@BBEEAANN1 And having a large plane leaking fuel upon landing at the base seems like a good idea right? That was quite primitive and damn dangerous. The SR-71 probably is one of the most overrated planes in history of military aviation.
@vonkaunaz JP-7 is not a fire hazard. It can't even be lit with a match. You are a moron. Has your country ever actually designed an airplane that flew? Why are you such a lousy, jealous, asshole?
@djsal510 SR71 leaked at takeoff until air friction heated and expanded its skin at high speed. It was always refueled in flight after takeoff and could fly without leaking only when supersonic. After refueling in air the SR71 had far superior range to Mig25 and could keep Mach 3 the whole flight, so it only had to follow a careful course over enemy territory to avoid interception by Migs and could even outrun SAMs of that time. When Mig25 bases became too many, spy satellites replaced the Sr71
@Antoncheg77 the fastest aircraft is the Blackbird but the award for fastest fighter aircraft goes to the Russians for the Foxbat 2nd for the MiG-31 and 3rd F-15 & F-22 tie.
@BRIANROX1 - It is unlikely that the advantage of 3529 km / h that reached Blackbird instantly, gives something is against the 3300 km / h constant on 100 km circle, achieved a MIG-31!!!
@lexichronicle2 I wasn't talking about how fast a plane gets to it's cruising altitude. I'm talking about an F-15 climbing as high as possible as quickly as possible. which I believe still holds the record.
This is so funny.., I mean HOW, HOW the 31` has slower top speed than 25`, when his engines is stronger for almost 1/3 than 25`...?? This cant be the truth!
The maximum speed is limited by maintenance instructions. At speed more than 3000 km/h occur the accelerated deterioration of a glider of the plane, but if it is necessary (for example in fight) Mig-31 can faster fly than 3200 km/h.
@nishkov - Many ... For example, when they appeared in Egypt, Israel was forced to stop flights over the territory of Egypt its military aircraft , of the - for the great losses!
to be fair, the mig31 is an excellent weapons platform jam packed with avioincs, ecm, state of the art jamming, multi target bvr and heavy payload..with exceptional straight line speed and decent turning radius (for a fast plane).
I can't compare Mig 25 with sr71. Sr71 it's a reconnaissance ONLY aircraft and Mig25 is an interceptor.....and more beautiful than sr.......and if it looks great it probably is
I have a friend who is a retired SR-71 backseater, and all he can tell me is the fact of going so fast, just a few degrees off course would put u at least 50 miles off route within a matter of seconds. He and his partner were fired on using old Russian missles, but they just stayed on course, sped up, and watched in amazement as the missile fell back to earth!
blah blah blah...If these were SO superior, why did they never shoot down an SR71? Because they can go as fast, but after about 3 minutes the engines are toast while the sr71 can cruise all day long at those speeds. Btw, totally different types of aircraft you morons.
Actually the sr71 only leaks fuel when the skin is not heated enough at low speeds. That is why they we fuel right after take off. When the plane reaches it's cruse speed the air frame seals itself off so it doesn't loose fuel.
@djsal510 it doesnt leak fuel at mach 3....mig 25 isnt faster..and the mig25 is in no way a fighter. you need to do some research before flapping your lips.
Fact is spelled with a "C". Were do you get your info from, your ass? I know people who tracked the damn thing well in excess of mach 3. An interceptor isn't a combat fighter. ITS A REAL FACT! I am not hating on Russia but get your FACTS straight.
@scarface8999 - Through whatever was written the word " fact " - the facts will not change - the fastest and most high-altitude military aircraft to date was just a MIG-25 (MIG-31)! At the same time I also do not hate the U.S.!!!
@djsal510 Quite the contrary, it leaks fuel when cold on ground. And the Blackbird is not a fighter/interceptor plane like the MiGs but a reconnaissance aircraft, so of course it can't carry weapons.
@djsal510 The Sr-71 leaks when it's on the ground, it seals up when it's flying and warm. Both the foxbat and blackbird do about the same speed. The precise top speeds are actually highly questionable when splitting hairs. For example, the top speed of the foxbat, at 3.5, is from a single radar report. It was also reported, by another single source, that it returned with damaged engines.
@djsal510 Both planes future poor low level / dynamic performance. 0.5 thrust to weight, 2-3g limit for the foxbat, far from the 9gs and such of an f-16. They were both designed to fly quickly & high, not dynamically and low. One foxbat, pulling high G's, returned with critical damage to the airframe, as the blackbird would. The foxbat achieved the highest published altitude by zoom climbing (unsustainable) to 118kft - but it's engines also went out at the top.
@lexichronicle2 The Foxbats extreme speed is a force to be reconed with when useing a slash and run technique, and is credited with taking out a F18a hornet during the first gulf war ,and causeing havoc among F15 f111s with the F15s, 4of them fireing a total of 10 missiles at the Foxbat ,after avoiding the 4 Foxbat missiles none ever reaching the Mig ,the Foxbat can move out of range that quickly.....
@stuntmanmike37 Nearly half the total Blackbirds produced crashed...by their lonesome selves. The Mig-25 was more than capable of dealing with it, inclusing the Soviet AA missile systems of the time. They had ALL the tech in place to track it, attack it and put it down in the mud; probably the reason they never risked it over the USSR instead using it over 3rd world nations in southeast Asia.
@vonkaunaz 12 out of 32 Blackbirds crashed. None were lost in combat. They didn't overfly Russia not because of the risk, but because all Russian overflights were stopped by all spy planes, including drones. North Vietnam, North Korea, China, and Egypt all had just as sophisticated systems as Russia, and not one were able to kill an SR-71. The SR-71 was shot at literally hundreds of times. The crews never changed course or speed up. They just flew the mission.
@stuntmanmike37 That´s some lousy fucking record:nearly half destroyed in crashes. So Egypt or North Korea had the latest Soviet AA systems? LFMAO! You know NOTHING about Soviet AA missile technology and also know almost nothing on that overrated prone-to-crash primitive flying black rat (you know U.S. propaganda only). An SR-71 mission was as predictable as the smell of a fart amidst the windblow, and the Soviets would know when to scramble Mig-25s and when to launch AA missiles.
@vonkaunaz I'm sure you're an expert on Soviet AA technology. Egypt and China have Mig-25s. They never made a successful intercept. Viktor Belenko has said that the probability of a Mig-25 making a successful intercept on an SR-71 is quite low. Why are you so jealous? Does your country just suck so bad at designing airplanes that you have to rag on others?
The SR-71 can maintian it's speed longer however it uses ram jets and the MIg-25/31 use conventional jets engines. Which is one of the reasons it is an impressive design.
The F-4X,if ever made, would have been much better than the mig25. Full maneuverability,Mach 3 without engine damage, advanced electronics. The mig25 is not that faster but not maneuverable at all. (7.3G vs 2G) Current Phantoms are AIM120 capable.
Not 2G. 4.5-5G was permitted on MiG-25. Also to create a manuverable plane that flies M3 has proven impossible. Perfect example: F-15. Original target was a 3000km/h speed and manuverability better then MiG-21. In the end the speed was reduced. F-4 would have to have a lot stronger wings and everything else to take the pressure. Note that all planes that can fly mach 3 weight over 40000kg. Cant manuever too well with that weight unless TVC equipped.
It is 2G with fuel & weapons. The 4-4.5G is possible with very little fuel and maybe no weapons on hardpoints. The mig25 is not safely M3 capable. A better approach would have been M2.2 cruise and Al alloy with speed control via analog computer.
It pulls 4.5G with four R-60 missiles and goes 3000km/h+ with those four missiles. I don't know about full fuel load but i have to stress again that it was never made for dogfighting just like the program says. It's a pure interceptor against XB-70
No it can't pull that much. It is somewhere about 2G with missiles and full fuel. With reducing fuel more can be pulled. 4.5G with near empty tanks and clean only. The F-15 is near as fast but much better.
Fair enough but lets compare apples with apples. they are designed for totally different purposes. F-15 loses at 500+ km/h airspeed. But its built for manuverability rather then top speed. MiG was a signle mindedly built plane for altitude and speed. nothing else. As i said before. Nothing that flies at M3 can be manuverable simply because at that speed to get any decent range, you need lots of fuel cos drag at that speed is huge so you need strength as well. Thats where huge weight comes from
The maximum speed ever observed for a MiG-25 was Mach 3.2 as recorded by an American radar during a flight over Israel in 1973. The Soviet pilot was conducting a reconnaissance mission over the nation when he was threatened by Israeli surface-to-air missiles. The pilot went to full afterburner and pushed the MiG-25 as fast as it would go to return to the safety of an Egyptian airfield
well pakistani F-16s could never come even close to knocking out the indian MIG-25 R s the PAF finally gave up , must be quite frustrating to see a truck on your radar and you cant down it , the IAF even flew over tibet in the 1990s with impunity ! its was rocket with a man placed inside!
Well for what it was developed for it was good enough. Remeber its only a purely dedicated interceptor designed to intercept XB-70. To call it fighter would be wrong for that reason.
ah the mig-25, the plane that scared america into the f-15 ha this plane was so feared for years, then when they got ahold of one in japan, all the hoop la was for nothing basically, just a fast tartget ha.
ohh it is very rare that somebody posts a comment that makes sense not all the other shit where people argue the mig17 is better than the f22. and that is totally true it was just a fast target lol
Well they found it was poorly constructed. From aeronautical engineering perspectives, Russian aircraft have always been impressive though. That the F-15 and MiG-25 look so similar (whether this is convergent evolution or a product of Cold War espionage we may never know) is definitely a testament to this, with the F-15 being perhaps one of the USAFs most successful fighters. Made in America, the -25 could have been right up there.
Well the MiG-25 I think looks more similar to the A-5 Vigilante which was also proposed to have twin vertical tails, but ended up with one. Also the design of the F-15 whilst having some similar features to the MiG-25 like the twin vertical fins and the high dash speed, the F-15 was meant not only to be an interceptor but quite capable of dogfighting and it's fuselage reflects that, as it develops high amounts of lift like the wings which was first used employed in the F-14 design.
This idea was further improved and arguably perfected in the Sukhoi Su-27 which, aerodynamically I believe to be the most well designed fighter ever flown.
Well the MiG-25 was certainly influenced by the A-5 from an engineering standpoint. I didn't really mean to imply that the -25 was an entirely unique design, just that it was a departure from the conical engine intake and mid mounted wing of earlier MiGs.
I do however think its a little foolish to point out how the MiG is so similar to a CV-launched bomber, then pedant over the difference between an interceptor and a dogfighter. Both the F-15 and MiG used many elements from the A-5 design.
haha "poorly constructed" was how american engineers described the first copy they got their hands on... because they used rivets, and the russians welded! how the hell else would it get that fast?
The fac is that SR-71 was build of Titanium, which made it's weight cost like gold's. MiG-25 and MiG 31 were made of stainless steel. Which made it's speed little slower (because of themal kinetic), but much, much cheaper.
Inconel rather than stainless steel. However, that material choice was not good since the Mig25/31 is not that much faster while the use of Inconel, which is only required for hypersonic flight,resulted in high weight and,indirectly,loss of airframe rigidity. The SR71 is nonrigid by design but it flies Mach 3 cruise.
The Phantom shot down a lot of Soviet-made aircraft while the mig29 was shot down all the time. This is the proven fact. Aerobatic planes are more maneuverable,yes. But they are not good fighter aircraft. Both mig29 and some aerobatic planes are optimized for slower speeds.
American economy is going down, less American cars sold, high job loss, country is running out of oil and so is trying to steal from Iraq. More than that - how many countries were not touched by US military? Every country you start to fight with you call a "bad ass terrorist". After all, who are you? Bread out nation of agressive idiots, who want to rule the world. Can you list your friends here? EU, Russia, China, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, South America - who?
Just one MiG25 shot down one F/A18. But how abut the rest? Soviet made planes,even if flown my Russian mercs, were faltly defeated like autumn leaves. The mig29s are called autumn leaves(choo poong nak yeop). In addition, the US has a much stronger industry infrastructure than Russia which results in a stronger military. Russia's army is no match against US Marines.
One mig flew on average against 5-10 F-15 AT THE SAME TIME.
What do you not understand?
Does a single F-15 stand a chance against 5 Su-27 with A-60 AWACS?
Give me a fucking super-pilot, it will still stand NO chance, simply because AWACS detects F-15 earlier and Su-27 launch those nasty 300 and 400 km missiles outside of F-15's range and hit it down as you said like an autumn leaf.
Mig-29 is admitted by FAS to be superior to F-15 in dogfight.
The US has better AWACS and datalink than Russia;in addition; US pilots fly 200-300 hours each year and participate in actual combat. Mig 29 is only an autumn leaf as proved by past wars.
There is one case in which an Israeli pilot defeated more than a dozen MiG 21s alone. So one F-4E against 5 Su30 would be no problem for a very experienced Western pilot.
The trick is: I can provide evidence to my claims, you can not provide evidence to yours.
Or, in simple language, you lie.
I explained why Migs lost, did you read anything I posted? If you believe one F4 stands a chance against Su-30, this conversation is over, because that means you are 12 years old delusional american kid.
There was a case when a single Mirage defeated a dozen Migs. Reason-better aircraft,better training and tactics. Of course,better support infrastructure and ligistics. This is the reason why F4 can win. Anyway,advanced countries don't buy Russian jets but choose European and US planes instead.
The mig23 never shot down one single Western aircraft. The "newer" mig29 was shot down multiple times. This is the truth;therefore,even former Eastern bloc countries are switching to F-16 or Gripen. There is simply no way to stop this trend.
The USMC has decades of combat experience which Russia doesn't have. You certainly don't know how strong they are. Ask those who served in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are very very very very brave and professional,much more than Russian or Chinese soldiers.
Mig 29s were always shot down when in combat against US-made planes. China more advanced? Their human wave tactics won't work any more. CHinese army will suffer heavy losses if it ever faces our army, not only because our army has the world's most advanced tanks and the world's only OICWs in active service.
When East and West Germany reunited ant the end of the Cold War (in other words, West Germany became just "Germany") and they tested out the MiG-29 in dissimilar training against various Western fighters, a whole new world opened up. The Mig had lousy avionics, an unreliable communication equipment, and a terribly short combat range. But when dogfighting, nothing could touch the it. The helmet mounted sights, superb maneuverability, and Vympel R-73 missiles made it an unbelievably lethal fighter
The MiG29 was shot down all the time, in 1991&1999. This is the CLEAR FACT. The MiG29 has no chance against an F4E in BVR or prolonged close combat exceeding a few rapid turns because it is optimized for low speed,thus losing energy faster at higher speeds where air combat occurs.
The MiG29 lost all the time. It is designed as a point defense interceptor against slow targets like bombers, not to counter jet fighters. The thicker wings and lifting fuselage indicate this design objective. It only shot down unarmed propeller aircraft while being always shot down by US made fighters,Su27s and old antiaircraft gun.
Buy plastic models of MiG29 and other fighter planes(Su27,F16,F15) and check carefully where the real differences are. The MiG29 is only effective at low speeds.
Not equal. The MiG29's performance falls at higher speeds. Back in the early '90s, I remember seeing some of its performance data on a local magazine. Jet fighters avoid low speed anyway to reduce induced drag and thus energy loss.
As a whole, the F22 is at least 100 times better than the Mig29. The former Eastern bloc countries are changing to F16 and Gripen because they are simply better. Our air force rejected the Su37 and selected the F15 instead. Everyone is happy about this decision. F15&F16 were never shot down in air combat and it will remain this way in the far future.The Mig17 was not that bad.
you have now shown without a doubt that you dont have a clue. the recent RAAF acquisition of the super hornet was a tight call versus the su27/33/35 and the US Air Force and Navy has heavy backing to cancel the F22 and purchase the flankers. From ex Rear and Full Admirals and high ranking officials who saw the purchase as financially superior solution to the in country development of planes like the f22 and f35.
Our air force rejected the Su37 long ago because it was simply not good enough;the F-15 was selected and everyone is happy now. The US is far ahead in support industry infrastructure, in both technology and non-technical areas.The Su37 was rejected for good reasons,anyway.
whatever. obviously being a rear admiral and admiral doesnt mean much to you...nor is a group of experienced veterans' opinions. the decision was not based on something as simple as "function". that is archaic rhetoric. like the next comment- today's wars are fought not by pilots in a plane, but by technology and the argument was that the performance of the aircraft was secondary in modern warfare. it could turn inside out and it wouldnt matter. its about avionics and comms.
What matters is the support logistics and infrastructure. The US is several times stronger and decades(in some areas more than a century) ahead in this nontechnical area. The Su37 at the airshow had some avionics but the largest problem was the support infrastructure. Besides, does the Su37 have an equivalent of the SLAM-ER? No. The Su37 was rejected,some people supported the Rafale. But the final winner is the F-15 and everyone is happy.
i dont recall his name- but it was him and another high ranking ex navy..along with other ex military types- they formed wuite a strong alliance together with notable from janes defence and other officials. my source was actually Robert Kress. Robedrt was the head of the grumman vtol and experimental aircraft program in the 1990s and chief design engineer for the F14. He also played a major role in the apollo program. he was a friend of mine. is that good enough?
Adm. Paul Gilchrist was known for his opposition to replacing the F-14D Tomcat (or super tomcat) with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, noting that the super hornet had a significantly reduced payload/fuel capacity.
This diminished the carrier's influence and range by about 50%.
I've never heard him argue that our 5th gen planes are not as good as 4th gen russian planes.
Even if he did, his opinion would have to be held up against the chorus of all the other fighter pilots who'd disagree.
all i can say is that he and kress were advocating it as an alternative. kress told me this himself and described the rationale. he also told me that it's unlikely it would go that way but they also had additional support. from a cost through life it offers a good debate IMO.
And the f-22 is designed to never have to enter a dogfight. It can see the enemy at great distance without being seen and shoot him down before the enemy even knows the f-22 is there.
Sbili Ne Sbili - u vas b2 Ruhnul za Milliard dollarov eto ne zna4it 4to on plohoj samolet - v realnom boju dumaju vse pokazet - no vrjatli eto slu4itsa esli tolko vasha vrazdebnaja Amerika ne napadet na Rossiju !!!!
your an idiot. Exactly all those mig-25's were exported technologies with downgraded results which explains why many third world countries can afford them. and second of all the mig-25 is an interceptor, not a fighter. And thirdly the mig-25 or mig-31 had a radar range which is double that of the F4E..do some research before posting ridiculous shit. The altidute of the mig-25 is 95,000 feet..alot higher then F4E. and is alot faster. Plus its missiles also had longer range.
This is NOT true. Migs were shot down by F-15s and F-16s 1)even before retracting their landing gears 2)right after takeoff when energy status is low or 3)without even launching any ordnance. Eastern-bloc accounts of shooting down Western planes cannot be substantiated. A MiG-25 shot down one F/A-18 and that was all. Even newere missiles down't work against US pilots. Western(including Western Asian countries) pilots fly 200+ hours a year.
We saw what the FACT is. Soviet airplanes were always shot down by US,Israeli and other coalition pilits, not the other way around. The mig29s in 1999 also had missiles but they were shot down. 6 shot down,4 destroyed on ground. Recently a mig29 was shot down by old triple A. The F-18 was only one case but US planes shot down MANY MANY MORE Soviet planes. This is important. One squadron of F22s is enough to shoot down all soviet/russian made jets put into service so far.
The mig29 was shot down all the time. The F-4 is superior to the mig29 in terms of energy management which is everything in air combat. The mig29 is like a 3D electric plane optimised for low speed fight. In real world, the Mig29 has no chance against an F-4E. At least some F4s have APG-65 and are AIM120 capable.
lol you are on the pipe mate if you really think that BS you've written. theres a full generation separating the 2 types- in fact 2.5. thats 3 decades of avionics and airframe technology. even the "e" variant is not even close to the fulcrum "a".
You're smoking crack bro. The Phantom II was known for its unreliability in a dogfight, and the fulcrum is one of the greatest dogfights of all time, especially in a dogfight.
The Fulcrum is designed as a dogfight; the f4 is an interceptor.
The mig29 was often shot down my f15 & f16. This is because f15& f16 are simply much better. Even former Eastern bloc countries are shifting to F16 & Gripen.The f4 is better than mig29,anyway.
The mig 29s weren't shot down by f4s, but by 4th gen aircraft. The mig 29 is a 4th gen fighter that became operational in 1983. The f4 is a 3rd gen fighter that became operational in 1961.
One was designed as an interceptor, the other as a short-range dogfighter. The mig29 would kill the PhantomII in a dogfight easily.
The mig29 is designed for short periods of flight at low speeds, just like the electric 3D funflys I flew for some time. Thus, it will lose energy quickly at prolonged air combat; in addition, it is not as efficient at higher speeds. Not the case with the F4.The average F4 in service is in fact better equipped than the average mig29. Better equipped, maintained and piloted. The F4 may remain in service even after the mig29 has become totally obsolete.
The energy factor isn't a problem given the fulcrum's power plant, and given the fact that there wouldn't be a sustained dogfight between the two aircraft.
If you know anything about aerodynamics, and fighter jet transient performance you'd know that the fulcrum would make quick use of the Phantom II. There would be no competition.
The other points you're bringing up diverge from our original topic; I'm not discussing other factors of the two aircraft.
The mig29 powerplant is not as efficient; combined with the airframe optimized for low speed and less fuel capacity, this results in faster energy loss. The F4 doesn't suffer from such problems. This is one of the reasons why the mig29 was shot down all the time while having shot down only low-speed,unarmed propeller aircraft. There was even a planned Mach 3 version of the F4.
Of course do I know about aerodynamics since I have built and flown many RC planes from scratch in the past.
I don't know where you're getting your information from. The mig29s TWR is 1.13-1; the f4s is 0.89-1, which means that the migs engines produced more thrust than the airframe and computers produced weight; the f4 had more weight than its engines produced thrust.
The Mig29 wans't designed for slow speed dogfights; its just good in them.
The mig would easily destroy the f4, a plane that wasn't designed to dogfight. The f4 lost several encounters with mig17s in Vietnam because of this.
The thrust-weitht ratio is not everything. The mig29 was designed as a point defense interceptor for lower speed targets and it shot down unarmed propeller planes while being shot down all the time. At higher speed its drag increases resulting in faster energy loss.Just the opposite of the F-104 which is only efficient at high speeds. The Mig29 computer is less powerful than your handphone which probably has an MEMS based inertial unit,RTOS, GPS,megapixel camera and ARM11 core.
The mig's performance must be examined in the context of its handlers. They had a dismal performance going up against American f15s in Iraq, and going up against f16s in Yugoslavia.
However, they had tremendous success in the hands of the Indian Air Force when it went to war with Pakistan.
You've made my point again in the later part of your post. The fulcrum was designed for dogfights; the f4 wasn't.
Again, in a dogfight, the fulcrum would kill the phantom with complete ease.
The mig29 was not designed for close or BVR combat against other jet fighters. Thicker wings and strakes resulted in very good maneuverability at low speeds but incr
@BBEEAANN1 And having a large plane leaking fuel upon landing at the base seems like a good idea right? That was quite primitive and damn dangerous. The SR-71 probably is one of the most overrated planes in history of military aviation.
vonkaunaz 1 month ago
@vonkaunaz JP-7 is not a fire hazard. It can't even be lit with a match. You are a moron. Has your country ever actually designed an airplane that flew? Why are you such a lousy, jealous, asshole?
stuntmanmike37 1 month ago
the mig 25, the greatest invantion of the 60s, fly 3 mac for less!!!
jorge699686 8 months ago
I would absolutely LOVE to feel the thrust of the aircraft from a dead stop at 2:13. Much be like riding a rollercoaster...
ambientflier 10 months ago
I don't think that the engines are quite big enough yet.
SingularlyDatarific 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djsal510 SR71 leaked at takeoff until air friction heated and expanded its skin at high speed. It was always refueled in flight after takeoff and could fly without leaking only when supersonic. After refueling in air the SR71 had far superior range to Mig25 and could keep Mach 3 the whole flight, so it only had to follow a careful course over enemy territory to avoid interception by Migs and could even outrun SAMs of that time. When Mig25 bases became too many, spy satellites replaced the Sr71
TonyMarkov 1 year ago
It may hold the altitude records by the top speed record and time to climb records are held by the Blackbird (speed) and F-15 (climb)
BRIANROX1 1 year ago
@BRIANROX1 - It is - frankly bullshit!
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
@Antoncheg77 the fastest aircraft is the Blackbird but the award for fastest fighter aircraft goes to the Russians for the Foxbat 2nd for the MiG-31 and 3rd F-15 & F-22 tie.
BRIANROX1 1 year ago
@BRIANROX1 - It is unlikely that the advantage of 3529 km / h that reached Blackbird instantly, gives something is against the 3300 km / h constant on 100 km circle, achieved a MIG-31!!!
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BRIANROX1 -1. SR-71 Blackbird - Ceiling: 25910m (85,000 ft) Maximum SINGLE speed ( !!! ) is reached: 3,529.56 km / h = 2.8836 Mach (1976);
2. F-15 - Ceiling: 20,000 m;
The maximum speed at high altitude: 2650 km / h (Mach 2.5 +)
The maximum speed at low altitude: 1480 km / h (Mach 1.2);
3. MIG-31 - July 22, 1977 was reached cruising altitude 37800m;
The maximum speed at high altitude: 3300 km / h (Mach 2.6961) - At the 100-kilometer circle ( !!! )
Cruising speed: 2345 km / h (Mach 1.9158) !!!
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
@BRIANROX1 The climb rate has now gone to the Mig-29
lexichronicle2 1 year ago 2
@lexichronicle2 I wasn't talking about how fast a plane gets to it's cruising altitude. I'm talking about an F-15 climbing as high as possible as quickly as possible. which I believe still holds the record.
BRIANROX1 1 year ago
This is so funny.., I mean HOW, HOW the 31` has slower top speed than 25`, when his engines is stronger for almost 1/3 than 25`...?? This cant be the truth!
Mtk711s 1 year ago
@Mtk711s
Mig-31
maximum speed, km/h
- At height - 3000
- At small height - 1500
Cruiser speed - 2450 km/h
The maximum speed is limited by maintenance instructions. At speed more than 3000 km/h occur the accelerated deterioration of a glider of the plane, but if it is necessary (for example in fight) Mig-31 can faster fly than 3200 km/h.
Legion238938 1 year ago
спиздили идею пиндосы жирные
WMuckaMW 1 year ago
I want to know what the song was being played in the background in the beginning (during the B&W)
Solamentuno 1 year ago
What countries use Mig 31? Besides russia.
nishkov 1 year ago
@nishkov - Many ... For example, when they appeared in Egypt, Israel was forced to stop flights over the territory of Egypt its military aircraft , of the - for the great losses!
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
Russians jets are more bigger than US jet fighters
6digit 1 year ago
mig25 is an intercepter not a combat fighter
pencon61 1 year ago
to be fair, the mig31 is an excellent weapons platform jam packed with avioincs, ecm, state of the art jamming, multi target bvr and heavy payload..with exceptional straight line speed and decent turning radius (for a fast plane).
rcaddict72 1 year ago
I can't compare Mig 25 with sr71. Sr71 it's a reconnaissance ONLY aircraft and Mig25 is an interceptor.....and more beautiful than sr.......and if it looks great it probably is
vladutz76 1 year ago
I have a friend who is a retired SR-71 backseater, and all he can tell me is the fact of going so fast, just a few degrees off course would put u at least 50 miles off route within a matter of seconds. He and his partner were fired on using old Russian missles, but they just stayed on course, sped up, and watched in amazement as the missile fell back to earth!
John28061 2 years ago
@John28061 - Your friend likes to tell boastful fairy tales to girls, when drink too much alcohol !!! Ask Francis Gary Powers ... Ha - ha - ha !!!
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
the mig 25 did shot down a f18 and were extremelly outnumbered in desert storm
aag005 2 years ago
blah blah blah...If these were SO superior, why did they never shoot down an SR71? Because they can go as fast, but after about 3 minutes the engines are toast while the sr71 can cruise all day long at those speeds. Btw, totally different types of aircraft you morons.
seboldc2393 2 years ago
SR71 didn't fly over USSR
ahbahpuh 2 years ago 4
@ahbahpuh You are mis-informed sir.
gnarlyharley1 2 years ago
How do you know this? ALL of the CIA-led flights continue to be classified.
PNWStrategist 2 years ago
@seboldc2393 actually they got about 20 hours max before the engines were essentially toast....but yes, you are correct.
rcaddict72 1 year ago
2:11 fuck, those engines are HUGE !!
no wonder it went so fast, its nothing but a man strapped to a couple of jet engines.
Toiger654 2 years ago 3
bloody americans using russian brains and then claiming it as their own. typical american mentality.
dingoklectos 2 years ago
@dingoklectos Ya, us crazy Americans!
sakoshooter48 1 year ago
The surname of all Armenians ends with "yan"
haykodjan 2 years ago
@haykodjan
and ian like mine
fragmaka 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Designer of Mig, Artem Mikoyan, is an Armenian, he is not Russian
haykodjan 2 years ago
Comment removed
AirForceoftheWorld 2 years ago
This Svetlana Savetskaya is actually the first spacewalker woman in history. At 2:05
videouzleg 2 years ago
russia rulez
ReDDDgoII 2 years ago 4
too bad Sr71 leaks fuel when it flies at mach 3 and unable to carry any weapons. Mig 25 is faster and a combat fighter.
djsal510 2 years ago 10
Actually the sr71 only leaks fuel when the skin is not heated enough at low speeds. That is why they we fuel right after take off. When the plane reaches it's cruse speed the air frame seals itself off so it doesn't loose fuel.
scalper122 2 years ago
@djsal510 it doesnt leak fuel at mach 3....mig 25 isnt faster..and the mig25 is in no way a fighter. you need to do some research before flapping your lips.
rcaddict72 1 year ago
@djsal510 I'm a little confused here. You're not actually implying that the MiG-25 is faster than the SR-71 is, are you?
dsw5022 1 year ago
@djsal510
SR-71 is faster, flies higher, and when was the 25 a combat fighter? Last i heard it was an interceptor.
scarface8999 1 year ago
@scarface8999 - SR-71 is NOT faster, flies NOT higher, and the MIG-25 IS a combat fighter - interceptor - it's a real FAKT .
