4 ms·

"It is, in fact, impossible to reach the speeds of which the MIG-25 is capable using titanium: yet the Soviet designers had managed to build this, the fastest c

"It is, in fact, impossible to reach the speeds of which the MIG-25 is capable using titanium: yet the Soviet designers had managed to build this, the fastest combat aircraft in the world, from ordinary steel. " Right... MiG-25, Mach-2.8. All steel. SR-71, Mach-3.5. Uses titanium for 85% of its structure.

rangibaby 13y ago
Combat aircraft. SR-71 is a spy plane.
- spartango 13y ago
  While it is true that the SR-71 & A-12 were spy planes, and that the GP makes a slightly asinine statement, the pedant (and aviation geek) in me feels obliged to point to the YF-12[1]. The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays. The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons tests were conducted with the 3 YF-12 airframes that were built. With that said, the MiG-25 should certainly not be belittled as a marvel of aviation. It was a blisteringly fast interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft, with an impressive radar system for its time. It filled a special role in the Russian Air Force until last year[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db
  - Theodores 13y ago
    Just out of interest, was the MiG-25 'all steel' and 'all valves'? As in no electronics as we know them, just valves? I had heard that it was EMP-proof due to the lack of any transistors on board...
    - rangibaby 13y ago
      80% nickel steel alloy, 11% aluminium, and 9% titanium. Using valves instead of transistors meant for easier maintenance in addition to resistance to EMP. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25
- kjs3 13y ago
  The SR-71 and the MiG-25 were originally envisioned for exactly the same role: next-gen high speed, high altitude interceptors. We made a decision that missiles would fill the niche better, and the SR-71 became a recon platform, but it's roots are still in combat.
njr123 13y ago
Pretty sure the SR-71 is not a combat aircraft.
- spingsprong 13y ago
  And that matters because?
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    That matters because you're comparing apples to oranges, the part you quoted specifically mentioned combat aircraft. Giving the SR-71 as a counter example makes no sense.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    It's like mentioning the space shuttle as a counterexample.
ckozlowski 13y ago
I think this was an area for which the writer simply wasn't as well informed. Titanium and steel are both capable of fulfilling the requirements, but titanium is very difficult to work with. (Lockheed had particular trouble with it as well.) It's more ideal to use because its so much lighter, and increasing weight is the bane of any aircraft's existence. The Soviets would have preferred this, but they couldn't overcome the machining challenges, especially not in the scale required to build the numbers required. So they went with the safer, if less ideal alternative. And since the Soviet system did not exactly encourage discussion of shortcomings, and the "simple is better" tradition fits well, its not far to see how the "steel is better" explanation became the accepted one. All that being said, I point out that the plane did what they set out to do, and regardless of whatever compromises had to be made, it was an aerospace achievement.
- arethuza 13y ago
  Speaking of titanium, the Soviets also had a class of attack submarines with titanium hulls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine
thescrewdriver 13y ago
Perhaps a typo/misquote. The point being made is that the high speeds were achieved using steel (rather than more exotic materials). As others have pointed out the SR71 wasn't a combat aircraft.

rangibaby 13y ago

Combat aircraft. SR-71 is a spy plane.

spartango 13y ago
While it is true that the SR-71 & A-12 were spy planes, and that the GP makes a slightly asinine statement, the pedant (and aviation geek) in me feels obliged to point to the YF-12[1]. The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays. The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons tests were conducted with the 3 YF-12 airframes that were built. With that said, the MiG-25 should certainly not be belittled as a marvel of aviation. It was a blisteringly fast interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft, with an impressive radar system for its time. It filled a special role in the Russian Air Force until last year[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db
- Theodores 13y ago
  Just out of interest, was the MiG-25 'all steel' and 'all valves'? As in no electronics as we know them, just valves? I had heard that it was EMP-proof due to the lack of any transistors on board...
  - rangibaby 13y ago
    80% nickel steel alloy, 11% aluminium, and 9% titanium. Using valves instead of transistors meant for easier maintenance in addition to resistance to EMP. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25
kjs3 13y ago
The SR-71 and the MiG-25 were originally envisioned for exactly the same role: next-gen high speed, high altitude interceptors. We made a decision that missiles would fill the niche better, and the SR-71 became a recon platform, but it's roots are still in combat.

njr123 13y ago

Pretty sure the SR-71 is not a combat aircraft.

spingsprong 13y ago
And that matters because?
- jacquesm 13y ago
  That matters because you're comparing apples to oranges, the part you quoted specifically mentioned combat aircraft. Giving the SR-71 as a counter example makes no sense.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  It's like mentioning the space shuttle as a counterexample.

ckozlowski 13y ago

I think this was an area for which the writer simply wasn't as well informed. Titanium and steel are both capable of fulfilling the requirements, but titanium is very difficult to work with. (Lockheed had particular trouble with it as well.) It's more ideal to use because its so much lighter, and increasing weight is the bane of any aircraft's existence. The Soviets would have preferred this, but they couldn't overcome the machining challenges, especially not in the scale required to build the numbers required. So they went with the safer, if less ideal alternative. And since the Soviet system did not exactly encourage discussion of shortcomings, and the "simple is better" tradition fits well, its not far to see how the "steel is better" explanation became the accepted one. All that being said, I point out that the plane did what they set out to do, and regardless of whatever compromises had to be made, it was an aerospace achievement.

arethuza 13y ago
Speaking of titanium, the Soviets also had a class of attack submarines with titanium hulls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine

thescrewdriver 13y ago

Perhaps a typo/misquote. The point being made is that the high speeds were achieved using steel (rather than more exotic materials). As others have pointed out the SR71 wasn't a combat aircraft.