By: Andraxxus
- 22nd October 2015 at 13:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neither the R-40 or R-33 missile nor the the S-200 missile have any proven ability to shoot down Mach 3+ targets flying at 70,000 feet, never mind 85,000 feet which is the cruise altitude of the SR-71. Both MiG-25 and S-200 were no doubt accepted in to Soviet service for their exceptional long range.
I find such comment way too biased. F-22 doesn't have a proven ability to shoot down anything. Neither does Rafale or Typhoon. So by your logic, I would be right to assume they are not capable of A-A combat... Or from another POV, F-22's design *purpose* was stealth. You are claiming its not stealthy at all, based on the fact its never proven to elude Russian air defenses.
In 1960, Soviets had Yak-28, its range&endurance at combat speeds was deemed insufficent, so Tu-28 was built. Both Yak-28 and Tu-28 have much better range than MiG-25 and Ye-152. After B-58 entered service, Soviets designed Ye-152. Ye-152 was also capable of M2,83 and 70k+ feet ceiling. When XB-70's specs are revealed, PVO's specifications were revised and it was clear Ye-152's radar and missile system is inadaquate, so it was canceled; new Smerch radar had 3 times the size of Ye-152's Uragan-5, and new R-40 missile has 2 times the weight of K-9 missile. This resulted in a aircraft twice the size of Ye-152.
So if MiG-25 cannot perform the very purpose of its design, why waste resources? Why not build Ye-152? Or just stick with Tu-28?
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 22nd October 2015 at 14:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!
Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
As mentioned it was skirting the peripheries of the USSR, if it'd flown straight over Moscow I doubt that record would stand. At Mach 3 and 80,000ft trying to turn to evade a missile is nigh on pointless and I think the pilot actually mentions this in the interview I linked. The speed is the only defence but against a head-on shot, it's simply a matter of luck.
According to an article in Combat Aircraft, the MiG-31 is designed to intercept Mach 6 targets at up to 25,000m turning at up to 12g and trains against a Mach 3.2 target drone.
By: MadRat
- 22nd October 2015 at 15:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Realize the Soviets designed Tu-160 for flight at 80K feet, to fly higher than our interceptors. I don't think B-70 failed to enter service due to technical hurdles, rather due to budgets. Money was better spent on closing the missile throw-weight gap of the time. B-70 supersonic up high and FB-111A supersonic down low didn't offer as much MAD as 1,000 modern Minuteman ICBM.
By: MadRat
- 22nd October 2015 at 15:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually F-15's have been struck numerous times by AAM's, they just haven't been written off from one. On the other hand, several have been written off after SAM hits.
By: stealthflanker
- 22nd October 2015 at 15:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well the US weren't too confident about the ability of the SR-71 to avoid SA-5s, which is why they always skirted the peripheries of the USSR. I think that SR-71 just got very lucky and don't forget the SA-5 had an ARH head unlike the SA-2, so in similar circumstances an SA-5 would probably score a direct hit, making the proximity fuse irrelevant.
The wiki article might got it mixed with completely unrelated 5V11 "Dal" (SA-5 Griffon) Dal do have active radar homing guidance with mid-course update, but not the 5V21/5V28 that current S-200 use.
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 22nd October 2015 at 16:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: J Boyle
- 22nd October 2015 at 16:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working and it was used by NASA until an F-104 collided with it.
What do you mean "They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working..."
the two B-70s had a fairly long test program (1964-69). After the loss of the one aircraft in the summer of 1966, the survivor flew research missions (including some for SST research) until being sent to the NMUSAF in early 1969.
By: Levsha
- 22nd October 2015 at 17:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well the US weren't too confident about the ability of the SR-71 to avoid SA-5s, which is why they always skirted the peripheries of the USSR. I think that SR-71 just got very lucky and don't forget the SA-5 had an ARH head unlike the SA-2, so in similar circumstances an SA-5 would probably score a direct hit, making the proximity fuse irrelevant.
The Soviet Union and the USA signed an agreement in the early 1960s not to over fly each others' territory with manned aircraft. An S-200 missile might hit the SR-71 - out of a hundred times how many? Has the S-200 ever been tested against Mach 3 targets at 80,000 feet?
