By: Sens
- 20th November 2007 at 18:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont understand what "validity". Are you still trying to imply what USSR would like to shot down SR-71 in international airspace becouse "it is funny!"?
Flying in a restricted airspace with such fast asset may force you in several direction changes or a turn can bring you into the situation to cut a corner by that. The radars and fighters of that days did not have todays GPS-accuracy to double proof a critical situation like that. As we learned before, even under optimum conditions a single time-limited firing opportunity may pop-up.
During the Baltic runs f.e. PVO-interceptors tried to get into a firing position. If they did so with an activated firing-radar every-time, only the SR crews can tell. The Mildenhall preparations did not go unnoticed as the top-up over the North Sea.
The DHS-system did receive a two hours warning in advance.
After the KAL desaster from 1983 none was longer intrested to create a new incident. If I remember well about an unstart incident, when the SR diverted over Sweden shadowed from Viggens one side and WP-ones from the other side near Bornholm.
By: bdn12
- 21st November 2007 at 05:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=michelf;1184622]
The XB-70 did have a supersonic cruise capability...with AV/2 demonstrating a max of 32 mins at M2.8 and above (7 mins above M2.9) if memory serves. However this is still short of the 2h+ endurance of Concorde...OK the XB -70 never got that far down its development cycle so more was no doubt possible.
First of all, while the Concorde might have had more endurance, the XB-70 cruised almost a Mach faster. Also, the XB-70 never demonstrated its full capabilities even in prototype form. Of course, AV/2 crashed, but AV/1 hadn't exactly been stretched to its limits. It was limited by people to Mach 2.5 after a small part of the wing came off after a flight above M3. If they would have let it continue M3 flight, there is no telling what it could have done. It also had a greater range than Concorde at 4500 miles.
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st November 2007 at 06:50Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
If we were to take your line of reasoning the MiG-25 was unable to down a B-52, because it never did....which we know is untrue and so on and so forth....even better no 31 ever shot down a B-1...
It is not my line of reasoning... it is yours. You claimed that because the Mig-25s and Mig-31s didn't shoot down any SR-71s that that was proof they couldn't.
Typical Garry brilliance. I guess the Fiddler wasn't an interceptor because it never shot anything down in anger and there's no such thing as an ABM in the entire world because no ICBM has been shot down in anger (thus none have ever fulfilled their design intent).
Why don't you ask michelf to explain the logic of his belief. Glad to see I still push your buttons though... :dev2:
The aircraft was designed with reduced RCS in mind. Against certain radars it would have been damn near invisible, and it did have features to give it reduced observability against other radars as well.
So it didn't need speed at all...
Tell that to the KAL flight...espionage aircraft were not necessarily safe just because they were in international airspace. Ergo, threats were not explicitly avoided.
What? The KAL shot down had just flown over some of the Soviet Unions most sensitive missile ranges and secret bases in the Kamchatka penninsula. It was thousands of kms off course deep in Soviet territory. They stuffed up most of the intercept and didn't shoot it down till it was nearly leaving Soviet airspace, but it was an intruder. They get whined at from westerners about shooting it down and the same complainers laugh at them for not shooting down Rust. Personally I think they should have been consistent and shot down Rust too.
Like I said before, you can track the B-2 apparently using bistatic radar systems, right?
In theory, or long wave radar, but I haven't tested either.
You would have to at least agree that it was designed as such, which is the same point I'm trying to make about the A-12.
I have never read of any problems tracking an SR-71... only problems reaching it and that was due to speed.
If I remember well about an unstart incident, when the SR diverted over Sweden shadowed from Viggens one side and WP-ones from the other side near Bornholm.
Hope they only escorted the SR-71 during the day otherwise they could fly into it by accident... :rolleyes:
By: Schorsch
- 21st November 2007 at 07:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First of all, while the Concorde might have had more endurance, the XB-70 cruised almost a Mach faster. Also, the XB-70 never demonstrated its full capabilities even in prototype form. Of course, AV/2 crashed, but AV/1 hadn't exactly been stretched to its limits. It was limited by people to Mach 2.5 after a small part of the wing came off after a flight above M3. If they would have let it continue M3 flight, there is no telling what it could have done. It also had a greater range than Concorde at 4500 miles.
The Concorde was certified by civil aviation rules to be used for commercial flying. That is one world difference to a military test aircraft. So, from the maturity standpoint, the Concorde was way ahead of the XB-70. To be fair one should carefully check the dates of the Concorde: first flight 1969, 1976 sercive entry. Nearly 7 years of testing.
I guess to really say something about the soundness of the XB-70 design one need to do real research (NASA file server has excellent reports for free!). But it looked like a viable concept.
By: michelf
- 21st November 2007 at 08:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sean,
The F-12 needed initial guidance from the ground based systems.. it was not designed to carry out cap missions...
So as I said the basic mission was guided by ground based systems. Sure once it was airborne the intercept could be carried out autonomously, but it would not have been airborne unless a ground based system had detected a target. In that regard the MiG and F-12 are similar.
I would also argue that the supersonic cruise capability of the 25 qualifies it for long range high speed intercepts.
Agree we should discuss the Concorde/Tu144 seperately...
Chrom,
Please read the words very carefully. At no point did I mention it would be 'fun' to shoot down an SR. I suggested however that the benefits of actually shooting one down in terms of challenging the military philosophy of the West came down in favour of doing so (if guaranteed) and weathering the political fallout.
It would at a single stroke bring into doubt all of the SR's data take (even if the astro navigation system was probalby the more accurate system ever devised) until it could be confirmed that the positioning was confirmed, it would also as I mentionned showed that even with the overall technology used the Soviets had the demonstrated ability to counter that technology. If you take that into the overall context of the West's basic Cold War philosophy: Quality will defeat quantity; then its very foundations would be challenged. Do you not think that the opportunity to make that challenge would not have been taken? It is not 'fun' its a genuine opportunity for the Soviets to play another facet of the political game to their advantage, who would not?
However to fail to down one even after repeated attempts would send the opposite message....
Garry B.
Please read what is written, not your blinkered vision. I made the point, in clear English, that the fact that no SR had been shot down by an 25 'suggested' that it was not possible. It was not a statement of certainty or inability, it was a suggestion that regardless of your attitude, the MiG-25 was not able to successfully intercept the SR in operational use....I am certain that if the F-15 and F-14 could do so in the right conditions; then the MiG 25 could in the right conditions...however once those optimum conditions are removed the game changes entirely. It is therefore easily justifiable to question the MiG 25's ability.
Sadly for you you manage to take that as a assertion that because it didn't it couldn't, its a shame that the clarity of the English language escapes your attention.
bdn 12..
The relevance of the Mach is questionable....I think that the XB-70 demonstrated something like 17mins of M3 flight over its career.
And as I stated in my response it was also clear that there was capability beyond that demonstrated. However as it was NOT explored it will remain a 'potential' advantage, not a demonstrated one.
So we have a potential performance (and range) being used to bash a routinely demonstrated performance to say which is better....:(
By: Sens
- 21st November 2007 at 09:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So it didn't need speed at all...
I have never read of any problems tracking an SR-71... only problems reaching it and that was due to speed.
Which way do you like it?!
What? The KAL shot down had just flown over some of the Soviet Unions most sensitive missile ranges and secret bases in the Kamchatka penninsula. It was thousands of kms off course deep in Soviet territory. They stuffed up most of the intercept and didn't shoot it down till it was nearly leaving Soviet airspace, but it was an intruder. They get whined at from westerners about shooting it down and the same complainers laugh at them for not shooting down Rust. Personally I think they should have been consistent and shot down Rust too.
Strange behavior to stay polite! Non did dispute off-course and you can blame the crew of the KAL flight about that. You have no problem to exerragte from several hundred to several thousand kms. I am no friend of such idiotic Rust, but to claim, it should have been consistent to kill him too is a very strange behavior, when it comes to human beings.
Hope they only escorted the SR-71 during the day otherwise they could fly into it by accident... :rolleyes:
You personal problems aside, when it does come to a certain country, please do not twist. We discuss the strong and weak points of systems only, which everyone has. Such personal judgement is less important about that, like the color of a car.
By: bdn12
- 21st November 2007 at 16:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sean,
bdn 12..
The relevance of the Mach is questionable....I think that the XB-70 demonstrated something like 17mins of M3 flight over its career.
And as I stated in my response it was also clear that there was capability beyond that demonstrated. However as it was NOT explored it will remain a 'potential' advantage, not a demonstrated one.
So we have a potential performance (and range) being used to bash a routinely demonstrated performance to say which is better....:(
I'm not bashing Concorde at all, it was an amazing aircraft and technological leap. I'm just saying that if they weren't so careful about the XB-70, it very likely would have had much more M3 flight. Also, the two prototypes together logged almost 2 hours of M3 flight: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-084-DFRC.html
I believe that the Blackbird and Valkyrie were the only true Mach 3 aircraft because they were the only ones that could maintain that speed without the engines or airframe being destroyed as on the Mig-25. Most supersonic aircraft top out at around M2.2 because aluminum can't bear the heat much past that speed. This is why the SR-71 was made of titanium and the XB-70 used stainless steel honeycomb panels and some titanium. There is a reason the Valkyrie and Blackbird look so much different than any other aircraft...
By: Schorsch
- 21st November 2007 at 18:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe that the Blackbird and Valkyrie were the only true Mach 3 aircraft because they were the only ones that could maintain that speed without the engines or airframe being destroyed as on the Mig-25. Most supersonic aircraft top out at around M2.2 because aluminum can't bear the heat much past that speed. This is why the SR-71 was made of titanium and the XB-70 used stainless steel honeycomb panels and some titanium. There is a reason the Valkyrie and Blackbird look so much different than any other aircraft...
That is true. The T-4 could have been the third but it never arrived at that development level. The MiG-25 lacked the appropriate engines (overspeed and control issues) and the appropriate airframe to be an operational Mach 3 aircraft (red-lined at M2.8). But I would like to underline that the MiG-25 was primarily built as interceptor, not as Mach3 aircraft. Many turbojet powered aircraft of that era with op speeds of 2.1-2.3 could go to 2.6 if boosted a bit. It wasn't the pure engine power but the intake, lateral control and airframe temperature.
By: michelf
- 21st November 2007 at 19:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bd..
Absolutely spot on about the Blackbird and -70 being the only genuine M3 cruising aircraft. No question there.
Also correct about the total time above M3.. .
I am not sure about the 'being careful' about AV/1; from memory I recall the issue was the structural stability of the wing panels...and lack of dihedral, hence its limits.
AV/2 differed in this respect and was therefore cleared to beyond M2.5+ regime. it was earmarked for the continuation work, not AV/1. However after the accident there was no choice.
The issue however is the reality of the claims...on paper and by extrapolation is one thing, demonstrated is another.
By: pesho
- 21st November 2007 at 19:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MiG-25 lacked the appropriate engines (overspeed and control issues) and the appropriate airframe to be an operational Mach 3 aircraft (red-lined at M2.8).
And Soviets were fully capable of making MiG-25 true M3 interceptor as E-155M showed.
By: sferrin
- 21st November 2007 at 19:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bd..
Absolutely spot on about the Blackbird and -70 being the only genuine M3 cruising aircraft. No question there.
Also correct about the total time above M3.. .
I am not sure about the 'being careful' about AV/1; from memory I recall the issue was the structural stability of the wing panels...and lack of dihedral, hence its limits.
On one flight pieces (I don't recall which) started leaving. After that they restricted it to Mach 2.5 or 2.6. Dihedral was added to AV2 to improve stability but it wasn't a limiter for AV1.
By: Sens
- 21st November 2007 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And Soviets were fully capable of making MiG-25 true M3 interceptor as E-155M showed.
Not confirmed by OKB MiG. "... as a result... did not go beyond the computational phase."
The Ye-155M alias Ye-266M did set some 'time to climb' and 'altitude' records.
All in a zoom profil.
The practical values for the MiG-25R in clean condition were 6,6 min to 19000 m or 62300 feet and the related service-ceiling 21000 m or 68900 feet.
The MiG-25P with RB-15+ did reach a service-ceiling of 24200 m or 79400 feet.
The MiG-31 did climb to 10000 m or 32800 feet in 7.9 minutes and has a service-ceiling of 20600 m or 67600 feet.
The Ye-266 speed record from 27 October 1967 may have generated a top speed of Mach 3 briefly, but that was no regular aircraft or flight.
By: Chrom
- 21st November 2007 at 20:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sean,
Chrom,
Please read the words very carefully. At no point did I mention it would be 'fun' to shoot down an SR. I suggested however that the benefits of actually shooting one down in terms of challenging the military philosophy of the West came down in favour of doing so (if guaranteed) and weathering the political fallout.
....:(
This is pretty much BS. SR-71 was nothing exceptional in terms of PR. Shooting down SR-71 in international airspace would not be any different from PR point than shooting down E-3, B-52, B-2, space shuttle or even SSBN. All these cases the same - especially take look at SSBN. How much opportunites there was to sunk one in international waters... how strong message could be send by your logic!
Whereas from history we know what all sides were rather very cautions about hurting each over in internationl space/waters...
By: pesho
- 21st November 2007 at 20:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not confirmed by OKB MiG. "... as a result... did not go beyond the computational phase."
What do you actualy mean?Put the hole sentence.Because according to the same bureau,the reason this "improved" MiG-25 was abandoned is that there was no factory that can produse the new engine and also there was higher priority towards new MiG-31.
The Ye-155M alias Ye-266M did set some 'time to climb' and 'altitude' records.
You mean that all-time record of 37650m ?Or that 37080m with 2 tons?For me "some" is just small word for such achievement.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 21st November 2007 at 21:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whilst we are at it does anybody have any pictures of the Ye-155M?:confused:
By: michelf
- 21st November 2007 at 21:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Chrom...
Where did I mention PR? And what relevance is it? I said, read carefully, that the shooting down of an SR would send a message to the West. This is entirely different to PR.
The message sent, as I explained, is that "even the best technology that you can deploy can be defeated.. and here is an example".
As the West's adopted philosophy in the Cold War was Quality over quantity then it poses a fundamental challenge to that. Joe Public could give a hoot whether its a A a B or a C that was shot down but you can bet your life that it would have sent the right message to those who were looking at the reality of what had been done.
In addition unless there was a flagrant breach of international airspace then the question of 'where was the SR shot down' does become a real concern. The nav system of the SR was orders of magnitude better than its contemporaries and not matched until the full array of GPS satellites were deployed. It was relied upon to give both phyiscal imagery location data as well as all the ELINT data. If the system was not as accurate as had been tested to date then all of this would have been cast into doubt, and all the data collected by that airframe would need to be reconfirmed....this could amount to thousands of items of information requiring double checking, plus all the other airframes would need to be checked out...
So in one incident, which would have had some, but limited public PR effect, a cornerstone of the then current Cold War philosophy would have been challenged and on a practical level a considerable amount of rechecking and double checking would have been needed, with the loss of two aircrew.
For confirmation look at the reaction when Rust flew into Red Square...yes it was embarasing for the Soviet Union, but far more worrying for them was the fact that for all of their efforts and expenditure they had failed in a big way.. it signalled to the West that the system and its underlying operations was a fragile beast, there were gaps and weakness that could be exploited...if a Cessna could get thro' then there was certainly room for high tech military aircraft. On both sides a reevaluation was needed and took place.
The sinking of a sub is completely and utterly different, in so many ways. Not only in loss of life, but the potential ramifications for the USSR were orders of magnitude different.
The deliberate sinking of a nuclear sub is, as you say a very serious matter, and sure by my logic it would have sent the same message, but what you do not understand is that the shooting down of an SR does not leave an opening for retaliation...see what I said about risk versus benefit.
Sinking a sub does not have the same consequences; the USN could have sent a boomer to the bottom in return.. or more depending on how much of a return message they wanted to send...do you really believe that the Soviets would have risked losing a few of their most threatening assets in this manner, to say nothing of losing access to the world's oceans by submarine? The closing the UK- Iceland-Greenland gap would have become a reality, rather than just tracking every sub going thro' and the effects therefore on the potential for the Soviet submarine fleet to deploy in as threatening a manner would have been curtailed.
The return demonstration of the ability to sink boomers almost with impunity is one which the US would have not hesitated to send.....and is that one the Soviets would have wanted to receive? Afterall a Soviet sub being sunk is far easier to hide and deny than shooting down a Bear going to Cuba.
So you might think its BS, but you can bet the farm that others were doing their utmost to look very closely at how feasible this was and how to carry it out..to send that message. They understood that the immediate issue is not necessarily the important one, perhaps its a tactic you can use.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 21st November 2007 at 21:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Sens
- 21st November 2007 at 23:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you actualy mean?Put the hole sentence.Because according to the same bureau,the reason this "improved" MiG-25 was abandoned is that there was no factory that can produse the new engine and also there was higher priority towards new MiG-31.
You mean that all-time record of 37650m ?Or that 37080m with 2 tons?For me "some" is just small word for such achievement.
So you know the source and did the claim despite that.
I did mention that records and did compare that with the operational values.
They did work hard for the records and did get the honor related to that.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 20th November 2007 at 18:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flying in a restricted airspace with such fast asset may force you in several direction changes or a turn can bring you into the situation to cut a corner by that. The radars and fighters of that days did not have todays GPS-accuracy to double proof a critical situation like that. As we learned before, even under optimum conditions a single time-limited firing opportunity may pop-up.
During the Baltic runs f.e. PVO-interceptors tried to get into a firing position. If they did so with an activated firing-radar every-time, only the SR crews can tell. The Mildenhall preparations did not go unnoticed as the top-up over the North Sea.
The DHS-system did receive a two hours warning in advance.
After the KAL desaster from 1983 none was longer intrested to create a new incident. If I remember well about an unstart incident, when the SR diverted over Sweden shadowed from Viggens one side and WP-ones from the other side near Bornholm.
Posts: 86
By: bdn12 - 21st November 2007 at 05:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=michelf;1184622]
The XB-70 did have a supersonic cruise capability...with AV/2 demonstrating a max of 32 mins at M2.8 and above (7 mins above M2.9) if memory serves. However this is still short of the 2h+ endurance of Concorde...OK the XB -70 never got that far down its development cycle so more was no doubt possible.
First of all, while the Concorde might have had more endurance, the XB-70 cruised almost a Mach faster. Also, the XB-70 never demonstrated its full capabilities even in prototype form. Of course, AV/2 crashed, but AV/1 hadn't exactly been stretched to its limits. It was limited by people to Mach 2.5 after a small part of the wing came off after a flight above M3. If they would have let it continue M3 flight, there is no telling what it could have done. It also had a greater range than Concorde at 4500 miles.
By: Anonymous - 21st November 2007 at 06:50 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
It is not my line of reasoning... it is yours. You claimed that because the Mig-25s and Mig-31s didn't shoot down any SR-71s that that was proof they couldn't.
Why don't you ask michelf to explain the logic of his belief. Glad to see I still push your buttons though... :dev2:
So it didn't need speed at all...
What? The KAL shot down had just flown over some of the Soviet Unions most sensitive missile ranges and secret bases in the Kamchatka penninsula. It was thousands of kms off course deep in Soviet territory. They stuffed up most of the intercept and didn't shoot it down till it was nearly leaving Soviet airspace, but it was an intruder. They get whined at from westerners about shooting it down and the same complainers laugh at them for not shooting down Rust. Personally I think they should have been consistent and shot down Rust too.
In theory, or long wave radar, but I haven't tested either.
I have never read of any problems tracking an SR-71... only problems reaching it and that was due to speed.
Hope they only escorted the SR-71 during the day otherwise they could fly into it by accident... :rolleyes:
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 21st November 2007 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Concorde was certified by civil aviation rules to be used for commercial flying. That is one world difference to a military test aircraft. So, from the maturity standpoint, the Concorde was way ahead of the XB-70. To be fair one should carefully check the dates of the Concorde: first flight 1969, 1976 sercive entry. Nearly 7 years of testing.
I guess to really say something about the soundness of the XB-70 design one need to do real research (NASA file server has excellent reports for free!). But it looked like a viable concept.
Posts: 382
By: michelf - 21st November 2007 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sean,
The F-12 needed initial guidance from the ground based systems.. it was not designed to carry out cap missions...
So as I said the basic mission was guided by ground based systems. Sure once it was airborne the intercept could be carried out autonomously, but it would not have been airborne unless a ground based system had detected a target. In that regard the MiG and F-12 are similar.
I would also argue that the supersonic cruise capability of the 25 qualifies it for long range high speed intercepts.
Agree we should discuss the Concorde/Tu144 seperately...
Chrom,
Please read the words very carefully. At no point did I mention it would be 'fun' to shoot down an SR. I suggested however that the benefits of actually shooting one down in terms of challenging the military philosophy of the West came down in favour of doing so (if guaranteed) and weathering the political fallout.
It would at a single stroke bring into doubt all of the SR's data take (even if the astro navigation system was probalby the more accurate system ever devised) until it could be confirmed that the positioning was confirmed, it would also as I mentionned showed that even with the overall technology used the Soviets had the demonstrated ability to counter that technology. If you take that into the overall context of the West's basic Cold War philosophy: Quality will defeat quantity; then its very foundations would be challenged. Do you not think that the opportunity to make that challenge would not have been taken? It is not 'fun' its a genuine opportunity for the Soviets to play another facet of the political game to their advantage, who would not?
However to fail to down one even after repeated attempts would send the opposite message....
Garry B.
Please read what is written, not your blinkered vision. I made the point, in clear English, that the fact that no SR had been shot down by an 25 'suggested' that it was not possible. It was not a statement of certainty or inability, it was a suggestion that regardless of your attitude, the MiG-25 was not able to successfully intercept the SR in operational use....I am certain that if the F-15 and F-14 could do so in the right conditions; then the MiG 25 could in the right conditions...however once those optimum conditions are removed the game changes entirely. It is therefore easily justifiable to question the MiG 25's ability.
Sadly for you you manage to take that as a assertion that because it didn't it couldn't, its a shame that the clarity of the English language escapes your attention.
bdn 12..
The relevance of the Mach is questionable....I think that the XB-70 demonstrated something like 17mins of M3 flight over its career.
And as I stated in my response it was also clear that there was capability beyond that demonstrated. However as it was NOT explored it will remain a 'potential' advantage, not a demonstrated one.
So we have a potential performance (and range) being used to bash a routinely demonstrated performance to say which is better....:(
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 21st November 2007 at 09:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which way do you like it?!
Strange behavior to stay polite! Non did dispute off-course and you can blame the crew of the KAL flight about that. You have no problem to exerragte from several hundred to several thousand kms. I am no friend of such idiotic Rust, but to claim, it should have been consistent to kill him too is a very strange behavior, when it comes to human beings.
You personal problems aside, when it does come to a certain country, please do not twist. We discuss the strong and weak points of systems only, which everyone has. Such personal judgement is less important about that, like the color of a car.
Posts: 86
By: bdn12 - 21st November 2007 at 16:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not bashing Concorde at all, it was an amazing aircraft and technological leap. I'm just saying that if they weren't so careful about the XB-70, it very likely would have had much more M3 flight. Also, the two prototypes together logged almost 2 hours of M3 flight: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-084-DFRC.html
I believe that the Blackbird and Valkyrie were the only true Mach 3 aircraft because they were the only ones that could maintain that speed without the engines or airframe being destroyed as on the Mig-25. Most supersonic aircraft top out at around M2.2 because aluminum can't bear the heat much past that speed. This is why the SR-71 was made of titanium and the XB-70 used stainless steel honeycomb panels and some titanium. There is a reason the Valkyrie and Blackbird look so much different than any other aircraft...
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 21st November 2007 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is true. The T-4 could have been the third but it never arrived at that development level. The MiG-25 lacked the appropriate engines (overspeed and control issues) and the appropriate airframe to be an operational Mach 3 aircraft (red-lined at M2.8). But I would like to underline that the MiG-25 was primarily built as interceptor, not as Mach3 aircraft. Many turbojet powered aircraft of that era with op speeds of 2.1-2.3 could go to 2.6 if boosted a bit. It wasn't the pure engine power but the intake, lateral control and airframe temperature.
Posts: 382
By: michelf - 21st November 2007 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bd..
Absolutely spot on about the Blackbird and -70 being the only genuine M3 cruising aircraft. No question there.
Also correct about the total time above M3.. .
I am not sure about the 'being careful' about AV/1; from memory I recall the issue was the structural stability of the wing panels...and lack of dihedral, hence its limits.
AV/2 differed in this respect and was therefore cleared to beyond M2.5+ regime. it was earmarked for the continuation work, not AV/1. However after the accident there was no choice.
The issue however is the reality of the claims...on paper and by extrapolation is one thing, demonstrated is another.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 21st November 2007 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, in the same way that a child using crayolas on the walls pushes his parents' buttons.
Posts: 577
By: pesho - 21st November 2007 at 19:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And Soviets were fully capable of making MiG-25 true M3 interceptor as E-155M showed.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 21st November 2007 at 19:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On one flight pieces (I don't recall which) started leaving. After that they restricted it to Mach 2.5 or 2.6. Dihedral was added to AV2 to improve stability but it wasn't a limiter for AV1.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 21st November 2007 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not confirmed by OKB MiG. "... as a result... did not go beyond the computational phase."
The Ye-155M alias Ye-266M did set some 'time to climb' and 'altitude' records.
All in a zoom profil.
The practical values for the MiG-25R in clean condition were 6,6 min to 19000 m or 62300 feet and the related service-ceiling 21000 m or 68900 feet.
The MiG-25P with RB-15+ did reach a service-ceiling of 24200 m or 79400 feet.
The MiG-31 did climb to 10000 m or 32800 feet in 7.9 minutes and has a service-ceiling of 20600 m or 67600 feet.
The Ye-266 speed record from 27 October 1967 may have generated a top speed of Mach 3 briefly, but that was no regular aircraft or flight.
Posts: 366
By: Chrom - 21st November 2007 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is pretty much BS. SR-71 was nothing exceptional in terms of PR. Shooting down SR-71 in international airspace would not be any different from PR point than shooting down E-3, B-52, B-2, space shuttle or even SSBN. All these cases the same - especially take look at SSBN. How much opportunites there was to sunk one in international waters... how strong message could be send by your logic!
Whereas from history we know what all sides were rather very cautions about hurting each over in internationl space/waters...
Posts: 577
By: pesho - 21st November 2007 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you actualy mean?Put the hole sentence.Because according to the same bureau,the reason this "improved" MiG-25 was abandoned is that there was no factory that can produse the new engine and also there was higher priority towards new MiG-31.
You mean that all-time record of 37650m ?Or that 37080m with 2 tons?For me "some" is just small word for such achievement.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 21st November 2007 at 21:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whilst we are at it does anybody have any pictures of the Ye-155M?:confused:
Thanks in advance sealordlawrence.
Posts: 577
By: pesho - 21st November 2007 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing special.:)
Posts: 382
By: michelf - 21st November 2007 at 21:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Chrom...
Where did I mention PR? And what relevance is it? I said, read carefully, that the shooting down of an SR would send a message to the West. This is entirely different to PR.
The message sent, as I explained, is that "even the best technology that you can deploy can be defeated.. and here is an example".
As the West's adopted philosophy in the Cold War was Quality over quantity then it poses a fundamental challenge to that. Joe Public could give a hoot whether its a A a B or a C that was shot down but you can bet your life that it would have sent the right message to those who were looking at the reality of what had been done.
In addition unless there was a flagrant breach of international airspace then the question of 'where was the SR shot down' does become a real concern. The nav system of the SR was orders of magnitude better than its contemporaries and not matched until the full array of GPS satellites were deployed. It was relied upon to give both phyiscal imagery location data as well as all the ELINT data. If the system was not as accurate as had been tested to date then all of this would have been cast into doubt, and all the data collected by that airframe would need to be reconfirmed....this could amount to thousands of items of information requiring double checking, plus all the other airframes would need to be checked out...
So in one incident, which would have had some, but limited public PR effect, a cornerstone of the then current Cold War philosophy would have been challenged and on a practical level a considerable amount of rechecking and double checking would have been needed, with the loss of two aircrew.
For confirmation look at the reaction when Rust flew into Red Square...yes it was embarasing for the Soviet Union, but far more worrying for them was the fact that for all of their efforts and expenditure they had failed in a big way.. it signalled to the West that the system and its underlying operations was a fragile beast, there were gaps and weakness that could be exploited...if a Cessna could get thro' then there was certainly room for high tech military aircraft. On both sides a reevaluation was needed and took place.
The sinking of a sub is completely and utterly different, in so many ways. Not only in loss of life, but the potential ramifications for the USSR were orders of magnitude different.
The deliberate sinking of a nuclear sub is, as you say a very serious matter, and sure by my logic it would have sent the same message, but what you do not understand is that the shooting down of an SR does not leave an opening for retaliation...see what I said about risk versus benefit.
Sinking a sub does not have the same consequences; the USN could have sent a boomer to the bottom in return.. or more depending on how much of a return message they wanted to send...do you really believe that the Soviets would have risked losing a few of their most threatening assets in this manner, to say nothing of losing access to the world's oceans by submarine? The closing the UK- Iceland-Greenland gap would have become a reality, rather than just tracking every sub going thro' and the effects therefore on the potential for the Soviet submarine fleet to deploy in as threatening a manner would have been curtailed.
The return demonstration of the ability to sink boomers almost with impunity is one which the US would have not hesitated to send.....and is that one the Soviets would have wanted to receive? Afterall a Soviet sub being sunk is far easier to hide and deny than shooting down a Bear going to Cuba.
So you might think its BS, but you can bet the farm that others were doing their utmost to look very closely at how feasible this was and how to carry it out..to send that message. They understood that the immediate issue is not necessarily the important one, perhaps its a tactic you can use.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 21st November 2007 at 21:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cheers Pesho.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 21st November 2007 at 23:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So you know the source and did the claim despite that.
I did mention that records and did compare that with the operational values.
They did work hard for the records and did get the honor related to that.