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
@Antoncheg77
Fact is spelled with a "C". Were do you get your info from, your ass? I know people who tracked the damn thing well in excess of mach 3. An interceptor isn't a combat fighter. ITS A REAL FACT! I am not hating on Russia but get your FACTS straight.
scarface8999 1 year ago
@scarface8999 - Through whatever was written the word " fact " - the facts will not change - the fastest and most high-altitude military aircraft to date was just a MIG-25 (MIG-31)! At the same time I also do not hate the U.S.!!!
Antoncheg77 1 year ago
Comment removed
liquidsloww 1 year ago
@djsal510 Quite the contrary, it leaks fuel when cold on ground. And the Blackbird is not a fighter/interceptor plane like the MiGs but a reconnaissance aircraft, so of course it can't carry weapons.
liquidsloww 1 year ago
Comment removed
TonyMarkov 1 year ago
@djsal510 The Sr-71 leaks when it's on the ground, it seals up when it's flying and warm. Both the foxbat and blackbird do about the same speed. The precise top speeds are actually highly questionable when splitting hairs. For example, the top speed of the foxbat, at 3.5, is from a single radar report. It was also reported, by another single source, that it returned with damaged engines.
lexichronicle2 1 year ago
@djsal510 Both planes future poor low level / dynamic performance. 0.5 thrust to weight, 2-3g limit for the foxbat, far from the 9gs and such of an f-16. They were both designed to fly quickly & high, not dynamically and low. One foxbat, pulling high G's, returned with critical damage to the airframe, as the blackbird would. The foxbat achieved the highest published altitude by zoom climbing (unsustainable) to 118kft - but it's engines also went out at the top.
lexichronicle2 1 year ago
@lexichronicle2 dude, they were out 'cuz it was close to out space!!!
jorge699686 9 months ago
@lexichronicle2 The Foxbats extreme speed is a force to be reconed with when useing a slash and run technique, and is credited with taking out a F18a hornet during the first gulf war ,and causeing havoc among F15 f111s with the F15s, 4of them fireing a total of 10 missiles at the Foxbat ,after avoiding the 4 Foxbat missiles none ever reaching the Mig ,the Foxbat can move out of range that quickly.....
kamphwagon1 8 months ago
Comment removed
Doowoo 7 months ago
@djsal510 The Mig is only fast in a dash. It can't keep up with the Blackbird. And they did put weapons on the Blackbird. Look up YF-12, moron.
stuntmanmike37 4 months ago
@stuntmanmike37 Nearly half the total Blackbirds produced crashed...by their lonesome selves. The Mig-25 was more than capable of dealing with it, inclusing the Soviet AA missile systems of the time. They had ALL the tech in place to track it, attack it and put it down in the mud; probably the reason they never risked it over the USSR instead using it over 3rd world nations in southeast Asia.
vonkaunaz 1 month ago
@vonkaunaz 12 out of 32 Blackbirds crashed. None were lost in combat. They didn't overfly Russia not because of the risk, but because all Russian overflights were stopped by all spy planes, including drones. North Vietnam, North Korea, China, and Egypt all had just as sophisticated systems as Russia, and not one were able to kill an SR-71. The SR-71 was shot at literally hundreds of times. The crews never changed course or speed up. They just flew the mission.
stuntmanmike37 1 month ago
@stuntmanmike37 That´s some lousy fucking record:nearly half destroyed in crashes. So Egypt or North Korea had the latest Soviet AA systems? LFMAO! You know NOTHING about Soviet AA missile technology and also know almost nothing on that overrated prone-to-crash primitive flying black rat (you know U.S. propaganda only). An SR-71 mission was as predictable as the smell of a fart amidst the windblow, and the Soviets would know when to scramble Mig-25s and when to launch AA missiles.
vonkaunaz 1 month ago
@vonkaunaz I'm sure you're an expert on Soviet AA technology. Egypt and China have Mig-25s. They never made a successful intercept. Viktor Belenko has said that the probability of a Mig-25 making a successful intercept on an SR-71 is quite low. Why are you so jealous? Does your country just suck so bad at designing airplanes that you have to rag on others?
stuntmanmike37 1 month ago
interesting things he said about Kamchatka peninsula in the 80's :) ;)
njegosh1 2 years ago
Mig-25 is simply a great plane. It's 39 years old and still no fighter is faster than it. SR-71 is only slightly faster.
nawitus 2 years ago 5
The SR-71 can maintian it's speed longer however it uses ram jets and the MIg-25/31 use conventional jets engines. Which is one of the reasons it is an impressive design.
upyr1 2 years ago 2
Simply breathtaking. Soviet technology RULLZ !
ComradeFlorian28 2 years ago 17
The F-4X,if ever made, would have been much better than the mig25. Full maneuverability,Mach 3 without engine damage, advanced electronics. The mig25 is not that faster but not maneuverable at all. (7.3G vs 2G) Current Phantoms are AIM120 capable.
xxwzaebd 2 years ago
Not 2G. 4.5-5G was permitted on MiG-25. Also to create a manuverable plane that flies M3 has proven impossible. Perfect example: F-15. Original target was a 3000km/h speed and manuverability better then MiG-21. In the end the speed was reduced. F-4 would have to have a lot stronger wings and everything else to take the pressure. Note that all planes that can fly mach 3 weight over 40000kg. Cant manuever too well with that weight unless TVC equipped.
Spetsnazovets 2 years ago
It is 2G with fuel & weapons. The 4-4.5G is possible with very little fuel and maybe no weapons on hardpoints. The mig25 is not safely M3 capable. A better approach would have been M2.2 cruise and Al alloy with speed control via analog computer.
xxwzaebd 2 years ago
It pulls 4.5G with four R-60 missiles and goes 3000km/h+ with those four missiles. I don't know about full fuel load but i have to stress again that it was never made for dogfighting just like the program says. It's a pure interceptor against XB-70
Spetsnazovets 2 years ago 3
No it can't pull that much. It is somewhere about 2G with missiles and full fuel. With reducing fuel more can be pulled. 4.5G with near empty tanks and clean only. The F-15 is near as fast but much better.
xxwzaebd 2 years ago
Fair enough but lets compare apples with apples. they are designed for totally different purposes. F-15 loses at 500+ km/h airspeed. But its built for manuverability rather then top speed. MiG was a signle mindedly built plane for altitude and speed. nothing else. As i said before. Nothing that flies at M3 can be manuverable simply because at that speed to get any decent range, you need lots of fuel cos drag at that speed is huge so you need strength as well. Thats where huge weight comes from
Spetsnazovets 2 years ago
The maximum speed ever observed for a MiG-25 was Mach 3.2 as recorded by an American radar during a flight over Israel in 1973. The Soviet pilot was conducting a reconnaissance mission over the nation when he was threatened by Israeli surface-to-air missiles. The pilot went to full afterburner and pushed the MiG-25 as fast as it would go to return to the safety of an Egyptian airfield
vaninec 2 years ago
well pakistani F-16s could never come even close to knocking out the indian MIG-25 R s the PAF finally gave up , must be quite frustrating to see a truck on your radar and you cant down it , the IAF even flew over tibet in the 1990s with impunity ! its was rocket with a man placed inside!
heartburn84 2 years ago
COld war made-planes,space programm,gps(usa)glonass (russia) global internet after fist soviet sputnik and many more god bless gold war
pavel280488 2 years ago
mig 25 and sr71 great planes ever made in the world bravo fuck war!))
pavel280488 2 years ago
mn jmn n n n
paulsdsm 2 years ago
Comment removed
SumayahNajaar 2 years ago
I think the MIG-25 was overrated! The bird was very fast, and that was about it!
cyberarmy007 2 years ago
Well it was overrated, but compare it to the F-4. The main fighter plane of US at the time.
darthgotica 2 years ago 2
Well for what it was developed for it was good enough. Remeber its only a purely dedicated interceptor designed to intercept XB-70. To call it fighter would be wrong for that reason.
Spetsnazovets 2 years ago
ah the mig-25, the plane that scared america into the f-15 ha this plane was so feared for years, then when they got ahold of one in japan, all the hoop la was for nothing basically, just a fast tartget ha.
jimmy
jamesappleridge 2 years ago 4
ohh it is very rare that somebody posts a comment that makes sense not all the other shit where people argue the mig17 is better than the f22. and that is totally true it was just a fast target lol
frisbeesman 2 years ago
Well they found it was poorly constructed. From aeronautical engineering perspectives, Russian aircraft have always been impressive though. That the F-15 and MiG-25 look so similar (whether this is convergent evolution or a product of Cold War espionage we may never know) is definitely a testament to this, with the F-15 being perhaps one of the USAFs most successful fighters. Made in America, the -25 could have been right up there.
No1118117 2 years ago
Well the MiG-25 I think looks more similar to the A-5 Vigilante which was also proposed to have twin vertical tails, but ended up with one. Also the design of the F-15 whilst having some similar features to the MiG-25 like the twin vertical fins and the high dash speed, the F-15 was meant not only to be an interceptor but quite capable of dogfighting and it's fuselage reflects that, as it develops high amounts of lift like the wings which was first used employed in the F-14 design.
mobius1aic 2 years ago
This idea was further improved and arguably perfected in the Sukhoi Su-27 which, aerodynamically I believe to be the most well designed fighter ever flown.
mobius1aic 2 years ago
Well the MiG-25 was certainly influenced by the A-5 from an engineering standpoint. I didn't really mean to imply that the -25 was an entirely unique design, just that it was a departure from the conical engine intake and mid mounted wing of earlier MiGs.
I do however think its a little foolish to point out how the MiG is so similar to a CV-launched bomber, then pedant over the difference between an interceptor and a dogfighter. Both the F-15 and MiG used many elements from the A-5 design.
No1118117 2 years ago
haha "poorly constructed" was how american engineers described the first copy they got their hands on... because they used rivets, and the russians welded! how the hell else would it get that fast?
Truelooger 2 years ago 2
and you all believe what u read in western articles as gospel right?
Brainwashing supreme
fragmaka 2 years ago 2
DOWN WITH THE USA!!!
ollonsvin 2 years ago
good luck with that
mentalrock 2 years ago
Comment removed
nilsem1 2 years ago
EHH if we jus had that '99 :(
thebluesky06 2 years ago
3200 km/h...
is, is, is amazing, really.
davidboomunin 2 years ago 3
sr 71 top speed mach 3.5
mig 25 top speed mach 3.2 and it didnt leak fuel
theinsane101 3 years ago
it leaked fuel for a reason..it was designed that way.
Tata996 2 years ago
The fac is that SR-71 was build of Titanium, which made it's weight cost like gold's. MiG-25 and MiG 31 were made of stainless steel. Which made it's speed little slower (because of themal kinetic), but much, much cheaper.
aromatix 2 years ago 2
Inconel rather than stainless steel. However, that material choice was not good since the Mig25/31 is not that much faster while the use of Inconel, which is only required for hypersonic flight,resulted in high weight and,indirectly,loss of airframe rigidity. The SR71 is nonrigid by design but it flies Mach 3 cruise.
xxwzaebd 2 years ago
so huge turbine...!
santacruzbass88 3 years ago 2
The Phantom shot down a lot of Soviet-made aircraft while the mig29 was shot down all the time. This is the proven fact. Aerobatic planes are more maneuverable,yes. But they are not good fighter aircraft. Both mig29 and some aerobatic planes are optimized for slower speeds.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
American economy is going down, less American cars sold, high job loss, country is running out of oil and so is trying to steal from Iraq. More than that - how many countries were not touched by US military? Every country you start to fight with you call a "bad ass terrorist". After all, who are you? Bread out nation of agressive idiots, who want to rule the world. Can you list your friends here? EU, Russia, China, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, South America - who?
ssm80taurus 3 years ago
Yeah well the only trouble is if the American economy goes down so does EVERYONES - Fact. So you could say they have everyone by the balls.
Bigcityshining 3 years ago
I love mig 25s there so badass, i want one.
driftability 3 years ago
if i can summarize:
america wins!
russia is hopeless!
blah blah blah!
there, a comment for almost all youtube videos. :)
edx881122 3 years ago
also, consider that one Mig-29 or Mig-25 in combat flew against 10 F-15 plus F-111 with ECM and Awacs.
No wonder Iraqi Migs stood no chance.
I would like to see how a single F-15 would fare against 2 Su-27 + A-50 + Tu-22 with ECM. Of course, it also stands no chance.
9K58 3 years ago 2
Just one MiG25 shot down one F/A18. But how abut the rest? Soviet made planes,even if flown my Russian mercs, were faltly defeated like autumn leaves. The mig29s are called autumn leaves(choo poong nak yeop). In addition, the US has a much stronger industry infrastructure than Russia which results in a stronger military. Russia's army is no match against US Marines.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
where do kids like you come from???
One mig flew on average against 5-10 F-15 AT THE SAME TIME.
What do you not understand?
Does a single F-15 stand a chance against 5 Su-27 with A-60 AWACS?
Give me a fucking super-pilot, it will still stand NO chance, simply because AWACS detects F-15 earlier and Su-27 launch those nasty 300 and 400 km missiles outside of F-15's range and hit it down as you said like an autumn leaf.
Mig-29 is admitted by FAS to be superior to F-15 in dogfight.
9K58 3 years ago 3
The US has better AWACS and datalink than Russia;in addition; US pilots fly 200-300 hours each year and participate in actual combat. Mig 29 is only an autumn leaf as proved by past wars.
There is one case in which an Israeli pilot defeated more than a dozen MiG 21s alone. So one F-4E against 5 Su30 would be no problem for a very experienced Western pilot.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
and can you prove US has anything better?
A dozen Mig-21? When? here?
You see now, you start lying.
The trick is: I can provide evidence to my claims, you can not provide evidence to yours.
Or, in simple language, you lie.
I explained why Migs lost, did you read anything I posted? If you believe one F4 stands a chance against Su-30, this conversation is over, because that means you are 12 years old delusional american kid.
9K58 3 years ago
There was a case when a single Mirage defeated a dozen Migs. Reason-better aircraft,better training and tactics. Of course,better support infrastructure and ligistics. This is the reason why F4 can win. Anyway,advanced countries don't buy Russian jets but choose European and US planes instead.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
You are not getting it, are you?
Show me proof that you are saying truth.
