Mig-25 vs SR-71

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sabre262
I think the SR-71 could get away with a flight over Russia without getting shot down by squadrons of Mig 25 or 31's however considering that spy satellites can do most of the things the SR-71


I think it would have been a dicey proposition for the A-12 at best back in its 60's heyday. Today, It would get shot down pretty quick. It was quick and fast, but despite KJ's efforts it was not stealthy. It would be toast pretty quick

[edit on 10/22/04 by FredT]




posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

I think it would have been a dicey proposition for the A-12 at best back in its 60's heyday. Today, It would get shot down pretty quick. It was quick and fast, but despite KJ's efforts it was not stealthy. It would be toast pretty quick

[edit on 10/22/04 by FredT]


Wasnt the SR-71 flown all the way up to the end of the cold war. I know the thing was shot at thousands of times Russia never brought a blackbird down but not from a lack of trying.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wasnt the SR-71 flown all the way up to the end of the cold war. I know the thing was shot at thousands of times Russia never brought a blackbird down but not from a lack of trying.


In open literature and acording to Habu Drivers, they NEVER overflew the Soviet Union. They did Korea and Vietnam for sure and skirted several Warsaw Pack countries but never directly over itself. That would have been waaaaayyyy too provacative esp. during the tension filled cold war.



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Mig-25 is not a big threat to SR-71. Remember it can make 2.8 (or 3.2) only with afterburner and without misilles/external fuel tanks. With afterburner it will be out of fuel in 10 minutes, while SR-71 can cruise on mach 3 HOURS.

BTW the reason why SR-71 never overflow USSR were not Mig-25/31 but the advanced SAM misilles. SAMs don't need 10 mins to take off and accelerate, so S-300/400 is able to shot down SR-71 with no problems.



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I love the thought of someone taking evasive action at Mach 3 in an SR-71!

Mach 3 is purely straight-line stuff. Sorry. However, your sheer speed does tend to protect you from SAMs, to a degree. The SR-71's shape - note the blending of the nose chine into the wing leading edge - gave it some stealth capability. Mind you, it must shine light a beacon when you point an infra-red sensor at it



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by grumpyoldman
I love the thought of someone taking evasive action at Mach 3 in an SR-71!

Mach 3 is purely straight-line stuff. Sorry.


- 100%.


However, your sheer speed does tend to protect you from SAMs, to a degree. The SR-71's shape - note the blending of the nose chine into the wing leading edge - gave it some stealth capability. Mind you, it must shine light a beacon when you point an infra-red sensor at it


- I remember reading some time ago that a Blackbird at near max speed actually glowed cherry red due to the kinetic heating at those sorts of speeds. Unfortunately I've never been able to turn up a photo of this happening.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Up in the cold atmosphere, 80,000ft, the SR-71 would be a fairly easy target for an advanced IR seeking missile. First, those twin engines are amazingly powerful and HOT. Next the friction heat from the Mach3 speeds. If it does glow that means that is is pretty hot. I have seen Russian SAMs they are HUGE. They are why an SR-71 couldn't go over the USSR.


E_T

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by P_38lightning
Up in the cold atmosphere, 80,000ft, the SR-71 would be a fairly easy target for an advanced IR seeking missile. First, those twin engines are amazingly powerful and HOT. Next the friction heat from the Mach3 speeds. If it does glow that means that is is pretty hot. I have seen Russian SAMs they are HUGE. They are why an SR-71 couldn't go over the USSR.



Those engines don't run so hot... only around 1700 C.



Due to the great temperature changes in flight, the fuselage panels were essentially loose. Proper alignment was only achieved when the airframe warmed up, due to the air resistance at high speeds, and the airframe then expanded several inches...
Nonetheless, once the airplane landed no one could approach it for some time as its canopy was still hotter than 300 degrees Celsius.
www.wordiq.com...

That should say much that airframe is mostly titanium.

Blackbird could fly there, it's just that it couldn't fly over/too close to SAM sites.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by P_38lightning
Up in the cold atmosphere, 80,000ft, the SR-71 would be a fairly easy target for an advanced IR seeking missile. First, those twin engines are amazingly powerful and HOT. Next the friction heat from the Mach3 speeds. If it does glow that means that is is pretty hot. I have seen Russian SAMs they are HUGE. They are why an SR-71 couldn't go over the USSR.


Just one thing, there wasn't such a thing as advanced IR missiles back in the 60's. Besides all heavyweight Soviet SAM's of that era were radar guided just as they are today.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
hello, im new in this forum!!!!

well, i arrive late at this thread, maybe the blackbird was overated when one says that it cannot be intercepted, as someone said mach3 is an straight line interception (whe must consider also the speed of the missiles), also maybe the mig25 has been misestimated, when some people have said that its not maneuverable, yes the foxbat has limits of 5gs, but well entered at supersonic regime, also there are reports in which the airplane has reached 11gs (perhaps in ultimate subsonic g limit), i think that the plane was underrated, what you think???



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Well the West actually overestimated the Mig 25. When information about it came to the west people were in a hurry to catch up to what seemed a powerful multi-role air superiority fighter they came to fear.

During the late sixties and early seventies, a number of myths and misconceptions developed around the Foxbat. Only after Lt. Viktor Belenko defected to the West in 1976 with his MiG-25P "Foxbat A" was it revealed that Western defense experts had vastly overestimated the aircraft's capabilities.

Specialized variants had broken a number of speed and altitude records though. A great plane but not what the west thought it was.

modelingmadness.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The A-12 Oxcart was actually faster and could fly higher than the SR-71

A-12 Red lined at mach 3.5 > 85,000 feet, possible 95,000- flew mission over Vietnam - CIA operation-1129th SAS

SR-71 Red lined at mach 3.2 Cruise at 85,000 USAF Operation 9th SRW

The benefits of the two man crew and equipment fit of the SR-71 that as it was flying in a "Straight line" it would be monitoring all communications and possible missile launches and aircraft that were waiting in the air to make a zoom climb to intercept All this was taking place hundreds of miles in front and to the side of the flight track. As it takes time for any missile or aircraft to get up to the 85,000 feet the SR-71 could take action to aviod the area. The SR was never qualified to 11g!!!!

Also the SR-71 were retired in 1990 and the next 7 years were spent taking about reactivation ( they wernt around for the first Gulf war) trying to get two into the air at Detachment 2 until the whole program was fininaly killed of by Clinton. Where the 1993 Mig 31 Interception come from is anybodies guess as nobody was flying the SR-71. USAF or CIA.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
has a top speed that is classified. There is no way the foxbat could keep up in a race from NY to Paris. Every time someone goes a little faster they pull the SR71 out of the moth balls and push the throttle a little farther forward and kick it's butt.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Just one thing, there wasn't such a thing as advanced IR missiles back in the 60's. Besides all heavyweight Soviet SAM's of that era were radar guided just as they are today.


- No this is incorrect as any picture of an early missile armed Mig 25 will show us.

4 AA6's; 2 pointed white top and blunter two black top. 2 radar, 2 infrared.

Apparantly it was their policy to ripple fire one of each at targets just to make it harder for the target to escape.

(also, from the size of those things I don't think it is too incredible to presume they originally had an interchangable small nuclear warhead for taking down the B70 had they come to be and been - as expected - the main threat the Mig 25 was designed to counter.)



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by mad scientist
Just one thing, there wasn't such a thing as advanced IR missiles back in the 60's. Besides all heavyweight Soviet SAM's of that era were radar guided just as they are today.


- No this is incorrect as any picture of an early missile armed Mig 25 will show us.

4 AA6's; 2 pointed white top and blunter two black top. 2 radar, 2 infrared.

Apparantly it was their policy to ripple fire one of each at targets just to make it harder for the target to escape.

(also, from the size of those things I don't think it is too incredible to presume they originally had an interchangable small nuclear warhead for taking down the B70 had they come to be and been - as expected - the main threat the Mig 25 was designed to counter.)


1, He was talking about ADVANCED IR misilles.
2. Do you know what SAM is? It's Surface-Air misille, so I don't know why are you talking about those carried by Mig-25.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The top speed isnt' classified, check out the online flight manual. I've posted about it before.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MPJay
The top speed isnt' classified, check out the online flight manual. I've posted about it before.


I dont know if its still classifed but it is fudged like when they used to say its ceiling was 80,000 ft and now they just say its 100,000+ we still cant get a straight answer on the things ceiling.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
"The top speed isnt' classified, check out the online flight manual. I've posted about it before."

That manual tells you nothing. BTW, the CIA has a single seat version of the same plane SR-71C which is even faster that the USAF version. I am telling you that you don't really know how fast the plane is and I am telling you that from people I know who flew it, one being my grandfather.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The C.I.A Actualy flew the A-12 Oxcart .(single seat) under the 1129th Special Activities Squardon.

The SR-71C (64-17981) was a trainer version (USAF)built from the rear end of a YF12 (60-6934)and a SR-71funcional mock up. This aircraft was nicknamed "The Bastard" This was bulit after one of the SR-71B trainers was lost.

If your grandfather flew the single seat version he must be a "Roadrunner"

ajsr71 ( Assocaite Member Roadrunners Internationale)



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
1, He was talking about ADVANCED IR misilles.


- I think you'll find that for it's day the AA6 was pretty advanced. Russian IR tech has a good rep.


2. Do you know what SAM is? It's Surface-Air misille, so I don't know why are you talking about those carried by Mig-25.


- Oh I see so he did say SAM.
Awww, ooops my bad......even though we were talking missile interception in general in the thread.....do I know what a SAM is?
Hmmmm, well funnily enough would you believe I do? Wow, huh?! But you got to admit ones like SAM or AAM are a tad basic, no?

This is fun, shall I see if I know some you don't? Lets have a prize, eh? Most obscure acronym?


Sorry, can you ever forgive me my mistake?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join