Along with Tupolev's 'Backfire', the MiG-25 'Foxbat' became agreat symbol of the Soviet Cold 'War threat. The 'Foxbat' wasnever the superfighter it was once believed to be, but it had, andhas, a surprising mix of complex and effective systems in a simpleyet very capable airframe. The large family of 'Foxbat' variantswas followed by the MiG-31 'Foxhound', a dedicated long-rangeinterceptor; it had the misfortune to be born into the post-ColdWar Russia and has thus died through lack of funding.

Today, any member of the Western publicwith sufficient money to do so can payfor a backseat ride in one of the world's

most impressive military aircraft. Theoreticallycapable of exceeding Mach 3, and of flying toan altitude of more than 80,000 ft (24384 m),the MiG-25 is a potent performer; however,today it is something of an anachronism, survivingin service in relatively small numbers, and iswidely considered to be at the end of its career.

When the MiG-25 first appeared, it generatedsome panic among Western analysts, since itclearly represented a major technological leap inSoviet fighter development. The aircraft wasextremely fast and many assumed that, as aninterceptor, it would also have an astonishinglylong range, a cutting-edge fire control systemand a degree of agility. New aircraft takingshape on American drawing boards tookaccount of the most pessimistic (and, as it turnedout, wildly overestimated) guesses as to theMiG-25's performance. This erroneous baselinewas even extrapolated forward to assume that, inthe 1970s, the Soviet threat might be representedby an even more impressive development of the

98

MiG-25, tentatively codenamed 'Fearless'.No-one knew what the MiG-25 was reallycapable of (except in terms of airspeed, afterrecce aircraft operating from Egypt were trackedon radar). In this 'information vacuum' therewas a natural tendency to assume the worst.

The Belenko reassessmentAfter Lieutenant Belenko defected to Japan in

his early model MiG-25 'Foxbat-A' in 1976,some Western analysts were astonished by whatthey saw as evidence of the type's inadequacyand crudity. Belenko himself revealed that theMiG-25 had an in-service l imit ing MachNumber of 2.5, and that beyond Mach 2.8 therewas a tendency for the engines to 'accelerate outof control', and to 'overheat and burn up'.Reconnaissance 'Foxbats' tracked flying at Mach3.2 over Israel during the early 1970s reportedlyneeded to have their engines replaced after suchflights, though both this speed and the engineproblem were explicitly denied by Russiansources . Despite its massive in te rna l fuelcapacity, the original MiG-25 fighter variant had(according to Belenko) a typical operational

Above: The imposing size and rough shape of theMiG-25 set it apart from other combat aircraft.The 'Foxbat' is built from a unique mix of steel,aluminium and titanium alloys that gives it thestructural strength to survive in its high-speed,high-altitude operational environment-yet issimple enough to be maintained on a flight line,in the rain.

radius of action of less than 200 miles (320 km),limiting it to a one-pass attack. Early Westernassessments had estimated the range at 1,240miles (1995 km). Without external fuel thetheoretical maximum ferry range was 1200 km(745 miles), though the service limit was a moremodest 900 km (559 miles). Even the aircraft'smuch-vaunted high-altitude performance wasless impressive than had once been believed.With only two missiles underwing, the 'Foxbat-A'was limited to 24000 m (78,740 ft), or to 21000 m(68,900 ft) with four. Although the MiG-25could then fire its missiles in a 'look-up' mode,the weapons themselves were claimed to havebeen limited to an absolute altitude of 27000 m(88,580 ft) — said by some to be insufficient tocope with the highest-flying SR-71s. Moreover,the missiles were claimed to be too slow tocatch an SR-71 at full throttle, and so wereuseless in a tailchase engagement, while theguidance system had problems coping with thevery high closing speeds encountered in a head-onengagement. Nevertheless, despite the claimedlow probability of success, the MiG-25 couldtheoretically cope with an SR-71 if everythingwent right. In the real world, MiG-25s didachieve lock-ons against SR-71s flying at opera-tional altitudes, and a lock-on was impossibleunless the target was within range, and speed,

altitude and g were within the necessary limits.The SR-71s were never fired upon, but onlybecause rules of engagement never permitted it.The MiG-25's deployment did effectivelyprevent the USAF from actually penetratingSoviet airspace on a routine basis. Althoughnominally a fighter, the MiG-25 was neverreally intended for fighter-versus-fighter combatand lacked agility. With full fuel in the wings,the pilot had to stick to a 2.2^ limit, and even atlow weight, the aircraft was limited to about 5g.

Above: This is a line-up of MiG-25RBTs, the lastproduction version of the reconnaissance/strike'Foxbat-Bs'. The RBT retained the camera fit ofearlier MiG-25RBs, mounted on a downwards-sliding pallet in the nose.

Seldom has an aircraft been assessed andreassessed more frequently than the MiG-25.What some saw as crudity others saw as positivefeatures; e.g., where riveting was employed, therivets were not countersunk, but they were usedonly in specific cases where they would not causeparasitic drag, and actually strengthened thestructure. There were similar explanationsbehind other superficially archaic features. The'primitive' valve-driven RP-25 Smerch(Whirlwind) radar, for instance, had sufficientpower (600 kW at peak power) to 'burnthrough' hostile jamming. The avionics system'svacuum tubes represented the apex of thatoutmoded technology, and were more reliableand cheaper than contemporary transistors.

A probably apocryphal story suggests thatpilots were banned from turning on the radaruntil after take-off, and that when this stricturewas disobeyed, the radar was powerful enoughto kill rabbits sitting by the runway edge. Theradar (known as 'Fox Fire' to NATO's ASCC)was primitive, though, with virtually no look-down capability at targets flying below 500 m(1,640 ft) except over desert or a calm sea, dueto ground clutter. The radar also had onlylimited range. The MiG-25P's radar detectionrange was limited to about 100 km (62 miles)against a bomber-sized target, with automatic

tracking at ranges inside 50 km (31 miles), andthe radar scanned an area of 120° in azimuthand 12° in elevation, centred about the aircraft'scentreline. This was relatively unimportant,though, since the emphasis placed on GCIcontrol meant that the onboard radar was usedonly in the terminal stage of an intercept, whenthe MiG-25 would almost inevitably be belowits target. The need was to be able to overcomejamming by the target, and this the radarachieved admirably.

The basic reconnaissance version of theMiG-25 came in for similar criticism, basedprimarily on the fact that it had only opticalcameras, with provision for a limited Elintpackage, while every SR-71 and U-2R wascapable of accepting a much wider range ofsensors, switching role by simply changingequipment in easily removable pallets or bychanging whole noses. The MiG-25R philos-ophy was different, with a number of differentsingle-sensor type variants. Some MiG-25s wereequipped for photo reconnaissance (albeit withan Elint capability) while others were dedicatedElint or radar reconnaissance types (with a singlevertical camera). These sub-variants would tendto operate together , in mixed squadrons .Moreover, all but the first reconnaissance

Below: The two-seat MIG-25U 'Foxbat-C' was ahighly valued type. Serving as trainers,familiarisation aircraft and weather recce ships,the two-seaters saw more flying hours than anyother MiG-25 version. This is a MiG-25RU withits clean wing - the MiG-25PU had pylons.

MiG-25 and MiG-31 variants

Above: This photograph of Victor Belenko'sMIG-25P ('Red 31') at Hakodate is the bestknown 'Foxbat' image in the world, and a classicCold War icon. In the face of extreme Sovietpressure, the dismantled MiG-25 was quicklyflown out, aboard a USAF C-5 and JASDF C-1,and then shipped back to the USSR.

Below: This MIG-25RBT is one of a handfuloperated by the Bulgarian air force, because theUSSR had no similar assets of its own based inthat region. The 'Foxbats'flew high-speed 'race-track' reconnaissance orbits near the border, butthe confines of Bulgaria's airspace eventuallyforced an end to their operations.

'Foxbats' could carry bombs for use in the high-speed high-altitude bombing role, a capabilitynot shared by their Western counterparts .Although an individual reconnaissance MiGairframe might not have the flexibility of a U-2R,a squadron would have. As an example of this,the 931st ORAP at Werneuchen in East Germanyincluded a squadron of 'Wild Weasel' MiG-25BMs,and a reconnaissance squadron which includedthree SLAR-equipped MiG-25s, five dedicatedElint platforms, one night photo-reconnaissanceaircraft, and five aircraft capable of fulfillingphoto-reconnaissance or Elint missions.

Strength, simplicity, sophisticationThe aircraft could stand out in all weathers,

operating from a flight line, and never neededcosseting in an air-conditioned hangar. TheMiG-25 was extremely easy to maintain andservice, demanding less specialised equipmentand manpower than similar Western aircraft.There was provision for the extensive use oftruck-mounted advanced automatic test equip-ment post-flight, .which the ground crewneeded only to plug in. Fighter versions of theMiG-25 have an autopilot datalinked to GCIstations, allowing fully automatic intercepts. Thepowerful onboard computer has also attractedpraise from Western analysts.

The MiG-25 is a uniquely Soviet aircraft,built to Soviet requirements and with the usual

mix of good and bad characteristics. Just as theUSAF has found it hard to replace its specialisedSR-71s, there are some roles for which theMiG-25 remains unmatched. Moreover, whilethe American SR-71 was undeniably a hotterand more impressive performer than the MiG-25,it was less conventional, and much more difficultto support and operate on a routine basis.Arguably the most impressive thing about theMiG-25 was that its extraordinary performancewas obtained in a relatively conventionalaircraft, one which was simple and cheapenough to be produced in very large numbersand to be exported. Interestingly, the onlyconfirmed Iraqi air-to-air kill of the 1991 GulfWar was scored by a MiG-25, which downed aUS Navy F/A-18 Hornet, and MiG-25 recon-naissance aircraft can still operate with impunityover many parts of the world.

Moreover, the MiG-25 formed the basis ofthe two-seat MiG-31 interceptor, an aircraftwhose excellence has been largely hidden by thepresent sad state of the PVO. The MiG-31 hasbeen handicapped by lack of funds, and haspicked up an undeserved reputation after a spateof accidents, all of which have been the directresult of a restriction in pilot flying hours.Production of the MiG-31 'Foxbat' has nowceased, while procurement of the (probablyinferior) Su-27PU (Su-30) has continued,thanks mainly to Sukhoi's greater political clout.

Although there is some argument as to therelevance and effectiveness of the MiG-25 andits derivatives today, there is no doubt as to itsCold War conception.

'Foxbat' genesisWhen Francis Gary Powers's U-2 was shot

down by a SAM over Sverdlovsk on 1 May1960, the writing seemed to be on the wall forthe idea that high-altitude performance couldprovide any immunity from interception. Infact, development of a further high-altitudereconnaissance aircraft was already wellunderway, and this (which became the SR-71)proved that reduced radar cross-section and veryhigh speed capability, combined with high-altitude performance, could be sufficient toovercome the SAM threat. It was calculated thatan aircraft flying at Mach 3.5 above 65,000 ft(19812 m) could not be intercepted, while aMach 3.2 aircraft could only be interceptedbelow 80,000 ft (24384 m). Even then an SA-2would have a ground range of only about 10 miles(16 km), and could probably be defeated in theterminal phase by energetic manoeuvring.

An SR-71-type threat had to be countered.More than security of secret installations ornational pride was at stake. A bomber version ofthe Blackbird could not be ruled out (and itlater emerged that such a variant, the B-12,reached an advanced stage), and an interceptorwould clearly have to be developed to copewith the threat. Meanwhile, even in the USA,the assumption was made that an SR-71/B-12-type capability could be developed by the enemy,and the YF-12 interceptor was developed.Moreover, the USSR's own reconnaissanceaircraft faced a similar SAM threat to those ofthe USA, and it was realised that a very high-speed, high-altitude platform could function inthe reconnaissance and interceptor roles.

It would be an over-simplification to suggestthat the MiG-25 was no more than a panicresponse to the SR-71 or its precursors.Development of what became the MiG-25began four years before the A-12 first flew in1962, and two years before Russia becameaware that the A-12/SR-71 programme wasunderway. In fact, the driving force behind theMiG-25 was initially the development of theConvair B-58 supersonic bomber, and thevarious even more advanced bomber projectsknown to be taking shape on American, Britishand French drawing boards. Knowledge of the

100

trisonic XB-70 Valkyrie had a major influenceon the MiG-25 programme, of course, since thenew Soviet fighter suddenly had to be able todeal with a Mach 3 target - rather than a B-58flying at a mere Mach 2.

For many years, the Soviet air defence organ-isation, the IA-PVO (Troops of the AirDefence), was something of a poor relationwithin the Soviet air forces. The technology didnot exist to produce a comprehensive and inte-grated air defence system for the entire USSR,and the network of S-25 SAMs and mannedinterceptors was used mainly for the pointdefence of specific cities and major militaryinstallations.

The success of the S-75 (SA-2) againstPowers's U-2 led to the dominance of theSAM, and a number of longer-ranged, moreheavily armed interceptor projects were terminated.In the USSR the idea that all manned fighterswere obsolete never fully took hold, and fighterdevelopment continued. This resulted in thedeployment of the huge Tupolev Tu-128,significant mainly for its 2500-km (1,553-mile)range, its long-range missile armament and long-range radar. While the Tu-128 clearly represented

The MiG-25RBF 'Foxbat-D', which appeared inthe early 1980s, had two small dielectric antennapanels on the underside of the nose instead ofcamera ports. RBKs were converted to RBFs atWS maintenance facilities. This example iscarrying the massive 5280-litre (1,161-Imp gal)ventral fuel tank, unique to the 'Foxbat'.

a superb defence against aircraft like the 13-52,its relatively slow speed (1665 km/h; 1,000 mph)was not sufficient for it to be terribly effectiveagainst aircraft like the B-58 Hustler or A-5Vigilante. The Mikoyan OKB began seriouswork on heavy, long-range, very high-perfor-mance interceptors during the late 1950s,initially scaling up its successful MiG-21 config-uration to produce the various 'big MiGs' - the1-75, Ye-150 and Ye-152. Though unsuccessful,these types played a crucial role in exploring thehigh-speed high-altitude regime, in developingthe concept which lay behind the MiG-25, andeven in encouraging the development of suitableweapons and avionics systems. The MiG-25represented a major leap forward even fromthese advanced a i rc raf t , however , andMikoyan's decision to proceed with the projectwas seen by some within the bureau as beingakin to picking up a poisoned chalice. Thedecision prompted something of a schism in thehighest levels of the OKB, leading to theresignation of Anatoly Brunov. As a result, theailing Gurevich took his place, and the MiG-25became the last true MiG, worked on by bothof the bureau's founders.

The Ye-155 prototypesAlways sensitive to charges of 'copying'

Western designs, official historians maintain thatthe Ye-155 configuration was a 'clean sheet ofpaper' design, though there are persistent reportsthat the project began life after the 1959 Paris

The MiG-25RBF was the final development of thecamera/Elint-equipped MiG-25RBs and wasbased on the MIG-25RBK. The RBF had noprovision for cameras, replacing them with theShar-25 (Balloon-25) Elint system.

air show, when Artyom Mikoyan instructed histhen-chief designer, Selctskii, to produce aninterceptor "along the lines of the Vigilante." Infact, the preliminary design department underRostislav Belyakov (later general designer of theOKB, and the man credited with designing theMiG-29) produced three quite different config-urations, one with engines staggered vertically,one with tandem engines (the front engineexhausting amidships) and one with side-by-sideengines. The team also explored the use ofvariable-geometry wings, and the provision oflift-jets for STOL operation. Some configurationshad two crew, usually in tandem.

The directive issued by the Council ofMinisters and the Central Committee inFebruary 1961 ordered Mikoyan to develop theYe-155P (Perekhvatchik — radar-directed) as aninterceptor and the Ye-155R (Razvedchik] forreconnaissance. MiG's designs were alwaysintended to be multi-role aircraft.

Another directive was issued by the Councilof Ministers and the Central Committee in early1962, outlining in some detail the operationalrequirements, authorising prototype constructionand laying down the expected test and constructionschedules. Even before work on the prototypebegan, a relatively large number of testbed

101

aircraft were flying with elements of the MiG-25'sintended equipment fit. The R15B-300engine's immediate predecessor had clocked upconsiderable flight time (as the Rl 5-300 andR15F-300) in the Ye-150, Ye-152 and Ye-152M,including flight at high speeds and high altitudes,while the definitive R15B-300 was extensivelytested below a Tu-16LL. Meanwhile, a MiG-21served as a testbed for the Polyot navigationsystem. The programme was also supported by asmall fleet of converted airliner types. One ofthe Tu-110 prototypes served as a testbed forthe R-40 missile's semi-active radar homingguidance system, while a Tu-104 tested theSmerch-A (ASCC 'Fox Fire') radar, its newpointed nose gaining it the nickname 'Buratino'(Pinocchio). Two more Tu-104s flew with themain computer, the Anis INS, the Tropic andPeleng navigation complexes and the StrelaDoppler.

Meanwhile, the GAZ-21 aircraft factory atGorkii (now Nizhny Novgorod) prepared forproduct ion, gaining new equipment forworking with the new materials to be used inthe production of the MiG-25, and refiningproduction techniques and processes. The

prototype aircraft took shape in the OKB's ownworkshops, which were known as the ZenitMachinery Works, in an attempt to maintainsecurity and secrecy. The Gorkii factory eventuallybuilt 1,186 MiG-25s between 1969 and 1984,with production peaking at a rate of 100 permonth. Interceptor production for the VVS andPVO ceased in 1979, when the MiG-31 enteredproduction. Thereafter, small-scale fighterproduction continued for export, while produc-tion of reconnaissance versions also continued.Four more 'Foxbats' were built in the OKB'sown workshops, bringing the total productionto 1,190.

The essential powerplantThe definitive Ye-155 was designed around

the only available engine — the TumanskiiR15B-300, derived (but extensively redesigned)from a powerplant designed for use in a UAV.There were other suitable engines but they werestill on the drawing board, or were earmarkedfor other applications. The engine designersquickly replaced the simple hydromechanicalfuel metering valve of the UAV engine (opti-mised to keep the engine at constant power)

These 'Foxbat-Ds' are seen at a Russian Arcticbase, in June 1994. Serviceability levels of theMiG-25 fleet are questionable, though, today, thereconnaissance variants are bound to be moreprized than the interceptors.

with a fully variable electronic fuel control unit(the first on a Soviet combat aircraft), andprovided an adjustable-area nozzle for the after-burner. The afterburner was probably the largestaugmentor ever produced up to that time, andrequired 12 actuating rams. Modifications weremade to the compressor and combustionchamber. The engine was never as robust asengines designed from scratch for mannedaircraft applications, and early MiG-25s enteredservice with engines certificated for a 150-hourlife. The earliest R15B-300s were even lessdurable, with a quoted life of 25 hours; it waseventually extended to 750 hours.

The definitive R15BD-300 is a single-shaftaxial-flow turbojet, with annular combustion

This Swedish air force photo of a MiG-25 BM overthe Baltic harks back to the days when 'Foxbats'were regular photo subjects for FlygvapnetDrakens and Viggens. Today intercepts ofRussian aircraft are virtually nil.

102

Camouflage measuresTo disguise the true role (and revisedmission fit) of the MiG-25BM, serviceaircraft wore false grey-painted radomesin an attempt to resemble the MiG-25PDinterceptor. The MiG-25BM lacks theogival radome of the MiG-25PD and hasa distinctive triangular 'bump' under itsmore pointed nose.

ECM adaptationsThe MiG-25BM had anextended nose tohouse its new EW andemitter detectorsystems. It had anantenna fit thatsomewhat resembledthe MiG-25RBK.

Kh-58 (AS-11 'Kilter')The Kh-58 was the first Soviet-developed anti-radiation missile that could be easily carried on an aircraftsmaller than the Tu-16 or Tu-22. The Kh-58 was designed for tactical aircraft and was incorporated intoMiG-25 design concepts from an early stage (the same is true also for the MiG-31). The Kh-58 has a launchweight of 640 kg (1,410 lb), is 4.80 m (15.75 ft) in length and 38 cm (15 in) in diameter. The warhead isunderstood to be a 150-kg (330-lb) HE blast/fragmentation unit, and some sources have suggested that asmall nuclear warhead can be fitted. The Kh-58 uses intertial mid-course guidance and then passive radar-homing. It has an estimated maximum range of 70 km (44 miles) from low altitude, and up to 150 km(93 miles) from high altitude.

'Wild Weasel' 'Foxbats'Though the high-speed and high-altitude performance of the MiG-25 offered itconsiderable protection from SAMs, an air defence suppression version wasdeveloped to make doubly sure. It was a fast attack aircraft, very difficult to engageand shoot down. Initial designs such as the Ye-155K and the MiG-25RB-derivedMiG-25B were not followed through. Instead, the all-new MiG-25BM dedicated SEADversion appeared. The MiG-25BM (and its associated weapon system the Kh-58) hada troubled development period and only entered service in 1988, several years afterproduction had actually ended.

MiG-25BM 'Foxbat-F'The MiG-25BM (Izdelye 02M)'Foxbat-F' was developedspecifically with the Europeantheatre in mind. It was the 'WildWeasel' defence suppressionMiG-25, specially developed tocarry the Kh-58 (AS-11 'Kilter') anti-radiation missile. The prototype (arebuilt MiG-25RBV) first flew in1976, but introduction into servicewas slow. MiG-25BM productionlasted from 1982 to 1985, andfewer than 100 were built.

Left and below: A handfulofMiG-25s based in EastGermany (like someSukhoiSu-25 'Frogfoots'also) wore a roughcamouflage patternreferred to, in the West atleast, as an 'Afghanistanscheme'. The 'Foxbat'sawlittle or no action inAfghanistan. ThisMIG-25RBK (left) is seenat Werneuchen, in April1991. This MIG-25RBS(below) is now active atAkhtubinsk, the Russianair force operational trialsbase.

chambers, a single-stage turbine and a three-position ejector. The engine was rated at 73.33 kN(16,534 lb st) in dry power, or 109.83 kN(24,691 lb st) with full augmentation. Maximumexhaust gas temperature was 820°C (1,510°F) inflight, or 20°C lower on start-up. Each enginehad a separate fire indication system, with ionisa-tion sensors and separate CFC fire extinguishers.

The engines were mounted side-by-side inthe rear fuselage, but were separated by a longi-tudinal' firewall. Their mountings were attachedto fuselage bulkheads 10 and 11. The engineswere mounted rotated through 13°, so that theunderslung accessory gearboxes were cantedoutboard, away from each other. The enginenozzles are so close together that they wouldhave overlapped if the three innermost nozzlesegments had not been removed to allow theinstallation of a narrow boat-tail fairing whichincorporated the mounting for the tailcone andbrake chute compartment.

Advanced systems provide electrical andhydraulic power, pressurisation and air conditioning.Early model MiG-25s had a single-phase ACsystem, but later aircraft had a three-phasesystem with two circuits supplied by engine-driven SGK-11/1.5KIS-M 200-215-V (400-Hz)generators. DC power (28-Volt) was providedin separate circuits by two GSR-12KIS generatorsand 15SCS-45B silver-zinc batteries. The MiG-25had two independent hydraulic systems, one(the booster system) powering one cylinder of

each of the flight control boosters, and theemergency wheel brakes. The general systemsupplied the second cylinder of each flightcontrol booster, and also operated the landinggear, flaps, airbrakes, normal wheel braking, airintakes, emergency landing gear retraction andnosewheel steering, together with some otherminor services. The booster system contained30 litres (6.6 Imp gal) of silicon-based hydraulicfluid, with 53 litres (11.7 Imp gal) in the generalsystem. The systems were powered by engine-driven rotary-piston, variable discharge pumpsat between 2,570 and 3,000 psi (180-210kg/cm2). Each system was powered by twopumps, one driven by each engine. The airconditioning system used bleed air from theengine compressors at 16 psi (1.2 kg/cm2)cooled from 400°C (750°F) and fed either to

the cockpit sub-system or to the avionics baysub-system before being further cooled. Thecockpit air conditioning system uses 240 kg(530 lb) of air per hour, at -7°C (20°F), with theavionics bay taking 560 kg (1,234 lb) per hourat -20°C (-4°F). Cockpit temperature can easilybe maintained at 20°C (68°F).

For the Ye-155, Mikoyan Gurevich abandonedthe traditional nose-mounted 'pitot' intake thathad been a hallmark of the bureau's earlierfighters. This made it easier to accommodate alarge search radar, and allowed the fuselagelength to be kept shorter. Instead, the engineswere 'fed' by individual rectangular intakesmounted on the fuselage sides, sharply rakedand fitted with moveable ramps to controlshock wave formation and regulate airflow intothe engines. Each intake duct also incorporated

MiG-25 and MiG-31 variants

Above: The MiG-25's brake chute is housed in abullet-shaped canister between the two engines.The fairing is made from Tekstolit, a cheap resin-based composite material, like Bakelite. Thechute is activated on touch-down, by a sensor inthe port ventral fin.

Right: 'Foxbat' pilots typically wear a Gsh-6pressure helmet with a VKK-6M full pressuresuit, for high-altitude operations. They can alsobe kitted out with a VMSK-2M/4 immersion suit,ASZh-58 lifejacket or Komplekt-L NBC suit.

a water/methanol injection system 'tree', whichcould spray water/methanol directly into thecompressed air (reducing its temperature andvolume) before reaching the compressor face,and thereby increasing mass flow while holdingdown turbine temperatures.

The fuselage was a one-piece monocoquestructure built up around 14 main bulkheads(No. 1 level with the leading edge of the wind-screen, back to Nos 13 and 14 supporting thestabilator mountings) with frames and stringers.Lower longerons and beams added furtherstrength and rigidity. The pressurised cockpitand avionics bay sat one atop the other betweenbulkheads 1 and 2. The centre fuselage betweenbulkheads 3 and 12 was one enormous fueltank, which formed the main load-bearing partof the fuselage. A welded steel (SN-3, VNS-2,VNS-4, and VNS-5 alloys) structure, this tankcarried more than 10 tonnes (9.8 tons) of fueland was augmented by integral tankage in thewings. Total fuel capacity was 17760 litres(3,906 Imp gal). This included 2810 litres (618Imp gal) in the first fuselage tank, 3220 litres(708 Imp gal) in the second, 3060 litres (673Imp gal) in the third, 2340 litres (514 Imp gal)in the fourth, 2370 litres (521 Imp gal) in thefifth, and 730 litres (160 Imp gal) in the sixth.Front wing tanks held 550 litres (120 Imp gal)each, with 1910 litres (420 Imp gal) each in therear wing tanks. An accumulator tank held afurther 150 litres (33 Imp gal), and fuel linesaccounted for another 40 litres (8.7 Imp gal).The reconnaissance aircraft also had fin tanks,each holding 600 litres (132 Imp gal).

This tankage amounted to a 14570-kg(32,120-lb) fuel load for the interceptors, and15000 kg (33,068 lb) for the reconnaissanceversions. A very high fuel fraction was essential

if the aircraft was to be able to sustain supersonicflight for any reasonably prolonged period.Single-point pressure refuelling was incorporated.

The MiG-25 made extensive use of steel inits construction, since kinetic heating at highspeed forbade the use of convent ionalaluminium alloys. A MiG-19 flying at Mach 1.3in air at 0°C (32°F) would experience skin frictionwhich could increase the nose temperature to72°C (161°F), while a MiG-21 flying at Mach2.05 in similar conditions might reach 107°C(225°F) around the nose. ConventionalDuralumin could withstand 13()°C (266°F), butcalculations indicated that a Mach 3 aircraftcould easily experience 300°C (572°F). Therewas little experience of using titanium (whichwas in any case prohibitively expensive, proneto cracking and notoriously difficult to work),and the use of fuel-cooled aluminium structureswould have required the extensive use of heat-resistant sealants, which would again have repre-sented something of a 'leap in the dark' in the

USSR. Moreover, the Soviet aerospace industrywas suffering from a shortage of skilled riveters,while workers skilled in welding were plentiful.Steel was cheap and simple to work with, andcould be welded (making production easier andcheaper). The material confounded the expectationsof pessimists, who believed that steel structureswould be too prone to crystallisation and stress-cracking. Soviet metallurgists developed newhigh-strength, heat-resistant steel alloys, whichwere used with conspicuous success.

In the end, some 80 per cent of the MiG-25airframe was of steel construction (SN-3, VL-1,VNS-2, VNS-5, EI-703, and EI-878 alloys),with titanium alloys (OT4-1) accounting foranother 8 per cent, and 11 per cent being ofheat-resistant D19T aluminium alloy. Theengine bays each incorporated heat shieldscoated with a 30-micron layer of silver (5 kg/11 lbper aircraft), which absorbed 5 per cent of theheat and represented a more cost-effective solutionthan gold or rhodium, though these metals were

105

tested. Fifty per cent of assembly was by argonarc welding (more than 1,400,000 spot welds),25 per cent by bead welding (3960 m/13,000 ft), 1.5 per cent by fusion or inert gaswelding, and 23.5 per cent by conventionalbolts and rivets.

In almost every area, conventional materialsproved inadequate in the extraordinary range ofconditions in which the MiG-25 would operate.Conventional hydraulic fluid decomposed (orboiled) at very high temperatures, while acrylicplastics used for conventional cockpit canopies,normal tyre rubber, and a host of other routinematerials had to be replaced or modified. At fullspeed, the MiG-25's canopy actually becomesfar too hot to touch, a graphic illustration of thekinetic heat generated.

Such high temperatures demanded advancedcooling equipment as well as high temperaturematerials, of course. The MiG-25 was thereforegenerously provided with heat exchangers,turbine coolers and refrigeration units.

Wing and fuselage layoutThe trapezoidal wing had a compound sweep

leading edge, with 42° 30' at the wingroot, and41° outboard on the interceptors, and a constantsweep of 41° 02' on the reconnaissance variants.The wing had a straight trailing edge, and wasoptimised for low drag between Mach 2 andMach 3. Relatively light, yet stiff, the wingincorporated a significant quantity of fueltankage. It was built up around a conventionalbox structure, with two main spars attached tothe No. 7 and No. 9 bulkheads, a front sparattached to the No. 6B frame, and two rearspars attached to bulkheads Nos 10 and 11. The

wing had inboard plain flaps, with two-sectionailerons outboard, and with a fixed titaniumleading edge housing fuel lines and cable runs.The flaps and ailerons were of Duraluminconstruction, with honeycomb cores. On earlyaircraft, the flaps were blown to improve take-offperformance and to reduce landing speeds. Likemany Soviet combat aircraft, the MiG-25 hadtwo chord-wise fences above each wing, theinboard fence stretching across virtually thewhole chord at the aileron/flap junction, with asmaller fence level with the junction betweenthe twin aileron sections. Airbrakes were locatedabove and below the rear fuselage, while anabbreviated tailcone between the engine nozzleshoused a brake parachute (or more commonlyafter 1977, a pair of brake chutes with a totalcombined area of 50 mV538 sq ft, since a singlechute of sufficient area would have 'scuffed'along the runway).

