Mach 2, armed, even on minimum burner. Mach 2.8 full out.

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.

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.

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.

Well, the F-15 entered service in 1976, only 6 years after the MiG-25 (1970), which was itself 9 years after the F-4 (1961). As for specific models, the F-15Cs were built 1979-1985, the MiG-25PD (which the Iraqis were flying) were built 1978-1984. F-15 and MiG-25 were near contemporaries, chronologically.

It's still an older base design, at a time when aeronautical technology was moving quickly, and what's more is that the F-15 was an extremely complex and expensive aircraft at the time it went into service, costing multiple times what the already fairly expensive F-4 did at the time. While the MiG-25 showcased some significant advances at the time of its introduction, it was nowhere near as "gold plated."

I would like to read your source on that . . . I have never read an operational account (aside perhaps from unarmed test flights) that supported that.

My sources are largely translated Russian web pages and print books, it would be a huge pain in the ass to dig them out ATM.

Again, I would like to see your source on that . . . Russians routinely exaggerate the performance of their aerial weapon systems.

The Mig-25's engines are of course optimized for high speeds and altitudes, with the goal of providing an adequate performance advantage over fast supersonic bombers, and as a result they are designed for sustained operation in afterburner and maintain thrust at higher altitudes where a more conventional engine design will start to see a serious drop off in performance versus its static rated thrust figures at sea level.

I do not know on what you are basing your info, but that is just a Russian fantasy. As long as you are not too slow to get into the fight, and are not fast enough to outrun the missiles, top speed is not that important of a characteristic for an air superiority fighter. Aside from the MiG-23, there was never a more "stoppable" fighter than the MiG-25.

Nonetheless, its the only older generation fighter to have experienced any success against more modern aircraft with much better pilot quality and operational support, that has to count for something.