# The Best LONG RANGE All weather intercepor.



## 102first_hussars (May 20, 2006)

Ok Im going for another one of my usual aircraft polls, but Im going for a subject that has not been covered (as far as I know) it is about the Best (not greatest) Long range interceptors.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

This is not a poll hussars....


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2006)

What about the F106?


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 20, 2006)

Why cant I edit the poll yet?


----------



## pbfoot (May 20, 2006)

not many long range interceptors on the poll
su 15 450nm
mig 21 400 nm
saab 35 800nm
mig 31 380 nm
f 14 530nm
f101 1550nm
f102 1350nm
cf100 2000nm
f104 1000nm
so that leaves the 101 or 102 but I'll opt for the f106


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

Where's the 106?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

In its day this guy was a monster - I believe the Lightning was better short range and had a better time to climb performance, but this guy would of ate hordes of Soviet bombers with little problem. This airplane was also very maneuverable and had plenty of fight left in it up to the 1980s.....

Specifications (F-106A)

General characteristics
Crew: 1 
Length: 70.7 ft (21.55 m) 
Wingspan: 38.25 ft (11.67 m) 
Height: 20.28 ft (6.18 m) 
Wing area: 661.5 ft² (61.52 m²) 
Airfoil: NACA 0004-65 mod root and tip 
Empty weight: 24,420 lb (11,077 kg) 
Loaded weight: 34,510 lb (15,668 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney J75-17 afterburning turbojet, 24,500 lbf (109 kN) 
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0083 
Drag area: 5.8 ft² (0.54 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 2.10 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.3, 1,525 mph (2,455 km/h) 
Range: 1,800 mi combat, 2,700 mi ferry (2,897 km / 4,345 km) 
Service ceiling: 57,000 ft (17,374 m) 
Rate of climb: 29,000 ft/min (8,839 m/min) 
Wing loading: 52 lb/ft² (255 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.71 
Lift-to-drag ratio: 12.1 
Time to altitude: 6.9 min to 52,700 ft (16,065 m) 
Armament
One 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon 
Four AIM-4 Falcon, usually two AIM-4F and two AIM-4G, plus one AIR-2A Genie nuclear rocket

Dude - you messed up! This should of been on the list!!! Becuase its not I had to pick the F-14!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

You can still count the F-14 as a long range interceptor because its weapons systems reach out a great distance besides the F-14 did not need long range with aerial refueling.

I go for the F-14.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

I have to agree with Joe on this, the -106A was by far the best, and I too also voted for the F-14....


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2006)

I have to say, this is a pretty poor poll. Only the F-101, F-102, CF-100 and F-104 have a longer range than the English Electric Lightning (Combat Radius: 450 NM) yet the Lightning is not included. I would have voted for the F-106A as the best long-range interceptor. 

Despite the fact the F-14 was in no way a long-range interceptor, I also voted for it.


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2006)

Agreed on the F-106 but of the rest I have voted for the F-14.


----------



## davparlr (May 21, 2006)

At first thought, the F-14 with Phoenix missiles can certainly reach out and touch someone very effectively. And since arm length is a measure of a boxer's range, the Phoenix range must be added to the F-14 combat range. A good number. Then I thought, well, I don't know, an F-106 with genies could certain clear the skies of ... everything. Its gotta be the best. Only it is not on the list so, F-14 it is.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2006)

The AIM-54 has a range of 125 NM if fired at 44,000 feet. It then requires the F-14 to continue tracking the enemy target until it's within ten miles of the target. So the F-14 has to still be flying around in the air for some time, if it's fired the 'Phoenix' from the extent of the range. So, let's not add the Phoenix range to the F-14s combat radius. Or at least, not all of it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

> It then requires the F-14 to continue tracking the enemy target until it's within ten miles of the target.


And the Tomcat will still be out of firing range of most enemy aircraft it would run into...


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 21, 2006)

I have obviously made mistakes in my selections, I call for a lock on this thread, and ill make a better one.


