Read the forum code of contact
By: - 17th November 2007 at 01:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T-4 is not response to the Valkyrie.It was designed for anti-ship use.
And MiG-25 was designed to deal with M2+ bombers like the Valkyrie,no just against one reconnaissance aircraft.
By: - 17th November 2007 at 03:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SR-71 was pretty much a one trick pony due to it's extremely limited flight envelope. The mach-altitude band was narrow to prevent inlet unstart. In other words, it could not fly high and slow or low and fast.
By: - 17th November 2007 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Though the SR-71 didn't overfly the USSR, it still gathered information because it could take pictures in Soviet territory from its side cameras. Also, it was definitely not a failure because it gathered so much intelligence from North Korea, Vietnam, etc. It should still be in service, but of course cost kills everything...
By: - 17th November 2007 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i read somewhere that the exhaust plume(ionized gas) of the SR-71 had a very large RCS. Because of the large RCS, ample time would be given to the enemy to hide sensitive assets before SR-71 can overfly the intended targets. Airport civilian radars can detect the SR-71s at hundreds of miles away.
Is there any truth to this?:confused:
By: - 18th November 2007 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i read somewhere that the exhaust plume(ionized gas) of the SR-71 had a very large RCS. Because of the large RCS, ample time would be given to the enemy to hide sensitive assets before SR-71 can overfly the intended targets. Airport civilian radars can detect the SR-71s at hundreds of miles away.
Is there any truth to this?:confused:
No.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 01:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SR-71 was pretty much a one trick pony due to it's extremely limited flight envelope. The mach-altitude band was narrow to prevent inlet unstart. In other words, it could not fly high and slow or low and fast.
Right so.
It wasn't a fighter but a recon aircraft. The high endurable speed came with a price. It was for the intended mission a very feasible approach. And the SR-71 always remained a very special aircraft, not useful for large operational use.
For the Mig-25 vs. SR-71, I believe the Blackbird edges out the Foxbat for speed, especially sustained speed.
There is no comparison as both were designed for different missions, and one couldn't do the mission of the other. The only reason why the MiG-25 is often put against the SR-71 is its (in case of the MiG-25) theoretical ability to go beyond Mach 3, which was side effect of its development. It wasn't deployed for that reason, while the SR-71 was. The question if one (MiG-25) can successfully intercept the other (SR-71) is acedemic and about 17391 posts concerning this issue were written in this forum alone. Please don't add number 17392.
From the pure technical point of view, the SR-71 employed more advanced technology. It also enjoys a very positive image, which actually can not really be reasoned by its operational impact.
First of all, the T-4 was never flown above M1.3, so how believable is the M3 speed the Russians said it had?
Why wasn't it flown beyond Mach 3? I guess because the technical specifications did not allow it (the Russian otherwise never missed to set a record if possible). I guess the first and only prototype wasn't even intended to do so. In order to build such an aircraft with so little experience, one has to do extended risk reduction. All Russian manufacturers did it with prototyping, they relied more on prototypes. Unlike American industry the first prototypes hardly achieved the overall performance (reason may be the contractual logic of the USAF, where the initial aircraft need to demonstrate the required performance). They Russian often initially build testbeds, carefully used them to gain experience. Not a bad approach, just a different, more time consuming often (not always) and more costly.
You can see similar approaches on most MiG and Suchoi aircraft, the Buran and other. Some American and European aircraft programs also saw prototypes that didn't match the performance of the intended aircraft (see EAP, or the many X-programs of the 50s). Also the XB-70 was a prototype from the onset and with this fact in mind that it wouldn't see service, many issues that plague an intended operational design could be evaded.
Taking a risk-reduction prototype as prove that they were unable to reach that performance in general is flawed logic, proving the opposite is equally flawed.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 02:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorch... wrong on the XB-70!
Don't let the "X" designation fool you... at that time (and before), most operational USAF aircraft started with a few "X" designated prototypes... which were followed by a larger number of "Y" designated "developmental" versions... and only then by the production versions.
Yes, the bomber program was cancelled before the first prototype was flown, and the 2 prototypes were finished and flown as experimental aircraft, but it was indeed designed and intended very much to produce an operational bomber.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 06:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No guessing about the reason for the X in XB-70, there was no working bomber prototype. The flying prototypes were to be different than the actual bomber prototypes. The first vehicles were purely for flight test data.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch... wrong on the XB-70!Don't let the "X" designation fool you... at that time (and before), most operational USAF aircraft started with a few "X" designated prototypes... which were followed by a larger number of "Y" designated "developmental" versions... and only then by the production versions.
Yes, the bomber program was cancelled before the first prototype was flown, and the 2 prototypes were finished and flown as experimental aircraft, but it was indeed designed and intended very much to produce an operational bomber.
Please show me any aircraft that went into USAF inventory that started with an X designation? Many/all aircraft had the Y designation (for prototype). The only intended operational aircraft I can remember that started with X are the JSF (X-32, X-35).
The first XB-70 could hit Mach 3, not trouble free though. But for operational use 10 pre-series aircraft were planned. The B-58 used 15 pre-series aircraft!
By: - 18th November 2007 at 10:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please show me any aircraft that went into USAF inventory that started with an X designation? Many/all aircraft had the Y designation (for prototype).
Incorrect, most American a/c do start with a prototype designation of X. Y is pre-production or development a/c designation.
If you want proof then go look up pretty much any a/c type that Amercan has or had. They do generally start with an X version although they can be designated a WS number (weapon system) in the concept phase.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Incorrect, most American a/c do start with a prototype designation of X. Y is pre-production or development a/c designation.
If you want proof then go look up pretty much any a/c type that Amercan has or had. They do generally start with an X version although they can be designated a WS number (weapon system) in the concept phase.
Examples?
Especially from after 1955.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 13:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. ...and no. The exhaust plume of a jet engine is not ionised. The exahust plume of some types of missile are ionised but they use rocket engines, that often contain metals like Aluminium in their makeup.The SR-71 was not a stealth aircraft. It had some features that reduced its radar cross section but it was not invisible to radar. Think more like a standard F-16 with RAM rather than F-117 Mk1 a.
China was reportedly tracking SR-71s from takeoff in Thailand to landing in Japan and passing that information to Vietnam. The problem for Vietnam was that even though it had precise information about where the SR-71 was it still didn't have the SAMs or the planes to shoot the SR-71 down.
China and Vietnam did not work together. To run a SR-71 mission it takes some hours of preperation. Like the Russians all three bases with SR-71 were monitored constantly. By intel people close by and other assets off coast. A SR-71 did never take-off in full fuel-load. After take-off it climbs to medium heights ( 24000-26000 feet) at subsonic speed to be arial refuelled by KC-135Q. All that could be monitored by Surv. radars. After that it did the "dipsy-manouvre" to become supersonic, by using kinetic energy. Hard to demiss on a radar. At ~1,5 Mach the J-58 got their exceptional performance and did climb with KEAS to mission height ~80000 feet, when the true airspeed did rise in a similar way. The general course of flight and the intended area of intrest is no longer a secret and the "Habu" is flown by the autopilot most of the time, when crew monitors the systems. The outside world at such height is dark as the "Habu" itself. At max speed and height the ground observer is limited to tracking at best. Not enough reaction time left. If something may come close, the SR-71 still had a EW-suit to deal with. Mechanical failure, faulty intel or a trap could lure the SR-71 into mishap similar Powers and his U-2.
By the way that missions over Vietnam were flown from Kadena (Okinawa) and not Thailand!
By: - 18th November 2007 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Examples?
Especially from after 1955.
The F-4 did start as XF-4H-1 and its competitor as XF8U-3. (as quoted by Spick and Richardson)
John Lake claims there was no X, because in 1955 the designation was changed from AH-1 to F4H-1 what did become the Phantom. Two prototypes were bought by the USN.
So our US-members are questioned about that.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please show me any aircraft that went into USAF inventory that started with an X designation? Many/all aircraft had the Y designation (for prototype). The only intended operational aircraft I can remember that started with X are the JSF (X-32, X-35).
The first XB-70 could hit Mach 3, not trouble free though. But for operational use 10 pre-series aircraft were planned. The B-58 used 15 pre-series aircraft!
XB-52
By: - 18th November 2007 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It also enjoys a very positive image, which actually can not really be reasoned by its operational impact.
Because it looks so bada$$. :D Hell even if they hadn't rolled it out until TODAY people would still be saying "damn that's a sweet looking airplane".
By: - 18th November 2007 at 14:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There were rather more Mig-25s built than SR-71s and it was much cheaper to operate. It was also used in several roles unlike the single mission SR-71.The main purpose of the SR-71 was surely to spy on the USSR the same way its predecessor the U-2 did. In that regard it failed because of the political decision to stop overflights of the USSR. The Mig-25 on the other hand was an interceptor and it operated in that role for many decades successfully.
Was the MiG -25 regarded as a successful interceptor?
Seen as the B-70 was cancelled and the SR-71 would never actually enter Soviet airspace, what was the FOXBAT good for, in the interceptor role?
As a combat aircraft against slower aircraft it was far too expensive to build and operate, and as soon as it entered service the Soviets were already working on its replacement (MiG-31).
On the other hand, the Americans kept the SR-71 in service for something like 25 years in the original role that it was intended for.
The SR-71 was such an exotic and esoteric aircraft that it’s almost impossible to compare it to other aircraft. The only “aircraft” that you can compare it to are the dozens of spy satellites sent into orbit by the USA since 1960. In a way it was the spy satellites that were the “aircraft” that the Habu worked with the most, they both worked with each other, complementing and supplementing each other – but of course, never entirely replacing each other.
No spy satellite was ever able to intercept a bomber, or carry out a strike mission, and the cost of building and operating spy satellites make the SR-71 look like a bargain, yet no one has ever said that they lacked operational flexibility and were unsuccessful – they done the job that they were designed to do and they done it well.
The same could be said for the SR-71
By: - 18th November 2007 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
XB-52
Which flew after the YB.
By: - 18th November 2007 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
snip...The SR-71 was not a stealth aircraft. It had some features that reduced its radar cross section but it was not invisible to radar. Think more like a standard F-16 with RAM rather than F-117 Mk1 a.
...snip
The A-11 and SR-71 had very sophisticated RAM and RAS treatments. Stealth was a requirement from the very beginning and was prominent both the Archangel and Kingfish designs by Lockheed and Convair respectively (google is your friend). Concepts were empirically assessed using 1:1 scale RCS pole models. RAM and RAS were improved from the crude applications used on ELINT aircraft in the late 1940s/early 1950s. Aircraft-level RCS predictions were made using the sum of empirical tests of subscale components rather than numerical methods of Echo 1/F-117. The RAM on the SR-71 ended up as multi-layer, multi-band treatment that could survive aerodynamic heating. The RAS had similar properties using phenolic structure for the high temp environment.
While HF radar used for air traffic control could detect a stealthy airplane (that also applies against B-2, F-22 today), the L, S, X and Ku band radar used for precision airborne intercept and SAM fire control could not detect the SR-71 at the range it flew (altitude = 14 miles). SAM operators would blindly launch using HF radar guesstimates of future SR-71 position with the hope that they would get lock with their L, S, X or Ku band fire control radars for a few seconds before the SR-71 passed out of range. A successful intercept required the missile be positioned perfectly to the SR-71 for those few seconds. They never were because EW cues allowed the SR-71 pilot to give the rudder a nudge, spoiling the shot. That is why there were 1000+ reported unsuccessful intercept attempts against SR-71.
Posts: 86
By: bdn12 - 17th November 2007 at 01:12
These four aircraft are arguably the fastest manned jets ever built and were also designed in response to one another in the Cold War. The question is: which superpower created the better aircraft: the Soviets or the Americans. For the Mig-25 vs. SR-71, I believe the Blackbird edges out the Foxbat for speed, especially sustained speed. But, if the Blackbird were still in service, it would be pretty hard for it to get by the Russian border, as the missiles on the Mig-25/31 have improved. For the XB-70 vs. Sukhoi T-4, again, the Valkyrie edges out the Sotka in speed and definitely range. First of all, the T-4 was never flown above M1.3, so how believable is the M3 speed the Russians said it had? These are four fantastic aircraft.
What are your thoughts?