From: "Robert Comer" 

> Indeed, however it is humorous to see that even now you believe your own
> propaganda.

And you believe Russia's?

Actually I was an Air Force brat, so I've heard and seen some things that
still aren't publicly known, and while I know the SR-71 isn't invulnerable
now, it was an extraordinary aircraft for the late 60's, nothing could
touch it.  I don't think we could have shot one down either without rolling
out the fighter version, and that wasn't going to happen.  (we could shoot
one down easily these days...)

The only cite on the web that I could find about trying to shoot down an
SR-71 was that North Korea tried to shoot them down regularly, they never
managed to.

- Bob Comer


"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:429f8ac7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>>71 at speed is not manouverable.
>>
>>
>> Not totally un-maneuverable, slow to turn yes, but radar lock is kind of
>> obvious and even a small adjustment is a long way when we're talking
>> those distances.
>>
>
> Yes & no. The interceptor rocket is not slow either
>
>
>> But anyway, this is all history, there's no proof other than word of
>> mouth, so this argument's pretty pointless.
>>
>
> Indeed, however it is humorous to see that even now you believe your own
> propaganda.
>
>> btw, none of the drones ever flew an operational mission and they were
>> designed for the predecessor of the SR-71, the A-12.  (The SR-71 was an
>> updated USAF version of the A-12 with more capability)
>>
>
> Yes & no. The decision had been taken wrt overflying the SU & the
> effectiveness of the SAM4/5 against high fast flying vehicles.
>
> Against SAM 2 yup it was effective but that's why the Sov's invested in
> the 4 & 5.
>
> & as for the grumble (SA-10) forget it.
>
> Adam
>
>
>> - Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
>> news:429f4304$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>Robert Comer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Baltic Express & Northern Norway run cut close but not over.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You do know there were SR-71's based to the east of the SU too, don't
>>>>you? (i.e., those weren't the only 2 tracks by any means. 
it's true for
>>>>most of the time they stayed out of the SU proper, but then there's
>>>>probably the other times...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yup & wrt the PRC there was a sudden decision taken not to
overfly the
>>>PRC. Oddly these decisions followed after sam deployments.
>>>
>>>WRT Sakhalin etc the KAL 747 hitting the sea gives you some idea of how
>>>seriously the SU viewed intrusions to the east as well as to the west.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I really, really, don't think they could have shot down a SR71 in the
>>>>late 60's/early seventies... (now is different of course, I know we
>>>>could, so I expect they can as well.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>They could have. Look at the characteristics of the SAm5 especially. The
>>>SAM4 was cut1 & SAM5 was cut2.
>>>
>>>Look at the characteristics & wonder what the SAM5 was for.
SAM6 was for
>>>tactical stuff but SAM5......
>>>
>>>Let me see what PD info I can find:
>>>
>>>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-200.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>"The missile's minimum range of 60 km is due to the
booster burn time and
>>>jettison requirements, limiting the system to engagements against
>>>relatively large unmaneuverable targets at ranges up to 250 km. Guidance
>>>beyond the 60 km booster jettison point is by course correction command
>>>signals from the SQUARE PAIR radar with the S-200's own active radar
>>>terminal homing seeker head activated near the projected intercept point
>>>for final guidance.
>>>
>>>The large HE warhead is detonated either by a command signal or the
>>>onboard proximity fusing system. When fitted with a nuclear warhead only
>>>the command detonation option is used. "
>>>
>>>
>>>NB:
>>>
>>>"The missile's minimum range of 60 km" not maximum....
>>>
>>>"large unmaneuverable targets at ranges up to 250 km"
>>>
>>>71 at speed is not manouverable.
>>>
>>>Adam
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5