Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/10/2001 4:44:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 11:31:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 11:48:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/10/2001 11:49:07 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:45:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 10:27:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 10:46:11 AM EDT
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Have you folks seen the Russian version of the Tomahawk missle, nicknamed Tomahawksi in the west, and a bunch of other western aircraft that looks surprisingly the same. I bet that the KGB stole the plans. Why re-invent the wheel when the American companies/taxpayer already did the R&D. One good turn deserves another.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:01:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Have you folks seen the Russian version of the Tomahawk missle, nicknamed Tomahawksi in the west, and a bunch of other western aircraft that looks surprisingly the same. I bet that the KGB stole the plans. Why re-invent the wheel when the American companies/taxpayer already did the R&D. One good turn deserves another.
View Quote
How about their Space Shuttle, XB-70, B-29, and C-141 clones.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:35:25 AM EDT
Seeing that Sukhoi-25 brings back many good memories of playing "Frogfoot" on someone else's computer. I spent a lot of time chasing down hostile western fixed and rotary wing with wire-guided anti-tank missiles, ground attack rockets... "Bulla dura, shtick molinyets."
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:41:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 11:33:43 AM EDT by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:42:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:45:24 AM EDT
Actually, there is only passing similarity between the Su-25 and the A-9A. The Su-25 wing is back-tapered with significant anhedral, whereas the A-9 has a straight, flat and rather thick-chord wing. The Su-25 has much longer and narrower engine nacelles, due to its turbojet (as opposed to turbofan) engines. The fuselage on the Su-25 continues quite far aft of the empennage, with the vertical stabilizer and rudder atop the fuselage, whereas the A-9's fuselage ends with the rudder. Speaking of empennage, the Su-25 has its horizontal tail almost inline with the wings, but with only slight dihedral. The A-9 has its horizontal tail much higher than the wings, with very pronounce dihedral. The Su-25 has a high, stepped canopy as opposed to the A-9's lower-sitting cockpit with the large bubble. Really, both of these craft are described more by the basic requirements of a close air support attack plane than any similarity to anything else. If anything, both could be said to be simply enlarged and much more rugged descendants of the Cessna A/T-37 Dragonfly. Now the Buran/Rockwell International Orbiter deal - there's a case of flay out copying. But remember, there's nothing particularly classified about the Space Shuttle airframe. They might have been able to get drawings just by asking for them! The Tu-2 was a reverse-engineered B-29. Tupolev simply took a few Strats apart that Russia was given by the US at the end of the war, figured out how to make tooling, and put them into production. Even the Tu-95 Bear (and its various sub-types) owe much to Tupolev's access to the pressurized fuselage and thin wing innovations of the B-29. The Tu-144 bears a much stronger resemblance to the Concorde than it does the XB-70 or the cancelled Boeing SST. The Brits/Frogs were much further along on their SST than was the US, so that's the one that the Soviets were able to copy with mixed success. The recent cooperative venture between Russia and NASA has given us much more insight into the Tu-144 than we could have ever hoped for. As far as a C-141 clone goes, you'll have to expand on that a bit for me, QCMGR. All of the big Antonov transports that I'm familiar with are pretty unique to the old Soviet Union. There was one that bore a more than passing resemblance to the C-5, but IIRC, it never really went into production, and was used more for publicity and propaganda stunts. Remember, of course, that the MiG-15 and -17 were powered by first-generation turbojets that were reverse-engineered from Rolls-Royce Nemes engines that were supplied by the Brits much in the same fashion that the US supplied the B-29s.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:49:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DzlBenz: rather thick-chord wing
View Quote
Oops. Not what I meant. Meant to say thick-section.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:05:00 PM EDT
Well, crap. Forgot about the Su-T4, which is probably what QCMGR was referring to as an XB-70 clone. The Su-T4 has a very similar silhouette to the ill-fated XB-70, but is only about 2/3 the size. Most similar is the engine intake arrangement. But the back end of the two planes is completely different. The Valkyrie's wings ended at the back of the plane, with the fuselage sort of "merging" into the large flat upper wing surface. The Valkyrie also had twin, short vertical stabs, versus the single, large vertical stab on the Su-T4. Actually, the back end of the Su-T4 looks more like the Tu-144 or Concorde. Both have canards right behind the cockpit area, but the Valkyrie's are larger (actually and proportionally) than the ones on the Su-T4. The Su-T4 was built by the USSR as a direct counter to the mission of the XB-70, but ended up being nothing more than a supersonic medium bomber, a role easily better suited to theater-range missiles than manned aircraft.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:07:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:15:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern: The Russians have a propensity for infrared sensors, which is what I am guessing the Frogfoot's nose is full of.
View Quote
Yeah, I would agree with you on that. A byproduct of the "design bureau" concept, if you ask me. Many Sukhoi jets of the era had a similar nose configuration, because once they got something that worked, they stuck with it. No real reward for individual inspiration or innovation under the old central government way of life. Also, certain sensor/weapon combinations would become the "flavor-of-the-month" and would appear on aircraft that didn't seem to make sense.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:26:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:37:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern: I always figured it was because we focused on radar stealth, and they decided the best way to find us was by a hot tailpipe.
View Quote
Well, yeah, but the Su-25 is a ground-attack plane designed mostly for busting up tanks, APCs and the like, which is what the IR seeker in the schnoz is for. I believe the Soviets claimed some air-to-air kills with Su-25s against assorted helicopters in Afghanistan, but not sure if any have ever been confirmed. I know that A-10s are currently carrying AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, as they did in the Gulf, but do not recall ever reading any accounts of A-10s engaging aerial targets. BTW, I couldn't come up with any pictures of any other Sukhoi jets with a nose treatment similar to the SU-25, but I think there were som ground-attack variants of the Su-24. Certainly the MiG-23/27 have been used as ground attack platforms employing similar IR technology.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:40:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:44:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern: The A-10s did engage and eliminate some helicopters during ODS, using the cannon.
View Quote
You know, I try hard not to be a warmonger sort, but it has got to be some kind of special feeling to light up a target with a few dozen 30mm rounds out of that GAU-8/A gun.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:50:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:10:32 PM EDT
Forgot about their B-1 clone.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:11:58 PM EDT
......and F-111 derivative.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:21:09 PM EDT
Yeah, the Tu-160 is a definite B-1A look-alike, and the Su-24 started as a direct counter to the F-111. The Su-24 never really rose to any greatness, even as an export, but the Tu-160 is still a key component to the Russian and Ukrainian air forces. We should recognize, though, that the MiG-29 and Su-29/30/32/33/35/37 represent truly innovative thought and superb execution. The F-22 and JSF will have the advantage of knowing what to catch up to for a change. We are fortunate to have examples of the Mig-29 and Su-32 (I think?) in the US inventory for evaulation.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 4:13:54 PM EDT
How about their heavy lift helicopters?
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 4:28:53 PM EDT
I would say the the Mi-6 really defined what a heavy-lift helicopter should be, although the later Sikorsky S-65 (CH-53) was much more refined. The Mi-12 is a freak, done for the sake of doing, in my estimation. I suppose you could get into a whole chicken-and-egg deal about the Mi-10/S-60/S-64 idea, but both Mil and Sikorsky were responding to a well-documented requirement. Sort of a form-follows-function path to the eventual design. I don't think there is any real blatant case of Soviets copying US helicopter designs, except perhaps the boat hull of the Mi-14, but again just the obvious solution to a basic requirement. You know what they say about helicopters: they don't fly, they just beat the air into submission.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:15:45 PM EDT
Man, you missed the best picture: [:D] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-25-08p02.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:21:27 PM EDT
I'm not sure what would scare me more: 8 x 19 rockets, or that paint job. Yikes!
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 12:29:34 AM EDT
TU-160 = B-1 Bomber???? BAH!!!!! No way, the TU-160 DWARFS the B-1B bomber. The two aircraft don't even compare in terms of flight characteristics. The TU-160 is a true intercontinental bomber, whereas the B-1B or the original Mach 2 B-1A was never meant to fly intercontinental missions. The B-1s were meant to fly pentration or deep interdiction missions from European NATO bases or from Japan. The TU-160 on the otherhand could take out half of Western Europe or a couple of aircraft carrier groups. I just hope the Chinese aren't industrious enough to copy the TU-160. With nuke cruise missiles, it's a lethal weapon and a real strategic deterrant. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 1:00:34 AM EDT
Right, the Tu-160 is not a "clone" of the B-1(A or B), but it does bear a very strong resemblance to the B-1 in its configuration and proportions - perhaps more than any other Soviet/US aircraft comparison. Perhaps you can shed some light onto what the typical payload for a Ukraine-based Blackjack might have been (or still be)?
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:37:41 AM EDT
40,000 kg max load. Here's a link: [url]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm[/url] The B-1B bomber is a little bit less, but the important aspect is the superior range of the Blackjack. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 7:22:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/26/2001 7:18:23 AM EDT by AR_Rifle]
It looked more like the French/German Alpha Jet. [img]http://www.aeronauta.com/asas/alpha1.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.aeronauta.com/asas/alpha2.jpg[/img]
Top Top