Some say SPO-15( you can see it on a recon variant cockpit) but TBH I’ve never seen one on the cockpit of of one. P/PD manuals don’t mention anything regarding RWRs.
Somehow missed it all this time, an EM chart. No specifics on Gross weight. Detailed values tables for various fuel weights, altitudes missiles/ no missiles do exist and I have posted them before.
At sea level RB manual shows it could go up to 6.5G at 31.5 tons ( 6.0G at 34.7tons) but it is beyond it’s kaput point
4G*
Some sources state as high as 9Gs under normal flight conditions, that’s for the upgraded R-40RD.
MiG-25PD/PDS_SPO-10 “Sirena-3M” (product “S-3M”) or SPO-15 “Bereza” (product “L006”) in later series…
That’s not true tho, the RGS-24 that the R-40RD gets, is the same as the R-24R, which can do up to 8 or 9Gs, and the R-40RD has the same seeker.
the heaviest ever in service, actually, I believe to this day. the reason for the size is not because of pure warhead weight (although it certainly did have a large warhead), but because of a combination of available technology during development and expected target parameters and intercept profiles. for example you need large control surfaces to maintain useful controllability in an AAM at the extreme expected speeds and altitudes of what NATO was developing at the time (B-70, etc.). it’s a missile airframe from the 60s designed for an extremely specific and demanding requirement, which happens to also be effective in general, but is not optimized for general use (as the same performance for general use in air combat can be had in a smaller, lighter package even at the time). the exceptional weight and size do serve a purpose beyond the bulky electronics of the time, but that purpose is primarily against targets which were only relevant at a very particular place and time
I feel like this forum is completely illiterate.
Let’s run down the facts.
The MiG-25 has a better thrust weight than the F-14A, it has the wing area of an Su-27, and is 20 tons empty.
It has 22.4t thrust static.
MiG-25 has high dynamic thrust, ie, as the speed increases, it’s thrust increases, to the point it eventually beats an F-15A.
It has higher thrust efficiency in reheat and higher speeds than your favorites.
It has an insane amount of fuel, which is the excuse people use.
The maximum overload before breaking is 11G. Let’s take it as 11/1.5 or less.
To separate a missile that failed to fire from the pylon the manual prescribes 6G.
This shows 4.5G is not a strict limit.
Even if the 5G of a PD was, that’s 7.5G in War Thunder. If we took 6G (which implies 1.833x safety margin) it’s 9G.
Like gee when your average mission involves carrying more than your own empty weight in fuel, I wonder why the manual hates to pull G.
The lift coefficient of the MiG-25, vs AOA, is on par with F-15. It generates a tiny bit less Cl at low AOA, and a tiny bit more Cl at high AOA. The lifting body of the MiG-25 is better than on F-15.
You can stop slandering it now. The radius of a MiG-25 is actually pretty tight, it will eventually beat a slatted F-4 Phantom.
Because, say it with me, it’s FM would be like a heavier F-15.
Besides, if the F-16 wing loading is somehow too terrible, there was a MiG-25 with 2x 14.5 tons static thrust. For 1.45 t/w empty. Which is higher than most F-16Cs, while having far more dynamic thrust.
This isn’t like a J79 which just sucks ass continuously. An R-15 just gains more and more power.
The manual gives performance for 95% RPM iirc
You have READ the actual MiG-25 pilot manual I posted above?
Because none of what you say above actually aligns with the manual for the aircraft. Maybe try reading the source material before you start calling everyone liars. Or illiterate.
I’ve even linked it for you. Happy reading.
Please provide a source for this stuff.
He won’t - because it’s a complete load of codswallop that’s straight from Chat GPT.
Soviet sources say it isn’t a dogfighter. It wasn’t designed to be.
Western sources say it isn’t a dogfighter. It wasn’t designed to be.
Some random guy on the Warthunder Forum says it is totally a dogfighter that is only marginally worse than an F-15.
Because ‘trust me bro’… ‘or trust me comrade’… whatever.
What source is this from lol
Mig-25
F-15
You can see the MiG-25 can hit Cy max 1.15 at 18 AOA, while F-15 HIDEC needs 20 AOA for 1.15
NONE of that actually supports any of what you are claiming above.
I’ll use your own words.
“The lifting body of the MiG-25 is better than on F-15.”
“Because, say it with me, it’s FM would be like a heavier F-15.”
How much anti-freeze do you have to be drinking to compare the MiG-25 to an F-15 in terms of aerodynamics? Actually I don’t want to know…
No look-down, just very powerful. Stories that sometimes circle around suggest that it could cook rabbits on the runway. In 1976 there was a test in which a MiG-25P intercepted a MiG-15 drone at an altitude of 1 km with an R-40R.
Right… so you sweep into the thread and call everyone illiterate. Then you call me (and others) liars. Now I’m a bigot?
My awful crime against your sensibilities? I don’t think the MiG-25 is a dogfighter. I have supplied pilots notes from the OKB (who actually made the thing) to support my view.
What’s next? Going to go the whole hog and refer to me as ‘Godwin’s Law’…?
18 degrees is the maximum alpha angle for the MiG 25 ?
The top line shows the MiG-25 can only do around 20 AOA as an aerodynamic limit in those conditions at the maximum stabilizer deflection angle, so we’re seeing a plane with energy but without hard pull.
Also, how does one post a chart that implies it is not at maximum engine power (since it can’t hit limit speeds) and then proceed to whine about the acceleration?
Destructive force at 5G? So it has a +220% safety margin?
Ah it’s moran of course.
so F104 basically
No. For previously discussed aero (Many F-15 similarities for lift model)
It has the option for either 22.4tf thrust static or 29tf thrust static (improved engines not installed in serial) because this is War Thunder.
This is with I think 95% rpm or so.
Considering it’s F-16 wing loading, and that 29tf thrust would give it higher thrust weight than a F-16C…
The dynamic thrust also matters because it’s thrust slope is very steep, (there are certain operational limits in the chart creating plateaus)
Sourcing the Korean study on F-15 engines, again, it eventually (speed+alt) beats the F-15 in thrust weight.
We can see that flying under around 5 km is not very good for this plane, but just takeoff with 5 tons fuel, burn up to 5km and go.
