Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Share

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 748
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:25 am

    Hi all,

    Looking for people views on the following:

    The MIG-21 being the most produced supersonic jetaircraft in the world, and having an extremely long production run, theres still many of the aircraft in service with various countries around the world and with the many upgrades available, my thoughts are does this aircraft still have a future or use with the armies that still field it or should it be taken out of service??????

    The MIG-25 being one of the fastest aircraft to ever be put into service, and with many now being put into reserve, however some still remain in service with a few countries and some which have had upgrades, do these aircraft still have a use? and do they still have a use as a interceptor??? and could the ones in reserve have upgrades done to them to return them to frontline service? or should they be scrapped?

    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?


    any info/views etc would be great.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:40 am

    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?
    Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost.

    Should other countries that have Mig-29s upgrade them to SMT standard? Yes as soon as possible... the upgrade not only makes them multi role and improves performance in all areas including air to air but also transforms it in air to ground... it also reduces operational costs by over 40%.

    The reason most countries who do operate Mig-29s are not upgrading them is either political... eastern europe countries really want to use worn out old F-16s from western countries or have dreams of F-35 or Gripen or some such thing in the long term to get away from using Russian equipment.

    For other users the main problem is that for slightly more money they can get Su-30 Flankers which offer a further step up in performance without being too much more expensive.

    For India they are upgrading their remaining Mig-29s.

    Regarding the Mig-21 it was a great little fighter in its day, but the cost of upgrading it to make it comparable to a modern fighter... it seems to work out cheaper buying a Mig-29 or Flanker.

    The Mig-25 is a lesson in reduced cost... it is mostly made of steel which is cheap but also heavy... the silver mesh around the engines to help keep them cool is also cheaper than the more efficient gold mesh they could have used.

    The plane is still very expensive to operate and is pretty much a one trick pony with speed as its main feature... it would probably be cheaper to buy a Mig-31E which would have better armament and performance... but that wouldn't be cheap either.

    To be honest rather than beating around the bush... I would approach MIG and just look at a Mig-29M2 with reasonable equipment fitted and look at getting the best weapon options I could afford for the mean time... knowing that in the near future there is an AESA in development that could be fitted in 5-10 years time to improve performance if it was needed.

    Failing that a new version of the Yak-130 with a nose mounted radar is interesting too... 3 ton payload is useful as well.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:31 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?
    Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost.

    Should other countries that have Mig-29s upgrade them to SMT standard? Yes as soon as possible... the upgrade not only makes them multi role and improves performance in all areas including air to air but also transforms it in air to ground... it also reduces operational costs by over 40%.

    The reason most countries who do operate Mig-29s are not upgrading them is either political... eastern europe countries really want to use worn out old F-16s from western countries or have dreams of F-35 or Gripen or some such thing in the long term to get away from using Russian equipment.

    For other users the main problem is that for slightly more money they can get Su-30 Flankers which offer a further step up in performance without being too much more expensive.

    For India they are upgrading their remaining Mig-29s.

    Regarding the Mig-21 it was a great little fighter in its day, but the cost of upgrading it to make it comparable to a modern fighter... it seems to work out cheaper buying a Mig-29 or Flanker.

    The Mig-25 is a lesson in reduced cost... it is mostly made of steel which is cheap but also heavy... the silver mesh around the engines to help keep them cool is also cheaper than the more efficient gold mesh they could have used.

    The plane is still very expensive to operate and is pretty much a one trick pony with speed as its main feature... it would probably be cheaper to buy a Mig-31E which would have better armament and performance... but that wouldn't be cheap either.

    To be honest rather than beating around the bush... I would approach MIG and just look at a Mig-29M2 with reasonable equipment fitted and look at getting the best weapon options I could afford for the mean time... knowing that in the near future there is an AESA in development that could be fitted in 5-10 years time to improve performance if it was needed.

    Failing that a new version of the Yak-130 with a nose mounted radar is interesting too... 3 ton payload is useful as well.
    In relation to the MiG-25 comment, it's a layer of silver (gold in some variants), rather than a mesh. Its high reflectivity keeps the structure cold (and the engine hot).


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:51 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Spelling.)

