Mikoyan/Gurevich MiG Ye-150/-152('E-166')/-152A

I hadn't heard of this aircraft until a couple of weeks ago and I haven't found more than a passing mention of it on this forum, so I thought I'd post some info.

It's clearly a Mig-21 derivative, but apparently a new airframe, not a modification. From what I've read, it served partly as Mig-25 engine testbed in the early to mid '60s. It was temporarily misidentified by NATO as the Mig-23 and designated 'Flipper', and also given a civilian/research code of YE-166 in the Soviet Union. Later it was the basis fo the F-8 in China.

It set three world speed records. All of these have been superseded, but the point of historical interest is that it's still the fastest single-engined aircraft ever built.

"Uragan-5" automatic guidance and intercept system for E-152-9 aircraft.

Development of interceptor-fighters for "Uragan-5" complex began in accordance with the Council of Ministers resolution dated February 26, 1955 and the Ministry of Aviation Industry order dated March 8, 1955. The intercept complex was intended to perform automatic guidance, self-guidance, attack and withdrawal from attack operations. It consisted of following components: ground radar station (detection range of 345 km), digital control computer, active interrogation system (SAZO), command data link (SPK), automatic guidance post and interceptor-fighter equipped with airborne radar (detection range of 25 km), autopilot and computer (SRP). "Uragan-5" system had to intercept enemy supersonic bombers flying at the altitude of 10-25 km with the speed of 1600-2000 km/hour in an area 100-120 km around interceptor take-off airfield if preliminary warning from air defence system was provided.

Initially it was planned to built five following interceptor-fighter versions:

-two aircraft armed with two 30 mm cannon whose firing rate was 1300-1500 shots per minute;

-two aircraft armed with guided rockets;

-one aircraft armed with unguided rockets.

Prototype of the system had to be delivered for the State tests in the I quarter 1958. Aircraft fitted out with above-mentioned armament had to hit the enemy bombers performing attack on head-on crossing course or abaft and to provide bomber kill probability not less than 0.8. But in accordance with the Council of Ministers resolution dated March 28, 1956 and the Ministry of Aviation Industry order dated April 6, 1956, number of interceptor-fighters to be built, their armament configuration as well as date of "Uragan-5" delivery for the State tests were changed. Four following E-150 interceptor-fighter versions had to be built and presented for tests in the III quarter 1958:

-two aircraft armed with K-6 guided rockets;

-one aircraft armed with unguided rockets;

-one aircraft fitted out with a movable cannon mount (two 30 mm cannon whose firing rate was 1300-1500 shots per minute).

The Mikoyan Design bureau was preparing E-150 aircraft project in 1956. Detail design work and aircraft mock-up construction began by late 1956. But, in accordance with new Council of Ministers resolution dated March 7, 1957 and Ministry of Aviation Industry order dated March 21, 1957, the Mikoyan Design bureau was charged with a new task to build and deliver for the State tests in IV quarter 1958 five following E-150 aircraft versions:

-one aircraft armed with guided rockets K-6V;

-two aircraft armed with K-70 guided rockets;

-two aircraft fitted out with two movable 30 mm cannon.

In 1957 detail design work was done, drawings and technical documentation were issued. It was planned initially to use TKB-539 cannon with firing rate 2000 shots per minute developed by ZKB-14 which had a small length, fixed central case collector and fixed case and link ejection ports permitting to install cannon conveniently on a movable mount. But according to "Uragan-5" development plan for 1958, two first E-150 aircraft had to be armed by K-8 rockets (for abaft attack) in place of K-6 rockets. Last three aircraft had to be armed with K-9 rockets (for attack on head-on crossing course) in place of cannon mount and K-70 rockets. These replacements delayed completion of interceptor-fighter design work.

Because of task complexity and delayed development of R-15-300 engine and "Uragan-5" components, in accordance with the Council of Ministers resolutions dated April 16 and June 4, 1958 and the Ministry of Aviation Industry orders dated April 24 and June 4, 1958, the construction completion data were reconsidered for following aircraft:

-two aircraft equipped with R-15-300 engine and K-8 rockets (E-150);

-two aircraft equipped with two R-11-F300 engines and K-9 rockets (E-152A);

-one aircraft equipped with R-15-300 engine and K-9 rockets (E-152).

