It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Interceptor or Fighter Can Stop the SR-71?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Furthermore, there are only two SU-47 built as technology demonstrators, and they have been sitting in a Russian aircraft hanger catching nothing but dust and rust.


Then they'd be called S-37, not Su-47, Su-47 keep in mind is the production designation, S-37 is the demonstrator designation. Even though both aircraft are exactly one in the same.

Those crazy Russians and their giving more than one designations to the same aircraft, I think the world is confusing enough, we don't need more confusion as it is.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:43 PM
Thanks for straightening me out, ShatteredSkies, you are indeed correct and I am in error.

Would you accept that I posted that mention in haste.


posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Thanks for straightening me out, ShatteredSkies, you are indeed correct and I am in error.

Would you accept that I posted that mention in haste.


Well you don't have to say I was right and you were wrong, kinda makes it sound like you're being sarcastic.

And yea, if you were in a hurry, it's understandable, it gets difficult knowing the difference, that is unless you've done the pain staking research of reading over several articles.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Well you don't have to say I was right and you were wrong, kinda makes it sound like you're being sarcastic.

Sorry if it came off that way.
My apologies, was not my intentions.
I was in error and I merely wanted you to know that by my recognizing it.

And yea, if you were in a hurry, it's understandable, it gets difficult knowing the difference, that is unless you've done the pain staking research of reading over several articles.

Agreed, and thanks again.


posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:45 AM

Originally posted by BigTrain
You're joking about the lightening right? All I have to say is, please!


im not joking. The RAF were enthusing about the Harrier , verticle lift off - so a lightning pilot demonstrated there version .

full throttle , then brake release , rotation then go ballistic , with the tail still pointed at the runway - all the way up to 50,000 feet , mach busting all the way up.

service ceiling is quoted as `60,000+ ` but i have heard of one cruising along at 80,000 at M2.3.

English Electric Lightning F6

Span : 34ft 10in
Length : 55ft 3in
Height : 19ft 7in
Engines : Two RR Avon 301R Turbojets
Thrust : 16,360lbs each with reheat
Speed : 1,500mph Mach 2.27 aprox
Service Ceiling : 65,000+ ft
Range : 600km (+ with refueling)
Armament : 2 Firestreak or Red-Top IR Missiles
Entered Service : November 1965 ( 5 Sqd)
Climb Rate : 50,000ft per min

The Lightning at USAF Mildenhall open day.

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:22 AM
Hmmm, how about a two-stage Lightning, where one is unmanned and climbs to 50,000ft and then the manned half takes over and kills the Blackbird? A sort of Lightning-Mistel

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:36 AM
How about a Lightning 6
With AMRAAM. The designation AIM-120D refers to a projected version of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation, an expanded no-escape envelope and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and current plans call for an IOC on the F/A-18E/F in FY2008.

Data for AIM-120A/B (except where noted):

Length 3.66 m (12 ft)
Wingspan 53.3 cm (21 in)
AIM-120C: 44.7 cm (17.6 in)
Finspan 63.5 cm (25 in)
AIM-120C: 44.7 cm (17.6 in)
Diameter 17.8 cm (7 in)
Weight 157 kg (345 lb)
Speed Mach 4
Range 50-70 km (30-45 miles)
Propulsion Hercules/Aerojet solid-fueled rocket
Warhead 23 kg (50 lb) WDU-33/B blast-fragmentation
AIM-120C-5: WDU-41/B blast-fragmentation

So maybe 140km range (100 miles) range of AIM-120D

[edit on 15-10-2005 by Jezza]

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:45 AM
Guys we are getting carried away with the Lightning talk. yes it was an impressive fighter for its time, but tis top speed I am assuming is a dash speed right? Not the 80 foot cruise speed at mach 2.3 as quoted above?

The one fighter that may have had a shot had it been developed would have been the XF-108 Rapier. Same speed as the A-12/SR-71 and no doubt the same service celing

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:50 AM

Of course, there are many more aircraft than 75 that belong on this chart,
only the most popular have been listed. All specifications
are approximate.

The Apollo 10 craft reached Mach 37.6 upon re-entry;
the Helios satellite obriting the sun travels at Mach 227.3.
Keep in mind these are spacecraft and not aircraft.

# Plane Top Speed Max. Altitude
1. X-43 (Unmanned) Mach 9.8 110,000 feet
2. X-15 Mach 6.72 354,200 feet
3. SR-71 Blackbird (YF-12) Mach 3.2+ 85,000+ feet
4. MiG-25R Foxbat-B Mach 3.2 123,524 feet
4. X-2 Mach 3.2 126,200 feet
5. XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3.1 77,350 feet
6. MiG-31 Foxhound Mach 2.83 67,600 feet
7. MiG-25 Foxbat (Ye-155) Mach 2.8 118,900 feet
8. F-15 Eagle Mach 2.5 60,000 feet
8. F-111 Aardvark Mach 2.5 60,000+ feet
9. X-1 Mach 2.435 90,440 feet
10. Su-24 Fencer Mach 2.4 57,400 feet
11. Tu-144 Charger Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
11. MiG-23 Flogger Mach 2.35 60,700 feet
11. Su-27 Flanker Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
12. F-14A Tomcat Mach 2.34 58,000+ feet
13. F-106 Delta Dart Mach 2.31 57,000 feet
14. IAI Kfir Mach 2.3 75,000 feet
14. English Electric Lightning Mach 2.3 60,000 feet
14. MiG-29 Fulcrum Mach 2.3 59,060 feet
14. F-107 Ultra Sabre Mach 2.3 48,000 feet
15. Tornado ADV Mach 2.2 69,997 feet
15. F-4 Phantom Mach 2.2 62,250 feet
15. Mirage 2000 Mach 2.2 59,055 feet
15. F-104 Starfighter Mach 2.2 58,000 feet
(120,800 feet NF-104A)
15. B-58 Hustler Mach 2.2 64,800 feet
16. F-105 Thunderchief Mach 2.1 52,000 feet
16. A-5 Vigilante Mach 2.1 52,100 feet
17. Su-22 Mach 2.09 59,055 feet
18. Tu-160 Blackjack Mach 2.05 49,200 feet
18. MiG-21 Fishbed Mach 2.05 50,000 feet
18. Concorde Mach 2.05 60,000 feet
19. D558-2 Skystreak Mach 2.005 83,235 feet
20. YF-23 Black Widow II Mach 2 (AB) 65,000 feet
20. F-20 Tigershark Mach 2+ 55,000 feet
20. YF-17 Cobra Mach 2+ 50,000 feet
21. Saab JAS 39 Gripen Mach 2 50,000 feet
21. F-16 Fighting Falcon Mach 2 50,000+ feet
21. Saab 37 Viggen Mach 2 60,039 feet
21. Saab 35 Draken Mach 2 65,600 feet
22. Tu-22M Backfire Mach 1.88 43,635 feet
22. F-14B/D Tomcat Mach 1.88 53,000+ feet
23. Su-34 Mach 1.8 45,890 feet
23. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Mach 1.8 50,000+ feet
23. F-22 Raptor Mach 1.8 (AB) 50,000 feet
24. XF-104 Starfighter Mach 1.79 58,000 feet
25. F-8 Crusader Mach 1.72 58,000 feet
26. F-101B Voodoo Mach 1.66 52,100 feet
27. X-29 FSW Mach 1.6 50,000 feet
28. Tu-22 Blinder Mach 1.52 48,228 feet
28. XF8U-1 Crusader Mach 1.52 58,000 feet
29. SEPECAT Jaguar Mach 1.5 45,930 feet
30. F-5 Freedom Fighter Mach 1.4 50,700 feet
31. F-100 Super Sabre Mach 1.3 51,000 feet
32. X-31 EFMI Mach 1.28 40,000 feet
33. B-1b Lancer Mach 1.25 50,000+ feet
34. F-102 Delta Dagger Mach 1.23 55,000 feet
35. T-38 Talon Mach 1.22 55,000+ feet
36. XF-90 Mach 1.1 39,000 feet
37. MiG-17 Fresco Mach 1.05 52,366 feet
38. F-86 Sabre Mach 1.04 50,800 feet
39. F-117 Nighthawk High Subsonic 45,000 feet
40. AV-8B Harrier II Mach 0.98 41,700+ feet
41. F-94 Starfire Mach 0.97 51,800 feet
42. A-6 Intruder Mach 0.94 42,400 feet
43. Saab 32 Lansen Mach 0.93 52,500 feet
44. F-80 Shooting Star Mach 0.88 46,800 feet
45. BAe Nimrod 2000 Mach 0.87 42,000 feet
46. B-52 Stratofortress Mach 0.86 55,000 feet
47. U-2 Dragon Lady Mach 0.8 90,000 feet
48. C-5 Galaxy Mach 0.79 35,750 feet
49. C-141 Starlifter Mach 0.77 41,600 feet
49. C-17 Globemaster III Mach 0.77 45,000 feet
50. B-2 Spirit Mach 0.72 50,000+ feet
50. P-3 Orion Mach 0.72 28,300 feet

As per this list maybe none can catch or intercept the SR-71....

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:05 AM
How about a MIG 25 or MIG 31
Armed with Super 530D missiles.

The Super 530D retains the same general aerodynamic features and internal layout as its Super 530F predecessor, with cruciform low aspect ratio wings and cruciform aft controls. However, the stainless steel body is longer to accommodate a new radome and seeker assembly and a new and more powerful dual-thrust solid propellant motor. The Super 530D is 3.80 m long, has a body diameter of 263 mm, a wing span of 0.62 m and with the same warhead as the Super 530F, weighs 270 kg. Guidance is by the monopulse AD26 CW Doppler semi-active seeker, which has improved ECCM capability, and improved capability against low-flying targets. The Super 530D's guidance unit is also fitted with digital microprocessing, which enables the seeker to be reprogrammed against new threats. The Super 530D has a claimed maximum interception altitude of 80,000 ft (24,400 m), with a snap-up capability of 40,000 ft (12,200 m), and a snap-down capability to targets at 200 ft (60 m). The maximum speed of the Super 530D is stated to be approaching M5.0.

Thats if the above claims are true.

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:11 AM
BTW all, my Lightning Mistel suggestion was a joke

In that chart the F-106 appears falsely high, maybe I'll look again.

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:24 AM
Two planes I can't recall if they were mentioned:

The YF-12 and the D-21/M-21. Ill bet the D-21 drone could be midifed to be a radar seeker type missile ala the Sparrow

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:08 PM
"Have you ever read Mig Pilot by Belenko. He said the Mig had no chance in hell to catch the blackbird. "

Given the state of Russian radar, missiles and defence networks in 1976, he may have been right (or he may have just been saying what he was told to). But that was 30 years ago and things have moved on.

"And the climb to altidue recod by the Mig is basically a Mig stripped down to nothing, "

I know, I was just making a point. The altitude the plane gets to doesn't really matter.

" whereas the sr-71 is CRUISING, at mach 3+ and nearly 100,000 feet, once the intercept is picked up, turn the bird, bye bye. havent we established this already? "

The interceptor can be there and waiting. Remember they had up to an hour's warning, which is what happened in the 80's when the Russian had better kit.

"The most important aspect in the SR-71 was the flight plan, IMHO. The flight planners knew not to fly the bird near major military bases or areas where intercepts were likely to be tried. They knew exactly where to fly the plane and in case of a SAM firing, knew which direction to turn the plane to escape. Your not going to fly the bird right over the MIG-25's base and SAM facilites just to prove a point. "

Which is why they could never risk a flight over Russia. Too many defences and no holes.

" According to History Channel, over 3000 missiles were fired at the Blackbird, none caused any damage."

They fired quite a few at the U-2 too, before they got lucky.
But remember, none of the more advanced Russian missiles have ever tried. I'm not questioning that the SR-71 was great in its time, but that was along time ago.

And if it was so invulnerable, would anyone have thought of sinking a few billion into Aurora?

