became obvious the previous USN training was deficient in training aircrews how to "use the tools" in the ACM environment. The result was about a 3X higher kill ratio with the same aircraft.

[Nilsen]

The US also figured out that arming their planes with missiles only was a bad move..they started fitting the F4's with gunpods. Missiles where not reliable in those days. I saw on a documentary that something like one in four air to air missiles on both sides failed to fire or work properly.

Has nothing to do with the topic but but...but.....nevermind...

Now where is that wineopener..?

[mietla]

My knowledge in this field is very limited, but from what I know the difficulty of fast flying is caused (among other things of course) by the fact that depending on your speed a different type of engine is required.

For slow take-off and landing speed a turbo jet is appropriate. You need to compress the air and suck in a lot of it to make it fly. With higher speeds a jet performs better. With further speed increase the air flow is such that you need RAM-jet then SCRAM-jet and what ever comes next.

One of the very important aspects of SR-71 was a n engine desined that acted as a jet at low speeds, but with its retractable intake cones (and whatever else) it started to acts as RAM jet at high speeds. That was what allowed it to sustain a Mach 3+ for hours, not just a couple of seconds/minutes.

Any of the experts can shed more light on it. Good AH exchange beats google any day:)

[mietla]

What kind of engine did Mig-25 have? Was it some kind of beefed up run of the mill engine, or was it something designed specifically  for this very purpose?

[Toad]

Well the ROE tie in with the missile problem. There was a standing ROE required an aircraft to be identified visually before it could be fired upon. Sort of negated the intended advantages of the missile-armed fighters with Beyond Visual Range (Radar) capability.

The Navy’s F-4B and the Air Force’s F-4C and -D fighters were not configured with internally mounted guns but "gun pods" were added after the realization that missiles alone weren't getting it done, especially with the ROE. The gun pods were not as accurate as an internal gun and "boresighting" didn't always "hold" very long under G loads and hard landings. Additionally, seriously degraded overall
performance and in addition made the aircraft somewhat unstable and
difficult to recover from a spin.  

The E, with its internal gun started showing up "in theater" in late '67 or early '68, IIRC. It's pretty much universally acknowledged as a major improvement over the previous gun pods.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Toad
Well the ROE tie in with the missile problem. There was a standing ROE required an aircraft to be identified visually before it could be fired upon. Sort of negated the intended advantages of the missile-armed fighters with Beyond Visual Range (Radar) capability.

 

Read this part again, please. That negated the advantages of the AIM-7 Sparrow. Note also that one of the changes to the E was the addition of a target-identification system for long-range visual identification of airborn targets. The ROE stood, they modified the airplane to meet it.

Now, if you don't think that made a difference in favor of the NV, that's your problem.

Still bottom line, the BEST the NV did was 1 USA /3 NV. The worst was 1 USN /12 VN KR by the USN after Top Gun.

It'd have been worse without the ROE on "visual ID".

If that's "winning" to you, I'm just



Yeah, we lost a LOT of airplanes. Considering the environment (Hanoi supposedly had more ground to air defences than any other place in the history of air war), the mission tasking, the ROE... that's not too surprising.

Most of those losses by far were to ground to air weapons, which is outside your original argument.

But when it comes to the measure of an air force, air to air engagements, the NV's got their tulips kicked in Air to Air engagements. Not as bad as the NK's did, but kicked nonetheless. This despite the fact the our ROE's severely favored them and allowed them to pick the time and place of engagment.

[mietla]

Now you are just being silly.

You are just talking nonsense. There is a reason that we spend millions or even billions per plane, and the reason is to kick ass.

I'd rather waste 20 million than lose a pilot.

What are you trying to prove? That getting your bellybutton kicked 12:1 is not bad because you could've had his bellybutton kicked 15:1? What's your point?

[mietla]

Originally posted by GScholz
The NV managed to field 200 Migs at most, had they used F-4s instead they would only have had an air force of 13 planes.

BTW, did NV have to pay Ruskies for the MIGS? Not making any statements, just wondering.

[FUNKED1]

Gscholz and Toad, get a book called Clashes by Marshall Michel.  Then come back and have an informed discussion.  

[senna]

Gentleman, this thread is not about the air war over north vietnam. I started this thread to talk about one of my favorite birds the mig-25 (cas its fast and fast is always good). Why are you people hijacking my thread.



On the subject of the air campaign over N vietnam, why dont you guys start another thread so I can keep this one going. After all this BBS is primarly for aircraft and air war enthusiasts. I suggest you guys talk about that from two perspectives though. At the strategic/political level then at the tactical level of planning, flight path, altitude, average speed, fuel load, aircraft payload etc... It would be very interesting to get the viewpoints of AHers on the subject.

But this thread is about mig-25s and SR-71s.

[Chairboy]

I saw a special that said the super advanced F-15 was funded and built as a response to the Mig-25 because it appeared to be some sort of 'Super plane'.

Mig-25 is neat.  It's a good example of how solid engineering and raw power can be competitive to high tech.

[Roscoroo]

the mig engine uses a single air bypass tube for its "Ramjet mode" the engine still compresses to much air to reach the high mach speeds without overspeeding or coming apart .

the SR-71 engine uses the "cone" and a full outer case to bypass the air for its ramjet mode . the cone has a better contolling factor for air managment . (it shuts off most of the air going into the compressor part of the engine)

Basically the 71's internal jet engine parts just sort of idle at high alt and mach.
(they are not really producing thrust as in compared to what the bypassed air is producing)

<--- USAF Jet Eng mech 82-86 .

[AdmRose]

Originally posted by senna
Dont think a mig-25 could catch an sr-71 either but dam, what a beautiful bird.

Those stovepipes seem to beg for a Sidewinder...