First question is how to define “supersonic in vertical flight”. I guess you mean an effective vertical speed of more than the local speed of sound. That is the vertical speed must be between 340 (low) and 305 (high) meters per second.

Most fighters will be able to achieve this but only under the condition that they accelerate to maximum speed in level flight and zoom up. Even the most powerful fighters will not achieve the 330+ m/s vertical speed in a best climb profile.
Of course they could lift off the runway, accelerate to supersonic speed (up to M1.2-1.3 at low level for current fighters like F-16 or MiG-29) and then zoom up. But that is not the best climb profile.

Because the drag drastically increases beyond M0.95, a supersonic climb would be unefficient. For climb targets beyond 10.000m it might be helpful to accelerate beyond M1, but that also depends on the available power and drag.

In conclusion: No fighter (except maybe for record aircraft) can achieve and sustain supersonic vertical speed in a normal climb profile. But most fighters can transfer horizontal into vertical speed and hence achieve supersonic vertical speed for short periods. These max speed in zoom-up are often given as “Max Climb Speed”. Forget them, they are crap.

Realistic numbers are maximum sustained climb with full internal fuel, “normal” engines and eventually minimum armamment. These numbers vary between 180 and 260 m/s (these speeds are achieved at a certain point in a climb profile, they are not the average). More interesting is the effective climb speed gathered by time from brake release to 10.000m subsonic level-flight. Climb rate is then in the range of 80-100 m/s (for modern fighters).

All this talk of FOD for the outboard engines has me wondering. Has anyone looked at a Boeing 737 with the big fans? How about the inboard engines on KC-135s & relatives? Apparently FOD isn’t the issue some mention. Also, ISTR reading somewhere that one drawback to the 4 engined scheme is that the B-52 was designed to lose a max of 2 of 4 engines on either side as opposed to losing 1 of 2 engines on either side. This, combined with the increased thrust, apparently was a concern structurally, as well as aerodynamically.

The issue with losing engines would be an issue for the VTP and control speed. Can’t rate if this problem is for real. But if control at one-engine out is critical, it is a sure showstopper for retrofit-solutions.

Another issue may be flexibility of the wings.

The Thrust/Weight ratio of the CFM56 (or the other alternative) is lower than the current engine. The fuel consumption is much lower, too. So, it is maybe possibly to reduce the maximum take-off weight and by that reduce the required thrust. That wouldn’t be a big leap in performance, but fuel can be topped when airborne. The B-52 anyways rarely take-off with MTOW due to the loss of take-off performance and the increased strain on the engines.

Possibly the USAF will decide one day that a completely rebuild wing is the best way forward (would increase the life-span to in-definite periods). Then the engine positions can be changed (more inward).

Hmmm onesly I donth blame the people in the west(spesialy north america) for thaer way of thinking the propaganda was very strong and still is. I am in Canada but originaly I am from Bulgaria and I know people from all over the WP and USSR and many of them are realy sory fo the fall of comunisam the only ones that are not are the countries that ware virtualy ocopaed Czech republic, Hungary, and East Germany. Nobady likes invadors no mather. And why do you think Iraq used Soviet tactics, Sadam both wepons and spesialist from all over the world including US and Europe he was using his expirience as well. And USSR was not abale invade the west never had resorces.

And let stop this discusion becouse it’s geting no were.

So, countries where random citizens were not killed by Soviet troops actually liked to be ruled by Moscow?
I would also think of Poland and The Baltics, who did not seem exactly happy about Soviet presence. Eastern Germany had the nice option to send all political “problems” in the West and even charge some money for it.

Why don’t people in Bulgaria vote for a communist government if they miss it that much? They even make it worse by joining the European Union.

You and others have stated the Soviets wanted to invade and occupy all of Europe. Is that not implying that not just Soviet Russia but all of the Soviet Union had the single goal of oppressing all of Europe?

I said that a few might have had plans. So had the West. I never said that Soviet Russia wanted to invade NATO, I just see that you really like me to think that, otherwise I wouldn’t fit the Western stereotype (which would be a shock for you).

There are three powers in the former Soviet Union and now Russia. The Duma, which we in the west would simply call the government, the NKVD/KGB/FSB, and the armed forces. Stalin was all powerful because he had total control of the Duma and the NKVD.
the red army was founded to win the civil war. It wasn’t supposed as defence army against foreign armys first, but had to fight Russian people mostly. Although that changed after Soviet power was established (mid 20s), but the Red Army always was a political instrument (you will tell me now that it is the same in W Europe, but believe me, it’s not).

IS THAT ALL!!! Considering Germany had just initiated a war that cost approximately 25 million Soviet citizens to die, and most of the developed area of the country leveled in bombing or battles I would have thought the treatment of the East German citizens that supported that war effort would be treated worse than the Russians themselves were treated. And considering the Russians are all evil that would include all sorts of terrible torture and unspeakable acts. Those that didn’t flee would certainly have been gassed or sent to siberia surely…
Those who supported the war by the heart were mostly dead. The Soviet Union made some mistakes in the late 40s and actually caused the GDR to be a failed country. They tried to correct but ran out of money.

So what the f is the point of a vote if you don’t even have a choice? Might as well have no vote and let them sort it out themselves.
If you mistrust all possible choices then you might leave the country. In the country where I live in everybody is free to go anytime (granting that others will accept him).

Many also took military secrets to ensure they were given asylum… which made shooting defectors pretty much justifyable.

If that is your opinion, I guess we can suspend discussion about all this democracy stuff now. Obviously you won’t get it in this life.

Some wonder why I am always defending Russia and its people because they are so evil and the west and the US is soo good.

Because you swith to “DEFEND-Mode” and start to take every sentence as accusation against mighty Russia. Just skimming over your reply, you really take your time to show me that you know everything better. Actually, I am not impressed.
From what I have read and heard (and I know a lot of people who served in Eastern Army) I came to some conclusions myself, which are based on facts. Please don’t try to imply that Soviet Russia had one single opinion. There were different streams inside the Kreml and the army. Until the end of the Stalin era the army was very important as means for keeping power inside the country. In general, the red army was a much more important part of the society than any western army in its respective society.

If you start to actual discussion and not just try to prove that we are all idiots, you maybe don’t need to defend mighty Russia.

What we`re saying is that our military strategies were for defensive purposes, not attack.

I think that is true. What went through the mind of some Soviet planers is one thing, but I guess nobody in Eastern Europe ever wanted to move out and bring communism to the poor people in Western Europe. Some people in Eastern Germany maybe were eager, but so were people in the west (in “liberating” East Germany).

And all these nuke warheads were just mockup?

Just wanted to say that deployment of huge conventional forces was part of the military doctrin of Soviet Russia. Those forces threatened Western Europe (in the minds of Western people). Finally it comes out that at least after ~1965 nobody really considered to start a first strike.
The Soviets for instance were really scared of Pershing II missiles, while the NATO was scared of SS-20.

The whole issue teaches us that military power quickly developes its own dynamics, and that military forces need to be contained and downsized as long as you have sane people on your border.