Nevertheless, component development of "Uragan-5" system armed with K-8 rockets began in IV quarter using the I-75 and I-75F aircraft evolved from I-7K and I-7U fighters. Permit to use R-11F-300 engines prior to R-15-300 delivery helped to begin E-152A tests in III quarter 1959. Presentation of an aircraft powered by R-15-300 engines was delayed to II quarter 1960.

Since delivery of "Uragan" components has been constantly delayed, the Mikoyan Design bureau began to develop E-152-9 intercept complex intended to be included into automatic guidance system "Dal". By the late 1960, automatic control and guidance system was developed, control loops including real equipment were tested at all intercept modes using dynamic simulator, and flight tests of some intercept system components began with E-152A aircraft. It was decided in 1961 to include the intercept complex, designated E-152-9-V, in "Vozdukh-1" guidance system; tests were performed using E-152 intercept-fighter.

The program was cancelled in 1962, since KB-1 charged with new tasks ceased production of autopilot, seeker, power units and other components of K-9 armament system.

Source:
http://wp.scn.ru/mig_okb/planes-exp-ur5_e152_9

Hi to all! I am new here, but i see you have many interestings threads, especially this one, with the Mach 3 MiGs. Nice infos overscan, i found some pieces of the puzzle.

Didn't the Ye-152/Flipper have two engines? The pictures posted all appear to have one.

The picture in the first shot would appear to be the Mach 2.58 Ye-166. It even says it on the side . A larger derivative of the Mig-21, I'm pretty sure it used an early version of the Mig-25's engine. This was purely a research aircraft. The picture further down, labelled as the Ye-152, isn't, but is also the Ye-166.

The 'Flipper' is indeed a twin engined aircraft, but was overshadowed by Sukhoi's larger aircraft. A quick image search reveals a lot of sites mix up the two aircraft. If it has 166 on the side, it's the single engined research aircraft, if it has 152, then it's the twin engined aircraft that later spawned the J-8.

EDIT: Ok, this makes the distinction between the two aircraft clearer.
http://wp.scn.ru/mig_okb/planes-exp-e166
"In 1959 design work and working drawings preparation began to transform second Ye-150 prototype into Ye-152/1 aircraft, designated officially Ye-166, equipped with R-15-300 engine and K-9 guided rockets."

So, the minor modification is the aircraft we see pictured here.

EDIT: Having read further, it seems that the single engined craft was the one originally proceeded with for a production version, and later went on to be a record breaker when the program was cancelled, while the twin engined variant was put in place due to non-availability of the proper engine, and flew first as a systems testbed. This actually makes a lot of sense now, as it explains why the Ye-152A flew before the supposed research based Ye-166.

Forget what I posted above. Nothing to see here, move along.

Directly to MIG-21 refers only Ye-8 (in spite of external similarity)
In family "one hundred fifties"(with delta-wing) two motors were equiped only Ye-152A
- Ye-8, E-8
- Ye-150, E-150
- Ye-152, E-152A (two engine)
- Ye-152/2, E-152/2
- Ye-152M, E-152M (E-166)
Source:R.Belyakov, Zh.Marmen "Planes MiG 1939 -1995" AVICO press 1996

Renamed topic.

See also:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4530.0

Hi all,
And what about the Mikoyan ye 151 studies
YE 151/1 and YE 151/2
thanks

YE-151 was the project with gun turning in vertical plane infront of the cockpit (YE 151/1) and behind the cockpit (YE 151/2). No planes were built.
And these ones were built.

Fascinating. Were these to have been elevatable (similar to the Mig-17 SN) or were they to be full turrets? Turreted fighters might have stood a slight chance in the early supersonic era (where manoeuvrability was poor, missiles unreliable and guns reaching the peak of their potential). Albeit, this assessment fits best with the earlier Alexeyev designs rather than these evolved supersonic ones.

