Blackbird v. Mig-25

"Nele VII" wrote in message
...
Mr. Cooper, it seems you are suggesting that the former USSR fired some
4,000 SAMs against SR-71. Yet, SR-71 was "intercepted" with Swedish JA-37
(or so they say). I don't know, but if I were a Soviet PVO commander in
chief in that time, I would be p*ssed off big time!

Well, that's the figure given by Robert J. Gilliland, former SR-71-test
pilot, in an interview published by Warren E. Thompson in Air Enthusiast
Sept/Oct 2004. Perhaps my memory is not the best, but I think I've read a
figure of over 5.000 SAM-firings somewhere else before (not only over the
USSR, but also Cuba, North Korea and some other places).

Re. interceptions by Swedish JA-37s: perhaps they did it, perhaps not, I
don't know. But, what I actually find funny in this exchange with Venik is
the fact that his only source about MiG-25/31s is so obviously Y. Gordon's
book published by Aerofax (which in turn strongly resembles the book "MiG-25
i Modifikaciy", by G. Dmitriev, S. Sergin, and S. Popsuevich, published by
Arhiv-Press, in Kiev, 1995, and some other earlier Russian publications).
Consequently, Venik can't know about such examples like an ex-Soviet
MiG-31-crew that indeed took several photographs of an SR-71 they
intercepted somewhere near Kamchatka. Of course, the SR-71 was still almost
40.000ft higher and far much faster underway than they were, and they've
seen it only for few seconds - but they photographed it (sadly, they are
also demanding a pretty horrendous sum for these shots).

Now, I know that you have a lot of good information, but being an aircraft
"fan" I prefer some information over "I dare you, Venik". More like
"Vladimir Malukh" first (or good second-hand) stuff.

Sadly, you can't talk with Venik in a very reasonable way. Even when TJ got
him so obviously with his pants down (remember the story about a USAF B-52
"shot down" over Yugoslavia) he'll avoid and ignore all the facts put up
against him like they were never presented in the public.

And no, I don't believe
that SR-71 was withdrawn because of MiG-31. Also, to be thruthful, MiG-31
was tested under a name MiG-25MP and further developed into MiG-31BM...

IMHO, there is an interesting parallel in combat deployment of MiG-25s and
SR-71s, then both types were active over Iran during 1987. In that year at
least two Foxbats were shot down by IRIAF F-14s, including the Soviet-flown
MiG-25BM that got caught by AIM-54A fired in HOJ-mode during an attack
against Mehrabad AB. The SR-71s, involved in Op Eager Glacier, were never
even fired at by Iranians. Black Birds were not retired because of this
experience, but in the weeks after the BM was splashed the Iraqi, Libyan and
Syrian air forces have all cancelled their orders for MiG-25PDZ and
MiG-25RBV, instead going for Su-24MKs.

P.S. what the heck were MiG-25s doing at low-level to be shot by F-5s!? At
that altitude their performance is such they well might have plunged
themselves into ground!

One, a MiG-25RB shot down in 1983, was previously damaged by AIM-54 while
attempting to attack Tehran and underway back towards Iraq at low speed and
level; it got intercepted by an F-5E that was underway on a CAS-sortie
against target in Suleimanyah area and blasted away by two AIM-9Ps. The
other, a MiG-25PD(e) shot down in 1986, was flown by the leading Iraqi "ace"
of that war (Mohammad "Sky Falcon" Rayyan, a personal favourite of Saddam
Hussein), who obviously got pretty arrogant after scoring two kills against
IRIAF fighters in the days befo he was cruising at something like Mach 1
and 25.000ft; the F-5E approached - almost running itself out of fuel in the
process - from behind with radar on "stand by", got a missile failure and
thus attacked with 20mm cannons, spending all ammo in two long bursts - but
setting the right wing afire. The Foxbat came away, but only for few
minutes: it crashed somewhere in the northern Howeizeh Marshes; the Iraqis
were searching for it for three days - without success.

In total, obviously in order to increase their range, the Foxbats were
cruising at speeds around Mach 1 - Mach 1.9 during that war: Iran is quite a
large country. Only once closer to a target, or when threatened by Iranian
interceptors, would they accelerate to more than Mach 2.

--


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

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

Tom Cooper
in the weeks after the BM was splashed the Iraqi, Libyan and
Syrian air forces have all cancelled their orders for MiG-25PDZ
and MiG-25RBV, instead going for Su-24MKs.

I find this a bit strange, perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

Su-24 and MiG-25 seem like very different type of aircraft to me.
25P-series being interceptors and 25RB-series being hihg-altitude
recce-bombers. Su-24, on the other hand, excels in the low-level
strike/bomber role (eg the M-series), also having tac recce and EW
versions.

In particular, I can't imagine that someone would purchase Su-24's for
the interceptor role, ie instead of MiG-25PDZ. But Tom seems to imply
this above, and this I find strange.

Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
interesting (I guess I should buy his book... .

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
particular).

"M" *@*.* wrote in message
...
Tom Cooper
in the weeks after the BM was splashed the Iraqi, Libyan and
Syrian air forces have all cancelled their orders for MiG-25PDZ
and MiG-25RBV, instead going for Su-24MKs.

I find this a bit strange, perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

Su-24 and MiG-25 seem like very different type of aircraft to me.
25P-series being interceptors and 25RB-series being hihg-altitude
recce-bombers. Su-24, on the other hand, excels in the low-level
strike/bomber role (eg the M-series), also having tac recce and EW
versions.

No problem.

You need to see the situation from Arab standpoint. The matter was such that
already since mid-1970s Iraq and Libya were pushing Moscow to deliver a
bomber that could fly from Iraq (or Libya), bomb Israel, and continue
towards Libya (or Iraq), doing this at high speed and least possible danger
for itself. Theoretically, the idea was not bad, however: Israel is very
narrow on west-east axis, so a Tu-22B making a supersonic dash would give
the Israelis a very small chance of interception. The Soviets, however,
reacted by delivering Tu-22Bs, which were a nightmare to maintain and fly,
and armed only with "iron" bombs: IrAF and LARAF needed years to get them
into working condition, and never became capable to operate them completely
independent from Soviet help. So, although the type saw quite some use
against Iran and in Chad Arabs were soon demanding something else.

Eventually, the negative experiences with Tu-22Bs in war against Iran (at
least six were shot down by 1984), and the poor state of Soviet economy,
brought Moscow to the idea of supplying Su-24s instead. The first examples
of this version were shown to the Syrians already in 1986. The Syrians,
however, were more satisfied with MiG-25, then - compared to F-15s and
F-16s - it was offering at least the advantage of speed, aside the fact that
they already operated the type. The same was the case also with Libyan and
Iraqi air forces (and Algerians, which operate MiG-25s but also became the
fourth Su-24-customer). So, instead of developing a completely new variant
of Su-24, the idea was born to equip MiG-25s with IFR-probes and more
advanced weapons - some of which was already tested for the MiG-25BM
project. Given their increased endurance such Foxbats could bomb Israel (or
any other place) while operating at very high levels and speeds, and
dropping their weapons from outside the range of most of the Israeli air
defences.

However, in 1986 the first Soviet-flown MiG-25BM was shot down over Iran.
Several Foxbats were already shot down or damaged in 1981, 1982 and 1983,
but such cases were considered as "accidents" due to pure Iraqi and Soviet
arogance. Well, not only their: see in any book or article about Iranian
F-14s what is being said about their capability to utilize AIM-54s in
combat...

Then, in the following year additional similar cases followed, culminating
with the loss of another BM in November 1987, and at least four RBs in
winter and spring of 1988. Except for a single MiG-25RB shot down over
Esfahan by IRIAF MIM-23Bs (and this is the one mentioned in Gordon's book,
and also the example on which Venik is so much hanging - solely because this
was a widely publicised affair), all the others were shot down by
F-14/AIM-54 combo. Upon hearing about this, and concluding that MiG-25s were
previously also shot down by Israeli F-15s, the Arabs cancelled all the
orders for IFR-equipped MiG-25s, turning for Su-24 instead, and hoping that
something that could fly low and haul more ordnance over a longer range
would function better than Foxbats. In 1988 Moscow consequently ordered all
the further development work on MiG-25s to be cancelled, and the Su-24MK
became a reality.

In particular, I can't imagine that someone would purchase Su-24's for
the interceptor role, ie instead of MiG-25PDZ. But Tom seems to imply
this above, and this I find strange.

I think you might have misinterpreted me he it was certainly not my
intention to explain that the Su-24 would've replaced MiG-25 in interceptor
role. Of course, the MiG-25 and Su-24 are completely different. As you
observed, one is designed for high-speed/high level, other for low level
opertions. But, the intention was not to replace PD(e)/PDS' by Su-24. The
main point of the IFR-equipped Foxbat development was to get a strike
fighter with IFR-capability. PDZ was actually an idea that came out of
necessity to develop a BM that wouldn't have to haul the huge 5.000l drop
tank, but as such a PDZ was only used for testing. IFR-equipped RBs were the
major idea - not the other way around, as explained by Gordon. That was OK
with Arabs, however, then their main interest was to get an IFR-equipped
strike-variant. If the Soviets would've then also equipped Arab PD(e)/PDS'
with IFR-probes I don't know, but surely the Arabs could have found this a
"nice to have" idea.

Once the IFR-equipped Foxbats were cancelled the Su-24 was added as
fighter-bomber in IrAF, SyAAF, LARAF and QJJ, relegating local MiG-25RBs to
pure recce tasks. MiG-25PD(e)/PDS' remained main interceptors of all of
these air forces.

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.

That's what I'm trying to get in the moment. For the time being the sole
ex-Soviet Foxbat-pilot that was in Iraq in 1987 I've found so far, insists
that the BM in question was lost in an "accident". He wouldn't negate that
the MiG-25-development was subsequently cancelled, but also he woudn't
accept that either the BM downed in 1986 or the one shot down in 1987 was
hit by AIM-54s even after being confronted with materials from two
independent sources: just like most of the West (especially the USA), the
Soviets/Russians think the Iranian F-14s were "dead". From what I've heard,
however, the USAF was monitoring that deployment very carefully, and also
all the three missions flown by BMs against Mehrabad in November 1987. I've
found a USAFIA document confirming a loss of a BM (to IRIAF F-14s) over Iran
in Nov 1987, and indicating that there are sat photos of the wreckage. So, I
guess a FOIA inquiry or two more will be needed to get the final result. It
just takes awfull a lot of time to unearth all of this...


BTW, if some self-advertising is permitted: Venik said he read one of my
books (he wouldn't say which), and this was a "baloney". Here a review from
somebody who teaches War Studies on Royal Military College, in Canada:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engr...o3/book7_e.asp

--


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

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

Tom Cooper wrote:

BTW, if some self-advertising is permitted: Venik said he read one of my
books (he wouldn't say which), and this was a "baloney". Here a review from
somebody who teaches War Studies on Royal Military College, in Canada:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engr...o3/book7_e.asp

I dare say Sean Mahoney is arms length enough. From his _War Without
Battles_ about the Canadian army in Germany with NATO, I'd say he's a
competent historian, just not that great at narrative.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

M *@*.* wrote in message ...
Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
interesting (I guess I should buy his book... .

Actually, I bought the book last Spring, and trying to wade through
it, I managed to get to the end of the war just last week (though I
guess that's a lot faster than it took to fight...still). If anybody
else on this thread has gotten II/AW:80-88, I was wondering how many
editions there were. Mine has almost no maps nor any index. I could
go back and check, but I don't think there's a single theater-level
map in the whole book. I was wondering whether this was a mistake
given that I did see a review that praised the books use of maps.
Also, it seems that there were some missing footnotes (I think
329-338, or something like that).

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.

You're probably correct. However, in the hopes of forestalling
unneccessary flaming, might I suggest that future posts linking
development of aircraft based on the experience of other aircraft
actually spell out what that influence is? It's just that just
raising that point without specifying it leads to needlessly
acid-tipped counter-posting, with one side minimizing and the other
overstating the relationship. In its strict sense, one aircraft can
have "an impact" on another based on widely varying sets of
circumstances, such that just saying that there was an impact doesn't
really tell us whether the older plane's experience was really all
that great. Maybe it was minimal, and the response was minimal (do
the canards look different to you?). Maybe it was huge and resulted
in a radical alteration (hey, where did the canards go?) Maybe it was
utterly negligible ("Heinemman wants to meet and talk about the
canards and RCS. He says that he's got intel about how badly IRIAF's
'new' radar performed over Manjnoun last week, and maybe RCS shouldn't
be our big priority." "Well good for him, I only worked overtime three
months confirming that. You can tell Heinemman that he can send me a
goddam memo. He doesn't need me to hang around a glue back on the
canrds he ripped off last month.") Maybe the Russians decided to
radically change the design of the Foxhound, or maybe something (like
the loss of those Foxbats over Tehran in '87) just made them put a tad
more thought than usual. Venik can argue that it was a lot, Tom can
say it was a little (or was it the other way around?) without either
having to admit that there was no impact at all.

Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
particular).

I think that the -14's mission makes it suitable for homeland defense,
and obviously taking Tom's book at face value, it performed that more
magnificently than we could imagine. By '87, these things (though
obviously affected by attrition) were still flying. So much for a
plane derided as being a maintenance nightmare. Maybe those "Super
Hornet Playuh Hatuhs" were right, and the USN F-14 did get the bum's
rush. The nature of the F-14 as a fleet defender stems likely from
the fact that Grumman couldn' sell anybody else on the idea of the
F-14 - so fleet defense was all it had. Now, years later, it's
"matured" into a force-multiplier, capable of attacking and
designating targets on the ground. Normally, plane's lose missions
with age - the F-14 is like that actor that finds fame after years of
crummy parts, it's like the Sharon Stone of tac-air.

"rottenberg" wrote in message
om...
M *@*.* wrote in message
...
Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
interesting (I guess I should buy his book... .

Actually, I bought the book last Spring, and trying to wade through
it, I managed to get to the end of the war just last week (though I
guess that's a lot faster than it took to fight...still). If anybody
else on this thread has gotten II/AW:80-88, I was wondering how many
editions there were. Mine has almost no maps nor any index.

Sadly, Schiffer Publishing is not editing any manuscripts - as we've learned
only after the book was published, so the manuscript went in as it was.
Also, I don't know until today why the footnotes went missing or why was the
index not added: some readers haven't found this much of a problem, however,
because of a chronological organization of the book.

Subsequent books have rectified with most (if not all) of the problems - but
they were published by Osprey and SHI, respectivelly....

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.

You're probably correct. However, in the hopes of forestalling
unneccessary flaming, might I suggest that future posts linking
development of aircraft based on the experience of other aircraft
actually spell out what that influence is?

The sole problem in this case was: you can't talk that way with Venik,
because he ignores any other evidence but the one he likes. His sole source
for all this "well documented" matters he's talking about is Y. Gordon's
book "MiG-25 and MiG-31", published by Aerofax, and specifically the
following statements:

- (p.53)
"The Iraqi Air Force used its eight MiG-25RBs....One aircraft was shot
down by a Hawk missile, another was lost when an engine tossed a turbine
blade, forcing the pilot to eject. A newly refurbished aircraft crashed on
landing after a check flight in December 1987. No Iraqi MiG-25Ps were lost
in the Iran-Iraq war."

So much about "well documented facts" Venik was talking about. In fact,
something like two dozens of Foxbats were shot down or damaged during the
IPGW/Iran-Iraq War (number lost in accidents remains unknown): the first
already on 15 May 1981 (when an AIM-54A fired from a range of 108km damaged
a MiG-25RB), the last on 22 March 1988, when it was shot down by AIM-54 over
central western Iran. The losses included several MiG-25PD(e)s, including
one flown by the already mentioned top IrAF ace of that war, Lt.Col.
Mohammad "Sky Falcon" Rayyan, shot down by an F-5E in 1986. In interviews
with four former IrAF MiG-25-pilots and a Belgian merc who was permitted to
fly the type as well, I've found no confirmation for any incident in
December 1987, so it seems this was wrong info as well. The RB shot down by
MIM-23B HAWKs Gordon mentioned in his book, however, is a very well-known
case, which occurred on 14 January 1987, directly over the City of Esfahan
(see p.238 of IIWITA). It became as well-known (in the West) because the
pilot of that plane - 1st Lt. Saa'er Sobhi Ahmad-Ali - was subsequently
shown on Iranian TV, the Iranian regime praising an IRGCAF HQ-2 unit for
scoring the kill (HQ-2 is Chinese copy of SA-2; in fact, the kill was scored
by an IRIAF MIM-23B I-HAWK unit), and this was recorded in the book "The
Gulf War", by Edgar O'Ballance (which formed the basis for many subsequent
articles about that war, including "Kian Noush's" - published in AFM and
WAPJ in 1998 and 1999).

