LevshaThats exactly it, there is four factors really,
1) Mach 3+ proved allot harder and more expensive than everybody expected.
2) The cold war chilled out, they call it detente or something but anyway the arms race slowed and high end projects got canned.
3) The expected Soviet Mach 3 bombers didnt exist in reality at that time to the extent that the western ones did (Avro 730 prototype was under construction when it was cancelled and of course the Valkyrie flew).
4) Everyone went low level with the improvements in missile based AD systems.
Interestingly though the Russians at the end of the cold war were pursuing high speed bombers, win the race to Greenland you know.;)
Along with the above, I think it was also the realisation among the Americans, that no matter how many Soviet nuclear armed bombers they could have shot down, they still had no way of dealing with Soviet ICBMs (not forgetting the sub launched ones) which would have turned most of North America into toast anyway.
Which makes the Soviets huge expenditure on its “PVO” air defence system all the more inexplicable (they having no defence against the USA’s ICBMs either)!
Levshathe 1.44 flew more than twice. There were translated articles on Roy’s website a year or two back of interviews with people at MiG who said the thing was still flying as a testbed for various things. Im to lazy to google it, but my memory is pretty good so I dont think Im making this up. You are free to prove me wrong or right.
You could be right, but I could swore I saw it written on some Russian sites that it had only flown twice or so within the first year or two of its first flight in 2000.
Perhaps MiG are still flying the 1.44 in order, either, to continue testing the technologies and design of the 1.44 itself, or else simply using it as a testbed for other lines of research, but I don’t think even MiG are trying to continue 1.44’s development in the hope of future sales.
It would be interesting to find out its actual flight status, along with that of the Su-47 Berkut.
LevshaThe same situation applies here, as well. Russians do not have to go throughout the whole lineage Have Blue-F-117-Tacit Blue-YF-22, they simply take the most suited design as a base for their own product. Bang! fifteen years of development progress are saved.
You are wrong assuming that every development process must be linear. US has pioneered stealth, and you obviously seem to think that every follower will have to go the same road but you are very mistaken here. If nothing else, competent reverse engineering of an YF-23 design would easily bring Russians well above F-35 level. The fact is that stealth is much more than just external shape but noone said that Russians don’t have a tiniest clue about RAMs, S-shaped ducts or radar absorbing sealants. They only don’t have enough time and money to try out several dozens of technology demonstrators like US have done in the past.
What you’re saying is that the Americans are the genuine pioneers in technology, with the Soviets/Russians for the most part “cherrypicking” the choicest fruits of America’s efforts in order to remain competitive?:confused:
In which case, many people in Russia wouldn’t be one bit flattered or in agreement with what you’re saying…
LevshaBye-bye world . I speak about TUPOLEV T-4 and he said about SUKHOI T-4 . but perhaps T-4 is as stealth as SR-71. yes đ
What is a Tupolev T-4? Maybe you mean the Tupolev Tu-4 BULL, the Soviet B-29 rip-off? That aircraft was a lot of things, but it certainly wasn’t stealthy!:rolleyes:
I have seen photos of actual missiles and aircraft suspended on a pole with various radars situated around it that suggest that it doesn’t need to leave the ground for RCS testing.
Well, obviously they have to test it on the ground, before they take it to the air. The F-35 has had its RCS tested while suspended on a pole, its aerodynamic shape tested for thousands of hours in a wind tunnel, but it will still spend the next 7 years flying several thousand hours in test flights before it enters service. The T-4 wouldn’t have been much different.
The T-4 Sotka was lucky. The MFI MiG 1.44 has, I believe, only flown twice – for a grand total of 40 minutes!:eek:
Who knows what was learnt from those 2 flights?:confused:
LevshaUsed in Afghanistan with success. Have not heard anything about any problems with Shturm except lack of penetration (560mm). Has been largely replaced in service by the very similar ATAKA with over 800mm armour penetration and longer range.
Used with success in Afghanistan! Under what criteria? Bearing in mind the fact that Mujahadeen had almost no armoured vehicles, what sort of targets were the Soviets aiming at? Guerilla groups and camel convoys more likely, in which case being a few metres of target probably wouldn’t make of a difference. As the saying goes; “if you hit something call it the target”!
I would trust the Aberdeen testing grounds opinion a lot more, they could after all, verify their results afterwards.
