If US or anyone fights Iran, the Russian new weapons will become battle tested

And this type of fantastic delusion is why the USA have lost control over 90% of Iraq while Americans back home believe the war is won and 'all over'. Thousands of Americans are being wounded each month and yet you just have no idea...

Stellar

I am just really going to respond to this.

If you live in the US you must be BLIND AND DEAF and if you don't (which it says you are in South Africa), then you are just ignorant of American affairs.

Because...nobody in the US thinks the Iraqi war is all won and all over. The midterm election is riding on the Iraqi War.

Most people dying now (like the hundreds of bodies found around Baghdad) are not due to American forces. Nor are the newly found torture chambers.

By the way, what is your opinion on why the US would plant bombs in the Shiites and Sunnis mosques?(which has never been proven).

Originally posted by danwild6
Why? Didn't you see how the Iraqi army performed in its first go around with the US Army?

After 8 years of war with Iran and then 15 years of sanctions and American intelligence gathering /destruction of infrastructure am i supposed to be surprised to any great extent?

As far as the German agents could you provide a source detailing the intelligence they delivered to the US? I've know that a couple of German intelligence agents assisted the US in a number of ways during the march to Baghdad but as far as giving the US a look at the Iraqi playbook thats a new one.

Well according to Alex Jones they compromised the plans SH had for defending Baghdad. He had a interview with someone on the topic so i don't have a link to it atm.

Then why did they sue for peace? Did they just say "the hell with it Kosovo isn't worth it". Not likely from what I've read about its place in their history.

Because NATO was bombing the crap out Serbia's civilian infrastructure ( a war crime) and industry and obviously Milosevic's rich backers were not interested in losing their wealth in a battle that could not be won. The whole point of invasion was to further fragment the region so as to destabilize Eastern Europe as has always been the MO of the Western European powers.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.fas.org...

www.counterpunch.org...

www.globalresearch.ca...

There is more but you really should check out who on the balance should be considered the true criminals/genocidal maniacs. I'll give you a clue and tell you it's not the Serbs...

Stellar

I think the important thing here is to realize that the Russian Federation is pretty much a totally different country from the Soviet Union. You cannot look back and judge the Soviet Union based on what the Russian Federation is today. Its quite interesting how as the years go by, people are slowly knowing less and less about the Soviet Union and what it was.

I stick with what many in the know conclude, which is that the Russian Federation is not even a shadow of what it once was. That's the kind of depths it has descended to. Sometiems I'm a bit surprised they can still sustain a war in Chechnya.

And most of all, never judge something that's never seen action or has never happened.

Not to side with anyone or anything, but I just wanted to defend the Mig-25 from everyone thats been using it as a sign of inferior USSR production.

aeroweb.lucia.it...

Heres a source from a Russian defence site defending many of the points raised agunist the Mig-25, feel free to check on all info.


Facts about the Mig-25:

- It came into operation during 1969, 6 years before the F-14, 9 years before the F-15 and 15 years before the F-18. Unfortunagely, the original 1969 version would be used agunist the most updated versions of later aircrafts. (Saddam's Mig-25s were 25 year old soviet surplusses)




Three Mig-25s were destroyed in Iraq in A2A combat. One in a dog-fight with a f-16. And two with Sparrows from F-15s. Due to that fact that the two Mig-25s were heading in direction of Iran, the pilots probrably never saw it coming. (The Mig-25's radar did not have rear-looking capabilities.)
- The maximum speed at which the R-40s could be fired was mach 1.9, signifigently slower than the max speed of the Mig-25, but still dam fast.

- The Mig-25 could do mach 2.6 in a fully loaded configeration with two tanks and two R-40s. A feet never duplicated by any fighter even to this day. (I said fighter, not some experimental X-fighter than never went further than prototype.)

- The Vaccum tube radar was actually specificlly chosen due to the resistence to heating and the massive power that could be used. Basica Pulse-Dopplar radars actually came into service with the USSR with the introdcution of the Mig-21bis. The foxfire radar had a range of over 150km in narrow beam scanning mode, although due to their arnament, few were ever able to fully take advantage of their long ranges. That being Said, one of the major drawbacks of the Vacuum tube radar was its inability to have a look up/down capability.

- The Mig-25 could, in interception mode, do 400km radis combat missions with external tanks at 2.5 mach. The normal crusing radius of the Mig-25 at normal speed and altitude was ~700km. Not too shappy when compared to the 400km of the F-4.

- The Mig-25 was designed to conter American bomber fleets and cruise missiles, which it did very well. It was NOT a soviet response to the Sr-71.

- Since it was to engage bombers at BVR ranges, the original Mig-25 was never fitted with a gun, since it wasn't suppose to engage dog-fighters in the first place.

Originally posted by rogue1
LMAO FFS, you're the one who made this grand statement that tehy could have outfited the MIG-25 with solid state electronics in teh 1970's, simple fact is they couldn't.

Where did i say that? Do you really think they could not have built a few dozen MIg-25's with solid state electronics? If you think they could not have built at least a limited number of planes in that why your the one who's making up grand non-facts.

I love your tactics when you are proven wrong , you love to say " oh it's irreevant "

Well since i never made the claim the first place i guess this clever tactics is only being played out in your paranoid ( when your ideas are being tested anyways) mind.

As for your last stament about military comparisons, what complete bollocks.

You have never contested my views in a serious concerted way ( sniping away at one fact in twenty is not contesting BTW) so i am assuming this is more bluster...

LOL right, so somehow all the Soviet radars are immune from nuclear attack and from interferance.

I did not say all and i did not say 'immune'.

Come on, this is really getting laughable. As I said the MIG-25 is usless without ground control, n any nulcear war ( per your fanatsy ) these ground stations would be gone, wiped out.

How would 7000 odd radars feeding information to these planes be 'wiped out' in your mind considering it would have taken most of America's nuclear arsenal to even dent the radar network? Until you can show that the Mig-25 is in fact 'useless' ( nice blanket claim) without ground control you best stop saying as much as while i might give you room to hang yourself i certainly wont put up with corps for long.

Therefore the MIG-25's if their airfield actually survived would be flying around basically blind. Completely useless.

Evidence?

And no LOL, US planes would no be dropping like flies ( IU ssume ) from EMP.
So your whole argument is the Soviets will win a nuclear war because they build crappy military equipment.

How would American planes function in a EMP environment? My conclusion is based on numerous approaches to the central question and on most on them i have seen clear advantages for the USSR. All you have done so far is state that you do not believe me without ever bothering to address the factual( or not in your opinion but where is your proof?) content and that will get you absolutely no where with me.

AS I said, they had short endurance and flying at maximum speed shelled their enines.

The sustained speed was still very much higher than anything American fighters of the time could manage without sustaining similar damage trying to approach the Mach 2.5 the Mig could fly without problems. The Mig's had RELATIVELY short endurance ( 120 hours per engine if flown at Mach 2.5 or below which was over time pushed up to almost 1000 hours per engine; quite a significant engineering feat) but how many hours would be required of a MIG pilot in world war three to ensure that American strategic bombers only had one chance of hitting the USSR? Would that take 5 or 10 hours worth of fligth time? You have absolutely no sense of the strategic decision made by either side.

Not to mention of course they had to go subsonic to launch ther maiiles. Their were unmanouverable and carried no internal gun. Only an ignoramus would be impressed by them.

