Blackbird v. Mig-25 [Archive]

Peter Stickney

August 17th 04, 01:52 AM

In article >,
"Vello Kala" > writes:
> Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
> SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
> (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
> (24,385 m) Mach 3.35
> MiG-25 2,110 mph
> (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
> (13,000 m) Mach 3.2

Standard Admonition - beware of the data. Context is everything, and
there's not enough there.

>
>
> This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have
> very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc
> etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
> relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it
> is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40
> 000 feet?

SR-71's don;t fool around at a mere 40,000'. The purpose of the SR-71
is to carry a set of reconnaisance sensors at Mach 3+ at 80,000+ ft
(Mostly plus) for several hours. (Acturally, take off, top up from a
tanker, cruise out a Mach 3+/80K+ for a couple hours, hit another
tanker, Mach 3+ for another couple hours, all the way to wherever and
back. (Oh, yeah, all while having a radar signature equivalent to a
glider) Prepping an SR-71 for flight takes hours. It has a lot of
exotic materials and systems, and is more akin to a spaceship than a
normal airplane. I requires special fuels special lubricants and
hydraulic fluids, and weird stuff like TriEthyl Borane to keep the
fires lit. It flies in a delicate balance of shockwaves, all expertly
positioned to provide balanced flight and peak performance.

A MiG-25 is a bomber interceptor (Although it did find secondary roles
as a recon airplane and a bomber). It's intended to sit at the end of
a runway, make a scramble takeoff, and roar straight at an incoming
B-58, guided by a data link from its GCI (Ground Control Intercept)
site, and shooting the bomber in the face with large Air-to-Air
missiles, and return directly to its base.

(Many accounts claim that the MiG-25 was intended to intercept B-70s,
the Mach 3 Bomber that North American built in the late 1950s adn
early 1960s, and which never went into service. I, quite frankly,
doubt it, Even with the B-70's huge radar signature, its closing
speeds would be so fast that a minor course change by the bomber
wouldn't be able to be countered by the MiG, (Or if the B-70 wasn't
kind enough to fly straight at the MiG's base) and the MiG didn't
have any speed advantage in the almost inevitable tail chase that
would result. It does, however, have the perfect performance envelope
for taking on a Mach 2, 60,000' airplane like a B-58.)
The MiG was intended to be flown by normal service pilots, use normal
fuels and systems, and be maintained by 20 year old conscripts in
Siberia. Making an airplane that can do all those things wasn't a
trivial acheivement.

Another way to look at it is that the MiG-25 has pretty much the
ultimate perforance that can be acheived with a normal shape, and
fairly normal materials. (Stainless Steel, for the most part)
If you're going to go faster and higher, you need to start making
exotic airplanes like the SR-71.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

John Carrier

August 17th 04, 01:59 AM

The advertised max speed of the Mig 25 is 2.83, The SR-71 design limit was
3.2, but 3.3 was attainable. The 3.2 number attributed to the Mig was based
on radar tracking data (not exactly precise and subject to wind errors).
The Mig dashed to that speed, the SR lived there. Big difference.

R / John

Nele VII

August 17th 04, 02:54 AM

Here MiG-25 goes again... mixture of old 70-80'es data.

The story about burning engines is from that date. The published story is
that test-pilot Bezevec on the pre-production MiG-25R went beyond M3 because
he was painted by Hawk missile radar. In that time '25 was still in
test-phase with limited max speed endurance and when arrived to Egypt it was
just cleared from 3min flight to 8min. While in Egypt, it was cleared
further to 40 min up to unlimited when necessary. MiG-25 engines have
Chekunov's electronical system for fuel and engine RPM management-the FADEC
forerunner. There was a MiG-25 version that could "normally" travel up to
M3.2 known as MiG-25M, but was abandoned late in development in favour of
MiG-25MP (known as MiG-31 today). However, it was this MiG25M prototype that
under a "official" name tangled with F-15 Streak Eagle in speed, height and
speed to height records.

Cruising speed (in terms of best range/perfomance/economics) is around 2.500
km/h, NOT M 0.85-it is another blunder or a mix-up with MiG-31 (MiG-25
RB-15-300 engines are awfully inefficient subsonically). Another mix-up or
disinformation is that MiG-25 cannot travel more than M 2.3 with four R-40
missiles-actually, it can carry them up to the placarded (M 2.83) limit
(MiG-25P/PD/PDS interceptors) or even four 500kg bombs (RB/RBS/RBT
recce/strike versions) up to that speed. The speed of the MiG-25 at
low-level is limited by a pressure that is simply too high at such low
altitudes, so the temperature at the inlet (as well as in the engine) raises
above limits.

Although MiG-25 looks ordinary and extremely "boxy", its shape is very
efficient for high-mach regime. It is a different approach than one in
SR-71. While SR-71 had fuel tanks that got sealed by the airfame stretching,
MiG-25 has inboard tanks separated from the airfame-just like a car fuel
reservoirs (with a difference that it's tanks are pressured, filled with
inert gas and cooled).

MiG-25 can produce up to 5g (or 5.5) in supersonic regime. Sustained
altitude is around 20,000 m. SR-71 can manage around 2g (which is no
discredit, because it was not necessary for SR-71 to turn better).

Now, comparing MiG-25 and SR-71 is comparing apples and oranges. MiG-25
project was initialized to -counter- a Blackbird (not Valkirye as many
sources described!). Later (but early in develoment), it was "split" to
produce both inteceptor and recce variant . SR-71 is strategic recce
aircraft (although it evolved from A-12 that further produced a basis for
both SR-71 recce aircraft and YF-12 interceptor). MiG-25 is quite limited in
range, SR-71 is not. SR-71 had much wider and sophisticated recce equipment
than MiG-25R and could travel at M3+ until ran out of gas. MiG-25 was
produced massively (in order of around 600 aircraft), SR-71 just a handful.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Ragnar wrote in message ...
>
>"Vello Kala" > wrote in message
...
>> Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
>> SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
>> (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
>> (24,385 m) Mach 3.35
>> MiG-25 2,110 mph
>> (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
>> (13,000 m) Mach 3.2
>>
>>
>> This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane,
>have
>> very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight
only)etc
>> etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
>> relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How
>it
>> is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at
40
>> 000 feet?
>
>You only think the engine performance is similar. The SR-71 could maintain
>Mach 3-plus for several hours at a time, but the MiG-25 could do mach 3.2
>for only about 5 minutes before burning the engines up.
>
>

Vello

August 17th 04, 11:36 AM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>
> The MiG was intended to be flown by normal service pilots, use normal
> fuels and systems, and be maintained by 20 year old conscripts in
> Siberia. Making an airplane that can do all those things wasn't a
> trivial acheivement.
>
> Another way to look at it is that the MiG-25 has pretty much the
> ultimate perforance that can be acheived with a normal shape, and
> fairly normal materials. (Stainless Steel, for the most part)
> If you're going to go faster and higher, you need to start making
> exotic airplanes like the SR-71.

Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have
a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange
airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
reason?
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

w.a. manning

August 17th 04, 07:00 PM

$$$

despite it's relative abundance, titanium is very difficult (and thus
costly) to manufacture and machine.

"Vello" > wrote in message >...
>
> Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have
> a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange
> airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
> reason?

John S. Shinal

August 17th 04, 07:47 PM

"Vello" wrote:

>Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have
>a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange
>airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
>reason?

Yes, the earlier varieties of Ti were extremely difficult to
handle and work. Minor contamination with Chlorinated solvents can
lead to rapid and catastrophic corrosion, for example. Many
specialized techniques had to be developed by Lockheed (and presumably
were similarly developed later for the Alfa subs), before Titanium
fabrication could be used for so much of the aircraft.

Lyle

August 17th 04, 09:35 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:36:54 +0300, "Vello" > wrote:

>
>"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The MiG was intended to be flown by normal service pilots, use normal
>> fuels and systems, and be maintained by 20 year old conscripts in
>> Siberia. Making an airplane that can do all those things wasn't a
>> trivial acheivement.
>>
>> Another way to look at it is that the MiG-25 has pretty much the
>> ultimate perforance that can be acheived with a normal shape, and
>> fairly normal materials. (Stainless Steel, for the most part)
>> If you're going to go faster and higher, you need to start making
>> exotic airplanes like the SR-71.
>
>Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have
>a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange
>airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
>reason?
whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the
SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union.
>>
>> --
>> Pete Stickney
>> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
>> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
>

Steve Mellenthin

August 17th 04, 10:25 PM

>little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
>>reason?
>whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the
>SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union.

Russia has 75% of the world's supply of titanuim ore. We have been buying
processed TI "sponge" from them since the 60s in spite of the cold war.

Ragnar

August 18th 04, 12:00 AM

"w.a. manning" > wrote in message
om...
> $$$
>
> despite it's relative abundance, titanium is very difficult (and thus
> costly) to manufacture and machine.

Exactly. The reason the Soviets used it is because the Ministry of Defense
got everything it wanted in the 2 and 5-year plans. Money was literally no
object for them.

Kevin Brooks

August 18th 04, 03:49 AM

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "w.a. manning" > wrote in message
> om...
> > $$$
> >
> > despite it's relative abundance, titanium is very difficult (and thus
> > costly) to manufacture and machine.
>
> Exactly. The reason the Soviets used it is because the Ministry of
Defense
> got everything it wanted in the 2 and 5-year plans. Money was literally
no
> object for them.

But the point was that they did NOT use it, at least in aircraft production,
back when the US was already beginning to do so. And IIRC, that was largely
because they had not yet developed the ability to work with it as we did
(which is why stainless steel was instead used more by the USSR instead of
titanium).

Brooks

>
>
>

Vello

August 18th 04, 05:05 PM

"Steve Mellenthin" > wrote in message
...
> >little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
> >>reason?
> >whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the
> >SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union.
>
> Russia has 75% of the world's supply of titanuim ore. We have been buying
> processed TI "sponge" from them since the 60s in spite of the cold war.

One anecdotical memory from soviet time (i live in Estonia). Hard to belive,
but it is true. There was a hughe soviet military plant in Tallinn,
Dvigatel. Part of it was targeted on titanium structures. This times Kavor
Works in Tallinn was the sole distributor of formula racing cars in Soviet
Bloc. Cars went out of works with steel shafts etc parts, but teams taking
racing seriously get the same stuff in titanium from Dvigatel for relatively
small bribe.

Best,
Vello

Harry Andreas

August 18th 04, 06:53 PM

In article >,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

> "Vello" wrote:
>
> >Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have
> >a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange
> >airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
> >reason?
>
> Yes, the earlier varieties of Ti were extremely difficult to
> handle and work. Minor contamination with Chlorinated solvents can
> lead to rapid and catastrophic corrosion, for example. Many
> specialized techniques had to be developed by Lockheed (and presumably
> were similarly developed later for the Alfa subs), before Titanium
> fabrication could be used for so much of the aircraft.

Not to mention Cadmium...

The specific strength of Aluminum still makes it a better choice for
aircraft except where high temperatures are involved, or intimate
contact with carbon composites is necessary.

You will notice that despite the dropping in price of Titanium,
and the now-well-understood manufacturing methods, Ti has not
supplanted Al in the aircraft industry.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Nele VII

August 19th 04, 03:07 AM

MiG-25 has a huge water/alcohol reservoir that posed a quite challenge to
airbase commanders; the stuff was very..hm...potable. I think that Belyakov
(a head of MiG OKB) got a sort of "petition" from pilot and maintenance
gyus' wives about this, to which he answered something like "If it was
needed to fly our planes by the use of French Cognac, we would do it!". To
illustrate the proportions of this problem, when the plumbing of the filled
reservoir didn't produce effects (since the witty personell would drink it
after the flight), HQ ordered that MiG-25 pilots have to DUMP all
water/alcohol mixture before touchdown!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Vello wrote in message >...
>
>"Steve Mellenthin" > wrote in message
...
>> >little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
>> >>reason?
>> >whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the
>> >SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union.
>>
>> Russia has 75% of the world's supply of titanuim ore. We have been
buying
>> processed TI "sponge" from them since the 60s in spite of the cold war.
>
>
>One anecdotical memory from soviet time (i live in Estonia). Hard to
belive,
>but it is true. There was a hughe soviet military plant in Tallinn,
>Dvigatel. Part of it was targeted on titanium structures. This times Kavor
>Works in Tallinn was the sole distributor of formula racing cars in Soviet
>Bloc. Cars went out of works with steel shafts etc parts, but teams taking
>racing seriously get the same stuff in titanium from Dvigatel for
relatively
>small bribe.
>
>Best,
>Vello
>
>

Ed Majden

August 19th 04, 05:33 PM

in article , Vello Kala at wrote
on 8/16/04 13:19:

> Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
> SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
> (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
> (24,385 m) Mach 3.35
> MiG-25 2,110 mph
> (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
> (13,000 m) Mach 3.2
>
>
> This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have
> very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc
> etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
> relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it
> is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40
> 000 feet?
>
>
Weren't these aircraft designed for different purposes in mind so direct
comparisons are meaningless. The SR-71 is a high altitude recon. platform
as wasn't the Mig 25 a high speed interceptor which needed high speed dash
capability and not long endurance?

