Blackbird v. Mig-25

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Venik wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:

And this would explain the fact that the Mig-25 never managed to
intercept
an SR how? The Mig simply could not catch an SR-71, and probably
could not even track it. The SR-71 succeeded, the Mig failed.

I think you are mistaking an interceptor for a race car. You see, it
does not need to exceed or even to match the speed of its target to
complete an intercept. MiG-25's main drawback was its missiles. Other
than that, the MiG-31 was succesfull in retiring the SR-71.

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites. The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:24:42 -0500, Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig-31 never had an impact on US planing.

While I *don't* believe the MiG-31 was the reason the Blackbird was
retired, the above statement is simply silly. Of course the Foxhound and
its capabilities were considered during US planning. We'd ignore a
high-speed, high-altitude interceptor at our peril.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

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

Venik wrote in message

And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made
of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to
the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was
made of predominantly stainless steel.

Yet more comments about steel. Steel can be referred by chemical
composition like nickel steel, chromium-nickel, etc or by it's
intended purpose or property and that is stainless. Any steel
containing 5% nickel or more is considered to be resistant to
atmospheric corrosion in addition most nickel steels contain chromium
in similar quantity as nickel and that is another element that makes
the steel stainless.
On the other hand nickel which is very heavy and expensive is used
only in parts that are subjected to very high temperatures like
turbines of jet engines and alloys in use in aviation do not contain
iron in considerable quantities. North American X-15 was used to test
the effects of re-entry in the atmosphere and was subjected to extreme
heating. The aircraft structure
was built of titanium and stainless steel and nickel alloy InconelX
was used
only for skin panels, with nickel steel used in the areas less
subjected to
heat.
So stainless steel was used widely in the '50 and '60 designs all
around the
world and materials should not be used to prove that one design is
superior over another where flight characteristics, equipment and
mantainability meter
the most.

Nemanja Vukicevic
aeronautical engineering student

Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have. The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

--
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

From: Venik
Date: 8/29/2004 12:18 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

--
Regards,

Venik


Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

B2431 wrote:

Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.


Is this a test? Ooh, I like tests! I suggest reading something about
the development of the F-14, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflicts which
saw the use of MiG-25s. I promise you will find no shortage of examples
of how MiG-25 affeted the US planning.

--
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

"Venik" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

Can you name a single such book? I would sincerely be interested in
obtaining a copy.

Besides, when you state that the MiG-25 or MiG-31 have had such an "impact"
on US planing that the SR-71 was retired, why don't you then also explain
about the impact of the F-14 on further developments of MiG-25s?

Namely, this was stopped on a direct order from Moscow after a second
Soviet-flown MiG-25BMs on testing in Iraq was shot down by Iranian F-14s
(using "non-operational" AIM-54s) - in 1987.

In fact, you could then go on and explain about impact the losses of
Soviet-flown Foxbats in Iraq had on a decision to sell Su-24MKs to Syria,
Iraq and Libya instead. Then, all of these countries were originally
completely desinterested in Fencer and actually waiting for IFR-probe
equipped Foxbats to be readied for service: yet, when the news about the
loss of a MiG-25BM near Tehran, in November 1987, reached specific bureaus
in Baghdad, Damascus, and Tripolis all the orders were "suddenly" cancelled,
and also a specific directive was issued in Moscow. Would you be so kind to
tell us why?

I'm sure you'll agree, Venik, that you have a strong predilection of
"providing evidence" for some kind of "superiority" of Soviet-built weapons
and their "impact" on Western thinking and planing.

OK, no problem; I understand your point - regardless of your inability to
provide serious evidence.

But, I don't understand why do you then ignore the impact of Western
technology on Soviet thinking and planing? Why ignore the amount of
Western-technology used to develop specific Soviet systems (the Kh-58, main
armament of the MiG-25BM, for example, was developed from French-built
AJ.168 ARM, supplied to USSR via Iraq) or ignore Soviet own negative
experiences with some of their most potent systems...?

MiG-25s were shot down in combat - and not only three by the Israelis, but
almost two dozens by the Iranians (the first one already in 1976). The SR-71
was never shot down by anybody - even if more than 4.000 SAMs were fired at
them. Is it now so that these figures talk a language you can't understand?

--


Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

From: Venik
Date: 8/29/2004 4:58 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

B2431 wrote:

Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.


Is this a test? Ooh, I like tests! I suggest reading something about
the development of the F-14, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflicts which
saw the use of MiG-25s. I promise you will find no shortage of examples
of how MiG-25 affeted the US planning.

--
Regards,

Venik

Nice selective editing there, venik. Everything the U.S. developed affected the
Soviet plans and vice versa.

Now read the parts you edited out:

"Subject: Blackbird v. Mig-25
From: (B2431)
Date: 8/29/2004 1:41 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

From: Venik
Date: 8/29/2004 12:18 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Alan Minyard wrote:

The Mig never intercepted an SR-71, and if it could have, it would have.
The
SR-71s were retired as strategic recon is now done by satellites.

I suppose that why all US recon planes were retired. Oh, wait, they
weren not. Oops, next explanation...

The Mig-31
never had an impact on US planing.

There've been entire books written on the impact of the MiG-31 on the US
planning.

--
Regards,

Venik


Name one that was written outside the Soviet Union.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"

Now notice how you changed from MiG-37 to MiG25 to avoid answering my question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired