What's new

PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

As for the MIG-25, we took it apart in Japan, look it up, and found it overall far inferior to the F-15.

Did you even read my post? What sort of a comparison is this? The MiG-25 is a 3rd generation fighter. It was designed as an interceptor, not as an air-superiority fighter.

In 1967 U.S. intelligence was surprised to find that the Soviet Union was building a large fighter aircraft, the MiG-25 'Foxbat'. It was not known in the West at the time that the MiG-25 was designed as a high-speed interceptor, not an air superiority fighter, so its primary asset was speed, not maneuverability. The MiG-25's huge tailplanes and vertical stabilizers (tail fins) hinted at a very maneuverable aircraft, which worried the Air Force that its performance might be better than its U.S. counterparts. In reality, the MiG's large fins and stabilators were necessary to prevent the aircraft from encountering inertia coupling in high-speed, high-altitude flight.

The F-15 was specifically built to counter the MiG-25 which they thought was an air-superiority fighter. The MiG-25 was built for speed. The F-15 was designed for manuverability and BVR engagements and was technologically a generation ahead of the MiG-25. If the MiG-25 was piloted by anyone who had the sense to use the MiG's speed to their advantage, we would have seen the MiG-25, despite it being a generation behind, destroying many F-15s.

BTW, the MiG-25 has a speed of Mach 2.8+ against the SR-71's Mach 3+. I would say that is comparable performance despite the fact that the MiG-25 wasn't designed to be a challenge to the SR-71.

MIG-21s and MIG-23s are early third generation aircraft (many sources classify the MiG-21 as second generation). How the hell can they be compared to a fourth generation aircraft?? What's your next comparison? MiG-15 vs F-22? "The US examined the MiG-15 and found it far inferior to the F-22. Their happiness cannot be described by words. They were even more excited to find that the Yakovlev Yak-1 didn't even have a jet engine while the F-22 had two afterburning jet engines!!!!"
 
Last edited:
Now let's proceed to VTOL aircraft, shall we?

The Yakovlev Yak-38 was the Soviet Navy's VTOL aircraft for their light carriers, cargoships, and capital ships. It was developed from the Yakovlev Yak-36 experimental aircraft. Before the Soviet Union collapsed, a supersonic VTOL aircraft was developed as the Yak-38's successor, the Yak-141, which never went into production because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Americans had many ambitious projects of their own, but sadly, all failed.

The Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird (originally designated VZ-10) was a U.S. Army project in the 1960s, one of many attempts to produce a V/STOL vertical take off / landing jet. At a design speed of 336 mph, the Hummingbird was slower than some propeller-powered transports.

The design used doors at the top and bottom of the fuselage intended to augment thrust ejected into this area with cold air. In theory, a 11,607 lb aircraft could be lifted by a 6,600 lbf engine. Unfortunately, performance was far below the estimates only 1.04 thrust-to-weight in practice and the prototype crashed on 10 June 1964, killing the pilot. The second aircraft was converted to lift jets instead, also crashing after several tests.

The Rockwell XFV-12 was a prototype supersonic United States Navy fighter which was first built in 1977. The XFV-12 combined the Mach 2 speed and AIM-7 Sparrow armament of the F-4 Phantom II in a VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) fighter for the small Sea Control Ship which was under study at the time. On paper, it looked superior to the subsonic Hawker Siddeley Harrier attack fighter. Unfortunately, it proved unable to produce enough thrust for vertical flight, even with an installed engine with more thrust than its empty weight, and the project was abandoned.

The Ryan XV-5 Vertifan was a jet powered V/STOL experimental aircraft in the 1960s. The U.S. Army commissioned the Ryan VZ-11RY (which was redesignated as the XV-5 in 1962) in 1961, along with the Lockheed VZ-10 Hummingbird (redesignated as the XV-4).The XV-5 was one of many dozens of aircraft which attempted to produce a successful vertical takeoff aircraft, but the lift fan system was heavy, and took a lot of internal volume.

None of the early American V/STOL designs would result in a production aircraft.

Now another interesting fact about the F-35:

Following the announcement by the CIS that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev immediately entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program (a tactic they were also pursuing for development of the Yak-130 trainer, which was eventually developed in partnership with Aermacchi of Italy). Lockheed-Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.

