I shall have a dig. I believe it's on an old storage medium named 'paper' so it may take a while.
WI :- SR-71 shot down
I've been thinking the same thing, a missile inflicted enough damage to injure the plane.
Another possibility is that the SR71 in question has already suffered problems prior to the interception. Problems which would make an interception easier and that would make a pilot being able to bail out more likely.
Man the MIG-31s were never going to intercept the SR-71 in the manner in which the RAF intercepts the Tu-95s or TU-114s. They are going to use R-33s to bring it down. R-33s combined with proper tactics and a garnish of luck were perfectly capable of bringing a Blackbird down.First of all, while the MiG 31 and MiG 25 were both capable of going over Mach 3, it was basically a one time use because the damage it inflicted on the engine and airframe.
And that's not including whatever sort of instability that will inevitably occur when the Soviet pilot fires up his engines beyond the red zone.
MiG 25: "It has an operational top speed of Mach 2.83 (Mach 3.6 is possible but at risk of significant damage to the aircraft and its engines)"
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
MiG 31: "High-altitude speed is temperature-redlined to Mach 2.83 – the thrust-to-drag ratio is sufficient for speeds in excess of Mach 3, but such speeds pose unacceptable hazards to engine and airframe life in routine use."
Mikoyan MiG-31 - Wikipedia
What's more likely to occur is the MiG in question falling apart mid flight due to the damage inflicted on it's airframe by the pilot's attempt to intercept an SR-71 that's already flying away at an easy Mach 3.6.
I'm sorry, but a MiG 25/31 intercepting an SR-71 is pretty much a fantasy.
The MiGs were not going to go upto it and ask it to turn around
The debris field will be larger but if the aircraft is gradually breaking up most of the fuselage will fall on such a sized area. I assumed that as most of commercial airliners fall on 1-2 sq km ares so combined with the speed, altitude and strength of the airframe I assumed it.
If the Aircraft dosen't fall on Soviet soil the purpose of the scenario is beaten.
We were living on Okinawa at the time, mid-1981 to mid-1985. I don't remember much about what was happening on base and in school during that time. In high school we never had drills of any kind. If a Habu had been brought down then? I don't recall an Okinawa-based plane being lost during that time and certainly not in a combat situation. I'm sure things would change on base. The school year had just started, or would start soon, I don't recall which. I think we teenagers would pick up on the increased stress and tension.
People tend to underappreciate modern weapons. The SR-71 had a strong structure but it's skin was fragile and was not like an armored vehicles.
It's for practice.
TDM
Kicked
Ok a few points:
1) still assuming the plane is gradually breaking up, this may well not be case if this all happens at mach 3.5+
2). what your maths for going from 1-2 sq km for an airliner to 9-16 sg km here
3). What instances of commercial airline debris fields are you looking at? The vast majority of Commercial airline crashes tend not to involve breaking up explosively at cruising altitude but impacting the ground during shortly after take off or before landing.
1)The A-12 could make more than mach 3.5 but I don't that the more refined SR-71 could well it's irrelevant.
2) It's a rough guess made by my uncle who happened to fly MiG-25s of the Indian airforce .
3) Yes but I am not considering the vast majority of cases where the accident occurred just after the crash. But cases where they fall from cruising altitude and speed. Eg. Malaysian MH17(over Ukraine, shot down), Metrojet flight 9268(over Sinai,bomb).
Why would I be upset ? The RAF is a professional NATO Airforce that was planning to fight WW3 against the Warsaw Pact when the Lightning was in service. Intercepting a SR71 would seem to be an impressive accomplishment. On the other hand I would not want to assume that RAF Lightnings could routinely intercept hostile SR71's during war time.
Edit to add, I have often thought the Lightning was a rather under appreciated interceptor aircraft.
Also the concept of slower interceptor air craft intercepting faster (and perhaps higher altitude) targets is something that a number of air forces have been putting a lot of thought into since the 1950's if not earlier. It does not in any way surprise me that other air forces may have managed on occasion to get aircraft into a firing position vs an SR71 in peace time, but I suspect it was not an easy thing to do if the SR71 was flying at Mach 3 or more at the time.
Last edited:
BlackDragon98
Banned
It's been proven that the Soviets can shoot down unarmed civilian airlines (KAL 007 and KAL 902) but I severely doubt their ability to intercept a high tech hypersonic USAF spy aircraft flown by elite US pilots.