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2006)

Dare I throw a doubt into the F106 debate. Clearly it had a first class weapons system and an excellent performance. The question is how well would it handle a fighter combat.
The weapons sytem was built around the need to intercept bombers and I worry about such a delta wing. The Mirage III bled energy in a turn faster than a lot of other aircraft and the F106 is a big heavy aircraft.

For this reason my vote would go for the F14 even if the F106 is included into the debate.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2006)

The F106 was designed to engage Russian bombers, not dogfight Mig 21's.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

Very true sys...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2006)

I've post this before, my father-in-law flew 106s as chase planes for the B-1 production program. His 6 aircraft were last operational 106s. A few times he was asked to participate in dissimilar aircraft combat with F-15 and F-16 squadrons. He told me he and his guys (all very experienced high time pilots) gave some of the 15s and 16s a run for their money, and several times caught these guys in their pipper, but also many a time they also brought back their 106s with popped rivets and screwheads on the wing panels


----------



## Twitch (May 22, 2006)

Hell the F-14 radar will see beyond any other plane's radar and launch before its opponent can even see it.


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2006)

FJ I remember the previous posting. Your Father is a very experienced and exceptional pilot with a number of records to his name. However the question is how would a normal squadron pilot in a F106 match against a normal squadron pilot in another fighter. My suspision is that the 106 would be at a disadvantage in the majority of cases. Its a big heavy fighter carrying a lot of fuel and a lot of missiles on a very large delta wing which has know disadvantages in a dog fighting situation.

I could be wrong here and forgive me if I am, but I am not aware of F106's being deployed in any numbers where they were likely to tangle with enemy fighters. I don't recall them being deployed to Europe on a permanent basis or to Indo China during the conflicts in that area. A long ranged fighter capable on taking on all comers would I guess have been very useful in escorting the long range B52 bomber missions that were flown.

The F14 had it all, range, superb long range radars and misiles plus it could take on anyone in a dogfight. For that reason the F14 would have my vote.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2006)

Glider said:


> FJ I remember the previous posting. Your Father is a very experienced and exceptional pilot with a number of records to his name. However the question is how would a normal squadron pilot in a F106 match against a normal squadron pilot in another fighter. My suspision is that the 106 would be at a disadvantage in the majority of cases. Its a big heavy fighter carrying a lot of fuel and a lot of missiles on a very large delta wing which has know disadvantages in a dog fighting situation.
> 
> I could be wrong here and forgive me if I am, but I am not aware of F106's being deployed in any numbers where they were likely to tangle with enemy fighters. I don't recall them being deployed to Europe on a permanent basis or to Indo China during the conflicts in that area. A long ranged fighter capable on taking on all comers would I guess have been very useful in escorting the long range B52 bomber missions that were flown.


Very true in your statements - "Pops" felt if used correctly the 106 could take on all comers in its class and that would of been a matter of training, but by the time he got to play with them the aircraft was in its twilight and it's only repreve was it's role on the B-1 program. In the 106's day it was looked upon as one of those weapons systems that remained stateside unless something really bad was supposed to happen. It carried Radar and other equipment that was designed for NORAD and NORAD only....

As far as escort, I think becuase of fuel consumption and it's operational role, it would of been ill suited. In Vietnam (for example) the real threrat to the B-52 came from SAMs although one NVPA claimed to have shot down a B-52 in a Mig-21, something never really substantiated..



Glider said:


> The F14 had it all, range, superb long range radars and misiles plus it could take on anyone in a dogfight. For that reason the F14 would have my vote.


The F-14 had the dogfighting capability built into it. As it was becoming operational the F-106 was in it's final phases. I put the F-14 marginally into the "next generation."


----------



## syscom3 (May 22, 2006)

F106's were deployed for a short time to Vietnam.

I also think they had temp assignments in Germany from time to time.

This interceptor was not deployed to tangle with single engine fighters. It was to shoot down bombers. That was its sole rationale.

For the F14, it was a fleet defense fighter used on carriers. Its endurance limited its role for those missions where you had hundreds of miles to fly to to get on station then loiter looking for your target.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2006)

> Its endurance limited its role for those missions where you had hundreds of miles to fly to to get on station then loiter looking for your target.


Thats why they invented something called mid-air refueling...


----------



## davparlr (May 22, 2006)

I don't know too much about the F-106 other than I chose it as one of the best looking aircraft. I did have a friend that flew a B-58. He said that they flew so high and fast that they were not too threaten by intercepters. Most intercepters just couldn't maneuver at that altitude and had to come in from the tail, where there was a gun. The exception was the F-106 which could fly by, maneuver and attack from the front. It must have had good high altitude performance. Anyway, it could still carry those nukes, Genie and Falcon. Not sure it used Genies.


----------



## syscom3 (May 22, 2006)

And if air refueling isnt available? The -106 still has the endurance.

And remember, except for the -D model F14, those engines were crappy. Even with two engines, I would hate to be over the arctic circle all alone.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

Im onboard with the -106 sys, and if the Tomcat is running CAP, he has either another aircraft carrying buddy stores or the tanker is on station....

And as far as the pre-D series engines, while they were a maintenance nightmare, they still pushed that bird over Mach 2 and made the F-14 one of the greatest interceptors known to mankind..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> F106's were deployed for a short time to Vietnam.
> 
> I also think they had temp assignments in Germany from time to time.



The -106 never went to Vietnam. They did spend some time in Canada, South Korea and Germany, but those tours were more the exception than the rule...

F-102s were sent to Vietnam...


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2006)

The pairing of the F106 and Lightning would have been a heck of a marraige. The F106 for the long range interception and the lightning for those that leaked through the first line of defence.

As for the F14 its clearly in the next F16/F15/F14 generation


----------



## pbfoot (May 23, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The -106 never went to Vietnam. They did spend some time in Canada, South Korea and Germany, but those tours were more the exception than the rule...
> 
> F-102s were sent to Vietnam...


I have pic somewhere of 60 106's on the ramp in goose back around 83 at one point we had over 80 fighters airborne at once it was pure pandimonium


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2006)

Glider said:


> The pairing of the F106 and Lightning would have been a heck of a marraige. The F106 for the long range interception and the lightning for those that leaked through the first line of defence.
> 
> As for the F14 its clearly in the next F16/F15/F14 generation


Agree - Plan D and I discussed the same scenario with the Lightning and the F-15 - the F-15 taking out the fighters, the Lightning taking out the bombers...


----------



## Twitch (May 24, 2006)

Yeah, I can't think of any other plane on the list besides the F-14 that could launch and kill over the horizon and hold its own close in as well.


----------



## davparlr (May 24, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Yeah, I can't think of any other plane on the list besides the F-14 that could launch and kill over the horizon and hold its own close in as well.



An interesting side note to the F-14. The Phoenix is a relatively slow missile (slow burn for range). The F-pole (the distance between the launch vehicle and target at impact) is quite a bit less than 20 miles (if my memory is good). It starts getting a bit dicey if the planes keep heading toward each other (the F-14 does not need to head toward the targert but does have to keep it in radar tracking until the autonomous Phoenix seeker locks on).


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

The F106 has a longer range on internal fuel, thus can be on station and waiting for the bombers to appear. The F14's endurance is not enough to it allow to do any menaingfull long range loitering.

For contiental defense, Id take the F106


----------



## pbfoot (May 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The F106 has a longer range on internal fuel, thus can be on station and waiting for the bombers to appear. The F14's endurance is not enough to it allow to do any menaingfull long range loitering.
> 
> For contiental defense, Id take the F106


when you scramble a fighter there is no loiter time figured into the equation the further out you intercept the better and then you RTB and turn the thing around


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 24, 2006)

Yeah but the further out, the less time is given for you to stay in a fight before you go to refuel, like if you were in an F5, and you had to intercept a flight of bombers 50 or 100 miles out, you wouldnt be fighting very long.


----------



## pbfoot (May 24, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Yeah but the further out, the less time is given for you to stay in a fight before you go to refuel, like if you were in an F5, and you had to intercept a flight of bombers 50 or 100 miles out, you wouldnt be fighting very long.


 you are intercepting bombers and it is not a turn and burn dogfight


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

Scrambling for intercept is reactive. Loitering at the edge looking for your target is proactive.

Better to be shooting at your enemy far away from its target (and getting multile chances for attack) is better than to hope you get it right close in.

The F14 is for fleet defense, the F106 is for contiental defense.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2006)

> The F14 is for fleet defense, the F106 is for contiental defense.


Very very true....


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

As good as the F14 was in its role, dont forget it couldnt take off a carrier with a full Phonix load and full fuel.

It needed refueling somewhere along the line or its endurance was limited.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

And that is why normally before the F-14s launched there was a refueler in the air, normally an Intruder with the refueling propes under the wings to refuel them once they got up.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2006)

And if you dont have the luxury of time for that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

There were allways 2 F-14s ready to launch at all times that were not fully loaded and were there just as a quick reaction and could be launched at moments notice, then the rest of squadrons would launch, plus you had the F-18 squadrons.

I will have to have my friend write some stuff here to post about it. He was a F-14 guy stationed Carriers for most of his carreer in the Navy. He left the Navy and joined the Army to fly Blackhawks.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2006)

Better to be able to scramble a squadron of F106's, fully loaded and armed than to have a pair of F14's either partially armed/fully fueled or fully armed/partially fuelled.

For contiental defense, the F106 is the superior of the two.

For fleet defense, the F14 is the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

I agree with everything that you said right there.

Even the F-106 however would not have been able to take off fully loaded from an Aircraft Carrier (assuming that it could anyhow, which I am sure it could be modified to do so).


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2006)

While the F14 is indeed an interceptor, it primarily a fleet defense fighter, and its optimized for carrier ops for that role.

It has the benefit of dual engines and a top notch fire control and weapons sytem.

But it also loses out on short endurance and thats not a good thing when you have to patrol thousands of square miles out over the arctic.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 26, 2006)

I also agree with u sys, and very valid points u make....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

Yeap I do agree. It really is hard to group them together because both are capable of things the others are not and both are suited more for there respective areas of operations.


----------



## nosredna (Feb 28, 2007)

I picked other. Its a plane that never saw battle or even past the tests. Its the A.V.Roe Arrow. It is possible that this plane from the 50's could still be among the best in the world today according to several experts.


----------



## Glider (Feb 28, 2007)

If your talking about Long Range All Weather Interceptor then the Tornado F3 deserves to be on the list.
It has a very long range, an excellent radar, heavy armament, high speed. It lacks agility but then its not the only plane on the list that doesn't shine in that area.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

nosredna said:


> I picked other. Its a plane that never saw battle or even past the tests. Its the A.V.Roe Arrow. It is possible that this plane from the 50's could still be among the best in the world today according to several experts.



Never became operational so therefore it cant be judged. How would we know how well it was unless it was operational? Think about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

nosredna said:


> I picked other. Its a plane that never saw battle or even past the tests. Its the A.V.Roe Arrow. It is possible that this plane from the 50's could still be among the best in the world today according to several experts.


The Arrow, while being an impressive performer was being eclipsed by the F-106 in performance and weapons capacity - many of the systems in the first prototypes didn't function properly and some of the avionics had many bugs in them. I'm sorry, you're holding on to a Canadian myth that the Arrow was this super duper fighter aircraft - again in it's day it had a lot of potential but in reality all it was able to do was hunt and shoot down Russian bombers. If it got into a dogfight an F-5 would have filled it full of holes....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Besides with a range of 360 nm that is not really long range is it.


