61–70 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Intercepting a B-52 sounds like just about the easiest job in combat aviation. Not particularly. A rough rule of thumb is that an interceptor needs a maximum achievable speed twice that of the cruising speed of its target in order to close the geometry of the interception. A Su-15 couldn't quite achieve that with its full complement of missiles against a Mach 0.9 B-52, but a MiG-25 could do so. [0] The second probl…
Your reckoning of the capabilities of the B-52 has me scratching my head. It can fly at 0.9 M, at high altitudes where it is guaranteed to be obliterated by long-range SAMs before it gets anywhere near a target of strategic value, and it can fly at low altitudes, at speeds where any eastern bloc fighter could have caught and destroyed it. That's why I think the idea of American long-range strategic bombers striking t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe after the Cuban Crisis. But Kennedy basically had to tell his advisors to shut up, because they were slavishly following RAND's escalation policy.
Kennedy repeatedly dismissed other opinions and had to change his positions after being proven wrong. He accused Eisenhower of allowing the Soviets to accumulate more missiles than the USA, and found out he was wrong after getting elected. Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster. Kennedy even refused to a…
Kennedy was handed the Bay of Pigs by Ike. I've wrote up a timeline of the Bay of Pigs (citations included) about 3 weeks ago ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12324273
"Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba."
Maybe, the decision to use tactical nukes in the battlefield was left to commanders in the field.
One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war. Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0]. I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane…
Soviet jets and technology wasn't really meant to survive a nuclear war. That would have increased complexity and cost. Everything was really designed more around being disposable.
Interesting interview with Viktor Belenko, not terribly deep but worthy of your time: http://www.videofact.com/english/defectors2_4en.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not reputable. Does the author have any conception of diesel engine theory? I do. Prior to computer controls (circa 1990s), the only active electrical component involved in keeping a diesel like the one in my Audi 5000 running, once started, is the fuel shutoff solenoid. Jam that open mechanically, and you can throw the alternator and battery away.
Your Audi has an alternator, just as the diesel generator mentioned there. It has no active components, just stator coils and possibly a rectifier, yet it was cooking up.
Those windings and diodes will carry 100 amps continuously. The E1 pulse isn't going to touch them. It doesn't last anywhere near long enough for them to even begin heating up. The E2 and E3 pulses aren't even a factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reckoning of the capabilities of the B-52 has me scratching my head. It can fly at 0.9 M, at high altitudes where it is guaranteed to be obliterated by long-range SAMs before it gets anywhere near a target of strategic value, and it can fly at low altitudes, at speeds where any eastern bloc fighter could have caught and destroyed it. That's why I think the idea of American long-range strategic bombers striking t…
That really depends on time period. Remember, the b-52 was introduced into service in 1955, and first flew in 1952. Well prior to the introduction of ICBMs.
> The Soviets had not built the ‘super-fighter’ the Pentagon had feared, says Smithsonian aviation curator Roger Connor, but an inflexible aircraft built to do a very particular job. There is no mention what MiG-25 was designed for. Its task was to intercept nuclear bombers flying over Soviet Union and it did this task pretty well. Because it used steel it was cheap and easy to service. At that time soviets had lot o…
One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war. Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0]. I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane…
> Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. That's more because post-Soviet military establishments were more willing to sell surplus aircraft to private buyers than because of any quality of the aircraft themselves.
Completely agree. Some people in Russia in 1990-s were pretty inventive.
Another reason could be the number of MiG-25 produced.
One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war. Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0]. I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane…
> Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It's hard to know where you came up with this. Starfighters Inc. came up in another thread recently: http://www.starfighters.net/fleet/ They fly F-104s, which I'd much rather be responsible for maintaining than something like a MiG-25. If you see a dearth of ownership of newer American jets, it's probably because…