It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mig-25 Altitude Record

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
IBM

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The Altidude record for a combat aircraft of 123,524 ft (37,650 m) is held by the Mig-25. I was wondering if this was a specially desigend plane just for the record attempt or a combat ready model. On what occasians would a pilot see such altitudes.Also the service ceiling of most fighters is usually around 50,000 to 60,000 feet. Does higher ceiling usually mean that the pilot can look down on then enemy and shoot, while gaining speed due to gravity?

[edit on 20-12-2004 by IBM]




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
MiG-25 is combat ready and anchient Soviet tech used mainly by poorer countires now. Still a damned amazing plane, also holds the combat plane speed record.

The records (both I think) were set by the recon model. It is not a prupose built record breaker, your gonig back to the 60's/70's cold war era. It was built to out-do US tech.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I would like to think the U-2 can acheive a higher altitude,the pilots have to wear space suits on it,but sadly they haven't tried it yet.


IBM

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
I would like to think the U-2 can acheive a higher altitude,the pilots have to wear space suits on it,but sadly they haven't tried it yet.


The U-2 is a spy plane of course as you know, but it would be nice to strap on some missles to that bad boy. That would have the Mig's and Flankers running.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
The foxbat was not armed on any of its speed records external weapons would likely rip the wings off at that speed. They used a stripped down, highly modified Soviet Mig-25 for most of the records.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   
NO THEY DID NOT YOUR just assuming that to list the sources that say that? and to NSA guy how can U2 have MiG running when MiG25 was built to shoot down Sr-71 and the Valyceer or what ever it's called , it's radar would easlily pick up U.2 and do to it what that S-A 3 did back in 1960 and thats a FACT



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NO THEY DID NOT YOUR just assuming that to list the sources that say that? and to NSA guy how can U2 have MiG running when MiG25 was built to shoot down Sr-71 and the Valyceer or what ever it's called , it's radar would easlily pick up U.2 and do to it what that S-A 3 did back in 1960 and thats a FACT


Fact is the record setting Mig-25 like every other record holder is stripped of most electronics, paint, weapons, and at the time the record is set almost stripped of fuel...

They where suggesting that the U-2 may be able to zoom or sustain a higher altitude then the proposed Mig-25 record.

Whether the Mig-25 was built to counter the Sr-71 is irrelevant as it would never happen. The Mig-25 would have to be in the air at all times as seeing the Sr-71 incursions where random and the Mig-25s would have to be strategically places as seeing that you would only have a few seconds window time to make up and execute a firing solution before the Sr-71 was out of there and the Mig-25 was bingo or completely empty.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
What are you talking about it's the Yanks that are saying MiG25 didn't/couldn't shoot down Sr-71 thats just propaganda even if the MiG could only go Mach 2.8 when it fires its misslie going at 1000 miles an hour plus the Mach2.8 speed the MiG is going after the SR thats 3800 miles an hour Sr is DEAD that IS what would happen remember the upgrade the MiG 25 had in it's new radar dude that the Yank's tellin you that CRAP about MiG 25 couldn't catch up, everone in Russia know the reason SR was retired because SU 27's were tacking it off of the Finlian coast this happend MANY MANY times and Soviets were going to shoot it down if it got close enough to Soviet air space, all that story about it was retired because of "cost effectiveness" that what U.S. Gov tells Americans because it knows they would never suspect thier own Gov lying to them the so U.S. created something faster "ARUORA"



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   
The SR-71 was retired because of the increasing availability, reliability, and mobility of spy satellites as well as the enormous cost of operating the SR-71 belived to be ~$200,000 per hour...

The velocities at witch A2A missiles travel rides on many factors. Its probability of kill rides on even more factors. What angle was it launched at, what altitude was it launched at, what altitude relative to the target was it launched at, what was the speed of the launching aircraft and what is the escape speed of the intended target? You could launch an Aim-120 at a target 25 miles away and achieve a kill if you are closing in on it at high speeds but if that target is running from you then you had better launch that same missile within a 3-5 mile radius as the missiles effective range is destroyed...

The Aurora project if it exists and isnt a bomber would be for near real time reconnaissance, and yes it would be safer then an SR-71 due to its newer design and extreme speeds.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the great achilles heels of the Mig-25 was that the engines would need an overhaul after only 1 or 2 flights at anything approaching top speed. Totally understandable, given 60s tech in either country, but it made the Mig-25 more or less a one time interceptor vs. incoming supersonic bombers.

Still, it was a totally amazing plane, using brute force to achieve the objective. The idea of rounded old style rivits on a mach three plane is still amazing.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NO THEY DID NOT YOUR just assuming that to list the sources that say that? and to NSA guy how can U2 have MiG running when MiG25 was built to shoot down Sr-71 and the Valyceer or what ever it's called , it's radar would easlily pick up U.2 and do to it what that S-A 3 did back in 1960 and thats a FACT


Regarding the Altitude record and whether the Mig was modded to do that - let's try this:

Here's a link from Space Adventures Inc., a company that sells flights in M-25's and Mig-29's.
According to this web site: "On August 31, 1977, the record was broken by a modified MiG-25 (E-266M) and taken to 123,524 ft. (37,650 m)."

Also don't assume the Mig just flew around at that altitude doing loops and cobras and such.
These altitude records are accomplished by the jet going ballistic - nearly straight up like a rocket, the engines on these aircraft (both US and Russian) usually flame out somewhere around the 100,000 ft range and the plane coasts up to the record breaking altitude.

By the same token however, published service ceilings of 50,000 to 65,000 ft on some of these fighters (both US and Russian) is intentionally lower than actual capability.

Here is a link to some good information on the Mig-25, with a great amount of attention given to the Mig that Russian defector Belenko flew -
This article also addresses the longevity of the Foxbat's engines, all in all a good read. Vectorsite: Mig-25 Foxbat


[edit on 21-12-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the great achilles heels of the Mig-25 was that the engines would need an overhaul after only 1 or 2 flights at anything approaching top speed. Totally understandable, given 60s tech in either country, but it made the Mig-25 more or less a one time interceptor vs. incoming supersonic bombers.

Still, it was a totally amazing plane, using brute force to achieve the objective. The idea of rounded old style rivits on a mach three plane is still amazing.


The Mig-25 could fly at 'normal' operating speeds for more then a few flights before needing an overall-new engines. Once the Mig-25 hit ~M-2.6+ it would destroy its engines from the extreme RPMs involved. I'm sure more then a couple didnt RTB for that reason. The Mig-31 had rev-limiters in place to limit the top speed and preserve the engines life.

About the Mig-25 exploiting its top speed; what if the U.S. suddenly initiated an attack on Soviet Russia? One wouldnt care if the Mig-25 Interceptor worked for more then a few flights because a fight between the 2 superpowers would probably last a few hours consisting of just immense, unheard of waves of devastating strikes followed by a nuclear exchange. There would be no 2nd flight for that Mig-25.



By the same token however, published service ceilings of 50,000 to 65,000 ft on some of these fighters (both US and Russian) is intentionally lower than actual capability.

True, though, one with more then a few winders and more then a few thousand LBS of fuel would be a fool to even try to exceed even angles 50...



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NO THEY DID NOT YOUR just assuming that to list the sources that say that?


What exactly are you refering to here? Much like the U.S. Streak Eagle that set a bunch of records, the Mig 25 that set the record was no doubt a stripped model. The F-15 they used was even minus the paint to save weight.

The Mig-25 was designed as a counter to the XB-70 Valkyre and the F108A Rapier which was to have served as its Mach 3 escort. The A-12 was at the time a Black project. The fact that Lybia, Poland and others flew the Mig-25 and never were able to get close to an SR-71 and shoot it down point to its relative ineffectiveness as an interceptor. Cool plane none the less.

To Warlord, the U-2 can cruise at a higher altitude than the Mig-25, but the Mig can go higher in a single shot, If you ever have seen the movie "The Right Stuff" where they show Yeager in an modified F014, you basically throttle up, point the nose to the sky and zoom away.


IBM

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NO THEY DID NOT YOUR just assuming that to list the sources that say that? and to NSA guy how can U2 have MiG running when MiG25 was built to shoot down Sr-71 and the Valyceer or what ever it's called , it's radar would easlily pick up U.2 and do to it what that S-A 3 did back in 1960 and thats a FACT



The Mig-25 pilots said that they could never touch the SR-71. I read it in a book in which one of the pilots admitted it.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 06:30 AM
link   
As it is, there are rumors that Powers's U-2 was not, in fact shot down by a missile, but was pushed out of the sky by another plane.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
What are you talking about it's the Yanks that are saying MiG25 didn't/couldn't shoot down Sr-71 thats just propaganda even if the MiG could only go Mach 2.8 when it fires its misslie going at 1000 miles an hour plus the Mach2.8 speed the MiG is going after the SR thats 3800 miles an hour Sr is DEAD that IS what would happen remember the upgrade the MiG 25 had in it's new radar dude that the


First, we all know how succesfull the Mig 25 was, considering that no SR-71's have ever been shot down - even though they flew over Russia and other Mig 25 equipped countries for years... Not to mention that the SR-71 could sustain Mach 3+ speeds for thousands of miles, not a couple of minutes like the Mig 25.

And second, if you fire a missile capable of (lets say) Mach 3 from an airplance going Mach 3, it will NOT reach Mach 6. It will not have to accelerate to reach mach 3, but it will not have enough thrust to overcome the drag of high velocity anymore than if it were fired from a stationary airplane.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
What are you talking about it's the Yanks that are saying MiG25 didn't/couldn't shoot down Sr-71 thats just propaganda even if the MiG could only go Mach 2.8 when it fires its misslie going at 1000 miles an hour plus the Mach2.8 speed the MiG is going after the SR thats 3800 miles an hour Sr is DEAD that IS what would happen remember the upgrade the MiG 25 had in it's new radar dude that the Yank's tellin you that CRAP about MiG 25 couldn't catch up, everone in Russia know the reason SR was retired because SU 27's were tacking it off of the Finlian coast this happend MANY MANY times and Soviets were going to shoot it down if it got close enough to Soviet air space, all that story about it was retired because of "cost effectiveness" that what U.S. Gov tells Americans because it knows they would never suspect thier own Gov lying to them the so U.S. created something faster "ARUORA"


The problem was not that the MiG-25 lacked performance, nor that its weapons could not catch an SR-71. It was simply that no Soviet PVO pilot ever got a lucky break. Interecpting is tricky business.