Give me reference, link to a documented occurence that single Mirage defeated a dozen Migs.
Ok, why should I argue with a 12 years old, I don't know.
Ok, I claim there was occurence of a single Mig-23 hitting down 15 F-16s in Syria Israel conflict.
Why not?
Mig-23 is better than F-16.
9K58 3 years ago
The mig23 never shot down one single Western aircraft. The "newer" mig29 was shot down multiple times. This is the truth;therefore,even former Eastern bloc countries are switching to F-16 or Gripen. There is simply no way to stop this trend.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
USA does not have stronger industry, I told you why allready.
Mig-23 vs F-16:
1982, Syria vs Israel, At least 5 F-16 were lost, 2 F-4 and a reconaisanse aircraft. It is on wiki, it is referenced with CONFIRMED references.
You are WRONG #1.
Come on, kid, wanna make some more bald claims?
Venesuella switched to Su-30.
There is a way to stop this trend, you are going to keep making your moronic claims, and I will be refuting you with references, like I already did.
Please continue.
9K58 3 years ago
A you stupid? Indian pilots on Su 30 douned us pilots on F15, F4E - oldtimer.
cfnfyfcc20 3 years ago 2
lol..i spewed coffee over my keyboard!...one f4e v 5 x su30?...more like the other way around..and by a rookie who just learnt the su30's avionics.
bnewman227 3 years ago
Russian army no match for US marines?
Is it because of that US allied with other 25 powerful nations to form NATO alliance against a SINGLE country Russia?
So far it seems US is really afraid of going with Russia one on one. And it should.
9K58 3 years ago
The USMC has decades of combat experience which Russia doesn't have. You certainly don't know how strong they are. Ask those who served in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are very very very very brave and professional,much more than Russian or Chinese soldiers.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
xxwzaebd,
Youre screwed in the head.
Not all types of Mig-29 have been shot down.
And Chinas military is far more advanced than USA's
USArCOWARDS 3 years ago
Mig 29s were always shot down when in combat against US-made planes. China more advanced? Their human wave tactics won't work any more. CHinese army will suffer heavy losses if it ever faces our army, not only because our army has the world's most advanced tanks and the world's only OICWs in active service.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
xxwzaebd,
You'll find mostly ground attack versions of Mig29's have been shot down.
mig 29 OVT has never been shot down and neithers Mig29M.
You'll find China's tanks are newer more advanced and more powerful than USA's.
Same goes for their rifiles.
China thrashed USa before. China will thrash USA again.
USArCOWARDS 3 years ago
When East and West Germany reunited ant the end of the Cold War (in other words, West Germany became just "Germany") and they tested out the MiG-29 in dissimilar training against various Western fighters, a whole new world opened up. The Mig had lousy avionics, an unreliable communication equipment, and a terribly short combat range. But when dogfighting, nothing could touch the it. The helmet mounted sights, superb maneuverability, and Vympel R-73 missiles made it an unbelievably lethal fighter
brtshstel 3 years ago
Bull shit - its 29 always wins - see my videos !!!
3dimon3 3 years ago
The MiG29 was shot down all the time, in 1991&1999. This is the CLEAR FACT. The MiG29 has no chance against an F4E in BVR or prolonged close combat exceeding a few rapid turns because it is optimized for low speed,thus losing energy faster at higher speeds where air combat occurs.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
its bullshit - forget about insane monuvers
3dimon3 3 years ago
The MiG29 lost all the time. It is designed as a point defense interceptor against slow targets like bombers, not to counter jet fighters. The thicker wings and lifting fuselage indicate this design objective. It only shot down unarmed propeller aircraft while being always shot down by US made fighters,Su27s and old antiaircraft gun.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
Mig 29 Ovt I think better than f 22 in dogfight - look my video about 29 - its very objective point not american bullshit
3dimon3 3 years ago
Buy plastic models of MiG29 and other fighter planes(Su27,F16,F15) and check carefully where the real differences are. The MiG29 is only effective at low speeds.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
its better at low speeds - for super sonic i think thay equal
3dimon3 3 years ago
Not equal. The MiG29's performance falls at higher speeds. Back in the early '90s, I remember seeing some of its performance data on a local magazine. Jet fighters avoid low speed anyway to reduce induced drag and thus energy loss.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
local magazine ? - i never watch discovery its not objective like your journals - now OVt is new engine better than all amerikan
3dimon3 3 years ago
As a whole, the F22 is at least 100 times better than the Mig29. The former Eastern bloc countries are changing to F16 and Gripen because they are simply better. Our air force rejected the Su37 and selected the F15 instead. Everyone is happy about this decision. F15&F16 were never shot down in air combat and it will remain this way in the far future.The Mig17 was not that bad.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
you have now shown without a doubt that you dont have a clue. the recent RAAF acquisition of the super hornet was a tight call versus the su27/33/35 and the US Air Force and Navy has heavy backing to cancel the F22 and purchase the flankers. From ex Rear and Full Admirals and high ranking officials who saw the purchase as financially superior solution to the in country development of planes like the f22 and f35.
bnewman227 3 years ago
Our air force rejected the Su37 long ago because it was simply not good enough;the F-15 was selected and everyone is happy now. The US is far ahead in support industry infrastructure, in both technology and non-technical areas.The Su37 was rejected for good reasons,anyway.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
whatever. obviously being a rear admiral and admiral doesnt mean much to you...nor is a group of experienced veterans' opinions. the decision was not based on something as simple as "function". that is archaic rhetoric. like the next comment- today's wars are fought not by pilots in a plane, but by technology and the argument was that the performance of the aircraft was secondary in modern warfare. it could turn inside out and it wouldnt matter. its about avionics and comms.
bnewman227 3 years ago
What matters is the support logistics and infrastructure. The US is several times stronger and decades(in some areas more than a century) ahead in this nontechnical area. The Su37 at the airshow had some avionics but the largest problem was the support infrastructure. Besides, does the Su37 have an equivalent of the SLAM-ER? No. The Su37 was rejected,some people supported the Rafale. But the final winner is the F-15 and everyone is happy.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
Give me the name of one admiral to support America purchasing a flanker variant over any American jet.
odessaboy 3 years ago
i dont recall his name- but it was him and another high ranking ex navy..along with other ex military types- they formed wuite a strong alliance together with notable from janes defence and other officials. my source was actually Robert Kress. Robedrt was the head of the grumman vtol and experimental aircraft program in the 1990s and chief design engineer for the F14. He also played a major role in the apollo program. he was a friend of mine. is that good enough?
bnewman227 3 years ago
i found the guys name.
Ret. Adm. Paul Gilcrist
bnewman227 3 years ago
Adm. Paul Gilchrist was known for his opposition to replacing the F-14D Tomcat (or super tomcat) with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, noting that the super hornet had a significantly reduced payload/fuel capacity.
This diminished the carrier's influence and range by about 50%.
I've never heard him argue that our 5th gen planes are not as good as 4th gen russian planes.
Even if he did, his opinion would have to be held up against the chorus of all the other fighter pilots who'd disagree.
odessaboy 3 years ago
all i can say is that he and kress were advocating it as an alternative. kress told me this himself and described the rationale. he also told me that it's unlikely it would go that way but they also had additional support. from a cost through life it offers a good debate IMO.
bnewman227 3 years ago
at the time, the 5th gen planes were still not operational..they barely are now...
bnewman227 3 years ago
And the f-22 is designed to never have to enter a dogfight. It can see the enemy at great distance without being seen and shoot him down before the enemy even knows the f-22 is there.
Plur307 3 years ago
Sbili Ne Sbili - u vas b2 Ruhnul za Milliard dollarov eto ne zna4it 4to on plohoj samolet - v realnom boju dumaju vse pokazet - no vrjatli eto slu4itsa esli tolko vasha vrazdebnaja Amerika ne napadet na Rossiju !!!!
3dimon3 3 years ago
ya s vami soglasen
bobyluppo 3 years ago
your an idiot. Exactly all those mig-25's were exported technologies with downgraded results which explains why many third world countries can afford them. and second of all the mig-25 is an interceptor, not a fighter. And thirdly the mig-25 or mig-31 had a radar range which is double that of the F4E..do some research before posting ridiculous shit. The altidute of the mig-25 is 95,000 feet..alot higher then F4E. and is alot faster. Plus its missiles also had longer range.
sovietamerican2 3 years ago
It's an awesome powerful fighter, but I don't think it could ever catch an SR-71.
StanleyKu 3 years ago
Migs cannot shoot down F15/F16s. But Migs are shot down all the time.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
REally? Mig-23 were shooting down F-16s pretty often in Syria. You think Mig-25 can not?
Considering Mig-25 shot down F-18 in Gulf war, F-16 has no chance.
F-15 were not able to shoot Mig-25 down, because it accelerated and missiles could not catch up.
Mig-25 used outdated (old soviet) missiles, hence it was not capable of intercepting F-15. Give it new missiles and you can kiss F-15 a goodbye.
9K58 3 years ago
This is NOT true. Migs were shot down by F-15s and F-16s 1)even before retracting their landing gears 2)right after takeoff when energy status is low or 3)without even launching any ordnance. Eastern-bloc accounts of shooting down Western planes cannot be substantiated. A MiG-25 shot down one F/A-18 and that was all. Even newere missiles down't work against US pilots. Western(including Western Asian countries) pilots fly 200+ hours a year.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
WTF are you talking about?
Missiles do not work against US pilots?
They did in Germany during exercises, when american pilots got their ass handed to them with basic export version Fulcrum A.
HMS + AA-11 Archer = dead aircraft.
When a missile pulls 20 g and your airframe is only 5 g, you can fly 10,000 hours, the aircraft will not be able to do anything, let alone the pilot.
Oh, Mig-25 shot down one F-18? wow, let's examine:
50's soviet technology shot down US 70's tech, US leads in what?
9K58 3 years ago
We saw what the FACT is. Soviet airplanes were always shot down by US,Israeli and other coalition pilits, not the other way around. The mig29s in 1999 also had missiles but they were shot down. 6 shot down,4 destroyed on ground. Recently a mig29 was shot down by old triple A. The F-18 was only one case but US planes shot down MANY MANY MORE Soviet planes. This is important. One squadron of F22s is enough to shoot down all soviet/russian made jets put into service so far.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
"We saw what the FACT is. Soviet airplanes were always shot down by US,Israeli and other coalition pilits"
Iraqi and Serbian Migs was simply outnumbered by coalition cowards
Primorsky 3 years ago
Mig29s were even shot down by other Russian aircraft and old antiaircraft guns. They are not better than F4Es.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
loll the f4 was downed by an mi 24 hind (helicopter loll) during irak/iran war
DragonlordXV 3 years ago
MiG-29s are way better than F-4s whether E or D or whatever.
Santaclausemikey 3 years ago
The mig29 was shot down all the time. The F-4 is superior to the mig29 in terms of energy management which is everything in air combat. The mig29 is like a 3D electric plane optimised for low speed fight. In real world, the Mig29 has no chance against an F-4E. At least some F4s have APG-65 and are AIM120 capable.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
lol you are on the pipe mate if you really think that BS you've written. theres a full generation separating the 2 types- in fact 2.5. thats 3 decades of avionics and airframe technology. even the "e" variant is not even close to the fulcrum "a".
bnewman227 3 years ago
You're smoking crack bro. The Phantom II was known for its unreliability in a dogfight, and the fulcrum is one of the greatest dogfights of all time, especially in a dogfight.
The Fulcrum is designed as a dogfight; the f4 is an interceptor.
odessaboy 3 years ago
The mig29 was shot down all the time. In 1991. In 1999. And afterwards. This is the fact. The F4 still serves today in the world's best air forces.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
Show me one Mig29 that was shot down by an f4.
The mig29s were shot down by f15s and upgraded f16s; pretty important point, wouldn't you say?
odessaboy 3 years ago
The mig29 was often shot down my f15 & f16. This is because f15& f16 are simply much better. Even former Eastern bloc countries are shifting to F16 & Gripen.The f4 is better than mig29,anyway.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
Yes, and now you're reiterating my point.
The mig 29s weren't shot down by f4s, but by 4th gen aircraft. The mig 29 is a 4th gen fighter that became operational in 1983. The f4 is a 3rd gen fighter that became operational in 1961.
One was designed as an interceptor, the other as a short-range dogfighter. The mig29 would kill the PhantomII in a dogfight easily.
odessaboy 3 years ago
The mig29 is designed for short periods of flight at low speeds, just like the electric 3D funflys I flew for some time. Thus, it will lose energy quickly at prolonged air combat; in addition, it is not as efficient at higher speeds. Not the case with the F4.The average F4 in service is in fact better equipped than the average mig29. Better equipped, maintained and piloted. The F4 may remain in service even after the mig29 has become totally obsolete.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
The energy factor isn't a problem given the fulcrum's power plant, and given the fact that there wouldn't be a sustained dogfight between the two aircraft.
If you know anything about aerodynamics, and fighter jet transient performance you'd know that the fulcrum would make quick use of the Phantom II. There would be no competition.
The other points you're bringing up diverge from our original topic; I'm not discussing other factors of the two aircraft.
odessaboy 3 years ago
The mig29 powerplant is not as efficient; combined with the airframe optimized for low speed and less fuel capacity, this results in faster energy loss. The F4 doesn't suffer from such problems. This is one of the reasons why the mig29 was shot down all the time while having shot down only low-speed,unarmed propeller aircraft. There was even a planned Mach 3 version of the F4.
Of course do I know about aerodynamics since I have built and flown many RC planes from scratch in the past.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
I don't know where you're getting your information from. The mig29s TWR is 1.13-1; the f4s is 0.89-1, which means that the migs engines produced more thrust than the airframe and computers produced weight; the f4 had more weight than its engines produced thrust.
The Mig29 wans't designed for slow speed dogfights; its just good in them.
The mig would easily destroy the f4, a plane that wasn't designed to dogfight. The f4 lost several encounters with mig17s in Vietnam because of this.
odessaboy 3 years ago
The thrust-weitht ratio is not everything. The mig29 was designed as a point defense interceptor for lower speed targets and it shot down unarmed propeller planes while being shot down all the time. At higher speed its drag increases resulting in faster energy loss.Just the opposite of the F-104 which is only efficient at high speeds. The Mig29 computer is less powerful than your handphone which probably has an MEMS based inertial unit,RTOS, GPS,megapixel camera and ARM11 core.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
The mig's performance must be examined in the context of its handlers. They had a dismal performance going up against American f15s in Iraq, and going up against f16s in Yugoslavia.
However, they had tremendous success in the hands of the Indian Air Force when it went to war with Pakistan.
You've made my point again in the later part of your post. The fulcrum was designed for dogfights; the f4 wasn't.
Again, in a dogfight, the fulcrum would kill the phantom with complete ease.
odessaboy 3 years ago
The mig29 was not designed for close or BVR combat against other jet fighters. Thicker wings and strakes resulted in very good maneuverability at low speeds but incr