By: Levsha
- 22nd October 2015 at 18:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I disagree..
In this book one of the first Foxhound pilots, Captain Mikhail Myagkiy, who had been scrambled with its MiG-31 several times to intercept the US super-fast spy plane, explains how he was able to lock on a Blackbird on Jan. 31, 1986:
“The scheme for intercepting the SR-71 was computed down to the last second, and the MiGs had to launch exactly 16 minutes after the initial alert. (…) They alerted us for an intercept at 11.00. They sounded the alarm with a shrill bell and then confirmed it with a loudspeaker. The appearance of an SR-71 was always accompanied by nervousness. Everyone began to talk in frenzied voices, to scurry about, and react to the situation with excessive emotion.”
Myagkiy and its Weapons System Officer (WSO) were able to achieve a SR-71 lock on at 52,000 feet and at a distance of 120 Km from the target. The Foxhound climbed at 65,676 feet where the crew had the Blackbird in sight and according to Myagkiy:
“Had the spy plane violated Soviet airspace, a live missile launch would have been carried out. There was no practically chance the aircraft could avoid an R-33 missile.”
Paul Crickmore - Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond The Secret Missions
Well it's easy to compute the interception of an SR-71 "down to the last second" if you already know the time and route of the of the spyplanes's arrival (as they did for many SR-71s flying off the Kola Peninsula). Captain Myagkiy can say what he likes about his aircraft and missiles' capabilities against the SR-71 - but I ask one question: has the captain ever seen, or ever met someone who has seen, a MiG-31 shoot down a Mach 3 target? BTW, plenty of US military pilots may certainly practice a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the abilities of the F-35 - that doesn't necessarily mean all of this wishful thinking is true, though.
It's kind of worse as it make no distinction between the 5V11 Dal and 5V21 missile family.
still incorrect. There are better sources at pvo.guns.ru or SAMSimulator software. This is from "Fakel's Missile" about S-200 and 5V21 missile family (5V11 Dal were made by Lavochkin)
All mention Semi-active radar homing... none about active radar at all.
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 22nd October 2015 at 18:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean "They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working..."
the two B-70s had a fairly long test program (1964-69). After the loss of the one aircraft in the summer of 1966, the survivor flew research missions (including some for SST research) until being sent to the NMUSAF in early 1969.
I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 22nd October 2015 at 18:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Soviet Union and the USA signed an agreement in the early 1960s not to over fly each others' territory with manned aircraft. An S-200 missile might hit the SR-71 - out of a hundred times how many? Has the S-200 ever been tested against Mach 3 targets at 80,000 feet?
Well at the end of the day, one version had a nuclear warhead, so that would definitely have succeeded. But basically you're guessing. SR-71s were very limited in number and use relative to something like an F-15 or MiG-25, especially wrt live conflicts, so more likely that saved it more than anything else. Hell a B-1 has never been shot down either. Kill probability was stated at 0.85 with a maximum target speed of Mach 4.
By: Levsha
- 22nd October 2015 at 18:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find such comment way too biased. F-22 doesn't have a proven ability to shoot down anything. Neither does Rafale or Typhoon. So by your logic, I would be right to assume they are not capable of A-A combat... Or from another POV, F-22's design *purpose* was stealth. You are claiming its not stealthy at all, based on the fact its never proven to elude Russian air defenses.
Both the F-22 and MiG-31 have many times shot down targets flying at various speeds and at various altitiudes - have you never heard of target drones? But I don't recall either aircraft attempting to shoot down targets flying at Mach 3.2 and flying at 80,000 feet, have you? It's all about making credible statements, and providing credible evidence to back them up. Incredible claims need incredible evidence to support them.
In 1960, Soviets had Yak-28, its range&endurance at combat speeds was deemed insufficent, so Tu-28 was built. Both Yak-28 and Tu-28 have much better range than MiG-25 and Ye-152. After B-58 entered service, Soviets designed Ye-152. Ye-152 was also capable of M2,83 and 70k+ feet ceiling. When XB-70's specs are revealed, PVO's specifications were revised and it was clear Ye-152's radar and missile system is inadaquate, so it was canceled; new Smerch radar had 3 times the size of Ye-152's Uragan-5, and new R-40 missile has 2 times the weight of K-9 missile. This resulted in a aircraft twice the size of Ye-152.
So if MiG-25 cannot perform the very purpose of its design, why waste resources? Why not build Ye-152? Or just stick with Tu-28?
Why would the Soviets design and put into production and service an aircraft in 1972 (MiG-25), to counter an aircraft which was completely cancelled in 1962 (B-70)? That doesn't make sense. Maybe the Soviet PVO put the MiG-25 into service because it's a far more effective aircraft at intercepting most aircraft than either the Yak- and Tu-28. An intercepter than can supercruise to its subsonic target at Mach 2.0 is a useful aircraft to have, perhaps?
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 22nd October 2015 at 18:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's kind of worse as it make no distinction between the 5V11 Dal and 5V21 missile family.
still incorrect. There are better sources at pvo.guns.ru or SAMSimulator software. This is from "Fakel's Missile" about S-200 and 5V21 missile family (5V11 Dal were made by Lavochkin)
By: sandiego89
- 22nd October 2015 at 19:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.
I too disagree with the 20 year set-back of this thread. An operational B-70 would have been a nightmare to sustain, and would have likely had a similair fate to the near peer B-58- limited, expensive and short lived- and the B-70 was magnitudes more complex than the Hustler.
By: mig-31bm
- 22nd October 2015 at 19:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A.
According to an article in Combat Aircraft, the MiG-31 is designed to intercept Mach 6 targets at up to 25,000m turning at up to 12g http://www.uavglobal.com/tu-141-strizh/
i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest
Posts: 932
By: Andraxxus - 22nd October 2015 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find such comment way too biased. F-22 doesn't have a proven ability to shoot down anything. Neither does Rafale or Typhoon. So by your logic, I would be right to assume they are not capable of A-A combat... Or from another POV, F-22's design *purpose* was stealth. You are claiming its not stealthy at all, based on the fact its never proven to elude Russian air defenses.
In 1960, Soviets had Yak-28, its range&endurance at combat speeds was deemed insufficent, so Tu-28 was built. Both Yak-28 and Tu-28 have much better range than MiG-25 and Ye-152. After B-58 entered service, Soviets designed Ye-152. Ye-152 was also capable of M2,83 and 70k+ feet ceiling. When XB-70's specs are revealed, PVO's specifications were revised and it was clear Ye-152's radar and missile system is inadaquate, so it was canceled; new Smerch radar had 3 times the size of Ye-152's Uragan-5, and new R-40 missile has 2 times the weight of K-9 missile. This resulted in a aircraft twice the size of Ye-152.
So if MiG-25 cannot perform the very purpose of its design, why waste resources? Why not build Ye-152? Or just stick with Tu-28?
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As mentioned it was skirting the peripheries of the USSR, if it'd flown straight over Moscow I doubt that record would stand. At Mach 3 and 80,000ft trying to turn to evade a missile is nigh on pointless and I think the pilot actually mentions this in the interview I linked. The speed is the only defence but against a head-on shot, it's simply a matter of luck.
According to an article in Combat Aircraft, the MiG-31 is designed to intercept Mach 6 targets at up to 25,000m turning at up to 12g and trains against a Mach 3.2 target drone.
http://www.uavglobal.com/tu-141-strizh/
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 22nd October 2015 at 15:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Realize the Soviets designed Tu-160 for flight at 80K feet, to fly higher than our interceptors. I don't think B-70 failed to enter service due to technical hurdles, rather due to budgets. Money was better spent on closing the missile throw-weight gap of the time. B-70 supersonic up high and FB-111A supersonic down low didn't offer as much MAD as 1,000 modern Minuteman ICBM.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 22nd October 2015 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
K-9 missiles have pretty massive fin
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working and it was used by NASA until an F-104 collided with it.
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You could say the same about an F-15 wrt AAMs, but that doesn't mean that shooting one down with an AAM isn't possible.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 22nd October 2015 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually F-15's have been struck numerous times by AAM's, they just haven't been written off from one. On the other hand, several have been written off after SAM hits.
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 22nd October 2015 at 15:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As far as i know S-200 only use SARH Guidance.
The wiki article might got it mixed with completely unrelated 5V11 "Dal" (SA-5 Griffon) Dal do have active radar homing guidance with mid-course update, but not the 5V21/5V28 that current S-200 use.
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 16:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-200.htm
Posts: 9,823
By: J Boyle - 22nd October 2015 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean "They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working..."
the two B-70s had a fairly long test program (1964-69). After the loss of the one aircraft in the summer of 1966, the survivor flew research missions (including some for SST research) until being sent to the NMUSAF in early 1969.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 22nd October 2015 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Soviet Union and the USA signed an agreement in the early 1960s not to over fly each others' territory with manned aircraft. An S-200 missile might hit the SR-71 - out of a hundred times how many? Has the S-200 ever been tested against Mach 3 targets at 80,000 feet?
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 22nd October 2015 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well it's easy to compute the interception of an SR-71 "down to the last second" if you already know the time and route of the of the spyplanes's arrival (as they did for many SR-71s flying off the Kola Peninsula). Captain Myagkiy can say what he likes about his aircraft and missiles' capabilities against the SR-71 - but I ask one question: has the captain ever seen, or ever met someone who has seen, a MiG-31 shoot down a Mach 3 target? BTW, plenty of US military pilots may certainly practice a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the abilities of the F-35 - that doesn't necessarily mean all of this wishful thinking is true, though.
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 22nd October 2015 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's kind of worse as it make no distinction between the 5V11 Dal and 5V21 missile family.
still incorrect. There are better sources at pvo.guns.ru or SAMSimulator software. This is from "Fakel's Missile" about S-200 and 5V21 missile family (5V11 Dal were made by Lavochkin)
Excerpt from Fakel's missile book.
S-200
http://orig11.deviantart.net/e3b5/f/2015/295/1/f/fakel_smissile1_by_stealthflanker-d9dzg7x.png
5V21
http://orig07.deviantart.net/cf2c/f/2015/295/b/1/fakel_smissile2_by_stealthflanker-d9dzg9h.png
5V28
http://orig04.deviantart.net/065c/f/2015/295/0/3/fakel_smissile3_by_stealthflanker-d9dzgad.png
All mention Semi-active radar homing... none about active radar at all.
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 18:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 18:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well at the end of the day, one version had a nuclear warhead, so that would definitely have succeeded. But basically you're guessing. SR-71s were very limited in number and use relative to something like an F-15 or MiG-25, especially wrt live conflicts, so more likely that saved it more than anything else. Hell a B-1 has never been shot down either. Kill probability was stated at 0.85 with a maximum target speed of Mach 4.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 22nd October 2015 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both the F-22 and MiG-31 have many times shot down targets flying at various speeds and at various altitiudes - have you never heard of target drones? But I don't recall either aircraft attempting to shoot down targets flying at Mach 3.2 and flying at 80,000 feet, have you? It's all about making credible statements, and providing credible evidence to back them up. Incredible claims need incredible evidence to support them.
Why would the Soviets design and put into production and service an aircraft in 1972 (MiG-25), to counter an aircraft which was completely cancelled in 1962 (B-70)? That doesn't make sense. Maybe the Soviet PVO put the MiG-25 into service because it's a far more effective aircraft at intercepting most aircraft than either the Yak- and Tu-28. An intercepter than can supercruise to its subsonic target at Mach 2.0 is a useful aircraft to have, perhaps?
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The understanding seemed to be that it used both.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-200.htm
Posts: 353
By: sandiego89 - 22nd October 2015 at 19:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Barnes, only 2 XB-70's were completed. The third was no where near complete. Total MACH 3 flight time (over 9-10 flights) was only 1 hour 48 minutes- TOTAL. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/121584main_FS-084-DFRC.pdf
I too disagree with the 20 year set-back of this thread. An operational B-70 would have been a nightmare to sustain, and would have likely had a similair fate to the near peer B-58- limited, expensive and short lived- and the B-70 was magnitudes more complex than the Hustler.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 22nd October 2015 at 19:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 22nd October 2015 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF did test their F-15 with mach 3, 80K ft target, so i think Russian done similar thing