- (p.89)
"The appearance of the MiG-31s caused the USAF to curtail not only the
over flights of Soviet territory but flights over international waters near
Soviet borders."

Essentially, this is the only evidence Venik has about "USA changing
plans..." because of MiG-31's appearance. And, even this is wrong, then
Gordon was talking about deployment of six MiG-31s in the Far East, in
September 1983, in the days after the downing of KAL007. As such, however,
this statement stands no proof either, however, as in those days the USAF,
USN and JSDF/ADF planes were flying all the time over the Sakhalin area.
While a number of minor incidents of different kind occurred, the USAF never
stopped flying F-15 and E-3 sorties there.

Where did Venik find "evidence" for the SR-71 to have been retired because
of MiG-31 I don't know. I've never even heard about any; besides, the MiG-31
was in service already since 1981 or so, if my memory serves me well. I
actually have to wonder very much about this even being possible, given that
all the secrets of the MiG-31's Zaslon-system (and quite some other things)
were revealed to the CIA by an agent best known as "Donald" (arrested and
executed by the Soviets in 1986, if I recall this right), who used to work
in the institute from which later Vympel came into being.

Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
particular).

IMHO, it's the question of design. Grumman designed 303E to become an air
superiority fighter, armed with gun, four Sparrows and four Sidewinders and
capable of outmanoeuvring MiG-17 and MiG-21. When this capability was
reached (on the paper), they added the AWG-9 and AIM-54 (that's how paletts
came into existence). The F-14 became known as "fleet defender" (i.e.
interceptor) that was to defend USN carriers from Soviet bombers armed with
cruise missiles foremost for its role in the USN. It was very much, however,
designed to tackle enemy fighters, but also bombers, cruise missiles and
Foxbats (due to AIM-54). Interestingly, the Iranians first considered F-14 a
"flying radar..." - i.e. AWACS - "...with self-defence capability", later on
they found out it is a tremendous air superiority plane, i.e.
fighter-interceptor. For them, the F-14's capability to tackle MiG-25 (and
Soviet overflights) was a wellcome excuse for getting permission to buy
Tomcat; that's also why they were so sillent about the fact that one of
their F-4Es killed a Soviet MiG-25R (using AIM-7E-2) over the Caspian Sea
already in 1977.

The MiG-31, on the contrary, was always designed as pure interceptor, with
main role of defending northern USSR from B-1s and B-52s, as well as their
cruise missiles, and to do this with minimal support from SRDLOs or even
GCI. That's essentially, an area in which it excells, that's sure. However,
this does not mean that it's appearance has anything to do with retirement
of the SR-71: as first, the SR-71s operated around the USSR for years after
the MiG-31s entered service; as second even if there was more than one
successful "dry" interception this certainly wasn't a reason for its
retirement.
--


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

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

Tom already answered, but I feel I have to jump in...

M *@*.* wrote in message ...
SNIP
Su-24 and MiG-25 seem like very different type of aircraft to me.
25P-series being interceptors and 25RB-series being hihg-altitude
recce-bombers. Su-24, on the other hand, excels in the low-level
strike/bomber role (eg the M-series), also having tac recce and EW
versions.

Su-24/24M/MK are all strike aircraft of the same use as tactical F-111 (TF,
wide-range weapons etc.). Su-24MK is an export version.
Su-24MR is reconnaissance version.
Su-24MP is simmilar in use as former EF-111A.

Now, Vladimir Malukh was working on Su-24M - Su-24MK (export) "upgrade"
(read:downgrade conversion and he wrote that it was one hell of a job and
it would have been easier to build a new ones!


In particular, I can't imagine that someone would purchase Su-24's for
the interceptor role, ie instead of MiG-25PDZ. But Tom seems to imply
this above, and this I find strange.

PD-Z-? What the heck is that? -Serial- MiG-25PD with IFR? I know about PDSL
and M prototypes, Mach 3.7(!)MA proposal and some other "letters"...

MiG-25RBV is supposed to be a '78 vintage RB with "general" ELINT device
"Virash", supplemented with more modern MiG-25RBT with ELINT "Tangazh". (if
"radiotechnical reconnaissance " in Russian means that, "bokovoy RLS" means
SLAR). Then there are RBK, RBS, RBN, RBSh, BM, XYZ (sorry, I couldn't resist
on the last one! .

Nevertheless, I find Tom's comments on the Iran-Iraq war highly
interesting (I guess I should buy his book... .

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
particular).

Well, (off the top of my head), Fedotov took off MiG-25MP (a.k.a. MiG-31) at
1975 for the first flight, with phased array-model "Zaslon" prototype in
1976-77 and demonstrated tracking of 10 targets in 1978. So, no -direct-
influence of (at lest IRIAF) F-14.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

PD-Z-? What the heck is that? -Serial- MiG-25PD with IFR? I know about
PDSL
and M prototypes, Mach 3.7(!)MA proposal and some other "letters"...

According to Gordon, PDZ stood for "Zapravka" - refuelling, and this was
designation of one MiG-25PD that was modified with an L-shaped IFR-probe to
be tested in the frame of the MiG-25BM project. To be sincere, from Gordon's
book it's actually uncelar if this version was ever tested in flight (at
least to me).

MiG-25RBV is supposed to be a '78 vintage RB with "general" ELINT device
"Virash", supplemented with more modern MiG-25RBT with ELINT "Tangazh".
(if
"radiotechnical reconnaissance " in Russian means that, "bokovoy RLS"
means
SLAR). Then there are RBK, RBS, RBN, RBSh, BM, XYZ (sorry, I couldn't
resist
on the last one! .

According to Gordon (p.37 of "MiG-25 and MiG-31"), a MiG-25RBV and a
MiG-25RBSh each were modified with IFR-probes and redesignated MiG-25RBVDZ
and MiG-25RBShDZ, and tested in flight, refuelling from an Il-78 tanker
(perhaps also from Su-24s equipped with UPAZ A-HDU pods). There should be
also a picture taken during these trials somewhere...

It seems that F-14 did influence the design of MiG-31 quite a bit,
and it'd be very interesting to hear comments on how the Soviet
experience with Iranian Tomcats affected the development of MiG-31.
Otoh, the primary roles of 31 and 14 are rather different, fleet
defence vs homeland air defence (against cruise missiles in
particular).

Well, (off the top of my head), Fedotov took off MiG-25MP (a.k.a. MiG-31)
at
1975 for the first flight, with phased array-model "Zaslon" prototype in
1976-77 and demonstrated tracking of 10 targets in 1978. So, no -direct-
influence of (at lest IRIAF) F-14.

I also think that F-14 had no direct influence on MiG-31. Only the total
interceptor capabilities - I stress: capabilities - of the AWG-9 and AIM-54
did. But even this only in the sence that the Soviets found it an
interesting concept and were amazed at how far could the radar reach and
missiles go - not in the sence that either AWG-9 or AIM-54 were supplied (by
whoever) to USSR. Namely, the stories about an Iranian defector flying an
F-14 to Soviet Union, or the Iranians outright supplying a whole Tomcat to
the Soviets, are also not truth, but rather based on the CIA/FTD operation
"Night Harvest", from August/September 1986, which resulted in two IRIAF
F-4s and a single F-14 pilot defecting to Iraq (see also p.225 of IIWITA).
These planes, however, were not given to the Soviets, but taken over by a
CIA/FTD team that was waiting for them: while a Tomcat and a Phantom each
were subsequently flown to Saudi Arabia, the Americans found the other
Phantom in such a poor condition that it was stripped of all the sensitive
parts and left behind in Iraq.

That's, BTW, why it came the US troops found that derelict IRIAF F-4E at
dump near Tallil AB, last year.

--


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

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