Mikoyan MiG-25 "FOXBAT"

flateric,
Well, not quite small amount - even more than Ti (11% compared to 8%)
High-temperature D19 aluminium alloy used, mostly in the wing construction (along with stainless steel in the case).

Not to ask too many questions (It is not my intention to sponge or anything of that sort, but these three questions would either not be found on a google-search, or would take sifting through thousands and thousands of google-searches which is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack -- I did actually try doing a search query for this one a couple of days ago and I got like 10,000 or so, search results of which after checking at least a couple of dozen if not over a hundred links, none of them had any useful information, or anything that I didn't know already), but...

1.) What temperatures can high-temperature D-19 take compared to standard aircraft-grade aluminum (like, are they all high temperature aluminums)?

2.) I take it the aluminum would be located in the middle or rear parts of the wing-structure where temperatures are low; is the bulk of this aluminum in the skin or in the structural components?

3.) Did it use any means of circulating fuel under the skin to reduce skin temperatures (It sounds crazy, but either the YF-22/F-22 or YF-23 did use such a system)


KJ Lesnick
 
it Bern throw its compressors at 3+ mock number an it have wing-twisting/aileron-reversal is a good brid but only at mock 2 unlike sr-71 that's true top is still not public an f-15 an 14 can out maneuver it
 
Not sure if this will help anyone, but I recently read a book by the author James Barrington called 'Foxbat'. The plot line involves a series of thefts of Mig-25's from various countries,whereupon these aircraft ended up in a certain country not a million miles from South Korea. In the book, it was mentioned that the Mig-25 was obsolete, because it's avionics used valve technology especially it's radar.
The explanation from one of the book's characters was very interesting. The reason they gave was that the Mig-25's primary mission was not to counter the U-2 & SR-71 threat, but as an anti-ballistic missile interceptor!
The Mig-25 would use it's mach 3 dash speed to position it's self near the re entry path of an incoming ballistic missile warhead & shoot it down with it's missiles.
The Mig would survive any resulting EMP burst & not fall out of the sky purely because of its antiquated avionics.
A fascinating idea, which does follow some kind of logic when you think about it.
I look forward to your comments on this & hope I haven't confused you all.
 
KingGeorge,

I have reason to doubt that as the MiG-25 and it's Vympel R-40/AA-6 Acrid missiles couldn't keep up with the closure rate of an SR-71, let alone a Ballistic-Missile...

It would seem the MiG-25 was designed for exactly what it was said to be designed for, to take out the A-12, and probably high speed bomber threats we had.


KJ Lesnick
 
Wouldn't be able to run it down from behind but maybe in a head-on situation. Against the Blackbird that is. Forget the ICBM.
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
KingGeorge,

I have reason to doubt that as the MiG-25 and it's Vympel R-40/AA-6 Acrid missiles couldn't keep up with the closure rate of an SR-71, let alone a Ballistic-Missile...

It would seem the MiG-25 was designed for exactly what it was said to be designed for, to take out the A-12, and probably high speed bomber threats we had.


KJ Lesnick

sferrin said:
Wouldn't be able to run it down from behind but maybe in a head-on situation. Against the Blackbird that is. Forget the ICBM.

Having worked and talked with SR-71 crews, I can report they unanimously said that the MiG-25 was never a threat. In all cases where an "intercept" took place with the SR at speed, this was in a peacetime case with the SR flying at a known speed at a known altitude at a known time over a known, repeated, course with no deviations allowed (such as down a corridor two miles wide), with no use of the DEF. This generally also applied to all Western aircraft that reported having "intercepted" an SR-71. There were exercises run against F-14s, "shooting" AIM-54s, and with the exceptions of those involved, they did not know the results, which are still classified. Although they respected the MiG-31, possibly because of its AWG-9ski fire control and Phoenixovitch missiles, they also stated that in their encounters with them, they never were seriously threatened. They were cautious before the encounters occurred, but once in it they could see they were safe.

For positioning reason among others, an intercept against a supersonic target, let alone one at M3.2+ is really hard to do in the real world unless the interceptor has a significant speed advantage relative to the target aircraft. This no one had.

