gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
MIG-25: A piece of junk.
I have seen the technical details of the jet. It is a piece of junk compares to Western peers. That is not to say I do not admire Soviet engineering. I do. A lot.
When it was built, the MIG-25 was an excellent example of Soviet engineering overcoming NON-TECHNICAL challenges that would have their Western counterparts crying to their Congress/Parliament reps, becoming whistleblowers for the media, or transferring to another industry. For that, I would have loved to have a nice long conversation with the MIG-25's lead engineer over a bottle of Knob's Creek aged bourbon.
But battles are won by actual fighting against an enemy and for that, the MIG-25 was junk, to put it kindly.
Its radar was powerful enough to burn thru jamming, but was so poorly designed that it could only provide the pilot with target's general direction.
If the engines are used at %90 capacity in a single sortie, it should, not must, be removed from the jet for inspection, whereas, when I was on the F-111 and F-16, we often fly supersonic and at the end, if the crew chief said the oil sample was fine, the jet can be flown supersonic again the next day.
The MIG-25 belongs in a museum.
I have seen the technical details of the jet. It is a piece of junk compares to Western peers. That is not to say I do not admire Soviet engineering. I do. A lot.
When it was built, the MIG-25 was an excellent example of Soviet engineering overcoming NON-TECHNICAL challenges that would have their Western counterparts crying to their Congress/Parliament reps, becoming whistleblowers for the media, or transferring to another industry. For that, I would have loved to have a nice long conversation with the MIG-25's lead engineer over a bottle of Knob's Creek aged bourbon.
But battles are won by actual fighting against an enemy and for that, the MIG-25 was junk, to put it kindly.
Its radar was powerful enough to burn thru jamming, but was so poorly designed that it could only provide the pilot with target's general direction.
If the engines are used at %90 capacity in a single sortie, it should, not must, be removed from the jet for inspection, whereas, when I was on the F-111 and F-16, we often fly supersonic and at the end, if the crew chief said the oil sample was fine, the jet can be flown supersonic again the next day.
The MIG-25 belongs in a museum.
