Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Interceptor or Fighter Can Stop the SR-71?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
There were a lot of intercepts off both coasts, but the Soviets never overflew the US that I'm aware of.




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There were a lot of intercepts off both coasts, but the Soviets never overflew the US that I'm aware of.


I would agree with that. The Russians long range craft was the Tu-95 Bear. While an impressive plane, it was good for 500 knots or so and had a radar signature the size of a B-52. It any tried they would have been shot out of the sky.

They used to have daily flights off the eastern coast of the US heading to Cuba and then return.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I would agree with that. The Russians long range craft was the Tu-95 Bear. While an impressive plane, it was good for 500 knots or so and had a radar signature the size of a B-52. It any tried they would have been shot out of the sky.

They used to have daily flights off the eastern coast of the US heading to Cuba and then return.


Well Fred,

I have a surprise for you! There was one violation of US airspace by a TU-95 in the late 1950's (end of 58 I believe)! It came from a Navagation error. A single TU-95 Bear-D on an ELINT MISSION (If I remember correctly) went off course and flew into the Alution Islands (Alaska) where it was intercepted. Do to Peace Time rules on use of force the Bear was intercepted and diverted to an airfeild in Alaska, where it was inspected by military personnel before being returned to Russia! It wasn't publicised, but it did happen!

Tim



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
See you learn something new everyday. Good one Tim I had never heard of that one



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Seems I was correct, No other country has ever overflown the US mainland.

Train



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Seems I was correct, No other country has ever overflown the US mainland.

Train


You sure? Where's Nevada then?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Good one waynos, the red flag exercises, I hope you were being sarcastic.

Train



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
"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. "

Whatever - (you do seem to be a bit prickly on this for some reason!) - can you give any details?
I'm not aware of any flights actually over Russian soil, as far as I can tell they flew as close as possible without actually violating airspace. But maybe there's something new?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
After the Powers shootdown official overflights were stopped, and sidescan cameras were used. Most of the SR flights are still classified, so there isn't much information about where they flew or when.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
"Interception" does not necessarily mean rolling out behind the target aircraft and chasing it down. We used to do intercepts against SR-71s regularly when I was flying F-15s. We used the SR-71 as a MiG-25 simulator. We would orbit in the southern part of White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) at around 45,000 feet waiting for the SR-71 to enter the northern part of WSMR just to the east of Socorro, NM. When the SR-71 started south, we would light the afterburners and start an acceleration maneuver by unloading the aircraft to about 0.5 g and descend to 36,000 feet where, on a standard day, there is the thickest, coldest air which allows for the best acceleration. Using onboard radar, we had no problem acquiring the SR-71 outside of 100 nautical miles (NM). The keys to the intercept was intercept geometry and energy. You wanted the intercept to be as close to head-on as possible, as fast and as high as possible to give the missile as much end-game energy as possible. This is so the missile has the energy to make last moment course corrections as required up there in the thin air. The SR-71 wasn't going to be able to maneuver much at its altitude and mach. By the time we got to 36,000 feet we were already at around Mach 1.7 to 1.9. From there we would continue to accelerate to about Mach 1.9 to 2.2 and then start a criuse climb while maintaining Mach number or continuing to accelerate. At a certain range (still classified) we would center up the missile steering for our AIM-7 Sparrows and simulate shooting all four in order to increase the probability of kill (Pk). From there, we would start to recover the aircraft while illuminating the simulated missiles through their time-of-flight. Peace-time restrictions limit us to 50,000 feet without pressure suits and since the F-15 has no provision for pressure suits, it was a goal to avoid flying above 50,000 feet anytime during the run. This was next to impossible due to the amount of energy the aircraft had and I personally saw 65,000 feet on one intercept with still about Mach 1.9 at the apex of the intercept. You could get a tally-ho on the SR-71 as it passed about 15,000 to 20,000 feet (2.5 to 3 NM) overhead. Due to fuselage heating, the SR-71 took on a dark gray hue. We figured these would have been lethal intercepts against a MiG-25 (or an SR-71 for that matter) but we were never going to try to chase down a Foxbat or Blackbird. A normal MiG-25 is slower than the SR-71. This was in the late 1980s before the AIM-120 was fielded. That the AMRAAM would have made things different is unknown (at least to me) as the SR-71 was retired soon afterwards and I converted to the F-16 in 1990 and we didn't get a chance to do such intercepts. I postulate the AIM-120 would be even more lethal but that's pure conjecture. I also flew the MiG-29 and would not lay money on its ability to down an SR-71. The Fulcrum doesn't have the fuel, doesn't accelerate and climb like either the F-15 or F-16 (regardless of the propoganda you read) and its weapons are too short-ranged to be effective.
All the above are nothing but moot points anyway since the SR-71 has been long retired and all attempts to bring one down failed.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
An excellent post and commentary, fulcrumflyer.
Thank you for the contribution and look forward to many more.






seekerof



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
"Most of the SR flights are still classified, so there isn't much information about where they flew or when. "

There is loads of information about "the ones we know about", I was wondering if we were about to get some revelations...but apparently not. From the accounts I have seen, the flights around Russia were scrupulous in sticking to the letter of the law while doing everything possible to provoke Russian radar into illuminating them.
My guess is that they never clear flights into Russian airspace for the obvious reasons. Once bitten, twice shy.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
"That the AMRAAM would have made things different is unknown"

Good post, by the way...obviously the AMRAAM's makers would have you beleive that it does everything way better than the Sparrow, but this may not be entirely true.
How advanced were/are Russian air-to-air missiles in this context? Could one bring down an SR-71?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Awsome post Fulcrum
.

Glad to have some first hand experience from an actual pilot, instead of a bunch of kids who know how to type in key words into google search.


Thanks for participating!

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
My guess is that they never clear flights into Russian airspace for the obvious reasons. Once bitten, twice shy.


Wembley, nice rhetorical comment.
Still denying that the SR-71 flew over aspects of Russia and Russian controlled airspace, despite the proof given and shown to counter your above quoted commentary?




seekerof



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
"Still denying that the SR-71 flew over aspects of Russia and Russian controlled airspace, despite the proof given and shown to counter your above quoted commentary? "

I haven't seen anything to suggest they ever flew in Russian airspace. Care to enlighten me?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
..and yes, I did see the links you posted earlier. None of them suggested operation in Russian airspace, do they? Looking at Russia, yes, but not over their territory, for a number of good reasons.

One reason being, "this advanced missile (the SA-5) had the range and speed to nail us" as one pilot puts it in Ben Rich's book.


NR

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

"Still denying that the SR-71 flew over aspects of Russia and Russian controlled airspace, despite the proof given and shown to counter your above quoted commentary? "

I haven't seen anything to suggest they ever flew in Russian airspace. Care to enlighten me?



I once saw a biography about SR-71 and yes it indeed did flew over Russian airspace and a MiG-29 tracked it down but couldnt keep up with it, the pilot was asked how did you feel about it he said, it was incredible i never knew such technology existed.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

as posted by Wembley
..and yes, I did see the links you posted earlier. None of them suggested operation in Russian airspace, do they? Looking at Russia, yes, but not over their territory, for a number of good reasons.

:shk:
Simply awestruck that you are still in denial.
Come to think of it, actually I am not.
Some people simply tend be advocates of egocentrism [having the inability to take other peoples points of views], so that would explain alot, for the most of us.

At any rate, you assert that you looked at the map of SR-71 flight zones and went further to assert that none of those zones are over Russian airspace or land areas. Really? Absolutely sure?
Lets pop that map back up and look at it again, k?



Wembley, you are familiar with the Russian geographical landmass and its expanses? Wembley, I am counting three areas of Russian land areas being overflown, and five Russian controlled airspaces.

I am aware of the background and experience of Ben Rich, but as was asserted by others, including someone of considerable air-industry knowledge, intelgurl, even under the perfect, right, or optimal condition, I have reason to believe that the SA-5 would have difficulty in downing an SR-71 at speed and altitude. Again, just because you can detect it, track it, target it, hitting an object flying at the speeds and altitude, as an SR-71, is entirely diffrent matter, Wembley. That is my deduction and comes from my own personal experiences and observations.

Furthermore, Wembley, as an example of what I implied above, a SA-5 (S-200 Gammon) was fired upon and used against the SR-71....with NO success.
When was that done, your thinking?
1966.


SA-5 Gammon

Notes: This is the NATO reporting name of the S-200 Angara. It is an old missile developed back in the 1950s to bring down high altitude aircraft such as the B-70, B-52, and U-2. It was first deployed in 1963, and fired against SR-71 aircraft (without success) in 1966. There have been periodic hardware and software updates over the years to cope with the increasing level of US, NATO, and Israeli ECM and ECCM sophistication. The biggest handicap of the Gammon is its wide minimum range, dictated by the burnout time of the 4 drop-away rocket boosters. Another handicap is the general lack of maneuverability of the missile.

Russian SAMs

I have no doubts that such attempts were tried on numerous occassions, as I have asserted before, again, with no success. My understanding is that the closest a Russian SAM came to intercepting an SR-71 type aircraft was when one was fired at an A-12, which allegedly exploded in the general vicinity of it. Upon landing, the A-12 allegedly was inspected and one small piece of shrapnel was found in the leading edge (composite), near the the intake of the aircraft. Such much for those proximity heads.







seekerof

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
"I am counting three areas of Russian land areas being overflown, and five Russian controlled airspaces. "

I know you are, but try reading the text and about SR-71 operations at the time. Overflights were simply not in the equation, for a number of reasons, political as well as operational. Read the pilots accounts.

"I am aware of the background and experience of Ben Rich, but as was asserted by others, including someone of considerable air-industry knowledge, intelgurl, even under the perfect, right, or optimal condition, I have reason to believe that the SA-5 would have difficulty in downing an SR-71 at speed and altitude. "

It's not just Ben Rich's view, it's that of the assorted pilots whose experiences are recounted in the book. I'm inclined to trust their fear and I don't see why you would doubt it.

"Furthermore, Wembley, as an example of what I implied above, a SA-5 (S-200 Gammon) was fired upon and used against the SR-71....with NO success. "

I'm not suggesting for a minute that it would have 100% success rate (what does?) - check my earlier post. SA-2s had a pretty bad % rate, but when they fired enough of them.

And as you point out, the alleged SA-5 incident (are you really sure about that one - IOC was '67) was back in '66. How much better and more dangerous were systems in '76, '86, '96....?

"I have no doubts that such attempts were tried on numerous occassions, "

In spite of comments to the contrary from the people involved...?

" My understanding is that the closest a Russian SAM came to intercepting an SR-71 type aircraft was when one was fired at an A-12, which allegedly exploded in the general vicinity of it. Upon landing, the A-12 allegedly was inspected and one small piece of shrapnel was found in the leading edge (composite), near the the intake of the aircraft. Such much for those proximity heads. "

Not allegedly - this one is well documented. And you have to admit that at mach 3 it doesn't take much bad luck for one small piece to bring down the plane. And that was only a primitive SA-2 as I recall.






top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join