If the US has clearly outclassed the Russians in every aspect, why don't you give the great American equivalent or superior aircraft of the Yak-41?

Please note that I am not trying to prove that the Russians are superior to the US in every sphere of development. I am just saying that the Russians are not lacking in "innovation and creativity" like you mentioned. Don't take the Russians lightly.
 
@American Lovers

Russians dont have to produce money landering planes like F-117; Sr-71; U-2 when they can drop them down with 2-3 anti-aircraft missiles. History atleast proves that for F-117; U-2 (SR-71 derived from this )

Judge for urself who is the wise nation
 
The Mig-25 was not some inferior peice of trash like some make it out to be, the west beleived it to be many things, a dog fighter, an aircraft highly coprised of titanium ect but it was not. To say the Mig-25 was badly inferior to the F-15 is false, the Mig-25/31 had one of the first data links, it holds an altitude record of 121,000 feet, it's a mach 3 aircraft and it had a very powerful radar for its day( 150km range--10 targets tracked, and four engaged). In term of dog fighting the Mig-25 is inferior to the F-15 and in terms of build quality it was also inferior. likewise, the F-15 was inferior to the Mig-25/31 in areas such as altitude and data link, the data link was able to share data with both ground stations as well as other Migs. The data link was also intigrated with the weapons systems, it prioritized the most dangerious targets while allowing the aircraft to engage four at a time, when the Migs flew in pacs the computers assigned each Mig to a set number of targets, lastly the system took into account 'deceptive maneuvering'. The Mig-25's predicessor, the Mig-31, was also the world's first aircraft with PESA.

In combat the Mig-25 was able to get kills against Western fighters dispite being piloted by very poor airmen in disorganized airforces.

Many people look past all of the Mig-25's inovations and instead focus on its short commings. US Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans clealy didn't think the Mig-25 was bad infact...

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html

Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans deemed the Mig-25 as "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today".

(seperate) The Mig-25 had a superb auto pilot and digital communications from an onboard computer to ground controllers.

Seven to eight years ago I watched a documentary in Russian about the Mig-25, in it they interview Americans, presumably ones that inspected the Mig-25 in Japan, and in it they praised the Mig-25 and its systems. Just because the early Mig-25's had poor engines that were eventually replaced with better onces doesn't make it bad--in any case people need to stop beleiving the internet myths about the Mig-25.


In terms of the Soviets being inferior to the west in every feild, well, that is just propoganda, yes the Soviets were behind in many feild but the US was also behind the Soviets in certain feilds. For example, In rocket technology the US laged behind, so far behind that the US purchaced the RD-180 for their Atlas program, one American that examined the rocket stated that the Soviets were ahead in rocket propulsion and even in guidance systems. He also said that the common beleif of Soviets being far behind the US is propoganda.

Of course, if people want to compare old and downgraded Mig-21's and Mig-23's to new western fighters then, yes, they are inferior, but what does that prove?

Gambit which aircraft were you talking about when you said the Soviets stole or copied the Fly by wire system?
 
Last edited:
In the original article it is mentioned that the presence of LERX above air intakes in T-50 is great improvement when compared with F-22. I would like to know how this gonna effect the performance of T-50.
Given that
The F-22 Raptor has chines that lead to the leading edge extensions that are blended into the engine air intakes
Wikipedia

How do LERX in T-50 compares with chines in F-22??

Will really appreciate if seniors like Gambit & ptldM3 shed some light upon it
 
@American Lovers

Russians dont have to produce money landering planes like F-117; Sr-71; U-2 when they can drop them down with 2-3 anti-aircraft missiles. History atleast proves that for F-117; U-2 (SR-71 derived from this )

Judge for urself who is the wise nation

From what I have heard the Mig 25 is junk,,,an If i recall right for every plane the Mig 25 shot down 3 Mig 25s were shot down..some one might want to check that. There is not much about the Mig 25 the USA does not know....In August 2003, several dozen Iraqi aircraft were discovered buried in the sand. Those aircraft included two MiG-25s, which were excavated and sent to WPAFB's Foreign Technology Division using a C-5B Galaxy. In December 2006, it was announced that one MiG-25 was being donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Dayton, Ohio.[31]

People keep confusing Russia with the USSR,,,,from an economic and military stand point Russia is not a major player any more. Russia is desperate to sell its planes, and they are cheap and good enought for 3rd world countries if you dont mind a lot of crashs and dead pliots. Evidently India doesnt and I still cant belive that India has crashed over 500 migs and still think they are a good airplane...
 
Last edited:
From what I have heard the Mig 25 is junk,,,an If i recall right for every plane the Mig 25 shot down 3 Mig 25s were shot down..some one might want to check that. There is not much about the Mig 25 the USA does not know....In August 2003, several dozen Iraqi aircraft were discovered buried in the sand. Those aircraft included two MiG-25s, which were excavated and sent to WPAFB's Foreign Technology Division using a C-5B Galaxy. In December 2006, it was announced that one MiG-25 was being donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Dayton, Ohio.[31]

People keep confusing Russia with the USSR,,,,from an economic and military stand point Russia is not a major player any more. Russia is desperate to sell its planes, and they are cheap and good enought for 3rd world countries if you dont mind a lot of crashs and dead pliots. Evidently India doesnt and I still cant belive that India has crashed over 500 migs and still think they are a good airplane...

This has already been discussed in this thread.

Please read the following posts about MiG-25:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/954268-post145.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/955286-post151.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/955337-post154.html

Please read the following posts on MiG crashes:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/950823-post89.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/950858-post91.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/950923-post94.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/950968-post98.html

Now please get back to the topic at hand!!
 
How do LERX in T-50 compares with chines in F-22??

I may not be an expert, but here's something I found:

LERX are small fillets, typically roughly triangular in shape, running forward from the leading edge of the wing root to a point along the fuselage.

On a modern fighter aircraft they provide usable airflow over the wing at high angles of attack, so delaying the stall and consequent loss of lift. In cruising flight the effect of the LERX is minimal. However at high angles of attack, as often encountered in a dog fight, the LERX generates a high-speed vortex that attaches to the top of the wing. The vortex action maintains a smooth airflow over the wing surface well past the normal stall point at which the airflow would otherwise break up, thus sustaining lift at very high angles.

A chine is a long extension of the wing root along the forward fuselage, first seen on the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird family. The chines contribute useful additional lift at supersonic speeds, as well as acting as LERX at low speeds.

The F-22 Raptor has chines that lead to the leading edge extensions that are blended into the engine air intakes.

Source: Wikipedia

The moveable LERX of the T-50 is said to enhance manuverability in a way similar to canards. Canards however are bad for stealth. The moveable LERX enhances manuverability without compromising stealth.
 
From what I have heard the Mig 25 is junk,,,an If i recall right for every plane the Mig 25 shot down 3 Mig 25s were shot down..some one might want to check that. There is not much about the Mig 25 the USA does not know....In August 2003, several dozen Iraqi aircraft were discovered buried in the sand. Those aircraft included two MiG-25s, which were excavated and sent to WPAFB's Foreign Technology Division using a C-5B Galaxy. In December 2006, it was announced that one MiG-25 was being donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Dayton, Ohio.[31]

Russia is desperate to sell its planes, and they are cheap and good enought for 3rd world countries if you dont mind a lot of crashs and dead pliots. Evidently India doesnt and I still cant belive that India has crashed over 500 migs and still think they are a good airplane...

Where did I talked about Mig-25 :undecided:

Ok you didn't read my reply or what so ever. Guess what war needs fuel not in petrol form but human fuel. Though USA is occupying many petroleum field of the world but human fuel it hasn't.
Russians got ~3:1 pilots relative to USA & by the money-laundering & sophisticated technology of USA; Russians always had the edge of producing more than twice the aeroplanes in the same budget as USA.Prove >> T-50 is 2.5 times less costly than F-22

Now you take the example of Iraq right AHHHH!! what a shame for USA when they use words like combat-proven planes. I know what they meant proven against illiterate/weak/terribly emotional Iraqis, Vietnamese, koreans, Arabs, Syrians.............
but when come face to face with someone equivalent like Russian pilots then the Russians truthfully say combat-proven planes!!

Mind if you look at the following documentary explaining dogfights b/w USA Sabre pilots & Russian MiG-15 pilots
Dogfight.Over.MIG.Alley.mp4

People keep confusing Russia with the USSR,,,,from an economic and military stand point Russia is not a major player any more.

:no:

My symbol says it all
 
Where did I talked about Mig-25 :undecided:

Ok you didn't read my reply or what so ever. Guess what war needs fuel not in petrol form but human fuel. Though USA is occupying many petroleum field of the world but human fuel it hasn't.
Russians got ~3:1 pilots relative to USA & by the money-laundering & sophisticated technology of USA; Russians always had the edge of producing more than twice the aeroplanes in the same budget as USA.Prove >> T-50 is 2.5 times less costly than F-22

Now you take the example of Iraq right AHHHH!! what a shame for USA when they use words like combat-proven planes. I know what they meant proven against illiterate/weak/terribly emotional Iraqis, Vietnamese, koreans, Arabs, Syrians.............
but when come face to face with someone equivalent like Russian pilots then the Russians truthfully say combat-proven planes!!

Mind if you look at the following documentary explaining dogfights b/w USA Sabre pilots & Russian MiG-15 pilots
Dogfight.Over.MIG.Alley.mp4



:no:

My symbol says it all

Thats over 55 years ago in the Korean War,, your right the USA did not do as well as usual the USA kill ratio was only 10 to 1. But I do think its a stretch to go back that far.

After the war, the USAF reported an F-86 Sabre kill ratio in excess of 10:1, with 792 MiG-15s and 108 other aircraft shot down by Sabres, and 78 Sabres lost to enemy fire.
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
From what I have heard the Mig 25 is junk

You heard wrong pal, your own Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans called the Mig-25 "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today".

And It's avionics such as radar, data-link et were extreemly good for their day.


There is not much about the Mig 25 the USA does not know....In August 2003, several dozen Iraqi aircraft were discovered buried in the sand. Those aircraft included two MiG-25s, which were excavated and sent to WPAFB's Foreign Technology Division using a C-5B Galaxy. In December 2006, it was announced that one MiG-25 was being donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Dayton, Ohio.[31]


Next time cite your work and stop posting worthless information.


Russia is desperate to sell its planes,


Is that why they didn't want to sell aircraft to China :lol:

and they are cheap and good enought for 3rd world countries if you dont mind a lot of crashs and dead pliots. Evidently India doesnt and I still cant belive that India has crashed over 500 migs and still think they are a good airplane...


Again you keep ignoring the fact that about 50% of the Mig crashes were due to pilot error, further you ignor the fact that India flies 50 year old aircraft, and once again you're ignoring factors such as poor maintanance, poor wheather, and outside anomolies such as bird strikes, but i expect that from a cheapo like yourself. And for your information, the latest Russian aircraft such as the SU-30 have an outstanding safety record.

Thats over 55 years ago in the Korean War,, your right the USA did not do as well as usual the USA kill ratio was only 10 to 1. But I do think its a stretch to go back that far.

After the war, the USAF reported an F-86 Sabre kill ratio in excess of 10:1, with 792 MiG-15s and 108 other aircraft shot down by Sabres, and 78 Sabres lost to enemy fire.
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sabre pilots were the best pilots America had to offer, i beleive most if not all had experience from WWII, the Chinese and Korean pilots, on the othe hand, cound hardly keep their Migs in the air. In other words those US Sabre pilots got 10:1 kill ratio against Korean and Chinese pilots but Russians got a higher kill ratio against the Americans.

26 Russian pilots accounted for several hundred downed enemy aircraft.

Here is a link, in it you will see their kills:

Russian Aces of the Korean War - MiG-15 Pilots versus USAF F-86s
 
Last edited:
Did you even read my post?
Yes I did. And I found it hilarious as usual.

The F-15 was specifically built to counter the MiG-25 which they thought was an air-superiority fighter.
Wrong, as usual. Both aircrafts' first flight were within two years of each other. Given the development time it takes for any aircraft, it is not possible that the F-15 was some sort of response to the MIG-25.

The MiG-25 was built for speed. The F-15 was designed for manuverability and BVR engagements and was technologically a generation ahead of the MiG-25. If the MiG-25 was piloted by anyone who had the sense to use the MiG's speed to their advantage, we would have seen the MiG-25, despite it being a generation behind, destroying many F-15s.
Wrong again, as usual. Disadvantages are restrictions and the more disadvantages you have the less options available for you to fight.