Being shoulder-mounted above the lateralintakes and intake ducts , the wing gaveadequate ground clearance for the carriage ofvery large underwing stores. This in turndictated that the hydraulically actuated mainundercarriage units be located in the fuselage,since a wing-mounted undercarriage wouldhave required impractically long oleos.Complicating the designers' task was the needto provide the aircraft with a relatively widetrack. In the end, the single-wheel main under-carriage units were made to retract forward, andwere stowed vertically in the side walls of theintake ducts. The twin nosewheels also retractedforward, to stow below the cockpit. All threeundercarriage units were fitted with pneumatically-actuated anti-lock brakes, while the pneumatic

The MiG-31 'Foxhound' has obvious MiG-25 rootsbut is a bulkier - and far more capable -interceptor. With its phased array radar andwarload of long-range R-33 missiles, the'Foxhound' is a formidable air defender.

system (actually three independent sub-systems)provided emergency undercarriage extensionand emergency intake actuation, plus power forbrake chute actuation, canopy de-icing (whichused ethyl alcohol), pressurising avionics andequipment bays, and fuel dumping. The steerablenosewheel had two turn limits for taxiing or forhigh-speed taxiing, take-off and landing.

The Ye-155 was initially designed with aconventional tail unit , with a single centraltailfin, though it was realised that a single finwould have to be disproportionately large if itwere to provide adequate longitudinal stability.The single fin was soon replaced by modestlycanted (11°) twin tailfins, widely spaced on theupper 'corners' of the rear fuselage. Theydiffered from one another and were not inter-changeable. Interestingly, while the MiG-25went from a Vigilante-style single fin to twinfins, the A-5 itself had originally been drawn upwith twin fins. Initially, the MiG-25's tailfinswere augmented by finlets on the wingtips, andby huge ventral fins under the fuselage. Thetailfins each had a single-piece rudder actuated(like the other flying controls) by irreversibletwin-cylinder boosters. Each booster was simul-taneously fed by both hydraulic systems, onesystem going to each cylinder. The horizontaltail surfaces consisted of massive slab tailerons,whose leading edges were swept at 50°.

The original MiG-25 was originally designedfor the interceptor and reconnaissance roles, andwas subsequently adapted for the SEAD role.Variants are divided into these three role-basedfamilies, with a separate section detailing thedistinct family of MiG-31 variants and precursors.The MiG-31 was based on the aerodynamicconfiguration of the MiG-25, but featured anew structure, systems, avionics and engines,and was a much later aircraft optimised to meetthe threat posed by air-launched cruise missiles.The MiG-31 brought the MiG-25 right up todate, and the type's present moribund statusreflects the political and economic realities ofthe new Russia, rather than any shortcoming ofthe aircraft itself. Jon Lake

Left: This is one of the follow-on production batchof improved MiG-31 B/BS 'Foxhounds', fitted witha retractable refuelling probe. The MiG-31 B/BSalso has a superior avionics and radar fit.

Right: 'White 903' is a bureau-owned MiG-31which has worn the blue and white schemeapplied to several demonstrator 'Foxhounds'.This aircraft may well have been involved in theMiG-31E export version programme.

106

MiG-25 and MiG-31 VariantsPrototypes and early projectsUnbuilt projectsWhile Mikoyan's preliminary designdepartment struggled to define aconfiguration for the bureau's new fighter, ahuge number of designs were examinedand discarded before the definitiveconfiguration was finalised. The Ye-155 hadthe misfortune to be born as attention wasbeing focused on the need for STOLcapability in tactical aircraft, and as a resultswing-wing and lift-jet variants of theYe-155 were briefly examined. The Ye-155R(VG) featured swing wings very much likethose fitted to the General Dynamics F-111,merging with the horizontal tail when fullyswept to form a virtual Delta. The aircraftwas envisaged as a two-seater, but theweight penalties of the new wing andsecond cockpit were unacceptable, makingthe type's enhanced low-speedmanoeuvrability and short take-off distanceunaffordable luxuries. The Ye-155R (lift-jet)was no more successful, but for the recordfeatured Rybinsk (Koliesov) RD36-35 lift-jetsstaggered (starboard slightly forward) oneach side of the spine. The lift-jets imposedan unacceptable weight and range penalty,since they took up space otherwiseallocated for precious fuel. All earlyreconnaissance projects were envisaged astwo-seaters, though their profile was almostidentical to that of the MiG-25RB as built.This was because the navigator satsubmerged in the forward fuselage in frontof the pilot, with no view of the outsideworld except through a pair of small sidewindows and via a sighting periscope.

The basic Ye-155R was to be optimisedfor high-altitude reconnaissance, usingspeed and altitude to keep it safe fromenemy defences. To fulfil a medium-altitudereconnaissance role, it was believed thatunmanned drones would have to be used.To carry such a drone, the preliminarydesign department drew up the Ye-155RD.It would have carried an RPV which was tohave been configured with either cameras,night cameras, LLTV or SLAR, and whichcould have transmitted information back tothe mother ship, which itself had photo-reconnaissance and Elint capabilities.

More frighteningly, the aircraft was seenas a potential strategic missile carrier. TheYe-155N (Nosteel- mother ship) defined in

1961 was developed in parallel with theYe-155RD but was soon abandoned. Furthercruise missile-carrying studies were madealmost 20 years later, during the late 1970s.

Despite its inherent unsuitability for low-level operations, the Ye-155 was evenexamined as a potential low-altitude fighter-bomber, under the designation Ye-155Sh,and as a dual-role fighter-bomber/tacticalreconnaissance aircraft as the Ye-155ShR.

Above: The Ye-155R was a lift-jet-equipped STOVL version of the initialYe-155 design. It was not compatiblewith the mission requirements.

Below: A five- to seven-seat supersonicjet transport was the mostextraordinary of all the proposedYe-155 designs.

Between 1963 and 1965, Mikoyanstudied a five/seven-passenger supersonicbusiness jet (or urgent cargo) derivative ofthe Ye-155. It was designed to operate fromunpaved runways and had an extended,widened forward fuselage and aconventional enclosed cockpit. The finalconfiguration had six single seats in lineabreast, with an aisle and an entry doorforward on the port side, immediately aft ofthe cockpit. The aircraft had four-wheeledmain undercarriage bogies and wasdesigned to cruise at Mach 2.35, and hadsufficient fuel for a range of about 3000 km(1,875 miles).

Above: The swing-wing Ye-155Rreconnaissance concept would havehad a navigator's station in thenose (note small windows).

Ye-155R prototypes No mission-specific sensors/avionics Smaller fins than on production versions, with squared-off tipsNo yaw dampers fitted to rudders

The reconnaissance prototype (Ye-155R-1)emerged before the first interceptor. Built inMikoyan's own workshops, the aircraft wastrucked from Moscow to Zhukhovskii inDecember 1963, where it eventually madeits maiden flight on 6 March 1964, in thehands of Alexander Fedotov. The prototypehad an aerodynamically correctreconnaissance nose, but this was empty ofoperational equipment. Ballast and testinstrumentation also replaced the ECMequipment, navigation suite, and even theHF radio. The aircraft had a wing with noincidence and no anhedral, instead having a600-litre (132-lmp gal) fuel tank on eachwingtip.

The flight test programme revealedlateral instability at transonic speeds, with atendency for the aircraft to make anuncommanded roll which could not becountered even with full aileron deflection.Fuel sloshing back and forth in the wingtiptanks caused excessive vibration to thewing, while stability was inadequate atmaximum speed, afterburners tended toblow out, and the intakes suffered fromturbulence at high Mach numbers and highangles of attack. The ventral fins tended toscrape the runway, and were soon reducedin depth. The wing was redesigned with 2°of incidence and 5° of anhedral, but theanhedral was not introduced immediately,and many early pre-production aircraft flewwith distinctive triangular endplate finsinstead.

The second prototype was built withoutwingtip tanks (which were removed fromthe first aircraft) and incorporated variousminor modifications. The second aircraftmay have been the first with the slabtailplane modified to be capable ofdifferential operation at high speeds, for roll

MiG Ye-155R-1

6OO litre (132-lmp gal) wingtip fuel tanks, with ventral fins;also served as anti-flutter bodies

Provision for pitch-control canards added toengine intakes, but never used R15B-300 turbojets

Left and below: TheYe-155R-1 wore afour-digit 'tactical'code ('Red 1155'),reflecting its statusas the first Ye-155.It is seen here atZhukhovskii, fittedwith the large tiptanks that werelater removed afterstability problems.

control. By the end of the prototypes' flighttest programme, the only major problemstill to be addressed was that conventionalpaint, hitherto used without any problems,tended to blacken and blister at very highspeeds reached by the Ye-155R.

With the factory tests completed (aftersome 200 flights), the next step was StateAcceptance Tests, for which a largernumber of more fully equipped aircraftwould be required. Accordingly, four pre-production aircraft were ordered.

108

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

Ye-155R pre-production Small tail with cut-off fintips (tips became standard)

Large tip-tanks of Ye-155R-1 replaced by smaller cigar-shapedanti-flutter bodies (later removed)

With the OKB's own workshops busybuilding the MiG-23-01 and MiG-23-11'Flogger' prototypes, it was left to the Gorkiifactory to produce the pre-productionreconnaissance 'Foxbats'. This causedsome disruption, but did ease the transitionto full-scale MiG-25 production.

The first pre-production MiG-25 wasYe-155R-3, which differed from thereconnaissance prototypes primarily inhaving a full daylight camera and a broadlyrepresentative avionics fit, rather than anaerodynamically representative nose. Thenose structure was revised slightly toaccommodate real equipment. The aircraftcarried A-72 and A-70M cameras in obliqueor vertical mounts, together with an A/E-10topographic camera and SRS-4A(centimetric and decimetre wave radar) orSRS-4B Elint packs.

Avionics fitted included a Polyot 1L INS,Strela Doppler, and Orbita computer,together with a Peleng S navigation system.The aircraft also featured 2° of incidence onthe wing, while the distinctive wingtip tanksand finlets were replaced by slender fairingsincorporating anti-flutter weights. Thetailfins were increased in height and hadangled tips, with tail-mounted antennasrelocated accordingly. Finally (like all but thefirst production interceptor aircraft),Ye-155R-3 had provision for a huge5300-litre (1,165-lmp gal) ventral fuel tankwhich stretched from the nosewheel backto the jetpipes.

The second of the pre-production batch,Ye-155R-4, was representative of theintended production standard, and had thefull avionics and navigation system. The

MiG Ye-155R-3

Undercarriage modified and strengthensafter crystalline corrosion fault discovert

final pre-production reconnaissance aircraftwas the fourth, Ye-155R-6, though a fifthwas produced for ground and static testing.Like the prototypes, the pre-productionaircraft wore four-digit nose codes withtheir sequential number followed by 155.Thus, the pre-production batch wore codes3155,4155, 5155 and 6155.

Left and below:'Red 3155'was thefirst pre-productionreconnaissanceYe-155 airframe. Ithad a full camerafit and undertookall the earlysystems testing.

Such was the urgency of the Soviet airforce's requirement for a newreconnaissance aircraft that the type wasapproved for production after an expeditedand shortened development programme;the Peleng S suite still was regarded asbeing immature, the Polyot technically failedto meet air force reliability standards, andthe loss of the Ye-155R-5 had yet to be fullyinvestigated and explained. This aircraftcrashed during its acceptance flight at Gorkiion 30 August 1965, injuring the pilot,Minenko. After trials at the LI I atZhukhovskii and the Nil at Akhtubinsk, theaircraft formally passed its StateAcceptance Tests in 1967 and was clearedfor full production with the signature of theAct of Acceptance in late 1969.

Remarkably, the Ye-155R proved to havefew problems. The cameras were able tocope with the massive temperaturechanges in flight, while the flexibly-mountedcamera ports remained rigid and producedno distortion even at high speed - when theMiG-25R's cameras turned in a resolutionthree times better than those of the Yak-27R,at 30 lines per millimetre.

Ye-155R-3 (together with threeYe-155Ps) made the type's public debutduring a flypast at Domodedovo on 9 July1967. Convinced that the type was alreadyoperational (or close to being so), NATO'sAir Standards Co-ordinating Committeeallocated the reporting name 'Foxbat' to thenew fighter, which was erroneouslypre-supposed to be the MiG-23.

Right: This is theYe-155R-4 - thefirst MIG-25RB.

Ye-155P prototypes Large ogival nosecone for Smerch-A fire control radarOnly two outboard weapons pylonsfitted initially

Mikoyan built two prototypes of the fighter'Foxbat', both based on the airframestandard of the Ye-155R-3, with tall tailsand 2° incidence wing. The aircraft featureda new ogival nose radome, designed toaccommodate the Smerch-A radar, thoughon the prototypes this housed testinstrumentation and ballast. The P-designation suffix indicated Perekhvatchik,or interceptor. The first prototype had onlytwo underwing pylons (outboard), eachcarrying a red-painted dummy K-40 missile.A datalink antenna (for telemetry) was fittedbelow the forward fuselage. The Ye-155P-1made its maiden flight in the hands of PiotrOstapenko, on 9 September 1964. Thesecond prototype (Ye-155P-2) was similar,though the datalink antenna wasrepositioned further aft. Like the Ye-155Rprototypes, the first two Ye-155Ps hadfittings on the upper corners of the intakesto allow the fitting of canards, though, inthe event, they were never flight-tested.

MiG Ye 155P 1

MiG Ye-155P-2

109

R-40R (AA-6 'Acrid') air-to-air missiles

Repositioned datalink antenna on underside

5300-litre (1,166 Imp gal) ventral fuel tank, more than half the length ofthe aircraft itself, was the largest ever fitted to a Soviet aircraft

Wings set at 2° incidence

Romb IK Sigint package added

Improved Ye-155R-3

Forward fuselage with provisionfor camera ports

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

Ye-155P pre-production P-5 was not fitted with endplate fins when displayed at the1967 Domodedovo flypast

The more complex MiG-25P was part of anentirely new weapons system, and was notmerely a new platform. State AcceptanceTests were anticipated to be wide-rangingand very searching, with the PVO expectingkill-probability statistics and other detaileddata, and not just a simple 'tick in the box -it's OK for service'. The interceptortherefore required a bigger pre-productionbatch than did the MiG-25R, and a longerflight test programme. Accordingly, ninepre-production aircraft (Ye-155P-3 toYe-155P-11) were built in Mikoyan'sworkshops, under fairly primitive and verycramped conditions. Most had thedistinctive triangular endplate fins on thewingtips, even though they did have limitedanhedral and incidence on the wings. Thefinished aircraft were too big to fit throughthe building's low doors, and had to be

MiG Ye-155P-5

tilted to allow the tailfins to clear the doorframes.

The Ye-155P-6 was the first of theinterceptor 'Foxbats' to be fully equipped,with radar and operational avionics. The nextthree aircraft were similarly equipped andoperated from Mikoyan's facility atZhukhovskii, but the rest of the batch

Above and right: Most of the Ye-155P development aircraft were fitted withlarge endplate 'flippers', referred to by the Russian engineers as 'webbedfeet'. This is the fifth prototype, MiG Ye-155P-5.

operated from the Nil WS test centre atAkhtubinsk. The majority undertook most oftheir flights with conformal belly packscontaining test instrumentation.

While the problems suffered by theYe-155R were minor, or were relativelyeasily solved, the Ye-155Ps had a rougherride. The prototype and pre-production

Ye-155Ps suffered a number of fatalaccidents: Mikoyan test pilot Lesnikovcrashed in Ye-155P-1 during a time-to-heightrecord attempt on 30 October 1967, and thePVO commander perished in Ye-155P-11 on26 April 1969. Specific problems included adangerous level of asymmetric yaw and rollwhen one missile was fired.

Ye-266The Ye-155R-1, Ye-155R-3 and Ye-155P-1were used to set a series of FAI-recognisedworld records, some absolute, and othersfor C1 (III) class aircraft (jet-poweredlandplanes with an unlimited MTOW). Therecord-breaking flights were performed witha serious purpose in mind - of gatheringinformation on stability, performance andsystems performance at the extreme edgesof the envelope (and indeed beyond thecleared service envelope). Officialdocuments submitted to the FAI givingevidence of the record-breaking flightsattempted to cover the identity of theaircraft type, using the spuriousdesignations Ye-266 for the aircraft, andR-266 for the engines.

On 16 March 1965, Fedotov set 1000-km(620-mile) closed-circuit speed recordswithout payload and with payloads of 1000and 2000 kg (2,204 and 4,408 lb), reaching aspeed of 2319.12 km/h (1,441.07 mph). On5 October 1967 Komarov set an absolute

500-km (310-mile) closed-circuit speedrecord of 2981.5 km/h (1,852.67 mph). Onthe same day, Fedotov set altitude recordswith 1000-kg and 2000-kg payloads of29977 m (98,350 ft). On 27 October 1967Ostapenko set new 1000-km closed-circuitrecords with a speed of 2920.67 km/h(1,814.87 mph).

On 8 April 1973 more records werebroken, when Fedotov set a new 100-kmclosed-circuit speed of 2605.1 km/h(1,168.78 mph). On 4 June 1973 Orlov tooka time-to-20000 m (65,600 ft) record with atime of 2 minutes 49.8 seconds. On thesame day, Ostapenko set records to 25000and 30000 m (82,000 and 98,400 ft) of 3minutes 12.6 seconds and 4 minutes 3.86seconds, respectively. On 25 July 1973Fedotov set altitude records with 2000-kgand 4000-kg (4,410-lb and 8,820-lb) payloadsof 35230 m (115,585 ft) and an absoluterecord (with no payload) of 36240 m(118,900ft).

The final record was an incredibleachievement, with Fedotov having to followa closely defined computer-planned

The Ye-155R-3 record breaker is now a resident at the Monino Museum. Itwas one of a trio of aircraft given the blanket designation 'Ye-266'.

trajectory even though the engines flamedout well before the top of the trajectory (asexpected) and even though the airspeeddecayed to a low of 75 km/h (46 mph) witha very limited permitted range of elevatormovement.

One of the aircraft, the Ye-133R-3, is now

in the Air Forces Museum at Monino, withthe spurious code 'Red 25', and with pylonsfrom a MiG-25P. It had already gained thelarger, production standard tailfins.

Additional records were set in 1977 bythe Ye-266M, which is described with theproduction interceptor versions.

Production interceptor versions and their derivativesMiG-25P (1-84) 6Foxbat-A', first production seriesAlthough the Ye-155P-1 had flown inSeptember 1964 (nine months after thereconnaissance aircraft), the MiG-25P wasnot certificated until 1970, and did not enterVVS service until 1973. Once the aircraftwas cleared for service, its introduction wasvery rapid, not least since a backlog ofaircraft had accumulated in the three yearssince mass production began in 1969.Surprisingly, the type enjoyed a relativelylow accident rate, even though many of thefirst VVS regiments to re-equip with theMiG-25 used the aircraft to replace radar-equipped MiG-17s. This was a major jumpin capability and performance, but the frontline took the change in its stride.

The initial batch of production MiG-25Psscarcely differed from the pre-productionaircraft, sharing the same small tailfins andlarge ventrals, and featuring the limited

anhedral wing with wingtip endplate fins.The aircraft were powered by the originalR15B-300 engines, had the original RP-SSmerch-A radar, and lacked provision for aventral fuel tank. They were delivered to thePVO Fighter Weapons School and aregiment near Gorkii from 1969, for training,tactics development and service testing.The aircraft were intensively used for testand practice firings of the R-40 AAM. Somesources suggest that the earliest aircraftcarried AA-5 'Ash' missiles, but it cannot beconfirmed whether these weapons wereused in service. A handful of the earliestaircraft were subsequently rebuilt toincorporate later features, and some mayeventually have been rebuilt as MiG-25PDs.

The MIG-25P officially entered servicewith the issue of a directive from theCouncil of Ministers on 13 April 1972.

The early production MiG-25 'Foxbat-As' had the same small tailfins, ventralfins and wingtip endplate fins as the prototypes.

110

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-25P (I-84) 'Foxbat-A* second/subsequent production seriesWhen the MIG-25P entered full-scaleproduction, the aircraft incorporated a rangeof changes, including the provision of largertailfins and smaller (reduced depth) ventralfins. Wing anhedral was increased to 5°,and wingtip anti-flutter fairings with noendplate fins were fitted. The radar was theRP-25 Smerch-A1, which incorporatedminor changes from the RP-S of the Tu-128and was used in pre-production aircraft andthe first production MiG-25Ps.

With the 'full-up' RP-25, the radar couldsearch for or track targets autonomously, orby using inputs from ground-based radars,relayed to the MiG-25 over the Vozdookh-1command link. Other data and messageswere relayed from the ground to the aircraftusing the Lazur datalink. Following lock-on,the aircraft could be flown to the launchpoint completely automatically, with theweapons' seeker heads being cued towardsthe target automatically.

The MiG-25 would then usually launch asalvo of two missiles, one an IR-homingR-40T, the other a semi-active radar homingR-40R. Thus, the four missiles carried bythe aircraft represented only two attacks,with no extra offensive capability such as agun or short-range 'dogfight' missiles. Themissiles were carried on theAvtomateecheskoye PooskoovoyeUstroystvo 84-46 (APU-84-46), meaning theautomatic missile launcher for aircraft type84 and missile type 46.

Other avionics systems fitted to theMiG-25P included a Sirena 3M radarwarning receiver, an SRO-2P IFFtransponder, and an SOD-57M or SO-63BATC transponder. Communicationsequipment included an R-847RM HF radio,an R-802 Eukalipt or R-831 UHF radio andan SPU-7 intercom. The P-591 cockpit voicerecorder incorporated an RI-65 taperecorder. The aircraft was fitted with RV-4and RV-19 low- and high-altitude radaraltimeters, an MRP-56P marker beaconreceiver, SP-50 'Swift Rod' ILS, an ARK-10or ARK-15 radio compass, and an RSBN-6SKorall SHORAN. The Polyot 1L operated inconjunction with ground-based DME andthe onboard radar, and could automaticallyfly the aircraft (via the SAU-155P1automatic flight control system) to a pre-setaltitude and cruise speed, automaticallyfollowing a route to and from the targetwith up to four turning points, and withautomatic return to base or one of up tothree pre-programmed diversion airfields,down to a 50-m (164-ft) decision height.

Quite early during the service life of theMiG-25, it was found that the rearwardposition of the tailplane pivot tended to leadpilots to overcompensate when backing offfrom, or stopping, a roll. A handful of aircraft(and pilots) were lost before the tailplanepivots were moved forward by 14 cm(5.5 in). All in-service aircraft were modifiedduring a six-month period, aircraft beingflown to strict limits prior to their individualmodifications. All had been modified by theend of 1974.

During production of the MIG-25P thebasic radar was replaced by the Smerch-A2,and later the Smerch-AS. A Smerch-A4radar was developed but was neverintroduced, since it still had only the mostlimited look-down capability against targetsflying against ground clutter. All variants ofthe Smerch radar featured a parabolicscanning antenna, and all were derivedfrom the Tu-128's Smerch (ASCC 'BigNose') radar. The MiG-25P's radars wereknown by the NATO ASCC reporting name

IFF system mounted on starboard fin MiG-25P 'Foxbat A

KM 1 ejection seat later replaced byKM-1M system

'Foxfire' or 'Fox Fire'. A tiny handful of laterMiG-25Ps had provision for the hugecentreline drop tank tested by theYe-155R-3, while during the course ofproduction the KM-1 ejection seat wasreplaced by the much-improved KM-1Mseat. Rumours that a removableunderfuselage gun pack could be providedeventually proved to be entirely unfounded.

On 6 September 1976, a disillusionedPVO pilot, Lieutenant Victor Belenko,defected from Chuguyevka nearVladivostok, landing at Hakodate airport inJapan with only a few pounds of fuel left inthe tanks. Belenko's almost new 'Red 31'(built earlier the same year) was returned tothe USSR, but only after USAF specialists

had dismantled it and examined it in themost minute detail, laying bare the aircraft'ssecrets. Belenko reportedly defected thefirst time he took off with full fuel for a low-level sortie, and defected to the West withhis cockpit crammed with highly-classifiedtechnical manuals. Lieutenant Belenko'sdefection to Japan thus severelycompromised the MiG-25, and provoked thedevelopment of a new variant with newequipment and technical features. Thisrestored some of the aircraft's essentialsecrecy, and complicated the task ofpotential enemies who had thought thatthey knew everything about the aircraft.Although some MiG-25PDs were producedfrom new production, many were converted

from MiG-25Ps, which rapidly began todisappear from service in their originalconfiguration.

Some MiG-25s were delivered to exportcustomers, but they were hybrid aircraft,part based on the MiG-25PD but withMIG-25P radar and systems. These aircraftare described separately.

Below left: This early-productionMIG-25P was used for weapons testwork.

Below: Today the only survivingMiG-25Ps are museum pieces, as allservice aircraft have been upgradedto a higher standard.

I I I

RWR antennas mounted in wingtipbodies and on starboard fin

Slightly increased wingspan.compared to MiG 25R

R15BD-300 turbojetsfitted to all late-production aircraft

Upgraded Smerch-A 1/2/3 radar

Enlarged fins

Endplate fins finally deleted

Wing anhedral increased to 5°

No provision for ventraldrop tank on earlyproduction MiG 25P

Standard four underwing pylons to carrya mix of two R-40R radar-guided and twoR-40T IR-homing missiles

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-25P (1-99) 'Foxbat-A'The MIG-25P fulfilled most of its designrequirements, but was always deficient inrange. Over the years, the design bureauexplored a number of options to increaserange, any efforts being centred on theprovision of more powerful but more fuel-efficient new engines. While the MiG-25Mpromised improved performance with a

derivative of the existing engine, otherprojects used new engines which requiredsome degree of structural modification tothe MiG-25 airframe. The Izdelye 99designation was applied to two aircraft (one,'Blue 991', a MIG-25P; the second aMiG-25R, 'Blue 992') used as testbeds forthe Soloviev PS-30F turbofan.

Derived from the Tu-134's 66.67-kN(14,99-lb st) D-30 engine, the afterburningD-30F or PS-30F was rated at 151.96 kN(34,170 lb st) with reheat, and had alreadybeen selected as the powerplant for theMiG-31. Some felt that a re-engined MiG-25might be a useful interim fighter, replacingthe MiG-25PD on the Gorkii production lineuntil the MiG-31 was ready for production.

The two l-99s seemed to bear this out,demonstrating a subsonic range (clean) of

3000 km (1,865 miles), later 3310 km (2,057miles) and a supersonic cruise range of2135 km (1,327 miles). Service ceiling wasraised to 21900m (71,850ft).

In fact, development of the MiG-31proceeded more quickly than many hadanticipated, and interest in the I-99 wanedrapidly. The two l-99s were relegated toserve as engine development 'mules' insupport of the MiG-31 programme.

MiG-25PD (I-84D) 'Foxbat-E' Improved IFF fitted

The compromising of the MiG-25's secretseroded its combat advantage, and it wasquickly decided to install a new weapons-and fire-control system. The decision todevelop a new variant was officiallyconfirmed with the issue of a governmentdirective on 4 November 1976, and adevelopment programme was launched,with speed as the watchword.

Once the decision was taken to provide anew fire-control system, all new-buildMiG-25 fighters were built to the newstandard, under the designation MiG-25PD(Dorabotannii = modified or upgraded). Thenew variant retained many of the systemsof the late MiG-25Ps, including an LO-06Beryoza RWR, an R-864 HF, and RV-4A andRV-18 low- and high-altitude radaraltimeters, while an SO-69 ATC transponderreplaced the SO-63B fitted to early aircraft.Some of these minor changes werereflected by changes in the aircraft'santenna configuration.

Key systems were changed entirely. TheSmerch-A radar was replaced by a newN-005 Sapfir-25 (RP-25M) set, based on theSapfir-23 developed for the MiG-23 althoughwith a larger-diameter antenna in the hugeradome. The Sapfir name was associatedwith a succession of fighter radars, all ofwhich used a twist-cassegrain antenna,from the 'Jay Bird' of the MiG-21 throughthe MiG-23's 'High Lark' and to theMiG-29's 'Slot Back'. The Sapfir-25 wasprobably based on the N-003 'High Lark 2'fitted to the MiG-23ML, rather than theearlier 'High Lark 1' of the MiG-23M andMiG-23MF. The radar scanned to 30° or 60°on each side of the centreline (dependingon mode) and to 14° above and 14° belowthe centreline in elevation. The radarcentreline could actually be displaced up to56° in azimuth, and to 52° above or 42°below the nose. More vitally, the N-005 wasa pulse-Doppler radar with a genuine look-down/shoot-down capability and a slightlyimproved detection range of about 115 km(71 miles). The new radar demandedprovision of a new radome, possibly ofcomposite construction, and sometimesappearing to have a distinct 'break' abouthalfway back, broadly in line with theforward face of the twist-cassegrain antenna.

The new radar was augmented by a newTP-26Sh-1 infra-red search and track (IRST)system, which could detect, locate andacquire a target autonomously, out to arange of 45 km (28 miles). This allowed theMiG-25 pilot to intercept a target withoutusing radar in heavy EW jamming or, if astealthy approach was necessary, withoutalerting the target's RWR.

The R-40R and R-40T (I-46R and I-46T)missiles were upgraded with improvedseeker heads for both SARH- and IR-homingversions, giving almost double the range.The new missile variants were designatedR-40RD and R-40TD (I-46RD and I-46TD).For improved operational flexibility andgreater combat persistence, the outboardpair of R-40s could be replaced by four R-60or R-60M (AA-8 'Aphid') short-range IR-homing dogfight missiles.

The MiG-25PD also introduced the newR15BD-300 engine. This had no change inthrust ratings (contrary to early intelligencereports), but featured modified accessorygearboxes. All MiG-25PDs had provision forthe new centreline auxiliary fuel tank.

The Act of Acceptance formallyconfirming the MiG-25PD's service entrywas signed in 1979. Among the operatorsof this variant were two regiments in EastGermany, the 933rd IAP at Parchim and the787th IAP at Finow. Known MiG-25PDconstruction numbers include 84042415('Blue 304') and 84037504 ('Red 74', basedat Finow during the 1980s).

MiG 25PD 'Foxbat-E', early modelSapfir-25 continuous-wave radar

Nose section slightly stretched to accommodate new radar

MiG 25PD 'Foxbat-E', late model

TP-26SH-1 infra-red search andtrack (IRST) system

R-15BD-300 engines fitted as standardwith modified accessory gearbox

Left: This isone of theMIG-25PDprototypes.

Above: The undernose Parol IFFantenna of the MIG-25P (as seen here)should not be confused with the IRSTofthePD.

Above: A Westernintercept photo of aMIG-25PD with a fullload ofR-40 missiles.

Right: The MIG-25PDgained a TP-26Sh-1IRST under theradome.

Below: A MIG-25PDseen in storage atBaranovichi air base,Belarus.

The cluttered cockpit of the 'Foxbat-E' was achallenging environment for a pilot running ahigh-speed, high-altitude interception.

112

Export MiG-25P/PD 'Foxbat-E'When the MiG-25's secrecy wascompromised by the defection of Belenko,an obstacle to exports was immediatelyremoved. Until Belenko's flight, exports ofthe top-secret MiG-25 were not considered- even to the Soviet Union's closest allies.After the aircraft's secrets were known tohave been revealed to the USA, there wasno need to keep the aircraft so guarded.

At the request of a number of MiddleEastern allies, an export version of theMiG-25 fighter was designed, loosely basedon the MiG-25PD, but with some of themore sensitive equipment items andsystems taken from the original MiG-25P,including the RP-25 Smerch-A2 radar, andprobably the RWR and IFF. Most of theaircraft did have the undernose IRST sensornormally associated with the MiG-25PD,making the export aircraft 'Foxbat-Es' as far

This Libyan MIG-25P carries R-40AAMs, plus smaller R-60 (AA-8'Aphids') on its 'shoulder' pylons.

Of the few export customers for the'Foxbat-E', the Libyan air force wasthe most 'public'. This 'Acrid'-armed example was photographedby the US Navy.

as NATO was concerned. Some LibyanMiG-25s have been photographed withoutthe sensor, however.

The first exports were made to Algeriaand Syria in 1979, with deliveries to Iraq andLibya following. Known Algerian aircraft (of16 fighter and fighter-trainers delivered)include: 383, 386, 388, 389, 390, 392, 503,689 (this last possibly a MiG-25RB). No IraqiMiG-25 serials are known, although 20fighter versions are believed to have beensupplied. They were based at an airfieldnear Baghdad, where they formed twosquadrons of a composite regiment, withthe third squadron flying reconnaissanceMiG-25s. The regiment had Soviet pilotinstructors until December 1990, when itsaircraft were quickly dispersed in a vain

attempt to safeguard them from coalition airattack during Desert Storm. Of the 30Libyan MiG-25 fighters, known serialsinclude 806 (-A), 6716, 7003, 7029, and7708. Syrian MiG-25 serials may include808 and 4101. Again, 30 are believed tohave been supplied.

The MiG-25 did see active service withsome of its overseas customers. On 13February 1981, a Syrian MIG-25P wasambushed by Israeli F-15s as it pursued apair of RF-4Es. Later the same day,according to Russian sources, two F-15swere provoked into chasing a pair of SyrianMiG-21s, only to be 'bushwhacked'themselves by a pair of MiG-25s. The leadMiG-25 was shot down after it lost lock-on,

but the second MiG-25 downed the secondF-15 using two R-40s, fired from within40 km (25 miles). The Iraqis had lostMiG-25s to Iranian fighters even beforeOperation Desert Storm, which was toaccount for many of the survivors. An IraqiMiG-25P shot down a US Navy F/A-18 on 20January 1991 (day two of Desert Storm),but at least two were lost subsequently toF-15s. More were destroyed in theirhardened aircraft shelters. Following thewar, Iraq lost another MiG-25 to USAF F-16son 25 December 1992.

The export MiG-25s may have had theirown internal OKB designation (perhapsMIG-25PDK), although this has never beenconfirmed.

MiG-25PD (1-84-20) 'Foxbat-E'During 1991 and 1992, a Zhukhovskii-basedMiG-25PD was used as an engine testbedfor a still-unspecified supersonic engine,probably in connection with the MiG 1.42

fighter programme. The engine had a muchhigher rating than the standard R15BD-300,and required a different intake controlsystem.

MiG-25PDS (I-84D) 'Foxbat-E' Upgraded radar, retrofitted IRST and modified engines

The success of the MiG-25PD with whatwas, in essence, a relatively simplemodification, led to a programme to updateall in-service MiG-25Ps to the samestandards. Aircraft were upgraded from1979, usually at the Gorkii factory duringscheduled major overhauls. Themodification involved the insertion of asmall plug in the nose section, the newSapfir radar replacing Smerch, and the newIRST being installed under the nose. Theupgraded aircraft were also fitted with the

MiG 25PDS 'Foxbat E'

Left: ThePDSprogrammewas a mid-life updatefor theMiG-25PD.All existingaircraftweremodified,from 1979 to1982.

new command link equipment of theMIG-25PD, and their engines were modifiedwith new accessory gearboxes to becomeR15BD-300s. Modified aircraft were given a

new designation of MiG-29PDS(Dorabotannii v Stroyou = field-modified).They were not given provision for theventral fuel tank of the MIG-25PD.

MiG-25PDSL 'Foxbat-E'A single MiG-25PD 'Foxbat-E' (and not aMiG-25PDS, as its designation would havesuggested) was fitted with an experimentalelectronic countermeasures system pack ina semi-conformal ventral pannier, togetherwith newly designed IRCM flare dispensers.Trials proved extremely successful, but it

was thought that the new ECM gear couldnot be procured in sufficient quantities tojustify retrofit to the whole fleet, and theMiG-25PDSL (Letayuschchaya Laboratoriya= flying laboratory) remained a one-off.

MiG-25PDZ 'Foxbat-E'The USSR began air-to-air refuelling trialsshortly after World War II, and Yak-15s,MiG-15s, MiG-17s and MiG-19s allundertook trials with a number of tankertypes. Only a handful of tankers wereacquired, and in service they were used onlyto refuel strategic bombers and very longrange reconnaissance aircraft. Theintroduction of the II-78M 'Midas' tanker andthe development of the UPAZ-A buddyinflight-refuelling store held out the promisethat more tanker assets might becomeavailable for tactical aircraft, and during the1980s a number of front-line fighter andground attack aircraft types underwentinflight-refuelling trials.

In the case of the MiG-25, a singleMiG-25PD (coded 'Blue 45') was modifiedas an inflight-refuelling receiver testbed. Theaircraft was fitted with an inverted-L shaped

The PDZ modification added aretractable refuelling probe to thenose of the MiG-25PD.

probe immediately in front of thewindscreen, offset very slightly to starboard.The new probe was very similar to thatfitted to the Su-24. It necessitated theaddition of a short constant-section plug toaccommodate the probe and its associated'plumbing'. The probe was shortened afterinitial test flights, and a micro-controlsystem was installed, allowing the pilot tomake small corrections by differentiallymoving engine nozzle petals to slightlyvector the engine thrust lines. The aircraftfeatured additional SHORAN equipment tohelp locate and rendezvous with the tanker,and was fitted with lights which couldilluminate the extended probe.

In the event, the PVO and VVS remainedpitifully short of tankers, and priority wasgiven to equipping newer aircraft types (theMiG-31, Su-27PU, MiG-29M and Su-27M)with probes, so nothing came of the

proposal to retrofit in-service MiG-25PDs forinflight refuelling. Had a productioninstallation been undertaken, the probewould probably have been moved to port,for commonality with the MiG-29 and Su-27.

113

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-25MThe MiG-25's performance was alwaysrestricted by its R15B-300 engines, andearly consideration was given to providingmore powerful and more efficient engines.The most promising improvement lay in afairly minor redesign of the existing engine.The new R15BF2-300 had an extracompressor stage, and new materialsallowed hotter combustion chamber andturbine temperatures. This in turn led to animprovement in specific fuel consumption,a higher pressure ratio (rising from 4.75 to4.95) and higher thrust. Dry thrust rose to98.04 kN (22,045 lb st), with augmentedthrust rising to 129.71 kN (29,166 lb st). Thetwo engines shared the same dimensionsand were installationally interchangeable,although the higher turbine temperaturesnecessitated some local heat-resistanttreatment in re-engined aircraft.

This is one of the two MIG-25Mtestbeds, which flew with improvedR15BF2-300 turbojets.

It was suggested that enhancedperformance would require changes to theconventional airframe materials, includingthe radome, and the Duralumin forwardfuselage, wingtips, ailerons and trailing-edge flaps. The development programmefor the new type was split into two distinctparts, one testing and refining the newengine, and the second proving and testingthe necessary structural modifications.

For the engine tests, Mikoyan used twoaircraft - one a MiG-25RB (coded 'Blue601'), and the other a MiG-25PD ('Blue710'). The MiG-25PD flew for the first timeon 12 June 1973, and then flew with theR15BF2-300 engines on 30 August 1973.

The re-engined MiG-25s demonstrated auseful improvement over the basic MiG-25,but production of the R15BF2-300 promised

to be difficult. The PS-30F-enginedadvanced MiG-25s, the MiG-25P/l-99 andMiG-31 showed equal promise, yet offeredeven better fuel economy. The first testaircraft was used to set a number of world

records under the designation Ye-266M,finally being grounded in 1977; the secondaircraft (by then fitted with MiG-25R-typewings) was also withdrawn from use earlierthat year.

Ye-266MThe Ye-266M designation was used for aMiG-25M testbed used to set a number ofperformance records. The aircraft ('Blue601', built as a MiG-25RB) was flown byFedotov and Ostapenko to set three time-to-height records on 17 May 1975. 25000 m

(82,020 ft) was reached in 143.2 seconds,30000 m (98,425 ft) in 189.85 seconds, and35000 m (114,830 ft) in 251.7 seconds. On22 July 1977, Fedotov used the sameaircraft to set an altitude record of 37080 m(121,653 ft) with a 2000-kg (4,408-lb)payload, and set an absolute world altituderecord of 37650 m (123,523 ft) on 31August 1977.

MiG-25PA (Ye-155PA)The MiG-25PA was drawn up in the mid-1960s around the advanced Smerch-100radar (which later became the MiG-31 'sZaslon) and R-100 missiles. The aircraft wasdesigned for even higher speeds and

altitudes (4000 km/h; 2,500 mph and up to30000 m; 98,425 ft) but was abandonedwhen requirements changed and increasingemphasis was placed on performanceagainst low-flying targets.

MiG-251The MiG-251 (or perhaps MiG-25PI)designation was allocated to an unbuiltproposed MiG-25 upgrade incorporating theN-019 Topaz radar of the MiG-29 (with alarger-diameter antenna). The new variant

would also have had provision for R-27(AA-10 'Alamo') and perhaps R-77 (AA-12'Adder') missiles. However, it was felt thatthe missiles would have requiredmodification for carriage at speeds much inexcess of Mach 2, and, in any case, therewere sufficient Su-27s available to makeupgrading the old MiG-25PD unnecessary.

MiG-25PU (1-22) 'Foxbat-C' Underwing pylons retained for combat training role

Because the MiG-25P and MiG-25R fulfilledsuch different missions, and because theirdifferent mission equipment loads endowedthem with different handling characteristics,separate two-seat trainer versions wereproduced of each basic type. Although thesingle-seat MiG-25P followed the single-seat MiG-25R into the air and into service,the two-seat interceptor trainer was finishedbefore the reconnaissance trainer.

An initial aerodynamic trainer prototype(coded U01) was completed first, before arole-optimised MiG-25PU (I-22) was builtand tested.

The MiG-25PU had no operationalequipment or radar, and had an instructor'scockpit added in front of and below thenormal cockpit. It was equipped with all thenormal flying controls, but also had asophisticated system to allow the pilot togenerate simulated and synthetic failures,and even to run simulated intercepts, withsynthetic targets, and the ability to simulatemissile firings. The trainers were fitted withunderwing hardpoints, and could (andsometimes did) carry dummy missilesunderwing. On all but the first two-seaters,the instructor also controlled a commandejection system, allowing him to ejecthimself and the student pilot.

MiG-25PU 'Foxbat C'

Instructor in forward cockpit

Cockpit fit identical to MiG-25PD

No radar fitted

Never-exceed speed was reduced toMach 2.65, but otherwise the twin-stickerenjoyed much the same performance as thebasic MiG-25P. MiG-25PU two-seat trainerswere delivered to Algeria, Iraq, Libya andSyria.

Right: This MIG-25PU is one ofthose operated for trials tasks bythe Zhukhovskii-based Lll.

Below: The 'Foxbat-C'had sideways-hinged cockpit canopies. Note alsothe black anti-glare surfaces.

Ye-133 'Foxbat-C'A standard production MiG-25PU (coded'Blue 53') was used to set a number ofwomen's world speed and altitude recordsunder the cover designation Ye-133. Pilotedby Svetlana Savitskaya, the aircraft set aspeed record of 2683.446 km/h (1,667.47 mph)over a 15- to 25-km (9- to 15-mile) course atunrestricted altitude. Next to fall was thewomen's altitude in horizontal flight record.On 31 August 1977 Savitskaya set a new

record of 21909.9 m (71,882.87 ft). On 21October 1977 the same pilot flew a 500-km(310-mile) closed circuit at 2466.31 km/h(1,532.54 mph), and on 12 April 1978 flew a1000-km/h (621-mile) closed circuit at 2333km/h (1,449.70 mph). Savitskaya was thedaughter of Marshal Yevgenii Savitskii(Chairman of the State Commission for theMiG-25), and was also the women's worldaerobatics champion.

MiG-25PU-SOTN 'Foxbat-C'A single MiG-25PU was converted to serveas a support aircraft for the Buran spaceshuttle programme. The MiG-25PU-SOTN(Samolyot Optiko-Televisionnovo Nab/ydeniya= aircraft, optical/TV surveillance) wasmodified for research into Buran trajectoriesand trajectory control and guidance, and fortraining Buran pilots and crew. It also servedas a chase aircraft during Buran test flights,and augmented a trio of Tu-134LL testbedsused at low altitudes and low speeds.

The SOTN was equipped to film theBuran (or its analogues) during the descent.The aircraft had a Sony DXM-3P videocamera in the front cockpit, a 3800PS videorecorder, a DX-50 monitor and a KL-108

transmitter. The aircraft was fitted with aKRL-78 radio command link coupled to thestandard SAU-155 autopilot, and to a B-218datalink.

Before the Buran flew, the SOTN flewwith a variety of Buran impersonators, froma MiG-25PU 'Red 02', a MiG-31 'Red 97',and the BTS-001 Buran horizontal flight testdevice. The SOTN lined up with the targetat 18000 m (59,055 ft), then extended thegear and flaps, and throttled back to matchthe Buran's steep descent.

The aircraft flew a number of tests during1985 and 1986, and then shadowed theBuran when it re-entered after its first andonly (unmanned) space mission.

MIG-25PU (22040578) was modified to MIG-25PU-SOTN standard to act as achase aircraft for the Buran programme.

114

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

Production reconnaissance versionsMiG-25R (I-02) 'Foxbat-E5

The production MIG-25R had five Zenitcameras in the nose, located behind fiveoptically flat camera ports. Four obliqueA-70Ms were augmented by an A/E-10topographic camera with a 1300-mm lens.

MiG-25Rs began rolling off the Gorkiiproduction line in 1969, and deliveries to theVVS began soon after. The first aircraftdelivered went to the Lipetsk training centrefor training (there were still no two-seattrainers) and operational evaluation. Minorproblems were soon corrected, and theproduction rate accelerated. The first front-line unit to re-equip was one squadron of aGuards reconnaissance regiment atShatalovo near Smolensk, in the MoscowMilitary District. Front-line units tended to

This is the first production MIG-25Rwith the early style tail. The fintipsof initial 'Foxbat-Bs' were moresharply cut down than those oftheir successors.

have one squadron of MiG-25s for high-level, clear-weather day reconnaissance,with Yak-27Rs and Yak-28s fulfilling thenight and low-level reconnaissance duties.All but the earliest MiG-25Rs had the later,broader-chord tailfins, with reduced sweepon the trailing edge. The aircraft were alsofitted with slightly longer nozzles than thosefitted to MiG-25 interceptors, givingreduced drag, albeit with a tiny thrust

penalty. From 020ST03, MiG-25Rs had plainwingtips (replacing the original endplatefins) and later-production MiG-25Rs had

anti-flutter fairings.All surviving MiG-25Rs were later

modified to MiG-25RB standards.

