Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25/Archive 1

Speed
The MiG-25 was capable of exceptional performance, including a maximum speed of Mach 3.2 and a ceiling of 90,000 ft (27,000 m). This should correctly say Mach 3.0. I am not completely certain of it, but the reconnaissance version of the mig 25 should have been capable of mach3 (clean). Yes, the engines can produce enough thrust to get you to 3.2, but when damage occurs to the plane, then you're not flying anymore if your aircraft may not make it back. --K... 02:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My friend is a former Soviet Union Air Defence officer. His task was to direct MiG-25 th which were intercepring SR-71, which were flying north of the Cola Peninsula, around Novaya Zemlya (a nuclear test place).

When directly asked, he said he had no big problems putting the Foxbat on the tail of Blackbird. A bit tricky, of course, but not impossible at all.

Soviet interceptors relied much on the vectoring from the ground. The own radar of the MiG-25 was to be used only on the very final stage of intercept. -Author?

Really? The same Soviet Air Force that shot down a Korean Air 747 (huge and hard to misidentify with nav lights on) "intercepted" SR-71s, but never bothered to shoot one down, either to recover the wreck, or make a point about illegal violation of its airspace? Hard to believe. -Randall
 * SR-71s never violated Soviet airspace, at least there is no proof. So the Soviets did not need to shoot it down, but to show that they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)

Mistakes happen in any airforce. Recently, during Operation Iraqi freedom, several coalition aircraft were engaged, and one was even shot down, by friendly anti-aircraft defenses. Just a few days ago a National Guard F-16 accidently strafed an elementary school in New Jersey. Yet I don't think anyone entertains the illusion that the USAF is a completely incompetant organization.-Author?


 * well, not completely, no... (only joking)-Author?

Yes, mistakes happen, e.g., the US shootdown of an Iranian airliner, or words like "incompetant" (sic). The point was, PVO within their rights routinely shot down airspace violators when they could. Even a Mach 2 target is very hard to intercept if it does not cooperate by flying directly toward you. PVO aircraft before Su-27 were limited by short ranges, and training and doctrine emphasizing GDI point intercept of bombers.

Soviet fighers (and some personnel?) performed capably in Vietnam and Korea, both long conflicts allowing air superiority tactics and skills to be refined and developed.

Cold war intercept doctrine hurt the US too. Except for brief use of F-104 and F-5, USAF did not field an air superiority fighter between the F-86 and F-15. The F-106 could have been one with other missiles, but was bought only by ADC not TAC. -Randall rnicameron@yahoo.com

Mig-25 on the tail of a SR-71?
I find that hard to believe. The Mig-25 could only safely go Mach 2.8 without burning out the engines. It could go Mach 3-3.2 if they didn't mind scrapping the engines in mid-flight. The SR-71 was cleared to cruise at Mach 3, and could go Mach 3.3 if the situation required. To sum it up, if the SR-71 in cruise detected a Mig-25 trying feverishly to catch it, it would accelerate beyond the capabilities of the Mig-25.

It wouldn't want to chase it. The Mig-25s were on 24/7 alert, and took off as soon as SR-71s would come to the Soviet borders. They would fly at mach 3 initially, to scare off the blackbird(s) and return to base at lower speeds. The engines of the foxbat didn't have such a long lifespan, so it didn't matter if they were damaged during the intercepting. Starcraftmazter 00:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A MiG-25 was spotted at Mach 3.2 over Israel in 1970s by an US radar post. The event was widely publicized. Yes, M>2.5 will lead to engine malfunction and airframe cracks. But technically MiG-25 was able to intercept a SR-71 providing proper vectoring from ground. On the other hand, I've never seen a credible source publication of any real attempt of such an intercept. Moreover, I've never heared about SR-71 flights over the Soviet North. --jno 07:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The SR-71 missions are pretty much a big unknown and I suspect will remain so for a very long time. USAF's Air Defense Command much slower fighters (F-101, F-102, F-106, F-4) routinely practiced intercepts against SR-71s. They would perform zoom climbs to 80-90,000 ft and attempt to get a firing solution during the brief moments at the top of the parabola. A Mach 3 tail chase is extremely unlikely, would take a stupidly long time given the small speed difference, and would span half the globe. - Emt147 Burninate!  08:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Intercept would still be very hard, because you have to get in front. Any course change creates a big problem, even though F-101 and -106 have much longer ranges than MiG-25. Multiple aircraft spaced over a broad front might succeed. No A-12 or SR-71 was lost to hostile action. BTW, F-4 was a TAC bird, not ADC. -Randall

Designed to intercept A-12s?
I've read that OKB documents released after the break up of the USSR indicated that the Mig-25 was made to intercept Lockheed A-12 spyplanes, something that it was perfectly capable of as opposed to that supersonic bomber like western sources have stated. Maybe this should be fixed in the article? --FarQPwnsJoo 05:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ceiling
Well, test-pilot A.Fedotov have set a world record of altitude at 37650 meters on MiG-25 (specially prepared) in 1977. Today everyone may take himself at 25,000 meters on MiG-25 (trainer) "adventure" in Zhukovski. But the practical ceiling of serial MiG-25 was 20,700 with four R-40 missiles loaded, not 30km as the article stated. --jno 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated above, service ceiling (aka "practical ceiling") has a specific definition. It's not just how high you can go. - Emt147 Burninate!  08:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Specs
I have updated and verified the specs against a cited credible source. All changes must be accompanied by appropriate citations from credible sources or they will be reverted. - Emt147 Burninate!  17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Combat Victory
"The MiG-25's acknowledged combat record by the West is one F/A-18 Hornet during the First Gulf War, when an Iraqi MiG-25PD shot down a U.S. Navy F/A-18C on January 17, 1991, 29 nautical miles southeast of Baghdad. In that particular instance, the MiG was able to evade other attacking aircraft with impunity, due to its ability to make a high speed escape."

This alleged victory over a F/A-18 is a very unlikly scenario, firstly because a naval aircraft would not be so close to Bagdad, secoondly because at lower altitudes the F/A-18 is actually faster than the MiG-25, thirdly an Iraqi pilot is unlikly to have shot down a better trained American pilot in superior aircraft, and fourthly according to several reliable sorces the the MiG-25 has no combat victories and the F/A-18 is unbeaten. -Author?

No reason a MiG-25 could not shoot down an F/A-18 either with a BVR missile, or if it overtook at high speed from behind. -Randall


 * F-117A was not shot down in Yugoslavia just because it was a better aircraft driven by a better pilot from the best country and CNN didn't pay much attaintion to the event, while S-125 is an antient SAM under control of bad boys from ex-socialist country with controlled newspapers. And it was too far from the States. Good logic. --jno 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, two F-117s were shot down, and both were on CNN. I remember seeing civilians dancing on a wing, and wondering what horrid ailments they might get from toxic materials. The shootdowns and CSAR were also written up in Newsweek. -Randall
 * AFAIK, the second lost F-117A (due to fire of ZSU-23-4 in Iraq) is unconfirmed. --jno 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ZSU-23-4 shooting down an F-117? Pure BS. The Shilka is a low-level gun system. The F-117 operated at altitudes beyond the range of the 23mm cannons. Wikiphyte 13:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, and here I am thinking we're talking about MiG-25s and F/A-18s! First of all, this quote above portrays the event as a definate fact, which it most certaintly is not. Until someone finds proof that the cause of the loss of the Hornet in question was in fact a MiG-25, I'm changing the statement in question to reflect the uncertainty of the situation. (USMA2010 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC))


 * No way. The best source would be quotes from official combat records of Iraq (to claim the victory) and the States (to confirm the loss), but Iraq data is in hands of the USA now... Is there any american here who can define the secrecy timeout for these data in the States? When the data will get unclassified, one can use american law (I dunno its exact name) to access them via a written request. --jno 09:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Both the DOD and McDonald Douglas claim that the US Forces suffered no air to air losses to Iraqi forces. Also except for an aborted F-16 raid, no non-stealth aircraft were used near Baghdad during the early part of the war. The US is willing to admit confirmed losses, they don't deny them. It's unconfirmed losses, or losses that were the result of black projects that are not admitted. PPGMD 12:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowaday I consider these statements as pure propaganda. We have to wait for the source documents become unclassified. Please note the story of soviet/american losses in Korean war: every korean aircraft was killed at least twice, while many US losses were turned into "non-combat", "technical", etc... I believe, Korean data were no better that time. I've seen something useful in 1990s only (~40 years after the war) in open sources. --jno 13:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fog of war, happens all the time, during WWII it was alot worse. Either way, there is no source at all, and any claim is doubious since the US has been pretty open about it's losses in Operation Desert Storm, and there is no evidence what so ever about the shoot down. Besides if Saddam was able to shot it down, we would have seen the wreckage paraded across Iraqi TV along with the pilots. PPGMD 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, any "fallometric" counts (victories, losses, "bests", etc) are mostly meaningless for any kind of military device or activity happened after about 1970 wor the whole world and after 1990 for the Russia. --jno 08:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is almost certain that the F-18 lost on January 17, 1991 was downed by a MiG-25. From what I read, information about this appeared in Aviation Week a few years ago. The incident is also mentioned here: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/14/gulf.war.pilot.01/index.html "Speicher, of Jacksonville, Florida, flew his F-18 Hornet off the carrier USS Saratoga on the opening night of the war in January 1991, and went down west of Baghdad. An Iraqi MiG-25 fighter apparently attacked him.

Another American pilot who saw the jet explode in the air reported that it was hit by an air-to-air missile and that he did not see Speicher eject." —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)


 * Probably in support of that aborted F-16 raid on Baghdad. Anyways the report that I have read from the DOD says he was downed by a SAM. Something that I highly doubt is a cover up, the Speicher case has always been surrounded with myth and rumors PPGMD 13:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * US military never covers things up? Nothing is covered up anyway. Initially, it was reported that it was a SAM, but now the likely reason is the MiG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)


 * Likely to who? US Military reports, compiled and verified over and over again after the war but the downing of Speicher's F-18 at the hands of a SAM. We have one pilot who says it looks like an air to air missile, which isn't very definitive, considering that Saddam would have used the pilot of the Mig-25 as an effective propaganda tool, if it were true. PPGMD 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The data recordings were reexamined and supposedly there was a MiG-25 lock on detected by AWACS. This is from what other people described on forums, I don't have the articles about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)


 * Huh? lock on detected by AWACS? AWACS aircraft isn't a long range RWR. A RC-135V might have detected it, but it's doubtful without a source. There are many rumors that surround a war, not all of them are true. PPGMD 12:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did you get that AWACS can't detect lock-ons? Again, it is not a rumor, but the mostly likely theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)


 * From the Fact File confirmed by a buddy of mine that flies in one. The E-3B's that were sent to ODS did not have the ESM/ELINT equipment that current E-3B's have (the upgrade program was started in 1994), even then it's capabilities are limited compared to the RC-135V. Irregardless, the E-3B even if it were one of the upgraded ones, would be hard pressed to get any useful signals out 250+ miles that would have been during ODS (they were prohibited from entering hostile airspace). Not even the E-3B's radar would be any good out to that range. Your theory doesn't fit the facts, and doesn't warrant mention in this article. PPGMD 21:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I told you I don't have the articles and what I know is from forum discussions. Read the 9th post here by Avon. It is not my theory and if you do some search on the internet, you will find that the shoot down is almost an accepted fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)


 * A internet fact is quite different from a real fact. There are quite a number on the internet that believe that 9/11 was entirely caused by the American government, among other wild theories. The facts he mentions don't line up, the E-3B didn't have ESM/ELINT equipment until their Block 30/35 upgrades, which didn't start until 1994, I don't believe the E-2C's have ESM/ELINT either, their airframes are too small, besides which the distances are way too large for it's equipment to detect it. Beyond that there are numerous descripancies that don't match up with real world usages of the radar systems. Beyond that a forum post is hardly considered a source for a Wikipedia article.PPGMD 14:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you read? He did not just make up that information, but got it from articles (like one from Aviation Week), which are based on information provided by the military. Do some research about this instead of labling it as a conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)


 * Some of the information is just plain false for example to repeat for the third time the E-3B and E-2 both did not have ESM/ELINT suites during ODS (ESM/ELINT suites would be required for AWACS to detect "lockon,") for the E-3B that came with the Block 30/35 upgrade which came in 1994, the E-2's are getting them with a current upgrade suite. Neither of which would likely be able to detect anything at the range that Baghdad would have been from likely patrol routes. Among other facts that I am not quite as sure because we are talking about Russian equipment, which I don't know quite as well. PPGMD 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, do some researching rather than trying to deny everything. I wish I had the actual articles for this to show you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)
 * I know the facts about the E-3 and the E-2 two aircraft that your "source" claims detected a lockon, something that would have been impossible in 1991 before the ESM/ELINT packages were installed, on top of that, the way that the radar is claimed to be used is different from the abilities of other radar system produced at the time, so unless the aircraft had a very modern radar system, it makes very little sense. I have done the research on aircraft system, not on your claim because it's an rumor. As far as I am concerned unless you find reliable sources this discussion is closed. PPGMD 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Got any sources for your E-2/3 facts? If you want to continue to be stubborn and call it my rumor, do so, but it just makes you look bad. I told you that it comes from a reliable source - Aviation Week and is based on information acquired from the military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)
 * FAS and Globalsecurity.org cover the block 30/35 upgrades on the E-3 you can check there. The Extend Sentry program, the name of the Block 30/35 upgrade program, started in 1994 (note ODS was in 1991). Also the block 30/35 upgrades are also covered extensively in Jane's All the World's Aircraft, if you live near a library that stocks that book (I purchase the last year's edition myself since I don't live near such a library). The E-2 has no such capability, at least not in the airframes in US Navy inventory then. I remember reading that the E-2's were scheduled to get an ESM suite, but I can find no mention of that program from any of my sources. You can check all 3 sources for that. I dismiss your theory because one fact from your "source" is outright false and a couple of the other facts is implausible, though I don't know Russian system to say it's outright false. Also if this was published in Aviation Week at least one other person would pipe up and say "Oh yeah I read that too." Finally Aviation Week has in the past published some outrageous stuff that borders on conspiracy theory talk, personally I would never use it as a source without some sort of back up, that being said I am still a subscriber because it's the best place to find up to date news on the aviation industry.PPGMD 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are trying to discredit the source by clinging to a minor detail that you believe to be false. If you are an Aviation Week subscriber, don’t you have access to their old articles? Go check it for yourself if you are so skeptical.
 * Stop being silly and continuingly call it my theory. I am not the one that put this in the article here in the first place. The kill has been discussed on many aviation forums. It is listed as a confirmed kill here -, even though ACIG is pro-Western and it takes a lot for a kill made by a non-Western aircraft to be listed as confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually I did search for it, found nothing. Until I see source documents it's a theory to me, so far other then a couple of posts in an internet forum with wild facts (of which I have proved one is without a doubt incorrect), and a single table that provides no source documents there is no source. As far as I am concerned this issue is closed unless you can present some hard evidence. PPGMD 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to find exactly when the article appeared in Aviation Week.
 * I only posted the forum link because the guy read the article and was telling what it said. What about the CNN article? They would print rumors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)

I found better sources:

"With the possible exception of one F/A-18 loss still under investigation, all Coalition losses were inflicted by ground-based air defenses (antiaircraft fire or SAMs)." (Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress, p 180 - 1992)

"An Iraqi warplane shot down a Navy fighter jet in the Persian Gulf war, a senior Navy intelligence officer says, contradicting Pentagon claims that no American aircraft were lost in aerial combat in the 43-day war." (NY Times, only a preview though - 1992)

"Postwar analysis suggests that LCDR Speicher's Hornet was downed by an Iraqi Air Force aircraft firing an air-to-air missile."  (Intelligence Community Assessment of the Lieutenant Commander Speicher Case, p 1 - 2001)

Is that enough hard evidence? The kill should be put back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs)
 * Not really, you seem to miss the sentence above it, saying there is no conclusive evidence of how his aircraft was lost. PPGMD 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Read again: "No information during the Gulf war conclusively revealed how LCDR Speicher's aircraft was destroyed."

Stop reverting. How many sources do you need? Is the confirmation of Navy officers not enough for you? YMB29 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence to confirm the Iraqi single kill in 1991. First of all, the F-18 was flying at high altitude (29,000 feet) well beyond the range of any SAM system in service in Iraq at that time (18,000 feet). The other reason that left no doubts about the cause of this particular air loss is that the area where the wreckage was found is open desert, long away from any major strategic target, where the Iraqis deployed the bulk of their land air defences (SAMs and AAA). The only other possible cause for the crash of Speicher's plane could have been an air-to-air friendly kill, a case that had some support from Speicher's widow, but there is no basis at all to support this theory. DagosNavy 02:41, October 4 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is enough evidence that he was shot down by a air to air missile, but there is not enough evidence that a Mig-25 shot him down. First look at the sources:
 * CIA Document that simply says "analysis suggests that it was an air to air missile"
 * A New York Times Op-ed piece which I don't have access to, but is written by a very very Left Wing Professor during an election year, using two Navy Officers that are unmentioned by any other primary source.
 * A Book which goes into detail about other instances of Air Combat, but in this case uses the word "apparently" and sources to the New York Times Op-ed piece.
 * So in 15 years there are no primary source other then the CIA document, despite the amount of media, and Congressional attention that this case has been given. Thus there is no confirmed evidence that a MiG-25 shot the F-18 down, there is a possibility nothing more until there are more reliable secondary sources, or another primary source is found. Heck Dagos I think it's quite possible that it might have been fratricide, it might explain that complete dearth of primary sources, because there would have been some data in the Iraqi Air Force's archives that would have at least shed some light on this. Heck I have heard weirder during ODS F-111's CFIT'd for no reason at all, claiming to see a landing light on their tail, when their Wingmen saw nothing but empty airspace behind them. PPGMD 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Analysis suggests that it was an air to air missile" is enough for it to be confirmed. A MiG-25 was the only aircraft in the area and there were no SAMs there too.
 * Are the words of a Navy commander who flew that night and saw the MiG before the shoot down and a naval intelligence officer who investigated this not considered primary or credible by you? The article was only opinionated about why was this air-to-air loss not admitted in the first place, not about whether it happened.
 * Here is what the naval intelligence captain says:


 * "We were pretty sure at the beginning. Then, by the end of the war, we were pretty much able to prove that [the attack] was the only logical explanation - other than his aircraft disintegrating."


 * Iraqi Air Force's archives? I read that much of them are destroyed. Anyway, the Iraqis did not even claim the kill probably because the pilot was not sure that he downed the F-18 or there was not enough confirmation for it before the US admitted it. YMB29 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A New York Times Op-Ed from a Libral Professor, particularly during an Election Year, would not likely be considered an Reliable Source even in a political article. But if this professor was able to track down these two officers, why hasn't there been more from then in the last 15 years? PPGMD 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There was in other publication that I don't have access to. You think he made them up? You are getting desperate in trying to look for a way to deny this. YMB29 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly yes. Op-Ed aren't exactly known for their reliability, nor peer review. PPGMD 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What? It does not matter what section it was written in. You are getting desperate. The fact that it quotes two officers (names are Commander Michael Anderson and Captain Carlos Johnson) directly involved with this is enough. If the article is considered such an unreliable source, it would not be referenced in other respected publications.
 * You admit that it was an air to air kill but say that it did not have to be a MiG-25 that got it. Well there were no other Iraqi aircraft in the area and no other Iraqi aircraft were even suggested to have been near. YMB29 05:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now if it mentions them by name you can use that as a starting point searching for another source that says that a Mig-25 (note it has to say it was a Mig-25 for it to be included in this article). The Op-Ed section is not as well sourced checked as other sections of the article, just about anyone can write a column for the Op-Ed section and it will see little editing before it is published. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, I don't see any sources that verifys that a Mig-25 indeed shot the aircraft down, all the sources say that it was likely an air to air missle, but no source comes out right and say a Mig-25 shot the F-18 down. PPGMD 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Most sources, like the new ones I found below, say it was a MiG-25. YMB29

Hi both YMB29 and PPGMD. I think your exchanges are quite interesting, but I also think here there is a "no winner" situation about confirming or not the kill by a MiG-25. I see no reason to left the thing as a "may be" and left the reader to decide by himself. Also I have a question for YMB29: if you maintain in such assertive way the shot down was an air-to-air kill when there are, even if slim, some doubts, please tell me which is the cause that prevents me to include the purported name of the Iraqi pilot?. Thanks. DagosNavy 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That website does not seem like a good source. YMB29

New sources:

NY Times Dec. 14, 1995; p A1 (not Op-Ed page) - "A U.S. Team Seeks Body of War Pilot" by Tim Weiner: ''Shortly after he [Speicher] entered Iraqi airspace, his plane disintegrated in midair. Navy intelligence were never sure why. They later concluded that he either had a freak midair collision with an Iraqi MiG-25 or that the enemy plane shot him out of the sky.''

Aviation Week & Space Technology Jan. 22, 2001 (Vol. 154, No. 4); p 21 (Washington Outlook section) - "Not Hopeful":  ''Senior military commanders who gathered here for the 10th anniversary of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war are skeptical about the survival of Lt. Cdr. Michael Speicher, the Navy pilot who was shot down on the first night (Jan. 16, 1991) of attacks on Iraq. His F/A-18 crashed west of Baghdad after being attacked by a MiG-25.'' YMB29 05:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm changing it to likely it's still not the confirmation level that we would have compared to other air to air kills. PPGMD 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What other air to air kill? Like those in the F-15 article? Not only are they not referenced, most of them don't have confirmation from the other side. Maybe you should go scrutinize that article. This kill does not have to have confirmation from the other side since it is admitted by the losing side. Like I said before, it has more confirmation than most "confirmed" air to air kills.  YMB29 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I am working on dealing with references and sources on a number of aviation articles, the F-15 article is one of the ones on my to get to list. PPGMD 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The way that it is now fits the how verifiable the facts are. The only hard fact we have is that he was shot down by an air to air missile, anything else is not as verifiable. PPGMD 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is also a fact that only a MiG-25 was known to be in the area. YMB29 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Results of American study
The text concerning this issue is effectively doubled, and should definitely be combined down into one version. I'd do it, but I don't know any technical details about the plane beyond what I've just read, and don't want to screw it up. Stilist 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Combine what's there. Someone will copyedit if need be. Thanks for doing that! - Emt147 Burninate!  04:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Somebody will probably want to check over the changes for accuracy, particularly the item about the craft's maximum acceleration. There were slight differences in nearly all the numbers for that point, mostly because one was rounded whilst the other was not. Stilist 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a read-through tonight but a quick skim looks great. Nicely done! - Emt147 Burninate!  23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

At one time someone blanked that whole part, it may have been a vandal, but it was all restored. LWF 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

F-15 kills by Syrian air force? a farce

 * Additionally, some F-15 kills have been claimed by the Syrian Air Force, however, most sources say that, to date, no F-15s have been shot down in air-to-air combat.

Can someone even give a source for this claim? No Israeli F-15 were shot down in battle ever, let alone, by Syrian MiG-25s. If there are no objections, I'll remove this wierd claim. Eranb 10:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Burden of proof is with the editor adding the information. Since no proof was given for a controversial claim, I have removed it. Thanks for catching that one! - Emt147 Burninate!  17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet and Syrian sources say that a MiG-25 shot down a F-15 on July 29, 1981 after that F-15 downed another MiG-25.

There were claims for victories over Iran F-14s during Iran-Iraq war (by MiG-25RB used as high speed bombers by Iraq?). Unverified, of cause. JFYI. --jno 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good historical shot found.
Plz, check the Talk:Shuttle_Buran page. --jno 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New edits and additions
I deleted some of the info. Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, & Turkmenistan no longer use the Mig-25.

I also added a Combat Section to this aritcle. All my info is from http://www.acig.org/ and global security.com.--216.52.73.254 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Belarus section, they have not used Mig-25 in years (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/belarus/af-equipment.htm)

Bulgaria has not used the Mig-25 since 1992. It is even mentioned in this article. India stopped using their Mig-25 a few months ago.

Iraq has not used theirs since 2003 (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_138.shtml).

The USSR has not exsited since 1991.--216.52.73.254 12:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I listed the past and current users. The ones with parenthesis were the current users.

Citation Needed?
"The limited maneuverability of the Mig-25 has often been overstated by Western observers, as under the same high performance parameters, the SR-71 has even more restrictive stress limitations" Why does this require a citation? It seems firmly grounded in logic to me. It is the common practice of governments to overstate the abilities of their war machines even as they understate their enemy's. Not to mention the fact that it's well known that maneuvering options become more restricted the faster you go. -
 * I think, the max values of "available/exploitation overload" (i dunno the proper english term for "располагаемая/эксплуатационная перегрузка") will fix the discussion just because it's main limitation of maneurability at that speed. Max destructive for MiG-25 is about 12. BTW, there is a known example of "supermaneurability" demonstrated by MiG-25PU escorting the Buran at landing (180° turn by stall and spin at high alt). --jno 10:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

MiG-25 kills
Which part of "Cite your references" do people have trouble with? I will continue to revert all air-to-air victory claims until someone can cite a credible source that is not some website or forum.

Citing sources and Reliable sources for your reading pleasure. - Emt147 Burninate!  04:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to cite my references. I ALREADY have!

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_404.shtml

Here is some more:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml

How can we not cite a website. Everything on wikpedia is cited to a another website! Who are you to say which website is reliable? I agree that forums should not count.

I already told my source a few posts above. Do I need gun camera film!--216.52.73.254 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, everything in good Wikipedia articles is from credible and verifiable sources. The website you listed sounds like a fanboy organization and it does not cite references for the specific claims ("various other journals and publications" is not a source I can look up to verify their claims). - Emt147 Burninate!  23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. ACIG.org smacks of fanboy-ism.  In the Iraqi victories since 67 database, I particularly like their qualifying footnote #4 for a couple Coalition losses in 1991:


 * "...there is no basis for any of the known claims for downing of Coallition aircraft by IrAF interceptors in 1991. These entries will be kept in the list nevertheless as a designation of our position in regards to them, but they remain marked white. Additional Iraqi sources, however, are currently providing new – previously unpublished – information and details about various interceptions of US and Coallition aircraft. These are still under examination."


 * They have an actual position that contradicts the known facts. Doesn't that say all you need to know about the source?  Even if they find some source at some point in time to support their position, they are admitting that all other credible sources contradict their position.  And their footnote #6 for the F/A-18 kill in 1991 says basically, "despite explanations by other IrAF pilots we interviewed previously" and the aforemention footnote #4, ACIG, and ACIG alone, has evidence that contradicts all other known facts regarding the loss of the US Navy F/A-18.


 * The way I read the ACIG footnotes is an admission that if ACIG is 1 of 10 reputable sources for this information, ACIG would be the only one to claim these losses as MiG-25 kills. In my opinion, ACIG should only be used for further research but not as a cited reference.  ACIG cites some publications as general sources for their data, but nothing specific.  Therefore, in my opinion, these dubious kills should only be left in the article if the specific source can be cited, down to the page.  That's just my opinion.  Don't kill me if you don't like it.  --JJLatWiki 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a source for the 'unclear results' of Mig-25 kills in the Iran-Iraq War--67.142.130.29 20:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well do you have clear information from a credible source? 198.105.45.121 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Space
So I saw elsewhere on the net that this thing can reach the edge of space! Is that not worthy of mention?? I notice that above, there's an argument about the ceiling of the aircraft, but the article only mentions the service ceiling and doesn't appear to state one word about the 30+ km number, although I can't imagine how that world record is not significant. 70.112.42.102 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kármán line is at 100,000 m (80,000 m is the US definition of space). The 37,500 m altitude record set by a MiG-25 prototype is nowhere close to that. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bomber?
The intro says the Foxbat's a bomber/recon plane as well as an interceptor. Now, recon makes some sense, but bomber? I'm aware that Soviet doctrine called for interceptors that could carry bombs, but with the MiG-25 that just seems like a waste. Plus, the rest of the article only mentioned air-air, no air-ground. 75.28.22.83 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft/Avro Arrow
The CF-105 was a supersonic interceptor like the MiG-25, designed for an identical purpose. BillCJ, you argue that they were of different eras, yet the MiG-25's maiden flight was only 6 years after the Arrow, not to mention the fact the latter was cancelled, which really co-opts that arguement. Additionally, the Rapier is included as a comparable aircraft, yet the mockup was built in 1958! There is plenty of justification to include the Arrow in this list on those grounds alone. In terms of the resemblance, look at the nose, canopy, intake design, high-wing arrangement, and size. These two pictures offer an excellent view of their similarities:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.31 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rapier was a Mach 3 design; the Arrow was closer to Mach 2, despite the fanciful claims of some Canadians. Honestly, you're really stretching for this one. The pics you linked show the most glaring difference - the delta wing of the CF-105. Also, besides both being on the sides, the intakes look NOTHING alike - two totally different designs. That's really not an issue to me, except for your claiming they're similar. Yes, the two planes are similar in many ways, but I don't think they're comparable. I won't revert you for the time being, but hopefully someone else will. - BillCJ 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bill on this one, its too far of a stretch. --Chuck Sirloin 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in Operators Section
The image and text at Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 appears to conflict. e.g. Russia is listed as a current operator in the text, while Libya and Egypt are listed as the former operators, those instances conflicting with the image (Image:MiG-25-Map-World.PNG). (not a complete list) -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
You have no authority to you to decide if a source is good or not, this is your own personal opinion and that is against wikipedia rules. Also I must note that you have reverted my edits 3 times, Wikipedia has rules to prevent editing wars (which you are clearly starting), if you revert it a 4th time, I can report you and you will be banned. You have to go over the discussion instead of blind reverting of constructive, referenced edits, just because they are in confilct with what you so badly want to believe. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Mr. "Honorable", acig not being a credible source is not my opinion. Why don't you look at other articles that have tried to use it as a credible source. The one who is getting personal here is you. Just because it fits your nationalistic view and you so badly want to believe that your country's pilots were so good, does not mean that it is credible. All the information from the acig website, forums, or books about the Iran-Iraq War air combat comes straight from the stories of Iranian pilots, with little or no confirmation from the Iraqi side, or other countries involved in the conflict. I have talked to the author, T. Cooper, on the acig forums and he admitted this. If you want to be gullible and believe that, for example, an Iranian F-14 destroyed 3-4 Iraqi aircraft with one missile just because some pilot said so, then alright, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. YMB29 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And also acig is not an American source, shows how much you know about it... YMB29 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But claims coming from Americans about downing Iraqi aircraft should be accepted? That's quite POV, isn't it? Also I see you've tried to delete the sentence by operators where it sais Iraqi MiG-25 were all destroyed during the Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War, meaning you want to deny a single MiG-25 was shot down... Also it is commonly known that American built F-14s outclassed Soviet built MiG-25s. Deleting this and leaving just no information at all is not an option, what however could be done is change it to "Iranians claim ....". If you find any Iraqi claims, you could add that.

PS, I see you've reverted it again, meaning you have officially violated wikipedia rules and you can get banned a sertain period because of this. I shall not report it this time, but the next reverting you do, I will. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And you can be banned for keeping on posting nonsense...
 * No claims are accepted without proof. American claims in the Gulf War at least have more proof than just their pilots telling how they shot MiGs down. It is very strange that Iran officially claims so little kills compared to what its former pilots supposedly told acig.
 * Where did I try to delete anything to deny a single shoot down? Commonly known that the F-14 outclassed the MiG by whom? Acig? Anyway this article is about the MiG-25, not Iranian claims. Only verified information should be posted. YMB29 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a source for my claims, that was all I needed to do. And what proof do American claims have? Did the Iraqis confirm it? Normally on Wikipedia (in a situation like this) we'd put: The Iranians have claimed to shot down .... Foxbats, Iraqi claims are unknowm or something like that. Not just madly deleting it like you are doing. Also note that on articles about wars, ect. even claims by terrorist organisations such as the PKK are mentioned. Now we have to come to some compromise here so what about adding that these are Iranian claims? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, acig is not real proof. Anyone can just post some things and give some internet website as proof.
 * Americans of course exaggerate their success, but the US military has more credibility than individual pilots or amateur historians. It is not like an American pilot told some reporter that he shot down 5 MiGs 20 years ago. I don't know exactly what proof the US has about each Iraqi aircraft shot down, but I know that this is accepted by credible sources (known publications).
 * I think saying that it is unclear is fair. To list the claims and counter claims is too much for this article. These acig claims are not even the official claims, so they will make the article look bad. An encyclopedia should be about known facts as much as possible. These claims should go into other articles, such as the F-14 combat history or the Iran-Iraq War. YMB29 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I can report your 3RR violation also. YMB29 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not done a 3RR violation, I have reverted your edits 3 times, after that I have stopped (and for that reason), this is why I haven't re-added my edit. And I see ACIG sources used on many articles about fighter aircraft. Putting that it is unknown with a citation needed is not an option. We could (like on many other articles) say: According to an ACIG report: ...., or something like that and we can even add that these claims are disputed. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you see acig claims being accepted by known credible sources?
 * I am not the one who put citation needed. Again, unofficial claims don't belong in this article. This is not a place to discuss speculation of some amateur researchers about the Iran-Iraq War. We should go to all articles about aircraft and say "according to acig's kill table..."?
 * And I have not done a 3RR violation also, while you have stubbornly put in unverified information and called me a vandal... YMB29 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying "reverting vandalism" is not againt WP rules and is done very often. Look in the page's history to see you reverted my edits 4 times. Now again, the fact that you find the source unrelyable is your personal opinion, it is not a blog or forum post so you have no right to delete it. And as a matter of fact, I've seen ACIG used in many articles. You could add that the figures are disputed (though we'd have to add a citation needed to that unless you got one) or that it is based on what Iranian pilots say, whatever. If we can come to some agreement I see no reason to report the 3RR violation, if not there have to come an end to this editing war. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling someone a vandal is against the Wiki guidelines and will count against you. You can report me; I did nothing wrong. Then I will report you also.
 * If it is not a blog or forum, then anything can be used here? I have to prove that the figures are disputed just because acig has them? How ridiculous is that? Acig is not considered a credible source by most here, especially when it comes to the Iranian claims. Acig information is often deleted or stated as claims.
 * Again, why should every article concerning the aircraft involved in the Iran-Iraq War contain "according to acig..." or "according to the stories of some Iranian pilots..."? These claims are already mentioned in other articles more relevant to the war, no need to spam them everywhere since they are unverified, unofficial claims.
 * We can mention briefly some information on how the MiG was used in the war according to acig, but not go into the unverifiable details and figures. YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your deleting of Iran-Iraq War in the sentence "7 [Iraqi MiG-25s] fled to Iran, the rest destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War or burried during the 2003 invasion of Iran" means you deny a single MiG-25 was downed during the war, an absolute absurd claim, you should immedietly re-add that part even before the end of that argument. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The absurd claim is on you. I never tried to say that. When did I remove the sentence? Now it clearly says:
 * Two MiG-25s were shot down by USAF F-15Cs during the Gulf War. After the war, in 1992, a U.S. F-16 downed a MiG-25 that violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.
 * YMB29 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about by the "former operators" section, where it sais what happened to Iraqi MiG-25s. It first said "7 flown over to Iran in 1991, the rest destroyed in the Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War or buried during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You removed Iran-Iraq War from the sentence, meaning you are claiming that not a single MiG-25 was downed during the Iran-Iraq War. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no proof that any were downed. This is not absurd. Can you find evidence besides acig? I think there was one kill by an F-5 that has more proof than just some pilot saying that he shot it down; I can recheck this. YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have 10 minutes, revert your edit or I'm going to report the 3RR violation, this editing war has to come to an end. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am so scared...
 * I am not reverting anything. Like I said, you can add something about the war, but no details or figures of the claims. YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No figures, ey, well, let's see what the admins have to say about it. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You think you will be allowed to put up your non-credible figures?
 * By the way, the 3RR violation is over 3 reverts in 24 hours. YMB29 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget you made 2 reverts after each other, in one of them you reverted bit about the MiG's combat preformance during the Iran-Iraq War, in the other one you reverted me putting "The rest destroyed during the Gulf War (and some during the Iran-Iraq War). The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well in that case you did the same thing. So now you are guilty of violating the 3RR rule and inserting unverified data because of your bias... YMB29 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I will sson be contacting the Wikipedia Militar History Project to resolve this issue. And you are the who doesn't not want to accept a source because of your bias and personal hate against Iran. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would I hate Iran? It is not Iran that I hate, but the fact that many claims in wars are stated as facts just because of personal bias and preferences.
 * By the way, did you actually read acig's book on F-14s in Iran? YMB29 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

entire page is POV and data on mig25 is inaccurate
page need to have actual sources not inflated POV.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk • contribs)

drone incident
On December 23, 2002, an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down a U.S. Air Force unmanned MQ-1 Predator drone, which was performing armed reconnaissance over Iraq. This was the first time in history that an aircraft and an unmanned drone had engaged in combat. Predators had been armed with AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles, and were being used to "bait" Iraqi fighter planes, then run. In this incident, the Predator did not run, but instead fired one of the Stingers, which missed, while the MiG's missile did not.[23] 2 problems: 1) The article does not claim that the intent was for the Predator to "run". That would be pointless anyway because a Predator has a top speed of 217 km/h, that's comparable to First World War biplanes. 2) I doubt that this was the first fighter/drone encounter. In fact, I'm quite sure it was not. Both during the Vietnam war (when U.S. drones were used to bait Northern Vietnamese air defenses) and during the 1999 Kosovo Air War (when some drones were apparently intercepted by Serbian MiGs at times when no NATO CAP was in position) happened such encounters. I intend to reduce this part of the article to the unquestionable details soon. Lastdingo (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fastest successful ejection
I removed the following text: According the the ejection seat article, this record is held by an SR-71 which broke up at Mach 3.25. That statement is unsourced, however, so I can't vouch for the speed at which they were traveling. The incident definitely occured, though.--Adamrush (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat; the last versions, though, used an early variant of the K-36 seat. The speed record for a successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1-equipped MiG-25.


 * The ejection was not successful per se, because one of the SR-71 crew died and only the other person lived. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the pilot, Lockheed employee Bill Weaver, does not remember how he got out and his seat was still in the wreck, it probably can't be classified as an ejection. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as an escape. See Crickmore, Paul, "Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird", Motorbooks International, 1986, p75.Flanker235 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

unsupported claims
Here is one "If a Mach 3 bomber were to enter American service, it would have been nearly invulnerable to Soviet air defense."

So, according to author of this statement, soviet SAMs were slower than Mach 3? Don't think so. Example? S-200, clearly, bomber wouldn't be able to manuevre much at mach 3, this missile would be able to intercept anyway. So, claim that Mach 3 bomber was invulnerable to soviet defences is at best false. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * No, I'm afraid you are wrong. An M3 bomber flying reasonably high is virtually invulnerable to a SAM because once the SAM is out of boost phase it can only use its tiny winglets to manouevre. The bomber can use its comparitively large wings to turn, it will easily out turn the missile. That is why the Russians turned to nuclear tipped SAMs, although even there the bomber did not need much advance warning to evade them. A similar problem applies with AAMs launched at high altitude. Greg Locock (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole problem doesn't matter a damn. Soviet SAM, even the earliest S-75 (SA-2) systems were already designed with nuclear warhead launch capability. If things got serious, you could tip the missiles with atom and blast yankee bombers out of the air without much aiming needed. The SA-5 Gammon was 5 mach fast and manouverable enough to be able to hit big iron, like a B-52, even if just conventional warhead was used. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is SAM coverage is hemispherical, which means the faster and higher the target moves the smaller the engagement envelope will be. The present day F-22 use speed and altitude as a means to evade SAMs, aided by stealth of course.Wikinegern (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a novel called 'Foxbat' by James Barrington (Pan. 2008. ISBN9780330519403) which contains in it the claim that the aircraft was originally intended to intercept ICBMs. Author claims that he found this information from "...several unofficial sources..." which he does not reveal.Graham1973 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Authors like Barrington, or Clive Cussler makes things up to make their books. Remember that they write fiction:) Especially that claims of real world facts is part of that work of fiction. Wikinegern (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel
Changes to the article have been made to make it sound as if Soviet/Arab use of MiG-25s never flew over Israel, only the Sinai and the Suez. Comically enough, I have a source that states differently, though I am not sure how to add it, or how to cite books in the ref templates. "Jane's Fighter Combat in the Jet Age" (ISBN 0004708229) states on page 108 that Following a number of sorties along the Suez Canal, a Mig-25R made a provocative long-range overflight of Israel on 10 October [1971] which the IDFAF were unable to counter. However, when a Soviet 'Foxbat' attempted a repeat overflight on 6 November the Isrelis were ready with a pair of stripped down F-4Es, armed with Sparrows. The book goes on to describe the failure of the Israeli defense, proably due to missile fuse technology unable to cope with the Mach 3 speeds of their targets. Following this, Jane's does state that further flights prior to the 1973 war were over the Sinai, rather than Israel. These were all aircraft based in Egypt, though remaining Soviet. On the following page, Israel's successful intercept of Syrian marked MiG-25s flying over Lebanon is described.

Now, Jane's fully admits that the majority of flights were not over Israel itself, but at least two of them (10 October and 6 November of 1973) were. This source seems as good to me as those listed in this article so far on the subject. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a fine source. Please add some text on that with that reference.  I had mainly referenced the Mach 3.2 flight with my book. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In Yefim Gordon's book he makes the claim that MiG-25Rs did in fact overfly Israel's airspace.ZeroSnake (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Air-combat fighter vs. interceptor - what's the difference?

 * Inaccurate intelligence analyses caused the West to initially believe the MiG-25 was an agile air-combat fighter rather than an interceptor.

This needs to be clarified for the layman - what's the difference? Tempshill (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An air-combat fighter or an air superiority fighter is designed to combat other fighter aircraft and maintain control of the sky. It has dogfight capability, tends to be maneuverable, and armed with missiles or a gun capable of engaging other fighter aircraft. This is what the West initially feared the MiG-25 was capable of. Instead, it is a pure interceptor, designed to get to altitude and target area with extreme speed, and defend against an incoming attack of bombers. It has speed, it has missiles capable taking down low maneuvering targets, but itself is a poor platform for maintaining supremacy over any airspace. It defends cities, not air. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple answer an Interceptor is designed for speed not maneuvability. A fighter is designed for maneuvability and less speed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

re: History channel (UK) documetary 'Secret Superpower Fighters'
Claimed that details of the Avro Arrow were used to design the MiG-25. This confirmed when a MIG25 defected to Japan and they where able to examine it. As well as looking very similar it used Titanium in all the same places as the Arrow.

Does anyone have anymore information on this?

What it the Soviet/Russian military policy on "Official Information"? Is there a time period after which the information is declassified? eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/02/mi5-defence-of-the-realm-book NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sry, but in Y. Gordons book on the MiG 25 there is not one line on the Arrow. No surprise really, you don't build airplanes by copy-and-paste.--Wikinegern (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever told the Soviets that you don't build airplanes that way. They have a long and documented history of doing just that. Not only in aviation, but copying other types of weaponry directly from western powers through the Soviet's vast intelligence operations. Saremei (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Like what?Wikinegern (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Future work on the page
I think there should be new separate sections for the Interceptor and Recce variants. The part on belenkos defection should perhaps either be reduced or incorparated in another section. As it is the only reason it still is there is because the article in itself is not of high enough quality yet. Also a section about the aircrafts performance seems a good idea. Afer all it was exactly that which made its fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

US analysis of Belenkos A/C
Is it available on-line? That would be great as right now the section look too much like something from the rumor mill on various WWW forums. I consider heavy editing or outright deletion.Wikinegern (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)