Blackbird v. Mig-25

Vello wrote:

What stops SR-71 project was achievements in area of taking pictures from
the orbit and Soviet potential to build land-air missiles.

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target, it
usually can carry more equipment, it's equipment is more up-to-date and
can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.

SR-71 was originally retired in 1990 - four years after one was
intercepted by six MiG-31s over international waters in Barents Sea on
June 3, 1986, subjecting the Blackbird to a potential all-angle AAM
attack. I am not aware of any such close encounters between the SR-71
and the Soviet SAMs. This would have been unlikely, considering the fact
that the SR-71 missions were usually planned far from the coastline and
outside of the effective SAM range. Not the the Soviets really wanted to
bring down a US spy plane over international waters.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:02:23 -0400, Venik wrote:

Vello wrote:

What stops SR-71 project was achievements in area of taking pictures from
the orbit and Soviet potential to build land-air missiles.

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target, it
usually can carry more equipment, it's equipment is more up-to-date and
can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.

SR-71 was originally retired in 1990 - four years after one was
intercepted by six MiG-31s over international waters in Barents Sea on
June 3, 1986, subjecting the Blackbird to a potential all-angle AAM
attack.

The fact that it happend a grand total of ONCE and it took six of the
USSR's top of the line interceptors to do it makes your claim that it
was the reason for the SR-71's retirement pretty weak.





I am not aware of any such close encounters between the SR-71
and the Soviet SAMs.

There are accounts of SR-71s flying *directly over* SA-5 sites. In
other countries.



This would have been unlikely, considering the fact
that the SR-71 missions were usually planned far from the coastline and
outside of the effective SAM range. Not the the Soviets really wanted to
bring down a US spy plane over international waters.

Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:02:23 -0400, Venik wrote:

The fact that it happend a grand total of ONCE and it took six of the
USSR's top of the line interceptors to do it makes your claim that it
was the reason for the SR-71's retirement pretty weak.

It happened once that we know of and, apparently, it was enough. SR-71's
missions were planned farther and farther from the Soviet airspace
because of the MiG threat. And the number of MiGs needed to intercept
the SR-71 is not really relevant - it's an interceptor designed to
operate in groups. Not like the US had any great number of Blackbirds
anyway.

There are accounts of SR-71s flying *directly over* SA-5 sites. In
other countries.

Exactly my point.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:09:50 -0400, Venik wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:02:23 -0400, Venik wrote:

The fact that it happend a grand total of ONCE and it took six of the
USSR's top of the line interceptors to do it makes your claim that it
was the reason for the SR-71's retirement pretty weak.

It happened once that we know of and, apparently, it was enough.


Your logic escapes me. It happened once and four YEARS later the
SR-71 gets retired therefore once caused the other? That would be
like trying to blame the implosion of the USSR on the Stalin Purges.
So instead of continuing to say "ya huh" how about showing us some
evidence there is a correlation? The fact of the matter is that even
if six Foxhounds pulled up alongside the Blackbird (in a Mig pilot's
wildest dreams) they couldn't do a damn thing in international
airspace without causeing a stink that would make KAL 007 look like a
fender-bender. And both sides knew it.








SR-71's
missions were planned farther and farther from the Soviet airspace
because of the MiG threat. And the number of MiGs needed to intercept
the SR-71 is not really relevant - it's an interceptor designed to
operate in groups. Not like the US had any great number of Blackbirds
anyway.

Well 50. AFAIK that's more than the number of Blackjacks produced.





There are accounts of SR-71s flying *directly over* SA-5 sites. In
other countries.

Exactly my point.

And what would that be? That an SA-5 COULDN'T bring down a Blackbird?

In article , Venik
wrote:

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target,

Maybe, maybe not. If your recce a/c cannot get close enough because of missile
defense, then you're pushed too far away from the target for good resolution.
The slant range will put more atmosphere between the target and you.
A satellite in LEO may in fact have better resolution.

it usually can carry more equipment,

Not true at all. The fast movers used for recce duty (other than the U-2)
are very limited in space and weight carrying

it's equipment is more up-to-date and

Not necessarily. Spaceborne recce assets come from a different bucket of money
and usually does not compete with tactical assets. The satellite may be
of a newer generation than the aircraft SPO can afford.

can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.

Once the launch costs are paid for, the satellite system operates
pretty cheaply. Aircraft OTOH still require fuel, maintenance and basing
all the time.

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography, but not for
the reasons you mentioned:
The real benefit of airborne recce is mission flexibility, the ability to
task an a/c when you need it, not when the orbit is right.
Also ease of upgrade.
Once the satellite is in orbit, it's difficult (but possible) to upgrade,
but aircraft are relatively cheap to mod.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. If your recce a/c cannot get close enough because
of missile
defense, then you're pushed too far away from the target for good resolution.

Well, that's what happened to the Blackbird. But my point was that a
recon plane will always have an edge over a satellite, provided, of
course, they are both within their effective range from the target.

Not true at all. The fast movers used for recce duty (other than the U-2)
are very limited in space and weight carrying

Well, to respond to this one would need to know the payload of a recon
satellite. The gross weight of the KH-11, for example, is over 13,000
kg. However, it's payload, of course, is considerably less. Even a very
general schematic of the KH-9, for example, shows that, just as with a
recon plane, the payload constitutes a relatively small fraction of the
gross weight of the craft.
(http://www2.janes.com/janesdata/yb/j...s/g0003433.jpg)

One would also need to take into the account the extra weight of the
actual recon equipment carried by the satellite to compensate for its
greater distance from the target, as compared to a recon plane. Thus, we
can't compare the payloads of a recon plane and a recon satellite pound
for pound even if the two are designed for identical types of missions.

Not necessarily. Spaceborne recce assets come from a different bucket of money
and usually does not compete with tactical assets. The satellite may be
of a newer generation than the aircraft SPO can afford.

As you pointed out, equipment of a recon plane is certainly easier and
cheaper to upgrade, even if we assume that a spy satellite can be
upgraded at all. That's what I meant by "more up to date". The financial
aspect of you argument is out of place he I am comparing technical
points - not budgetary.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse