If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"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 ************************************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blackbird books (was: hi-speed ejections) | Paul A. Suhler | Military Aviation | 0 | February 5th 04 03:39 PM |
Victor Belenko's Narrative of Blackbird Activity in Soviet Far East | frank wight | Military Aviation | 3 | January 8th 04 12:07 AM |
Refuting blackbird folklore | frank wight | Military Aviation | 42 | December 3rd 03 09:24 AM |
SR- 71/ Blackbird lore | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 28 | July 31st 03 02:20 PM |
Blackbird lore | Air Force Jayhawk | Military Aviation | 3 | July 26th 03 02:03 AM |