LevshaBtw, some more comical coverage by Western media of the operation:
http://www.nytimes.com/…/syria-russian-air-strike-refugees.…
“And in a report released on Sunday, Human Rights Watch said that at least two Russian airstrikes on October 15 – in Ter Ma’aleh, and in another village in northern Homs – had killed at least 59 civilians, including 46 people from one family who were apparently related to a rebel commander. “
If you actually follow the HRW link provided:
” At least two air strikes in northern Homs on October 15, 2015, that local residents believed to be Russian, apparently violated the laws of war. The air strikes killed a total of 59 civilians, residents said, including 33 children and a commander of the local armed opposition group. Russia should investigate the attacks.”
And the standard of proof is: “Local residents told Human Rights Watch said they believe the strikes were by Russian forces because the sound of the planes was different from the sound made by Syrian air force planes, and the Russians fly much higher. “
So. ****ty journalism, or certain governments prodding them to constantly equate Russia with BAD BOMBING on the front page, and even more comically, with creating the refugees?
I could well believe that dozens, if not hundreds of “civilians” have been killed as a result of the Russian air force bombings in Syria in the last few weeks. Stands to reason.
LevshaSome of the airfields in Russia are not exactly class A. Take many of those Northern AB.. Russian helios and jet are renowned to operate in harsh climate. Russian helios can operate in desert condition much better vs western Helios. That is a well known fact!
Some very well worn stereotypes being trotted out here. Incidently, most desert, or partially desert countries around the world operate mainly American and Western European helicopters (it seems to me anyway).
LevshaJapan chooses Boeing KC-46, halting Airbus tanker winning streak
The Japanese choosing the American product over the European alternative – what a surprise!
LevshaThey state the R-37M can intercept targets at Mach 6/25,000m/8g and the R-77-1 at 25,000m/12g.
These are new missiles, in fact, I don’t think they are in service yet. SR-71 was finally retired 16 years ago.
Mach 3.2 drones are shot down routinely during testing.
Could you tell us more about this?
LevshaAt 70,000 feet the air is probaly too thin for a guided missile to turn effectively. At the SR-71’s altitude – 85,000 feet – guided missiles probably don’t turn very well at all. Let’s not forget as well, that both the B-70 and SR-71 carried extremely powerful electronic countermeasures – you can speculate yourself how effective this ECM might have been.
In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6’s no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
Again, an alleged successful intercept due to the SR-71’s flight plan being quite well known. Hell, even the Swedish air force they got a successful intercept of spyplane over the Baltic with their SAAB Viggens.
LevshaI find such comment way too biased. F-22 doesn’t have a proven ability to shoot down anything. Neither does Rafale or Typhoon. So by your logic, I would be right to assume they are not capable of A-A combat… Or from another POV, F-22’s design *purpose* was stealth. You are claiming its not stealthy at all, based on the fact its never proven to elude Russian air defenses.
Both the F-22 and MiG-31 have many times shot down targets flying at various speeds and at various altitiudes – have you never heard of target drones? But I don’t recall either aircraft attempting to shoot down targets flying at Mach 3.2 and flying at 80,000 feet, have you? It’s all about making credible statements, and providing credible evidence to back them up. Incredible claims need incredible evidence to support them.
In 1960, Soviets had Yak-28, its range&endurance at combat speeds was deemed insufficent, so Tu-28 was built. Both Yak-28 and Tu-28 have much better range than MiG-25 and Ye-152. After B-58 entered service, Soviets designed Ye-152. Ye-152 was also capable of M2,83 and 70k+ feet ceiling. When XB-70’s specs are revealed, PVO’s specifications were revised and it was clear Ye-152’s radar and missile system is inadaquate, so it was canceled; new Smerch radar had 3 times the size of Ye-152’s Uragan-5, and new R-40 missile has 2 times the weight of K-9 missile. This resulted in a aircraft twice the size of Ye-152.
So if MiG-25 cannot perform the very purpose of its design, why waste resources? Why not build Ye-152? Or just stick with Tu-28?
Why would the Soviets design and put into production and service an aircraft in 1972 (MiG-25), to counter an aircraft which was completely cancelled in 1962 (B-70)? That doesn’t make sense. Maybe the Soviet PVO put the MiG-25 into service because it’s a far more effective aircraft at intercepting most aircraft than either the Yak- and Tu-28. An intercepter than can supercruise to its subsonic target at Mach 2.0 is a useful aircraft to have, perhaps?
LevshaI disagree..
In this book one of the first Foxhound pilots, Captain Mikhail Myagkiy, who had been scrambled with its MiG-31 several times to intercept the US super-fast spy plane, explains how he was able to lock on a Blackbird on Jan. 31, 1986:
“The scheme for intercepting the SR-71 was computed down to the last second, and the MiGs had to launch exactly 16 minutes after the initial alert. (…) They alerted us for an intercept at 11.00. They sounded the alarm with a shrill bell and then confirmed it with a loudspeaker. The appearance of an SR-71 was always accompanied by nervousness. Everyone began to talk in frenzied voices, to scurry about, and react to the situation with excessive emotion.”
Myagkiy and its Weapons System Officer (WSO) were able to achieve a SR-71 lock on at 52,000 feet and at a distance of 120 Km from the target. The Foxhound climbed at 65,676 feet where the crew had the Blackbird in sight and according to Myagkiy:
“Had the spy plane violated Soviet airspace, a live missile launch would have been carried out. There was no practically chance the aircraft could avoid an R-33 missile.”
Paul Crickmore – Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond The Secret Missions
Well it’s easy to compute the interception of an SR-71 “down to the last second” if you already know the time and route of the of the spyplanes’s arrival (as they did for many SR-71s flying off the Kola Peninsula). Captain Myagkiy can say what he likes about his aircraft and missiles’ capabilities against the SR-71 – but I ask one question: has the captain ever seen, or ever met someone who has seen, a MiG-31 shoot down a Mach 3 target? BTW, plenty of US military pilots may certainly practice a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the abilities of the F-35 – that doesn’t necessarily mean all of this wishful thinking is true, though.
LevshaWell the US weren’t too confident about the ability of the SR-71 to avoid SA-5s, which is why they always skirted the peripheries of the USSR. I think that SR-71 just got very lucky and don’t forget the SA-5 had an ARH head unlike the SA-2, so in similar circumstances an SA-5 would probably score a direct hit, making the proximity fuse irrelevant.
The Soviet Union and the USA signed an agreement in the early 1960s not to over fly each others’ territory with manned aircraft. An S-200 missile might hit the SR-71 – out of a hundred times how many? Has the S-200 ever been tested against Mach 3 targets at 80,000 feet?
LevshaRussian (or Syrian?) air force bombs hospitals in Syria.
At least three hospitals have been bombed by fighter jets in north-western Syria since Russia’s intervention in the war began in late September, doctors and international observers claim.
The latest attack, on Tuesday, killed at least 12 people at Sarmin hospital in Idlib province. At least three of the victims were believed to be medical staff. Survivors and witnesses said the hospital was hit by two airstrikes at about 1pm.
LevshaThat doesn’t mean they can’t though. As I stated above only a proximity fuse issue prevented an SR-71 being taken out by an SA-2 over the Korean DMZ.
Developing a proximity fuse that was up to the job of shooting down an SR-71 is always going to be the main design issue for such a missile. If the S-75 had any realistic chance of hitting the SR-71, it would have. Have you any idea howmany S-75s were fired at the SR-71 – some people say hundreds.
BTW, I am not saying that an S-75 could not shoot down a Blackbird, just that the chances against it are slim.
LevshaSR-71 example and logic behind that to support B-70 is severely flawed. Since shooting down of U2 caused a major political embarasment, no recon flight -incluing ALL SR-71 flights- crossed into Soviet Territory. There are several dozen stories on Soviet site and some on US side, that SR-71 was tracked, intercepted and locked on by MiG-25 and MiG-31s; and according to Soviet side “with orders to live fire missile should aircraft cross the border” In fact, MiG-31 pilot Mikhail Myagkiy claims SR-71 has no chance to maneuver and avoid a R-33 missile at altitude. Personally, I would agree on that assesment given the thin air at 70k+ feet, combined with low G limit and high speed of SR-71. So SR-71’s speed and altitude giving immunity to MiG-31 intercepts is not actually tested.
If we are talking about theory, MiG-25 is purposely designed to intercept B-70. Its kinematics, avoinics and missiles are purpose designed to shoot down B-70 and similar M3.0+ targets at 75k+ feet altitudes. Since it entered service with this single mission and purpose, I dare say its foolish to even think that B-70’s (or SR-71’s) speed or altitude will grant immunity to MiG-25.
(As for fin comment, surely missile engineers are not idiots, R-33 or other missiles with high altitude priority (AIM-54, R-40) don’t have small fins, with booster used up, and its sustainer half deplated, those missiles should have less wing loading than an F-16, and 5+ times G limit of SR-71, B-70 or similar aircraft.)
In my opinion;
-If MiG-25/R-40 was unfit to intercept B-70 or similar aircraft, it wouldn’t have entered service. It would have been redesigned, or would be a totally different aircraft/missile. If MiG-25 entered into active service as it is, then MiG-25 as a system meets its requirements to intercept high-supersonic bomber aircraft.
-If B-70’s purpose was to penetrate soviet air defences. It was cancelled, because it was unfit to fulfill this task. This is also stated both by customer USAF and manufacturer Lockheed on different occassions.
-If SR-71 was truly immune to Soviet air defenses, then Soviet air force would have requested an interceptor better than MiG-25 or a SAM better than S-200. Or at the very least, a nuclear-warhead version of R-40 missiles would have been fielded. Likewise, USAF would be hanging nukes, not cameras underneath their SR-71s, or least they would have ordered such variant, to use this capability.
Neither the R-40 or R-33 missile nor the the S-200 missile have any proven ability to shoot down Mach 3+ targets flying at 70,000 feet, never mind 85,000 feet which is the cruise altitude of the SR-71. Both MiG-25 and S-200 were no doubt accepted in to Soviet service for their exceptional long range.
-If SR-71 was truly immune to Soviet air defenses, then Soviet air force would have requested an interceptor better than MiG-25 or a SAM better than S-200. Or at the very least, a nuclear-warhead version of R-40 missiles would have been fielded. Likewise, USAF would be hanging nukes, not cameras underneath their SR-71s, or least they would have ordered such variant, to use this capability.
Well, S-300 missile could certainly shoot down SR-71, and it was in service by the early 1980s – that was probably good enough for the Soviets. The SR-71 was no real military threat to the Soviet Union, it carried cameras not nukes.
LevshaIMO aviation was set back 20 years when the B-70 was cancelled. Kennedy cancelled it, but it was the fool McNamara that was behind the cancellation. The excuse given was Russian missiles would shoot it down. That was of course hog wash. Look how long the SR-71 flew and was never hit by a Russian missile or one from any other country. Besides that as cruise missiles were developed that the B-70 could have carried, it would still be a viable weapon platform yet today.
In addition with all the thousands of hours experience of supersonic flight, we would probably have fleets of supersonic passenger aircraft.
Aviation certainly was not set back 20 years with the cancellation of the B-70. Spending on R&D in aerospace still continued after the B-70. Boeing 747 and Lockheed L-1101 were flying around with engines in the early 1970s as sophisticated as the J93 fitted to the B-70. Did the J93 even have a FADEC system fitted?
LevshaCompare the tails of each aircraft: Reaper’s V-tail angled upwards, Predator’s V-tail point downwards.
LevshaApparently the canopies don’t age that well. I recall that F-15’s had similar issues once upon a time.
Most combat aircraft of this generation: MiG-31, Su-27, F-14, F-15, were limited to Mach 2.35 due to the adverse affects of friction heating upon the canopy. MiG-25 and SR-71 must have been made frrom sterner stuff.
LevshaYou’ve never seen a Predator before?
MQ-9 Reaper.
Sign In
