not planned MiG-25 (Foxbat) in DCS ?

[Silver_Dragon]

57 minutes ago, draconus said:

This are called specifications, not problems - sounds like fun to model and play.

 

Meanwhile I post a opinion. I put all specifications on my post....

[Logan54]

Right now I read practical aerodinamics of MiG-25RB(shared earlier) and there I found very interesting supersonic air intakes work, seems there really not easy to use engines, a lot of info need to know to use this high altitude fighter. Supercool if we can to use it) There info about engines need less fuel at speed more then M=2.0 with AB. This is not as we usually see

[bies]

9 minutes ago, Logan54 said:

Right now I read practical aerodinamics of MiG-25RB(shared earlier) and there I found very interesting supersonic air intakes work, seems there really not easy to use engines, a lot of info need to know to use this high altitude fighter. Supercool if we can to use it) There info about engines need less fuel at speed more then M=2.0 with AB. This is not as we usually see

It's possible. There is an interview with Indian pilot, he flown MiG-25 as well, according to him max range profile was using 1-st stage afterburner and supersonic flight.

[okopanja]

Likely module would need to model each variant separately just like gazelle does.

[Logan54]

Officially Foxbat has very bad turn rate. At 600-800km/h it has 55 seconds for full turn or 6.5 deg/sec(on ground level). It's really not a close fight dogfighter. But anyway, this not stops me to want it in DCS . Seems it must be hard to fly it, may be some kind of spacesip. All that it can mean, that it will really jet for thoughtful flight, and mostly for pilots that like to cruise on speed) Like Harley Davidson bikers

[CarbonFox]

I could see the Mig-25PD causing quite abit of havoc on the CW server and other Cold War mission scenarios.

[Logan54]

20 минут назад, okopanja сказал:

Likely module would need to model each variant separately just like gazelle does.

Seems more like as Mirage F-1 bcoz each variant has different cockpit and diferent weapon equipment)

6 минут назад, CarbonFox сказал:

I could see the Mig-25PD causing quite abit of havoc on the CW server and other Cold War mission scenarios.

we need it to check)

[okopanja]

14 minutes ago, Logan54 said:

Officially Foxbat has very bad turn rate. At 600-800km/h it has 55 seconds for full turn or 6.5 deg/sec(on ground level). It's really not a close fight dogfighter. But anyway, this not stops me to want it in DCS . Seems it must be hard to fly it, may be some kind of spacesip. All that it can mean, that it will really jet for thoughtful flight, and mostly for pilots that like to cruise on speed) Like Harley Davidson bikers

There is a nice book written by Douglas C Dildy & Tom Cooper: "F-15C Eagle vs Mig-23/25". You might want to check it out.

[F-2]

Almost all plausible documents I’ve come across are Mig-25p however I under stand the PD is near identical avionics wise to the Mig-23

[Temetre]

vor 59 Minuten schrieb Logan54:

Officially Foxbat has very bad turn rate. At 600-800km/h it has 55 seconds for full turn or 6.5 deg/sec(on ground level). It's really not a close fight dogfighter. But anyway, this not stops me to want it in DCS . Seems it must be hard to fly it, may be some kind of spacesip. All that it can mean, that it will really jet for thoughtful flight, and mostly for pilots that like to cruise on speed) Like Harley Davidson bikers

Mig-25 seems more like a "bomber" style design, rather than a true fighter aircraft. Slapped together in a hurry to counter developing american supersonic bombers, to lob heavy A2A missiles at them. Apparently a super heavy stainless steel hull, the high power radar didnt work well, the engines were adopted from cruise missiles... the upgraded versions seem less like improvements, and more like an attempt to make it somehow work.

And mind, directly before the Soviets made the Mig-23 as a BVR fighter, and even that had a powerful engine but poor maneuvrability; the Mig-25 would be even worse in terms of agility. 

Honestly, the plane sounds kinda bad, but Im sure it would be very interesting to actually fly one in DCS. Maybe frustrating as well, but its interesting to take what you got and try to make it work.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Temetre

[Mike_Romeo]

Interesting documentation about it:
 

 

[Logan54]

1 час назад, Mike_Romeo сказал:

Interesting documentation about it:
 

 

Foxbat is awesome on 3d) like real one) and now we can find that it has cooler radar then MiG-23 and also can be commander aircraft. Seems like a DCS dream

1 час назад, Temetre сказал:

Honestly, the plane sounds kinda bad, but Im sure it would be very interesting to actually fly one in DCS. Maybe frustrating as well, but its interesting to take what you got and try to make it work.

I completely agree with you ...but nobody angry about MiG-21/MiG-19 or even MiG-15, so where some reason that Foxbat will be bad fighter?Specific fighter

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Logan54

[Logan54]

2 часа назад, okopanja сказал:

There is a nice book written by Douglas C Dildy & Tom Cooper: "F-15C Eagle vs Mig-23/25". You might want to check it out.

I did, thanx for info

[okopanja]

6 hours ago, Temetre said:

Mig-25 seems more like a "bomber" style design, rather than a true fighter aircraft. Slapped together in a hurry to counter developing american supersonic bombers, to lob heavy A2A missiles at them. Apparently a super heavy stainless steel hull, the high power radar didnt work well, the engines were adopted from cruise missiles... the upgraded versions seem less like improvements, and more like an attempt to make it somehow work.

And mind, directly before the Soviets made the Mig-23 as a BVR fighter, and even that had a powerful engine but poor maneuvrability; the Mig-25 would be even worse in terms of agility. 

Honestly, the plane sounds kinda bad, but Im sure it would be very interesting to actually fly one in DCS. Maybe frustrating as well, but its interesting to take what you got and try to make it work.

 

Actually this is one of popular myths. The aircraft was designed to be high speed interceptor, but it's shape and secrecy made many attribute him fighter role. For what it was design for it did well, except that treath it was supposed to counter turned out to be a disaster project.

 

6 hours ago, F-2 said:

Almost all plausible documents I’ve come across are Mig-25p however I under stand the PD is near identical avionics wise to the Mig-23

Not really original Mig-25 had a RP-25 Smerch A1  (600kW) radar which was a pulse radar. These were delivered to Iraq mid-80s along R-40 missiles. By that time it was know that A2 was compromised due to the Belenko's flight to Japan in 1976. Upon complaints Soviets were forced to upgrade the aircraft to Smerch A2 radar (better jamming resistance, increased reliability, look down and better low level clutter tolerance) + deliver R-40RD and R-40TD missiles. These were known as Mig-25 PDS. Radar was in I-band low PRF pulse and had similar performance as F-4D's AN/APQ-109

3rd radar was modification of Saphir-25, marked as RP-25M. It increased the range further.

(book page 26, 27).

A curiosity of the Mig-25 was that they carried 2xR-40RD and 2x-40TD. Both TD and TR were slaved by radar to target and upon launching the TD would launch first, followed by TR.

The missile was capable of up to mach 5, and had range of about 50km.

Edited May 29, 2023 by okopanja

[Logan54]

37 минут назад, okopanja сказал:

3rd radar was modification of Saphir-25, marked as RP-25M. It increased the range further.

Very interesting to know more about radar capability, I read in wiki, it could track 6 targets at the same time, but could it to shoot 2 targets at the same time or only 1? also interesting about GCI channel that provide automatic aiming on target.

And someone told (not you) about bad bombing acuracy, bcoz it should be from high altitude and need to set target point b4 flight. What if target was enemy RW or strategic objects? Too silly to spend special supersonic 500kg bombs to shoot near tanks), was it bad to strike from distance outside the SAMs zone and safety back to airfield? Seems not so silly

Edited May 29, 2023 by Logan54

[Mars Exulte]

I vaguely recall someone talking about maybe doing a MiG-25P once upon a time, but it's been a while, and as is often the case, wishes sometimes end up stillborn.

[Logan54]

I painted an easy chart that can help ppl to decide if they need (or not) MiG-25

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I painted an easy chart that can help ppl to decide if they need (or not) MiG-25

I'd move everything from the right to the left, plus it's RedFor

Edited May 30, 2023 by draconus

[Exorcet]

26 minutes ago, draconus said:

I'd move everything from the right to the left, plus it's RedFor

 

Yes, very questionable right side.

[okopanja]

5 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I painted an easy chart that can help ppl to decide if they need (or not) MiG-25

Forgot to tell you that soviet variant was not only voice GCI, but also had воздух-1 command system. This means it could have been allocated a target from ground, thus some computer was in the aircraft, but not what we understand today. As for multiple launch, this was probably not possible against multiple targets. E.g. Mig-25 that took out FA-18 was armed with 2xR-40RD missiles and it fired only one which practically disintegrated hornet. If I remember correctly this engagement took place in night conditions. Pilot considered attacking second FA-18, but got GCI order to return.  It is worth to note that another Mig-25 got shotdown by FA-18, when it actually went into close air combat. Book describes accounts from both side, since author made great effort to collect feedback from both sides. His books tend not to be single side propaganda fairy-tales.

Reading this book made me rethink the way I fight in a flanker (used to be full load, now I carry 2-4 missiles, and this results in drastically different aircraft performance). You could say that I fight the Mig-25 way (above Mach 2 when attacking) and do not pull lot's of G. This means that I do not bleed energy when turning away to escape superior ARH missiles. I found out that this tactic works actually pretty well on the average, even in the modern environment. The additional benefit for co-fliers is that usually large number of missiles get launched (everyone see one large PK circle, that suddenly starts shrinking).

Flying Mig-25 would require you to be aware of your fuel state, and be realistic on what you can attempt to do (attack from distance but not on direct path) and what not (do not come close). I do believe it would be fun to fly aircraft capable of reaching Mach 2.8+ in DCS.

Edited May 30, 2023 by okopanja

[okopanja]

E.g. here is how hypothetical Mig-25 intercept would look like from rear aspect, add a 0.6-0.8 Mach on top.

Notice that other Su-27 with full missile load , being actually out-accelerated by eagle.

At the same time, carrying 2xR-27T and 2xR-27R allows you to catch up with the target.

 

Edited February 26 by okopanja
Replaced video with link

[WinterH]

6 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I painted an easy chart that can help ppl to decide if they need (or not) MiG-25

Yeah, "no MFDs, no IHADSS, no hook, dinosaurs' age avionics" are all firmly on the + side for me

[Logan54]

2 часа назад, okopanja сказал:

Forgot to tell you that soviet variant was not only voice GCI, but also had воздух-1 command system.

Yep, I mean that, when I did that picture May be "avionics" not right word wor this) Some special command channel as you said "воздух-1" more right word)

2 часа назад, okopanja сказал:

here is how hypothetical Mig-25 interceptor would look like from rear aspect, add a 0.6-0.8 Mach on top.

Wow, never seen this tactics b4, awesome! Seems to me it will work good against coordinate enemy too ) bc if they use grinder, MiGs can use it too, but not so intensive) I know about recomend speed 1.5M for better speed up rockets, and seems to me this way really worked good bc enemy not expect you so fast) He even not changed his direction) But tactic is really good. The main difference is MiG-25 have cruise (economy) speed 2M and more

2 часа назад, okopanja сказал:

Flying Mig-25 would require you to be aware of your fuel state, and be realistic on what you can attempt to do (attack from distance but not on direct path) and what not (do not come close). I do believe it would be fun to fly aircraft capable of reaching Mach 2.8+ in DCS.

Absolutely true, 1 task jet for 1 task, seems like plan Also pilot must to understand how altitude affect on engines power and fuel consumption. Not easies way after 4 Gen jets) Seems to me MiG-25 will add so much new tactics combinations if we would have it) and 2.6..2.83 limited by 15 mins, as u can burn in the sky)

3 часа назад, draconus сказал:

I'd move everything from the right to the left, plus it's RedFor

This is a bit joking at typical 4Gen mulirole pilots) yep, I forgot about "RedFor"

Edited May 30, 2023 by Logan54

[Logan54]

1 more video about Foxbat&Eagle confrontation 

 And a story that I not able to see Eagle vs. Foxbat: Samurra Air Battle | Nebula

[bies]

14 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I painted an easy chart that can help ppl to decide if they need (or not) MiG-25

Basically half of "not cool" features you mentioned are awesome. No MFDs or glass cockpit make it most appealing to me.