Avimimus said:

Fascinating. Were these to have been elevatable (similar to the Mig-17 SN) or were they to be full turrets? Turreted fighters might have stood a slight chance in the early supersonic era (where manoeuvrability was poor, missiles unreliable and guns reaching the peak of their potential). Albeit, this assessment fits best with the earlier Alexeyev designs rather than these evolved supersonic ones.

Click to expand...

Turrets in 1950s fighters was primarily an anti-bomber solution. The US Navy experimented with nose turrets so their interceptors could have several engagement opportunities against incoming bombers before getting into a tail chase. With a turret the interceptor could engage while flying out to the bomber and then re-engage while turning onto the bombers six. Without a trainable gun the only gun interception opportunity would be head to head which then makes for a longer turn to get onto the six and then the tail chase. See “U.S. Naval Air Superiority: Delevelopment of Shipborne Jet Fighters - 1943-1962” by Tommy H. Thomason for more information. Presumably the Soviet’s with their own bomber threat sought a similar solution to interception. Developing a turret that can work in the pre digital age when both shooter and target are rapidly maneuvering (ie a dogfight) does not sound workable.

Thanks, my dear Pavel, I know, but a little drawing, if possible,
could me understanding the location of this guns !
Thanks again.

I guess it was like this - the gun was in the ring which can rotate up to 360 degrees. The canon itself can be turned up to 30 degrees from the axes of plane.

To my regret no drawings were left from 1960.

My dear Pavel.
THANKS
If I understand the rotating 30 m/m TKB-495 gun could be installed betwen the intake and the canopy perhaps to prevent gas ingestion ?
for the ye 151/1 the same installation betwen cockpit and wings for the ye 151/2 (as the German "scrach music "!
THIS IS COMPLICATED...I understand the abandonated idea !!
Bye

Abraham Gubler said:

Turrets in 1950s fighters was primarily an anti-bomber solution. The US Navy experimented with nose turrets so their interceptors could have several engagement opportunities against incoming bombers before getting into a tail chase. With a turret the interceptor could engage while flying out to the bomber and then re-engage while turning onto the bombers six. Without a trainable gun the only gun interception opportunity would be head to head which then makes for a longer turn to get onto the six and then the tail chase. See “U.S. Naval Air Superiority: Delevelopment of Shipborne Jet Fighters - 1943-1962” by Tommy H. Thomason for more information. Presumably the Soviet’s with their own bomber threat sought a similar solution to interception. Developing a turret that can work in the pre digital age when both shooter and target are rapidly maneuvering (ie a dogfight) does not sound workable.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I assume there might still be some use with a dedicated gunner on a single pass (zoom & boom vs. turning fight).

Anyway, you've now given me some projects to hunt down, thanks.

Pavel_P said:

I guess it was like this - the gun was in the ring which can rotate up to 360 degrees. The canon itself can be turned up to 30 degrees from the axes of plane.

To my regret no drawings were left from 1960.

Click to expand...

Very interesting and totally unexpected. Sideways and downward firing as well? Perhaps it would suprise gunners as much as it surprises me...

Avimimus said:

Very interesting. I assume there might still be some use with a dedicated gunner on a single pass (zoom & boom vs. turning fight).

Click to expand...

You’re confusing fighter vs fighter and fighter vs bomber combat. The bomber maintains a steady or near steady course and high speed. In effect it is a non-maneuvering target that relays on its high sustained speed to make interception difficult. So to hit it with a gun – fixed or trainable – is a lot easier than a snap deflection shot against a crossing fighter (for eg.)

Avimimus said:

Very interesting and totally unexpected. Sideways and downward firing as well? Perhaps it would suprise gunners as much as it surprises me...

Click to expand...

.

Despite the mounting being annular it is not able to fire to the side or straight down. The training arc is only ~0-30 degrees so it is limited to the ahead arc. It’s just this ahead arc is a full cone extended all the way around the boresight of the aircraft. This enables the fighter to have a range of attacking passes against a target.

There is a thread about the Soviet air to ground gun packages developed to replace th Stumovik in WW2 that illustrates some of the utility of this kind of weapon mount.

Re: Mikoyan Ye-150/151/152 and Ye-8 fighters

Yes. I wonder: Does the lack of pilot visibility through most of the weapon's firing arch suggests some type of primitive radar control in the 151?

Abraham Gubler said:

Avimimus said:

Very interesting. I assume there might still be some use with a dedicated gunner on a single pass (zoom & boom vs. turning fight).

Click to expand...

You’re confusing fighter vs fighter and fighter vs bomber combat. The bomber maintains a steady or near steady course and high speed. In effect it is a non-maneuvering target that relays on its high sustained speed to make interception difficult. So to hit it with a gun – fixed or trainable – is a lot easier than a snap deflection shot against a crossing fighter (for eg.)

Click to expand...

Technically, I'm not. I'm essentially proposing a scenario where the targeted fighter hasn't spotted the attacker in time. I've read accounts of the Korean war which depict fighter vs. fighter combat as almost entirely taking place under such conditions where only a single pass is made. It is also worth noting that bombers are not always completely unmanoeuvrable. In WWII British night bombers exploited the low visibility and lack of formation flight which allowed evasive manoeuvres. Alternatively, there was a period where the low wing loading of British V bombers gave a better turn radius than could be achieved by contemporary Soviet interceptors at high altitudes (quoting Buttler and Gordon on this). However, I agree with you that improving fighter manoeuvrability made any possibility of effective turret use obsolete by the end of the 1950s. I'm just not quite as ignorant as you might suspect.

Highly detailed walkaround of Ye-152M Flipper ("Ye-166") from Monino:
http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/e-152m/

Came across this photo of a derivative of the E-152 adapted to carry K-9-51 rocket missiles, designated the E-152R.

Source:
Аэрокосмическое обозрение 2006-01 (Aerospace Review issue 20)

Are those air-to-air missiles? A Soviet Phoenix or Red Dean?

I think the Raduga K-9 was a late 1950's short-range air-to-air missile developed by the Soviets.

I could not make out whether the photo of the K-9-51 was on a model or mock-up. I thought the K-9 was an experimental missile which never went into production (then again, I am no missile expert).

Cy-27 said:

Came across this photo of a derivative of the E-152 adapted to carry K-9-51 rocket missiles, designated the E-152R.

Source:
Аэрокосмическое обозрение 2006-01 (Aerospace Review issue 20)

Click to expand...

Any relation to the Molniya R-4, known in the West as AA-5 Ash? (And carried by the Tu-128 Fiddler.) Here's another carrying "AA-4 Awl":


edit: Apparently "AA-4 Awl" is associated with the Raduga K-9 seen in this picture:

The caption appears to be wrong, K-9 AAM was by Raduga (Mikoyan branch) and a rival to the Bisnovat K-80 or R-4 (known as the AA-5 Ash). The missile in the picture is clearly a K-80 not a K-9. K-9 didn't enter production, as the K-80 was preferred.

K-9-51 designation makes little sense. K-9 is sometimes designated K-9-155, 155 standing for Mikoyan's OKB number. 51 is Sukhoi, so K-9-51 ought to be a K-9 missile designed for a Sukhoi fighter.

So - did some quick research and it seems there was a K-9-51. It was a Sukhoi design, rival to Mikoyan's K-9-155, using the same seeker designed for the TsP-1 radar. Photos from http://missiles.ru/foto_602.htm.


Elaboration of the interceptor missile developed for the P-1 to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 08.17.1956 Mr. . But a full-fledged design missiles with radar seeker given Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers on 04.04.1958 was planned to complete the design of a rocket in April 1959 to complete the construction of prototypes in July 1960 and begin test-fired in March 1961 Development of the missile was conducted OKB Sukhoi-51 (missile K-9-51 airplane T-37). Testing of weapons systems (K-9 missiles and radar) started on the experimental plane T-47-6. In February 1960, it was conducted for the production of missile tests, as well as a completed assembly of the first flight prototype interceptor T-37. But the February 5, 1960 the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR stops all work on the interception of missile K-9-51 aircraft and T-37. Produced missiles were transferred to schools as teaching aids.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-114.html

K-9-51 is near identical to K-80 in configuration. Food for thought?

