3 different issues on 3 different aircraft… not quite the same thing.
I thought so too.
Although there is a prototype of a black bird that did carry one missile
Mig 25RB? R 60, but anyway
Well there you go, scout surveillance planes with the ability to defend themselves from incoming bandits. That could definitely be added to the game and it wont create any imbalance.
No it didn’t carry any missiles and I’m pretty sure the mig 25 RB was a bomber
Best soviet made fighter K/D against US-made ones)
8-8… well
YF-12 and MIG-25PD/PDS
1 Like
That will be an interesting combo to see in war thunder.
The MiG-25 is an F-14 tier aircraft and was purchased to kill F-14 during Iran Iraq war. Only the Iranian F-14’s did almost nothing and scored max 4-5 confirmed kills throughout the entire war.
For 5 losses, Iranians claim 12 losses (engine failure in combat every time) and lost 19 total airframes.
1 was confirmed lost to MiG-21.
I mean, they made the F-104 work in game and it’s equally unsuited to the dogfight meta
This guy is on something. Through tests, it’s limit was show to be 5.7Gs at empty.
Spoiler
“BASED ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC STRENGTH TESTS…THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DESTRUCTIVE LIFTING FORCE IS DETERMINED”
Multiply the values above by 1.5 to get destructive overload.
5G fully armed with ~8000 kg fuel. It has 2.2G with 15 tons fuel and the 5 ton drop tank for around 42 tons takeoff weight.
The normal limit of overload is 6.5-7.5G, like an F-14.
Spoiler
These are from iraqi mig 25s, above were for soviet recon 25s. Gmax is 4.5G. Lower than 7.5Gs on the F-14.
Spoiler
In WT you would take minimum fuel, in which case the F-4E (leading edge slats version) loses in STR
These are the max sustained Gs of the 25PD.
And F4E with sparrows at roughly 75% fuel
Spoiler
With the F4 at ~3/4th fuel. On the Mig 25 we take the value between 11500 and 8500 fuel.
At 600 kph( M0.5) at deck, the mig 25 will sustain ~3.2Gs. An F4 will do ~4.2Gs. (Mind aswell that it is superior to a MIG25 at ~20% fuel. Above M0.5 its marked as X, the Mig 25 will be doing going over G. Which the value is 3.8G, lower than the one given above and inline with the one on the recon version. So is the 4.5Gs with a safety parameter???
At 8000m(26k ft), the Mig 25 has a maximum G at 1100kph( M1.34 ) of ~2.5Gs. The F4 AT 35kft(10.6km) is doing 2.4Gs sustained, at 20kft(6km) it is doing 4.2Gs. More than the Mig 25.
At 11,000m(~36kft), the F4 pulls an average of 2.2G from Mach 0.8(~500kph) to Mach 1.8 (~1200kph). The Mig 25 is pulling under 2Gs below Mach 1.46( 1000kph) and starts pulling above 2.2Gs at Mach 1.57 (1100kph) AT ~60% FUEL.
SO Yeah, you aint winning rate fights in it.
And the higher you go, forget about turning. At 18km max G will peak at 1.8Gs at Mach 2. and 20km it will be at Mach 2 aswell at 1.4Gs. And you’ll only be able to do it at ~20% fuel.
On the Mig 25 chart, you’ll see the X above M 0.5. IF wings didn’t collapse, it would rise linearly and be able to sustain up to 6-6.5Gs, peaking at Mach 0.9. But unfortunately wings fail under that Gload.
It’s not a waste of time. It would be alright. Problem is where to put it. Too low, and nobody will engage it. To high and it will encounter Fox 3s. BR 12.0 should be good IF its the PD variant with the MTI radar. If its the P variant with pulse, it’ll be boring as you can’t see below and nobody climbs. Also the P doesn’t have RWR, only PDs did
Not really. Clean perhaps. But with 4 R40s, Velocity peaks at Mach 2.75 as it can’t accelerate anymore. And from Mach 2.2 it will take you the length of the map to reach Mach 2.75. And 70% of your fuel. So not really IDEAL to go beyond Mach 2.2
Spoiler
Top speed, only performs better at really high altitudes. Against a slatted F4E( slowest phantom of all), the F4E reaches max speed at 35kft( 10km) at Mach 2.05. Mig 25 at this altitude has a maximum speed of Mach 1.7. With the F4 being CONSIDERABLY faster below 12km(40kft). Even more with F16s and F15s.
F4E(again slatted) acceleration is better than Mig 25s.
Spoiler
2 minutes to go from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.4 at 8km(26kft) at roughly 55% fuel with 4 R40s.
Spoiler
Meanwhile an F4E at 30kft( 9.2km, higher) at 55% fuel will go from Mach 0.73 to Mach ~1.53 in the same amount of time. It would take roughly 30 seconds less to reach Mach 1.4. Non slatted F4s will accelerate faster. F15 and F16s considerably faster.
SO you can’t out accelerate phantoms, nor run away as they’ll catch you due to a slower top speed. Nor you can turn fight them.