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:58 PM
They flew the SR over Russia for years. The Soviets always knew they were coming, and tried hard to intercept them and never did. They would have a string of fighters lined up along the flight path, and never even came close to hitting one.

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:58 PM
"They flew the SR over Russia for years."


Do you have any evidence to back this amazing claim?

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:07 PM
Wembley, get over it dude, it seems you are here more for the bashing and arrogant claims of defeat, then you are to praise the aircraft. I have an idea, why dont you go try to engineer something 50 years ago that nobody to this day has recreated in any other modern country besides the US and then sit back and watch people like you throw stones at your design for the only reason as to be the one arrogant person throwing stones at it. Wake up man, never was scratched, never was shot down, over 3000 attempts made to blast it away. Perfect record. Close this dam thread!

SR-71 = Baddest plane ever to leave the runway.


posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by BigTrain
Close this dam thread!

Wow, I didn't know we promoted another moderator.

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Wembley
Do you have any evidence to back this amazing claim?

No evidence required, being it was already given/cited/linked.

Why are you puzzled by such mention, Wembley?

"They flew the SR over Russia for years."

Is it a matter of word usage that is confusing you, such as when one implies "flew over"?

Apparently, there is confusion, be it purposeful or not.
As has been repeatedly shown, Wembley, the SR-71 did fly-overs of regions of Russia and Russian controlled air-space.
Would fly-overs constitute "flew over"?
I guess it depends on if your a strict word literalist or not, correct?
To a literalist, "flew over" would imply that the SR-71 literally flew over aspects of Russia/Russian controlled air-space/regions, or, in the strictest literalist sense, that the aircraft literally "flew over" the ENTIRETY of Russia/the ENTIRETY of the Russian territorial expanse. Then, of course, there is the apparent confusion of the use of "over." "Over" simply implies over, as in entirety or aspects of.

Which is it, Wembley?

Accordingly, and as has been shown, repeatedly, Wembley, the SR-71 did fly-overs Russia, but did not fly-over the ENTIRETY of the Russian territorial expanse. See a difference? So, in the sense, when one implies that the SR-71 "flew over" Russia, they would be correct, even to a strict literalist. I am sensing that to you, that every time the phrase "flew over Russia" is mentioned, you are simply mistakeningly taking such a mention as implying that the SR-71 "flew over" the ENTIRETY of the Russian territorial expanse. Correct? Because if you are not, then you are simply playing word and interpreting games. For "flew over" to many of us implies that the SR-71 did in fact fly-over regions of terroritorial Russia and/or Russian controlled airspace and regions, not the entirety of Russia.


[edit on 16-10-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 07:46 PM
Waynos, if you need the specs, here they are.


One Pratt & Whitney J75 P-17
24,500 pounds thrust with afterburner

Maximum speed: 1,587 mph

Cruising speed: 650 mph

1,500 miles ("A" model)
575 miles ("B" model)

Service Ceiling:
53,000 feet ("A" model)
55,005 feet ("B" model)

38 feet, 4 inches ("A" model)
38 feet, 3.5 inches ("B" model)

Length: 70 feet, 9 inches

Height: 20 feet, 4 inches

One AIR-2A Genie air to-air nuclear missile
Four AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missiles
M61A1 Vulcan 20MM Cannon

Cost: $3,305,435

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:01 PM
Just thinking of how this whole thread has progressed and we are talking about partial or full flyovers of russia, it just hit me. I dont think that any fighter of any other nation has EVER flown over US territory or even near it for that matter, This obviously excludes pearl harbor, Dec 7th 1941. As for Alaska, im not sure, im guessing they have, being its not that important to have absolute protection in Alaska, but im pretty sure they have not over-flown alaska, didnt they intercept a Bear bomber with f-14's trying for it??

Now, can I be wrong here, absolutely, I put no research into it, but knowing my history very well and military history in particular, I have no recollection of any foriegn fighter or bomber ever flying over US airspace, so as far as flyovers are concerned, we developed planes to fly over the most hostile airspace and no other country has been able to do the same to us, so how about that tidbit.


<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in