What Interceptor or Fighter Can Stop the SR-71?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
Leads to the other question: what can intercept a MiG-25 these days?


An F-15 / Typhoon / Rafale / Grippen / etc with no problem. Factor in the AESA then it really should be a done deal. Remember the Mach 2.83+ is only achieveable if the -25 burns out its huge turbines




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Care to link to any information on this documented case Wembley? It would be very interesting to this thread


I already linked it, Shadow XIX. It was a comment made by a Russian defecting MiG-25 pilot [ie: Viktor Belenko] in 1976.
I think it is linked on the first or second page.






seekerof

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Care to link to any information on this documented case Wembley? It would be very interesting to this thread


I already linked it, Shadow XIX. It was a comment made by a Russian defecting MiG-25 pilot [ie: Viktor Belenko] in 1976.
I think it is linked on the first or second page.

seekerof

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Seekerof]

I dont know if im looking at the wrong link but off that link on Viktor Belenko on the first page it said

''1. A Mig-25 or Mig-31 has never fired a missile at an SR-71.''

www.geocities.com...

Also stated here
www.wvi.com...


Is there a link I missed talking about a Mig-25 firing its missiles at the SR-71 like wembly mentioned?








[edit on 5-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
"Is there a link I missed talking about a Mig-25 firing its missiles at the SR-71 like wembly mentioned? "

It's in the the Dec 2004 Air Forces Monthly, called "Intercepting the Blackbird". They didn't fire a missile, but each time the SR-71 turned up the specially-assigned MiG-25PD assumed a firing position behind it as described.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The article is apparently translated and reproduced from a German book, "Soviet Fighter Aircraft in Germany 1945-1994" edited by Lutz Freund.
It describes both MiG-25PD and MiG-31 use against the SR-71 in the period 1980-86, the former being apparently more successful, so that even when the Soviets re-equipped with MiG-29s a number of the special MiG-25s were kept on in Germany specifically for the Baltic Express.

They also believe that on some (but certainly not all) flightpaths SAM units could have successfully have engaged the Blackbird.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Wembley, if the air force let me buy and bring back to life a sr-71, i would gladly run it right over russia, right now! I would have no problem at all and you know it.

Train



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
"I would have no problem at all and you know it. "

Apart from getting shot down and causing a diplomatic incident.
What flight path were you thinking of taking? It's not like flying over Cuba North-to-South.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Ill hit it E-W right over Moscow busting at Mach 3,5+ at over 100,000 feet, what u gonna use to shoot me down, im interested, and dont say mig 25 pd, cuz we know it has no chance.

The Pain



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I just did a little comparison between the English Electric Lightning and the SR-71. Even the Lightning could have caught the SR-71 while at top speed. The cruising speed for the SR-71 is Mach 3.0+, while the cruising speed for the Lightning is Mach 2.27. Even if it did catch it, it couldn't have shot it down because the Lightning would have ran out of fuel by the time it did.

As for SR-71 having no recorded loss of aircraft is only feasible by its cruising speed and the altitude that it flew at. Yes, the SR-71 was able to have been tracked on radar, but its radar cross-section was very small due to it's stealth design. The unusual thing about that is the Blackbird was the largest target on the FAA's radars. It still to this day remains as the only U.S. reconnaissance aircraft to never have a plane shot down.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Ill hit it E-W right over Moscow busting at Mach 3,5+ at over 100,000 feet, what u gonna use to shoot me down, im interested, and dont say mig 25 pd, cuz we know it has no chance.

The Pain



easy 1 x gorgon and woomph its gone.


or an S-400



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
For the record, the top speed and altitude capabilities of the Blackbirds have long since been declassified. The aircraft had a design cruise speed of Mach 3.2 or approximately 2,100 mph (it would crusie a little faster or slower depending on outside air temperature because it was limited by structural heating factors). Max design altitude was 90,000 feet, but only if it was lightly loaded. It could not carry a useable payload to that altitude so operational missions were typically flown between 75,000 and 85,000 feet.

Fastest known flights:
YF-12A (60-6936), Mach 3.14 (2,070 mph), 1 May 1965
A-12 (60-6928), Mach 3.29 (2,171 mph), 8 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972), Mach 3.32 (2,193 mph), 27 July 1976

Highest known flights:
YF-12A (60-6936), 80,257 feet, 1 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7953), 86,700 feet, 1967 or 1968
A-12 (60-6932), 90,000 feet, 14 August 1965

Hostile forces attempted intercepts of operational A-12 and SR-71 missions using aircraft and surface-to-air missiles. Only one SAM ever got close enough to put a tiny piece of shrapnel in an A-12. The Blackbirds did not rely only on speed and altitude. They also had sophisticated electronic countermeasures that could jam enemy missiles' control systems or give the missiles new commands.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Your wrong about the declassification of speed, those figures you posted are public records that have been known since they were put up, however, it has also always been said by the pilots of the bird that they have gone much faster and during the mission over isreal in the 70's, the pilot was quoted as aaying they hit speeds they've never seen before, when trying to evade that sam, so there ya have it.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hey, why not make it mach 5 and 120,000?


Either way, something like an S-400, designed to take out ABMs moving faster at higher altitudes would get it.

The SR-71 was great for its time, but even in the 1970's it was abundantly clear that speed and altitude were not going to an adequate defence.

The SR-71 itself was even vulnerable to SA-2s, hence all the ECM, and as we all know now, the way to go is stealth and ECM (or defence suppression).

And don' be too sure about the MiG-25s - remember they can go faster if you don't mind damaging the engines. For a high-value intercept it might be worth it. And are you quite sure they couldn;t catch a Blackbird one a mission, aspposed to a stripped-down one doing a record-breaking run?

Also, as you may be aware, some of the installations originally identified as radar defending Moscow may have an RF-weapon capability. Ypu'd have to be quite quick to outrun that one



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
The A-12 speed and altitude records were classified until fairly recently, as was some of the SR-71 material. Only the official records runs were unclassified.

As to SR-71 pilots or whoever claiming much higher altitudes or faster speeds, it simply isn't so. NASA studied ways to make the SR-71 fly significantly faster than the Mach 3.2 design cruise speed, but the payoff was simply not worth the risk. Structural heating and inlet performance were limiting factors.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Until the pilots are allowed to discuss how fast they went, and in particular that run over egypt and israel in 72, then I will continue to believe it can hit minimum mach 3.5.

Train



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a minimum of mach 3.5? The landings must be tricky


I am of course being facetious, ignore me if you like



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
a minimum of mach 3.5? The landings must be tricky


I am of course being facetious, ignore me if you like


Nah, they just use a BIG arrestor hook



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
a minimum of mach 3.5? The landings must be tricky



3.5 times the speed of sound while on the ground?! May I suggest a Really Big pair of Ear Muffs for the ground crew?


Hey, I have a sense of humor too! Seriously, I have heard claims that they got an A-12 up to Mach 5 up at 100'000 ft. I know this sounds unreal, but remember the speed of sound slows down as the altitude increases. With all the secrets they keep, who knows? In theory, it might be possible!

Tim

[edit on 10-10-2005 by ghost]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
My wife can hit Mach 7 in my Kia EASY whenever Filenes has a shoe sale. No kidding. And thats at sea level too!



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
"then I will continue to believe it can hit minimum mach 3.5"

Believe all you like, but you still haven't said why you're not going to get smeared by the Russian SAMs which can deal with much faster threats even than that. And while it might be able to zoom to over 100k (which is a little dubious) it certainly couldn't cruise there; but again, that's no defence against modern missiles.

It was good for it's time, but we're not in the 70's anymore, and even then they never dared fly over Russia (and they did a lot of dangerous things!)





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join