During the cold war, the US principally depended on the F-14A/D and the F-15A/B/C/D/E in dealing with the MIG-25/31.
The answer (as I see it of course :)) is one of US air doctrine. This doctrine is one of Air Superiority. The military may label a new jet as the answer to some single russian jet to push the idea on congress but actually the F15 is used for air superiority. The F14 is used primarily in fleet defense. If these planes can either destroy (definitely preferred) incoming planes or if they can just turn them away then they are performing their job wonderfully.
I would have to go with luke on this one. F-15's flying CAPS have one thing to worry about, don't let the MiG's get by to get to the base. If every time a MiG is painted it turns and runs, the F-15 ha sdoneits job. The same idea goes for th F-14. This results in a situation which would not be like teh Gulf War. The enemy may be able to put up planes, which would be bothersome, but if they never came within range, no need to worry. The F-15 would always be able to get to the MiG before teh MiG got to the F-15's base. On deep missions, fly F-15's or F-14's covering the strike package, and then the MiG's would run away. Eventually if the enemy wished to stop the USAF, their planes would have to come and fight.
I largely agree with luke and Jaq that the F-15/14 can win when the MIGs choose to engage. Thanks for commenting pals.
But the Mig25 wasn't designed for this originally, it was originally designed to go against the Supersonic XB-70 Valkyrie Nuclear Bomber that the US was working on.
Well, maybe it could. But remember, XB-70 big, lots of fuel, fly fast and fly long. Kind of like the B-1. Sure the Tornado may be faster at low altitudes, but he can't ride the burn the entire way. And the Sr-71. If the PW did not hamparing the speed of the F-22(alhtough I know it does), or the GE engine was used, or even a fighter version of the SR-71 engine, the fighter probably wouldn't go Mach 3, simply not enough fuel. Maybe peak over mach 3, but then it would have to glide back to earth.
Remember the tankers!
Just to clarified,
We all know that when loaded MIG25/31 can outfly both the F-15 and F-14 due to its large internal tanks (means there is no need for drag punishing external tanks most of the time) and low bypass engine or turbojet that are optimised for high speed flying. Now how can the F-15 and F-14 be employed successfully if the mission is to dstroy the MIG-25/31 when the MIG-25/31 choose to escape whenever they are tracked instead of enagaging the F-15/14 head on. In short how to chase the run away MIG? You can say that MIG can only fly fast for a short period of time before it run out of fuel, BUT the same is for F-15/14, MIG-25/31 both has much internal fuel to empty mass ratio than F-14. The F-15 can have higer ratio only when the drag inducing FAST PACK is added.
Now in the same token how can the F-18E/F hunt for navalised Su-27/37 when it has proportionally lower internal fuel and a lower crusieng speed than loaded SU-27/37?
I shall give a list of internal fuel to empty weight ratio below for your reference and comments (all approximate figure):
A/C Type Ratio of internal fuel to empty mass
F-22A 0.789
F-15(fastpack) 0.73
F-15 0.472
F-14 0.43
F-18E/F 0.48
F-16C 0.34
F-16(FAST PACK) 0.625
MIG-25 0.796
MIG-31 0.72
SU-27 0.61
SU-37 0.766?(may be exaggerated)
EF-2000(FAST PACK) ???
EF-2000 0.364
Rafale 0.478
The reason why I think internal fuel is important is because if you are engaging a fast flying aircraft with huge internal tank like MIG-31.25 and SU-27/32/35/37, you cannot use external tank that has unacceptable supersonic drag.
Based on the fuel fraction of EF2000, Rafale, F-18E, F-14 and F-15 without FAST PACK, I can see how they can pursue the MIG-25/31 and SU-27/35/37 if these Russian fighters choose to escape and not to engage them head on. Any comments?
Note: MIG-31/25 engine may be inefficient but the low bypass ratio make them rely less on afterburner at high altitude and speed than F-15/14, hence in a high speed chase, The F-15/14 may not have fuel efficiency advantage with the exception of some F-15E that are equipped with the moderately low bypass F100-PW229A (0.36:1). The rest of the engine that run F-15/14/18/16 all have bypass ratio greater than 0.6:1 and are optimised to save fuel in subsonic fligt! I think the US may have design the WRONG fighter to deal with the MIG-31/25 and the SU-27/35/37. I think most of the US and European fighter are optimised against MIG-27/23/29(low fuel fraction) and SU-15/22(low fuel fraction).
I really think that in the 1970s and 1980s, the US should deploy aircraft with high internal fuel capacity and engines design to have hig supersonic performance. The cancelled A-12 should be mass produced to deal with MIG-25 and not the F-15. F-15 is really good in dogfight but not as an high speed LONG RANGE interceptor!
