They would probably agree to a deal and then the americans/israelis would pressure dear leader to cut the deal and pay penalties instead.

Then Eqyptians would have to learn Iranian as well as Russian.:D

We don’t really even know if it is the helmet yet, so far it’s just supposition. There are a number of other things that can go wrong during an ejection at high speed, anything from hitting the canopy to hitting a bird.

Are the Cs even fitted with HMCS?

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.

Well 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_(missile)

The system utilises radio semi active guidance with mid-course correction and has, for the first time in a Russian system, terminal active radar homing, which is far more accurate at long range than the command guidance method used by the S-75 Dvina and other missiles.

I’ve heard that they will go for the Su-35.

Coincidentally it has been discussed if the increasingly sophisticated (and heavy) helmets worn by combat pilots pose a significant risk in ejections, particularly if the pilot is lightly built.

Moggy

A simple solution would be to make the HMCS aspect of the helmet quick release and release it prior to ejection.

IMO 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.

The SR-71 skirted around the outside of Russian territory, the B-70 would have had to fly over it. Ballistic missiles were simply a faster, more reliable delivery method. The SR-71 was not untouchable either, it had a very lucky escape over the Korean DMZ and was only saved by a dodgy proximity fuse as an SA-2 flew straight past it within a few feet.

So you are telling me that the lumbering B-52 is just fine, but that the B-70 that would have flown 4 times as fast and more than half again higher, would have been easier to shoot down? Im pretty sure the radar signature of the B-52 and the B-70 would be approx the same.

The B-52 launches VLO, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from 2,000nm outside enemy territory, so speed, altitude and stealth are largely irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

Remember too that at the 80,000 feet or so that the B-70 could fly, missiles probably couldnt stay with it in a turn. The B-70 had the advantage of compression lift, and a huge wing area. I suggest if a missile got close all the B_70 pilot would have to do is bank into a tight turn that the missile with its small fins couldnt match.

Further later on the B-70 could mount a fast attack, stand off and drop it cruise missiles, and return to base.

An SA-5 travelling at Mach 7.5 could certainly out-turn it at any altitude.

Sadly not, perhaps you should have clicked the link.:(

RIP.

I did but my eyes skipped the first line, or maybe it’s been updated since? It was last modified 22 minutes ago, I posted 3 hours ago.

So why didn’t/couldn’t he eject?