Chrom,

Your last statement does beg a few pertinent questions….such as…how can you justify what you have said?

Lets look at a few important issues here…The SR was designed during the 1950s when knowledge of both the RCS calculation methods and the Soviet radar threat were both scarce and more anecdotal than factual.

Looking at the time line of the A-12 (as in the Lockheed design number) we would have the first metal being cut in 1959, implying a high level of confidence in the design at this date.
This is a year prior to the U-2 shoot down and exactly in the period when it was realised that not only could Soviet radar track the U-2 but that SAM guidance radars were able to lock on to it as well.

The issue being that the design was already far enough advanced to make the weakest link of the U-2, its relatively low speed and altitude, irrelevant; and coupled with the known RCS reduction, it was assumed that whilst tracking was not going to be a denied, lock–on was more likely on the exhaust plume than the airframe.

If we review Blackbird operations we can see where and when the airframe was actually tested against its primary threat, namely a fully integrated Soviet-style anti aircraft system. We can discount operations launched from the UK as over fights were not deliberately undertaken against the Warsaw Pact nations…and we can discount those the may or may not have occurred over the Middle East at various times as information about these is too scare and vague to be relied on currently.

If we look however at both A-12 and SR operations launched from Kadena then a far greater database of evidence is available.

It is clear the all Blackbird flights from Kadena were observed by Chinese, Soviet and other observers and reported back very quickly to respective HQs and no doubt passed onto the North Vietnamese AA net; this was regardless of whether or not they were operational launch against Vietnam.

We can also assume that the Chinese were paying very close attention to the operations, ensuring that their radars were able to track the flights, and that information was similarly passed onto the NV radar net as a heads up. There is no doubt that the SAM radars, both search and tracking were able to track the SRs and possibly lock onto the SR as they passed overhead. Numerous SR aircrew have reported back on the SAM launches against them as they passed over NV territory.

Now comes the interesting bit… whilst numerous SAMs were launched, none actually managed to bring down and SR or damage it sufficiently to prevent it from carrying out its mission. Why would that be?

Could it be that the crews were so inept that they could not hit it? Difficult to justify in view of their other successes.
Could it be that they did not have the very latest equipment? Well seeing as the SAM system in NV post dates the design of the SR airframe and hence it’s basic overall RCS; we can assume that they were using later version of SAM than that on which the SR RCS calcs were based.
Could it be that it was all a fluke? Perhaps.
Could it be that the initial design intent of the A-12 configuration, which was to use the trio of speed, altitude and RCS reduction, actually worked as advertised? This may well be the case…Speed and altitude made tracking and lock-on a challenge at the best of times… ensuring it was a race between the airframe and the computing power of the SAM system in order to achieve a launch solution…and that the addition factor of a reduced RCS (for the time) made that time frame just a bit less.. but sufficiently shorter to ensure consistent misses for the SAMs.

If we look a the last option as being the most likely then one could argue that the RCS reduction was exactly the complement to the speed and altitude to ensure the aircraft was able to operate as required over hostile territory…. thus RCS reduction was this particular aircraft’s greatest advantage…

Could it be so what USA commanders did they job in planning these recce flights and avoid dungerous zones where SR-71 COULD be shot down with resonable chance? Again, we know quite lot about problems what various SAM expirienced with SR-71, and not even one source suggest what they has something to do with “low” RCS of SR-71. All sources agree what there was enouth time for S-75 / S-125 to aquire firing soultion for SR-71 – but the sheer speed and altidude made it almost impossible to shot down unless SR-71 would fly directly other SAM site. After all, the max range of S-75 was less than 50 km – and that for mid-alt targets. The relatively low missile speed of early S-75 made it almost impossible to hit such fast high target as SR-71 no matter what. S-125, while much more advanced, had even lower range. So what left? USSR answer was obvously S-200 – but SR-71 was never tested against it.
Again, i see low RCS feature of SR-71 as useless feature and design mistake as such, admitely due to incorect intelligence data and prediction about future USSR radars. No one denies what it was splendid piece of technology – just i wouldnt go as far as suggesting what USSR couldnt copy it for whatever technical reason, especeally during next 30 years…

It’s common knowledge Garry that the Blackbird was a stealth aircraft. Stealth for the day. Open your eyes and look at the thing and you will see features on it that you find on stealth aircraft even today.
.

Yes, SR-71 was stealther then other recon planes by that time. But its wasnt stealth enouth to cause ANY problems for enemy radars. As such, any measures, compromises and addiditional costs to achieve that – was wasted . It was much more wise to NOT add any “stealth” features to SR-71.

Yeah, ’bout as weak as yours. :rolleyes:

So, we agree with each other ?:rolleyes:

That’s because it was a Russian attempt to copy the D-21 that fell into their hands. As for the SR-71 if they could duplicate it why didn’t they?

Becouse they didnt need it? I mean, even Mig-25 recce wasnt “need” that much, and certainly for USSR anything flying would do the job. Even IL-28. I cant remember a single situation when USSR would want SR-71. Hell, i dont even remember situation when they would badly need Mig-25R instead of, say, Tu-22 or even Su-24.
As for FBW… Basic Su-27 had it, so i’m pretty much certain what it wasnt such problem in late 70x.

Else i would question right away about HMS, ERA, tank ATGM’s, swimming BMP, Su-27 Cobra (huh!) , Mig-25/Mig-31, supersonic ASM, tank autoloaders (lol!) , etc, etc, etc.

Depends what and how you consider prelonged supercruise – At internal fuel and with 8 missiles the F-22A will get you about 100nm of supercruise and about 300-350 nm of subsonic performnace ( Combat radius not range ) , add some fuel and you can zip through the entire FOO !!

Thats something what i tryed to say you – on internal fuel even basic Su-30 can “supercruise” better than F-22.

Payload is all internal !!

Internal payload might be okish for A2A mission (allthought even then 6 missiles total is not that great) but for a strike mission it just dont have enouth internal space for good payload. So you should either get bombs on external pilons and than your range suffers, or put external fuel tanks and then you are basicaly down to several small bombs with no missiles…

The f-22A’s Fighter-bomber ability is limited by 2 things –

* Radar modes – it lacks serious A2G radar modes and LGB targetting

* inability to carry 2000 lb weapon internally

And why do you think it lacks these modes? I’ll say you – becouse noone seriosly considered strike missions for F-22. Its more PR than anything else.

Despite this it can carry 2 JDAM’s internally , 8 SDB’s internally , 16 LOCAAS internall , 16 SMACM internally !! Which is more then adequate for its A2g ability which is to basically operate in High threat environs and to deal with High threats rather then presistant bombing for which other assets are preffered !

Its NOT adequate for such big & expencive plane, especeally if you consider what all these bombs replace A2A missiles.

Was an estimate based on the RAND and AFA materials that have been posted by me here which suggest about a 225-300 Nm CR based on internal fuel and at app. altitude ( 40K) , I must clarify that when I talked of 800nm i didnt mean at the top most supercruising speed but SUPERCRUISE in general . Considering CR is basically something more then a factor of 2 but less then a factor of 3 and the range figure according to FTD have been bettered by 14% – 15% and demonstrated in OT ( see developer website) therefore it was something that I came out with . Perhaps i should clarify and base it more of a range figure rather then a definate figure which should come out to be something in the range of 200-225nm At mach 1.5 ( which itself was bettered by 15% hence mach 1.72) therefore on purely those speed a Go,TOUCH and COME BACK should give you a minimum of around 400-450 nm therefore you go ahead and add the PATROL or miminum distance there and you can get something like the lower end to be around 500nm at the top most posible supersonic speed at militatry power while if you add more towards the 3x of the range then you’d get a higher no. so perhaps a more appropriate should be between 500-800 depending upon how you view CR and what speeds you take it at ( mere supersonic at above mach 1 or at mach 1.5 or at mach 1.72 ) !! That is what I came up with obviously If you knew the Sfc then you could do it more accurately but this is all we have to work with !!

Official boing PR says something about M 1.57 in CLEAN configuration – i.e. no external fuel tanks. Add external fuel tanks… and you dont even sure what you can supercruise at all.

I’ve heard 1 foot Resolution flying around for X band 2nd-3rd gen AESA although one would imagine that to pick up cracks on a runway one would need considerably better resoulution then that unless the cracks were caused by a 1000lb bomb 🙂

You know how imaginable these PR guys are 😉