MIG25
Russian fighter Interceptor MiG-25
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25
(Foxbat): The MiG25 (NATO reporting name Foxbat) was
an interceptor produced by the Soviet Union's
Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau in the 1960's. The
aircraft, armed solely with AA-6 Air-to-air missiles, was
designed to meet the threat of the American XB-70
Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber, and therefore has better speed
and altitude performance than any other fighter aircraft,
with a maximum speed of Mach 3.2 and a ceiling of 90,000
feet. However, the MiG-25, built for sheer speed, is
inferior to almost all other jet fighters in
maneuverability, and was therefore somewhat redundant as
an interceptor following the XB-70's cancellation. In
addition, the aircraft in service had to be limited to
Mach 2.8, as higher speeds than this tended to overheat
and wreck the engines.
Despite its
limitations, a false appreciation of its abilities caused
NATO to develop new designs to counter this perception. A
combination of poor information gathering (including
misidentifying the radar traces of several ballistic
missiles being test fired as Foxbats being put through
their paces) and poor extrapolation led to NATO's belief
that the Foxbat was a long-range, high-maneuverability
fighter-interceptor. While the information on speed,
altitude and radar was reasonably accurate, the rest of
the assessment was not, and it led to the perception of
the Foxbat as a "boogeyman", a plane that far
exceeded those of NATO. This perception led to the
creation of several extremely advanced fighters, designed
to counter the perceived threat. Among these planes were
the McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat
and, less directly, the Dassault Mirage 2000. Thus,
despite its own inadequacies, the Foxbat secured its
place in aviation history by spurring on these advances.
Many former Soviet client states use an unarmed version
of the MiG-25 as a reconnaissance aircraft.
In an intelligence coup for the west, on September 6th,
1976, a MiG 25 Foxbat of the Soviet Air Defense Command
flown by Lt. Viktor Belenko landed at Hakodate airport,
Japan. Belenko was defecting to the west and gave them
the first in-depth look at the aircraft. It was carefully
dismantled and analysed by the Foreign Technology
Division of the USAF, at Dayton, Ohio. After 67 days the
aircraft was returned to the Russians in pieces. The
analysis showed some surprising facts:
The particular aircraft was brand new, representing the
very latest Soviet technology.
The majority of the on-board avionics was based on vacuum
tube technology, not transistors. Some have speculated
that this was not in fact inferior technology, but a
deliberate approach by the Soviets to build a system much
less prone to the effects of EMP during a nuclear
explosion. Vacuum tubes are up to 1000 times more able to
withstand EMP than solid-state electronics.
Welding was done by hand.
Construction was relatively crude, with exposed rivet
heads in areas that were unimportant for good drag
performance.
The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, and
pilots were required not to exceed Mach 2.5. The
Americans had witnessed a MiG 25 flying at Mach 3.2 over
Israel in 1973, a flight that had resulted in the total
destruction of its engines. The Americans were unaware of
the inevitability of the destruction, which helped to
fuel the myths about the aircraft's capabilities.
Combat radius was 186 miles, and without afterburner,
straight line range was only 744 miles. In fact Belenko
had only just made it to Japan without running out of
fuel - without sufficient fuel for a carefully planned
landing, he narrowly missed a commercial airliner taking
off, and overran the available runway on landing.
There was no pilot ejection system, which was a
weight-saving measure.
Maximum G rating was just 2.2 with full fuel tanks, with
an absolute limit of 5G. This was significantly poorer
performance than the previous generation F-4 Phantom.
The aircraft was built of steel alloy and not titanium as
supposed. Some titanium was used in heat-critical areas.
The steel construction contributed to its massive 64,000
pounds unarmed weight.
While built to counter the threat of the XB-70, its
performance was such that it was unable to effectively
intercept the Lockheed SR-71 - it had neither the range,
speed nor altitude capability to do so.
Countries
of Origin |
CIS (formerly USSR) |
Variants |
MiG-25 P Foxbat A
MiG-25 RB Foxbat B
MiG-25 RBV Foxbat B
MiG-25 BBT Foxbat B
MiG-25 R Foxbat B
MiG-25 PU Foxbat C
MiG-25 RU Foxbat C
MiG-25 U Foxbat C
MiG-25 RBK Foxbat D
MiG25 RBS Foxbat D
MiG25 RBSh Foxbat D
MiG25 RBF Foxbat D
MiG25 PD Foxbat E
MiG25 PDS Foxbat E
MiG25 BM Foxbat F
|
Similar
Aircraft |
F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
MiG-31 Foxhound
|
Crew |
One |
Role |
intercepter
reconnaissance
|
Length |
70 ft (21.34 m) |
Span |
41 ft (12.6 m) |
Ceiling |
24400 meters |
Cruise
range |
1560 nm |
In-Flight
Refueling |
No |
Internal
Fuel |
14200 kg |
Payload |
|
Sensors |
Foxfire radar |
Drop Tanks |
na |
Armament |
AA-6 Acrid
AA-7 Apex
AA-8 Aphid
|
User
Countries |
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bulgaria
CIS
Iraq
Syria
Ukraine
|
Text is available under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|