#4533874 - 08/17/20 11:44 AM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: Nimits]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,887
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,887
SC
|
Did the Americans copy the MiG-25 (1964) with the F-15 (1972)? No, we designed the F-15A to be able to beat what we thought was the MiG-25. Then we got our hands on MiG-25, and realized that, maybe top speed aside, the late model F-104 could probably have handled it. Oh well, we got the (at the time) world's best air superiority fighter out of the deal. And as I have already pointed out the general layout and planform of the MiG-25/F-15 was first seen in the NA Vigilante, so if anyone stole anything it was the Russians, once again, stealing a western idea/design.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4533876 - 08/17/20 12:13 PM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,887
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,887
SC
|
I guess that thoroughly answers KK's question. Actually, I doubt it.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4533921 - 08/17/20 07:45 PM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: Nimits]
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Crane Hunter
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Master Meme-er
|
Did the Americans copy the MiG-25 (1964) with the F-15 (1972)? No, we designed the F-15A to be able to beat what we thought was the MiG-25. Then we got our hands on MiG-25, and realized that, maybe top speed aside, the late model F-104 could probably have handled it. Oh well, we got the (at the time) world's best air superiority fighter out of the deal. I think that actual Soviet flown MiG-25s would have been a real handful in their heyday, when used correctly. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be onboard a NATO AWACS or electronic warfare plane that had swarms of them inbound, as the escorts would have been very hard pressed to stop them all.
|
|
#4533942 - 08/18/20 12:47 AM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Crane Hunter
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Master Meme-er
|
The MiG-25 was originally designed to counter the B-70 Valkyrie, but the US didn't know that, so when they got wind of it, they thought it was a new super fighter, panicked and developed the F-15 as a counter to it. The B-70 never went into service and the MiG-25 wasn't the fighter the US thought it was, so both the MiG-25 and the F-15 were developed to counter threats that really never materialized. More like counter the B-58, as the B-70 would have been even faster and higher flying than the SR-71, and just impossible to catch with a MiG-25. The Foxbat may not have been a turn and burn dogfighter, but I' argue it was successful in its own right, and the basic concept has stood up well to the test of time.
|
|
#4534060 - 08/19/20 03:53 AM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: Crane Hunter]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
United States of America
|
Did the Americans copy the MiG-25 (1964) with the F-15 (1972)? No, we designed the F-15A to be able to beat what we thought was the MiG-25. Then we got our hands on MiG-25, and realized that, maybe top speed aside, the late model F-104 could probably have handled it. Oh well, we got the (at the time) world's best air superiority fighter out of the deal. I think that actual Soviet flown MiG-25s would have been a real handful in their heyday, when used correctly. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be onboard a NATO AWACS or electronic warfare plane that had swarms of them inbound, as the escorts would have been very hard pressed to stop them all. They would have been a threat to the AWACS (or B-52s if used tactically) sure, but there would have been counters as well. Organizationally, the MiG-25s belonged mostly to the PVO, not the VVS, so it is unclear if the Russians would have released many of them for the dashes against the AWACs and such, at least early on in a conflict and/or if SAC were considered to be a threat. Additionally, there were not that many of them (only about 500 made total); given Russian maintenance rates, it is doubtful they would ever have been able to put up "swarms" Foxbats. It’s funny how real history gets forgotten.
In my recollection, the F-15 was actually developed as the “high” component of the “high/low” fighter mix recommended by the USAF Fighter Mafia in the aftermath of the Vietnam War - the “low” component being the original relatively simple, primarily VFR, Sidewinder- and gun-only F-16. This in response to the disappointing A2A performance of the F-105 (in reality a strike bomber) and F-4 (an ex-navy long-endurance interceptor) in that conflict.
In other words, the F-15 was designed above all else to be the premier air superiority fighter of its time. Nothing at all to do with countering the Mach-3-dash MiG-25 interceptor.
Heck, back in those days we thought the latter was the MiG-23!
Cheers
Mike
PS meanwhile my Air Force was soldiering on with the good old Frightning. One man, two missiles, climb performance unmatched until the F-15, shorter endurance than anything since the Spitfire, and so riddled with leaks that 32 years after retirement the Lightning in the RAF Museum _still_ has drip trays under it.
While you are correct about the F-15 being part of what you call the "High/Low" fighter force, the design requirements for the F-X (which became the F-15A) were issued about one year after the Soviets revealed the MiG-25, and the design was highly influenced by the supposed MiG-25 performance, especially the requirement that it have a Mach 2.5+ top speed, while still being able to "dogfight." Remember, western intelligence initially assessed that the MiG-25, in addition to its near Mach 3 speed, would also be able to dogfight at least as well as an F-4 (which ended up being a complete fantasy, but NATO did not learn that till later). When the US was designing the F-X/F-15, they did not know the MiG-25 was such a limited design. That is not, of course, to say that other factors (experience in Vietnam, competition with the USN) did not influence the design as well, but to suggest the supposed MiG-25 performance was not a significant factor would be to deny well documented aviation history.
