SR-71 Intercepted 169 Times

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Please can people just do some research first before they post wild speculative stuff?

I thought we were in the business of denying ignorance.


No they can't and you better get used to it.
What gave you idea that most here were in the business of denying ignorance? I mean you don't really buy into any of that do you?

Heheh..

Stellar




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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


Probably because when it was designed and built they WERE overflying the USSR? Overflights were stopped after Powers was shot down in the U-2 and the A-12/SR-71 was already well along by that point. The J-58 was developed in 1956, and the A-12 design was accepted in 1959.

As for it being strictly peacetime, the SR-71 overflew MANY countries during wartimes, that operated Soviet built SAM systems, and they knew it was coming just about every time. But yet, it was never shot down, and there is one that they THINK was hit by a SAM.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Probably because when it was designed and built they WERE overflying the USSR?


Right and they decided to keep building that of all planes while shelving the Hustler? I am just saying that you can do the same without the flash and expense...


Overflights were stopped after Powers was shot down in the U-2 and the A-12/SR-71 was already well along by that point. The J-58 was developed in 1956, and the A-12 design was accepted in 1959.


Ok...


As for it being strictly peacetime, the SR-71 overflew MANY countries during wartimes, that operated Soviet built SAM systems, and they knew it was coming just about every time.


Yeah and obviously i do not take count those instances in which Sa-2's and fives were fired without the input of the massive battle management radars the USSR were operating.. Maybe i should but i would rather have some specifics on who fired at it and when.


But yet, it was never shot down, and there is one that they THINK was hit by a SAM.


And since i have been wrong before i can more than deal with a reality where the SR-71 criss crossed Russian skies with impunity. All i ask is for some sources saying so and i will be out of your hair , on this issue, for good.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for it being strictly peacetime, the SR-71 overflew MANY countries during wartimes, that operated Soviet built SAM systems, and they knew it was coming just about every time. But yet, it was never shot down, and there is one that they THINK was hit by a SAM.


Yes - they operated individual launchers, but Libya never had a true system like the Soviets.


Any kind of deep incursion from an SR-71 over Russia (as opposed to Lybia etc) would have been magnitudes more dangerous.

[I'm not saying it definitely would or would not have been shot down every time - I'm saying the odds on survival would have decreased dramatically in comparison to a run over a satellite state]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Of course it couldn't have flown over the USSR with impunity. Nothing could have. But it would have had a much higher survival rate than anything else would have.

As for shelving the B-58, you apparently haven't bothered to read anything about all the MAJOR problems the B-58 had. It was a great idea, but when they tried to implement it, it turned into a monster.


Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the B-58 program grew. The correction of obvious combat deficiencies was slow, and it seemed almost certain that early inventory aircraft would be short of components and would have no high frequency radio or identification equipment. Some SAC officials were beginning to think that 2 wings of B-58s would be plenty since the aircraft would require greater tanker support than the B-52s. Also, the B-58s would not be able to fly at low level without extensive and costly modifications. Others at SAC wanted more B-58s, having faith in the follow-on B-58B that could be expected to materialize after production of the first 105 B-58As (test-aircraft included).



Category II test results and several accidents postponed Category III testing to August 1960, a 6-month slippage. SAC did not want to start the Category III tests before correction of certain B-58 deficiencies. Electrical malfunctions, tire failures, difficulties with the flight control system, and possible structural weaknesses appeared responsible for a rash of recent crashes. Accident findings did not indicate any consistency in the causes, but the B-58 remained under flight restrictions and SAC would not accept the aircraft pending further investigation. Supersonic speed restrictions were raised to Mach 1.5 in March 1960, but only for the aircraft equipped with modified flight controls. Also, modifications required by SAC had to be made to improve safety. By mid-1960, some structural improvements were completed. The aircraft tail had been strengthened, critical side panels had been reinforced, and an ARDC ad hoc committee report was given to SAC. The report emphasized that there were no design deficiencies in either the aircraft or the flight control system, and that when all functioned, the systems met the specifications. The report also noted that SAC pilots had verified the B-58's good handling characteristics, but pilot training and high proficiency were necessary. In addition, maintenance and control personnel should be highly skilled since those areas could greatly affect B-58 operations.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Those are just a FEW of the B-58 problems.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