----------



## zebraa51 (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree with FlyBoyJ The Worlds Best Intercepter ever made was The Convair F-106 ~ It was so Good it never Fired It`s Gun`s inn anger so far that i know of and i don`t really know too much, Like FlyBoyJ said before the Mig-21 One Fills it Up Takes Off Goes around the Pee-Patch Then the Red Light Comes On and The Mig-21 Lands Now Planes Like the F-106 Has The same kind of Red Light it`s just that The F-106 Driver Not Only gets too go around the Pee-Patch But Get`s too Go hunting as well For a Lot Longer Before his Red Light Comes ON P.S. in flight refueling ring a BeLL............


----------



## zebraa51 (Mar 1, 2007)

When i read the Poll The first thing i thought of was the F-106 That`s why i Voted: ~ Other ~ inn The First Place


----------



## Glider (Mar 1, 2007)

Can I ask why if the F106 was such a performer, it wasn't used to escort B52's in Vietnam?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

Glider said:


> Can I ask why if the F106 was such a performer, it wasn't used to escort B52's in Vietnam?


Because it was designed as a bomber killer and nothing else. It did have good air-to-air capabilities but during the Vietnam War era its main purpose was to be part of NORAD.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Arrow, while being an impressive performer was being eclipsed by the F-106 in performance and weapons capacity - many of the systems in the first prototypes didn't function properly and some of the avionics had many bugs in them. I'm sorry, you're holding on to a Canadian myth that the Arrow was this super duper fighter aircraft - again in it's day it had a lot of potential but in reality all it was able to do was hunt and shoot down Russian bombers. If it got into a dogfight an F-5 would have filled it full of holes....


 If the Arrow got into a furball with an F 5 it would have accelerated away. I personally believe it would have been a better aircraft then the 106 as it would 've been faster carried far more weapons 8x falcons and after saying this the thing never went into production so all is moot. Now as for the 106 good aircraft but the 101 held its own with it in William tell


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> If the Arrow got into a furball with an F 5 it would have accelerated away.


 And that's about all it could to - it was not a maneuverable aircraft and if it did get into a turning conflict all it could do is run - it had no visibility from the rear.


pbfoot said:


> I personally believe it would have been a better aircraft then the 106 as it would 've been faster carried far more weapons 8x falcons and after saying this the thing never went into production so all is moot.


Perhaps, but the Arrow had a lot of production problems that might of been solved duirng its development. One of the minor reasons cited for its cancellation was it was behind schedule.


pbfoot said:


> Now as for the 106 good aircraft but the 101 held its own with it in William tell


That it did - the 101 served Canada well.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 1, 2007)

What production problems were there it was into production when cancelled already into the MKll as for systems problems but the main reason for our obsession is what could have been . It was an aviation icon in Canada for its firsts and in case your not aware 25% of the engineers that put the first man on the moon were Canadian mostly Arrow guys . here are the 1sts
First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more). 
First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine. 
First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. 
First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 
First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance. 
First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c. 
First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this. 
First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground. 
First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain. 
First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea. 
First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now. 
First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines). 
First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe. 
Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine. 
Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones). 
Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing. 
Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that. 
Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really) 
Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.) 
First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that. 
First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components. 
First oxygen-injection re-light system. 
First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design. 
First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine. 
First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine. 
First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition. 
First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition were using 17!!)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

I've seen that post before - but as all these first are touted only half of the stuff actually worked! That's not to say the bugs would of been corrected - bottom line the same job could of been (and was done) with F-106s, and CF-101s.

Bottom line PB the Arrow was a state of the art aircraft in its day - it had to potential but politics killed it along with the Canadian aircraft industry.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 1, 2007)

Well it certainly hammered the industry but its still alive and well I've heard its in the top 5 but have my doubts .


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 1, 2007)

Don'care about range and performances, I voted the Draken because I love her look!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Well it certainly hammered the industry but its still alive and well I've heard its in the top 5 but have my doubts .


No I'd agree with that - I was impressed with the industry when I was there. Too much government interference and the unions are the problems I seen.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No I'd agree with that - I was impressed with the industry when I was there. Too much government interference and the unions are the problems I seen.