Like most of the ignoramuses who staffed western intelligence agencies i suppose? I have seen NOTHING that indicates that they had to go subsonic to fire their missiles so feel free to make me a better informed person with evidence proving that. Whatever the case may be would that really slow down it's B-1b's or B-52's killing spree?

LOL right, so where exactly did they fly rings around the US. How many planes did MIG-25's shoot down, and how many MIG-25's were sht down LOL.

Iraqi mig 25's shot down a F-18 and managed to scare off a F-15 strike packages ECM thus leading to the loss of one F-15... If you check out some articles on the Iraq you will find the evidence for Mig-25's firing missiles at F-15's and then out running the return fire which IMO counts as flying circle's around someone.

Well gee that's definately flying rings around them LOL. nce again your grandiose statements are false.

Nothing false about reality and if wont chance on the basis of your largely ignorant point of view!

Stellar

[edit on 9-10-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
After 8 years of war with Iran and then 15 years of sanctions and American intelligence gathering /destruction of infrastructure am i supposed to be surprised to any great extent?

Well you said you were.

Originally posted by StellarX
Well according to Alex Jones they compromised the plans SH had for defending Baghdad. He had a interview with someone on the topic so i don't have a link to it atm.

Well by the time US forces had reached Baghdad the it was pretty much over for Saddam. And from what I've seen from news reports Saddam didn't really have a master plan for the defense of Baghdad. He never even beleieved that the US wanted to remove him or wouldn't have been aloud to by the rest of the world.

Originally posted by StellarX
Because NATO was bombing the crap out Serbia's civilian infrastructure ( a war crime) and industry and obviously Milosevic's rich backers were not interested in losing their wealth in a battle that could not be won. The whole point of invasion was to further fragment the region so as to destabilize Eastern Europe as has always been the MO of the Western European powers.

Or that the Serbian army in Kosovo couldn't continue operations because every time they'd come out in the open they'd get the crap bombed out of them. And I don't believe that it has ever been the goal of NATO or the western european powers to destabilize eastern europe before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Originally posted by StellarX
There is more but you really should check out who on the balance should be considered the true criminals/genocidal maniacs. I'll give you a clue and tell you it's not the Serbs...

Oh and lets just forget about the Kosovars Milosevic brought that war on himself and his people. That very fact puts the main responsibilty

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I think the important thing here is to realize that the Russian Federation is pretty much a totally different country from the Soviet Union.

Politically speaking or in terms of strategic clout?

You cannot look back and judge the Soviet Union based on what the Russian Federation is today.

I surely can but i can see how some might choose not too...

Its quite interesting how as the years go by, people are slowly knowing less and less about the Soviet Union and what it was.

They never knew much ( average people anyways )anything that came close to being the truth imo.

I stick with what many in the know conclude, which is that the Russian Federation is not even a shadow of what it once was.

Not talking to the right people at all! Spoke to anyone who do not get their information from CIA press transcripts?

That's the kind of depths it has descended to. Sometiems I'm a bit surprised they can still sustain a war in Chechnya.

They are fighting a rebel insurgency ( Supported by the west) which can not really be stopped ( Iraq, etc) and the more damage they do to the countries infrastructure the more harm they do themselves as they will have to eventually rebuild it. How much damage has Chechnya suffered in comparison with the misery of average Iraqi's and how much of that is actually due to Russian terror/firepower?

And most of all, never judge something that's never seen action or has never happened.

I agree but is it not fair that this standard at least be appled to ALL nations and that prior performance of earlier generation systems of the same family be taken into account?

Stellar

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
I am just really going to respond to this.

If you live in the US you must be BLIND AND DEAF and if you don't (which it says you are in South Africa), then you are just ignorant of American affairs.

Well i am better informed on the Iraq war than 99% of Americans. Don't waste my time with pointless comments like the last one.

Because...nobody in the US thinks the Iraqi war is all won and all over. The midterm election is riding on the Iraqi War.

Nobody? That's a pretty big claim and i would find it very interesting if you can produce links to poll's that suggest even half of Americans think that the USA is doing 'very badly' in Iraq in terms of casualties or cost. I love to be surprised....

Most people dying now (like the hundreds of bodies found around Baghdad) are not due to American forces. Nor are the newly found torture chambers.

Not due to American forces or not due to the war American started in that country? Where is the evidence that those people were killed by anyone other than Iraq forces ( fighting for their American occupiers) or American or alliance forces? That aside what is a few hundred assassinations measures against tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians being bombed to death? Both could have been prevented had the American 'national security state" ( Parenti) not gotten involved.

By the way, what is your opinion on why the US would plant bombs in the Shiites and Sunnis mosques?(which has never been proven).

To stir up civil strife and encourage terrorism and attacks on American and government forces. I would say the main aim is to get those two groups fighting each other so that American will have a half decent reason for staying on in the country for the next few decades as they clearly intend to.

Stellar

Originally posted by danwild6
Well you said you were.

Not that much!

Well by the time US forces had reached Baghdad the it was pretty much over for Saddam. And from what I've seen from news reports Saddam didn't really have a master plan for the defense of Baghdad.

Then you should read up on what actually happened!

He never even beleieved that the US wanted to remove him or wouldn't have been aloud to by the rest of the world.

He thought he could invade Kuwait and then negotiate a deal concerning their slant drilling and other issues. He did NOT expect to get bombed at all and in fact tried his best to get out of situation without losing too much face. The truth seems to be that the American government suckered him into the invasion and then refused to allow him to leave with his pride even remotely intact; the USA WANTED a excuse to move in the ME with gusto.

Or that the Serbian army in Kosovo couldn't continue operations because every time they'd come out in the open they'd get the crap bombed out of them.

Evidence that they were not successful in their primary aim of destroying KLA infrastructure and manpower concentrations? As far as i know they were in fact very successful. They lost very little equipment ( somewhere between 5-10% due to all causes) and if it was not for NATO choosing to bomb Serbian civilians and Serbian infrastructure ( power plants/industrial sites/water sanitation/hospitals bridges etc) their military could have gone on conducting operations for probably as long as it would have taken to put the KLA back many many years.

And I don't believe that it has ever been the goal of NATO or the western european powers to destabilize eastern europe before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Then you need to study history. There really is so much information and it's pretty hard for me to try sum it up simply due to you not having much of a clue. ...

Oh and lets just forget about the Kosovars

Milosevic brought that war on himself and his people. That very fact puts the main responsibilty

Serbians ( and everyone else who got bombed, by NATO by accident hardly deserved that and there is still no evidence of anything even remotely genocidal looking. Milosevic brought the war on himself in as much as he thought he could pursue a terrorist organization outside his borders with the use of regular armed forces. If NATO had a problem with him for prior actions in the region they should just say so ( and provide some evidence) and not make up such blatant lies in this instance.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
He thought he could invade Kuwait and then negotiate a deal concerning their slant drilling and other issues. He did NOT expect to get bombed at all and in fact tried his best to get out of situation without losing too much face. The truth seems to be that the American government suckered him into the invasion and then refused to allow him to leave with his pride even remotely intact; the USA WANTED a excuse to move in the ME with gusto.

LOL negotiate a deal, yeah right. So the fact that his security forces imprisoned tortured and killed thousands of Kuwaiti's were to lay the foundations for negotiations. You need to educate yourself somewhat.
The fcat is Saddam was pissed because the Kuwaiti's called in his Iran-Iraq war debt adn he thought that the debt should be forgiven.
Slant drillig was a minor issue at best.