As for why the Soviets started the MiG-25, I suspect it had more to do with the B-70 than the A-12. Even for them, developing the Foxbat to defend against a few unarmed, very hard to catch aircraft that didn't overfly the mother country anyway would be an enormously expensive undertaking that would be of limited benefit relative to its costs even if it worked perfectly
 
According to paul czysz one of the missions of so called Aurora type aircraft would have been to intercept pop up BM launches by submarines near U.S shores. Also According to him a special kind of missile could do that . but this would probably be some sort of boost phase thingy.


knocking out incoming BMs on re-entry when speeds are something like 4-7km/sec using a mach 3 interceptor ... hmm

One of the few conceivable situations where this could be done is by using a nuke tipped ASAT missile that is launched at maybe a flock of incoming warheads. probably ..
 
or maybe firing a flock of nuclear AAMs against a missile . ıf Genie had a radius of 1000 feet would 4 of them cause a wall of "hot air" and electrons placed accurately enough to somehow knock out the explosive capability of the warhead , which than would have to be dug out of the hole it would make in the ground . A hole would beat a crater , ı guess.
 
Compton electrons would damage the electronics more than anything else. How about a neutron flux generating warhead to pre-detonate enemy re-entry warheads.? ;D
 
avatar,
According to paul czysz one of the missions of so called Aurora type aircraft would have been to intercept pop up BM launches by submarines near U.S shores. Also According to him a special kind of missile could do that . but this would probably be some sort of boost phase thingy.

You mean the Naval Interdictor concept? Or do you mean the 1986 - ???? Aurora (The one Chris Gibson saw)


KJ
 
Hey KJ,

By the naval interdictor, are you referring to the mach 6 vehicle that would intercept say a Kirov coming through the GIUK gap ?
If yes , then this is the same thing . only this time it would have been outfitted with a BPI type thingy ( possibly)
 
Oh, I know what that is (Boost-Phase Intercept)...

For some reason I just didn't connect BPI with Boost Phase Intercept...
 
apart from ballistic missiles , ı don't think there is actually an hypersonic missile in service today .
 
Oh you might find a Koala or two in the russian ORBAT :D. by the way what about some of the missiles of the S-400 complex?
 
avatar said:
Oh you might find a Koala or two in the russian ORBAT :D. by the way what about some of the missiles of the S-400 complex?

Koala was a test vehicle.
 
didn't get the joke, huh? ::)

Anyway it didn't start off as a hypersonic test vehicle . Raduga NPO used the Koala design as a hypersonic test vehicle under the GELA designation. On the weapon front, a slightly redesigned Koala may have been considered for production.
 
The AIM-47, the AIM-54, the AIM-7, the AIM-120, the AA-6 Acrid, and the AA-9 Amos are capable of flying in excess of Mach 5 right (at least at certain altitudes)

KJ Lesnick
 
Hmm. yeah but these are essentially Mach 4 category devices. The falcon in any case did not make to service.
 
ı for one long thought Sparrow was a Mach2 missile that made '4 only when fired from aircraft flying at their nearly maximum speed .
 
avatar said:
Hmm. yeah but these are essentially Mach 4 category devices. The falcon in any case did not make to service.


AIM-54 was M3.5 plus launch speed, to a max of M5.5. AIM-7 for sure and AIM-120 (I believe, don't have notes at hand) are slower.
 
Okay...

I found something interesting. There is a particular aluminum alloy (D-19T) used in the MiG-25 which allegedly is good to 350 Celsius or 662 F. Now I've been told the closest location to the nose to use this alloy is just behind the cockpit.

Considering the long nose of the MiG-25 and it's shape, can anyone give me any guesstimates as to how hot the nose would have to be for the air temperature to be 662 F just behind the cockpit?


KJ Lesnick
 
Well, you can use the stagnation temperature of air as the upper limit at least. (ie if the airflow was stopped to a standstill and all its energy went to heating it):
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/stagtmp.html

Doing a million very coarse simplifications, Mach 3.6 is about 1 km/s of speed, and air's specific heat capacity is about 1 kJ / (K*kg), we get the energy from motion to 5E5 J/kg and thus the temperature rise is 500000/1000 K or about 500 K. (Or 500 C temperature rise from ambient conditions). Assuming 230 K initial temp, which is -40 C, then a 500 C increase results in 460 C. That's the upper limit. In reality the heating is less, since the air is not stopped completely, the plane is shaped aerodynamically and we are interested in the heat of the structure, not that of air. The Cp of air at that altitude might be less though which would increase the temperature.
But the NASA page is better, it goes to more realistic calculations.
 
mz,

Since the air is not completely slowed down, the stag temps are not entirely accurate. What speed would you say the air at the nose would actually be slowed down to (mach wise)?
 
Aparently , there are two variants of them , the first looks like pretty much a late production Mig-25P, no IRST, Smerch radar etc, as exemplified by photos of lybian and algerian (video...) machines...

The second is much more interesting, as besides an IRST ( standard PD item), it has what apears to be RWR antennas on the intakes AND wing KDS-155 chaff/flare dispensers...it looks like a PD except the RWR antennas and the dispensers...so far i've failed to see a pic of a soviet PVO Mig-25PD haveing the same modifications ,( clearly Lybia and Irak had them ) except that of the suposedly Mig-25PDZ no 45 used for IFR tests...it clearly has the CHFL system and Beryoza RWR.

Here's a link showing the two export versions of the Mig-25 in lybian colours...
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=14100

Here's a quote of what one can usualy find on the net regarding these late model export Mig-25 interceptors...

In 1982, one of the MiG-25PDS (reg. #7011) was fitted with ECM equipment to provide individual and collective protection from enemy radar- and IR-homing air-to-air and air-to ground missiles. The equipment comprised the Beryoza-LE radar warning receiver (RWR), Geranium ECM system and KDS-155 flare dispenser. The flight testing was completed in 1983. Later, another aircraft was converted for the same purpose. It was designated MiG-25PDSL (reg. #94). It was equipped with the Beryoza-LM RWR, Gardenia-1FU active ECM system mounted in the external pod, as well as chaff and flare dispenser. Its flight testing commenced in 1985.

No mention of any of them being for export , EXCEPT the Beryoza-LE designation( "E" surely for "Export")

May i ask , does anyone have more info on these export machines, particularily the Export "PD" ,do they have a different izdeliye number, how many of each were built/exported ?

Also , this Export PD, is it haveing the same Smerch-A2 radar as the P, or is it haveing the export version of the N-005, bearing in mind that this radar was based on the N-003 from Mig-23ML which was ALREADY exported at the time?

And lastly , were they actually delivered with the ECM system specified? ( SPS-162 Geran-talking about the engagement from the Second Gulf War on 19.01.1991 involvind iraqi Mig-25s and USAF F-15 , one of the US pilots mentioned at one point that the iraqis switched on their ECM which made them-USAF pilots- loose contact for a while...is it true they had ECM pods or the iraqis only carried an anti-doppler manoeuver? )

Thank you for your help!
 
I believe that the Beryoza antennas and the chaff/flare dispensers mark the MiG-25PD, 1983 standard. I have only seen a few pictures of Soviet MiG-25PDs with these added features however, but both Libya and Iraq seem to have possessed them (presumably in export version). Attached is a photo of an Iraqi MiG-25PD with IRST and Beryoza antennas.

I do not believe such aircraft possessed internal ECM systems.
 

Attachments

  • MIG-25 IRAQUI PILOTOS ESCUADRON 96 PRE-1991 223.jpg
    MIG-25 IRAQUI PILOTOS ESCUADRON 96 PRE-1991 223.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 378
overscan said:
I believe that the Beryoza antennas and the chaff/flare dispensers mark the MiG-25PD, 1983 standard. I have only seen a few pictures of Soviet MiG-25PDs with these added features however, but both Libya and Iraq seem to have possessed them (presumably in export version). Attached is a photo of an Iraqi MiG-25PD with IRST and Beryoza antennas.

I do not believe such aircraft possessed internal ECM systems.

Thank you for your reply Overscan, and the picture aswell.

May i ask whether are there any pics of the 1983 standard Mig-25PD in soviet markings available somewhere online that i might have missed?

Thanks again !
 
Paraphrased from 'OKB Mikoyan', page 328 :-

'Hence an export version was developed...
It was a hybrid of the MiG-25P and MiG-25PD,
combining the long-nosed airframe of the former,
with the Smerch based weapons control system
of the the former.Appropriate changes were made
to the IFF system....'

also '...Experience with the MiG-25P and MiG-25PD
showed that theses aircraft would have to intercept low-level targets,
therefore ECM and IRCM systems would be needed to
reduce their vulnerability to enemy fire.
Thus, in 1982, a MiG-25PDS,"94 Red", was fitted with a
Beryoza-LE RHAWS system, a Gherahn' ECM pod,
and KDS-155 flare dispensers.
Thus designated MiG-25PDSG, this aircraft was sucsessfuly tested
in 1983, however, it was not produced in series as the ECM pod
was not available in sufficient quantities.....'


cheers,
Robin.
 
lancer21 said:
overscan said:
I believe that the Beryoza antennas and the chaff/flare dispensers mark the MiG-25PD, 1983 standard. I have only seen a few pictures of Soviet MiG-25PDs with these added features however, but both Libya and Iraq seem to have possessed them (presumably in export version). Attached is a photo of an Iraqi MiG-25PD with IRST and Beryoza antennas.

I do not believe such aircraft possessed internal ECM systems.

Thank you for your reply Overscan, and the picture aswell.

May i ask whether are there any pics of the 1983 standard Mig-25PD in soviet markings available somewhere online that i might have missed?

Thanks again !

I haven't found one, but I did find drawings and one photo of such a variant in a book. It is possible that a *later* update removed or repositioned the Beryoza antennas and hence ex-Soviet ones are lacking them? Or possibly the Soviet MiG-25 did not require defensive aids and therefore lacked Beryoza and chaff dispensers, while export customers requested them.

Not sure yet. Will look again later.
 
Thank you for your replies Robunos and Overscan!

Interesting snippets from the OKB MiG book Robunos, thats one which i dont have. I do have several books over ( or touching) the Mig-25 subject, and there are drawings of the 1983 standard Mig-25PD( i'll post it here just for reference) , aswell as a single pic showing the PDZ no 45, which interestingly appear also in a very old Concord book , labelled there as EXPORT Mig-25PD!

Overscan i think you are right about why the late model Mig-25PD in PVO service dont have neither the new RWR , nor the IRCM, i did thought about this myself ,maby its the doctrine ( which i guess is they are not suposed to engage enemy tactical aircraft , but protect high value targets deep inland , unlikely to be attacked by fighter-bombers), otherwise how can one explain why the Mig-31 doesnt have any IRCM or ECM either !( i'm talking about the versions in service , not the Mig-31M which was suposed to have ECM gear and IRCM ...)

I also think aircraft like this export Mig-25PD and Mig-23MLD export were prepared/released for export ,especially to arab states, a very tactical environment, following among others the Bekaa war and the weaknesses revealed there of some aspects of soviet combat aircraft...its inteersting how efective the KDS-155 proved to be , as getting back to the Gulf War 1991, the americans had several AIM-9M shots defeated by this IRCM ( and aparently the Migs were in full A/B!) before those two iraki Foxbats sucumbed to AIM-7s...

And finally, this SPO-15 Beryoza system, has as its characteristic a general triangular fairing/installation for the forward hemysphere( like in Su-27 or Mig-25/31) or at least a triangular flush fairing( Mig-29/Mig-23MLD etc)- did found an interesting topic over this RWR here.

Anyway couple of pics...
 

Attachments

  • mig25pd83.jpg
    mig25pd83.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 402
  • mig25pdz.jpg
    mig25pdz.jpg
    70.6 KB · Views: 401
Interesting snippet from Flight in 1981; Soviet response to Indian-French discussions on Mirage 2000 license production:

The Soviet Union has offered the MiG-25 Foxbat for licence production
in India.

Although cheaper and with almost immediate delivery of a first batch available,
the Foxbat is thought not to rouse serious interest in India.

It it not as versatile as the Mirage 2000 and India does not want to be-
come totally reliant on the USSR

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981%20-%203456.PDF#navpanes=0&scrollbar=0&page=1&view=FitH,0
 
Hi guys, dug out this old thread as the SR-71 propaganda has spiked once more recently. Some answers were very helpful and informative, thanks!

