From: "Robert Comer" 

> Again a fighter might not have been able to but given the H-bomb there was
> some impetus placed behind rocket motor design at the time.

Aye, and they designed the SR-71 to be partially stealthy and it had the
best countermeasures of the time.

> SAM2.

More than just SAM-2, but no idea if they tried a SAM-5.

- Bob Comer


"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:429f953f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>>Indeed, however it is humorous to see that even now you believe your own
>>>propaganda.
>>
>>
>> And you believe Russia's?
>>
>
> Nah. I always used to tune my radio to VOA, BBC World Service, Radio
> Moscow & Radio Peking.
>
> Triangluation.
>
>> 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...)
>>
>
>
> Again a fighter might not have been able to but given the H-bomb there was
> some impetus placed behind rocket motor design at the time.
>
> The SU developed entire classes of what were classified as fighters but
> were in fact large missile + large radar combos where the a/c was in
> effect a patrolling SAM site The fiddler (TU28) comes to mind.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> SAM2.
>
> Adam
>
>> - 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