
A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet - alongtheflow
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160905-the-pilot-who-stole-a-secret-soviet-fighter-jet
======
nikcub
One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was
designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war.

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

It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get
close to 90,000' feet[0].

I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a
plane that is designed to both perform so well but to also be so easy to
maintain and with such longevity.

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

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

~~~
greedo
Soviet jets and technology wasn't really meant to survive a nuclear war. That
would have increased complexity and cost. Everything was really designed more
around being disposable.

~~~
gambiting
I've also heard the argument that steel was in some ways better, because when
the enemy is bombing your factories, you can almost always get steel
somewhere. Titanium composites, like those used on the Americans planes, not
so much.

------
ptha
Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors _In
hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to
be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because
instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did,
however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts).
The huge engines required so much fuel that the MiG was surprisingly short-
ranged. It could take-off quickly, and fly in a straight line very fast to
fire missiles or take pictures._

~~~
yaakov34
The factoid about resistance to EMP gets repeated endlessly online and in
print, but it doesn't really make sense, and I doubt it's true. EMP damages
electrical connections which are:

a) long. b) thin. c) far from a ground plane.

In more detail: the induced current depends directly on the length of the
conductor; a thin is more easily overheated and damaged than a thick one; and
conductors running near ground planes make poor antennas for picking up
pulses.

Now, all three of these factors describe vacuum tubes more than solid-state
electronics. Vacuum tubes have to have very thin heated cathode wires, and the
dimensions of vacuum tubes result in a substantial distance to the ground
plane and in long conductors. Compared with solid-state electronics, which,
especially in modern design, can practically live on or between ground planes,
this makes for a lot of sensitivity to EMP and external interference.

One sanity check is to consider electromagnetic noise emitted by the device.
Any device which is emitting substantial RF noise from its internal components
is also going to be vulnerable to external EMP or interference, since antennas
work both ways - anything which is good at emitting will also be good at
receiving. Now, vacuum tube devices emit more RF noise than modern solid state
devices, and generally need more shielding.

The components in the MiG-25 radar had more to do with what was available to
the Soviet designers in the 1950s. The radar of the MiG-25 came from the
Tu-128 interceptor which first flew in 1961, which means that the radar was
designed in the mid-1950s at the latest. Wouldn't surprise me if the US radar
of the same vintage also used vacuum tubes.

~~~
batbomb
The difference is that tubes saturate differently and they won't die due to
high instantaneous voltages.

~~~
yaakov34
Like I said - people say this all the time, but a lot of vacuum tube equipment
did die in EMP testing (in the USSR in 1964), and I don't see why vacuum tubes
should be less vulnerable than solid state electronics to either short or long
pulses (nuclear EMP contains both). A glass vacuum tube will pick up orders of
magnitude more interference than a small transistor sitting inside its
grounded metal can (and it's weight-prohibitive to build a metal shield around
all your vacuum tubes), and the high voltage induced can damage either the
vacuum tube itself, or something else inside the device. Unfortunately, very
little has been published on this (although we do know that militaries test
their modern solid-state devices with EMP, and they generally pass), and any
online search produces a deluge of statements to the effect of "vacuum tubes
are impervious to EMP" without anything to back that up. If there was ever a
direct test of vacuum tubes vs. solid state, that would be very interesting to
find.

~~~
nickff
Transistors of the 1950s and 1960s were particularly vulnerable to high
voltages. Modern transistors and ICs have some resistance to high voltage
discharges such as static electricity, but back in those days, you could
easily destroy entire circuits with your hand. Early transistors were made
with materials and processes we would consider sub-standard today, which is
particularly significant because they were almost exclusively using bipolars
instead of MOSFETs (which are much more durable), and the manufacturers of the
60s could not and did not add protection diodes. ESD control was one reason
why certain American companies got so far ahead of the Soviets (and the less-
adaptable competition such as Phillips, whose workforce refused to adopt ESD
control practices).

~~~
yaakov34
True, and electrostatic discharge from your finger is no joke - it can be tens
of kilovolts and carries significant, if not huge, energy. However, a
discharge like that going right into a very small device, and the actual die
of the transistor is tiny, is very different from interference/EMP damaging
said device, where the small size actually offers protection. After all, a
completed transistorized device from the 1950s is not vulnerable to static
discharge - otherwise, you couldn't pick it up. With everything connected to
ground where it should be, it is quite robust.

~~~
nickff
Modern ICs are much more durable and resistant to ESD than devices from those
days; you can run an electronics manufacturing facility (not a semiconductor
fab) without much ESD protection these days, whereas that would've been a
pipe-dream in the 60s. They are sending consumer and commercial-grade
semiconductors into space on satellites with service lives over 12 months
these days; back in the 1960s, all satellites required rad-hard components
(and had very short service lives). Semiconductors are much better these days,
due to improvements in materials, processes, testing, and inspection
equipment.

------
jkot
> _The Soviets had not built the ‘super-fighter’ the Pentagon had feared, says
> Smithsonian aviation curator Roger Connor, but an inflexible aircraft built
> to do a very particular job._

There is no mention what MiG-25 was designed for. Its task was to intercept
nuclear bombers flying over Soviet Union and it did this task pretty well.

Because it used steel it was cheap and easy to service. At that time soviets
had lot of experience with titanium (space, submarines), but expensive plane
similar to SR-71 would not cover entire Soviet Union.

~~~
rangibaby
I think a good lesson to learn is that primitive doesn't mean archaic. Most
Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain over using the
latest or rare technology. The best example is of course the AK-47, but the
same philosophy is seen throughout all of their designs. Their planes are all
designed to use poorly maintained or damaged airfields, or even just dirt
strips.

~~~
arethuza
"Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain"

I think it was Max Hastings who pointed out in the context of WW2 that there
isn't much point in having tanks that are six times better than your enemies
if they have ten times as many tanks as you do!

~~~
rangibaby
Their battle strategy (slow the enemy down for as long as possible) and
weapons were informed by their experience in WW2. At the beginning of
Barbarossa the USSR had many wacky, complex vehicles and arms that were prone
to breaking down, if they even worked at all.

------
CatsoCatsoCatso
Another very interesting aircraft is the experimental Su-47, with only one
ever being built. Its forward-swept wing design make it a treat for the eye.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47)

~~~
at-fates-hands
I saw in the article they mentioned new prototypes in the near future. You
think they'll have something to unveil in the next few years?

~~~
CatsoCatsoCatso
The accepted and very informed answer to to a similar question on
StackOverflow concludes that it is unlikely.

[http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/what-are-
th...](http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/what-are-the-
advantages-of-a-forward-swept-wing-over-a-rearward-swept-wing)

See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-
swept_wing#Return_of_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-
swept_wing#Return_of_the_fast_jet)

They do look incredibly cool though.

------
earcaraxe
I love that the Japanese sent it back to Russia with a bill for shipping and
the damage to the airfield.

~~~
tracymorgan8520
Just Japanese things.

------
neoCrimeLabs
For a second I thought this was the story behind the 1977 book and 1982 film
Firefox which were about the MiG-31. Might have been inspired though.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_\(novel\))

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_\(film\))

------
thesnowdog
"You must think in Russian"

~~~
jlebrech
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/)

~~~
ravenstine
haha, yes, I was thinking the same thing.

------
to3m
Interesting interview with Viktor Belenko, not terribly deep but worthy of
your time:
[http://www.videofact.com/english/defectors2_4en.html](http://www.videofact.com/english/defectors2_4en.html)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Ah, thank you, I was really more interested in what happened to Belenko than
the jet itself.

