Stop thief!

[Pavel]

In Yak-141 and F-35 video (http://www.aviapedia.com/video/yak-141-and-f-35-video) post we have already huge discussion about stolen technologies.

I would like it to be continued here, so some comments from post:

Then you should say that everything was stolen from nature. :) Jet engines from many sea animals that use the same principles, wings from birds etc.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to copy technology. Everything is about materials, knoweledge and hard calculations, not shape. Some military journalists noted that US stolen F-15 shape from MiG-25. Yes, ofcourse they look somewhat similar but they are absolutelly diffirent aircraft- one is very fast long range interceptor another is fighter-bomber capable for close combat.
B-1B and Tu-160. Yeah shape is somewhat similar, but who will tell that Tu-160(curently the best and most powerful strategic bomber: 275tons take off weight, over 12000km range without refueling, over 2mach speed, 40tons of ordnance) is copy of B-1b, which is lighter on almost 60 tons, slower(1.2 mach max), and has smaller range?

Hey Pavel,

I have a few for you:

TU144, yes the Russians were actually first. How many inflight crack ups did it have???

AN-124 kind of reminds me of a C5A, I wonder why?

an IL-76 reminds me of a C141, why???

A Mainstay reminds me of an AWACS, can’t figure out why that is…,

The variable geometry Mig23 and SU 23 came along several years after the FB111 and the F-14.

I wonder which came first, the Flogger or the Harrier???

My favorite of course was the Russian space shuttle…, remind you of anything???

Dude, the list goes on and on. It’s quite clear who lacked the imagination and ability to generate new designs.

[HunterFN]

It was not about stealing anything. For example Tu-144 shared a striking resemblance beacuse of aerodynamics. People start accusing of other people for stealing their tech (especially with planes), when the truth is that for a given task a certain shape is best suited. The ogive shape of the Concordes and Tupolevs wings was a direct requirement of supersonic flight, no other reason.

Variable sweep wings were popular only because of limited engine power and the need for heavy takeoff weights and the shortest possible take off roll. Again, this applies specifically for the MiG-23/27 and F-14. MiG's were required to be able to operate from poor runways with a large payload, variable sweep was the best choice. For F-14, it was required to carry heavy missile loads from a carrier deck, again, variable geometry. Other than the variable sweep the planes are 100% different, what was stolen??

As for the Buran space shuttle, Aerodynamics again. Oh and by the way, the Buran was superior to the NASA shuttle in just about every way :)

Aerodynamics is rather straightfoward in the end. If you need a plane for a certain task and put a few design teams at it, they will come to a more or less similar concept. It's just how it is.

[Buran-Pilot]

thats a common opinion that the russians copy everything.. but thats just not right

the only copy that was indeed one is the Tu-4 - which is a copy of the B-29.

what about the listed stuff?
If you compare two vehicles, doing the same mission (An-124 vs C5, A320 vs 737, or Energia-Buran vs STS), you will always find out that they look similar... similar demands often result in similar solutions.

But Buran is made with russian technology and russian experience - its far more than just a copy of the STS.

Just look at used technology and the various differences. The russians used the known information about the shuttle as start, for having a craft with the same or better capabilities - but you can't just copy the plans if you have a completly different technology base.
The biggest difference:
- no SSMEs (Buran has no Engines for Liftoff)

[Flight_Fan]

But Buran is made with russian technology and russian experience - its far more than just a copy of the STS.
English version (http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm)
Russian version (http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm)
http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/mtkkman.gif

From http://buran.ru/

[JCSVT]

How is the B-1 a copy of the Tu-160? They have different roles and therefore are sized accordingly. The Tu-160 first flew in late 1981 while the B-1 first flew in 1974. They are not identical but the Tu-160 was definately infulenced by the B-1.

[Erdem]

I agree that Tu-160 is a copy of B-1B. It may have differences about weight, speed and range depending on the countries' expectations; but If you look at the initial idea, it is obvious that Soviets countered the idea introduced by B-1B in a very similiar way.

[HanibalBG]

People copy or not there very strict laws of airodinamics and physics that can not be bended at this time you can not achive the aircrafts purpace if you dont folow them. And during the cold war US was spying 10 times more that the Soviet Union. And Soviet Union had beter sientists and desiners than US the Soviet Union had developt the concepts of all its planes and they didnt garthed then as good as the US use used a lote of the nazi concepts and scientists.

Tu-160 concept existed for very long time tu-160 was the replesment ot the tu-22 and the US B-1 was bild very fast and the furst prototipe feild( I wonder why).

The US has and still is steling tecnology concepts and scientists more than the eny other country in the world and today many of the leading aircraft disiners are from the formal Soviet Union.

[gabi765]

The US has and still is steling tecnology concepts and scientists more than the eny other country in the world and today many of the leading aircraft disiners are from the formal Soviet Union. :lol: Now I've heard everything!!!Hanibal I understand your admiration for USSR but keep it in resonable limits.US has no.1 research spendings(not only military)in the hole world by far. And the term "stealing scientists" is ,let's say a least, exagerated.Nobody is kidnapping no one. Those scinetists migrate by FREE WILL! Familiar with this?Russia no longer can hold its scientists by gunpoint,it is a democracy now and they can go whereever they want. They go where they r paid in direct proportion with their talent and intelligence and where their work is appreciated and put in action and that includes places like Europe and Iran,but that doesn't seems to bother you.

[HanibalBG]

Well I don't know for how meny try american scientists you had heard but I know very fiy but I know many that are furst or second generation imigrants .

[JCSVT]

Now I've heard everything!!!Hanibal I understand your admiration for USSR but keep it in resonable limits.US has no.1 research spendings(not only military)in the hole world by far. And the term "stealing scientists" is ,let's say a least, exagerated.Nobody is kidnapping no one.

Thank you. Hannibal, 7 years is a long time for a design that has already been copied to be released.

[MerkavaMK4]

i don't think f-15 is a copy of mig-25. F-15 was a really crappy conceptual design that mr boydd managed to straighten out into an outstanding fighter.

but I do think that tu-160 is an AERODYNAMIC copy of b1. Tu-160 has twice the speed at high altitudes and carries more fuel and bombs. It is also as large in wing-span as b-52.

The copying debate can really go on forever: f-16>tyhpoon>lavi>mig 1.344

[JCSVT]

but I do think that tu-160 is an AERODYNAMIC copy of b1. Tu-160 has twice the speed at high altitudes and carries more fuel and bombs. It is also as large in wing-span as b-52.


The only thing stopping the B-1 from going Mach 2 are the RAM-coated, radar blocking intakes. The B-1A would routinely cruise over Mach 2 without those and B-1B pilots can easily hit the V-Max at low levels.

[gabi765]

I can't believe how some guys claim that Tu-144 has nothing to do with the Concorde.Ignoring history facts is very sad. The "Konkordsky" was probably the most popular case of military industrial espionage. Could you explain why Sergei Pavlov (officially acting as Aeroflot’s representative in Paris) when he was arrested in 1965 had detailed plans of the braking system, the landing gear, and the airframe of Concorde?Also in 1977 Sergei Fabiew another agent was arrested for the same reason .It is believed he had obtained the entire plans of the prototype Concorde back in the mid-60s.
Indeed internally Tupolev is very different from Concorde. Stealing the complete blueprints doesn't mean you're in the posesion of the entire Concorde project.Manufacturing such a complex piece of machine is too complex to duplicate from a few papers smuggled by KGB from Aérospatiale.So russians were forced to replace western technology with some of their own. Flying a few months before the COncorde is absolutely irrelevant.It doesn't proove anything. Russian officials did knew very well how a signifficant part of 144 was created and thus hurried things a bit more in order to avoid espionage acusations.It's quite easy by skipping a few test flights. They would have been credible if 144 would have flown years, not months, before Concorde.
Tupolev engineers did not succed in replicate Concorde's complex aerodynamics so in the beginning 144 had serious stability problems especially at low speeds(Incident records speak for themselves) taht why they put canards on that plane.Concorde wasn't inferior beacuse it didn't have them. It was superior becuase it just DIDN'T NEED them.

[bf-fly]

Aerodynamics my ass! The Buran was built for political reasons. There are numerous shapes it could have taken. Just look up all the sizes nasa tried before they came up with the shuttle. Almost any would have worked.

Why did the Soviet designs that I mentioned prior come out 5-15 years later that the US? Sounds to me like they had to go back to the drawing board whenever the US made an advance. Clearly each time they started with the US design as a model, and that's why they ended up with the similarities.

You guys are deluding yourselves. I acknowledge the Soviet system produced great engineers for military purposes, and sometimes for pure science (if it served the state). They often created ingenious designs with minimal material support. But consider for a moment the vibrancy of the economies that it faced. Consider how many models and styles of cars western Europe and the US designed over the decades. Hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands. The Soviets? 1? 2? 3???. How many Nato countries built Helocopters and Fighters? Most times, but not always, innovation came from the west.

Mig & Sukoi

McDonald Dougless, Lockheed, General Dynamics,Grumman, Northrop, North American, Vaught, etc

Also Dassualt, BAE/Hawker Sidley, Panavia, Sepcat

[bf-fly]

HanibalBG wrote'
"People copy or not there very strict laws of airodinamics and physics that can not be bended at this time you can not achive the aircrafts purpace if you dont folow them. And during the cold war US was spying 10 times more that the Soviet Union. And Soviet Union had beter sientists and desiners than US the Soviet Union had developt the concepts of all its planes and they didnt garthed then as good as the US use used a lote of the nazi concepts and scientists. "

I say;

Aerodynamics and physics are not as strict as you suggest. Ever heard of a little something called "Fly by wire" ?The stealth fighter is unstable in all 3 axis, yet it flys just fine. I guess they had to wait till after the US did it first to "invent" fly by wire.

US was spying how many times as much? What do you base that on? Was the KGB on vacation during the cold war? What of the spy trawler that sat 12miles off the US coast directly across from Locheed"s skunk works doing? Fishing? One sat there for years on end. In fact it was common knowledge that one follow the US carriers every where they went. One more thing, didn't the Soviets have SPY satilites too? 10 times my ass. The truth was just the opposite. What they couldn't steal, they bought.

By the way, I wonder where and how they got the computers to design their planes?

[Buran-Pilot]

"Just look up all the sizes nasa tried before they came up with the shuttle"
indeed - but those were for other objectives. As the final specifications were given by the US Airforce - there would be only one way to do it - like the shuttle looks like.

The sowjets "needed" to have a system with the same or better capabilities - and there was no other way to achieve it.

some alternatives:
wingless lifting body = can't return payloads. Payloads like spysats.
smaller craft = can't launch huge spysats or starwars guns

So you end up again with the demand for a big huge wing, a big huge payload bay and a stubby nose.

The Shuttle was kind of a "template" for the Buran - but it's not been copied

[Buran-Pilot]

I say;

Aerodynamics and physics are not as strict as you suggest. Ever heard of a little something called "Fly by wire" ?The stealth fighter is unstable in all 3 axis, yet it flys just fine. I guess they had to wait till after the US did it first to "invent" fly by wire.

by the way, sukhoi "invented" - or better say first used fly by wire in the T-4 Prototype

29
30


wait, it looks like the tu-144! omg, sukhoi went forward in time - to get the concorde plans, then again back in time - to sell them to tupolev for a box of beer... or whatever :-D

what i wanted to say: stop the paranoia crap - "the others stolen your technology" momeeeee....

[bf-fly]

Aren't you hedging now? Now it's a template, but not a copy? Why the hell did thay build it to begin with???????? For what reason? Simple, to keep up with the Jones's, 'cept mine is bigger and has jet engines, so there!!!


I never suggested that anyof the Russian designs were direct copies, as in reverse engineering. Your talking samantics now. YES THE B1 WAS THE TEMPLATE FOR THE TU144. THE HARRIER WAS A TEMPLATE FOR THE YAK38


ETC,ETC,ECT,ETC...,

[bf-fly]

Funny, that looks a lot like an XB-70.

[bf-fly]

An F8 Crusader modified with full fly by wire first flew in May 1972. The T-4 first flew in August 1972 (if you wish to split hairs) The T-4 was FBW with a full hydrolic back up system.

[Buran-Pilot]

i think the use of the word template was kind of wrong - the problem is that english isn't my native language - so i don't have a "sensitiveness" feeling for words. Hope you know what i mean.

so, B-70, T-4, concorde and Tu-144 - 4 planes that look similar, what is the conclusion? all stole from eachother?

[MerkavaMK4]

Aerodynamics my ass! The Buran was built for political reasons. There are numerous shapes it could have taken. Just look up all the sizes nasa tried before they came up with the shuttle. Almost any would have worked.

Why did the Soviet designs that I mentioned prior come out 5-15 years later that the US? Sounds to me like they had to go back to the drawing board whenever the US made an advance. Clearly each time they started with the US design as a model, and that's why they ended up with the similarities.

You guys are deluding yourselves. I acknowledge the Soviet system produced great engineers for military purposes, and sometimes for pure science (if it served the state). They often created ingenious designs with minimal material support. But consider for a moment the vibrancy of the economies that it faced. Consider how many models and styles of cars western Europe and the US designed over the decades. Hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands. The Soviets? 1? 2? 3???. How many Nato countries built Helocopters and Fighters? Most times, but not always, innovation came from the west.

Mig & Sukoi

McDonald Dougless, Lockheed, General Dynamics,Grumman, Northrop, North American, Vaught, etc

Also Dassualt, BAE/Hawker Sidley, Panavia, Sepcat


you know, I agree with you. IF USA came out with prototype B in say 1954, and then CCCP came out with the same looking plane in 1960 (just an example), it doesn't take a genious to put 2 and 2 together.

Russia had its own share of innovators and engineers, but most of them never got to see the light of post WW-2 days as they were labeled as traitors and shot.

many engineers that came afterwards could not really operate in free-thinking concepts of engineering. CCCP did not encourage deviation from standard policy....and thats about it.

I can give you example: First american space pod was designed with support and suggestions of astros. Yuri Gagarin only got to see his 'ball' 6 months before actual launch, speaks in millions ladies and gent.

[Pavel]

You think it was stolen from the engenieer's table as a blueprints? The difference in couple of months doesn't really matter I think.
The same with first manned space trip - space race was won with win something like a month or two. You think it was stolen too?

Or let's say first jets? They appear in Germany as He-176, He-178. And they appeared in RAF as Meteor. Who stole what? Or in general all the hisotry of military technologies is one big steal? You know a bit here, a bit there, it is enough to build the same thing, but in your own way?

[MerkavaMK4]

i was not saying that space trips were stealing. I merely tried to make the point that CCCP government did not encourage free enterprising and free thinking when it came to aviation and other big industries.

Gagarin only saw his capsule 6 months before flight. Astros were actively involved in their spacecraft's construction.

CCCP put too much secrecy on their projects, problem is, that did not allow for any free branching.

[bf-fly]

You guys are acting as though this arguement applies in all cases. Yes, we all stole from the German designs for jets (and rockets) And all countries steal, or borrow or mimic designs from other countries. Yes, the US stole designs from the Soviets if they had a better idea. That's not a revelation. My point is the Soviets copied numerous US designs to save on devolopment cost and speed the time to enter service, far more that the US did from the Soviets

If you wish to prove me wrong, make the counter arguement. Tell me about an aircraft that the Soviets built first and the Amaricans copied.

Mig 25 and the F-15? Dubious at best, multiple rudders have existed since the beginning of aviation. In fact the US carrier based jet fighter Chance Vought Cutlass had two rudders in the mid fifties. Multiple rudders are not new.

Please give me axamples of the US copying Soviet aircraft. (or the US using the Soviet design as template)

[MerkavaMK4]

well, sabre looks alot like mig 15 ;)

[bf-fly]

That's because we both stole from the Germans. The US was completely suprised by the appearance of the Mig 15

[bf-fly]

The Mig 15 was powered by a British engine design (RR) If I recall the British lent them a few to study, the Soviets kept them and copied them, breaking their agreement

[MerkavaMK4]

The Mig 15 was powered by a British engine design (RR) If I recall the British lent them a few to study, the Soviets kept them and copied them, breaking their agreement


welcome to real world of cold war between super-powers. If i was chrushev at that time i would do exactly the same thing, intellectual property be damned :P

[Pavel]

:D:D:D Merkava, completely agree :)

2fly-bf. Actually, I would tell - who was able to steal more, the one has better recon sevice. No?

[bf-fly]

Pavel,
Not the one with the better recon service, the one that was behind in technology and R&D and needed the most. It was the Soviets who continually were playing catch up.

Example; The Soviet warheads on their ICBM's were many times larger than the one on US ICBM's. Why? Because they were far less accuarate. The soviets could hit within 2+ miles radius of their targets at least up to the 80's, and likely beyond. The Minutemans could hit within 1/3 mile, the Peacekeepers, way better. The Soviets were way behind. Do you think soviet technology would help the US, or vis versa? Who would need to steal from whom?

And yes, in the real world of the superpowers countries steal, of course. The point of this discussion was who stole the most. The example you provided the MIG 15 didn't apply, and ironically had an unlicensed RR Nene engine powering. That, ironically, proved my point yet again.

Give me another one! anybody???

If you can't then my point has been proven over and over again.

Hey Buran, thanks for helping me. At your leasure please post the same set of drawings of the T-4 with similar ones of the XB-70. (the Soviet wings didn't fold down because they didn't know how)

Or I urge any of you to do the same, t-4 next to the XB-70 (8 years junior to the soviet design)

[bf-fly]

By the way Merkava, I believe the theft was years before Kruschev. I have not I lost sight of our topic as you may have. Of couse theft occurred. Isn't that our subject matter? I'm not suggesting that I wouldn't do it if I was in the Soviet's shoes, But I believe the focus of our discussion was "who stole more from whom" I believe the answer is clear. (and not even close)

Who built the first attack helocopter? Bell
That Dual rotor the soviets love was first used by Hiller.
Laser guider bomb?
Who broke the sound barrier first?
Who went to the moon?
Etc, etc,etc

[bf-fly]

Copied (pasted to be exact) from an article on the history of helocopters'

"Some of Hiller’s innovations included the world’s first coaxial helicopter, the Flying Platform, the one-man foldable “Rotorcycle,” the “Hornet” helicopter, and the first high-speed vertical take-off-and-landing tilt-wing troop transport."

Even some designs we associate with Soviet innovation weren't theirs at all.

[Pavel]

the one that was behind in technology and R&D and needed the most

Wrong. Everybody who can do it - do it. Just in case. And I'm not joking.
You can say US had Mig-25 technologies long time before Soviets build it - I don't know it and I will not even argue. I know - had they or not, they still would help Mig-25 to land in China, no matter had they similar technology or not. And the same Soviets did with all US technologies if they could.
And I'm really only up to it. There is Russian proverb - "There is a wolf for the sheperd not to sleep".
There are security agencies - exectly to avoid espionage. And who has stolen the most - exectly the question of national security, not of the technologies. Everybody has something to be stolen.


The point of this discussion was who stole the most.

I'm not so sure. It's interesting to anylize the similar things in different planes, but not to compare whose @# is larger. It's already politics question. For the Soviets Belenko is a trader. For US - the free man who got his freedom from the dictature country. Again, it is a question of politics and it is not interesting.

If you can't then my point has been proven over and over again.

This is what you've came for? Ok, you are right. Enjoy.

You know, guys. You are talking about same ideas, stolen technologies... One small example. Tu-144 on low speeds was terrible in control. BTW, it was one of the reason of disaster in Paris. Concorde has amazing control over the plane on such mode.

Do you really think two planes "comon, they look similar! Looks like someody stoled from the other" from one engenier idea could have SO different implementaion with such different characteristics?
Or maybe canards of Tu-144 - it's small piece for you, that in general doesn't make sense, "the main shape is still stolen" ? Guys... let's be serious. If you will try to prepare tea, and I will - and you will take your tea, I don't know, gathered in Texas, and I will take the Georgian one... I will see what you are doing with your tea - will make the same movements. Do you think result will be the same??

So let's just compare planes. Who has problems with the size... of his technologies - lets leave it to them.

[bf-fly]

Please, I didn't say anything other than twin tails were nothing new in avaition.

Dude, the Soviets copied from the US time and time again, period. I have proven my point over and over again. Your frustration proves the futility of your arguement. Tea is a far cry from the complexities of aircraft design.

Why did the soviets build the mig 25 anyway? To counter a US intercontential bomber capable of Mach 3+ for more than an hour. The best the Soviets could do was build a plane capable of being almost as fast for minutes at a time. Who had the superior technology?

Who was behind far more often than not? Who played catch up the most?
What is easier and more importantly faster, to start from scratch or get moving faster by saving R&D money and time by using a design that your have see by your own two eyes that works??? What would you do as a leader if your nation was trumpted time and time again? Wait 10 years for something from sctatch flew or would you want to save 3-5 years?

Who built the first Nuclear subs?
Who built the first Mach 2 a/c?
Who built the first Mach 3 aircraft?
Mach 4,5, and 6?
Who first built the first atomic bomb?
The first thermonucluar bomb?
Who built the first MRBM and ICBM subs?
Who made the first MIRV?
Infrared homing missile?

Why did the soviets build the Bear Bomber with counter rotating props? It's the only way they could come close to a intercontential bomber like the B-52's since they still couldn't build an efficient enough jet engine.

Don't get annoyed, just consider the strength of my arguement. None of you has effectively countered it.

I've named dozens upon dozens of US systems that appeared first, you've come up with the Mig 25.

Why did the soviet Union colapse? Political reasons of course. What precipitated all of it? Glasnost. Why? Because they believed they had been technologicly trumped

1) An illusion; star wars ICBM shield. If it worked it negated every ICBM the Soviets had

2) a reality) Stealth- negating their billion upon billions of Rubles investment in SAM's

3) They could not afford another arms race

Conclusion; they could not afford to start over again, and they had every reason to believe the US would build both successfully, as they had successfully built radical new designs over and over again for 40 years.

Star wars was a ruse, but stealth was not.

US technology and money to exploit it, forced Glasnos, Glasnos was the beginning of the end for the USSR.

[bf-fly]

Give me something other than the Mig 25..., Sputnik??? FIRST HUMAN IS SPACE????

WHAT ELSE ???????????

[Buran-Pilot]

bf-fly, you get mad slowly :-D

okay, hm... it's late in the night, but okay, try to find some examples from my head.

bmd? a light battle tank which can be dropped with the crew - a original sowjet innovation - or the way you would say it: the US couldn't do it

yak-141? the most effektive and powerfull VTOL engine concept of that time - or to use your expressions: the us copied the engine about 10 years later on the F-35

but posting examples isn't the key to the solution...

Of cource there was huge espionage going on - on both sides. But to say that the US invented the whole (military) technology - and the evil kummunist copied all is just wrong.

by the way: bf-fly, where are you from?

[bf-fly]

I do get mad slowly, infact I'm not mad at all. Mine is simply the easier arguement, you gentleman live in denial.

An air dropable tank is not unique, (US Sheriden) but I'll take your word for it that the Soviets were first and it could be dropped with crew onboard. I sure wouldn't want that ride.

I'll also conceed the IFV, something you missed. (that's 5 at my count)

Yak 141? Please. First off the Harrier, admitidly British, predated the YAK-38 by 8 years I believe. Secondly, The ducted lift fan is nothing new at all. Do some research on the subject. I flew into the Buffalo NY airport for years. For decades and aircraft sat shrinked wrapped in blue plastic sat adjacent to an old research facility (Bell I believe). That aircraft consisted of and relied entirely of 4 large ducted fans for flight (each about 4-5 feet in diameter. I believe it flew in the sixties. I don't know if the US was first with ducted fans, but the YK141 certainly wasn't.

The US and British chose the ducted fan for one considerable reason, heat. The Harrier melts funways, and makes an excellent target for an IR missile.

Yak 141? No way

[bf-fly]

By the way the number of ? marks is not indicitive of anger on my part, but a challange to you.

[bf-fly]

It was called the Bell X-22 and first flew in March 1966.

[bf-fly]

You also might want to look at the GE-Ryan XV-5A Vertiplane. Flew in 1964

[bf-fly]

OK now I am mad, when the hell did I say "But to say that the US invented the whole (military) technology - and the evil kummunist copied all is just wrong."

I never said any such thing. Now the best you can offer is to twist my words?

More often than not, but not always, it was the Soviets who copied from the US rather than the other way around. If you don't know that it was the technology of the west, particulary the US that counter balanced the Soviets numerical superiority, you're lost. In military technology through out the cold war, the US lead, the Soviets follow. If you think otherwise, you have to be biased AND ill informed. The US led, the Soviets followed.

[bf-fly]

Buran, you suggested I said;

"But to say that the US invented the whole (military) technology - and the evil kummunist copied all is just wrong."

This was my post several pages ago;

"You guys are acting as though this arguement applies in all cases. Yes, we all stole from the German designs for jets (and rockets) And all countries steal, or borrow or mimic designs from other countries. Yes, the US stole designs from the Soviets if they had a better idea. That's not a revelation. My point is the Soviets copied numerous US designs to save on devolopment cost and speed the time to enter service, far more that the US did from the Soviets"

[Buran-Pilot]

"the US lead, the Soviets follow"
thats the way the cold war worked - one side invented something, the other had to counter it with something with similar or better capabilities - but is that a direct clue for copies?

[bf-fly]

You're lost. We were talking about aviation in particular, if you don't think it was the US that led, then you are a poor historian likely reading books written by the soviets, or simply living in biased little world you've built for yourself.

I say again (for example) who built the first a/c to break;

Mach 1?
Mach 2?
Mach 3?
Mach 4?
Mach 5?
Mach 6?

Did that occur in a vacuum?

(it's funny that the only ones that share and fight for the Soviet position are named Pavel and Buran)

By the way, I'm a real pilot not a fanciful "Buran-pilot"

Good day, enjoy your little bubble world

[MerkavaMK4]

uhm, bf, i never disputed that russians stole technology from usa, i don't know why the heck are you yelling at me for...?

i mean ....sheesh.

Well, since we are in futility of our argument i'll throw one name: Sikorsky (granted CCCP was not around back then, but he and his crew were still russian ;))

[MerkavaMK4]

You're lost. We were talking about aviation in particular, if you don't think it was the US that led, then you are a poor historian likely reading books written by the soviets, or simply living in biased little world you've built for yourself.

(it's funny that the only ones that share and fight for the Soviet position are named Pavel and Buran)

By the way, I'm a real pilot not a fanciful "Buran-pilot"

Good day, enjoy your little bubble world


I still don't understand what with the high emotions that are thrown around here are all about?

[Buran-Pilot]

ot
wow, what's with the personal stuff about my nickname?
/ot

i think the topic was about stealing - not about which country was "the leader of the world"

[bf-fly]

I mistakenly did not seperate you from them in a previous post, I apologize. I know you agree with me.

When you are communicating with individuals that twist my words (as I showed, and Buran ignored) and burry their heads so deep in the sand that they believe that the reason the Soviet shuttle looked almost exactly like the US shuttle is pure coincidence, it's hard to not to get frustrated. My last post was referring to Buran, who is so well informed about aviation history he thinks the YAK141 was the first ducted fan Vstol a/c in history when they flew in the mid sixties(the Goodyear blimp has ducted fans). Brilliant. How an adult (perhaps) could think that Soviet technology matched the US in the cold war can only be explained by a lack of knowledge and Bias. Next he will tell us that the Soviets beat the US to the moon. Of perhaps the US got there first because the soviets didn't try, which we all know they did, and had a head start in the space race to boot. They tried, they lost, in fact it wasn't close.

Perhaps Pavel and Buran can regail us of the stories of the Soviet moon buggy.

[bf-fly]

Somehow I really don't think you are a Buran pilot. I'm curious, what is your backround/profession Buran (I expect you to lie about it by the way).

I am 44 years old. I am a history buff, always have been. I've been studying military equiptment for 25+ years. I am a professional pilot, former US Airways, now a corporate pilot. I know what I'm talking about, do you?

[Buran-Pilot]

i don't like this discussion goes political or even personal.

if you want to go this point by point - here we go:
that buran looks like the shuttle isn't a coincidence. buran had to have the same or better capabilities as the shuttle - and there is simply no radically other way to achieve this.
If they stole the plans of the aerodynamic shape of the shuttle, to save development costs as you said earlier, why the heck did they build an extra aerodynamic test buran? an even far more of 1:8 models for testing?
and what about the aerodynamic differences, the hight lift-drag ratio of Buran is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle?
What about the complete other layout of the heat-shield tiles?
only that they look simimal, doesn't mean it's a copy

aaaaaaah, the moon buggy was great indeed :-D

what about the mach 1-6 thing?
yes - the X-1, X-15, X24 - great programme and great aircrafts. So whats the big deal? it's agaiin the "who has the bigger *****"
- the Antonov-225 would be the bigger :-D

PS: Buran-Pilot is just a nickname - nothing else

[bf-fly]

That's right a nickname, nothing else, as I suspected.

Their was a myriad of shapes the Buran could have taken, as well as anything from 60 ft long to the almost length of the Energia rocket itselfl. It could have been designed completely differently (dispite your unscientifically based protest) only havig the vagest appearance of the US shuttle. That was not the case. I did not say they stole the design directly, once again you quote me incorrectly. The Shuttle was a template (to use your words) for the Buran. Further, the Soviets built it for national pride, to keep up with the US, not for any genuine need. Lets not forget that it flew once, did two orbits, and almost bankrupted the Soviet Union. Yeah, awesome.

Now you've reverted to who's bigger? First I'd have to check the stats of the Airbus A380 (1.3m tons) vs. the AN 224.

If the strenght of your arguement is who was bigger, that's pathetic.

[bf-fly]

From the Energia/Marsnrgia web site (The official site)

"At first glance, it would appear as if the U.S Shuttle and Buran-Energia are quite similar, and in many ways, they are. The Buran was, after all, based on the American space shuttle design. On a purely visual level the two shuttles look almost identical, their sizes are little more than centimetres apart. "

AFTER ALL, IT WAS BASED ON THE AMERICAN SHUTTLE DESIGN.

The main differences were the booster system and the jet engines, allowing a longer payload bay, and a full autopilot. (which the US didn't install, but of course could have)

[bf-fly]

By the way, the YAK 41 doesn't have a lift ducted fan like the F-35, it has the same old configuration as the YAK 38, two lift jet engines like the 38. Two engines which are useless in forward flight, hundreds of pounds of dead weight. (three engines total) Very much an inferior design to the F-35

[Buran-Pilot]

then why lockheed martin requested some help from yakovlev in the development phase of the F-35?

if you think your arguments are right about buran, show me an other design with the same capabilities - same payload size/load and crossrange - then we can talk...

i think this will never end

[HunterFN]

All I can say is Bf, change your attitude. Interesting threads and discussions are always fun but you're like a rabid dog barking at a cat. You say you're 44 years old but by your text you come out as a 13 year old in a frenzy. This is not a personal attack, just asking for you to cool down, you're only hurting yourself by getting agitated.

[bf-fly]

Hunter, you try to carry on a conversation with someone who refuses to accept reality and see if you don't get a little frustrated. I urge you to go back 45 posts.

Buran; "if you think your arguments are right about buran, show me an other design with the same capabilities - same payload size/load and crossrange - then we can talk..."

I quote the Energia website that plainly says the Buran was based on the US shuttle, Mr. Buran has no come back to that, and continues to dig in his heels. Energia is the booster that carried Buran, THEY say it was based on the Shuttle, yet Buran dodges and ducks and says nothing about that. Further I prove and show directly how he twisted my words, yet he ignores that. No return arguement, no "I misunderstood" Just more of the same, it wasn't a copy, it wasn't a copy, show me how they could do it different. (Try X24B small scale prototype for one possibility, nothing like the shuttle design)

Lockheed sought out Yak for the Nozzle design, nothing more. There is nothing sophisticated about the YAK 41, only that it was supersonic. Those two lift engines are 9300lbs of thrust, enough to power a 50 seat jet, or and F5.

I got another one for you, a TU 180. Remind you of anything? The last two soviet bombers look like the B1 and the B2. Your right, that's pure coincidence.

[bf-fly]

You guys are acting as though this arguement applies in all cases. Yes, we all stole from the German designs for jets (and rockets) And all countries steal, or borrow or mimic designs from other countries. Yes, the US stole designs from the Soviets if they had a better idea. That's not a revelation. My point is the Soviets copied numerous US designs to save on devolopment cost and speed the time to enter service, far more that the US did from the Soviets

[bf-fly]

Sorry for the duplicate post.

Hunter, My response to Buran's recent post. I wrote that bottom section 60posts ago, Buran's was about 10 ago.

Buran a few posts ago "But to say that the US invented the whole (military) technology - and the evil kummunist copied all is just wrong."

This was my post many pages ago, well before his comment;

"You guys are acting as though this arguement applies in all cases. Yes, we all stole from the German designs for jets (and rockets) And all countries steal, or borrow or mimic designs from other countries. Yes, the US stole designs from the Soviets if they had a better idea. That's not a revelation. My point is the Soviets copied numerous US designs to save on devolopment cost and speed the time to enter service, far more that the US did from the Soviets"

Energia says Buran was based on the Shuttle. Is it just possible that someone who calls himself s Buran pilot is so biased he can't see the truth when it stares at him?

ENERGIA SAYS IT WAS BASED ON THE SHUTTLE!!! How much more authoritative can you get?

[bf-fly]

Google the X24B and tell me the Buran couldn't have taken a myriad of shapes

[Pavel]

First of all, bf-fly, I wanted to thank you for the good questions.

They forced me to spend some time on the investigation and I've found out tons of really exciting things, so I really appreciate you've pushed this issue to such a level. Still, unfortunatelly it was very fast look, maybe with time new things will appear.

But ok, back to the topic. I will start from the facts and my thoughts will be later.

Preamble. By the 1941 Soviet Union had 62 international records from the total of 168 records by the range, altitude and speed of the flight.
I think most of the others belonged to the Germans.

Now by the topics.

1. Space technologies.
- First satellite
- First man in space
- First man in open space

2. Helicopters
- Sikorsky in Kiev in 1909 (first usage of dual coaxial-rotors schema), though he was not the first in general and not the first in fully controlled heli flight. But he was first lately, already in US to launch serial production.
- 1931 - 1-EA heli from TsAGI institute has reached 605 meters altitutde.
- Kamov - the only (AFAIK) serial production heli with twin coaxial rotors.
- Mi-12, Mi-26 - the largest helis in the world, one in absolute, another in operatinal use (unbeaten)

3. Civilians
- ANT-25, uniqie Chkalov's long-range flight
- Tu-104 was the third jet airliner to fly and the first to enter regular service
- Tu-114 - the largest airliner of its time (1950), with accommodation for 120 to 220 passengers.
- Tu-144 against Concorde (where is the US in the picture, btw?) Modernized Tu-144 (Tu-144LL) set up 13 world records for the supersonic passenger aircrafts. Not the Concorde.
- M-17/M-55 Geophisika - 25 world records by the ceiling and climb rate (for its class)
- An-225 still the largest - and first flight in 1988, 20 years before A380 (unbeaten)

4. Nuclear bomb
More detailed - thermonuclear bomb was firstly detonated by US on the 1st November 1952 and only in 12 August 1953 in USSR. This is true. BUT. It was construction about 80 tons heavy. So it is really hard to call it "bomb". Real thermonuclear bomb was tested in November 1955 in USSR and in May 1956 in US.

5. Fighters/attack planes/technologies in general
- Il-2 - first succesfull implementation of the heavily armored ground attack aircraft
- First swing-wing prototypes IS-1, IS-2 etc. - 1940, designer Shevchenko
- Mig-25 - the fastest serial fighter on active duty (unbeaten) YES! I will mention it!
- Mig-19 - first serial aircraft with ability to be launched from the wheeled launchpad
- K-36DM - the most safe eject seat in the world (unbeaten)

6. VTOL aircrafts
- Yak-38 against Harrier - first serial VTOL aricrafts (where is US in the picture?)
- Yak-141 against Dassault Mirage Balzac - first supersonic VTOLs (where is US in the picture?)

7. Bombers
- Ilya Murometz of Sikorsky - ouh, yes! First in the world serial 4 engines heavy bomber, heaviest for its time (1913)
- ANT-20 Maxim Gorky largest aircraft in the world, (1930), 8 engines
- TB-3 serial heavy bomber, 4 engines
- Tu-16 - first serial jet-bomber
- Tu-22 - first serial supersonic jet bomber
- Tu-22M - first serial long-range swing-wing supersonic bomber
- Tu-160 - heaviest serial combat aircraft (unbeaten)



This is pure facts. Now my thoughts. During my investigation I've found out, that really, US technology in many things were the first one. Unique, really exciting prototypes, like XB-70, X-29 and others. (BTW, here is nice list of VSTOL aircrafts (http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/table.html)). No need to tell about SR-71, U-2 amazing planes.

But, in general there is a tendency. Most of these "first to" never entered serial production. That is why most of the records in my list are "serial". And this is very important. You can steal the idea. You can steal the good idea or dead-end idea. But to make from it final usefull product - I think what is really important, what shows the technology level. If you have idea, but you can't implement it - so what's the point? Who will prove it was good idea? Only result.

Again, Mig-23 is EXTREMELY looks like F-111. And nobody is arguing about it. But that Mig-23 is much less heavier is a meaningless small thing? About canards and set up records of Tu-144 I already told. The same "small things". Again, that B-1A and B-1B are two COMPLETELY different planes in fact, because one is subsonic, another is supersonic - again, is small thing? And again, that Tu-160 is 30% heavier then B-1B and took off
about 2 years earlier (comparing with B-1B supersonic) is a small thing.

Such small things very often define, will project be successful or not. The rule 80/20 works, as always. And only result, only real usage of the product shows how good the "first to" idea was.

Even with first man on the moon.... what's point? Where is the second, third? But we have today thousands of satellites and regular spacemen on the Earth orbit.

[bf-fly]

Thank you Pavel for the information and research.

Now my comments. I'm not being mean, just scientific

1) You have chosen the information to provide, there by automatically squewing the results to your pre-determined conclusion. You did not for example include US firsts and records(I understand the space and typing limits)

2) You did not document your sources

3) Your reliance on "serial production firsts", rather that firsts overall. Example the B-47 predated the TU 16. It first flew in 1947. (about the time the Soviets were reverse engineering the B29) If you choose serial production as your criteria, then you have not follow your own rules consistantly.

4) By changing your criterium, you can pick and choose to suit your point. we have discussed prototypes for example , XB-70, and TU-4. In fact the Buran could even possibly be considered a prototype by some standards.

Again, not trying to be mean, but to give a precise response to your post.

Your quote: "This is pure facts. Now my thoughts. During my investigation I've found out, that really, US technology in many things were the first one. Unique, really exciting prototypes, like XB-70, X-29 and others. (BTW, here is nice list of VSTOL aircrafts). No need to tell about SR-71, U-2 amazing planes."

We did not seperate out prototypes in our discussion, therefore this statement supports my contention.

The US chose not to build certain aircraft often for cost, not feasibility. Example, Bomber and Interceptor models of the SR71 were actually built on the orders of the US airforce, but later cancelled for cost reason (Vietnam war for one). We all know about the XB70. The US chose not to build the SST, thinking it wasn't cost effective (the were right of course) If they could fly the xb70 in 64 then they could built an SST if they chose to

I'm not inclined to go point for point on your post, just remember, you chose the criteria for each catagory. After the Space firsts, other than duration of course, I don't see you listing other firsts. I'd have to research helocopters, Hiller was off the top of my head (you should google Hiller). What was the safety record of all those Soviet airline firsts? And the SU-24 is far more similar to the FB111 than the MIG

I've never for a moment taken away the capabilities of the Russian people (and soviets for that matter) Brilliant engineers, beautiful aircraft, accomplishing much with a flawed system. I have said essentially, they (the Soviets) lacked imagination to create something new (Soviet era). It was the US that had the inginuity. I believe your statement I quoted confirms what I have said all along, the US led, the Soviets followed (of course always bigger).

There is too much commonality to be a coincidence. Consider the last three US bombers and Soviet Bombers, the XB70 and the TU-4, the B1A and the TU160, the B2 and the TU180. Why didn't the Soviets strike out in a completely different fashion?

I appreciate your reasoned approach and you research. By the way, did you look up the US firsts and records?

(one correction of myself, the Canadian Avro Arrow was the first FBW a/c)

"I've found out, that really, US technology in many things were the first one"

[bf-fly]

Some interesting Firsts, not a lot of Soviets designs here (Tu144)

1947
First piloted supersonic flight in an airplane. Capt. Charles E. Yeager, U.S. Air Force, flew the X-1 rocket-powered research plane built by Bell Aircraft Corp., faster than the speed of sound at Muroc Air Force Base, Calif. (Oct. 14).
1949
First round-the-world nonstop flight. Capt. James Gallagher and USAF crew of 13 flew a Boeing B-50A Superfortress around the world nonstop from Ft. Worth, returning to same point: 23,452 mi in 94 hr., 1 min., with four aerial refuelings en route (Feb. 27–March 2).
1950
First nonstop transatlantic jet flight. Col. David C. Schilling (USAF) flew 3,300 mi from England to Limestone, Maine, in 10 hr., 1 min. (Sept. 22).
1951
First solo across North Pole. Charles F. Blair, Jr., flew a converted P-51 (May 29).
1952
First jetliner service. The De Havilland Comet flight was inaugurated by BOAC between London and Johannesburg, South Africa. Flight, including stops, took 23 hr., 38 min. (May 2).

First transatlantic helicopter flight. Capt. Vincent H. McGovern and 1st Lt. Harold W. Moore piloted two Sikorsky H-19s from Westover, Mass., to Prestwick, Scotland (3,410 mi). Trip was made in five stops, with a flying time of 42 hr., 25 min. (July 15–31).

First transatlantic round trip in same day. A British Canberra twin-jet bomber flew from Aldergrove, Northern Ireland, to Gander, Newfoundland, and back in 7 hr., 59 min. flying time (Aug. 26).
1955
First transcontinental round trip in same day. Lt. John M. Conroy piloted an F-86 Sabrejet across U.S. (Los Angeles–New York) and back—5,085 mi—in 11 hr., 33 min., 27 sec. (May 21).
1957
First round-the-world nonstop jet plane flight. Maj. Gen. Archie J. Old, Jr., USAF, led a flight of three Boeing B-52 bombers, powered with eight 10,000-pound-thrust Pratt & Whitney Aircraft J57 engines around the world in 45 hr., 19 min; distance 24,325 mi; average speed 525 mph (completed Jan. 18).
1958
First transatlantic jet passenger service. BOAC, New York to London (Oct. 4). Pan American started daily service, New York to Paris (Oct. 26).

First domestic jet passenger service. National Airlines inaugurated service between New York and Miami (Dec. 10).
1968
Prototype of world's first supersonic airliner. The Soviet-designed Tupolev Tu-144 made its first flight, Dec. 31. It first achieved supersonic speed on June 5, 1969.
1973
First female pilot of a major U.S. scheduled airline. Emily H. Warner became employed by Frontier Airlines on Jan. 29 as second officer on a Boeing 737.
1976
First regularly scheduled commercial supersonic transport (SST) flights begin. Air France and British Airways inaugurated service (Jan. 21). Air France flew the Paris–Rio de Janeiro route; B.A., the London–Bahrain. Both airlines began SST service to Washington, D.C. (May 24).
1977
First successful human-powered aircraft. Paul MacCready, an aeronautical engineer from Pasadena, Calif., was awarded the Kremer Prize for creating the world's first successful human-powered aircraft. The Gossamer Condor was flown by Bryan Allen over the required 3-mile course on Aug. 23.
1978
First successful transatlantic balloon flight. Three Albuquerque, N.M., men, Ben Abruzzo, Larry Newman, and Maxie Anderson, completed the crossing (Aug. 16.; landed, Aug. 17) in their helium-filled balloon, Double Eagle II.
1979
First man-powered aircraft to fly across the English Channel. The Kremer Prize for the Channel crossing was won by Bryan Allen, who flew the Gossamer Albatross from Folkestone, England, to Cap Gris-Nez, France, in 2 hr., 55 min. (June 12).
1980
First successful balloon flight over the North Pole. Sidney Conn and his wife, Eleanor, in hot-air balloon Joy of Sound (April 11).

First nonstop transcontinental balloon flight, and also record for longest overland voyage in a balloon. Maxie Anderson and his son, Kris, completed four-day flight from Fort Baker, Calif., to successful landing outside Matane, Quebec, in their helium-filled balloon, Kitty Hawk (May 12).

First long-distance solar-powered flight. Janice Brown, a 98-pound former teacher, flew a tiny experimental solar-powered aircraft, Solar Challenger, 6 mi in 22 min. near Marana, Ariz. (Dec. 3). The craft was powered by a 2.75-horsepower engine.
1981
First solar-powered aircraft to fly across the English Channel. Stephen R. Ptacek flew the 210-pound Solar Challenger at an average speed of 30 mph from Cormeilles-en-Vexin near Paris to the Royal Manston Air Force Base in southeast England in 5 hr., 30 min. (July 7).
1984
First solo transatlantic balloon flight. Joe W. Kittinger landed Sept. 18 near Savona, Italy, in his helium-filled balloon, Rosie O'Grady's Balloon of Peace, after a flight of 3,535 mi from Caribou, Maine.
1986
First nonstop flight around the world without refueling. From Edwards AFB, Calif., Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager flew in Voyager around the world (24,986.727 mi), returning to Edwards in 216 hr., 3 min., 44 sec. (Dec. 14–23).
1987
First transatlantic hot-air balloon flight. Richard Branson and Per Lindstrand flew 2,789.6 mi from Sugarloaf Mt., Maine, to Ireland in the hot-air balloon Virgin Atlantic Flyer (July 2–4).
1991
First transpacific hot-air balloon flight. Richard Branson and Per Lindstrand flew about 6,700 mi from Miyakonyo, Japan, to 150 mi west of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada (Jan. 15–17).
1993
First woman to copilot a commercial supersonic plane. Barbara Harmer, British Airways, flew as first officer on the Concorde from London to New York City (March 25).
1995
First solo transpacific balloon flight. Steve Fossett made a flight of more than 5,430 mi from Seoul, South Korea, to Leader, Saskatchewan, Canada, in a helium-filled balloon. Also set record for distance (Feb. 18–21, 1995).
1998
First U.S. female combat pilot to bomb an enemy target. On Dec. 16, Lt. Kendra Williams, USN, bombed enemy targets over Iraq during Operation Desert Fox.
1999
First nonstop round-the-world balloon flight. Bertrand Piccard (Switzerland) and Brian Jones (UK) flew 28,431 mi (45,755 km) from Chateaux d'Oex, Switzerland, to Dakhla, Egypt, in 19 days, 21 hr., and 55 min. (March 1–21).
2001
First solar-powered flight to shatter altitude records. NASA's solar-powered propeller-driven plane Helios reached an altitude of 96,500 ft during a flight over Hawaii, breaking not only the 80,200-foot record for propeller-driven aircraft, but the 85,068-foot mark for all nonrocket aircraft as well (Aug. 13–14).
2002
First solo nonstop round-the-world balloon flight. Steve Fossett (U.S.) flew from Northam, West Australia, to Lake Yamma Yamma, Queensland, Australia, landing after 14 days, 19 hrs. He broke three balloon records along the way: fastest time around the world, measured by crossing 117° East longitude (13 days, 3 min.), longest distance flown solo (20,483.25 mi; 32,963.35 km), and longest time flown solo (355 hrs, 50 min.) (June 19–July 3).
2004
First non-stop 10,000-mile-plus passenger airline flight. Singapore Airlines launched a non-stop 18 1/2 hour, 10,335-mile flight on the long-range Airbus 340-500 between Singapore to Newark, New Jersey (June 28–29). (To date, the world's longest nonstop commercial flight took place on Nov. 10, 2005. A Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner flew from London to Hong Kong [13,422 miles] in 22 hrs, 43 min.)
2005
First nonstop solo flight around the world without refueling. From Salina, Kansas, Steve Fossett flew the Virgin Atlantic Globalflyer 22,878 mi around the world, arriving back in Kansas 67 hrs

[bf-fly]

Sorry for the prior big post

Pavel, you might want to double check some of you research, from what I see, an I've only checked one, the TU16 was predated by both the B47 and the British Canberra.

[Pavel]

With B-47 complete true, my mistake, I'm sorry. And still serial production for me is final cryteria of the technological level, I will not change it.