Ah yes unions they are dwindling in strength fast (thank god) as they only help the lazy 
The government has made the industry sink or swim .The major problem for Bombardier now is to prove Embraer gets Brazilian gov't subsidies


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 10, 2007)

Not here in the States. Private industry unions are WAY down, but in gov't they are WAY up. And the Democrats just voted to ease the criteria for the creation of unions. Off topic, but it is ing when the union reps approach a company and its employess, demand that ONLY a vote for representation occur, 15% of employees vote with a simple majority saying they want a vote, union takes that to court and court makes a finding on behalf on unionizing the company employees. Unions served their purpose in days past. Now they are the scourge of innovation, efficiency, and employee/management relations.

I remember working on a fast frigate in dry dock, the welder needed his work area burnished prior to commencing. Due to union rules, even though he had a air grinder, he was not allowed to perform this 10 minute prep. He waited all day and went home having only completed about 6inches of his work.  on unions!


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

No mention of this interceptor

Specifications (MiG-25P 'Foxbat-A')
Data from The Great Book of Fighters [9]

General characteristics
Crew: One 
Length: 19.75 m (64 ft 10 in) 
Wingspan: 14.01 m (45 ft 11.5 in) 
Height: 6.10 m (20 ft 0.25 in) 
Wing area: 61.40 m² (660.93 ft²) 
Empty weight: 20,000 kg (44,080 lb) 
Loaded weight: 36,720 kg (80,952 lb) 
Powerplant: 2× Tumansky R-15B-300 afterburning turbojets 
Dry thrust: 73.5 kN (16,524 lbf) each 
Thrust with afterburner: 100.1 kN (22,494 lbf) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: *Mach 2.83*, 3,255 km/h (2,034 mph) at 13,000 m (42,650 ft), limited by engine redline 
Range: *1,730 km (1,075 mi) with internal fuel *
Service ceiling: 20,700 m (with 4 missiles) (67,915 ft) 
Wing loading: 598 kg/m² (122.5 lb/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.41 
Time to altitude: 8.9 min to 20,000 m (65,615 ft)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson said:


> No mention of this interceptor
> 
> Specifications (MiG-25P 'Foxbat-A')
> Data from The Great Book of Fighters [9]
> ...



As a straight interceptor it seems it would of done the job if it's intended combat scenario was put in front of it. It's operational record was pretty poor an Iranian F-5 shot one down, I think it had a 1 to 4 kill ratio.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

yep that is about right..

I gather it flys like a truck.. with a supercharged 454 (7.5 liter)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson said:


> yep that is about right..
> 
> I gather it flys like a truck.. with a supercharged 454 (7.5 liter)



Yep, and probably fell out of the sky like a brick....


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

Like the famous Isreali run in the '70s. Went over like a bat out of hell, but burnt up her Tumansky engines along the way. Highly overrated bird for its time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Mig-25 was fast and that is about it. As stated by others I am sure she flew like a brick. I will have to find the pics of the Foxbat that we found in Iraq. There were 2 of them. One had been blown up on take off trying to get off the runway.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

Heres a shot of one they tried to hide...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

I dont have pics of that one, but I believe that was found in our camp as well and might have been the one that they "blew up" on the other side of camp for target practice.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

russian MiGs rock





poor foxbat...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Ever seen one up close? Why do they rock?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

MiG-21? Long range??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> MiG-21? Long range??



Take off, go fast, turn around, almost stall, red light comes on, final approach, land at 160, pray drag chute works....


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

I think he described most migs there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2007)

Mig-19 and up....


----------



## drgondog (Mar 14, 2016)

In its day, the F-82 was a.) an excellent all weather interceptor and b.) had the best range by far.

Like Joe - I agree the F-106 was the best of the era but the A-12 despite limited production was the other one not mentioned that was designed as a long range interceptor.

By comparison, the other choices were 'point' interceptors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