Evidence that they were not successful in their primary aim of destroying KLA infrastructure and manpower concentrations? As far as i know they were in fact very successful. They lost very little equipment ( somewhere between 5-10% due to all causes) and if it was not for NATO choosing to bomb Serbian civilians and Serbian infrastructure ( power plants/industrial sites/water sanitation/hospitals bridges etc) their military could have gone on conducting operations for probably as long as it would have taken to put the KLA back many many years.

Hmm, if they didn't choose teh air campaign option they would have put forces on the ground, which would have dealt with the Serbs very very quickly. The Serbian Army in Kosovo would hvae been completely destroyed. SO they were lucky NATO chose the air campaign road.

Then you need to study history. There really is so much information and it's pretty hard for me to try sum it up simply due to you not having much of a clue. ...

The thing is you don't either, you read fringe websited and books and have never travelled outside of South Africa. You are hardly a worldly person.
You display teh typical Afrikaaner arrogance though, which I find quite amusing.

Serbians ( and everyone else who got bombed, by NATO by accident hardly deserved that and there is still no evidence of anything even remotely genocidal looking. Milosevic brought the war on himself in as much as he thought he could pursue a terrorist organization outside his borders with the use of regular armed forces.

So executing civilians piece mealnis fighting terrorism, I think you need to do some more research. Couple this with the 10's of thousands of civilans teh Serbs killed in teh Balkan Wars, NATO had every right to be worried. Come on step into the real world for a change.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by rogue1]

The alleged MiG 25 shooting down the F/A 18 has never been confirmed and no Iraqi has claimed the kill. The Iraqis never established air superiority and the MiG 25 never dominated any combat situation ever in its history of existence. Any serendipitious victory over Iraq. There is no way to put a spin on pilots running for their lives to escape as being dominant in any stretch of the imagination. For all we know Speicher was hit by AAA and was in his chute when the MiG got a lock on a pilotless plane. At the very very best, if the kill was made by a MiG it was a fluke.

A-12 and the B-70 Mach 3 machines were both impetus for the Russkies to slap together the crate. It used the only engines available that could do the job half way well. Sergei Turmansky had developed a engine for a high altitude drone that due to Sov metalurgical problems was a huge all steel unit that sucked fuel ravenously. These engines had poor throttle response since they were never designed for pilot control. Didn't matter for an unmanned drone but for a front line combat craft it did. Sov pilots were forbade to exceed Mach 2.5 because the engines usually accelerate out of control. Nearly every time they did their engines were pure junk for the scrap heap afterwards.

The plane had only a combat radius of 186 miles using the AB even at best altitude in intercept mode! It could barely scramble, climb out to altitude and make ONE pass. The Americans didn't believe Belenko either at first. The Sovs could make a max of 744 miles using no after burner flying in a straight line but almost never tried to exceed 558 miles. There was no provision for external fuel. At low altitude fuel consumption was worse!! To state that the 25 could "sustain" high mach is simply an inappropriate choice of verbiage.

The missiles originally slated for the MiG 25 were 2 R-40R radar-guided and 2 IR R-40Ts. With all 4 missiles on the rails it couldn't climb over 68,900 feet. With 2 it could hit 78,700 feet. The missiles didn't function at all above 88,500 feet so they could have never brought down the A-12/SR-71. They had short ranges anyhow- 40 miles and 13 miles respectively- far shorter than any US counterpart.

While radar was powerful but with a normal acquisition range of 31 miles it was short and it couldn't discern grond clutter in a look-down-shoot-down scenario below 1,700 feet.

With full tanks manevering was limited to Mach 2.2!! With nearly empty tanks anything above 5 Gs was prohibitely dangerous. It couldn't out turn an F-4!!

The fire control system of the F-4 was miniturized and far more precise and accurate than the MiG's. It's all steel constuction with a couple leading edge tittanium wing shields was not in the spirit of hi-tech with sloppy welds and rivet heads sticking up.

The Foxbat was barely the equal of the 15 year old F-4 save for short burst of speed!! The F-15 and F-16 could out climb, out turn, out accelerate, out see, out hide and out shoot the MiG 25.

The MiG 25 had one role only and that was to intercept The non-existant B-70 and the SR-71, which its missiles couldn't reach anyway. In any air to air fighter vs fighter scenario the MiG was doomed. Where's the invincibility of the vaunted paper tiger MiG 25? Nowhere. It was all myth and propaganda.

If anyone here has ever worked for an aircraft manufacturer which produced warplanes they would know that systems and equipment DOES vary for export models. My best friend put in time with Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. We have such an array of adequate radars and fire control systems and such there is no reason to put the latest ones in export models. The Sovs don't either as has been witnessed by their satellites in the Cold War. Eastern European nation of the Soviet Bloc were found to have inferior systems and equipment in most cases than when planes like the MiG 15, 17, 19 IL-28 and etc. were front line USSR crates.

I can tell you most assuredly that that inferior structural materials are not substituted in export aircraft anywhere. Just how many reorders would anyone get by supplying inferior, dangerous products?

Originally posted by Cruizer
The alleged MiG 25 shooting down the F/A 18 has never been confirmed and no Iraqi has claimed the kill.

www.fas.org...

Appendix G says your simply wrong.

Iraq is believed to have obtained about 20 MiG-25PDs and eight MiG-25RBs in the 1980s. The MiG-25RBs were apparently used in a considerable number of air strikes on Iranian targets during the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s.

Many Iraqi Foxbats were destroyed on the ground during the Gulf War in 1991, and two were shot down in air combat by F-15s. One MiG-25PD shot down a US Navy F/A-18 Hornet on 20 January 1991, the only air-to-air kill scored by the Iraqis during the entire conflict. Another MiG-25 was shot down by F-16s on 25 December 1992 as a Christmas present to Saddam Hussein. A few MiG-25s were found after the US invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, with some included in a batch of aircraft that had been buried under the sand for concealment.

www.vectorsite.net...

Seems to be suggesting that your wrong...

The Iraqis never established air superiority and the MiG 25 never dominated any combat situation ever in its history of existence.

# ^ Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold History of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993, pp 125-126. Quote: But as the Ravens began their second orbit in a counterclockwise turn toward the Syrian border (over Al-Qaim), a MiG-25 suddenly darted toward them at high speed. The Iraqi fired one air-to-air missile at the lead Raven and two at his wingman. The missiles flew wide, but the Ravens dived to escape and then, uncertain where the MiG was lurking, turned back to Saudi Arabia.
# ^ Atkinson, pp 230-231. Two quotes:

