LevshaPoland is now on Western side.. Sides have changed, now Poland is obliged to buy western hardware. The same concerns other states like Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic or Slovakia.
Poland is not obliged to buy only western and nor are the other ex Warsaw Pact countries. Slovakia gave the Russians millions of dollars to upgrade their MiG-29s recently (ok, with a lot of western avionics fitted) and has along with the Czech Republic bought Mi-171 helicopters from Russia recently. Greece has bought Tor M-1 AD systems ATGMs and hovercraft also. Another NATO country, Turkey has never hesitated to buy Russian equipment either.
Internal politics may preclude those ex WP countries from buying Russian kit but that goes for non NATO members as well, and not just regarding Russian arms.
LevshaFrom my time in a B-1 unit, I’d say that there’s not much to be gained by just looking at it. The only prohibition we had was showing people the back seat areas (EWO & Radar Nav) with it powered up.
We opened up a lot of panels for various specialty books and publications…a nice color profile published in Germany comes to mind.
That´s true of course, but would the USAF not be afraid if its aircraft crashed while in transit or during a demonstration in a country like Russia or China. There would still be plenty of chances to figure out how much of the aircraft systems worked even from the wreckage I should think. The Americans would still get theír aircraft back in boxes – in the same way the Soviet Union got Belenko´s MiG-25 returned to them.
However, we did fly a very high ranking Russian general in it.
I don’t know where he sat, but it could have been the AC seat, that’s where they put me on my sortie (appearently there are a couple of vital switches that are easier for the co-pilot to access, so in the event of a passenger, the PIC flies from the right seat).
Would that have been Marshal Deniken, (or whatever rank he had at that time) Chief of the Soviet Strategic Bomber Forces? I think he actually got to fly the B-1B… said it handled better than the Tu-160 if I recall, and had better cockpit ergonomics?:confused:
LevshaThe F-22 will make its first trip to the Paris airshow this year.
Wonder if this means a new, stepped-up export program?
Paris is very nice for the Raptor, but when are we going to see the F-22 turning up at Moscow MAKS aviation Salon?:cool:
I actually saw the B-1B at MAKS 2007 which is a sensitive enough aircraft and I wonder what the USAF guidelines are for sending security sensitive aircraft to airshows, exhibitions and what not?:confused:
LevshaAll those are derivations of foreign engines.
I mean a totally home-designed from scratch, with a home-built airframe and a home-designed engine from scratch.
Where do the ejection seats come from ??
I maintain that only the USA & Russia have the capability to bulid an aircraft that has no foreign components.
The Swedes and French use foreign ejection seats, for example. The UK could probably source everything from within its borders, but does not have the money.
Even the mighty F-22 must have some foreign-sourced parts???
What about the rubber, or the exotic materials such as gold etc etc – they must come from outside America’s borders ??
See what I am getting at??? Name me an aircraft that is built in total isolation from externally-sourced materials or components.
Just opening up the discussion – no flames intended….
Ken
Well the Chinese have to start somewhere I suppose.
Soviet aircraft throughout the Second world war and for the first decade or so of the Cold war were for the most part powered by foreign designed motors, not to mention Tu-4 BULL and the K-13 Sidewinder clone. I fail to see what difference this made to the overall course or result of WWII or the Cold war.
The Soviets also had to start somewhere as well, and eventually developed an excellent capacity to design all the products of an aerospace industry, as no doubt, will the Chinese, if they haven’t done so already.
LevshaDo you have any idea how many special trucks were in a War-Pac fighter-regiments inventory?
One of the main differences NATO vs WP….The question is – Where are you going to find the necessary fuel, munitions, spare parts, facilities etc…on a destroyed NATO airbase ?
There were lots of trucks in Western Europe at that time also, but its meaningless unless they are part of some sort of contingency plan.
The question is, did any WP air force actually put the theory of rough field operations to the test in some kind of dress rehearsal? Did the WP ever trial run the transfer of the entire aircraft component by evacuating the entire airfield to a damp field in the middle of January and then proceed to run a sustained number of training sorties all day for the next few days, fully bombed and fueled up – from the same damp or frozen field?:confused::rolleyes:
It seems to me that your photos only show small number of aircraft operating from the most ideal fields in ideal (Summer) weather…
LevshaRough field capability is (nearly)nothing without qualified pilots….
Rough field capability is also nothing if you dont have the necessary infrastructure to maintain the necessary number of flight sorties. Where are you going to find the necessary fuel, munitions, spare parts, facilities etc, in a damp bog in East Germany, Western Poland, to sustain a high sortie rate?:confused:
LevshaIt’s a pity GarryB isn’t around to join into the melee when the thread turns to such topics…;)
LevshaInteresting news clip, with 2 interesting facts mentioned.
It has been “suggested” that PAK-FA may replace the Su-27 and not the MiG-29.
Also, they are looking for a over-water testing range, presumably for firing trials against naval targets. The only suitable airfield at the moment for such testing is in the Crimea, Ukraine (Saki I presume), which would be unacceptable nowadays for political and security reasons. So certainly the Pak-FA is slated for an anti-ship role.
LevshaIntroducing new technologies or high specifications into new aircraft designs are always worth it, if they reduce the entire life cycle costs of the aircraft throughout its 30 years or more operational life time. Producing a single piece aluminium wing for the C-17 may seem over expensive, but if it cuts down fuel consumption a cost saving will be made. Same thing goes for any kind of computerised torsion control on the A400’s prop blades – if it reduces vibration or increases the efficiency of the blades, well then it’s worth the extra price. Look at all those processors on the fly-by-wire A320, who needs them… the B707 or the Caravelle didn’t have them.:rolleyes: Still doesn’t stop the A320 being popular with airlines though, now does it?:rolleyes:
LevshaRomanian Bf 109 against German and Hungarian Bf 109, from August 23 1944 to May 9 1945.
I recall Swiss Bf 109s clashing with Luftwaffe 109s flying over Swiss territory during the war as well.
LevshaSuperior performance specs at an equal or lower price. A no-brainer.
Operating cost ‘per hour’ of the Tu-160 reported in the Russian media in June 2008.
One hour flight of missile carrier Tu-160 costs 580 thousand rubles.
18.06 2008, 11:35 RIA «News»
«One hour’s flight of the Tu-160, outside of combat action, costs 580,000 rubles ($20,000) – this is the most expensive aircraft in the Air Force», – said Deputy Commander in Chief of the Air Force, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn.
MOSCOW, June 18 – RIA Novosti. One hour’s flight of the strategic bomber Tu-160 costs 580 thousand rubles ($20,000), Deputy Commander in Chief of the Air Force Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told journalists on Wednesday.
«Peace time operating costs of the Tu-160 stands at 580,000 rubles ($20,000) per hour – this is the most expensive aircraft of the Air Force», – said Nogovitsyn.
According to him, the use of simulators will allow significant financial savings in preparing pilots for the Tu-160.
«In the future, we insist that the new weapons designs must come not by the residual educational material, including simulator base ahead of a training material base. This approach will allow a year in the 12-15 times lower the cost of training pilots and ground personnel training », – said Nogovitsyn
source: http://news.mail.ru/politics/1826912
I can’t find the hourly operating costs of the B-1B, but I’m not sure if it is even as high as $20,000?:confused::confused:
LevshaSuperior performance specs at an equal or lower price. A no-brainer.
Operating cost ‘per hour’ of the Tu-160 reported in the Russian media in June 2008.
One hour flight of missile carrier Tu-160 costs 580 thousand rubles.
18.06 2008, 11:35 RIA «News»
«One hour’s flight of the Tu-160, outside of combat action, costs 580,000 rubles ($20,000) – this is the most expensive aircraft in the Air Force», – said Deputy Commander in Chief of the Air Force, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn.
MOSCOW, June 18 – RIA Novosti. One hour’s flight of the strategic bomber Tu-160 costs 580 thousand rubles ($20,000), Deputy Commander in Chief of the Air Force Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told journalists on Wednesday.
«Peace time operating costs of the Tu-160 stands at 580,000 rubles ($20,000) per hour – this is the most expensive aircraft of the Air Force», – said Nogovitsyn.
According to him, the use of simulators will allow significant financial savings in preparing pilots for the Tu-160.
«In the future, we insist that the new weapons designs must come not by the residual educational material, including simulator base ahead of a training material base. This approach will allow a year in the 12-15 times lower the cost of training pilots and ground personnel training », – said Nogovitsyn
source: http://news.mail.ru/politics/1826912
I can’t find the hourly operating costs of the B-1B, but I’m not sure if it is even as high as $20,000?:confused::confused:
LevshaSame reason they had to have the biggest helicopter, biggest cargo aircraft, biggest rocket, biggest submarine. They like to wave it around, even though the rest of the world sees it for what it is and is sniggering behind their hands at them.
The whole mentality of creating the world’s biggest engineering items in the Soviet Union obviously has a propaganda motive. Sovietologists even have a special name for it: ‘Soviet Gigantism’ – otherwise known as: ‘monumental willy-waving’.:D
Sounds more like envy to me…
Whose envy – the Soviets observing the Lockheed C-5, B-1B, F-15 and the CH-53 and then coming up with their own larger version 10, 15 years later?
2. I personally see B-1B as definitely inferior to Tu-160..
Why, because it’s smaller? Using the same logic would you call a VW Golf inferior to, for example, a Hummer or a stretched Mercedes?? Different roles, different design specification, different operators.
The numbers are quite clear:
Tu-160
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05
Range: 17,400 km
Combat radius: 10,500 km
Thrust with afterburner: 4×137 kN (4×245 kN)
Payload capacity : 45,000kgB-1B
Maximum speed: Mach 1.25
Range: 11,900 km
Combat radius: 5,550 km
Thrust with afterburner: 4×65 kN (4×137 kN)
Payload capacity : ???? kg
One could make similar comparison between the F-111 and the Su-24 and call the American plane the better one – would you buy it as an argument?
Superior performance specs at an equal or lower price. A no-brainer.
Really, have you got a source for that? It seems to be the Russian air force which can’t find the money to fly the Tu-160 – how much flying do they do in an average year anyway?
LevshaSame reason they had to have the biggest helicopter, biggest cargo aircraft, biggest rocket, biggest submarine. They like to wave it around, even though the rest of the world sees it for what it is and is sniggering behind their hands at them.
The whole mentality of creating the world’s biggest engineering items in the Soviet Union obviously has a propaganda motive. Sovietologists even have a special name for it: ‘Soviet Gigantism’ – otherwise known as: ‘monumental willy-waving’.:D
Sounds more like envy to me…
Whose envy – the Soviets observing the Lockheed C-5, B-1B, F-15 and the CH-53 and then coming up with their own larger version 10, 15 years later?
2. I personally see B-1B as definitely inferior to Tu-160..
Why, because it’s smaller? Using the same logic would you call a VW Golf inferior to, for example, a Hummer or a stretched Mercedes?? Different roles, different design specification, different operators.
The numbers are quite clear:
Tu-160
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05
Range: 17,400 km
Combat radius: 10,500 km
Thrust with afterburner: 4×137 kN (4×245 kN)
Payload capacity : 45,000kgB-1B
Maximum speed: Mach 1.25
Range: 11,900 km
Combat radius: 5,550 km
Thrust with afterburner: 4×65 kN (4×137 kN)
Payload capacity : ???? kg
One could make similar comparison between the F-111 and the Su-24 and call the American plane the better one – would you buy it as an argument?
Superior performance specs at an equal or lower price. A no-brainer.
Really, have you got a source for that? It seems to be the Russian air force which can’t find the money to fly the Tu-160 – how much flying do they do in an average year anyway?
LevshaErrrrr. Are you sure you don’t want to see the list of American, British, French or other projects that didn’t come to any sort of fruition? Failures are not a specialty of only Russians.
Well, I was thinking of Britain’s cancellation of the TSR 2 as I was typing, but then again the Soviets didn’t have much success with their Sukhoi T-6 either. But my argument still stands, The Soviets tend never to reach the same level of realisation of their aerospace projects to the same level that other countries achieve, if you compare Western and Soviet/Russian projects of similar type and role. B-1/Tu160, XB-70/T-4 Sotka etc. The Russians are desperate to kick the habit though.
It was good to see the Sukhoi Superjet and Su-35 fly last year.
Sign In