MiG-25RB (I-02B) 'Foxbat-B' Modified air intakFin fuel tanks fitted to early model aircraft

The MiG-25RB was developed as a directresult of a request from Egypt, whichrequested Soviet technical assistance for airdefence, reconnaissance and strike duties.The Soviet government had already decidedto deploy MiG-21s for air defence andMiG-25Rs for reconnaissance, and DefenceMinister Marshal D. F. Ustinov requestedthat the MiG-25R also be adapted for high-level bombing.

The MiG-25R could already drop flarebombs, but they did not demand a highdegree of accuracy. To give an acceptablelevel of accuracy, the RSBN-6 SHORANwas linked to the Peleng navigation system,while a new bomb ballistics algorithm wasincorporated into the navigation computer.

Carrying bombs on the Mach 3 capable'Foxbat' was not entirely straightforward,and required the design of a new heat-resistant multiple ejection rack and bombshackles. Specially-modified, heat-resistantFAB-500M-62T HE bombs were developedfor carriage by the MiG-25.

The fourth reconnaissance 'Foxbat',Ye-155R-4 (020SA01), was hastilyconverted at Akhtubinsk to serve as a trialsaircraft. The flight test programme did notgo entirely smoothly, however. It transpiredthat the wrong grade of solder had beenused on electrical connections within theweapons pylons (unsurprisingly, it melted),and the pyrotechnic cartridges designed torelease the bombs overheated andspontaneously exploded. Even before thesefaults were corrected, Aviard Fastovets

MiG 25RB 'Foxbat B'

Provision for five-cameraphoto-reconnaissance fit

500-kg FAB-500M-62T bombs carried on multiple ejector racks

scored a world first by dropping a bombfrom 20000 m (65,616 ft) at 2500 km/h(1,554 mph).

To maintain altitude performance, theupper surface area of the intakes wasincreased slightly. When modified,Ye-155R-4 demonstrated a 700-m (2,296-ft)increase in service ceiling, even with a fullbomb load. The MiG-25RB also featuredimprovements to the aircraft'sreconnaissance capability. The basic fit ofA70M and A/E-10 cameras could bereplaced by a pair of A-72 cameras with150-mm lenses, or by a single A-87 camerawith a 650-mm lens. The aircraft could carrySRS-4A, SRS-4B or SRS-4V Elint equipment,and an SPS-141 Siren ECM jammer. Thegenerous provision of space and accesshatches for all of this interchangeableequipment later made the aircraft a naturalchoice for test and development work.

'Production' MiG-25RB conversions weremade at Gorkii, where a new Peleng Dnavigation complex was developed andincorporated. Following evaluation andtesting at Akhtubinsk, production of newaircraft switched from the MiG-25R to theMiG-25RB, and MiG-25Rs already deliveredwere returned to the factory for conversion.

The MiG-25RB entered operationalservice in December 1970, initially with a .VVS regiment based in the Ukraine. Thefirst aircraft were limited to carrying fourFAB-500 bombs under the fuselage (inplace of a ventral tank) but the bomb loadwas soon doubled through the addition ofunderwing bomb carriage (one pylon beloweach wing). In the reconnaissance role, theMiG-25RB had a service ceiling of 23000 m(75,460 ft) and a mission radius of 920 km(571 miles), figures which were reduced to21000 m (68,898 ft) and 650 km (404 miles)

in the bombing role. In the reconnaissancerole, the MiG-25RB could actually cruiseabove its service ceiling, decelerating but inlevel flight. The aircraft could exceed Mach2.4 for 15 minutes, with speeds of Mach2.65 to Mach 2.83 limited to five minutes.Cruising time at speeds of below Mach 2.4was limited only by endurance. The lastproduction MiG-25RBs (from 02022077)could carry 5000 kg (11,022 lb) of bombs,four FAB-500s in tandem pairs underwing,with six more under the fuselage.

The MiG-25RB remained in productionwell into 1972, and formed the basis for allsubsequent reconnaissance variants.Improvements to the aircraft included theprovision of successively upgradednavigation/bombing systems, 'Peleng DR'replacing 'Peleng D', before itself beingreplaced by 'Peleng DM'. The fin tankswere deleted during the mid-1970s.

X-500The X-500 designation was used asdisinformation to cover four SovietMiG-25s deployed to Egypt to providereconnaissance of the Israeli military build-up. The MiG-25 was then still not in front-line service with the VVS, and the unitdeployed to Egypt was specially formed,including front-line, Nil and even civilian testpilots. The 63rd Independent AirDetachment was deployed to Egypt inMarch 1971, with the aircraft being flown to

Egypt aboard An-22s. The aircraft werepartially disassembled, and weretemporarily fitted with small MiG-21 wheelsin order to gain cargo door clearance. Thefour aircraft consisted of two straight MiG-25Rs(020501 and 020504) and two aircraftconverted to MIG-25RB configuration(020402 and 020601). They proved virtuallyimmune to interception. The detachmentreturned to the USSR in July 1972, afterabout 20 missions over Israel (each flownby pairs of aircraft). MiG-25s returned toEgypt in October 1973, following the YomKippur War, and stayed until late 1974.

Export MiG-25RB 'Foxbat-B'Above: Bulgaria was a little-known user of the MIG-25RB. Four aircraft wereacquired, all MiG-25RBTs equipped with the Tangazh Elint system. One waslost in an accident and the others ultimately returned to the USSR.

The dual-role reconnaissance/bomberMIG-25RB (I-02B) was offered for export,concurrently with the exportMIG-25PD. Bulgaria took delivery of fourMiG-25RBs (and a MiG-25RU), becomingthe only Warsaw Pact operator of the'Foxbat-B', apart from the USSR. Algeriatook an unknown number of MiG-25RBswith its MiG-25 fighters, Iraq and Syria eachtook eight, and Libya five (including 499 and504). India (not an operator of MiG-25fighters) received six MiG-25RBs (KP312,351, 352, 353, 354 and 3106 equippingNo. 102 Trisonics' Squadron, based atBareilly). The Iraqi aircraft in particular sawextensive use in the bombing role,attacking Iranian targets during the long-running war between the two nations.

Right: TheIndian Air Forcetook delivery ofsix MiG-25RBsand all worethe stylisedeagle badge ofNo.102Sqn.OneofthelAF's'Foxbat-Bs' waswritten off in acrash, but theothers arebelieved to allremainoperational.

115

Wing pylons added to late model aircraft

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-25MR 'Foxbat-B'An unknown number of MiG-25RBs wereconverted to serve as weather/meteorological reconnaissance aircraft,

fitted with specialised sensors, but strippedof cameras and SRS-4 Elint equipment.

MiG-25RBV (I-02B) sFoxbat-B'MiG-25RBs were modernised with newSRS-9 Virazh (Izdelye 31) Elint equipmentfrom 1978, gaining the new designation ofMiG-25RBV. Most aircraft also had the newSPS-151 Lyutik (Buttercup) ECM jammerreplacing SPS-141 Siren (Lilac). There wasno external difference between theMiG-25RBV and the older MiG-25RB.Thenew designation suffix RBV was renderedvirtually meaningless in the mid-1980s,when the remaining unmodified MiG-25RBswere also redesignated MiG-25RBV, evenwithout their Virazh.

Fortunately, many Frontal Aviation unitsfailed to institute the change, continuing torefer to aircraft with SRS-4 as MiG-25RBs,and keeping the MiG-25RBV designation forthose aircraft equipped with Virazh. As timewent on, however, some of these aircraftwere updated with the new equipment butdid not receive the new designation. Thus,according to some sources, when the

Russians withdrew from East Germany the931st ORAP at Werneuchen nominallyretained MiG-25RBs, MiG-25RBVs andMiG-25RBTs, although all were probablyMiG-25RBTs. The truth may never beknown, since all the variants lookedexternally identical.

'Foxbat-Bs' fitted with the Virazh Elint system were designated MIG-25RBV,but in practice the designation was applied haphazardly to several variantsoftheMiG-25RB.

MiG-25RBV 'Foxbat B

Port ventral fin incorporates brakeparachute release sensor

All MiG 25RBs could carry up to 50OO kg (11,022 lb)of bombs, including nuclear weapons (Russianaircraft only)

Engines rotated through 13° (outboard) tomake accessory gearboxes moreaccessible

Cockpit canopy has ethyl alcoholde-icing system, activated by pilot

Constant 41° 02' wing leading-edge sweep on allMiG 25RB variants

Wing leading edge formed from OT4-1 titanium

Cantilever three-spar wing constructionusing Tsagi P-44M airfoil section. Wingspan of RB versions slightly shorterthan MiG 25P or MiG 25R

I 16

Tail fins canted to 8° (outboard)

Tumanskii R15B/D 3OOturbojet

Window fan for four A-70M and oneA/E-10 camera

Twin cruciform brake chutes with atotal combined area of 50 m7538 sq ft,fitted to most MiG-25s after 1977

Small, square antenna for Elintsystem, common to MiG-25RBK, RBTand RBV

Steerable nose gear has two turnlimits for high- and low-speedtaxiing

Wingtips contain anti-flutterweights, RWR antenna and staticdischarge wicks

MiG-25RBVDZ 'Foxbat-E'As with the interceptor MiG-25 (seeMiG-25PDZ entry), serious considerationwas given to fitting reconnaissance MiG-25swith inflight-refuelling probes. Tworeconnaissance MiGs were fitted withinflight-refuelling probes for trials, one aMiG-25RBV, the other a MiG-25RBSh. Theaircraft had similar probes to that fitted tothe MiG-25PDZ, although they weremounted further forward. There is somecontroversy as to whether the aircraft'snoses were stretched to accommodate theprobes, and as to whether the probes wereretractable, like that of the PDZ. TheMiG-25RBV ('Red 68') was redesignated asthe MiG-25RBVDZ, while the RBSh wasredesignated RBShDZ. In the event, withthe probe-equipped Su-24MR and Su-24MPentering service, the modification ofMiG-25Rs with probes was not accorded ahigh priority.

Close examination will reveal theprobe on this MIG-25RBVDZ.

The MIG-25RBVDZ developmentaircraft is seen here taking on fuelfrom an llyushin 11-78 'Midas'tanker, along with a Sukhoi Su-24M.

MiG-25RBN 'Foxbat-E'A dedicated night photographicreconnaissance variant was designedalongside the MiG-25RB, but was destinedto remain no more than a prototype. Fittedwith two NAFA Mk 75 cameras producedby Kazan, the MiG-25RBN retained thestandard reconnaissance nose, and carriedup to 10 FOTAB-100 or FOTAB-140photoflash bombs under the fuselage.Unfortunately, the photoflash bombsproved to be deadly weapons to anyone onthe ground, in the vicinity. This severely

restricted their use in peacetime training,and the photographic results were poor.

Confusingly, the MiG-25RBN designationhas occasionally been used (perhapsunofficially, or perhaps erroneously) todescribe some service aircraft. One suchwas 'Red 55', c/n 02016375 atWerneuchen, which was similar inconfiguration to the co-located MiG-25RBVsand RBTs, but which had only a singlevertical camera port, reportedly covering aspecialised night camera.

MiG-25RR 'Foxbat-E'Eight MiG-25RBVs were modified byMikoyan during 1969 to serve as high-speed, high-altitude radiation samplingaircraft, under the designation MiG-25RR(Radiatsionnii Razvedchik=rad\ai\or\reconnaissance). The aircraft were fittedwith sampling equipment, and receivedother modifications to maximise serviceceiling. The MiG-25RRs were primarily usedalong the Chinese border between 1970and 1980, keeping an eye on Chinesenuclear tests. The aircraft supplanted

Yak-25RRs, Yak-25RRVs and Yak-28RRs,decreasing pilot exposure to radiation byflying through contaminated air morequickly. The MiG-25RR's radiation samplingequipment was upgraded while the aircraftwas in service. Once their task wascomplete, the contaminated MiG-25RRswere scrapped.

MiG-25RBT (I-02T) 'Foxbat-E'While the VVS MiG-25RBs were upgradedto MiG-25RBV, the Gorkii factory beganproduction of a new reconnaissancederivative of the 'Foxbat', the MiG-25RBT.The MiG-25RBT was built from 1978, andhad a Tangazh (Izdelye 33) Sigint package(in place of Virazh or SRS-4) and a Parol(Password) IFF set. The Tangazh set hadreceivers covering a wider range of hostileemitters, and sophisticated processingallowed post-flight emitter location using aform of triangulation. From 1980, theseaircraft were fitted with the new LO-06Beryoza (Birch) RHAWS instead of theSirena S-3M. It is probable that someMiG-25RBs and RBVs were modified to

MiG-25RBT standards, but it is uncertain asto whether such aircraft received the newdesignation, or whether they retained theiroriginal designations. Known MiG-25RBTconstruction numbers were 02020305('Red 61'), 020214146 ('Red 57'),020214171 ('Red 53'), and 020216108 ('Red56'), all serving with the 931st ORAP atWerneuchen. 02017745 ('Red 54') and02016375 ('Red 55') were described asMiG-25RBVs, while the latter aircraft wasalso sometimes referred to as an RBN.

This MiG-25RBTwas one of theWelzow-based aircraft whichreturned to Russia in 1992.

MiG-25RBK (I-02K/I-51) 'Foxbat-D'The success of the MiG-25R and MiG-25RBled to the development of dedicated Elintand radar reconnaissance versions of theMiG-25R 'Foxbat-B', based on theMiG-25RB airframe. The MiG-25RB couldalready carry SRS-4 Elint equipment onremovable pallets, but could not transmitdata to the ground as it was received, andthus required lengthy post-flight evaluationand debriefing. The MiG-25RBK wasdesigned to remedy this shortcoming, andused the heavier and more bulky Kub-3MElint suite, which had to be permanentlyinstalled. This necessitated removal of mostof the camera mounts, while the dielectricpanels on the sides of the nose were justslightly enlarged. Although it lacked the verylong dielectric panel of the MiG-25RBS, theRBK's lack of camera windows made theaircraft a 'Foxbat-D' in NATO's eyes, ratherthan a 'Foxbat-B'. Another change wasmade to the dielectric radome at the tip ofthe nose. It was longer, extendingsomewhat further aft, and had a cut-out inthe upper section.

With no possibility of a Kub-equippedMiG-25 being used in the photo-reconnaissance role, all the remainingcamera ports were finally deleted. Theaircraft retained the bombing capability ofthe MiG-25RB 'Foxbat-B', however, andwas fitted with SPS-143 ECM equipment,rather than the more common SPS-142.

MiG 25RBK 'Foxbat-D'

Retains nose antenna configuration of MiG 25RB with Kub-3M Elint system

Extended nosetip radome Provision for camera ports deleted on most aircraft

The MIG-25RBK was produced at Gorkiifrom 1971 until 1980.

The MIG-25RBK formed the basis of theMiG-25RBF, which was produced byconversion from 1981, mainly at VVSmaintenance units.

Production of the MIG-25RBK wasundertaken at the Gorkii factoryfrom 1971 until 1980. Like allmembers of the RB family, theMiG-25RBKhas few majordistinguishing features. Thisaircraft has a curious mix of cameraports along with the RBK'strademark extended nose.

117

M/G-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-25RBF (I-02F) 'Foxbat-D'The MiG-25RBF designation was applied toMiG-25RBK aircraft upgraded with newShar-25 (Balloon-25) Elint equipment and amodernised defensive aids system, withimproved RWRs and chaff/flare dispensers.The aircraft were not officially known as theMiG-25RBSh, since this designation wasalready taken by those MiG-25RBSsupgraded with the Shompol SAR. In service,however, the MiG-25RBSh designation wassometimes used erroneously. The onlyexternal distinguishing feature of the RBFlay in the provision of four small rectangulardielectric panels low on the sides of thenose, in a similar position to the cameraports. The MIG-25RBF was produced byconversion of existing MiG-25RBKs, mainlyat WS maintenance establishments. Itretained full bombing capability. The newElint equipment worked quite well at lowlevel, and a small number of MiG-25RBFsreceived a camouflaged finish, like thatapplied to some MiG-25BMs. KnownMiG-25RBF construction numbers were02024604 ('Red 59'), 02024819 ('Red 58'),02029095 ('Red 60'), 02029105 ('Red 62'),and 02032317 ('Red 38'), all serving withthe 931 st ORAP at Werneuchen.

