The Yak-141 is also a good example. There is literally no reason why the MiG-25BM couldn’t get countermeasures when the MiG-25PD carries them (there is no technical difference that would prevent them from being used on RB/BM) and supposedly the RB variant (experimentally) had them too.
3 Likes
Not sure with BR but this plane can be pretty good to fill gap between Yak-28B and MiG-27. We will get the legendary MiG-25 aircraft and also close the gap - double win.
5 Likes
Frankly quite disappointed that War Thunder players seem to prefer completely fictional aircraft configurations over an accurate portrayal of such an interesting aircraft. I would think we’re better than WoT/WoWP.
Can you at least specify that the configuration presented is speculative at best? As it stands this is a highly misleading and incorrect suggestion…
@Savage_Virus_R6 can you please state here that source which tell about countermeasures for MiG-25RB? I think that Yefim Gordon had stated that for RBF variant.
I was having a nice holiday, and then this Mr fun at parties comes along and starts providing incredibly constructive and useful feedback.
So I downloaded WT onto my tiny laptop and had to play 3 games with my Ha-Go Commander on ultra-low just to come back here and repeat everything that was said in my suggestion.
1 Like
Right, here we go.
First off, there’s absolutely zero structural difference between any of the serial MiG‑25 wings, so if they’d wanted to fit flares to the BM, they easily could have. Debunked: The RB and P wing structures are indeed different.
Second, the MiG‑25RBF does in fact carry flares according to the source I cited, I’m not making it up. If you’ve got questions, take them up with that author, not me.
Third, multiple sources confirm the MiG‑23BM was armed with R‑60s.
Please, read the suggestion in full, check the sources, and then start your feedback.
P.S Now, if you’re after “realism,” go play DCS. There’s nothing ridiculous about my suggestion. In fact, the third paragraph of the introduction clearly explains that I chose the BM variant because I don’t want to see a MiG‑25RB lumber around with only dumb bombs.
1 Like
Another forum post is not an acceptable source. Suggestions need to be supported by primary sources such as manuals or authored secondary sources. Not what some guy said online, here.
This doesn’t change the fact that countermeasures were never mounted on the BM and the claim of R-60s is still unsubstantiated. Of your sources only one mentions R-60s- as a claim by Western sources that contradicts Soviet sources.
Sure, they could in theory have added countermeasures or R-60s. But they didn’t. They also could in theory add a radar and R-40s. Or added carriage to R-73s. But War Thunder isn’t a game of coulds and you don’t get to just make up how you wish the aircraft was like.
Also I would like to note that there were infact structural differences between the wings of the interceptor and bomber models:
Not to mention that there needs to be wiring and then instrumentation in the cockpit. Mounting a countermeasures dispenser isn’t as simple as bolting it on the outside of the aircraft.
This suggestion should probably be taken down by suggestion moderators for a lack of sources.
The suggestion only requires two sources to confirm that the aircraft existed. Moreover, several past suggestions have been approved based solely on photographic evidence. I recommend reviewing the community guidelines for clarification on this point.
Here are three sources mentioning that it carried R-60 missiles, supported by the fact that it used at least the outer MiG-25P/PD pylons, which are clearly visible in the images.
https://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25bm.html?utm_source
I’ll give you this: the MiG-25BM did not indeed share its wing structure with the PD-series interceptors. Instead, the RB and P-series variants each retained wing designs specific to their respective families.
Based on currently available evidence, the BM did not carry chaff or flare dispensers. However, it’s worth noting that the BVP-50-60 flare pods, when fitted, replaced the aerodynamic boundary layer fences on the upper surfaces of the wings, a feature present on both wing types.
Besides, the following source claims that all Iraqi MiG-25s had chaff/flare dispensers. The Iraqis did operate RB-series jets, including the BM.
The decision to implement flares ultimately rests with Gaijin.
From source 2:
Starting in 1981, at least the MiG-25RB and its modifications could carry R-60 air-to-air missiles on external underwing hardpoints (at least the MiG-25RBF / RBS). In addition to free-fall bombs, it can use air-to-air missiles only with IR homing head - R-40T, modifications - R-40T, R-40TD, R-60, R-60M (suspension - similar to interceptors ) - information from Western sources, not confirmed by more modern domestic data.
That is to say, these claims are the case of misinformed Westerners and not backed up by any domestic sources.
