Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25/Archive 1

message: I find that hard to believe. The Mig-25 could only safely go Mach 2.8 without burning out the engines. It could go Mach 3-3.2 if they didn't mind scrapping the engines in mid-flight. The SR-71 was cleared to cruise at Mach 3, and could go Mach 3.3 if the situation required. To sum it up, if the SR-71 in cruise detected a Mig-25 trying feverishly to catch it, it would accelerate beyond the capabilities of the Mig-25.
It wouldn't want to chase it. The Mig-25s were on 24/7 alert, and took off as soon as SR-71s would come to the Soviet borders. They would fly at mach 3 initially, to scare off the blackbird(s) and return to base at lower speeds.
The engines of the foxbat didn't have such a long lifespan, so it didn't matter if they were damaged during the intercepting. Starcraftmazter 00:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SR-71 missions are pretty much a big unknown and I suspect will remain so for a very long time. USAF's Air Defense Command much slower fighters (F-101, F-102, F-106, F-4) routinely practiced intercepts against SR-71s. They would perform zoom climbs to 80-90,000 ft and attempt to get a firing solution during the brief moments at the top of the parabola. A Mach 3 tail chase is extremely unlikely, would take a stupidly long time given the small speed difference, and would span half the globe. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mig-25 on the tail of a SR-71? 

message: I've read that OKB documents released after the break up of the USSR indicated that the Mig-25 was made to intercept Lockheed A-12 spyplanes, something that it was perfectly capable of as opposed to that supersonic bomber like western sources have stated. Maybe this should be fixed in the article?
--FarQPwnsJoo 05:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designed to intercept A-12s? 

message: Well, test-pilot A.Fedotov have set a world record of altitude at 37650 meters on MiG-25 (specially prepared) in 1977. Today everyone may take himself at 25,000 meters on MiG-25 (trainer) "adventure" in Zhukovski. But the practical ceiling of serial MiG-25 was 20,700 with four R-40 missiles loaded, not 30km as the article stated. --jno 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, service ceiling (aka "practical ceiling") has a specific definition. It's not just how high you can go. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ceiling 

message: I have updated and verified the specs against a cited credible source. All changes must be accompanied by appropriate citations from credible sources or they will be reverted. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs 

message: The text concerning this issue is effectively doubled, and should definitely be combined down into one version. I'd do it, but I don't know any technical details about the plane beyond what I've just read, and don't want to screw it up. Stilist 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Combine what's there. Someone will copyedit if need be. Thanks for doing that! - Emt147 Burninate! 04:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Somebody will probably want to check over the changes for accuracy, particularly the item about the craft's maximum acceleration. There were slight differences in nearly all the numbers for that point, mostly because one was rounded whilst the other was not. Stilist 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a read-through tonight but a quick skim looks great. Nicely done! - Emt147 Burninate! 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of American study

message: :Additionally, some F-15 kills have been claimed by the Syrian Air Force, however, most sources say that, to date, no F-15s have been shot down in air-to-air combat.
Can someone even give a source for this claim? No Israeli F-15 were shot down in battle ever, let alone, by Syrian MiG-25s. If there are no objections, I'll remove this wierd claim. Eranb 10:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Burden of proof is with the editor adding the information. Since no proof was given for a controversial claim, I have removed it. Thanks for catching that one! - Emt147 Burninate! 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-15 kills by Syrian air force? a farce 

message: Plz, check the Talk:Shuttle_Buran page. --jno 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good historical shot found. 

message: "The limited maneuverability of the Mig-25 has often been overstated by Western observers, as under the same high performance parameters, the SR-71 has even more restrictive stress limitations" 
Why does this require a citation?  It seems firmly grounded in logic to me.  It is the common practice of governments to overstate the abilities of their war machines even as they understate their enemy's.  Not to mention the fact that it's well known that maneuvering options become more restricted the faster you go.
-
:I think, the max values of "available/exploitation overload" (i dunno the proper english term for "располагаемая/эксплуатационная перегрузка") will fix the discussion just because it's main limitation of maneurability at that speed. Max destructive for MiG-25 is about 12. BTW, there is a known example of "supermaneurability" demonstrated by MiG-25PU escorting the Buran at landing (180° turn by stall and spin at high alt). --jno 10:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed? 

message: So I saw elsewhere on the net that this thing can reach the edge of space!  Is that not worthy of mention??  I notice that above, there's an argument about the ceiling of the aircraft, but the article only mentions the service ceiling and doesn't appear to state one word about the 30+ km number, although I can't imagine how that world record is not significant. 70.112.42.102 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kármán line is at 100,000 m (80,000 m is the US definition of space). The 37,500 m altitude record set by a MiG-25 prototype is nowhere close to that. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space 

message: The intro says the Foxbat's a bomber/recon plane as well as an interceptor. Now, recon makes some sense, but bomber? I'm aware that Soviet doctrine called for interceptors that could carry bombs, but with the MiG-25 that just seems like a waste. Plus, the rest of the article only mentioned air-air, no air-ground. 75.28.22.83 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomber? 

message: The CF-105 was a supersonic interceptor like the MiG-25, designed for an identical purpose. BillCJ, you argue that they were of different eras, yet the MiG-25's maiden flight was only 6 years after the Arrow, not to mention the fact the latter was cancelled, which really co-opts that arguement. Additionally, the Rapier is included as a comparable aircraft, yet the mockup was built in 1958! There is plenty of justification to include the Arrow in this list on those grounds alone.
In terms of the resemblance, look at the nose, canopy, intake design, high-wing arrangement, and size. These two pictures offer an excellent view of their similarities:
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.31 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rapier was a Mach 3 design; the Arrow was closer to Mach 2, despite the fanciful claims of some Canadians. Honestly, you're really stretching for this one. The pics you linked show the most glaring difference - the delta wing of the CF-105. Also, besides both being on the sides, the intakes look NOTHING alike - two totally different designs. That's really not an issue to me, except for your claiming they're similar. Yes, the two planes are similar in many ways, but I don't think they're comparable. I won't revert you for the time being, but hopefully someone else will. - BillCJ 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Bill on this one, its too far of a stretch. --Chuck Sirloin 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparable Aircraft/Avro Arrow

message: The image and text at Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25#Operators appears to conflict.  e.g. Russia is listed as a current operator in the text, while Libya and Egypt are listed as the former operators, those instances conflicting with the image (:Image:MiG-25-Map-World.PNG).  (not a complete list) -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Operators Section 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

message: On December 23, 2002, an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down a U.S. Air Force unmanned MQ-1 Predator drone, which was performing armed reconnaissance over Iraq. This was the first time in history that an aircraft and an unmanned drone had engaged in combat. Predators had been armed with AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles, and were being used to "bait" Iraqi fighter planes, then run. In this incident, the Predator did not run, but instead fired one of the Stingers, which missed, while the MiG's missile did not.[23]
2 problems:
1) The article does not claim that the intent was for the Predator to "run". That would be pointless anyway because a Predator has a top speed of 217 km/h, that's comparable to First World War biplanes. 
2) I doubt that this was the first fighter/drone encounter. In fact, I'm quite sure it was not. Both during the Vietnam war (when U.S. drones were used to bait Northern Vietnamese air defenses) and during the 1999 Kosovo Air War (when some drones were apparently intercepted by Serbian MiGs at times when no NATO CAP was in position) happened such encounters.
I intend to reduce this part of the article to the unquestionable details soon.  Lastdingo (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: drone incident

message: I removed the following text:
* Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat; the last versions, though, used an early variant of the K-36 seat. The speed record for a successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1-equipped MiG-25.
According the the ejection seat article, this record is held by an SR-71 which broke up at Mach 3.25.  That statement is unsourced, however, so I can't vouch for the speed at which they were traveling.  The incident definitely occured, though.--Adamrush (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ejection was not successful per se, because one of the SR-71 crew died and only the other person lived. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastest successful ejection

