RpRThe 71’s vertical all moving parts are made out of composites.
As a note of interest.
When a ventral fin, (YF-12) made out of Ti alloy broke off several times, the new fins were made out of 62 percent Beryllium and 38 percent Aluminium.
RpRMy first thought was “When did Wales get an air force?”
They have a deeep covert force with Tom Jones running it from Las Vegas.
RpRDon Mallick, who put a good deal of time in a blackbird, said the SR contained a good deal of “plastic” which is one reason the aircraft flexed so greatly and was limited to 2.5 g.
If the PakFa needs to turn at high speed, it needs an airframe strong enough to withstand it.
RpRIn Vietnam, the Zipper was successful as far as unproven reputation putting fear into the hearts of opposing pilots.
During Robin Olds trap for N. Viet fighters, for Viet fighter pilots said that when they saw that a flight of Zippers was approaching they broke off and returned to base.
Had they stuck around, depending how things turned out, the Zipper may have had a worse reputation or better one depending on how the Puerto Rican Air Guard pilots flew their aircraft.
For the ADC, the Zipper had speed and that was all, it did not have range, endurance or firepower.
RpRSo the opposition are constantly looking for hot objects in the sky? That may be a way of future detection, but hypothetically surely radar is the primary long range detection tool.
If we work on the assumption that these mach 6+ aircraft have a significantly reduced radar signature, they aren’t detected from long range but can be tracked by their large thermal signature once detected. How much warning does the s400 battery have and what sort of maths can we (well mostly you guys) throw at the the question – can an S400 intercept a Mach 6 SR72 type aircraft at 100,000 ft?
Is it a similar question to whether the 1960s/70s Soviet air defences (with lower top speeds) could intercept an SR71 at Mach 3+ and 90,000 odd feet?
As I said, I have not the engineering skills to address this in a sensible manner but I still think its going to be a push.
And here is Kingfish design of late 1950s vintage:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222690[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222691[/ATTACH]
As this is all theory as to what really is what; If this became a hot war, could such a high Mach aircraft carry its own wild weasel type defense missile.
There is a picture of a F-106 carrying a prototye Falcon based anti-radar missile.
RpRWTF are you retard or what ???? , how the hell can the P-40 have after burner ??????????— No I am not but it is starting to appear you are.
aerodynamics of the wing is not only about wing loading , you are the one that claim lower wing loading will be superior in every aspect , and i say that is wrong — Good grief I think you are popping one too many pills.
The chart I showed you showed how high and low wing loading wings differ.
It seems you cannot read, very well.have explained why the mig-31 turn better at supersonic speed than other aircraft ( include f-106 ) several page ago , come back and read it , and most of the pilot will slow down their AC to about mach 0.8-1.2 before turning , turning at mach 2 is just retard — You are totally clueless.
You have just reduced flying at supersonic speeds to the equivalent of watching some one learn how to drive a clutch-car.Let’s in the book on Soviet Air Defence, a former Soviet pilot said once when he intercepted a SR-71 he turned his radar on. It had an automatic lock-on feature.
The SR pilot go the signal of a radar lock-on.
The Soviet pilot said they had a closing speed of Mach 5 but when the SR pilot got the lock-on signal THE SOVIET PILOT said the SR made sharp turn and departed at high-speed.
Now you are saying the SR slowed to Mach .8-1.2 to turn to escape a possible missile launch.
The Soviet pilot said he was at maximum safe altitude and SR was a almost six thousand feet higher than he was.If these pilots, according to you, you are are going fast-slow-fast-slow-fast-slow go about their business does the aircraft they are intercepting do this also?
What would you call this, the Chinese Fire-Drill intercept maneuver?this argument is invalid — Yours, absolutely.
still doesn’t change the fact that mig-31 is a lot faster and have much better thrust/weight , and btw do you have any link prove that F-106 have better acceleration than F-4 at high altitude ?
mig-31 don’t need to turn to escape , it just need to light up the afterburner and with much superior thrust/weight , it will be out of sight very very quick ( especially against sth that can’t even out accelerate the F-4 )— I think you had better do some reading on the F-4 before you start looking silly.
Easy one
Cruise speed at 40,000 ft.
Phantom 585 mph
Six 650 mpnOh I see, the Mig just flies head first into the incoming missile, or takes it in the tail-pipe.
BRILLIANT!The intercepts of the SR were head-on, as the Russian pilot in the book I stated said.
except stealth AC ( PAK-FA , F-35 ..etc ) that may have a chance against Mig-31 , normal AC like Typhoon , Rafale , Su-35 , Gripen will die long before that can even attack the mig-31 , it so obvious that mig-31 will dominant in BVR , at close range even if it doesn’t turn at all the R-73 will still do the job , and if the missiles doesn’t do the job , then pilot just need to fly at highest speed , he will be out of sight quickly— Oh I see, the Mig has a Klingon cloaking device.
are you trolling or sth , just several post ago you claim that the F-106 can fly at mach 2.7 for 500-600 miles — You do not read too well do you– I said if the Six went Mach 2.7 for as long as possible it would cover approx. 500 miles plus or minus before bingo fuel.
sr-71 is simply very different animal , not related to the discussion
It is the real reason the Mig-31 was built.
As intercepting the SR simply involved fly as high and fast as possible to get near the SR, that involved no fighter type g maneuvers that is probably the reason the Mig 25/31 both had wings thatwere incapable of anything near high g fighter type maneuvers.
The Mig would do well as means to stop and invading force but as offensive FIGHTER, as useless as the Mig 25 was, so IT AIN”T NO FIGHTER.
It actually is pretty much like a F-104 with a much longer range and better radar, just don’t get into any thing that involves turning or you will be taking the silk ride home.
RpRDepends. Radar range? Well, it has a huge RCS, so it won’t necessarily see first. And what about AWACS? And aircraft flying in groups, with tight (not broadcasting) datalinks, listening for bloody great high power radars, triangulating their position & sending a Meteor or other long-range AAM that way? MiG-31 will also have a bloody bright IR signature – I’d call it High-Observable. 😀
That is a good point.
As far as missiles and electronic items, those involved know how well the thing work, is known, only as far as what has been tested in Europe and the East.
That was not really a test of the best against the best.
Beyond that it is a matter of we sure hope this works, or you fly boys are screwed.
U.S. against Russia simply is not going to happen so unless India and China really go at it, a chunk of the hype used to sell these products is the equivalent of buying a car at Honest Charlies, and no one might ever know just how honest Charlie actually is.
RpRI think you’ve made clear how detailed your knowledge is with that statement right there.
I know full well how the turbo-ramjet engine functioned at high altitude and very high speeds, but it also functioned as a standard, though very thirsty engine at speeds below a certain mach number.
The devil is in the details but then you seem to be a legend in your own mind.
Maybe as you speak with such absolute authority, you ARE the official NSA dude making sure nothing here ever gets to close to a truth that is not supposed to be known– ewwww that’s really scary kids– as count Floyd would say.
Just to make it clear, I do not doubt your knowledge of the engineering side, but unless you are NSA you have absolutely zero idea of what black projects were, are or will soon be flying, or for that matter which ones are absolute disinformation bs, or which are not.
I.e. you know no more than the rest of us.
As a late cousin of mine who was in the U.S. Navy said– they have stuff that is old by any definition that is still top secret, by the time it is declassified it is antique, so God only knows what the new toys are.
RpRno it not from computer game it was a tactic first used in WW II by the Flying tiger squaron — Which has what to do with jets and after-burners.
Peter Pan could fly also.i said it many times before turn radius of aircraft is not only affected by wing loading it not that simple , if your logic was true then the B-17 , DC-3 , B-36 ,Avro Vulcan must all turn alot tighter than Eurofighter , su-30 , f-16 or f-22 . but no , they dont — If the aerodynamics of a wing do not affect turning radius, then what does?
Landing gear tire pressure?
You are clueless.sorry man if your F-106 was turning at mach 2.2 it would either break off it’s wing or have a turn radius of a hundred km , and i can’t find anything about the F-106 can cruise at 80K feet at mach 2.7 like you say , if you can’t provide the source then it total bull**** — Just how stupid are you?
He turned the aircraft, a turn that covered hundreds of miles in radius.
Hmmm, I can see it now if a bogey a Mig-31 pilot was checking out turned, he could only watch it fly by as it is impossible for an aircraft flying at supersonic speed to turn, and you seem to say flies around at Mach 3 and 90,000 ft. on every mission so it will not be able to turn.
BRILLIANT!if the mig-31 still have missiles on it the f-106 will be shot down long long before the pilot know what happened , and where you get the idea that Mig-31 can’t fly at mach 2.8 with missiles on ?— The Russian aviation expert, whose book has an interesting first hand account of the Korean air liner shoot down, that wrote the book I have says so.
You see, he lives in the real world, not Neverland.thrust/weight of mig-31 is 1.30 simply superior to both the f-106 and the lightning , the f-106 acceleration is pathetic if it can’t even keep up with F-4 — Depends on altitude but as a Six with full load has an initial climb rate of 42,000 ft. per minute, it gets where it is going quickly.
At high altitude the Six spanks Phantoms very badly.No one has said the Foxhound does not have a good thrust to weight but as it cannot turn worth a damn it will need that to get away.
nonsense it have been eplained , at supersonic speed from mach 1.6+ the mig-31 turn better than all other fighter ( find the explaination several page ago )— Yeah right, in your mind.
It cannot turn for squat, or its wings will come off or it will stall and fall out of the sky.
It is a good interceptor and a lousy figher.as quick as possible doesnot mean the F-106 will fly to target at mach 2.7 it just mean that pilot will fly as fast as they can and still can land ( and the speed here will depend on range to target ) if the target is near the pilot will light up the afterburner and fly at top speed there , if the target was far ( 100-200 miles ) then the pilot will need to trade speed for range— NO ONE SAYS the SIX OR ANY OTHER FIGHTER flys at full throttle ANYWHERE.
If the situation is that desperate, then there had better be tanker there or it will be a very short mission.The high speed numbers give for any aircraft are found during tests so an air force knows what a plane can or cannot do under absolute worst scenario conditions.
In the Book Soviet Air Defense Aviation, a pilot the author spoke with said during SR-71 intercept he did not go as fast as he could because even if he did the Blackbird would simply fly away as it was much faster than the Mig-31.
He also said that during an intercept if thing go hot, he would only have one chance to shoot. There was no second chance, period.this is just totally nonsense , supercruise would mean the aircraft will use much less fuel , there is no such thing as fuel penalty here ,light up the afterburner the AC will consume fuels 4-5 times faster
You tell the pilots who flew them they and are wrong.
To break the mach with out a burner, you need FULL-THROTTLE, now just think about that for a minute.
The Six had several after-burner setting so they would use the burner to break the mach which involves turbulence and drag at trans-sonic speed and then set the throttle to maintain what ever speed they chose in the manner they chose.
RpRYou are completely delusional if you think this proposal is in any way shape or form realistic.
I am not even going to bother descending into an argument with someone who quite clearly has such a limited grasp of the difficulties involved.
Oh I am sure you have so much inside info and have such absolute knowledge of what the U.S. military and government can, cannot, will or will not do.
Of course if you did the NSA knows a lot about you.
Have a nice day.
Oh yes the SR-71, nor its CIA precedents, did not use a ramjet; so what is your point?
RpRAll this aircraft will do is accelerate the design of anti air systems to deal with it.
Can someone explain the threat this aircraft is supposed to counter, or is this just US paranoia?
Threat from China? The biggest threat to China is their own growing middle classes.
Threat from terrorism? Bit of an overkill to stub out some threat in the mountains of Pakistan.
Threat from somewhere else? Who is even bothering to develop something similar?
Yes, probably a nice toy to have in the inventory but perhaps money better spent tackling the USA’s own internal poverty.
It exists to annoy people like you.
RpRno iam not , iam trying to explain the basic for you , boom and zoom is a very different tactic from turn and burn , come on do some reading before you reply— You are babbling about a term from silly computer games.
I am speaking of a term pilots have used.do you have and actual source to support what you say rather than ” a pilot i spoke to ” ? it really hard to prove that on the internet and btw he may be exaggerate about the AC he flying
i really dont think f-106 can do mach 1.5 at sea level , the fastest AC at sea level is the F-104 at mach 1.3 , f-111 can do mach 1.25— Not one said the anything could do Mach 1.5 at sea level.
Try to keep up with the program.
I am speaking of items pilots have related, you are using some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking for your performance that ignore the laws of physics.low wing loading = easier to retain energy = maintain or recover speed quickly so your argument here is invalid
read what Andraxxus explained page ago , it will be helpful for you—You really do not have clue do you.
Wing LoadingWhat is it? It is the weight of the aircraft (W) divided by the gross wing area of the airplane (S) = W / S
the units can be N / m2 (SI) or lbs / ft2 (English)
The wing loading shows how hard the wing is working to lift a plane of a given weight.
A low W/S indicates a larger wing for a given weight.High W/S means
smaller wing for a given weight
higher stall speed Vs
longer takeoff & landing distance
poorer climb performance
poorer maneuvering performance (turning etc.)
reduced skin friction drag
smooth ride (wing insensitive to gusts
reduced weightLow W/S means
larger wing for a given weight
lower stall speed Vs
shorter takeoff & landing distance
better climb performance
better maneuvering performance (turning etc.)
higher skin friction drag
bumpy ride (wing sensitive to gusts)
heavier airplane
[/LIST]66 miles per hour is a big different, image you are standing still and a car zoom past you at 66 miles per hour , it will go out of sight very soon , and here it is 0.3 mach different
the official speed of f-106 is mach 2.3 not mach 2.7 which mean either that it take very very long for f-106 to reach mach 2.7 or it will caused serious damage to the airframe and engine at that speed , so basically if the f-106 fly at mach 2.3 then mig-31 can fly at mach 2.83 , if the f-106 pilot want to go at mach 2.7 , then the mig-31 pilot can go at mach 3 , both aircraft will suffer from airframe damage — I did not say the official to speed.
I said the official — unofficial, if you want to search the information is on the web, is that the Six flew, not dash, but flew at Mach 2.7 and flew, not zoomed to, flew without a flame out at 80,000 feet (pilots said at 40,000 ft. it really could show what it could do (One pilot told me the fastest he ever went was a little over Mach 2.2 and it was accelerating strongly but the combat profile he was flying forced him to turn and turning scrubbed off speed. He turned while accelerating at Mach 2.2. He did not slow down to turn).
Oh yes the Mig can go over Mach 1,864 mph. the official top speed, clean, but the official word is the aircraft will start to self-destruct if so done.
The OFFICIAL top speed with missiles on pylons is Mach 2.3, so as the Six carried its weapons internally and always flew clean, the wings tanks, when used, imposed no penalty, the Mig would have to jettison at least is short range missiles to able to fly away.As far as get up and go, the English Lightning, which had better thrust to weight than the Six, could probably have given a Foxhound pilot an even bigger head-ache if it came down to which aircraft flew better.
The Lightnings big shortcoming was lack of fuel.Now the SR-71/YF-12 was the one aircraft a Foxhound could turn inside of as it was limited to 2.5 g but then at Mach 3.2 and above was where it became most efficient fuel wise and was just starting to fly real well.
and the 575 miles combat radius doesn’t mean it will fly at top speed from 1 air base to another
575 miles is merely the distance a fighter squadron was responsible for, it has nothing to do with combat range.
I have seen many Six scrambles and if the bogey is 575 they will get to it as quickly as possible.
If you had ever seen one, in less than sixty seconds on a clear day they were out of sight.
One more thing, a Six could go supersonic without the after burner, at altitude, but pilots said it was not worth the fuel penalty to do it.
RpRUgh.
I seen the story at AviationWeek. Paid no heed – they have to produce something on a regular basis, why not regurgitate PR guff from LM if its sitting there – money for old rope eh? Seen it at Dailytech – didn’t mind as they don’t have a clue about matters aeronautical.
On here? You’d like to think the folks on here would have some rudimentary understanding of what has been going on and what is going on.
Yes it could be disinformation like Reagan’s Starwars but then the A-11/SR-71 program was soooo well known before it was made public.
Now as you are the expert on U.S. black projects give us more information.
RpRThere is no funding for development. A press release is intended to generate curiosity within Congress, who would be the source of funding.
If you think all funding by the government is public guess again.
RpRi have explained the tactic you was describe is boom and zoom not turn and burn and it has nothing to do with the turning ability of aircraft —You keep saying that becasue the Mig-31 cannot turn worth a damn.
how long the f-106 gonna fly before it can catch the f-4 ?? ,even if f-106 turn better the f-4 just need to create the distance so that it can disappear from f-106 radar fov or make a 180 degree turn — Well from what the Six pilot I spoke to said, after the Phantoms, whose base was running the show, called off the air-combat exercise, the Phantoms broke off and headed full throttle for fuel at Mach 1.2, their limit at that altitude.
The Six pilots followed but did so at Mach 1.5, soon caught and passed the Phantoms and were waiting for them at the filling station which due to their far greater ability to stay aloft they did not need.really dont know what to say , are you really think the f-106 can out turn ef-2000 or f-22 — Yes it can but in a dog-fight just turning inside only really helps if one can maintain or recover speed quickly.
Six pilots were told not to exceed 8 g.
But in the combat exercises, any pilot will tell you, that means little.mig-31 have much superior thrust/weight (1.30 ) , higher top speed ( less high speed drag ) , so no it not pull away slowly , it pull away very fast , it like a race between a Formula One and bugatti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBzc5Lnyhks ( except that mig-31 also have higher top speed )— If you think a Mig-31 has less drag than a Six, you need glasses.
Point one Mach is 66 miles per hour at altitude.
Yes the Mig could for a little while go over Mach 2.8 but then the Six would win because the Mig would have to be repaired before it could fly again making it useless for x amount of time.High altitude was where the Six excelled by design, high-altitude is where the Foxhound excells by design.
No has said the Mig is not an excellent aircraft it simply cannot perform as you say it can.where that 500 miles come from or you just make it up
You do know how to use arithmetic, do you not.
You figure out what speed Mach 2.7 is, then calculate how far a Six could go having just refueled from a tanker in twenty minutes at Mach 2.7 at which point pilots said you would be looking for fuel.
A Six could go, absolute maximum ferry range, 2,700 mile at 610 mph at 41,000 ft.
Its maximum combat range without tanks was 1,500 miles.
The official radius covered by each air base was 575 miles.
Sign In
