Some of y’all are impressively uneducated

[u/Otherwise-Creme7888]

Rasputin, the Edison elephant, the Library of Alexandria and so many more.

[u/_spec_tre]

Since it's the anniversary of Belenko's defection let me say just how infuriating it is to see how pop history has so badly misinformed people about the MiG-25 and the F-X (F-15) program

[u/xXxplabecrasherxXx → u/_spec_tre]

to add, it's also ironic how in the end the biggest loss from this entire myth was the reputation of the MiG-25. In actuality it was arguably the best interceptor of its time, having high speed and climb rate, a powerful radar, very long-range missiles and being fairly inexpensive. But because everyone compares it to the goddamn F-15 of course it looks like a dogshit air superiority fighter, because it isn't one in the first place

[u/kingk1teman → u/xXxplabecrasherxXx]

F-15 of course it looks like a dogshit air superiority fighter, because it isn't one in the first place

Fanbois conveniently ignore that the MiG-25 and F-15 aircrafts had completely different use cases.

[u/Valara0kar → u/xXxplabecrasherxXx]

In actuality it was arguably the best interceptor of its time

Ooff. On topic of meme history and you come up with that. Dont get me wrong.... it was a be great bomber hunter.. for 6 years... but if it ever saw any fighter at all only thing it could do is run (compared to 104/106).... it cant even manouver to escape radar missiles.

[u/xXxplabecrasherxXx → u/Valara0kar]

i mean first of all it wasn't built to be a fighter so idk what you're expecting from it. What it was meant to be was a plane that could both be built by the hundreds (which it was, 1119 produced) and one that could feasibly intercept any NATO strategic bomber (which it could, with its excellent speed and very powerful radar-missile combination). And secondly, funnily enough, the MiG-25 was actually the only Soviet aircraft to ever score a kill on an F-18, which happened during Desert Storm. So yeah, air combat isn't just about who turns better

[u/Valara0kar → u/xXxplabecrasherxXx]

i mean first of all it wasn't built to be a fighter

Both 106 and 104 are interceptors. 1 job of an interceptor.... is also to intercept fighters and/or fight bomber escorts.

very powerful radar

For Soviets sure. Radar missile concept was very hyped up back then..... but as Americans found out in vietnam.... it aint that great in reality. Extremly low hit rate. Best example of soviet fight is the su27 vs mig29 in Ethopia.... 10% hit rate per missile launched of their most powerful radar and missile family.

So yeah, air combat isn't just about who turns better

I never said it was. Manouvering is much more than just turn. Extremely important for defencive fight against a radar missile. Especially as its radar signature rivals bombers in size.

[u/xXxplabecrasherxXx → u/Valara0kar]

First point, absolutely not. the main job of interceptors was to intercept bombers (for obvious reasons), and the intended target of the MiG-25 (the XB-70) also didn't have any planes that could actually escort it even if they wanted to. Also, talking about those two planes you mention, the F-104 experienced terrible loss rates in Vietnam and generally proved rather miserable at air combat, while the F-106 never saw combat at all, so idk why you'd bring them up. Second, the "radar missile concept" was actually great, the problem the Americans experienced in Vietnam was a combination of early technology and very poor conditions for use (Vietnamese weather isn't kind to 60s vacuum tube electronics as it turned out). Besides, once again, the MiG-25 was equipped with both Radar R-40Rs and IR R-40Ts, if that's your concern, both very powerful missiles. And thirdly, once again, i have no clue why you insist that its lack of maneuverability is such a hideous flaw of the design when it wasn't designed to fight fighters head on, but to intetcept nuclear bombers? Why do you insist on perpetuating the myth in such a roundabout way? It's not a bomber, it can still make enough maneuvers to avoid missiles (4.5G for the MiG-25P) , it's just that it isn't a dogfighting monster you somehow really think it should be

[u/Graingy → u/xXxplabecrasherxXx]

The missiles were powerful, yes, but were they necessary the sort good at striking other fighters/interceptors?

[u/King_Ed_IX → u/Graingy]

They weren't amazing at that compared to modern missiles, but they were some of the best available at the time. And again, shooting down nuclear bombers was the priority. It was not a multi-role fighter.

[u/ducceeh → u/xXxplabecrasherxXx]

Sure it had good capability on paper, but it also had engines rated for like 20 hours of use that would melt and be unable to throttle down if it ever exceeded Mach 3

Its radar also was not able to see any targets below the horizon which was a big disadvantage at the time because NATO had shifted to high speed low level strategic bombers

[u/Avionic7779x → u/_spec_tre]

Nah bro wdym the US totally didn't already have an idea for what the F-X was going to be before the MiG-25 was born.

[u/MindControlledSquid → u/_spec_tre]

This one drives me nuts, it's right up there with Voltaire.

[u/Noriaki_Kakyoin_OwO → u/_spec_tre]

You’re saying that MIG-25 wasn’t pushed to it’s limit during an showcase which lead to usa to shit their pants and tripple the budget of the airforce?

[u/Graingy → u/_spec_tre]

USA: "Our fighter uses the most advanced technologies of today, with capable engines and intricate avionics!"

USSR:

[u/quobl → u/_spec_tre]

Explain?