message: Here is one "If a Mach 3 bomber were to enter American service, it would have been nearly invulnerable to Soviet air defense."
So, according to author of this statement, soviet SAMs were slower than Mach 3? Don't think so. Example? S-200, clearly, bomber wouldn't be able to manuevre much at mach 3, this missile would be able to intercept anyway. So, claim that Mach 3 bomber was invulnerable to soviet defences is at best false. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm afraid you are wrong. An M3 bomber flying reasonably high is virtually invulnerable to a SAM because once the SAM is out of boost phase it can only use its tiny winglets to manouevre. The bomber can use its comparitively large wings to turn, it will easily out turn the missile. That is why the Russians turned to nuclear tipped SAMs, although even there the bomber did not need much advance warning to evade them. A similar problem applies with AAMs launched at high altitude. Greg Locock (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole problem doesn't matter a damn. Soviet SAM, even the earliest S-75 (SA-2) systems were already designed with nuclear warhead launch capability. If things got serious, you could tip the missiles with atom and blast yankee bombers out of the air without much aiming needed. The SA-5 Gammon was 5 mach fast and manouverable enough to be able to hit big iron, like a B-52, even if just conventional warhead was used. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The thing is SAM coverage is hemispherical, which means the faster and higher the target moves the smaller the engagement envelope will be. The present day F-22 use speed and altitude as a means to evade SAMs, aided by stealth of course.Wikinegern (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Authors like Barrington, or Clive Cussler makes things up to make their books. Remember that they write fiction:) Especially that claims of real world facts is part of that work of fiction. Wikinegern (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: unsupported claims

message: Changes to the article have been made to make it sound as if Soviet/Arab use of MiG-25s never flew over Israel, only the Sinai and the Suez. Comically enough, I have a source that states differently, though I am not sure how to add it, or how to cite books in the ref templates. "Jane's Fighter Combat in the Jet Age" () states on page 108 that 
Following a number of sorties along the Suez Canal, a Mig-25R made a provocative long-range overflight of Israel on 10 October [1971] which the IDFAF were unable to counter. However, when a Soviet 'Foxbat' attempted a repeat overflight on 6 November the Isrelis were ready with a pair of stripped down F-4Es, armed with Sparrows.
The book goes on to describe the failure of the Israeli defense, proably due to missile fuse technology unable to cope with the Mach 3 speeds of their targets. Following this, Jane's does state that further flights prior to the 1973 war were over the Sinai, rather than Israel. These were all aircraft based in Egypt, though remaining Soviet. On the following page, Israel's successful intercept of Syrian marked MiG-25s flying over Lebanon is described. 
Now, Jane's fully admits that the majority of flights were not over Israel itself, but at least two of them (10 October and 6 November of 1973) were. This source seems as good to me as those listed in this article so far on the subject. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fine source.  Please add some text on that with that reference.  I had mainly referenced the Mach 3.2 flight with my book. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel

message: :Inaccurate intelligence analyses caused the West to initially believe the MiG-25 was an agile air-combat fighter rather than an interceptor.
This needs to be clarified for the layman - what's the difference?  Tempshill (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An air-combat fighter or an air superiority fighter is designed to combat other fighter aircraft and maintain control of the sky. It has dogfight capability, tends to be maneuverable, and armed with missiles or a gun capable of engaging other fighter aircraft. This is what the West initially feared the MiG-25 was capable of. Instead, it is a pure interceptor, designed to get to altitude and target area with extreme speed, and defend against an incoming attack of bombers. It has speed, it has missiles capable taking down low maneuvering targets, but itself is a poor platform for maintaining supremacy over any airspace. It defends cities, not air. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Simple answer an Interceptor is designed for speed not maneuvability.  A fighter is designed for maneuvability and less speed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Air-combat fighter vs. interceptor - what's the difference?

message: Claimed that details of the Avro Arrow were used to design the MiG-25.  This confirmed when a MIG25 defected to Japan and they where able to examine it. As well as looking very similar it used Titanium in all the same places as the Arrow. 
Does anyone have anymore information on this?
What it the Soviet/Russian military policy on "Official Information"? 
Is there a time period after which the information is declassified? eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/02/mi5-defence-of-the-realm-book
NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what?Wikinegern (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: re: History channel (UK) documetary 'Secret Superpower Fighters'

message: I think there should be new separate sections for the Interceptor and Recce variants.
The part on belenkos defection should perhaps either be reduced or incorparated in another section.
As it is the only reason it still is there is because the article in itself is not of high enough quality yet.
Also a section about the aircrafts performance seems a good idea. Afer all it was exactly that which made its fame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Future work on the page

message: Is it available on-line? That would be great as right now the section look too much like something from the rumor mill on various WWW forums. I consider heavy editing or outright deletion.Wikinegern (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: US analysis of Belenkos A/C

message: Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment