MiG-25 'Foxbat' Interceptor

1) I knew that the Mig-25 had a cooling system with ethanol and water (about 290 liters) for cooling the radar and the fuselage areas affected by friction with the air.

2) I knew that because of the presence on board of this cooling system, the Mig-25 men (pilots and ground crews) called the aircraft "the alcohol-shop", or something similar, I have some problem with Russian language ...

3) They spoke that the radar was so powerful, that it could not be switched on to the ground, when there was personnel near the nose of the Mig-25.

4) The Mig-25PD overcomes also the Mig-31 in climb and service ceiling.

Are these 4 statements right? Thanks.

GarryB wrote:

1) I knew that the Mig-25 had a cooling system with ethanol and water (about 290 liters) for cooling the radar and the fuselage areas affected by friction with the air.

The alcohol carried by the Mig-25 is sprayed into the engine intakes at very high speed... it further cools the air and adds substance to it that can burn as it travels through the hot section of the engine and generates extra thrust at very high speed.

2) I knew that because of the presence on board of this cooling system, the Mig-25 men (pilots and ground crews) called the aircraft "the alcohol-shop", or something similar, I have some problem with Russian language ...

AFAIK they called it 'restaurant'... because of all the alcohol...

3) They spoke that the radar was so powerful, that it could not be switched on to the ground, when there was personnel near the nose of the Mig-25.

Correct. 600 kilowatt peak power... at the time that was comparable to the entire NORAD system in Canada and it was said (don't know if it is true) that if the beam was focused it could kill a rabbit at 3km range on the ground.  Most modern microwaves cook food fairly rapidly and have half that power.

4) The Mig-25PD overcomes also the Mig-31 in climb and service ceiling.

No it doesn't... which is no great surprise... the MiG-25PD is an upgraded Mig-25P which was the standard interceptor model... the former was an upgrade to minimise the effect of the defection of Belenko.

At less that 40 tons the Mig-25PD is lighter but has less power than the Mig-31 with two 11 ton thrust engines instead of the max weight 52 ton Mig-31 with two 15.5 ton thrust engines.

There was some talk of fitting the much more powerful turbofans of the 31 to the 25 but it never happened... it probably would have been a supercruiser... rocket ship.   

Thanks, so the Mig-25PD was an upgrade to minimise the effect of the defection of Belenko?

1) Under the nose of the Mig-25PD, that sticking out sensor is an IRST like on the old F-14?
2) How aim at a many miles away target an IR missile like the thermal-guided R-40? I understood that initial targeting is radar for both missiles (IR and sarh), and the most common launch sequence was 1-3-2-4 stations. Correct?

[quote="GarryB"]

The cumbersome pressure suit the pilots of the Mig-25 wore were necessary because when flying at mach 2.6 the interior of the canopy was friction heated to about 70 degrees C which could burn your hand if you touched it.

From that I know (not official source) the pressure suit with the GSH-6 helmet is only for stratospheric flight, where there isn't air, pressure near zero and temperature is -52° Celsius.
If no stratospheric flight is provided, so normal ZSH helmet and anti-G suit.
The suit is considered generally quite uncomfortable, due to the lack of perspiration and for the constriction on the body, in order to preserve the atmospheric pressure in the inner side of the suit.
The temperature on the outside fuselage and canopy of the Mig-25, in the areas where there is the friction with the air, reaches also 290° Celsius at Mach 3 speed.
The limit of the engines and of the airframe of the Mig-25 would be caused by some instability phenomena at very high speeds and not by engine fragility. Those aerodynamic phenomena could cause loss of the aircraft at Mach 3 or more.
The problems with engines and aircraft at very high speed are above all legend, a lot of Mig-25 pilots exceeded the speed limit without light ignition on the instrument panels.
But above all, because at very high altitude the sound speed decreases and stall speed increases and anything can happen very very fast (exceeding limits), it is all under computer control. Because of this, the exceeding the  speed limit causes deceleration immediately (via computer) and, after only a cooling minute, the Mig-25 could reach 2,83 Mach again (and more).
For the very very high speed, no 5.000 L ventral drop tank and no R-60 launching rails at the external pylons of the Mig-25. No restrictions with four R-40 missiles.
The vast majority of the interceptions with the Mig-25 is with the target incoming from the front.

Hello, i have some questions about MiG-25RB series.

1. What is under conical dielectric nosecone and what are under two tandem ventral dielectric panels of MiG-25RB? (under lateral dielectric panels is SRS-4 Romb-4)
2. exist any photos of MiG-25RBN (night FOTINT), MiG-25RR (RINT) and MiR-25MR (meteorological recon)?
3. It was build 27 MiGs-25R and 196 MiGs-25RB. How much from 196 is MiG-25RB, MiG-25RBS, MiG-25RBK, MiG-25RBV and MiG-25RBT?

My knowledge of military airplanes is very limited but I have realized that most 1 vs 1 airplane threads are largely useless when it comes to evaluating aircraft as combat weapons.Most modern wars between airforces of average size rely on several factors and on several types of aircraft and SAMs etc.2 kind of fighter planes jousting like knights just does not happen usually.

SO here is my question, there is no doubt that Mig-25 was NOT designed as an air superiority fighter however if used in "slash and dash" attacks against enemy strike planes and escort fighters how much can foxbats disrupt their enemies air offensives? even if it does not score kills can it seriously interfere with escorts main mission i.e protection of strike package by wasting their tme trying to chase and destoy foxbats or force the strike planes to dump their offensive load to evade its missiles?
Given foxbat can carry 4 AAM missles each and has superior performance than most fighters of that time ( including F-15s in some repects ) allowing it to escape the escorts if needed

Imagine late 70s and 80s technology, its adversaries A-7,F-111, F-4 ,F-5 and F-15A/B, good GCI control and sufficient numbers of mig-25 foxbats available to meet the escorts on equal terms

How would you use the foxbat to get the most use out of it ?

The Foxbat's targets were above all enemy bombers and recon aircrafts. I'm not a military pilot, but keep in mind that the Foxbat is not a conventional aircraft, because its targets are not conventional aircrafts, but high altitude, high speed targets like the B-58. The Mig-25 was not born for normal interceptions, because it is primarily a stratospheric high altitude interceptor. Afaik it could hit also low targets, but it is wasted on this. The stratosphere is totally different environment and only few aircrafts can fly upthere: U2, SR-71, B-52/B-58, XB-70, Mig-25, Mig-31. For the enemy tactical aircrafts there are tactical interceptors, like the Mig-21, Mig-23/29.
The Mig-25 can carry tactical missiles like the aa-8, but above all for self defense and the stations for those missiles (afaik) they include restrictions on the maximum speed of the Foxbat. The aa-6 can hit low targets, but above all they are for stratospheric high speed targets.
A very good system of Mig-25 PD was the IRST that could be used also to tens of kilometers and, in the stratosphere, over distances almost comparable to radar. In this way, the Foxbat could see without turning on the radar and get in the best position for the attack.
To chase Foxbats I think it was almost impossible: the high supersonic speed is also a powerful defensive weapon and from behind the target interception has some limitations in speed because of the speed of the target.

As it was mentioned above, the Mig-25 in soviet view, was designed chiefly to intercept the XB-70 Valkyrie. As the american bomber was cancelled, the Mig-25 was intended to SR-71 Blackbird.
Moreover, the arabs used the Mig-25. The syrian air force downed few F-15, and F-16 with it. The iraqi air force used the Mig-25 against Iran with mixed results. Maybe as the fighter was new in Iraq inventory, the skills of pilots were lights. The Mig-25 during Desert Storm,  attacked B-52, F-111, and F-15. As US refused to acknowledge any losses aircraft due to iraqi air force it is hard appraise what's really happened. In Tom Cooper website he said that during Desert Storm, there are Mig-25 that attacked F-15 without success. The F-15 attacked the Mig-25 with a considerable shot of missiles, they finally successfully downed one Mig-25. There are other fights between F-15 and Mig-25, the F-15 failed to down the Mig-25 even with launching several dozens of air to air missiles. It is hard to evaluate the success of the Mig-25 because even though there would be a US fighter downed, US for evident geopolitical reasons refused to acknowledge any losses. Iraqi air force built up less than 100 modern fighters including Mig-23, Mig-25, Mig-29. Meanwhile US coalition deployed at least 3.000 aircrafts.

Another incident took place on the border of Saudi, in the end of 90's. A Mig-25 violated the No-Fly zone and penetrated into Saudi airspace. Jordan with their F-16 after launching several air to air missiles failed to intercept the iraqi aircraft. Then US sent against him F-14, F-15, F-18, all these aircrafts launched a considerable number of air to air missiles, but all missed the Mig-25, as the pilot successfully dodged them. It is noteworthy to recall that, these air to air missiles launched against the Mig-25 this time were AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-54 Phoenix, and AIM 120 C AMRAAM. The Mig-25 prove that US concept of air war by only using air to air missile against average manoeuvrable fighter is a real failure. What could we say against the very agile Mig-21, Mig-29, Su-27 ?

Moreover in soviet air force the Mig-25 served at interceptor, an reckon. Many Mig-25  intercepted several times the SR-71 without switching on its radar, only with their IRST,  they could detect the Black Bird at more than 100 KM. US acknowledged that it lost several of its SR-71, in ....accident, because of .....the magic mechanical failure argument. These losses were certainly due to the air to air missile AAX-6 Acrid, hence by the Mig-25. The Mig-25 was 50's design with a limited goal, nowadays this fighter is no longer able to match with new air war requirements. The successor of the Mig-25 was the very effective Mig-31.

nemrod wrote:The Mig-25 during Desert Storm,  attacked B-52, F-111, and F-15. As US refused to acknowledge any losses aircraft due to iraqi air force it is hard appraise what's really happened. In Tom Cooper website he said that during Desert Storm, there are Mig-25 that attacked F-15 without success.

Though the USN doesn't admit officially, it is almost certain that one F/A-18 was shot down by a MiG-25PD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher#Loss_incident

Afaik the F-15 reaches the stratosphere only in a full climb and then he has to go down. This makes it difficult to intercept stratospheric targets. For example, in Europe, the NATO fighters were training with the SR-71. Aircrafts like the Mirage F-1 had very short time of interception (few seconds: almost impossible) and, to have a chance, they had to takeoff from near Marseilles when the SR-71, near mach-3, he was still over the British Channel. The Mig-25, like the SR-71 and U2, can fly normally in level flight in the stratosphere. The Mig-25 is built for bombers, not for enemy fighters. The ground control is important, above all when the IRST is used. With the IRST, good look down, no sensitivity to ECM, it needs a good guidance and a good training, because you can see also a train's engine. With a good ground control, the target's interception could carry out in automatic. Afaik, the worst enemy for the Foxbat was the F-14, with its radar and aim-54.

nemrod wrote:As it was mentioned above, the Mig-25 in soviet view, was designed chiefly to intercept the XB-70 Valkyrie. As the american bomber was cancelled, the Mig-25 was intended to SR-71 Blackbird.
Moreover, the arabs used the Mig-25. The syrian air force downed few F-15, and F-16 with it. The iraqi air force used the Mig-25 against Iran with mixed results. Maybe as the fighter was new in Iraq inventory, the skills of pilots were lights. The Mig-25 during Desert Storm,  attacked B-52, F-111, and F-15. As US refused to acknowledge any losses aircraft due to iraqi air force it is hard appraise what's really happened. In Tom Cooper website he said that during Desert Storm, there are Mig-25 that attacked F-15 without success. The F-15 attacked the Mig-25 with a considerable shot of missiles, they finally successfully downed one Mig-25. There are other fights between F-15 and Mig-25, the F-15 failed to down the Mig-25 even with launching several dozens of air to air missiles. It is hard to evaluate the success of the Mig-25 because even though there would be a US fighter downed, US for evident geopolitical reasons refused to acknowledge any losses. Iraqi air force built up less than 100 modern fighters including Mig-23, Mig-25, Mig-29. Meanwhile US coalition deployed at least 3.000 aircrafts.

Another incident took place on the border of Saudi, in the end of 90's. A Mig-25 violated the No-Fly zone and penetrated into Saudi airspace. Jordan with their F-16 after launching several air to air missiles failed to intercept the iraqi aircraft. Then US sent against him F-14, F-15, F-18, all these aircrafts launched a considerable number of air to air missiles, but all missed the Mig-25, as the pilot successfully dodged them. It is noteworthy to recall that, these air to air missiles launched against the Mig-25 this time were AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-54 Phoenix, and AIM 120 C AMRAAM. The Mig-25 prove that US concept of air war by only using air to air missile against average manoeuvrable fighter is a real failure. What could we say against the very agile Mig-21, Mig-29, Su-27 ?

Can you tell us more about those unconfirmed F-15 shoot-downs? I'm sure many of us would be interested to get some additional info since we're all familiar with the usual american mantra; i.e. every F-15 in enemy airspace is supposed to be protected by an impregnable force field granting their pilots superhuman strength and wisdom at the same time.

Edit: Oh yeah, I guess the name of the game *always* should be - admit to nothing, even when confronted with considerable evidence including planes falling straight out of the sky; in which case it's the technical glitch gremlins 90% of the time. Armed forces around the world - take notice, learn from the best. It's guaranteed to keep the masses at home quiet and content.

The Mig-25 comes from the times of the Phantom, not of the F-15. I think for an F-15 needs only a Su-27.

Giulio wrote:The Mig-25 comes from the times of the Phantom, not of the F-15. I think for an F-15 needs only a Su-27.

It's not always rock-paper-scissors in warfare. I'm pretty sure that, of all the 3rd gen aircraft out there, MiG-25 certainly has the best odds at downing an F-15. Now, that doesn't mean it's a normal occurrence, far from it. Eagle is a very, very capable aircraft. However, in certain circumstances, using hit and run tactics, you'd have to agree it's possible.

"Hit and run" tactics: the F-104 was a very powerful short range, two mach interceptor, but he had poor radar and, also if with the Sparrow/Aspide, a short engaging range: 15 effective miles. So aircraft like the F-104, or I think the Mig-21, had very poor chances with an F-15: actually none. Afaik only one time an Italian F-104 shot down an F-15 in the USA training and only thanks to a very clever tactic of engagement (and the Americans went wild to understand HOW he had done this), but it was only an isolated case and lucky. Also an F-106 largely overcame the F-104 in supersonic fighting, above all thanks to avionics and supersonic performances in dogfighting. For "normal" tactical interceptors, no chances with an F-15: far apart better radar and performances. Above all it is an ECM and ECCM problem. The attackers are protected by a screen of ecm and have a good awacs guide. For aircrafts like F-111 and A-6/7 need aircrafts like the Mig-23/29 (or their western equivalents). Also the Mig-25 could do it, but above all he was a bomber or high paying targets (like U2) interceptor. For example Algerian Mig-25s I think above all are against French bombers like Mirage IV or Libyan Tu-22s or Su-24s. In any case, I think that there are no chances when you put against an international coalition of countries.

Giulio wrote:"Hit and run" tactics: the F-104 was a very powerful short range, two mach interceptor, but he had poor radar and, also if with the Sparrow/Aspide, a short engaging range: 15 effective miles. So aircraft like the F-104, or I think the Mig-21, had very poor chances with an F-15: actually none. Afaik only one time an Italian F-104 shot down an F-15 in the USA training and only thanks to a very clever tactic of engagement (and the Americans went wild to understand HOW he had done this), but it was only an isolated case and lucky. Also an F-106 largely overcame the F-104 in supersonic fighting, above all thanks to avionics and supersonic performances in dogfighting. For "normal" tactical interceptors, no chances with an F-15: far apart better radar and performances. Above all it is an ECM and ECCM problem. The attackers are protected by a screen of ecm and have a good awacs guide. For aircrafts like F-111 and A-6/7 need aircrafts like the Mig-23/29 (or their western equivalents). Also the Mig-25 could do it, but above all he was a bomber or high paying targets (like U2) interceptor. For example Algerian Mig-25s I think above all are against French bombers like Mirage IV or Libyan Tu-22s or Su-24s. In any case, I think that there are no chances when you put against an international coalition of countries.

I was talking exclusively about MiG-25 in my previous post.

Re/ F-104 - see my previous remark; you can't really compare a 3rd generation mach 3 interceptor with an IRST sensor to a 2nd generation mach 2 interceptor. I'm not saying the 25's were made for air superiority, I'm just stating that out of all the 3rd generation aircraft in existence, the MiG-25 would've had the highest chance of both surviving and potentially dealing damage to F-15's. Just like in Iraq where it proved an elusive target thanks to its speed; and coupled with an element of surprise it could potentially shoot some of the enemy down.

That's all; I wasn't trying to imply anything else.

Giulio wrote:The Mig-25 comes from the times of the Phantom, not of the F-15. I think for an F-15 needs only a Su-27.

There are number of useful books about the subject :
- F-15 Eagle versus MiG-23/25: Iraq 1991
- Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988
- Arab Migs
- MiG-25 Foxbat and MiG-31 Foxhound
- MIG-25-Guardian of the soviet Borders
- Osprey - Aerospace - Russian Warriors - Sukhoi, Mig And Tupolev
- Soviet-Russian Aircraft Weapons since the world war II

The great problem with these books, they are most of all westerners pov. I need other books from russian authors. in spite of Tom Cooper is one of the most objective westerners, nevertheless, he is american. I don't want to denigrate its work, because its work deserve to be read, and I prefer him to other authors. But its goal is to sell its work to a westerner public.
Iam searching books written by Vladimir iylin but I did not find in english. Iam searching in fact russian authors's pov obviously either in english, or in french. What I don't like to read are israeli authors, as they are all pro west oriented. What could I say about Yefim Gordon, well documented, but I was not really enthusiast by its books.
If you know other books, please suggest us.

Few words about F-15:
What it was said about this aircraft is only hype. Most of the time when US sent F-15 in combat, they are always at least 4 F-15, escorted by a number of F-16. They are always in outnumber situation. It is US Air doctrine combat. When you heard that a F-15 downed another aircraft, at first they are several F-15 and F-16, and they launch several missiles to hope downing a supposed enemy.
It is the same with the F-14. When US Navy sent F-14, they are always escorted by a great number of others fighters, hence they creating an outnumber situation. During the Syrth incident in the 80's, the US sent 6 F-14, and several others escort fighters against only ...2 SU-22. Is the F-15  better than a Mig-23 in dogfight ? It is doubtful, but Mig-23, and Mig-21 already downed successfully several F-15 A, as F-15 downed several Mig-21, and Mig-23. Until now, I've never seen where US technology dominated any air battle.

In an essence, the MiG-25's could still be used to great use. Some upgrades with modern equipment would give it all new capabilities but it all depends on the cost and what the generators can provide in terms of power. But if they produce decent amount of power, I can imagine they could outfit modern MiG-25's with decent Zaslon Radar or Zhuk radar and decent electronics for EW/ECM/ECCM. But all is about cost and maintenance.

See if we are talking A2A against non stratospheric targets with a Mig 25, i doubt it will go well. Mainly because its not the role this aircraft was made for.

Can it do A2A ?? YES. Can it outrun OPFOR AA missiles ?? YES pretty much.

Personally i would send a Mig 25 to the stratosphere to recon the battlefield much like an AWACS thanks to its IRST. AWACS that works without a RADAR ?? How nice. And really just coordinate other fighter strike groups from the air. I think it is a good aircraft for taking out high alt UAVs as well.

But then again, this is all highly ambitious.

The IRST works well, but at high altitude or in the stratosphere. The sun on clouds, the clouds and the humidity are obstacles for the IRST.

Wolfram wrote:

Giulio wrote:"Hit and run" tactics: the F-104 was a very powerful short range, two mach interceptor, but he had poor radar and, also if with the Sparrow/Aspide, a short engaging range: 15 effective miles. So aircraft like the F-104, or I think the Mig-21, had very poor chances with an F-15: actually none. Afaik only one time an Italian F-104 shot down an F-15 in the USA training and only thanks to a very clever tactic of engagement (and the Americans went wild to understand HOW he had done this), but it was only an isolated case and lucky. Also an F-106 largely overcame the F-104 in supersonic fighting, above all thanks to avionics and supersonic performances in dogfighting. For "normal" tactical interceptors, no chances with an F-15: far apart better radar and performances. Above all it is an ECM and ECCM problem. The attackers are protected by a screen of ecm and have a good awacs guide. For aircrafts like F-111 and A-6/7 need aircrafts like the Mig-23/29 (or their western equivalents). Also the Mig-25 could do it, but above all he was a bomber or high paying targets (like U2) interceptor. For example Algerian Mig-25s I think above all are against French bombers like Mirage IV or Libyan Tu-22s or Su-24s. In any case, I think that there are no chances when you put against an international coalition of countries.

I was talking exclusively about MiG-25 in my previous post.

Re/ F-104 - see my previous remark; you can't really compare a 3rd generation mach 3 interceptor with an IRST sensor to a 2nd generation mach 2 interceptor. I'm not saying the 25's were made for air superiority, I'm just stating that out of all the 3rd generation aircraft in existence, the MiG-25 would've had the highest chance of both surviving and potentially dealing damage to F-15's. Just like in Iraq where it proved an elusive target thanks to its speed; and coupled with an element of surprise it could potentially shoot some of the enemy down.

That's all; I wasn't trying to imply anything else.

I wasn't clear. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Air Force maintained long a ratio of losses 1:1 with the Americans, though using previous generation aircrafts like the Mig-15/17, by choosing tactics "hit and run". The F-15 is exactly born to correct the shortcomings of the Phantoms (like the disadvantage of not having a gun or all aspects missiles), in response to "hit and run" tactics with enemy small, fast and very maneuverable aircrafts.
So, no chances against F-15 if you start to use "classic" hit and run tactics, because this is exactly the purpose for which it was built.

Giulio wrote:The IRST works well, but at high altitude or in the stratosphere. The sun on clouds, the clouds and the humidity are obstacles for the IRST.

The new IRST are step by step overcoming all these problems.

GarryB wrote:
the main problem with the MiG-25 against a fighter is that its AA-6 missiles are designed to intercept difficult targets like high speed large aircraft and not small manouverable slow aircraft like fighters...

Iam wondering if the Mig-25 is not a platform for a revolutionary  future fighter. As Russia is leading in the nuclear micro reactor technology-thanks to USSR-, and mulling by 2019 to launch the most powerful laser in the world, the Mig-25 could fit in this project. If Russia build a micro nuclear reactor of 20 tons, hence could be equipped  by powerful laser that could down all fighters, or missiles launched against him. Moreover, a such micro nuclear reactor could provide a huge powerful thrust engine, let's imagine several kilo tons. It could be a breakthrough. Russia -thanks to the legacy of USSR- is a leader in area of lasers, micro nuclear reactor, and jet engines .