A MIG 25 will need to stay high and fast.
Doesn’t mean much when its a big fat heavy missile to take out bombers and big wings to maneuver at high altitudes where other missiles can’t. Remember that acceleration=Force/mass. IF they produce the same force, acceleration will be cut in half as the R40 is ~2x heavier.
Compare the max vertical separation altitudes for the missiles(R40 vs AIM7F).
Spoiler
)
At 19km(horizontal range) the R-40D can do a step up of 11km. The aim 7F at 19km(~10NM) will be ~9.6-10.6km. Pretty close!
But R40s are employed at a bit farther range. Manual states 38km nominal if I remember correctly( or is the lock on as seeker isn’t as sensitive thus requires shorter range). Dawoud claims he fired at 29km when he shot down the F-18 during desert storm.
Off by a factor of like 10
Visualization of STR
Speed performance fully armed
Speed performance clean. Limit m3.5. Record achieved Mach 3.6. But you are so greedy you claim… The limit with bombs (overheating)
Maybe you can start here. But your mouth is so greedy, I fear you will continue being a burden.
Acceleration is related to weight. For obvious reasons, you must compare for an equivalent endurance. For context; F-4 has slight advantage in endurance, for continuous afterburner, over MiG-21bis.
R-40 has no inferiority to R-24, and R-24 is already slightly superior to AIM-7F. So of course you conclude that the twice as large missile is equivalent. It of course, never occurs to the ‘individual’ that charts use different standards.
You believe in Tim Cooper. As excepted of this individual!
Actually we have primary sources which expose the delusions of this schemer. According to Iraqi sources (and actually basic math) the Iraqi air force lost a total of 162 aircraft to all causes (excepting theft, sabotage, lost after landing), and of those 18 to air combat. The F-14’s made such a show, the Iraqi’s decided to use obsolete tactical bombers unescorted, on strategic bombing missions.
This is because he has written pure fiction. To explain this, he argued the Soviets secretly delivered replacements, since basic arithmetic disproved all his numbers.
The confirmed kills in the war amounted to 4.
Of course, a self respecting expert is aware of this. But… Well what can we expect from you?
I will reiterate this fact. The Iraqi’s procured MiG-25PD for the explicit purpose (although unused in this) for hunting F-14.
Unfortunately this fact (as well as aircraft losses) contradict your fantasies.
ok yea now take an F-104, remove it’s guns and CMs and put it at 10.7
you get 4 missiles, good luck
You are comparing STRs of an armed phantom at 70% fuel to the turn rate of a mig 25, while at 25% fuel. Different things and performances.
A bit dishonest
Not fully armed. These diagrams comes from a reconnaissance variant.
A bit more dishonest…
Everything I’ve said comes from manuals, not from stories. Not from a single youtube video without any claims…
Show these primary iraqi sources for losses then.
It’s no secret. Iraqis gave oil, fiat money or other concessions. Soviets sold stuff( including planes). Iraqis gave oil, fiat money or other concessions. French sold mirage F1s. You know, BUYING and SELLING. TRADE. Too hard to understand that you can’t keep going a 10 year long attrition war without replacing losses? The amount of aircraft in iraqi inventory before and after grew dramatically.
2 Likes
The pds does have countermeasures, up 6 missiles and if you ask me a pd radar with all aspect missiles sounds quite good at 10.7
The previously posted chart says PD, the interceptor. But somehow it is an RB because it is convenient.
Again M2.83 from MiG-25P. Interesting how it says 4 missiles in both manuals.
So I posted the picture, both from manual, and you lied immediately. It says 4 missiles flat.
The limit speed decreases with bombs due to overheating of the bombs.
Oh would you look at that!
It’s a PD.
Iraqi air strength in 1991. Subtract from total delivered by type.
From:
887 Harmony document folder ISGP-2003-00030181 – Study on the Role of the Iraqi Air Force
and Air Defense Command in Confronting the American Attack (classified Iraqi top secret
and personal), 1991. Appendix 6 to Annex P. (FOUO)
Unfortunately this document folder is not available to the public.
Russian Summary
Secret meaning, more than officially listed sent. In actual fact this air force, composed mainly of MiG-23 and Hunters until 1982, 1983, (where newer models are delivered in numbers greater than 7) dominated the Iranian air force, and had a much higher sortie rate. Most missions went unchallenged, and vast majority of losses were SAM as they flew unescorted strategic bombing missions.
I will repeat this for you, only 4 kills can be confirmed for F-14. Tim Cooper overclaimed by 3875%, or 1375%, less if you only count his “confirmed kills”
As for turn performance, the charts have “3.8” limit because the fuel specified is over the 5.5 tons limit in the Gload for fully armed. So where is 25%?
Conversations with former pilots already provide for 6.5G on low fuel. So that you assert it will break apart over 5.7, is in slight disagreement with pulling 12G without serious damage. She has a 200% safety factor perhaps?