BTW, the MiG-25 has a speed of Mach 2.8+ against the SR-71's Mach 3+. I would say that is comparable performance despite the fact that the MiG-25 wasn't designed to be a challenge to the SR-71.
Wrong again, as usual. The MIG-25's engines were practically destroyed after every flight at that speed. No comparison possible between the two in this.
 
You heard wrong pal, your own Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans called the Mig-25 "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today".

And It's avionics such as radar, data-link et were extreemly good for their day.





Next time cite your work and stop posting worthless information.





Is that why they didn't want to sell aircraft to China :lol:




Again you keep ignoring the fact that about 50% of the Mig crashes were due to pilot error, further you ignor the fact that India flies 50 year old aircraft, and once again you're ignoring factors such as poor maintanance, poor wheather, and outside anomolies such as bird strikes, but i expect that from a cheapo like yourself. And for your information, the latest Russian aircraft such as the SU-30 have an outstanding safety record.



The Sabre pilots were the best pilots America had to offer, i beleive most if not all had experience from WWII, the Chinese and Korean pilots, on the othe hand, cound hardly keep their Migs in the air. In other words those US Sabre pilots got 10:1 kill ratio against Korean and Chinese pilots but Russians got a higher kill ratio against the Americans.

26 Russian pilots accounted for several hundred downed enemy aircraft.

Here is a link, in it you will see their kills:

Russian Aces of the Korean War - MiG-15 Pilots versus USAF F-86s

I have seen the Mig 25 at Wright Pat, it seems like a piece of junk, you can see the rivets in the plane,,,your right it was a good interceptor, but a lousy fighter, as it very slow to manuver.

Upon dismantling the Mig-25, the data was analyzed by the Foreign Technology Division of the Air Force at Dayton, Ohio. There were many surprises:


The Mig had been manufactured in February 1976 and thus was one of their latest most sophisticated production aircraft.
Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on vacuum tubes for most of their electronics. The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed.
Welding was done by hand.
Rivet heads were exposed in areas not critical to parasitic aerodynamic drag.
Pilot forward vision was highly obstructed.
With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket.
Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.
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. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.
The combat radius is 186 miles.
Without using afterburner; staying at optimum altitude and not maneuvering, the Mig can fly in a straight line for 744 miles.
The plane was so heavy at 64,200 pounds, that according to early rumors Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system. However this was disproved. Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat. The last versions used an early variant of the famous K-36 seat. The speed record for the fastest successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1 equipped MiG-25.
Maximum operational altitude: Carrying two missiles, 78,740 feet (for maximum two minutes duration); carrying four missiles, 68,900 feet is maximum.
Maximum altitude of missiles: 88,588 feet.
Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.
The Mig-25 has a jam proof radar but cannot distinguish targets below 1,640 feet due to ground clutter. The radar was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals by approaching bombers.
Maximum G load: With full fuel tanks 2.2 G's is max; with near empty fuel tanks, 5 G's is dangerous. The Mig-25 cannot turn inside a U.S. F-4 Phantom fighter!
The plane was made of steel alloy, not high temperature titanium, although strips of titanium was used in areas of high heat concentration.
In a tight turn the missiles could be ripped from the wings.
The Mig-25 was was not a fighter or an air superiority aircraft but rather designed by the Soviets to climb at tremendous speeds, fire missiles at one pass of the target and then land.
Search and tracking radar had a range of 55.9 miles.
The pilot duties were to take off, turn on the auto pilot and await instructions to fire the missiles from ground controllers. The Mig-25 had a superb auto pilot and digital communications from an onboard computer to ground controllers.
Credit is given to the Soviets for building a high altitude Interceptor in a short period of time with the materials and engines available to them in 1967 in order to counter the perceived threat of the XB-70.
On November 12, 1976, sixty-seven days after the defection of Belenko and his Mig-25 to the West, the United States and Japan returned the Mig-25 to Russia...in dismantled pieces.

Mig25 VS SR-71

Tell me the truth if you live in Russia do you really really belive that communist propganda they turn out.

vacuum tubes :rofl:
 
I have seen the Mig 25 at Wright Pat, it seems like a piece of junk, you can see the rivets in the plane,,,your right it was a good interceptor, but a lousy fighter, as it very slow to manuver.

It was not built to be a fighter :rofl: it was built to be an interceptor and interceptors are not meant to be maneuverable.

Like with all aircraft the Mig-25 had some short comings esspecially the early varients. However, as the aircraft matured much of the problems such as poor engines were resolved. The next evolution in the Mig-25 was the Mig-31, and although the two aircraft looked similar they were radically different in avionic, performance, and even externally. The Mig-31 had many advantages over the Mig-25, here are a few: more effecient and more powerful engines, the worlds first PESA radar, advanced data-link, better range, higher built quality and in increase in titanium and other light weight alloys, infact the Mig-31 doubled the usage of titanium and thripled the usage of aluminum.



Tell me the truth if you live in Russia do you really really belive that communist propganda they turn out.


Buddy, Russia isn't communist and either am i. By your standards US airforce Secretary Robert C. Seamans must have been fed communist propoganda to right?

vacuum tubes :rofl:

They chose to use vacuum tubes because it had some advantages not because they didn't have the technology and we are talking the 1960's here, from your own source:

"The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed."

What is there to laugh at when the aircraft feilded the first PESA and one of the most advanced data links?

And btw those vacuum tubes were evuntually replaced.

Interesting that you love to find every little bad thing about Russian aircraft but not of US aircraft, why not talk about all of the F-4s problems?
 
Last edited:
It was not built to be a fighter :rofl: it was built to be an interceptor and interceptors are not meant to be maneuverable.

Like with all aircraft the Mig-25 had some short comings esspecially the early varients. However, as the aircraft matured much of the problems such as poor engines were resolved. The next evolution in the Mig-25 was the Mig-31, and although the two aircraft looked similar they were radically different in avionic, performance, and even externally. The Mig-31 had many advantages over the Mig-25, here are a few: more effecient and more powerful engines, the worlds first PESA radar, advanced data-link, better range, higher built quality and in increase in titanium and other light weight alloys, infact the Mig-31 doubled the usage of titanium and thripled the usage of aluminum.






Buddy, Russia isn't communist and either am i. By your standards US airforce Secretary Robert C. Seamans must have been fed communist propoganda to right?



They chose to use vacuum tubes because it had some advantages not because they didn't have the technology and we are talking the 1960's here, from your own source:

"The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed."

What is there to laugh at when the aircraft feilded the first PESA and one of the most advanced data links?

And btw those vacuum tubes were evuntually replaced.

Interesting that you love to find every little bad thing about Russian aircraft but not of US aircraft, why not talk about all of the F-4s problems?

If this is the way you build one of your most advanced planes,
The Mig had been manufactured in February 1976 and thus was one of their latest most sophisticated production aircraft.
Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on vacuum tubes for most of their electronics. The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed.
Welding was done by hand.
Rivet heads were exposed in areas not critical to parasitic aerodynamic drag.
Pilot forward vision was highly obstructed.
With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket.
Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.
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. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.
The combat radius is 186 miles.
Without using afterburner; staying at optimum altitude and not maneuvering, the Mig can fly in a straight line for 744 miles.
The plane was so heavy at 64,200 pounds, that according to early rumors Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system. However this was disproved. Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat. The last versions used an early variant of the famous K-36 seat. The speed record for the fastest successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1 equipped MiG-25.
Maximum operational altitude: Carrying two missiles, 78,740 feet (for maximum two minutes duration); carrying four missiles, 68,900 feet is maximum.
Maximum altitude of missiles: 88,588 feet.
Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.
The Mig-25 has a jam proof radar but cannot distinguish targets below 1,640 feet due to ground clutter. The radar was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals by approaching bombers.
Maximum G load: With full fuel tanks 2.2 G's is max; with near empty fuel tanks, 5 G's is dangerous. The Mig-25 cannot turn inside a U.S. F-4 Phantom fighter!
The plane was made of steel alloy, not high temperature titanium, although strips of titanium was used in areas of high heat concentration.
In a tight turn the missiles could be ripped from the wings.

Why would I think this is not the same way Russia builds all its planes.
 
Back
Top Bottom