Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Russians and Chinese have learned from the F-14 ?

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • KGB
    KGB
    Senior Member
    • Mar 2016
    • 1426

    #21
    The F-14 is one sleazy looking aircraft. Sleazy in a good way. That low slung wing. Overall excess in size and angles. The Lisa Ann of fighter jets.


    Comment

    • haavarla
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Dec 2008
      • 6672

      #22
      Originally posted by Sens View Post
      There is nothing wrong with "copies", when someone comes to a similar technical solution for his weapon-system built later on. None is to blame about that, when he adopted a similar solution to skip some otherwise expensive avenues to explore.
      Nothing wrong with copy no.
      They were after all nemesis. USSR and US. So they spied on each other. I would say Tu-160 also is a copy of B1.
      Thanks

      Comment

      • Flanker_man
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2000
        • 3677

        #23
        Originally posted by haavarla View Post
        I would say Tu-160 also is a copy of B1.
        Yes - almost an exact copy..........



        Ken (I can't find a sarcastic emoticon)
        Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
        Flankers (& others) website at :-
        http://flankers.co.uk/

        Comment

        • obligatory
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2008
          • 7043

          #24
          agree with flanker man, a faster bomber isnt a copy, its evolution,
          now Tu-4 otoh share some similarities of B-29

          Comment

          • KGB
            KGB
            Senior Member
            • Mar 2016
            • 1426

            #25
            Originally posted by haavarla View Post
            Nothing wrong with copy no.
            They were after all nemesis. USSR and US. So they spied on each other. I would say Tu-160 also is a copy of B1.
            Many aviation enthusiasts are quick to point out the similarities between the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack and the American B-1 Lancer. The assumption seems to be that the Tupolev design is a crude imitation of the Rockwell design.

            Where that theory runs into a brick wall is when you take into account the design heritage of the Tupolev design, which clearly shows precursory hints at the ultimate design years before the B-1 program was even launched.

            http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread199317/pg1

            Comment

            • garryA
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2015
              • 1120

              #26
              Originally posted by obligatory View Post
              agree with flanker man, a faster bomber isnt a copy, its evolution
              You know the B-1A actually very fast until they realized speed is not the answer for SAM right ?. Modification of the intake on B-1B is what reduced its speed

              Comment

              • haavarla
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2008
                • 6672

                #27
                Originally posted by garryA View Post
                You know the B-1A actually very fast until they realized speed is not the answer for SAM right ?. Modification of the intake on B-1B is what reduced its speed
                Well its to the embarresment to US and kudos to USSR that Tupolev did it right.
                Pretty sure Tupolev looked at the B-1 and said: - hey, not a bad idea!

                The B-1B was not only too slow, but too small for any NC deterrence mission. Not big enough weapons bay for carrying any serious clubs.
                The B-1 was supposed to be a jack of all trades in both convential and NC missions, but instead became quite limited in both camps.

                But then again US started B-1 early in the 70's, so in hindsight its always easier to follow up from where other left off.
                Last edited by haavarla; 6th February 2017, 03:19.
                Thanks

                Comment

                • obligatory
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 7043

                  #28
                  i meant, a supersonic bomber was only to be expected, russia wouldnt have had to see B-1 to build one.
                  ironically they cost so much to operate that relics from another age and museum, like B-52,
                  keep on

                  Comment

                  • garryA
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2015
                    • 1120

                    #29
                    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                    Well its to the embarresment to US and kudos to USSR that Tupolev did it right.
                    Pretty sure Tupolev looked at the B-1 and said: - hey, not a bad idea!

                    The B-1B was not only too slow, but too small for any NC deterrence mission. Not big enough weapons bay for carrying any serious clubs.
                    The B-1 was supposed to be a jack of all trades in both convential and NC missions, but instead became quite limited in both camps
                    The speed of B-1B was a design philosophy rather than US incapable of producing high supersonic bomber. The original B-1A with variable inlet can actually reached top speed of Mach 2.2 . However, USAF varius studies shows that with the development of SAM , high supersonic bomber would be no more survivable than the old subsonic B-52. Which indicate in the change of B-1B design, fixed inlet instead of variable inlet for RCS reduction and structure re enforce for low altitude mission below radar horizon.

