Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#4533874 - 08/17/20 11:44 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: Nimits]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4 Online cool
Veteran
F4UDash4  Online Cool
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
Originally Posted by Nimits
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK
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
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4533875 - 08/17/20 11:45 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
I guess that thoroughly answers KK's question. smile


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4533876 - 08/17/20 12:13 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4 Online cool
Veteran
F4UDash4  Online Cool
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
Originally Posted by PanzerMeyer
I guess that thoroughly answers KK's question. smile



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: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted by Nimits
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK
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.

#4533923 - 08/17/20 08:10 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4 Online cool
Veteran
F4UDash4  Online Cool
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
Another Chinese near clone:

New Chinese Air-Launched Glide Weapon


"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
#4533929 - 08/17/20 10:15 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 6,529
NoFlyBoy Offline
Hotshot
NoFlyBoy  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 6,529
The Mig-25 is no longer used? Progress sucks!


[Linked Image]
#4533933 - 08/17/20 10:41 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted by NoFlyBoy
The Mig-25 is no longer used? Progress sucks!


There are still a handful in service, although the legacy lives on in the form of the MiG-31, which might go on to be further evolved as the MiG-41 in the next decade.

#4533939 - 08/17/20 11:55 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon Offline
Veteran
Arthonon  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
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.


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

#4533941 - 08/18/20 12:45 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 231
Mike Dora Offline
Member
Mike Dora  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 231
USA (transplanted Scot)
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.

#4533942 - 08/18/20 12:47 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: Arthonon]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted by Arthonon
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.

#4533955 - 08/18/20 03:19 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon Offline
Veteran
Arthonon  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
I wasn't privy to Soviet planning, but I have read from multiple sources what I posted. I can't say how accurate it is, but here is one example:

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=64


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

#4534010 - 08/18/20 02:40 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: Arthonon]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted by Arthonon
I wasn't privy to Soviet planning, but I have read from multiple sources what I posted. I can't say how accurate it is, but here is one example:

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=64


You need a reasonable performance advantage to have a good chance of a successful interception, and the MiG-25 didn't even have that over the overweight and underpowered XB-70 prototype, let alone what the operation B-70 would have been capable of.

Anyway, the MiG-25 could be dangerous in the right hands:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle


#4534060 - 08/19/20 03:53 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: Crane Hunter]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits Offline
Hotshot
Nimits  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
United States of America
Originally Posted by Crane Hunter
Originally Posted by Nimits
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK
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.

Originally Posted by Mike Dora
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.
#4534118 - 08/19/20 07:27 PM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: Nimits]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Even just a few dozen MiG-25s dedicated towards anti AWACS duty would have been plenty considering the small number of AWACS planes that NATO had, and the difficultly of shooting them down with the weapons systems of the day.

See above, the MiG-25 could indeed pose a threat to fighters, ask Scott Speicher.

Against anything short of the F-14 or late Cold War version of the F-15, it would have been a serious handful.

If they'd showed up over Vietnam I think they might have even lived up to their early Western hype.

#4534183 - 08/20/20 01:54 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: Crane Hunter]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits Offline
Hotshot
Nimits  Offline
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.
#4534191 - 08/20/20 04:26 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
A huge speed advantage grants a certain maneuverability advantage of its own, and if 4th generation Western fighters often found it a tough target despite its being very long in tooth by the time it faced them, then Vietnam era ones would have really struggled.

#4535341 - 08/31/20 05:09 AM Re: That looks like a B-2 [Re: NoFlyBoy]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits Offline
Hotshot
Nimits  Offline
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: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
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: 13,736
F4UDash4 Online cool
Veteran
F4UDash4  Online Cool
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
Originally Posted by Crane Hunter
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: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted by F4UDash4
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.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0