But that Soviets implemented things to the final product first - for sure it means US has to follow at the end of the day - Soviets has something on duty, and US has the same or better, but in prototype. In general it means US have nothing, only tons of development ahead.

I understand your point of view. All the shapes, of Buran and Tu-160 etc looks to be stolen.

There is an opinion that different engineers solving the same task will come to same solution. I'm willing to thing it was waves of some popular decision at certain period of time (like for example it was swing-wing period. It was usefull decision of some technical problem at some stage. Now it is not so popular).

Nevermind. Again. To make something work and work good - tough task. And to have general "similar looking" shape is far not enough, most of the ideas are inside the plane, not something we can see. Couple of cm shift in Tu-144's or Tu-160 shape, overall view, that we can't see by our eyes and on the photos are often the difference between "will work" and "will not work". And B-1A and B-1B is good example for my words. The look very similar. But they work very differently.

So I can't accept your point of view "Soviets were following US in technology and were stealing the ideas". For me the main thing that shows technology is a result.

[Buran-Pilot]

the X-24 is a lifting body design - you can't return 20 ton of payload with it - well or it has to be very big (HUGE!) , so not really convenient

[Pavel]

What is Tu-180, I'm sorry, btw?

[bf-fly]

Ok, my example, The C5A. There were 100+ built, almost all still fly. Yes the an-124 is bigger, the 225 even still. How many of each still fly? about 8 124's and 0 225. The price to exceed?

The Shuttle and Buran? The #'s of B1's and TU 160's? about 100 to 16 at my count.

I looked up the Mistic? (M-17/55) I don't know about the records it has but consider it's history VS. to the U2/TR1, it just doesn't hold up. It's not very impressive to be honest. I think about 70 U2's have been built since '56, one is flying right now no doubt. (I wonder if the US ever released the U2 time to climb records?)

The TU114 was indeed a very cool and impressive plane. But Consider this, the west had already moved to jets, and had no reason to build bigger turboprops. The reason for the 114 and it's cousin the TU-95 were designed that way was quite simple, the Soviet Union lacked the technological know how and metalergy to build efficient jet engines like the west. That is an undisputed fact. (consider the KC135/707/B-52)

You said "Even with first man on the moon.... what's point? Where is the second, third?"

I think they're playing golf..., or maybe fishing, or public speaking perhaps. There was a lot of them, some even golfed on the moon. The point? What is the point of all exporation, (or records for that matter). There is nothing more indictive of the relative technological prowess of each nation during the cold war than the race to the moon, and the US won, period. And don't tell me the Soviets didn't try. The respective space programs are like the tortois and the Hare (if you're familiar). I've never liked the fits and starts of the US program.

"But that Soviets implemented things to the final product first - for sure it means US has to follow at the end of the day - Soviets has something on duty, and US has the same or better, but in prototype. In general it means US have nothing, only tons of development ahead"

First, you fail to mention your hypothetical US prototype existed 8 years prior. Secondly, the US doesn't automatically have to follow. It may have rejected a design for reasons unknown to the Soviets, or unique to the US. We built the X-29 20 years ago, yet we didn't follow it up with another design. Why? The Russians did. Perhaps we decided it wasn't worth it, or didn't lend itself to stealth. Just because the SU-37/47 exists, it doesn't mean the US has to counter it with a similar design (back to the bombers again, and their similar designs) The US never directly countered the design of the TU22m (backfire) for example. (the FB111 was first)

It doesn't mean "for sure it means US has to follow at the end of the day"
I just don't see it. Why would we have to follow the TU22 (blinder I believe)?We have nothing similar, nor to the TU22M, nor the TU16. But why do the 3 other Soviet bomber look similar to last 3 US designs (T-4, Tu160/180) It is not coincidence as you suggest. How can you not see that it's the Soviets that followed even if you believe they aren't copes? ( I never suggested direct copies by the way).

By the way, thanks for your well thought out replies

[bf-fly]

I've seen one picture of it, it's a flying wing. Not 100% sure, but I think 1 was built using some TU160 components. I haven't seen a good picture, but it was suposed to exist.

[bf-fly]

Buran, my point was couldn't the Buran have a pointy nose at least? Twin tails maybe ???

[bf-fly]

try this Pavel;
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/Tu-180.html

[bf-fly]

Take it for what it's worth, some say it doesn't exist, some are sure it does. If it does, it proves my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[HunterFN]

Uhh, you do see that it was an april fools joke, didn' you? :)

As for getting heated up because someone has a different point of view (no matter how stubborn) it's just not worth it, the only one with a raising blood pressure is you, proving yourself absolutely right by shouting will not make the world a better place :)

As for the records you posted, please consider most were during the cold war era. USA is in a very good spot geographically for such events like atlantic crossings and round the world trips. How about Soviet Union? No infrastructure or allies to support such efforts easily. For the americans atlantic crossings and such had direct economic influece in air travel, but how is an atlantic crossing of any meaning for the Soviets? It does not make them any less important, but shifts the emphasis.

As for you vaguely saying SSSR had no innovation, look at MiG-29 and Su-27 as perfect examples. The concept was not far from those of the F-16 or F-15, but aerodynamically they were (and are) lightyears ahead. US systems compete only in avionics and more or less in engines (avionics much superior, engines less so). If the US came up with a new concept and found it good, the SSSR had no choice but to follow with their own answer to such a threat. If the enemy designs a new weapon you cannot just sit and wait for him to finish you off, you need to counter the threat. That was what the arms race was all about.

The only plane that the Soviets truly stole was the Tu-4 which was a 100% copy of the B-29, apart from that, they were more or less just mimicing. Call it stealing if you want, but it isn't. In every case they went through a great deal of engineering themselves to get the "copies" working. Only the Buran and Tu-160 bore a striking resemblance to their American counterparts.

:)

[Buran-Pilot]

well, actually about 50 AN-124 still fly (some civillian, others military), and the only one ever build 225 is in service for antonov airlines - they even consider to finish the second one (which was halfway done when the buran/maks programme was cancelled)

speaking of maks - this is a alternative design for a smaller "buran"
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3251/maks02kh3.gif
source: Molniya - Research & Industrial Corporation

which shows some differences to STS - not only in size

[Buran-Pilot]

so while the C5A transports ammuniton and tanks - the an-225 delivers gifts to children
http://www.antonovairlines.co.uk/admin/upload/files/newsupload1/75241_xmasflight2_nema_2.jpg
source: antonov airlines

i like this picture

[bf-fly]

Hunter, I said some say it exists, and some say it doesn't.

In never said they had no innovations, once again you and others have to take what I say and stretch it to the extreme just to make a point. I said no such thing.

The F-16 (75)and F-15 (72) flew many years before the soviet designs. I would hope they could be inproved upon a decade later. The first new US design in 30 years is the F22. They could have easily made more advanced upgrades to the F15/16, but had no need, (they've never bought the Block 50 and 60 F16's) the cold war was over. Also the F22 could have been fielded years ago.

(the F18 was derived from the YF17 which lost out to the F16. The F18E is a follow on design to the origional)(to say "light years is meaningless, newer, better design,yes)

"apart from that, they were more or less just mimicing" Oh, you mean following?

So your saying the US lead, but the Soviets "mimiced" I'll add that to the "template" I got earlier from Buran.

OK, sound reasonable to methe Buran and Tu-160 bore a striking resemblance to their American counterparts. Ever take a look at the Jet airliners?

Thanks for the fatherly advice, and by the way, you confuse punctuation for anger. But i was sick of being misquoted, that is true

[bf-fly]

"the lone operational An-225 was placed in storage, its engines removed for use on An-124s. The second An-225 airframe, nearing completion and awaiting engines, was also mothballed."

I stand corrected on the an124, 55 were built, about 48 still fly.

Why didn't the Buran have that nose?

[bf-fly]

Gifts to children, isn't that touching.

[HunterFN]

Hunter, I said some say it exists, and some say it doesn't.

In never said they had no innovations, once again you and others have to take what I say and stretch it to the extreme just to make a point. I said no such thing.

The F-16 (75)and F-15 (72) flew many years before the soviet designs. I would hope they could be inproved upon a decade later. The first new US design in 30 years is the F22. They could have easily made more advanced upgrades to the F15/16, but had no need, (they've never bought the Block 50 and 60 F16's) the cold war was over. Also the F22 could have been fielded years ago.

(the F18 was derived from the YF17 which lost out to the F16. The F18E is a follow on design to the origional)(to say "light years is meaningless, newer, better design,yes)

"apart from that, they were more or less just mimicing" Oh, you mean following?

So your saying the US lead, but the Soviets "mimiced" I'll add that to the "template" I got earlier from Buran.

OK, sound reasonable to methe Buran and Tu-160 bore a striking resemblance to their American counterparts. Ever take a look at the Jet airliners?

Yep, you said some say it exist and some say it doesn't. The link you gave presents it as an april fools joke. No other info about it. Anywhere. Why bring it up?

Quote from you, on page 7:
"I have said essentially, they (the Soviets) lacked imagination to create something new (Soviet era). It was the US that had the inginuity."

There, essentially, you said the Soviets had no innovations.

MiG-29 and Su-27 were built to counter the new generation American fighters (F15/16/18). Are they copies? This is a trend the Soviets had, the Americans came up with something, and they countered it, how is this stealing? Some designs were largely followed but that does not equal the Soviets not having imagination! Soviets countering or "following" the US is a fact I never disputed.

Yes, and the modern ones look very much like Boeings or Airbuses. Guess what. Airbuses and Boeings look alike too. As a pilot you should know that sometimes for a given task a given shape is the best. Nowadays Russians don't really have a good piece of the civilian aviation industry outside Russia due to the overwhelming superiority of the European and American aviation giants. It's quite understandable they come up with simple solutions instead of researching a totally new approach (extremely expensive).

Oh and about the An-225, you have old info:

"Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and the cancellation of the Buran space program, the lone operational An-225 was placed in storage, its engines removed for use on An-124s. The second An-225 airframe, nearing completion and awaiting engines, was also mothballed.

...

Stansted Airport in partnership with Air Foyle HeavyLift. The company initiated operations with a fleet of four An-124-100s and three Antonov An-12s, but by the late 1990s it was apparent that there was a need for aircraft larger than the An-124. In response to this need, the original An-225 was re-engined, modified for heavy cargo transportation, and placed back in service under the management of Antonov Airlines.

...

The An-225 has also been contracted by the U.S. government to transport military supplies to the Middle East in support of Coalition forces. American use of a Soviet-designed aircraft can be seen as a testament to the success of Soviet heavy lift design, as no comparable U.S. aircraft has ever been developed. The U.S. government is currently considering a long term contract with Antonov Airlines for the additional production and use of ten An-124s and one An-225, which could be operated considerably cheaper than the six smaller C-17s originally proposed for the same duties.

Design work is currently under way to use the aircraft as a flying launch system for future aerospace systems. One of the most interesting and promising projects is the MAKS joint Russian/Ukrainian multipurpose aerospace system. When used as a space vehicle air launcher, the aircraft will be fitted with the equipment required for prelaunch preparation of aerospace systems. Implementation of these projects will considerably reduce the cost of transporting payloads into space."

[Pavel]

Jesus... I like this discussion! Look what I've found!

From the history of F-15:
The main influence for the US 4th generation fighter concept had aviation parade in Domodedovo, Moscow in 1967. [skipped] Demonstration of the last Soviet aviation products (which if were known by the Pentagon, but weren't taken too serious, because it was thought they were disinformation or at least the very far future prototypes) in the skies of Moscow has showed West is far not the absolute leader in the field of combat aviation. As a result of this non-pleasant discovery US congress gathered several closed meetings by the hot topic: what USAF can set against air forces of the potential enemy which consists of such planes as: Su-15, Tu-22K, Tu-128, Su-17, Mig-23 and Mig-25. Exactly these planes were choosed by the specialists as the main threat. Summary of that meeting was wery disappointing as well. All these has pushed Pentagon to create new generation fighter able to effectively stand against growing "soviet threat"Source: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f15.html

BTW, why you call F-22 "The first new US design in 30 years" ? For me in terms of design F-22 is nothing new - if I'm not mistaken, it's good old high-wing twin-tail monoplan, absolutely the same like classic F-15. Just painted black.

From the history of Tu-160 (btw, bf-fly, why you mix all the time T-4 prototype with Tu-144 and Tu-160? Again, the same shape? T-4 was Sukhoi's project, not the Tupolev's one. And it had fixed wing, not the swing-wing. Small thing....)
It's remarkable that final disign of M-20 bomber with swing-wing (that will be used for the M-18 and Tu-160 in the future) was signed by the Myasishchev in 1969 half year before similar scheme was assigned for the B-1ASource: http://www.ldomino.ru/russia/myasishchev/m/20/m20.htm

Some pictures of the Soviet designers imagination, from the same page:

3233343536

Now I know for sure - shapes of Tu-144 and Tu-160 were choosen only because it was aerodynamically the best solution among all the others. If they look "similar" to the XB-70 and B-1 it means only that similar engineer task has similar solutions, nothing more.
BTW, again, we mention B-1 so often. But B-1A project was closed in 1977 on the prototype stage (again). And was re-launched in 1981 by Raegan. With new requirements. I wonder why...

You know, only today morning I was willing to agree that soviet shapes are very looks like US and US used them first.

Now I'm absolutely convinced - Soviets has neither problems with imagination, no with technological implementation.

[bf-fly]

They are nothing more than drawings (coming from Soviet sources I can't read.) What year? I'll bet anything they're after the XB70.

I've read from english reprints of Soviets documents that the T160 was re designed after learning of the B1

[Pavel]

Well, ok. For me situation is clear. Summarizing.

1. US has great ideas and great prototypes. No doubts and big plus to the blue corner. Very often great ideas stayed on the prototype stage (XB-70, B1-A) or were too expensive to support and continue development (SR-71, XB-70 again) - which means "were useless" in normal language.
In other words, from tons of ideas was very hard to understand, what will grow to something good. HUGE minus to the managment and planning department. They put into mass production only ideas, checked and proved by others (heavy bombers, supersonic bombers, post-WWi period fighters, VTOLs etc). Very wise. But not enough to have position that everybody has to follow. As I told, by the certain moment somebody has something already in real usage, US has prototypes only and has to force development. Or to buy it from the one who has it. I think it means "to follow".
To know the way is not the same to pass it.
US has braken Mach 1-6. SU had Mig-25 on regular service.
US built XB-70. SU had Tu-144 and Tu-160 on regular service.
US built tons of VTOL prototypes. SU had Yak-38 on regular service.
For me it really matters.

2. Shape question. It was great influence of US prototypes, this is again no doubts. But idea "Soviets always had to follow US" has nothing behind. It was tons of models in aerodynamic tubes to test, as I showed. And as I told before, to have only "general similar looking shape" is far not enough.
Mig-29 and Mig-29OVT has one shape. Not even similar, just the same. But two completely different planes by the flight characteristics.

3. World records. Will repeat - "By the 1941 Soviet Union had 62 international records from the total of 168 records by the range, altitude and speed of the flight. I think most of the others belonged to the Germans."
I didn't see it helped too much in 1941 to the Red Air Forces....
Mig-29OVT is getting first places on all single aerobatic contests. Exciting plane, nothing to argue. BUT. I have BBIIIIIGG doubts it will help AirForces somehow, only like big propaganda. I don't think OVT will have some combat implementation.
I'm not telling setting up world records is bad! No way!! Records shows the level of ideas, inventions.
But records are sport. I'm more up to real life. I hope my idea is clear.
Need to keep in mind, btw, that US is different from the SU. About Gagarin Soviet people knew after he landed. US rockets were launched with TV live translation all over the country.
SU was quite closed country, so hard to say what records were there.

Summarizing. US is great country. With tons of excellent ideas. As well as SU.
I don't have task to show that "US had to follow Soviets", that is why most of my point were not the "No, Soviets were the first!" as you expected, but "Yes, it is true, and Soviets were the first in this one". I really don't need Soviets to be the center of the universe. We already have the country for that role :)

But I will not accept the point "Soviets had to follow US".
Everybody has some advantage. And it is often not so obvious and straight, like "B-1 forced Soviets to copy it and create Tu-160" or "everything went out of XB-70". Everything went out of Ilya Murometz :)
We leave in very harmonic and balanced world.

So everybody has something to steal and something to be stolen. And everybody has some influence on the others and everybody in some moments leads and in some - follows.

For me this is the way to look at things.
I'm really gratefull for the good topic and good questions, it has brought to me more respect to the US technology and knowledge about aviation in general.

I finished here.

[sicsok]

Most winners and superpowers do not steal ideas (as a matter of fact, that defines them: "thoughts are just too lowly"). They steal professionals, specialists and hardware...and they put these all together under their own flag.

[JCSVT]

1. US has great ideas and great prototypes. No doubts and big plus to the blue corner. Very often great ideas stayed on the prototype stage (XB-70, B1-A) or were too expensive to support and continue development (SR-71, XB-70 again) -
The SR-71 was flown for almost 30 years (including the A-12). They retired it because they had no more use for it. Not a failure by any means. The XB-70 is a different story. The B-1 changed little from prototype to production. They added small canards up front and some radar-blocking engine screens and that's it. No major changes.


US has braken Mach 1-6. SU had Mig-25 on regular service. The SR-71 also was in regular service cruising at Mach 3.2.

US built XB-70. SU had Tu-144 and Tu-160 on regular service. High speed bombing went on the backburner for the US after the B-1A which could routinely hit Mach 2+. Military planners thought Mach 1 low-level missions were more important.

Everything else I agree with.

[bf-fly]

Pavel,

The first competition for a supersonic strategic heavy bomber was launched in the Soviet Union in 1967. The new plane was to have a cruise speed of over Mach 3, in response to the American XB-70 Valkyrie. It soon became apparent that such an aircraft would be too expensive and difficult to produce, so it was decided to reduce demands (in the U.S., the XB-70 project had already been cancelled).

In 1972 the Soviet Union launched a new multi-mission bomber competition to create a new supersonic, variable-geometry ("swing-wing") heavy bomber with a maximum speed of Mach 2.3, in response to the U.S. Air Force B-1 bomber project. The Tupolev design, dubbed Aircraft 160M, with a lengthened flying wing layout and incorporating some elements of the Tu-144, competed against the Myasishchev M-18 and the Sukhoi T-4 designs. Myasishchev's version, proposing a variable-geometry aircraft, was considered to be the most successful, although the Tupolev organization was regarded as having the greatest potential for completing this complex project. Consequently, Tupolev was assigned in 1973 the development a new aircraft based on the Myasishchev design.From Wikipedia

The XB70 pushed the Soviets to the drawing board, the B1 chose which one.
I've seen this elsewhere numerous times, but I'm tired of this and not inclined to look further for other sources. By the way, the SR71 was operational for 16 years.

Buran pilot; Energia, maker of the booster rocket says it was based on the shuttle design, it came out afterwords, was built to counter the nuclear possibilites of the shuttle, has the same shape (no pointy nose) and measures within centimeters of the shuttle.

[bf-fly]

SR71 28 years, sorry.

Just a few notes on the Mig25. It was steel and vacuum tubes. With two missiles on board it was limited to 4 g's, with 4 missiles on it was limited to
2 g's. The pilots were forbidden to fly over 2.5m. If it flew one time over Mach 3, the engines had to be replaced (1 use) It is commonly believed that the 25 was in response to the xb70, but in fact it was because of the SR71. The MIG 25 was built after the SR71. It represented the best the Soviets could do. Is there anybody out there who thinks the Mig 25 is the equal of the SR71? (I hope not) No excuses about crash programs. The SR71 was concieved, built and flew within 18 months. No Mig 25 ever got close to the SR71. The Blackbird would fly over north Korea north to south twice, then east west twice in a single mission. Never a scratch. Never.

I've given Nuclear subs and ICBM sub first in the Fifties, plus the Xplanes
SR71/mig 25 and the space race in the Sixties,
Stealth and the shuttle in the seventies and eighties
the end of the soviet union in the ninties.
Each was an example, but not the whole story. When that MIG 25 defected to Japan in 76, it was the latest model built. The US was shocked to see the electronics were all vacuum tubes. In 1975 the Stealth fighter prototype Have Blue was flying. Stealth vs vacuum tubes? GPS was first launced by the US in the late seventies. The list goes on and on, and so does this battle we have.

Do you know how the origional US cruise missiles navigated? The US had digitized maps of every nook and cranny for the entire world, in 1974! US ICBM's in the mid sixties could their target within 1/4 mile. The soviets were lucky to hit a city. Those are facts, not conjecture.

The US was always technologically superior to the Soviet union. That's what made the difference over the Soviet numerical superiority. It's just that simple. Don't forget about NATO countries. The US never pursued Vstol after early expermintation because the British did (no need)

For those of you Russian types, I suggest you do more research on US programs, and less on Soviet. Get a copy of "skunk works" written by Ben Rich for starters.

I'm tired of this, take care Pavel, thanks

[bf-fly]

I recall an earlier post about the Soviet Thermonuclear bomb being smaller and more practical than the US (900lbs). The Soviets exploded a year later, and therefore was better. Well I remembered something a minute or so ago so I looked it up to check my memory:

The first Soviet test of a hydrogen bomb was on August 12, 1953 and was nicknamed Joe 4 by the Americans; it was not a "true" fusion bomb (it was more like a "boosted" fission bomb than a staged thermonuclear device, and had a yield comparable to large fission weapons; around 90% of its yield was directly or indirectly from fission).

The mushroom cloud from the first "true" Soviet hydrogen bomb test in 1955.The first Soviet test of a "true" hydrogen bomb in the megaton range was on November 22, 1955. It was dubbed RDS-37 by the Soviets. It was of the multi-staged, radiation implosion thermonuclear design called Sakharov's "Third Idea" in the USSR and the Teller-Ulam design in the USA.

Look it up

[gabi765]

I've been watching through all this topic and never had a chance to reply.You all answered so quickly!Anyways bf-fly I truely admire your effort.You r well informed and u draw the logical conclusions that no one wanted to admit.I don't understand why some of you guys are upset on bf because of some exclamations?His language was civilised all the time .And now to bf-fly : keep posting!

[Public enemy]

Nice discussion...

sicsok:
Most winners and superpowers do not steal ideas (as a matter of fact, that defines them: "thoughts are just too lowly"). They steal professionals, specialists and hardware...and they put these all together under their own flag.

I never heard USSR was stealing/inviting project leaders from US or other countries...

bf-fly:
The XB70 pushed the Soviets to the drawing board, the B1 chose which one.

Pavel:
what USAF can set against air forces of the potential enemy which consists of such planes as: Su-15, Tu-22K, Tu-128, Su-17, Mig-23 and Mig-25. Exactly these planes were choosed by the specialists as the main threat. All these has pushed Pentagon to create new generation fighter able to effectively stand against growing "soviet threat"

it looks....

bf-fly:
When that MIG 25 defected to Japan in 76, it was the latest model built. The US was shocked to see the electronics were all vacuum tubes

Why the heck to steal in this case, if the ywere so cool???? To make good face, "just look at them, they still fly vacuum tubes". Schoolboys....

Is there anybody out there who thinks the Mig 25 is the equal of the SR71? (I hope not)

I do not. For sure, SR-71 can't be compared with Mig-25. Even close. If technology so good and usefull, nobody sends it to the trashcan.
SR-71 was prepared for the launch like spaceship. I wonder how it could be launched in Syberia with -30 and snow everywhere and in Egypt with +30 and sand everywhere. By simple technician soldiers.

The pilots were forbidden to fly over 2.5m. If it flew one time over Mach 3, the engines had to be replaced (1 use)

You've read this in newspapers? As well as about Tu-180?
Mig-25 real pilots says completely different things.

The US was always technologically superior to the Soviet union
Technology level can be seen by mass production, by something in real use. Not by the prototypes and ideas. They show inventions level.

Example the B-47 predated the TU 16. It first flew in 1947
And Il-28 first flight was 1948 august. Again Soviets has stealed everything. And B-47 entered service in 1952, when Il-28 in 1950. Again... technological question.

bf-fly, you still need records? Need to be first and presented everywhere? US should be center of the universe and everybody else should follow, and nothing else is accepted?
"Everybody has some advantage" is not for you? "America, America" ? You wanted "just something", you received it. But this something is not something you were looking for...
Nobody is telling US has bad technologies. But it is just not enough. "We are the champions my friend". Life is not sport....

