Blackbird v. Mig-25

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.

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.

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

"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/titl...hp/title=S7875

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

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

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

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

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/titl...hp/title=S7875

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

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

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

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

"Venik" wrote in message
...
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.

Really? Ah, there goes one of my favourite aviation anecdotes.



John

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:13:50 +0100, "John Mullen"
wrote:

"Venik" wrote in message
...
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.

Really? Ah, there goes one of my favourite aviation anecdotes.



John



I'd always wondered if it was made of cast iron and we were giving
them too much credit.

"John Mullen" wrote in message ..

Really? Ah, there goes one of my favourite aviation anecdotes.
.....
John

Sir,
I am happy to inform You that Your favourite aviation anecdote is
still very much alive. This is how www.aeronautics.ru describes that
same steel in an article about Su-29 aerobatics plane
quote : "...fuselage has basic welded truss structure of VNS-2
high-strength stainless steel tubing;...
www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/su29-01.htm "end quote
And some more quotes :
"...high-strength stainless steel VNS-2 that corresponds in
composition to the steel 08Kh15N5D2T (08Cr15Ni5Cu2Ti). ...
http://www.kluweronline.com/article....S=495948&PDF=1 "

"The choice of the materials was also dependent on the performances -
up to 80% of the plane was made up of VNS-2, VNS-4 and VNS-5 stainless
steel, about 8% was ...
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoy...25/mig25_e.htm "

And for the record stainless steel is kind of steel that is resistant
to atmospheric corrosion(it will not rust that is) regardless of it's
composition and if chromium is the only element added then the
required content would be 12% or higher.

Nemanja Vukicevic
aeronautical engineering student

"Wolfhenson" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
..

Really? Ah, there goes one of my favourite aviation anecdotes.
....
John

Sir,
I am happy to inform You that Your favourite aviation anecdote is
still very much alive. This is how www.aeronautics.ru describes that
same steel in an article about Su-29 aerobatics plane
quote : "...fuselage has basic welded truss structure of VNS-2
high-strength stainless steel tubing;...
www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/su29-01.htm "end quote
And some more quotes :
"...high-strength stainless steel VNS-2 that corresponds in
composition to the steel 08Kh15N5D2T (08Cr15Ni5Cu2Ti). ...
http://www.kluweronline.com/article....S=495948&PDF=1 "

"The choice of the materials was also dependent on the performances -
up to 80% of the plane was made up of VNS-2, VNS-4 and VNS-5 stainless
steel, about 8% was ...
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoy...25/mig25_e.htm "

And for the record stainless steel is kind of steel that is resistant
to atmospheric corrosion(it will not rust that is) regardless of it's
composition and if chromium is the only element added then the
required content would be 12% or higher.

Thank you, that's very interesting and makes perfect sense.

John

Venik wrote in message ...
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.

The steels used by Russian aircraft makers would probably be more
correctly described as corrosion resistant austinitic steels.
Stainless Steel AFAIKS is only one type of austinitic steel.

Steel, Titanium, Aluminium all have approximetly the same tensile
strength per unit weight. Aluminium being less dense than steel is
weaker for the same cross sectional area and more must be used. For
some structures of an aircraft that are under compressive forces the
thicker guages of Aluminium used provides superior stiffness and
resistence to buckling although tensile strength is the same.

Steel is a perfectly good material for highly concentrated stressed
components such as the wing, spars and tail. In these areas Aluminium
looses its advantage. Aluminium is good for Most parts of the
fueselage where stresses are less concentrated.

Titanium falls in between Aluminium and Steel in Density and Heat
resistence.

Steel has superior thermal resistence than Titanium and Titanium
better than Aluminium. The use of corrosion resitent steels on many
parts of Russian aircraft may have more to do with resistence to
atmopsheric corrosion due to moisture than that due to high
temperature oxidation.

Steel most defintely is not an inferior material to Titanium: in many
cases it is superior in physical properties. It all depends on what
the objective is.