Of course it would have been dangerous, which is why they tried for basic stealth, and high speed. I won't say they could have done it with impunity, or they WOULDN'T have been shot down, but their chances of survival were much higher than anything else. Especially since the areas they were interested in weren't all deep inside the USSR, which is how a side scan camera could see them.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
While the B-58 obviously had problems, I still believe it was a good aircraft. Speed is why they built it and just look at some of it's records. It took only 8.5 hours for it to fly from Tokyo-London and it was estimated it could have done it in 7.5 if one of the engines hadn't gone bad.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
And that pretty much sums up the B-58 in a nutshell. "IF". It was a good idea, and not a bad design IF they had worked out the bugs. And actually for the record attempt there were THREE aircraft. Two were going to go for the Tokyo-London record, and one the Tokyo-Chicago record. Around the time of their refueling at Anchorage they found out that the other aircraft on the London attempt had a left side spike problem and had to abort. It used the J-79 engine with a similar inlet spike as the SR-71.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
We are all assuming that the published speed and altitude of the SR-71 is the actual speed and altitude. I got to speak to a retired SR-71 pilot on a couple of occasions (lived in the town I lived in at the time). He said that they never flew it as fast as the engines would take it, because they started worrying about the friction and stress on the airframe.

I asked him about the rumors I had heard that the actual speed was Mach 3.8+ at an altitude of 100,000 feet+. He just smiled and said, "well on a couple of occasions we outran SAMs".


Bravo.. published speeds are never accurate.. the head of sw can declare the govt speed all day but he never flew the thing. And politicians always tell the truth about military operations..not!

anyway my basic if controversial message before was not primarily about speed. it was the intentional intercepts as part of the program. my uncle was one of the pilots of that program. too bad he died 3 years ago so i cant give you any good quotes for the rest.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by DIRTMASTER]


[edit on 17-9-2007 by DIRTMASTER]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
the head of sw can declare the govt speed all day but he never flew the thing.


ROFLMAO

Considering he designed part of it, I think he'd have a fairly good idea.

Or did they just employ him because he looked good in a suit?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Please delete. Mouse button gone mad!

[edit on 17/0907/07 by neformore]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Please delete. Mouse Button gone mad

[edit on 17/0907/07 by neformore]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
the head of sw can declare the govt speed all day but he never flew the thing.


ROFLMAO

Considering he designed part of it, I think he'd have a fairly good idea.

Or did they just employ him because he looked good in a suit?


probably does look good in a suit..
i am just saying that designs often exceed expectations. ill give an example the seawolf submarine was the first designed completely by computer. so the designers thought the results were predictable. but that is not what they got. they got what we bubble heads lovingly called the pierwolf. it was constantly under repair and reinvention. it went faster then it should have and collapsed the sonar dome made of grp. had to invent a new dome material. so they went faster until the welds on the sail began to give way and were forced to find a new way to weld a 90+ton sail back on. it had issues like that for years which delayed the construction of the jimmy carter ect. the sr-71 was similar in that once built they still had to tinker with it because it also exceeded specs. ill admit we can never validate the words of pilots completely but in reason there is always a degree of swag.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
probably does look good in a suit..
i am just saying that designs often exceed expectations. ill give an example the seawolf submarine was the first designed completely by computer. so the designers thought the results were predictable. but that is not what they got. they got what we bubble heads lovingly called the pierwolf. it was constantly under repair and reinvention. it went faster then it should have and collapsed the sonar dome made of grp. had to invent a new dome material. so they went faster until the welds on the sail began to give way and were forced to find a new way to weld a 90+ton sail back on. it had issues like that for years which delayed the construction of the jimmy carter ect. the sr-71 was similar in that once built they still had to tinker with it because it also exceeded specs. ill admit we can never validate the words of pilots completely but in reason there is always a degree of swag.



The laws of physics are the laws of physics - and no amount of pilot ego is going to change them (no matter how much many pilots would like to think otherwise).


The SR-71 is INCAPABLE of going Mach 4 - that is not up for discussion, its simply the way things are and always will be.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Awww! But I was looking forward to meeting Flt. Lt. James T. Kirk!!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It is a moot point if the engines can take the SR-71 past Mach 4. The fact remains that the airframe would not be able to sustain those speeds and would suffer catastrophic structural failure.

If the aircraft itself can't take it, then it doesn't matter if the engines can push it.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Of course it couldn't have flown over the USSR with impunity. Nothing could have. But it would have had a much higher survival rate than anything else would have.


Much higher than far less than non is not in my opinion worth so much effort when that funds could have been directed into sattelites waiting on launchpads for crisis situations. Maybe they were using all the rockets for the secret moon base, the Russians had plenty to spare after all, so i just don't know what to think.



As for shelving the B-58, you apparently haven't bothered to read anything about all the MAJOR problems the B-58 had.


As if the first mach two strategic bomber you build is not going to experience problems.
Show me the high tech program that is not experience problems? Fact is they were doing something very complex and they had solved or resolved all issues some years before the entire remaining fleet were just scrapped. The USSR were very happy with this turn of events and the times were just getting better for them.


It was a great idea, but when they tried to implement it, it turned into a monster.


But the B-2's are still flying...


Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the B-58 program grew. The correction of obvious combat deficiencies was slow, and it seemed almost certain that early inventory aircraft would be short of components and would have no high frequency radio or identification equipment. Some SAC officials were beginning to think that 2 wings of B-58s would be plenty since the aircraft would require greater tanker support than the B-52s. Also, the B-58s would not be able to fly at low level without extensive and costly modifications. Others at SAC wanted more B-58s, having faith in the follow-on B-58B that could be expected to materialize after production of the first 105 B-58As (test-aircraft included).


In the end the airforce were perfectly happy with what they got and they politicians had to destroy this system as well as the ABM defenses that had been deployed all over the US. I can go on with the list but if you check you will find a pattern.. Why did they , after spending the maximum amount possible, continue a program that resulted in the F-111 that were not obviously superior and still more than twice as expensive as a B-52? What is the logic behind scraping a fully completely fleet of mach two strategic bombers only to late accept the troubled F-111's into the same role?

Could they have wasted US taxpayer funds any more efficiently?


The report also noted that SAC pilots had verified the B-58's good handling characteristics, but pilot training and high proficiency were necessary. In addition, maintenance and control personnel should be highly skilled since those areas could greatly affect B-58 operations.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Those are just a FEW of the B-58 problems.

So they were in fact fact resolving the issues and presuming that the USAF could at that time find plenty of 'proficient' people i am not sure why anyone can argue that there was in 1970 any reason to scrape the reaming 90 odd aircraft.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
And that pretty much sums up the B-58 in a nutshell. "IF". It was a good idea, and not a bad design IF they had worked out the bugs.


They did work out the bugs and it's not like the F-111 did not have teething problems of it's own obviously substansially benefiting from the steep learning curve of the B-58 series.


And actually for the record attempt there were THREE aircraft. Two were going to go for the Tokyo-London record, and one the Tokyo-Chicago record. Around the time of their refueling at Anchorage they found out that the other aircraft on the London attempt had a left side spike problem and had to abort. It used the J-79 engine with a similar inlet spike as the SR-71.


Not sure how this invalidates all those performance records that were in fact set.

I can post plenty of sources but i will presume that you read at least a few articles to find these 'flaws' and are thus quite aware of all the evidence to the contrary.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I'm only going to address the last point in your post Stellar, because my time is seriously limited today, but it doesn't invalidate the records. But when you launch three aircraft and at least two of them (I can't find much on the third aircraft) land with major problems that's not a good sign for the airframe. Sure the crews loved it, but the downtime they had for maintenance was MUCH higher than the F-111 did, which considering how I feel about the Vark is saying a lot for me to say it was better than something. (And yes I'm talking about the Vark from personal experience)



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
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]


"Combat Aircraft"? Where might I be able to look for this? I have never heard of it but it sounds really interesting.


Originally posted by RichardPrice
An 'interception' can mean anything, and without more information no conclusions can be reached.


Exactly what I was thinking. In my mind, (My opinion is that) a successful interception is the actual shooting down of a "Hostile" aircraft. Yes that has happened, but to the best of my knowledge, when it comes to the SR-71, the worst that has ever happened was an aircraft returning from a mission with some dammage from a missile. Not one ever being shot down.

But again, that's only my opinion. An aircraft being successfully "Intercepted" is up to each person to decide what that means.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
i remember the last flight of the sr-71 cali-sc. i didnt know what it was at the time but me and my brother were outside and all of the sudden boom i thought a bomb went of. scared the poop out of me and my brother we heard later on the news what it was.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join