NationStates Jolt Archive

The MiG-25, the one that changed the colour of the American pilots their underwear.

40 years ago, when the Russians gave birth to the MiG-25 (http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/mig25.htm) (NATO call name Foxbat), the Americans (by the mouth of Robert Seamans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Seamans)) gave him the title of “best interceptor plane in the world”. Even present times, this giant of steel, is showing its backlights easily to modern fighter jets as the F-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22) and the Eurofighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon).

• 3000 kmph top-speed, with 4 big bombs beneath the wings. A modern F16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F16) without bombs can reach 2860 kmph.
• A pilot in an YF-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YF-12) (also a mach 3 plane) can handle 1.5 g maximum, in a Foxbat it is 4.5 g
• The sky is the limit, but not for a MiG-25, that’s dark space at 24 km height.

It’s a simple and 'ugly' designed plane, but it can combat even modern jets by its brute force.

Rumours tell that its radar of 680 hp (!) could fry rabbits (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioassets/photos/2006/12/29/11086_2.jpg) alive when it was engaged on the ground.

Basically, one can see a Foxbat easily on radar, but when you try to lock him, it is already leaving radar view again.

MiG-25 vs. F/A18

In the Gulf war of 1991 it was the only jet that was irritating the Americans. And not even a little. While the Iraqi colleagues in their Mirage F-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_F-1) and MiG-29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-29) suffered a hard time by the overwhelming power of the American planes, a few Foxbats were showing resistance.

Already at the first night (17 January), one was having success. The Iraqi Zuhair Dawood recognized the launch of an anti-radar missile (one of the hundreds that busy night) and saw the launching F/A 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/a_18) of Mike Speicher (http://mevm.org/pages/missininaction.htm). Zuhair locked and fired. The two colleagues of Speicher saw a big fireball…

MiG-25 vs. F-15

A few days later the overwhelming American superiority in the air was even bigger. Still the Foxbats remained active and they were lucky. Two dozen F-15 Strike Eagles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15) had to destroy the Scuds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuds) which were used to attack Israel. The target zone was protected by S-125 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125) (NATO call name SA-3 Goa) and S-75 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75) (NATO call name SA-2 Guideline) air missiles. Their own jamming defence didn’t harm the missiles, so flying “jammers” as the F-4G (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4.htm)and the EF-111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-111)knocked down, temporarily, the air defence.

At least, that was the plan.

When the Strike Eagles were aired, they heard that the F-4G’s would not take part of the mission.
Two EF-111’s been on time and were doing their air patrols. The enemy was noticing them soon and ONE single Foxbat was launched, it avoided EIGHT American Strike Eagles and managed to launch three R-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisnovat_R-40) missiles (NATO call name AA-6 Acrid). The EF-111’s were not that surprised and avoided the missiles. But they had no clue where the MiG was. Afraid for another attempt of the same jet or another one, they decided wisely to return to their base.
The Strike Eagles were not aware of this action, but would soon detect the outcome of this deed.

David Eberly (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/1.html) and Thomas Griffith were preparing to drop their bombs and suddenly they saw an incoming missile on their radar. Eberly was having a visual immediately. He was turning sharp towards it, but a second missile hit the Strike Eagle. David & Thomas survived but a few days later they were captured by Iraqi soldiers.

Tied Game

A third dogfight ended in a spectacular tied game. Two F-15 Eagles (one seat versions) were warned by an AWACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWACS): 2 Foxbats at 13 km height, speeding at 2000 kmph.

The two Eagles faced them and one plane launched two AIM-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7) Sparrow radar-guided missiles, headed on the front MiG. That one fired back at the second Eagle and turns to the north. The Sparrows didn’t found their target, but so were the Acrids.
The second Eagle became nervous and tried to launch 3 Sparrows, but they were locked, so the plane returned to its base.
Eagle number 1 tried another attempt by launching another Sparrow without any success and followed Eagle 2 to its base.

SIX other Eagles tried to hunt the Foxbats down, but they were unlucky. The best shot was for Randy Bigum (http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=4690), while the Foxbats were landing he launched a Sparrow. But the Foxbat was already on the ground and riding too slow for the missile; its radar didn’t saw the difference between the plane and the air.
Bigum tried to shoot down the other Foxbat, but he saw his missile exploding 3 meters next to the left wing of the Fox. Unhurt, it continued its landing…

Israel

Fair is fair, the Americans could bring down two Foxbats, thanks to their overwhelming pressure in the air.

10 years earlier, the Israelis destroyed one by a smart trap.

From 1971 till 1981, countless Foxbats did their reconnaissance missions above Israel. At full speed and maximum height, they were unreachable for the Israeli airforce. You can imagine that the Israeli didn’t like this and they did all kind of things, but nothing seemed to work.

In 1981 they found the answer: a RF-4E (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image1402.html) was used as bait. He was sand into the air above Syria and immediately a Foxbat tried to intercept him. When the distance between them was 100 km the RF-4E returned to its base while blinding the Foxbat with chaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28radar_countermeasure%29) (kind of metal confetti). In the meantime an F-15 was hiding himself by flying at an ultra low altitude, making himself invisible for the radar of Syria and the Foxbat. He used smartly the chaff to gain height, turned his radar on, locked the Foxbat and a Sparrow did the rest.


The End

The MiG-25 has been upgraded a few times. The last version, the MiG-25PD, with a new Sapfir-25 radar, a better engine and better missiles, was used in Iraq and could withstand the American Airforce, even in hazardous situations.

Current times, the Foxbat is more or less out of service:

• It is too expensive in use
• Difficult to fly
• The electronics are outdated.

A few airforces around the world still use this bird of steel as a practice plane.

For $20,000 - $25,000 the Foxbat is hired by rich Western tourists to touch the border of space.

Some dead soviet presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) aren’t smiling in their grave, knowing that for a few bucks, those damn capitalists are flying in their communist, state-of-the-art, steel Foxbats. :)

Links:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/spr04/whitcomb.html
http://www.flymig.com/
http://www.space-travellers.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxbat
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html
http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/foxbat.html

Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3346374839292592477&q=soyuz

To what color did the American pilots' underwear change into?

Dark green, after some MIG-25s bombed the laundromat that was washing their stars and stripes boxers. :p

Dark green, after some MIG-25s bombed the laundromat that was washing their stars and stripes boxers. :p
Dark green camouflages better in the forests. :D

To what color did the American pilots' underwear change into?

Depends what they have eaten the night before. :)

Ah, good old Foxbat. Ze most alcoholic plane in ze vorld! :D

Ethanol was used as coolant and for the hydraulic (ethanaulic???) system, because it would not freeze at the high altitudes and low temperatures the MiG-25 was designed to fly.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:_Za-q1sZ01AJ:https://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php%3Ft-85840.html+mig-25+mikoyan+brandy&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=it

MiG-25. Alcoholism was a common problem with MiG-25 service crews. Apparently it turned so bad that the mothers of servicemen complained about the fact that the MiG-25 used ethyl as coolant. The designer of the plane, Mr. Mikoyan himself, replied to the concerned mothers: "If airplane required brandy for proper operation, we would fill plane with brandy."



• 3000 kmph top-speed, with 4 big bombs beneath the wings.
• A pilot in an YF-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YF-12) (also a mach 3 plane) can handle 1.5 g maximum, in a Foxbat it is 4.5 g
• The sky is the limit, but not for a MiG-25, that’s dark space at 24 km height.


Bombs on a MiG-25? Iirc, it was a not-a-pound-for-air-to-ground - it carried 4 AA-6 Acrid on underwing pylons, which are quite big and can be easily mistaken for bombs.
About the top ceiling, I think that the latest variant of the MiG-21 tops the Foxbat by a couple of km - its conical-shaped air intake is better at high altitudes than the rectangle-shaped intakes of the Foxbat, see the Blackbird's intakes also. However, the rectangle-shaped are better at intermediate and high angles of attack, while the conical-shaped ones allow for a very narrow cone of AoAs. That, and the shape of the wings, is why the maneuverability of the MiG-25 is quite good for an early 4th-gen fast-and-high interceptor.

It’s a simple and ugly designed plane, but it can combat even modern jets by its brute force.
Ugly? Poor Foxbat... *pats Foxbat on the head: he didn't mean it really, DID HE!!!* ;)

Rumours tell that its radar of 680 hp (!) could fry rabbits alive when it was engaged on the ground.
Yes, I believe that. The old Soviet radars usually made up with lots of power for the lack of transistors. Walwes roole!

Basically, one can see a Foxbat easily on radar, but when you try to lock him, it is already leaving radar view again.
Also generally, when ye see the Foxbat on your radar at RWS ranges, it's already got a lock on you and is firing ARH missiles.
It isn't built for stealth, after all. It's built for fast climb, speed and range. Also, its designed targets weren't other interceptors, but the U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird and the XB-70 Valkyrie.


Current times, the Foxbat is more or less out of service:
• It is too expensive in use
• Difficult to fly
• The electronics are outdated.


That's why the Russians have built the MiG-31. A little bit slower, but with better electronics, better missiles, more payload, more pylons, air-to-ground capacity, and even a cannon.

from www.fas.org

The key to the MiG-31's effectiveness is the SBI-16 Zaslon fixed phased array antenna radar, codenamed 'Flash Dance' by NATO, which is said to be the world's most powerful fighter radar.

The first stage of tests of the upgraded MiG-31BM high-speed multifunctional long-range jet fighter were completed in mid-1999. The main difference between the MiG-31P (Foxhound, according to the NATO classification) and the new MiG-31BM multifunctional air strike system is that the latter is capable of destroying both air and ground targets.
The upgraded MiG-31BM is fitted with a powerful onboard computer system and a radar with a phased array which will allow the pilot to simultaneously activate the air-to-air and air-to-surface missile fire modes. When working with air targets, the MiG-31BM is capable of intercepting up to 24 targets simultaneously.

see:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-31.htm

Here's a :fluffle: for Artem Mikoyan and the MiG-25.

Ah, good old Foxbat. Ze most alcoholic plane in ze vorld! :D

Ethanol was used as coolant and for the hydraulic (ethanaulic???) system, because it would not freeze at the high altitudes and low temperatures the MiG-25 was designed to fly.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:_Za-q1sZ01AJ:https://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php%3Ft-85840.html+mig-25+mikoyan+brandy&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=it

MiG-25. Alcoholism was a common problem with MiG-25 service crews. Apparently it turned so bad that the mothers of servicemen complained about the fact that the MiG-25 used ethyl as coolant. The designer of the plane, Mr. Mikoyan himself, replied to the concerned mothers: "If airplane required brandy for proper operation, we would fill plane with brandy."




Bombs on a MiG-25? Iirc, it was a not-a-pound-for-air-to-ground - it carried 4 AA-6 Acrid on underwing pylons, which are quite big and can be easily mistaken for bombs.
About the top ceiling, I think that the latest variant of the MiG-21 tops the Foxbat by a couple of km - its conical-shaped air intake is better at high altitudes than the rectangle-shaped intakes of the Foxbat, see the Blackbird's intakes also. However, the rectangle-shaped are better at intermediate and high angles of attack, while the conical-shaped ones allow for a very narrow cone of AoAs. That, and the shape of the wings, is why the maneuverability of the MiG-25 is quite good for an early 4th-gen fast-and-high interceptor.


Ugly? Poor Foxbat... *pats Foxbat on the head: he didn't mean it really, DID HE!!!* ;)


Yes, I believe that. The old Soviet radars usually made up with lots of power for the lack of transistors. Walwes roole!


Also generally, when ye see the Foxbat on your radar at RWS ranges, it's already got a lock on you and is firing ARH missiles.
It isn't built for stealth, after all. It's built for fast climb, speed and range. Also, its designed targets weren't other interceptors, but the U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird and the XB-70 Valkyrie.



That's why the Russians have built the MiG-31. A little bit slower, but with better electronics, better missiles, more payload, more pylons, air-to-ground capacity, and even a cannon.

from www.fas.org

The key to the MiG-31's effectiveness is the SBI-16 Zaslon fixed phased array antenna radar, codenamed 'Flash Dance' by NATO, which is said to be the world's most powerful fighter radar.

The first stage of tests of the upgraded MiG-31BM high-speed multifunctional long-range jet fighter were completed in mid-1999. The main difference between the MiG-31P (Foxhound, according to the NATO classification) and the new MiG-31BM multifunctional air strike system is that the latter is capable of destroying both air and ground targets.
The upgraded MiG-31BM is fitted with a powerful onboard computer system and a radar with a phased array which will allow the pilot to simultaneously activate the air-to-air and air-to-surface missile fire modes. When working with air targets, the MiG-31BM is capable of intercepting up to 24 targets simultaneously.

see:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-31.htm

Here's a :fluffle: for Artem Mikoyan and the MiG-25.

The MiG-25RB could originally carry four FAB-500M-62T 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) bombs, carried by tandem double ejector bomb racks under the fuselage. The bombs were specially built to tolerate high temperatures. Late production MiG-25RBs could carry six FAB-500 bombs under the fuselage, using tandem triple ejector bomb racks, and also featured a stores pylon under each wing, with each pylon capable of carrying two FAB-500 bombs in tandem. This gave a total bombload of ten FAB-500s, or four FAB-500s plus the big centerline fuel tank.


Source:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html


Hehe, didn't know he was a member of the AA :)

The MiG-25RB could originally carry four FAB-500M-62T 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) bombs
Whoops, looks like I remembered only about the first version.
Very vell, zis makes the MiG-25 ewen better zan I thought...

Hehe, didn't know he was a member of the AA :)
Da! Davaj mne vodku! VODKUUU!

Whoops, looks like I remembered only about the first version.
Very vell, zis makes the MiG-25 ewen better zan I thought...


Da! Davaj mne vodku! VODKUUU!

Wodka хорошо на время года. Damn, я слеп :)

Yeah, the MiG-25 was awesome.

But I'm still wondering if Lockheed would have build this one, how its capacities would have been....

It would be much lighter:

• The steel would be replaced by titanium
• IC's would replace the vacuum tubes

** Drool **

Wodka хорошо на время года. Damn, я слеп :):D

But I'm still wondering if Lockheed would have build this one, how its capacities would have been....
** Drool **
Also it would have costed a helluva lot more!

Anyway, to have a serious drooling, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-34

The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck, which not only provides side-by-side seating, but includes space for a galley, a latrine, and a bunkbed. Much of the design work went into crew comfort, which resulted in novel features such as pressurization provided by the air conditioning system, rather than with oxygen masks and a massage function in the K-36 ejector seats

As long missions require comfort, it has pressurization that it allows to operate up to 10,000 meters without oxygen masks, which are available for emergencies and combat situations. The members of the crew can leave the seats and be in vertical position and relax. The space between the seats allows that they can lie down in the corridor, if necessary.

...

And give me a long mission and a russian beauty as a copilot!:D

:D


Also it would have costed a helluva lot more!

Anyway, to have a serious drooling, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-34

The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck, which not only provides side-by-side seating, but includes space for a galley, a latrine, and a bunkbed. Much of the design work went into crew comfort, which resulted in novel features such as pressurization provided by the air conditioning system, rather than with oxygen masks and a massage function in the K-36 ejector seats

As long missions require comfort, it has pressurization that it allows to operate up to 10,000 meters without oxygen masks, which are available for emergencies and combat situations. The members of the crew can leave the seats and be in vertical position and relax. The space between the seats allows that they can lie down in the corridor, if necessary.

...

And give me a long mission and a russian beauty as a copilot!:D

Natasha!

** DROOL MORE **

And give me a long mission and a russian beauty as a copilot!:D

You do realize that those bombers were built to cruise out at sea for days on end with in flight refueling?

You do realize that those bombers were built to cruise out at sea for days on end with in flight refueling?

I do... on a second thought, I think I'll also take some Viagra with me, just in case, you know.

I do... on a second thought, I think I'll also take some Viagra with me, just in case, you know.

A Su-34 is viagra for me. :)

so?

so?

This thread is created 'cause we started talking about Foxbats in another thread.

It is deserving its own shrine.

I do... on a second thought, I think I'll also take some Viagra with me, just in case, you know.

And that they are constantly required to remain in contact with Russian Air command? Failure of which might result in a shoot down?

The MiG-25 certainly is heavy, but it's fascinating to see how Soviet engineers managed to create a supersonic fighter plane from the same material that steam engines are made from! Of course it helped that the Soviets had superior welding techniques.

*laughs at thread*

dude. You really need to get over this. The MiG 25 is a good fighter. No doubt but to say that American pilots are afraid of it? *dies of laughter*

To what color did the American pilots' underwear change into?

Everyone knows American figher pilots fart gold dust. Just ask one.

*laughs at thread*

dude. You really need to get over this. The MiG 25 is a good fighter. No doubt but to say that American pilots are afraid of it? *dies of laughter*

Sure they do. If you are able to bring down F15's, F/A18's and other planes then you get credit and respect.

If you dare to fight in a situation given ONE Foxbat vs. EIGHT F15 Strike Eagles they you get credit and huge respect.

If you fly TEN years above Israel and wave to the little Jewies and they can't make you anything, then you get credit and respect.

And you still don't get it, the MiG-25 is still faster and having a better ceiling than most other planes, including very modern jets.
And that's enough to scare other pilots.

And don't start the stealth crap. If you fly below 150 feet, you're as stealth as you can be... That's how Israel could shoot down their only and single MiG-25...

Sure they do. If you are able to bring down F15's, F/A18's and other planes then you get credit and respect.

Duh

If you dare to fight in a situation given ONE Foxbat vs. EIGHT F15 Strike Eagles they you get credit and huge respect.

Considering the MiG would be dust...

If you fly TEN years above Israel and wave to the little Jewies and they can't make you anything, then you get credit and respect.

Proof?

And you still don't get it, the MiG-25 is still faster and having a better ceiling than most other planes, including very modern jets.
And that's enough to scare other pilots.

Proof?

And don't start the stealth crap. If you fly below 150 feet, you're as stealth as you can be... That's how Israel could shoot down their only and single MiG-25...

Proof that they only shot down one?

Yes, I have proof: history books.

And you didn't read the initial posting.

And you always can check the links. Or any other.



Duh



Considering the MiG would be dust...



Proof?



Proof?



Proof that they only shot down one?

Yes, I have proof: history books.

And you didn't read the initial posting.

And you always can check the links. Or any other.

Post the links here. I am not going to read a long OP just to find links. Now show me proof of these and I will debate the merits. Until you provide the actual links...your arguments are worthless.

And wikipedia does not count.

plane only good if the one flying it is good

Post the links here. I am not going to read a long OP just to find links. Now show me proof of these and I will debate the merits. Until you provide the actual links...your arguments are worthless.

And wikipedia does not count.

Why debating about something, you clearly have no clue about?

Then it's debating, just for the debate.

But in that case my friend, do your homework, move yor fat *ss and read the initial posting. :)

Why debating about something, you clearly have no clue about?

Then it's debating, just for the debate.

But in that case my friend, do your homework, move yor fat *ss and read the initial posting. :)

Very few links are not wikipedia. I already looked at them but I do not trust wikipedia when it comes to full scale history debates as this clearly is.

Very few links are not wikipedia. I already looked at them but I do not trust wikipedia when it comes to full scale history debates as this clearly is.

Doh? Just one, thank you!

For the links in the text, one can trust Wiki for explaining what a F/A18 is about.

Links:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../whitcomb.html
http://www.flymig.com/
http://www.space-travellers.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxbat
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html

Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...592477&q=soyuz

Israel[/B]

Fair is fair, the Americans could bring down two Foxbats, thanks to their overwhelming pressure in the air.

10 years earlier, the Israelis destroyed one by a smart trap.

From 1971 till 1981, countless Foxbats did their reconnaissance missions above Israel. At full speed and maximum height, they were unreachable for the Israeli airforce. You can imagine that the Israeli didn’t like this and they did all kind of things, but nothing seemed to work.

I'm waiting on the information on where you got this from. Care to point to it?

Links:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/spr04/whitcomb.html
http://www.flymig.com/
http://www.space-travellers.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxbat
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html

The first and last links are to long for me to read right now. The wikipedia link is ignored by me for historical debates and the fas just gives me info about the mig that I already knew. the flymig and space-travellers websites are also useless as one is an advertisement and the other is just well...useless.

Well have some fun by finding out, if the Israeli shot more than one MiG-25...

See you later. :)


I'm waiting on the information on where you got this from. Care to point to it?



The first and last links are to long for me to read right now. The wikipedia link is ignored by me for historical debates and the fas just gives me info about the mig that I already knew. the flymig and space-travellers websites are also useless as one is an advertisement and the other is just well...useless.

Well have some fun by finding out, if the Israeli shot more than one MiG-25...

See you later. :)

So you are not going to post where the MiG-25s were flying over Israel for 10years? I guess then I can call bullshit to it.

So you are not going to post where the MiG-25s were flying over Israel for 10years? I guess then I can call bullshit to it.

Where?

Above Israel! Doh!

Where?

Above Israel! Doh!

Ed...where is the information that MiGs were flying over Israeli airspace. I want where you got it from. Your failure to date to show me the information is working against you.

Actually, Israel used to claim it was happening a lot. They blamed the Syrians, IIRC, and said they were spy flights. To be fair, we were doing exactly the same thing to the USSR at the time (but we were using SR-71s).

It would have been easy for Syrian jets to get up to speed and do a quick rush over Israeli territory, too fast and high for Israel's weaponry to get a solid lock.

Though, I never heard of them shooting one down.

Ed...where is the information that MiGs were flying over Israeli airspace. I want where you got it from. Your failure to date to show me the information is working against you.

You are a lazy guy. It’s all in the link I provided:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html

Even before operational introduction, four MiG-25Rs were sent to Egypt in 1971 under the cover designation of "X-500". They overflew Israel in pairs about 20 times and were never intercepted, even though Israeli intelligence generally knew when the overflights were scheduled. The MiG-25Rs went back home in 1972, though reconnaissance Foxbats were sent back to Egypt in October 1973, after the Yom Kippur War, and remained there into 1974.
.
.
.
Syria obtained 30 MiG-25PD interceptors, along with five MiG-25PU trainers and eight MiG-25RB reconnaissance machines. Two Syrian MiG-25s mixed it up with two Israeli F-15s on 13 February 1981, both sides losing an aircraft.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't get it why debating a debate, you don't know anything or showing interest about it.

Look, I didn't know how many MiG-25’s were destroyed by Israel, I didn't know for how long those MiGs were flying above Israel EXACTLY...

But I knew that it was at least one MiG-25 and I knew that at least they did a fly-bye a few times: it's just recent history. Odds are high that I saw the news item on TV...

After some research, I knew a little more about the details and filled the gaps.

And then suddenly there's you, Corneliu 2, having clearly no clue about even the basics, too lazy to read a little, too stupid to Google a little, but still having a big wise guy mouth.

I don't get it. You don't know anything about it, that's very obvious, so it's probably not interesting for you either. There's evidence for this, 'cause you're not in the mood to read a little about it. Even the few lines of the initial posting are too much for you.

But still you want to enter the ring...

I don't get such behaviour...

Anyway...

Your statements about Wiki are also rather false. Several tests between Wiki and commercial encyclopaedias are showing an almost equal result, so...

Actually, Israel used to claim it was happening a lot. They blamed the Syrians, IIRC, and said they were spy flights. To be fair, we were doing exactly the same thing to the USSR at the time (but we were using SR-71s).

It would have been easy for Syrian jets to get up to speed and do a quick rush over Israeli territory, too fast and high for Israel's weaponry to get a solid lock.

Though, I never heard of them shooting one down.


And they were lucky as well. It was a nice smart trap of the Israeli. The credits are for them.

And that they are constantly required to remain in contact with Russian Air command? Failure of which might result in a shoot down?

Well, I don't mind them hearing.

Once again, the speed of the MiG-25, and the altitude at which it is capable of operating are mixed blessings, primarily because of the amounts of fuel that are required to operate at its maximum speed. On full afterburner at top speed, a Foxbat will drain its tanks dry in less than 20 minutes, useful if you're trying to down inbound strategic bombers like the B1B, (or, the XB-70, because of whose design the MiG-25 was designed to be used) useless if you're trying to operate a combat mission over enemy territory.

It's radar and infrared signatures are gigantic, there's no way you can hide that a MiG-25 is coming in your direction, and if you've loosed a missile at an inbound Foxbat, the likelihood that the Foxbat will escape is minimized.

Regarding the single incident when a MiG-25 downed an F/A-18 Jet on a ground attack mission, I would argue that this instance is far more an exception than a rule. With over a thousand sorties flown a day for the duration of the Gulf War, one single incident does not a trend make. Much as when they chased off the RF-111's. Tough talk, but that's the only defense option the RF-111 has: To run. It's an unarmed EM-Jamming and reconnaissance plane, not a fighter jet. Given that there were over 30,000 sorties flown over Iraq in 1991, that four of them found American aircraft being challenged is little surprise, you could expect at least that much from luck alone.

Speed and altitude are overrated, and those are what the Foxbat does best. It's a lingering relic and a dinsosaur, a monument to the orthodoxy of aircraft design in the sixties and seventies.

Out of curiosity what is a MiG-25's tactical range? Besides in air combat the MiG-25 is useless when pitted against a slower yet far more maneuverable aircraft. The simple fact that the MiG-25 is so powerful and fast makes it ridiculously easy for a pilot to accidentally overshoot, which as I'm sure u learned gentlemen know is deadly in a dogfight. Now to be honest the MiG-25 is not supposed to be used in that way, it is primarily an interceptor. However it was designed to take out B-1's and the XB-70 (which never entered production), these bombers first strike capability has been taken over by stand off weapons such as cruise missiles. A primary target for all first strikes is to take out the enemies ability to stop a strike (ie. take out enemy interceptors, AA batteries, SAM's, Command and Control, airfields, etc.). Seeing as airfields and Interceptors (including the MiG-25) will be taken out by cruise missiles they will largely be ineffective do to the fact that most will either be destroyed or unable to take off. Thus the MiG-25 has no real purpose, except to guzzle fuel and be expensive as hell to operate. To quote Andaluciae above me "It's a lingering relic and a dinosaur" a dinosaur that has no purpose on the modern battle field.

Out of curiosity what is a MiG-25's tactical range? Besides in air combat the MiG-25 is useless when pitted against a slower yet far more maneuverable aircraft. The simple fact that the MiG-25 is so powerful and fast makes it ridiculously easy for a pilot to accidentally overshoot, which as I'm sure u learned gentlemen know is deadly in a dogfight. Now to be honest the MiG-25 is not supposed to be used in that way, it is primarily an interceptor. However it was designed to take out B-1's and the XB-70 (which never entered production), these bombers first strike capability has been taken over by stand off weapons such as cruise missiles. A primary target for all first strikes is to take out the enemies ability to stop a strike (ie. take out enemy interceptors, AA batteries, SAM's, Command and Control, airfields, etc.). Seeing as airfields and Interceptors (including the MiG-25) will be taken out by cruise missiles they will largely be ineffective do to the fact that most will either be destroyed or unable to take off. Thus the MiG-25 has no real purpose, except to guzzle fuel and be expensive as hell to operate. To quote Andaluciae above me "It's a lingering relic and a dinosaur" a dinosaur that has no purpose on the modern battle field.

I would not quite agree. The MIG-25 is still a superlative intercept aircraft.

The -25 has a limited range, and even more limited armament suite. This is a direct result of the choice to make it superfast and high flying; something had to be traded off to get that performance. This means it cannot be treated as a true Air Superiority Fighter, and a modern ASF will kill a MIG-25 if the -25 slows to engage.

But it still has a place as part of a layered defence plan, and there are certain roles it would do supremely well. One of these is Cruise Missile defence. A MIG-25 is faster than either of the US Cruise Missiles, and thus could chase down and kill them.

Another possible role is AWACS suppression. If the MIG swapped out two Aspic missiles for drop tanks, it would have the range to reach a Sentry, and the firepower to kill it. Given it's speed, I have doubts about the Sentry's escorts being able to pull of an interception.

No weapon is ever truly obsolete. You just have to get more creative in deploying it.

You are a lazy guy. It’s all in the link I provided:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html

Even before operational introduction, four MiG-25Rs were sent to Egypt in 1971 under the cover designation of "X-500". They overflew Israel in pairs about 20 times and were never intercepted, even though Israeli intelligence generally knew when the overflights were scheduled. The MiG-25Rs went back home in 1972, though reconnaissance Foxbats were sent back to Egypt in October 1973, after the Yom Kippur War, and remained there into 1974.
.
.
.
Syria obtained 30 MiG-25PD interceptors, along with five MiG-25PU trainers and eight MiG-25RB reconnaissance machines. Two Syrian MiG-25s mixed it up with two Israeli F-15s on 13 February 1981, both sides losing an aircraft.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now see. That was not so hard now was it? No it was not so why go through all the aggrevation when you could have simply posted this before when asked for it? Remember. The burdon of proof is on you. Now you hav provided the proof. Next time, post it when its asked of you.

I don't get it why debating a debate, you don't know anything or showing interest about it.

By asking for proof it does show interest. As to debating, this is a debate forum. As to not knowing anything...that can be said of you as it is still your intention that we were scared of it when you have posted zero proof that we were.

Look, I didn't know how many MiG-25’s were destroyed by Israel, I didn't know for how long those MiGs were flying above Israel EXACTLY...

But I knew that it was at least one MiG-25 and I knew that at least they did a fly-bye a few times: it's just recent history. Odds are high that I saw the news item on TV...

And you could have stated as such and looked for proof when it was more convenient.

After some research, I knew a little more about the details and filled the gaps.

And then suddenly there's you, Corneliu 2, having clearly no clue about even the basics, too lazy to read a little, too stupid to Google a little, but still having a big wise guy mouth.

Now you are moving into flaming. In a debate, when one posts something that is questionable and asks for proof from the poster that posts said information, it is that posters responsiblity to provide the proof or it gets discarded. It has nothing to do with me. It was not up to me to see if it was accurate but you to provide the proof for me to look at. Is that understood?

I don't get it. You don't know anything about it, that's very obvious, so it's probably not interesting for you either. There's evidence for this, 'cause you're not in the mood to read a little about it. Even the few lines of the initial posting are too much for you.

I suggest you stop trying to bait me. It is not going to get you anywhere but a temporary vacation.

But still you want to enter the ring...

I don't get such behaviour...

Anyway...

Your statements about Wiki are also rather false. Several tests between Wiki and commercial encyclopaedias are showing an almost equal result, so...

Then explain to me why history professors do not take wikipedia to be a source?

In the Gulf War a wing of MIG-25s ran up against a wing of F-15s. The Migs launched their missiles, which missed, and then when the F-15 launched missiles of their own. They outran the F-15 missiles. They also made a E-111 abort its misssion, and other things.

Now see. That was not so hard now was it? No it was not so why go through all the aggrevation when you could have simply posted this before when asked for it? Remember. The burdon of proof is on you. Now you hav provided the proof. Next time, post it when its asked of you.

Why? It's not a science paper and I’m not scientist.
I'm just a guy talking about a plane.

Suppose you did this IRL, for every word someone aired, attacking it by “do you have proof?”

You would be considered as a moron.

If you see something that doesn’t fit, then search the truth and post it.

I just hate those ‘proof-ladies’, the only thing they are out, is keeping you busy and destroying a nice thread.




By asking for proof it does show interest. As to debating, this is a debate forum. As to not knowing anything...that can be said of you as it is still your intention that we were scared of it when you have posted zero proof that we were



And you could have stated as such and looked for proof when it was more convenient.

Btw, the 'proof' was even included. You were just too lazy.


Now you are moving into flaming. In a debate, when one posts something that is questionable and asks for proof from the poster that posts said information, it is that posters responsiblity to provide the proof or it gets discarded. It has nothing to do with me. It was not up to me to see if it was accurate but you to provide the proof for me to look at. Is that understood?

I'm not flaming you. You are really too lazy. You're even a little ridiculous, you didn't read the entire intitial posting, but still you enter the ring...



I suggest you stop trying to bait me. It is not going to get you anywhere but a temporary vacation.



Then explain to me why history professors do not take wikipedia to be a source?



Not all of them do.

It's too new for them and professors are people as well. People, in general, don't like changes and they are in a way conservative.
Also, it's an attack on their domain. It’s in a way job protection.

It's true that one can change any wiki topic easily. But then there's room that it will be corrected as well. (And this is happening)

Btw the content of the Britannica is still entered by...people. So there are mistakes in Britannica as well.

And again, this is not a science paper, it's just a nice thread about a plane, I don't have to be 100% waterproof.

So don't be an *ss and start behaving a little normal.

And here's some proof:

Last week I learned about a fascinating study published by Nature in December 2005 that compared the Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, in order to gauge the relative accuracy of the two sources. For a sample of 42 science topics, the study found that the number of serious errors (i.e., misinterpretation of critical concepts) were identical in both sources. Wikipedia averaged four less-fatal factual errors per article, while the Britannica had three factual errors on average. Go here to read the full report.

http://mbanks.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/wikipedia_vs_th.html

Once again, the speed of the MiG-25, and the altitude at which it is capable of operating are mixed blessings, primarily because of the amounts of fuel that are required to operate at its maximum speed. On full afterburner at top speed, a Foxbat will drain its tanks dry in less than 20 minutes, useful if you're trying to down inbound strategic bombers like the B1B, (or, the XB-70, because of whose design the MiG-25 was designed to be used) useless if you're trying to operate a combat mission over enemy territory.

It's radar and infrared signatures are gigantic, there's no way you can hide that a MiG-25 is coming in your direction, and if you've loosed a missile at an inbound Foxbat, the likelihood that the Foxbat will escape is minimized.

Regarding the single incident when a MiG-25 downed an F/A-18 Jet on a ground attack mission, I would argue that this instance is far more an exception than a rule. With over a thousand sorties flown a day for the duration of the Gulf War, one single incident does not a trend make. Much as when they chased off the RF-111's. Tough talk, but that's the only defense option the RF-111 has: To run. It's an unarmed EM-Jamming and reconnaissance plane, not a fighter jet. Given that there were over 30,000 sorties flown over Iraq in 1991, that four of them found American aircraft being challenged is little surprise, you could expect at least that much from luck alone.

Speed and altitude are overrated, and those are what the Foxbat does best. It's a lingering relic and a dinsosaur, a monument to the orthodoxy of aircraft design in the sixties and seventies.


20 minutes is enough. Then it's 1000 km away...

I do not overrate speed and ceiling. It's nice to see that brute force can win from elegant sophisticated designed planes.

Btw, the allied troops hunted down only two MiG-25's in Iraq.

It’s safe to say that the fights were not fair one-on-one games (war is never fair). The allied forces dominated the sky, but still a few MiG-25 were doing the hell of a job.

Besides in air combat the MiG-25 is useless when pitted against a slower yet far more maneuverable aircraft.
That's because a MiG-25 is meant to intercept supersonic bombers like the Hustler and the Valkyrie, or recon a/c like the U-2 and the Blackbird. It isn't meant for dogfight: as a matter of fact, it doesn't even have a cannon.

So, a confrontation between a Foxbat and a more agile but slower a/c (a F/A-18 comes to mind) is not going to go at close range. The Foxbat will lock the F/A-18 at long range, fire ARH missiles, then turn back and blast its afterburners, thus remaining quite out of the range of the Hornet's missiles.

A primary target for all first strikes is to take out the enemies ability to stop a strike (ie. take out enemy interceptors, AA batteries, SAM's, Command and Control, airfields, etc.). Seeing as airfields and Interceptors (including the MiG-25) will be taken out by cruise missiles.

It isn't so easy to take out russian airbases, expecially since they have underground shelters, a large SAM belt around the country, and the bases are defended by MiG-29 variants. Also, the scramble time of the MiG-25 is quite low, and its climb rate is still one of the fastest - and that's a 40-years-old plane.
Btw, a cruise missile cannot take out a single interceptor, while an airplane can take out cruise missiles in flight - expecially the ridiculously slow, subsonic western cruise missiles. Beats me why the US don't build supersonic cruise missiles, or at least bisonic bombers with supercruise capability. Too bad they discontinued the Hustler and the Aardvark.

no purpose on the modern battle field.
I agree: I point you to the latest variant, the MiG-31 Foxhound. www.fas.org

Why? It's not a science paper and I’m not scientist.
I'm just a guy talking about a plane.

Suppose you did this IRL, for every word someone aired, attacking it by “do you have proof?”

You would be considered as a moron.

If you see something that doesn’t fit, then search the truth and post it.

I just hate those ‘proof-ladies’, the only thing they are out, is keeping you busy and destroying a nice thread.

When debating, the purdon of proof is on the poster that says it. You brought up the point that MiG-25s were flying over Israel for 10 years. I asked you to prove this and all you did was run around the issue. This will not help your point. When you are asked for proof in an online debate, you provide it.

Btw, the 'proof' was even included. You were just too lazy.

I suggest you stop with the sorry excuse for flamebaiting. Am I lazy? this is an online forum and I have other things to do as well. I am not going to waste my precious time scouring every single link. The proper tactic would have been to post the relevent information and then post the link under it. This is customary for NSG. It saves people time.

I'm not flaming you. You are really too lazy. You're even a little ridiculous, you didn't read the entire intitial posting, but still you enter the ring...

I read most of it but you know what? It was flame when you called to stupid and to lazy. That's flaming. Its minor but still flaming none-the-less.

Not all of them do.

Most of them do. Wikipedia is not a source because it cannot be trusted. At the university I attended, you use wikipedia as a source in a history paper, either numerous points are taken off or you get an F. Plain and simple.

It's too new for them and professors are people as well. People, in general, don't like changes and they are in a way conservative.
Also, it's an attack on their domain. It’s in a way job protection.

Either that or it cannot be trusted.

It's true that one can change any wiki topic easily. But then there's room that it will be corrected as well. (And this is happening)

Never denied that.

Btw the content of the Britannica is still entered by...people. So there are mistakes in Britannica as well.

That's why encyclopedias are frowned upon as well.

And again, this is not a science paper, it's just a nice thread about a plane, I don't have to be 100% waterproof.

No but when someone asks you for proof on a point, you provide the proof as the burdon falls on you. Failure to provide such proof means that the point will be discarded as false.

So don't be an *ss and start behaving a little normal.

Here we go with the minor flames again.

And here's some proof:

Last week I learned about a fascinating study published by Nature in December 2005 that compared the Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, in order to gauge the relative accuracy of the two sources. For a sample of 42 science topics, the study found that the number of serious errors (i.e., misinterpretation of critical concepts) were identical in both sources. Wikipedia averaged four less-fatal factual errors per article, while the Britannica had three factual errors on average. Go here to read the full report.

http://mbanks.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/wikipedia_vs_th.html

Nice webblog. Now is this in any journals that I can get access to without paying a fee?

When debating, the purdon of proof is on the poster that says it. You brought up the point that MiG-25s were flying over Israel for 10 years. I asked you to prove this and all you did was run around the issue. This will not help your point. When you are asked for proof in an online debate, you provide it.

That's your opinion that I have to proof it. I don't think I have to proof anything.

It's just a forum here. If you don't agree, disagree. If you can underline your point by some links from a trustable source: better.

And as a matter of fact, it was included btw...

In some other thread, someone else asked me if I could prove if policemen prevent crimes. Give me a break.

I suggest you stop with the sorry excuse for flamebaiting. Am I lazy? this is an online forum and I have other things to do as well. I am not going to waste my precious time scouring every single link. The proper tactic would have been to post the relevent information and then post the link under it. This is customary for NSG. It saves people time

I read most of it but you know what? It was flame when you called to stupid and to lazy. That's flaming. Its minor but still flaming none-the-less.
.

It would have taken you less than 1 minute to check if some MiG-25 flew over Israel during 10 years... Almost less time than writing "Can you proof?"

Why should I proof something which is just history anyway...


Most of them do. Wikipedia is not a source because it cannot be trusted. At the university I attended, you use wikipedia as a source in a history paper, either numerous points are taken off or you get an F. Plain and simple.

Either that or it cannot be trusted.

Never denied that.

That's why encyclopedias are frowned upon as well.

No but when someone asks you for proof on a point, you provide the proof as the burdon falls on you. Failure to provide such proof means that the point will be discarded as false.

Here we go with the minor flames again.


In my time, we were not allowed to use one single source...

But this is not an academic hearing, it's just a forum. For heaven sake.

So for this purpose wiki is good enough....

Nice webblog. Now is this in any journals that I can get access to without paying a fee?

I don't know, if you want to know more: google.

That's your opinion that I have to proof it. I don't think I have to proof anything.

Then your points will be ignored.

It's just a forum here. If you don't agree, disagree. If you can underline your point by some links from a trustable source: better.

When you post a point and asked to prove it, source it. Otherwise your point will get ignored. Thats the way things work here.

And as a matter of fact, it was included btw...

In some other thread, someone else asked me if I could prove if policemen prevent crimes. Give me a break.

That's a fallacy.

It would have taken you less than 1 minute to check if some MiG-25 flew over Israel during 10 years... Almost less time than writing "Can you proof?"

Why should I proof something which is just history anyway...

Because you posted it and got called on it. Therefore, it is on you to prove your point. You really are new here aren't you?

In my time, we were not allowed to use one single source...

But this is not an academic hearing, it's just a forum. For heaven sake.

So for this purpose wiki is good enough....

For me it is not when having an indepth discussion on history.

I don't know, if you want to know more: google.

I'm asking you.

You brought up the point that MiG-25s were flying over Israel for 10 years. I asked you to prove this and all you did was run around the issue. This will not help your point. When you are asked for proof in an online debate, you provide it.



Are you disputing that MiG-25s flew over Israel at all or that they flew over Israel for ten years?

Then your points will be ignored.



When you post a point and asked to prove it, source it. Otherwise your point will get ignored. Thats the way things work here.



That's a fallacy.



Because you posted it and got called on it. Therefore, it is on you to prove your point. You really are new here aren't you?



For me it is not when having an indepth discussion on history.



I'm asking you.


I'm not your slave, do your homework by yourself.

Are you disputing that MiG-25s flew over Israel at all or that they flew over Israel for ten years?

He was, yes. :)

20 minutes is enough. Then it's 1000 km away...

Not really, as an opponent in chase would likely hit his afterburners (or supercruise, in the case of the F-22 and Eurofighter), and find himself within three hundred Kilometers, with far more fuel than the Foxbat, to boot.

I do not overrate speed and ceiling. It's nice to see that brute force can win from elegant sophisticated designed planes.

It won once, likely in a scenario where tactical surprise was achieved.


Btw, the allied troops hunted down only two MiG-25's in Iraq.


That's because there weren't very many of them in Iraq to begin with, some twenty-four planes. To exacerbate this, the original order was 25, of which a substantial portion were shot down during the Iran-Iraq War by F-14's, F-5's, including one flown by the top Iraqi Ace at the time: He was shot down by an F-5, of all things. So, if in Gulf War I we only shot down two of their Foxbats, that's because there were only, like, 14 to begin with.

It’s safe to say that the fights were not fair one-on-one games (war is never fair). The allied forces dominated the sky, but still a few MiG-25 were doing the hell of a job.

Four times, they challenged Coalition airpower, four times out of 30,000. That's not even significant. You'd expect at least that much through luck alone.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

Not really, as an opponent in chase would likely hit his afterburners (or supercruise, in the case of the F-22 and Eurofighter), and find himself within three hundred Kilometers, with far more fuel than the Foxbat, to boot.



It won once, likely in a scenario where tactical surprise was achieved.



That's because there weren't very many of them in Iraq to begin with, some twenty-four planes. To exacerbate this, the original order was 25, of which a substantial portion were shot down during the Iran-Iraq War by F-14's, F-5's, including one flown by the top Iraqi Ace at the time: He was shot down by an F-5, of all things. So, if in Gulf War I we only shot down two of their Foxbats, that's because there were only, like, 14 to begin with.



Four times, they challenged Coalition airpower, four times out of 30,000. That's not even significant. You'd expect at least that much through luck alone.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml


They didn't fight for 30,000 times against the allied coalition.

They didn't fight for 30,000 times against the allied coalition.

No, but they were only relevant four.

More than that, I provided evidence of incidents wherein pilots flying US-made planes (the Iranians) managed to ravage the Iraqi MiG-25 force, including the cost of at least one Iraqi ace pilot.

It isn't so easy to take out russian airbases, expecially since they have underground shelters, a large SAM belt around the country, and the bases are defended by MiG-29 variants.

You don't need to take out the aircraft at a base to take out the base; you merely need to make the runway unusable... That is actually one of the reasons for the development of the D variant of the BGM-109... To put hundreds of small holes in the runway... instead of just one.... It then takes longer to make the runway usable to launch aircraft from.

I'm not your slave, do your homework by yourself.

Then your points will be irrelevent unless you provide the proof to back it up when asked for.

Then your points will be irrelevent unless you provide the proof to back it up when asked for.

Life is hard. :)

No, but they were only relevant four.

More than that, I provided evidence of incidents wherein pilots flying US-made planes (the Iranians) managed to ravage the Iraqi MiG-25 force, including the cost of at least one Iraqi ace pilot.

Andaluciea,

You know by accident in how many fights the MiG-25 was involved in the Gulf War?

And on top of what Andaluciae, many of the planes flown by Iraq flew off to Iran.

Planes from the IQAF tried to fight the coalition planes, but their older technology was no match. By the second day, they were fleeing for airfields in neutral Iran. Some thought this was a sign of victory, although others were worried that they had been sent there to wait until the ground war had begun. Within 24 hours, the coalition achieved air superiority and was free to destroy Iraq’s command and control centers and to cut communications between Baghdad and Kuwait. Other planes began to take aim at the Iraqi troops on the ground, destroying tanks, bunkers, and highways.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/gulf_war/AP44.htm

Andaluciea,

You know by accident in how many fights the MiG-25 was involved in the Gulf War?

Not many, because most of the Iraqi Foxbats were blasted before they ever even got off the ground by coalition Counterforce airstrikes.

At the same time, I've done a bit more reading on the Foxbat, and I found that not only is the afterburner a fuel hog, but use for an extended period of time caused a massive overheating problem, essentially crippling the aircraft.

Combined with its near total inability to maneuver, one must continue to question the value of the MiG-25 for any role excluding interception of high-altitude, high-speed bombers or reconnaissance aircraft. Which, in Iraq, is precisely what the Foxbat did.

http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/foxbat.html