Ed

Vello

August 19th 04, 10:29 PM

"Nele VII" > wrote in message
...
> MiG-25 has a huge water/alcohol reservoir that posed a quite challenge to
> airbase commanders; the stuff was very..hm...potable. I think that
Belyakov
> (a head of MiG OKB) got a sort of "petition" from pilot and maintenance
> gyus' wives about this, to which he answered something like "If it was
> needed to fly our planes by the use of French Cognac, we would do it!". To
> illustrate the proportions of this problem, when the plumbing of the
filled
> reservoir didn't produce effects (since the witty personell would drink it
> after the flight), HQ ordered that MiG-25 pilots have to DUMP all
> water/alcohol mixture before touchdown!
>
> Nele
>
> NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
>
It may be true. One friend of mine was in mid-range missile unit when in
army, by his memories one component of fuel was potable at least for part of
soldiers, so it was regular fight between high-range officers wishing to
keep unit ready to act and soldiers wanting to have fun...

David Lesher

August 20th 04, 03:15 AM

"Vello" > writes:

>Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have
>a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange
>airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
>reason?

Trivia: where did Skunk Works get their titanium?

From the USSR. The Agency set up a cover in some
third country & bought it from them.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Venik

August 20th 04, 06:20 AM

Ed Majden wrote:

> Weren't these aircraft designed for different purposes in mind so direct
> comparisons are meaningless. The SR-71 is a high altitude recon. platform
> as wasn't the Mig 25 a high speed interceptor which needed high speed dash
> capability and not long endurance?
>
> Ed
>

Not quite. The Ye-155 (MiG-25's development designation) was from the
very start produced in two versions: Ye-155P ("P" is for Perekhvatchik -
interceptor) and the Ye-155R ("Razvedyvatel'niy", or Reconnaissance).
The PVO needed and interceptor and the VVS needed a high-speed
high-altitude recon plane. It was decided to combine the two
requirements in a single design. I see nothing wrong in comparing MiG-25
to SR-71 because both were recon planes and one of them was also the
primary target for the other.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"

Venik

August 20th 04, 06:31 AM

Vello Kala wrote:

> Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
> SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
> (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
> (24,385 m) Mach 3.35
> MiG-25 2,110 mph
> (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
> (13,000 m) Mach 3.2
>
>
> This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have
> very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc
> etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
> relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it
> is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40
> 000 feet?
>
>
I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate,
considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and
both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles.
MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has
outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of
performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the
right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane
and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71.

And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made
of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to
the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was
made of predominantly stainless steel.

Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of
SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter
aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in
the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel
alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when
compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong
airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially
higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71.

MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were
manufactured), while the total production run of the entire
A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so.

Design of the MiG-25 started in 1959 as the Ye-155P
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mig25_31/page_10.htm) multi role
interceptor. The Ye-155P was not being developed specifically to counter
the A-11/A-12, although the Soviets knew about this project and about
its performance requirements. Intercepting low-flying cruise missiles,
for example, was one of the roles for the Ye-155P from the very
beginning. At the time the Soviets were concerned with the US and
British advances in cruise missile development - Regulus, Rascal, Blue
Steel, all of which had Mach 2++ capability.

The late 1950s and the early 1960s was a time of particular Soviet
obsession with heavy interceptors. During this period USSR produced
several aircraft of this type, including La-250, I-75, Ye-150/152,
Tu-128. Various Russian publications indicate that the Soviets learned
about the A-11 project sometime in the summer of 1960. The Ye-155
project got its official Central Committee go-ahead in 1961, so it seems
like there is a clear link between the two aircraft but there isn't one.

Soviets learned about the A-11 in 1960, while the work on the Ye-155
concept begun in 1959. In any case, even in 1960 Soviets had only a
rough idea of the expected performance of A-11/12, which, at best, was
one of the reasons for the Ye-155's expeditious approval by the Central
Committee in 1961 but not for the aircraft's concept. The B-58 became
operational, the XB-70 was in development, the A-5 flew in 1958 and it
is believed that Mikoyan was particularly impressed by this aircraft. In
other words, there were plenty of real threats justifying the
development of the Ye-155 other than the A-12, which in 1959 existed
only in the form of a diverse collection of wind tunnel models.

I read Belyakov's book, where he mentions Soviet knowledge of the A-11
program. However, the immediate question in my mind was: why would it
appear so critical of a threat to the Soviets to prompt a massive
development effort of an advanced interceptor as Ye-155? The Soviets
became aware of the Suntan project prior to the A-11. They were aware of
the Valkyrie. The Ye-155 itself seems closer in design to the A-5 than
to A-11. At that time the PVO wanted an interceptor, while the VVS
desired a new recon plane. The very fact that a decision was made to
combine these two requirements in a single aircraft clearly shows that
the Ye-155 could not have been created to counter specifically the A-11.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"

Vello

August 21st 04, 09:29 AM

Thank You,
do you have data about how long Mig-25 could keep max speed (and how much it
was) in recon configuration?

"Venik" > wrote in message
...
> Vello Kala wrote:
>
> > Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
> > SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
> > (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
> > (24,385 m) Mach 3.35
> > MiG-25 2,110 mph
> > (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
> > (13,000 m) Mach 3.2
> >
> >
> > This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane,
have
> > very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight
only)etc
> > etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
> > relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached.
How it
> > is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at
40
> > 000 feet?
> >
> >
> I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate,
> considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and
> both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles.
> MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has
> outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of
> performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the
> right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane
> and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71.
>
> And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made
> of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to
> the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was
> made of predominantly stainless steel.
>
> Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of
> SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter
> aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in
> the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel
> alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when
> compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong
> airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially
> higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71.
>
> MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were
> manufactured), while the total production run of the entire
> A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so.
>
> Design of the MiG-25 started in 1959 as the Ye-155P
> (http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mig25_31/page_10.htm) multi role
> interceptor. The Ye-155P was not being developed specifically to counter
> the A-11/A-12, although the Soviets knew about this project and about
> its performance requirements. Intercepting low-flying cruise missiles,
> for example, was one of the roles for the Ye-155P from the very
> beginning. At the time the Soviets were concerned with the US and
> British advances in cruise missile development - Regulus, Rascal, Blue
> Steel, all of which had Mach 2++ capability.
>
> The late 1950s and the early 1960s was a time of particular Soviet
> obsession with heavy interceptors. During this period USSR produced
> several aircraft of this type, including La-250, I-75, Ye-150/152,
> Tu-128. Various Russian publications indicate that the Soviets learned
> about the A-11 project sometime in the summer of 1960. The Ye-155
> project got its official Central Committee go-ahead in 1961, so it seems
> like there is a clear link between the two aircraft but there isn't one.
>
> Soviets learned about the A-11 in 1960, while the work on the Ye-155
> concept begun in 1959. In any case, even in 1960 Soviets had only a
> rough idea of the expected performance of A-11/12, which, at best, was
> one of the reasons for the Ye-155's expeditious approval by the Central
> Committee in 1961 but not for the aircraft's concept. The B-58 became
> operational, the XB-70 was in development, the A-5 flew in 1958 and it
> is believed that Mikoyan was particularly impressed by this aircraft. In
> other words, there were plenty of real threats justifying the
> development of the Ye-155 other than the A-12, which in 1959 existed
> only in the form of a diverse collection of wind tunnel models.
>
> I read Belyakov's book, where he mentions Soviet knowledge of the A-11
> program. However, the immediate question in my mind was: why would it
> appear so critical of a threat to the Soviets to prompt a massive
> development effort of an advanced interceptor as Ye-155? The Soviets
> became aware of the Suntan project prior to the A-11. They were aware of
> the Valkyrie. The Ye-155 itself seems closer in design to the A-5 than
> to A-11. At that time the PVO wanted an interceptor, while the VVS
> desired a new recon plane. The very fact that a decision was made to
> combine these two requirements in a single aircraft clearly shows that
> the Ye-155 could not have been created to counter specifically the A-11.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Venik
>
> Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
> If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
> ?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"

Alan Minyard

August 21st 04, 05:35 PM

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:31:17 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Vello Kala wrote:
>
>> Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
>> SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
>> (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
>> (24,385 m) Mach 3.35
>> MiG-25 2,110 mph
>> (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
>> (13,000 m) Mach 3.2
>>
>>
>> This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have
>> very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc
>> etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
>> relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it
>> is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40
>> 000 feet?
>>
>>
>I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate,
>considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and
>both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles.
>MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has
>outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of
>performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the
>right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane
>and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71.
>
>And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made
>of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to
>the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was
>made of predominantly stainless steel.
>
>Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of
>SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter
>aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in
>the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel
>alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when
>compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong
>airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially
>higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71.
>
>MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were
>manufactured), while the total production run of the entire
>A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so.
>
And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to intercept
an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.

Al Minyard

Venik

August 21st 04, 07:44 PM

Vello wrote:
> Thank You,
> do you have data about how long Mig-25 could keep max speed (and how much it
> was) in recon configuration?

With a drop tank MiG-25RB can maintain Mach 2.35 for about 80 minutes.
You can view the basic performance numbers for the RB model here (PDF,
120kb): www.aeronautics.ru/archive/pdf/MiG-25RB_basic_performance.pdf
(from "MiG-25 Foxbat", by Yefim Gordon).

The speed record set by E-266 in 1967 on a closed 1000km course with
2000 kg payload was 2920.67 km/h. Same year this plane set the speed
record on a closed 500km course with 2000 kg payload - 2981.5 km/h. The
SR-71 could not beat the speed records on the 100km and 500km closed
circuit courses due to it limited G-load capability. The E-266 also set
the absolute altitude record with 2000 kg payload in 1977 - 37800 meters
(124000 ft), while the SR-71 holds the altitude record in horizontal
flight - 25950 meters.

MiG-25's maximum speed was capped at about Mach 2.83. This was an
artificial limitation designed to reduce the risk of control problems.
Here are a few related excerpts from Yefim Gordon's book on the MiG-25
(please excuse the OCR errors):

pp. 32-33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MiG-25M (Ye-266M) Development
The 1972 directive ordering the service entry of
the MiG-25RB, 'RBK and 'RBS also elaborated
on the upgrade possibilities of the basic de-
sign. The military wanted an increase in range
at low and medium altitude and an increase in
ceiling and maximum speed.
The Mach 2.83 speed limit imposed on the
MiG-25 was purely theoretical, since the aircraft
had the potential to go faster from the very start.
High speeds reduced lateral stability and ser-
vice life, but there were cases of pilots exceed-
ing the speed limit without harming the aircraft.
Therefore, the designers intended to reach a
Mach 3.0-3.2 top speed so that the MiG-25
could outperform its arch-rival, the SR-71A -
the world's fastest recce aircraft. This could be
achieved by fitting the MiG-25 with more pow-
erful and fuel-efficient engines.
As far back as the early 1960s, a group of
engine designers led by Shukhov and Rot-
mistrov proposed a comprehensive upgrade of
the R15B-300 turbojet. The idea materialised as
the uprated R15BF2-300, Izdelye 65M. The
improvement in performance was achieved by
adding a compressor stage and increasing the
combustion chamber and turbine tempera-
tures. As compared with the R15B-300, the
R15BF2-300 had a lower specific fuel con-
sumption, a higher thrust (10,000kgp/22,045lb
st dry and 13,230 to 14,500kgp/29,166 to
31,966lb st reheat) and a higher compressor
pressure ratio (4.95 vs 4.75).
The two engines were perfectly interchange-
able, having identical dimensions and mount-
ings. Providing the airframe was made more
heat-resistant (that is, because of the higher
turbine temperature), the new engines offered
a substantial increase in rate of climb, ceiling,
range and speed (up to 3,500km/h, or
2,187mph).
The Mikoyan OKB started a massive research
effort with a view to increasing the MiG-25's top
speed, concentrating mainly on aerodynamic
stability and airframe/engine thermal limits. The
aircraft's principal structure was made of steel
and thus was heat-resistant enough. Some
parts of the airframe, however, such as the
radome and forward fuselage, wingtips, flaps
and ailerons, were made of Duralumin and
plastics. They were not subjected to significant
structural loads but experienced high tempera-
tures and had to be replaced with steel or titani-
um honeycomb structures. This, in turn, called
for new technologies, Therefore the Mikoyan
OKB suggested to split the work into two
stages, ie, test and refine the engine on a struc-
turally standard MiG-25 first and come back to
the speed issue later.
Both the WS and the Ministry of Aircraft
Industry went along with this approach and
gave the go-ahead for Stage 1. In September
1964 the Ministry issued a directive detailing
the test programme of the re-engined MiG-25.
Yet the theoretical part, manufacturing and
bench testing of the R15BF2-300 took longer
than predicted, and flight tests did not begin
until 1973. The VVS initially allotted a single
MiG-25 for test purposes, which was later
joined by a second aircraft.
Aircraft No.1 was a MiG-25RB which was
given a new factory number (f/n) 02-601, after
being modified (hence the tactical number
'Blue 601'). Aircraft No.2 was a standard MiG-
25PD built in 1973 (f/n 84019175) which made
its first flight with standard engines on 12th
June 1973 with Ostapenko at the controls.
(Later it was flown by Fedotov, Fastovets, Orlov
and others.) On 30th August 1973 the aircraft
received its intended R15BF2-300 engines, a
new c/n (841710) and the tactical number 'Blue
710'.
From then on, the two aircraft served as test-
beds for the new turbojet with the provisional
designation MiG-25M (Modifitseerovannyy -
modified). The conversion work was complet-
ed very quickly but refining the engine took a
considerable time. Still, it was worth the sweat:
the enginedidproduce the claimed perfor-
mance. The service ceiling exceeded 24,200m
(79,396ft) and supersonic cruise range was
1,920km (1,200 miles) in clean condition or
2,530km (1,581 miles) with a 5,300 litre (1,177
Imp gallon) drop tank.
The modified MiG-25RB was used to set a
number of world time-to-height and altitude
records. On a single day (17th May 1975) Fedo-
tov and Ostapenko set three time-to-height
records, reaching 25,000m (82,020ft), 30,000m
(98,425ft) and 35,000m (114,829ft) in 143.2
seconds, 189.85 seconds and 251.7 seconds
respectively. For these record flights the aircraft
were designated Ye-266M for FAI registration
purposes and had all non-essential equipment
removed to reduce weight.
Same year the interceptor, 'Blue 710', was
further modified by fitting the wings of the recce
aircraft ('Blue 601') and new stabilators previ-
ously tested on another development MiG-25
('Blue 502'). More modifications followed in
1976, this time to the electrical and control sys-
tems. The aircraft was used as a test-bed until
withdrawn from use in April 1977.
The modified recce aircraft continued flying
for some time. In the summer of 1977 Fedotov
bettered his own altitude world records. On
22nd June he took the aircraft to 37,800m
(124,015ft) with a 2,000kg (4,409lb) payload,
and reached 37,650m (123,523ft) on 31st
August with no payload. However, soon after
the record flights, a pressure valve in the fuel
system failed in a regular flight, causing one of
the fuselage fuel tanks to get overpressurised
and burst. A good-sized portion of the upper
fuselage skin came off in mid-air; test pilot A G
Fastovets displayed no mean skill and bravery,
managing to land safely. The aircraft was
repaired but test flights did not resume.
The test flights of the re-engined MiG-25Ms
confirmed the possibility of improving the air-
craft's performance considerably. In lightened
form for the record breaking flights the aircraft
had a thrust to weight ratio better than 1:0 for
the first time in Mikoyan OKB history. As a
result, the brakes could not hold the aircraft in
full afterburner, and a special mobile detent
had to be developed (a heavy vehicle with a jet
exhaust deflector to which the aircraft was con-
nected by a strong cable and lock).
The re-engined MiG-25 never entered pro-
duction - for several reasons. First was the test
programmes of two new aircraft, the MiG-25
Izdelye 99 and the MiG-31, which also began in
1975. Both aircraft were powered by the
Solov'yov PS-30F (D-30F) engine with a similar
rating but a lower specific fuel consumption
(SFC). Second, the aero engine factories were
tied up with other orders and could not produce
the R15BF2-300. Finally, the PVO top com-
mand was more interested in the MiG-31 than
in an upgrade of the existing MiG-25. There-
fore, the MiG-25 programme was terminated.
Shortly afterwards the modified MiG-25PD
('Blue 710') was transferred to a school for
junior technical staff, acting as a ground
instructional airframe for a while. Later it was
transferred to Moscow-Khodynka and is now
on display at the open air museum there (inci-
dentally, displaying its original construction
number).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MiG-25PA(Ye-155PA) Interceptor
In the mid-1960s the Mikoyan OKB was work-
ing on an interceptor project referred to as the
Ye-155PA. This aircraft was to be capable of
destroying targets flying anywhere between
100 and 30,000m (328 - 98,425 ft) at speeds of
3,500 to 4,000km/h (2,187 - 2,500 mph). To this
end, it was to be equipped with the brand-new
'Smerch-100' radar, later renamed 'Zaslon'
(Shield), and armed with the equally new R-100
missiles. The powerplant consisted of two
R15BV-300 turbojets with an improved high
altitude performance (Vysotnyy - high altitude)
which would take the aircraft to Mach 3.5.
Later, the requirements changed, especially
regarding speed, and the project was discon-
tinued. As for the radar, a refined version (SBI-
16 'Zaslon') was later installed in the MiG-31.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 49-50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MIM-23 Hawk missiles used by Israel
were no great threat to the MiG-25 either, since
the aircraft was out of their altitude range
(12,200m/40,026ft). The MiGs' radar warning
receiver often sensed that the aircraft was
being 'painted' by enemy radars but no missile
warning ensued. On discovering a Hawk
launcher the pilot would simply switch on the
'Siren' ECM set and carry on with his business.
Deep penetration flights continued into
October 1972. The Israeli ambassador to the
United Nations lodged a formal complaint after
each occurrence but no action on this issue
was ever taken by the UN.
The Israelisdidhave a reason to be nervous.
Among the support equipment and other para-
phernalia Det 63 had brought with them were
bomb racks for the two strike capable 'RBs and
FAB-500M-62T low drag bombs, specially
developed for supersonic bombing. Each air-
craft could carry up to eight such weapons;
after being released at high altitude they could
sail through the air for miles and miles. Howev-
er, the Soviet pilots' missions did not include
bombing.
As an excuse for their inability to intercept the
elusive MiGs the Israeli air defences stated that
'the object was clocked at Mach 3.2'! However,
the flight recorders of the MiGs showed there
were no major deviations from the prescribed
flight profile. The aircraft were notalwaysflown
by the book. On one occasion Bezhevets
exceeded the 'red line' to get away from pursu-
ing Phantoms; the flight recorder showed that
the Mach limit had been more than tripled(l).
Other sources state that it was WS pilot
Krasnogorskiy who should walk away with the
record (and get the 'speeding ticket'), as he
reached 3,400km/h (2,125mph) in one of the
sorties. This was dangerous because the air-
frame could be damaged by overheating, but
careful inspection of the aircraft showed no
apparent damage. Still, the pilots received an
unambiguous 'debriefing' afterthis incident.
The new MiGs had a good reliability record,
with very few failures despite the fact that the
aircraft still had its share of bugs. Each aircraft
came complete with a double set of spares -
just in case. Nasty surprises did happen. On
one occasion Stogov's aircraft suffered an
engine flame-out and began decelerating
rapidly, forcing the pilot to radio for help. He
was ordered to return to base immediately or
land at the reserve airfield from which escort
fighters scrambled. In a few seconds, the
engine revived spontaneously and Stogov pro-
ceeded with the mission as planned. The trou-
ble was traced to a faulty fuel flow control unit
which the electronic engine control system
somehow managed to correct.
A more serious incident happened to
Bezhevets. A main gear locking arm failed on
the first aircraft reassembled in Egypt and the
strut would not lock in the 'down' position.
Bezhevets decided to land on the nosewheel
and the locked mainwheel. Touching down at
290km/h (181 mph), he kept the aircraft's
weight off the damaged strut as long as possi-
ble. Finally the strut collapsed and the aircraft
slewed, coming to rest on two struts and a
wingtip. The landing was made so skilfully that
the aircraft suffered only superficial damage to
the wingtip and was soon flying again after
repairs on site. (Other sources claim that the
aircraft was returned to the USSR for repairs
and a substitute MiG-25R sent in.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik

August 21st 04, 08:14 PM

Alan Minyard wrote:

> And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
intercept
> an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
> could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.

I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

B2431

August 21st 04, 10:33 PM

>From: Venik
>
<snip>

>I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
>does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
>complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
>than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.

Venik, you still haven't changed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Scott Ferrin

August 21st 04, 11:25 PM

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
>intercept
>> an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
>> could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.
>
>I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
>does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
>complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
>than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.

The SA-5 had a better chance of downing a Blackbird than the Mig-31
and that didn't seem to stop them.

cypher745

August 22nd 04, 06:47 AM

Venik!!!! Good to see you again. Heaven knows I hardly ever agree with you..
(I think you stated that the sky was blue one time and I had to run outside
to make sure) but you are always entertaining.

"Venik" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
> intercept
> > an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
> > could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.
>
> I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
> does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
> complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
> than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Venik
>
> Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
> If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
> ?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik

August 22nd 04, 07:08 AM

Scott Ferrin wrote:

> The SA-5 had a better chance of downing a Blackbird than the Mig-31
> and that didn't seem to stop them.

Remind me: what is the current operational status of the SR-71?

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Pete

August 22nd 04, 07:09 AM

"Venik" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> > The SA-5 had a better chance of downing a Blackbird than the Mig-31
> > and that didn't seem to stop them.
>
> Remind me: what is the current operational status of the SR-71?

Retired undefeated.

Pete

cypher745

August 22nd 04, 05:00 PM

> Remind me: what is the current operational status of the SR-71?
>
It would be exactly the same, as that of the Soviet Union. Both were
decommissioned in the same year I believe.

machf

August 22nd 04, 05:08 PM

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
>intercept
>> an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
>> could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.
>
>I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
>does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
>complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
>than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.

I guess it would just need to get close enough to fire a missile at it.
At least that's the concept of "interceptor" as I understand it, it's
not a dogfighter...

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and ".sons.of" parts before replying

Scott Ferrin

August 22nd 04, 05:32 PM

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 02:08:06 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>> The SA-5 had a better chance of downing a Blackbird than the Mig-31
>> and that didn't seem to stop them.
>
>Remind me: what is the current operational status of the SR-71?

Which means what? That you know how to read? Why don't you show us
where it's stated that the Mig-31 had anything to do with the
retirement of the SR-71? Yeah, that's about what I thought.

DJFawcett26

August 22nd 04, 06:56 PM

I would suggest you talk with several SR-71drivers concerning whether they
would knowingly fly into a "Mig-25 infested" area with the Mig-25 drivers
knowing he was there. The answer is and would be a resounding NO! And why,
because the Mig-25 would have a reasonable chance of blowing his butt right out
of the sky. Just because it never happened doesn't mean it can't.

Keep in mind, to the best of my knowledge, all Mig-25/SR-71 encounters occurred
off shore, not a direct invasion of Soviet airspace (different rules there
gentlemen). Put a SR over Moscow and watch what happens. I suspect little
pieces of titanium would be littering the countryside.

A good comparison is the F-15 vs Mig-25. The F-15 could not tail chase the
Mig-25 on its best day, as the Mig-25 could not tail chase a SR. The delta
speed differences are about the same between the two comparison. But yet, the
Israels dropped two Mig-25s with F-15s. The reasons are simple, and it has
nothing to do with speed. The answer lies within proper tactics and
tracking/firecontrol systems.

The point being made is that there are no winners and losers with the Mig-25
and SR. The Mig-25 and SR served their missions well. The 25 kept western
world aircraft out of their airspace, and the SR performed recce missions that
simply could not have been done with other aircraft.

As far as the SR retiring, the Mig-31 had very little, it not nothing to do
with it. That was simply the cost of operations coupled with new capability.

Vello

August 23rd 04, 10:23 AM

What stops SR-71 project was achievements in area of taking pictures from
the orbit and Soviet potential to build land-air missiles.
"machf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Venik > wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard wrote:
> >
> > > And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
> >intercept
> >> an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
> >> could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.
> >
> >I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
> >does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
> >complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
> >than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.
>
> I guess it would just need to get close enough to fire a missile at it.
> At least that's the concept of "interceptor" as I understand it, it's
> not a dogfighter...
>
> --
> __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
> \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
> _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
> '-_____|(
>
> remove the "no_me_j." and ".sons.of" parts before replying

Venik

August 23rd 04, 11:02 AM

Vello wrote:

> What stops SR-71 project was achievements in area of taking pictures from
> the orbit and Soviet potential to build land-air missiles.

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target, it
usually can carry more equipment, it's equipment is more up-to-date and
can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.

