A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Blackbird v. Mig-25



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 20th 04, 06:20 AM
Venik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Majden wrote:

Weren't these aircraft designed for different purposes in mind so direct
comparisons are meaningless. The SR-71 is a high altitude recon. platform
as wasn't the Mig 25 a high speed interceptor which needed high speed dash
capability and not long endurance?

Ed


Not quite. The Ye-155 (MiG-25's development designation) was from the
very start produced in two versions: Ye-155P ("P" is for Perekhvatchik -
interceptor) and the Ye-155R ("Razvedyvatel'niy", or Reconnaissance).
The PVO needed and interceptor and the VVS needed a high-speed
high-altitude recon plane. It was decided to combine the two
requirements in a single design. I see nothing wrong in comparing MiG-25
to SR-71 because both were recon planes and one of them was also the
primary target for the other.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"
  #22  
Old August 20th 04, 06:31 AM
Venik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Vello Kala wrote:

Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
(3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
(24,385 m) Mach 3.35
MiG-25 2,110 mph
(3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
(13,000 m) Mach 3.2


This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have
very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc
etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it
is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40
000 feet?


I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate,
considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and
both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles.
MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has
outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of
performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the
right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane
and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71.

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.

Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of
SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter
aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in
the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel
alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when
compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong
airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially
higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71.

MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were
manufactured), while the total production run of the entire
A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so.

Design of the MiG-25 started in 1959 as the Ye-155P
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mig25_31/page_10.htm) multi role
interceptor. The Ye-155P was not being developed specifically to counter
the A-11/A-12, although the Soviets knew about this project and about
its performance requirements. Intercepting low-flying cruise missiles,
for example, was one of the roles for the Ye-155P from the very
beginning. At the time the Soviets were concerned with the US and
British advances in cruise missile development - Regulus, Rascal, Blue
Steel, all of which had Mach 2++ capability.

The late 1950s and the early 1960s was a time of particular Soviet
obsession with heavy interceptors. During this period USSR produced
several aircraft of this type, including La-250, I-75, Ye-150/152,
Tu-128. Various Russian publications indicate that the Soviets learned
about the A-11 project sometime in the summer of 1960. The Ye-155
project got its official Central Committee go-ahead in 1961, so it seems
like there is a clear link between the two aircraft but there isn't one.

Soviets learned about the A-11 in 1960, while the work on the Ye-155
concept begun in 1959. In any case, even in 1960 Soviets had only a
rough idea of the expected performance of A-11/12, which, at best, was
one of the reasons for the Ye-155's expeditious approval by the Central
Committee in 1961 but not for the aircraft's concept. The B-58 became
operational, the XB-70 was in development, the A-5 flew in 1958 and it
is believed that Mikoyan was particularly impressed by this aircraft. In
other words, there were plenty of real threats justifying the
development of the Ye-155 other than the A-12, which in 1959 existed
only in the form of a diverse collection of wind tunnel models.

I read Belyakov's book, where he mentions Soviet knowledge of the A-11
program. However, the immediate question in my mind was: why would it
appear so critical of a threat to the Soviets to prompt a massive
development effort of an advanced interceptor as Ye-155? The Soviets
became aware of the Suntan project prior to the A-11. They were aware of
the Valkyrie. The Ye-155 itself seems closer in design to the A-5 than
to A-11. At that time the PVO wanted an interceptor, while the VVS
desired a new recon plane. The very fact that a decision was made to
combine these two requirements in a single aircraft clearly shows that
the Ye-155 could not have been created to counter specifically the A-11.


--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"
  #23  
Old August 21st 04, 09:29 AM
Vello
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank You,
do you have data about how long Mig-25 could keep max speed (and how much it
was) in recon configuration?


"Venik" wrote in message
...
Vello Kala wrote:

Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
(3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
(24,385 m) Mach 3.35
MiG-25 2,110 mph
(3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
(13,000 m) Mach 3.2


This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane,

have
very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight

only)etc
etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached.

How it
is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at

40
000 feet?


I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate,
considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and
both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles.
MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has
outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of
performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the
right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane
and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71.

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.

Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of
SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter
aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in
the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel
alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when
compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong
airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially
higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71.

MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were
manufactured), while the total production run of the entire
A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so.

Design of the MiG-25 started in 1959 as the Ye-155P
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mig25_31/page_10.htm) multi role
interceptor. The Ye-155P was not being developed specifically to counter
the A-11/A-12, although the Soviets knew about this project and about
its performance requirements. Intercepting low-flying cruise missiles,
for example, was one of the roles for the Ye-155P from the very
beginning. At the time the Soviets were concerned with the US and
British advances in cruise missile development - Regulus, Rascal, Blue
Steel, all of which had Mach 2++ capability.

The late 1950s and the early 1960s was a time of particular Soviet
obsession with heavy interceptors. During this period USSR produced
several aircraft of this type, including La-250, I-75, Ye-150/152,
Tu-128. Various Russian publications indicate that the Soviets learned
about the A-11 project sometime in the summer of 1960. The Ye-155
project got its official Central Committee go-ahead in 1961, so it seems
like there is a clear link between the two aircraft but there isn't one.

Soviets learned about the A-11 in 1960, while the work on the Ye-155
concept begun in 1959. In any case, even in 1960 Soviets had only a
rough idea of the expected performance of A-11/12, which, at best, was
one of the reasons for the Ye-155's expeditious approval by the Central
Committee in 1961 but not for the aircraft's concept. The B-58 became
operational, the XB-70 was in development, the A-5 flew in 1958 and it
is believed that Mikoyan was particularly impressed by this aircraft. In
other words, there were plenty of real threats justifying the
development of the Ye-155 other than the A-12, which in 1959 existed
only in the form of a diverse collection of wind tunnel models.

I read Belyakov's book, where he mentions Soviet knowledge of the A-11
program. However, the immediate question in my mind was: why would it
appear so critical of a threat to the Soviets to prompt a massive
development effort of an advanced interceptor as Ye-155? The Soviets
became aware of the Suntan project prior to the A-11. They were aware of
the Valkyrie. The Ye-155 itself seems closer in design to the A-5 than
to A-11. At that time the PVO wanted an interceptor, while the VVS
desired a new recon plane. The very fact that a decision was made to
combine these two requirements in a single aircraft clearly shows that
the Ye-155 could not have been created to counter specifically the A-11.


--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"



  #24  
Old August 21st 04, 05:35 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:31:17 -0400, Venik wrote:

Vello Kala wrote:

Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number
SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph
(3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft
(24,385 m) Mach 3.35
MiG-25 2,110 mph
(3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft
(13,000 m) Mach 3.2


This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have
very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc
etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is
relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it
is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40
000 feet?


I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate,
considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and
both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles.
MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has
outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of
performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the
right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane
and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71.

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.

Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of
SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter
aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in
the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel
alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when
compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong
airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially
higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71.

MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were
manufactured), while the total production run of the entire
A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so.

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.

Al Minyard
  #25  
Old August 21st 04, 07:44 PM
Venik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Vello wrote:
Thank You,
do you have data about how long Mig-25 could keep max speed (and how much it
was) in recon configuration?


With a drop tank MiG-25RB can maintain Mach 2.35 for about 80 minutes.
You can view the basic performance numbers for the RB model here (PDF,
120kb): http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/pd...erformance.pdf
(from "MiG-25 Foxbat", by Yefim Gordon).

The speed record set by E-266 in 1967 on a closed 1000km course with
2000 kg payload was 2920.67 km/h. Same year this plane set the speed
record on a closed 500km course with 2000 kg payload - 2981.5 km/h. The
SR-71 could not beat the speed records on the 100km and 500km closed
circuit courses due to it limited G-load capability. The E-266 also set
the absolute altitude record with 2000 kg payload in 1977 - 37800 meters
(124000 ft), while the SR-71 holds the altitude record in horizontal
flight - 25950 meters.

MiG-25's maximum speed was capped at about Mach 2.83. This was an
artificial limitation designed to reduce the risk of control problems.
Here are a few related excerpts from Yefim Gordon's book on the MiG-25
(please excuse the OCR errors):

pp. 32-33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MiG-25M (Ye-266M) Development
The 1972 directive ordering the service entry of
the MiG-25RB, 'RBK and 'RBS also elaborated
on the upgrade possibilities of the basic de-
sign. The military wanted an increase in range
at low and medium altitude and an increase in
ceiling and maximum speed.
The Mach 2.83 speed limit imposed on the
MiG-25 was purely theoretical, since the aircraft
had the potential to go faster from the very start.
High speeds reduced lateral stability and ser-
vice life, but there were cases of pilots exceed-
ing the speed limit without harming the aircraft.
Therefore, the designers intended to reach a
Mach 3.0-3.2 top speed so that the MiG-25
could outperform its arch-rival, the SR-71A -
the world's fastest recce aircraft. This could be
achieved by fitting the MiG-25 with more pow-
erful and fuel-efficient engines.
As far back as the early 1960s, a group of
engine designers led by Shukhov and Rot-
mistrov proposed a comprehensive upgrade of
the R15B-300 turbojet. The idea materialised as
the uprated R15BF2-300, Izdelye 65M. The
improvement in performance was achieved by
adding a compressor stage and increasing the
combustion chamber and turbine tempera-
tures. As compared with the R15B-300, the
R15BF2-300 had a lower specific fuel con-
sumption, a higher thrust (10,000kgp/22,045lb
st dry and 13,230 to 14,500kgp/29,166 to
31,966lb st reheat) and a higher compressor
pressure ratio (4.95 vs 4.75).
The two engines were perfectly interchange-
able, having identical dimensions and mount-
ings. Providing the airframe was made more
heat-resistant (that is, because of the higher
turbine temperature), the new engines offered
a substantial increase in rate of climb, ceiling,
range and speed (up to 3,500km/h, or
2,187mph).
The Mikoyan OKB started a massive research
effort with a view to increasing the MiG-25's top
speed, concentrating mainly on aerodynamic
stability and airframe/engine thermal limits. The
aircraft's principal structure was made of steel
and thus was heat-resistant enough. Some
parts of the airframe, however, such as the
radome and forward fuselage, wingtips, flaps
and ailerons, were made of Duralumin and
plastics. They were not subjected to significant
structural loads but experienced high tempera-
tures and had to be replaced with steel or titani-
um honeycomb structures. This, in turn, called
for new technologies, Therefore the Mikoyan
OKB suggested to split the work into two
stages, ie, test and refine the engine on a struc-
turally standard MiG-25 first and come back to
the speed issue later.
Both the WS and the Ministry of Aircraft
Industry went along with this approach and
gave the go-ahead for Stage 1. In September
1964 the Ministry issued a directive detailing
the test programme of the re-engined MiG-25.
Yet the theoretical part, manufacturing and
bench testing of the R15BF2-300 took longer
than predicted, and flight tests did not begin
until 1973. The VVS initially allotted a single
MiG-25 for test purposes, which was later
joined by a second aircraft.
Aircraft No.1 was a MiG-25RB which was
given a new factory number (f/n) 02-601, after
being modified (hence the tactical number
'Blue 601'). Aircraft No.2 was a standard MiG-
25PD built in 1973 (f/n 84019175) which made
its first flight with standard engines on 12th
June 1973 with Ostapenko at the controls.
(Later it was flown by Fedotov, Fastovets, Orlov
and others.) On 30th August 1973 the aircraft
received its intended R15BF2-300 engines, a
new c/n (841710) and the tactical number 'Blue
710'.
From then on, the two aircraft served as test-
beds for the new turbojet with the provisional
designation MiG-25M (Modifitseerovannyy -
modified). The conversion work was complet-
ed very quickly but refining the engine took a
considerable time. Still, it was worth the sweat:
the enginedidproduce the claimed perfor-
mance. The service ceiling exceeded 24,200m
(79,396ft) and supersonic cruise range was
1,920km (1,200 miles) in clean condition or
2,530km (1,581 miles) with a 5,300 litre (1,177
Imp gallon) drop tank.
The modified MiG-25RB was used to set a
number of world time-to-height and altitude
records. On a single day (17th May 1975) Fedo-
tov and Ostapenko set three time-to-height
records, reaching 25,000m (82,020ft), 30,000m
(98,425ft) and 35,000m (114,829ft) in 143.2
seconds, 189.85 seconds and 251.7 seconds
respectively. For these record flights the aircraft
were designated Ye-266M for FAI registration
purposes and had all non-essential equipment
removed to reduce weight.
Same year the interceptor, 'Blue 710', was
further modified by fitting the wings of the recce
aircraft ('Blue 601') and new stabilators previ-
ously tested on another development MiG-25
('Blue 502'). More modifications followed in
1976, this time to the electrical and control sys-
tems. The aircraft was used as a test-bed until
withdrawn from use in April 1977.
The modified recce aircraft continued flying
for some time. In the summer of 1977 Fedotov
bettered his own altitude world records. On
22nd June he took the aircraft to 37,800m
(124,015ft) with a 2,000kg (4,409lb) payload,
and reached 37,650m (123,523ft) on 31st
August with no payload. However, soon after
the record flights, a pressure valve in the fuel
system failed in a regular flight, causing one of
the fuselage fuel tanks to get overpressurised
and burst. A good-sized portion of the upper
fuselage skin came off in mid-air; test pilot A G
Fastovets displayed no mean skill and bravery,
managing to land safely. The aircraft was
repaired but test flights did not resume.
The test flights of the re-engined MiG-25Ms
confirmed the possibility of improving the air-
craft's performance considerably. In lightened
form for the record breaking flights the aircraft
had a thrust to weight ratio better than 1:0 for
the first time in Mikoyan OKB history. As a
result, the brakes could not hold the aircraft in
full afterburner, and a special mobile detent
had to be developed (a heavy vehicle with a jet
exhaust deflector to which the aircraft was con-
nected by a strong cable and lock).
The re-engined MiG-25 never entered pro-
duction - for several reasons. First was the test
programmes of two new aircraft, the MiG-25
Izdelye 99 and the MiG-31, which also began in
1975. Both aircraft were powered by the
Solov'yov PS-30F (D-30F) engine with a similar
rating but a lower specific fuel consumption
(SFC). Second, the aero engine factories were
tied up with other orders and could not produce
the R15BF2-300. Finally, the PVO top com-
mand was more interested in the MiG-31 than
in an upgrade of the existing MiG-25. There-
fore, the MiG-25 programme was terminated.
Shortly afterwards the modified MiG-25PD
('Blue 710') was transferred to a school for
junior technical staff, acting as a ground
instructional airframe for a while. Later it was
transferred to Moscow-Khodynka and is now
on display at the open air museum there (inci-
dentally, displaying its original construction
number).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MiG-25PA(Ye-155PA) Interceptor
In the mid-1960s the Mikoyan OKB was work-
ing on an interceptor project referred to as the
Ye-155PA. This aircraft was to be capable of
destroying targets flying anywhere between
100 and 30,000m (328 - 98,425 ft) at speeds of
3,500 to 4,000km/h (2,187 - 2,500 mph). To this
end, it was to be equipped with the brand-new
'Smerch-100' radar, later renamed 'Zaslon'
(Shield), and armed with the equally new R-100
missiles. The powerplant consisted of two
R15BV-300 turbojets with an improved high
altitude performance (Vysotnyy - high altitude)
which would take the aircraft to Mach 3.5.
Later, the requirements changed, especially
regarding speed, and the project was discon-
tinued. As for the radar, a refined version (SBI-
16 'Zaslon') was later installed in the MiG-31.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 49-50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MIM-23 Hawk missiles used by Israel
were no great threat to the MiG-25 either, since
the aircraft was out of their altitude range
(12,200m/40,026ft). The MiGs' radar warning
receiver often sensed that the aircraft was
being 'painted' by enemy radars but no missile
warning ensued. On discovering a Hawk
launcher the pilot would simply switch on the
'Siren' ECM set and carry on with his business.
Deep penetration flights continued into
October 1972. The Israeli ambassador to the
United Nations lodged a formal complaint after
each occurrence but no action on this issue
was ever taken by the UN.
The Israelisdidhave a reason to be nervous.
Among the support equipment and other para-
phernalia Det 63 had brought with them were
bomb racks for the two strike capable 'RBs and
FAB-500M-62T low drag bombs, specially
developed for supersonic bombing. Each air-
craft could carry up to eight such weapons;
after being released at high altitude they could
sail through the air for miles and miles. Howev-
er, the Soviet pilots' missions did not include
bombing.
As an excuse for their inability to intercept the
elusive MiGs the Israeli air defences stated that
'the object was clocked at Mach 3.2'! However,
the flight recorders of the MiGs showed there
were no major deviations from the prescribed
flight profile. The aircraft were notalwaysflown
by the book. On one occasion Bezhevets
exceeded the 'red line' to get away from pursu-
ing Phantoms; the flight recorder showed that
the Mach limit had been more than tripled(l).
Other sources state that it was WS pilot
Krasnogorskiy who should walk away with the
record (and get the 'speeding ticket'), as he
reached 3,400km/h (2,125mph) in one of the
sorties. This was dangerous because the air-
frame could be damaged by overheating, but
careful inspection of the aircraft showed no
apparent damage. Still, the pilots received an
unambiguous 'debriefing' afterthis incident.
The new MiGs had a good reliability record,
with very few failures despite the fact that the
aircraft still had its share of bugs. Each aircraft
came complete with a double set of spares -
just in case. Nasty surprises did happen. On
one occasion Stogov's aircraft suffered an
engine flame-out and began decelerating
rapidly, forcing the pilot to radio for help. He
was ordered to return to base immediately or
land at the reserve airfield from which escort
fighters scrambled. In a few seconds, the
engine revived spontaneously and Stogov pro-
ceeded with the mission as planned. The trou-
ble was traced to a faulty fuel flow control unit
which the electronic engine control system
somehow managed to correct.
A more serious incident happened to
Bezhevets. A main gear locking arm failed on
the first aircraft reassembled in Egypt and the
strut would not lock in the 'down' position.
Bezhevets decided to land on the nosewheel
and the locked mainwheel. Touching down at
290km/h (181 mph), he kept the aircraft's
weight off the damaged strut as long as possi-
ble. Finally the strut collapsed and the aircraft
slewed, coming to rest on two struts and a
wingtip. The landing was made so skilfully that
the aircraft suffered only superficial damage to
the wingtip and was soon flying again after
repairs on site. (Other sources claim that the
aircraft was returned to the USSR for repairs
and a substitute MiG-25R sent in.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
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
  #26  
Old August 21st 04, 08:14 PM
Venik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

--
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
  #28  
Old August 21st 04, 11:25 PM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 SA-5 had a better chance of downing a Blackbird than the Mig-31
and that didn't seem to stop them.
  #29  
Old August 22nd 04, 06:47 AM
cypher745
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Venik!!!! Good to see you again. Heaven knows I hardly ever agree with you..
(I think you stated that the sky was blue one time and I had to run outside
to make sure) but you are always entertaining.


"Venik" wrote in message
...
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.

--
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



  #30  
Old August 22nd 04, 07:08 AM
Venik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Ferrin wrote:

The SA-5 had a better chance of downing a Blackbird than the Mig-31
and that didn't seem to stop them.


Remind me: what is the current operational status of the SR-71?

--
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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blackbird books (was: hi-speed ejections) Paul A. Suhler Military Aviation 0 February 5th 04 04:39 PM
Victor Belenko's Narrative of Blackbird Activity in Soviet Far East frank wight Military Aviation 3 January 8th 04 01:07 AM
Refuting blackbird folklore frank wight Military Aviation 42 December 3rd 03 10:24 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.