Mig-25 vs SR-71

No need to post more here either. I have seen some crazy things in my lifetime. One of which was an SR going across a radar scope at Mach 6+.

As for the test pilot school at Edwards........... My dad graduated and "ZOOMED" to over 180,000 feet in an RF104. I used to go swimming at the Happy Bottom Riding club. Pancho was like a grandmother to me when the placed burned and she ended up dying lonely.

A zoom is a dive. The plane uses the energy built up to build an absolute hight. A straight on time to climb with ballistic capability is the true answer. Thrust to weight. The F16 was the first true ballistic aircraft.

Me, what do I know? Im just a combat control guy. Been to Groom? Yep. Been to Reno? Yep. Helped refurbish the SR at Udvar-Hazy. YOU GOT IT.

Retire the SR? LOL if ya believe that you are just about "plane" stupid.

The NF-104 is a modified F-104, with a 6,000-pound thrust liquid fuel rocket engine in addition to the conventional jet engine.


Download this large photo from
Edwards AFB gallery (click here)

NF-104
This plane can reach altitudes over 120,000 feet where the atmospheric pressure is virtually a vacuum, and for all practical purposes, this is space. Control at these altitudes is accomplished with hydrogen peroxide reaction control jets for pitch and yaw, used to maneuver the craft just like the X-15 and manned space capsules orbiting the earth. When this aircraft flies a ballistic arc, and in going “over the top” the pilot experiences over a minute of weightlessness or no gravity. On November 1963, Major R.W. Smith set an altitude record of 118,600 feet. Smith also took it to 120,800 feet the following month but Guiness does not accept this as it did not exceed by 3% as required by FAI for world records.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Angrykirill
C) Missiles will take the SR-71 out, no matter if its ground or plane radar guided... Its like a defence net

If this is true, how come Russia HAS tried and FAILED to shoot down the Blackbird many times.

In fact, Russia has a 100% failure rate in taking down the Blackbird.

Obviously, the Foxbat's missiles at the time were not good enough. When Foxbats got upgraded with newer missiles, and foxhounds came to service blackbirds wouldn't be as daring.

Both the A-12 and SR-71 flew missions over North Vietnam. In fact, two planes were lost while doing missions.

SR-71A (61-7969 / 2020) crashed on May 10, 1970 when turbulence caused a flame-out and the vehicle crashed near Thailand.

Interestingly, A-12 (60-6932 / 129) crashed on June 5, 1968 after an 'in-flight' emergency into the South China Sea with the loss of the pilot. It can never be confirmed, but there has always been speculation that the A-12 was downed by a SAM-7. After the crash the two remaining A-12s were removed from Okinawa and returned to the US.

Correct

Follow this for more info on the A-12 Loss

roadrunnersinternationale.com...

OK THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS SUBJECT. THIS SUBJECT I DO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND.

The F-104 at such altitudes was controled in attitued by hydrogen peroxide 'jets'. It could not keep such attitudes with 'normal' flight controls.

I said RF, but NF was what was meant. The F-104 at an attitude of 39 degrees was a death trap. The wing took off airflow from the tail. The rocket was fired AFTER the zoom. It was what trained space shuttle pilots.

You people are full of sh1t and know nothing of the reality of flight test nor the SR. I have been around aircraft for all of my life. I have seen what happens when a man or woman dies in one. I grew up knowing that life was only a 'given' as long as the wing could fly. I knew Mr Johnson. I know many test pilots. My best friend is a test pilot *helo* at Pax River. My Hanger at JYO * Leesburg Muni * is next to Scott Crossfield and he is a family friend. I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

I take a risk posting on here and that risk is well backed.

If you do not want to believe that then I am sorry. But you can look up dad at General Dynamics and now he is on the board of the YMCA.

I am sick of the disinformation and bullsh1t. I just got back from Iraq, have a cast on my leg that itches like hell then I sign on to ATS and see CRAP.

[edit on 3/17/2005 by just_a_pilot]

Can anyone give me info on the SR-71, MiG-25, X-1, B-2, F-16C, etc.? Please I need to know more about aircraft since im going to be a pilot. Just_a_pilot Maybe we can talk. Im sorry that u have a cast on your leg, and that u were in Iraq. But maybe u can help me?

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Pilot_at_heart]

Originally posted by Pilot_at_heart
Can anyone give me info on the SR-71, MiG-25, X-1, B-2, F-16C, etc.? Please I need to know more about aircraft since im going to be a pilot. Just_a_pilot Maybe we can talk. Im sorry that u have a cast on your leg, and that u were in Iraq. But maybe u can help me?

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Pilot_at_heart]

During war in Iraq it was reported that a MiG-25 did shoot down a USAF F-18 with the pilot killed, i'll look for the link to the source.

Also during iran-iraq war american planes prooved to be very effective, our F-14's took down MiG-25's.Mig.23.mig.27.Su-22.Su-19.Su-21.Mirage.F1 and mirage 2000, the best american plane has to be F-14 and it can take out any Russian fighters anytime/anyday.

Originally posted by NR
During war in Iraq it was reported that a MiG-25 did shoot down a USAF F-18 with the pilot killed, i'll look for the link to the source.

Well, it was pretty ironic as that was the first aerial combat kill of the Gulf War, although later there has been cast doubt as to whether it wasn't perhaps a ground to air missile that brought it down. Maybe the US army just didn't like to admit that humiliating feat. As to the fate of the pilot, it is not conclusive whether he was killed in the incident as a number of people believe he was killed in captivity.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by NR
During war in Iraq it was reported that a MiG-25 did shoot down a USAF F-18 with the pilot killed, i'll look for the link to the source.

Well, it was pretty ironic as that was the first aerial combat kill of the Gulf War, although later there has been cast doubt as to whether it wasn't perhaps a ground to air missile that brought it down. Maybe the US army just didn't like to admit that humiliating feat.

What does the US Army have to do with it? Or was it a blue-on-blue?

Perhaps it a reference to a blue on blue kill by some Army Patriot Battery?????

Well, the fact is that the SR-71 has the speed record... that means that the Mig-25 i slower... And believe me, if the Mig could go faster, the Russians would be the first ones to tell about it to the world...

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Figher Master FIN]

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
No need to post more here either. I have seen some crazy things in my lifetime. One of which was an SR going across a radar scope at Mach 6+.

Not believing that for a second, if so, why did NASA look at upgrades to the blackbird to make it go faster (but still below Mach 4), and conclude the costs outweighed the advantages it would give.

I agree with what you say there kilcoo. But it would be interesting if he really did see something go across the scope at mach 6 but only thought it was an SR-71, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

Originally posted by Kenshin
Definetly the MiG-31 would take down the SR-71 with ease, I think its maximum speed is Mach 2.83 but if modified I recon it could get to Mach 3.
Its R-33 AA-9 Amos's are more than capable of destroying the SR-71

As said earlier, the Mig-31 can only fly that fast for mere minutes, not hours as the SR-71 does.
Also, the SR-71 flies almost twice as high, so it would shoot down an SR-71 'with ease' as you put it.

Precisely right. Also when the 31 does do Mach 3 I bet the engines have real trouble and severe damage. I wouldn't like to damage my aircraft that much just to intercept another airplane.

What I would like to say is the SR-71 can be outfitted with external weapons. however cruise at Mach 3 may overheat the exterior of the missile and cause it to explode if it was just a normal weapon. I'd say it would have to be heat shielded. But if there was an internal weapons bay then I think the SR-71 could be easily used as an attack platform. Cruise missiles form an SR-71 would be cool I think.

Actually, when they developed the MiG 25 into the MiG 31 the Russians changed their outlook completely and gave up all that mach 3 nonsense as it was unncessary. Instead they concentrated on making the MiG 31 into a genuinely reliable and usable long range interceptor in the same manner of the F-14, its max speed was drastically cut down for the benefit of other aspects like range, serviceability etc, therefore it is in exactly the same performance bracket as its US and UK equivalents the F-14 and Tornado F.3 and is no more capable of catching an SR-71 than they are. But it can shoot down an enemy bomber from over 120 miles away which ability the Russian AF considered much more important.

I would also like to add that the YF-12 had internal missile bays because, as the Russians also found with the MiG 25, the induced drag rise makes mach 3 speeds and any sort of usable range impossible with an external load, therefore an SR-71 would be vastly slower with external missiles.

Thats without considering where the radar, fire control system etc etc would go and the extra weight on the airframe itself. If it was possible to make a practical fighter out of the airframe, the YF-12 would have become the operational F-12A many years ago.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
I agree with what you say there kilcoo. But it would be interesting if he really did see something go across the scope at mach 6 but only thought it was an SR-71, wouldn't it?

hmmm.... *cough* *splutter* aurora *cough* *cough*....

A lot of the questions on this thread can easily be answered by reading "Skunkworks" by Ben Rich, hell the man did build the Blackbird afterall.

In the book he goes into detail regarding the development of successful prototype tactical bomber and interceptor versions of the Blackbird. For the bomber they just dropped a 1 ton steel penetrator. 2000 lbs of steel at Mach 3 packs a hell of a punch. Lockheed also developed a look-down shoot-down radar system and from 80k+ ft successfully knocked out drones as low as 1,500 ft. Hell they even had plans to use it as a space launch platform to carry ICBM's up to 60k ft. A lot of people know this plane was cool, but not many truly grasp how friggin badbutt it truly was, especially for its time.

I am, shall we say, HIGHLY dubious of the claimed Mach 6 speed of the Blackbird. If you do some basic compressible flow calcs you'll see that for the Blackbird to not have its wings sticking through its sonic cone (leading to horrible control problems) its top speed must be slightly south of Mach 4. Ramjets engines are pushing their efficiency limits near Mach 4 as well, so Mach 6 seems pretty unlikely. Its rated at Mach 3+, I've heard public accounts of Mach 3.3, and anecdotal accounts of 3.5 . If I were to guess its top speed is probably somehwere around 3.6-3.7 . Still not to shabby for a 40 year old girl. Hey maybe that Mach 6 number was one of the missiles fired from the interceptor prototypes? Awesome thread though, glad to see so many bird fans.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Welcome to ATS!

[edit on 24/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Spectre
The YF-12 was the fighter version and could carry three AA missiles. Here's some background on it.

www.sr-71.org...

That thing sounds like a better idea than the Valkery, although the valkery was pretty cool with the big ole thruster engines and the deltas