                    The original B-1 also intended to have external weapon pylon for nuclear missiles too( another 22000 kg of payload if i recall correctly), however, that is restricted by START I treaty

                    Comment

                    • Rii
                      Rii
                      Senior Member
                      • Oct 2010
                      • 3449

                      #30
                      Gosh, looking at all those concepts just makes one sigh at what might have been.

                      Comment

                      • haavarla
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 6672

                        #31
                        Originally posted by garryA View Post
                        The speed of B-1B was a design philosophy rather than US incapable of producing high supersonic bomber. The original B-1A with variable inlet can actually reached top speed of Mach 2.2 . However, USAF varius studies shows that with the development of SAM , high supersonic bomber would be no more survivable than the old subsonic B-52. Which indicate in the change of B-1B design, fixed inlet instead of variable inlet for RCS reduction and structure re enforce for low altitude mission below radar horizon.

                        The original B-1 also intended to have external weapon pylon for nuclear missiles too( another 22000 kg of payload if i recall correctly), however, that is restricted by START I treaty

                        Yes I know about the would be on B-1.
                        Extrernal hardpoints is a huge compromise, which was my point in my last post. Range and speed wise.
                        Thanks

                        Comment

                        • invictus_slo
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Mar 2008
                          • 97

                          #32
                          Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                          agree with flanker man, a faster bomber isnt a copy, its evolution,
                          now Tu-4 otoh share some similarities of B-29
                          Actually Tu-4 was exact copy of B-29, bolt by bolt. Stalin job to Tupoljev. Even admitted by Soviets.
                          I.

                          Comment

                          • KGB
                            KGB
                            Senior Member
                            • Mar 2016
                            • 1426

                            #33
                            Originally posted by invictus_slo View Post
                            Actually Tu-4 was exact copy of B-29, bolt by bolt. Stalin job to Tupoljev. Even admitted by Soviets.
                            This is true. The only truly shameless copy, bolt for bolt, is Tupolev TU4

                            Comment

                            • paralay
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Aug 2005
                              • 1400

                              #34
                              From the history of the Tu-160 ...

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	book-tu160__08.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	174.7 KB
ID:	3672961

                              Comment

                              • Fedaykin
                                Fueled by Tea
                                • Dec 2005
                                • 5290

                                #35
                                Originally posted by invictus_slo View Post
                                Actually Tu-4 was exact copy of B-29, bolt by bolt. Stalin job to Tupoljev. Even admitted by Soviets.
                                Well actually no the Tu-4 was not a bolt for bolt copy of the B-29, very close certainly but not exactly the same. There are differences some more significant than one would consider. Regardless of Stalin's orders many compromises had to be made and it is more accurate to say the Tu-4 is a reversed engineered B-29. There were absurdities in that process and they were forced to unnecessarily and slavishly copy systems that had better alternatives nevertheless there a changes from the engines, guns, radios, IFF and even the aircraft skin plus the conversion to metric.

                                The B-29 does have an ongoing influence to this day on Russian bomber design most notably the Tu-95 that has in effect the same fuselage dimensions width wise.
                                Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                                Comment

                                • MadRat
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2006
                                  • 5033

                                  #36
                                  OT, I know, but regardless how the B-1/Tu-160 evolved it would been pretty interesting to see a fighter laid out like them. So instead of one 32,000 b st thrust engine you use four much simpler and easier to manipulate 8,000 b st engines with much smaller radar returns. Third World countries have cheap labor, so it probably fit them better than huge monolithic engines .
                                  Go Huskers!

                                  Comment

                                  • obligatory
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Oct 2008
                                    • 7043

                                    #37
                                    totally disagree there, the one part that is an expensive maintenance hog is the engine,
                                    the less of em the merrier

                                    Comment

                                    Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                    Collapse

                                     

                                    Working...
                                    X