Erm.. Rapier is a command to line of sight system, initially with a basic optical sight, later with radar and EO options. Even with the latest radar version, if all else fails you just put the optical crosshairs on the target and fire.

I’ve played around with a Blowpipe SAM at an airshow and found it hard to keep the crosshairs on target. As a SAM system, optical CLOS seems best suited to helicopters and transport aircraft.

McDonnell-Douglas deliberately chose not to use FBW or relaxed static stability for the F-15, even though the technology was there to use, to reduce risks.

Sean, you should know better than to believe Janes :dev2:

Actually, I think an Imaging Infra-red seeker is ideal for a long range AAM. Typical ranges for a current active radar seeker are in the 15-25km range, so all long range missiles rely on inertial/datalink guidance to get them close to the target. A good IIR seeker should be able to reach at least 15-20km. If a two way datalink was fitted, then the seeker image could even be relayed back to the launching fighter for final confirmation of target identity though this would clearly increase cost.

The Soviet Union spent vast amounts of time and effort stealing US technology. That’s really not up for debate. They happily cloned the Sidewinder (K-13), they reverse engineered AIM-7E Sparrow (K-25) and then never put it into production, they stole J-79 technology and used it in the AL-21F engine, cloned Paveway and Walleye seekers, etc, etc, etc. Soviet agents photographed every square inch of the F-111 at Paris Airshow, and produced reams of documentation from open and classified sources on the F-111’s variable geometry wing. Mikoyan was fascinated by the Jaguar’s landing gear, and modelled the MiG-23’s landing gear on its design. They didn’t use this information uncritically, though, or the Su-24 and MiG-23 would be straight F-111 clones.

Like it or not, the US always had the technological edge in most areas. This came from the vast wealth they had to invest in research and development. Rather than invest billions of rubles reinventing the wheel, where possible the Soviet Union would steal what it could.

SFerrin never claimed it was a copy! Try reading his post. He just made the point that there were some general similarities between MiG-25 and F-15, justlike there are similarities between MiG-25 and A-5.

The diagram is supposed to show that intercepting a Mach 3.2 aircraft is difficult. You need adequate warning time to actually climb to an altitude where you can fire your missiles at the SR-71. Didn’t the USSR have spies outside Mildenhall, phoning warnings when the SR-71 was taking off from England? Thats the kind of warning time you want if you are going to try and intercept the SR-71.

The 1968 SA-2 incident shows that even if you can lock onto the Blackbird, its high speed, reduced RCS and onboard ECM systems mean the missile never stood a chance of intercepting it.

I wouldn’t say SR-71 was a “stealth” plane. Its combination of reduced RCS, speed, altitude and electronics was pretty much invulnerable to SAMs and interceptors though, and it routinely flew over Vietnam, Korea, and dozens of other countries.

Yes, the USSR would probably have eventually shot one down somehow if overflights had continued by one means or another. However, the reason overflights stopped was political, not operational.

On 26 July 1968 #976 was piloted by Major’s Tony Bevacqua and RSO Jerry Crew in an operational mission over Hanoi, North Vietnam. This flight was the first time that a SAM had locked on and fired upon a Blackbird. The crew knew they had been fired upon by two missiles and after flying a return track over the same area, no additional SAM’s were fired. Landing was uneventful at Kadena. The Terrain tracking camera recorded the SA-2’s launches and later evaluation revealed the nearest missile exploded about one mile behind and away from #976.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/kadena2.html