There’s this topic:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2863.0

Paul (Overscan)

It wouldn’t hurt you guys to do a tiny bit of research before posting.

T-4, as Scott says, never made it past Mach 1.28 before cancellation. So its a little stupid to say it had a world record at Mach 1.89, no?

It was never an interceptor. Love to know your source for that. It was designed as an intermediate range theatre bomber, with its primary role maritime strike like the Tu-26, for which it would have been armed with two large AShMs called Kh-45 (which had a secondary ability to hit sufficiently radar contrasting ground targets). Kh-2000 was another weapon intended, as well as the optically guided TUS-2.

RD-36-XX engine do not represent a “family”, Janes are misinforming you. The 36 stands for OKB 36, chief designer Kolesov. All these engines have in common is they were designed by the same OKB. Much like R-13-300, R-29-300, where the -300 is for OKB 300, Tumansky.

There’s a very detailed book about T-4 available in Russian by Ildar Bedretdinov which has a full history of this plane and hundreds of drawings and photos.

What were the technical differences between S-54 and S-55?

Did the Russians/Soviets design anything around a single Klimov RD-33? I know Atlas toyed with the idea of putting the RD-33 into the Cheetah. And China has the JF-17. But what about the country that owns the RD-33 design, did they have a single-engine design?

Mikoyan Izdeliyie 33 info on

Secret Projects Forum

Like Einstein said: I have no doubt that God created the universe, I just question whether he had a choice. 😉

That’s the Einstein who said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The vast majority of hard-core scientist believes in God.

Maybe they do in Hicksville, Texas but in the real world, absolutely not.

Has anyone got a graph of the costs rises of fighter programs, starts off with the estimated price and all budgets in between.

If you could graph the Gripen/Typhoon/Rafale/F-22 then stick the F-35 on too, you could get an idea of two things:-

How much the price rises during development.
Just how bad the first estimate of price sucks.

The F-22/F-35 and Rafale/Typhoon pairs would be very telling, has anyone done this? or got the figures..

Come on this would be very interesting for the Airforces Monthly mag

Cheers

I recall the earliest Eurofighter stuff was about “F-18 performance at F-16 cost”. Thats probably not one they’d care to recall now 😀

Wasn’t ATF supposed to be $35 million flyaway? Based on a production run of 750, of course.

Ken, your picture is clearly a fake, though cleverly done.

The REAL satellite pic of the T-12 is here:

The good old ATAR 9K could sustain M 2.0 for more than half an hour … 40 years ago. There’s almost nothing new except propaganda as far as “supercruise” is concerned.

Most turbojets since 1950s can do Mach 2 in afterburner. Its doing it without that is trickier.

Having said that, the Lightning could go supersonic and stay there without afterburning. Reason being that, when designing the P1, afterburners were still novel and it wasn’t prudent to rely on them.