As for acceleration, it is her 33 degree sweep wings. She has good acceleration (for the t/w) until the drag increases near m0.95, because she doesn’t have wings of an interceptor. But a fighter. Not surprisingly, she is called a fighter interceptor, like Su-15.
Not replying to “Ma Moran”
R-40, and Su-15 is related to this, the P-98T missile and the R-40T are both all aspect heat seekers so all of their missiles are all aspect.
The Su-15’s missiles might not pull good G but they’re quite powerful for the time, between R-23 and R-24 in thrust performance.
The absolute state lmao. It’s almost like russians and other slavs use the cyrillic alphabet and not latin
Had it been a P/PD it would’ve used this.
The cyrillic P ( latin R) stands for 
Thats the safe max speed with R-40s and clean. Turns out that on level accelerating flight you can reach up to around Mach 2.75 due to drag with them. The limit is still Mach 2.83 but it can’t reach it on level flight acceleration. If it gets to Mach 2.75 at 20km and dives he might get to Mach 2.83 with the added gravitational component. Which will then deaccelerate to M2.75 due to aerodynamic forces being superior to thrust. If we remove a R40. It’ll reach higher than 2.75 and it has 3/4th of the added drag. If we remove another missile, then it’ll go faster as it has less drag. And so on till we get an aircraft than only has the drag of the pylons. And if we remove them it can go beyond M2.83.
It’s Logical.
Because you used the STR values of 2500 kg of fuel. See the 2500 figure.
That’s the weight of the fuel. It can carry 14,520 kg.
And if you can do the math, we are talking of ~17.2% fuel. Even less…Against a phantom’s STR at ~75% fuel
The famous wikipedia…
Hilarious. The same document states that the Gload values derived comes from static and dynamic tests.
I told you already it can, if the wing doesn’t sharts itselfs before. Could it do it for a fraction of a second? Probably. Sustain it for a fight? No. Wing damage would ensue as tests showed.
It literally got built as an interceptor. The purest of forms. To shoot down the high and fast flying, B-58s, mirage 4s, A-5s and “B-70s”( and slower B47s, B52s, U2s) entering threatening the USSR.
41° wing sweep, not 33°. Acceleration is just not than great compared to a phantom.
As for losses. Pretty much you are doing revisionism. There are names, dates and places done with proper research, not just from Tim cooper, which you seem to have something against and demonize, but many other 3rd party. To the point of “dominated” iranians ha.
Besides noticing you are getting emotionally attached, I can see the lack of objectiveness, ignoring manuals infavour of stories and always trying( and failing) to find the “HA GOTCHA” argument
through any dishonest means( like the cyrillic/latin P/R).
At this point you are doing it in bad faith with some predisposition already set in, honestly I don’t see the point in continuing with someone doing it in bad faith.
2 Likes
I won’t be so theatrical, I thought you were too dishonest warrant anything but a mocking reply.
This is from MiG-25P manual, clearly stating data with 4 missiles.
I think it is correct to compare the MiG-25’s 50% to 100%, and 25% to 50% of most fighters. As it has almost twice the internal of F-15. The nominal thrust static is equivalent to 200 kN on afterburner. This is close to F-18 Super Hornet with 6667 kg internal. Thus, by the continuous afterburner thrust metric, this is standard. You can make the same comparison with F-15, F-16.
No matter how you “square it”, the chart shows that, for an equivalent radius (on afterburner) the MiG-25 is near the average, or more maneuverable (but not the best) Phantoms, while armed with very large missiles.
Is the phantom acceleration chart clean or with recessed missiles?
I provided multiple sources. You bemoan the use of wikipedia, but actually this is an extremely old topic so some sources are dead, and I used it to back up the earlier point.
ADA500619 - is the source of the inventory table. The information on the leftmost refers to aircraft available by 1991.
[http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=71]
(MiG-25 vs F-4 in Iran-Iraq war | Key Aero)
I would have used this because apparently it had the documents, but they are lost to time now.
You say revisionism. But what if the history fits none of the facts?
The Russian wikipedia page also gives an interesting detail; F-14 as late as 1987 is using AIM-7E2. Basically, it is no better armed than a Vietnam Phantom in Iranian service.
11.5
On what basis do you argue the MiG-25PD is much slower than the RB?
The RB practical aerodynamics publishes virtually identical data, and the shape of the curve is based on IAS, demonstrating m2.83 is valid armed limit.
If MiG-25PD was added to War Thunder, it would be a good match for the F-14 insofar as said F-14 had a more typical (historical) loadout of AIM-7E/F. But the ingame F-14 is in the optimal configuration, with AIM-54. Thus, it’s correct to consider MiG-31.
It would not be an issue to confront F-4E, this is an appropriate fight.
Indicating a BR of 11.3-11.7 is the appropriate range for the MiG-25PD, preferring higher (look down shoot down R-40)
For circumstantial evidence, look up Saddam’s General’s, the book, and look for F-14 entries in it. You will notice actually, F-4 phantom is more of a concern, although it is elusive.
MiG-25 Can’t become a thing unless Gaijin adds maps 4 times larger