+1
I definitely want see bomber variant of MiG-25 in game (although I would prefer BM).
There are some uncormfirmed sources for R-60 and KDS-155 was allegedly on RBF. Since Gaijin only needs technical ability to mount it, BM could get them.
1 Like
Like you’d need RBF to have it, Gaijin would give every MiG-25 KDS-155 because PDSG/L and export PD/PDS’s w/ it exist…
Though I kinda doubt it’d get R-60s, but at this point I wouldn’t be surprised…
You dont need RBF. The ability to carry them is enough for a Gaijin (see MiG-23 or F-5). But even RBF would be a better option than RB. It still use SPO-15.
1 Like
Pretty sure MiG-25BM had SPO-15L as a part of the Jaguar system.
1 Like
Yep you are right.
Literally an image of a cockpit showing a weapons selection indicator…
Here: Cockpit MiG-25BM
With all due respect, the MiG-25RB is redundant compared to the BM (War Thunder context). Because BM can literally do the same job, and also carry SEAD and R-60s. Not to mention that it packs a better power plant and an SPO-15.
1 Like
“Much like any aircraft at the time with the option of R-60Ms for self defence, the MiG-25BM used dual APU-60-2 pylons, so it utilized four of those missiles if arranged”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Star-34-Mikoyan-Guardian/dp/1857802594
Where do you see APU-60-2 mentioned beneath the MiG-25BM section, it doesn’t exist in my copy of the book.
1 Like
Also since you seem to be using Yefim’s book as a source, Where does it say MiG-25BM had it’s power plant changed?
I believe he has an older edition of the book, the most modern has no mention
Also:
“Starting from 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 - 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.”
(МиГ-25Р / РБ / БМ FOXBAT-B, -D, -F | MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.))
Well then it’s rather curious how they post a link to the exact copy I have… I’ll download an older one in a bit and I’ll check.
Although I’m kinda skeptical if RB can use AAMs, but I probably will stand corrected since I can’t check atm.
I’ve never said the BM cannot carry bombs
However, it cannot carry countermeasures nor R-60s. Find a photo with either and you’re golden
I also disagree with “the RB shouldn’t be added because the BM does its job”
First off, the two are very different aircraft, and there doesn’t need to be only one of them. The F-4E can do the F-4C’s job, should the F-4C be removed?
And if it comes down to one or the other, I believe it should be the RB that is added. It was more numerically and historically significant, with more definite specifications (there’s even a publicly available original Russian flight manual), it wouldn’t be shunted up in BR (nor delayed) because of ARMs, and its suggestion is not marred with controversy of someone who said
3 Likes
I can send you a link to the exact copy of the same book I’ve used:
(God bless the Internet Archive)
There is no mention of R-60s for the BM
That’s the one I have downloaded.
And yeah, unless it’s mentioned somewhere elsewhere in the book, maybe in the “In depth” or whatever they call it section after the model/development overview.
Look, I’m all for adding every MiG-25 variant possible. But unfortunately, we’ve got a problem here. For reasons nobody seems to fully understand, there are whispers going around that the MiG-25 might only be added as an event vehicle because of balancing concerns. If that turns out to be true, then the competition between variants becomes very tight. The PD might be the first pick, but among the RB bombers, it makes more sense to add the one with the broader capabilities. I’m not attacking you or your suggestion; I’m simply saying that the BM is the better choice between the two, since it offers more capabilities and has better engines.
2 Likes
Don’t shoot the messenger. This is 4 mentions that the BM could use R-60s.
https://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25bm.html?utm_source
Or ask @Blitzkrieg877
Gordon doesn’t mention absolutely everything in his books. He’s a fantastic source of information on the Soviet air side of history but his works aren’t like strict religious textbooks to go by, sometimes he can be hit or miss. You’ve also got to have a better research framework and an understanding of variables such as Soviet design philosophy and air doctrine to help yourself out in these cases rather than relying only on him. Here’s one example:
When the MiG-21bis was first released to the game about 4-5 years ago, it lacked countermeasures. Gordon’s “Mikoyan MiG-21: Famous Russian Aircraft” has zero mentions on the ASO-2 chaff/flare dispensers, but when I dug deeper by researching VVS regiments in Afghanistan, I found this specific “12 Blue” MiG-21bis of the 115th GvIAP during the late 80s and visually identified the pods:
Spoiler
Turns out the rigid air doctrine of GCI (ground control) dictating every move of Soviet air squadrons was showing its worst side effects in Afghanistan, where there were SAM sites and pilots needed to more freedom and ability to react, so in the 80s they began retrofitting their MiG-21s and MiG-23s with CM pods. They weren’t originally designed to accommodate them. I reported it, and that’s how we’ve got the Soviet 21bis with CM pods since then. I forgot the c/n production serial number though.
Anyways, Soviet line of thinking always made sure that aircraft tasked with any from of ground attack needed to be ready for self-defence, so on literally every ground-attack aircraft of that time you will see R-60Ms listed as options for all of them, because NATO defences were sophisticated and they always expected a full-blown war to be a huge, messy and fast-paced battlefield where there wouldn’t be sufficient fighter cover on time. It wasn’t an option to initiate dogfights but a way to warn interceptors and break contact, or actually use them if the situation was to be desperate. Their size and cost of production made them easy to fit.
For the MiG-25BM to conduct its mission in this context, it was theoretically meant to fire from long ranges to be safe, with the furthest it could fire its Kh-58Us was from about 200 km ish, but only from very high altitudes where it would have been easy to detect and then intercepted in real life combat. You couldn’t use the argument of speed to escape either, because the Kh-58Us were not designed to withstand thermal energy at Mach 2+ and when it would turn around to go back and land it would have also been low on fuel. It wasn’t safe from fighters or interceptors.
Most sources will quote the R-60M loadout. It was integral to the Soviets because of how they imagined the potential battlefield where they would conduct their CAS and SEAD missions.
It was also electrically compatible with it. The aircraft had all the wirings necessary to use the APU-60-2 adapters. It’s possible to go into more detail into this if you want.
I suspect if Gordon gets around to updating his book by writing a follow-up under the “Famous Russian Aircraft” series for the MiG-25, he’s likely to briefly mention its optional self defence R-60M loadout. He probably only focused on theoretical design philosophy of the plane.
2 Likes
Well until then there’s simply not enough evidence besides “well it might have been possible and I think it’d make sense”. If you can find a primary or couple secondary sources that corroborate these claims than that’s good, but without any reliable evidence I am entirely opposed to the fabrication of countermeasures and AAMs on an aircraft that probably never used them. “Electrically compatible” isn’t a sufficient justification for anything really, almost any aircraft is technically electrically compatible with almost any weapon.
I can and will catch