SR-71 Intercepted 169 Times

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Thats right Ladies and Gentalmen, in the new Aug/September 2007 Vol 8 No 4. Issue of "Combat Aircraft" (The one with the MiG-31 on the front cover)
A 7 page Article was written and between August 1984 and Jan 1987 the SR-71 was intercepted by the MiG-31 14 times near the Soviet Union, then threw-out the rest of the year (1987) the MiG-31 intercepted the SR-71 a total of 69 times, and in 1988 a total of 86 interceptions of the SR-71 by the MiG-31 took place.
So much for all that tough talk about SR-71.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by YASKY]




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
An 'interception' can mean anything, and without more information no conclusions can be reached.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Well here is your defintion


intercept
verb intercepted, intercepting
1a. To stop or catch (eg a person, missile, aircraft, etc) on their or its way from one place to another;
Thesaurus: obstruct, interrupt, frustrate, impede, thwart, arrest, seize, block, deflect, cut off, check, head off, stop.
1b. To prevent (a missile, etc) from arriving at its destination, often by destroying it.
2. math.
To mark or cut off (a line, plane, curve, etc) with another another line, plane, etc that crosses it.
noun
1. The part of a line or plane that is cut off by another line or plane crossing it, especially the distance from the origin to the point where a straight line or a curve crosses one of the axes of a coordinate system.
2. The point at which two figures intersect, that part of a line that is intercepted.


and thats the american deffinition who knows what the USSR considered a intercept. Frankly 169? is it? is more then a little hard to believe.

Frankly I think these threads are getting crazy. If you care about how one should view aircraft visit my new thread and leave some feedback there since people don't seem to care about backing up statements with good reasoning and make statements instead.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
A good read and here are a couple of facts for you to think over.


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

2. SR-71 Pilots state that the Mig-25/31 never posed a serious threat to their aircraft.

3. The Mig-25 can only sustain Mach 2.8 for a short duration due to engine overheat.

4. The Mig-25 can only sustain an altitude of 78,740 feet for two minutes maximum.

5. In 1973, Kelly Johnson, designer of the SR-71 Blackbird, stated that the Mig-25 Foxbat has the inherent capability to outperform the SR only in maneuverability. However, he stated, it would be the missile and not the aircraft that would require the maneuverability to intercept a Blackbird.

6. The SR-71 routinely cruised at Mach 3.2 in continuous afterburner at 80-85,000 feet. The speed and altitude of an SR-71 coupled with superior Defensive electronics has prevented any intended intercept of the Blackbird either by land based missiles or airborne Interceptor threats.

7. Almost all SR-71 Blackbird Reconnaissance Aircraft are now in Museums throughout the United States, having flown for 32 years with the distinction of being the "The highest flying and fastest air breathing aircraft in the world".


www.wvi.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY

So much for all that tough talk about SR-71.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by YASKY]


so what would you call what you just said? Fact?
Sorry your fighting talk with talk. There is no information other then this number which is unable to be confirmed by anyother source.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
A good read and here are a couple of facts for you to think over.


www.wvi.com...



Means nothing.


1. SR-71 never overflew Soviet territory that I am aware of, it just looked in from the side. Hence no justification for firing.

2. Of course they are gonna say that... they are pilots full of beans.


3. Not important.

4. Again, not important

5. Reason why the above 2 are not important

6. That is a repeat of 1.

7. Erm, yeah... N/A I guess.




Yasky has quoted a magazine, issue and page. Has anyone got said magazine to give further details?



On a personal level, I don't believe the SR-71 is immune to interception, especially by a regiment of MiG-31s.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
He has not...


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yasky has quoted a magazine, issue and page. Has anyone got said magazine to give further details?


Provided a page. He has provided an issue, and here is what is in the issue:

www.ianallanpublishing.com...

I see no reference to SR-71 intercepts (I'd think that would be an eye grabber), but it's not beyond reason that there could be mention in the text of an article.

I think the coup of claiming an intercept would have been too much to resist to the failing communist regime (much like the Soviets would have outed the moon landing fraud if it had been).

As they say at McDonald's... Next.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
14 times near the Soviet Union



What does near mean? Surely if it was in their territorial boarders the Soviets would have blow it outa the sky

Does the original article elaborate at which location the Blackbird was actually 'intercepted'??



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
He has not...


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yasky has quoted a magazine, issue and page. Has anyone got said magazine to give further details?


Provided a page. He has provided an issue, and here is what is in the issue:

www.ianallanpublishing.com...

I see no reference to SR-71 intercepts (I'd think that would be an eye grabber), but it's not beyond reason that there could be mention in the text of an article.

