[locusjag]

Here are some interesting Mig 31 videos:

1) Mig 31 flight-views with GoPro cams

https://youtu.be/dvP0VsmWCAk

2) A Norwegian F 16 is abruptly frightened by a Russian Mig 31

https://youtu.be/0GasR5yO2uM

[sudev]

The F16 is classic. Wish there was more background to it

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by sudev

The F16 is classic. Wish there was more background to it

The news article having both the videos is this one - here you go:

http://www.rt.com/news/210935-norway...-interception/

[virtualdanger]

V.Narayan - Thanks for the informative piece on the Mig-25 Foxbat. While I've known about the aircraft, I never knew of its significance and specific purpose. Great pictures, and great details.

[V.Narayan]

Virtualdanger, glad you liked the piece. I love writing them. The challenge is how to compress everything into a brief story that reads like one and not like an aircraft maintenance manual. For its time the Mig-25 was a marvel of engineering for the available level of technology and materials the Russians had. The shape size and exact design of the giant wedge shaped air intakes was the secret of its engines and sustained speed. People outside the world of aerodynamics do not know how drastically and sometimes unpredictably airflow changes with the slightest change in design. Such was the compression the intakes created that at Mach 3 or so the engine became a ramjet and the compressors and turbines actually became a hinderance to the ramjets smooth explosive combustion and flow. This was the reason the engines used to get damaged when flown at Mach 3.2 for more than a few minutes. The Mig-25 was the last Mig aircraft that Gurevich, of the Mikoyan -Gurevich design bureau worked actively on. His work in high mathematics of aerodynamics led directly to the shape of the air intakes and the modearately swept wings. The Mig-25 was one of the first to come with a configuration of thin moderately swept wings, twin canted tails and large intakes. These became standard on most of the next generation of Russian & American fighters.

[aditya101]

Thanks Narayan for the continuing series.

Unfortunately not much is known about the operational history of the MiG-25 in IAF, given the outfit's secretive nature. These birds flew operational missions in Kargil as well.

May I suggest a topic to you? How about documenting the Canberra? It is one of all time favorite types in the Air Force. It has a rich (and fairly documented) operational history and fought in every single IAF op from 1960 (Goa) to 2002 (Parakram).

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by aditya101

May I suggest a topic to you? How about documenting the Canberra? It is one of all time favorite types in the Air Force. It has a rich (and fairly documented) operational history and fought in every single IAF op from 1960 (Goa) to 2002 (Parakram).

Dear Aditya101, Thank you for reading the article and for your suggestion. The English Electric Canberra sounds like a great choice to write on especially if I can cover its war record with the IAF. For awhile I had been wondering what to write on - Submarine Arm? Coastguard? - Canberra it is. More Maha Vir Chakras have been won flying Canberras than any other single type. It was a legendary machine that served in India for 50 years and in the UK for almost 60. Infact the Canberra is one of only three aircraft types that the Americans ever did license production of. The other two being the Hawker Harrier (jump jet) and the Hawker Hawk advanced jet trainer.


A beautiful photo op of 3 Canberras over the Arabian Sea


My favourite Canberra photo showing to good effect the twin Rolls Royce Avon turbojets, the bubble canopy, the broad chord long span wings that gave it its outstanding maneuverability and high altitude (for its time) flight capability of upto almost 50,000' and the cigar shaped central fuselage that housed the bombs.

[V.Narayan]

https://hushkit.net/2018/12/12/lonel...-foxbat-pilot/

Execerpts from article by www.hushkit.net

Thanks to BHPian Stewie for pointing this out. Parts of the article, which is an interview with a retired IAF Air Marshall are quoted below.

What were your first impressions of flying the MiG-25R ?

“A 20-ton aircraft that carries 20 tons of fuel, flies in the stratosphere, cruises at Mach 2.5 in minimum afterburner and exceeds Mach 3.0 with ease when required, what can one say ? It was an awesome aeroplane. The fact that the ventral fuel tank was one MiG-23 (equivalent in fuel) under the belly, speaks for itself.”

Which words best describe the MiG-25 ?

“Catch me if you can”

What is the cockpit like and how pilot-friendly is it ?

“Most Russian aircraft cockpits evoke a feeling of comfort and familiarity to a pilot who has flown Russian aircraft before. Coming from the MiG-21 to the MiG-25R was an easy transition. As one of our Air Chief’s remarked when the aircraft was demonstrated to him and he was stepping into the cockpit, “This is rather familiar. And dammit, it even smells the same!” The cockpit was a little more spacious than the MiG-21, thankfully so, because we operated wearing the pressure suit (which, incidentally, was the same as that worn by Yuri Gagarin – so much for Russian sustainability and dependability).

What can you say about the performance of the MiG-25 ?

“It was a beast with immense power. It has been described by some as ‘an engine with place for a pilot and some avionics’. The Tumansky R-15B engines each provided more than 10 tons of thrust to produce the desired performance. In almost all the other aircraft I have flown, a regular climb was executed at constant TAS (True Air Speed, the speed of the aircraft relative to the airmass in which it is flying) with a progressive reduction of IAS as the altitude increased. The Foxbat climbs at constant IAS with an increasing TAS, crossing abeam the take-off dumbbell (if a reciprocal turn were to be executed after take-off), at 30,000 ft and increasing! She would be crossing 20km (65,000 ft) in 6.5 minutes from wheels-roll, at a rate of climb (ROC) of 100 m/sec (almost 20,000 ft/min) ‘like a bat out of hell’, if you did not come back from the Max afterburner regime – In comparison, the ROC of a MiG-21 was 110 m/sec at sea-level. Now, that is sheer performance. Cruising at 20+ kms with minimum afterburner (which, incidentally, provided best specific fuel consumption) she could execute a 45-50 deg bank turn with just a wee bit of additional power. There was no loss of height. Her systems and auto-pilot were coupled to provide an optimised “Little m=1” (remember the formula for maximum range ?). So, as the fuel depleted she would keep climbing (cruise climb) and a mission commenced at (say) 19.5 kms altitude would terminate around 22 kms with no change of throttle position. The climb was so gradual over the period of time and distance that it did not affect the photography.”

What was the pilot workload ?

“With virtually a first generation inertial navigation system (coupled with the ground beacon RSBN), one could engage the auto-pilot at 50m (165 ft) after take-off and take your hands off the control column. The Foxbat would execute the complete mission, photography included, and return to base (or programmed airfield) descending to a height of 50m when the pilot needed to take control and flare out for a landing. All that the pilot was required to do through the entire mission was manipulate the throttle – From max afterburner at take-off, to min afterburner at about 60,000 ft, to idle throttle setting approximately 350 Kms from landing base (the MiG-25 would glide the distance), to 75% RPM on top of approach to landing. That’s it !”

Were you detectable by radar ? Were you susceptible to interception ?

“Certainly we were detectable by radar, provided you were expecting us. The Foxbat operated covertly, seen just as a blip on the radar amongst other flying aircraft, but one blip would suddenly disappear. In normal ground radar settings the Foxbat generally operates at the highest fringes of the radar lobe, with the ingress and egress (through the radar lobe) often allowing one or two blips for the radar controller to perceive. Low transition times (because of the high speed) did not provide adequate reaction time to scramble fighters; and other than a pure head-on interception with look-up / shoot-up capability (from, say, 40,000 ft), the Foxbat could survive any fighter interception.”

What were the limitations of the aircraft ?

“The fuel quantity, I guess. The engines were gas guzzlers and 20 tons of fuel (including the ventral tank and fuel in the vertical fins) was just adequate. In the regional perspective of India and its neighbours it would suffice but we always returned for landing with 200-400 kg of fuel remainder (200-250 kgs was the fuel required to execute one circuit and landing). We operated on the fringe. The runway had to be kept clear at landing base (no other flying permitted for fear of runway blockage) once the MiG-25 commenced his descent. We needed to give only three R/T calls – one for take-off, one for commencing descent and one for landing (in operational missions just two). There was no need to give any other R/T calls because you operated unhindered in the stratosphere

What does operating in the stratosphere feel like?

“The subtle change in the colour of the sky starts around 16 kms (50,000 ft), I guess, as the suspended particles which reflect / refract the sunlight start getting dissipated. The sky turns a distinct grey as you cross 20 Kms (65,000 ft) and continues getting darker as you transcend into those dizzying altitudes of 90,000 ft and 100,000 ft. You fly with cockpit lighting ‘ON’ (as for night flying). It is a little eerie, one must admit. Not natural. The earth is round, a fact we could confirm (!) because you can see the curvature of the earth very clearly from those altitudes. The sun, moon, stars and the illuminated ground below, are all visible at the same time. A glorious feeling.”

What were your biggest fears in flying the MiG-25 or were there none?

“When you are flying a virtual fuel tank, the biggest fear is the illumination of the “Fire” warning lamp. This was more so at operating altitudes in the stratosphere. The ejection seat in the MiG-25 was the same as that in the later models of the MiG-21 and MiG-23. The ejection seat had two settings (3 Kms / 10,000 ft and 6 Kms / 20,000 ft), to be set depending upon the terrain one was operating over. We set ours to 6 Kms. But operating at (say) 20-22 Kms altitude, where the ambient temperatures are around minus 85 deg C, an ejection meant a free-fall of 15 Kms (50,000 ft) before the seat separated and activated the parachute. Would you hit terminal velocity ? I guess you would. It was not a happy thought.

Soviet MiG-25 with 4 Bisnovat R-60 air-to-air missiles


Outline of the IAF MiG-25R Recce version. A part of our proud aviation heritage.


With full afterburners 20,000 kgf of thrust. Today this awe inspiring and romantic aircraft has flown over the horizon. With changing technology & tactics it is unlikely the IAF, or any Air Force, will field a Mach 3.0 fighter in the forseeable future.

[Foxbat]

Interesting article I came across, surprisingly from a Western source :

Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat Pilot explains how he was able to shoot down Lt Cdr Speicher’s F/A-18 Hornet the first night of Operation Desert Storm

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/iraq...-desert-storm/

[V.Narayan]

This day in Aviation History

On 21-9-1964 the North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie flew for the first time. The XB-70 was the prototype version of the planned B-70 nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber for the United States Air Force Strategic Air Command. Designed in the late 1950s by North American Aviation (NAA), the six-engined Valkyrie was capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m). It was meant to be the ultimate Mach 3.0 bomber that could fly so high and so fast as to be unreachable and un-interceptable by any aircraft of the day and by most missiles too. By the time a missile climbing at an average of 500 metres per second gets to 21,000 metres (70,000 feet) the Valkyrie would be well over 40+kms away making a practical intercept rather difficult.

But why are we talking of an American bomber on a MiG-25 Foxbat thread. The MiG-25 Foxbat was developed mainly to be able to intercept the Valkyrie. The Valkyrie’s development, unsurprisingly, was protracted and it was shelved in 1968-1969 before getting to production. How ever the MiG-25’s development continued and reached squadron service in 1970.

The Valkyrie remains a futuristic design well ahead of its time and a reflection of the gung-ho confidence of aeronautical designers of the 1950s and 1960s who were constantly pushing the envelope of flight.


On its maiden flight on 21st September 1964


Space age design

[FrozeninTime]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

This day in Aviation History



But why are we talking of an American bomber on a MiG-25 Foxbat thread. The MiG-25 Foxbat was developed mainly to be able to intercept the Valkyrie. The Valkyrie’s development, unsurprisingly, was protracted and it was shelved in 1968-1969 before getting to production. How ever the MiG-25’s development continued and reached squadron service in 1970.

Sir I always thought Mig 25 was developed in response to SR 71 and Sukhoi T 4 was in response to Valkyrie .
Ultimately ICBM won the day.

Sukhoi T 4

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

Sir I always thought Mig 25 was developed in response to SR 71 and Sukhoi T 4 was in response to Valkyrie .
Ultimately ICBM won the day.

That you have mentioned the Sukhoi T-4 indicates the rich depth of your knowledge. Few aviators would have heard of the T-4. Good for you. You are right that the Valkyrie spurred the Soviets on to develop the Sukhoi T-4 at least to the prototype stage and it was similar in wing configuration to the XB-70 Valkyrie. The T-4 was a direct response to match the Valkyrie. Not for the first time was a weapon attractive simply because the other side had it (or you thought they had it). You are right in the end the ICBM prevailed. In the world of bombers the Americans went with the Rockwell B-1 and the Russians with the Tupolev Tu-22M

In the early 1970s when I started reading up on aircrafts in serious earnest all articles (in those days magazines and Jane’s and not internet) spoke of the MiG-25 being developed to address the risk of the Valkyrie and B-58 Hustler Mach 2.0 bomber and the subsonic high flying U-2. By ‘address’ here I mean ‘intercept; and not ‘be the equivalent of’. Work on the MiG-25 started in 1959 one year before the Soviets learnt about the American A-12 project which resulted in the SR-71. Needless to say the announcement by Lyndon Johnson of the existence of the SR-71 gave motivation to the USSR to develop the MiG-25 to full service.

[download2live]

Do we have a thread for MIG-21? I always considered it as a powerful machine which demands a lot of skills. Something like a VI editor of Linux terminal in this world of MS Word.

Hope that Tejas carries forward that deadly combo of simplicity and power.

[Jeroen]

The XB-70 is a truly remarkable plane, way beyond the visuals. They only build two. One crashed during a photo shoot with four other General Electric planes.

The one remaining can still be seen here:

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Up...urth-building/

I saw this particular plane in the early 80's during a hitchhiking tour through the USA. I was actually allowed inside. I believe it was at a different site at the time though.

Jeroen

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Valkyrie remains a futuristic design well ahead of its time and a reflection of the gung-ho confidence of aeronautical designers of the 1950s and 1960s who were constantly pushing the envelope of flight.

True
The designers even incorporated compression lift, something which had just recently been discovered, and not fully analysed and proven.

It's landing gear, and the gymnastics it had to go through always fascinated me. Have been unable to get a proper video of it. (The fact that it was too complex and always gave trouble does not stop it from being fascinating).

Regards
Sutripta