The Airplane thread

   #222  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,938
Reaction score
21,379
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #223  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Me thinks that Scarebus should open a repair facility at Goose Bay, since there will soon be more of their planes broken down on the Goose Bay tarmac than there are at the Scarebus factory. This latest one was an A333.....

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL70/history/20171026/1916Z/KATL/EHAM

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/delta-flight-atlanta-makes-emergency-landing-newfoundland-engine-083106722--abc-news-topstories.html

Delta flight from Atlanta makes emergency landing in Newfoundland after engine trouble

Good Morning America
MARK OSBORNE
October 27, 2017

A Delta flight from Atlanta to the Netherlands was forced to make an emergency landing in Newfoundland late Thursday after suffering what the airline termed an "engine performance issue."

Delta Flight 70 took off at 3:31 p.m. and was expected to make a landing in Amsterdam just before 6 a.m. on Friday. Instead, the flight made it only briefly off the northeast coast of Canada before being forced to turn around and land in Goose Bay, Newfoundland.

The flight landed without difficulty and no one was injured.

Frightening moments over the Atlantic for Air France passengers

"Delta flight 70 from Atlanta to Amsterdam experienced an engine performance issue en route. The flight crew followed procedures to divert to Goose Bay, Newfoundland, Canada," Delta said in a statement. "The flight landed safely and customers have deplaned. Customers will continue to Amsterdam on another aircraft tomorrow. Delta is in contact with the customers, and we apologize to our customers for the delay. Safety is Delta’s top priority."

Air traffic control audio recordings from the cockpit indicated the plane was experiencing engine failure and issued a declaration of emergency just prior to landing.

Audio from air traffic controllers after the plane landed said that upon inspection of engine 2, the four pressure relief valve doors on the engine were blown open.

One person at the Goose Bay airport tweeted "View from the office" after taking a photo of the plane upon its landing.

This is the second plane in a month to suffer engine problems on a transatlantic flight and be diverted to Goose Bay -- a small airport that is located the furthest east in North America. An Air France flight from Paris to Los Angeles on Sept. 30 was forced to declare an emergency and make a landing in Newfoundland as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #226  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/first-ever-a380-superjumbo-goes-163823502.html

The first ever A380 superjumbo has gone into storage – so will it end up on the scrap heap?

Annabel Fenwick Elliott
The Telegraph
November 15, 2017

For the first time ever, an Airbus A380 superjumbo has been retired from service and stored. The aircraft was grounded by Singapore Airlines in June after only 10 years of use, and will now be stored, minus its engines, in France.

Singapore Airlines, its first customer, returned the plane to its German leasing company Dr Peters Group, where it was painted white and flown to Tarbes Lourdes Pyrénées airport, close to the Airbus factory in Toulouse where it was originally built, to a storage facility that will hold it until a new owner is secured.

But whether that new owner will materialise at all is up for debate, given the A380's struggling sales since it was launched amid much fanfare in August 2007. It remains the world's largest passenger jet, with a total capacity of 853.

Dr Peters told Bloomberg that it was “optimistic” about securing a new operator for the aircraft, despite expecting the return of three more Singapore Airlines A380s, the second already grounded at Changi Airport. If the company can't find new homes for these planes, they will be broken up for parts - worth at least £75 million ($100 million) per plane. The A380's original list price was in the region of £190 million ($250 million) a piece.

Which airline owns the most A380s?

Emirates, by a long way. With a fleet of 100, it's one of the few carriers able to get the maximum value out of the four-engine A380, and has made it the core of its long-haul fleet. Other airlines have ordered them in far smaller quantities: British Airways, for example, has 12 of them in its fleet of 270 aircraft.

The future of the A380 has been hanging precariously in the balance for quite some time now, with Airbus eagerly awaiting a lifeline order of up to 38 updated models from Emirates.

The deal was expected to be announced at the Dubai Airshow on Sunday, but in a shock twist, Emirates announced that it was actually buying 40 of rival Boeing's 787-10 Dreamliners as part of a new $15.1 billion (£11.5bn) deal.

Emirates chief executive Tim Clark told CNBC that he wouldn't rule out buying more A380s in future, however, and said he would tell the manufacturer to “keep the (production) line going.”

The UAE airline now relies solely on the Airbus A380 (it has 100) and the Boeing 777 (of which it has 165) for its flights, making it the largest operator of both.

According to Reuters, industry sources have said that in order to solidify new A380 orders from Emirates, Airbus will have to buy back or re-home some of the older models currently operated by the Gulf carrier, and guarantee it would not cancel production of the superjumbo going forward.

That, or convince other airlines to place orders.

Which Airbus models are proving more popular?

It wasn't all doom and gloom for Airbus at the Dubai Airshow, with its smaller, sleeker models proving to be a mammoth hit.

The European company signed a record-breaking $49.5 billion (£37.6bn) deal on Wednesday to sell 430 aircraft to Indigo, a Phoenix-based private equity firm that owns Frontier Airlines.

In total, the order made up 273 A320neos and 157 A321neos - both smaller twin-engine, single-aisle planes which are popular thanks to their reduced fuel consumption. They will service Frontier-linked airlines including Chile's JetSMART and Hungary's Wizz Air.

Unlike its bigger sibling, the popularity of Airbus’ sleek A320s is so great that the company claims one takes off or lands somewhere in the world every two seconds.

Launched in 1984 and brought into service with Air France, its latest version, the A320neo, has won the accolade of being the fastest-selling commercial aircraft in history.

Why has the A380 fallen out of favour?

Industry commentators have long speculated that the A380 programme is on the way out, many saying that the gargantuan costs of operating such large aircraft were underestimated from the start.

In July of this year, after a series of ups and downs, Airbus announced it was drastically reducing the number of A380s it would be producing in future.

Reporting half-year figures, it said that “considering the current order booking situation”, deliveries of the A380 will be reduced to just eight in 2019. At last year’s Farnborough Airshow the company said it would slow production to just 12 a year by 2018, down from a rate of 27 the year before.

Aviation analyst Saj Ahmad from Strategic Aero Research said in July: “Cutting the A380 underlines the marketing disaster that belies the programme and that Airbus is realising that even life support has to be turned off - and it’s evident that day looms closer.”

Calling the superjumbo a vanity project that “needs to be killed off”, he said it was almost definitely “facing the barrel of execution”.

Independent Air Transport consultant John Strickland told the Telegraph: “The A380 is a well regarded aircraft by airlines which operate it and by customers flying on it. Generally however, twin-engine aircraft such as the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 777 reduce the financial risks involved with filling capacity and operating costs.”

So with Singapore Airlines' return of the first A380, and its future with Emirates more tentative than ever, does this spell the end of the superjumbo? We shall see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #227  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/plane-leasing-company-forced-start-115925834.html

From the comments:

The A380 is a dead man walking, it will soon be out of production and out of the air. It's interesting the article quotes Mr Lapidus citing Norwegian Air as an example of what they need to keep it's own business alive. However I'm sure he missed the irony of the fact Norwegian flies the Boeing Dreamliner. Airbus rolled the dice on the A380 and it came up snake eyes. Those who mistakenly followed along without trying to figure out the future market will suffer the same fate. When Emirates and Singapore, two of the airlines with the routes best suited for the A380 are buying Dreamlines instead it says everything you need to know.
The problem with the A380 is that to make money you need to find 500 people that want to go to the same place together every day.

Boeing hit the sweet spot in the market with the 270 seat B777.
800+ people -wow, the smell
I watched this entire debacle unfold. As an engineer in manufacturing, I always wondered how they were going to make money. My fear was they were going to cram the 800+ passengers and then have an accident, liability anyone? Then, there was talk of building an X version and actually putting a 1000+ passengers on a plane. I thought at the time that kind of cattle class carrying abomination needed to be banned. The good news is capatalism works and it banned itself. So much for the socialist reading of the future. The 787 had it problems, but Boeings answere was the right one
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #228  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16079/airliners-and-f-15s-involved-in-bizzare-encounter-with-mystery-aircraft-over-oregon

Airliners And F-15s Involved In Bizarre Encounter With Mystery Aircraft Over Oregon
The FAA, the USAF, and air traffic control recordings all confirm the bizarre event did indeed occur last October.

BY TYLER ROGOWAY
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
THE WAR ZONE

Something quite out of the ordinary occurred in the skies over Oregon on October 25th, 2017. A mystery aircraft was flying in daylight hours among the steady stream of airliners that traverse from south to north, between locales in California and Nevada and cities like Portland and Seattle and beyond. The incident began, at least as best we can tell, around 4:30pm near the California-Oregon border and resulted in multiple pilot eyewitnesses, recorded air traffic control audio, and eventual confirmations from both the FAA and North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) that it did indeed occur.

The first inklings of the story came to me shortly after the incident occurred from friends of mine in the aviation world. Sparse on details at the time, it sounded like it was probably just another one of the often misconstrued incidents that happen in the skies around the US everyday—ones where aircraft with inoperable radios or transponders stray into areas they shouldn't. And sometimes these occurrences result in local fighter jets paying the wayward aircraft a visit at the direction of NORAD. But days after initially blowing off the incident, it later began to seem that there was indeed more to the story than just than another "NORDO" private aircraft or lackadaisical pilot.

I came upon one Reddit thread that was of particular interest that seemed to not only corroborate the strange account, it also added critical details. The post was supposedly penned by a pilot who says they were in the sky over the Northwest in the early evening when the incident occurred, with the post coming shortly after the incident. The entry by Reddit user "Duprass" reads:

"Just landed in Seattle coming from the bay area. Beginning over Southern Oregon we kept overhearing Seattle Center attempting to track an airplane with no transponder who wasn't talking. A handful of crews were able to track it visually, best they could tell it was between FL350-370 [35,000-37,000 feet], northbound. Nobody close enough to see the type.

Last we heard it was over the Willamette valley northbound and some fighters, perhaps out of PDX [Portland International Airport], were scrambled to go take a peek. Center had trouble tracking it on primary radar.

Strange! My theory is they were running drugs to Canada. No news yet, not that I could find.
**Update 0500z. Called SEA ARTCC. The gentleman I spoke with said that they initially got alerted to the aircraft from Oakland Center who was painting it on primary [illuminating it with radar, but without transponder information]. For whatever reason they couldn't track it themselves on primary, and that's when I overheard them using airline aircraft to track it visually. The last airplane to see it had to descend into Portland and lost sight of it. The fighters were scrambled out of PDX but flew around for a while and did not find it. And that's that."

Air traffic control audio recorded over at LiveATC.com of Seattle Center Sector 14 is available from the time of the incident and it corroborates much of this information. You can listen to the entire series of exchanges here starting at around the 20 minute mark and through to the first part of the next time interval recording that can be found here.

The audio is fantastic as it illustrates that there were many communications between various jet crews and Seattle Center whose controllers tried to track the aircraft as it made its way north towards the Willamette Valley. The aircraft was not able to be tracked on radar nor did it show up on crews' digital traffic collision avoidance systems (TCAS), but it was clearly there, although never quite close enough to positively identify what its exact type was.

The back and forth between air traffic control and various airline pilots lasted for roughly half an hour. Recordings from other Seattle Center Sectors, such as those closer to Portland (namely 42 and 46) are not readily not available and it's very possible—if not probable based on other reports—that the incident continued up the Willamette Valley. We did review PDX approach and tower exchanges from a half hour before to two hours after the event occurred and didn't find anything that stood out, although it was unlikely we would have as aircraft have descended when using those frequencies.

After reading this account and listening to the audio it was clear that the incident was worth looking into on a much deeper level, and that's what we did, inquiring with the 142nd Fighter Wing based at Portland International Airport, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and the FAA about the odd ordeal.

NORAD's reply was quick and clear. An incident involving multiple airline crews, air traffic control, and F-15Cs from the 142nd Fighter Wing based out of Portland did occur. According to the limited information NORAD supplied, airliner pilots were asked by FAA air traffic controllers to help track and possibly identify a "white aircraft" traveling in the flightlevels nearby—roughly between 35,000 and 40,000 feet based on the radio recordings. NORAD also said that the incident did result in F-15s from Portland being scrambled to investigate, but by the time they got up and "looked around" the mystery aircraft couldn't be found.

A quick note on the fighter jet aspect of this story—the 142nd Fighter Wing operates F-15Cs upgraded with the most capable air-to-air radar set in the world (AN/APG-63V3) and Sniper advanced targeting pods for long-rang visual identification. Their pilots are some of the best in the world and are highly trained in the homeland air defense mission. The fact that they "didn't find anything" is surprising to say the least. Maybe this was due to the nature of the aircraft being searched for, or the possibility that they launched long after it was first sighted, or that we simply aren't being told the whole story.

As for the F-15's launch time, it seems that this mystery aircraft was moving fairly fast—at least at the same speed of the airliners around it or greater. It's also worth noting that Oakland Center, which controls airspace to the south of Seattle Center's responsibilities, could have been trying to track the aircraft before the communications began on Seattle Center's frequencies if the object emanated from farther south. We have reviewed the PDX air traffic control audio up to two hours after the first radio traffic began regarding the mystery aircraft between Seattle Center and airliner pilots and we did not readily hear the tower clear the F-15s for launch. As such it's not clear when exactly the fighters took to the skies in search of this unidentified aircraft or why they were launched so late if that was the case.

It is also possible, albeit somewhat unlikely, that a fighter patrol could have been diverted if they were already airborne. Also, once in the air the F-15s are capable of traversing the entire state of Oregon in just a matter of minutes if need be, so if they were launched promptly it seems unlikely they wouldn't have been able to intercept the aircraft being pointed out by commercial pilots over Southern Oregon.

The FAA wasn't as forthcoming as NORAD, taking nearly a week and multiple emails to respond to our initial inquiry, only to say simply that they have nothing further to add to the description of events I provided to them. As such, they did acknowledge that the events occurred, but did not expand upon them. The 142nd Fighter Wing did not respond to our inquiries.

Clearly there had to be some level of after-action investigation into this event. Having an unidentified aircraft that doesn't show up on radar flying among civilian air traffic in the flight levels for extended periods of time isn't something you just brush off, especially considering the current global security situation and the circumstances that have existed since 9/11.

One of the Reddit posters with the handle "The Flying Beard" from the same thread, who supposedly is an air traffic controller, claims to have some inside knowledge of the event, stating:

"...Was just going to post about this actually. I was working an adjacent sector and was helping to coordinate some of the military stuff. They ended up launching F15s off of PDX to try and find it but no joy... [posts one of the audio clips linked above]... The crazy thing is, we didn't have a primary target or a mode C intruder, and it was out running 737s abeam it.

Also, (cue conspiracy theory) our QA department was working on this today, and got a call from the commander of the 142FW at PDX and was basically told to knock it off, and we know nothing.

A couple guys at work seem to think it may have have been this plane [unlikely, and that's an article I wrote] based of the description, and also the 'lack' of military interest. FWIW, I think the FAA is pursing this at higher levels. From a safety standpoint, if the military is running super secret test stuff in the NAS [National Airspace], that's bad. If I were one of the pilots that had a sighting, I'd definitely be filing a NASA form and any other official reports that you can...

...If the ‘aircraft’ continued on its presumed heading/course altitude, the F15s were sent the wrong way. The last known position was around the EUG area heading North around 750kts and the fighters went South when they launched ~25-30 min after the first report in the Shasta area...

...The time of day made it hard. All the guys on the east side couldn’t see it due to the setting sun and the North bound traffic on the west side was pretty sparse. I guess ZOA [Oakland Center] had a good primary/mode C on the guy for a bit in the RBL [Red Bluff Municipal Airport] area. It was initially heading SW and it made a pretty sharp turn to the North. Way harder/faster than what a commercial aircraft could handle at that speed/altitude without ripping the wings off."
We have no way of confirming this poster's information, although based on past Reddit posts their occupation description seems accurate, and their account certainly does add to the story if true.

We have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the FAA and NORAD, as well as other federal parties involved in the incident. Hopefully we will find out more eventually as to what really went on that day so we can provide a more complete picture for our readers.

In the meantime, I would suggest reading the Reddit thread related to the event after listening to the air traffic control audio yourself. In it, some say it could have been a smuggling aircraft or even a secret military airframe. It seems odd that a smuggler would fly in broad daylight in an area they know they will be spotted, not to mention the question of how they stayed off the FAA radar scopes.

When it comes to a secret military aircraft, flying such an asset among jetliner traffic in daylight, albeit it was around sunset time, certainly seems like an odd choice for a secretive program, but that doesn't make it impossible. There are vast and remote training ranges that could be taken advantage of in Alaska for clandestine aircraft programs, and it is a long flight to get there. Still, the idea that U.S. military would willingly fly an aircraft through a major air traffic route at common jet operating altitudes without radio, transponder, or even radar contact would be highly concerning if true.

Amongst all the questions that remain, one thing is certain, an unidentified white aircraft was indeed flying over Oregon on that day in October, and the USAF and the FAA are both willing to admit that the event occurred. In the Air Force's case, the fact that they are even willing to tell us that they couldn't catch or even find the unidentified aircraft with their sensor-packed and fast F-15s is interesting to say the least. On the other hand they may not be sharing the entire story with us.

Whatever the case, we'll keep you updated on this white flying mystery machine of sorts and the circumstances surrounding its presence over Oregon when, or should I say if, new information becomes available.
 
   #231  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/12/11/did-an-emirates-a380-almost-crash-at-jfk/

Did An Emirates A380 Almost Crash At JFK?

DEC 11, 2017 @ 07:59 PM
Michael Goldstein , CONTRIBUTOR
I cover the travel biz: airlines, hotels, rental cars and destinations
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Last week, in what so far has been a little-reported incident, an Airbus A380 operated by Emirates Airlines apparently descended below minimum altitude to about 200 feet on approach to New York’s JFK Airport.

According to the Aviation Herald, the drama took place on December 4, 2017. The A380-800, flight EK-207 from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to New York was on final approach to JFK runway 13L.

The plane was reportedly on the so-called “Canarsie approach” named for a nearby neighborhood in Brooklyn. The A380 was executing a 90 degrees turn onto a very short final approach when it “descended below minimums.” This prompted air traffic controllers to warn the pilots that "you appear to be extremely low on approach” while the aircraft was about halfway into the turn, two and a half miles short of the runway.

Hearing the warning, the A380 crew called "missed approach" and climbed out. The pilots were guided to another approach, this time to runway 22L. They landed safely about 10 minutes after the go-around. Radar data from the FAA suggests the plane was at 200 feet above ground level (AGL) at its lowest point.

This is actually the second descent below a safe level for an Emirates A380 in three months. The Emirates A380 was reportedly much too low on approach to Moscow Domodedovo Airport. Flight EK131, carrying 446 passengers and crew, flew below recommended minimum, going as low as 400 feet AGL 8 nautical miles from the runway. The recommended height would have been over 2000 feet.

The Moscow incident is under investigation by the UAE’s General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) which is treating the Sept. 10, 2017, episode as a “serious incident." The plane finally landed safely after a second unsuccessful attempt, during which the pilot reportedly told the tower “everything is great.”

The UAE’s GCAA was already looking into the August 2016 incident where an Emirates Boeing 777 crash-landed at Dubai Airport. The crash, which killed a responding firefighter, was reportedly “due to a go-around gone wrong.”
Reuters also noted that Russian authorities are investigating a 2016 crash involving UAE airline flydubai in the city of Rostov-on-Don, which killed all 62 on board. A preliminary report suggested pilot error may have been the cause. Chinese authorities also reportedly fined Emirates and banned the airline from adding new destinations in China for six months, after two incidents described as “unsafe operations”.

Meanwhile, on December 9 of this week, an Airbus A321 operated by Qatar Airways caught fire while undergoing routine maintenance in Doha. The plane reportedly suffered extensive damage. Qatar also operates eight A380 aircraft, out of a total order for ten.

Back in New York, suburbs bordering JFK specifically mention the A380 in their discussion of airport issues.

Peter Granickas, a Howard Beach resident and member of a local Community Board, said the big Airbus A380 jets fly lower over residential areas for longer periods, straining to gain altitude. “When a 380 takes off and start to climb, it looks like the train on the hill saying ‘I think I can, I think I can. It’s no wonder they’re talking about cutting down trees in [Idlewild] Park.”
 
   #232  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-mig-25s-flew-so-fast-they-destroyed-their-own-23822

Russia's MiG-25s Flew So Fast They Destroyed Their Own Engines

Robert Farley
December 27, 2017

In contrast with its older cousin, the MiG-21, a very limited number of Foxbats remain in service. Most of these fly in the Algerian Air Force and the Syrian Arab Air Force, although some reports have emerged of a MiG-25 returning to service in Libya. Most Foxbats retired shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, with a few serving for a time in successor state air forces. Iraqi MiG-25s were largely destroyed in the Gulf War, with the survivors eliminated in Operation Desert Storm.

In the late 1960s, the USSR debuted what appeared to be the world’s deadliest fighter. The MiG-25 (NATO term “Foxbat”) could outrun any fighter in the air, and indeed any military aircraft other than the SR-71 Blackbird.

Bearing a wicked name, a forbidding profile, and some great stats, the Foxbat looked like a world-beater. Combining exceedingly high speed with high altitude tolerance and a heavy weapons load, it looked as if the plane could contribute effectively on the Central Front while also helping to immunize Soviet airspace from U.S. penetration. Combined with the lessons of third-generation fighters in Vietnam, the existence of the Foxbat helped spur U.S. innovation, pushing the development of the F-15 Eagle.

But the Foxbat never lived up to its billing. Deficiencies in design, manufacturing problems, and the disappearance of key aspects of its mission meant that it could not seriously compete on quality with the best fighters of the age, or on costs with models such as the MiG-21. Despite its stunning performance, the Foxbat has now nearly disappeared from the inventories of the world’s air forces.

Foxbat Inception

The Foxbat sought to answer the Soviet Union’s need to protect its airspace from fast, high-flying U.S. bombers. The most prominent example was the B-58 Hustler, a Mach-2-capable nuclear bomber that entered service in 1960, but on the horizon loomed the B-70 Valkyrie, a futuristic bomber capable of penetrating Soviet airspace at speeds in excess of Mach 3. Armed with long-range missiles, a large radar and powerful engines, the Soviets designed the Foxbat to catch and kill these fast bombers.

The Foxbat entered service in 1970 (the same year the Hustler left service, and eight years after the cancellation of the B-70), with the last aircraft rolling off the production line in 1984. In all, the Soviet Union produced 1,186 Foxbats for foreign and domestic needs, with the overwhelming majority serving in the USSR. The USSR never licensed the Foxbat for foreign production, and the Chinese never cared enough about the aircraft to make a concerted effort to copy it.

Of course, the threat posed by Soviet SAM systems would eventually drive U.S. bombers from high altitude to low altitude, reinvigorating the B-52 Stratofortress and transforming the air defense game. Lacking a look down/shoot down radar (the Soviets wouldn’t develop this capability until the 1980s), the MiG-25 would have struggled to carry out its interception role against such tactics. In reality, most of the Foxbat’s Soviet service would come in pursuit of high-flying recon planes, such as the SR-71.

Capabilities

The MiG-25s capabilities were, and are, eye-popping. It can make Mach 2.83 in sustained flight, and can go over Mach 3 in bursts if no one cares about the destruction of the engines. In interceptor and air-superiority mode, it carries four R-40 air-to-air missiles, with an outer range limit of fifty miles. It can reach an altitude of over sixty-five thousand feet. Foxbats designed for reconnaissance missions carried sophisticated electronic and photographic equipment, and could reach even higher ceilings. A few Foxbats were optimized for high-speed strike roles.

These capabilities terrified Western analysts, who lacked good information on how the Foxbat flew in combat situations. The appearance of the MiG-25 (and its ability to set a variety of speed and altitude records) helped drive decisions in the U.S. tactical fighter program, eventually leading to the F-15 Eagle. After a defector landed a new MiG-25 in Japan in 1976, U.S. engineers developed a better sense of the plane’s characteristics.

What they found was that the Foxbat had troubles. Limitations in Soviet manufacturing techniques made the plane heavier than its Western counterparts. It maneuvered poorly at high speeds, and handled poorly at low altitudes. Its radar was of limited effectiveness in conventional combat situations against enemy fighters, and the handling problems at low altitudes meant that the plane never performed particularly well in that mission. These deficiencies would have been forgivable if the Foxbat had ever conducted its high-altitude interceptor role, but in fact it saw most of its service in far different circumstances.

Combat

In combat the Foxbat had limited success. In 1971, a Soviet Foxbat operating out of Egypt turned on its afterburners and managed to escape several Israeli fighters by flying in excess of Mach 3, although the experience permanently burned out the plane’s engines. In the war over Lebanon, Israeli fighters downed several Syrian Foxbats in a series of engagements. During the Syrian Civil War, the desperate Syrian Arab Air Force has pushed aging Foxbats into ground support roles, in one case using air-to-air missiles to attack ground targets.

Iraq used MiG-25s extensively during the Iran-Iraq War, claiming an uncertain number of Iranian aircraft at equally uncertain cost; the Foxbats reportedly suffered heavily at the hands of Iranian F-14s, while feasting on older aircraft. Iraqi Foxbats claimed both of the last two American aircraft lost in air-to-air combat. In the early days of the Gulf War, a MiG-25 shot down Scott Speicher’s F/A-18 (several other Foxbats were lost to U.S. fighters). In 2002, the USAF set a trap for an Iraqi MiG-25 pilot who had been using the interceptor’s great speed to snipe at U.S. UAVs in the northern no fly zone. Engineers jury rigged an air-to-air missile to a Predator UAV in order to lure the MiG in for a kill. The plan went awry, however, and the MiG destroyed the Predator with an AAM.

Demise

In contrast with its older cousin, the MiG-21, a very limited number of Foxbats remain in service. Most of these fly in the Algerian Air Force and the Syrian Arab Air Force, although some reports have emerged of a MiG-25 returning to service in Libya. Most Foxbats retired shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, with a few serving for a time in successor state air forces. Iraqi MiG-25s were largely destroyed in the Gulf War, with the survivors eliminated in Operation Desert Storm.

In the USSR, the MiG-25 would eventually become the MiG-31 Foxhound, a variant/rebuild that resolved many of the problems with the original, while retaining its key characteristics. The Foxhound does have a look down/shoot down radar, which gives it a fighting chance of tracking and destroying low-flying bombers and cruise missiles.

Designed to shoot down a bomber that never existed, the bugbear of the MiG-25 helped spur development of one of the finest fighters to ever fly. It would provide a template for the MiG-31, which remains in service today with the Russian Air Force, and which will continue to fly for the foreseeable future. But the few remaining MiG-25s operate in situations unimaginable to their designers, and generally with quite limited effectiveness. Built with a specific mission in mind, the Foxbat never proved flexible enough to adapt to different strategic contexts.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a senior lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money, Information Dissemination and the Diplomat.
 