Last edited by Nimits; 08/19/20 04:12 AM.
|
|
#4534183 - 08/20/20 01:54 AM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: Crane Hunter]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
United States of America
|
Against the F-4? Naw. The MiG-25s were limited to about 4.5Gs empty, 2.2 Gs fully loaded, originally lacked a look down radar, were overweight, and bled energy like an artery was cut in most situations. The MiG-23 was a little better than the Foxbat as an air superiority fighter, but was very poorly designed and extremely dangerous to fly, so much so that it is unlikely most Eastern Bloc pilots would have been willing to push it to its max performance (the MiG 21, on the other hand, was quite good against the F-4 in the BFM range). Overall, the Russian fighters of the late 1960s/early 1970s were junk. It was not till the MiG-29 that the Soviets produced another truly effective air superiority fighter, and even that (especially the early models) had the major flaw that it was basically bingo fuel at the hold short line.
Any plane well handled can be a threat under the right circumstances (look at the PZL P.11 against the Luftwaffe in 1939, for example). And as a bomber interceptor against supersonic, high altitude bombers, the MiG-25 might have been successful. But the US abandoned the tactic against which the MiG-25 was designed right around the time it entered service, it never did very well trying to intercept the SR-71 or other reconnaissance aircraft, and overall was not a successful design.
Last edited by Nimits; 08/20/20 01:54 AM.
|
|
#4535341 - 08/31/20 05:09 AM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: NoFlyBoy]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
United States of America
|
The MiG-25 speed advantage is significant, but not huge. The MiG-25 is Mach 2.8 in real conditions (the Mach 3.0+ is a one time gimmick unless you have a lot of spare engines lying around). Tthe F-15 is Mach 2.5.
Anyway, the speed advantage mostly made it good at running away, which is what it did in the Persian Gulf War.
Persian Gulf MiG-25 Engagements:
1/17/91 2x MiG-25 vs 2x F/A18 = 1x F/A-18 shot down (BVR shot) 1/18/91 2x MiG-25 vs 4x F-15C = MiG-25s ran away 1/19/91 2x MiG-25 vs 2x F-15C = 2x Mig-25s shot down 1/30/91 2x MiG-25 vs 4x F-15C = 1x F-15C damaged, than both MiG-25s ran away (by the way, missile malfunctions were a big portion of why these MiG-25 were able to threaten the F-15s)
IAF F-15As, btw, did not seem to have much trouble with the MiG-25 in 1980s . . .
Last edited by Nimits; 08/31/20 05:17 AM.
|
|
#4535387 - 08/31/20 06:11 PM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: NoFlyBoy]
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Crane Hunter
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Master Meme-er
|
The MiG-25 can achieve high speeds while carrying its huge AAMs, while the F-15 can only manage Mach 1.8 at best while armed. Even "clean", the F-15 largely tops out at Mach 2.3, unless conditions are ideal and the wing pylons are removed, according to one former F-15 pilot I talked to.
What's more is that the MiG-25 can sustain high speeds for much longer.
It can appararantly hit Mach 3+ without frying the engines, according to Soviet pilots, but the pilot must be careful to manage heat buildup. Even at lower speeds, there are limits to how long they can be sustained, it'll hold Mach 2.4 indefinitely, but can spend only 20 minutes at Mach 2.6, and only 5 minutes at Mach 2.8 or above, unless conditions were favorable.
I'd say the Foxbat did ok in these cases considering it was being piloted by Arabs and was an ageing weapons system by the time they occurred.
|
|
#4535390 - 08/31/20 06:28 PM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: Crane Hunter]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,887
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,887
SC
|
The MiG-25 can achieve high speeds while carrying its huge AAMs, while the F-15 can only manage Mach 1.8 at best while armed. So a MiG-25 can reach mach ~2 with missiles? Irregardless, I'll take a F-15 any day of the week over a MiG-25. I think their respective records speak for themselves.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4535393 - 08/31/20 07:15 PM
Re: That looks like a B-2
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Crane Hunter
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,946
Master Meme-er
|
So a MiG-25 can reach mach ~2 with missiles?
Irregardless, I'll take a F-15 any day of the week over a MiG-25. I think their respective records speak for themselves. Mach 2, armed, even on minimum burner. Mach 2.8 full out. The MiG-25's biggest fault is that it never went to war during its heyday, it would have been nearly unstoppable vs other 3rd generation fighters over Vietnam, or in an early '70s Korean War scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|