Russia reveals hypersonic stealth bomber

[+Hammerclaw]

One underestimates Russian technological expertise at their peril. They excel at adapting preexisting technology and innovating new technologies. One need read only how they back engineered, in almost microscopic detail, exact copies of an interned B-29 bomber, post WW2, to realize the caliber of people we were up against in the bad old days.

[Thorvir]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

One underestimates Russian technological expertise at their peril. They excel at adapting preexisting technology and innovating new technologies. One need read only how they back engineered, in almost microscopic detail, exact copies of an interned B-29 bomber, post WW2, to realize the caliber of people we were up against in the bad old days.

The thing is, I'm not underestimating it.  I'm calling it like it is.  They may excel at adapting, but their standards are low and they favor quantity over quality.  Does that work for them?  Obviously, it does, and they're happy with the situation.

The "exact" copy of the B-29, the Tu-4, was not.  It was a copy, not a very good one, but it gave them an interim heavy bomber until they could come up with one of their own.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[RoofGardener]

Meh.... hype and propaganda. It's not even internally consistent. Firstly we hear that the engine will be ready in 2020, then we hear it will be demonstrated at an air show in September (this year), and then another quote says it has already been tested.

Perhaps the Russians are worried about an emerging bull**** Gap between themselves and the Iranian Republican Guard, and are working to catch up ?

[+Hammerclaw]

32 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

The thing is, I'm not underestimating it.  I'm calling it like it is.  They may excel at adapting, but their standards are low and they favor quantity over quality.  Does that work for them?  Obviously, it does, and they're happy with the situation.

The "exact" copy of the B-29, the Tu-4, was not.  It was a copy, not a very good one, but it gave them an interim heavy bomber until they could come up with one of their own.

No. They made EXACT copies of the B-29 right down to patched holes in the fuselage and wings under direct orders of Stalin, and it was an excellent replication, Even parts from the original American made plane were interchangeable. Perhaps subsequent manufacturing runs were inferior but not the first. They were terrified of Stalin and when he said make exact copies, they did.

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Hammerclaw

[Merc14]

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No. They made EXACT copies of the B-29 right down to patched holes in the fuselage and wings under direct orders of Stalin, and it was an excellent replication, Even parts from the original American made plane were interchangeable. Perhaps subsequent manufacturing runs were inferior but not the first. They were terrified of Stalin and when he said make exact copies, they did.

This isn't a copy of anything, however, it is their own design (caveat with for the most part).  It was always interesting to get up close to a Soviet MIG, when we were finally able to and see how they were not as well constructed as the western jets.  Hard to explain but US jest are precision instruments and the panels can be traded between fuselages without a problem but when you looked at a MIG you'd see that things were always a little "off".  Interesting article on some of the problems the Indians are having with their extensive fleet of modern Russian aircraft.  https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20150701.aspx

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No. They made EXACT copies of the B-29 right down to patched holes in the fuselage and wings under direct orders of Stalin, and it was an excellent replication, Even parts from the original American made plane were interchangeable. Perhaps subsequent manufacturing runs were inferior but not the first. They were terrified of Stalin and when he said make exact copies, they did.

It's not really pertinent to this situation. The Tu-4 was a copy of an existing plane, of which they had several examples. The article is about a plane that is entirely new, so their ability to copy something isn'treally relevant to this discussion, is it ?

[+Hammerclaw]

6 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It's not really pertinent to this situation. The Tu-4 was a copy of an existing plane, of which they had several examples. The article is about a plane that is entirely new, so their ability to copy something isn'treally relevant to this discussion, is it ?

Well, everything else they make and their kitchen sinks are being disparaged in this thread in a fit cold war angst, so why not throw something positive in as well?

[+Hammerclaw]

27 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

This isn't a copy of anything, however, it is their own design (caveat with for the most part).  It was always interesting to get up close to a Soviet MIG, when we were finally able to and see how they were not as well constructed as the western jets.  Hard to explain but US jest are precision instruments and the panels can be traded between fuselages without a problem but when you looked at a MIG you'd see that things were always a little "off".  Interesting article on some of the problems the Indians are having with their extensive fleet of modern Russian aircraft.  https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20150701.aspx

You might be interested in wa

tching this. It's fascinating how two peoples were able to build something so magnificent--more surprising that they were, of course. 

[Merc14]

44 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, everything else they make and their kitchen sinks are being disparaged in this thread in a fit cold war angst, so why not throw something positive in as well?

I used to fly F-14s so I am quite familiar with Soviet aircraft technology and have always had a great respect for it, necessarily so.  I am still with Naval aviation and talk to folks that have had a chance to fly against the Luftwaffe and the quality control deficiencies are obvious.  It's not debatable.  Also technology is not up to western levels yet but they make incredibly powerful machines that can ruin your day if you don't take them seriously.  Plus they make a LOT of them, always have.   Plan on being outnumbered.   They are also very rugged machines and built to survive with a less sophisticated logistics set up and less educated maintainers.  Don't get me wrong, they are lethal machines that one should never take lightly and dogfights are not recommended as their incredibly powerful engines will out turn you all day..