The MIG-25RBF did away with thecamera provisions of earlier RBvariants. Instead, the nose wasfitted with two pairs of dielectricpanels for its Shar-25 Elint system.

MiG-25RBS (I-02S/I-52) 'Foxbat-D' No datalink. SLAR imagery accessed on ground

The MiG-25RBS was developed at the sametime as the MiG-25RBK, and, while retainingthe bombing capability of theMiG-25RB, dispensed with provision forinterchangeable camera and Elint fits.Instead) the aircraft was fitted with apowerful Sabla-E (Sabre-E) SidewaysLooking Airborne Radar (SLAR), which wasused at altitudes of 17000 m (55,774 ft) ormore. The MiG-25RBS had a distinctiveexternal appearance, with huge rectangulardielectric panels on the sides of the nose,through which the SLAR 'looked'. Theywere reminiscent of the long SLARantennas further forward on the noses ofthe first Ye-155Rs, but deleted fromsubsequent reconnaissance aircraft. TheMiG-25RBS had no oblique camera ports,but did retain the shorter dielectric noseconeof the original reconnaissance version.

The SLAR's imagery was recorded forinterpretation in a special mobile groundstation, and was detailed enough forrecognition of static aircraft, ships and

MiG 25RBS 'Foxbat D'Larger, repositioned dielectric panel for Sabla-E SLAR

All camera ports deleted

armoured vehicles, and for surveying thecondition of buildings or bridges in a post-strike reconnaissance role. Most survivingMiG-25RBSs were converted to MiG-25RBShstandards from 1981.

Large flat panel antennas for aSideways-Looking Airborne Radar(SLAR) were fitted on both sides ofthe MiG-25RBS's nose.

SPS-142 ECM system fitted

MiG-25RBSh (I-02SH)The MiG-25RBSh designation was appliedto MiG-25RBs modified by the VVS to carrythe new Shompol (Ramrod) SLAR. The newequipment had two or three times betterresolution than the old SLAR over a givenrange, and could be used effectively atheights between 300 and 23000 m (985 and75,460 ft). Furthermore, the new SLAR hada superb mapping mode, and had a genuineMTI (Moving Target Indication) capability.The modification from MiG-25RBS toMiG-25RBSh standard brought with it nochange to the aircraft's external appearance.It seems likely that virtually all surviving

MiG-25RBSs were brought up to the newstandard, although in service some mayhave retained their original designation.Where MiG-25RBFs equipped with Sharwere in service, and already beingunofficially referred to by the MiG-25RBShdesignation (as at Werneuchen), theShompol-equipped aircraft were referred toby their original MiG-25RBS designation.

Upgraded MiG-25RBSh aircraftfitted with the Shompol SLAR werevirtually indistinguishable fromoriginal MiG-25RBSs.

MiG-25RU (1-39) 'Foxbat-C'Although the decision was taken to developseparate trainer variants for the interceptorand reconnaissance MiG-25s, both trainertypes were essentially based on theairframe of the MiG-25P, with cranked wingleading edges, no tailfin fuel tanks, andshort engine nozzles. The MiG-25RU wasthus externally identical to the MiG-25PU,although it lacked provision for underwingstores pylons. The only real difference lay inthe fact that the MiG-25RU had the MiG-25Rnavigation system, and instructor-controlledreconnaissance equipment simulators.

The MiG-25RU prototype (390SA01)made its maiden flight on 20 March 1971.This aircraft (coded 'Red 46' and later 'Blue01') was later used by the Lll at Zhukhovskiias a testbed for the Zvezda K-36RB ejectionseat designed for the Buran space shuttle.

Outside the USSR, MiG-25RUs weredelivered to Algeria, Bulgaria, India, Libyaand Syria. The Indian aircraft were serialledDS361 and DS362, while the Bulgarianaircraft wore the code 'Red 51'.

MiG 25RU 'Foxbat C'

Weapons pylons of MiG 25F U completely deleted

Peleng navigational system not fitted

I I S

Above: Two-seat 'Foxbats'were attached to everyMiG-25 unit and were heavilyused. Most airframes nowhave high fatigue times.

Above right: 'Red 46' was anejection seat testbed for theBur an project It was laterrenumbered as 'Blue 01'andnow serves with the ill.

Right: Indiaoperates a pairofMiG-25RUsalongside itsMiG-25RBs.

SEAD VersionsYe-155KThe performance of the MiG-25 wassufficiently impressive to prompt air forcechiefs to consider using the platform tomeet a number of other roles. Earlygeneration Soviet anti-radiation missileswere too big and too heavy to be carried bytactical aircraft, but the Kh-58 (AS-11 'Kilter')

was suitable for carriage by the MiG-25.When the MIG-25RB was accepted intoservice, the directive from the Council ofMinisters included a clause calling for thataircraft to be fitted with Kh-58s. This did notactually happen, of course, but developmentof a dedicated SEAD variant gathered pace.

Although the proposed Ye-155B bomberwas abandoned before much work could becompleted on it, the defence suppressionYe-155K programme absorbed a great dealof effort and did eventually lead to flyinghardware. The Ye-155B had been plannedas a two-seater, with an Ivolga (GoldenOriole) electro-optical sighting system forday/night target detection and acquisition.The Ye-155K was originally planned as afairly similar type, but was envisaged as asingle-seater with a new targeting systemconsisting of a pair of Landish (Lily of theValley) ECM sets.

MiG-25BIn 1977, Mikoyan proposed a dual-rolereconnaissance/defence suppressionvariant of the 'Foxbat', the MiG-256, withan Espadron reconnaissance strike complexincluding Shornpql SLAR, a thermal imagingsystem, a new Elint set, and anti-radiationmissiles. The successful trials of theMiG-25BM prototype led to theabandonment of the dual-role concept, andno MiG-25B prototype was everconstructed.

MiG-25BM (I-02M) 'Foxbat-F' Kh-58 (AS 11 'Kilter') primary armament

The Ye-155K programme eventually borefruit in the shape of the MiG-25BM, thoughthis, the first 'Wild Weasel' MiG-25, wasdestined not to enter service until 1988. TheMiG-25BM was developed as a dedicateddefence suppression aircraft, intended toclear a path through heavily defendedairspace for reconnaissance MiG-25s andother aircraft types. The aircraft was fittedwith a sophisticated and comprehensiveJaguar integrated ECM and targetingsystem, capable of detecting, locating,selecting and prioritising threats and ofdefining launch zones for the aircraft's fourKh-58 anti-radiation missiles. The Kh-58missile itself was heavily modified before itentered service with the MIG-25BM, gaininga new rocket motor and a new empennageto make carriage by other aircraft typeseasier. The new missile variant wasdesignated as the Kh-58U (Unifitsirovannii =standardised). As well as passive, multi-band receivers, the MiG-25BM's equipmentpackage included a Sych-M (Little Owl)radar.

The prototype MiG-25BM was convertedfrom a MiG-25RBV airframe during 1976.The aircraft was then tested, firing realKh-58 missiles (with telemetry equipmentinstead of warheads). With no synthetic,simulated radar transmitters available, themissiles were fired against real, 'live' radars,which were switched off at the last momentto try to save them from destruction. Inmost cases, though, the Kh-58 simplycontinued to go where it had been homing,scoring many direct hits.

Fewer than 100 MiG-25BMs were built,between 1982 and 1985. They weredelivered to Frontal Aviation units alreadyoperating MiG-25RBs, usually formingdedicated SEAD squadrons within aregiment. The MiG-25BM featured a 20-cm(7.8-in) nose plug giving extra volume forECM and missile guidance equipment. Theaircraft entered front-line service in 1988,following successful service trials and anextended service ground and aircrewtraining period. MiG-25BMs replaced Yak-28sub-variants in Frontal Aviation service.

Most MiG-25BMs had their nosespainted in dark grey or dark green aroundthe area which equated to the MiG-25P'sradome, in a deliberate attempt to makethem look like fighters to the casualobserver. MiG-25BMs in East Germany andPoland were withdrawn when the Berlinwall came down, to cloak them from theeyes of curious Westerners. The typeremains extremely secret, to this day.

MiG-25BM 'Foxbat-F7

Fake radome painted on to many aircraft to disguise role

Left: This is the first MiG- Above: This Poland-based25BM, which was rebuilt from BM is seen on display witha MIG-25RBV, in 1976. a full missile load.

This view (left)of anundisguisedMIG-25BM usedfor trials showssome of itsspecialistantenna fit.Compare itwith the serviceaircraft below.

Above: The changes to the cockpit of theMiG-25BM are limited to the addition ofrevised mission equipment panels.

119

Yaguar (Jaguar) EW/ESM/ECM mission fit

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

The MiG-31 'Foxhound' family

Ye-155MP-unbuilt versionsThe development of stand-off and escortjammers and of cruise-missile-carrying low-level bombers made reliance on ground-based radar and controllers increasinglyuntenable. The USSR began replacing itsbattlefield air superiority fighters withaircraft which were more capable ofautonomous operation (in the form of theMiG-29 and Su-27), and, at much the sametime that these projects were launched,Mikoyan began to develop a new derivativeof the MiG-25 for the PVO which wouldhave similar autonomous capabilities. TheYe-155MP was intended to patrol the vastareas of the USSR where ground-based andairborne early warning coverage was patchy,and had a long endurance and range, with adedicated backseat crewman operating theradar to enhance the aircraft's ability tooperate without guidance from ground-based controllers.

Although other design bureaus producedstudies of new-generation interceptors,Mikoyan was favoured by the PVO, whowanted an aircraft derived from the tried-and-trusted MiG-25. The requirementoriginally called for an increase in maximumspeed (to 3500 km/h; 2,174 mph) as well asincreased range and endurance. Theserequirements proved quite impossible tomeet - engines powerful enough toimprove performance were too thirsty toallow any increase in range, while bypassturbofans with better specific fuelconsumption could do no better than tomaintain the MiG-25's existingperformance.

Izdelye 518-55 combined airframefeatures of the MiG-25 and MiG-31,with an all-new wing and doublebogie main undercarriage.

Three different Ye-155MP configurationswere drawn up by Mikoyan to meet therequirement. All were founded on thebaseline MiG-25 fuselage and retained theMiG-25's raked intakes, although they wererefined. The designs were all designed astwo-seaters, with pilot and navigator sittingin separate tandem cockpits under upward-hinging canopies. The most strikingly newconfiguration featured a MiG-23-typevariable-geometry wing, a single tailfin and afolding twin ventral fins, with four-wheelmain undercarriage bogies.

The second Ye-155MP variant was

The Ye-155MF (F=Frontovoy, front-line) was a high-speed attackdesign, with a side-by-side cockpitarrangement, similar to the Su-24.

This variable-geometry Ye-155MPconfiguration featured a strangemix ofMiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-31features.

known as the Izdelye 518-55, and was theclosest in appearance to the eventualproduction MiG-31. The aircraft had a three-spar trapezoidal wing with leading-edge rootextensions, semi-submerged underfuselagemissiles and tandem twin-wheel mainundercarriage units.

Finally, the Ye-158 was a tailless Deltawith an ogival wing, reportedly similar tothat of the Tu-144 and A-144 Analog. At 30tonnes, this aircraft was lighter than theoriginal MiG-25, and was reportedly similarin configuration to the Mikoyan MiG 1.42.

MiG-25MP (1-83) (Ye-155MP)The production MiG-31 (originally known asthe MiG-25MP) was based on theconfiguration of the 1-518-55. The aircraftwas designed from the start to incorporatea pair of Soloviev D-30F turbofans (as testedin the I-99) and the Zaslon (Shield) radar(previously the Smerch-100) intended forinstallation in the MiG-25PA.

This was the first electronically scannedphased array radar in front-line service, andcould scan an area out to 70° on each sideof the centreline, and to 60° below thenose. The radar could track 10 targets, andcould simultaneously engage four. Thesystem was designed to allow the aircraftto act as a mini-AWACS, guiding otherfighters whose own radars could be instandby mode, not emitting. Alternatively,relatively small formations of MiG-31 swould be able to sanitise a huge swathe ofairspace. The radar was backed up by aretractable IRST.

The basic configuration was translatedinto reality by a team led by the greatRostislav Belyakov, whose experience andability ensured that despite its designationand overall appearance, the MiG-25MP wasmuch more than a simple derivative of theMiG-25. The fuselage and air intakes (whichmight superficially appear to have beenunchanged) were of entirely new structure,housing more fuel and acting as a 'liftingbody' which generated some 25 per cent ofthe total lift. The wing, too, was entirelyredesigned. The two-spar structure of theMiG-25 gave way to a thinner, cambered,three-spar wing of much greater stiffness.The camber delayed tip-stalling, while smallLERXes enhanced controllability at highAlpha. The previously fixed leading edgewas given four-section flaps, while the plainflaps and two-section ailerons of the MiG-25were replaced by two-section flaps andoutboard flaperons.

The undercarriage was of entirely newdesign, with tandem staggered mainwheelson a single oleo. The front wheels wereinboard of the oleo, with the rear wheelsoutboard. This ensured that the rear wheelsdid not simply follow the front wheels whentaxiing on snow, preventing them from

'Blue 831' was the first Ye-155MPprototype. The two developmentaircraft did not have a smooth testand trials programme, delaying theservice introduction of the MiG-31.

slipping or skidding on ice compressed bythe front wheels. This system was lighterand more compact than a four-wheeledbogie, which was felt to be the bestalternative.

The navigator's cockpit incorporated atelescopic control column, rudders and aretractable periscope, allowing theoperational aircraft to be used for pilotconversion training, and also giving thebackseater a chance of recovering theaircraft in the event of pilot incapacitation orinjury. This meant that there was no needfor a dedicated two-seat trainer version ofthe MiG-31.

Unlike the MiG-25, the MiG-25MP wasdesigned to have an internal gun, a 30-mmGSh-6-23 revolver cannon similar in conceptto the US M61A1 Gatling-type Vulcancannon. It was mounted in a fairing scabbedto the side of the starboard engine nacelle.The MiG-31 's primary weapon was similarlynew. The R-33 missile used inertialguidance for the early stage of its trajectory

(with course correction from the launchaircraft) before going to active radar homingin the terminal phase. This made theweapon broadly comparable to the similar-looking AIM-54 Phoenix carried by the F-14Tomcat, although the Western missile wasreported to have a very much longer range.There are persistent reports that the R-33was designed as a direct result of Sovietaccess to Phoenix missiles supplied to Iran.

The MiG-31 could also carry R-40missiles underwing, but, when it did so, thenumber of R-33S carried had to be reducedby one to allow the carriage of adatalink/illuminator pod. Alternatively,underwing pylons could be fitted withlaunch rails for short-range IR-homing

weapons like the R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid').Two MiG-25MP prototypes were built in

the OKB's own workshops. The first (coded'Blue 831') made its first flight on 16September 1975, in the capable hands ofFedotov. Initially completed with a plainnosewheel door, the aircraft was soon fittedwith a replacement door which incorporatedthree landing and taxi lights. The secondprototype ('Blue 832') flew in May 1976,piloted by Ostapenko. The second aircrafthad a representative avionics fit, includingradar, and was fitted with the type's built-incannon. Despite a host of minor problems,the type showed such promise that it wasimmediately ordered into production as theMiG-31.

