marcellogo wrote:This last of BKP hit straight to the point about certain debates "a la F-16.net" i.e. reducing comparations between different planes to a single point of perceived advantage in order to declare the other one not just inferior, that's would be a debatable habit in itself, but a PoS pure and simple.
Actually, that kind of simplistic reduction occurs more often at non-US forums, according to my experience.
Take a look at the F-22 debate, for example.
EACH person takes one facet of the jet, see how that is supposedly 'inferior' to anything anyone flies, then harps on that singular comparison relentlessly. Since enough people have their own singular comparisons, it is equally simplistically summed up that the F-22 is 'clearly' inferior to everyone else's products. We even had Indians who asserted that the F-22 is inferior to the MIG-21.
No different than in comparison to the later Russian jets. The F-22 has only 2D thrust vectoring while the Russian jets have 3D, ergo, the American jet is 'inferior'. Never mind items like combat doctrine or avionics or aerodynamics may have their influence that sways one design one way or the other. It is interesting to note the vast majority of these simplistic comparisons are made by those who have never even turned a wrench on a civilian aircraft, let alone served in uniform and assigned to military aviation.
You sneers at the 'f-16.net' people, I am a member there, but any crew chief, specialized techs, or pilot, from any F-16 flying country, is more knowledgeable about military aviation than any of you in this forum. What I posted about just one item about maintenance, that revealed how little you guys know of the subject, is common knowledge at 'f-16.net'.
I may not participate here much, but I read, and from what I see, as far as the details of technical issues goes, you guys got
NOTHING worthy to reference. You got nothing because you worked on nothing. That is no insult but fact.
And you cannot fake experience. It is not so much that you can claim to work on such and such fighter. Of course. you can make that claim. But even though we are comparing MIG and Lockheed, there are commonalities of experience that only those who actually worked on military aircrafts would know. Eventually, you
WILL slip up and reveal your fraud. In every profession, there are things about that profession that cannot be found on the Internet. There are things about infantry that every soldier knows, no matter his nationality and time of service, that cannot be made up. You have to serve to understand.
marcellogo wrote:So, Avok you have still not replied to my own: what exactly made your team to consider MiG-25 a particolarly lousy fighter plane and such a consideration would apply to MiG-31 as well?
To this day, the US version of the technical data of the MIG-25 is still secret. Am sure the Russian government still do not reveals everything about the -25 despite its age, no? The reason we still keep our version of the technical data is because it will reveal
HOW we dissect the jet and came to such and such conclusion. Since then, we have had many other opportunities to examine later versions of the -25 from former Soviet allies and from when we dug Iraqi MIGs out of the sand. But still
HOW we took those jets apart and examine them, we do not want such info public.
http://www.nasic.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/611728/national-air-and-space-intelligence-center-heritage/
Not just the USAF, but other branches have their own versions of 'Foreign Technology' exploitation sections. This is not about merely understanding how a foreign design jet performs, but in analyzing a circuit board tells US much about the technological foundation of that country, not just how that board is a component in a certain system.
When we pulled those Iraqi MIGs out of their desert pits, we no longer have any interests in the MIG-25 regarding its aerodynamics, airframe, or engines. We know enough of it from those main aspects of the jet. But we want to know how far has the
CONSTRUCTION of the avionics component has progressed. That tells US one more thing about Soviet technology at a certain point in time. We want to know the metallurgy of the hydraulic piston that motivate the flight controls surfaces. We want to know the canopy material to see how much have changed. We want to know cockpit ergonomics to see how Soviet/Russian designers views the pilot.
We tell people "Yeah...We took apart the Russian jet."
But we will not tell you how we took it apart and what we found.
Do you understand what I am getting at?
Now...Regarding the MIG-25...
The Airframe specialist will be shocked at the crude welds but his reaction will be tempered by the fact that those crude welds do not affect aerodynamics or structural strength. So we checked that off as a Positive.
The Avionics specialist will be shocked at the vac tubes and incidentally, no one buys the story about immunity to EMP as factor in using tubes. In our perspective, we found no credible justifications to use tubes. So we checked avionics as a Negative.
The Propulsion specialist will be shocked at how powerful is the engine (singular). So we initially called that a Positive, but when we found out that at prolonged full throttle, the engine must be rebuilt, if not outright scrapped, we downgrade Propulsion to Negative. Every US jet, including the SR-71, must be able to run at full throttle with no drastic maintenance requirement like an overhaul. After every flight, the most useful indicator is the oil analysis and every crew chief take oil sample after every flight. The oil sample is analyzed for things like metal particulates or viscosity after heat, and if there are any red flags, only then is the squadron is notified to investigate that particular engine in that particular jet. But for a pilot at Debrief to say that he took the engine to full AB for X minutes, and the engine is immediately removed for overhaul? We call that unacceptable. So for a frontline jet like the MIG-25 to have that kind of maintenance requirement, in our opinion, that is a Negative.
The Pilot will be shocked at the cockpit layout. He reported that for a certain operation, he had to move this way and that way, making distractions easily to come. So we checked that as a Negative.
That is not to say that we do not have our own duds. The F-104 Starfighter was not a well thought out design.
http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/730527/f-104-germanys-widow-maker/
I can say that the F-104 is our own MIG-25. An American PoS. The F-111, my first assignment, came close to that PoS status. So I am being objective here.
The bottom line, from 1976 to this day, is that the list of Negatives for the MIG-25 is longer than the list of Positives. The MIG-25 does have its uses, but those are limited.
For any wing commander, any platform that has higher operational and logistical burdens than the other platforms under his unified command -- he will not like it. He will execute his mission, but that will strain his resources, from men to material to time. This is why the USN is using the F-18 for most missions even though we do have better platforms for each of those missions. The mobile and expeditionary nature of a carrier air wing compelled US towards the F-18.
There are two main ways a jet can be that terrible burden...
1- Specialization
2- Poor design
The SR-71 is Item One. Specialization is an understandable need and therefore a tolerable burden. RAF Mildenhall was an airlift base, but the wing king had to support airlift as well as strategic and tactical reconnaissance, radically different in operations and logistics.
The MIG-25 is Item Two. It was not supposed to be specialized but its poor overall design
FORCED it into specialized roles like interceptor or tactical recon. That is not what you want to have as a wing commander. It limits your flexibility like how Item One does limit.
Every jet was designed to have a
PRIMARY airframe mission statement. Deviations from that primary mission are allowed, but only after serious experimentation that sets boundaries for each deviation. The F-4 is an excellent example of this. So in terms of offering a commander flexibility, the F-4 is superior to the MIG-25 despite the fact that the F-4's design is older.
Lastly, you asked my opinion about the MIG-25. Note that I stayed on topic. I made no characterizations about Russia or her government or her people. What I posted was strictly technical in scope.
That is how technical discussions should be done.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Hole
