This is just a technicality you are trying to find with some made up conditions. Range depends on many many conditions, rather than just afterburner or not. Altitude, speed of the cruise, drag index, thrust setting, gross weight. So many variables that you cannot just one because mission profiles will vary depending on the mission and mission type differ between the F4 and Mig25.
You then say its fine to compare 50%-100% on the mig to 25% to 50% on other fighters. But then compare the inverse with a phantom at 75% fuel to a mig 25 at 17% fuel. This makes no sense.
I’m not telling you its slower. Never said so. The “valid armed limit” you are taking it out of context. A recon mig 25 will not go armed. Simple.
And by simple physics you know that if you add drag to a body, it will have a lower top speed.
As shown here. And this is at ≈5tons fuel. ≈1/3 of fuel. The extra drag from the missiles prevent it from hitting reaching the max speed it would be able to do so clean, reaching a limit of mach 2.75.
But it could reach 2.83 if it climbed then dived a bit.
Same thing for the F-18. It can reach a top speed at level flight but will not do it due to the extra dag of the loadout
Yes you can use 5500 kg value, or 8500 kg value, yet it is hardly “unmaneuverable” as other posters imply.
The 2500 kg fuel is not irrational, but neither is 5500 kg, which is Su-27 normal maximum fuel capacity.
~4300 kg of F-4 Phantom is comparable to 5500 kg. 8500 kg would be twice as much fuel as a Phantom.
I will tabulate it myself.
If thrust is equal to drag, and the altitude is constant…
The aircraft would still be accelerating up to 2.83; in an academic sense.
M2.83 is roughly the limit at h=18 km in the RB table, and P table, but not at higher altitudes. If 2.75 was the limit it would be shown in MiG-25P table.
Same for Su-15TM, not dogfighters but good high altitude missile ships. Provided possible ranges.
Su-15TM, 10.7-11.0
MiG-25PD, 11.3-12.0
Thrust and drag at the altitude of 18000 meters, for an aircraft with 4x R-40’s.
If it has reserve thrust equivalent to about 2.7 tons force (~20%), at a speed of mach 2.83, then how is the aerodynamic limit speed 2.75?
And the maximum internal is about double but thrust is ~25% more. So how is it unreasonable to lower the fuel fraction in comparison, since consumption over a fixed time limit is the same?
Only the MiG-25R (produced in 1968-1970) did not have shock weapons…Later, all produced MiG-25R were modified into various versions of reconnaissance bombers…
Since 1970, they have been produced only in variants of reconnaissance bombers.
Bombs are suspended on 2 underwing and 3 ventral suspension units MBD3-U2 (multi-beam) with locks DZU-1 (when suspended in tandem - MBD3-U2T) in the following variants:
4 x FOTAB-100-80 in pairs per wing;
8 x FOTAB-100-80 pairs for each node under the wing (+4 under the fuselage at maximum load);
60 x FOTAB-MG
8 x FAB-500M-62 - a pair per wing and 4 bombs on a ventral tandem node;
8 x FAB-500M-62 - a pair per wing with tandem suspension and 4 bombs on a ventral tandem node;
10 x FAB-500M62 - in pairs per wing with tandem suspension and on three ventral tandem nodes in pairs;
10 x FAB-500M62 - a pair per wing with tandem suspension and on one ventral tandem integrated assembly;
instead of FAB-500M-62 bombs, the FAB-500M-62T thermally resistant bomb can be used
It can carry 1 nuclear bomb on a special holder;
The diagram shows both empty and loaded with 4 FAB-500M bombs under the fuselage, the book also state that if it carrying 4 FAB-500M bombs the speed should not exceed Mach 2.35 and only maintain this speed for 15 minutes due to the limitation of the temperature resistance of the fuze
