Could a Mig 25/31 in principle catch up to a SR-71 at the cost of it's engines afterwards?
To catch up with something you generally have to be going much faster than the target. Particularly if the target has a head start. In the case of an aircraft the difference in altitude also adds to the the head start.
>>894940
Not catch up techincaly, but the 25/31 did in fact intercept the SR71, as did the Swedish Viggen.
Several times within firing range of their Skyflash missiles, with radar lock...
You only need to an approach angle that is ... not from the rear.
>>894940
no
Wasn't there a story where a MiG-25 locked on to an SR-71 for a bit?
>>894946
>>894972
What does that matter?
The missile isn't able to adjust for the speed of the SR71, even when fired head on.
And if fired from behind the standard evasive maneuver for the pilots was to accelerate and out fly the missile
>>895043
>The missile isn't able to adjust for the speed of the SR71, even when fired head on
False
>>895043
Missiles can go much faster than mach 3.?, especially at those extreme altitudes.
>>895162
>>895162
Bullshit.. it was never proven comrade.
>>894951
STFU fgt,
http://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/
>>895043
> The missile isn't able to adjust for the speed of the SR71
Oh, the stupid is strong with this one. WTF does the above even mean?
>>895245
You see Comrade, when fly at maximum fast, missile will not be of accurate, since it can never catch your plane.
>>895278
>what is intercept course
>>895205
>>895278
>Had the spy plane violated Soviet airspace, a live missile launch would have been carried out. There was no practically chance the aircraft could avoid an R-33 missile.
OP asked if a Mig-25/31 could catch up to a SR-71. The difference in maximum speed of the SR-71 and Mig-25 is 0.1 mach regardless of engine life, in favour of the SR-71. This means that it couldn't catch up to the SR-71 when coming from dead six. That's taking into account that both aircraft are flying at their maximum speed.
If we're asking if the Mig-25/31 could shoot down a SR-71, we'd get a different answer. A Mig-31 sent on an interception course could (and has, on multiple occasions) get within range to get an effective radar lock on. At this point, the pilot would only need to fire one of his R-33 missiles, which are specifically tailored to shoot down fast supersonic targets with a small signature.
The speed of the R-33 is about 4.5 mach. That speed coupled with the SR-71's little manoeuvrability at such speeds would make it a sitting duck.
This has been the conclussion of all analysts given the russian interceptor's capabilities, and has been proven right in the various radar lock-ons by Mig-31s.
The standard evasive tactics for the SR-71 where just "go fast and go home". These where developed back when russian missiles wheren't supposed to reach those speeds. As faster and more advanced air-to-air missiles emerged, the SR-71 was phased out.
>>895043
>The missile isn't able to adjust for the speed of the SR71
The R-33 was made to intercept such targets from any angle.
>the standard evasive maneuver for the pilots was to accelerate and out fly the missile
That's perfectly effective when the missile is slower than you. The speed difference between a SR-71 and the R-33 missile is 1.2 mach in favour of the missile.
The R-33 can also use high-g manouvers that the SR-71 simply can't perform, at a faster speed.
>>894940
Can't out-fly lasers
>>895335
What does that have to do with anything?
>>895354
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokol_Eshelon
Russia is developing airborne lasers that can blind satellites and probably spy planes too.
>>895361
But that's not what the thread is about
>>895321
And that's where the SR-72 comes in.
>>895381
The original thread was about SR-71/Mig-31. But if you wanna go that way, that's where Ayaks comes in.
>>894972
Lock on =/= ability to hit
>>895162
> implying it will actually work at all instead of just falling off the pylon and hitting the tundra
>>894946
In zoom climbs, while the SR-71 was flying dead straight on a published flight path. All you have to do is be at a certain point in time. When you know that time and point, it's not particularly difficult.
>>895401
>Lock on =/= ability to hit
You're either mentally handicapped or in denial.
Lock on = push a button and it goes boom. I don't know why some people get so defensive about such topics. It's a machine, it's not like someone diddled your little sister.
>>895454
>mentally handicapped
Pretty well describes the plane foamers of /n/. It's either regurgitated garbage from a chain email about "the SR71 pilot keyed the mike and said he was faster than the F16 SIMPLY EPIC" or it's blurry pictures of a propeller from some fag taking a discovery flight he bought on groupon
There has never been a good plane thread in the history of this board. It should be trains and bikes only
>>895454
Go play some more Battlefield. Locking on means the missile has locked the target that it needs to track, that doesn't mean it's definitely going to hit it. They could either deploy some sort of countermeasure, out manoeuvre it, or even just outrun it.
>>895321
That's when the US started using satellites more.
>>895335
I recognize this picture. Its a Popular Science cover from back in the day.
>>895460
Definitely retarded.
>They could either deploy some sort of countermeasure, out manoeuvre it, or even just outrun it.
The SR-71 can do neither.
>>895580
They weren't outfitted with flares?