The CIA and USAF probably have specific courses against this type of threat, seeing as how prepared they were for the Storm Area-51 incident.
And if you want to cite the U-2 shootdown as evidence, I suggest you don't, because it only further reveals the incompetence of the Soviet Air Force.
One of the S-75 surface-to-air missile fired accidentally destroyed a MiG 19 that was also trying to intercept the U-2, killing the pilot.
Another factor is training.
It is well known that the Soviet and later Russian Air Force has inferior training compared to the air forces of other global superpowers.
The losses suffered by Russia during the Russo-Georgian war are clear evidence of this, for the Russians suffered unacceptably high aerial losses against a third rate military, including a Tu-22 bomber.
What's worse is that these losses were inflicted by Soviet military equipment left being in Georgia after the dissolution, meaning that the Russians did not even understand the capabilities of their own equipment, much less that of an opponent.
As well, there is simply no way to compare the interception of a big, slow turboprop bomber/transport and the interception of a hypersonic spy aircraft.
It's like comparing apples and oranges, these 2 cases don't share any similarities at all.
Last edited:
Yeah I'm always a little leery of interpreting the results of peace time war games/ interceptions as being exactly the same thing as in war. In the referenced case we're dealing with SR 71 pilots who are in friendly airspace and going to act like it.
That doesn't mean RAF pilots weren't very skilled and it's impossible. Just that the way a SR 71 pilot flying over NATO britain where their best odds of not getting shot down is being blindingly obvious to interceptors and SAMs and how their going to behave above the Warsaw pact where their best bet of not getting shot down is trying not to get shot down.
FUN FACT- it has been proven that the Americans can also shoot unarmed civilian airliners(Iran Air Flight 655).
You probably don't remember that Georgia was also a part of Soviet Union and it's officers were as familiar with Russian weapon systems as the Russians themselves. Furthermore the Russian military in 2008 was just recovering after more than a decade of decline and stagnation, which in no way represents the quality of the Soviet military before 1990.
Yeah but the SR-71 had a zero-zero ejection seat and the pilot can wait till the speed and altitude reduces enough although the chances are still very slim indeed.
Yeah pretty much as the 'competent' American military bombed their own men and attacked their own and Australian ships in Vietnam. Shooting down using Patriots a RAF Tornado and a naval F/A-18 in the Iraq war are signs of 'competence'. The Soviet frontline aircraft pilots has training levels that real to their NATO counterparts but the pilots flying inferior aircrafts like MiG-21s, Su-15s, etc had much lesser flying hours.
Accidents happen all the time sometimes due to stupidest of reasons which dosen't make a military any less competent.
So @BlackDragon98 if you have read the first post you must have noticed that this thread discusses the consequences of a shoot down of a Blackbird and not it's invincibility. Plus your biased outlook is not doing anyone any good.
Last edited:
BlackDragon98
Banned
And the circumstances were completely different.
IAF 655 was downed in an active war zone where Iran was listed as a hostile nation by the US.
Both Soviets shotdowns happened in peacetime, indicating that the Soviets really didn't know what was going on or they were just plain paranoid.
"Georgia has said that its key deficiencies were ineffective communication during action and its lacking air strength.[318] Konstantin Makienko of CAST saw substandard instruction of pilots as the primary reason for the paltry conduct of Georgian air sorties.[165] According to Georgian first deputy defence minister Batu Kutelia, Georgia was required to have a complex, multi-layered air-defence system to protect its airspace.[318] Western officers involved with Georgia's military indicated that Georgian military deficiencies were too great to be eliminated by new weapons.[318] According to a 2 September 2008 New York Times article, "Georgia's Army fled ahead of the Russian Army's advance, turning its back and leaving Georgian civilians in an enemy's path. Its planes did not fly after the first few hours of contact. Its navy was sunk in the harbor, and its patrol boats were hauled away by Russian trucks on trailers."[318]
A sweeping Russian offensive caught Georgia by surprise, who had never got ready for confronting such invasion.[319] Many managerial and procedural problems surfaced during the war.[320] According to a Western officer, Georgian logistical readiness was mediocre; there was interference between subdivisions during the action.[318] Training to simulate combat against a probable enemy, the 58th Army, had never been organised by the Georgian Army. During the war, communications broke down in the mountains and troops had to resort to mobile phones. There was insufficient planning; according to Giorgi Tavdgiridze, nobody thought about sealing the Roki Tunnel. There was a dismal organisation of the delivery of 10,000 Georgian reservists in Gori on 9 August; they had no specific targets and went back to Tbilisi the following day. The conflict was named by Georgian journalists as the war "that was hidden from history" because there was very little video recording of the fighting.[5] According to their American trainers, Georgian soldiers were unprepared for fighting despite having "warrior spirit".[305] There was a small number of disciplined and knowledgeable officers in high ranking positions,[321] and Saakashvili's government had no military background.[322]"
Yes, what a frightening enemy the Russians faced in the Georgians.