SR-71 was originally retired in 1990 - four years after one was
intercepted by six MiG-31s over international waters in Barents Sea on
June 3, 1986, subjecting the Blackbird to a potential all-angle AAM
attack. I am not aware of any such close encounters between the SR-71
and the Soviet SAMs. This would have been unlikely, considering the fact
that the SR-71 missions were usually planned far from the coastline and
outside of the effective SAM range. Not the the Soviets really wanted to
bring down a US spy plane over international waters.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Scott Ferrin

August 23rd 04, 12:53 PM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:02:23 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Vello wrote:
>
>> What stops SR-71 project was achievements in area of taking pictures from
>> the orbit and Soviet potential to build land-air missiles.
>
>Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
>obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target, it
>usually can carry more equipment, it's equipment is more up-to-date and
>can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.
>
>SR-71 was originally retired in 1990 - four years after one was
>intercepted by six MiG-31s over international waters in Barents Sea on
>June 3, 1986, subjecting the Blackbird to a potential all-angle AAM
>attack.

The fact that it happend a grand total of ONCE and it took six of the
USSR's top of the line interceptors to do it makes your claim that it
was the reason for the SR-71's retirement pretty weak.

> I am not aware of any such close encounters between the SR-71
>and the Soviet SAMs.

There are accounts of SR-71s flying *directly over* SA-5 sites. In
other countries.

> This would have been unlikely, considering the fact
>that the SR-71 missions were usually planned far from the coastline and
>outside of the effective SAM range. Not the the Soviets really wanted to
>bring down a US spy plane over international waters.

Venik

August 23rd 04, 08:09 PM

Scott Ferrin wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:02:23 -0400, Venik > wrote:

> The fact that it happend a grand total of ONCE and it took six of the
> USSR's top of the line interceptors to do it makes your claim that it
> was the reason for the SR-71's retirement pretty weak.

It happened once that we know of and, apparently, it was enough. SR-71's
missions were planned farther and farther from the Soviet airspace
because of the MiG threat. And the number of MiGs needed to intercept
the SR-71 is not really relevant - it's an interceptor designed to
operate in groups. Not like the US had any great number of Blackbirds
anyway.

> There are accounts of SR-71s flying *directly over* SA-5 sites. In
> other countries.

Exactly my point.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Scott Ferrin

August 24th 04, 12:28 AM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:09:50 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Scott Ferrin wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:02:23 -0400, Venik > wrote:
>
>> The fact that it happend a grand total of ONCE and it took six of the
>> USSR's top of the line interceptors to do it makes your claim that it
>> was the reason for the SR-71's retirement pretty weak.
>
>It happened once that we know of and, apparently, it was enough.

Your logic escapes me. It happened once and four YEARS later the
SR-71 gets retired therefore once caused the other? That would be
like trying to blame the implosion of the USSR on the Stalin Purges.
So instead of continuing to say "ya huh" how about showing us some
evidence there is a correlation? The fact of the matter is that even
if six Foxhounds pulled up alongside the Blackbird (in a Mig pilot's
wildest dreams) they couldn't do a damn thing in international
airspace without causeing a stink that would make KAL 007 look like a
fender-bender. And both sides knew it.

> SR-71's
>missions were planned farther and farther from the Soviet airspace
>because of the MiG threat. And the number of MiGs needed to intercept
>the SR-71 is not really relevant - it's an interceptor designed to
>operate in groups. Not like the US had any great number of Blackbirds
>anyway.

Well 50. AFAIK that's more than the number of Blackjacks produced.

>
>> There are accounts of SR-71s flying *directly over* SA-5 sites. In
>> other countries.
>
>Exactly my point.

And what would that be? That an SA-5 COULDN'T bring down a Blackbird?

Alan Minyard

August 24th 04, 10:24 PM

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Venik > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
>intercept
>> an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
>> could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.
>
>I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
>does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
>complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
>than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites. The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

Al Minyard

Yeff

August 24th 04, 10:40 PM

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:24:42 -0500, Alan Minyard wrote:

> The Mig-31 never had an impact on US planing.

While I *don't* believe the MiG-31 was the reason the Blackbird was
retired, the above statement is simply silly. Of course the Foxhound and
its capabilities were considered during US planning. We'd ignore a
high-speed, high-altitude interceptor at our peril.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Harry Andreas

August 24th 04, 10:40 PM

In article >, Venik
> wrote:

> Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
> obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target,

Maybe, maybe not. If your recce a/c cannot get close enough because of missile
defense, then you're pushed too far away from the target for good resolution.
The slant range will put more atmosphere between the target and you.
A satellite in LEO may in fact have better resolution.

> it usually can carry more equipment,

Not true at all. The fast movers used for recce duty (other than the U-2)
are very limited in space and weight carrying

> it's equipment is more up-to-date and

Not necessarily. Spaceborne recce assets come from a different bucket of money
and usually does not compete with tactical assets. The satellite may be
of a newer generation than the aircraft SPO can afford.

> can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.

Once the launch costs are paid for, the satellite system operates
pretty cheaply. Aircraft OTOH still require fuel, maintenance and basing
all the time.

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography, but not for
the reasons you mentioned:
The real benefit of airborne recce is mission flexibility, the ability to
task an a/c when you need it, not when the orbit is right.
Also ease of upgrade.
Once the satellite is in orbit, it's difficult (but possible) to upgrade,
but aircraft are relatively cheap to mod.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Wolfhenson

August 28th 04, 04:44 PM

Venik > wrote in message
>
> And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made
> of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to
> the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was
> made of predominantly stainless steel.
>
Yet more comments about steel. Steel can be referred by chemical
composition like nickel steel, chromium-nickel, etc or by it's
intended purpose or property and that is stainless. Any steel
containing 5% nickel or more is considered to be resistant to
atmospheric corrosion in addition most nickel steels contain chromium
in similar quantity as nickel and that is another element that makes
the steel stainless.
On the other hand nickel which is very heavy and expensive is used
only in parts that are subjected to very high temperatures like
turbines of jet engines and alloys in use in aviation do not contain
iron in considerable quantities. North American X-15 was used to test
the effects of re-entry in the atmosphere and was subjected to extreme
heating. The aircraft structure
was built of titanium and stainless steel and nickel alloy InconelX
was used
only for skin panels, with nickel steel used in the areas less
subjected to
heat.
So stainless steel was used widely in the '50 and '60 designs all
around the
world and materials should not be used to prove that one design is
superior over another where flight characteristics, equipment and
mantainability meter
the most.

Nemanja Vukicevic
aeronautical engineering student

Venik

August 29th 04, 06:18 AM

Alan Minyard wrote:

> The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
> SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

>The Mig-31
> never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

B2431

August 29th 04, 07:41 AM

>From: Venik
>Date: 8/29/2004 12:18 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>> The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
>The
>> SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.
>
>I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
>weren not. Oops, next explanation...
>
>>The Mig-31
>> never had an impact on US planing.
>
>There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
>planning.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Venik
>

Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Venik

August 29th 04, 07:54 AM

Harry Andreas wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not. If your recce a/c cannot get close enough because
of missile
> defense, then you're pushed too far away from the target for good resolution.

Well, that's what happened to the Blackbird. But my point was that a
recon plane will always have an edge over a satellite, provided, of
course, they are both within their effective range from the target.

> Not true at all. The fast movers used for recce duty (other than the U-2)
> are very limited in space and weight carrying

Well, to respond to this one would need to know the payload of a recon
satellite. The gross weight of the KH-11, for example, is over 13,000
kg. However, it's payload, of course, is considerably less. Even a very
general schematic of the KH-9, for example, shows that, just as with a
recon plane, the payload constitutes a relatively small fraction of the
gross weight of the craft.
(http://www2.janes.com/janesdata/yb/jsd/images/g0003433.jpg)

One would also need to take into the account the extra weight of the
actual recon equipment carried by the satellite to compensate for its
greater distance from the target, as compared to a recon plane. Thus, we
can't compare the payloads of a recon plane and a recon satellite pound
for pound even if the two are designed for identical types of missions.

> Not necessarily. Spaceborne recce assets come from a different bucket of money
> and usually does not compete with tactical assets. The satellite may be
> of a newer generation than the aircraft SPO can afford.

As you pointed out, equipment of a recon plane is certainly easier and
cheaper to upgrade, even if we assume that a spy satellite can be
upgraded at all. That's what I meant by "more up to date". The financial
aspect of you argument is out of place here: I am comparing technical
points - not budgetary.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik

August 29th 04, 10:58 AM

B2431 wrote:

> Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.
>

Is this a test? Ooh, I like tests! I suggest reading something about
the development of the F-14, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflicts which
saw the use of MiG-25s. I promise you will find no shortage of examples
of how MiG-25 affeted the US planning.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Tom Cooper

August 29th 04, 11:57 AM

"Venik" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
The
> > SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.
>
> I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
> weren not. Oops, next explanation...
>
> >The Mig-31
> > never had an impact on US planing.
>
> There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
> planning.

Can you name a single such book? I would sincerely be interested in
obtaining a copy.

Besides, when you state that the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have had such an "impact"
on US planing that the SR-71 was retired, why don't you then also explain
about the impact of the F-14 on further developments of MiG-25s?

Namely, this was stopped on a direct order from Moscow after a second
Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs on testing in Iraq was shot down by Iranian F-14s
(using "non-operational" AIM-54s) - in 1987.

In fact, you could then go on and explain about impact the losses of
Soviet-flown Foxbats in Iraq had on a decision to sell Su-24MKs to Syria,
Iraq and Libya instead. Then, all of these countries were originally
completely desinterested in Fencer and actually waiting for IFR-probe
equipped Foxbats to be readied for service: yet, when the news about the
loss of a MiG-25BM near Tehran, in November 1987, reached specific bureaus
in Baghdad, Damascus, and Tripolis all the orders were "suddenly" cancelled,
and also a specific directive was issued in Moscow. Would you be so kind to
tell us why?

I'm sure you'll agree, Venik, that you have a strong predilection of
"providing evidence" for some kind of "superiority" of Soviet-built weapons
and their "impact" on Western thinking and planing.

OK, no problem; I understand your point - regardless of your inability to
provide serious evidence.

But, I don't understand why do you then ignore the impact of Western
technology on Soviet thinking and planing? Why ignore the amount of
Western-technology used to develop specific Soviet systems (the Kh-58, main
armament of the MiG-25BM, for example, was developed from French-built
AJ.168 ARM, supplied to USSR via Iraq) or ignore Soviet own negative
experiences with some of their most potent systems...?

MiG-25s were shot down in combat - and not only three by the Israelis, but
almost two dozens by the Iranians (the first one already in 1976). The SR-71
was never shot down by anybody - even if more than 4.000 SAMs were fired at
them. Is it now so that these figures talk a language you can't understand?

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

B2431

August 29th 04, 01:08 PM

>From: Venik
>Date: 8/29/2004 4:58 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
> > Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.
>>
>
>Is this a test? Ooh, I like tests! I suggest reading something about
>the development of the F-14, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflicts which
>saw the use of MiG-25s. I promise you will find no shortage of examples
>of how MiG-25 affeted the US planning.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Venik

Nice selective editing there, venik. Everything the U.S. developed affected the
Soviet plans and vice versa.

Now read the parts you edited out:

"Subject: Re: Blackbird v. Mig-25
From: (B2431)
Date: 8/29/2004 1:41 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: >

>From: Venik
>Date: 8/29/2004 12:18 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>> The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
>The
>> SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.
>
>I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
>weren not. Oops, next explanation...
>
>>The Mig-31
>> never had an impact on US planing.
>
>There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
>planning.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Venik
>

Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"

Now notice how you changed from MiG-37 to MiG25 to avoid answering my question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Wolfhenson

August 29th 04, 05:09 PM

Sir,
Since You know this matter well I would like a conformation and an information.
"World Air Power Journal" published in 1999. reported 35 to 40 enemy aircraft shot
down by Iranian Tomcats, is this corect?
How many Iraqi aircraft were shot down by F-4's and did F-5's score any?
Nemanja Vukicevic
aeronautical engineering student

Venik

August 29th 04, 06:06 PM

B2431 wrote:

> Now notice how you changed from MiG-37 to MiG25 to avoid answering
my question.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

No books have been written about the MiG-37 apart from the Italeri
manual for their plastic model :-) But if you mean MiG-31, than, as you
(probably don't) know, it's original designation during development was
MiG-25MP (Ye-155MP).

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik

August 29th 04, 06:22 PM

Tom Cooper wrote:

> Besides, when you state that the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have had such an "impact"
> on US planing that the SR-71 was retired, why don't you then also explain
> about the impact of the F-14 on further developments of MiG-25s?

Because we are talking about SR-71 and MiG-25. We can also talk about
the impact of the MiG-25 on the development of the F-14, but this
wouldn't really have anything to do with SR-71, would it?

>
> Namely, this was stopped on a direct order from Moscow after a second
> Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs on testing in Iraq was shot down by Iranian F-14s
> (using "non-operational" AIM-54s) - in 1987.