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:20 pm

    mig-21 was great for its time, mig-25 specialised but also very good overall. and mig-29 not so much , the design of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8 was better, but it wasnt ment to be.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 748
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:05 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?
    Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost.

    Should other countries that have Mig-29s upgrade them to SMT standard? Yes as soon as possible... the upgrade not only makes them multi role and improves performance in all areas including air to air but also transforms it in air to ground... it also reduces operational costs by over 40%.

    The reason most countries who do operate Mig-29s are not upgrading them is either political... eastern europe countries really want to use worn out old F-16s from western countries or have dreams of F-35 or Gripen or some such thing in the long term to get away from using Russian equipment.

    For other users the main problem is that for slightly more money they can get Su-30 Flankers which offer a further step up in performance without being too much more expensive.

    For India they are upgrading their remaining Mig-29s.

    Regarding the Mig-21 it was a great little fighter in its day, but the cost of upgrading it to make it comparable to a modern fighter... it seems to work out cheaper buying a Mig-29 or Flanker.

    The Mig-25 is a lesson in reduced cost... it is mostly made of steel which is cheap but also heavy... the silver mesh around the engines to help keep them cool is also cheaper than the more efficient gold mesh they could have used.

    The plane is still very expensive to operate and is pretty much a one trick pony with speed as its main feature... it would probably be cheaper to buy a Mig-31E which would have better armament and performance... but that wouldn't be cheap either.

    To be honest rather than beating around the bush... I would approach MIG and just look at a Mig-29M2 with reasonable equipment fitted and look at getting the best weapon options I could afford for the mean time... knowing that in the near future there is an AESA in development that could be fitted in 5-10 years time to improve performance if it was needed.

    Failing that a new version of the Yak-130 with a nose mounted radar is interesting too... 3 ton payload is useful as well.
    The Mig 29SMT i think your right in what you say, that most countries should upgrade it makes perfect sense, to have multi-role fighters and at a cheaper cost to buying completely new aircraft especially countries on a tight budget, i think its ideal or even for countries who are looking a for decent aircraft which covers a variety of roles and thats cheaper than other similar aircraft.

    On the topic of the YAK 130, i think this aircraft would be ideal for defence forces, countries on a tight budget or poorer countries which cant afford the more high end equipment but still need to fufill airforce roles. Its cheap to buy and maintain, it can be used in all the roles a defence force would need, trainer, light attack, recce, anti air, anti ship/sub, aswell as being able to operate from unpaved and grass strips, and ideal for some of the remote locations some countries have. This is the aircraft i personally think an independent Scotland should go for. Its such a versatile low cost aircraft, for small armies etc, of course it will never be on par with MIG-29SMT/SU-34/MIG-31 but none the less a good all rounder for the money.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 748
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:21 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:mig-21 was great for its time, mig-25 specialised but also very good overall. and mig-29 not so much , the design of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8 was better, but it wasnt ment to be.

    I read some where that the MIG-21, upgraded to MIG-21-93 were capable aircraft and that MIG-21-97 upgrade made them same or better than F-16's, so for some countries to have these upgraded could still find themselves with good aircraft at least intil 2018-2020, and they could still have a use after that as trainers or recce ops, and support for ground troops.

    As for the MIG-25 i agree its expensive to maintain and run. Its a shame to see such aircraft be stored away, i suppose recce ops are slowly being replaced by UAV's.

    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 152
    Points : 175
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Giulio on Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:29 pm

    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:38 am

    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. What a Face 



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 100
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Deep Throat on Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost
    While the MIG 29 is undoubtedly a great fighter , I am trying to figure out why did MIG go for that big fuel storage hump ?

    The big fuel storage hump on the back of the new MiG-29 affects the aerodynamic performance of the air frame to a large extent .

    However it's also possible that the almost airfoil like shape it gives to the center of the aircraft acts like one big air foil and improves the lifting area, thereby balancing the extra weight .

    Jury's out .

    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 152
    Points : 175
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Giulio on Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:21 pm

    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.  What a Face 

    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?