Source one is also particularly reliable and prone to contradict more reliable sources in my experience.
Additionally, the pylons aren’t quite the same. They look similar but aren’t identical. Maybe it’s still theoretically possible to attach APU-60-2s instead of the AKU-58 but there’s still insufficient evidence of this ever being the case despite how much we’d both want that.
If an image can be found of an Iraqi RB with countermeasures that’d be awesome but still only really good enough for the RB to be added with said countermeasures.
They would remove the Kh-58 adapter and install whatever compatible stores they needed, Soviet pylon systems were highly standardized, allowing for flexible loadouts across various platforms. There’s even documented evidence of Libyan MiG-25 trainers carrying FAB-500 bombs on their wing pylons, which clearly demonstrates how adaptable these mounts were in practice.
Besides, the R-60s would be mounted on the outer pylons anyway, its the inner pylon that is different.
As for the community guidelines, they do not define strict tiers of source credibility. What matters is the quantity and consistency of supporting evidence, and in this case, there’s more than enough to justify including these loadout options for consideration.
And as I said before, if you’re only interested in a by-the-book, so-called “realistic” MiG-25 bomber experience, then go ahead and suggest the MiG-25RB. No one’s stopping you.
Thanks, by the way. Now I know they might’ve even been able to carry R-40Ts, I’ll go ahead and add those to the loadout.
It’s already in the works. Hence why I was quick to realize that such claims were unsubstantiated.
Community guidelines doesn’t state anything in terms of sources required for suggestions but for bug reports they’re very particular in the type and quality of sources required to corroborate the presence of a weapon or system on an aircraft.
Edits have been made to the MiG-25BM suggestion based on the newly acquired information.
I have added the R-40T/TD missiles to the loadout, but outlined that the Flare/Chaff dispensers are unconfirmed in the text and marked with (plausible) in the specifications.
Gaijin will decide what to do in the end. My job is to suggest.
I hope the RB suggestion will be done to the highest standard and I am looking forward to reading it.
Actually there is no sense to suggest MiG-25RB. MiG-25BM can carry everything what RB can + some additional abilities as it was directly developed from RB.
This is predecessor of MiG-25BM: МиГ-25РБ бортовой №401
You can notice 2 Kh-58U on wings pylons.
МиГ-25БМ (изделие “02М”/“66”) FOXBAT-F - противорадиолокационная ударная модификация (1977 г., в серии - 1982-1985 г.г.), самолет вооружен ракетами Х-58У (изделие “112У”), создан на базе МиГ-25РБ по решению комиссии СМ СССР от 13.06.1973 г. с использованием задела по проектированию Е-155К (см.выше). Проектирование самолета начато в 1974 г. Отработка элементов комплекса оборудования и вооружения проходила на самолетах МиГ-25РБ борт №303 и борт №401 в 1974-1976 г.г. первый полет прототипа МиГ-25БМ (серийный №2047, борт №47) выполнен 27 января 1977 г. летчиком Щелкуновым. Государственные испытания - 1977-1980 г.г. В 1981 г. принят на вооружение, серийное производство - 1982-1985 г.г. Всего выпущено 40 экз. Оснащен прицельно-навигационным комплексом “Ягуар” (станция наведения и целеуказания “Сыч-М”, станции РТР “Береза-Л” и средств РЭБ “Сирень-1Д-ОЖ” и “Лютик”), АФА демонтированы; саолет несет до 4 шт протирадиолокационных ракет Х-58 / Х-58У или стандартное для МиГ-25РБ бомбовое вооружение. визуально отличается от самолетов МиГ-25РБ удлиненным на 72 см радиопрозрачным носовым обтекателем и типом балочных держателей.
1 Like
Can you find out the version?
Last picture looks like PD according to pylons.
It’s a PD, just look at the inner pylon; the BM has a noticeably different shape, as shown in the images provided by WalletWarrior above. The nose features are another way to tell them apart. If you manage to find an image of an Iraqi BM, that might be all the evidence we need. But regardless, all variants shared the same wing fences.
On first or second picture I dont see that pylons same as on third one. Maybe they was removed?
The photos of those Iraqi jets (likely MiG-25PDs) is not sufficient to confirm that the BM variant was equipped with countermeasures. Unfortunately, we need stronger evidence if it even exists.
3 Likes
Yeah they are not sufficient. We cant recognize for sure what version they are.