Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

SR-71 Intercepted 169 Times

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification YASKY... This is from my post back on 17 August on page one of this thread.


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.


Now this is very different from an escort intercept like the ones that occurred frequently during the Cold War, an even now.


[edit on 7-9-2007 by WestPoint23]




posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
huh? Well I would guess that it was deemed that if they flew the SR-71 or A-12 in a profile that allowed it to be changed to out run or reposition its self out and away from fighters they deemed that the weapons system and weapons weight would be more of a slow down and when slowed down it would have to use it. So when you use it you have dead russians or americans.


What i am trying to say is that the US could have deployed a mach three class interceptor aircraft that could have escorted and protected a mach three class recon aircraft from the type of threat the Mig-25 obviously posed. Why indulge in all this chest thumping over a plane that could be intercepted ( Sa-5b with a nuclear warhead; and no, no one gets 'irradiated') with a number of different weapons at the time?


better just to stay faster and get your recon.


Not very useful when your enemy always had the capability to shoot down your aircraft; fast is great in recon aircraft but satellites are certainly faster and could be in the right spot within 30-40 minutes; the USSR frequently launched a couple of short term low orbit spy satellites when international events required it.

The pure 'recon' massively expensive peacetime only Sr-71 is nothing but a massive waste of funds that could have been invested in a much cheaper and larger aircraft that could have provided far FAR better data in the absence of a declared third world war; just another instance of the US taxpayers getting robbed blind.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Stellar, the whole point of the Sr-71 was sideways looking surveillance so it did not need to fly very far into the Soviet Union.


Then why the massively excessive speed for a mission that the USSR had no legal business interdicting?


Even if it did, it would be extremely difficult to get a hit at.


Only if you presume a very rigid set of peacetime circumstances.


The R-40 travells at Mach 4.5 and the R-33 travells at Mach 3.5. Hardly a speed advantage of Mach .8 and .3 respectively is enough to successfully intercept a target travelling at Mach 3.2 unless it's a direct, headon engagement,


As far as i know the Sr-71 could only reach mach 3.3-3.5 in some circumstances so the R-40 had tail chase initial closing speed of Mach 1-1.2; if the Mig-25 could get within about 4-8km ( my estimates) of the Sr-71's tail they were going to get lucky more often than the Sr-71's pilot's would have liked. There are obviously many other weapons the USSR could deploy so this fascination with single plane vs single plane is abit pointless.


which even then, would be difficult for the missile since I have doubt they're designed for a Mach 8 closing rate at 80 000 feet.


You doubt? What happens when a 300 kg 'dud' hits a Sr-71 at a closing speed of near mach 6? Would you take the risk of a numerous duds flying by you or a 70 kg warhead going off sometimes?

As your last source indicates it was not something that the US could not do so probably&logically not a capability someone did not leak to the USSR.


A-12 probably.
Sr-71, maybe, a big maybe.


Why?


Personally I do not see the point of wasting recources and blowing engines to demonstrate an ability that isn't needed.


So maybe they could intercept the Sr-71 at Mach 2.5? I made a example of the sacrifices that could easily be made if the USSR wanted to destroy the few dozen strong fleet of Sr-71's...


The Sr-71 could be seen by radar over an hour before it came close to an area, perfectly adequate time to cover up and or stop the area that is going to be photogrgaphed. Spy satellites routinely flew over the Soviet Union very often and taking the above into consideration I think Spy satellites made the Sr-71 abit redundant.


Unless the Satellites were more easily blinded than the Sr-71...


U.S. Fears Satellites Damaged
Peter G. Neumann
Sun 24 Jan 88 14:10:34-PST

Subtitle -- Soviets used lasers to cripple equipment, sources contend.

Washington, by Richard Sale (UPI, 24 January 1988).

U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced Soviet laser attacks have damaged
supersophisticated U.S. spy satellites deployed to monitor missile and
spacecraft launches, administration sources said. These sources said they
believe the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple optical equipment
attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam, the major Soviet space center, to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information. Administration
intelligence sources said they fear that other vital U.S. reconnaissance
satellites will soon be endangered because six new Soviet laser battle stations
are under construction... "There is no way you can protect the optical sensors
on satellites" from laser attacks, an Air Force official said. ...

Intelligence sources acknowledged that the Pentagon also has trained
ground-based lasers on Soviet spacecraft, sometimes in attempts to disrupt
their sensors. ...

catless.ncl.ac.uk...