You are telling that "project costed too much". But nobody remebers such small shit like WWII... which never touched US directly. But this is nothing, right? Small thing. Still we a comparing US and SU technologies ON THE SAME level!! With no discounts for war. Does it means nothing already, guys??

[HunterFN]

SR71 28 years, sorry.

Just a few notes on the Mig25. It was steel and vacuum tubes. With two missiles on board it was limited to 4 g's, with 4 missiles on it was limited to
2 g's. The pilots were forbidden to fly over 2.5m. If it flew one time over Mach 3, the engines had to be replaced (1 use) It is commonly believed that the 25 was in response to the xb70, but in fact it was because of the SR71. The MIG 25 was built after the SR71. It represented the best the Soviets could do. Is there anybody out there who thinks the Mig 25 is the equal of the SR71? (I hope not) No excuses about crash programs. The SR71 was concieved, built and flew within 18 months. No Mig 25 ever got close to the SR71. The Blackbird would fly over north Korea north to south twice, then east west twice in a single mission. Never a scratch. Never.

I've given Nuclear subs and ICBM sub first in the Fifties, plus the Xplanes
SR71/mig 25 and the space race in the Sixties,
Stealth and the shuttle in the seventies and eighties
the end of the soviet union in the ninties.
Each was an example, but not the whole story. When that MIG 25 defected to Japan in 76, it was the latest model built. The US was shocked to see the electronics were all vacuum tubes. In 1975 the Stealth fighter prototype Have Blue was flying. Stealth vs vacuum tubes? GPS was first launced by the US in the late seventies. The list goes on and on, and so does this battle we have.

Do you know how the origional US cruise missiles navigated? The US had digitized maps of every nook and cranny for the entire world, in 1974! US ICBM's in the mid sixties could their target within 1/4 mile. The soviets were lucky to hit a city. Those are facts, not conjecture.

The US was always technologically superior to the Soviet union. That's what made the difference over the Soviet numerical superiority. It's just that simple. Don't forget about NATO countries. The US never pursued Vstol after early expermintation because the British did (no need)

For those of you Russian types, I suggest you do more research on US programs, and less on Soviet. Get a copy of "skunk works" written by Ben Rich for starters.

I'm tired of this, take care Pavel, thanks

I must say... you're making less sense than before...

You think the MiG-25 was state of the art??

It was not a hitech creation and wasn't meant to be one, I'd like to know where you got the notion...

quote: "Seemingly obsolete, the use of vacuum tubes was ingenious because they were far less susceptible to EMP in case of nuclear warfare and were more tolerant of temperature extremes, obviating the need for complex environmental control inside the avionics bays. In addition, the vacuum tubes were easy to replace in remote northern airfields where sophisticated transistor parts may not have been readily available. As with all Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as rugged as possible."

Airframe was from nickel-steel alloy instead of titanium... Oh and the Soviet Union still holds the largest stocks of titanium, so it definitely was not a question of not having the materials or knowhow, they simply wanted it to be cheap and easy to manufacture. It was definitely not equal, nor was it meant to be.

You know what? Soviet cruise missiles had similar map systems aswell. It is a very poor choice, (on both sides it pretty much sucked, accuracy was bad, with big nukes it's not so important though) but then you jump to ICBM's?? Totally different animal.

Saying US held the advantage in tech all the time is just a silly exaggeration not worth debating about.

Like you just showed, even you have some more reading to do about the Russian tech...

All the best.

[bf-fly]

Hunter, ie, mister pile on

"You know what? Soviet cruise missiles had similar map systems aswell. It is a very poor choice, (on both sides it pretty much sucked, accuracy was bad, with big nukes it's not so important though) but then you jump to ICBM's?? Totally different animal."

So ill in formed. The US cruise missiles were the same ones used over Bagdad. Only the latest have GPS backup. The US CM could hit a specific building 1200 miles away in the Mid to late seventies 85-90% percent of the time. By the way, what was the Soviet cruise missile? What was the range???

ICBM's? The city anology lost you? OK, I translate it for you. Try applying it to hitting silos and first strike capability. I used it because it was yet another example of US technologial superiority.

Public enemy; are you suggesting that the IL28 was anything close to the B47 in design and capability? Ever see a B47? (which first flew in 1947 and entered service in 51). Also the US was suprised by the speed of the MIG25, but had long since stopped fearing it by 1976 when they saw it. Yes the 25 was a rugged, capable plane. I wonder how it faired in combat? Did it ever shoot the SR71 down? Did it ever shoot anything down???

[bf-fly]

Thanks Gabi765.

[bf-fly]

Boeing delivered the first two ALCMs to the 416th Bombardment Wing, Griffiss AFB, New York, on 11 January 1981. It first flew in 1976.

The Kh-55 has been in Russian service since 1984 as a nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile

First again.

Pavel, while I'm thinking of it, two points. 1) about serial production, don't forget the US built and operated the B47, B52 ,B58, B1 and B2 plus all the fighters. The only significant bomber prototype to go into production was the XB70. 2)isn't it harder to first dream something up, then prove it works, then to be second? You chose serial production as your criterium. That to me doesn't prove greater technical abilities, only a desire to prove you are equal at any cost.

You know I remember when I was 7, my parents making all of us sit down in front of the TV to watch the first moon landing...LIVE. Eh, anybody could do that in 1969 right? The first reality TV series :)

[bf-fly]

The early US cruise missile could hit within 30-90 meter bullseye. The KH55 was 150 meters. Not a big deal with nukes, but it is with conventional munitions. In other words half a football field (average) to 1 1/2 football fields.

[Public enemy]

Yes the 25 was a rugged, capable plane. I wonder how it faired in combat? Did it ever shoot the SR71 down? Did it ever shoot anything down???

Did SR-71 shot anything down? Was SR-71 EVER able to shoot from something (except of pilot's handgun, of course... if it wasn't cancelled to save the planes weight)? Was SR-71 EVER able to carry more then himself and record cam?

I saw a movie lately, some old one. With... Michael Dudikoff (jesus, how I love such names!). He was a pilot of SR-71. Took off... landed on some forgotten airfield in desert. Killed everybody on the nearest terrorist base. It was so fun :) Unfortunatelly, I wasn't able to make myself see if he took off for home or not.
Ouh, yeah, btw, it was stealth plane there too! He was disappearing visually :)

The first reality TV series

BUZZZZ! Wrong answer. The first one, when you was one year old and was seeing Gagarin in chaika on the Red Square. Not sure, if US was able to see it LIVE...

looks I'm mistaken... In 1961 you was minus 1 ?

[bf-fly]

The Tomahawk, circa 1986 has a CEP (circular error probility) of 10m.

[HanibalBG]

Now I dont know how many of you actualy know what is needed to make a plane but there are very spesifick laws of phisics that every cnostryctor must have in mind in order for the plane to work. And every respected scientists or constryctor who makes a discovery publishes his work in orther for others to be able to use and improve. This is progres.

I dont think that is necesery to explane how every thing works make nore reserc your self in libraries an soo on.

If you have eny proof for enyone was stealing eny tecnology posted but if you think some one stold something just becouse it lokes like that make more reserch and dont use internet it is hard to find resenabel information.

[HanibalBG]

And if some one uses sertean tecnology in a plane or whatever dosnt meen that they came up whit it just they used furst.

[bf-fly]

Did the SR71 ever shoot anything down? Excerpt from "skunk works" by Ben Rich, Kelly Johnson successon from about '75 to '90 Creator of the F117 and the engines for the SR71;
"our first test of the system occurred in in march 1965. we hit a drone from 36 miles away at a closing rate of 2000mph. a few weeks later, we fired a missile from 75,000 feet while traveling at mach 3.2, and hit a drone at 40,000 feet, 38 miles away. but a few months later we really rocked the air force. from 75,000 feet we hit a low-altitude remote controlled b-47 flying over the gulf of mexico at 1200 feet from 80 miles off." also "from 80,000 feetwe hit drones flying on the deck at 1500 feet, from 87,000 we hit drones flying 40,000feet.

The Airforce first ordered this and a bomber versions, but later changed their minds due to cost, the Vietnam war, and no Russian threat that required it

[bf-fly]

Also public enemy, look up the D-21 drone

[bf-fly]

I wasn't serious about the reality TV, it was a joke. But from the moon is just a tad tougher that red square

[bf-fly]

I'll do the work for you public enemy;

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/d-21.htm

[Public enemy]

The A-12 aircraft were flown by the Air Force on behalf of the CIA until the more advanced SR-71, a dedicated reconnaissance model, became fully operational in 1968. The SR-71 featured an improved airframe, increased fuel capacity, and better aerodynamic performance but lacked the weapons bays of earlier models.

Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/sr71/

I'll do the work for you public enemy;

Thank you. As you can see, I can do my work by myself.

[bf-fly]

so what? that's so weak. I guess the D21 alone doesn't prove wrong? and that is an sr71

"was the sr71 EVER able to shoot from something (except of pilot's handgun, of course... if it wasn't cancelled to save the planes weight)? Was SR-71 EVER able to carry more then himself and record cam?"

Nice try

[bf-fly]

And you forgot this from your own source;

"Although much of the capabilities of the SR-71 are still unknown, it is believed that the aircraft could carry a 1-megaton nuclear device or advanced cameras, sensors and reconnaissance equipment"

[bf-fly]

Try this;
http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/yf12~1.htm

[HanibalBG]

OK people US spends more money in military that enything ealse it is normal that they are going to have great machines and more of them it is hard to compear.

All other countrease in the world are trying to invest less on millitary and more on civil needs.

US is spending bilions on new X planes the only country in the world that is still doing that on other hand US has higher infent mortality rate than cuba but that is not important or thare are schools that are not teaching the theory of evolytion. Or less that 15% of the people can point Canada or Russia on the map.

But X planes an soo on is going stronger than ever how many countreas in the world are still developing as many secreat wepons as usa we ca not compear US to enything.

They have to be beter.

[Public enemy]

"Although much of the capabilities of the SR-71 are still unknown, it is believed that the aircraft could carry a 1-megaton nuclear device or advanced cameras, sensors and reconnaissance equipment"

I didn't forget it. It was exactly before all the weapon bays were removed after all mistakes are fixed. It means SR-71 failed to prove he can be used as shooting plane.

BTW, nice plane still.
37

[gabi765]

Oh and the Soviet Union still holds the largest stocks of titanium, so it definitely was not a question of not having the materials or knowhow, they simply wanted it to be cheap and easy to manufacture
So if I own 1 kilo of gold that makes me a jewler.Every source says the same thing:"They tried titanium alloys but,due to insufficient master of the treatement,this material could not be widely applied and steel remained the main structural component".
To Public Enemy: if u don't want to accept figures it's your problem but MIG-25's operational speed limit was Mach 2.5. "Even its tremendous speed was problematic: although the available thrust was sufficient to reach Mach 3.2, a limit of Mach 2.8 had to be imposed to prevent total destruction of the engines .Even Mach 2.8 was difficult to reach without overspeeding the turbines"(Wikipedia)
As for the comparison between Il-28 and a B-47 :I think you're kidding!!
Also saying that vacuum tubes are better than modern electronics is nonsense. In those years advantages of those tubes seamed a solution but that wasn't the long term solution.The soviets themselves contradict you.If those vacuum tubes were so perfect why they didn't applied them to the Mig-31 and future projects?It's like comparing Morse code telegraph with the e-mail.The telegraph is invulnerable to viruses trojans etc so it would be better?!?!

[gabi765]

and one more thing recconaisance planes DO NOT shot down anything. Although YF-12 prooved SR-71's airframe was very capable of intercepting you don't want to say anything about that.

[Public enemy]

To Public Enemy: if u don't want to accept figures it's your problem but MIG-25's operational speed limit was Mach 2.5. "Even its tremendous speed was problematic: although the available thrust was sufficient to reach Mach 3.2, a limit of Mach 2.8 had to be imposed to prevent total destruction of the engines .Even Mach 2.8 was difficult to reach without overspeeding the turbines"(Wikipedia)

Yes.. wikipedia knows better then Mig-25 pilots themselves.
What's a problem? For sure Mig-25 goes over M=3, it's a fact. Just it is very hard to stop it then.
R-15 is very close to aeroduct, with speed increasing it increases the throttle (to the certain limits, or course). If I remember right, ground level throttle was 12-14 tons, H=20, M=2.35 it was 20 tons (Mig-25 flight manual, part 2). There are limitations by the afterburner turning off, you had to wait while speed will lower down till M=2.2. When you are speeding up till M=2.6-2.7, spedd grows much faster then, you need to be very carefull not to miss the moment. Altitude rising didn't solve the problem, because M was only growing with H, so it was a strong feeling that you just can't stop the plane.
Air frame lifetime doesn't depend on speed, if only it doesn't go ruffled. Engines were completely ok too, if you didn't overheat them. I never saw engines were removed because somebody exceeded M=2.83 (again, if you didn't overheated them). I went once over the limit, but don't remeber exact speed, something like 3100-3200 (was locking on at the moment), M was 3. I know guys who exceeded M=3, but not for too much.
As far as I know, it was not too many SR-71 made, but against him with Mig-25 it was armed about 10-12 regiments (24 tails in each). Such math...


As for the comparison between Il-28 and a B-47 :I think you're kidding!!
It is not much funnier then to compare XB-70 with Tu-144 and Tu-160 altogether.

Also saying that vacuum tubes are better than modern electronics is nonsense. In those years advantages of those tubes seamed a solution but that wasn't the long term solution.
You want to tell SR-71 was long term solution? Longer then tubbed Mig-25?

[Public enemy]

and one more thing recconaisance planes DO NOT shot down anything. Although YF-12 prooved SR-71's airframe was very capable of intercepting you don't want to say anything about that.

YF-12 is a fighter prototype designation, no? And airfame wasn't very capable, as long weapon bays had to be removed during the bugfix in 1968 (which means - immediatelly)....

[bf-fly]

Public enemy
"However, the MIG25's maneuverability, range, and close combat potential were extremely limited. Even its tremendous speed was problematic: although the available thrust was sufficient to reach Mach 3.2, a limit of Mach 2.8 had to be imposed to prevent total destruction of the engines. Even with that, it took a large degree of piloting skill to even throttle the engines to Mach 2.8 without overspinning the turbines, thus ruining them. The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, and pilots were required not to exceed Mach 2.5. The Americans had witnessed a MiG-25 flying at Mach 3.2 over Israel in 1973, a flight that had resulted in the total destruction of its engines. The Americans were unaware of the inevitability of the destruction, which helped to fuel the myths about the aircraft's capabilities."

You have yet the mention the D21. Can't "spin" that one away? You keep dodging. Who gives a crap about "debugging" It carried missiles, it worked, and that's all there is to it. The 1 megaton bomb your article said the SR71 could carry is pretty self explanitory. I never heard that so thanks for using yuor own source to prove yourself wrong. I think that's a little more powerful than a handgun.

[bf-fly]

And I never compared the XB70 to the TU144 and 160.Never

[bf-fly]

You want to tell SR-71 was long term solution? Longer then tubbed Mig-25?

Yeah, the SR71 flew for 28 years flying 3500 operational missions over or adjacent to enemy territory. The MIG 25 first flew in 64, production was ended in 1984, 20 years. Do you think the MIG 31 has Vacuum tubes?

[bf-fly]

Here's a tid bit for you;
"Although the Vigilante served in the attack and recce roles, its design and configuration was believed to be a major influence on one of the world's most famous postwar interceptors: the Soviet MiG-25 'Foxbat' was apparently heavily influenced by the A-5's design. (The MiG-25 would look even more familiar if the Vigilante had retained the twin vertical fins of the prototype; although North American originally specified two fins, like the later Foxbat, that part of the design was vetoed by the Navy in favor of one folding tailfin"

Interesting. If you've never seen a Vigilante, look it up, it's a beautiful plane. First flew in 1958, and was one of the first FBW a/c

[Public enemy]

it worked, and that's all there is to it. The 1 megaton bomb your article said the SR71 could carry is pretty self explanitory.

How it could carry it if in '68 (in the most beginning of 28 years of flying) all the wepon bays were removed? It's better to say "It has tried to carry... but has failed".

About D21 I don't want even talk. I thought you are joking about it...
The program to develop this system (M/D-21) was canceled in 1966 after a drone collided with the mother ship at launch, destroying the M-21 and killing the Launch Control Officer.

The MIG 25 first flew in 64
And Mig-31 is still flying, so it is about 42 years already? SR-71 doesn't have followers.

Do you think the MIG 31 has Vacuum tubes?

You know, I thought you are more deep. The only exciting thing you can see in both Mig-25 and Mig-31 is vacuum tubes? Well, it excites me as well, to make such plane with such electronics. It's cool.
But electronics hardware can and should be upgraded. With main flight performance of the once choosed plane aerodynamic shape you have to live for all its life. If Mig-25 engines and shape were good - so it was used in Mig-31.

It doesn't look to be you, usually you pay much more attention to the external shape of the plane, not to something that is inside and you can't see.

[bf-fly]

Give it a rest. The Mig 31 is so different than the 25 they changed the name. If you don't let me use the YF12, then how is it you now give yourself the liberty to say the MIG 31 and 25 are the same. How do you justify your logic and conviently changing parameters? Don't sluff this off, answer it directly!

I was not joking about the D-21, follow my link and you'll see a photo of an SR71 (not YF12) carrying a drone on it's back. It did have successful luanches, but after a drone collided with a SR71, it was decided not to risk anymore airframes

[Public enemy]

It did have successful luanches, but after a drone collided with a SR71, it was decided not to risk anymore airframes

Yeap, that's what I was talking about, exactly.
As usually "we invented sometihng, but at the end of the day we weren't able to use it.
But we did! It worked! Not for a long, not as supposed to.. and costed 20 times more then should... and was very hard to support.... and was too vulnerable... and was too risky to conitnue... and we had to close project"

[bf-fly]

your origional post

Did SR-71 shot anything down? Was SR-71 EVER able to shoot from something (except of pilot's handgun, of course... if it wasn't cancelled to save the planes weight)? Was SR-71 EVER able to carry more then himself and record cam?


"WAS IT EVER ABLE TO CARRYMORE THAN HIMSELF AND A RECORD CAM?"

Yes.

No answer on the MIG25/31, how very convient for you. If you can count that, I can count the A-12, the YF-12 and the SR71. All were Blackbirds.

[bf-fly]

and I'm really sick of this whole thing

[munzy06]

I have compared pictures of the Vigilante (with 2 tail fins) to the Mig-25 and they are 2 completly different airframes. They wern't even designed for the same purpose. The Mig-25 was originally an interceptor the Vigilante was originally a bomber.

The Mig-31 does NOT have vacume tubes as they are to ineffective. If you made a mobile phone using vaccume tubes, it would be the size of a skyscaper. NO modern plane has vaccume tubes as it would be the size of a aircraft carrier.

Comparing the Tu-160, Tu-144 and the XB-70 is pointless. The XB-70 is a high altitude mach 3 bomber. The Tu-144 is a comercial plane (like the concord) and the Tu-160 is a low level supersonic bomber with a mach 2 top speed. The Tu-160 can go supersonic at sea level while the other 2 would physically can't.

[Eugene]

What the hell have all these to do with technology?
This has to do with humans not planes...

[MerkavaMK4]

Mig25 was a design originally based on Avro Arrow. F-15 was INSPIRED by mig-25. NATO thought of Foxbat as super-plane andwanted to counter with something that would level the playing field.

After defection, NATO saw that Foxbat was not a super-aircraft but a high speed interceptor, they almost wanted to cancel f-15 program, but Pentagon wanted for it to continue.

F-15, when it was introduced, was the most advanced and SUPER-EXPENSIVE aircraft of its time.

This is a repeat of the story with F-22. A cold-war super-fighter that is most advanced and costly at this time.

[cee47]

I can't believe how some guys claim that Tu-144 has nothing to do with the Concorde...

Some stories (possibly apocryphal) detail how BAC engineers were asked to provide the Concord plans, but with the wing details modified, so the wrong info could be deliberately passed on to the Russian designers. And this is supposedly why there were aerodynamic problems with "Koncordsky".

[sicsok]

About comparing the Energiya-Buran to the Shuttle: The Shuttle was first, but the Russian carries nearly twice the payload and can go around if have to upon a lot wider range of landig sites.
As the sayings goes: "Looks can be deceiving"...

[sicsok]

Why does not anyone cries of thief when similar configurations (Rafale-EF, Kfir-Gripen-Lavi-J-10 or even the same country's F-101 and F-104 etc) is discussed? There were much more contacts between those companies and designers then was between the Northrop (YF-17, aka. F-18 and the MiG-29 designers for example).

[sicsok]

To the person who have not heard of the USSR stealing scientists from elsewhere: To a young one even an old joke is new. After WW II. they had more than W. Von Braun C Co. But it always have been this way, they are not exception to the rule

[sicsok]

Very frequent that the underlying truth can be found by a bit deeper (but honest!) investigation, not throwing charges before that.
The whole Soviet history was born and developed quite differently from that of the US of A (both filled though with glorious and shameful episodes...mind you). The design process there is entirely defferent from the way I have experienced it in the US aerospace establishment. (But the Ford Trimotor was designed too only after it's "planners" spent a night (escaping from stormy night in cross-country trip) in the barn where a Fokker mail-plane was placed. The Fokker's wing is identical, currogated etc. to the Trimotor's one, which got a fat fuselage to haul folks and thus three engines instead of one...).
Technology and knowledge transfer always have been and always will be my friends, no use to rip our mouthes over such trivial fact.
But the basic research approach is more favoured in the US, while the more pragmatic "user's end" concept is more prominent in Russia. The shapes of the planes are completely useless to argue over. Did the Americans copy the wheel? (America did not know wheel before Columbus...) If soö - was the wheel invented by a Russian or by a Luxemburgian national? Get real, men...
One example: In the colonial America the industry could not even manufacture pins! (In Alexandria Old Town and In Dumfries Virginia-which used to be larger port than New York was... - one can still find a lot of hand-made English import pins that were used to stitch clothes for fitting. So was the glass-bottle for quite a while an imported technology for the colonials.)
This is not a shame or valor. But coming up to prominence from such a deep chasm (even with quite a few less than immaculate turns) shows strength, determination and real fear.
The birth and development of the Sovietunion was quite similarly in the deep sh..t, and (with quite a lot of less than charming turns and ways: this Union became a world power too. Did they copy anyone?)
Would I mention how come Japan and China is bursting at their guts and growing out their breaches? Did they copy too?
Would any parachute have been invented without the silkworms that Marco Polo and Co. smuggled out of China?
Would any of you see chicken (which originally lived only in the Indo-Chinese jungles)?
So- please - give us a break! Do not mix facts with beliefs and opinions!
The latest two are not for arguments...Mankind invented football games for that (or did we copy that from Mars?)

[cee47]

Or let's say first jets? They appear in Germany as He-176, He-178. And they appeared in RAF as Meteor. Who stole what?

I know I'm a couple of years late with this comment, but Pavel, this is not a good example!

The Germans developed axial flow jet engines, which is the technology now in universal use. The British developed centrifugal flow engines, which proved to be a dead end.

And BOTH the USA and the USSR copied (but did not steal) the British design because the materials science of the time in both countries was inadequate for the complexities involved in designing and manufacturing axial flow compressors, or the turbine blades in the combustion area of the engine and the stresses they were placed under in operation.

[sicsok]

The German and British jets to compare? They only diferred (but there largely!) in essence: the engines... (radial vs. axial flow engines, you can not copy one piece of either from the other!)
However, the airframes and configurations of the respective jets that were put to war-duty are quite similarly shaped (Gloster Meteor and Me-262). And those airframes and configurations were hardly the important aspects of a "new age" design.
And back to those simpleton assumptions about the pure delta plane jets (Mirage, F-102, Gloster, Arrow, etc.): they all were predated by Lippisch and thus the designs are his grandchildren. These argue over their genes...
About the phraseology on this topics:
One Russian composer (Chaykovskij or someone from his age) told once:
"Great composers do not copy. They steal."

[sicsok]

The expression was coined for exactly this. But my admiration to the US science management in most cases. They are thorough but they do not drag their feet. So I do not think that doing things right (even into the unknown) is too much to be ashamed of. Well-like everything else-it does have a week link: humans. And coercion of top people can take so many forms, so why single out kidnapping? It is not a preferred mode of operation by now.
This issue is not limited to tete-a-tete of government agencies, it has been a long tradition of corporations too.