4 ms·
The MiG-31 and Viggen stories have a lot of shaky details, like whether their AAMs could have even reached the SR-71 with 20K vertical feet left to cover, etc.
by themodelplumber 13y ago
The MiG-31 and Viggen stories have a lot of shaky details, like whether their AAMs could have even reached the SR-71 with 20K vertical feet left to cover, etc. Radar lock notwithstanding.
Now the story of the ballistic climb with the Lightning seems cut from the same cloth, with even the current Wikipedia reading "88,000" yet "trading speed for altitude." What does it really matter, when a mach 2.0 craft like the lightning reaches 88K feet, yet is trading speed for altitude?
The comments on the article are enlightening; for example: "The multi-component surveillance mission never, ever, reported any "lock-on" by any aircraft, from any nation"
Hmm...
- stcredzero 13y agoNow the story of the ballistic climb with the Lightning seems cut from the same cloth, with even the current Wikipedia reading "88,000" yet "trading speed for altitude." What does it really matter, when a mach 2.0 craft like the lightning reaches 88K feet, yet is trading speed for altitude? In the case of the Lightning, it supposedly could have gotten itself up to 87K in the path of an SR-71, and gotten a missile lock, had the Lightning been capable of firing radar guided missiles, but from what I've read, this was not the case. (Also, maneuvering to orient the plane for missile launch would've been dubious at best.)
- delinka 13y ago"...trading speed for altitude" Sounds to me like it trades using power to attain speed for using power to counter gravity. IOW, when it goes (near) vertical, it loses lots of speed but can gain a tremendous altitude.