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:30 pm

    in egypt they used just water (much more of it) and another supstance cant remember now because there wasnt danger of freezing , together with lighter weight of the recon plane that resulted in fastest mig-25 operational speeds just about over mach 3.
    but you had to watch engine revs constantly and control fuel flow so it doesnt rip.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:39 pm

    While the MIG 29 is undoubtedly a great fighter , I am trying to figure out why did MIG go for that big fuel storage hump ?
    It is not all fuel, a lot of it is extra electronics which they had to fit in somewhere.

    The Mig-21SMT also had a big hump on its back and to be honest in both cases it has almost no negative effect on performance.

    Its benefit to performance is an increase in fuel fraction (ie the ratio between max internal weight and fuel capacity). Too small a fuel fraction leaves the aircraft very short ranged.

    The original Mig-29 was a point defence interceptor so lots of internal fuel was not a priority. Later models however benefited from extra fuel and with high off boresight missiles and a helmet mounted sight it didn't matter who could turn fastest because the Mig pilot could look and shoot faster than an F-16 pilot could look turn line up the enemy, lock and then shoot.

    The big fuel storage hump on the back of the new MiG-29 affects the aerodynamic performance of the air frame to a large extent .
    As shown on the F-15 with huge conformal tanks... the effect is not actually that significant, but the usefulness of the added fuel makes it well worth adding.

    Jury's out .
    The SMT does not have reduced turn rate or climb rate, top speed over previous models... it does have much greater range and much better avionics including self defence suite.

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

    They were already developing an upgrade but didn't want to spend the money but then when a Mig-25P landed in Japan and the US got to pick it to pieces the PD upgrade got top priority and very soon all Ps became PDs.

    They even upgraded the missiles even though none were compromised... the upgraded IR guided model is still carried by Mig-31s today.


    1) Under the nose of the Mig-25PD, that sticking out sensor is an IRST like on the old F-14?
    I have read a comment that the IRST on the Mig-25PD could detect an SR-71 at greater range in the head on aspect than the radar could due to friction heating. With such long range head on detection it was believed that its best chance of a kill was with heat seeking R-40TD missiles.

    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?
    Very much depends on the target. When two missiles are fired the IR missile is fired first to prevent it being distracted by a missiles rocket motor in front of it. Except for very high priority targets usually only one missile will be fired depending on the situation... a high altitude closing target will be engaged with SARH missiles... but with targets like SR-71s with an enormous heat signature that can be detected hundreds of miles away obviously the IR guided weapons would be preferred.

    Low level receeding targets would also be best targeted with IR guided missiles as the IR signature of the engine exhausts would offer the best target. Closing targets are easier to track with radar than receeding targets and low level targets have the added problem of ground clutter which makes IR guidance better than SARH.

    resulted in fastest mig-25 operational speeds just about over mach 3.
    but you had to watch engine revs constantly and control fuel flow so it doesnt rip.
    There were plans for making new, more powerful engines for the Mig-25... it was a very heavy aircraft because it was made of stainless steel mostly, though that made it rather more affordable. Replacing its 11 ton thrust engines with 15 ton thrust engines like those fitted to the Mig-31 would have given it impressive performance.

    Changing the engines to bypass turbojets with the bypass air operating like a ramjet could have allowed a large increase in speed.

    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.

    Using bypass air like a ramjet would take away the engine speed limitation and allow it to really fly fast...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 100
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Deep Throat on Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:42 am

    GarryB wrote:It is not all fuel, a lot of it is extra electronics which they had to fit in somewhere.
    What type of extra electronics ? And why create a hump to store it ?

    For example , The MIG 35 when it is operated as a single seat aircraft uses the rear seat to store electronic equipments ( apart from extra oxygen) .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:42 pm

    S-M-T

    S = C in english, which added a lot of electronic improvement.

    M = M in english, which had a further upgrade of systems and equipment to improve existing Migs to near Mig-29M level.

    T = T in english and meant Toplivo... fuel.

    to quote wiki:

    In the 1980s, Mikoyan developed the improved MiG-29S to use longer range R-27E and R-77 air-to-air missiles. It added a dorsal 'hump' to the upper fuselage to house a jamming system and some additional fuel capacity.
    The Mig-29S, and Mig-29SM already had a dorsal hump... the SMT upgrade just made it bigger and it included electronics  closer to the centre of gravity of the aircraft where the extra weight would not effect performance as much as if it was at the front or rear.

    For example , The MIG 35 when it is operated as a single seat aircraft uses the rear seat to store electronic equipments ( apart from extra oxygen) .
    Not really. The single seat Mig-35 stores mostly fuel in the rear seat area... in the two seat model... which has the same capabilities... where would you put those electronics? Especially when you need an extra complete set of instruments for the other pilot. The single seat model doesn't have any electronics the two seater doesn't have.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 152
    Points : 175
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Giulio on Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:52 pm

    [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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:08 am

    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.
    The Mig-31 and Mig-25 both operate in the lower portion of the stratosphere... depending upon your latitude the stratosphere is from about 8,000m (near the poles) or 18,000m (near the equator) to 50,000m. Obviously the planes only get to about 20,000m operationally and the full pressure suit is worn for all high speed flights...

    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 suit is very claustrophobic, but is fully air conditioned so not chance of clammy sweat suit nightmare.

    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.
    That is the leading edge of the wings and nose tip.

    For the Canopy it is 70 degrees C internal temperature.

    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.
    The problem is engine overspeed... very few turbojet engines run at such high speeds... the engines of the SR-71 use bypass air as a ramjet and derive very little thrust through the turbojets themselves.

    In the Mig-25 and Mig-31 the problem is the engines accelerating out of control and tearing themselves to bits.

    It is a bit like driving a car... accelerate too fast and your tires will shred themselves to little bits because of the rotational forces acting on them.

    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.
    At different flight speeds the aerodynamic centre of gravity can shift, but both aircraft are aerodynamically stable and certainly do not use computer flight controls.

    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).
    The Mig-25 can operate as long as it likes at mach 2.4 but can only fly continuously for 20 minutes at mach 2.6 or above.

    Flying faster than Mach 2.83 for any significant period of time is dangerous and is only done when necessary... ie not in peacetime.

    The vast majority of the interceptions with the Mig-25 is with the target incoming from the front.
    Very much depends on what is being intercepted and from where it came and where it is going and which airbase the Mig launched from...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 748
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    MiG-29M2/SMT vs Su-30MKI

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat May 31, 2014 9:24 pm

    Hi all,

    I am wondering what peoples views are on the the MIG 29M2/SMT Vs the SU 30 MKI. They seem to be both being pushed/sold to various countries especially to ones who dont have the biggest budget or are replacing MIG 21 and want a multi role fighter, Serbia being one of them. Does anyone know the rough unit price of each of the aircraft cant find a price any where( i do understand price vary on  lot of circumstances).

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:39 am

    Smt and m2 are very different airframes. Former is legacy Fulcrum airframe with some modifications...some of which are pretty significant. M, M2, 35, etc etc are all the 2nd gen aiframe.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  medo on Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:01 am

    Su-30SM is bigger and more powerfull fighter with longer range, than Mig-29K or Mig-35 will ever be. Both are multirole, but Su-30 have more powerfull radar and more powerful ESM equipment and with that more powerfull armament as Su-30 could use long range armament while Migs could not.

    With export plane a lot depend on customer, what equipment he wish to have in plane. Many Suhois have foreign equipment build inside, mostly Israeli or French. Export Mig-29M could also get foreign equipment on customer wish.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 748
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:00 am

    hey i was wanting to know peoples views on the Mig-25 as a strike aircraft the MiG-25RB had the capability but was it ever used as such and was it any good at it?

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:34 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:hey i was wanting to know peoples views on the Mig-25 as a strike aircraft the MiG-25RB had the capability but was it ever used as such and was it any good at it?

    Iraqis used it for bombing Iran quite regularly from about 1985-88. I am guessing a couple thousand sorties in total. This was mostly after the TU-22 were deemed too vulnerable to fly into Tehran airspace when the Iranians improved their high altitude air defences around there.

    In terms of "effect"... well I'd say it was a cheaper way of area bombardment than the upgraded SCUD missiles at least. They were never accurate though and simply used in a tit-for-tat intimidation between the warring parties since Iraqi cities were much closer to Iran's border and were thus easier for the Iranians to bomb. Iraqis had to resort to using more "exotic" assets like TU-22B and MiG25RB to "match" the Iranian city bombardments.

