Mig-25 vs SR-71, page 15
Pages: <<  12    13    14    15  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 09:37 PM by flankerh
reply to post by mxboy15u



the point here is that the blackbird was too old,carried no weapons,wasn't built to be a fighter or interceptor and moreover when the MiG-25s were around it had no problem in dodging them but with the arrival of the MiG-31 the game went upto a new level and the blackbird (i am sorry) just couldn't compete at this level hence it became essential to take this expensive(its fuel was costlier than the costliest you can imagine) bird off the skies and satellites could to the same job without any loss of human life


reply posted on 21-12-2007 @ 12:37 PM by Pyros
Originally posted by flankerh
reply to
post by mxboy15u



the point here is that the blackbird was too old,carried no weapons,wasn't built to be a fighter or interceptor and moreover when the MiG-25s were around it had no problem in dodging them but with the arrival of the MiG-31 the game went upto a new level and the blackbird (i am sorry) just couldn't compete at this level hence it became essential to take this expensive(its fuel was costlier than the costliest you can imagine) bird off the skies and satellites could to the same job without any loss of human life


The arrival of the MiG-31 had nothing to do with the retirement of the SR-71. Setting the combat capabilities of the MiG-31 aside for just one second, the simple fact is that for decades the SR-71 has not intruded on Russian airspace, therefore the MiG-31 is not a threat. And since the radically-downgraded export version of the MiG-31 is not selling, its not likely that any US recce aircraft would need to worry about bumping into a Foxhound in the third world.

While the Blackbird possessed both speed and (limited) stealth, it also possess a tremendous (and highly classified) electronic warfare suite, which severely degraded the electronics of Russian AAW and SAM systems. Do not blindly believe that all those SAMs fired at Blackbirds missed simply because they flew too high and too fast - it was the comprehensive ECM suites, both barrage and self-screening, that allowed the SR-71 to have such a damage-free career. Read up on the contributions that Adolf Tolkachev provided to the US regarding Soviet AAW and SAM radars, and you will understand why the Blackbird was never shot down. As with most great jet aircraft, it's not the airframe or engines that make the bird - it's whats under the skin that makes it great.

However, that all being said, I'm sure that any SR-71 pilot, given the opportunity, would wisely give any modern MiG-31 a respectfully wide berth, given an encounter. You may be good at getting the Bear, but someday the Bear will, indeed, get you.....

I don't beieve that satellites provide everthing the Blackbird used to provide. And I also do not believe that UAVs are filling that gap either. I'd say there is at least a 75% probability that there is a manned, XVLO platform that is quietly filling the gap that was created whent the SR-71 was retired. The Blacbird is simply too big (RCS-wise) and too expensive to keep in the air.



reply posted on 21-12-2007 @ 07:02 PM by Lambo Rider
Originally posted by Pyros
Originally posted by flankerh
reply to
post by mxboy15u








While the Blackbird possessed both speed and (limited) stealth, it also possess a tremendous (and highly classified) electronic warfare suite, which severely degraded the electronics of Russian AAW and SAM systems. Do not blindly believe that all those SAMs fired at Blackbirds missed simply because they flew too high and too fast - it was the comprehensive ECM suites, both barrage and self-screening, that allowed the SR-71 to have such a damage-free career. Read up on the contributions that Adolf Tolkachev provided to the US regarding Soviet AAW and SAM radars, and you will understand why the Blackbird was never shot down. As with most great jet aircraft, it's not the airframe or engines that make the bird - it's whats under the skin that makes it great.

However, that all being said, I'm sure that any SR-71 pilot, given the opportunity, would wisely give any modern MiG-31 a respectfully wide berth, given an encounter. You may be good at getting the Bear, but someday the Bear will, indeed, get you.....



Please provide us with these sources that state what your saying, because from as far as I know rhe SR-71 was intercepted coming close to Russian borders NUMEROUS times by MiG-31/Su-27's, it has been reported in "AirForce Monthy" and "Combat Aircraft" , Magazines.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Lambo Rider]


reply posted on 1-1-2008 @ 04:00 PM by Blackbirdspecops
reply to post by longbow



Wrong. We flew over the USSR during the "Maryjane Clipper" missions. SAMS were fired at the Blackbird but with a quick vector heading it could outrun it because the SAM couldn't turn to lock on it.


reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 07:17 PM by FredT
reply to post by Zaphod58



Based on the various sources I have the A-12 was set at 3.35 Mach and the SR-71 at 3.3 . Im not sure what the listed versus the actuall speed for the YF-12 was but ill bet those cut down chines slowed it a bit.

As you point out Mach 5 never happend

In Ben Riches auto biography he mentions that a A-12 (I think) had a malfunction in its airspeed intake and the craft was flown briefly at mach 3.46. When the plane landed and the error discovered inspection of the plane showed the wiring in the wings had been burned almost to the point of failure. The structure of the airframe could not sustain Mach 5+ under any circumstances


[edit on 10/1/08 by FredT]


reply posted on 2-10-2008 @ 08:16 AM by ajsr71
Originally posted by FredT
reply to
post by Zaphod58



Based on the various sources I have the A-12 was set at 3.35 Mach and the SR-71 at 3.3 . Im not sure what the listed versus the actuall speed for the YF-12 was but ill bet those cut down chines slowed it a bit.

As you point out Mach 5 never happend

In Ben Riches auto biography he mentions that a A-12 (I think) had a malfunction in its airspeed intake and the craft was flown briefly at mach 3.46. When the plane landed and the error discovered inspection of the plane showed the wiring in the wings had been burned almost to the point of failure. The structure of the airframe could not sustain Mach 5+ under any circumstances


[edit on 10/1/08 by FredT]


In the early days they were very careful at the speeds achived and I think that the top speed they acheived was slightly above 3.2 and very few of pilots admitted to more than 3.24.

I belive that Ken Collins admitted to 3.3 in the A-12 and that the NASA IP took several of his guest riders to 3.26 or 3.27.

It was my clear understanding that the temperature profile steepened so rapidly above 3.2 that pushing 3.25 could easily exceed the 427 degrees CIT limit and could cause serious damage to the engines.
Mach 5- No Chance and I dont think that Mach 3.5 was every acheived.


reply posted on 31-1-2009 @ 06:17 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by P_38lightning



On paper the MiG-25 Foxbat has a top speed of around .1 mach faster than that of the Sr-71 Blackbird. However, speeds above mach 3 destroy the Foxbat's engines. An Egyptian MiG-25 broke mach 3.2 fleeing from Israeli F-4 Phanthoms, but the high speeds made the engines un-repairable. THe Soviets designed the MiG-25 to use it's mach 4.5 Vympel R-40 (AA-6 Acrid) missiles to shoot down fast-flying bombers and recon planes, such as the Sr-71 and XB-70 Valkrye at rages of within 37 miles.
Pages: <<  12    13    14    15  >>    ^^TOP^^



Amazing video of 747 lifting in place in extreme wind conditions
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags
Eerie Second World War RAF fighter plane discovered in the Sahara
  Posted 18 days ago with 8 member flags
Stealth chopper based in Nevada
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
HIFiRE Scramjet Research Flight Will Advance Hypersonic Technology
  Posted 17 days ago with 2 member flags
My CAF (Canadian armed forces) friend and his work on the TRS-2
  Posted 1 days ago with 2 member flags