How can we talk about the MiG-25 without knowing about its high-speed competitor on the other side of the border? The SR-71: ruclips.net/video/YgO7IYvJscw/видео.html
The basic difference between SR71 and Mif25 was that 1 was a one-off production with less than 20 planes. The other was a mass-produced version with more than 300 planes produced. Comparison stops there as per me
@@rustagi23 SR71 is faster and could out run any missile or jet at the time and its reported top speed was way understated by the US. Foxbat also never and couldn't achieve Mach 3 and couldn't do a fraction of what Russia claimed. When US engineers after designing the F15 to counter the Foxbat, got their hands on a Foxbat, they found out it was another overhyped Russia piece of debris field. 😂
@@cubed0724 Cube, you sound like eating too many sour grapes! The SR-71 was unique and the MiG-25 was unique. The 71 was not a combat platform. A try of making it an interceptor failed and would have been useless. The 25 was a combat aircraft, but not a dogfighter. The 71, a great airplane, faded into history. The 25 lives on in the MiG-31, still the fastest combat aircraft around. Don't let hate cloud your reasoning. PS. Hope RUclips does not censor freedom of speech!
@@alexandrod22 Just stating facts, no sour grapes. The only sour grapes are those that try to rewrite history. Plus the Mig 31 even if could achieve Mach 3 which it hasn't. The jet can't sustain its top speed for long before breaking apart. All the Russians did is take two rockets and slap wings on them and a cockpit and attached a missile, that's it. Mig 31s have a habit of crashing frequently.
There’s just something about these old Soviet machines. They are unapologetically utilitarian, and one would think that’d make them hideous, but they have a grace and beauty that’s entirely their own. The Su-15 Flagon, the Mig-21, the Mig 23, the Mig 25, the Mi-8 and Mi-24. I find all of these machine beautiful.
I saw hundreds of weapons systems at the great open air displays of Russia, all the way up to armoured trains and a US Pershing II nuclear missile (WTF??) yet the one that bowled me over to meet in the flesh was the MiG-25 !! It felt like it was doing Mach 3 just standing in the grass....
The war in ukraine has proved that the Soviets understood what warfare is all Soviet planes can take off on far less than ideal runways wear the NATO planes even a nut can complete destroy a plane. They over engineer all their weapons so only specialists can repair then and they are fragile. A Russian artillery piece you can toss it out a plane 30000 ft na parachute it land no prop. Lol. A NATO cannon is a prissy diva that only works in ideal conditions and for short periods.
That crazy machine has a landing speed of 186mph! Can you imagine that? That fact that these guys didn't routinely pancake their planes just trying to set them down is a real tribute to their skill and their testicular fortitude.
In summer 2004 i was in Taganrog, Russia, to help in a home for mentally disabled children. A humanitarian project. Anyway, we visited the military airbase, and there was a MIG 25 on display. One of the engines next to it, with a fact sheet. Children were allowed to sit in the cockpit. Even then, it had a dominant presence. From the front, it's the most menacing airplane i've ever seen. The inlets appear as one huge black hole that will devour anything in its path.
@@stickiedmin6508 How does that change the fact that its still an inanimate object? He's pointing out how the OP was attempting to anthropomorphize humanistic characteristics into a non-living entity. And that he nor I nor many a body think applies to the craft, lol.
Ka-bot 15a has great videos that cite documents. Things like SR-71 speed that was officially measured, was closer to the equator, which has colder atmosphere, compared to moscow latitude, difference in speed and altitude is lower. So, SR-71 wasnt as fast up in the north.
My favourite story about the MiG 25 was the ultimately unbuilt adaptation of it to make what would have amounted to a Mach 3 Business Jet. The idea would have involved removing the weapons from the airframe and the fuselage was lengthened and widened to create space for a passenger cabin
What a great documentary with no western bashing nonsense . All about engineering , history , knowledge which is so great for Aviation Enthusiast. Thank you a lot. Mig25 ; I can feel their joy and their engineering passion all they put in this plane. Such a classic masterpiece. Easy to produce , cheap maintain , best at what it design for , cost efficient , creat new manufacture technique , versatile in various mission Indian person who already fly mig31 which is successor of this plane also said : it not like any kind fighter jet , it some kind of launching platform (some pilot say it just flying S300 ) Then MiG 25 legend is continue in MIG 31 Fucking Supersonic flying radar station with onboard hypersonic Nuke missile with insane range. What a plane. Feel glad for some civilian EU people who buy this Classic jet sit in their backyard . I ‘m not sure he is also Aerospace engineer. For me it look like he has private own spacecraft which is insanely cool !!!!!
Mig-25 was a big heap of trash compared to the F-15 and as it is well known that every russian avionic insight was a straight-forward copy of american aircraftmanship-art. You just cant deny that in any way, shape or form. I mean you could... but.. ..that would make you even worse💀
So GOOD to see a well-done presentation that really presents how fantastic this aircraft was. SO many just parrot back myths and lies about the Foxbat. For its day it was a beautiful staggering design!
@@JohnDorian-j7x About it being an unmaneuverable flying bathtub made out of cheapest materials without any "real" (i.e. against the specific cherrypicked targets) combat record, while also humoring that it uses "cruise missile engines that were not designed for more than a single flight". They also really like to compare it to F-15, despite the fact that they're completely different aircraft, and that mig has entered production 3 years earlier than it (which was very significant considering how quickly the aviation advanced back then)
That’s according to the west to bash everything The Soviet built. Are you an engineer? A good engineer always give credit to other people’s work with limited resources (money). A bad engineer bash everyone!
Thank you for the very complete story and ending with the Buran... a very needed "What if" of what we can do when we focus on things other than war, if only all warbirds could end their days helping knowledge move on and nothing else.
As for the combat use, in Iran-Iraq war the most probable score is 19:5 in favor of MiG-25. MiG-25 is also the only type of Iraqi air force that has officially recognized hit against the allies in 1991 war, when during the first night in downed Canadian F/A-18. There was also one remarkable clash 2xMiG-25 vs. 2xF-15. But both sides fired all of their missiles but scoring no hit as the electronic countermeasures on both sides worked 100 % that day. MiG-25 is also so far the only fighter jet/interceptor that won a dogfight against a drone. It took place in 2002, a year before the US invasion MiG-25 downed a MQ-1 Predator that fired a stinger missile on it in the "no fly zone".
During the Iran-Iraq War the Iraqi MiG-25 achieved the highest kill ratio after the Iraqi Mirage F1. During the Desert Storm the Iraqi MiG-25 achieved two kills vs F-18 and F-15 in 30 January 1991 in Operation Samurra.
@@bassam6194 F-15 was never confirmed KIA. Saddam Hussein (me), claimed that two F-15s were shot down even though Iraqi Air Force reports only claimed one. The USAF reported no losses in the Samurra Air Battle.
@@richieencarnacion9530 it's all heresay. Iraq initially claimed one kill after finding a supposed wreckage. Saddam Hussein (me) claimed two were shot down, while the USAF reports none. Considering the USAF reports their losses well, and Iraq can't decide how many they shot down, I'd be more inclined to believe the USAF. It was the closest an F-15 has ever come to being shot down, but it still flew home according to most accounts.
19:39 The F-X program that became the F-15 launched all the way back in 1965. The Americans weren’t scared into making the F-15. They were freaking out because they saw the similarities with the massive wings, squared off intakes, and twin tails in the MiG-25, and thought the Soviets had penetrated the F-X program and beat them to the punch. That’s why they assumed the MiG-25 was some super-fighter, because that’s exactly what they were going for with the F-X.
F-X proposed many concepts for a new fighter, the Vietnam War at some point began to tilt the US Air Force towards an aircraft with the F-5 concept, light and maneuverable, but the advent of the MiG-25 forced a change in views, which ultimately led to the creation of the F-15 , although as stated in the video, the F-15 is not an analogue of the MiG-25; The Soviet equivalent of the F-15 was the Su-27.
Mig-25 first flew before FX began, in 1964. Twin tails had been used on the A-12 and XB-70A, and are a natural alternative for high-speed aircraft that would otherwise need a single tail that would have to be much longer. Square intakes were used on the A-5 Vigilante, and were a natural choice to avoid iet airflow problems caused by the forebody of the aircraft. Nobody would have needed to be scared of the MiG-25 because the experience of American pilots in Vietnam.
@@Pangolin_6483 Yes but those aspects of the airframe had been decided upon prior to seeing the MiG-25. And the Lightweight Fighter Program that resulted in the F-16 was completely separate from the F-X program.
@@winternow2242 Yes, I'm aware those design elements weren't anything new. It wasn't about innovations, it was about perceived threat. Like I said, it was because the Americans were incorporating these features into what was supposed to be their brand new super-fighter, and then they see that the Soviets have already done the same thing on [what they assumed to be] a fighter of their own. And they didn't know much about it, including its actual role, except how it looked and that it had high performance capabilities that had shattered several previous aviation records.
It might not have lived up to it's fearsome reputation but it certainly looks every bit as lethal as they feared. "Foxbat" is absolutely one of the best Nato designations.
Intentionally. NATO originally tried to give Soviet planes either neutral or downright mocking names to make them seem less intimidating to the soldiers. Hence the MiG-15s name which I don't dare post because I have already been blocked twice for "hate speech" for saying absolutely nothing offensive at all. That word means a bundle of kindling, a firestarter. It implies it will be easy to kill. In that case it was because they feared it was a genuine threat and wanted to get the troops on the right idea, that it wasn't any big deal. But when the Soviets started coming out with more modern, actually threatening jets, they started giving them names just emphasizedv that they _were_ a threat. A guess they realized they having your pilots underestimate the enemy isn't a great policy. The MiG-25 was the first bogeyman, and it became "Foxbat", which is kind of ominous sounding. Then Fencer, and Fulcrum and Flanker, all very capable jets and all given pretty badass names.
Fantastic documentary, very well done. Also I would like to add my voice to any encouragement for Buran related content. Specifically, that automation system must be an amazing story. What I’ve heard about its software kind of blows my mind already. Anyway, thanks for the history! 🤘🏼❤️🤘🏼
F-14 was an interceptor, but it was also an air superiority fighter. Because of its baked in ability to dogfight, it's not a dedicated interceptor. (There was also a bombcat variant that was multirole, but that's besides the point since F104 also mysteriously had a fighter-bomber variant) Panavia Tornado ADV was the last dedicated western interceptor, and the F106 Delta Dart was the last dedicated US interceptor. The MiG-31 isn't a dedicated interceptor anymore either. The BM and BSM variants are multirole, being able to carry anti-radiation, anti-ship, and air-to-ground missiles. And the MiG-31K (the one they're using most often right now) is actually an attack aircraft; a modified BM variant able to carry the Kinzhal. It's a cruise missile truck.
Arguably the most lethal fighter jet ever made, it's virtually untouchable and it can lock and fire on any rival fighter (stealth or not) long before coming into their radar range.
@@pmnichols10 I’m not sure how far out the MiG-31 can detect stealth aircraft. Let’s stay an F-22 can fire on an MiG-31 before the MiG’s radar sees the F-22, the fired missiles will at least alert the MiG something is out there. Until we have a real world F-22 or F-35 vs MiG-31 engagement it’s hard to say which will win in actual combat.
Always love your video's. I've been an aviation geek from a kid and live close enough to Dayton, Ohio that I can go to the USAF Museum. I like hearing your eastern view on these aircraft and the little nuances between US documentaries. Suggestion, 5:23 you are discussing the engines "flight resource" of 15 hours. It would be more clear if you used "service live, overhaul time, rebuild time, operating lifetime or just lifetime". "The engines service live was only 15 hours". Sounds like this is a direct translation to English causing it to sound strange. I'm an old USAF mechanic and would love to get to that Russian museum some day.
You have a point there. But I would like to add some perspective to it. I'm operating multilingually on a daily basis, and with all the praxis, I'm still struggling to have a proper translation, because there is frequently no 100% corresponding meaning. The considered technical, engineering, and operational key figures are deviating in some of the aspects, so in the heat of the translation, especially if the time is of the essence, I take the next best, or use a description. But even after 10 rounds of editing and correcting, one can still overlook some of the mistranslations, even by using translation software. In the case of the TBO you are referring here to, one still can't be entirely sure if one can translate it 1 to 1. I know a lot and suspect much more of the differences in the technical culture of maintaining and refurbishing in that field. The nearest thing I would have used here (while still consciously avoiding the term TBO) is "engine flight endurance", or "engine fatigue reserve". Its meaning is almost the same as TBO, but I gues some significant differences to "TBO" still might remain, about which some pedantic technical geeks would have their arguments and fights. P.S. Just to give you an impression of the translating effort - this commentary took me two minutes to write, ten minutes to check the translation, and another ten for grammar and spell checking with PC tools. And I'm still sure - it sounds foreign to you here and there. So thank you for your commentary, but also, please give us non-native speakers some credit for trying :) to be as frank as possible.
Hey, my Air-comrad!) There is a large museum of Russian aviation not far from Moscow. It is called the Central Museum of the Russian Air Force. It is located in Monino.
Another thing is it wasn't just any steel. It was loaded with the metal nickel. It was a special steel alloy. Made it very heavy but resisted heat very well. I believe the American research aircraft the High Speed Rocket powered X-15 uses it too.
@@britjohnson1990 correction, stainless steel contains nickel and chromium, exactly like Inconel. Both are resistant to oxidation and corrosion thus earning the common designation of stainless steel.
@@pmnichols10 there are many different types of stainless steel. Surgical stainless doesnt contain nickel at all. Inconel is unique because of its resistance to high temps thus used in the x-15 program. Inconel and stainless are classified in different categories.
I will always respect the Soviet union because despite having obviously less sophisticated methods compared to the Americans they made up for it with sheer balls and audacity. Leading to sometimes primitive but pragmatic solutions to engineering problems. This plane couldn’t be more Russian , welded steel, vodka inside, just very based
I really appreciate the way you explain in general. Very clear, very concise, knowledgeable, fair, and easy to understand. This plane is an incredible accomplishment, and steel. Amazing. It is interesting that when I watched something about the SR, it helped me understand what you were talking about regarding slowing down the intake air. And seeing different technology accomplishing the same thing was very interesting.
As far as Soviet fighters are concerned, the MiG 25 will always hold interest. However, I find the Tu-128 more enigmatic due to its rarity and its huge size. Bigger even than the Foxbat!!
Excellent video, what an amazing plane the Mig 25 was. Misunderstood and belittle by western powers (not surprisingly) and magnificent machine in its own right. Extremely beautiful. Just dreamed all my life I could fly one to the limit of space as many wheatley people did, the dream came for free. Greets from Bogota - Colombia
It was misunderstood by the west in that the US thought it was a dogfighting air superiority aircraft. When they found out it was just a drag racer of an interceptor, they weren't worried about it anymore. It's a successful aircraft though, did exactly what it was meant to; intercept bombers and scare the west into developing a new fighter.
Belittled? It was nothing but a paper tiger. Its radar was crap, it's engines loved to randomly burst into flames, and its titanium frame would develop cracks with as little as 100 hours on the airframe. It was garbage. The best thing it did was scare the west into creating the F-15. The actual best interceptor in the world.
The king of interceptors.... the finally made it into service when air interceptors were pretty much obsolete. It was fast. I'll give ya that. Just pray you don't have to turn.
" the finally made it into service when air interceptors were pretty much obsolete." sure, dude, but Kinzhal wants a word with your ignorance ! It is ironical now, the Mig 31, The world's fastest interceptor in service, is the perfect platform for hypersonic cruise missiles... at a time when murica have no fast interceptor, nor a hypersonic cruise missile :p
@mirandela777 lmao... the kinzhal.... the non-hypersonic "hypersonic missile". Acting like I'm the ignorant one. The 31 can do mach 2.8. Push it to 3 if you want to completely trash the aircraft and make it a "use once and discard" plane. I will tell you one thing though.... the 31 will go faster than that propaganda piece kinzhal. Russia has stocks of "hypersonic missiles" that they can attach to fast, unmaneuverable, outdated bomber interceptors... that's why they're gluing wings to dumb bombs in Ukraine and dusting off 30+ year retired A-50 because they don't have any other options. Keep talking that bullshit, Chauncey
@@Phil-ey6yh - sure dude, an illiterate muppet on YT commenting about Kinzhal knows more about hypersonic than all the world professional military community ... obvious, we should trust you and not the rest of the world. I bet next you will say the Earth is flat ! If stupidity could hurt, you will cry all day long....
@@Phil-ey6yh You're talking nonsense, buddy. Dumb bombs are a thousand times cheaper than kinzhal, there is no need to use an expensive long-range missile on the front line, they have different tasks. By the way, what does the A50 have to do with it?
@Tonik-13 the kinzhal is a joke. Like almost ALL Russian hardware statistics, it's capability is a lie. Flat out. The A50 their pulling out of mothballs, with its antique hardware, shows how inadequate and equipment-poor the Russian military is. The Russian command structure is obsolete, the kill chain capacity is pathetic, Putin kills any capable military commands because he's Stalin-paranoid of anyone that might usurp him, the entire operation and structure is a shitshow and any victory will be a pyrrhic one.
@@hiphip4808 here’s a thought process that might help you with this: Imagine and Il-62 deviated from it’s assigned course over North America and was heading into Nellis Airbase range and didn’t answer radio communications to change course. Do you think Uncle Sam would have done any different?
So Americans thought to make Valkyrie, Soviets learned of that and made Mig 25, Americans saw it and thought its stats were real so they made F15 and when they learned that its stats were exaggerated they were disappointed and realized they made F15 out of a fear of a weapon that wasn't as good as they thought it was. Man, what a story. Edit: okay so the story is a bit more different than I thought but it's still interesting
The Soviets didn't start developing the MiG-25 until 1961. The B-70 was designed in 1957, years earlier. The B-70 was never built, and cancelled just a few weeks after the MiG-25 project began. The Soviets continued developing their plane for the next decade. Clearly the MiG-25 and the Valkyrie have little (if anything) to do with each other. I have yet to see any evidence showing what air force officials and civilian officials thought about the MiG-25 during the late 1960s. They wouldn't have had to think much about the plane because American pilots encountered large numbers of MiG-21 and MiG-17 fighters in Vietnam. Lastly, what features of the MiG-25 were "exaggerated"? There's a pervasive narrative that the Soviets lied about the MiG-25, but no specifics about factual claims that were made and la6er proven false.
I think you are as confused as the people who assumed it was a multi role fighter. It was an dedicated interceptor. And as such still owns the speed and altitude record. Wow ! Way to listen. This plane was the first to use phased array radar. Valves were used in the electronic components so in a nuclear explosion the radar worked but the solid state circuitry in the western fighters would fry . First to use HUD. The phased array meant they were the first to be able to independently target multiple aircraft. The SR71 flights stopped when this plane appeared . Give them credit for original technical innovation and the solution of so many technical issues... To the untrained mind it seems they " copied" but here is proof the Soviet ( and Russian) designers have their own parameters and in the conditions of war their weapons have proved more practical
@@winternow2242 The MiG-25 was 100% based on the US WS-300A program. Many proposals were submitted (early to mid 1950's) that would 'strangely' come to resemble Soviet aircraft, only at a much later time. One aircraft in particular that was submitted by manufacturer North American was the NA-237. To the common layman, if they didn't know any better they'd easily mistake it for a modern day F-15, sans bubble canopy. A design concept that was developed less than a decade after WWll. Eventually, this led to the A-5 Vigilante. Originally, the A-5 had dual vertical tails but the navy opted for only one. It was advertised (perhaps a bit hyped) as a mach 2 to 3 nuclear strike fighter bomber, which sent shock waves throughout the Soviet Union. Still, the blueprint for what would become the conventional twin engine air superiority fighter platform was born. Increase the proportions of the A-5 all around and you basically have the MiG-25. The Soviets, having built the best intelligence gathering agency ever known to man utilized it to its fullest extend in regards to foreign espionage. The MiG-25 is just one example. At least superficially.
There isn't much more to say. They are MiG-25Ps with bomb racks. They can drop bombs very inaccurately in a general area and maybe get lucky. They were used a few times in combat with no clear results. Mostly just a marketing ploy for clients who wanted some sort of plane that could drop bombs on their enemies without getting shot down, but who couldn't afford real bombers or strike planes. The MiG-25 was cheap, and it's better than nothing. At least you can present the enemy with the threat of untouchable bombers that might do some damage, which is all a lot of equipment really needs to do to accomplish something useful. Sort of the Fleet in Being theory, can't really ignore the threat of it exists, and that complicates your planning and provides deterrence. And just plain bragging rights, which is important to some of the people who buy stuff like this.
It’s one of those crazy like a Fox sort of things. The Russians are no fools, even with their disadvantages in technology, population, and funds. Northern Eurasia is a brutal place where every European imperialist wants to spread their lands where they think there’s less competition, and every Asian imperialist wants to capture the wealth of Europe. And the Russians have met and seen to the disposal of all of them. They are a remarkable people. I would not be surprised if the Russians were either the last to fall to an alien invasion, or perhaps even the people to turn it back.
The Mig-25 just wasn't that good compared to what the west made in response. Whilst the Mig-25 is the final evolution in its class, its class stems from a doctrine that is just no longer valid.
Not western media, westerners. The media couldn't care less. The MiG-25 was a great plane in that it did exactly what it was intended to do from purchase; 1) be a low cost drag racer to intercept bombers, 2) scare the US into reacting to it (thus the F-15)
This is the best content I've ever seen on the Foxbat and by far. All the essential ar here, also strategic and historical elements that help the viewer understand the ahead of their time tech solutions adopted in this jewel engineering and production. Full geopolitical and srategic scenario is pictured 360° and still no unnecessary blabla. Plus the text style, narrator voice and rithm, some irks and quirrks and funny facts make this content extremely enjoyable and never dull despite its length. It's definitely worth an instant subscrtiption P.S. kudos also for the brilliant and accurate pronounciation of russian words and names
What part of this was in any way similar to a Formula 1 car? It can't do more than 4.5G, it's made for plain top speed and acceleration. A Top Fuel dragster maybe. An F1 car is extremely agile and good at turning, and uses very high tech . This was intentionally built of steel. Not to say that makes it low tech, it clearly wasn't. High grades of steel are almost as exotic as titanium.
@@justforever96 You just answered your own question. It was supposed to be high tech and multirole but it ended up an excercise in pure old fashioned power and straight line speed. Also Titanium is in no way exotic, it's one of the most common metals found in the earth's crust. It's just very difficult to work with which is what makes it expensive. Also it's pretty irellevant how high grade the steel is because in the end it's still just iron and carbon with a relatively low melting point in a machine whose structural integrity depends for a good part on the heat resistance of the materials it's been made out of. Also why do you think it wasn't agile? Because it wasn't made of titanium so it was very heavy, which gave it a high wingload, which means slower turning which means less agile. In other words, it's like you start designing an F1 car but halfway through decide a top fuel dragster is the best you can do given the budgetary circumstances.
@@hansmiseur3025but they didn't try to design an agile plane. Did you even watch the video? The plane is the plane they designed. It was always meant to go very fast, they never had the slightest intention of making it a dogfighter. Where do you get this idea that they tried to make an F-15 but somehow failed and ended up with a plane that was only fast? That is not what happened. They built exactly what they intended to build, and the US misinterpreted what it was supposed to be for. That's the only relationship this aircraft ever had with a multirole or air superiority fighter. And saying titanium is exotic is referring to how difficult and uncommon it is to use in the application, nothing to do with it being rare in nature. They had only just started using it in aircraft, it was expensive and hard to work. It's still most commonly used in the highest performing applications, that makes it an exotic material. That's not my term, it's a common descriptor. A supercar with a titanium exhaust system is unusual, it's an exotic material, because most cars don't use that. They don't build Cessnas and Boeings out of titanium, and they definitely didn't in the 1960s. Like every single thing you are saying is flat wrong.
Thank you for this expose of a super intersting aircraft by the then, Soviet Union. They definitely had a formidable air force, in size and variety of roles.
Would have been really interesting to see a MiG-25/31 with a titanium frame. But I guess they were using all the titanium to build submarines at the time.
It wasn't a question of availability, titanium is much harder to work with, the mass production of titanium Mig 25 would have made them insanely expensive and difficult to replace in case of war. This video actually addresses the issue at beginning.
Somebody’s uncle was flying that twin supercharged Aston Martin of the sky cavalier af and never had to shoot anybody down? That sounds like an awesome job.
I remember going to the Moscow aircraft museum. I tried to climb into to the mig 25 air intake and cut my hand because steel was so sharp because of the air friction on the steel body
@@thundercactus thanks for the reply, but that much is clear. What i don't understand is why you would want vorticity in the intake. Usually one tries to avoid that, using boundary layer control etc.
@@salmiakki5638Yeah, I share your questioning. I had no idea an inlet device even existed. I could almost comprehend a compressor device, or something related to shockwaves slowing down the uppermost air, but ONLY if it extended across the entire inlet from right to left. How it works or what function it performs as the stubby thing with three short airfoils has me utterly confused, but very interested.
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex SR-71's and A-12's needed an overhaul after every mission. MiG does not leak on the ground when fueled, got decent turning rate at lower speed, cheaper to operate, can engage other planes in combat. Which plane is more practical then?
@@beibotanov What on Earth are you on about "practical"??? The SR-71 wasn't designed to turn at lower speed, engage other planes in combat or be cheap to operate lol. An SR-71 could cruise at Mach 3.2 until it ran out of fuel. A Mig-25 couldn't touch that kind of performance.
@@sidefx996 did it need to? Where there was targeting radars' cover, even slow Tu-128 was sufficient to intercept a Blackbird. And where there was not, no speed could help with it. Ultimately, this was solved with MiG-31, even more practical plane:slower, yet cheaper to operate, longer range, capable of dogfighting and being an AVACS of it's own. Also, MiG-25R, R for reconaissance, was as successful in it as Blackbird, while also shooting down F16's and F15's
Talking about expensive titanium, I thought Russia was the largest titanium producer and even CIA tricked her into selling the material to them for SR-71 development!
Russia became the largest manufacturer after the appearance of the MiG-25; at the time of its creation, the interceptor was needed as soon as possible. In addition, it is not enough to extract titanium; we also need technologies for its smelting and welding, which also appeared later.
@@Pangolin_6483Ya, and I don’t think the machining, forging, and sheet metal techniques were as well developed as steel. I’m not certain, but weren’t the titanium subs well after the MiG-25?
@@ronjon7942 Most titanium boats were built in the 80s; in parallel with MIG-25, a titanium boat of Project 661 was actually developed, during the construction of which titanium processing methods were investigated, but this was just a single experimental project, plus titanium alloys for ships and aircraft are different.
"Let's drink to another successful flight of this aircraft!!!" 😂 The MiG-25 is a beautiful aircraft. I remember building a 1/144th scale model of it when I was a kid. I liked it so much that I got a second one and modified it. I moved the main wing down and back, and used the tailpIane for canards. I like the design of the Su-15 and Tu-128s as well, though. One thing that would be epic is a heritage flight of the MiG-25, English Electric Lightining, and the Convair F-106.
Imagine in a weird universe japan and china joined forces. Russia and germany joined forces. Imagine the invention and engineering marvel they can deliver.
An excellent overview, which tells us as much about aviation as an industry as it does about the Foxbat in context. The juxtaposition of showing the BAC Lightning interceptor alongside the Mig-25 development was useful because both planes in their eras had the same job. Whereas British aircraft were usually pleasant to look at, the P1 concept by English Electric (later BAC) was a large brute of a plane with vertically stacked engines, strength without too much weight and its job was to reach anything in its airspace very quickly, armed to the teeth. The cut delta wings allowed for nimble "escort" techniques. The later Mig-25 was built for rugged, very fast deployment over a larger range and was necessarily rather large, also pioneering the twin fin design which everyone copied. But what western manufacturers are not so good at is steady development at viable costs, with 'families' of aircraft looking similar yet having very different purposes. Russia never fell for the idiocy of "Gen this or that" but, more realistically, evolved to meet needs -- occasionally making startling breakthroughs not shown until full testing has been completed. I look forward to seeing developments in sea/ice planes for Arctic and inland sea/littoral transport use now that Russia's trade routes expansion alongside other states are changing away from conventional ones.
This is the plane that shifted thinking about electronics. When Western experts looked at the electronics, they were shocked at how primitive they appeared. It wasn't fully solid state but had valves or tubes. It was then thought it wasn't for lack of know-how but because it was more resistant to EMP blasts. That was when they started to make US planes with shielded electronics. There is one in part in Dayton. If we ever cease hostilities between one another, I hope they will send us some wings to put on it. TY for a great video.
@@davidkendall1614 The novel was written in 1977 based on the intelligence reports of the capabilities of the “super-foxbat” what they knew was it was to be fast, had a good radar and had a garbled report of “the look and shoot” helmet sight. Some of that made it to the writer who produced The Firefox out of it and some rumours of what the US was developing. The aircraft is a fictionalised and exaggerated account of what the US thought the mig31 was going to be in the late 1970’s. It is very definitely the mig 31.
It was an interesting experiment for the Russians. The aircraft was largely impractical but showcased the Russian knack for getting a lot from a little. The migs couldn't keep station with an SR71 for long, the SR71 was very efficient at speed and could stay at mach3 for over an hour at a time. The Mig 25 couldn't sustain the thermal stresses or fuel consumption for long at all.
Do you know why the Soviets kept making interceptors even though they were completely obsolete when they rolled out? Because they were so good at it! They kept making interceptors long long after they knew we would not ever attack them with waves of bombers. Because they made good interceptors! That was the Soviet way of thinking
Or maybe they continued to be produced because, given the vast, sparsely populated territory of the Soviet Union, which does not allow the creation of a sufficient number of airfields at reasonable costs, having an aircraft that would quickly intercept intruders even over a long distance is very useful, because one day border violators may turn out to be planes with nuclear missiles aimed at bases deep in the USSR.
@@Pangolin_6483 if you were talking about tactical Cruise missiles, those can be launched well outside the borders of the Soviet union. Like I said, the only thing they were good for was shooting down waves of bombers. And that threat stopped in the 1960s
@@richardbullwood5941 cruise missiles also have a range and flight speed, cruise missiles could not reach strategic targets deep in the USSR, unlike airplanes, and hundreds of American bombers did not go anywhere. In the 60s, even ballistic missiles were limited in range and could not reach objects deep in the USSR.
@@Pangolin_6483 the term ICBM stands for intercontinental ballistic missile. That means it can be launched in one continent, and it can go to another continent. The first ICBM in the American inventory was the atlas that came online in 1959. So I am correct. By the mid-1960s, our strategic nuclear missile threat to the Soviet Union was no longer bomber based. And what bombers were used would launch cruise missiles outside of the boundaries of the Soviet union. Both of these things made the Interceptor completely obsolete. And by the time the mig-25 foxbat was put into service, there was nothing left to intercept. If I'm wrong, tell me what successful military operation the mig-25 was ever utilized in. I was born in 1970 and my father served in the air force during vietnam, so obviously I might know a little bit more about this than you do. Interceptors were obsolete by the mid-1960s. Why do you think our last dedicated Interceptor was the f-106? After that, interceptors became second-tier aircraft and the role was simply relegated to air-to-air superiority Fighters that we already had such as the F4 Phantom
@@richardbullwood5941 intercontinental missiles - intercontinental missiles are very conditional, for that matter, the distance from Europe to Africa is 16 km. There were few аtlаs, there were many times more Soviet ballistic missiles, and it was their launch sites that were supposed to be destroyed by the bombers, which were supposed to intercept the MiG-25. As for successful operations, American reconnaissance aircraft, including the A-12 and SR-71, did not fly into Soviet airspace thanks to the MIG-25 until air defense systems were sufficiently developed. MiGs also called back high-altitude balloons over the territory of the USSR. MiGs were used quite successfully in the Middle East, although the Arab countries did not have the comprehensive air defense system that the USSR had. The United States had no need for interceptors; the main striking force of the Soviet Union was ballistic missiles, with which aircraft could not do anything, and not bombers. As I already said, for the USA or Europe the need for interceptors is irrelevant due to the densely populated territory, which makes it possible to create a sufficient number of airfields throughout the country; most of the USSR and now Russia are very sparsely populated territories, little suitable for economic activity due to that permafrost, however, it is through them that American planes will fly to strike targets inland. In the 40s and 50s, the USSR built Arctic airfields on the ice of the Arctic Ocean to intercept American aircraft, until interceptors with sufficient range and speed appeared.
In the end, the major achievement of Mig-25 was to scare the crap out of USA and push them to develop the F-15. Mig-25 was always just an interceptor: it could go fast, but it was a flying brick in a dog fight. In was really not any better than the flying bricks US and other NATO countries were producing, maybe just a bit faster top speed. Of course, US planners didn't know how heavy the Mig-25 was, they just knew the shape of the airframe. F-15 basically did what Mig-25 looked like it could do if you didn't know any better, and the F-15 because the most unbeatable fighter in history. I mean USSR could claim that for once they were the once who "inspired" USA to produce something that looked very similar, though it performed much, much better. It has seemingly inspired the whole 4th generation of fighters as far as layout goes.
How did the USSR inspire anything? Mig-25 looks only superficially like the F-15. Google 3-views of Foxbat and the A-5C Vigilante, and you'll see who was "inspired". As for the F-15, America developed it because the F-4 Phantom had flown in 1958, and needed a replacement. The MiG-25 had very little to do with the capabilities of the F-15, and less with the decision to develop it.
"Massandra" 50/50 mixture of ethanol and water. Says the MiG-25RB carried "300 L of alcohol". Now I don't know if that's 300 L of the mixture total, which would mean 150 L of ethanol, or if it's 300 L of ethanol, 600 L total mixture.
The F-22 and F-35 are good aircraft whose manufacturers want to make good profits, they are not communists. The Soviet Union was able to catch up with the United States only because the profits that the owners and shareholders of corporations - capitalists - received in the United States, were received in the Soviet Union by the state, which spent it on science, defense and other government needs. Thus, the USSR, which was much poorer, could compete with the world hegemon of the USA and NATO.
@@Pangolin_6483 Listen to me, I'm not asking you anything, as you're American, so you'd know absolutely nothing about any military aircraft whatsoever. What you all believe you could achieve by endlessly typing your backward wrong claims, (you can't ever back up with a single fact), I've no idea, but please, I'm not interested in anything you might think or believe, as you're only a propaganda swallowing fool, understand?
@@Pangolin_6483 I'm English, and I'd love to know I read so many Americans, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the Russian SU-57 that relies on washing machine, chip technology, and has the radar cross-section (RCS) of a Jumbo jet? LOL. Firstly, there is no possible way for anyone to know the RCS of any military aircraft, as they're always classified. But then, if you ask, what they've ever seen the F-22, actually do, (that would allow them to hold that opinion)? They can't answer that, (as they've never seen the F-22 do anything), well, other than flying over a beach on a RUclips Video. So, all they actually, and endlessly prove, is, their own opinions are worthless, as they're all based on absolutely nothing at all, right?. So, really, what is it all about? And even worse, they never even ask the obvious questions? Questions like, how can the F-22 or F-35's (for that matter) detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)? The truth is, they have no idea. Yet, if they had just asked themselves that one question, they'd maybe start to understand that today's reality, is nothing at all like they think! Seemingly they just don't understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar). So regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and stand out, like a beacon in the night. To detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR)! This is also a fact, the US must be fully aware of. Only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, just what do the F-22 or the F-35, actually have available to them to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding your enemies real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact. Because, on the other hand this (Russian rubbish), they all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today. Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right?. They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system. Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky). The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection]. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars. Get an education. Understand?
@@Pangolin_6483 EDUCATION (For free). The F-35B was claimed to be a stealthy single engine multirole combat aircraft, that unlike the Harrier, would be supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, and like the Harrier, would be VTOL capable. This is why we originally designed our two carriers without ramps. Only one of the biggest technical headaches, the British always had when building the Harrier, was the VTOL, - transferring from "lift" (downward nozzles), to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles), to then fly away from the lift-off. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, (three - four months at a time, over 3 years). Look up all the variants they made, but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I made the claim long before we saw the F-35B, that it wouldn't be VTOL capable, (even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines), because, the US has tried to produce and build a VTOL combat aircraft many times before, only they've failed each time, only ever managing to produce and build the British Sea Harrier, able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. I'll show you what I mean... Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RUclips search. At 7 mins, 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier performing a proper VTOL. You'll see it lift off vertically, and then fly away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. -- You'll not ever see any footage anywhere of the F-35B performing a full VTOL. Yet Lockheed Martin do claim it is VTOL capable, when it, so clearly, is not. Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RUclips search. You'll see it lift off, only then you'll see it return straight back down from the lift-off. You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off, if it could, we'd see footage of it doing so - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier. But you'll not find any footage, anywhere, of the F-35B performing a VTOL. The Americans, unable to answer this, will then comically claim it's not necessary? LOL, (while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft), meaning even any slight damage to the deck or ramp, they'd be unable to get the jets airborne? Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier, in battle, for only minor damage?, I mean goodness me, whatever next?. So, why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because, the US is still a country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s, the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time, they're going to try to lie about it LOL. That country is a travesty, man! But it does show us, that Lockheed do indeed produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is exactly the same... A failed aircraft, so today, only being used for propaganda purposes! Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods, fake misinformation claims, or just twisted truths, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat? It's true (ish), only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15?, we find that none had any offensive capabilities, most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar, meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned, if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down! So it really is, once again, and as always, just a very silly, and meaningless remedial propaganda claim. However, there is another aircraft, that's also unbeaten in A2A combat, and has faced off against aircraft just as capable and well armed as itself. The British Sea Harrier, is actually the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, and viable opposition. And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed. These Americans really should be questioning why the US government made it illegal to sell the F-22? The US government, seemingly want it believed, that because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it. Yet, that actually makes no sense at all, none, not even a little sense. As the facts are, they've no idea what's waiting around the corner in new modern military technologies, and with the speed we're seeing so much new hi tech military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, it could have made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage. (If it actually works). If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup many of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety, even a profit! Yet, as always, there's another, and much more likely, reason the USA made it illegal to sell the F-22. If it is, just as I suspect it is, a "lemon", that was intended to be their leading front line strike aircraft, (that's failed), yet because of the cost/expense, to design and build them, they can't just write it off. So the US have then only used the F-22 for propaganda purposes? Then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out, that it actually doesn't work, and really is a lemon, than making it illegal to sell? Logically, that's the only real possible reason the USA made it illegal to sell the F-22. -- It can only be, because it's a failed aircraft that was intended to be their leading front line 5th generation strike aircraft.19 years the US have had the F-22 in service, and they've been in wars the entire time, yet they've never used it, not once! And even more telling, was, after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015, the US removed every F-22 from right across the Middle East... Iraq, Tukey, UAE and Jordan. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee that we'll never see the F-22 involved in any real war scenario, or even involved in any major sortie, because it's basically junk. They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.
Do the research and you will come to realize that this aircraft wasn't NEARly even close to what the U.S. thought it was... We were actually very disappointed, but we built an aircraft to out perform and beat what we thought this thing could do... And to this very day, our F-15 is undefeated in any air to air combat... Russia has NO aircraft to this day that the West has to fear... It's been that way since Late Vietnam.... Study it..... It's true... and their engines on their best shyt? Service life is measured in hundreds of hours compared to the West's thousands of hours....
That's the thing. If you ask the Russiain Government, Russian hardware is the best, and performance outclasses every other country on earth. If you ask literally ANYONE else, including ex-pat Russian military members, it's all junk with inflated numbers. They're always behind the times. This interceptor program was first thought up to catch the B 70 Valkyrie that we never made. Mainly because missiles work better... yet they still dumped billions of Rubles (so, like, $1.75 American) into making a supersonic interceptor, that is inferior to EVERY western fighter in all areas except speed, to defeat a supersonic bomber we didn't make. This is why we don't all sign our names in Cyrillic, and why we use the term "the former U.S.S.R." .
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
How can we talk about the MiG-25 without knowing about its high-speed competitor on the other side of the border? The SR-71: ruclips.net/video/YgO7IYvJscw/видео.html
The basic difference between SR71 and Mif25 was that 1 was a one-off production with less than 20 planes. The other was a mass-produced version with more than 300 planes produced. Comparison stops there as per me
@@rustagi23 Also, SR71 wasnt meant for direct combat
@@rustagi23 SR71 is faster and could out run any missile or jet at the time and its reported top speed was way understated by the US. Foxbat also never and couldn't achieve Mach 3 and couldn't do a fraction of what Russia claimed. When US engineers after designing the F15 to counter the Foxbat, got their hands on a Foxbat, they found out it was another overhyped Russia piece of debris field. 😂
@@cubed0724 Cube, you sound like eating too many sour grapes! The SR-71 was unique and the MiG-25 was unique. The 71 was not a combat platform. A try of making it an interceptor failed and would have been useless. The 25 was a combat aircraft, but not a dogfighter. The 71, a great airplane, faded into history. The 25 lives on in the MiG-31, still the fastest combat aircraft around.
Don't let hate cloud your reasoning.
PS. Hope RUclips does not censor freedom of speech!
@@alexandrod22 Just stating facts, no sour grapes. The only sour grapes are those that try to rewrite history. Plus the Mig 31 even if could achieve Mach 3 which it hasn't. The jet can't sustain its top speed for long before breaking apart. All the Russians did is take two rockets and slap wings on them and a cockpit and attached a missile, that's it. Mig 31s have a habit of crashing frequently.
There’s just something about these old Soviet machines. They are unapologetically utilitarian, and one would think that’d make them hideous, but they have a grace and beauty that’s entirely their own. The Su-15 Flagon, the Mig-21, the Mig 23, the Mig 25, the Mi-8 and Mi-24. I find all of these machine beautiful.
You say that now, it's like a photoshop from a dating site. Up close they are hideous. Grace and beauty lmao. You've never seen one next to an F16.
I saw hundreds of weapons systems at the great open air displays of Russia, all the way up to armoured trains and a US Pershing II nuclear missile (WTF??) yet the one that bowled me over to meet in the flesh was the MiG-25 !! It felt like it was doing Mach 3 just standing in the grass....
The war in ukraine has proved that the Soviets understood what warfare is all Soviet planes can take off on far less than ideal runways wear the NATO planes even a nut can complete destroy a plane. They over engineer all their weapons so only specialists can repair then and they are fragile. A Russian artillery piece you can toss it out a plane 30000 ft na parachute it land no prop. Lol. A NATO cannon is a prissy diva that only works in ideal conditions and for short periods.
@@YankeeCommiehow’s that Warsaw Pact working out? How about that Soviet economy?
MIG-25 copy of similar North American design 10 year prior.
That crazy machine has a landing speed of 186mph! Can you imagine that? That fact that these guys didn't routinely pancake their planes just trying to set them down is a real tribute to their skill and their testicular fortitude.
The one thing I never understood is why a country with a plethora of titanium, built a steel airframe ?
@@ThomasBestonso-zr4ko As a CNC machinist I can tell you that titanium is exceedingly difficult and time consuming to machine.
Because it’s mass build machine
@@batmanmarvel Yes, maintaining and repairing a titanium frame would be an absolute nightmare.
@@loveandforward 🤝
It's one thing to build two planes, another thing is to provide the army with thousands of migs
In summer 2004 i was in Taganrog, Russia, to help in a home for mentally disabled children. A humanitarian project. Anyway, we visited the military airbase, and there was a MIG 25 on display. One of the engines next to it, with a fact sheet. Children were allowed to sit in the cockpit.
Even then, it had a dominant presence. From the front, it's the most menacing airplane i've ever seen. The inlets appear as one huge black hole that will devour anything in its path.
What are you waffling about!?
How is an a inanimate object menacing?
@@NiSiochainGanSaoirse If you don't understand how an inanimate object can have threatening properties then your intelligence is very low.
@@NiSiochainGanSaoirse
"Inanimate?"
It's one of the fastest combat aircraft that's ever existed.
@@stickiedmin6508 How does that change the fact that its still an inanimate object? He's pointing out how the OP was attempting to anthropomorphize humanistic characteristics into a non-living entity. And that he nor I nor many a body think applies to the craft, lol.
@@JohnDorian-j7x Just because an object is inanimate doesn't mean it can't look intimidating. Try standing in front of a wood chipper.
The best documentary I've yet watched about this magnificent aircraft. Thank you for making this! :)
Ka-bot 15a has great videos that cite documents. Things like SR-71 speed that was officially measured, was closer to the equator, which has colder atmosphere, compared to moscow latitude, difference in speed and altitude is lower. So, SR-71 wasnt as fast up in the north.
😂Russian propaganda channel, mig-25 is utter shit, a quarter of F-15 would decimate it
It wasn't even that good lmfao
@@justinstrong9595 Why don't you make one and show us how its done then? LMFAO.
what magnificent is there
That was a great video on the MiG-25's development!
Yup. We need one with the same details on the МиГ-31 !!!
You've made the best documentary on the Foxbat that I've ever seen. GREAT JOB!
My favourite story about the MiG 25 was the ultimately unbuilt adaptation of it to make what would have amounted to a Mach 3 Business Jet. The idea would have involved removing the weapons from the airframe and the fuselage was lengthened and widened to create space for a passenger cabin
How about to using MiG-25 for delivering small satellites for low orbits?
@PyromaN93 that sounds pretty cool as well :)
He mentions that in the video. Showed a picture.
There was a similar concept to turn the Tu-22M into a supersonic business jet.
Just imagine owning one . . .
What a great documentary with no western bashing nonsense . All about engineering , history , knowledge which is so great for Aviation Enthusiast. Thank you a lot.
Mig25 ; I can feel their joy and their engineering passion all they put in this plane.
Such a classic masterpiece.
Easy to produce , cheap maintain , best at what it design for , cost efficient , creat new manufacture technique , versatile in various mission
Indian person who already fly mig31 which is successor of this plane also said : it not like any kind fighter jet , it some kind of launching platform (some pilot say it just flying S300 )
Then MiG 25 legend is continue in MIG 31
Fucking Supersonic flying radar station with onboard hypersonic Nuke missile with insane range.
What a plane.
Feel glad for some civilian EU people who buy this Classic jet sit in their backyard . I ‘m not sure he is also Aerospace engineer. For me it look like he has private own spacecraft which is insanely cool !!!!!
Pffft. The Mig-15 was crap. The only good thing it did was make the West develop the F-15.
@@wadewilson6628 No it didn't. F-15 development started back in '65
@TyrannoJoris_Rex
Early iterations of these were different from the final product.
@@jamesmandahl444 No shit. Still wasn't spawned by the appearance of the MiG-25
Mig-25 was a big heap of trash compared to the F-15 and as it is well known that every russian avionic insight was a straight-forward copy of american aircraftmanship-art. You just cant deny that in any way, shape or form.
I mean you could... but..
..that would make you even worse💀
So GOOD to see a well-done presentation that really presents how fantastic this aircraft was. SO many just parrot back myths and lies about the Foxbat. For its day it was a beautiful staggering design!
What specific "myths and lies"?
@@JohnDorian-j7x About it being an unmaneuverable flying bathtub made out of cheapest materials without any "real" (i.e. against the specific cherrypicked targets) combat record, while also humoring that it uses "cruise missile engines that were not designed for more than a single flight". They also really like to compare it to F-15, despite the fact that they're completely different aircraft, and that mig has entered production 3 years earlier than it (which was very significant considering how quickly the aviation advanced back then)
I've learned a bit about the Mig-25 in the past and this channel is new to me, but this video was just fantastic and had some great information!
32:09 "What did you today?" "Nothing, just played a little golf over a Blackbird on an aircraft carrier....the usual"
that's will smith in the move " I am legend"
Ive been waiting for a good mig 25 documentary. THANK YOU!
MIG 25 was just 2 enormous engines with wings, tail and a cockpit strapped to it.
That’s according to the west to bash everything The Soviet built. Are you an engineer? A good engineer always give credit to other people’s work with limited resources (money). A bad engineer bash everyone!
РЛС в носу и ракета под брюхом)
Ik it looks like a brick [a fat brick]
That phrase can be said about most modern combat airplanes if you look at the ratio of their engine volume to overall volume
same with the f104 lol
Thank you for the very complete story and ending with the Buran... a very needed "What if" of what we can do when we focus on things other than war, if only all warbirds could end their days helping knowledge move on and nothing else.
Thank you for bringing it up brother.
@@cheekarp2180 brother? :/
@@jessicaluchesi He's not being literal
@@jessicaluchesi Oops, I meant sister!
Excelente comentário ❤❤❤❤
As for the combat use, in Iran-Iraq war the most probable score is 19:5 in favor of MiG-25. MiG-25 is also the only type of Iraqi air force that has officially recognized hit against the allies in 1991 war, when during the first night in downed Canadian F/A-18. There was also one remarkable clash 2xMiG-25 vs. 2xF-15. But both sides fired all of their missiles but scoring no hit as the electronic countermeasures on both sides worked 100 % that day. MiG-25 is also so far the only fighter jet/interceptor that won a dogfight against a drone. It took place in 2002, a year before the US invasion MiG-25 downed a MQ-1 Predator that fired a stinger missile on it in the "no fly zone".
During the Iran-Iraq War the Iraqi MiG-25 achieved the highest kill ratio after the Iraqi Mirage F1.
During the Desert Storm the Iraqi MiG-25 achieved two kills vs F-18 and F-15 in 30 January 1991 in Operation Samurra.
I haven't heard of an F15 ever being lost in combat.
@@richieencarnacion9530Samurra Air Battle
@@bassam6194 F-15 was never confirmed KIA. Saddam Hussein (me), claimed that two F-15s were shot down even though Iraqi Air Force reports only claimed one. The USAF reported no losses in the Samurra Air Battle.
@@richieencarnacion9530 it's all heresay. Iraq initially claimed one kill after finding a supposed wreckage. Saddam Hussein (me) claimed two were shot down, while the USAF reports none. Considering the USAF reports their losses well, and Iraq can't decide how many they shot down, I'd be more inclined to believe the USAF. It was the closest an F-15 has ever come to being shot down, but it still flew home according to most accounts.
love the longer format! keep up the good work!
19:39 The F-X program that became the F-15 launched all the way back in 1965. The Americans weren’t scared into making the F-15. They were freaking out because they saw the similarities with the massive wings, squared off intakes, and twin tails in the MiG-25, and thought the Soviets had penetrated the F-X program and beat them to the punch. That’s why they assumed the MiG-25 was some super-fighter, because that’s exactly what they were going for with the F-X.
F-X proposed many concepts for a new fighter, the Vietnam War at some point began to tilt the US Air Force towards an aircraft with the F-5 concept, light and maneuverable, but the advent of the MiG-25 forced a change in views, which ultimately led to the creation of the F-15 , although as stated in the video, the F-15 is not an analogue of the MiG-25; The Soviet equivalent of the F-15 was the Su-27.
@@Pangolin_6483yes
Mig-25 first flew before FX began, in 1964. Twin tails had been used on the A-12 and XB-70A, and are a natural alternative for high-speed aircraft that would otherwise need a single tail that would have to be much longer. Square intakes were used on the A-5 Vigilante, and were a natural choice to avoid iet airflow problems caused by the forebody of the aircraft. Nobody would have needed to be scared of the MiG-25 because the experience of American pilots in Vietnam.
@@Pangolin_6483 Yes but those aspects of the airframe had been decided upon prior to seeing the MiG-25. And the Lightweight Fighter Program that resulted in the F-16 was completely separate from the F-X program.
@@winternow2242 Yes, I'm aware those design elements weren't anything new. It wasn't about innovations, it was about perceived threat. Like I said, it was because the Americans were incorporating these features into what was supposed to be their brand new super-fighter, and then they see that the Soviets have already done the same thing on [what they assumed to be] a fighter of their own. And they didn't know much about it, including its actual role, except how it looked and that it had high performance capabilities that had shattered several previous aviation records.
This is a great video, providing a lot of information and history too. Thank you.
It might not have lived up to it's fearsome reputation but it certainly looks every bit as lethal as they feared.
"Foxbat" is absolutely one of the best Nato designations.
Intentionally. NATO originally tried to give Soviet planes either neutral or downright mocking names to make them seem less intimidating to the soldiers. Hence the MiG-15s name which I don't dare post because I have already been blocked twice for "hate speech" for saying absolutely nothing offensive at all. That word means a bundle of kindling, a firestarter. It implies it will be easy to kill. In that case it was because they feared it was a genuine threat and wanted to get the troops on the right idea, that it wasn't any big deal. But when the Soviets started coming out with more modern, actually threatening jets, they started giving them names just emphasizedv that they _were_ a threat. A guess they realized they having your pilots underestimate the enemy isn't a great policy. The MiG-25 was the first bogeyman, and it became "Foxbat", which is kind of ominous sounding. Then Fencer, and Fulcrum and Flanker, all very capable jets and all given pretty badass names.
Fantastic documentary, very well done. Also I would like to add my voice to any encouragement for Buran related content. Specifically, that automation system must be an amazing story. What I’ve heard about its software kind of blows my mind already. Anyway, thanks for the history!
🤘🏼❤️🤘🏼
Really great deep dive with a lot of details I've not heard elsewhere.
Always look forward to your videos Sky, thank you!!
This has to be one of your longest videos yet! Impressive!
Nice drone shots of the Mig 25. Great video again.
Great work, as usual. Love your narration skills.
The Foxbat’s offspring- the MiG-31 is the last dedicated interceptor still in mass service now that most F-14s are retired.
Iran operate 24 F-14s
Most F14s are still retired
F-14 was an interceptor, but it was also an air superiority fighter. Because of its baked in ability to dogfight, it's not a dedicated interceptor. (There was also a bombcat variant that was multirole, but that's besides the point since F104 also mysteriously had a fighter-bomber variant)
Panavia Tornado ADV was the last dedicated western interceptor, and the F106 Delta Dart was the last dedicated US interceptor.
The MiG-31 isn't a dedicated interceptor anymore either. The BM and BSM variants are multirole, being able to carry anti-radiation, anti-ship, and air-to-ground missiles.
And the MiG-31K (the one they're using most often right now) is actually an attack aircraft; a modified BM variant able to carry the Kinzhal. It's a cruise missile truck.
Arguably the most lethal fighter jet ever made, it's virtually untouchable and it can lock and fire on any rival fighter (stealth or not) long before coming into their radar range.
@@pmnichols10 I’m not sure how far out the MiG-31 can detect stealth aircraft. Let’s stay an F-22 can fire on an MiG-31 before the MiG’s radar sees the F-22, the fired missiles will at least alert the MiG something is out there. Until we have a real world F-22 or F-35 vs MiG-31 engagement it’s hard to say which will win in actual combat.
Always love your video's. I've been an aviation geek from a kid and live close enough to Dayton, Ohio that I can go to the USAF Museum. I like hearing your eastern view on these aircraft and the little nuances between US documentaries.
Suggestion, 5:23 you are discussing the engines "flight resource" of 15 hours. It would be more clear if you used "service live, overhaul time, rebuild time, operating lifetime or just lifetime". "The engines service live was only 15 hours". Sounds like this is a direct translation to English causing it to sound strange.
I'm an old USAF mechanic and would love to get to that Russian museum some day.
You have a point there. But I would like to add some perspective to it. I'm operating multilingually on a daily basis, and with all the praxis, I'm still struggling to have a proper translation, because there is frequently no 100% corresponding meaning. The considered technical, engineering, and operational key figures are deviating in some of the aspects, so in the heat of the translation, especially if the time is of the essence, I take the next best, or use a description. But even after 10 rounds of editing and correcting, one can still overlook some of the mistranslations, even by using translation software. In the case of the TBO you are referring here to, one still can't be entirely sure if one can translate it 1 to 1. I know a lot and suspect much more of the differences in the technical culture of maintaining and refurbishing in that field. The nearest thing I would have used here (while still consciously avoiding the term TBO) is "engine flight endurance", or "engine fatigue reserve". Its meaning is almost the same as TBO, but I gues some significant differences to "TBO" still might remain, about which some pedantic technical geeks would have their arguments and fights.
P.S. Just to give you an impression of the translating effort - this commentary took me two minutes to write, ten minutes to check the translation, and another ten for grammar and spell checking with PC tools. And I'm still sure - it sounds foreign to you here and there. So thank you for your commentary, but also, please give us non-native speakers some credit for trying :) to be as frank as possible.
Hey, my Air-comrad!) There is a large museum of Russian aviation not far from Moscow. It is called the Central Museum of the Russian Air Force. It is located in Monino.
Another thing is it wasn't just any steel. It was loaded with the metal nickel. It was a special steel alloy. Made it very heavy but resisted heat very well. I believe the American research aircraft the High Speed Rocket powered X-15 uses it too.
It's commonly known as stainless steel, it resists corrosion and it's a poorer heat conductor if compared with normal steel.
@@pmnichols10 stainless steel contains chromium. The material he means is inconel a mix of steel, chromium and nickel.
@@britjohnson1990 correction, stainless steel contains nickel and chromium, exactly like Inconel. Both are resistant to oxidation and corrosion thus earning the common designation of stainless steel.
@@pmnichols10 there are many different types of stainless steel. Surgical stainless doesnt contain nickel at all. Inconel is unique because of its resistance to high temps thus used in the x-15 program. Inconel and stainless are classified in different categories.
@@britjohnson1990 there's nothing unique about Inconel it's just a trade name for several specific kinds of stainless steel.
I will always respect the Soviet union because despite having obviously less sophisticated methods compared to the Americans they made up for it with sheer balls and audacity. Leading to sometimes primitive but pragmatic solutions to engineering problems. This plane couldn’t be more Russian , welded steel, vodka inside, just very based
I really appreciate the way you explain in general. Very clear, very concise, knowledgeable, fair, and easy to understand. This plane is an incredible accomplishment, and steel. Amazing. It is interesting that when I watched something about the SR, it helped me understand what you were talking about regarding slowing down the intake air. And seeing different technology accomplishing the same thing was very interesting.
As far as Soviet fighters are concerned, the MiG 25 will always hold interest. However, I find the Tu-128 more enigmatic due to its rarity and its huge size. Bigger even than the Foxbat!!
Yeah fuckin' twin AL-7's. Fat thing...
Excellent video, what an amazing plane the Mig 25 was. Misunderstood and belittle by western powers (not surprisingly) and magnificent machine in its own right. Extremely beautiful. Just dreamed all my life I could fly one to the limit of space as many wheatley people did, the dream came for free. Greets from Bogota - Colombia
It was misunderstood by the west in that the US thought it was a dogfighting air superiority aircraft. When they found out it was just a drag racer of an interceptor, they weren't worried about it anymore.
It's a successful aircraft though, did exactly what it was meant to; intercept bombers and scare the west into developing a new fighter.
Belittled? It was nothing but a paper tiger. Its radar was crap, it's engines loved to randomly burst into flames, and its titanium frame would develop cracks with as little as 100 hours on the airframe. It was garbage.
The best thing it did was scare the west into creating the F-15. The actual best interceptor in the world.
The king of interceptors.... the finally made it into service when air interceptors were pretty much obsolete.
It was fast. I'll give ya that. Just pray you don't have to turn.
" the finally made it into service when air interceptors were pretty much obsolete." sure, dude, but Kinzhal wants a word with your ignorance !
It is ironical now, the Mig 31, The world's fastest interceptor in service, is the perfect platform for hypersonic cruise missiles... at a time when murica have no fast interceptor, nor a hypersonic cruise missile :p
@mirandela777 lmao... the kinzhal.... the non-hypersonic "hypersonic missile". Acting like I'm the ignorant one.
The 31 can do mach 2.8. Push it to 3 if you want to completely trash the aircraft and make it a "use once and discard" plane. I will tell you one thing though.... the 31 will go faster than that propaganda piece kinzhal.
Russia has stocks of "hypersonic missiles" that they can attach to fast, unmaneuverable, outdated bomber interceptors... that's why they're gluing wings to dumb bombs in Ukraine and dusting off 30+ year retired A-50 because they don't have any other options.
Keep talking that bullshit, Chauncey
@@Phil-ey6yh - sure dude, an illiterate muppet on YT commenting about Kinzhal knows more about hypersonic than all the world professional military community ... obvious, we should trust you and not the rest of the world. I bet next you will say the Earth is flat !
If stupidity could hurt, you will cry all day long....
@@Phil-ey6yh You're talking nonsense, buddy. Dumb bombs are a thousand times cheaper than kinzhal, there is no need to use an expensive long-range missile on the front line, they have different tasks. By the way, what does the A50 have to do with it?
@Tonik-13 the kinzhal is a joke. Like almost ALL Russian hardware statistics, it's capability is a lie. Flat out. The A50 their pulling out of mothballs, with its antique hardware, shows how inadequate and equipment-poor the Russian military is. The Russian command structure is obsolete, the kill chain capacity is pathetic, Putin kills any capable military commands because he's Stalin-paranoid of anyone that might usurp him, the entire operation and structure is a shitshow and any victory will be a pyrrhic one.
As usual very informative engineering explantions.Thank u.
Please make a documentary about SU-15 flagon also.
Was just about to ask the same! )
Boeing Fears him
you beat me to it !
@@hiphip4808 here’s a thought process that might help you with this: Imagine and Il-62 deviated from it’s assigned course over North America and was heading into Nellis Airbase range and didn’t answer radio communications to change course. Do you think Uncle Sam would have done any different?
@@mcal27 F15 was shot down, cry about it
This is one my all time favorite Cold war era jets. Great content as always Sky! Cheers!
The SAM's that brought down Power's U2 worked a bit too well.They also shot down a Soviet interceptor chasing the U2....Life(and death)in the USSR.
Source?
@@Slaktrax Think the PVO sent up Su-9's and MiG-19's after it and a SAM got a MiG-19
From what I'm finding, the pilot's name was Sergei Safronov
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex Well they DID get the U2,and embarassed the US,so..Net gain?
and they sent 4k spy balloons too.
Brilliant, impartial and humourous commentary, I really enjoyed your narration!
good job, i hope u start later to talk about mig-31 which originated from mig-25.
Done.
@@justforever96 exactly.. well done
Another fantastic video in history, thanks Sky!!!!
So Americans thought to make Valkyrie, Soviets learned of that and made Mig 25, Americans saw it and thought its stats were real so they made F15 and when they learned that its stats were exaggerated they were disappointed and realized they made F15 out of a fear of a weapon that wasn't as good as they thought it was.
Man, what a story.
Edit: okay so the story is a bit more different than I thought but it's still interesting
Well, technically, the F15 was already in development it’s just they increased capability and sped up the development
The Soviets didn't start developing the MiG-25 until 1961. The B-70 was designed in 1957, years earlier. The B-70 was never built, and cancelled just a few weeks after the MiG-25 project began. The Soviets continued developing their plane for the next decade. Clearly the MiG-25 and the Valkyrie have little (if anything) to do with each other.
I have yet to see any evidence showing what air force officials and civilian officials thought about the MiG-25 during the late 1960s. They wouldn't have had to think much about the plane because American pilots encountered large numbers of MiG-21 and MiG-17 fighters in Vietnam.
Lastly, what features of the MiG-25 were "exaggerated"? There's a pervasive narrative that the Soviets lied about the MiG-25, but no specifics about factual claims that were made and la6er proven false.
I think you are as confused as the people who assumed it was a multi role fighter.
It was an dedicated interceptor.
And as such still owns the speed and altitude record. Wow ! Way to listen.
This plane was the first to use phased array radar. Valves were used in the electronic components so in a nuclear explosion the radar worked but the solid state circuitry in the western fighters would fry .
First to use HUD.
The phased array meant they were the first to be able to independently target multiple aircraft.
The SR71 flights stopped when this plane appeared .
Give them credit for original technical innovation and the solution of so many technical issues...
To the untrained mind it seems they " copied" but here is proof the Soviet ( and Russian) designers have their own parameters and in the conditions of war their weapons have proved more practical
Crap.
@@winternow2242 The MiG-25 was 100% based on the US WS-300A program. Many proposals were submitted (early to mid 1950's) that would 'strangely' come to resemble Soviet aircraft, only at a much later time. One aircraft in particular that was submitted by manufacturer North American was the NA-237. To the common layman, if they didn't know any better they'd easily mistake it for a modern day F-15, sans bubble canopy. A design concept that was developed less than a decade after WWll. Eventually, this led to the A-5 Vigilante. Originally, the A-5 had dual vertical tails but the navy opted for only one. It was advertised (perhaps a bit hyped) as a mach 2 to 3 nuclear strike fighter bomber, which sent shock waves throughout the Soviet Union. Still, the blueprint for what would become the conventional twin engine air superiority fighter platform was born. Increase the proportions of the A-5 all around and you basically have the MiG-25. The Soviets, having built the best intelligence gathering agency ever known to man utilized it to its fullest extend in regards to foreign espionage. The MiG-25 is just one example. At least superficially.
thanks for another great vid Sky. Its great to see the old soviet era film. Please keep up the great work.
The russians make such awesome aircraft I bet they could make some beautiful high performance cars.
I appreciate a human voice and not using AI which earns immediate refusal to watch a video with me. Thanks watched till the end and subbed
Excellent Video and Documentary.
BURAN MY BELOVED.
Wish you talked more about the bomber/strike variants, I'd love to learn more about those
There isn't much more to say. They are MiG-25Ps with bomb racks. They can drop bombs very inaccurately in a general area and maybe get lucky. They were used a few times in combat with no clear results. Mostly just a marketing ploy for clients who wanted some sort of plane that could drop bombs on their enemies without getting shot down, but who couldn't afford real bombers or strike planes. The MiG-25 was cheap, and it's better than nothing. At least you can present the enemy with the threat of untouchable bombers that might do some damage, which is all a lot of equipment really needs to do to accomplish something useful. Sort of the Fleet in Being theory, can't really ignore the threat of it exists, and that complicates your planning and provides deterrence. And just plain bragging rights, which is important to some of the people who buy stuff like this.
Soviet engineering is something I find fascinating.
It’s one of those crazy like a Fox sort of things. The Russians are no fools, even with their disadvantages in technology, population, and funds. Northern Eurasia is a brutal place where every European imperialist wants to spread their lands where they think there’s less competition, and every Asian imperialist wants to capture the wealth of Europe. And the Russians have met and seen to the disposal of all of them. They are a remarkable people. I would not be surprised if the Russians were either the last to fall to an alien invasion, or perhaps even the people to turn it back.
@@Mortablunt Heh, this reminds me of a comment under an A-235 Nudol launch video: "And that's why aliens never land in Russia." 😂
Love the detailed long duration format, thanks!
Had been asking for this for years! Thank you!
Great video. Well done. Best I've ever seen on the bat.
What a fantastic machine.
Awesome channel. Thankyou for the amazing content 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
western media likes to belittle of mig25. Mig 25 was amazing plane , such a powerful monster
looooool. Western media doesn't care about Soviet aircrafts, What a weird whinge.
The Mig-25 just wasn't that good compared to what the west made in response.
Whilst the Mig-25 is the final evolution in its class, its class stems from a doctrine that is just no longer valid.
Not western media, westerners. The media couldn't care less.
The MiG-25 was a great plane in that it did exactly what it was intended to do from purchase; 1) be a low cost drag racer to intercept bombers, 2) scare the US into reacting to it (thus the F-15)
The only good thing the Mig-25 did was create the F-15.
It was garbage when eventually it was trialed .
This is the best content I've ever seen on the Foxbat and by far.
All the essential ar here, also strategic and historical elements that help the viewer understand the ahead of their time tech solutions adopted in this jewel engineering and production. Full geopolitical and srategic scenario is pictured 360° and still no unnecessary blabla.
Plus the text style, narrator voice and rithm, some irks and quirrks and funny facts make this content extremely enjoyable and never dull despite its length.
It's definitely worth an instant subscrtiption
P.S. kudos also for the brilliant and accurate pronounciation of russian words and names
I love this cast iron & mahogany Formula 1 car that ended up drag racing.
What part of this was in any way similar to a Formula 1 car? It can't do more than 4.5G, it's made for plain top speed and acceleration. A Top Fuel dragster maybe. An F1 car is extremely agile and good at turning, and uses very high tech . This was intentionally built of steel. Not to say that makes it low tech, it clearly wasn't. High grades of steel are almost as exotic as titanium.
@@justforever96 You just answered your own question. It was supposed to be high tech and multirole but it ended up an excercise in pure old fashioned power and straight line speed. Also Titanium is in no way exotic, it's one of the most common metals found in the earth's crust. It's just very difficult to work with which is what makes it expensive. Also it's pretty irellevant how high grade the steel is because in the end it's still just iron and carbon with a relatively low melting point in a machine whose structural integrity depends for a good part on the heat resistance of the materials it's been made out of. Also why do you think it wasn't agile? Because it wasn't made of titanium so it was very heavy, which gave it a high wingload, which means slower turning which means less agile. In other words, it's like you start designing an F1 car but halfway through decide a top fuel dragster is the best you can do given the budgetary circumstances.
@@hansmiseur3025but they didn't try to design an agile plane. Did you even watch the video? The plane is the plane they designed. It was always meant to go very fast, they never had the slightest intention of making it a dogfighter. Where do you get this idea that they tried to make an F-15 but somehow failed and ended up with a plane that was only fast? That is not what happened. They built exactly what they intended to build, and the US misinterpreted what it was supposed to be for. That's the only relationship this aircraft ever had with a multirole or air superiority fighter. And saying titanium is exotic is referring to how difficult and uncommon it is to use in the application, nothing to do with it being rare in nature. They had only just started using it in aircraft, it was expensive and hard to work. It's still most commonly used in the highest performing applications, that makes it an exotic material. That's not my term, it's a common descriptor. A supercar with a titanium exhaust system is unusual, it's an exotic material, because most cars don't use that. They don't build Cessnas and Boeings out of titanium, and they definitely didn't in the 1960s. Like every single thing you are saying is flat wrong.
Thank you for this expose of a super intersting aircraft by the then, Soviet Union. They definitely had a formidable air force, in size and variety of roles.
Would have been really interesting to see a MiG-25/31 with a titanium frame. But I guess they were using all the titanium to build submarines at the time.
A lot of weight would have been reduced and the Aircraft could be more agile and fast
It wasn't a question of availability, titanium is much harder to work with, the mass production of titanium Mig 25 would have made them insanely expensive and difficult to replace in case of war. This video actually addresses the issue at beginning.
Some 8-9% of a MiG-25 is titanium, that's 1,600-1,800 kg per aircraft.
This is one of the best videos you've done, if not the best
Somebody’s uncle was flying that twin supercharged Aston Martin of the sky cavalier af and never had to shoot anybody down? That sounds like an awesome job.
Great video essay, keep it up man!
I remember going to the Moscow aircraft museum. I tried to climb into to the mig 25 air intake and cut my hand because steel was so sharp because of the air friction on the steel body
You learn something new every day, i learnt lot of new stuff today,"The history" always surprise me
11:36 what is the benefit of the "turbolator" ?
I never knew something like this existed in intakes
vortex generator, likely just there to affect airflow coming into the engine
@@thundercactus thanks for the reply, but that much is clear. What i don't understand is why you would want vorticity in the intake. Usually one tries to avoid that, using boundary layer control etc.
@@salmiakki5638 Probably slows down the air by the point at which the flow redevelops
@@salmiakki5638Yeah, I share your questioning. I had no idea an inlet device even existed. I could almost comprehend a compressor device, or something related to shockwaves slowing down the uppermost air, but ONLY if it extended across the entire inlet from right to left. How it works or what function it performs as the stubby thing with three short airfoils has me utterly confused, but very interested.
I wonder if its not a vortex generator but a sprayer either to cool the charge air into the air intake or a act as a de-icer. Just guessing here.
Hello Aviators, this is SKY here!
Classic!
What movie is some footage from?
The right stuff and Thirteen days
I too wish to learn, especially Mig 25 production.
I saw a segment from Failsafe! where interceptors fired into a cloud of decoys. bravo for this excellent video!
33:40 Excellent video snippet: that's the US embassy in Tokyo. You have really worked hard on this video!
An impressive interceptor. Even more impressive is the SR71 which could outrun the Foxbat. Now THAT'S fast!
Tough to say, but the MiG would need an overhaul after
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex SR-71's and A-12's needed an overhaul after every mission. MiG does not leak on the ground when fueled, got decent turning rate at lower speed, cheaper to operate, can engage other planes in combat. Which plane is more practical then?
@@beibotanov No I only meant if the MiG was going fast enough to keep up with the SR-71
@@beibotanov What on Earth are you on about "practical"??? The SR-71 wasn't designed to turn at lower speed, engage other planes in combat or be cheap to operate lol. An SR-71 could cruise at Mach 3.2 until it ran out of fuel. A Mig-25 couldn't touch that kind of performance.
@@sidefx996 did it need to? Where there was targeting radars' cover, even slow Tu-128 was sufficient to intercept a Blackbird. And where there was not, no speed could help with it. Ultimately, this was solved with MiG-31, even more practical plane:slower, yet cheaper to operate, longer range, capable of dogfighting and being an AVACS of it's own. Also, MiG-25R, R for reconaissance, was as successful in it as Blackbird, while also shooting down F16's and F15's
Fantastic documentary thank you!
Talking about expensive titanium, I thought Russia was the largest titanium producer and even CIA tricked her into selling the material to them for SR-71 development!
Soviet submarines used a lot of titanium
Titanium was too expencive for the mass production jets
Russia became the largest manufacturer after the appearance of the MiG-25; at the time of its creation, the interceptor was needed as soon as possible. In addition, it is not enough to extract titanium; we also need technologies for its smelting and welding, which also appeared later.
@@Pangolin_6483Ya, and I don’t think the machining, forging, and sheet metal techniques were as well developed as steel. I’m not certain, but weren’t the titanium subs well after the MiG-25?
@@ronjon7942 Most titanium boats were built in the 80s; in parallel with MIG-25, a titanium boat of Project 661 was actually developed, during the construction of which titanium processing methods were investigated, but this was just a single experimental project, plus titanium alloys for ships and aircraft are different.
Cool episode and a fantastic aircraft. Just a beast
"Let's drink to another successful flight of this aircraft!!!" 😂 The MiG-25 is a beautiful aircraft. I remember building a 1/144th scale model of it when I was a kid. I liked it so much that I got a second one and modified it. I moved the main wing down and back, and used the tailpIane for canards. I like the design of the Su-15 and Tu-128s as well, though. One thing that would be epic is a heritage flight of the MiG-25, English Electric Lightining, and the Convair F-106.
Imagine its made out of titanium, the range would be much higher !!
The manufacturer of these is a true artform.
flying brick of steel
all Mach 3 had to use steel, Valkyrie as well as SR-71.
Toller Bericht ! Ich habe sie Ende der 70 Anfang der 80 er wenige Kilometer nördlich von Berlin mehrfach beobachten können. Grüße !!
Interesting!
What a great story.
Thank you!
Imagine in a weird universe japan and china joined forces. Russia and germany joined forces. Imagine the invention and engineering marvel they can deliver.
An excellent overview, which tells us as much about aviation as an industry as it does about the Foxbat in context.
The juxtaposition of showing the BAC Lightning interceptor alongside the Mig-25 development was useful because both planes in their eras had the same job.
Whereas British aircraft were usually pleasant to look at, the P1 concept by English Electric (later BAC) was a large brute of a plane with vertically stacked engines, strength without too much weight and its job was to reach anything in its airspace very quickly, armed to the teeth. The cut delta wings allowed for nimble "escort" techniques.
The later Mig-25 was built for rugged, very fast deployment over a larger range and was necessarily rather large, also pioneering the twin fin design which everyone copied. But what western manufacturers are not so good at is steady development at viable costs, with 'families' of aircraft looking similar yet having very different purposes. Russia never fell for the idiocy of "Gen this or that" but, more realistically, evolved to meet needs -- occasionally making startling breakthroughs not shown until full testing has been completed.
I look forward to seeing developments in sea/ice planes for Arctic and inland sea/littoral transport use now that Russia's trade routes expansion alongside other states are changing away from conventional ones.
28:45 Was that a brief clip from "By Dawns Early Light"?
Love that movie. ^_^
"Bogey's my ass, THEM'S BANDITS!"
Spasiba! Thank you! for trying to lock on the SR71
This is the plane that shifted thinking about electronics. When Western experts looked at the electronics, they were shocked at how primitive they appeared. It wasn't fully solid state but had valves or tubes. It was then thought it wasn't for lack of know-how but because it was more resistant to EMP blasts. That was when they started to make US planes with shielded electronics. There is one in part in Dayton. If we ever cease hostilities between one another, I hope they will send us some wings to put on it. TY for a great video.
I could see Ukraine sending a pair of wings for that 25.
@@NickThePilotUSAI like that. ;-) TY. That made my day. LOL
33:07
I've never seen this picture before.
Really interesting design concepts, especially that cranked delta idea.
Cool stuff.
No mention of the Firefox movie!?
Thank gosh
Firefox was about the mig31. Particularly the look down shoot down radar and the helmet mounted radar sight.
@@davidwright7193Ah, no…it was not. The aircraft in the Firefox movie was fictional.
@@davidkendall1614 The novel was written in 1977 based on the intelligence reports of the capabilities of the “super-foxbat” what they knew was it was to be fast, had a good radar and had a garbled report of “the look and shoot” helmet sight. Some of that made it to the writer who produced The Firefox out of it and some rumours of what the US was developing. The aircraft is a fictionalised and exaggerated account of what the US thought the mig31 was going to be in the late 1970’s. It is very definitely the mig 31.
@@davidwright7193OK, fair enough. But the comment was “Firefox was about the MiG-31”. What’s in the movie was not MiG-31”.
Looks badass; I'll grant you that. But these belong on display in museums. Their time ran out a long time ago...
Well yeah that's why they're not in Russian service anymore
The mig 25 didn’t so much fly as it was beating the air into compliance.
Excellent presentation. Balanced
It was an interesting experiment for the Russians. The aircraft was largely impractical but showcased the Russian knack for getting a lot from a little. The migs couldn't keep station with an SR71 for long, the SR71 was very efficient at speed and could stay at mach3 for over an hour at a time. The Mig 25 couldn't sustain the thermal stresses or fuel consumption for long at all.
Do you know why the Soviets kept making interceptors even though they were completely obsolete when they rolled out? Because they were so good at it! They kept making interceptors long long after they knew we would not ever attack them with waves of bombers. Because they made good interceptors! That was the Soviet way of thinking
Or maybe they continued to be produced because, given the vast, sparsely populated territory of the Soviet Union, which does not allow the creation of a sufficient number of airfields at reasonable costs, having an aircraft that would quickly intercept intruders even over a long distance is very useful, because one day border violators may turn out to be planes with nuclear missiles aimed at bases deep in the USSR.
@@Pangolin_6483 if you were talking about tactical Cruise missiles, those can be launched well outside the borders of the Soviet union. Like I said, the only thing they were good for was shooting down waves of bombers. And that threat stopped in the 1960s
@@richardbullwood5941 cruise missiles also have a range and flight speed, cruise missiles could not reach strategic targets deep in the USSR, unlike airplanes, and hundreds of American bombers did not go anywhere. In the 60s, even ballistic missiles were limited in range and could not reach objects deep in the USSR.
@@Pangolin_6483 the term ICBM stands for intercontinental ballistic missile. That means it can be launched in one continent, and it can go to another continent. The first ICBM in the American inventory was the atlas that came online in 1959. So I am correct. By the mid-1960s, our strategic nuclear missile threat to the Soviet Union was no longer bomber based. And what bombers were used would launch cruise missiles outside of the boundaries of the Soviet union. Both of these things made the Interceptor completely obsolete. And by the time the mig-25 foxbat was put into service, there was nothing left to intercept. If I'm wrong, tell me what successful military operation the mig-25 was ever utilized in. I was born in 1970 and my father served in the air force during vietnam, so obviously I might know a little bit more about this than you do. Interceptors were obsolete by the mid-1960s. Why do you think our last dedicated Interceptor was the f-106? After that, interceptors became second-tier aircraft and the role was simply relegated to air-to-air superiority Fighters that we already had such as the F4 Phantom
@@richardbullwood5941 intercontinental missiles - intercontinental missiles are very conditional, for that matter, the distance from Europe to Africa is 16 km. There were few аtlаs, there were many times more Soviet ballistic missiles, and it was their launch sites that were supposed to be destroyed by the bombers, which were supposed to intercept the MiG-25.
As for successful operations, American reconnaissance aircraft, including the A-12 and SR-71, did not fly into Soviet airspace thanks to the MIG-25 until air defense systems were sufficiently developed. MiGs also called back high-altitude balloons over the territory of the USSR.
MiGs were used quite successfully in the Middle East, although the Arab countries did not have the comprehensive air defense system that the USSR had.
The United States had no need for interceptors; the main striking force of the Soviet Union was ballistic missiles, with which aircraft could not do anything, and not bombers. As I already said, for the USA or Europe the need for interceptors is irrelevant due to the densely populated territory, which makes it possible to create a sufficient number of airfields throughout the country; most of the USSR and now Russia are very sparsely populated territories, little suitable for economic activity due to that permafrost, however, it is through them that American planes will fly to strike targets inland. In the 40s and 50s, the USSR built Arctic airfields on the ice of the Arctic Ocean to intercept American aircraft, until interceptors with sufficient range and speed appeared.
In the end, the major achievement of Mig-25 was to scare the crap out of USA and push them to develop the F-15. Mig-25 was always just an interceptor: it could go fast, but it was a flying brick in a dog fight. In was really not any better than the flying bricks US and other NATO countries were producing, maybe just a bit faster top speed. Of course, US planners didn't know how heavy the Mig-25 was, they just knew the shape of the airframe. F-15 basically did what Mig-25 looked like it could do if you didn't know any better, and the F-15 because the most unbeatable fighter in history.
I mean USSR could claim that for once they were the once who "inspired" USA to produce something that looked very similar, though it performed much, much better. It has seemingly inspired the whole 4th generation of fighters as far as layout goes.
How did the USSR inspire anything? Mig-25 looks only superficially like the F-15. Google 3-views of Foxbat and the A-5C Vigilante, and you'll see who was "inspired".
As for the F-15, America developed it because the F-4 Phantom had flown in 1958, and needed a replacement. The MiG-25 had very little to do with the capabilities of the F-15, and less with the decision to develop it.
How much vodka is in this one?
ALL the vodka.
"Massandra" 50/50 mixture of ethanol and water. Says the MiG-25RB carried "300 L of alcohol". Now I don't know if that's 300 L of the mixture total, which would mean 150 L of ethanol, or if it's 300 L of ethanol, 600 L total mixture.
@@TyrannoJoris_Rexah, someone's watching Paper Skies eh? Guide to vodka/alcohol usage in Soviet Aviation.
Fantastic vid ,well worth a SUB 👍🇬🇧
F 16 still flys
Outstanding production video on the MiG-25
ICONIC RUSSIAN FIGHTER 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
Great episode, Thank you!
Indeed, it is, and cost like 500 times less than any propaganda based aircraft, we see being produced by the USA, like both the F-22 and F-35.
The F-22 and F-35 are good aircraft whose manufacturers want to make good profits, they are not communists. The Soviet Union was able to catch up with the United States only because the profits that the owners and shareholders of corporations - capitalists - received in the United States, were received in the Soviet Union by the state, which spent it on science, defense and other government needs. Thus, the USSR, which was much poorer, could compete with the world hegemon of the USA and NATO.
@@Pangolin_6483 Listen to me, I'm not asking you anything, as you're American, so you'd know absolutely nothing about any military aircraft whatsoever.
What you all believe you could achieve by endlessly typing your backward wrong claims, (you can't ever back up with a single fact), I've no idea, but please, I'm not interested in anything you might think or believe, as you're only a propaganda swallowing fool, understand?
@@Pangolin_6483 I'm English, and I'd love to know I read so many Americans, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the Russian SU-57 that relies on washing machine, chip technology, and has the radar cross-section (RCS) of a Jumbo jet? LOL.
Firstly, there is no possible way for anyone to know the RCS of any military aircraft, as they're always classified. But then, if you ask, what they've ever seen the F-22, actually do, (that would allow them to hold that opinion)? They can't answer that, (as they've never seen the F-22 do anything), well, other than flying over a beach on a RUclips Video.
So, all they actually, and endlessly prove, is, their own opinions are worthless, as they're all based on absolutely nothing at all, right?. So, really, what is it all about?
And even worse, they never even ask the obvious questions? Questions like, how can the F-22 or F-35's (for that matter) detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)?
The truth is, they have no idea. Yet, if they had just asked themselves that one question, they'd maybe start to understand that today's reality, is nothing at all like they think!
Seemingly they just don't understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar).
So regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and stand out, like a beacon in the night.
To detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes.
Neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, (hence, they can't detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR)! This is also a fact, the US must be fully aware of.
Only it seems the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat!
So, just what do the F-22 or the F-35, actually have available to them to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time).
Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding your enemies real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact.
Because, on the other hand this (Russian rubbish), they all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, and very easily today.
Russia has designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
This new Russian radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish, right?.
They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system.
Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
We should also understand, that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35.
As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR.
Seeing the all-important, huge Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky).
The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including...
Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection].
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.
Get an education. Understand?
@@Pangolin_6483 Clueless
@@Pangolin_6483 EDUCATION (For free).
The F-35B was claimed to be a stealthy single engine multirole combat aircraft, that unlike the Harrier, would be supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, and like the Harrier, would be VTOL capable. This is why we originally designed our two carriers without ramps.
Only one of the biggest technical headaches, the British always had when building the Harrier, was the VTOL, - transferring from "lift" (downward nozzles), to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles), to then fly away from the lift-off. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, (three - four months at a time, over 3 years). Look up all the variants they made, but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out.
I made the claim long before we saw the F-35B, that it wouldn't be VTOL capable, (even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines), because, the US has tried to produce and build a VTOL combat aircraft many times before, only they've failed each time, only ever managing to produce and build the British Sea Harrier, able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed.
I'll show you what I mean... Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RUclips search. At 7 mins, 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier performing a proper VTOL. You'll see it lift off vertically, and then fly away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. -- You'll not ever see any footage anywhere of the F-35B performing a full VTOL. Yet Lockheed Martin do claim it is VTOL capable, when it, so clearly, is not.
Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RUclips search. You'll see it lift off, only then you'll see it return straight back down from the lift-off. You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off, if it could, we'd see footage of it doing so - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier. But you'll not find any footage, anywhere, of the F-35B performing a VTOL.
The Americans, unable to answer this, will then comically claim it's not necessary? LOL, (while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft), meaning even any slight damage to the deck or ramp, they'd be unable to get the jets airborne? Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier, in battle, for only minor damage?, I mean goodness me, whatever next?.
So, why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because, the US is still a country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s, the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time, they're going to try to lie about it LOL.
That country is a travesty, man! But it does show us, that Lockheed do indeed produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is exactly the same... A failed aircraft, so today, only being used for propaganda purposes!
Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods, fake misinformation claims, or just twisted truths, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat? It's true (ish), only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15?, we find that none had any offensive capabilities, most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar, meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned, if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down! So it really is, once again, and as always, just a very silly, and meaningless remedial propaganda claim.
However, there is another aircraft, that's also unbeaten in A2A combat, and has faced off against aircraft just as capable and well armed as itself. The British Sea Harrier, is actually the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, and viable opposition. And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed.
These Americans really should be questioning why the US government made it illegal to sell the F-22? The US government, seemingly want it believed, that because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it.
Yet, that actually makes no sense at all, none, not even a little sense. As the facts are, they've no idea what's waiting around the corner in new modern military technologies, and with the speed we're seeing so much new hi tech military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, it could have made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage. (If it actually works).
If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup many of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety, even a profit! Yet, as always, there's another, and much more likely, reason the USA made it illegal to sell the F-22.
If it is, just as I suspect it is, a "lemon", that was intended to be their leading front line strike aircraft, (that's failed), yet because of the cost/expense, to design and build them, they can't just write it off. So the US have then only used the F-22 for propaganda purposes? Then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out, that it actually doesn't work, and really is a lemon, than making it illegal to sell?
Logically, that's the only real possible reason the USA made it illegal to sell the F-22. -- It can only be, because it's a failed aircraft that was intended to be their leading front line 5th generation strike aircraft.19 years the US have had the F-22 in service, and they've been in wars the entire time, yet they've never used it, not once!
And even more telling, was, after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015, the US removed every F-22 from right across the Middle East... Iraq, Tukey, UAE and Jordan. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee that we'll never see the F-22 involved in any real war scenario, or even involved in any major sortie, because it's basically junk.
They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.
most beautiful aircraft ever created. period.
Do the research and you will come to realize that this aircraft wasn't NEARly even close to what the U.S. thought it was... We were actually very disappointed, but we built an aircraft to out perform and beat what we thought this thing could do... And to this very day, our F-15 is undefeated in any air to air combat... Russia has NO aircraft to this day that the West has to fear... It's been that way since Late Vietnam.... Study it..... It's true... and their engines on their best shyt? Service life is measured in hundreds of hours compared to the West's thousands of hours....
That's the thing. If you ask the Russiain Government, Russian hardware is the best, and performance outclasses every other country on earth.
If you ask literally ANYONE else, including ex-pat Russian military members, it's all junk with inflated numbers.
They're always behind the times. This interceptor program was first thought up to catch the B 70 Valkyrie that we never made. Mainly because missiles work better... yet they still dumped billions of Rubles (so, like, $1.75 American) into making a supersonic interceptor, that is inferior to EVERY western fighter in all areas except speed, to defeat a supersonic bomber we didn't make.
This is why we don't all sign our names in Cyrillic, and why we use the term "the former U.S.S.R." .