Who Would like a MiG-25?

[mrsteel]

Ok let's be honest with ourselves here, 5g limit may suck, but when you are the 2nd fastest aircraft in the world, wouldn't you feel rather content with yourself? So with that, who would like to see a MiG-25 in DCS World, and if so, what variant?

[Gladman]

I was always intrigued by the Foxbat but I have no real education on the variants so I didn't vote. I would buy it, probably wouldn't fly it much, but it would be a good addition to the hanger.

[mrsteel]

I was always intrigued by the Foxbat but I have no real education on the variants so I didn't vote. I would buy it, probably wouldn't fly it much, but it would be a good addition to the hanger.

 

My bad, for you and everyone else unaware I will put it simply that the PD and PDS are the interceptor variants, the PDS having further upgrades from the PD model.The base interceptor variant is the P. The MiG R variants and recon bombers and the one I listed being one of the most upgraded production variants.

[probad]

i think its extremely relevant for the 3-4th generation fighter timeframe, esp with the middle eastern theater and against aircraft like the f-18. it's also a totally different style of flying than turnfights at 1500' and that's cool in my book. id personally fly the shit out of it.

 

as usual though the burning question is, does there exist enough information to build a dcs module out of?

Edited November 20, 2016 by probad

[Skulleader]

Mig-25 or Mig-31 yes I want one of these interceptors.

[Akatsuki]

A MiG-25 in DCS would be a nice addition, but who would make it? I can only see Belsimtek up to the task.

One can dream, can he?

[Drona]

MiG-25 would really be a dream come true. Mach 3.2 baby!!!!

[Vampyre]

You included the prototype PDSL but not the BM which was produced...:doh:

 

There are also two main variants of the reconnaissance Foxbats that were steadily upgraded over the years, one for photographic recon (R, RB, RBV, RBT) and the other for Radar/electronic recon (RBK, RBF, RBS). NATO differentiated the two by the code names Foxbat B and Foxbat D respectively.

 

The BM is a dedicated SEAD aircraft and was known to NATO as the Foxbat F.

[Gladman]

SEAD in a Foxbat would be fun man. Especially if you were coming in low level at insane speeds, manipulating the instruments to get a lock, fire, and haul arse with a SAM or two on your six. lol, yeah I'd do that.

[Vampyre]

SEAD in a Foxbat would be fun man. Especially if you were coming in low level at insane speeds, manipulating the instruments to get a lock, fire, and haul arse with a SAM or two on your six. lol, yeah I'd do that.

 

Actually, SEAD in the BM was a high altitude affair with very high speeds involved. They would use the speed and altitude to increase the kinematic performance of the KH-58U or KH-31P missiles in a sort of shoot and scoot attack on Nike Hercules, Bloodhound, Patriot and Hawk batteries as you imagine. The low level SEAD stuff was left to the Su-17's, Su-24's and MiG-27's.

[tflash]

I say yes. We need some speed!

[Gladman]

Actually, SEAD in the BM was a high altitude affair with very high speeds involved. They would use the speed and altitude to increase the kinematic performance of the KH-58U or KH-31P missiles in a sort of shoot and scoot attack on Nike Hercules, Bloodhound, Patriot and Hawk batteries as you imagine. The low level SEAD stuff was left to the Su-17's, Su-24's and MiG-27's.

 

I do actually realize that but to be honest, my scenario would be more fun. :)

[Fri13]

Always forget the Mig-25, as it is like a "prototype for Mig-31".

 

Mig-23

Mig-25

 

Two modules from those. And then either Mig-27 or Su-22 would make a third great one.

[probad]

SEAD in a Foxbat would be fun man. Especially if you were coming in low level at insane speeds, manipulating the instruments to get a lock, fire, and haul arse with a SAM or two on your six. lol, yeah I'd do that.

I do actually realize that but to be honest, my scenario would be more fun. :)

you wouldn't be able to go much faster than you already can in a flanker or eagle at sea level.

even then you'll have weakened the airframe during the dash and break a wing three quarters of the way through your first turn -- the thing seriously wasn't designed to operate anywhere outside the stratosphere.

 

that does sound hella fun in a mad max sort of way though.

[Gladman]

you wouldn't be able to go much faster than you already can in a flanker or eagle at sea level.

even then you'll have weakened the airframe during the dash and break a wing three quarters of the way through your first turn -- the thing seriously wasn't designed to operate anywhere outside the stratosphere.

 

that does sound hella fun in a mad max sort of way though.

 

You guys are just a downer man.

 

I'm taking my ball and going home. :pilotfly:

[Dudikoff]

you wouldn't be able to go much faster than you already can in a flanker or eagle at sea level.

 

That's putting it mildly. IIRC, one of main the reasons the MiG-31 was developed rather quickly to replace it in PVO service (with the turbofan engines) was that the lower altitude performance of the MiG-25's turbojets sucked big time (which suddenly became very important due to the advent of cruise missiles and bombers switching to low-level penetration profiles due to SAM effectiveness).

[Buzzles]

This should be in Wishlist rather than chit-chat.

 

I'd not be against one, but I'm not exactly sure what you'd do with it. It's designed to fly high, fast and intercept bombers / do recon.

 

We've got a fairly small map, so you'd not get to spend much time at high speed at height which means you're precluded from doing decent intercepts.

 

There's no system currently in DCS to support recon ops, so that's a non-starter.

 

It's not a bomb truck either, and it's not got a big missile load, so you're left with mediocre SEAD with one version?

[tflash]

Will we be able to see earth's curvature from our DCS:Mig 25 ?

[Pilotasso]

Maybe not a Mig-25 but a Mig-31 for sure.

[NeilWillis]

Which development team do you represent?

 

Or is this just another wish list, with no significance whatsoever?

[probad]

Or is this just another wish list, with no significance whatsoever?

considering the alternative here is whining about 'lack of transparency and communication', i rather welcome a nice wishlist wank.

Edited November 22, 2016 by probad

[dannyq8]

Although a Mig-25 wouldn't be my first choice I would still like to see it, especially high fidelity.

 

 

Which development team do you represent?

 

Or is this just another wish list, with no significance whatsoever?

 

It's a discussion or is it only you who is allowed to have a discussion?

 

My feelings exactly Tucano! Nor do I argue for the sake of it, ordinarily.

 

To ask for an insignificant airfield to be upgraded so you can use it when you have so many more to choose from, and then get all uppity about it when someone disagrees?

 

And no we are not being negative, we're just taking the wider picture and disagreeing about your suggestion's merits. Since when was that such a big deal? We just disagree, and the reasons why were clearly stated without getting upset, or personal. Isn't that what a discussion forum is all about? If it isn't for that, please enlighten us as to what you consider it's purpose to be.

[OutOnTheOP]

...trying not to put it too bluntly, but it's kind of a silly poll. It's asking the wrong question. "Who would like a MiG-25?" Everyone. Duh. Even the people that hate MiG-25. If one could just be *poof* materialized in DCS, everyone would accept it.

 

The real question is "Who would like development resources diverted to a MiG-25 project INSTEAD OF the MiG/Su/F/A/B-XYZ". Because that's what the wishlists are really about: what *priority* would people put on any given aircraft.

 

I'd love a MiG-25. But there are about two or three dozen airframes I'd like even more. For the same timeframe and nationality, I'd rather see a MiG-23, MiG-27, or Su-7 /17 / 20/ 22. Or Su-24. Or Mi-24. Or even a Tu-22M.

Edited November 23, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[rrohde]

I voted 'no'. Would love to see the MiG-31 instead. :thumbup:

[streakeagle]

The MiG-25 is a benchmark aircraft. Whether it is effective in combat or not doesn't matter much. Its very existence and presumed performance was used to alter the F-15 contract from a 60,000 lb USAF mirror of the F-14 to the 42,000 lb F-15A that was ultimately delivered.

 

I would be happy with any variant, but would prefer one of the interceptors. The Foxbat E would be nice to have, but a Foxbat A would make me just as happy. Learning to operate the aircraft, its radar, and its weapons would be fun for me despite its lack of usefulness in WVR ACM. I fly the MiG-21bis the same way... as the interceptor it was designed to be, so I know I would enjoy the MiG-25, too.

 

To make it even more fun, AI SR-71s would need to be part of the package, perhaps even what-if B-70s to provide the threat that Foxbats were meant to stop.