Great cold war story MIG 25 Foxbat -Mach 3 paper tiger with a steel frame

[Dogwalker]

They made submarines out of titanium for exactly the same reason the US made the SR-71 out of titanium. If you have to build few new submarines (seven Alfa had been completed in total), the cost of the material is not that important in respect to other factors (design, testing of new components, ecc...). If you have to build many of them,  the cost of design and testing, for the single sample is not that important any more, while the cost of the material is. So the design has to be made with the goal to reduce the use of very expensive materials.
IE, of the seven Alfa built, three used a OK-550 nuclear engine, and four used a BM-40A nuclear engine. Those were two different types of liquid metal cooled reactors, whose entire tecnology was developed only to power those three and four vessels and that had not been used in any other application.
At that point, they could have used even a pure platinum hull, and it would not have been the most expensive part of the ship.

[kirby1923]

Aircraft are designed to perform a certain mission. In the 60's the MIG 25 was designed to be an interceptor and at that period Ti was not in wide use. The designers determined that the aircraft could meet its mission using steel so why try and develop an aircraft with a new and undeveloped material at triple or more the cost when you can use steel and meet the design goals.

On the other hand the Kelly Johnston had to design an aircraft with vastly different mission requirements than the MIG. Long range spy aircraft. The design team found that the only way they could meet the requirements was to build the aircraft out of Ti.

End of story.

[Dogwalker]

The design team found that the only way they could meet the requirements was to build the aircraft out of Ti.

End of story.

Not really.
Tecnology is not a given thing. Many times, a design group that had to meet certain requirements, had to invent, o apply for the first time in a certain ambit, the tecnology to meet them.
It was more. "the design team had to choose between two paths. One, using a costly  material which mechanical charateristics were well known to meet the requirements. Two, develop a structure that could meet those requirements using less expensive materials, something that would have required more studies, tests, etc...
For 30 aircrafts, titanium was convenient."

[kirby1923]

Well I can see that you are well versed in aircraft design so...

I don't have the words.

[rboe]

It's easy, but not fair, to ding an aircraft for being crappy at something when that something was not what it was designed to do. The Foxbat was designed to intercept bombers with a radar designed to burn through any sort of jamming, and shoot said bombers down. In the Foxbats' case you would want to look at the missiles it was to use to shoot the bombers down with as it was basically a high speed missile truck, used to ship the missiles into range, find the targets and launch them.

Pretty much what happened when the Mig25 shot down the F/A18, it was intercepting a "bomber".

To compare it to fighters of the era is like comparing the family wagon to a Vette. However; comparing it to the F-106 and F-104 does make sense as both were designed to be interceptors too. While the F-4 was a fighter, it was better as an all around bomber/interceptor. It has been described to me by guys that flew it as a Mack truck in the air. If you want to fight there were better choices.

For some reason we tend to designate airplanes as fighters that are not. E.g. the F-117, F-111 etc. Which really just confuses the matter.

One little Russian fighter that should get more respect than it seems it gets: The Mig-21. Still flying in some air forces and it still packs a nasty sting that will bite the over confident.

[rocker59]

It has been described to me by guys that flew it as a Mack truck in the air. 

Mack Truck?  Nah...


Large Car?  Yeah!

[Old Jock]

Nice footage of MiG-21 here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEa9jAVtve8

[wavedog]

Referencing Dogwalkers post = Submarines out of titanium. The old NATO designated Alpha class, Project 705 Soviet interceptor submarine. Ti was used because of the extreme depth the boat was designed to go to. The problem with that was Ti is brittle and has limited compression cycles. That coupled with the liquid cooled lead-bismuth reactor that cant be allowed to cool below 275F or the reactor "freezes" and cant restart spelled a limited life span for these boats from the beginning. Small crew, highly automated, very fast, deep diving, very NOISY at speed- more of a threat on paper than in reality but they did have an effect on U.S. policy and weapons development. If they were allowed to take to the field of battle in the way that Soviet doctrine envisioned they would have been very effective, however our doctrine at that time was to deny the enemy that advantage. Hence the importance and advantage of stealth and up to date intelligence. One slow but quiet 637 class boat lying in wait for an Alpha to pass and then put a MK 48 up their baffles and they would not know its coming until the shock wave hit. Bummer. The Alpha class was a lot like the Foxbat in concept and execution. A bit of digression from the original topic. Sorry about that.

[Dogwalker]

Well, the Alfa class were few incredibly costly high performance vessels. The Mig 25 were a lot of mass produced and relatively inexpensive high performance aircrafts. They had in common to be high performance, but their design and building philosophies were opposite.

[wavedog]

Perhaps I should have stated similar in mission concept and implementation. Held in port/airfield on alert then dash out at high speed to intercept and destroy incoming.

[3AXBAT]

Back in the late 80's on the east coast, I went to a Dining Out with a buddy who was Air Crew on the Comfy Levi, 6994th ESS.  I went because the speaker was Victor Belenko, but as a speaker, he was just another drunk Russian.  I did find myself at one point standing in front a urinal in the men's room.  Belenko and some USAF 3-star came in and took flanking urinals, and started talking to each other, over my head, about fishing for golden trout up at Chuck Yeager's place.  I had nothing to add to their conversation, so I washed my hands and left.

One of my instructors in college was on the team that looked at the MiG 25.  He said when they disassembled it, they were puzzled by odd spots of corrosion, until one held up a magnet and it grabbed hold.  They laughed.

[charlie b]

You do have to look at when it was designed and the mission intended before passing judgement.  The Mig 25 was a one mission plane and it seemed to have been designed well for that mission and the intended deployment.  I remember reading one tech journal article that explained part of the deployment option was to station these in remote airfields along the intended bomber paths, hence the ease of maintenance.  And, yes, the engines were almost considered throw away items.  But, if one aircraft could shoot down two to four bombers, it was probably considered successful.  Remember that US doctrine at the time was bombers were not to have escorts so it was not designed to dogfight.

The Soviets at the time also tended toward cheaper and more of whatever they produced.  Tanks were another good example.  Make 100 for every one produced in the west.  So what if they aren't perfect.  They will do the job intended with the troops that they had to work with.

To me the Mig25 was a great single purpose design.

The US had it's own series of planes that were flops, even if they were single purpose.  Only ours typically cost so much more due to the tendency toward "high tech' in most of them.

[rocker59]

The US had it's own series of planes that were flops, 

Which were those?

[redrider]

Interesting that the US purchased the Ti for the SR from the Russians. Back in 79-80 at Incerlik, Turkey we had a classified briefing  on the Mig. As others have said, in the right hands even a glider can be deadly.

[Gliderjohn]

Quote from: charlie b on Today at 07:53:22 AM

The US had it's own series of planes that were flops, 

Which were those?

F-111 comes to mind, but I think a lot was learned from it. F-102 until they figured out the "coke bottle" fuselage shape which then became the more successful F106. No that it should have been, but the F-20. Although I love the plane, due to cost and timing I would include the B-2 bomber.
GliderJohn

[rocker59]

F-111 comes to mind, but I think a lot was learned from it. F-102 until they figured out the "coke bottle" fuselage shape which then became the more successful F106. No that it should have been, but the F-20. Although I love the plane, due to cost and timing I would include the B-2 bomber.
GliderJohn

F-111:  Operational from 1967-1998 with USAF.  After some early teething problems, a good medium range heavy tactical bomber.  4,000 missions in Vietnam with six losses.  The 1986 Lybian raid was the longest strike mission ever.  Overall, a pretty badass machine.

F-102:  An early jet interceptor that served for something like 20-years.  Could be unforgiving, but had a long career, being used by ANG after removed from front line service with USAF.

F-20:  An export fighter developed from the F5.  Outclassed by the F-16, so was a "flop", but never a US combat aircraft.

[Lannis]

F-111:  Operational from 1967-1998 with USAF.  After some early teething problems, a good medium range heavy tactical bomber.  4,000 missions in Vietnam with six losses.  The 1986 Lybian raid was the longest strike mission ever.  Overall, a pretty badass machine.

F-102:  An early jet interceptor that served for something like 20-years.  Could be unforgiving, but had a long career, being used by ANG after removed from front line service with USAF.

F-20:  An export fighter developed from the F5.  Outclassed by the F-16, so was a "flop", but never a US combat aircraft.

Vought F7U Cutlass.   Nothing worked right.   A quarter of them were destroyed in accidents....

Lannis

[rocker59]

Vought F7U Cutlass.   Nothing worked right.   A quarter of them were destroyed in accidents....

Lannis

Yep.  1st Gen jet aviation!  LOL!  Fairly short lifespan on that one, 1951 to 1959.

[dan_s]

In 1981 a MIG-25 was intercepted by a locally modified Israeli Hawk missile. It wasn't a straight forward shoot down. Here is an interview with the Israeli AF tech who made the kill possible, explaining on the technical aspects. Hope the google translate doesn't mess things too much..

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ranlevi.com%2Ftexts%2Fmig25_vs_pini_text%2F&edit-text=&act=url