Comments?
Aardvark
Regards
By luke on Saturday, February 20, 1999 - 11:00 am:
Sure bypass ratio and performance are very important but it should all be geared to ruling the sky not towards taking off then running away without doing any harm. Even if a very fast plane makes it in fires an anti ship or A/G missle then somehow escapes - the whole point of air superiority would be to first: try to stop something like this from happening and second: stop the threat cold - which should be easy and an area where one has air superiority since by definition one would control everything that goes on there.
Now of course the ideal air superiority is something that is near impossible to achieve but it is part of the US air power doctrine to always strive for it. That is why I think that the US chose wisely in the late 70's early 80's. With the planes it has now it can achieve air superiority in a short time over some area and once this is done it is much easier to turn away or destroy anything and everything that does not have permission to be there.
By Jaq on Saturday, February 20, 1999 - 11:43 am:
But this also would provide another problem. What if F-15's patrols come closer and closer to the enemies airfield, until one day it passes over it. Any plane that would take off would have to land to effectively run away. Of course thenit would be bombed, so the MiG's cannot run away as it is not how air superiority is achieved.
By Aardvark on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 01:35 am:
But, wouldn't it much better to develope plane that can destroy MIG-25/31 (there are 1200+ of them produced, 800+ MIG-25 & 500+ MIG-31) even when these aircraft choose to run. Just imagine how troublesome will it be when you detect MIG-31, paints it and BOOM, it fly away after firing a few AMOS AAM-9 at long range. The F-15 would probably busy fending off the AAM-9. If lets say F-15 could escape the AAM-9 Amos and lets say F-15 could fly at Mach 2.8 and has bigger internal fuel tank than MIG-25/31, it will be able to destroy them instead of dealing with them for a second, third or even fourth time. I understand that with better tactic, training and radar, F-15 can shoot down MIG-25/31 if they choose to engage. But the MIG-25/31 can also fire a few AAM-9 Amos or AAm-12 Adder with ramjet at long distance before running away.
GRANTED that at long range, AAM-9 And AAM-12 is unlikely to successfully destroy a F-15 or F-14 due to decoy , superb ECM and so forth, the frequent harassment may indeed make it a matter of time before the MIG-25/31 get lucky. Moreover as long as the MIG-31/25 are not destroyed in short order, they will prove to be a nuisance every now and then.
It would be so much better to produce a Mach 3 super interceptor that will prevail against the MIG-31/25 EVERYTIME no matter WHETHER the MIG choose to run away or not. As a saying goes, you can RUN but you can't hide or escape.
In the early 1960s, the USAF build the A-12(a armed version of SR-71 version of blackbird) that can outfly all AAM and destroyed targets at 300-500km away with the help of its extremely powerful look down radar that can burn through jamming and guide its long range missile to jackpot. GRANTED it is much more expensive than F-15, but the USAF can deploy fewer of them and still destroy more enemy than the F-15.
In fact in a classical confrontataion between NATO and WARSAW PACt, these aircraft can easily destroyed Russina aircraft that is just about to takeoff from airbase. Its low radar signature, super ECM and the ability to cruise at MACH 3.2 persistently (supercruise with turboramjet that has a propulsive efficiency that is far higher than normal turbofan-80-85%).
200 A-12 will wipe out 1200 MIG-25/31 no matter whether they choose to engage or not. The ability to deliver kinetic bomb from 80,000 feet and at Mach 3 and at standoff distance of 100km will mean that the MIG-25/35 will be in danger of being destroyed even in their hrdened aircraft hangar in eastern europe! off course the MIGs will be save if they are kept in eastern URAL mountain for cold storage!
It is not only important to destroy the MIG-31/25, I am sure the F-14 and F-15 can do it when they choose to engage. BUT it is even more important to destroy the MIG-25/31 at the start of the war and not let them play any part after the 1st week of world war III. Hence the USAF should have in the 1970s and 1980s deploy aircraft that can intercept and Pursue MIG-25/31 and hence enable the USAF to destroy the MIG under ALL circumstances and hasten the the arrival of AIR superiority so that the USAF could redress the huge numerical imbalance suffered by the US and NATO Army when facing the 20 million Russian Army(a fully mobilised figure).
The MIG-25/31 shouldn't be given the opportunity to choose betwwen running away or fighting, THEY should be DESTROYED once they are AIRBORNE. They must not be allow to be like Mosquito, attacking you when you don't see and running away with full afterburner when you choose try to hit them. Very irritating. I think the MIG-31 should be called the Mosquitoes because it can run away very fast away from hrams way.
I really feel that the Russian are very ingenious. They know they can beat the US in ECM and radar pound for pound, hence they give their aircraft generous amount of fuel and stamina to escape fast after harrassing the US strike group that will be busy fending off the AAM-9 and AAM-12. Even if those inaccurate missile never hit the target, they will disrupt an attacking force FORMATION and FOCUS as these aircraft cannot pay ATTENTION on the ground target.
Aardvark
Regards
By Mikewarrior on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 10:32 am:
Mike
By Jaq on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 11:07 am:
But if 3WW did occur in the eighties, can't you see the MiG 25's, 31's, and all other planes chasing the B-52's, and B-1's, as well as cruise missles and other fighters. I guess they didn't see those B-2's and F-117's flying right towards Moscow. Oh well, I guess its too bad.
By Tiger on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 01:19 pm:
By Aardvark on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 11:24 pm:
The world war 3 that I talk about is a conventional one. Even if the USAF launch all it crusie missile against Moscow, the damage is only quivalent to 5 at most 5000 500kg bomb. Thats only 2500 ton of HE or 2.5 kiloton nuclear bomb.
The B-52 cannot fly into any territory that is protected by 10,000 SAM launcher. The B-1 will manage better but with high casualty. Off course if a nuclear world war III is fought, the ICMB and SLBM will neutralised most of soviet air defence before the B-B and B-52 arrive. After substaining 5000 nuclear warhead from Minuteman III/II , MX missile, Trident I/II and Poseidon, how much of soviet airforce, SAM radar and SAM launcher would be left? Not much.
But in a conventional war, most of the soviet air defence SAM is still operational. HENCE, the WARSAW PACT could afford to redirect at least 600 MIG-25/31 to irritate the NATO air force ground attack campaign. During the Gulf War, The MIG-25 is the only aircraft that could escape the chase of F-15/18 and even credited to KILL one American aircraft (unconfirmed report, the Pentagon denies it). Imagine what could 700 such Mosquitoes could do to intrcately planned air campaign. Everything would be disrupted. F-15/18/16 would be send dodging missiles and chasing after the elusive MIG-25/31 instead of focusing their SEAD and CAS operation.
To Jaq,
I know that the F-22 can fly at Mach 3 no matter what engine is fitted. It is limited by its shape and material. Thermoplastic and thermosets melts. The thing that make SR-71 able to sustain its Mach 3+ performance is the SPIKE intake that compresses air at high speed and help the J58 engine to act as a turboRAMJET. The secret is in the shape. You can read more about is in the book written by Ben Rich called "skunk work". I bet that you should have already read that book. This is why I only said that the US should deploy a A-12 derivative (an armed version of SR-71 blackbird) in the 970s and 980s to deal with the MIG-25/31.
I NEVER said that the US should deploy a Mach 3 F-22. F-22 depends more on stealth and numbers (330+ is a big number for stealth aircraft) to win. But then again I am talking about the 1970s and 1980s, F-22 is still NON-existence. A-12 blackbird was build in the early 1960s. If it is further developed, a smaller, shorter range version armed with 1970s/80s radar and missile and ECM would be vaible for mass production. 500 of this F/A-12 blackbird(2/3 the size of the original SR-71) would be able to neutralise the treat of the 1300 MIG-25/31 cum 700 SU-27 completely.
Furthermore these 500F/A-12 would be able to penetrate WARSAW PACT airspace easily and pulverised their air field with kinetic anti air field weapon. You may argue that SAM would destroy these aircraft. In reality what that really kill most aircraft in various wars is anti-aircraft gun and short range IR handheld SAM. Those long range SOVIET SAM can be effectively deal with a combination of HARM, ECM, CHAFF and flying high speed at high altitude that minimise time exposure to hostile airspace. I agree that many SAM can take out the F/A-12. But with its ECM and high speed, before enemy radar can effectively track it, the F/A-12 would have already deliver its long ranged bomb or missile an on its way back to airbase. The effective range of many SAM drop when they engage targets that is flying away from the radar and at high altitude. Hence as long as F/A-12 avoid overflying the densest SAM network, and attack from a range of 100km, it is relatively save.
An inertia guided anti runway bomb drop from a F/A-12 at 80,000 feet and at Mach 3 would be able glide 100km+ to its target even when it is UNPOWERED. This the advantage of high speed and altitude fligh envelope.
Furthermore, the most dangerous and most powrerful WARSAW PACT RADAR would have been pulverised by HARMA, AGM-78B ARM and ALARM in a conventioanl world war 3 in 1970s or 1980s. Hence the dreaded SA-5/10/12 would post no threat to the F/A-12 blackbird as their radar would first be destroyed.
The rest of the missile like SA-2/6 that exist in far greater quantity would not be effective against F/A-12.
Aardvark
Regards