One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war.
Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying.
It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0].
I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane that is designed to both perform so well but to also be so easy to maintain and with such longevity.
> Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying.
That's more because post-Soviet military establishments were more willing to sell surplus aircraft to private buyers than because of any quality of the aircraft themselves.
I didn't mean to imply that they are similar aircraft. Interestingly, they have some similar strengths and a similar mission: relatively short-range and high-speed interception. They represent two very different, extreme engineering approaches.
They are both planes that set records for zoom climbing, a performance record associated with their interceptor mission, and some other speed and altitude records:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_climb
Anecdotally, one of the more interesting things I've read over the years about their engineering is their failure modes. (who knows how much of this is really true, but it's interesting) Given the correct flight profile, the F-104 will keep accelerating towards Mach 3 right until the canopy material or some other relatively fragile thing starts to fail. The MiG-25 will fly up to the often-quoted Mach 3 number, the airframe is brutally strong, but the engines will be damaged by flying at that speed. But it's entirely possible the Russians upgraded those engines in the eighties. Upgrades to the F-104 over the years only brought the (reported) top speed from Mach 2 to Mach 2.2, but the thing's got razor-sharp wings...
Soviet jets and technology wasn't really meant to survive a nuclear war. That would have increased complexity and cost. Everything was really designed more around being disposable.
I've also heard the argument that steel was in some ways better, because when the enemy is bombing your factories, you can almost always get steel somewhere. Titanium composites, like those used on the Americans planes, not so much.
Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors In hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did, however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts). The huge engines required so much fuel that the MiG was surprisingly short-ranged. It could take-off quickly, and fly in a straight line very fast to fire missiles or take pictures.
The factoid about resistance to EMP gets repeated endlessly online and in print, but it doesn't really make sense, and I doubt it's true. EMP damages electrical connections which are:
a) long.
b) thin.
c) far from a ground plane.
In more detail: the induced current depends directly on the length of the conductor; a thin is more easily overheated and damaged than a thick one; and conductors running near ground planes make poor antennas for picking up pulses.
Now, all three of these factors describe vacuum tubes more than solid-state electronics. Vacuum tubes have to have very thin heated cathode wires, and the dimensions of vacuum tubes result in a substantial distance to the ground plane and in long conductors. Compared with solid-state electronics, which, especially in modern design, can practically live on or between ground planes, this makes for a lot of sensitivity to EMP and external interference.
One sanity check is to consider electromagnetic noise emitted by the device. Any device which is emitting substantial RF noise from its internal components is also going to be vulnerable to external EMP or interference, since antennas work both ways - anything which is good at emitting will also be good at receiving. Now, vacuum tube devices emit more RF noise than modern solid state devices, and generally need more shielding.
The components in the MiG-25 radar had more to do with what was available to the Soviet designers in the 1950s. The radar of the MiG-25 came from the Tu-128 interceptor which first flew in 1961, which means that the radar was designed in the mid-1950s at the latest. Wouldn't surprise me if the US radar of the same vintage also used vacuum tubes.
Like I said - people say this all the time, but a lot of vacuum tube equipment did die in EMP testing (in the USSR in 1964), and I don't see why vacuum tubes should be less vulnerable than solid state electronics to either short or long pulses (nuclear EMP contains both). A glass vacuum tube will pick up orders of magnitude more interference than a small transistor sitting inside its grounded metal can (and it's weight-prohibitive to build a metal shield around all your vacuum tubes), and the high voltage induced can damage either the vacuum tube itself, or something else inside the device. Unfortunately, very little has been published on this (although we do know that militaries test their modern solid-state devices with EMP, and they generally pass), and any online search produces a deluge of statements to the effect of "vacuum tubes are impervious to EMP" without anything to back that up. If there was ever a direct test of vacuum tubes vs. solid state, that would be very interesting to find.
Transistors of the 1950s and 1960s were particularly vulnerable to high voltages. Modern transistors and ICs have some resistance to high voltage discharges such as static electricity, but back in those days, you could easily destroy entire circuits with your hand. Early transistors were made with materials and processes we would consider sub-standard today, which is particularly significant because they were almost exclusively using bipolars instead of MOSFETs (which are much more durable), and the manufacturers of the 60s could not and did not add protection diodes. ESD control was one reason why certain American companies got so far ahead of the Soviets (and the less-adaptable competition such as Phillips, whose workforce refused to adopt ESD control practices).
True, and electrostatic discharge from your finger is no joke - it can be tens of kilovolts and carries significant, if not huge, energy. However, a discharge like that going right into a very small device, and the actual die of the transistor is tiny, is very different from interference/EMP damaging said device, where the small size actually offers protection. After all, a completed transistorized device from the 1950s is not vulnerable to static discharge - otherwise, you couldn't pick it up. With everything connected to ground where it should be, it is quite robust.
People underestimate the energies produced by nuclear EMP. Car magnetos were dying in the trials, power lines and telegraph wires were getting shot through. Your nice tube amp would have no chance.
Do you have a reputable source for any of that? EMP effect is measured by field strength in volts per meter. If you don't have an antenna, or something to act like an antenna (telegraph/telephone/electric power lines) connected to a piece of equipment, the induced voltage in the equipment cannot be extremely large.
Solid state electronics are extremely susceptible to even mild overvoltages. Tubes are not. And magnetos are not. Low-tech magnetos ignition systems are considered to be practically invulneable to EMP.
> I also must re-emphasize the fact that during Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests over Kazakhstan in 1962, rugged diesel generators having no solid state parts were burned out by E1 EMP.
Typical E1 pulse component has up to 50KV/m at ground level and is a high-frequency spectrum, you don't need a long antenna for that. EU railway field immunity test is 10 volts per meter and huge portion of industrial electronic equipment fails that already.
Stuff that burns power lines are lower frequency (and lower yield) E2&E3 components.
I can't provide a citation, but a few months ago I spoke with a retired EE who had specialized in large-scale/high-power systems[1], and he believed that tube electronics would better resist an EMP. i.e. if that belief is incorrect, it's something even experts in the field believe.
[1] one of his example projects was city-block-sized capacitor arrays that can temporarily provide power to an entire city.
What you are talking about is true only for inductive coupling caused by fluctuating EM waves.
As someone who works in Embedded Electronics and Software for Aerosopace let me drop a little knowledge bomb.
The problem isn't with induction, all the units can be easily shielded from this and they are in EMC chambers every day. A simply faraday cage, some bypass and reservoir capacitors a choke here and there an opto-isolator on box boundaries and bobs your uncle.
The real problem with High Energy Particles (Neutrons, Gamma particles, Protons, etc) is that they displace atoms in your semiconductor lattice and change the doping densities and behaviours of your junctions. Causing your semiconductor to fail... HARD.
When we buy in components, we tend to buy rad-hard devices which have special considerations taken into account when designing the semiconductors because when you're in space, you're bombarded with LOADS of high energy particles all the time, and its not just enough to have memory TMR, you need RAD-HARDENED semiconductors.
Vacuum tubes and transistors have different failure modes. If you apply high voltage to a vacuum tube, it will arc and warm up, but not sustain much damage. Do the same with a transistor and it will promptly turn into a resistor.
Source: burned plenty of transistors and vacuum tubes while studying electrical engineering.
We were _really_ preparing for nuclear war. While US military adopted the MAD doctrine, considering their nuclear weapons just the ultimate deterrent, Soviet generals thought that nuclear war can actually be fought — and won.
I am quite surprised that we are not living in Fallout by now.
Pretty sure the US and NATO had "flexible response" where they would have options other than MAD.
NB I'm having a binge of reading novels about WW3 scenarios in Europe at the moment, my favourite being "Chieftans" by Bob Forrest-Webb, mind you it doesn't end well.
[NB Rather hoping WoT gets to Challengers/Chieftans/M1s vs T-80s at some point...]
He's got a Youtube channel that has fascinating reviews of WW-II era tanks, Watching him try and fit his over-6' height into some of them is hilarious.
Maybe after the Cuban Crisis. But Kennedy basically had to tell his advisors to shut up, because they were slavishly following RAND's escalation policy.
Kennedy repeatedly dismissed other opinions and had to change his positions after being proven wrong. He accused Eisenhower of allowing the Soviets to accumulate more missiles than the USA, and found out he was wrong after getting elected. Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster. Kennedy even refused to admit that he had agreed to all of Kruschev's terms in relation to de-escalating the Cuban missile crisis, and pretended that it was a victory of American diplomacy and intimidation.
Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba.
" Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster."
"Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba."
Maybe, the decision to use tactical nukes in the battlefield was left to commanders in the field.
Something to take note of was that analog systems could drive far more power than solid state systems at that time, especially given the USSR's relative backwardness in solid state electronics. It really is worth noting how montrously powerful that MiG 25's radar is. It could pump out 600kW. Western fighter radars top out in the low 10s of kW. (they went with raw power to burn through jamming).
I think the whole EMP robustness thing is overplayed everytime something like this pops up - I think that at most the EMP robustness is just a side benefit to the analog systems.
It might not be extremely out of date. According to some random wiki[0],
"In 1963 Westinghouse was awarded a US Navy contract for the AN/AWG-10 to provide fire control for guns and Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow and Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on the F-4B Phantom II. The first radars were delivered in 1966 and became standard equipment. The AN/AWG-10 was claimed to be the first interceptor radar to feature transistorised circuitry."
Meanwhile, the MiG-25 first flew in 1964, which would suggest that at that time it was developed western interceptors used tube-based radars too.
Most aircraft make their initial flights without their first avionics suite (including radar and weapons control systems). Since the MiG-25 was introduced into service in 1970, and the radar it used was a development of another first used on an aircraft that entered service in 1964, I would hazard to guess that the Foxbat's radar wasn't delivered until 1965-1969.
> The Soviets had not built the ‘super-fighter’ the Pentagon had feared, says Smithsonian aviation curator Roger Connor, but an inflexible aircraft built to do a very particular job.
There is no mention what MiG-25 was designed for. Its task was to intercept nuclear bombers flying over Soviet Union and it did this task pretty well.
Because it used steel it was cheap and easy to service. At that time soviets had lot of experience with titanium (space, submarines), but expensive plane similar to SR-71 would not cover entire Soviet Union.
I think a good lesson to learn is that primitive doesn't mean archaic. Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain over using the latest or rare technology. The best example is of course the AK-47, but the same philosophy is seen throughout all of their designs. Their planes are all designed to use poorly maintained or damaged airfields, or even just dirt strips.
"Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain"
I think it was Max Hastings who pointed out in the context of WW2 that there isn't much point in having tanks that are six times better than your enemies if they have ten times as many tanks as you do!
Their battle strategy (slow the enemy down for as long as possible) and weapons were informed by their experience in WW2. At the beginning of Barbarossa the USSR had many wacky, complex vehicles and arms that were prone to breaking down, if they even worked at all.
Intercepting a B-52 sounds like just about the easiest job in combat aviation. I always thought the idea that a bomber was going to strike the interior of the USSR was a patently ridiculous idea. Cruise missiles, ballistic missiles I can definitely believe. Maybe the Soviets were afraid that the Americans would revive the B-70 program, but that program had been cancelled long before the MiG-25 ever flew.
> Intercepting a B-52 sounds like just about the easiest job in combat aviation.
Not particularly. A rough rule of thumb is that an interceptor needs a maximum achievable speed twice that of the cruising speed of its target in order to close the geometry of the interception. A Su-15 couldn't quite achieve that with its full complement of missiles against a Mach 0.9 B-52, but a MiG-25 could do so. [0]
The second problem is basing the interceptor in a location that the long-ranged incoming bombers can't just dog-leg to avoid. The Mach 2.8 MiG-25 barely had enough margin to intercept supersonic bombers such as the B-58, Mirage IV, A-5 and FB-111 but those all had much shorter endurances than the B-52 and V-bombers, and so ironically made easier targets; they had to follow much more predictable direct ingress routes and weren't equipped with air-launched decoys.
~~
[0] flip the actors around and you can see why the US abandoned the Mach 3+ YF-12 interceptor. The F-106 and F-15 were fast enough to intercept incoming Tu-95s that slipped past the SAM belts, and the faster Soviet bombers didn't have the range to threaten the USA.
Your reckoning of the capabilities of the B-52 has me scratching my head. It can fly at 0.9 M, at high altitudes where it is guaranteed to be obliterated by long-range SAMs before it gets anywhere near a target of strategic value, and it can fly at low altitudes, at speeds where any eastern bloc fighter could have caught and destroyed it. That's why I think the idea of American long-range strategic bombers striking the interior of the USSR is just a silly fantasy. It would have required air supremacy to do that, and if you've established air supremacy over the USSR the war has already ended. Indeed, a war between nuclear superpowers would not have lasted long enough for a B-52 to get even half way to the USSR, much less for them to sit on the ground waiting for their air refueling wings to get into a forward position (and probably get annihilated, but that's another problem with the air warfare fantasy). A full-scale war between the USA and the USSR would probably not even have lasted long enough for the President to get his pants on.
That really depends on time period. Remember, the b-52 was introduced into service in 1955, and first flew in 1952. Well prior to the introduction of ICBMs.
Your point sounds good. Also, even the XB-70 was an indicator of what the US aviation industry could get going if motivated. I've seen one up close and personal, just wow.
You've seen the only XB-70, prototype #1. Two prototypes were made, and the other was destroyed in a mid-air collision. There is a very good episode of the televison show "Great Planes" on the XB-70.
Another very interesting aircraft is the experimental Su-47, with only one ever being built. Its forward-swept wing design make it a treat for the eye.
Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying.
It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0].
I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane that is designed to both perform so well but to also be so easy to maintain and with such longevity.
[0] http://www.rusadventures.com/tour6.shtml
[1] "edge of space" flight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVMuxx7YKY