Who had but a few well trained and knowledgeable officers.
And still managed to down a Tu 22M, a supersonic strategic jet bomber.
In comparison to the RAF interceptions of Tu 95s and TU 114s, subsonic turboprop strategic bombers.
The problem is that a shotdown is almost impossible, unless the SR-71 pilot made several errors in succession and the Soviet interceptor in question worked perfectly during the interception.
Problem is, your opinion on the state of the Soviet Air Force is rather biased as well.
Just because a plane can reach Mach 3+ doesn't mean it can function normally at that speed, especially if Mach 3+ is far beyond the red zone of that plane's capabilities.
The point I am trying to make is that the Soviet interceptor didn't need to make Mach 3 to down it. With powerful missiles(R-33s), proper tactics and a bit of luck they could down one.
Where do you find bias in my opinion of Soviet airforce (training, capability of MIG-31s,other)?
The first Korean Air was shot down after the pilot had identified it to be a non military aircraft and has strict orders to do so.
The second one was identified by the interceptors to be a 747 but its non response after warning shots (they didn't carry incindiary rounds) and the aircraft appeared to allow down in a climb and with express permission to shoot from the ATC.
And if you take into account that a Georgian managed to down a Tu-22 to be a proof of incompetence of the Russians then what do you call a Serbian downing a F-117?
This thread was intended to discuss the consequences of the downing and not the downing itself.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Are you operating under the assumption that the SR-71 pilot is just going to sit there and watch as a MiG 25/31 shows up on his radar screen.
SR-71 pilot: "Oh it's just a Soviet interceptor that has the potential to shot me down if they're lucky. Just going to keep flying onward like nothing's wrong."
NO, the SR-71 pilot is going to put the pedal to the metal and get the hell out of Dodge as soon as that MiG 25/31 shows up on his radar screen, which gives the SR-71 enough of a distance and time advantage that the MiG 25/31 will never get within missile range (which for the R-33 was 120 km in 1981).
As well, the SR-71 was well prepared to deal with the R-33 and other Soviet surface to air missiles. Obviously the details are still classified and probably will be for the rest of our lives, but here's what we know.
"Over its operational life, the Blackbird carried various electronic countermeasures (ECMs), including warning and active electronic systems built by several ECM companies and called Systems A, A2, A2C, B, C, C2, E, G, H, and M. On a given mission, an aircraft carried several of these frequency/purpose payloads to meet the expected threats."
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird - Wikipedia
How does one have consequences if the shotdown itself doesn't happen?
For it to be shot down we'd need to suppose the reason it was there as that's VERY Important. Keep in mind the SR-71 didn't actually 'violate' Soviet airspace in the '70s and '80s for a very good reason and the reason THAT changes has a big impact (no pun intended) on any shoot-down. It was specifically BECAUSE the U2 had to violate Soviet/WP airspace to get the mission done that the SR-71 was developed. There's not much the SR-71 can do that a satellite can't and the latter already has more deniability than the former.
As to reaction around the world the main point is going to be those that dislike the US are going to support the USSR's right to self-defence and demonize the US for violating USSR airspace. Those that are more US aligned are going to likely have issues with the US violating USSR airspace but in general give the US a break and demonize the USSR. There's going to be a lot of tension under any circumstances where a direct violation of airspace occurs as well as over the shootdown itself. At the time in question unless relations have REALLY gone south, (and simply violating Soviet airspace isn't going to be that level without outside factors) the Soviet's were really trying to reform their image internationally so it would likely go as one person put it;
"Opps, we shot down an unidentified aircraft that wasn't responding to communications. Turns out is was yours and we recovered the pilot(s) and some debris (of which we'll give the un-important bits back) and treated them medically. Here they are with a nice cup of vod.. er coco" and walk away. They won't parade them on TV and display the debris but they WILL make it clear this will be the default option if it happens again. The US will thank them for returning the pilots, (living or dead) berate them that they shot the SR down in international airspace, protest the shootdown, demand the return of ALL the debris, rattle some sabers and agree to forgive the incident... this time.
And the turn around and figure out why and how it happened and if the need is high enough do it again and again till they get what they need.
This was a 'game' (deadly serious one mind you) that has been played out over the centuries and will continue to do so. The overall outcome is highly dependent on what the original stakes were and the underlying reasons that led to what happened underpinning the decisions on each side. In this case I'd have to assume that there was sufficient reason for the US to flagrantly defy operating procedures enough to risk both the international incident AND the crews lives to perform the overflight while the USSR had sufficient cause to risk that same incident and the lives of their personnel to prevent that overflight. I have to point out that under such circumstances the most LIKELY outcome would be that the US announces that a routine SR-71 flight disappeared over the Pacific and search operations are underway while the USSR announces that there was a training accident over Kamchatka and there were several casualties and damaged aircraft and that rescue and recovery operations are underway. IF the crew survives they will be trying to make it back to the coast while the US will try to recover them. The Soviets will also be trying to recover them and it might be plausible to assume that neither side will try very hard since it may benefit both to not have them survive even if the overall mission was a success or failure. Again, background is important. If the crew does NOT survive then the incident will be buried but as I pointed out IF the entire reason for this chain of events is important enough to get to this point then neither side is going to stop until the goal set for this little exercise is achieved. That will get ugly but thems the stakes and those are the cards you have to play with.
Randy
If you are unwilling to accept that the SR-71 can be shot down then I believe this thread dosen't suit you as this this not a feasibility check thread.Are you operating under the assumption that the SR-71 pilot is just going to sit there and watch as a MiG 25/31 shows up on his radar screen.
SR-71 pilot: "Oh it's just a Soviet interceptor that has the potential to shot me down if they're lucky. Just going to keep flying onward like nothing's wrong."
NO, the SR-71 pilot is going to put the pedal to the metal and get the hell out of Dodge as soon as that MiG 25/31 shows up on his radar screen, which gives the SR-71 enough of a distance and time advantage that the MiG 25/31 will never get within missile range (which for the R-33 was 120 km in 1981).
As well, the SR-71 was well prepared to deal with the R-33 and other Soviet surface to air missiles. Obviously the details are still classified and probably will be for the rest of our lives, but here's what we know.
"Over its operational life, the Blackbird carried various electronic countermeasures (ECMs), including warning and active electronic systems built by several ECM companies and called Systems A, A2, A2C, B, C, C2, E, G, H, and M. On a given mission, an aircraft carried several of these frequency/purpose payloads to meet the expected threats."
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird - Wikipedia
How does one have consequences if the shotdown itself doesn't happen?
Your argument goes on telling that the Soviets are a bunch of incompetent men and the SR-71 is some out of the world invincible technology.
And as you mentioned ECM, if ECM was all that was required then Air to Air missiles would have been phased out.
The shoot down is very difficult. But not so difficult that you will classify it as impossible.
You may say that it is highly improbable but not impossible.
Last edited:
That's one fired bullet that hit an ammo can or a bandoleer. Notice how only one bullet has rifling on it meaning these two bullets did not collide in mid air. Frankly if they did that likely wouldn't be the result they would likely just deflect off of each other.
Intercepting "hostile" aircraft approaching the UK's airspace. I seem to remember they once fought a huge battle against the Luftwaffe and beat them. Now what was that called again? Ah, yes, the Battle of Britian. Seems the USAF couldn't even stop a squadron of Vulcan bombers in the 1960s - twice they could potentially bomb the US...
And IAF 655 was flying an established and acknowledge air route and was obviously a civilian aircraft and squawking as such on its responder. The Vincennes was commanded by a gung-ho commander who had it open fire without proper interrogation of the aircraft before it did so. The commander was clearly in the wrong but was promoted out of active command rather than punished as such. The US Navy was clearly in the wrong with a defence system that failed and was misused by it's crew under the command of a madman.