|
|
|
HASEGAWA 1:72 MIG-25 FOXBAT A |
Reviewer:
Kevin Ronayne (kevin.ronayne@nuigalway.ie)
Kit Review submitted:
4 February 2003
The MiG-25 came into being as part of the Soviet response to the development by the USA of Mach-3 class bomber aircraft in the late 1950's and 1960's. The XB-70 Valkyrie is usually credited as being the aircraft which triggered the development of the MiG-25. However, a more recent view is that the early 'Blackbird' family designs were the real concern for the Soviet Union. Whatever the reason, the MiG bureau proceeded with the design of an aircraft that had to meet very demanding mission requirements, made more demanding by the fact that the USSR lagged somewhat behind the USA in certain key areas of aircraft design and avionics. The MiG-25 was designed to fulfil a mission that was not only very exacting but also very specific, and it was to form just one part of a well-designed system based around the concept of GCI - Ground Controlled Intercept.
The MiG-25 was a huge aircraft, which was a reflection on many things - huge engines (for power) and the ability to carry enormous missiles being the main factors. Long range was not required in the Soviet defence network, and sustained high Mach performance with about 4 tonnes of missiles and pylons was not really an option anyway. The large size reflected the need to use a very large radar (based on comparatively old technology), which would be a critical element of the final attack on any target. In service, strict instructions were issued about operating this radar on the ground. Apparently, if crew ignored such rules, then the output was enough to kill rabbits grazing at the edge of a runway, even at a considerable distance. The only armament of the MiG-25 was to be 4 R-40 (NATO: AA-6 'Acrid') missiles, with one pair having infra-red (IR) guidance, and the second pair having semi-automatic radar homing (SARH) guidance. Soviet practice at the time was for an interceptor to fire two missiles, one of each type, at a given time. The aircraft was constructed mainly from high-strength steel alloys, with titanium being used in critical areas.
The cancellation of the XB-70 Valkyrie programme did not stop the development of the MiG-25 - the USSR still had to contend with not only the 'Blackbird' designs, but also slower aircraft such as the B-58. The prototype aircraft Ye-26 was not revealed to the public until 1967, which was two years after a version designated the Ye-266 set a closed circuit speed record. Western intelligence was naturally very apprehensive about this aircraft. After a lengthy development and testing phase, the MiG-25 finally entered service in about 1970 or 1971, although the specially designed AA-6 missiles were not apparently available for several years. Errors and confusion in the Western world helped to shape the 'Foxbat Myth'. The perceived abilities of the aircraft played a part in the design of the F-15 Eagle, which was to be the best fighter aircraft in the world, although one which naturally few nations outside the USA could afford.
A reconnaissance version of the MiG-25 was an obvious derivative, especially as the drag-inducing missiles could be dispensed with. In early 1971, a small detachment of Soviet MiG-25R's (Reconnaissance) were deployed to Cairo, as part of a mission that would continue until 1974. Without reaching top speed, these aircraft were able to penetrate Israeli airspace and defy the Israeli defence system. However, attempts to push the limits of performance led to the inevitable. In 1973, one 'Foxbat' was clocked at Mach 3.2 over the Sinai desert. The aircraft limped back to base, having suffered massive engine damage. Despite the hype, the MiG-25 was never really a Mach 3 aircraft - Mach 2.8 was the 'safe' operating limit.
In September 1976, the 'Foxbat Myth' was destroyed when Lt. Viktor Belenko of the Soviet Air force defected to the West, landing his 'Foxbat A' at Hakodate airport on Hokkaido, the northernmost of the four Japanese home islands. In coming in to land, Belenko narrowly avoided a catastrophe when he dodged a civilian Boeing 727 taking off - the closing speed was probably around 600 kilometres per hour! This was a tremendous intelligence windfall for the West, although the aircraft was returned to the USSR after a couple of months - in pieces. Evaluation of the aircraft, plus Belenko's debriefing, provided a true assessment of the type. Although the more capable 'Foxbat E' was entering service around that time, the MiG-25 would never again have the reputation that it once did. After Belenko's defection, the 'Foxbat A' was offered to export customers such as Syria and Libya.
Few MiG-25's now remain in front-line service - in the old USSR, the type was supplanted by designs such as the MiG-31 'Foxhound' (itself a MiG-25 derivative), and the Su-27. Both Israel (against Syria) and the USA (against Iraq) have downed 'Foxbats' in aerial combat. A few of the fighter versions still remain in service with some states, although their combat effectiveness is questionable given a probable lack of proper training and infrastructure.
When I first took an interest in modelling in the second half of the 1970's, the Foxbat was - for me - one of the most prized kit subjects. Evidently, kit manufacturers have never viewed the MiG-25 in the same light. As far as I know, this is the only injection-molded kit in 1/72 scale. Indeed, were it not for the Hakodate episode, Hasegawa may never have tackled the subject. So desperate was I to build any kit of the Foxbat, I once built a Revell 1/144 scale kit during the 1980's, and that had a surprising part to play in the construction of this one. I bought the Hasegawa kit in 1991, at a time when Hasegawa kits were still available in retail outlets in Ireland. As I write this, the kit is currently a 'live' item in the Hasegawa catalogue. (STG £ 7.50 from Hannants). The instruction leaflet includes a reference to 1985, but this probably refers to the year in which the included instruction leaflet was designed or printed. The general level of quality and detail suggests to me that the mold dates from the late 1970's, which would seem to make sense.
Minicraft/Hasegawa release with history on box side
The kit consists of approximately 60 parts molded in light grey plastic on four sprues, with a one-piece canopy/windscreen on a separate sprue. It is probable that all the sprues were sealed in a single plastic bag along with the decals, as was the Hasegawa practice at the time - I honestly can't remember. The detail is mainly reproduced with lightly raised lines. The overall level of detail could hardly be called extravagant. This probably reflects the lack of information that Hasegawa had to work with, and it is unclear what (if any) useful information they were able to glean from the examination of Belenko's aircraft. Of course, this same lack of information would have been one of the main factors in discouraging kit companies generally from tackling contemporary Soviet jet aircraft.
The instruction leaflet is typical of those produced by Hasegawa from the mid-1980's onwards. It was generally excellent, but I had a problem with the paint guide. The guide only referred to Gunze Sangyo and Mr Color paints, which is normal - I'm used to translating from Gunze Sangyo codes. The problem was that I couldn't reconcile some of the suggested paints (or paint combinations) with what was illustrated on the box artwork, and with available reference photographs and other information.
Minicraft/Hasegawa box bottom with specs
Before I glued a single part, I had to make a decision about the cockpit colour. The instructions called for Gunze Sangyo (GS) 53 neutral grey, which matches to Humbrol 128/FS36320, or US Compass Grey. However, I have read that the MiG-25 was one of the last Soviet fighter jets to use a distinctive green cockpit colour. Based on limited cockpit pictures from other jets, I made up a mix of Humbrol 101 Mid Green and 23 Duck Egg Blue in a mixture of about 5:4. The resulting colour looked a bit too bright, but I figured that I was close enough, especially as the photos I was looking at were probably a bit dark anyway. The cockpit itself was a bit basic - a cockpit floor with raised side panels and foot pedals molded in. There is no way that the latter items would be visible once the kit was complete, given that the transparency would prove to be very thick and distorting. The seat was quite basic, but included a headrest. A decal was provided for the instrument panel. I ditched the pilot into the spares box, probably never to be seen again. The nose wheel bay attached to the underside of the cockpit assembly. My first impression was that this bay looked far too shallow, but I was wrong. Unusually, the bay attached to raised side panels inside the fuselage, which meant that it was quite deep enough. However, this meant that the front and rear of the nose wheel bay were open. I didn't care about this, as I was building a 'wheels-up' model. The fit of the cockpit/wheel bay assembly was excellent, although I needed to keep the fuselage halves together while letting the assembly set against one of the fuselage halves.
Hakodate Diorama, from the instruction leaflet.
The next step (for me) was to complete the main physical construction. Because of the unusual design and large size of the Foxbat, the standard right and left fuselage halves were augmented by large central sections both on the upper and under surfaces. With no flash and generally excellent fit, assembling the fuselage was only made difficult by some rough edges on these large, which was probably common enough on Hasegawa kits from this time. Next came the elevators, tailfin/rudder units and ventral fins. A head-on view in the instructions confirmed that the elevators were set flat on the MiG-25, but that the fin and rudder units were a bit more vertical than one might have thought. I needed to use small amounts of filler when attaching some of these parts. The same head-on diagram also gave a good indication of the amount of main wing 'droop', as well as confirming that the pylons were set vertically. I needed to do a small bit of sanding and trimming to get each two-piece wing unit to fit together. The main issue here, of course, was the very long time each main wing needed in order to set properly.
For a 'wheels-down' model, the instructions recommended just three grams of nose ballast in the radar cone. This seemed a very small amount for such a large kit. Even with the wheels set quite far back, I would probably have opted to use several times that amount if I'd been building such a kit. The undercarriage assemblies looked quite simple and robust, which was probably a reflection of the real thing - many Soviet aircraft were noted for their rugged undercarriage. The main and nose wheel bays had a small amount of detail, and there was no interior detail on the undercarriage doors themselves. Each door assembly was provided as a single part, which should have made it very easy to build a kit with retracted undercarriage. For a kit with extended undercarriage, the nose door part would have split into five pieces, and the main doors would have each had two sections. Again, the instructions included a diagram indicating the attitude of the open door sections. Completing a model with closed doors should have been easy, but I found that the main undercarriage door parts were a quite poor fit. It was a struggle to cut and shape the parts so that they would fit reasonably well and look as if they belonged with the rest of the aircraft.
Before tackling the huge engine intakes, I had to make up my mind about the main airframe colour. A quite old but often-used plate shows the Foxbat with a metal finish. However, almost all evidence seems to point to a very light grey finish. There are a number of commonly reproduced photos, but some of these clearly suffer from bad lighting conditions which makes it difficult to make an accurate assessment. The Hasegawa instructions specified a mix of white (GS 1) dark sea grey (GS 75). Feeling that this was really too dark, I looked at the old Revell 1/144 scale kit instructions for guidance. The colour given here was Revell 371 light grey, for which the Humbrol equivalent is 196 (RAL 7035). Hu 196 is a very light grey with a satin finish, and although it represented two jumps from the original colour - whatever that was - I decided to use it. I was glad I did, because I found the resulting finish looked somehow 'correct' to me. This colour was used not only all over the fuselage exterior, but also on the interiors of the intakes. Despite these huge open intakes, the engines faces had no detail whatsoever.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
The last questionable colour was that used for the radome and fin leading edge antennae coverings. The Hasegawa instructions suggested a mix (presumably 50:50) of flat black (GS 12) and neutral grey (GS 53). Some pictures appear to show a dark green colour, which may again be a trick of the light. The Revell kit also suggested a dark green. In this instance, I more or less agreed with Hasegawa, and used a dark grey Revell colour (77), which is very similar to Humbrol 79 (blue grey). Painting such items as the exhaust nozzles and the natural metal (Titanium?) section near the rear or of the engine housing was straightforward by comparison. So was painting the enormous AA-6 missiles. Not only did the kit reflect the different design of the inner and outer pylons, but the missile attachment points were also designed to make it impossible to attach the missiles incorrectly. The IR missiles (with the solid black nose) were positioned on the inner pylons, and the SARH versions (with the pointed white nose) were on the outer pylons.
The decal sheet was extremely basic, with different sets of serial numbers and different star designs for two aircraft. One aircraft - 'Red 31' - is Belenko's aircraft. The other aircraft is with the blue numbers is from an unknown unit. I cannot understand why there were just two sets of digits for each subject. If you wanted to use any two-digit code, you would need four sets of digits in each colour. For Belenko's aircraft, the stars with the red outline were to be used. I did this, even though a photograph of this aircraft at Hakodate seems to show the simpler star design, which was also included with the kit - but it is a poor quality photograph. The decals themselves seemed to be very good quality, despite their age. I always store decals at room temperature along with the kit instructions, so if the decals are good enough, they should stay usable for a very long time.
This kit looks to be quite accurate in basic dimensional terms. One problem has been commented on before in the RMS newsgroups - the main fuselage should narrow quite dramatically as it passes between the engine intakes, and the kit does not quite capture this effect. From limited photographic evidence, I think that this is a valid observation. The photo of Belenko's aircraft at Hakodate also clearly shows a smaller error. This relates to the canopy framing - the rear section is more extensive than in the kit. Either the main windows in the kit were too big, or the entire canopy section is too small. This photograph also shows that the canopy unit opened by hinging to starboard. Of course, to reproduce this with the kit, the canopy and windscreen would have to be cut into two parts.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
The 'Foxbat' definitely isn't many peoples' cup of tea, even for jet enthusiasts. It's a big brute of an aircraft, without the elegance of some other large contemporary designs, such as the A-5 Vigilante, F-106 Delta Dart or the ill-fated BAC TSR.2. However, if you want a MiG-25, then it's the old 'only-game-in-town' scenario - you just have to live with whatever accuracy shortcomings this kit might have, unless some Eastern European manufacturer or Trumpeter ever decides to take a chance with the aircraft.
My main printed reference was 'The Great Book of Modern Warplanes', which is a hardback collection of ten 64-page Salamander titles issued in 1987. I bought it in 1992 for the knockdown price of IR £ 10 (about 12.7 Euro/ 12.5 US $ in today’s moneys) - a fraction of the original price. Presumably, the 1991 Gulf war caused the asking price to plummet as much of the content was deemed to be outdated. It was one of the best purchases I ever made! The section on MiG's was written by Bill Gunston, and covers MiG jets from the -15 to the -31. While the entry for the MiG-29 is hopelessly outdated (understandably), the MiG 25 entry is superb, and includes a brilliant treatise on the development of the MiG-25, from the high level strategic issues in the late 1950's, to detailed aspects of the aircraft design.
As far as the Internet is concerned, all one has to do is search the newsgroup archives on the likes of Google to review various discussions about the type, including it's ability (or not) to intercept the SR-71 Blackbird.
SMAKR Home
| What's New | Submissions
| Information Requests | News | Links
| Reference Corner | Site
Info
1/72 Reviews | 1/48
Reviews | INBOX Reviews