Yefim Gordon's 'Soviet/ Russian Aircraft Weapons Since World War Two' confirms the K-9-51 was developed by Sukhoi for the T-37, but beyond stating "it was a quite different missile despite the similar designation" offers no further details.

Interestingly his Red Star book 'Sukhoi Interceptors' states a different story, claiming the K-9 (R-38) was designed by MiG for the Ye-150 and T-37, but implying that both manufacturers applied their own K-9 designation for their respective aircraft. Obviously this is incorrect but its interesting to see where the confusion would have arisen.
I wonder how much of the internal electronics and rocket motors were identical between the two K-9 designs?

As I understand it K-9 was originally a Toropov OKB 134 project but they were put full time on Sidewinder reverse engineering and responsibility devolved to Mikoyan and Sukhoi who made two different airframes to house the same seeker etc. I am suspicious of how similar K-9-51 is to K-80 which aerodynamically departs majorly from the K-8 which Bisnovat made before K-80 but have no evidence of a connection. Given that the article is by a respected author on Soviet missiles this might be K-9-51.

Avimimus said:

Thanks. They look good together. The comparison really gives a sense of the relative scales.

To everyone else, nice comments and ideas. I'd love to ask why the F-105 was never exported (ie. Mig-19 or Abraham's mentioned agility limits) - But I didn't mean to divert the thread off topic in the first place.

Click to expand...

Was the F-105 actually openly offered to foreign Air Forces by the U.S.?

Regards
Pioneer

Hi! Ye-152A. Sorry I lost the source of two side view.
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/39582-mig-ye-152a-prototype-twin-engined-mig-21/
https://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/e/152/a/e152a_e.htm

Pioneer said:

Avimimus said:

Thanks. They look good together. The comparison really gives a sense of the relative scales.

To everyone else, nice comments and ideas. I'd love to ask why the F-105 was never exported (ie. Mig-19 or Abraham's mentioned agility limits) - But I didn't mean to divert the thread off topic in the first place.

Click to expand...

Was the F-105 actually openly offered to foreign Air Forces by the U.S.?

Regards
Pioneer

Click to expand...

From the top of my head: RCAF, RAAF and RAF - for the CF-104, F-111, and OR.339 early TSR.2 specs.

Hi!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdG2a_VDLnU

Hi! Ye-150.
https://testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/e/150/e150_e.htm
https://aerofred.com/details.php?image_id=88044
http://airwar.ru/enc/xplane/e150.html

Hi! Ye-152A, Ye-152-1, Ye-152M
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/e-150-schem.htm

Hi! Ye-152-1.
https://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/e/152/e152_e.htm

Hi! Ye-152P/M.
https://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/e/152/m/e152m_e.htm

Hi! Mikoyan E-166.
https://www.armedconflicts.com/Mikoyan-Gurevich-Ye-166-t780
http://all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/53-planes-l-m-n-o/6794-mikoyan-gurevich-ye-166
"Development of the Ye-152 series of interceptors was stopped as a result of the OKB 's preoccupation with the Ye-155P (MiG-25P), but the remaining prototype was completed for high-speed research as the Ye-152M with an R-15B-300 engine providing an afterburning thrust of 10210kg. This aircraft established (as the Ye-166) an absolute speed record over a 100km closed-circuit of 2601km/h on 7 October 1961, and an absolute speed record of 2681km/h on 7 July 1962.

The Ye-166 was used for exploration into the structural and aerodynamic requirements of flight at speeds of more than 1864 mph (3000 km/h).

Engine: 1 x R-15B-300, afterburning thrust of 10210kg
Max take-off weight: 3100 kg / 6834 lb
Wingspan: 8.5 m / 27 ft 11 in
Length: 18.5 m / 60 ft 8 in
Max. speed: 2680 km/hr /1665 mph
Crew: 1"

Hi!

Hi! I modify my table for big MiG according to "PUTNAM MiG Aircraft since 1937 Bill Gunston & Yefim Gordon".

Hi! E-152M.
Source : youtube