Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain Drunk
One thing must be understood, if the Mig-25R didn't fly at Mach 3.2, the IAF would not have bought them. Truth is when it comes to Foxbats, the buck stops with the IAF simply because they know better. If you want to call a spade a spade, then the Mig-25 is more of an Mach 3+ fighter than the A-12 is an interceptor, simple because the Oxcart was just a concept as much as Russia's Uragan manned 'space interceptor' with space-to-space missiles was.
There is more detailed information showing how SR-71 could fly at a lesser max. speed of Mach 3.3 for extended periods, and could not exceed Mach 3.44 in any currently known configuration upon which the engine enters a state of "unstart", its airframe heats up and gets disfigured, etc., than the info on Foxbats engines burning out. Foxbat was also more economical, Russia could afford 1200 of which 75% were interceptors while US could only afford 32 SR-71s if I'm not mistaken.
|
You are incredibally stupid. The A-12 (actually the YF-12 since the A-12 was a single-seat version for the CIA which was retired when the USAF took over the job with the more capable two-seat SR-71) was actually a flying plane, not some concept. Hell I can go get some paper and write on it "F-458 Kool! Flies Mach 10!" and say that it is feasible with your logic. Also, the SR-71 cost more than the MiG-25 because 1) it was more advanced, 2) it was made out of more expensive materials that let it actually cruise at that speed and 3) it had sensors that were extremely costly for its spy missions. The MiG-25 can do a short burst above Mach 3 for a couple of minutes while a SR-71 can sustain Mach 3 for long periods of times.