    One thing going for it though... is that despite Iranian efforts to defend Tehran from politically damaging aerial bombardment (HQ2 SAM, RAPIER, I-HAWK as well as F4E and F14A to defend Tehran) they only managed to shoot down 1 or 2 of the MiG25RB during bombing missions spanning almost 4 years of bombardment.

    The aircraft flew in singles all the way to Tehran and back without escort or ESM and beyond Iraq's GCI control. Which was a testament to the capability and survivability of the aircraft.

    No wonder that Iraqis were interested in replacing the MiG25 with MiG31E in 1990... but then the gulf war happened.

    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 152
    Points : 175
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Giulio on Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:42 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:hey i was wanting to know peoples views on the Mig-25 as a strike aircraft the MiG-25RB had the capability but was it ever used as such and was it any good at it?

    Drop a nuclear bomb at very high altitude and speed: you can launch the bomb at 50 km from the target and turn back.
    Obviously no one launched nuclear bombs (I think), so the Iraqis used Mig-25RB with conventional ordnance: AFAIK also (European) Mk-84, until arrived FAB250 e FAB500T. An Iraqi attack about that I read was that on the Iranian military flight school at Teheran Farahabad, in Doshan-Tappeh. Very low altitude entrance, supersonic climb, acceleration up to maximum altitude and speed and bomb launch at about 21.000 m, at 40 Km from the target. The system was built for nuclear attack, so from long distance it wasn't very accurate, so bombs hit also a civil district.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 748
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:11 pm

    this pretty remarkable out of the top 10 most fighter aircraft in service in the world the Mig-21 ranked sixth with 551 operational aircraft.

    source

    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151223/1032208907/russia-warplanes-report.html


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  nemrod on Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:20 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    Looking for people views on the following:

    The MIG-21 being the most produced supersonic jetaircraft in the world, and having an extremely long production run, theres still many of the aircraft in service with various countries around the world and with the many upgrades available, my thoughts are does this aircraft still have a future or use with the armies that still field it or should it be taken out of service??????
    In my view, the Mig-21 is an extraordinary successful engineering for this last 60 decades. With a fair upgrade the Mig-21 -do not laugh , and do not mock please-it is still effective and extremely redoubtable until now.

    The great question is on all our minds :
    In dogfight, Is the Mig-21 effective against F-16 -A, C, ....- fighting falcon, or viper, or block -50 etc....- ?
    These past years I find myself pondering by this question. In fact we must to see in the past and definitely forget western version about the Mig-21. We must forget all propaganda whatever it is.
    During Vietnam war the Mig-21 was highly effective against all US fighters. 60 Mig-21 downed by F-4 , against at least 130 F-4 Phantom II destroyed by Mig-21. This incredible ratio could be explained by the bad conception of US aircrafts F-4,  Crusader, Corsair A7, F-100, F-105 etc...
    A heavy, fat muti-role fighter bomber that must do all, and anything,  designed around a cumbersome  most of the time pointless radar, relying on its ineffective air-air missiles -ratio of success contrary to the western hype never exceed in the best case 5% -, against an agile, mono-role, light fighter designed only for interception, and dogfighting, especially relying on its effective cannon.
    The success of the Mig-21 was confirmed during october 1973 war, where egyptian, syrian, algerian, iraqi Mig-21 crushed israeli, US fighters like Mirage III -the rare israeli's asset very effective, with its Mystere-, and F-4 Phantom. During this conflict, the despair urgency of the situation is such that, US and Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons. Again the Mig-21 prove a real effectiveness in design, conception, and philosophy of the combat.

    Soviet upgraded their very effective Mig-21 with a new engine, and avionics, the name was Mig-21 Bis.





