|
Yeah, but it's less that the SR-71 didn't get shot down becuase it couldn't have been, and more because they very carefully didn't fly over the USSR for both political and survivability reasons, and part of the reason it was retired was that it wouldn't have been survivable in a contested environment going forward, and cheaper alternatives existed such that you no longer needed the blackbird. SA-2s over Vietnam != S-200s and S-300s over the USSR.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, but it's less that the SR-71 didn't get shot down becuase it couldn't have been, and more because they very carefully didn't fly over the USSR for both political and survivability reasons, and part of the reason it was retired was that it wouldn't have been survivable in a contested environment going forward, and cheaper alternatives existed such that you no longer needed the blackbird. SA-2s over Vietnam != S-200s and S-300s over the USSR. Especially this when it comes to the SR-71. If they'd flown it repeatedly over the USSR in the later days, it'd certainly have been blown out of the sky, even if it cost the USSR a fortune to do. I'm still in awe of the cameras on the thing - "takes picture well inside border while flying well outside it".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah, at 80,000 feet you should be able to see for ~500 miles in any direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, at 80,000 feet you should be able to see for ~500 miles in any direction. ~346 miles
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, but it's less that the SR-71 didn't get shot down becuase it couldn't have been, and more because they very carefully didn't fly over the USSR for both political and survivability reasons, and part of the reason it was retired was that it wouldn't have been survivable in a contested environment going forward, and cheaper alternatives existed such that you no longer needed the blackbird. SA-2s over Vietnam != S-200s and S-300s over the USSR. And when they did fly them over places throwing missiles and jets up to shoot them down they didn't fly them along a predictable route. Which was the point, and would make an intercept a lot more challenging than those performed by the Mig-31 in the examples given. If they had there very likely would have been a shootdown - the S-75 was actually a reasonably capable and long range missile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
If not the S-75, then a definitely an S-200. It has more than enough kimenatic performance, and an SR-71 probably has about as much maneuverability as the Tu-154, if not less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
IIRC one of the A-12s got hit by a splinter from a SA-2 when they were doing operational testing over Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
Pursesnatcher posted:Well obviously they can spot it at those altitudes; it's clearly designed to be stealthy by simply flying below enemy radars. Howard Hughes did: https://www.sgvtribune.com/2017/11/02/the-spruce-goose-flew-its-one-legendary-flight-in-long-beach-70-years-ago-today/ The Soviets were also big fan of planes that are afraid of heights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:IIRC one of the A-12s got hit by a splinter from a SA-2 when they were doing operational testing over Vietnam. A-12 is literally the MiG-25/31 they wanted. Lob Aim-54s or similar at Russian AWACs from well outside the fighter umbrella and peace out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:A-12 is literally the MiG-25/31 they wanted. Canceled to save money?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
I said mig-31 not su-31
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:I never see any difference listed for the interceptor being fully loaded with missiles either. Thats gotta be a few hundred knots when clean is over Mach 3. The R-60s are on huge pylons and are probably a ... drag to carry around (And most probably why they removed them for SR-71 intercepts), but the R-33s are semi-recessed and partially faired over. That's going to be a lot less draggy than pylon mounts. EDIT : Also, given that the recon MIG-25 has been clocked at mach 3.2 in 'oh poo poo' mode, and that the 31 has engines producing 50% more thrust, I'm pretty sure drag isn't really the main limiting factor. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
I like the MiG-31 because it's a phased array radar mounted onto two giant engines that eat themselves when at full power. Such a straightforward plane with a very specific purpose of going fast and murderizing whatever plane has the misfortune of being target locked. Things like engine life, dogfighting, turning etc. are all secondary. Also its name reminds me of Metal Gear Solid but that's besides the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I like the MiG-31 because it's a phased array radar mounted onto two giant engines that eat themselves when at full power. Such a straightforward plane with a very specific purpose of going fast and murderizing whatever plane has the misfortune of being target locked. Things like engine life, dogfighting, turning etc. are all secondary. So you are saying it is basically a one-use missile that shoots more missiles?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:23
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:So you are saying it is basically a one-use missile that shoots more missiles? You might be interested in this ship that fires a torpedo that launches a missile that then drops a torpedo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3igSY_UAJsk
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:A-12 is literally the MiG-25/31 they wanted. Lob Aim-54s or similar at Russian AWACs from well outside the fighter umbrella and peace out. YF-12. Another reason to dislike McNamara,
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Pursesnatcher posted:Well obviously they can spot it at those altitudes; it's clearly designed to be stealthy by simply flying below enemy radars. One Weird Trick To Hate FL410 Sponsored Content by Bombardier
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:You might be interested in this ship that fires a torpedo that launches a missile that then drops a torpedo Is that early 90s CGI or IRL sunset?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:A-12 is literally the MiG-25/31 they wanted. Lob Aim-54s or similar at Russian AWACs from well outside the fighter umbrella and peace out. MrYenko posted:YF-12. Another reason to dislike McNamara, The YF-12 wouldn't really have been comparable to the MiG-31, and I'm doubtful it would have been too useful of an interceptor had it been built. The A-12 was purpose built for a long range high altitude recon mission, and the YF-12 was conceived of to find some legitimate open USAF purpose for the plane and to rescue the mission of the cancelled XF-108 interceptor. The MiG-25 and 31 were much more practical purpose built interceptors. Both the MiG-25 and the MiG-31 have climb rates about 3.5x higher than the YF-12 had, and the MiG-31 has nearly twice the thrust-to-weight ratio of the YF-12. The MiGs could be scrambled in minutes, and as the previous SR-71 intercept story points out, even then there'd have been little time to spare in intercepting a high speed high altitude aircraft like the SR-71 or more relevantly, the XB-70. It's hard to say what the ready time on the ground would have been because the A-12 and SR-71 were never used that way, but I just don't think the YF-12 could have been where it needed to be in time to be a useful interceptor, and the aircraft was a lot more complicated than a MiG-25. The YF-12's internal weapons carriage meant it could only carry three size-restricted (3m length) GAR-9B/AIM-47 missiles, whereas the MiG-25 could carry four R-40s, at 6m length the largest air-to-air missiles in the world, and by the time of the MiG-31 the much more capable R-33. I don't think the AWACS hunting mission was conceived of until relatively recently, with the MiG-31BM or BSM designed in the 2000s for higher endurance and with a new radar set and the R-37 to go with it. The YF-12 could certainly have flown a little bit faster, a somewhat higher, and for a lot farther and longer. For that, it traded an almost certainly higher unit cost, less armament, and critically, a much slower response time. There's a reason the Soviets built well over a thousand MiG-25s and then developed a successor and built hundreds of the MiG-31; it was a successful and cost effective platform. The YF-12 wouldn't have been, and had they been built, I suspect they'd have been scrapped or converted back to slightly inferior SR-71s in short order. The YF-12 was proposed because we had the aircraft already, designed to fill a critical need for long range high altitude recon for the US, much as the Soviets ended up making recon versions of the MiG-25 instead of spending the money to design a more capable A-12 analogue that they had limited need for. McNamara was wrong about a few things (the TFX!), but he was absolutely right to kill the useless YF-12 and frankly the whole interceptor program altogether. Tetraptous fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
I just stumbled on this video about some veterans from South Africa's Border War in the 70's and 80's. It's from 2007 and mixes historical footage from the conflict with stories and anecdotes from South Africans on all levels, from the Sergeant to the CO of the 32nd Battalion. It's a slice of Cold War from a far-off hot place and it's not for everyone, but I found it engaging and interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYMtvwT6XzM If there's interest, I've found other videos from the 80s made by a South African reporting on the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
According to Wikipedia, one of the primary roles for the MiG-31 is shooting down low-flying cruise missiles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Speaking of interceptors - I've always dreamed of some modern interceptor designed for the USAF. Alas - it doesn't "make sense" but a fast airplane with giant radar and missiles sounds like a dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:I don't think the AWACS hunting mission was conceived of until relatively recently, with the MiG-31BM or BSM designed in the 2000s for higher endurance and with a new radar set and the R-37 to go with it. It's been around for decades. Sperglord posted:Speaking of interceptors - I've always dreamed of some modern interceptor designed for the USAF. Alas - it doesn't "make sense" but a fast airplane with giant radar and missiles sounds like a dream. I've got good news!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's been around for decades. I'm sure you're right. Looking online, and in the books I have available, I didn't notice any mention of an AWACS-killing mission being a design requirement until the modernized variants of the MiG-31 that were developed in the 2000s, in particular, armed with the R-37. However, the R-37 program went on for a long time, and development started in the 80s, so I'm sure they were thinking about it back then. Certainly, the Soviets likely came up with the idea as soon as they had the means to execute it as another mission for the R-33 on the MiG-31 or even R-40 on the MiG-25, although my impression is that the missiles themselves were designed chiefly to meet a requirement to intercept bombers like the B-1, for the R-33, and the XB-70, for the R-40. The anti-AWACS mission has presumably become more important as intercepting strategic bombers and their air-launched cruise missiles has become less important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
I assume the intro of the E-3 was a big part of it as well, as it seems to coincide with the AWACS mission really blossoming in effectiveness. A quick glance says 77ish. The platforms existed but you basically don’t hear about them in a essential-to-ops way as the E-3s now. At least I never have.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:Speaking of interceptors - I've always dreamed of some modern interceptor designed for the USAF. Alas - it doesn't "make sense" but a fast airplane with giant radar and missiles sounds like a dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:My dude what do you think the f-22 is
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
My understanding is that the F-12 would have been scrambled to intercept poo poo that was detected coming over Canada by long range radars up north.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:My understanding is that the F-12 would have been scrambled to intercept poo poo that was detected coming over Canada by long range radars up north. So you're saying it was a Yankee plot to discredit the heroic Avro Arrow?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:So you're saying it was a Yankee plot to discredit the heroic Avro Arrow? the avro was a chump, saying it here and now
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:So you're saying it was a Yankee plot to discredit the heroic Avro Arrow? Can't discredit something that doesn't exist. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:My dude what do you think the f-22 is Yeah. The newest AMRAAMs are even sporting a range similar to the Phoenix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Expand for huge
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:My dude what do you think the f-22 is An Air Superiority fighter, high-G maneuverability and not impractically fast. Think of it as a design with excessive speed and ridiculous radar/missiles more than balanced capability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Expand for huge K-1200, yes! S-67, oh yes! But... where's the Cheyenne?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:K-1200, yes! And the Hughes XH-17?! Probably because it never went past the prototype. Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Speaking of Raptors, the report on the one that failed to take off at Nellis is out, and it's pilot error. Early rotation, early lift off, early gear up, plane settled back onto the runway, as it lacked the speed to maintain altitude. Report notes that these issues are common among the force, but are worse at higher altitude (i.e. Nellis vs F-22 training bases). Oops.  another image for image gods 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Trying to summon dark lord Dahir Insaat I see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Probably because it never went past the prototype. Whatever. If we want to talk prototypes, where's the Mil V12? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Sperglord posted:An Air Superiority fighter, high-G maneuverability and not impractically fast. Think of it as a design with excessive speed and ridiculous radar/missiles more than balanced capability. Well, in a practical way the F-22 is "faster" than the Mig-31 thanks to not needing to light up the afterburners and slash its range in half to maintain supersonic speed. Yeah, you can't do a Mach 3 dash while simultaneously destroying your engines (probably) but you'll reach the target faster and further outside of that - not even much slower in a not-destroying-your-engines burn-to-target situation. The RADAR is also pretty drat powerful on the F-22 and, as previously mentioned, the current gen AMRAAM has a ~100 mile range. Don't hate on it just because it can also do the turning thing. AlexanderCA posted:Trying to summon dark lord Dahir Insaat I see. You can see the cargo container sneaking up on them if you squint just right. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:09
|
|