If you want to talk about the F-14, then, perhaps, you should start
another thread, unless, of course, your intention is to shift the topic
of this discussion to the Iran-Iraq war (during which there were no
verifiable MiG-25 kills by the F-14 - just a lot of claims by the
glorious Iranian AF. One MiG-25RB was downed by an Iranian Hawk. I've
read your book about the Iran-Iraq war and you don't present any
evidence of the MiG-25 - F-14 encounters you describe in such vivid
details. Just a bunch on baloney.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik

August 29th 04, 07:10 PM

Wolfhenson wrote:

>Any steel
> containing 5% nickel or more is considered to be resistant to
> atmospheric corrosion in addition most nickel steels contain chromium
> in similar quantity as nickel and that is another element that makes
> the steel stainless.

Let's stick to technical definitions: stainless steel is a ferrous alloy
with a minimum of 10.5% chromium content. Major elements of the MiG-25
were made of appoximately 80% of VNS-2, VNS-4, and VNS-5 alloys, 11%
D-19T aluminum alloy and 8% OT4-1 titanium alloy, none of which falls
under this definition.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

B2431

August 29th 04, 07:23 PM

>From: Venik
>Date: 8/29/2004 12:06 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
> > Now notice how you changed from MiG-37 to MiG25 to avoid answering
>my question.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>No books have been written about the MiG-37 apart from the Italeri
>manual for their plastic model :-) But if you mean MiG-31, than, as you
>(probably don't) know, it's original designation during development was
>MiG-25MP (Ye-155MP).
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Venik
>
I stand corrected, I meant MiG-31. You still tap danced. As usual you can't
provide proof of your assertions.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

David Nicholls

August 29th 04, 08:36 PM

> But, I don't understand why do you then ignore the impact of Western
> technology on Soviet thinking and planing? Why ignore the amount of
> Western-technology used to develop specific Soviet systems (the Kh-58,
main
> armament of the MiG-25BM, for example, was developed from French-built
> AJ.168 ARM, supplied to USSR via Iraq) or ignore Soviet own negative
> experiences with some of their most potent systems...?
Small correction. The AJ168 was the British part of the Anglo-French Martel
project (AS37 being the French developed anti-radiation version, the AJ168
the British developed TV guided version).

Tom Cooper

August 29th 04, 09:29 PM

"Wolfhenson" > wrote in message
om...
> Sir,
> Since You know this matter well I would like a conformation and an
information.
> "World Air Power Journal" published in 1999. reported 35 to 40 enemy
aircraft shot
> down by Iranian Tomcats, is this corect?

The number of kills (confirmed by cross-examination of Iranian, Iraqi, US
and Saudi files) is actually three times higher; between 30 and 40
additional "probable", "possible" and "claimed" kills are currently still
under investigation.

> How many Iraqi aircraft were shot down by F-4's and did F-5's score any?

Approx 110 by F-4s, and between 30 and 35 by F-5s (including two Foxbats,
one of which was shot down by 20mm cannons while underway at low level).

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Tom Cooper

August 29th 04, 09:49 PM

"Venik" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper wrote:
>
> > Besides, when you state that the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have had such an
"impact"
> > on US planing that the SR-71 was retired, why don't you then also
explain
> > about the impact of the F-14 on further developments of MiG-25s?
>
> Because we are talking about SR-71 and MiG-25. We can also talk about
> the impact of the MiG-25 on the development of the F-14, but this
> wouldn't really have anything to do with SR-71, would it?

Well, if you would know what are you actually talking about then you'd know
that it actually has to do. Then, the SR-71 came into existence from a
project that was also developed into the YF-12. And... the YF-12 was
equipped with a direct predecessor of the AWG-9 radar, and armed with a
direct predecessor of the AIM-54....

> > Namely, this was stopped on a direct order from Moscow after a second
> > Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs on testing in Iraq was shot down by Iranian F-14s
> > (using "non-operational" AIM-54s) - in 1987.
>
> If you want to talk about the F-14, then, perhaps, you should start
> another thread, unless, of course, your intention is to shift the topic
> of this discussion to the Iran-Iraq war...

You're explaining about the - supposed - impact of the MiG-25 and MiG-31
(the last of which was actually developed to counter B-1s and their AGM-86
ALCMs) on SR-71.

I said, "OK, no problem". And, then I asked you why don't you explain about
the impact of (extremely negative) experiences from the testing of Soviet
equipment in Iran-Iraq War, which was _indeed_ highly influential for (the
end of) development of MiG-25?

If, "this is not the right thread to talk about that" is your only answer,
no problem, just say so...

> ...(during which there were no
> verifiable MiG-25 kills by the F-14 - just a lot of claims by the
> glorious Iranian AF.

If there is no "verifiable" MiG-25-kill scored by IRIAF F-14s against IrAF
and Soviet MiG-25s during that war, then, please be so kind to explain:
- why are there pictures of MiG-25-wreckage (like on p.64 of "Iranian F-14
Units in Combat", just for example)?
- why are there ex-IrAF MiG-25 pilots who confirm a loss of at least two
dozens of Iraqi and Soviet Foxbats to Iranian F-14s?
- why do the US intel documents one can get via FOIA procedures confirming
Iranian and Iraqi documents, pilot- and eyewitness-accounts?

> One MiG-25RB was downed by an Iranian Hawk.

Well, the IRIAF I-HAWKs rather got something like four, but that's another
story.

What I'd like to know here is the following: as you're so sure that only one
IrAF Foxbat was shot down by Iranians, then explain us here how it comes
that according to a document I've got released from the Central MoD Archive
in Moscow, Iraq has got over 60 MiG-25s from USSR between 1980 and 1989.
According to the same document, and also US intel documents released
according to FOIA procedures, however, there were barely 30 of them left by
1991.

How do you explain this difference? What happened to 30 MiG-25s delivered to
Iraq but missing by 1991?

Also, if we're now going back to the overall picture: even if only 1 Foxbat
was shot down by Iranian MIM-23s, in total that makes three shot down over
Lebanon by the Israelis, one by the Iranians, and two by USAF in 1991.
That's six MiG-25s - at least (the actual number is over 30, but never
mind). Could you now explain us how many SR-71s were shot down in something
like 4.000 SAM-firings against them?

> I've read your book about the Iran-Iraq war and you don't present any
> evidence of the MiG-25 - F-14 encounters you describe in such vivid
> details. Just a bunch on baloney.

Of course: my books are full of no evidence for such encounters, and lots of
baloney. Everybody knows this meanwhile.

BTW, what is the "evidence" for all these "successful" interceptions of
SR-71s by Soviet fighters you're talking about? Any gun-camera pictures or
radar bands at hand?

Oh, and, BTW #2, I also asked:

- Can you name a single book that would explain the impact of MiG-31 on the
US planning?

- Would you be so kind to tell us why were all the orders for IFR-equipped
MiG-25s for Libya, Syria and Iraq cancelled in late 1987/1988?

Are you able to offer a reasonable answer to these questions, or do you
prefer to ignore them again?

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Venik

August 30th 04, 12:41 AM

Tom Cooper wrote:

> Well, if you would know what are you actually talking about then you'd know
> that it actually has to do. Then, the SR-71 came into existence from a
> project that was also developed into the YF-12. And... the YF-12 was
> equipped with a direct predecessor of the AWG-9 radar, and armed with a
> direct predecessor of the AIM-54....

And... they all came from the Wright flyer. Like I said, you are trying
to change the subject of the discussion.

> You're explaining about the - supposed - impact of the MiG-25 and MiG-31
> (the last of which was actually developed to counter B-1s and their AGM-86
> ALCMs) on SR-71.

I am talking about the role of the MiG-25/31 in the decision to withdraw
the SR-71 from service. And you are deliberately trying to change the topic.

> If there is no "verifiable" MiG-25-kill scored by IRIAF F-14s against IrAF
> and Soviet MiG-25s during that war, then, please be so kind to explain:
> - why are there pictures of MiG-25-wreckage (like on p.64 of "Iranian F-14
> Units in Combat", just for example)?

Iraq lost several MiG-25s in accidents during the conflict. As I already
mentioned, one was lost to an Iranian SAM. One was lost due to
uncontained engine failure. Another one was lost on landing during a
test flight .

> Well, the IRIAF I-HAWKs rather got something like four, but that's another
> story.

I know, according to your book, Iraq lost about three times the number
of MiG-25 it had. That's not even counting the ones downed during the PGW.

>
> What I'd like to know here is the following: as you're so sure that only one
> IrAF Foxbat was shot down by Iranians, then explain us here how it comes
> that according to a document I've got released from the Central MoD Archive
> in Moscow, Iraq has got over 60 MiG-25s from USSR between 1980 and 1989.
> According to the same document, and also US intel documents released
> according to FOIA procedures, however, there were barely 30 of them left by
> 1991.

It's a well-documented fact that Iraq acquired only 12 MiG-25PDs and
eight MiG-25RB recce bombers. The refurbished MiG-25 that crashed in
Dec. 1987 during a test flight was replaced by the Soviets. And, of
course, three Iraqi MiG-25s were lost during the PGW - two P-types were
downed by a pair of F-15Cs on the 19th and one more - by a pair of F-16s
on the 25th. My only suggestion is that you should look for better
"secret" documents and stop thinking stuff up.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Tom Cooper

August 30th 04, 01:11 AM

"Venik" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> > You're explaining about the - supposed - impact of the MiG-25 and MiG-31
> > (the last of which was actually developed to counter B-1s and their
AGM-86
> > ALCMs) on SR-71.
>
> I am talking about the role of the MiG-25/31 in the decision to withdraw
> the SR-71 from service. And you are deliberately trying to change the
topic.

You can complain I'm "changing the topic" as much as you like. The point is
only that you're avoiding answers to all questions asked in your direction
here, and can therefore continue explaining me whatever you want until the
hell freezes.

Namely, you still have not mentioned all these books and documents in which
the US thinking and plans were changed because of MiG-31s. No trace of any
kind of proof is coming from you (no surprise: you still haven't provided
any proof for 200+ NATO planes shot down over Serbia, in 1999, either - even
if you're announcing this since five years :D). I'm telling you right away -
like so many others here - that the SR-71 was _not_ retired because of
MiG-25/31 threat, and you have not a trace of evidence to deny this.

So, either you finally mention all these books and documents so we can take
a look and you can prove us wrong, or admit you have no evidence at all for
your statements.

> > If there is no "verifiable" MiG-25-kill scored by IRIAF F-14s against
IrAF
> > and Soviet MiG-25s during that war, then, please be so kind to explain:
> > - why are there pictures of MiG-25-wreckage (like on p.64 of "Iranian
F-14
> > Units in Combat", just for example)?
>
> Iraq lost several MiG-25s in accidents during the conflict. As I already
> mentioned, one was lost to an Iranian SAM. One was lost due to
> uncontained engine failure. Another one was lost on landing during a
> test flight .

You're avoiding to answer my question, so here it is again: - why are there
pictures of wreckage of IrAF and Soviet MiG-25s shot down over Iran?

Besides, if your data is so "well documented", then explain me when was that
one lost to an Iranian SAM and where? How about date and place? Who was the
pilot? From which unit was he? Can you provide a picture of the plane or
wreckage? Where and when was one lost "due to uncontained engine failure"?
Who was the pilot of that plane? Can you provide a picture of that plane or
its wreckage?Where and when was "another one lost on landing during a test
flight"?

BTW, do you at least have a clue which IrAF units used to operate MiG-25s?
Detachments from which V-VS units were sent to Iraq to test their Foxbats in
combat?

> > Well, the IRIAF I-HAWKs rather got something like four, but that's
another
> > story.
>
> I know, according to your book, Iraq lost about three times the number
> of MiG-25 it had.

Excellent: how about you citing from any of my books where do I state
anything similar?

You said you have read the book, so at least this should not be a
problem....just cite exactly what can be found in the book "Iran-Iraq War in
the Air, 1980-1988" about the number of MiG-25s lost by Iraqis?

> > What I'd like to know here is the following: as you're so sure that only
one
> > IrAF Foxbat was shot down by Iranians, then explain us here how it comes
> > that according to a document I've got released from the Central MoD
Archive
> > in Moscow, Iraq has got over 60 MiG-25s from USSR between 1980 and 1989.
> > According to the same document, and also US intel documents released
> > according to FOIA procedures, however, there were barely 30 of them left
by
> > 1991.
>
> It's a well-documented fact that Iraq acquired only 12 MiG-25PDs....

Where is it "well documented"? What kind of evidence can you provide to
support this statement?

>...and
> eight MiG-25RB recce bombers. The refurbished MiG-25 that crashed in
> Dec. 1987 during a test flight was replaced by the Soviets.

Where did it crash and what is the source for this? Why do the official
Soviet documents state that over 60 MiG-25s were delivered to Iraq, but
there were only 30 left in 1991?

> And, of
> course, three Iraqi MiG-25s were lost during the PGW - two P-types were
> downed by a pair of F-15Cs on the 19th and one more - by a pair of F-16s
> on the 25th.

Which IrAF MiG-25s were shot down by F-16s in 1991? Which F-16-pilots scored
these kills and with which weapons?

> My only suggestion is that you should look for better
> "secret" documents and stop thinking stuff up.

No problem at all: I'll stop "thinking stuff up" and look for better
documents as soon as you finally start answering my questions. Meanwhile
you've ignored quite a lot of these, so here they are again:

- I asked why don't you explain about the impact of (extremely negative)
experiences from the testing of Soviet equipment in Iran-Iraq War, which was
_indeed_ highly influential for (the end of) development of MiG-25?

- I asked, could you now explain us how many SR-71s were shot down in
something like 4.000 SAM-firings against them?

- If there is no "verifiable" MiG-25-kill scored by IRIAF F-14s against IrAF
and Soviet MiG-25s during that war, then, please be so kind to explain:
- why are there pictures of MiG-25-wreckage (like on p.64 of "Iranian F-14
Units in Combat", just for example)?
- why are there ex-IrAF MiG-25 pilots who confirm a loss of at least two
dozens of Iraqi and Soviet Foxbats to Iranian F-14s?
- why do the US intel documents one can get via FOIA procedures confirming
Iranian and Iraqi documents, pilot- and eyewitness-accounts?

I told you I have no problem with your explaining my books for "lots of
baloney", nor stating I'm "thinking stuff up". But, you still have not
answered what is the "evidence" for all these "successful" interceptions of
SR-71s by Soviet fighters you're talking about (see your previous posts in
this thread)? Can you provide any gun-camera pictures or radar bands, or
point at any kind of a source that could?

- Why do the US and Soviet documents agree with each other that over 60
MiG-25s were delivered to Iraq between 1980 and 1989, but barely 30 remained
operational by 1991?

- Can you name a single book that would explain the impact of MiG-31 on the
US planning?

- Would you be so kind to tell us why were all the orders for IFR-equipped
MiG-25s for Libya, Syria and Iraq cancelled in late 1987/1988?

Finally, are you able to offer a reasonable answer to even a single one of
these questions, or do you prefer to show us how much you like to "think
stuffs up" by ignoring them?

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

B2431

August 30th 04, 01:45 AM

>From: Venik

>I am talking about the role of the MiG-25/31 in the decision to withdraw
>the SR-71 from service.

And you have yet to provide the name of a single verifiable source outside the
Soviet Union.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

John Keeney

August 30th 04, 07:13 AM

"Venik" > wrote
> B2431 wrote:
>
> > Now notice how you changed from MiG-37 to MiG25 to avoid answering
> my question.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> No books have been written about the MiG-37 apart from the Italeri
> manual for their plastic model :-) But if you mean MiG-31, than, as you
> (probably don't) know, it's original designation during development was
> MiG-25MP (Ye-155MP).

And a whole book that was written outside the fUSSR telling how the
MiG-25MP/Ye-155MP/MiG-31 impacted US planning was?

>Is this a test? Ooh, I like tests! I suggest reading something about
>the development of the F-14, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflicts which
>saw the use of MiG-25s. I promise you will find no shortage of examples
>of how MiG-25 affeted the US planning.

Liking and doing well on test are not the same thing.

Venik

August 30th 04, 06:59 PM

Any argument with you seems to inevitably lead to you trying to shift
the discussion away from the SR-71 and to the Iran-Iraq war. I
understand that this is one area that you probably read something about,
but it's just not relevant in this situation. You are asking me about
dates and pilots of the lost Iraqi MiG-25s - what does this have
anything to do with the retirement of the SR-71? Your questions are
totally irrelevant and so are your arguments. Your claims of Iraqi
MiG-25 are simply absurd for one simple reason: Iraq never so many
Foxbats to begin with. It's a well-known fact that Iraq only purchased
20 of these aircraft. You talk about some documents stating that Iraq
had 30 MiG-25s left. Let's see them. Where are the photos of these MiGs?
Surely by now the US troops found all of them.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Tom Cooper

August 30th 04, 10:45 PM

"Venik" > wrote in message
...
> Any argument with you seems to inevitably lead to you trying to shift
> the discussion away from the SR-71 and to the Iran-Iraq war. I
> understand that this is one area that you probably read something about,
> but it's just not relevant in this situation. You are asking me about
> dates and pilots of the lost Iraqi MiG-25s - what does this have
> anything to do with the retirement of the SR-71?

For third time. this has to do with the cancellation of MiG-25 development,
caused due to the loss of Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs being shot down over Iran
in November 1987. Repeat: a loss of a Soviet-flown MiG-25BM. In combat.
Against Iranian F-14s. Something that never happened to any USAF SR-71.

This means that it was the Soviets who have changed their planing and
behaviour in regards of MiG-25s due to F-14s. It was not so that the USA
have changed their planing and behaviour in regards of SR-71s because of
MiG-25s or MiG-31s - as you explained above but are completely unable to
provide any kind of evidence for. Capice?

Namely, Venik, you stated:

> There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

And, consequently, I'm asking now for the 5th time: can you finally say what
books? Can you say the title, author, publisher, ISBN of such books?

> Your questions are
> totally irrelevant and so are your arguments.

Why are my questions irrelevant? You said there are "entire books written on
the impact of the MiG-31 on the US planning. I'm asking you: which books?

Can you name even a single one or not?

> Your claims of Iraqi
> MiG-25 are simply absurd for one simple reason: Iraq never so many
> Foxbats to begin with. It's a well-known fact that Iraq only purchased
> 20 of these aircraft.

Where is this a "well-known fact"? What is your source for this? Can you
name a book, article, official document that would confirm your figures?

Then, you were explaining about how many IrAF MiG-25s were lost in 1980s: 3.
And, you said this is "well documented". I said OK. No problem. Just, can
you provide evidence of how "well documented" these losses are? If they are
so "well documented", then explain me when was that one lost to an Iranian
SAM and where? How about date and place? Who was the pilot? From which unit
was he? Can you provide a picture of the plane or wreckage? Where and when
was one lost "due to uncontained engine failure"? Who was the pilot of that
plane? Can you provide a picture of that plane or its wreckage?Where and
when was "another one lost on landing during a test flight"?

> You talk about some documents stating that Iraq
> had 30 MiG-25s left. Let's see them.

Following is the excerpt from the USN document titled "Speartip 014-90" the
title-page and the relevant page I have just e-mailed to you, discussing the
number of MiG-25PDs - repeat: MiG-25PDs (i.e. if you can, note the stress on
INTERCEPTORS, not on a combination of recce and interceptor variants) - as
available in 1991:
_
4. (S/NF/WN) - AIRCRAFT-SPECIFIC ISSUES. THOUGH THE IRAQI AIR FORCE IS LARGE
IN NUMERS, ITS FRENCH AND SOVIET BUILT FIGHTER/INTERCEPTOR FORCE COMPRISES
LESS THAN HALF THIS SUM. THIS FORCE IS BROKE DOWN INTO ALL-WX/VFR CAPABLE
AIRCRAFT AS FOLLOWS:
....
MiG-25 FOXBAT A/E 22
....

Speartip 014-90 was an official document, issued to brief USN commanders
going to a war against Iraq. So, except you're now going to explain us that
ONI was _lying_ to its own people, there were obviously at least 22
MiG-25PD(e)/PDS' - i.e. INTERCEPTOR FOXBATS - in service with the IrAF in
1991. That's a figure that is not including the number of
MiG-25R/RB/BT/RBSHs and MiG-25PUs supplied to Iraq.

Now, you stated above that Iraq "only purchased 20 of these aircraft".
Specifically, you stated that (citate from one of your posts above), "It's a
well-documented fact that Iraq acquired only 12 MiG-25PDs". How do you
explain this discrepancy?

How comes there is a disparity in the figures you provide and what the US
Navy Intelligence was explaining to USN pilots going to a war? Would you
perhaps like to explain us that the ONI was babbling nosence and its
arguments were "irrelevant"?

Oh, and BTW, can you provide any kind of document that would confirm your
statement that the Soviets have supplied only 20 Foxbats of all versions to
Iraq?

> Where are the photos of these MiGs?
> Surely by now the US troops found all of them.

This was the worst question you could have asked, then there are meanwhile
really a lot of photos of Iraqi MiG-25s found and captured last year. In
fact, the US DoD and private websites of US vets who were in Iraq last and
this year have so far released photographs of no less but 15 different
MiG-25PD(e)/PDS' found in Iraq last year. These are obviously the survivors
of the 22 mentioned in the Speartip 014-90. To make matters really bitter
for you, Venik, however, there are also plenty of photos of Iraqi
MiG-25R/RBs and MiG-25PUs, including:

MiG-25R/RB etc.
- 25105
- 25106
- 25107
- 25108

MiG-25PU
- 25xxx (the one photographed with Australian SAS)

So, if you now calculate what the Speartip above mentioned, namely that
there were 22 MiG-25PD(e) and MiG-25PDS in Iraq in 1991, and add the
MiG-25R/RBs and PUs the serials of which I mentioned above, and ignore all
the Foxbats destroyed on the ground in 1991 and 2003, as well as those shot
down in air combats in 1991 and 1992, as well as the fact that the serials
of examples captured in Iraq last year obviously indicate that there were
even more R/RBs in Iraq, you come out with a total of (at least) 27 MiG-25s
of all versions in Iraq in 1991.

Remember: You said that "it's a well-known fact that Iraq only purchased 20
of these aircraft".

Photographic and intelligence documentation indicate there were at least 27
of Foxbats in Iraq in 1991, and this figure excludes three examples shot
down in air combats in 1991 and 1992, and two destroyed on the ground in
1991. Plus, this figure excludes the three examples you say were lost during
the war with Iran.

With other words, Venik, this would mean that Iraq purchased (at least) 35
MiG-25s, and that your data is completely wrong. How do you explain this?

BTW, your account on unaswered questions is permanently increasing.
Meanwhile, it looks as follows:

- I asked why don't you explain about the impact of (extremely negative)
experiences from the testing of Soviet equipment in Iran-Iraq War, which was
_indeed_ highly influential for (the end of) development of MiG-25?

- I asked, could you now explain us how many SR-71s were shot down in
something like 4.000 SAM-firings against them?

- If there is no "verifiable" MiG-25-kill scored by IRIAF F-14s against IrAF
and Soviet MiG-25s during that war, then, please be so kind to explain:
- why are there pictures of MiG-25-wreckage (like on p.64 of "Iranian F-14
Units in Combat", just for example)?
- why are there ex-IrAF MiG-25 pilots who confirm a loss of at least two
dozens of Iraqi and Soviet Foxbats to Iranian F-14s?
- why do the US intel documents one can get via FOIA procedures confirming
Iranian and Iraqi documents, pilot- and eyewitness-accounts?

I told you I have no problem with your explaining my books for "lots of
baloney", nor stating I'm "thinking stuff up". But, you still have not
answered what is the "evidence" for all these "successful" interceptions of
SR-71s by Soviet fighters you're talking about (see your previous posts in
this thread)? Can you provide any gun-camera pictures or radar bands, or
point at any kind of a source that could?

- Why do the US and Soviet documents agree with each other that over 60
MiG-25s were delivered to Iraq between 1980 and 1989, but barely 30 remained
operational by 1991?

- Can you name a single book that would explain the impact of MiG-31 on the
US planning?

- Would you be so kind to tell us why were all the orders for IFR-equipped
MiG-25s for Libya, Syria and Iraq cancelled in late 1987/1988?

You furthermore stated,
> And, of
> course, three Iraqi MiG-25s were lost during the PGW - two P-types were
> downed by a pair of F-15Cs on the 19th and one more - by a pair of F-16s
> on the 25th.

In response to which I asked, which IrAF MiG-25s were shot down by F-16s in
1991? Which F-16-pilots scored these kills and with which weapons?

Finally, are you able to offer a reasonable answer to even a single one of
these questions, or do you prefer to show us how much you like to "think
stuffs up" by ignoring them?

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Nele VII

August 31st 04, 01:45 AM

Mr. Cooper, it seems you are suggesting that the former USSR fired some
4,000 SAMs against SR-71. Yet, SR-71 was "intercepted" with Swedish JA-37
(or so they say). I don't know, but if I were a Soviet PVO commander in
chief in that time, I would be p*ssed off big time!

Now, I know that you have a lot of good information, but being an aircraft
"fan" I prefer some information over "I dare you, Venik". More like
"Vladimir Malukh" first (or good second-hand) stuff. And no, I don't believe
that SR-71 was withdrawn because of MiG-31. Also, to be thruthful, MiG-31
was tested under a name MiG-25MP and further developed into MiG-31BM...

P.S. what the heck were MiG-25s doing at low-level to be shot by F-5s!? At
that altitude their performance is such they well might have plunged
themselves into ground!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Steve Hix

August 31st 04, 02:11 AM

In article >,
"Nele VII" > wrote:
>
> P.S. what the heck were MiG-25s doing at low-level to be shot by F-5s!?

Letting down for landing, likely being short of fuel.

Sort of like Me-262s being bounced by Typhoons and P-51s.

Tom Cooper

August 31st 04, 07:44 AM

"Nele VII" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Cooper, it seems you are suggesting that the former USSR fired some
> 4,000 SAMs against SR-71. Yet, SR-71 was "intercepted" with Swedish JA-37
> (or so they say). I don't know, but if I were a Soviet PVO commander in
> chief in that time, I would be p*ssed off big time!

Well, that's the figure given by Robert J. Gilliland, former SR-71-test
pilot, in an interview published by Warren E. Thompson in Air Enthusiast
Sept/Oct 2004. Perhaps my memory is not the best, but I think I've read a
figure of over 5.000 SAM-firings somewhere else before (not only over the
USSR, but also Cuba, North Korea and some other places).

Re. interceptions by Swedish JA-37s: perhaps they did it, perhaps not, I
don't know. But, what I actually find funny in this exchange with Venik is
the fact that his only source about MiG-25/31s is so obviously Y. Gordon's
book published by Aerofax (which in turn strongly resembles the book "MiG-25
i Modifikaciy", by G. Dmitriev, S. Sergin, and S. Popsuevich, published by
Arhiv-Press, in Kiev, 1995, and some other earlier Russian publications).
Consequently, Venik can't know about such examples like an ex-Soviet
MiG-31-crew that indeed took several photographs of an SR-71 they
intercepted somewhere near Kamchatka. Of course, the SR-71 was still almost
40.000ft higher and far much faster underway than they were, and they've
seen it only for few seconds - but they photographed it (sadly, they are
also demanding a pretty horrendous sum for these shots).

> Now, I know that you have a lot of good information, but being an aircraft
> "fan" I prefer some information over "I dare you, Venik". More like
> "Vladimir Malukh" first (or good second-hand) stuff.

Sadly, you can't talk with Venik in a very reasonable way. Even when TJ got
him so obviously with his pants down (remember the story about a USAF B-52
"shot down" over Yugoslavia) he'll avoid and ignore all the facts put up
against him like they were never presented in the public.

> And no, I don't believe
> that SR-71 was withdrawn because of MiG-31. Also, to be thruthful, MiG-31
> was tested under a name MiG-25MP and further developed into MiG-31BM...

IMHO, there is an interesting parallel in combat deployment of MiG-25s and
SR-71s, then both types were active over Iran during 1987. In that year at
least two Foxbats were shot down by IRIAF F-14s, including the Soviet-flown
MiG-25BM that got caught by AIM-54A fired in HOJ-mode during an attack
against Mehrabad AB. The SR-71s, involved in Op Eager Glacier, were never
even fired at by Iranians. Black Birds were not retired because of this
experience, but in the weeks after the BM was splashed the Iraqi, Libyan and
Syrian air forces have all cancelled their orders for MiG-25PDZ and
MiG-25RBV, instead going for Su-24MKs.

> P.S. what the heck were MiG-25s doing at low-level to be shot by F-5s!? At
> that altitude their performance is such they well might have plunged
> themselves into ground!

One, a MiG-25RB shot down in 1983, was previously damaged by AIM-54 while
attempting to attack Tehran and underway back towards Iraq at low speed and
level; it got intercepted by an F-5E that was underway on a CAS-sortie
against target in Suleimanyah area and blasted away by two AIM-9Ps. The
other, a MiG-25PD(e) shot down in 1986, was flown by the leading Iraqi "ace"
of that war (Mohammad "Sky Falcon" Rayyan, a personal favourite of Saddam
Hussein), who obviously got pretty arrogant after scoring two kills against
IRIAF fighters in the days before: he was cruising at something like Mach 1
and 25.000ft; the F-5E approached - almost running itself out of fuel in the
process - from behind with radar on "stand by", got a missile failure and
thus attacked with 20mm cannons, spending all ammo in two long bursts - but
setting the right wing afire. The Foxbat came away, but only for few
minutes: it crashed somewhere in the northern Howeizeh Marshes; the Iraqis
were searching for it for three days - without success.

In total, obviously in order to increase their range, the Foxbats were
cruising at speeds around Mach 1 - Mach 1.9 during that war: Iran is quite a
large country. Only once closer to a target, or when threatened by Iranian
interceptors, would they accelerate to more than Mach 2.

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

August 31st 04, 10:17 AM

Tom Cooper >
> in the weeks after the BM was splashed the Iraqi, Libyan and
> Syrian air forces have all cancelled their orders for MiG-25PDZ
> and MiG-25RBV, instead going for Su-24MKs.

I find this a bit strange, perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

Su-24 and MiG-25 seem like very different type of aircraft to me.
25P-series being interceptors and 25RB-series being hihg-altitude
recce-bombers. Su-24, on the other hand, excels in the low-level
strike/bomber role (eg the M-series), also having tac recce and EW
versions.

In particular, I can't imagine that someone would purchase Su-24's for
the interceptor role, ie instead of MiG-25PDZ. But Tom seems to imply
this above, and this I find strange.

Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
interesting (I guess I should buy his book... ;).

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
particular).

Tom Cooper

August 31st 04, 12:31 PM

"M" <*@*.*> wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper >
> > in the weeks after the BM was splashed the Iraqi, Libyan and
> > Syrian air forces have all cancelled their orders for MiG-25PDZ
> > and MiG-25RBV, instead going for Su-24MKs.
>
> I find this a bit strange, perhaps you could elaborate a bit?
>
> Su-24 and MiG-25 seem like very different type of aircraft to me.
> 25P-series being interceptors and 25RB-series being hihg-altitude
> recce-bombers. Su-24, on the other hand, excels in the low-level
> strike/bomber role (eg the M-series), also having tac recce and EW
> versions.

No problem.

You need to see the situation from Arab standpoint. The matter was such that
already since mid-1970s Iraq and Libya were pushing Moscow to deliver a
bomber that could fly from Iraq (or Libya), bomb Israel, and continue
towards Libya (or Iraq), doing this at high speed and least possible danger
for itself. Theoretically, the idea was not bad, however: Israel is very
narrow on west-east axis, so a Tu-22B making a supersonic dash would give
the Israelis a very small chance of interception. The Soviets, however,
reacted by delivering Tu-22Bs, which were a nightmare to maintain and fly,
and armed only with "iron" bombs: IrAF and LARAF needed years to get them
into working condition, and never became capable to operate them completely
independent from Soviet help. So, although the type saw quite some use
against Iran and in Chad Arabs were soon demanding something else.

Eventually, the negative experiences with Tu-22Bs in war against Iran (at
least six were shot down by 1984), and the poor state of Soviet economy,
brought Moscow to the idea of supplying Su-24s instead. The first examples
of this version were shown to the Syrians already in 1986. The Syrians,
however, were more satisfied with MiG-25, then - compared to F-15s and
F-16s - it was offering at least the advantage of speed, aside the fact that
they already operated the type. The same was the case also with Libyan and
Iraqi air forces (and Algerians, which operate MiG-25s but also became the
fourth Su-24-customer). So, instead of developing a completely new variant
of Su-24, the idea was born to equip MiG-25s with IFR-probes and more
advanced weapons - some of which was already tested for the MiG-25BM
project. Given their increased endurance such Foxbats could bomb Israel (or
any other place) while operating at very high levels and speeds, and
dropping their weapons from outside the range of most of the Israeli air
defences.

However, in 1986 the first Soviet-flown MiG-25BM was shot down over Iran.
Several Foxbats were already shot down or damaged in 1981, 1982 and 1983,
but such cases were considered as "accidents" due to pure Iraqi and Soviet
arogance. Well, not only their: see in any book or article about Iranian
F-14s what is being said about their capability to utilize AIM-54s in
combat...

Then, in the following year additional similar cases followed, culminating
with the loss of another BM in November 1987, and at least four RBs in
winter and spring of 1988. Except for a single MiG-25RB shot down over
Esfahan by IRIAF MIM-23Bs (and this is the one mentioned in Gordon's book,
and also the example on which Venik is so much hanging - solely because this
was a widely publicised affair), all the others were shot down by
F-14/AIM-54 combo. Upon hearing about this, and concluding that MiG-25s were
previously also shot down by Israeli F-15s, the Arabs cancelled all the
orders for IFR-equipped MiG-25s, turning for Su-24 instead, and hoping that
something that could fly low and haul more ordnance over a longer range
would function better than Foxbats. In 1988 Moscow consequently ordered all
the further development work on MiG-25s to be cancelled, and the Su-24MK
became a reality.

> In particular, I can't imagine that someone would purchase Su-24's for
> the interceptor role, ie instead of MiG-25PDZ. But Tom seems to imply
> this above, and this I find strange.

I think you might have misinterpreted me here: it was certainly not my
intention to explain that the Su-24 would've replaced MiG-25 in interceptor
role. Of course, the MiG-25 and Su-24 are completely different. As you
observed, one is designed for high-speed/high level, other for low level
opertions. But, the intention was not to replace PD(e)/PDS' by Su-24. The
main point of the IFR-equipped Foxbat development was to get a strike
fighter with IFR-capability. PDZ was actually an idea that came out of
necessity to develop a BM that wouldn't have to haul the huge 5.000l drop
tank, but as such a PDZ was only used for testing. IFR-equipped RBs were the
major idea - not the other way around, as explained by Gordon. That was OK
with Arabs, however, then their main interest was to get an IFR-equipped
strike-variant. If the Soviets would've then also equipped Arab PD(e)/PDS'
with IFR-probes I don't know, but surely the Arabs could have found this a
"nice to have" idea.

Once the IFR-equipped Foxbats were cancelled the Su-24 was added as
fighter-bomber in IrAF, SyAAF, LARAF and QJJ, relegating local MiG-25RBs to
pure recce tasks. MiG-25PD(e)/PDS' remained main interceptors of all of
these air forces.

> It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
> and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
> experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.

That's what I'm trying to get in the moment. For the time being the sole
ex-Soviet Foxbat-pilot that was in Iraq in 1987 I've found so far, insists
that the BM in question was lost in an "accident". He wouldn't negate that
the MiG-25-development was subsequently cancelled, but also he woudn't
accept that either the BM downed in 1986 or the one shot down in 1987 was
hit by AIM-54s even after being confronted with materials from two
independent sources: just like most of the West (especially the USA), the
Soviets/Russians think the Iranian F-14s were "dead". From what I've heard,
however, the USAF was monitoring that deployment very carefully, and also
all the three missions flown by BMs against Mehrabad in November 1987. I've
found a USAFIA document confirming a loss of a BM (to IRIAF F-14s) over Iran
in Nov 1987, and indicating that there are sat photos of the wreckage. So, I
guess a FOIA inquiry or two more will be needed to get the final result. It
just takes awfull a lot of time to unearth all of this...

BTW, if some self-advertising is permitted: Venik said he read one of my
books (he wouldn't say which), and this was a "baloney". Here a review from
somebody who teaches War Studies on Royal Military College, in Canada:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no3/book7_e.asp

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Andrew Chaplin

August 31st 04, 12:53 PM

Tom Cooper wrote:
>
> BTW, if some self-advertising is permitted: Venik said he read one of my
> books (he wouldn't say which), and this was a "baloney". Here a review from
> somebody who teaches War Studies on Royal Military College, in Canada:
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no3/book7_e.asp

I dare say Sean Mahoney is arms length enough. From his _War Without
Battles_ about the Canadian army in Germany with NATO, I'd say he's a
competent historian, just not that great at narrative.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Tank Fixer

August 31st 04, 10:33 PM

In article >,
on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:18:03 -0400,
Venik attempted to say .....

> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
> > SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.
>
> I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
> weren not. Oops, next explanation...
>
> >The Mig-31
> > never had an impact on US planing.
>
> There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
> planning.

Name a few then please.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

rottenberg

August 31st 04, 11:16 PM

M <*@*.*> wrote in message >...
> Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
> interesting (I guess I should buy his book... ;).

Actually, I bought the book last Spring, and trying to wade through
it, I managed to get to the end of the war just last week (though I
guess that's a lot faster than it took to fight...still). If anybody
else on this thread has gotten II/AW:80-88, I was wondering how many
editions there were. Mine has almost no maps nor any index. I could
go back and check, but I don't think there's a single theater-level
map in the whole book. I was wondering whether this was a mistake
given that I did see a review that praised the books use of maps.
Also, it seems that there were some missing footnotes (I think
329-338, or something like that).

> It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
> and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
> experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.

You're probably correct. However, in the hopes of forestalling
unneccessary flaming, might I suggest that future posts linking
development of aircraft based on the experience of other aircraft
actually spell out what that influence is? It's just that just
raising that point without specifying it leads to needlessly
acid-tipped counter-posting, with one side minimizing and the other
overstating the relationship. In its strict sense, one aircraft can
have "an impact" on another based on widely varying sets of
circumstances, such that just saying that there was an impact doesn't
really tell us whether the older plane's experience was really all
that great. Maybe it was minimal, and the response was minimal (do
the canards look different to you?). Maybe it was huge and resulted
in a radical alteration (hey, where did the canards go?) Maybe it was
utterly negligible ("Heinemman wants to meet and talk about the
canards and RCS. He says that he's got intel about how badly IRIAF's
'new' radar performed over Manjnoun last week, and maybe RCS shouldn't
be our big priority." "Well good for him, I only worked overtime three
months confirming that. You can tell Heinemman that he can send me a
goddam memo. He doesn't need me to hang around a glue back on the
canrds he ripped off last month.") Maybe the Russians decided to
radically change the design of the Foxhound, or maybe something (like
the loss of those Foxbats over Tehran in '87) just made them put a tad
more thought than usual. Venik can argue that it was a lot, Tom can
say it was a little (or was it the other way around?) without either
having to admit that there was no impact at all.

> Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
> defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
> particular).

I think that the -14's mission makes it suitable for homeland defense,
and obviously taking Tom's book at face value, it performed that more
magnificently than we could imagine. By '87, these things (though
obviously affected by attrition) were still flying. So much for a
plane derided as being a maintenance nightmare. Maybe those "Super
Hornet Playuh Hatuhs" were right, and the USN F-14 did get the bum's
rush. The nature of the F-14 as a fleet defender stems likely from
the fact that Grumman couldn' sell anybody else on the idea of the
F-14 - so fleet defense was all it had. Now, years later, it's
"matured" into a force-multiplier, capable of attacking and
designating targets on the ground. Normally, plane's lose missions
with age - the F-14 is like that actor that finds fame after years of
crummy parts, it's like the Sharon Stone of tac-air.

Nele VII

September 1st 04, 01:40 AM

Tom already answered, but I feel I have to jump in...

M <*@*.*> wrote in message >...
<SNIP>
>Su-24 and MiG-25 seem like very different type of aircraft to me.
>25P-series being interceptors and 25RB-series being hihg-altitude
>recce-bombers. Su-24, on the other hand, excels in the low-level
>strike/bomber role (eg the M-series), also having tac recce and EW
>versions.

Su-24/24M/MK are all strike aircraft of the same use as tactical F-111 (TF,
wide-range weapons etc.). Su-24MK is an export version.
Su-24MR is reconnaissance version.
Su-24MP is simmilar in use as former EF-111A.

Now, Vladimir Malukh was working on Su-24M -> Su-24MK (export) "upgrade"
(read:downgrade ;) conversion and he wrote that it was one hell of a job and
it would have been easier to build a new ones!

>
>In particular, I can't imagine that someone would purchase Su-24's for
>the interceptor role, ie instead of MiG-25PDZ. But Tom seems to imply
>this above, and this I find strange.
>
PD-Z-? What the heck is that? -Serial- MiG-25PD with IFR? I know about PDSL
and M prototypes, Mach 3.7(!)MA proposal and some other "letters"...

MiG-25RBV is supposed to be a '78 vintage RB with "general" ELINT device
"Virash", supplemented with more modern MiG-25RBT with ELINT "Tangazh". (if
"radiotechnical reconnaissance " in Russian means that, "bokovoy RLS" means
SLAR). Then there are RBK, RBS, RBN, RBSh, BM, XYZ (sorry, I couldn't resist
on the last one! :).

>Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
>interesting (I guess I should buy his book... ;).
>
>It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
>and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
>experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
>Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
>defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
>particular).

Well, (off the top of my head), Fedotov took off MiG-25MP (a.k.a. MiG-31) at
1975 for the first flight, with phased array-model "Zaslon" prototype in
1976-77 and demonstrated tracking of 10 targets in 1978. So, no -direct-
influence of (at lest IRIAF) F-14.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Tom Cooper

September 1st 04, 04:22 PM

"rottenberg" > wrote in message
om...
> M <*@*.*> wrote in message
>...
> > Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
> > interesting (I guess I should buy his book... ;).
>
> Actually, I bought the book last Spring, and trying to wade through
> it, I managed to get to the end of the war just last week (though I
> guess that's a lot faster than it took to fight...still). If anybody
> else on this thread has gotten II/AW:80-88, I was wondering how many
> editions there were. Mine has almost no maps nor any index.

Sadly, Schiffer Publishing is not editing any manuscripts - as we've learned
only after the book was published, so the manuscript went in as it was.
Also, I don't know until today why the footnotes went missing or why was the
index not added: some readers haven't found this much of a problem, however,
because of a chronological organization of the book.

Subsequent books have rectified with most (if not all) of the problems - but
they were published by Osprey and SHI, respectivelly....

> > It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
> > and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
> > experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
>
> You're probably correct. However, in the hopes of forestalling
> unneccessary flaming, might I suggest that future posts linking
> development of aircraft based on the experience of other aircraft
> actually spell out what that influence is?

The sole problem in this case was: you can't talk that way with Venik,
because he ignores any other evidence but the one he likes. His sole source
for all this "well documented" matters he's talking about is Y. Gordon's
book "MiG-25 and MiG-31", published by Aerofax, and specifically the
following statements:

- (p.53)
> "The Iraqi Air Force used its eight MiG-25RBs....One aircraft was shot
down by a Hawk missile, another was lost when an engine tossed a turbine
blade, forcing the pilot to eject. A newly refurbished aircraft crashed on
landing after a check flight in December 1987. No Iraqi MiG-25Ps were lost
in the Iran-Iraq war."

So much about "well documented facts" Venik was talking about. In fact,
something like two dozens of Foxbats were shot down or damaged during the
IPGW/Iran-Iraq War (number lost in accidents remains unknown): the first
already on 15 May 1981 (when an AIM-54A fired from a range of 108km damaged
a MiG-25RB), the last on 22 March 1988, when it was shot down by AIM-54 over
central western Iran. The losses included several MiG-25PD(e)s, including
one flown by the already mentioned top IrAF ace of that war, Lt.Col.
Mohammad "Sky Falcon" Rayyan, shot down by an F-5E in 1986. In interviews
with four former IrAF MiG-25-pilots and a Belgian merc who was permitted to
fly the type as well, I've found no confirmation for any incident in
December 1987, so it seems this was wrong info as well. The RB shot down by
MIM-23B HAWKs Gordon mentioned in his book, however, is a very well-known
case, which occurred on 14 January 1987, directly over the City of Esfahan
(see p.238 of IIWITA). It became as well-known (in the West) because the
pilot of that plane - 1st Lt. Saa'er Sobhi Ahmad-Ali - was subsequently
shown on Iranian TV, the Iranian regime praising an IRGCAF HQ-2 unit for
scoring the kill (HQ-2 is Chinese copy of SA-2; in fact, the kill was scored
by an IRIAF MIM-23B I-HAWK unit), and this was recorded in the book "The
Gulf War", by Edgar O'Ballance (which formed the basis for many subsequent
articles about that war, including "Kian Noush's" - published in AFM and
WAPJ in 1998 and 1999).

- (p.89)
> "The appearance of the MiG-31s caused the USAF to curtail not only the
over flights of Soviet territory but flights over international waters near
Soviet borders."

Essentially, this is the only evidence Venik has about "USA changing
plans..." because of MiG-31's appearance. And, even this is wrong, then
Gordon was talking about deployment of six MiG-31s in the Far East, in
September 1983, in the days after the downing of KAL007. As such, however,
this statement stands no proof either, however, as in those days the USAF,
USN and JSDF/ADF planes were flying all the time over the Sakhalin area.
While a number of minor incidents of different kind occurred, the USAF never
stopped flying F-15 and E-3 sorties there.

Where did Venik find "evidence" for the SR-71 to have been retired because
of MiG-31 I don't know. I've never even heard about any; besides, the MiG-31
was in service already since 1981 or so, if my memory serves me well. I
actually have to wonder very much about this even being possible, given that
all the secrets of the MiG-31's Zaslon-system (and quite some other things)
were revealed to the CIA by an agent best known as "Donald" (arrested and
executed by the Soviets in 1986, if I recall this right), who used to work
in the institute from which later Vympel came into being.

> > Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
> > defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
> > particular).

IMHO, it's the question of design. Grumman designed 303E to become an air
superiority fighter, armed with gun, four Sparrows and four Sidewinders and
capable of outmanoeuvring MiG-17 and MiG-21. When this capability was
reached (on the paper), they added the AWG-9 and AIM-54 (that's how paletts
came into existence). The F-14 became known as "fleet defender" (i.e.
interceptor) that was to defend USN carriers from Soviet bombers armed with
cruise missiles foremost for its role in the USN. It was very much, however,
designed to tackle enemy fighters, but also bombers, cruise missiles and
Foxbats (due to AIM-54). Interestingly, the Iranians first considered F-14 a
"flying radar..." - i.e. AWACS - "...with self-defence capability", later on
they found out it is a tremendous air superiority plane, i.e.
fighter-interceptor. For them, the F-14's capability to tackle MiG-25 (and
Soviet overflights) was a wellcome excuse for getting permission to buy
Tomcat; that's also why they were so sillent about the fact that one of
their F-4Es killed a Soviet MiG-25R (using AIM-7E-2) over the Caspian Sea
already in 1977.

The MiG-31, on the contrary, was always designed as pure interceptor, with
main role of defending northern USSR from B-1s and B-52s, as well as their
cruise missiles, and to do this with minimal support from SRDLOs or even
GCI. That's essentially, an area in which it excells, that's sure. However,
this does not mean that it's appearance has anything to do with retirement
of the SR-71: as first, the SR-71s operated around the USSR for years after
the MiG-31s entered service; as second even if there was more than one
successful "dry" interception this certainly wasn't a reason for its
retirement.
--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Tom Cooper

September 1st 04, 04:30 PM

> PD-Z-? What the heck is that? -Serial- MiG-25PD with IFR? I know about
PDSL
> and M prototypes, Mach 3.7(!)MA proposal and some other "letters"...

According to Gordon, PDZ stood for "Zapravka" - refuelling, and this was
designation of one MiG-25PD that was modified with an L-shaped IFR-probe to
be tested in the frame of the MiG-25BM project. To be sincere, from Gordon's
book it's actually uncelar if this version was ever tested in flight (at
least to me).

> MiG-25RBV is supposed to be a '78 vintage RB with "general" ELINT device
> "Virash", supplemented with more modern MiG-25RBT with ELINT "Tangazh".
(if
> "radiotechnical reconnaissance " in Russian means that, "bokovoy RLS"
means
> SLAR). Then there are RBK, RBS, RBN, RBSh, BM, XYZ (sorry, I couldn't
resist
> on the last one! :).

According to Gordon (p.37 of "MiG-25 and MiG-31"), a MiG-25RBV and a
MiG-25RBSh each were modified with IFR-probes and redesignated MiG-25RBVDZ
and MiG-25RBShDZ, and tested in flight, refuelling from an Il-78 tanker
(perhaps also from Su-24s equipped with UPAZ A-HDU pods). There should be
also a picture taken during these trials somewhere...

> >It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
> >and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
> >experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
> >Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
> >defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
> >particular).
>
> Well, (off the top of my head), Fedotov took off MiG-25MP (a.k.a. MiG-31)
at
> 1975 for the first flight, with phased array-model "Zaslon" prototype in
> 1976-77 and demonstrated tracking of 10 targets in 1978. So, no -direct-
> influence of (at lest IRIAF) F-14.

I also think that F-14 had no direct influence on MiG-31. Only the total
interceptor capabilities - I stress: capabilities - of the AWG-9 and AIM-54
did. But even this only in the sence that the Soviets found it an
interesting concept and were amazed at how far could the radar reach and
missiles go - not in the sence that either AWG-9 or AIM-54 were supplied (by
whoever) to USSR. Namely, the stories about an Iranian defector flying an
F-14 to Soviet Union, or the Iranians outright supplying a whole Tomcat to
the Soviets, are also not truth, but rather based on the CIA/FTD operation
"Night Harvest", from August/September 1986, which resulted in two IRIAF
F-4s and a single F-14 pilot defecting to Iraq (see also p.225 of IIWITA).
These planes, however, were not given to the Soviets, but taken over by a
CIA/FTD team that was waiting for them: while a Tomcat and a Phantom each
were subsequently flown to Saudi Arabia, the Americans found the other
Phantom in such a poor condition that it was stripped of all the sensitive
parts and left behind in Iraq.

That's, BTW, why it came the US troops found that derelict IRIAF F-4E at
dump near Tallil AB, last year.

--

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************