One effect of the panic was the strengthening of U.S. satellites against
radiation that in the end would help shield them from ground-based laser
attacks. According to U.S. intelligence sources, who asked not to be named,
such attacks damaged super-sophisticated American spy satellites deployed to
monitor missile and spacecraft launches at the major Russian space center.

In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was "painted" by a Soviet laser
and sustained "permanent damage," according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s.

Air Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
"battle-ready" ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they believed
had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.

But the result of the "hosings" of U.S. equipment was positive. The United
States moved quickly to install laser warning receivers on its newest
generation of low-orbit spacecraft, U.S. intelligence sources said. The
receivers have allowed time for evasive action and have assisted ground
controllers seeking to prove the Soviets had inflicted the damage.

One State Dept. analyst said that the whole Star Wars system of the Reagan
presidency was the result of Soviets "messing around with our satellites."

www.g2mil.com...



One potential method might be a powerfull ground-based laser (why was the infrared sensor on one of our satellites suddenly blinded as it passed over the USSR?) A laser on the Mir space station recently "illuminated" an ICBM during the cruise phase of its flight in space, demonstrating Soviet ability to detect and track a missile, according t o Pentagon sources (Washington Inquirer , July 24, 1987).

The purpose of Mir may indeed include bringing about "peace" -- Soviet style,
implies absence of opposition.

www.oism.org...



The reason the YF-12A did not come to light, was because it would quiet obviously be useless for anything else other than high altitude, fairly long range intercepts and Russia did not have a plane comparable to the B-70 or the Blackbird.


Tu-22 backfire?


During the Cold War, the Tu-22M was operated by the VVS (Soviet Air Force) in a strategic bombing role, and by the AVMF (Aviatsiya Voyenno-Morskogo Flota, Soviet Naval Aviation) in a long-range maritime anti-shipping role. The United States was highly concerned about the threat that this new bomber posed. By 1982 fewer than 200 had been built. While it was unable to complete a round trip to the continguous United States without aerial refueling, it posed a tremendous threat to the US Navy and to NATO assets everywhere. Backfires that were either refueled, on one-way missions, or forward based had the ability to make low-level penetrations of United States territory almost at will. NORAD relied heavily on early detection and interception of high-altitude bombers and had comparatively few surface-to-air assets to defend against such an attack.

en.wikipedia.org...


As i recall they produced them until 1993 resulting in more than 400 airframes...


If they had built a Mig-31, then that would of been great, but they didn't. Now, the only aircraft that can mildly be abled to shoot down the Mig-31, is the F-22. Though that is also a big maybe, and of course, it is a whole other story.

Thanks for reading.


The US could built a better plane than the MIg-31/25 and earlier on and i am not happy with excuses administrators at the time presented. If they could make the B-58 Hustler they could make a escort for it!

Stellar



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

What i am trying to say is that the US could have deployed a mach three class interceptor aircraft that could have escorted

Doubling costs and maintainence costs for an armed interceptor travelling at Mach 3 would be pointless as a Mig getting a shot and the missile hitting is highly unlikely unless the mig was directly infront of the Blackbird. Even in such a case where a Mig gets directly infront of one, the Blackbird could either climb in a sem-ballistic arc or turn and the Mig(s) would be in an unworkable situation.


Why indulge in all this chest thumping over a plane that could be intercepted ( Sa-5b with a nuclear warhead; and no, no one gets 'irradiated') with a number of different weapons at the time?

The whole point of the SR-71 was side looking radar so it did not always have to fly very close to SAM sites. Why do you think they retired the A-12 in 1968?

Even if it did, do you really think the Russians would send up a NUKE to stop them from getting renaissance which could be taken care of less than an hour later by satellite?


EDIT: You responded when i was still typing. Hold on.

[edit on 8/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   


Then why the massively excessive speed for a mission that the USSR had no legal business interdicting?

Because in certain circumstances the Blackbird may be required to fly over somewhat highthreat areas. That's not to say it's going to fly over Foxbat and S-200 sites, no?

The D-21 drone was for that, though, that never fully came to light.

As far as i know the Sr-71 could only reach mach 3.3-3.5 in some circumstances so the R-40 had tail chase initial closing speed of Mach 1-1.2; if the Mig-25 could get within about 4-8km (

That window is particularly small for something maneuvering at Mach 3.

If a Mig gets behind one, there is no reason in my mind that the Blackbird could not outmaneuver a Foxbat at that altitude as the Blackbird has chines and a big delta which keep a low angle of attack and wingloading, enabling, according to a Blackbird pilot I've talked to, ballistic arcs much over cruise alt.

I've also heard the Mig-31 cannot turn hard very hard at highaltitude because of dutch rolling caused by the aircraft yawing asa it has so much inertia.


You doubt? What happens when a 300 kg 'dud' hits a Sr-71 at a closing speed of near mach 6? Would you take the risk of a numerous duds flying by you or a 70 kg warhead going off sometimes?

Because I have doubts a 300kg missile with its tiny wings will be particularly well suited to the high inertia, low lift environement at 80000feet, particularly closing on a maneuvering target closing at Mach 6.

Don't get me wrong, it is possible, but the launch window and missile 'useability' for lack of a better word, would be reduced.


As your last source indicates it was not something that the US could not do so probably&logically not a capability someone did not leak to the USSR.

My last source?



Why?

A-12 did not have sideways looking Cameras so the chance of getting shot down was exponentially higher.

I also do not beleive the USA were dumb enough to fly Sr-71s very close to Foxbat bases and S-200s.


Unless the Satellites were more easily blinded than the Sr-71...

Interesting.

I wonder if the Americans just put a 'cap' over the recon gear until it wasn't needed.

Thanks for posting.



Tu-22 backfire?

Maybe. But I don't think that was designed for cruise at extremely high speeds. I thought it was more of a B1 of all planes?


The US could built a better plane than the MIg-31/25 and earlier on and i am not happy with excuses administrators at the time presented. If they could make the B-58 Hustler they could make a escort for it!

There is no excuse for not getting a cooler looking, and faster plane.


In my opinion the only real way a Sr-71 can be shot down from a group of Foxbats is if they Soviet Union specifically made very special tactics and had knowledge of Blackbird flight paths. Both of which could happen, so I guess you're right, the Russians could destroy the Sr-71s if they really wanted to, even though, it may or may not work to plan every time.


[edit on 8/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter


Then why the massively excessive speed for a mission that the USSR had no legal business interdicting?



You doubt? What happens when a 300 kg 'dud' hits a Sr-71 at a closing speed of near mach 6? Would you take the risk of a numerous duds flying by you or a 70 kg warhead going off sometimes?

Because I have doubts a 300kg missile with its tiny wings will be particularly well suited to the high inertia, low lift environement at 80000feet, particularly closing on a maneuvering target closing at Mach 6.


In my opinion the only real way a Sr-71 can be shot down from a group of Foxbats is if they Soviet Union specifically made very special tactics and had knowledge of Blackbird flight paths. Both of which could happen, so I guess you're right, the Russians could destroy the Sr-71s if they really wanted to, even though, it may or may not work to plan every time.


[edit on 8/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]
You don't know what your talking about, so what your saying is that "AirForce Mothly and "AirCombat" magazines were lying when they wrote Su-27's and MiG-31's tracked and chased the Sr-71 many times during the cold war
I know you don't know what your talking about.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
As far as I know none of those Su-27s and Mig-31s got a shot at one and only tracked the Sr-71.


[edit on 8/9/2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
As far as I know none of those Su-27s and Mig-31s got a shot at one and only tracked the Sr-71.


[edit on 8/9/2007 by C0bzz]
The reason they didn't was because the 71 did not DARE come with in S.U. range THATS WHY.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
How is a Su-27 or MiG-31 going to chase a SR-71? Being able to chase implies that who is chasing is able to catch up with what they are chasing.

SR-71s flew in range of SAM systems and Soviet aircraft. But the blackbirds stayed in international airspace, and did not cross the boundary. Yes, they would be vulnerable to SAMs, in spite of Mach 3+ performance, although not an easy kill. Not really any point to try to overfly the USSR, Satellites could eventually get the desired imagery.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
This is getting pointless, the SR-71 overflew plenty of nations armed with Soviet SAM systems and interceptors. It had hundreds of SAM's fired at it with none ever going down due to hostile fire. And as far as I'm aware it was never escorted (i.e. intercepted) by any foreign plane. Claiming radar contact at x number of miles from an SR-71 you wont be able to catch qualifies as "tracking" and "intercept" is BS of the highest order. Now can we finally let this horse rot...?

[edit on 9-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by YASKY
 


It's been stated in the above posts, and two, your 'intercept' tells us nothing and you said it yourself. They were not intercepted and they could not be intercepted by such low and slow flankers. Foxhounds and Foxbats only.

[edit on 10/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This is getting pointless, the SR-71 overflew plenty of nations armed with Soviet SAM systems and interceptors. It had hundreds of SAM's fired at it with none ever going down due to hostile fire. And as far as I'm aware it was never escorted (i.e. intercepted) by any foreign plane. Claiming radar contact at x number of miles from an SR-71 you wont be able to catch qualifies as "tracking" and "intercept" is BS of the highest order. Now can we finally let this horse rot...?

[edit on 9-9-2007 by WestPoint23]
Please post sources that stated SAMs were fired at SR-71? I've never heard of that.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I would but all my sources are offline. But the SR-71 DID have many SAM's shot at it. One was even damaged by one as I stated earlier. It was minor damage, and the only time one was ever damaged, but from all the evidence it was from a SAM.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Please post sources that stated SAMs were fired at SR-71? I've never heard of that.


"Skunk Works" by Ben Rich (the guy who used to run the place) has a few cases detailed in the pilot comments.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Because in certain circumstances the Blackbird may be required to fly over somewhat highthreat areas. That's not to say it's going to fly over Foxbat and S-200 sites, no?


Probably not and certainly not the Sa-5B or Sa-10's.


The D-21 drone was for that, though, that never fully came to light.
That window is particularly small for something maneuvering at Mach 3.


The Sr-71 was not maneuverable by any stretch of the imagination.



If a Mig gets behind one, there is no reason in my mind that the Blackbird could not outmaneuver a Foxbat at that altitude as the Blackbird has chines and a big delta which keep a low angle of attack and wingloading, enabling, according to a Blackbird pilot I've talked to, ballistic arcs much over cruise alt.


And yet i am not altogether sure how any of that changes anything; maybe i'm just too ignorant.



I've also heard the Mig-31 cannot turn hard very hard at highaltitude because of dutch rolling caused by the aircraft yawing asa it has so much inertia.


It's FAR more manoeuvrable than the Sr-71....


Because I have doubts a 300kg missile with its tiny wings will be particularly well suited to the high inertia, low lift environement at 80000feet, particularly closing on a maneuvering target closing at Mach 6.


No doubt...


Don't get me wrong, it is possible, but the launch window and missile 'useability' for lack of a better word, would be reduced.


For sure


My last source?



The YF-12A successfully launched an AIM-47 missile at an altitude of over seventy thousand feet and a speed at over Mach 3. It hit a B-47 drone dead on.


Was a statement not a source so my mistake. You basically showed that the US had the capability to do intercepts at very high closing speeds..


A-12 did not have sideways looking Cameras so the chance of getting shot down was exponentially higher. I also do not beleive the USA were dumb enough to fly Sr-71s very close to Foxbat bases and S-200s.


And that was not 'legal' either and Mr Powers proved what kind of embarrassment resulted.



nteresting.I wonder if the Americans just put a 'cap' over the recon gear until it wasn't needed.

Thanks for posting.


If you would rather believe that i am not going to try stop you.



Maybe. But I don't think that was designed for cruise at extremely high speeds. I thought it was more of a B1 of all planes?


Well the original B1 was a far bigger plane who's capabilities were pretty much destroyed resulting in the B-1B being not far more useful than a B-52. The Backfires were introduced much earlier and clearly their smaller size indicated that they were strategic aircraft meant to interdict Atlantic traffic or fly intercontinental missions at high speed with nuclear armed ALCM's of their own; the B-1b seemed to be more of a do-all/do-nothing type of aircraft that at Mach 1.25 depended on stealth and low altitude to somehow get by.


There is no excuse for not getting a cooler looking, and faster plane.


Definitely not.



In my opinion the only real way a Sr-71 can be shot down from a group of Foxbats is if they Soviet Union specifically made very special tactics and had knowledge of Blackbird flight paths. Both of which could happen, so I guess you're right, the Russians could destroy the Sr-71s if they really wanted to, even though, it may or may not work to plan every time.


Well i am still waiting for someone to show me how documented information of how many weapons were fired at the SR-71 in anger as that may very well reveal just how great it was.



Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Doubling costs and maintainence costs for an armed interceptor travelling at Mach 3 would be pointless as a Mig getting a shot and the missile hitting is highly unlikely unless the mig was directly infront of the Blackbird.


I am talking about a fighter interceptor to protect a Mach 3 Bomber fleet; Sabre's and Fortresses if you will.



