What's new

PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

I was under the impression, that planes are designed based on operational requirements and not as a response to some other countries plane.

Even if it seems that a plane is a response, it really is just meeting or exceeding the operational requirements the other plane set.
 
Of course you did.

This is what i wrote:

The F-15 was specifically built to counter the MiG-25 which they thought was an air-superiority fighter.

That does not necessarily imply that the F-15 program began before US intelligence found that the soviets were building the MiG-25. The USAF just changed their requirements.

The initial designs, not even functional prototypes, were rejected. We are talking about several HUNDREDS designs here. So if these hundreds PAPER designs were rejected, they must have been rejected before our intel discovery of the MIG-25. That mean the final accepted F-15 design happened at best roughly the same time as the intelligence discovery of the MIG-25, but more likely it was agreed upon before said discovery. In order for your argument that the F-15 was a 'response' to the MIG-25 to be valid, it must be established that the US must have been beyond the 50/50 certainty threshold of the MIG-25's capabilities. That was not the case. We did not know of the MIG-25's true capabilities until 1976 with Belenko's defection in a latest MIG-25 to Japan. Prior, the only thing we knew of the MIG-25 was its detected speed and by that time those hundreds of paper designs were already rejected.

As far as I know, there is no proof to state that the USAF changed their requirements before the discovery of the soviet project as the actual dates of the discovery and change of requirements is unknown. Here's something I found on wikipedia:

With a top speed of Mach 2.83+, a powerful radar and four air-to-air missiles, the MiG-25 worried Western observers and prompted development of the F-15 Eagle in late 1960s.

The MiG-25's huge tailplanes and vertical stabilizers (tail fins) hinted at a very maneuverable aircraft, which worried the Air Force that its performance might be better than its U.S. counterparts.

So you think that the US decided to just sit back? This percieved threat of an advanced air superiority fighter from the Soviet Union which may out-perform all USAF planes has surely gone into serious consideration while developing the F-15.

That mean the final accepted F-15 design happened at best roughly the same time as the intelligence discovery of the MIG-25, but more likely it was agreed upon before said discovery.

McDonnell Douglas' design was selected in December 1969, not 1967.

Then it is even the greater fool to speculate that the MIG-25, an 'interceptor', can be so skillfully exploited that the only thing the pilot need is greater speed to shoot down an F-15. That is like saying the bomber pilot can somehow position the fighter below so the falling bombs can destroy the fighter.

The MiG-25 is definitely at a great disadvantage. But it is not impossible for a MiG-25 to score a kill. Here are some possible strategies for a MiG-25:

1. Defensive strategy: When a MiG-25 fighter who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his fighter feels he is fighting a loosing fight, all he has to do is get low and accelerate to Mach 2.8. The F-15's may manage to get a lock and fire AIM-7 or AIM-9 missiles though these can be countered with active defences (chaff and flares). The F-15s cannot keep up with the MiG-25s and will be forced to give up the chase.

2. Offensive strategy: Here, the best strategy IMO will be lightning fast attacks (a strategy similar to the one used by the German Me-262 and the Me-163 in WW-II). The MiG-25s should fire their missiles before the Americans can get a visual ID and then accelerate to Mach 2.8 and get as low as possible. Any possible missiles fired by the Americans can be countered with active defences. The F-15s cannot hope to catch up to the MiG-25s and will be forced to give up.

A MiG-25 pilot should avoid turning fights at all costs.

The SR-71 does not need its engines removed after every mission and every mission was Mach 3+. In other words, destroying the engines is NOT normal. So when we say so-and-so aircraft's top speed is so-and-so knots per hour, we usually mean the aircraft is capable of repeating it WITH THE SAME ENGINES...!!!

The MiG-25's engines are capable of reaching Mach 3.2+ but the MiG-25 was redlined at Mach 2.8. This is because at higher speeds, the engine would overheat causing damage as the engine was never intended or designed to be operated at those speeds. So, we usually say that the MiG-25's top speed is Mach 2.8. The MiG-25 is designed to allow flight at Mach 2.8 without damaging the engine. The F-22 is also able of reaching speeds that exceed its design speed limits, particularly at low altitudes. So max-speed alerts have been included to help prevent the pilot from exceeding them.

The SR-71's engines are designed to be operated in afterburner continuously as opposed to conventional jet engines. In fact, the SR-71's engines become more efficient at higher speeds. But the SR-71's engines had to be started by two V8 engines on a "start cart".
 
Last edited:
If anyone wants to discuss anything further about MiGs, F-15s or SR-71s, please post in the related thread or make a new one. Please don't deviate from the topic at hand.
 
Question??
Was F-15 a response to the MiG-25 ??


yesssssssssssssssss


Discovery Channel - Wings Of The Red Star - Mig-25 Foxbat.rmvb
 
Question??
Was F-15 a response to the MiG-25 ??


yesssssssssssssssss


Discovery Channel - Wings Of The Red Star - Mig-25 Foxbat.rmvb
No...If the F-15 is to be considered any sort of 'response' and granted that all weapons development are responses to threats, perceived or otherwise, then the F-15 is a response to the highly maneuverable MIG-21, a known threat with known capabilities. The MIG-25's capabilities were nowhere as certain. On the other hand, the MIG-25 was a response to the SR-71, XB-70 and the B-58. Against these high altitude and Mach capable aircrafts, the MIG-25 was inadequate and eventually more capable SAM became that response.
 
McDonnell Douglas' design was selected in December 1969, not 1967.
Because this design have what the USAF wanted. Any perceived threat from the MIG-25 was at best indirectly influential to the USAF's performance requests.

But the SR-71's engines had to be started by two V8 engines on a "start cart".
How an engine is started is irrelevant.

In the end, if given a choice, no one is going to refuse the F-15 for the MIG-25 because of the latter's higher 'dash' speed. Our experiences with the MIGs in the Red Eagles program showed US that Soviet aircrafts were designed that imposed more labor to the pilots and to be much more disposal than Western designs. The MIG-25 is no different.
 
I was under the impression, that planes are designed based on operational requirements and not as a response to some other countries plane.

Even if it seems that a plane is a response, it really is just meeting or exceeding the operational requirements the other plane set.
Operational requirements are often derived from threats, perceived or otherwise. They can also come from the desire to gain some type of strategic or tactical advantage. The SR-71 is an example of that want.
 
Operational requirements are often derived from threats, perceived or otherwise. They can also come from the desire to gain some type of strategic or tactical advantage. The SR-71 is an example of that want.


Yes, I don't disagree with you there at all ( for once ) you are 100% right.


I do disagree with some people on this sub-thread argument, and with you to an extend.

The MiG-25 and the MiG-31 are not responses to any plane.

These two planes were developed in order to provide interception capabilities over the vast ( too small a word to describe the reality of it) empty and scarcely out-posted siberia.

USSR needed to quickly cover that vast space, in case of emergency, that is why the planes were made. Not to counter the SR-71, the fact that they were used to intercept it and others ( with success or not) is a concequence of their abilities not their primary role.

Their primary role was to chase nuclear bombers over the wastelands

Similarly to make the argument more relevant, the T-50 project, is not supposed to counter the F-22,

The F-22 will always be the Rols Royce betweent the two. But the Rols Royce is not always going to be the best car all around.

The T-50's purpose is ( I believe ) to change the current game.

And I think it will, the moment it becomes operational. ( if soon)

And to make this point simple, I don't think an F-22 pilot would enter the battle space for an one to one match-up with the same frame of mind if he was to face any other fighter in the world today or the T-50.

I think the T-50 (if it is what is supposed to be) will command a ten-fold of respect more and definitely different tactics.
 
In the end, if given a choice, no one is going to refuse the F-15 for the MIG-25 because of the latter's higher 'dash' speed.

Here I agree with you. Why? Because the MiG-25 is an "interceptor" and the F-15 is an "air-superiority fighter".
 
Last edited:
Then it is even the greater fool to speculate that the MIG-25, an 'interceptor', can be so skillfully exploited that the only thing the pilot need is greater speed to shoot down an F-15. That is like saying the bomber pilot can somehow position the fighter below so the falling bombs can destroy the fighter.

The MiG-25 is definitely at a great disadvantage. But it is not impossible for a MiG-25 to score a kill. Here are some possible strategies for a MiG-25:

1. Defensive strategy: When a MiG-25 fighter who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his fighter feels he is fighting a loosing fight, all he has to do is get low and accelerate to Mach 2.8. The F-15's may manage to get a lock and fire AIM-7 or AIM-9 missiles though these can be countered with active defences (chaff and flares). The F-15s cannot keep up with the MiG-25s and will be forced to give up the chase.

2. Offensive strategy: Here, the best strategy IMO will be lightning fast attacks (a strategy similar to the one used by the German Me-262 and the Me-163 in WW-II). The MiG-25s should fire their missiles before the Americans can get a visual ID and then accelerate to Mach 2.8 and get as low as possible. Any possible missiles fired by the Americans can be countered with active defences. The F-15s cannot hope to catch up to the MiG-25s and will be forced to give up.

A MiG-25 pilot should avoid turning fights at all costs. If a MiG-25 is at the 6 o'clock position of an F-15, the F-15 is likely to start banking left or right to lure the MiG-25 into a turning fight where it excels. The best option for the MiG-25 pilot will be to initiate a series of high and low yo-yos. This maneuver takes advantage of the MiG-25's higher energy and speed. While the F-15 maneuvers in the horizontal plane, the MiG-25 pilot should maneuver vertically to position himself in a better firing angle. This way, the MiG-25 can take a shot at the F-15 while maintaining it's speed and energy.
 
According to the USSR pilot engagement manual, MiG 25, MiG 23 and other older models should at ALL possible costs avoid dogfighting the F-15 ,16 and 18 models, if identified as such.

If there are no MiG 29s or Su 27s to be used, dash and run methods were to be used, were the russian planes would accelerate to supersonic and attempt to get lock on at maximum range and fire missiles and then run.

Although the MiG 23 is agile enough for a dogfight, it is simply not good enough or equiped enough to go head to head with a teen fighter ..

The MiG 25 is just unable to enter a dogfight of such kind, it would simply be out flown out of the sky. .. it's purpose was to chase bombers not F-16s or F-15s..

The F-15s would not even need to dogfight, to be honest...
 
No, it is not. Our 'Red Eagles' says so. The MIG-23 is like the MIG-25: dash, fire and scoot.

Compared to what?

Yes it is not up to F-16 standards, but I have seen it fly, it's not like it's an A-7 and I would say it's better than an F-4 / Mirage III at some flight ragimes, also the transaccelleration of the Mig-23 is better than that of the blk 30 F-16.

It's not junk. Just not good enough. I can't compare it with anything right now to be honest, perhaps slightly worse than the F-1?
 
No, it is not. Our 'Red Eagles' says so. The MIG-23 is like the MIG-25: dash, fire and scoot.

The Mig-23 is superior in maneuverability to the Mig-25, but inferior to aircraft such as the F-15, interestingly enough the Mig-23ML could pull 8.5G's. The Mig-23 was definately not the greatest dog fighter but if flown properly it was a formidable match for most fighters as shown in the source below.

Here is something interesting:

MiG-23 prototypes and variants

The MiG-23 played the role of agressor aircraft in the Soviet counterpart to the US Naval Fighter Weapons School located at the NAS of Miramar, popularly known as TOPGUN.
A well flown MiG-23 could achieve excellent kill rates against MiG-29s, in fact the MiG-23 agressors achieved kill rates in mock combat versus inexperienced MiG-29 pilots of 1:2 in their favour.

An interesting anecdote about the MiG-23 agility was given by the Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer who had more than 1200 hrs flying F-16s and flew against MiG-23ML Flogger Gs from air bases in Germany and the USA as part of NATO`s aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment; he said the MiG-23 has superiority on the vertical plain over the F-16A, and horizontaly is just slightly inferior to the F-16A, he also said the MiG-23ML had better BVR capabilities.

This was confirmed by the Israelies too when they obtained a Syrian MiG-23MLD that was flown to Israel by a Syrian defector and tested its flying characteristics, they were impressed with the quick acceleration the MiG-23MLD had, they even claimed that the MiG-23 has better acceleration performance than the F-16 and F-18
for example, the F-16 can accelerate from 600km/h to 1000km/h at the altitude of 1000 meters in just 15 seconds, while the MiG-23 can accelerate from 600km/h to 900km/h in just 12 seconds

Here is a Mig-23 manual which discribes the Mig-23's maneuverability in the vertical and horizontal plain and at different speeds and altitudes:


The MiG-23ML manual

Compared to what?

Yes it is not up to F-16 standards, but I have seen it fly, it's not like it's an A-7 and I would say it's better than an F-4 / Mirage III at some flight ragimes, also the transaccelleration of the Mig-23 is better than that of the blk 30 F-16.

It's not junk. Just not good enough. I can't compare it with anything right now to be honest, perhaps slightly worse than the F-1?

Correct It is better then the F-4 and Mirage F-1 in most areas of the flight envelope.


The mig-23 has alot of deficiencies but it also had some strong points, it was up to the pilot to exploit his strengths and at the same time exploit his enemies weaknesses. The Mig-23 was phased out by the SU-27 and Mig-29 but it would have been interesting to see what could have been if they would have kept upgrading it.

The Mig-23 was a decent fighter, for its day it racked up several dozen kills, Iraq also claimed it downed several Iranian F-14s but at the same time it also lost many dogfights thanks to the Arabs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom