Next aircraft speculation

[Dudikoff]

Except the SR-71 can hit Mach 3.5 for short periods and has a standard cruise of Mach 3.3, whereas the MiG-31 has a speed of Mach 2.83, an cruises at Mach 2.35. I'll put my money on the Blackbird thank you very much :smartass:

 

But, if the SR-71 is flying across the SU, those MiG's would be positioned by the GCI in its path so it's not a tail chase scenario. The SR-71 theoretically wouldn't know about it until they were close enough to turn on their radars, lock and fire their missiles. Would those missiles hit at those high speeds? I guess the US didn't want to take that chance. :)

Edited August 12, 2015 by Dudikoff

[TaccoZ__Amigo1__]

But, if the SR-71 is flying across the SU, those MiG's would be positioned by the GCI in its path so it's not a tail chase scenario. The SR-71 theoretically wouldn't know about it until they were close enough to turn on their radars, lock and fire their missiles. Would those missiles hit at those high speeds? I guess the US didn't want to take that chance. :)

 

 

Sorry but wrong, in theory it would be possible but since th Habu's RCS is pretty small and she is constantly going M3.5+ on a "hot leg" as the call it, reaction time is extremely small, also "those SR-71s" weren't flying across the USSR (at least not after the U-2 shootdown) but next to it, scraping along the boarder. You should read the excellent book "Flying the SR-71" by Colonel Richard Graham (former commander of the 8th Strategic Recce Wing and SR-71 IP), then you'll understand why no SR-71 has EVER been even touched.

[King_Hrothgar]

True, but as you said, they never flew over the USSR itself either.

[King_Hrothgar]

Preferably anything post-Korean War.

 

That's the thing, 1954 isn't exactly modern is it? You wouldn't consider a 1954 car modern would you? What about a boat or a civilian plane? How about a computer? Why would a military plane count but nothing else? Push that example to 1970 and nothing changes. It's only in the 1990's that the answer starts getting difficult to answer. It isn't until the mid 2000's where the answer becomes easy again.

[Mobius_cz]

That's the thing, 1954 isn't exactly modern is it? You wouldn't consider a 1954 car modern would you? What about a boat or a civilian plane? How about a computer? Why would a military plane count but nothing else? Push that example to 1970 and nothing changes. It's only in the 1990's that the answer starts getting difficult to answer. It isn't until the mid 2000's where the answer becomes easy again.

 

I agree with you. Most of the time it depends on the point of view. For me the best clarification "what plane is modern" is by the fighter generation. Generation 4.5 and 5 seems modern to me (Eurofighter, Gripen, F-18E,...) but probably no one will tell that 4th generation fighters are obsolete (Mig-29, F-16, Su-27, F-14, F-15, every good stuff we like) and after avionic upgrade these machines could be quite "modern".

 

Well only Cobra knows what is modern for him and that is the most important ;)

[ChoSeungWan]

The only planes that have been hinted at are a Saab of some sort and a Zero. Unless I've missed something.

[johnv2pt0]

SR-71 was retired because of money and duplication of effort with the U-2. Their were only a few missions that would require the SR-71. The Mig-31 had nothing to do with it...but don't let me spoil the Russian-tech-fanboy-club's fun. I kid I kid.

[TaccoZ__Amigo1__]

True, but as you said, they never flew over the USSR itself either.

 

 

It [is not confirmed it] flew over the USSR mainland :D What is confirmed though is that she flew over the Korean DMZ and all over North Vietnam including Hanoi, the most heavily defended airspace in the world (at that time).

[Aginor]

For me (and I think many people) modern is everything that was produced in 1970 or later.

So many Vietnam planes would still be in.

 

For me the F-100 is a interesting plane. I would count it as modern. Barely. It was still built in 1970, although it was designed in the 50s.

Everything older is not very interesting for me.

[Akatsuki]

I saw Rudel on Twitch working on RATO in 3D Max. When asked for Which aircraft he replied: FW-200.

 

AI model ? Flyable ? Troll ? I don't know.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I saw Rudel on Twitch working on RATO in 3D Max. When asked for Which aircraft he replied: FW-200.

 

AI model ? Flyable ? Troll ? I don't know. But after a bit of searching the Condor used RATOs indeed.

 

It's Rudel; when everyone was being teased about the Tomcat, he replied with a statement about Dick Cheney visiting their offices.

 

The man is a sadist and he enjoys watching us peons squirm.

 

And we <3 him for it. So, who knows?

[-Rudel-]

No one wants to fly a Kondor? :D

[NineLine]

I'll take one! ;)

[Priller]

I'll take one! ;)

 

FW-200s had a structural problem in the rear fuselage. So you might have to have two! :lol:

[NineLine]

FW-200s had a structural problem in the rear fuselage. So you might have to have two! :lol:

 

I'll take two then ;)

[Priller]

I'll take two then ;)

 

I call dibs on the bombardier. You can be my chauffeur...I mean pilot. :thumbup:

[NineLine]

I call dibs on the bombardier. You can be my chauffeur...I mean pilot. :thumbup:

 

Obviously you haven't seen me fly :D Hop in!

[-Rudel-]

you wonderful men and your flying machines...

[Dudikoff]

Sorry but wrong, in theory it would be possible but since th Habu's RCS is pretty small and she is constantly going M3.5+ on a "hot leg" as the call it, reaction time is extremely small, also "those SR-71s" weren't flying across the USSR (at least not after the U-2 shootdown) but next to it, scraping along the boarder. You should read the excellent book "Flying the SR-71" by Colonel Richard Graham (former commander of the 8th Strategic Recce Wing and SR-71 IP), then you'll understand why no SR-71 has EVER been even touched.

 

While I'm sure it would be useful to read the book, which part is wrong exactly? It was peacetime and if the SR-71's are not flying over the actual SU territory (or at least, not close to interceptor bases or capable SAM sites - to have another spy plane shot down would have been a disaster), then there's no reason for the MiG-31's to attempt to shoot them down (just intercept), hence why they weren't "touched". Unless the book offers evidence to the contrary, AFAIK they were never fired upon by the MiG-31's so it's all rather hypothetical (*supposedly* on at least one such mission, the MiG-31's obtained a lock on it, but there's no way of verifying that and the exact circumstances of the encounter and whether it was in missile's range).

Edited August 12, 2015 by Dudikoff

[emg]

I saw Rudel on Twitch working on RATO in 3D Max. When asked for Which aircraft he replied: FW-200.

 

AI model ?

 

AI Fw 200 for those North Sea RN Hellcat missions ;).

[Cool Breeze]

FW-200s had a structural problem in the rear fuselage. So you might have to have two! :lol:

:thumbup:

[Farlander]

Im still hoping for a MiG-25/31, Su-24 or a Viggen.

[TaccoZ__Amigo1__]

The other two planes...

 

While I'm sure it would be useful to read the book, which part is wrong exactly? It was peacetime and if the SR-71's are not flying over the actual SU territory (or at least, not close to interceptor bases or capable SAM sites - to have another spy plane shot down would have been a disaster), then there's no reason for the MiG-31's to attempt to shoot them down (just intercept), hence why they weren't "touched". Unless the book offers evidence to the contrary, AFAIK they were never fired upon by the MiG-31's so it's all rather hypothetical (*supposedly* on at least one such mission, the MiG-31's obtained a lock on it, but there's no way of verifying that and the exact circumstances of the encounter and whether it was in missile's range).

 

 

By not flying "over" the USSR I meant, they never flew "trough" it, so for example they did not fly from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean on the direct route.

After that is clear, you need to understand that the USSR did not wait until their borders were crossed, they immeadiately scrambled their interceptors as any suspicious aircraft neared their borders. Also, the USSR's air defence was set up in a way, that nearly all their interceptors were stationed at or close to the boarder, wich meant, that you were always "close" to interceptor bases and Capable SAM sites.

That said, ther have been countless attempst to intercept a Habu and not even the SR-71 pilot were sure if the interceptors would shoot if they'd get the chance, which of course they never got. These facts are thoroughly described in the book. AFAIK these Interceptors included MiG-25s wich AFAIK have better high altitude performance than the Foxhound.

 

Edit to add a better description of the failed intercepts: The SR-71 Pilots and RSOs describe flying over highly defended areas, particularly nuclear test sites on Islands in the Arctic Ocean just off the USSRs coast and seeing the interceptors stall out "down low" at approximately angels 60 in the contrails. So basically: Noone even got close

Edited August 13, 2015 by TaccoZ__Amigo1__

[lokodehortaleza]

AFAIK these Interceptors included MiG-25s wich AFAIK have better high altitude performance than the Foxhound.

 

Yes, the Foxhound has somewhat lower performance than the Foxbat, but more than makes up for it thanks to the powerful Zaslon PESA radar and R-33 missiles, comparable in range and performance to the AIM-54 Phoenix.

[TaccoZ__Amigo1__]

Yes, the Foxhound has somewhat lower performance than the Foxbat, but more than makes up for it thanks to the powerful Zaslon PESA radar and R-33 missiles, comparable in range and performance to the AIM-54 Phoenix.

 

 

Very true, but the point is made now. The Foxhound was definately not the reason for the Habu's retirement. It were the shitty politicians again :(