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.
The real question is: does it actually need flares at its battle rating?
As part of my argument, I suggested that Gaijin could take some creative liberty by giving it flares, since, if equipped, they were mounted in place of the aerodynamic boundary layer fences, a feature present on all MiG-25s. However, if Gaijin chooses to strictly follow historical evidence, then the aircraft shouldn’t receive flares in-game. (Unless evidence is discovered).
It should be noted that, based on available evidence, no MiG-25 variant other than the PD has been confirmed to carry flares. (Hopefully this will turn out to be false one day).
Is the MiG-25BM in need of flares in War Thunder?
- Yes, it needs flares/chaff for Ground Battles.
- Yes, it needs flares/chaff for Air Battles.
- Yes, It needs flares/chaff for All Types.
- No, it will be fine without them.
Well thats depend on many factors. What BR it will really have and how it will work on that BR. Flares or R-60 are possible for balance reasons if it will be needed.
In my opinion, if the RB-series bombers are allowed to start in the air during Air Battles, they could bomb their targets and, by the time they turn around, outrun most of the missiles chasing them, which is largely how they avoided threats in real-life anyway. + ECM which is not modelled yet.
The 10 bomb loadout allows you to destroy 2 bases and maybe damage a third. But, at the same time, giving it the pole position might not be fair to other bombers.
That said, this would only work if they’re placed in BRs without the 30G radar-guided missiles and ridiculous engagement distances.
I believe their battle rating shouldn’t exceed that of the Su-17M2, which also lacks flares but has superior armament and manoeuvrability.
To support my argument for countermeasures, I found a schematic of a MiG-25PD that clearly shows both the original wing fence and the version with integrated flare/chaff dispensers. The dimensions appear to be identical, suggesting that, structurally, it wouldn’t have been difficult to fit countermeasures on any MiG-25 wing type if desired.
However, as WalletWarrior rightly pointed out, adding flares isn’t just about physical compatibility, it also requires dedicated wiring and cockpit controls, which would have to be integrated into the aircraft’s systems for them to function properly.
Your concern is understandable but that was a thorough research I had done with the sources listed at the bottom of the post.
3 Likes
