Russians have started to build the PAK FA

[Oryx]

Belyenko was actually a Mig 25 pilot. Read his own reports. The US deconstructed the Mig25 - they knew its capability.

Just a couple of small points, although I do agree with your analysis in general:

First, the US did take apart Belenko's MiG-25, but they never had the opportunity to fly it. Without actually flight testing it and the radar, they had to trust Belenko's word for its capability. You cannot look at an aircraft and its parts and say what it can do with any real accuracy. I am not saying Belenko was wrong or lied about its performance, just that the fact that the US had their hands on the aircraft for a short while counts very little when it comes to the performance of its airframe or systems. What you can, however, learn very quickly when you take something like that apart, is what the state of Soviet aerospace technology was at the time.

Regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could intercept a SR-71, it is an extremely capable high-speed interceptor. As an example, it could actually reach its maximum speed with a full missile load, since the max speed was not a thrust limit but an airframe limit. Compare this to most Western aircraft of today, where the max speed dramatically starts dropping when you add ordinance. So, regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could successfully intercept an SR-71, or whether they used valves instead of transistors in its avionics (I note the MiG-31 is much more modern in that regard) it is still an aircraft which, especially performance wise, was an incredible feat of engineering at that time. In the context of the current thread, where people were discussing the relative qualities of Soviet/Russian aircraft and their Western contemporaries, I think the MiG-25 is a very good example of an aircraft that could outperform its western contemporaries at the time when it entered production.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just a couple of small points, although I do agree with your analysis in general:

First, the US did take apart Belenko's MiG-25, but they never had the opportunity to fly it. Without actually flight testing it and the radar, they had to trust Belenko's word for its capability. You cannot look at an aircraft and its parts and say what it can do with any real accuracy. I am not saying Belenko was wrong or lied about its performance, just that the fact that the US had their hands on the aircraft for a short while counts very little when it comes to the performance of its airframe or systems. What you can, however, learn very quickly when you take something like that apart, is what the state of Soviet aerospace technology was at the time.

Regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could intercept a SR-71, it is an extremely capable high-speed interceptor. As an example, it could actually reach its maximum speed with a full missile load, since the max speed was not a thrust limit but an airframe limit. Compare this to most Western aircraft of today, where the max speed dramatically starts dropping when you add ordinance. So, regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could successfully intercept an SR-71, or whether they used valves instead of transistors in its avionics (I note the MiG-31 is much more modern in that regard) it is still an aircraft which, especially performance wise, was an incredible feat of engineering at that time. In the context of the current thread, where people were discussing the relative qualities of Soviet/Russian aircraft and their Western contemporaries, I think the MiG-25 is a very good example of an aircraft that could outperform its western contemporaries at the time when it entered production.

The use of belyenkos mig for aircraft handling assessment wasn't available due to the time frame - but they could make some significant extrapolations from the core data.

The US did have a Mig-25 in their Red Hat squadron. There has never been any acknowledgement as to where it came from. (The gen public only knew about the Mig 21 Red Hats when one arrived unannounced on a truck as a present for the Smithsonian)

I agree with the fact that the west had no equivalence, and have no issue about its capability.

My object point however was the notion that the 31 was the reason as to why SR-71's stopped Soviet ferret runs (it didn't as it didn't exist at the time that the SR-71 stopped those missions, and in fact didn't appear for another 5 years). And the fact that 25's sent up were logged and are present as evidence of historical documents.

The salient point here is that the detection capability of the russian radar systems at that time, the availability and capability of both aircraft and missile systems meant that even volley shots failed against intercepting the Sr-71.

The same techniqe was tried in reverse by the israelis when they tried to get Phantoms to volley intercept Mig-25's. The maths didn't work out for them even thought they had very good early warning and radar capability. They couldn't time the intercept even when they tried to have aircraft already on hi-cap.

As for the Mig31, that rate of climb should make it a missile - not an aircraft.

The reality is that the maths fails. Radar Sensory footprint, missile parameters, vollied shots, aircraft reaction times and endurance all made intercepts unsuccessful. For the Sr-71, at 85,000+ feet and Mach 3, the combination of assets that the Soviets had at the time were unsuitable to do the job.

Any other aircraft would have been dead meat.

The other issue that gets ignored is that 1 satellite yielded more useful data in one pass than a short squadron of Sr-71's. The aircraft were pulled not because of risk (although the Soviets were getting better) - it was because the quality of data was more volumous and beneficial using sats.

I have no difficulty in agreeing that the 25-31's were serious kit - but as for their impact on the Sr-71's? Thats an innaccurate rewrite of history which fails basic forensics.

 

[Oryx]

The use of belyenkos mig for aircraft handling assessment wasn't available due to the time frame - but they could make some significant extrapolations from the core data.

Not extrapolations in regard to performance. BTW, handling is something different - it refers to the flying qualities of an aircraft. It includes things such as how the airplane responds to a stick input, stability, stick forces, what the ride qualities are at low level or how difficult it is to land in a cross wind. It is quite different from performance which has to do with how fast you can go, how quickly you can climb or turn, etc. When you do analysis or flight testing, you usually separate the two fields. I apologize for this little off-topic note, but as I am very much involved with flying qualities flight testing, it is an important distinction to me.

Getting back to performance: Did they run the engine on a test bench? How could they then know the thrust available? And even if they did, it would have been only static thrust, still without knowing what installation losses there would have been on the MiG-25 and how the engine would perform at speed and altitude. From just measuring the aircraft it is impossible (especially at that time) to accurately predict the drag. Did the Japanese allow them facilities to weigh the aircraft (with and without fuel)? Without those three parameters, as the absolute minimum, and all three of them at that, there is no useful performance calculations that can be made. In fact, using pictures or photographs would give you about the same information as having your hands on the aircraft for a short time, without being allowed to fly it.

What Belenko told them would have been much, much more accurate than what they could have learned out of taking it apart. I assume there may have been some question around Belenko's character at the time as he had just committed high treason, but since his objective was to hurt the country he had sworn allegiance to, I think in regard to aircraft performance hes assessments were probably quite accurate and accepted as such.

Note my comments here only pertains to performance and handling, which includes the performance of the radar - as I mentioned in the previous post there is a lot of other useful information you can get by taking the aircraft apart.

My object point however was the notion that the 31 was the reason as to why SR-71's stopped Soviet ferret runs (it didn't as it didn't exist at the time that the SR-71 stopped those missions, and in fact didn't appear for another 5 years). And the fact that 25's sent up were logged and are present as evidence of historical documents.

Once again, as I said in the previous post, I do not disagree with the points around the SR-71 and your general assessment at all. I was speaking in the context of the main point that the thread had developed into, namely the relative quality of Soviet/Russian aircraft. I also included the part about Belenko's aircraft just to point out that in some areas, such as performance, the actual aircraft was less useful than what the man himself had to say.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Once again, as I said in the previous post, I do not disagree with the points around the SR-71 and your general assessment at all. I was speaking in the context of the main point that the thread had developed into, namely the relative quality of Soviet/Russian aircraft. I also included the part about Belenko's aircraft just to point out that in some areas, such as performance, the actual aircraft was less useful than what the man himself had to say.

I guess there are multiple considerations here.

1) Belenko's debriefing was obviously invaluable
2) The deconstruction of the aircraft destroyed a lot of the USAFs own assumptions about the capability of the aircraft
3) They did have an indication of what the engine capability was as they discussed the maintanence cycles.

The transcripts of Belenkos debriefings are quiote interesting. eg he indicated that the Mig25 in real terms could not get to Mach 2.8, and most of the time it was mach 2.6. They had general orders not to go past 2.6 as the jets would "overspeed" (??) (i assume that means enter a "runaway" stage. The record breaking attempts were done by lighweight versions gutted of everything non essential. He was surprised to find out in later years that the Mach3.2 of the Sr-71 was genuine - a standard mission configured aircraft.

The other thing which I forgot to correct on the prev posters comments about the 25 was that it was designed to deal with the A-12, not the SR-71. The Sr-71 was larger, and had a 90% reduction in radar footprint, so it was much harder to initially detect. That meant reduced reation times.

 

[Alex Y]

During the war between Israel ang Egypt none of the five MiG-25's were hit. Actually there was no combat loses of 25's during its history. So we can se, that soviets have built plane that can unpunishedly fly over the enemy teritory, just like Sr-71, but in the same time it is an armed fighter, not a defenceless recon plane. Becides MiG-25 can fly eaven higher than Sr-71. It has a world record of altitude for planes - 37 km.
And further talking about the great soviet planes, we sould mention YaK-41 Freestyle, the first supersonic STOLV. Actually F-35 reminds me (and not only me) a stealty-looking YaK-41.
Soviet Tu-144 was the first supersonic airliner, that taked its flight and entered the service.

 

[Oryx]

I guess there are multiple considerations here...
snipped excellent summary

I completely agree with your summary. My argument was with some of the finer technical details, but they certainly don't change your main points. I could maybe add one small thing - it is probably possible to work out an intercept profile by a MiG-25 on a SR-71 that will, in ideal circumstances, just allow the pilot to get a missile off within the missiles envelope. But in practice it would be impossible for all practical purposes and I am very sceptical of any claims to the contrary.

You mentioned the "overspeed" comment by Belenko. It is a long time since I read his book (in fact, I seem to recall a claim about Mach 3 flight - versus 2.8 - that he said was unlikely - but my memory is probably letting me down.)
I think his "overspeed" comment meant the aircrafts Mach limit in general rather than "overspeed" in the sense of the speed running away. There are various reasons why Mach limits exist, but the most common are material limitations because of kinetic heating, or the capacity of the environmental control systems to keep the avionics and pilot cool. There may also be issues with engine operation at very high Mach numbers, often also influenced by what goes on in the inlet. On the other hand, limits on high dynamic pressure, which usually limits an aircrafts maximum speed at sea level, is usually due to issues such as flutter or other aeroelastic effects.

The situation is a little different with every individual aircraft type, so there may be some other things at play in the MiG-25 that I am unaware off. Maybe one of the other posters here is more familiar with specific technical issues around MiG-25 operation and limitations?

 

[gf0012-aust]

During the war between Israel ang Egypt none of the five MiG-25's were hit. Actually there was no combat loses of 25's during its history. So we can se, that soviets have built plane that can unpunishedly fly over the enemy teritory, just like Sr-71, but in the same time it is an armed fighter, not a defenceless recon plane. Becides MiG-25 can fly eaven higher than Sr-71. It has a world record of altitude for planes - 37 km.

There were no combat losses of Sr-71's either - and they flew over the Soviet Union, so whats your point?

You do realise that Oxcart was the armed smaller CIA owned cousin of the SR-71?

You do realise that Oxcart never got shot down over hostile territory either

btw, lets be accurate when quoting stats - otherwise people will question motive:

The highest altitude obtained by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft following an uncontrolled ballistic trajectory is 37,650m (123,523 feet) set by Alexandr Fedotov, in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M (MiG-25M), on 31st August 1977.

Having the record just because you act like an artillery shell isn't a demonstration of managed aerodynamics, especially when the engines were shot to pieces from overheating when it landed.

The highest altitude obtained by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft in controlled horizontal flight is 25,929m (85,069 feet) set by Robert C. Helt and Larry A. Elliott, in a Lockheed SR-71, on 27th/28th July 1976.

What the point if you can't do sustained flight because the engines aren't up to it? They could do a max of 2 minutes at altitude. Whats the point if your endurance is 1/5th of the aircraft you're trying to catch and you can't outrun let alone out reach it?

90% of the toal hours of the SR-71's were at Mach 3+ It holds the record for sustained flight at Mach 3 on all mission profiles.

Note the dates:

"High Flight"
Altitude in Horizontal Flight: 85,135, SR-71A.
World Absolute and World Class Altitude Record for Horizontal Flight - 85,135 feet,
surpassing the previous record of 80,257 feet set by a Lockheed YF12A in June 1965.
SR-71 flown by Capt Robert C. Helt, Pilot and Major Larry A. Elliott, RSO.

"Fast Flight"
Speed Over a Straight Course (15-25km): 2,193.167 mph SR-71A.
World Absolute and World Class Speed Record over a 15/25 Kilometer Straight Course - 2,193.167 MPH
surpassing the previous record set by a Lockheed YF12A Interceptor prototype in June 1965.
SR-71 Flown by Capt. Eldon W. Joersz, Pilot and Major George T. Morgan Jr., RSO

"Desert Trek" (Two Records Set)
Speed Over a Closed Course (1000km): 2,092 MPH
World Absolute Closed Circuit Speed Record over a 1000 Kilometer Course 2,092 MPH,
surpassing the previous Absolute Speed Record of 1853 MPH and the World Class Speed Record of 1815 MPH set by a Russian Mig-25 Foxbat in October, 1967.
SR-71 flown by Major Adolphus H. Bledsoe, Jr., Pilot and Major John T. Fuller, RSO.

 

[Alex Y]

Sr-71 flight over Soviet union until the MiG-25 arrived And the MiG-25 is the most high-altitude jet plane. uncontrolled uh... Ofcource americans want to call it uncontrolled

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sr-71 flight over Soviet union until the MiG-25 arrived

No, you're incorrect.

The SR-71 did run overflights over the SU when the Mig 25 was in production. It ceased overflights 5 years before the release of the Mig 31.

BTW, if you ever get to germany you should visit the Sissheim Museum. Both the Tu-144 and Concorde are on display.

There's a Mig 21 and 23 on the static display as well as F104 and Fiat GR.91.

When I was in the US earlier this year I visited the Smithsonian. The SR-71 is much more imposing in real life. Not too many planes look malevolent when in a static display - the Habu does.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sr-71 flight over Soviet union until the MiG-25 arrived And the MiG-25 is the most high-altitude jet plane. uncontrolled uh... Ofcource americans want to call it uncontrolled

No, the International Federation calls it a ballistic flight because it is uncontrolled. It's akin to an artillery shot.

Its got nothing to do with the americans (who btw hold every other world aviation record)

 

[Alex Y]

There were flights along the SU boarder, not over its teritory. And Sr-71 looks that just beacouse it is designed only for one purpose - speed. And MiG-25 is an interceptor - fighter first off all that carries armaments and is able to intercept Sr. Becides the International Federation was not so independent that time, and the SU didnt talked much about its military

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Becides the International Federation was not so independent that time, and the SU didnt talked much about its military

Nope. Considering that there were Russians on the Board, I'm not sure why you'd say that.

The Soviets were always submitting E series aircraft for international competition. They believed it was one way to demonstrate technological superiority

For over 15 years the US would send up the Sr-71 and break the record every time the Soviets won it. It demonstrated that each time they won they were holding back the capability of the aircraft

The reason why the Mig25 was a fighter was to kill the Sr-71 (not the XB-70 as commonly promoted).

Bottom line - it didn't do it.

If the Americans wanted to send over a fighter in contested airspace they would have used the A-12. Oh yes, I forgot. They did.

You're confusing aircraft requirements with air speed records.

The Mig 25 was an astounding plane when you consider that the workmanship was a bit ordinary - it could have been a whole lot better of attention had been paid to fit and finish. (If you don;t believe me go and have a look at equivalent Soviet/Russian aircraft of the Mig21, 23-27, Su-7, Su-15. They're a horribly put together piece of work, badly fitting panels, exposed rivet joints, pitot tubes that wwere finished off with a grinder, wheel bays that didn't secure properly etc....

I've seen them close up in poland, east germany and india. There's no comparison to quality control.

Hopefully they've learnt their lessons and the Pak-FA will be better.

 

[Oryx]

No, the International Federation calls it a ballistic flight because it is uncontrolled. It's akin to an artillery shot.

Its got nothing to do with the americans (who btw hold every other world aviation record)

Zoom climbs is the standard way in which absolute aircraft altitude records are set, regardless of how useful it is from a combat perspective. The previous poster was quite correct in that the E-266M holds the absolute altitude record. It also still holds six other FAI records. Fact is, there is still no Western aircraft equipped with an air breathing engine that can get to that altitude, even in a zoom climb.

And to bring it back to combat applicability - zoom climbs have actually been used in intercept profiles. The idea is to zoom the aircraft up to an altitude consdiderably in excess of its service ceiling, and then launch a missile during the time spent at that altitude. This profile was tested and practiced both East and West of the iron curtain.

Your second point about the Americans holding every other aviation record is not quite true, unless you were talking only about absolute records which only consist of a very small number of categories. You will find a host of records still held by Soviet/Russian aircraft on the FAI website:

http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/
The aircraft in question include the E-266M, AN-225 (admittedly Ukrainian), P-42, TU-114, IL-18, AN-22 and others.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Unless you were talking only about absolute records which only consist of a very small number of categories

Yes, my bad, I was talking about absolutes. It was in reference to the deviation in topic in why I hold majority responsibility for disrupting

 

[Oryx]

Yes, my bad, I was talking about absolutes. It was in reference to the deviation in topic in why I hold majority responsibility for disrupting

I suspected that, so I edited my post to be a little less harsh...

Over the years I have worked a little both with the Americans (did my Ph.D. there) and the Russians, and I must say I have great respect for both sides. In this thread I thought some statements were made about Soviet engineering that was very undeserved. The philosophies are often a little different, but both industries were extremely capable, particularly during the cold war period, and produced awesome (as much as I hate that word) products. That mix in world aviation records demonstrate that both sides were capable of occasionally getting a small advantage over the other, just to be outdone a little later on.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In this thread I thought some statements were made about Soviet engineering that was very undeserved. The philosophies are often a little different, but both industries were extremely capable, particularly during the cold war period, and produced awesome (as much as I hate that word) products. That mix in world aviation records demonstrate that both sides were capable of occasionally getting a small advantage over the other, just to be outdone a little later on.

Well, I guess my comments could be seen in a less than charitable light.

But, it was based on aircraft I've been exposed to. Plus the fact that one of my jobs in Govt after the cold war was interviewing russian and ex warpac personnel who wanted to emigrate to Australia and/or Canada. I went through quite a period interviewing ex Soviet aviation and armour mechanics who had bolted from the warzone and sought assistance to get out.

I don't dismiss Russian capability, but you've got to admit yourself having been in the industry that Soviet attention to detail, fit and finish in their aircraft was borderline awful.

Some of those pilots deserved medals for getting in their planes.

One of the underated countries for aviation advances are the english. If you see some of the designs that they had under development and then had them canned by Sandys due to a belief that all future fights would be missileers only....

 

[Oryx]

I don't dismiss Russian capability, but you've got to admit yourself having been in the industry that Soviet attention to detail, fit and finish in their aircraft was borderline awful.

Some of those pilots deserved medals for getting in their planes.

Actually, although in this instance I cannot go into details, my experience with them was very positive - the exact opposite of what I expected. I have seen some shoddy worksmanship on a few aircraft in museums, very often in the sheet metal work, but in general they seemed to be quite selective on what tolerances they allowed where. You would often see what looks like very bad worksmanship on one area, but very tight manufacturing on another. I have not seen much that really looked dangerous, although I have heard some hairy stories...

One of the underated countries for aviation advances are the english. If you see some of the designs that they had under development and then had them canned by Sandys due to a belief that all future fights would be missileers only....

Agreed. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to judge how good something would have worked in practice that looked good on paper or prototype form. Yet, the English have been very innovative in the past and it would have been very interesting to see what they could have done without all the political interference.

 

[Waylander]

Luftwaffe Mig-29's and Romanian Mig-21 Lancers have held there own against other NATO fighters in simulated combat.

Just to add one thing.
The German MiGs only hold their own when they trained dogfights. And I think nobody ever criticised the excellent capabilities of the MiGs there.

But when used in a training which includes BVR engagements they had more than just a few problems to stay in the air until they could strike back...

 

[KGB]

There's a wiki report that an F15 was downed by a Mig25 on the first day of Gulf war 1. Not bad for a supposed dud design.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There's a wiki report that an F15 was downed by a Mig25 on the first day of Gulf war 1. Not bad for a supposed dud design.

Thats why you shouldn't trust Wiki. It was a Hornet.