Jump to content

F-14, the long waited aircraft! Will MIG-31BM be the next?


Maverick Su-35S

Recommended Posts

The MiG-25 is the reason why Iran bought the F-14 in the first place and we have Iran in the game now, so that scenario can be modeled.

 

 

There was a lot of Western hysteria about the MiG 25, but once such a plane had defected it turned out to be mostly hype. You can google for a youtube documentary "Wings of the Red Star, Mig 25", it explains very well how the Mig-25 was designed only to catch Mach-3 bombers like the Valkyrie (the Russians were also prone to hype). It's capabilites as a fighter were null.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiG-25PD would be a nice substitute for a MiG-31. It's combat proven and has shot down numerous aircraft.

 

....cough, cough - combat proven, really????

 

It was an overweight piece of junk that had the reliability of a Yugo!!!


Edited by MustangSally

Ryzen 9 7950X3D - MSI MAG X670E TomaHawk MB, ASUS ROG Ryujin III 360 AIO

64gig Corsair DDR5@6000, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4090 AORUS

Winwing Super Taurus, Orion2, TO / Combat panels, Collective with Topgun MIP

Winwing Skywalker pedals, NLR Boeing Mil Edition Simpit, Trackir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure I read somewhere of recommendations to avoid G limits beyond 2g in the Mig25. Good luck in any dogfight with that limitation.

Good bomber interceptor and recon, but fighter, maybe not.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure I read somewhere of recommendations to avoid G limits beyond 2g in the Mig25. Good luck in any dogfight with that limitation.

Good bomber interceptor and recon, but fighter, maybe not.

 

The maximum G load was rated at 4.5, however obviously in combat if you're really needing to you can exceed that.

 

In fact..a MiG-25 in Desert Storm got into a turning fight with a F-15..it didn't end well, but the F-15 pilot "began to suspect" that the MiG-25 pilot "wasn't Iraqi"..

 

being coy for indicating a Soviet pilot flying since the Soviet Union had a long history of supplying pilots unofficially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afaik the MiG-25 had a structural limit of just 5g.

 

I've always been wondering about those numbers. I mean, this thing is built to go Mach 3+, how can it have at the same time have a structure that weak it's just safely capable of pulling 5G max? I'd suspect the speed puts a lot more stress on the airframe. Is it perhaps a limit that applies with missiles loaded? Would be more reasonable. But however, this thing would lose most dogfights anyway.

 

Wouldn't mind a MiG-25RBT module twilightsmile.png

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been wondering about those numbers. I mean, this thing is built to go Mach 3+, how can it have at the same time have a structure that weak it's just safely capable of pulling 5G max? I'd suspect the speed puts a lot more stress on the airframe. Is it perhaps a limit that applies with missiles loaded? Would be more reasonable. But however, this thing would lose most dogfights anyway.

 

Wouldn't mind a MiG-25RBT module twilightsmile.png

 

Easy, predominantly made of nickel steel, woeful quality control during manufacture and engines that couldn't be operated at max thrust for more than a few minutes.

Ryzen 9 7950X3D - MSI MAG X670E TomaHawk MB, ASUS ROG Ryujin III 360 AIO

64gig Corsair DDR5@6000, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4090 AORUS

Winwing Super Taurus, Orion2, TO / Combat panels, Collective with Topgun MIP

Winwing Skywalker pedals, NLR Boeing Mil Edition Simpit, Trackir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been wondering about those numbers. I mean, this thing is built to go Mach 3+, how can it have at the same time have a structure that weak it's just safely capable of pulling 5G max? I'd suspect the speed puts a lot more stress on the airframe. Is it perhaps a limit that applies with missiles loaded? Would be more reasonable. But however, this thing would lose most dogfights anyway.

 

Wouldn't mind a MiG-25RBT module twilightsmile.png

 

 

As far as I understand it's the other way around, the speed necessitated the plane to be weak. In order to attain Mach 3 they needed to make the plane as light as possible and they could also not build from titanium. So they had to use a shortcut which was to make it only as strong as necessary, i.e. to take off, accelerate to Mach 3, shoot down a plane and land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been wondering about those numbers. I mean, this thing is built to go Mach 3+, how can it have at the same time have a structure that weak it's just safely capable of pulling 5G max? I'd suspect the speed puts a lot more stress on the airframe. Is it perhaps a limit that applies with missiles loaded? Would be more reasonable. But however, this thing would lose most dogfights anyway.

 

Wouldn't mind a MiG-25RBT module twilightsmile.png

 

That's easy, because it was never designed as an air superiority fighter. It was basically wings and a cockpit with a huge radar and a couple of weapons strapped to two massive engines. It was designed as a high speed high altitude interceptor, not a dog fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interceptors are an area where decision makers occasionally go overboard.

 

Think of what the Germans did with the Me-163. The first airplane that could break the sound barrier but it had only fuel for a few minutes of powered flight, went up vertically to the bombers overhead and was made from wood.

 

A british design - I believe it was the Saunders Roe SR 53 - had a mixed rocket/jet propulsion and would perhaps be much more interesting from a technical point of view. This could have been the standard interceptor of NATO forces, but as it went the Americans "persuaded" German defence minister Strauss the contract went to the Starfighter and the British design was abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Mig-25 was the way it was because its mission required it to be. It didn't need to turn hard. It needed to be fast - which meant resiliance to thermal stresses. It also needed to be light.

 

 

 

Unlike the Blackbird - it also had to operate in rough environments, on a battlefield, and be manufactured in mass quantities. This was not possible with Titanium. This made steel the logical choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's easy, because it was never designed as an air superiority fighter. It was basically wings and a cockpit with a huge radar and a couple of weapons strapped to two massive engines. It was designed as a high speed high altitude interceptor, not a dog fighter.

 

Essentially this. It's not the g-restrictions that make the MiG-25 a poor dog fighter, rather it's the lack of lift available. I mean, take a look at that envelope:

fYlMPFI.thumb.jpg.2c865bc9b65702328025387a998bff3a.jpg

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the Blackbird - it also had to operate in rough environments, on a battlefield, and be manufactured in mass quantities. This was not possible with Titanium. This made steel the logical choice.

And yet, it has higher G limit than Blackbird ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...