>>895585
No. Also, flares are only effective against IR tracking, not radar or visual tracking.
The point is that while the Mig-31 couldn't catch up to a SR-71 coming from dead 6, it could easily obtain a radar lock on and shoot it down. That's one of the main reasons the SR-71 was phased out.
>>895609
Then chaffs.
Wouldn't they make it safe again?
To the guy saying the SR71 was phased out due to russian missile developments, you're at least partially wrong. It was mainly due to the high cost, time and potential political risk of active airborne reconnaissance when compared to emerging passive satellite technology. Not to mention the internal politics of the US govt / aircraft manufacturers at the time (and today) playing more of a role than actual performance in what contracts were created / renewed, and who won them. Plus you're forgetting that missile lockon was fairly frequent during the, what, 20+ years the blackbird was in service, and yet not a single SR71 was shot down.
>captcha "71"
>>895610
While the SR-71 carried electronic countermeasures, the Mig-31's radar was tailored to evade such efforts. The R-33 missile makes use of the Mig-31's extremely powerful radar, using semi-active radar homing.
Add that to the fact that each Mig-31 carried four such missiles, they always operated in groups and under the cover of powerful ground radar also painting the target.
As it's been mentioned, they already achieved radar lock-on on various occasions. The SR-71's destruction was a button push away, and that's why they're all grounded.
>>894940
SR-71 can maintain in excess of mach 3, MiG-31 maxes out at mach 3 and will get fucked up trying to maintain it
>>895614
>Plus you're forgetting that missile lockon was fairly frequent during the, what, 20+ years the blackbird was in service, and yet not a single SR71 was shot down.
As fasr as I know the order to actually press the trigger was never issued. Same goes for european/US birds escorting soviet aircraft on patrol.
>>895580
>The SR-71 can do neither.
Never said it could. My point was only that a lock on isn't a guaranteed hit, that's it.
>>895626
Yes, that's correct.
The might 31 couldn't catch up to an sr71. You have to use radar and set an intercept point. After that you only have a small window to fire before the blackbird runs away. It also required ground radar to lock on to it and update plane with data link. It was a hard thing to do and locks were achieved because the sr71 flew known routes repeatedly. Letting them figure out intercept points.
The blackbird was cancelled because it lacked a data link for live updates of its information. Something at the time was thought satellites would perform better. Which they didn't. That's why the bird was brought out of mothball in the 90's.
But overflights of Russia were cancelled because of Gary powers and the mig's ability to gain locks. The government didn't want another incident.
>>895580
> implying you know everything about the aircraft
You do know parts of it are still classified, right?
They had jammers etc
>>895609
It was fazed out because satellites could do it better and there are a bunch of them and can cover large swaths of land and instantly send the photos to the ground instead of waiting for the plane to land and then rush to develop the film. They were also expensive as fuck. >>895615
That's not why. See above.
They could still fly over other areas.
>>895662
Finally, someone who gets it.
I don't think it could catch up, but I think they could technically accelerate fast enough to reach about the same mach numbers for a short while at full throttle.
But then at the same time, no one has ever taken a Blackbird to top speed out of fear.
Pilots of the SR-71 said the plane would go faster than the official mach 3.2 but the engineers wouldn't let them. But there was one story of a pilot taking it up to 3.5 to evade a missile
Although reheat could keep the jet accelerating at those speeds, the MiG-25 suffered overspeed above mach 2.8, which would damage the engines (though perhaps not cause it to fail entirely). The SR-71, on the other hand, would actually bypass inlet air around the core straight to the afterburner at high mach, allowing the core to be spooled down to a lower RPM, reducing stress on all the turbo machinery.
Thermally, the MiG-25 and SR-71 are constructed of similar materials and thus have an identical thermal limit (mach 3.2, or maybe 3.3 on a cold day). So as long as the engines held out under the stress of the overspeed, the MiG-25 could match speeds with the SR-71, but not outrun it. Pushing beyond the thermal limits to catch up to the SR-71 would certainly grenade the MiG's engines in short order, under the combined stresses of overspeed and overtemp. The SR-71 would also be damaged by such overtemping, but much more gradually since it's slow-turning core is under less stress.
>>897467
No one? That's so lame.
>>897467
This, the SR-71 top speed is still classified and I am sure it could go far in excess of "Mach 3.2+" if the pilot was willing to damage the aircraft.
>>900583
Do you think they will release that info one day? I don't know why they haven't already, the plane is old defunct.
I want to know it's limits dammit.
>>900583
>>897467
The top speed is not classified anymore. It was mach 3.2, or slightly faster if atmospheric conditions permitted. It may have inadvertently gone faster at one time or another, but you wouldn't say a moped's top speed was 120 mph just because somebody drove one off a cliff and managed to reach that speed before hitting the ground.
>>895454
>Lock on = push a button and it goes boom.
I think we're being b8'ed, guys.
