Model Airplane International - June 2018

The immense size of the MiG-25 can be judges by the

maintenance personnel standing by this Foxbat E.

Issue 155 - http://www.modelairplaneinternational.com 51

be distinguished by the two large dielectric

panels on the sides of the nose, different

skin panels and the lack of cameras. The

picture was generated by the SLAR and

was ‘developed’ via a ground link to a

specially equipped van. Production of the

RBS continued until 1977.

Mikoyan continued to produce Foxbat

variants through constant upgrading of

existing models and the RBS models were

improved to the MiG-25RBSh standard

in the early 1980s. Although visually no

external change could be seen on the

airframe, the Sablya radar was replaced

with a Shompol SLAR. With three times

the resolution the new radar allowed the

RBSh to work at any altitude between 984

feet to 75,460 feet. The Shompol was also

equipped with a moving map capability.

Mikoyan upgraded all the MiG-25RBS

models to the RBSh standard, although not

all the aircraft carried the new designation.

Wild Weasel

The potential of developing the MiG-25

into a suppression of enemy air defences

(SEAD) platform was proposed by Mikoyan

during the development of the Ye-155, but

it was not until 1988, that the technology

was available allowing the MiG-25BM

‘Wild Weasel’ to enter operational service.

The BM’s role was to clear a path through

Western defences allowing a ‘recce’ MiG-25

to complete its sortie unhindered. Any NATO

SAM sites, which threatened the sortie,

would be attacked with Kh-58 anti-radiation

missiles.

Less than 100 MiG-25BMs were built

between 1982 and 1985 and were restricted

to operating in dedicated SEAD units within

Aviation Regiments based in East Germany

and Poland. The BM variant could be

identifi ed by a 7.8-inch nose plug, which

was added to allow for the additional ECM

suite and missile guidance equipment. Many

of the aircraft had their noses painted dark

grey around the area in order to look like

standard MiG-25P interceptors.

Mikoyan continued to develop existing

models then in front line service and

both the reconnaissance and interceptor

variants were tested with in-fl ight refuelling

probes under the designations MiG-

25RBVDZ and MiG-25PDZ respectively.

An undisclosed number of MiG-25RBs

underwent conversion to serve as weather

reconnaissance platforms with their

cameras removed from the nose cone.

These Foxbats were designated MiG-

25MRs. One MiG-25PD Foxbat E was fi tted

with a trials ECM ventral pack together with

fl are dispensers. Although trials proved

the potential of the modifi cation, the new

ECM equipment, at the time could not be

produced in suffi cient quantities to allow

widespread operational service, so the

project was shelved.

Facing Off Against the West

When the Foxbat entered service with the

VVS in 1969, it was the reconnaissance

MiG-25R that was fi rst, with the interceptor

following four years later. The MiG-25 was

viewed as the jewel in the crown of the

Soviet Union and although Mikoyan was

aware of the aircraft’s limitations, in the

West analysts were not, and assumed the

aircraft was far more capable than it

really was.

The loss of Viktor Belenko’s MiG-25 to

the West following his defection to Japan

was a blow to Russia, but also opened the

doors for Mikoyan to be granted approval

from Moscow to export ‘watered down’

versions of the Foxbat to the Soviet Union’s

closest allies.

In early 1971, four reconnaissance MiG-

25s, (two R and to RB models) deployed to

Egypt under the designation X-500. From

an undisclosed Egyptian air base, they

provided the nation with intelligence data on

the movements of Israeli forces along the

border. The MiGs proved immune to Israeli

interception with F-4 Phantoms unable to

achieve a radar lock on them. Following

the success of this deployment the Foxbats

returned to the Middle East twice more, prior

to and during Yom Kippur.

Overseas operators of the Foxbat proved

to be just as effective as their Russian

counterparts and claimed kills with the Mach

3.0 fi ghter, although these remain in dispute

to this day. The fi rst of the claims was by

Syria against Israeli F-15s. Following a

carefully planned ambush by the IDF/AF,

two F-15s went head-to-head with a pair of

Foxbat As. During the engagement, each

side was to loose an aircraft. The Foxbat

With its twin brake chutes streaming, a MiG-25PU taxis-in after a training mission. The instructor sat in the forward cockpit, displacing the radar, giving the trainee Foxbat pilot exactly the same view he

would have in the single-seat variant.

A close-up view of the MiG-25RBS’s soft-edged, black anti-

glare panel.

A Norwegian Air Force fi ghter intercepted this fully armed

Foxbat near to Norwegian airspace. There were many instances

were pilots from both sides got involved in ‘mock’ dogfi ghts

achieving radar-locks on one another. Full details have and are

unlikely ever to be released.

A Foxbat E shadows a NATO intelligence gathering aircraft in

1988 as the USAF RC-135 approaches the Kola Peninsula. The

Foxbat is carrying live missiles under its wings.

MIG 25 IN DETAIL.indd 5 04/05/2018 16:25