Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aviation set back 20 years when we didnt build the B-70

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • logical1
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2012
    • 160

    #21
    Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!

    Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.

    Comment

    • Andraxxus
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Sep 2012
      • 953

      #22
      Originally posted by Levsha View Post
      Neither the R-40 or R-33 missile nor the the S-200 missile have any proven ability to shoot down Mach 3+ targets flying at 70,000 feet, never mind 85,000 feet which is the cruise altitude of the SR-71. Both MiG-25 and S-200 were no doubt accepted in to Soviet service for their exceptional long range.
      I find such comment way too biased. F-22 doesn't have a proven ability to shoot down anything. Neither does Rafale or Typhoon. So by your logic, I would be right to assume they are not capable of A-A combat... Or from another POV, F-22's design *purpose* was stealth. You are claiming its not stealthy at all, based on the fact its never proven to elude Russian air defenses.

      In 1960, Soviets had Yak-28, its range&endurance at combat speeds was deemed insufficent, so Tu-28 was built. Both Yak-28 and Tu-28 have much better range than MiG-25 and Ye-152. After B-58 entered service, Soviets designed Ye-152. Ye-152 was also capable of M2,83 and 70k+ feet ceiling. When XB-70's specs are revealed, PVO's specifications were revised and it was clear Ye-152's radar and missile system is inadaquate, so it was canceled; new Smerch radar had 3 times the size of Ye-152's Uragan-5, and new R-40 missile has 2 times the weight of K-9 missile. This resulted in a aircraft twice the size of Ye-152.

      So if MiG-25 cannot perform the very purpose of its design, why waste resources? Why not build Ye-152? Or just stick with Tu-28?

      Comment

      • BarnesW
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2015
        • 503

        #23
        Originally posted by logical1 View Post
        Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!

        Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
        As mentioned it was skirting the peripheries of the USSR, if it'd flown straight over Moscow I doubt that record would stand. At Mach 3 and 80,000ft trying to turn to evade a missile is nigh on pointless and I think the pilot actually mentions this in the interview I linked. The speed is the only defence but against a head-on shot, it's simply a matter of luck.

        According to an article in Combat Aircraft, the MiG-31 is designed to intercept Mach 6 targets at up to 25,000m turning at up to 12g and trains against a Mach 3.2 target drone.

        http://www.uavglobal.com/tu-141-strizh/
        Last edited by BarnesW; 22nd October 2015, 14:16.

        Comment

        • MadRat
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2006
          • 5032

          #24
          Realize the Soviets designed Tu-160 for flight at 80K feet, to fly higher than our interceptors. I don't think B-70 failed to enter service due to technical hurdles, rather due to budgets. Money was better spent on closing the missile throw-weight gap of the time. B-70 supersonic up high and FB-111A supersonic down low didn't offer as much MAD as 1,000 modern Minuteman ICBM.
          Go Huskers!

          Comment

          • mig-31bm
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Oct 2013
            • 2110

            #25
            K-9 missiles have pretty massive fin

            Comment

            • BarnesW
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2015
              • 503

              #26
              They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working and it was used by NASA until an F-104 collided with it.

              Comment

              • BarnesW
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2015
                • 503

                #27
                Originally posted by logical1 View Post
                Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!
                You could say the same about an F-15 wrt AAMs, but that doesn't mean that shooting one down with an AAM isn't possible.

                Comment

                • MadRat
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Aug 2006
                  • 5032

                  #28
                  Actually F-15's have been struck numerous times by AAM's, they just haven't been written off from one. On the other hand, several have been written off after SAM hits.
                  Go Huskers!

                  Comment

                  • stealthflanker
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Sep 2015
                    • 1025

                    #29
                    Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
                    Well the US weren't too confident about the ability of the SR-71 to avoid SA-5s, which is why they always skirted the peripheries of the USSR. I think that SR-71 just got very lucky and don't forget the SA-5 had an ARH head unlike the SA-2, so in similar circumstances an SA-5 would probably score a direct hit, making the proximity fuse irrelevant.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_(missile)
                    As far as i know S-200 only use SARH Guidance.

                    The wiki article might got it mixed with completely unrelated 5V11 "Dal" (SA-5 Griffon) Dal do have active radar homing guidance with mid-course update, but not the 5V21/5V28 that current S-200 use.

                    Comment

                    • BarnesW
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2015
                      • 503

                      #30
                      http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-200.htm

                      Comment

                      • J Boyle
                        With malice towards none
                        • Oct 2004
                        • 9806

                        #31
                        Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
                        They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working and it was used by NASA until an F-104 collided with it.
                        What do you mean "They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working..."
                        the two B-70s had a fairly long test program (1964-69). After the loss of the one aircraft in the summer of 1966, the survivor flew research missions (including some for SST research) until being sent to the NMUSAF in early 1969.
                        There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

                        Comment

                        • Levsha
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 2856

                          #32
                          Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
                          Well the US weren't too confident about the ability of the SR-71 to avoid SA-5s, which is why they always skirted the peripheries of the USSR. I think that SR-71 just got very lucky and don't forget the SA-5 had an ARH head unlike the SA-2, so in similar circumstances an SA-5 would probably score a direct hit, making the proximity fuse irrelevant.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_(missile)
                          The Soviet Union and the USA signed an agreement in the early 1960s not to over fly each others' territory with manned aircraft. An S-200 missile might hit the SR-71 - out of a hundred times how many? Has the S-200 ever been tested against Mach 3 targets at 80,000 feet?
                          Last edited by Levsha; 22nd October 2015, 16:25.

                          Comment

                          • Levsha
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2006
                            • 2856

                            #33
                            Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                            I disagree..

                            In this book one of the first Foxhound pilots, Captain Mikhail Myagkiy, who had been scrambled with its MiG-31 several times to intercept the US super-fast spy plane, explains how he was able to lock on a Blackbird on Jan. 31, 1986:

                            The scheme for intercepting the SR-71 was computed down to the last second, and the MiGs had to launch exactly 16 minutes after the initial alert. () They alerted us for an intercept at 11.00. They sounded the alarm with a shrill bell and then confirmed it with a loudspeaker. The appearance of an SR-71 was always accompanied by nervousness. Everyone began to talk in frenzied voices, to scurry about, and react to the situation with excessive emotion.

                            Myagkiy and its Weapons System Officer (WSO) were able to achieve a SR-71 lock on at 52,000 feet and at a distance of 120 Km from the target. The Foxhound climbed at 65,676 feet where the crew had the Blackbird in sight and according to Myagkiy:

                            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.


                            Paul Crickmore - Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond The Secret Missions
                            Well it's easy to compute the interception of an SR-71 "down to the last second" if you already know the time and route of the of the spyplanes's arrival (as they did for many SR-71s flying off the Kola Peninsula). Captain Myagkiy can say what he likes about his aircraft and missiles' capabilities against the SR-71 - but I ask one question: has the captain ever seen, or ever met someone who has seen, a MiG-31 shoot down a Mach 3 target? BTW, plenty of US military pilots may certainly practice a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the abilities of the F-35 - that doesn't necessarily mean all of this wishful thinking is true, though.

                            Comment

                            • stealthflanker
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Sep 2015
                              • 1025

                              #34
                              It's kind of worse as it make no distinction between the 5V11 Dal and 5V21 missile family.

                              still incorrect. There are better sources at pvo.guns.ru or SAMSimulator software. This is from "Fakel's Missile" about S-200 and 5V21 missile family (5V11 Dal were made by Lavochkin)

                              Excerpt from Fakel's missile book.

                              S-200
                              http://orig11.deviantart.net/e3b5/f/...er-d9dzg7x.png

                              5V21
                              http://orig07.deviantart.net/cf2c/f/...er-d9dzg9h.png

                              5V28
                              http://orig04.deviantart.net/065c/f/...er-d9dzgad.png

                              All mention Semi-active radar homing... none about active radar at all.

                              Comment

                              • BarnesW
                                Senior Member
                                • Aug 2015
                                • 503

                                #35
                                Originally posted by J Boyle View Post
                                What do you mean "They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working..."
                                the two B-70s had a fairly long test program (1964-69). After the loss of the one aircraft in the summer of 1966, the survivor flew research missions (including some for SST research) until being sent to the NMUSAF in early 1969.
                                I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.

                                Comment

                                • BarnesW
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Aug 2015
                                  • 503

                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Levsha View Post
                                  The Soviet Union and the USA signed an agreement in the early 1960s not to over fly each others' territory with manned aircraft. An S-200 missile might hit the SR-71 - out of a hundred times how many? Has the S-200 ever been tested against Mach 3 targets at 80,000 feet?
                                  Well at the end of the day, one version had a nuclear warhead, so that would definitely have succeeded. But basically you're guessing. SR-71s were very limited in number and use relative to something like an F-15 or MiG-25, especially wrt live conflicts, so more likely that saved it more than anything else. Hell a B-1 has never been shot down either. Kill probability was stated at 0.85 with a maximum target speed of Mach 4.

                                  Last edited by BarnesW; 22nd October 2015, 17:54.

                                  Comment

                                  • Levsha
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2006
                                    • 2856

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Andraxxus View Post
                                    I find such comment way too biased. F-22 doesn't have a proven ability to shoot down anything. Neither does Rafale or Typhoon. So by your logic, I would be right to assume they are not capable of A-A combat... Or from another POV, F-22's design *purpose* was stealth. You are claiming its not stealthy at all, based on the fact its never proven to elude Russian air defenses.
                                    Both the F-22 and MiG-31 have many times shot down targets flying at various speeds and at various altitiudes - have you never heard of target drones? But I don't recall either aircraft attempting to shoot down targets flying at Mach 3.2 and flying at 80,000 feet, have you? It's all about making credible statements, and providing credible evidence to back them up. Incredible claims need incredible evidence to support them.

                                    In 1960, Soviets had Yak-28, its range&endurance at combat speeds was deemed insufficent, so Tu-28 was built. Both Yak-28 and Tu-28 have much better range than MiG-25 and Ye-152. After B-58 entered service, Soviets designed Ye-152. Ye-152 was also capable of M2,83 and 70k+ feet ceiling. When XB-70's specs are revealed, PVO's specifications were revised and it was clear Ye-152's radar and missile system is inadaquate, so it was canceled; new Smerch radar had 3 times the size of Ye-152's Uragan-5, and new R-40 missile has 2 times the weight of K-9 missile. This resulted in a aircraft twice the size of Ye-152.

                                    So if MiG-25 cannot perform the very purpose of its design, why waste resources? Why not build Ye-152? Or just stick with Tu-28?
                                    Why would the Soviets design and put into production and service an aircraft in 1972 (MiG-25), to counter an aircraft which was completely cancelled in 1962 (B-70)? That doesn't make sense. Maybe the Soviet PVO put the MiG-25 into service because it's a far more effective aircraft at intercepting most aircraft than either the Yak- and Tu-28. An intercepter than can supercruise to its subsonic target at Mach 2.0 is a useful aircraft to have, perhaps?
                                    Last edited by Levsha; 22nd October 2015, 17:50.

                                    Comment

                                    • BarnesW
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Aug 2015
                                      • 503

                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post
                                      It's kind of worse as it make no distinction between the 5V11 Dal and 5V21 missile family.

                                      still incorrect. There are better sources at pvo.guns.ru or SAMSimulator software. This is from "Fakel's Missile" about S-200 and 5V21 missile family (5V11 Dal were made by Lavochkin)

                                      Excerpt from Fakel's missile book.

                                      S-200
                                      http://orig11.deviantart.net/e3b5/f/...er-d9dzg7x.png

                                      5V21
                                      http://orig07.deviantart.net/cf2c/f/...er-d9dzg9h.png

                                      5V28
                                      http://orig04.deviantart.net/065c/f/...er-d9dzgad.png

                                      All mention Semi-active radar homing... none about active radar at all.
                                      The understanding seemed to be that it used both.

                                      http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ssia/s-200.htm
                                      Last edited by BarnesW; 22nd October 2015, 17:56.

                                      Comment

                                      • sandiego89
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Feb 2008
                                        • 354

                                        #39
                                        Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
                                        I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.
                                        Barnes, only 2 XB-70's were completed. The third was no where near complete. Total MACH 3 flight time (over 9-10 flights) was only 1 hour 48 minutes- TOTAL. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...S-084-DFRC.pdf

                                        I too disagree with the 20 year set-back of this thread. An operational B-70 would have been a nightmare to sustain, and would have likely had a similair fate to the near peer B-58- limited, expensive and short lived- and the B-70 was magnitudes more complex than the Hustler.

                                        Comment

                                        • mig-31bm
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Oct 2013
                                          • 2110

                                          #40
                                          Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
                                          A.

                                          According to an article in Combat Aircraft, the MiG-31 is designed to intercept Mach 6 targets at up to 25,000m turning at up to 12g
                                          http://www.uavglobal.com/tu-141-strizh/
                                          i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X