Always another system to punish people… I grow more and more tired of games limiting the experience to one format. They’ve already eliminated so many positions from ground to push for a single game play style.
5 Likes
You think people should be allowed to sit at Mach 2.5 in space the whole match while waiting to win on tickets?
2 Likes
At low altitudes it was still expected to clear Mach 2. Being altitudes 10,000 - 60,000 ft.
Since the data is limited we don’t know how much. The speculation is that it could still reach the same speeds; however, the plane wouldn’t last long do to the increase in heat (probably pretty obvious to anyone on these forums?).
The plane we do know can obviously perform that well at low speed because it took only around four minutes to reach altitude. That’s pretty insane as there’s very few aircraft in all of history that can do around 17,000 ft climb rates sustained. It also indicates that even at low altitudes there is a significant speed performance.
If the only solution is going to be come down and lose, why not? I don’t play that way. I’ll play aggressively to a fault even in these scenarios, and I have come against people who utilize it. That being said, I don’t blame the people that do it. Even when I’m in my 104 and I could run away.
I have a feeling gaijin would make the wings snap like twigs at high speeds near low altitudes.
Very true, the engines also wouldn’t last too long realistically. But gaijin would leave them be and maybe have engine overheating at excessive afterburner use for extended periods of time.
I think the wings could operate would similar to the F-104s turns without snapping. It’s also hard to imagine a Russian plane getting some type of boon like that in this game.
Yeah that was a huge downside to this plane. Even at optimal use the engines just couldn’t withstand for long. I feel like I remember reading around 15 flights before things started to break down significantly.
I would imagine Soviet aeronautical engineers may well know well enough about how to design a plane that they might solve such an issue via strategic placement of materials able to resist heat where it is needed to fly at x speed and altitude… Which they did AFAIK.
I’m sure someone has a flight manual for it. Basically nobody uses it anymore so I wouldn’t be surprised if nobody cared about keeping it a secret.
They were unable to solve the issues for this. There simply was no way to. The MiG-25 was a cool plane but very crude. It had a lot of issues with heat and failure. Parts were constantly failing - including the engine itself…
Edit: my auto correct keeps changing plane to planes 🤣
2 Likes
This is totally cheating and using the Google AI, but here’s a quick summary of the issues (I can corroborate hearing/reading about all of them previously):
Maneuverability
The MiG-25 lacked maneuverability, especially at low altitudes.
Weight
The MiG-25 was very heavy because the USSR lacked the materials technology to produce airframes with the required tolerances.
Engines
The MiG-25’s Tumansky R-15B-300 engines were unreliable and thirsty, and so large just because they had to lift a massive aircraft off the ground. The engines tended to overspeed and overheat at higher air speeds, possibly damaging them beyond repair.
Radar
The MiG-25 lacked a look-down shoot-down radar capable of tracking targets flying low to the ground.
Speed
The MiG-25 had sufficient thrust to reach Mach 3.2, but a limit of Mach 2.83 had to be imposed as the engines tended to overspeed and overheat at higher air speeds.
1 Like
Is that why a specific version was made with even bigger and more powerful engines? Moving at 833 meters per second?
Е-266М изделие «99»
Strange thing to do if you’re simply unable to solve a problem…
Computerised NATO confirmation bias. Wonderful. Truly the unbiased tech-utopia of the future…
2 Likes
Not a strange thing at all. Especially when that plane was made to break records. The US did the same things, the F-15 was built as a response. That being said, the speed factors cannot be overcome with the way this aircraft was designed.
The US used titanium for a reason. The heat alone is insane on an aircraft. The fact that the Foxbat was made from primarily steel and nickel (roughly 80%) meant it was not a great candidate for prolonged heat like these aircraft were.
The engines themselves only lasted for around 150 flight hours before failing. They gave the aircraft less than 200 miles of range.
The only other aircraft that accomplished similar altitude feats was also extremely expensive and didn’t necessarily overcome all the same issues (SR-71). The amount of titanium used was one of its biggest saving graces. It was also significantly lighter for it and required less effort to overcome gravity giving it the ranges it had. Otherwise it leaked and also was prone to failures. The heavy steel frames in the Foxbat incurred a lot of damage.
You also need to consider the era in terms of engineering. The whole world went to extremes during the cold war. We built expensive monoliths to war that were not feasible in the long run.
1 Like
Bro…
The literal LOWEST of those combat radius is 560km or 330 miles…
I can’t take you seriously because you keep citing obvious falsehoods that seem based in anti-Soviet mythology as opposed to the clear fact.
Like when you say something like this.
And then apparently don’t seem yo ask yourself the obvious question.
Why do you think the rest of the 20% is not made from those? It’s because there was careful use of metal in the specific areas that heat builds up. Which is normal beahviour. Soviets made a really powerful plane without using loads of rare metals, because they approach problems differently.
You notice the symptoms of the solution to the problem but don’t join the dots.
Maybe Soviet engineers could have built an even better plane if they had access to the same manufacturing capabilities, techniques and materials. But they worked with what they had and ended up making almost a thousand planes which were even capable of winning fights against the very US plane designed to counter them.
It is when you said.
Those are contradictions.
3 Likes
I’m not going to go on with you after this. You want to call me anti Soviet and all that. I have immense respect for the engineering of this aircraft but it had issues that cannot be denied. It’s just a fact of building aircraft that performed as they did. We don’t even have efficient ways to overcome them today, which is also why we have changed how we build aircraft that perform at altitude and at speed (ram jets, rotary jets, etc…).
Every source I can find that’s not Russian has the aircraft effective combat radius at or less than 180m or 299km.
It’s not a contradiction in the slightest. We didn’t always overcome issues and yet we continued to build platforms that were not sustainable or safe. The other aircraft mentioned in this thread is an excellent example the F-104 was fast but extremely unsafe. A lot of them were built as well. The F-117 was supposed to be stealth but wasn’t a great platform for a lot of reasons… Still we built them. Because we wanted stealth.
Your nationalism is showing beyond your rationality.
1 Like
Wise.
It’s my description of the positions you’re arriving at.
Of course, but just not specifically the ones you’re talking about.
Clearly non-Soviet sources know far better about a Soviet plane than Soviet sources.
This is a plane which closely matches how flawed you describe the MiG-25.
Isn’t that the icing on the cake? A near perfect example? Also like the first block of AIM-9X getting defeated by a single flare because the designers were arrogant. I would call it arrogance to not test your equipment properly and have it fail as a result.
My argument is that Soviets built a functional plane with flaws, they talk about it.
Your argument is literally that you choose non-Russian sources as if they can’t be true…
You can read solid and detailed information once you accept that the manufacturers and pilots have valid input on the equipment they designed and used.
Doesn’t mean that Russian sources or whatever only tell the truth, they are still likely to perhaps downplay or otherwise avoid the flaws of their kit.
But if you want a textbook example of borderline gaslighting? If you want to see a masterclass in distortions and lies? Ask virtually anyone remotely related to NATO armies what the equipment of their enemies is like.
2 Likes
I think there is a case for both the Mig25 and the mig31
4 Likes
You do realize that it would basically be a F104 but higher br, right? At 9.3 name one plane that can keep up with the F104, just one. Don’t try to bring turning into the equation either because it’ll be horrible at retaining energy which puts it at the exact same disadvantage that the F104 has
1 Like
It’s a far more capable plane than the F-104. The F-104 has one advantage. The MiG-25 was a capable plane as far as technology and speed…
Think of the MiG-21 keeping the technology it has at its BR. Now also imagine it getting the speed and performance of the F-104. It’s already a very capable plane but it’s now extremely capable. The MiG-25 will be overly competitive in any BR currently.
It wouldn’t at 12.7 would be completely trashed. As an 11.3 or lower it would be fine depending on the weapons they give it or the mig 25 variant
MiG-25 is too much of a hyperspecialized interceptor to be particularly useful in War Thunder. The aircraft itself is designed for pure speed (a whopping Mach 3.08) at the expense of all maneuverability. Armament-wise, the Foxbat only has R-60Ms and R-40s, hulking missiles with decent range but completely unable to hit a target pulling over 4gs. In addition, while it’s marketed as having a Pulse-Doppler radar in reality the Sapfir-25 is just a modified Sapfir-23 from the MiG-23ML and the “pulse doppler” is only MTI. Not great for a high-altitude interceptor.
Its son the MiG-31, on the other hand, is a much more balanced aircraft. With an extremely fast firing (8,000RPM!) GSh-6-23 and options of R-60Ms, R-40s, R-73s, and R-33s (SARH AIM-54C equivalent, combined with multi-targetting PESA radar basically ARH) the A2A armament of the MiG-31 is extremely similar to the F-14B. While the MiG-25 ancestry is clear on the MiG-31, its flight performance is more well-rounded. Top speed is reduced to Mach 2.83 while its composite construction gives it half-decent maneuverability.
Basically, the MiG-25 is an unbalanceable one-trick pony while the MiG-31 is an F-14B that gives up CAS capability and some maneuverability for MOAR SPEED!!!
MiG-31 would be awesome to see alongside the F-14D in a future update at around 12.3.
2 Likes
At a br like 12.0 it would be fine in my opinion. The F14 is a great plane to keep it in check at that br and just like any other supersonic interceptor the windows where you get to really flex its speed will be small. Top that off with all of the 12.0 and above planes being more than capable enough to deal with it (except maybe the Yak 141). I mean the F15 alone will have better acceleration and climb than the Mig 25 until altitudes so high that they’re irrelevant in War Thunder. Even in a full downtier there are plenty of F4s, J8s and more to swat it down with sarh missiles. I do agree with the other guy here that it is a one trick pony and the Mig 31 would be fun as well. But just like the F104 people will use it just because of that one trick and just because it’s a Mig 25 (me included which is saying something since I’m a toxic fighter main that can’t stand not having a gun on my plane). I don’t think every new addition has to be meta changing, sometimes it’s just about being able to fly the plane itself
2 Likes