The real problem was detecting the SR-71 and launching interceptors quickly enough to be in precisely the right place at precisely the right time. Obviously the SR-71 mission planners knew the risks and planned their flights appropriately.

A short excerpt from www.dcr.net... which sheds some light on how tricky it is to pull off a high altitude intercept:

Even today, the performance of the F-104 seems almost mythical. Even early models could fly at altitudes far above the listed service ceiling. An ex-US Air Force pilot reports that he and his wingman, flying F-104A aircraft refitted with the -19 engine, could maintain level flight at Mach 2 and 22 kilometers altitude. They surprised a U-2 pilot during a practice intercept doing that. The U-2 was loafing along at a bit above 21 kilometers, and the F-104s came in from above. The F-104 pilot stated that the U-2 pilot's comments on this were the only time he ever heard one of the Dragon Ladies break radio silence. (Best lift-to-drag speed for a clean F-104 is around 273 KEAS (knots equivelant air speed) and wingtip Sidewinders wouldn't affect this much. At 70,000+ feet, on an average day, that works out to just about exactly Mach 2.)


Amet-Khan's nerdy comment on the above quote: wingtip sidewinders actually _increase_ the L/D ratio on an F-104, 'cause the missiles act as effective endplates on those stubby wings. Same effect occurs with wingtip tanks as well.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I wonder if a SR-71 then could break that record going straight up,but then the MiG-25 is lighter and smaller anyway. Oh well...



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Well, perhaps an SR-71 could break that altitude record by pulling up into a ballistic arc.

The problem is that aircraft are almost completely uncontrollable at such extreme altitudes. Above roughly 100,000 feet engines stop working and control surfaces lose effectiveness.

NASA ran a research program where they used an F-104 with a small rocket booster to reach high altitudes. The special aircraft had a reservior of compressed nitrogen gas and "puffer" jets installed at the wintips, nose and tail so that the plane could be controlled in the very thin air.

In the thin air of high altitude, conventional control surfaces don't work very well, especially at the relatively LOW speeds one finds oneself at when coasting over the top of a ballistic arc. Heck, even the US Space Shuttle makes use of its reaction controls to augment stability until it gets down into the thick low altitude air.

NASA's F-104N high altitude research vehicle, the X-15, and other aircraft have all been fitted with cold gas or peroxide reaction controls for attitude control. I wonder.... was the E-266M fitted with similar equipment? If not, the Soviet test pilots must have had balls of steel. "We'll just coast for a bit.... hopefully not tumble too much... and then try to recover once we fall for a bit..... try to get the pointy end into the wind and re-light the engines."

Note: to set an official world aviation record you have to LAND the aircraft too. Reaching extreme altitude and then bailing out doesn't count, due to the way the rules were originally worded. Blech... it pays to read the fine print, huh



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   
well, after an very interesting conversation in the science forum about quantum physics and black holes i had returned only to read the same absurd arguments and "facts", well here i go.....




The F-15 they used was even minus the paint to save weight.


wrong, part of the hidraulic sistem was removed, radar, fire control too, also the afterburner gets more fuel feed, the basic maneuvre was accelerate to max at low level, then jump the zoom climb ,they knew that the f100 had problems of stalling and power at medium- high altitude, the mig25 has better t/w ratio at medium heigh.



Mig-25 and never were able to get close to an SR-71


about the poland case i dont have information, but about the libian problems, well i had explained that before, its not only about the plane, but also the pilots, and........the carriers in the mediterran, whe know whats the performance difference of the mig29 between iraki pilots and german pilots, the mig 25 have much better supersonic maneuverability than the sr71, there reports of virtual kills made by mig25/31 in the north of russia, the sr71 never flew too close of russian territories




The Mig-25 pilots said that they could never touch the SR-71


belenko??? such traitor??? (im not russian, but an traitor is an traitor) ,selling books to those idiots that even dont know how a plane works???, yeah sure 5gs......supersonic



And second, if you fire a missile capable of (lets say) Mach 3 from an airplance going Mach 3, it will NOT reach Mach 6


it reach M6, the problem is the plataform, an f15 can reach barely M2.5 at 30000fts, but the speed is much lower at 60000fts, the mig25 can sustain M2.8 at such heigh, again the problem of the american 4th generation was the high bypass turbofan.

is stupid that blinded defence of the sr71,it never lacks the one that says that the max speed is M4


[edit on 26-12-2004 by grunt2]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join