>>64662714
No.

yes, there's nothing mathematically complicated about it. People meme about SR-71s going faster than missiles but that just reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about how air combat works.
The problem is that it's impossible to scramble and vector an interceptor against something moving that fast because it's gone before the conversation is even over.

>>64662714
Theoretically yes, realistically no.
>>64662736
The SR-71 can't go faster than missiles, but it can out run them, because missiles can't maintain their top speed for long. The Mig-25 would have to launch the missile from relatively close range, which would be very difficult considering that the SR-71 was both faster and low observable. A flawlessly done intercept could do it, but it's very unlikely to occur.

With a predetermined route? probably realistically you need to be prepared for +10 minutes to intercept a SR-71, that is about 600 km of traveled distance for the SR-71, but the SR-71 was hard to detect by radar, for countries without a large territory you can't do it. The SR-71 was the only plane that could cruise above M2.5 (up to M3.2 iirc), the MiG-25 could dash at ~M2.85, but that is only good enough to maintain the SR-71 during enough time for radar locking, not to get close if you don't know its flight route.

If you know where the SR-71 will be at a specific time, then sure maybe.

Cool planes dont get shot down (because theyre cool).

>>64662792
2.8 was the sustained limit after which the canopy and seals would start to melt, ~3.2 was the dash speed if you were okay with having to replace the canopy and engines and needing the ground crew to cut the canopy

>>64662714
yes, that's why there were no overflights
>>64662736
soviets had no problem intercepting SR-71 launching from Finow

>>64663117
The MiG-25 could only "cruise" at 2.3-2.4, that is fast, but beyond that the engine needed ADI, beyond M3-2.9 it severely reduced the engine life but the thermals (fuel tanks) weren't designed to fly for long time. You can check its records for long range supersonic flight. It was a limit of the fuel/equipment than the engines that were designed to cruise at M2.5-3.0 (in a drone Yak 121 or 123 iirc)

>>64662714
>realistically?
It would have happened if it were realistically feasible. No, not hypothetically feasibly. Not technically possible. Not theoretically capable.
Realistic.

Let's pretend it's 1971, with 1971 tech.
A 71's cruise speed crosses radar coverage in 10 minutes or less. The interceptor can reach useful altitude a little before the halfway mark on uninterrupted burn, but considerably longer to reach a useful speed. Even if the jets and pilots are kept prepped hot and good to go at all times the best missile shot will always end up as a trailing chase instead of leading intercept and on the sharpest knife's edge of possible contact.

Going back to reality the proof is simply in the records. Blackbirds have been shot at many times, some coming worryingly close, but have never been hit.

>>64662714
It couldn't intercept and achieve a lock on one without USAF planners being more retarded than what happened with the F-117.

>>64662714
I remember once watching a weirdly well-done animation of Norwegian F-35's peacefully intercepting a Tu-22M. The video ended with the Tu-22M engaging afterburners and outrunning the F-35's. The comment section was full of people saying that the F-35 is useless against the Tu-22M. Even then, I realized that most people online are retarded.

>>64662792
>>64663117
>Citing the lower public number
lol, lmao
The real dash speed is a bit higher if you look at all the design features. The engines are capable of accelerating it there given some heat capacity and environmental (inlet temp). All public domain info.

Always love it when the MiG-25's speed is brought up and nobody questions the features and shaping of the SR-71.

>>64664074
Protip since this is all public knowledge: Having your wingtips outside of the Mach cone is insanely inefficient drag wise but you can look at the angle and implied "ceiling" for the MiG-25. The official max speed (operating in the"consume the engine" regime) is obv above the mach cone by a bit. Now look at what the SR-71 comfortably sits at.

I love how that official upper speed has been getting lower and lower the older I grow. In few decades I will hear the SR-71 was only a Mach 1.8 capable plane with a 2.5 dash while the MiG-25 will have vatniks peddling that it was a Mach 3.5 capable interceptor.

>>64664074
>>64664089
It's a 3.45 capable airframe with 3.35 capable engines, and mach number is HIGHLY dependent on altitude conditions (air density, temp, if there's any supporting or negating wind)
It could probably peak in the high 3.4s to very low 3.5s in perfect conditions if it were already at maximum [redacted] operational speed (i.e. the atmo conditions were perfect) and performed a full burn at -3* dive

You can go through all of the declassified flight regime files yourself and work out the maths for the SR-71's speed capabilities.
At the end of the day our lives are constrained by physics.

>>64664154
>High dependent on conditions
Yes

>3.45
lol, no

>>64664154
Draw the mach cone and find out the answer since you like to go >maths.
>Vatnikistan pushing M3.2 MiG as the engines become the metallic fuel component of a bifuel cycle.
That cone encompasses the wingtips already, go on anon the calculator is online at NASA's site.

>>64664154
You can estimate the max speed by using the inlet ram heating and the official temperature limit of 427 ºC.
(1 + 0.2 * Ma^2) * Tamb = Tram
sqrt((700 / 200 -1)*5) = M3.5 if the Tamb = 200K (-70ºC) that is a "normal cold" for the stratosphere.

>>64662714it wasn't easy but it was technically feasable.
Yes. The two fighters to ever get a real lock on them were Viggens and Mig-25s, both times they chose not to fire.

>>64664217
The "Baltic Tour" was a meme though.

>>64664154
The flight manual allows M3.4 with base commander approval, so that speed isn't a huge deal, but going above that will quickly run into issues with inlet unstart, which is the main limiting factor for the SR-71.

>>64664172
>>64664176
idk how but you got BTFO by two different anons who weren't even me

>>64662714
>Could the MiG-25 realistically have shot down a SR-71?
More U2 capable than SR71.

>>64664206
>He ignores the operational context in which sprints occur and still classified institutional knowledge left outside of the manual including undisclosed cooling.

>In short, he explains that he had to exceed 86,000 ft in one flight (the highest altitude he ever flown in the SR-71), which is above the manual limit. It was a very cold day and they had contrails which he could observe in the aft-facing periscope. Usually, these are not formed above 50,000 ft, but in extreme cold conditions, they could. He was in minimum afterburner for the cruise, the speed was increasing. He didn't want to take an engine out of afterburner ("because you may not get it back on"). So he had to climb higher to get the speed down and also to get rid of the contrails. So he got to around 86,000 feet, describing it like "riding a while horse".

It's been speculated that the plane could theoretically hit 3.55 before drag limits equal power output,
But,
The ENGINES cannot sustain that. They weren't built for it. The variable inlet cone + intake geometry limit is somewhere around 3.45

But again, i repeat myself, Mach number is relative to the atmo conditions. 1890 knots is still 1890 knots regardless of if the conditions call it mach 3.3 or 3.4

>>64664345
>1890 knots is still 1890 knots regardless of if the conditions call it mach 3.3 or 3.4
Yes, but for anyone who doesn't know, that intake geometry limit is based on Mach number, not knots airspeed. Also, the speed of sound is based on the temperature, not on altitude or pressure (though those will influence the temperature of course, and there may be very minor differences in the specific heat ratio due to different air composition)

The only enemy country big enough to have planes that could intercept was Russia or Kazakhstan and the blackbird never flew over either of them

>>64664232
The engines will also self destruct at 3.6 but I haven't seen any evidence that the SR-71/A-12 could get near that

>>64664074
I was talking about the MiG-25's dash speed you retard. If you were as literate on the SR-71 as you pretend to be then you could infer that from the major context clue of engines that can't sustain above mach 2.8 without damage

>>64662736
The thing with an SR-71 interception is that you have to launch your interceptor to climb to altitude and begin vectoring before the recce plane violates your airspace, other than that it's very doable if you have the radar coverage. Soviets had a complex centralized system for interception that was on paper up to it.

And for everyone else in the thread, there is a lot more to interception than tail-chase performance, the recon plane has to actually fly in to the airspace for there to be something to intercept, and an SR-71 has such a low G limit that it can't do fast evasion.