    The fear of US was high, they developed F-15, F-16, F-18 against the Mig-21's threat. Now, what about against the new generation of US fighters ? Are they really effective ? The only data we have was the battle of the Bekaa occurred in Lebanon in 1982. It is useful too, to ignore propaganda of US, Israel, Syria, and Soviet Union. And let's focus on what's happened on the ground. Indeed, what's happened exactly ? Far of the israeli's supid fantasies about their so-called success -they claimed 100 syrians aircrafts downed against 0 losses, nevertheless the ground witnessed the contrary-, that turned to be completely false, as a whole fighters of Syria AF annihilated 42 aircraft of Israeli AF (including, as minimum, 5 F-15A and 6 F-16A) and one remote piloted aircraft in the course of dogfights from the 6th to the 12th of June (that day cease-fire has been signed). At the same time Syria AF lost 47 aircraft ( 4 Мig-23МS, 6 Мig-23МF, 26 Mig-21 bis and 11 Mig-21 MF). 7 SU-22М fighter-bombers and few Мig-23 BN were downed too.

    As you can see at least 6 F-16 were downed during this battle.



    As you can realize the heavy number of 26 effective Mig-21 Bis, why ? dunno
    The question now what were exactly the syrian Mig-21 Bis' soviet export ? Here is the response :

    Here are different Mig-21 Bis, those for soviet air force, and those for export:


    Let's zoom on export, and especially those for syrian air force :


    It is in fact syrian's Mig-21 are a downgraded Mig-21 Bis, they are different from those intended for soviet air force without air air missiles, and certainly without fair avionics like effective MAWS, and downgraded radar too.
    If you add the facts that Israeli ground forces were equipped with sam, and...the effective anti-aircraft gun M-61 Vulcan.


    Mounted on israeli's M-113

    There were several syrian fighter bombers downed by the israeli ground M-61 Vulcan. Notice that Israel lost beside their F-15, F-16, and F-4 E Phantom II, an E-2C Hawkeye.


    After the loses -never admitted by israel for obvious geopolical raisons.- Israel asked to Syria cease fire. June 12, 1982, immediately after the downed E-2 C the cease fire was applied. Notice Israel has a politic to systematically deny any losses whatever it is.

    If you remove the number of fighters downed by the ground, and fighter dedicated as slight bombers and not fighters, and you compare the with the real duals that occurred, I won't be surprised to see syrian air force having a slight advantage. In fact, if we remove the Mig-21 Bis intended to be as slight bomber, and you leave only the pure fighters, you can easily realized, that neither the F-16, nor the F-15  provided to Israel a real superiority.
    Concerning the F-16 the doubt raised again during Desert Storm in 1991, this supposed dogfighter did not succeed to down any Iraqi aircraft. Even the A-10 succeeded by downing a Mil-8, but not the F-16. During the Balkan's war, the F-16 indeed down few serbian aircrafts, but, US coalition outnumbered -as it was during Desert Storm- serbian malfunctioning fighters -where serbian could barely deploy less than 30 fighters, meanwhile US coaltion built up 900-.

    My conviction.
    The Mig-21, 60 years after, with a fair avionic upgrade is still more than never a redoubtable fighter able to match any US fighter, including the F-35. Meanwhile, the F-16 was a total faillure. In each exercise the Mig-21 demonstrated that it could really be a game changer, even against the F-15 C -see Cope India 2004-.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    The Mig-21 is still redoubtable

    Post  nemrod on Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:38 am

    The Mig-21 93 is comparable to all F-16 -C, D- version and the Mig-21 97 is above all, in term of dogfight at least. Russians added the Klimov RD-33 with its 9.000 KN thrust, hence it could outclass any US aircraft at least in dogfight-except the F-22 ? have not enough clues. I don't know what the F-22 worth exactly-. The air-air missiles no use to talk more, a good pilot is able to dodge any air-air, or sam launched against him. Moreover with powerful jam, any air air missile is useless. Russians demonstrated this assertion above syrian sky.




    The dual between

     
    and

    could turn -if a skill pilot is inside the Mig- to the Mig-21's advantage and at the expense of F-16.
    But US air force in the case of war never come 1 vs 1, they always come at at least 5 vs 1, if not 10 vs 1. But with the raise of Russia, and China this time is over.
    There were several exercises between US F-16, and NATO allies' Migs. Iam sure the result were not in favour for US, and the overcomes are as usually classified. For example, there were recently exercises between US F-16 and romanian Mig-21 Lancer -the romanian pilots are very competent pilots too-, if someone among you have more reliable news -if it is not propaganda, and false informations-, please post!

    Sponsored content

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:58 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:58 am