I just want to add some considerations to the thread:

1. What do you expect to hear from highly trained and indoctrinated USAF pilots? Full disclosure of BVR tactics and parameters maybe? Any trained military will give you the answer your question suggests, will say he doesn't know, or something random.
2. What do you expect to hear from a member of the Russian VKS?
3. What was the purpose of the MiG-25 after all? When seemingly SU-15, MiG-23 and even MiG-21 could do thye same job. They built more than a thausand of that extreme machine.
4. Why do some of you assume the USSR accounted for every modification they made or even for the actual parameters of an extreme and expensive weapons system that they built in big numbers - obviously relying on it for performing of some not really clear tasks. At that level of performance it should be intuitive that those extreme machines had parameters and flight envelopes dictating very specific way of piloting and missions profiles. - applies for both SR and MiG. Why would anyone disclose the actual parameters, profile, envelope, etc?

Something to consider: Does anyone outside the military of any country operating supersonic fighters know the launch, defense and other parameters of BVR missiles? - The answer is: No.

My take is that it is very, very possible that:
1. The SR had a modification with weapons bay or some other means to deliver something very big and nasty very fast very far. Irrepective if it was ever tested, installed, etc. This capability could have been exploited.
2. The MiG was more than capable to intercept and down and SR with very high probability even alone. Even if it didn't in 1967, it did in the 70's. 1.100+ made is not because it was just a tad faster 23 of SU-15.
3. At high supersonic speeds the airfoil doesn't work the way it does at lower speeds. Lift is created by the angle of attack.
Thus, it is very easy to figure out that drag is proportional to weight.
- Now compare the two planes weights.
- Now compare the two planes thrust.
- Now... Compare the MiG-31 to the two former planes...
4. The last consideration is, if you compare the prices of the SR and the MiGs it is very obvious that an exchange rate of 1:1 is very favorable for the USSR whereas they had built more MiG-25's than SRs, XB70s, etc. the US could have ever built. Also the burned engines myth is already busted, they didn't burn. See that video, you could disregard what you don't like, but there are some graphs of the power Vs drag, lift, etc. that can't be disregarded:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSn9_6Vnft8


My conclusion is that almost every claim of the two planes performance is most likely true, with that twist that the SR was the more poorly made plane, also less developed with more primitive engines and metallurgy. Imagine comparing a prototype car and a series one. The SR had bigger problem with inlet heat than the MiG.

Here's exactly how to do it:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5s0zieHSXY

As you can see, the USSR tailor made a weapon system that can down an SR front and rear hemishere. Also, you get a hint why the speed of the MiG-25 was limited. 9.000 km/h maximum relative approach speed of the fuse... If you add the maximum speeds of the rocket, the MiG and the SR, it would be more than 9.000 km/h, thus the speed was limited. At M=2.8+ the missile fuse began overheating, that's why that relative speed limit.

References taken from the channel of the author of the videos:
"
Ka-bot 2015 AN-ts
преди 1 месец

"Автоматизированная система управления "Воздух-1" (в 4-х частях)", publishing house of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, 1963; J. Fedosov. "Полвека в авиации" глава 2; Markovsky, Prikhodchenko, "Истребитель-перехватчик Су-15: граница на замке"; Data on the flight characteristics of the Phoenix missile - from the NASA source about the flying laboratory based on the Phoenix. Historical information (about the attempt to ram the U-2, about the characteristics of the R-40, about the defeat of the KRM target-drons) is contained in military journals, as well as in declassified reports. In the video about the trajectories of the S-75 missiles on my channel, there are scans of a declassified report on the KRM target with its speed and height - it was the same target that the MiG-25 shot down."

Read the comments of both videos, allot of further references and explanations by the author.



Now some critic. Many of you say that the SR "Simply" accelerated when threatened. That "simply" is simple only in words, in practice it could have accelerated only to the ISS or the Moon LoL

P.S. The current record holder of absolute maximum altitude and time to altitude to 25, 30, 35 and 37-something km is the MiG-31... Figure it out by yourself. The MiG-25 is lighter and has more thrust at high altitude... Anyway, that's not that interesting, because in the high speed intercept game, time of takeoff has bigger influence on the chances than an altitude and speed drag race... that the MiG would have won...
 
Last edited:
There is a book on the Internet "Practical aerodynamics of the MiG-25RB", in many respects it coincides with the MiG-25P. It describes in detail the capabilities of the aircraft
 
Didn’t Groom Lake have one or two of these things? I would not be surprised if the doughnuts on a rope/ sonic booms were from a young pilot who got a good screaming at for junking the engines.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom