Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25/Archive 2

Design description

 * Belenko particular aircraft was brand new, representing the very latest Soviet technology ??? in 1976, MiG-25 is 12 year old, next step is MiG-31 and Su-27 was in service.
 * The aircraft was built of a nickel-steel alloy and not titanium as was assumed (though some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft massive 64,000 lb (29,000 kg) unarmed weight. ???? F-12 is same time with MiG-25, is same purpose. F-22 made by 98% titan. F-12 excel MiG-25 ????
 * Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name Foxfire) radar had enormous power — about 600 kilowatts.  Is 600 kilowatts ?????

............................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huyphuc1981 nb (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Six hundred kilowatts, yes. Killed small animals, like rabbits from 500 steps away when turned on at the ground. The radar consumed so much power, it had to be cooled with alcohol evaporation to avoid overheeat problems. Belenko said MiG-25 airfilds were the happiest places in the whole USSR due to unlimited access to pure spirit (~ vodka for all practical purposes of hetting drunk). 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article mentions the material Nickel alloy (inconel) steel was used extensively on aircraft. Inconel is a nickel based super alloy, not a type of steel. Editing for correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketpencil (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It kills rabbits or rats sound like an urban legend. Radiation intensity decreases as the square of distance, and even at 50 feet it has declined enormously. Plus, prolonged exposure would be required (rather like that of putting a rat in a microwave for a few minutes, which is essentially similar to exposure to intense radar waves). And anything that would kill a rat would also kill a human being. The danger would be from diathermic heating of body tissues, but it takes a lot of power concentrated in a small area to produce significant heating, and the heating would be just as dangerous to people as it were to rats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HU371 (talk • contribs) 15:54, March 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * Inverse square law is valid for isotropically radiated EM energy. MiG-25's radar is NOT an isotropic radiator but a directional one. Think flashlight versus naked lightbulb. And six hundred kilowatts would definitely kill a small animal in a very short time. In fact, 600 kilowatts would boil about 300 grams of 25 Celsius water in one second so a small animal containing 300 grams of water would probably go POOF! 46.97.68.150 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Correcting myself, above statement assumes 100% efficient energy transfer from radar emitter to target animal which is not the case. 1% would be a more likely figure so we can explode maybe a small bird or mouse or some insects. Still, it would be fatal even for a rat or a dog or a human, it would just take longer to cook them or it would kill them via localised damage. Imagine your eyeballs exploding, for example. 46.97.68.150 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Radar note
I remember the 1981-82 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft stating (from the report regarding Belenko's aircraft) that of the 600W output of the MiG-25's radar, "much of it was devoted to antijam resistance and not range." That's as exact a wording as I can remember without having a copy in front of me.120.28.113.233 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 600W sounds far more correct than 600KW. Wikinegern (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 600KW is 600,000 watts by the way. Maybe the MIG had a nuclear powerplant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P ...radar had enormous power — about 600 kilowatts.  Besides the 600KW figure being too high, ALL radars of that era used vacuum tubes for the power amplifier. The MIG-25 was surprising in that it used many low power vacuum tubes as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitcwa (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 600 KW is the correct figure. For comparison, E-3 Sentry AWACS puts out RF above 1MW. "Usual" fighter radar power figures are in single to tens kilowatts range, hence the special mention of Smerch's power. It's basically AWACS level equipment (at least in regard to radiated power) put into an interceptor. 46.97.68.150 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that a standard commercial truck engine has about 500kw power, and its less than half of most WWII piston fighters. 500KW is a lot for something electronic, but its not as impossible as others have tried to make it seem. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Western intelligence and the MiG-25
"The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines.[13] A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight resulted in the destruction of its engines."

This is probably not as dramatic as it sounds, since I can find no record of a resultant crash. Seems more likely that the turbine inlet would have exceeded its fatigue safe temperatures and the engine was likely rendered unserviceable and scrapped.

Also, any Western assessment of the combat efficacy of the MiG-25 needs to be tempered by the fact that the vast majority of Foxbats flown against the West have been poorly employed. They have usually been encountered at around 25,000 ft where they would naturally be very vulnerable the US teen series fighters. It should be remembered that this is not within the MiGs best performance envelope. At 70,000 feet and Mach 2+ it would be a very much tougher proposition.Flanker235 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few problems. First, "destruction of engines" doesn't mean "fall out of the sky and crash." It means that the engines are no longer repairable or usable. They might have been able to make it back to a base for landing, but damage to things like the turbines may have been so high that the engines needed to be fully replaced before the aircraft could fly again. The engines were therefore destroyed by operation at Mach 3.2. As for "combat capabilities," you are defending combat capabilities that do not mirror actual air combat conditions. That the Foxbat operates "well" at 70,000 feet and Mach 2.5 doesn't give it much advantage in combat when it has to drop to 25,000 feet and 500 miles per hour to find and engage any opponents. This is an aircraft designed as a high altitude interceptor, not an air superiority fighter. Similarly, the MiG-3 was a poor combat aircraft when compared to other designs (such as the Yak-3) even though it could operate well at high altitude. This is precisely because combat on the Eastern Front did not take place at the altitudes the MiG-3 was suitable for. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The engines were damaged/burned-up in the Sinai overflight. The text in the reference for that sentence suggests it made it back to base OK.  That's why the text says "resulted in" their destruction.  The MiG-25 is an interceptor and as such is not really designed for dogfighting. -fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Never the less, destroitya is simply incorrect. While it would severely damage the turbines, often irreperably, guaranteed destruction is false. 68.80.26.12 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the word "destruction" is too strong. Even though we know the MiG made it back to its base, the article does not say it. For a reader searching for information, this is somewhat misleading and I think it needs to be re-worded. Since most people would realise that a MiG-25 would have all the glide performance of bulldozer, it's probably worth saying that the engines were "scrapped", rather than "destroyed". Flanker235 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I added to the article that the MiG-25 was reassembled and is on display at Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod. I was told this when visiting the plant in late 2014, and I saw it. Unfortunately I could not find any reference supporting this. /McQuade — Preceding unsigned comment added by McQuade (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Cited Source 404
Source 10 results in a 404. 68.80.26.12 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This article desperately needs Citations
I read this article in depth and it is in severe need of real citations. Hardly any of the claims of fact have any basis other than the article itself. Someone needs to rewrite this article with proper citations.

Thanks! Asdef123 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, you're stating the obvious. You did notice all the cite needed and other tags, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm planning a major and thorough rewrite of the article. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a useful resource on Russian radars, ecm systems, targeting systems. Includes data on Smerch radar and other Mig-25 related. http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan%27s%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm


 * http://www.ausairpower.net/ also contains lots of information about soviet hardware in general and can indicate further material to read about -25.


 * Also, there's a book (cough) zz search engine that will provide pointers to works by Yefim Gordon et al with further info on Soviet hardware... 46.97.68.150 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian vs Soviet
This article refers to a "Russian" design. This is incorrect. There was no Russian Air Force nor were there Russian Design Bureaus in during the period 1918-1991 or so. These were Soviet. The difference matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, that should be obvious it was in Soviet times. The improper use of "Russian" just got missed and is not a big deal.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary includes FAR too much information for a summary
The summary should include a basic description, not detailed information. The NATO scare and the F-15 information should be greatly reduced. The details should be in the body of the article. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You make fair points, but the Lead is about the right length at 3 paragraphs. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is true. I dont think the information should be removed, but it can be condensed into a single sentence, and included in a new paragraph. The summary does not include anything about its role as an interceptor against supersonic bombers, or that it carried the largest air to air missiles ever put into production. Its role and capabilities should probably be included in the summary.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Operators update needed
The operators section only lists two countries as operators while the map shows several. Some operators may have ceased operations after the map was drawn but clarifications (e.g. when operators ceased and versions) would be desirable.150.227.15.253 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041017122850/http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000588922/0000588922_0001.gif to http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000588922/0000588922_0001.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141128055926/http://iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F4/f4.html to http://iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F4/f4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510092701/http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes to http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

MiG-25 today and its role compared to other airplanes
As of 2018 MiG-25 is fastest operational airplane in use. Compared to SR-71 it was produced in much larger numbers. Loesorion (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's already stated in different words, and there's no need to repeat it twice. - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not stated that it is currently fastest operational aircraft, there is no comparative number of aircraft's produced stated and why do you mind my words what is wrong with them? Loesorion (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's bad English. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you are not teacher here and I am not your student if you continue with this stance I will start to think you are harassing me here. If you wanted to be English editor and rewrite my edits and do prof-editing go ahead and do it, I don't mind that, but do not delete other peoples edits because you don't like them or you think it is bad or unnecessary.

And to remind you have stated other reasons for deleting: "Reverted unnecessary and wordy additions" and again we are not in school here and you are not my teacher to tell me what is unnecessary or wordy. Loesorion (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * How can the MiG-25 be the fastest when the MiG-31 has the same top operational speed of Mach 2.83? Also, blogs are generally not considered quality sources on Wikipedia (see WP:USERG).  -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MiG-25 top operational speed is mach 3 with weapons and MiG-31 is less. I quote from source before it was again deleted from this page without valid reason:

"Его максимальная скорость без ракет на борту может достигать более 3400 км/ч, но в эксплуатации скорость самолета ограничивается 3000 км/ч. МиГ-31 (Foxhound) — сверхзвуковой истребитель-перехватчик дальнего радиуса действия четвертого поколения — может развивать скорость до 2600 км/ч без ракет.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150919/1263177944.html"

Maximal speed of MiG-25 is 3400km/h and/or Mach 3.2 with possibilities in long run to destroy engines but operational is 3000km/h. Maximal speed of MiG-31 is 3000-3200km/h and/or Mach 2.83 with possibilities in long run to destroy engines but operational is 2600km/h.

Depending on model actual maximal speed can vary because of weight of airplane that differs from model to model.

There is a consideration of some specially prepared test examples that differs from regular operational use and payload/fuel ration when tested when we talk about this area or speed limits as usually planes are tested by manufacturers to achieve maximum results. Also do not forget that the speed of sound is 331.2 meters per second in dry air at 0 °C (32 °F), and it is different in reality from this ideal gas example used for laboratory purposes. In higher attitudes speed of sound drops for example above 11500 meters is about 295m/s. We don't know what exactly rationale some books author used to convert speed given in km/h to mach and it should be noted that radar measurement from distance can be different depending on radar precision from measurement of speed directly in cabin of airplane. Speed could be grater if plane is flying towards earth then in horizontal fly etc.

When you see some round numbers like 3000km/h you should know also that is not exact measurement but some approximation, you don't get round numbers in reality for any plane - chances for that are minimal and close to zero - just a little observation.

And in end of this little notice before you consider some source not valid(not one given now in talk) you should have some arguments for that and not general observation per WP:USERG - I don't see how apply for this particular source that is only citing known fact about fastest plane in year 2018 and why that is not valid. It is obvious fact that it is fastest operational aircraft even without additional sources and if you search for more sources in order to improve article you will find many sources even without me giving one - and I already given one - internet is full of them if you need more I will gladly help. Loesorion (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Much better source there, thanks. It has been my understanding that the MiG-25 has been limited to Mach 2.83 operationally since the Mach 3.2 speed is not an operational speed since the Sinai overfights according to some of my books (e.g. Great Book of Fighters, Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, there is always limit that pilots can overcome if needed or for test purposes but is not advised and permitted by user manual of jet for regular flights. I have added one more interesting fact -tourist flights- and one more source regarding speed to main article page. If you are in need about any source in future or anything regarding any military question please speak free and I will help if I have enough free time. Loesorion (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no difficulty for the MiG-25 to reach 3M and more, but long flight on that speed will melt the canopy glass, overheat the skin over 290°C and fuel over 180°C. The sharp edges heat up most, when the temperature of the sensors reaches 290°C, the “Temperature, Deceleration” lamp lights up. Manual for the MiG-25 allows maintain M2.83 for no more than 5 minutes. Not any other jet fighter than the MiG-25/31 is capable of flying at a cruising speed 2500 km/h, but the MiG-25/31 cannot maintain 3M constantly as the SR-71. The maximum temperature of the SR-71 skin is about 423°C. Lorethan (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant photograph
The picture "[...] assessment photograph of an Iraqi aircraft bunker [...]" is irrelevant and rather pointless in an article on the MIG-25.

I suggest it be removed.

188.148.101.177 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a photograph of the remains of a MiG-25, which is what makes it relevant. The full caption which you redacted reads, "Post Operation Desert Storm assessment photograph of an Iraqi aircraft bunker with the remains of a MIG-25 Foxbat after being attacked with a 2,000 pound laser-guided bomb". (Emphasis mine.) - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The picture in question might be relevant for a page on the "2,000 pound laser-guided bomb" or "post-operation assessment" or some such topic. It's a page on the MiG 25. Compare it to, say, the wiki page on the American F-15. Nothing but relevant pictures there... I don't see quoting the full text of the caption (notice the [...]s?) changes anything. - 188.148.101.177 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)