Blackbird v. Mig-25

"Venik" wrote in message
...
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?

Retired undefeated.

Pete

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

It would be exactly the same, as that of the Soviet Union. Both were
decommissioned in the same year I believe.

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.

I guess it would just need to get close enough to fire a missile at it.
At least that's the concept of "interceptor" as I understand it, it's
not a dogfighter...

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and ".sons.of" parts before replying

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 02:08:06 -0400, Venik wrote:

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?


Which means what? That you know how to read? Why don't you show us
where it's stated that the Mig-31 had anything to do with the
retirement of the SR-71? Yeah, that's about what I thought.

I would suggest you talk with several SR-71drivers concerning whether they
would knowingly fly into a "Mig-25 infested" area with the Mig-25 drivers
knowing he was there. The answer is and would be a resounding NO! And why,
because the Mig-25 would have a reasonable chance of blowing his butt right out
of the sky. Just because it never happened doesn't mean it can't.

Keep in mind, to the best of my knowledge, all Mig-25/SR-71 encounters occurred
off shore, not a direct invasion of Soviet airspace (different rules there
gentlemen). Put a SR over Moscow and watch what happens. I suspect little
pieces of titanium would be littering the countryside.

A good comparison is the F-15 vs Mig-25. The F-15 could not tail chase the
Mig-25 on its best day, as the Mig-25 could not tail chase a SR. The delta
speed differences are about the same between the two comparison. But yet, the
Israels dropped two Mig-25s with F-15s. The reasons are simple, and it has
nothing to do with speed. The answer lies within proper tactics and
tracking/firecontrol systems.

The point being made is that there are no winners and losers with the Mig-25
and SR. The Mig-25 and SR served their missions well. The 25 kept western
world aircraft out of their airspace, and the SR performed recce missions that
simply could not have been done with other aircraft.

As far as the SR retiring, the Mig-31 had very little, it not nothing to do
with it. That was simply the cost of operations coupled with new capability.

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

I guess it would just need to get close enough to fire a missile at it.
At least that's the concept of "interceptor" as I understand it, it's
not a dogfighter...

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and ".sons.of" parts before replying

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?