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

44 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, everything else they make and their kitchen sinks are being disparaged in this thread in a fit cold war angst, so why not throw something positive in as well?

The Soviets were fine engineers, I am not by any means saying anything else. The R-7 rocket was a piece of genius (it is still in use today), the AK-47 was a fine assault gun, the T-34 was a great tank, the MiG-15 was a superb fighter plane, but none of this really helps in building a hypersonic stealth bomber. does it ?

It has nothing to do with cold war angst. If you knew something about aircrafts you would know that building a hypersonic stealth planes is extremely difficult. In fact there is no way to make it truly stealthy as anything moving at hypersonic space would light up like a christmas tree to infrared sensors. (You might be able to cool the plane, but you can't cool the exhaust) 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

I used to fly F-14s so I am quite familiar with Soviet aircraft technology and have always had a great respect for it, necessarily so.  I am still with Naval aviation and talk to folks that have had a chance to fly against the Luftwaffe and the quality control deficiencies are obvious.  It's not debatable.  Also technology is not up to western levels yet but they make incredibly powerful machines that can ruin your day if you don't take them seriously.  Plus they make a LOT of them, always have.   Plan on being outnumbered.   They are also very rugged machines and built to survive with a less sophisticated logistics set up and less educated maintainers.  Don't get me wrong, they are lethal machines that one should never take lightly and dogfights are not recommended as their incredibly powerful engines will out turn you all day..

I wouldn't argue those points, either. We do have the technological edge. Point is--so did Germany in WW2-- yet as you reference, Russia's plan then as it is now, was to flood the battle space with technologically inferior hardware in overwhelming numbers. Front line German commanders pleaded, to no avail, for cheap copies of T-34s to match those numbers.

[bmk1245]

As already have been mentioned, Russia is in big economic turmoil (and raging corruption): they run into financial problems building bridge connecting Crimea with "continental" land, building stadiums for 2018 football world championship, etc, they have problems with naval surface-to-air missiles (Poliment-Redut naval system), they postponed delivery of spy ship Ivan Hurs (project 18280) and assault ship Ivan Gren (project 11711) due to technical/design problems... And how many other problems are there, we can only guess.

[NiteMarcher]

The only thing another country needs to hurl our way is EMPs...forget about the planes...

[Merc14]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 5:45 PM, Hammerclaw said:

I wouldn't argue those points, either. We do have the technological edge. Point is--so did Germany in WW2-- yet as you reference, Russia's plan then as it is now, was to flood the battle space with technologically inferior hardware in overwhelming numbers. Front line German commanders pleaded, to no avail, for cheap copies of T-34s to match those numbers.

Yep, that was our biggest fear and we practiced daily against overwhelming odds although the Tomcat's primary mission was long range interception of bombers carrying anti-ship cruise missiles, get out  there and knock the bomber(s) down before it(they) could launch missiles.  If you wanted to beat the Soviets you shot the pilots, not the aircraft, sad but true.  It was easy to build a MIG 21 but not so easy to teach a person to fly it in combat.

That said, the Russians aren't anywhere near as powerful, conventionally speaking, as the Soviets were.  In fact they are having a hard time handling the Ukraine and Syria simultaneously, not that I'd ever give then short shrift.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Merc14

[Thorvir]

On 7/18/2016 at 4:20 PM, Hammerclaw said:

No. They made EXACT copies of the B-29 right down to patched holes in the fuselage and wings under direct orders of Stalin, and it was an excellent replication, Even parts from the original American made plane were interchangeable. Perhaps subsequent manufacturing runs were inferior but not the first. They were terrified of Stalin and when he said make exact copies, they did.

What they made was a fair copy that wasn't as good as the original.  Making an "exact copy" using inferior techniques and equipment isn't actually that.

On 7/18/2016 at 4:46 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Well, everything else they make and their kitchen sinks are being disparaged in this thread in a fit cold war angst, so why not throw something positive in as well?

It's not "cold war angst", it's just how it is, and as you claimed here:
 

On 7/18/2016 at 5:45 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Russia's plan then as it is now, was to flood the battle space with technologically inferior hardware in overwhelming numbers.

Nothing wrong with this tactic.  It works.  But one a case-to-case basis, Russian stuff isn't as good as the stuff from the West.  The Tu-4 was good.  Not as good as the original.  That, in no way, means that it didn't do the job.  This claim of a hypersonic warplane is just that, a claim.  And traditionally, it means it won't be as good as one made in the United States.

[Thorvir]

26 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yep, that was our biggest fear and we practiced daily against overwhelming odds although the Tomcat's primary mission was long range interception of bombers carrying anti-ship cruise missiles, get out  there and knock the bomber(s) down before it(they) could launch missiles. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix

And these were the missiles designed for the Tomcat to do it's job.

[Merc14]

Just now, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix

And these were the missiles designed for the Tomcat to do it's job.

Our wingman.   

[+Hammerclaw]

4 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yep, that was our biggest fear and we practiced daily against overwhelming odds although the Tomcat's primary mission was long range interception of bombers carrying anti-ship cruise missiles, get out  there and knock the bomber(s) down before it(they) could launch missiles.  If you wanted to beat the Soviets you shot the pilots, not the aircraft, sad but true.  It was easy to build a MIG 21 but not so easy to teach a person to fly it in combat.

That said, the Russians aren't anywhere near as powerful, conventionally speaking, as the Soviets were.  In fact they are having a hard time handling the Ukraine and Syria simultaneously, not that I'd ever give then short shrift.

I use to play conflict simulations in a club before PCs. Red Star, White Star, Mech War '77 and such, and the logistics tail was always a nightmare for the Red side, all too easily disrupted. We always drove them back beyond the Bug River in short order and onto their own turf after that, no nukes involved. Personally, I would trade all our new super jets for overwhelming numbers of F-16s.

[seeder]

US superior tech 

 

Quote

 

US Navy's newest $12.9bn supercarrier doesn't work: Most expensive warship ever built 'struggles with jets taking off and landing' according to internal memo as delivery is delayed again

    $12.9 billion warship, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is not ready for combat, the Department of Defense says
    The massive 'supercarrier' is the most expensive Navy warship ever built and is due to be commissioned this year
    The ship delivery is scheduled for November, more than two years late of its original date of September 2014
    A government memo says 'poor or unknown reliability issues' are behind the latest roll out problems with the ship

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701727/Navy-s-12-9-billion-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-delayed-dogged-reliability-issues.html#ixzz4F9eiJB6O

 

 

[Thorvir]

12 minutes ago, seeder said:

US superior tech 

Show something the Russian's have that's comparable in technology and ability at this time, then.

And yes, US superior tech.  You can't make fun of it, you can point out that something does work, but at the end of the day, you'll be just as wrong.

[Thorvir]

18 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Personally, I would trade all our new super jets for overwhelming numbers of F-16s.

But then that's using quantity over quality, which is the Russian's way of doing things.

I do like the F-16.  One of the best warbirds ever constructed.  The ANG base outside of Terre Haute switch from F-4s to F-16s while I was a kid.  Coolest thing I ever saw back then when they made their approach to land over the house.

[Merc14]

19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I use to play conflict simulations in a club before PCs. Red Star, White Star, Mech War '77 and such, and the logistics tail was always a nightmare for the Red side, all too easily disrupted. We always drove them back beyond the Bug River in short order and onto their own turf after that, no nukes involved. Personally, I would trade all our new super jets for overwhelming numbers of F-16s.

We used to train against the A-4F Skyhawks, basically A-4s with F-4 Phantom (J53) engines plugged into them and they were brutal in ACM.  They could turn that nose on you with almost know forward speed and whack you.  We always thought that 150 of those, with a Tigershark radar, on a carrier would be a pretty effective weapons platform.   Cheap, reliable, easy to maintain and highly maneuverable.  http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/douglas-4f-skyhawk-ii

Edited July 22, 2016 by Merc14

[seeder]

cat among the pigeons time
 

Quote

 

Syria: Russia’s Military Might Surprises West

Western media has raised hue and cry blaming Russia for great collateral damage in Syria. Much has been said about the Russian air strikes not being accurate enough to minimize the damage to civilian infrastructure and death toll among civilians.

For decades, Western military leaders viewed Russia’s military capabilities with condescension pointing at «obsolete» equipment and many drawbacks. They used to say that Russia was no match for NATO.

But the demonstration of Russia’s military capabilities in Syria has come as a shock.

A just published confidential NATO analytical report on the issue has admitted Russia’s superiority over the Alliance’s forces and has praised Moscow for the «accuracy and efficiency» of its air strikes.

 According to the information obtained by German Focus magazine, the Russian Aerospace Forces operations are much more effective than NATO air strikes, despite the Alliance’s numerical superiority.

The article written by Josef Hufelschulte published by Focus on March 5 refers to a classified NATO report, which informs that 40 Russian combat aircraft fly 75 sorties daily to deliver precision strikes against Islamic State targets.

NATO experts believe Russian SU-35 aircraft to be superior to anything the Alliance has in its inventory.

The paper emphasizes the fact that Russian crews are better trained.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/03/09/syria-russia-military-might-surprises-west.html

 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

9 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

But then that's using quantity over quality, which is the Russian's way of doing things.

I do like the F-16.  One of the best warbirds ever constructed.  The ANG base outside of Terre Haute switch from F-4s to F-16s while I was a kid.  Coolest thing I ever saw back then when they made their approach to land over the house.

Colonel Boyd knew what he wrought, a plane designed from the ground up to be the best dogfighter in the world. The F-16 embodied his OODA Loop concept in aviation.

[Merc14]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Colonel Boyd knew what he wrought, a plane designed from the ground up to be the best dogfighter in the world. The F-16 embodied his OODA Loop concept in aviation.

They are incredible aircraft.  I wasn't a pilot myself, I was a RIO, but had many battles with the F-16 and rule one was don't get into a turning fight, if you do, you lose.  They could pull G all day and add knots, the F-14A, not so much.  LOL

Edited July 23, 2016 by Merc14