And I never claimed 65,000 feet. The data clearly shows it could hunt down the original B-36 of its time. You like to read more into things than what people ever say.

In other word “uhhhhhh” :rolleyes:

It’s pointless for me to rebuttal an argument based on a logical fallacy. You keep touting the need for an ABM yet cannot show it is effective nor can you show why the need is necessary. Quite frankly, other than the publicly available data revealing that the successful tests were all performed with homing beacons in the warheads (and the seekers on the missiles were actually aware of the beacon, rather than oblivious in those cases) there is no ounce of publicly available evidence to suggest the 18 total interceptors deployed in the two different locations even work. They cheated on the tests, performed secret tests to determine real world potential, hid the results from even the guys in Congress, and then deployed the system at the president’s discretion.

Bernard Brodie’s assertions that an ABM defense is pointless is just as valid today as it was when he first made the claim. Unlike a few guys posting here, Brodie did his research and precisely laid out his logic for his argument. And Brodie’s conclusion was still AF doctrine until Bush came to office.

The first MiG-25 shot down by the Israelis was at 50,000ft (15,240m), I don’t remember how fast it was flying. According to the I²RAF, several MiG-25’s were killed at high altitude by the F-14A/Phoenix Missile combination. What the specifics are I don’t know.

The only source for these F-14A/Phoenix claims I know of are in a book titled “The Role of Airpower in the Iran-Iraq War” by Ronald E. Bergquist. A forum member here that flew Iraqi MiG-25RB’s until 2000 said these loses are not true to the best of his knowledge. F-15’s and an F-16 are the only official planes to have bagged MiG-25’s as far as publically available knowledge goes.

Here’s the MiG-25RB with bombs:

At 65,000ft? Do you have any sources for that because I’m certainly interested and surprised. Not all B-36s could hit 65,000 feet (most couldn’t even come close) so just because a Banshee is seen with a B-36. . .

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f2h-2.pdf

Before people defend the abm deployment, perhaps they ought to go read up on the tests and how absolutely political they were and how ineffective they will be in anything but test conditions. It’s not a 50% chance of defense, its a 0% chance of defense. The only truly working deterrent is an effective offense.

No matter how much fud about nk, iran, and al queda is spread on this board it will not make the abm expenditures any more wise. The abm shield has to be in exacting position to make it possible to even have a chance at an intercept. Any other location and its a certain 0% effectiveness. You can park a million interceptors in Alaska and still not have any certainty of interception for missiles aimed at well over 90% of conus.

Funny thing is, sferrin, we still don’t have a working ABM defense to even deploy. It’s all a pipe dream at this point.