* Eighty miles south of the CAP (Coalition Air Patrol), AWACS called a third time "Bandit west, seventy mile. High. Fast." This time it was real. A pair of MiG-25 Foxbats, flying at 42,000 feet and astonishing one thousand knots - faster than an F-15's top speed - streaked from the Iraqi capital toward Cindy CAP. The two Eagle pilots on CAP, flying under call signs Vegas and Giggle, turned to face the enemy fighters. Giggles, slighty in front of his wingman, fired two Sparrow air-to-air missiles at the lead Foxbat, which in turn fired at Vegas. The foxbat banked north in a sweeping turn at twice the speed of sound, outrunning both Sparrows. Vegas peeled south to avoid the enemy missile. He then re-entered the fight and fired three Sparrow missiles at the second Foxbat, but for reason never determined, none of them left the Eagle wings. Vegas, alarmed, broke south. Giggles fired a final, futile missile at the fleeing MiGs and turned to protect his wingman.
* Now Bigum (Lieutenant Colonel Randy) fired. The Sparrow darted from under his plane and climbed sharply before knifing back toward the ground, a sign that the missile had locked onto his target. Bigum watched as the first Iraqi landed and rolled down the runway. "Come on, Bitch" he urged the missile repeatedly. But the Sparrow never made it. The Foxbat had slowed to a forty-knot taxi, and the radar-guided misile could no longer distinguish between aircraft and ground clutter. Then the trail Foxbat floated into view a mile from the western end of the runway, landing gear down. Bigum squeezed off another missile. Again the Sparrow climbed and dived. By this time Bigum had descended to eight thousand feet, directly over the airfield. Only concern at hitting the MiG, he guessed, had kept the Iraqi gunners from firing at such an easy target. As he banked left to escape, the second Foxbat touched down. Bigum saw the curve of the pilot's helmet and puffs of smoke spurt from the tires. Ten feet from the Foxbat's left wingtip, the Sparrow plunged into the runway and exploded. The Iraqi taxied unscathed toward the flight line. The Eagle pilots had fired ten missiles to no effect.

# ^ Atkinson, p 75. Quote: Some of the targets missed or only damaged in the first wave were attacked again. Four F-111s, headed north toward Tikrit, Saddam's summer home, left unscathed on the first night. One turned back, one fled from a pursuing MiG-25, one missed the target, and the fourth put a 2000-pound bomb through the palace skylight.

en.wikipedia.org...

War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war--then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.

An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111's retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There's more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren't expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat's off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.

aeroweb.lucia.it...

So if you did some research you would have known this but since your all about bluster and generally wasting my time....

Any serendipitious victory over Iraq. There is no way to put a spin on pilots running for their lives to escape as being dominant in any stretch of the imagination. For all we know Speicher was hit by AAA and was in his chute when the MiG got a lock on a pilotless plane. At the very very best, if the kill was made by a MiG it was a fluke.

And you will apparently say just anything to defend your chosen position without much caring for investigation of the issue. For the US air force to admit air to air kills is very hard to start with ( there are rumours that the Israeli's lost a F-15 but they did not admit it due to the perfect record so far in US service) and losing ANY to 'junk' from 1950 just would not sit well so there was obviously no way for them to deny that this really happened.

A-12 and the B-70 Mach 3 machines were both impetus for the Russkies to slap together the crate. It used the only engines available that could do the job half way well. Sergei Turmansky had developed a engine for a high altitude drone that due to Sov metalurgical problems was a huge all steel unit that sucked fuel ravenously.

In actual reality they could have set out to design an entirely new engine that could do what they wanted but since it's better ( in a strategic sense) to be mostly or half prepared instead of perfectly prepared after the fact. They worked with what they had and it was a engineering feat of epic proportions to have managed what they in fact did. They in the end turned out with something that had better performance at mach three CARRYING WEAPONS than the US managed in a air frame ( blackbird) designed specifically for the purpose with is something worth talking about imo

That said, the MiG-25's published 4.5G limit (2.2G with full tanks and weapon loadout) is believed only to exist to satisfy safety regulations; the airframe is widely reported to have a slightly more-respectable 'without deformation' handling limit of 5.0-6.5G. Either way it is considerably less puny when one considers it applies throughout the Foxbat's entire speed range. How many aircraft can pull 4Gs at mach 2.5? One one occasion, during dogfight training a Foxbat was inadvertantly subject to 11.5G stress without breaking up, although the airframe had to be written off due to deformation.

The MiG-25 also used to hold a speed record of 2,319.12km/h or 1,449.45mph over a 1000km closed circuit with 1000kg and 2000kg payloads, set on March 16, 1965. These records were both beaten by a considerable margin by the SR-71 and the YF-12A respectively on July 27, 1976 and May 1, 1965. Presumably the USAF didn't see fit to bother trying for the 100km closed circuit record, which the SR-71 would have undoubtedly shattered.

If the SR-71 and A-12 aircraft didn't have such stringent manoeuvring envelopes they could probably easily beat the MiG-25's time-to-altitude record. Things being as they are, such an attempt would probably cause the aircraft to break up.(15) Operating within limits, it takes an SR-71 about 14 minutes to reach 80,000ft and mach 3 in full afterburner. Go figure.

Note that the MiG-25 performance records were all set by prototypes. The prototypes all had designators beginning Ye-155 or Ye-266 and for the record attempts were designated either E-266 or E-266M, should you wish to look these records up. The difference between the E-266 and E-266M is improved engines in the E-266M, as noted earlier.

everything2.com...

Continue Part 2

These engines had poor throttle response since they were never designed for pilot control. Didn't matter for an unmanned drone but for a front line combat craft it did. Sov pilots were forbade to exceed Mach 2.5 because the engines usually accelerate out of control. Nearly every time they did their engines were pure junk for the scrap heap afterwards.

Actually they were forbidden to go above 2.8 in normal circumstances as the engines were ( as i understand very likely) prone to getting into a runaway cycle and burning out. If your going to intercept nuclear armed bombers that's obviously not of cardinal importance!

"In terms of speed, MiG-25 can fly at mach 3.2 but after that flight - and it will be short one, I don't know how long but it will be short one - but after that flight you must change its engines."
-Viktor Belenko

"Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed."(10)

"...at speeds of Mach 2.8 or more the engines tended to run out of control and burn up. There were tales in the West that Foxbats that did fly at Mach 3+ for an extended period needed an engine swap when they came back down. "(11)

"When I was in Europe training on the MiG 21 and 23 I spoke with a few pilots who had flown the '25 and they without exception stated that in order to go Mach-3 the engines were subsequently scrap. Serious overtemps." (15)

everything2.com...

The plane had only a combat radius of 186 miles using the AB even at best altitude in intercept mode! It could barely scramble, climb out to altitude and make ONE pass.

Cruise range 1560 nm

www.fas.org...

Range: 1,730 km (1,075 mi) with internal fuel

en.wikipedia.org...

range (subsonic) 1,730 kilometers 1,075 MI / 935 NMI
range (supersonic) 1,250 kilometers 775 MI / 675 NMI ( for mig-25 PD post defection upgrade)

www.vectorsite.net...

Those speeds where only required for super fast opponents and since the B-52 and B-58 ( very cool plane btw en.wikipedia.org... ) were to be it's main rivals it did not have to fly at such high speeds AT ALL unless required for point defense against SAC based bombers in Japan or western Europe. For defense against continental US based bombers subsonic speeds were not required and refueling was possible. To suggest that either of the aircraft they were going to have to interdict could climb to altitude faster and burn less fuel is uninformed and this was the era of 'dumb' nuclear bombs so the opponent had to get pretty close to target giving the Mig-25 the opportunity to intercept with it's high ( if required suicidal run out of fuel and eject type scenario) dash speeds. It was basically a piloted guided missile with missiles....

The Americans didn't believe Belenko either at first. The Sovs could make a max of 744 miles using no after burner flying in a straight line but almost never tried to exceed 558 miles. There was no provision for external fuel. At low altitude fuel consumption was worse!! To state that the 25 could "sustain" high mach is simply an inappropriate choice of verbiage.

At that range the system could accomplish it's primary aim of at best discouraging unsupported bomber swarms or at worse gone up and tried to shoot them down. If you can shoot down a f-18 in 1991 i'm pretty sure you can shoot down a B-52/B-58 in 1965 as their only self defense was ECM which the Mig-25 could burn trough with relative ease and certainly at the close distances it's ground tracking stations could provide. Either way the Mig-25 could be refueled so it could dash out at fast pace making a combat sweep and return at high altitude to tank up and repeat chasing off whatever was not well supported and ready to ward off extremely high speed interceptors.

One MiG-25PD was modified with a 25 centimeter (10 inch) nose plug to accommodate a retractable inflight refueling probe, and was also fitted with additional navigation gear to help it find a tanker. It was given the designation of "MiG-25PDZ". Although some sources claim that a number of operational machines also received this modification, in reality the scheme also foundered on lack of resources, particularly a scarcity of tankers.

www.vectorsite.net...

So basically it could be adapted for refueling and when sources claim that the USSR could not 'afford' something i normally take that to read ' did not think they required such capability' considering that the Backfire's could be refueled despite the CIA claiming otherwise.

The BACKFIRE is a long-range aircraft capable of performing nuclear strike, conventional attack, antiship, and reconnaissance missions. Its low-level penetration features make it a much more survivable system than its predecessors. Carrying either bombs or AS-4/KITCHEN air-to-surface missiles, it is a versatile strike aircraft, currently intended for theater attack in Europe and Asia but also capable of intercontinental missions against the United States. The BACKFIRE can be equipped with probes to permit inflight refueling, which would further increase its range and flexibility.

www.fas.org...

and for more detail www.heritage.org...

So basically they decided that they would rather use the tankers for something else and or build no more tankers if all Mig-25's did not have this capacity anyways. Since interception of nuclear carrying bombers was a primary strategic aim one can scarcely believed that tankers would not be built of made available if this capacity was critical to the adequate functioning of the Mig-25 as nuclear armed bomber.

The missiles originally slated for the MiG 25 were 2 R-40R radar-guided and 2 IR R-40Ts. With all 4 missiles on the rails it couldn't climb over 68,900 feet.

Thomas said that the Foxbat can carry its full weapons load to Mach 2.8, while a clean recon version can do Mach 3+. Actually, the recon versions have the same limit as the interceptors: Mach 2.83. This is not a thrust limit. You might note that the RB versions of the Foxbat can carry four bombs(!) to Mach 2.83. The Mach 2.83 is a theoretical stability limit on the airframe (which has been safely exceeded on numerous occasions by test pilots). At speeds greater than Mach 2.6 however, throttle control must be precise to keep the engines from overspeeding.

Western Fighter Comparisons -

Lest you think that I am implying that the Foxbat is not a capable aircraft, especially in performance, you might consider the abilities of Western fighters. The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of tip 'winders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78. The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter. Furthermore, the Foxbat has demonstrated the ability to outrun all U.S. frontline fighters at _low_ altitude. The Foxbat is hardly a dud.

aeroweb.lucia.it...

Why would it want to climb higher than 70 000 feet with four missiles or bombs?

With 2 it could hit 78,700 feet. The missiles didn't function at all above 88,500 feet so they could have never brought down the A-12/SR-71.

Evidence that the missiles could not function at that height? If so why would they be required to function at that altitude? Is it not more logical to make better missiles than attempt building entirely new planes so you can get a level rear shot which was almost always going to be improbable against a mach 3 platform? Your conclusion simple does not follow from your , suspect but i don't want to spend more hours looking it up, statement whatever the reality of it.

They had short ranges anyhow- 40 miles and 13 miles respectively- far shorter than any US counterpart.

How is 60 km far shorter than 70 km which was the standard for the Sparrow? We KNOW how the Sparrow fared in Vietnam at the time so do we logically assume that things could get much worse for Soviet air to air missiles or much better?

Speed: Mach 4
Range: 44 mi (70 km)

en.wikipedia.org...

SARH

Should include the Phoenix( i think 160 km range but out of editing space)

Against

# Speed: Mach 4.5
# Range:60 km (37 mi)

en.wikipedia.org...

SARH

#Speed Mach 3.5
#Range 160 km (100 mi)

en.wikipedia.org...

SARH

#Speed Mach 3.5
#Range 280 km (175 mi)

en.wikipedia.org...

SARH

# Speed: Mach 2.5
Range: 1-18 km (0.62-11.3 mi)

en.wikipedia.org...

IR

Against

# Speed: Mach 4.5
# Range: 30 km (19 mi);

en.wikipedia.org...

IR

While radar was powerful but with a normal acquisition range of 31 miles it was short and it couldn't discern grond clutter in a look-down-shoot-down scenario below 1,700 feet.

Below 1700 feet the bombers would eat Sam's ( even shoulder fired IR Sam's ) by the dozens and nothing would save subsonic bombers from being ripped apart by normal interceptor aircraft.
Why would your radar need such abilities considering that there are plenty of weapons closed which could easily shoot down such bombers? Why expend your high altitude interception capacity on low flying bombers? Pretty obvious to me...

With full tanks manevering was limited to Mach 2.2!! With nearly empty tanks anything above 5 Gs was prohibitely dangerous. It couldn't out turn an F-4!!

Continue part 3


[edit on 14-10-2006 by StellarX]

That said, the MiG-25's published 4.5G limit (2.2G with full tanks and weapon loadout) is believed only to exist to satisfy safety regulations; the airframe is widely reported to have a slightly more-respectable 'without deformation' handling limit of 5.0-6.5G. Either way it is considerably less puny when one considers it applies throughout the Foxbat's entire speed range. How many aircraft can pull 4Gs at mach 2.5? One one occasion, during dogfight training a Foxbat was inadvertantly subject to 11.5G stress without breaking up, although the airframe had to be written off due to deformation.

The MiG-25 also used to hold a speed record of 2,319.12km/h or 1,449.45mph over a 1000km closed circuit with 1000kg and 2000kg payloads, set on March 16, 1965. These records were both beaten by a considerable margin by the SR-71 and the YF-12A respectively on July 27, 1976 and May 1, 1965. Presumably the USAF didn't see fit to bother trying for the 100km closed circuit record, which the SR-71 would have undoubtedly shattered.

If the SR-71 and A-12 aircraft didn't have such stringent manoeuvring envelopes they could probably easily beat the MiG-25's time-to-altitude record. Things being as they are, such an attempt would probably cause the aircraft to break up.(15) Operating within limits, it takes an SR-71 about 14 minutes to reach 80,000ft and mach 3 in full afterburner. Go figure.

Note that the MiG-25 performance records were all set by prototypes. The prototypes all had designators beginning Ye-155 or Ye-266 and for the record attempts were designated either E-266 or E-266M, should you wish to look these records up. The difference between the E-266 and E-266M is improved engines in the E-266M, as noted earlier.

everything2.com...

Which once again is , somehow, assuming that that performance could be rivalled in the west ( and it was not as far as i know). At least one Mig ( in training so probably not with all or many pylons filled) pulled 11 g's and managed to land. It would obviously take almost a miracle for a F-4 to catch it and would be unlikely to survive 5 g's at Mach 2.2 either.

The fire control system of the F-4 was miniturized and far more precise and accurate than the MiG's.

Evidence? Was it really and if so what imo was the reason for the dismal Sparrow performance of the Sparrow during the Vietnam war?

It's all steel constuction with a couple leading edge tittanium wing shields was not in the spirit of hi-tech with sloppy welds and rivet heads sticking up.

From an elevated-temperature strength:weight perspective. Ti is tough to beat. If it were not for the elevated temperature factor however, alloy steels would stomp Ti. In order to make steel structures competitive with Ti structures for high speed aircraft, you've got to use exotic designs like the B-70's honeycomb. Kelly Johnson knew enough about the nightmares NAA was having with fabricating SS honeycomb to write off this option for the design of the A-12. One has to wonder however, if Kelly knew how much trouble he was going to have with the Ti manufacturing, would he have reconsidered the SS honeycomb?

The Soviets rejected SS honeycomb for the same reasons that Kelly did. I'm sure they would have loved to make the MiG-25 out of Ti, but this was impractical given the current level of Soviet Ti technology, the imposed schedule and the required number of Foxbats to be built. Nickel steel was a compromise, but not nearly as much of one as the aviation press would suggest. The Western press was used to seeing Al and Ti airplanes (they conveniently ignored the X-15, B-70, F-103, F-108 and other high Mach designs) so a steel airplane was a foreign concept to them. Perhaps the USAF was still sore that they seriously screwed-up the F-X design by requiring it to combat super-Foxbats (the CIA had miscalculated the weight of the Foxbat by incorrectly assuming it was made from Al), so they went along with the Foxbat bashing.

Yes, the Foxbat would have better performance if it were made of Ti. At high Mach, however, the difference would be minor. A Ti Foxbat would perhaps have a ceiling a few thousand feet higher. You could also probably tack another couple thousand feet onto its already amazing climb rate. Lest we forget however, nothing made of Ti has come anywhere close to the Ye-266's absolute altitude record. You might also consider that the Ti F-12B was limited to 1.5g at high Mach, while the steel MiG-25P is cleared for 4.5g maneuvers at high Mach.

aeroweb.lucia.it...

* Welding was done by hand and construction was relatively crude. As in many Soviet aircraft, rivet heads were left exposed in areas that would not adversely affect aerodynamic drag.

* 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's massive 64,000 lb (29 ton) unarmed weight.

en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously it's not steel but a ALLOY and i suspect your not stupid/ignorant ( i would be surprised if you could not figure out even this) enough to make this mistake so do tell me who is paying you to make these obviously stupid comments. Thanks...

The Foxbat was barely the equal of the 15 year old F-4 save for short burst of speed!! The F-15 and F-16 could out climb, out turn, out accelerate, out see, out hide and out shoot the MiG 25.

Non of this is true as far as i can tell and considering your dismal record so far i reckon you can may start providing the source material you base these rather ludicrous claims on. The Israeli's are damn good at the making war stuff and if they could intercept mig-25's with F-4's ( from the rear so the Mig 25's never knew what hit him) we should not read overly much into that. That intercept had all the hallmarks of great planning, highly skilled piloting, specific tactical and operational conditions, the right type of enemy and luck.

The MiG 25 had one role only and that was to intercept The non-existant B-70 and the SR-71, which its missiles couldn't reach anyway.

Not true.

The MiG-25 was designed as a counter for the A-12, not the XB-70. It had been widely held that the MiG-25 was a counter to the XB-70, but recent revelations by the MiG OKB (notably by R.A. Belyakov, the OKB's current head) have dispelled this myth.

aeroweb.lucia.it...

In principle, a MiG-25 could intercept an SR-71 if everything was right, though the window of opportunity was narrow. However, it was apparently still wide enough to discourage the US from performing deep overflights of Soviet territory with the Blackbird.

www.vectorsite.net...

In any air to air fighter vs fighter scenario the MiG was doomed. Where's the invincibility of the vaunted paper tiger MiG 25? Nowhere. It was all myth and propaganda.

The Israelis shot down two Syrian MiG-25s in 1981, while some non-Western sources report that a MiG-25 downed an Israeli F-15 in 1981. Another Syrian MiG-25 was shot down by an Israeli HAWK surface-to-air missile in 1982.

The MiG-25 was in service with the Iraqi Air Force during the Iran-Iraq War, but its combat results are unclear.

During the 1991 Gulf War, two MiG-25s were shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15Cs. After the war in 1992, a U.S. F-16 downed a MiG-25 that violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.

US military officials initially claimed that no American aircraft was lost in air-to-air combat during the war. However, later investigations indicated that a US Navy F/A-18 piloted by LCDR Speicher was shot down by an air-to-air missile on the first night of the war.[2] The kill was reportedly made with a R-40DT missile fired from a MiG-25PDS flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th squadron of the IrAF.[3]

In another incident, an Iraqi Foxbat-E, after eluding eight USAF F-15s, fired three missiles at EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission.[4] This may have led to the later loss of an F-15 to surface-to-air missiles (which resulted in the capture of its pilot), due to the lack of electronic jamming (assuming the Ravens would have been successfull in jamming, had they been there).

In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the Foxbats, though none could reach them.[5]

According to the same sources, at least one F-111 was also forced to abort its mission by a Foxbat on the first 24 hours of hostilities, during an air raid over Tikrit.[6]

In December 2002, four months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down a U.S. Air Force unmanned Predator drone.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now i am not trying to make the Mig-25 into some kind of super plane but in the cold war scenario it was supposed to serve in it would not have been subject to the types of conditions it were normally required to operate in while in service with Syria, Iraq and other third world nations who never had a chance against the USA anyways. The Israeli's as i suggested earliier almost always managed great feats with relatively modest equipment so there is no reason to consider the Mig-25 inferior based on it's performance in battle's it was never supposed to fight. LIke much of soviet equipment it was designed for specific goals and trying to use it in other ways could make them seem rather inferior. From to above it's clear that even under these normally bad ( and sometimes hopeless) conditions it still managed a few upsets against superior forces and even vaster force numbers.

Continue part 4

If anyone here has ever worked for an aircraft manufacturer which produced warplanes they would know that systems and equipment DOES vary for export models. My best friend put in time with Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. We have such an array of adequate radars and fire control systems and such there is no reason to put the latest ones in export models. The Sovs don't either as has been witnessed by their satellites in the Cold War. Eastern European nation of the Soviet Bloc were found to have inferior systems and equipment in most cases than when planes like the MiG 15, 17, 19 IL-28 and etc. were front line USSR crates.

The in the right hands ( Indian/ NATA pilots in various exercises ) even old mig-21's can be suprisingly versatile and effective combat platforms. The 'junk' mentality is a western one and the west is now ,and will continue in the future to pay a high price for this.

I can tell you most assuredly that that inferior structural materials are not substituted in export aircraft anywhere. Just how many reorders would anyone get by supplying inferior, dangerous products?

The US and many others normally attached long political and economic strings to their products and sometimes one must take what you can just to escape all the crud that they will force on you for the ( at least sometimes superior) equipment. I think from now on you should include your source material as evidently you prone to making claims with no basis in reality.

Stellar


EDIT

The Phoenix was only operated from carriers ( F-14's) and i am unsure if F-14's were ever deployed in overseas bases as permanent interceptor contigents so that's why i left it out of the section. The Missiles i mentioned were all of the same era and i did not include the most modern ( post early 90's) American or Russian weapons.