   #234  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #235  

NZDubNurd

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
1,683
Location
New Zealand
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=230482
   #236  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
For those keeping score of unscheduled A380 landings at home:

Goose Bay, Newfoundland (CYYR): 2
Newburgh-Stewart, New Yorkistan (KSWF): 1

About time that Newburgh made the national news for something other than murders.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/a-singapore-airlines-a380-landed-at-stewart-airport-due-to-blizzard.html

World's biggest passenger jet forced to land at small New York airport thanks to blizzard

* Singapore Airlines Flight 26 from Frankfurt, Germany, was bound for JFK.

* The winter storm has diverted dozens of flights.

* The passengers are disembarking at Stewart, and the airline said it is working to provide ground transportation for them.

Leslie Josephs | @lesliejosephs
Published 20 Hours Ago Updated 4 Hours Ago
CNBC.com

A massive winter storm forced an Airbus A380, the world's largest passenger jet, to divert to a small New York airport around 1 p.m. ET on Thursday after heavy winds and whiteout conditions closed runways at its intended destination: John F. Kennedy International Airport.

The 325 passengers aboard Singapore Airlines Flight 26 from Frankfurt, Germany, found themselves on a snowy runway for more than three hours at humble Stewart International, about 80 miles north of JFK.

Passengers were leaving the plane after 5 p.m. ET using outdoor stairs, according to Manoel Gerlach, a passenger aboard the plane who was traveling with his wife and toddler son.

The sight of the giant plane, whose 262-foot wingspan is more than double that of a Boeing 737, was unusual for the airport, which is dwarfed by JFK in terms of passenger traffic. In 2016, about 137,000 passengers boarded at Stewart. At JFK, some 29 million passengers boarded, according to the Department of Transportation.

The airport's 11,800 foot runway can easily accommodate the large plane, and the airport even bills itself as an "efficient diversion airport" because the runway is so long. But the airport's gates aren't high enough to reach the plane's doors. Stairs were brought to the aircraft and passengers exited the plane into the outdoors, Gerlach said.

Singapore Airlines was working to arrange ground transportation to New York for the passengers, a spokesman said.

The flight was one of dozens that were diverted as powerful winds and heavy snow closed runways at some of the busiest airports along the East Coast, including several international long-haul flights.

Plane-tracking site FlightAware said there were at least 96 diversions due to the storm. More than 3,600 flights were canceled, and airlines have canceled hundreds more on Friday.

Then the plane, which is used on some of the longest international routes, will fly a very short route: from Stewart to JFK, according The spokesman for Singapore Airlines said it wasn't clear how long that would take, but business-jet operators estimate the flight time on a small jet at about 30 minutes. The plane is expected to then fly back to Frankfurt.

Stewart's history stretches back to the 1930s when the U.S. Military Academy at West Point built an airfield there to train cadets. It became Stewart Air Force Base in 1948 and what is now the Stewart Air National Guard Base is next to the commercial airport.

In January 1981, 52 Americans who had been held hostage in Iran returned back to the U.S., landing at Stewart aboard an Air Force VC-137, a variation of a Boeing 707 jet.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has operated the airport for just over a decade, and is trying to attract more airlines to Stewart.
 
Last edited:
   #237  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,938
Reaction score
21,379
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Wait... Singapore Airlines from FRA to JFK? What's up with that?
 
   #238  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Wait... Singapore Airlines from FRA to JFK? What's up with that?
Open-jaw from Singapore? Common route for foreign airlines to pass through FRA on their way to the USA, and apparently exempt from our restrictive rules favoring domestic carriers. Don't most Emirates flights pass through LHR? For that matter, Norwegian Air is flying from UK/Manchester to NY/Stewart regularly now...with 737's! I know that Icelandic Air offers service to mainland Europe from JFK, although they pass through Iceland so it really isn't a good example since they are Iceland's domestic carrier.

You would be surprised how many flights my ADS-B receiver is logging passing by here from FRA to ATL and DC/Dulles.....
 
Top