I think the coup of claiming an intercept would have been too much to resist to the failing communist regime (much like the Soviets would have outed the moon landing fraud if it had been).

As they say at McDonald's... Next.
It's on page 73 of that Issue go and read it for your self and you'll see.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   


The article said the intercepts took place when the SR-71 's were coming "NEAR" Soviet border it never said SR-71 was in Soviet terratory.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by YASKY]


8th

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
How does a Mig intercept Mach3.2+?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8th
How does a Mig intercept Mach3.2+?


Well, perhaps head on at something around Mach 6 closure? (not every intercept is a tail chase, my friend!)

Let's apply some reason here.

Given that the US claims that the SR-71 never overflew the USSR (and this does not, necessarily mean that it didn't enter Soviet airspace and then turn back), then that would explain the fact that there were no shoot-downs. It is reasonable to assume that if the SR-71 was intercepted over Soviet airspace then it would have been fired upon. The Soviets historically shot at anything that overflew the USSR.

It is obvious that the interceptors did not actually fly up and formate on any SR-71 as this would have immediately resulted in some pretty good chest-beating propaganda.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the 'intercepts' referred to are theoretical solutions against SR-71s in international airspace. It is open to conjecture as to whether such theoretical intercepts would, in combat, result in shoot-down as the SR-71 might well have made no defensive movement while cruising in international airspace. In fact, under such circumstances, the purpose of the SR-71 mission may well have been to investigate the Soviet air defense system, its frequencies, capabilities and procedures. The fact is that to investigate your enemy's systems, you must force him to activate them.

Since the quoted article goes so much against existing evidence (not least of which is a lack of wreckage on display in red square!) I would suggest that some corroborating reference sources are required for the article in question before one jumps to any conclusions.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Great post "The Winged Wombat".
In my view there is not enough evidence and information to really form any conclusion from such a a vauge reference. Intercept could mean anytime a Blackbird was forced to take evasive maneuvering to avoid foreign aircraft sent up after it. This is nothing new, unprecedented or shocking. The Blackbird routinely avoided foreign forces sent up after it, given that it's missions frequently took it near hostile aircraft. So I'm a bit puzzeld by the intention of the OP and by his suggestion that this apparently discredits the Blackbird and it's capabilities in some way.

P.S. Even with the vague reference I would have expected the number to be higher.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Can somebody explain why the SR-71 is no longer in service, and if so, what replaced it as a recon plane?

I am no way any expert (just curious), but I understand that better stealth now exists. Why cant this be added to the SR-71. (Shape?)

At least why dont they develop a plane with the SR-71 top speed, but the stealth of the B2 or F/B-22? Maybe they already have??

Has it got anything to do with heat signature?

Whats more important, Top speed with a reduction in stealth, or Stealth with a reduction in speed??



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I think I can provide some answers as to why the SR-71 is no longer in service.

1. Satellite technology advanced to the point where they could roughly the same job with less risk and cost.

2. UAV technology has been advancing the point where during the 90's it would've been a fair assumption that UAV's would be capable of doing recon work.

3. Jet fuel is expensive.

4. Maintenence on an SR-71 is expensive and time consuming.

5. The SR-71 is a really expensive plane to replace or to build a new one.

6. The existing SR-71 airframes were getting old and are subjected to an extreme amount of stress for an aircraft. Like I said, expensive to replace.

7. Advancements in SAM and A2A missile technology now posses some risk to the SR-71.

8. Advancements of other stealth aircraft such as the F-117 and more recently the B-2.

As to what's replaced it, that would be satellites and UAV's. And maybe Aurora, but that's not confirmed.

Adding stealth features to the SR-71 simply might not be possible. In order to add that shape to it would constitute a complete redesign of the airframe, which would probably just result in a new aircraft. That new shape might prove stealthy, but might not be aerodynamic enough to achieve the same performance as the SR-71.

Trying to make a stealth plane with SR-71 like performance as I said might not be possible based on the aerodynamics. But I'm not sure. What I can say is that it does indeed have a lot to do with the heat signature. The intense heat generated by such high speed travel might not be compatible with current radar absorbing paint. Such paint might essentially peel off or something in flight, thus rendering that part useless. Also, there's not much point spending millions per aircraft only to have it highly suseptible to IR guided missiles. The friction caused by the SR-71's speed could very well be enough to attract an IR guided missiles, so it might not even matter if you put a good muffler on the engines.

As to what's more important, speed or stealth, I think a good balance is needed these days. Speed on it's own isn't worth much since there's always a missile that can catch up with your plane. But stealth on it's own isn't worth a lot since a slow aircraft can easily be caught up with by an interceptor and then taken down visually by a 20mm cannon if it's ever spotted. So really, what you need is a balance. I can't say for certain what the B-2 has in terms of speed, but I think that the F-22 is a pretty good example of a good mix of stealth and speed. But we'll have to see some real combat to tell for certain.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I do recall in one of my SR-71 reference books one of the pilots flying a Habu mission talks about starting a turn a bit late (At speed its turn rate was pretty poor) and overflying parts of China on accident.

I have to agree with WW analysis of this.

1) Where is the pictures of the SR-71 wreckage? There is no way they would keep that quiet esp. at that point of the cold war.

2) An intercept over International air space or a NATO country would have resulted in a major international incident and its unlikely that the US would cover that up.

3) There is no indication that the mission profiles for the SR-71 missions were ever altered. It stands to reason that if one was intercepted radical changes would have to be made in the program.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
As to what's replaced it, that would be satellites and UAV's. And maybe Aurora, but that's not confirmed.



This got me thinking (rare occurance), how long was the SR-71 in action before its existance was confirmed or made public.

Why would the military make it public?

Same goes for the B2.
And were either craft used in combat missions before their existance was made public.

If so, its more than plausable top secret Airplanes currently get deployed for classified ME missions?
Even the Russians / Chinese could have some pretty impressive toys in their arsenal.

I guess the future will tell, but if anyone can supply feedback, I would be greatful.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Missiles typically travel at Mach 4. The Blackbird cruised at Mach 3.2. That's about a 1000km/h closing rate the missile has on the Blackbird which cruises at 71000 to 78000 feet.

However, if a Mig got close, all the Blackbird has to do is pull up and ride 8 degrees angle of attack which would make it pretty much float to above 85000 feet. Could a missile gliding at Mach 4 somehow intercept something 10000feet above it going Mach 3.2?

I do not think so, the Mig would need to be in a very very good postion to do that. A VERY VERY VERY good postion as a matter of fact, because the Blackbird has sideward looking radar which enables it, in most cases, to miss any base by a few hundred miles.

I think the reason it was retired was because you could see it coming from hours away. They would see it coming and take precautions so it would not get the recon it needed. Could the people that operate spy satalites (NSA?) have enough of them over so many countries that the Enemy is NEVER not under survelance?

[edit on 18-8-2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo

Why would the military make it public?



Basically two reasons....

Firstly you have to operate the aircraft in the real world. You can keep it secret for years, but eventually you will want to deploy it somewhere that you don't have absolute control over who sees it. If memory serves me correctly the SR-71 was officially announced about the time that the US began deploying them to Britain. So in that case it wasn't because the Russians might have seen it, but that most of the Western world would have seen it through the eyes of European spotters watching it come and go from British bases.

Secondly, you can attempt to keep everything secret forever. However, politics is all about balance of power. If you go back to when gunpowder was invented and let's say your enemy had gunpowder. Unless you somehow let your enemy know that you too have gunpowder, he will think you are easy meat, and that could lead to an 'unnecessary' war that would cost both sides dearly. The same holds true today. You have to let your opponents know that you have particular types of weapon systems, but you don't tell him the exact details - for instance the full official specification and capabilities of the SR-71 have never been released - everything that you will read (including on this forum) is a mixture of officially released data and a whole lot of interpolation and guesswork - not to mention propaganda.

The SR-71 was operational well before it was announced (and this has been confirmed officially), but the B-2 was a very public program, with the roll-out of the first airframe a very public occasion, but realize that the amount of official information that has been released about the B-2 is pretty small and fuzzy - once again there has been much interpolation to come up with the 'data' that people are quite willing to throw around as fact.

The fact is that during the cold war, when new Soviet aircraft made their appearance, engineers examined photographs of those aircraft, estimated dimensions, used those dimensions to calculate the rough power of the engines, which they released (as estimates). Magazines picked up the information, often converted it from metric to imperial (which accounts for the often odd, apparently exact numbers quoted (like, say, 19,255 lbst - a direct conversion from say, a round figure in the metric system) and sometimes forgot to mention that the whole thing was based on an estimate in the first place.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 18/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
...not to mention propaganda.


Thanks WW you have saved me considerable time trawling the web for the exact info I was after. You seem some kind of expert on Military Aircraft, and its good to be able to ask somebody directly the answers I'm after.

Can you answer me this?
Is Aurora likely, or is this just propaganda? Surely the US Government has something hidden in their Air arsenal that they are not telling the public about. I don't mean these fictional shaped flying saucers. Im talking about a jet propelled V shaped winged mobile. (AirPlane)

(V Shaped winged mobile. Sounds like a Cadalliac on Roids)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join