Ok the bottom line is that if an Iraqi got a lucky hit on the F/A 18 it was just that- a fluke. One kill don't make no air superiority or turn the tide of a battle. MiG 25s did not dominate the battle field in Iraq so I completely reject any portrayal of it as some super plane.

As for the quality and mission role of the MiG 25 anyone may believe what they wish. As a writer of air combat accounts I have interviewed hundreds of aces and pertinemt personnel in conflicts from WW 2 on. I've sat with top Russian aces, German aces many American and British aces plus a couple Japanese aces. I interviewed Viktor Belenko long ago when he was present at a function in Southern California.

Throwing statistics produced by propaganda-driven states falls short when compared with accounts from the individuals who were participants in history. Belenko was straight forward about the good and poor points of the Foxbat. "It was a remarkably easy to maintain plane with thought given for normal servicing simplicity. The cockpit was well laid out and visibility was decent. It had a good auto-pilot too."

"1st you must realize that we truly believed the B-70 was coming along. Hell, it was being publicly test flown for just that effect. The political officer showed us films of it flying. We knew the SR-71 was flying because they tracked it on radar every time it was in range."

They acknowledge that it was a real and present threat and that the B-70 would outclass everything they had. They were actually of the belief that the SR-71 was watching them day and night. The paranoia ran deep. The B-70 pre-dated the SR-71 with information leaked to the Soviets in 1960, a time before the Blackbird was for real. So of course the B-70 was a threat. It wasn't cancelled until 1967, long after the MiG 25 was flying.

The political officers told the pilots that they didn't believe the B-70 was cancelled. It had to be some sort of ruse because just because one crashed in testing wouldn't be reason enough to abandon it and the Americn capitalists had plenty of money to fund building them.

The MiG 25 was a throw-together crate cobbled up out of the desperation of OUR Cold War propaganda. The USSR and the USA swallowed each others propaganda! No MiG 25 was supposed to fly at Mach 2.5 and do 5 G manuevers and neither was any American ship. I can tell you without doubt that Duke Cunningham and Steve Ritchie both manuevered against MiGs at that rate of G and more- not at Mach 2, of course!

Point is the MiG 25 was prohibited from the aforementioned Mach numbers at any speed! Viktor related the stories that led to those prohibitions that never made the western news. Lots of MiG 25 jocks cashed in their chips thinking they could throw their crate around like it was a MiG 17. "If the tanks are full there was so much weight in the wings that they would tear off if you manuevered above 2.2" During training and familiarization the Sovs drove the pilots 12 hours a day 7 days a week in some misguided effort to make them "magically become proficient." "The MiG 25 is an unforgiving aircraft and many pilots lost their lives too from being too tired to compensate for its idiosyncracies."

He had been an instructor in MiG 17s and SU 19s and thouroughly familiar with the 25. When I met him he had already been exposed to F-14s, 15, and 16s in ride-alongs. He was blown away by their abject superiority in electronic, fire control, armament and navagational systems that completely eclipsed anything he'd ever seen. Technically he was never supposed to have hands on stick but....

As for pure dash speed the MiG 25 that raced over Israel from Egypt in 1973 at Mach 3.2 led the Americans to believe that this was its normal operation speed. "Nothing was farther from the truth. We were warned to never exceed Mach 2.5. EVERY time it flew that fast (Mach 2.8+) the engines overheat and burn up. You (the Americans) didn't realize that every time a MiG flew that fast the engines were ruined and the pilot was lucky to land in one piece!"

"In interception excercises the poor range limited our take off for intercept so severely that it was a coin throw if we could reach altitude, simulate missile firing and make it back to land. Sadly, some pilots did not make it. We would have had to wait for an enemy to be nearly overhead before we took off to ensure our ability to return to base. It would have been a true gamble if a wing of B-70 appeared near our base. Certainly we could not have intercepted them all. A few minor course corrections and the use of afterburner and we would have the red fuel warning light before we were even set up to shoot."

"You know when I escaped I flew out of Chuguyevka with full tanks- 14 tons of fuel- and used all but about 50 US gallons in just 500 miles! And this was sweating out a best-economy mode. Unlimited afterburner use needed for an intercept restricted us to no more than 300 kilometers( 186 miles) radius."

So what eventual modifications and/or improvement came in the way of missiles later, as of 1976 the MiG 25 could not have intercepted the SR-71 and it would have been a crap shoot to destroy a wing of B-70s at 80,000 feet.

The hoopla and propaganda of how good the MiG 25 was always came from the press once Belenko had educated our misguided military analists. After 1976 every guy that went through training knew what to expect from the Foxbat.

He insisted the MiG was not a fighter and not an air superiority plane. It was an interceptor, nothing more. "It did that job reasonable well but it would be virtually helpless against even the F-4." Viktor ended our interview with- "No F-14, F-15 or F-16 pilot need fear the MiG 25. Every system and countermeasure they have is superior to the equal ones of the MiG. Any fighter pilot shot down by a MiG 25 would be either unlucky or asleep."

Originally posted by Cruizer
Ok the bottom line is that if an Iraqi got a lucky hit on the F/A 18 it was just that- a fluke. One kill don't make no air superiority or turn the tide of a battle. MiG 25s did not dominate the battle field in Iraq so I completely reject any portrayal of it as some super plane.

Bottom line is you were wrong and you are now covering your tracks. And for an air combat writer, it is almost atrocious for you to consider any air-to-air kill a fluke. There is no such thing as a fluke, either the missile works or it doesn't, either the pilot's countermeasures worked or it didn't. When Mark Fox shot down that MiG-21 in 1991, the first missile he fired actually appeared to fail at first, but then it ended up being the one that destroyed the Fishbed. Are you going to call that a fluke shot? Of course not, Mark Fox is American and it would be politically incorrect to do so.

Also, note that nobody ever stated the MiG-25 was a super-plane. Everyone simply said it was just a rather unique airplane that had some impressive capabilities we never saw in any other plane and probably will never see it again.

The MiG-25 has been successful in some regards. Deal with it.

The MiG 25 was a throw-together crate cobbled up out of the desperation of OUR Cold War propaganda. The USSR and the USA swallowed each others propaganda! No MiG 25 was supposed to fly at Mach 2.5 and do 5 G manuevers and neither was any American ship. I can tell you without doubt that Duke Cunningham and Steve Ritchie both manuevered against MiGs at that rate of G and more- not at Mach 2, of course!

Duke Cunningham was shot down, as were many other U.S. fighter pilots, who, until the end of the Vietnam War, were thuroughly dominated by aviators of the People's Air Force. So that says more about our guys than it did about their guys and their hotrods.

He insisted the MiG was not a fighter and not an air superiority plane. It was an interceptor, nothing more. "It did that job reasonable well but it would be virtually helpless against even the F-4." Viktor ended our interview with- "No F-14, F-15 or F-16 pilot need fear the MiG 25. Every system and countermeasure they have is superior to the equal ones of the MiG. Any fighter pilot shot down by a MiG 25 would be either unlucky or asleep."

I don't see how that disputes anything anybody else has been saying. Again, nobody said the MiG-25 is invulnerable in A2A combat. In fact, they have made it clear that the MiG-25 is an interceptor and interceptor only. Nobody is disputing that. Even Mr. Belenko says it did the job reasonably well. And nobody who is aware of the capabilities of the MiG-25 would ever force the plane to engage in a dogfight. That is an insult to the intelligence of fighter pilots around the world.