In such a case where a Mig gets directly infront of one, the Blackbird could either climb in a sem-ballistic arc or turn and the Mig(s) would be in an unworkable situation.


Possibly but as i said before i think it's time they/we/you found reliable sources so we can settle this....


The whole point of the SR-71 was side looking radar so it did not always have to fly very close to SAM sites. Why do you think they retired the A-12 in 1968?


Right and because it's illegal to do overflights of sovereign airspace? Since they can't shoot you down in international airspace why bother with speed at all when you don't believe it's going to be useful when the war actually starts?


Even if it did, do you really think the Russians would send up a NUKE to stop them from getting renaissance which could be taken care of less than an hour later by satellite?


They had plenty of nukes and the recovery process for satellite information used to be pretty tedious back in the day and as i pointed out they were at that time already blinding each other's Sat's with such spying then in the future possibly becoming quite ineffective.


EDIT: You responded when i was still typing. Hold on.




Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo
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??


Another reason the SR-71 was retired was that technologically they were simply ready to move on to the Aurora Program. Which is actually a series of planes; all controversial. My grandfather was an engineer flown between Edwards air strip and Area 51. From the X1, the original U2, and the SR-71 program. then went to San Francisco when the navy wanted to put ballistic missles on submarines.{quite a legacy} Area 51 was also a primary test sight to find out what foreign aircraft could do. testing stolen migs etc. sometimes you can't always bring the rat to the lab. a side use of the SR-71 was to do field tests on aircraft that they didn't have lab access to...which is why they wanted to be chased! it was a primary function of the program to expose the limits of the migs..



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by YASKY
Please post sources that stated SAMs were fired at SR-71? I've never heard of that.


"Skunk Works" by Ben Rich (the guy who used to run the place) has a few cases detailed in the pilot comments.


During Gulf War 1 the SR-71 did various fly overs and repeatedly left SAM's in their dust.. One Pilot admitted that they actually hit Mach 4 at one point and "still had a lot of peddle left, it terrified us!"



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
During Gulf War 1 the SR-71 did various fly overs and repeatedly left SAM's in their dust.. One Pilot admitted that they actually hit Mach 4 at one point and "still had a lot of peddle left, it terrified us!"



Not believing that for a second.


That would firmly put the engine intakes in the pressure wave off the nose - which would instantly stall them (at best) or unbalance the engine enough to wreck bearings etc ripping the engine apart, and subsequently the wing off.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER


During Gulf War 1 the SR-71 did various fly overs and repeatedly left SAM's in their dust.. One Pilot admitted that they actually hit Mach 4 at one point and "still had a lot of peddle left, it terrified us!"


Which is this one pilot? Flt Lt. James T. Kirk? No wait.. Jonathan Archer then?


Seriously, Mach 4 on the SR-71?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
During Gulf War 1 the SR-71 did various fly overs and repeatedly left SAM's in their dust.. One Pilot admitted that they actually hit Mach 4 at one point and "still had a lot of peddle left, it terrified us!"


Direct quote from Ben R. Rich from the book Skunk Works coming up.



From Skunk Works - Ben R Rich & Leo Janos - ISBN 0-7515-1503-5

A few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, I called General Michael Loh, Air Force vice chief of staff, and told him that I could have three Blackbirds ready and operational in 90 days to overfly the region. I also could supply qualified pilots.

(snipped infil text)

General Loh said he would get back to me. About a week later I received a call saying that Dick Cheney had vetoed the idea. The secretary felt that there was no such thing as a one-time only role for the Blackbird. "Once we let this damned airplane back in, we'll never get it back out", he told General Loh


So there you have it, from the horses mouth. No SR-71's flew in either Gulf War.

As for the Mach 4 rubbish, taken from the same book



I reminded Keyworth of the enormous problems we encountered building the Blackbird which flew "only" and Mach 3.2. I said to him "Do you know what would've happened if we tried to fly much faster than that? The airplanes surfaces would have come apart from heat friction, and that was titanium, do you have something stronger?"


So, you may ask - Who is this Ben R. Rich guy?

Well he designed the Propulsion systems on the Blackbird. He was also CEO of the Skunk Works following on from Kelly Johnston and won a Collier Trophy for recognising the potential of Stealth and instigating the F-117 programme.

Please can people just do some research first before they post wild speculative stuff?

I thought we were in the business of denying ignorance.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join