By: haavarla
- 5th February 2017 at 21:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Flanker_man
- 5th February 2017 at 22:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would say Tu-160 also is a copy of B1.
Yes - almost an exact copy..........
Ken (I can't find a sarcastic emoticon)
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 5th February 2017 at 22:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
agree with flanker man, a faster bomber isnt a copy, its evolution,
now Tu-4 otoh share some similarities of B-29
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 5th February 2017 at 23:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: garryA
- 6th February 2017 at 02:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: haavarla
- 6th February 2017 at 03:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th February 2017 at 04:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: garryA
- 6th February 2017 at 07:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 6th February 2017 at 13:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: haavarla
- 6th February 2017 at 14:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Fedaykin
- 6th February 2017 at 22:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: MadRat
- 7th February 2017 at 01:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 .
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 7th February 2017 at 03:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
totally disagree there, the one part that is an expensive maintenance hog is the engine,
the less of em the merrier
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 5th February 2017 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 5th February 2017 at 22:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes - almost an exact copy..........
Ken (I can't find a sarcastic emoticon)
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 5th February 2017 at 22:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
agree with flanker man, a faster bomber isnt a copy, its evolution,
now Tu-4 otoh share some similarities of B-29
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 5th February 2017 at 23:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 02:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 6th February 2017 at 03:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th February 2017 at 04:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 6th February 2017 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gosh, looking at all those concepts just makes one sigh at what might have been.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 6th February 2017 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 96
By: invictus_slo - 6th February 2017 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually Tu-4 was exact copy of B-29, bolt by bolt. Stalin job to Tupoljev. Even admitted by Soviets.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 6th February 2017 at 18:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is true. The only truly shameless copy, bolt for bolt, is Tupolev TU4
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 6th February 2017 at 19:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From the history of the Tu-160 ...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251174[/ATTACH]
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 6th February 2017 at 22:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 7th February 2017 at 01:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 .
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 7th February 2017 at 03:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
totally disagree there, the one part that is an expensive maintenance hog is the engine,
the less of em the merrier