MiG Ye 155MP (MiG-25MP)

Fuselage and air intakes have important lift functions

Thin three-spar wing

Leading-edge root extensions swept to 70°

Primary armament of R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') missiles D-30F turbofans

120

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-31 'Foxhound' (I-01) Six-barrelled GSH-6-23/M cannon above starboard main wheel well

Production of the MiG-31 began at Gorkii in1977. The aircraft differed from the twoprototypes in detail, although they lookedidentical. Undercarriage doors and airbrakeswere redesigned, as were the wing fencesand LERXes' D-30F-6 engines fitted to theproduction aircraft were similarly modifiedand refined, as was the NO-07 SBI-16Zaslon radar. Initial MiG-31 productionbatches were very small, and the aircraftproduced were used for development,trials, test and evaluation work. There wereonly two aircraft in the first batch ('Blue011', c/n 0101 and 'Blue 012', c/n 0102),with three more in the second batch ('Blue201', c/n 0201, 'Blue 202', c/n 0202, and'Blue 203', c/n 0203). 'Blue 305'(0305/69700T04801), the 10th productionaircraft, introduced structural strengthening.

The MiG-31 entered the IA-PVOinventory in May 1981, although the officialAct of Acceptance was not signed untilDecember, and front-line service did notbegin until 1982. The MiG-31 's flight testprogramme and initial service life wasmarred by engine and fuel systemproblems, with a number of losses.Fortunately, the MiG-31 soon settled intoservice, with conspicuous success. TheMiG-31 has equipped PVO interceptorregiments at Anadir, Andirma (72nd IAP),Gromovo (180th IAP), Jelizovo,Monchegorsk (174th IAP), Morshansk(153rd IAP), Nachodka, Pravdinsk (786thIAP) and Talagi (518th IAP). NATO's ASCCallocated the codename 'Foxhound' to thenew interceptor.

Unlike the MiG-25, the MiG-31 couldcarry two underwing fuel tanks (each withup to 2500 litres/550 Imp gal) under theoutboard underwing pylons, although therewas no provision for a belly tank.

Some production MiG-25s have appearedto lack segmented 'petals' on the jetpipe ofone (usually the port) or both engines. Thereason for this has never been satisfactorilyexplained.

The MiG-31 's avionics suite includes anSPO-15SL RHAWS, SRO-2P and SRZ-2P IFFtransmitter and receiver, and an SO-69 ATCtransponder. For communications, theaircraft has an R-862 UHF, an R-864 HF andan APD-518 secure digital datalink. It alsohas a BAN-75 command link. The NK-25

MiG-31 'Foxhound'R-33 missiles carried, semi-recessed,on AKU-410 ejector racks ̂

RP-31 Zaslon phased-array radar

Above: The MiG-31 is built from amix of stainless steel, aluminiumand titanium alloys.

Right: 'Blue 202' is an example ofthe second production batch ofMiG-31 s. Its predecessor, 'Blue 201',crashed in 1984.

navigation suite includes a duplicated IS-1-72A INS, an A-331 SHORAN, A-723,Marshroot and Tropik LORAN sets.

The new configuration was originallyintended to form the basis of a family offront-line aircraft, and not just aninterceptor. Thus the Ye-155MF was adedicated SEAD aircraft based on theMiG-31 B (1-01B).

Above: Despite the many problemssuffered during its developmentprogramme the MiG-31 has had asuccessful service career, provingreliable and popular. It was theworld's first production interceptorto be fitted with a phased-arrayradar.

Above right: The (dummy) IR-homing R-46TD (AA-6) missilescarried by this 'Foxhound' are anunusual load for the type.

Right: Operational MiG-31 units arelargely based at frontier air bases,in inhospitable conditions. ThisSiberian-based aircraft is seentaxiing out for a mission with amixed warload of R-33 and smallerR-60 missiles.

121

Ventral fins canted (outboard) to 12°

MiG-25 and MiG-31 Variants

MiG-31 (I-01DZ)Operational experience soon showed thatthe MiG-31 was deficient in range, althoughit did represent a major improvement overthe aircraft it replaced. To a certain extent,the MiG-31 was a victim of its own success,since when it became clear that its rangeand endurance exceeded those of theMiG-25, air force and naval commandersbegan to request that MiG-31 s performother missions, including the escort of long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft.

The obvious solution was to provide aninflight-refuelling probe. Building on theexperience gained with the probe-equippedMiG-25 variants (MiG-25PDZ, MiG-25RBVDZ,and MiG-25RBShDZ), Mikoyan added a neatsemi-retractable probe in front of thecockpit, offset well to port. The aircraft wasalso fitted with a 'micro-control system',using displacements of nozzle petals to givefine control during refuelling contacts.

One aircraft (c/n 1603) was fitted with adummy probe for trials, and was joined byc/n 3608 with a fully-functioning probe,though without all the necessary navigationand fuel transfer monitoring equipmentdesigned for the production installation. Thefirst fully-equipped 'probed' MiG-31 was'Blue 592' (c/n 5902), which was fitted withLORAN and other long-range navaids. Thisaircraft was used for a range of long-range

Compact refuelling probe only difference between 1-01DZand earlier aircraft

The addition of a refuelling probe tothe MiG-31 was a logical step andthe DZ (Dozaprvka, refuelling)modification greatly extended thecombat radius of the 'Foxhound'.

demonstration flights, including nine-hourflights and practice intercepts over themagnetic North Pole, testing the aircraft'snav system sensitivity to magneticanomalies.

Forty-five MiG-31 s (including 'White 374',c/n 3704, seen at many Western air shows)were built to this standard (between 1990and 1991) and were sometimes unofficiallyknown as MiG-31 Ds before productionswitched to the further improved MiG-31 B.

Apart from their semi-retractable probes(semi-recessed but uncovered and visible

when retracted), these aircraft did not differfrom the standard MiG-31.

MiG-31B (I-01B)Just as Victor Belenko's 1976 defectionprovoked the development of the MiG-25PD'Foxbat-E', another Russian renegade(Tolkachev) sold state secrets to the West,including details of the radar and fire controlsystems of various front-line fighters,including the MiG-31.

Mikoyan was already working on anupgrade to the MiG-31, and this was givenan added impetus by the compromising ofsome of the original aircraft's secrets.Tolkachev was arrested by the KGB in 1985.Under the designation MiG-31 B, the aircraftgained an improved radar (with betterelectronic counter-countermeasurescapability), upgraded R-33S (AA-9 'Amos')air-to-air missile armament and improvedavionics, including some new digitalprocessors. All MiG-31 Bs were otherwisebuilt to so-called 'MiG-31 D' standards, withenhanced navigation equipment and inflight-refuelling probes.

The MiG-31 B entered production at Gorkiiin 1990, as MiG-31 D production began torun down. Existing MiG-31 s were upgradedto the same standard as the MiG-31 BS.

Improved R-33S missile armament

MiG-31B 'Foxhound'Refuelling probe, as standard

Optional external 2500-litre (550-lmp gal) fuel tanks

MiG-31BS (I-01BS)The MiG-31 BS (Stroievoi = operational)designation was applied to early productionMiG-31 s (and MiG-31 Ds) upgraded to fullMiG-31 B standards at Gorkii. These aircraftwere normally modernised when theyreturned to the factory for routinemaintenance, repair or overhaul. Aftermodification, they were externally identicalto new-build MiG-31 Bs. Numerically, theMiG-31 B and MiG-31 BS were the most

MiG-31LLA single unprobed early MiG-31 ('Red 79')has been converted for test duties at the IIIat Zhukhovskii. The aircraft is externallyvirtually standard, although it does haveunusual wingtip fairings which containmountings for test cameras for filming

stores separations. Some sources suggestthat the aircraft has also been used forejection seat tests. The aircraft wears withcamera calibration markings, and even has abald lion (Lysii Lev) insignia on its intakes.

The ill's sole MiG-31 LL has smallbullet fairings on its wingtips,housing test cameras.

MiG-31EThe MiG-31 E (1-01 BE) designation wasoriginally applied to a straightforward(slightly downgraded) export version of theMiG-31 B, with less than full-standard ECM,simplified R-33 missiles and a downgradedradar. A prototype ('White 904') has beentested at Akhtubinsk, and another may be

'White 903'. A number of nations have beenassociated with the possibility of MiG-31exports, including China, Iran and Syria. Thesame designation now applies to a slightlymore ambitious export version of the MiG-31,with the ground attack capability of theMiG-31 F and with provision for someWestern avionics and weapons systems.The original single-role export MiG-31 E isbelieved to have been abandoned.

important types in the IA-PVO inventory,although they may now have beenovertaken by the various Su-27 sub-types inservice.

Below: The MiG-31 B/BS was astepping stone from the first'Foxhounds' to the MiG-31 M. Theimproved aircraft was fitted withupgraded mission electronics andmore capable R-33S missiles.

MiG-31FThis designation was applied to a multi-roletactical fighter derivative of the MiG-31 Brevealed at the 1995 Paris Air Salon. Whileretaining the Zaslon radar and R-33 AAMcapability, the MiG-31 F was also compatiblewith a range of air-to-ground weapons,using new radar modes or TV/laser guidance.

Maximum take-off weight of the MiG-31 Fwas increased to 50 tonnes, allowing theaircraft to carry a maximum air-to-groundweapon load of 9000 kg (19,840 lb) on sixhardpoints. The aircraft could operate as a'Wild Weasel' defence suppressionplatform, carrying Kh-31P or Kh-25MPmissiles. Other weapons carried by the typecould include the Kh-29, together with TV-or laser-guided bombs.

Gorkii MiG-31/hybrid MiG-31MThe Gorkii factory built one MiG-31 aircraftwith a number of modifications and'improvements' designed by the plant'sown engineers. The resulting aircraft, coded'Blue 503', had the bulkheads betweensome of its fuel tanks deleted, savingweight but causing a shift in the centre ofgravity, with unacceptable effects onperformance and handling.

This airframe was subsequently used as

a testbed for the MiG-31 M programme,fitted with a new MiG-31 M forwardfuselage, and modified with a MiG-31 Mspine, but retaining 'normal' LERXes and finfillets. It is not certain whether the aircraftwas re-engined. It was never a true MiG-31 M,although it used the 'Blue 051' code whichwould have been associated with the firstMiG-31 M prototype, had the first Mairframe not been a static test airframe.

122

MiG-31 (I-01DZ)

Finroot extensions differ from aircraft to aircraft in test batch

MiG 31M ('Blue 053')

MiG-31M (1-05)The MiG-31M designation was applied tothe most advanced version of the'Foxhound' yet seen. The new variant wasprimarily designed to exploit the longer-range R-37 missile, which had a claimedreach of up to 300 km (186 miles). In April1994 a MiG-31 M armed with an R-37demonstrated at least one successfulintercept against a very long range target(destroying a drone at a range of 300 km/186 miles). Whereas the basic MiG-31carried four missiles in tandem side-by-sidepairs, the MiG-31 M had a more clutteredbelly, with three side-by-side recesses, eachhousing a tandem pair of the new missiles.Similar in size and appearance to the originalR-33, the new R-37 missile is almostcertainly a direct derivative of the baselineMiG-31 's 'Phoenikskii'.To them could beadded up to four of the formidable new R-77(AA-12 'Adder') missiles underwing. Thegun was deleted.

To take full advantage of its new missile,the MiG-31 M was fitted with an entirelynew radar (possibly based on the existingZaslon) with a larger-diameter radome(necessitating a wider and deeper nose).The radar was augmented by a revised IRSTand a laser rangefinder. To improve thepilot's view forward over the nose, the nosein front of the cockpit was drooped by 7°.The MiG-31 M was fitted with a range ofnew avionics systems, and the rear cockpitwas extensively redesigned, with new CRTmulti-function display screens. Interestingly,the rear cockpit lost its throttles andtelescopic control column, and, with noprovision for flying the aircraft from thebackseat, the forward-looking periscopewas removed, and the canopy over the rearcockpit became more solid, losing windows.This made the rear cockpit environmentdarker, improving the backseater's view ofhis display screens in strong sunlight. Bycontrast, the front cockpit canopy wasentirely redesigned, losing its centrelineframe, and the original heavily-framedwindscreen with its separate quarterlightswas replaced by a single, one-piece wrap-round screen.

The MiG-31 M had a bulged fuselagespine, housing new avionics equipment andsome extra fuel. Other visible airframemodifications included the provision ofenlarged LERXes with sabre-like curvedleading edges. Similarly, the rudders wereof increased chord, yet the tailfin trailing

edge below the rudder was cut away,improving airflow around the rear fuselage.The fin fillets were also refined. Althoughthe MiG-31 M retained an inflight-refuellingprobe, it was redesigned, with an integralcover that was more fully submerged whenretracted, and was relocated on thestarboard side of the nose With aconsiderably heavier maximum take-offweight, the MiG-31 M gained a new, morepowerful engine, the D-30F-6M.

The MiG-31 Ms were built in the Gorkiifactory. The first airframe was for statictest, and the first flying prototype was thusthe second airframe, coded 'Blue 052'. Itmade its maiden flight on 21 December1985 but crashed before it could be fittedwith its radar, and was replaced by therebuilt aircraft originally produced to testmodifications designed by Gorkii's ownengineers (see separate entry). All of theMiG-31 M prototypes differed from eachother in detail, but looked almost identical.The exception was 'Blue 057', the seventhand final MiG-31 M. This aircraft incorporateda pair of fixed wingtip ECM/ESM pods, withtriangular upper and lower finlets.

The MiG-31 M had the misfortune ofbeing born at the wrong time, whendefence budgets were being slashed. Asthe aircraft reached an advanced stage offlight testing, the money simply ran out.Today, the MiG-31 M programme seems tobe 'dead in the water'.

The MiG-31 M introduced an even more sophisticated radar fit and improvedR-37 missiles to the basic 'Foxhound'. A family of development aircraft wasbuilt; 'Blue 056' with dummy R-77 missiles (above) and 'Blue 057' (below)with its distinctive wingtip pods are seen here.

MiG-31D (1-07)Two MiG-31 D prototypes were built in 1987,coded 'Blue 071' and 'Blue 072'. They usedthe MiG-31 D designation officially, unlike thefirst probe-equipped MiG-31 s, which weresometimes unofficially known as MiG-31 Ds.The MiG-31 D may have been based on theMiG-31 M, probably using the MiG-31 M'sD-30F-6M engines and certainly featuringthe same long, curved LERXes. On theother hand, the MiG-31 D had the originalsmall spine, and the same cockpit canopiesand 'undrooped' nose radome.

These highly-specialised aircraft had thestandard weapon system removed, and hadno underfuselage missile recesses. Thiswas because the aircraft were designedsimply as carriers for a single example of anadvanced anti-satellite missile, and wereoptimised to get this weapon to its high-altitude 'edge of space' launch envelope assoon as possible. The aircraft featured newwingtip fairings with triangular endplate fins

Ye-155-style 'webbed feet' endplate fins

MiG-31 D'Foxhound'

similar to those fitted years before to theearliest Ye-155 aircraft. These finlets,known as 'flippers', improved directionalstability when carrying the enormouscentreline missile. The aircraft had no gun.

The MiG-31 D prototypes were probablynot fitted with radar but any productionversion would almost certainly have hadsome kind of search radar fitted.

Above and left: The 'true' MiG-31 D was intended to be the launch platformtDr an anti-satellite weapon, much like the USAF's F-15/ASM-135A ASATcombination. The endplate 'flippers' were added for high altitude stability.

123

MiG-31 M ('Blue 057')

Zaslon-M radar believed fitted Standard wingtips

Finned wingtip (ESM?) pods fitted to seventh prototype only