No, I said Su-17(the M2/M3 variant) and I mean it
??? basis of fact ??? words of NATO boys offcourse!. read any article/interview about Luftwaffe post unification. Dig your old archive!
No, you’re making the tall claims, not me! So you show me an article or document on the web which explains to me how the Su-17 was better than a Tornado or just briefly explain in your own words what the NATO pilots said.
Oh and AT-8 perhaps come 10 years later than shillelaugh but dont u who said US is 10 years more advanced so based on your assesment US must easily debug the defunct shillelaugh gun missile system.
What bugs on the Shillelagh system are you talking about? I believe the system worked well enough.
Alas russian elite stop the Tupolev T-4 project, otherwise russian have such ‘stealth’ (which is not) since 1970s
You mean the “Sukhoi” T-4? Did it employ stealth technology?
I don’t think the Soviets learned a lot about stealth from this aircraft – it only flew ten times in its flying career…:rolleyes:
LevshaOh, what do you mean by discounted Su-30s? The 2nd hand/ trade-in ‘Ks’ from India sold-on to Belarus or possibly Venezuela?
You clearly haven’t heard of the intricate cost escalation clauses of the MKIs then?
‘Cause I can assure you, new-build Su-30s are neither discounted nor cheap!
at close to $40 million each- 2005 prices.
I clearly have heard about the Su-30MKI’s price mark-up for the Indian air force, Russia is getting to be an expensive place to live in (I know personally), and also rising, with out doubt, are the costs of production.
Still though, $47 million is around half the price what you’d pay for an F-15E spin-off or a Typhoon – still a bargain!;)
Thanks for the F-22 link!
It says that total program costs for development and production are estimated at $65.2 billion – I wonder if PAK FA could be produced for half that price (plucking a figure from a hat)?:confused:
LevshaIf we are talking about the Cold war era, when the Soviet Union still existed then I have to challange the second claim that they lacked manufacturing technology. They were just as Advanced in some areas as the rest of the world.
Some of their welding technology was quite progressive, I can recall seeing a report on television concerning a welding technique carried out in a gas filled chamber with the welders dressed in full respiratory system (presumably to provide an oxygen free enviroment for the welding process). But on the whole most of their production plants were pretty labour intensive with a lot less automation employed.
I’m talking about Soviet times by the way.
In fact the most expensive and difficult part about PAK FA may not be it’s design and development, but in its production. With the MiG-29 and Su-27 series of aircraft, the Russians are able to make use of tooling, jigs, dies etc, which were produced and paid for in Soviet times, 20/30 years ago. But producing the new stealth technology ‘PAK FA’ will require almost entirely new factories with specially developed production equipment.
Re-tooling a factory doesn’t come cheap and it would be interesting to find out how much it cost to do so for Lockheed Martin with the F-22.
Also, the average age of a Russian aircraft factory specialist is somewere around his late fifties. They will have to find new fresh blood in the intervening years to build PAK FA. But these youngsters are not going to accept the pittance of a salary that the present workforce is ready to work for.
Therefore, I don’t think that the United Aircraft Corporation ‘UAC’ will be able to sell PAK FA at the same discount prices abroad that they could sell the Su-30, for example – presuming that UAC will be allowed to sell PAK FA abroad.
But I’m not a production/industrial engineer, so maybe someone could enlighten me on the practical realities of putting a whole new aircraft type into production?:)
LevshaNot sure about 10 year soviet technological gap. Su-17 proven to be more effective than Tornado in some aspect, Mi-24 Hind come before Apache, Russian fielded the first IFV and it was AT-8/AT-11 succesful barrel launch ATGM and not the Shillelaugh which never work.
Su-17? Do you you mean the Su-24? If you do, I still don’t know on what basis of fact that you claim it’s better than the Tornado?:confused:
The AH-64’s nearest Soviet equivalent would be the Mi-28 or Ka-50, both of which have still barely entered service. Strictly speaking, there was no Western equivalent to the HIND, unless Sikorsky were to offer a tandem canopied, armoured plated version of their S-61/SH-3 Sea King helicopter, complete with weapons pylons.;)
No, the Shillelagh was not the most successful anti-tank weapon in US service, but it’s a bit premature to compare it to AT-8 SONGSTER which only came along a decade or two later.
Speaking of missiles which “never worked”, didn’t the AT-6 SPIRAL perform poorly in tests in the USA after the Cold war, something like a less than 10% success rate?
Indeed in a few years the US military might have an automatic grenade launcher that fires grenades that airburst over the targets due to very precise time fuses and laser rangefinders and ballistic computers that make each grenade launcher cost over $30,000 US each. The Russians just adopted a German idea of the bounding mine where on impact a small charge blows the roundback up into the air where the main charge detonates. Has been in service since the early 1980s. Not that they can’t design these expensive time fuses of course… the ANIET system for their tanks uses the tanks existing laser rangefinder and ballistic computer and a special fuse for standard HE rounds so shells cen be detonated above troops or above trenches or above helicopters hiding behind trees.
I wouldn’t doubt a word of it, GarryB, if the Soviets/Russians have spent as much, if not more, time, money and effort developing more advanced infantry weapons than anyone else, then one shouldn’t be so surprised if some of their technology turns out superior to anything found in other countries, but can you say the same about their stealth/ LO technology?
Pyotr Ufimtsev. Lockheed engineers read his paper and realized they could use his concepts to predict how radar waves scatter after hitting a flat surface. Hence, faceting. Plug that crap into a computer and you can model yourself a VLO platform.
Pyotr Ufimtsev, who in turn, based a lot of his work upon the research of the Scotsman James Clerk Maxwell and the German Arnold Johannes Somerfeld. Scientists don’t live in their own bubbles, even if they live in opposite sides of the Iron Curtain. Being aware of the basic physics is one thing, turning it into a workable application is another. Or in the case of the Soviets in the 1960s, when they ignored Ufimstev’s work, not even being aware that it could converted into a useful application.
Levsha, the 10yr Soviet ‘technology gap’ you tout is hardly applicable today.
The traditional Soviet lag was in microprocessor/integrated circuits, which required huge central investments to facilitate the ‘post-industrial revolution’. Soviet central planning was grossly inefficient and corruption rife, hence these ‘gaps’ were perpetuated, not to mention dooming the USSR.
That’s what I’ve already said in my last post:
But that was the Soviet Union 30 years ago and Iâm not saying that you can apply the same logic to the Russian Federation today. Certainly the Su-35BM would show that the Russians have already done a lot of catching up and have already developed an aircraft equal to any 4+ âEurocanardâ â and I donât see why any aircraft thatâs good enough for the Europeans, or even the Japanese, shouldnât be good enough for the Russians as well, why do they need to have A 5th generation aircraft anyway!
I’m just wondering how the Russians will be able to catch up on the USA in Stealth technology, although I’m not saying they won’t.
LevshaThanks for the link, sferrin!
I love it when posters on forums refer me to liveleak and youtube!:D
This is what I found when I “surfed” a bit after looking at the fizzling Sea Dart;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=833_1186752934
I’d have to say that:
a) it’s either for real
b) very well done for a hoax
Do UFOs have to bank into a turn?:confused::rolleyes:
LevshaThe only thing that F-117 has in common with fighters is the “F” in its name
Ok, you specified a stealth air superiority fighter which the F-117 isnât by any stretch of the imagination â my mistake, never the less, the point I was making was, that the Americans where fielding LO front line combat aircraft since the early 1980s⌠a long time before anyone else.
I suppose you could use the same logic as when the Su-27 ‘Flanker B’ entered service, 10 yrs after the F-14/15/18, it was the superior aircraft. When the 1.44 was assembled not long after the US ATF competition, it was a truly radical design.
Iâm not so sure about the Su-27/US 4th gen. comparison. In the field of its planeform/aerodynamics the FLANKER definitely had a lot to show for itself because of its 10 years youth, been almost comparable with the 4+ generation eurocanards (aerodynamics were always a Soviet strength). But its avionics were definitely not an improvement, despite the ten year advantage, while the Man-Machine interface on the Su was no better than 3rd generation – traditional Soviet weaknesses, A mixed bag.
But that was the Soviet Union 30 years ago and Iâm not saying that you can apply the same logic to the Russian Federation today. Certainly the Su-35BM would show that the Russians have already done a lot of catching up and have already developed an aircraft equal to any 4+ âEurocanardâ â and I donât see why any aircraft thatâs good enough for the Europeans, or even the Japanese, shouldnât be good enough for the Russians as well, why do they need to have A 5th generation aircraft anyway!
I’m not saying that the Russians couldn’t develop a 5th generation fighter with stealth capabilities equal to today’s F-22 – but that could well be just another example of the traditional 10 year “Soviet” technological lag!
We’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we…
LevshaLOL.. How is that different from someone believing US could build a good stealth air superiority fighter (read F-22) despite never before having built one?
They already did – the F-117
Along with the many decades of research and development of LO aircraft including the actual bringing into service of many different types employing LO technologies such as SR-71, B-2 – not to mention technology demonstrators like the Have Blue and Tacit Blue.
It would take years for any other country, including Russia, to catch up.
You got to take into account that labor price in Russia is much lower than in the States. And reearch and development means roughly 30% personal costs. Plus material cost is lower, especially for common laboratory material and less sophisticated domestically produced devices.
Labour costs maybe 30% percent or 50% of the USA’s, but Russia’s military budget is only about 5% of America’s – is it enough to finance any new 5th generation fighter?:confused:
LevshaQuoting Homer (Simpson), “…Finally!!”
I hope “Sasha” Zelin will be more modest in the announcements he makes than the previous air force commander-in-chief, “Vova” Mikhailov.
“Vova” stretched credibility till it screamed…:D
Otaku
Who is going to buy PAK FA?
Who is going to buy the Su-35?
Who is going to buy the MiG-35?
Bearing in mind just how much/little has been invested in the Russian air force in the last 15 years (how many VVS pilots have actually ever sat a “glass cockpit”?), it streches credibility somewhat that it is suddenly going to splash out on, oh, let’s say 180:D 5th gen fighters in the next ten years.:confused:
Along with the fact that India will be so preoccupied, for many years/decades to come, financing LCA, Su-30MKI, MMRCA, etc, while China sticks to producing its own J-10s and J-11s – who else in the world is going to be able to buy a Russian aircraft cost 100 million+ USD a piece?:confused:
LevshaI’ve never heard about the second BA flight which lost all engines over Africa, but I have heard about a similar incident regarding a KLM Boeing 743 losing all engines after flying over an erupting volcano in Alaska sometime in the late 1980s.
I believe it went into something of a steep dive upon losing power but recovered power after leaving the dust cloud.
LevshaAnything less than something taking off, flying and landing under its own power while the production lines are busy with pumping out at least 200 copies is smoke mirrors as far as I’m concerned. đ
So the B-1B, B-2, and Tu-160 are all smoke and mirrors then? None of them ever hit 200 aircraft…
Talking to someone who works in the Russian aerospace industry here in Moscow, who gave me his impressions upon âPAK FAâ (donât ask whether heâs really in the know or not). He explained to me that there is no 5th generation fighter, that the final summation of Russian fighter aircraft design for a long time is going to be the Su-35, and that the only reason that people keep talking about PAK FA (Perspektivnii Aviyatsionnii Komplekc â Frontovoi Aviyatsii) is that they get it confused with PAK DA (Perspektivnii Aviyatsionnii Komplekc âDalnoi Aviyatsii), which is some sort of long-range bomber to replace the Tu-160.
âWell thatâs going to throw the cat among the pigeons with some people on a certain aviation forum I contribute to,â I replied.
“Yeah, well the problem it seems is that the Russian aerospace industry has no original ideas, and there is an ever increasing shortage of qualified and experienced staff in Russia, to design and build the latest combat aircraft,” he replied.
I might not have thought much of this if I hadnât read only today, an article on the ARMS-TASS website were the Commander in Chief of the Russian air force, General Alexander Zelin, states that the modernised MiG-31 will have many of the latest technologies, which have been developed for Russiaâs 5th generation fighter and will have no problem detecting and shooting down cruise missiles or other 5th gen. LO aircraft.
Practicing some amateur kremlinology and trying to read between the lines, I couldnât help but think that what he was trying to say was that the MiG-31BM was going to be the most important counter to the latest generation low observable aircraft for many years to come, in the absence of any Russian 5th generation aircraft.
LevshaDoes anybody have some good information, or web sites, that has a list of victory claims by aircraft type?
Thanks
Carey
I should think that the top scoring aircraft overall through out the war ought to be the Bf-109, bearing in mind the amount of action it saw in all 6 years of the wars – especially on the Eastern front.
I faintly recall reading many years ago, that the top scoring aircraft (shooting down the largest No. of enemy aircraft) of the allies wasn’t a fighter at all, but was in fact the B-17 Flying Fortress!:confused:
Sign In