Let me also remind you that scoring a kill or achieving turkey shoot is very difficult. In air warfare, pilots are taught to take the shots as they come, not wait for the perfect shot. In reality, one shot may be all you get. Judging from that perspective, it goes to show just how lopsided the ratio of training and technological prowess (if there is one) is. Therefore, you can never say this aircraft will always defeat the other in an A2A engagement. Unless you're fighting from BVR, and even that can be sketchy, A2A engagements are decided by who stays consistently on the offensive. Since Vietnam, the U.S. has been fortunate to avoid some larger-scale A2A engagements, and I guarantee we would see flaws in our system and our aircraft had we fought a little more. One failed dogfight or stalemate would've shown the F-14 to be a lumbering truck that cannot sustain high-intensity air combat, unless its Sparrows hit.

And I'm saying that as a regular joe, not a writer of air combat history.

As a side-note, its funny you are making conclusions based off complete conjecture. The MiG-25 has never even seen more than a few battles. Until the aircraft actually shoots off more missiles or hits afterburner in combat a few more times, we can only speculate what kind of a system it really is.

Take my tone of voice with a grain of salt. I just want people to realize that as flawed as the USSR was, if push came to shove, that flawed gargantua would cause all sorts of disease and injury short of death to any who opposed them. The Russian Federation can no longer do that, of course.

I originally said something like not one Iraqi shot down a Coalition plane knowing about the "probable" F/A-18 deal. In relative terms one kill still don't make no battle won. This childish hair splitting "yeah but you said," is just pettyness. I stand by my statement that nobody trains like we do and on anything like equal terms a Navy, Marine or AF guy has a huge advantage going in. The whole alleged combat was convoluted and in the shadows of details. If some wish to play it up as a big victory for Saddam-trained pilots that's OK with me. Relative to all the combat that took place all I'm saying is that this one incident is not indicative of the direction the war went. As it has been since WW 1 training and experience wins the day. The pilot makes the difference in air combat and nobody trains like we do!

Stellar x is the chap that seemed to be touting the virtues of the MiG 25, though not entirely. He mentioned some stuff that was off center to my sources, that's all. Viktor and his pals knew the MiG 25 could do its job reasonably well with a lot of "ifs." If they got airborne too soon they'd run out of fuel loitering in wait for the enemy. If the enemy was too high they couldn't shoot him. If they had 4 missiles on the rails they couldn't make sufficient altitude to launch. If they had to pace an enemy for very long to get set up to fire they'd run out of fuel. They were expendable and no one cared if they returned or not. The blatant disregard that their brass displayed for the welfare of Viktor's fellow pilots still leaves a bitter resentment in him.

A "dogfight" is all together different than simple combat maneuvering and the damned MiG 25 couldn't even do that. Do you know how relatively gentle a 2.5-3 G manuever is which a loaded Foxbat cant't even do? I've pulled 3 Gs looping a Stearman biplane!

It was never suited for any of the type of combat that would evolve over Iraq. It was made to climb on AB to high altitude, shoot a missile or 2 and hope to have enough fuel to get home. The plane is not a multi-role fighter. My conclusions are based partly on an expert pilot's personal experiences from inside the cockpit and the plane's failures in other combats like with Israeli fighters, not conjecture. I don't have the time or interest now to eloborate yet another aspect MiG's inferiority, but search out the deatils and you'll see the IAF has never had a problem with the Foxbat in any combat scenario. See if Schlomo Levi is found on the web and there might be something about his 10 kills with the IAF and/or some of his experiences that he related to me.

The MiG 25 was a one trick pony that had a myth built around it not only by the propaganda of the USSR but by the US military so the top brass could turn up the flow of funding for more toys when the hardware we already had could have dealt with the puny threat the Foxbat represented. The MiG 29 deserves its good reputation the 25 doesn't.

Your statment about Duke is completely erroneous. His crate was damaged by a SAM not by any gomer in a MiG!!! To say that US pilots were completely dominated by these guys is simply a huge distortion of reality. AAA was the dominant factor in Nam and you should know that. Shame on you! All of my friends that flew in Korea were in Vietnam and none, none ever were dominated by any NV pilots. In almost every case they pulled the same crap as in Korea- at the first sign of American CAP fighters they'd run for safety.

On Duke and Willy's last sortie they scored more kills than anyone in the whole comflict in one mission and their 3rd was the leading NV ace. Please explain in detail how they were dominated. Steve Ritchie and Chuck DeBellvue weren't dominated by the vaunted MiG 21 either. They smoked 5 of them.

Please do not mistake attack planes that got shot up by MiGs and AAA while pounding the ground for CAP groups. The difference is vast. To perpetrate a myth that the NV were superior in the air is just criminal misconception.

To dismiss the F-14 or F-15 or even F-4 as lumbering trucks is completely false. The P-51, P-47 and P-38 were lumbering trucks compared to the Bf 109 or Zero. Once the P-40 pilots learned to emphasize its strengths and stay away from its weaknesses they beat the Japs regularly. Energy figher tactics prevailed not roundy-round fights.

The Tomcat, like most every American aircraft, fight energy fighter style. This "dogfighting" BS is completely wrong and rarely happens as people imagine. The F-14 can sustain more Gs and produce more enertia and zoom than its opponents in a fight. That lumbering truck could out see, out hide, and out shoot its opponents any time. Doesn't matter if you have a damned stunt plane when the enemy can see and shoot you first. It's missing the whole concept of modern air combat by imagining that contests are decided by Red Baron-style maneuvers. They aren't. Even by the end of WW 1 that philosophy was on the way out.

In WW 1, WW 2, Korea, Vietnam or now you don't fight the emeny's fight! You fight yours!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I think you missed his point, he said in 1991 Iraq was more advanced than Iran, which is true, and the US back then still whooped Iraq. Before GW1 Iran fought Iraq to a stalemate over years, the US beat Iraq in weeks. And if you want other historical match ups look at Operation Praying Mantis.

let's be honest, iraqys did not put up a fight, most of them deserted, surendered, they didint realy want to fight, they didint belive in the cause, no one liked sadam.
You did see the lebanese resistance put up a fight, even if israel had a high tec military and the results were not so good for israel.
I belive where there is will things are not so easy, iran and it's army would put up a fight, that is the difference betwen iran and iraq.



[edit on 16-10-2006 by pepsi78]

Energy fighter tactics??

Isnt that the premise for John Boyds tactics. It has been awhile since I read his book and as I recall this knowlege he refined when flying the Hun ..The F100.

It makes me think of the principles of Judo. Using your energy and the opponents energy to maneuver to your advantage. Or even many of the Martial Arts.

Robert Coram's book on John Boyd was a very intresting read. I shall have to get another copy as my loaner did not make it back to my private library.

Of intrest to me was Boyd's application of this principle to private life and buisness.
Even applications to ground forces and tactics.

One of the guys in the other crew at work, having gotten out of the Marines, has told me he has seen Boyds picture at Camp Lejune. Unusual for a Air Force guy to be represented as such at a Marine Base.

Nevertheless your discription of energy tactics made me recall what I had read of John Boyd.

Thanks for reminding me,
Orangetom