Blackbird v. Mig-25

Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

From: Venik
Date: 8/29/2004 12:18 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

--
Regards,

Venik


Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.


Is this a test? Ooh, I like tests! I suggest reading something about
the development of the F-14, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflicts which
saw the use of MiG-25s. I promise you will find no shortage of examples
of how MiG-25 affeted the US planning.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

"Venik" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

Can you name a single such book? I would sincerely be interested in
obtaining a copy.

Besides, when you state that the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have had such an "impact"
on US planing that the SR-71 was retired, why don't you then also explain
about the impact of the F-14 on further developments of MiG-25s?

Namely, this was stopped on a direct order from Moscow after a second
Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs on testing in Iraq was shot down by Iranian F-14s
(using "non-operational" AIM-54s) - in 1987.

In fact, you could then go on and explain about impact the losses of
Soviet-flown Foxbats in Iraq had on a decision to sell Su-24MKs to Syria,
Iraq and Libya instead. Then, all of these countries were originally
completely desinterested in Fencer and actually waiting for IFR-probe
equipped Foxbats to be readied for service: yet, when the news about the
loss of a MiG-25BM near Tehran, in November 1987, reached specific bureaus
in Baghdad, Damascus, and Tripolis all the orders were "suddenly" cancelled,
and also a specific directive was issued in Moscow. Would you be so kind to
tell us why?

I'm sure you'll agree, Venik, that you have a strong predilection of
"providing evidence" for some kind of "superiority" of Soviet-built weapons
and their "impact" on Western thinking and planing.

OK, no problem; I understand your point - regardless of your inability to
provide serious evidence.

But, I don't understand why do you then ignore the impact of Western
technology on Soviet thinking and planing? Why ignore the amount of
Western-technology used to develop specific Soviet systems (the Kh-58, main
armament of the MiG-25BM, for example, was developed from French-built
AJ.168 ARM, supplied to USSR via Iraq) or ignore Soviet own negative
experiences with some of their most potent systems...?

MiG-25s were shot down in combat - and not only three by the Israelis, but
almost two dozens by the Iranians (the first one already in 1976). The SR-71
was never shot down by anybody - even if more than 4.000 SAMs were fired at
them. Is it now so that these figures talk a language you can't understand?

--


Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Sir,
Since You know this matter well I would like a conformation and an information.
"World Air Power Journal" published in 1999. reported 35 to 40 enemy aircraft shot
down by Iranian Tomcats, is this corect?
How many Iraqi aircraft were shot down by F-4's and did F-5's score any?
Nemanja Vukicevic
aeronautical engineering student

Tom Cooper wrote:

Besides, when you state that the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have had such an "impact"
on US planing that the SR-71 was retired, why don't you then also explain
about the impact of the F-14 on further developments of MiG-25s?

Because we are talking about SR-71 and MiG-25. We can also talk about
the impact of the MiG-25 on the development of the F-14, but this
wouldn't really have anything to do with SR-71, would it?


Namely, this was stopped on a direct order from Moscow after a second
Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs on testing in Iraq was shot down by Iranian F-14s
(using "non-operational" AIM-54s) - in 1987.

If you want to talk about the F-14, then, perhaps, you should start
another thread, unless, of course, your intention is to shift the topic
of this discussion to the Iran-Iraq war (during which there were no
verifiable MiG-25 kills by the F-14 - just a lot of claims by the
glorious Iranian AF. One MiG-25RB was downed by an Iranian Hawk. I've
read your book about the Iran-Iraq war and you don't present any
evidence of the MiG-25 - F-14 encounters you describe in such vivid
details. Just a bunch on baloney.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

But, I don't understand why do you then ignore the impact of Western
technology on Soviet thinking and planing? Why ignore the amount of
Western-technology used to develop specific Soviet systems (the Kh-58,
main
armament of the MiG-25BM, for example, was developed from French-built
AJ.168 ARM, supplied to USSR via Iraq) or ignore Soviet own negative
experiences with some of their most potent systems...?
Small correction. The AJ168 was the British part of the Anglo-French Martel
project (AS37 being the French developed anti-radiation version, the AJ168
the British developed TV guided version).

In article ,
on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:18:03 -0400,
Venik attempted to say .....

Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

Name a few then please.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Venik wrote in message

And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made
of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to
the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was
made of predominantly stainless steel.

Yet more comments about steel. Steel can be referred by chemical
composition like nickel steel, chromium-nickel, etc or by it's
intended purpose or property and that is stainless. Any steel
containing 5% nickel or more is considered to be resistant to
atmospheric corrosion in addition most nickel steels contain chromium
in similar quantity as nickel and that is another element that makes
the steel stainless.
On the other hand nickel which is very heavy and expensive is used
only in parts that are subjected to very high temperatures like
turbines of jet engines and alloys in use in aviation do not contain
iron in considerable quantities. North American X-15 was used to test
the effects of re-entry in the atmosphere and was subjected to extreme
heating. The aircraft structure
was built of titanium and stainless steel and nickel alloy InconelX
was used
only for skin panels, with nickel steel used in the areas less
subjected to
heat.
So stainless steel was used widely in the '50 and '60 designs all
around the
world and materials should not be used to prove that one design is
superior over another where flight characteristics, equipment and
mantainability meter
the most.

Nemanja Vukicevic
aeronautical engineering student

Wolfhenson wrote:

Any steel
containing 5% nickel or more is considered to be resistant to
atmospheric corrosion in addition most nickel steels contain chromium
in similar quantity as nickel and that is another element that makes
the steel stainless.

Let's stick to technical definitions: stainless steel is a ferrous alloy
with a minimum of 10.5% chromium content. Major elements of the MiG-25
were made of appoximately 80% of VNS-2, VNS-4, and VNS-5 alloys, 11%
D-19T aluminum alloy and 8% OT4-1 titanium alloy, none of which falls
under this definition.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse