Re "saturn profile" #61
I recall that the "saturn profile" differed from the ‘525’ profile.
The "saturn" made use of the Lightning’s look-up, go-up capabilities and was designed to intercept a high-flying target (circa FL480/0.8) from low level CAP.
From a 180 x ‘wide’, a turning reheat climb at 0.9 aimed for a long rollout astern (14nm?) at FL360, then a diving acceleration to max scanner angle to achieve about M 1.3 before climbing for the intercept – the back end of the normal high-flyer profile.
IIRC the ‘525’ profile and the ‘625’ (flown without probe) were computerised ‘ground environment’ intercepts based on a FL 250 CAP. My experience indicated that these profiles were unnecessarily fuel hungry and half of the intercept information was ‘time to intercept’, which was of little value to the pilot (other than for fuel planning), who required range/bearing.
Both the computerised profiles and ‘saturn’ used aspects of Specific Excess Energy management which provided optimum acceleration profiles and instantaneous manoeuvre capability.
Re ‘a high performing aircraft’. There was strong rumour that one of the OCU’s T5s had a small manufacturing discrepancy in the intake shape. Thus, at supersonic speed the inlet efficiency (shockwave formation) was much less than designed, this restricted the acceleration and max speed. Even so most T5s struggled to make M1.5 for a ‘ten ton’ ride (fuel limit).
An aerodynamically clean aircraft with two top spec, new engines would always out perform older, 'bent' models.