[nikcub]

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.

[0] http://www.rusadventures.com/tour6.shtml

[1] "edge of space" flight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVMuxx7YKY

[hx87]

> 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.

[avmich]

> post-Soviet military establishments were more willing to sell surplus aircraft to private buyers

Completely agree. Some people in Russia in 1990-s were pretty inventive.

Another reason could be the number of MiG-25 produced.

[justin66]

> Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying.

It's hard to know where you came up with this. Starfighters Inc. came up in another thread recently: http://www.starfighters.net/fleet/

They fly F-104s, which I'd much rather be responsible for maintaining than something like a MiG-25.

If you see a dearth of ownership of newer American jets, it's probably because they're still valuable to an air force somewhere.

[avmich]

F-104 doesn't look particularly similar to MiG-25. Things like take-off weight, maximum speed... At least Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter doesn't list MiG-25 as comparable to F-104.

[justin66]

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...

[greedo]

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.

[gambiting]

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.

[atemerev]

...and survive nuclear war. Or at least be capable of doing something useful. Radiation hardening/anti-EMP protection was a great deal.

[PerfectDlite]

And to accomodate lower quality of available technologies and workforce.

[ceejayoz]

> Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying.

The B-52 is fifteen years older than the MiG-25 and is not only still flying, but carrying out combat missions to this day.

[Phlarp]

To be fair the B-52's that fly combat missions today are nowhere near the same as what was flying 25 years ago.

I suspect MIG-25's in private hands have been maintained at a flight ready level, but not significantly upgraded in the way the active B-52 has been.

[adrianm]

What about B-52s, T-38s, and come to think of it, isn't the F-16 pushing 40?

[001spartan]

The F-16 is close to 40 years old, and the F-15 has been in service for 40 years as of 2016.