It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ch1466
I despise people who assume that the obvious (U.S. original design theorem copied 'slavically' as an endemic Uncle Sam prideful prejudice rather than an underlying truth) and try to prove the opposite without compareable proofs.
For such evidentiary proof DOES exist. But since it would rain fire and brimstone if /I/ published on the net copyrighted material from _Modern Combat Aircraft, B-1B_ by Mike Spick, I can only say that there are both drawings and models both similar and different from the Russian ones dating from _1961_ when the SLAB studies began. That in fact these systems progressed through multiple 1963-67 iterations as the AMP, LAMP, AMPSS, ERSA, and AMSA _before 1968_.
While we dithered on high/low, fast, slow in the wake of FGP's little misshap.
There really isnt any way to know who knew what when as designs are often sketched out and studied many years before prototypes are built and tested. But given
Length, m: 54.1 44.5 (82%)
Height, m: 13.1 10.4 (79%)
Wing span, m: 55.7 41.8 (75%)
Wing loading, kg/m²: 743 816
Weight empty, kg: 110,000 86,183 (78%)
Weight max, kg: 275,000 214,650 (78%)
Max fuel & payload, kg: 165,000 128,467 (78%)
Essentially the Tu-160 is about 28% larger and has about 28% more capability but has about 25% lower wing loading with a similar load.
I have already stated that the Tu-160 is a superior aerodynamic solution (larger fixed glove percentage of total wingarea among other things). Why shouldn't it be when the B-1_A_ was effectively a medium theater strategic platform much closer in design point to the B-58 or Tu-22M than anything remotely similar to the true intercontinental bombers like the Bear or BUFF?
While the larger and much more powerful Tu-160 should handle better at both high and low speeds with significantly superior payload and range, the smaller B-1B is faster at sea level and, with different engines, could be faster at high altitudes as well.
360,000lbs MTOGW for a _supersonic_ bomber with an intended goal of replacing the B-52 as a strategic penetrator is a complete joke, even with the original engine/inlet combination and 'mostly high' mission profile. Even with a 'one way trip' SIOP reality. Taking that gross up to 420,000lbs (taxi limit) out of 477,000lbs max gross is just begging for trouble when you are operating with a VG system that _retracts wing area with Mach point_.
To the extent that you simply cannot fly fast enough, as a function of cruise thrust, to offset the deficiencies of wingloading on accelerative stall, density height and combat ceiling.
Indeed, even the 'other justification' used for VG, takeoff roll, is also in fact /inferior/ by dint of wing area, wing loading and thrust to weight ratio comparison to the very jet it is designed to replace.
And that's with TF33s!
If you want to talk 'more power' talk Trents. Now you get an honest 10,000 mile platform, unrefueled, out of the BUFF. And enough takeoff thrust to meet all hot-high conditions, irrespective of payload:fuel fractions (the Buff can haul a heckuva lot more gas than the Bone can and it can carry CM which are about the only /useful/ [non escorted, reactionary] MISSION role that bombers now can mount).
Could a similar capability enhancement (along the lines of the TF39 in the C-5 have been drawn up using 1960's technology base instead of the utter waste that was and is the B-1 mission system approach?
Damn straight and for a quarter of the money.
So we're right back at: "Why copy a design which has so many faults in it _if_ you can come up with better on your own?"
Why not a flying wing as represented our 'next' superior configurational approach? Why not an efficient supersonic cruise platform like a Tu-144 X 1.5?
It is because, conceptually, the Russians were _stunted_ in their ability to select independent development paths for 'equivalent' roles which they let U.S. determine for them.
If you've ever read _Illusions Of Choice_ you will see that this is largely a function of Cybernetic/Cognitive Design philosophy as affected by an ultra conservative user organization 'trained from birth' to avoid complexity in defining a preset group of standardized scenario/mission templates.
Irrespective of whether they do the job better or if indeed 'the job' needs doing at all.
Along with little-boy-stamps-foot squddian snootiness, this process of failure to analytically look at a mission platform was what ruined the F-111.
But that's /our/ excuse. What's the Russians?
Didn't the Russians /once/ develop a non-mirror platform with similar mission? Or indeed a -mission- which had _no direct U.S. equivalent_.
Preferring instead to stick with the sloppy analytics approach of 'same mission, same techbase, same solution' excuse for a lack of creative as much as engineering integrity in that one activity which, more than any other, rewards innovation and deviousness.
Indeed, even if you adopt the 'playing black' argument, The Russian Position should itself indicate an unlikely preference for following a trodden path because IF YOU CHOOSE to wait on someone else's developmental technology _coalbed_ to come up with solutions which you copy or steal at the materials/component system level -before- integration with your own platform concept.
Shouldn't your equivalent techbase be better that the otherguys when you start? Shouldn't your 'solution' be more along the lines of blocking or going around his rather than simply lockstep matching him on a 'Tsar Pushka' basis?
Ahhhhh. But it ain't and it wasn't and they didn't. And therein lies the rub inherent to the 'Russians aren't plagiarists!' argument.
No sirree bob. Not by half.
Which is where our own tendency to let herd-speak determine things by dint of historical agreement gets equally annoying because one cow starts the lohing process and then 'by mutual moo' consent, it becomes an indisputable fact.
A tendency to conformance which is so close to the way the Russians thought that it's truly scary.
Originally posted by iqonx
Originally posted by planeman
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.
great post also i need to mention why do people always assume the russians need to steal western technology what makes them think the west doesnt steal russian technology and designs. russia is very advanced technology and science wise its foolish to assume they cannot make something on there own.
also lets be real how do we know for sure america didnt copy russias designs for the b1-lancer. america steals tech too.
[edit on 3/17/06 by FredT]
Originally posted by Travellar
To answer the question raised early in this thread along the lines of "Why does everyone assume the Russians had to copy everything from the Americans", I present as evidence the TU-4, and the atom bomb. There were clear examples of the Soviets having copied and/or stolen American tech, and a known thief is always held suspect.
To be fair, there have been a couple of examples where the Soviet Union devised solutions to military problems unseen in the west, such as the HIND, and the Black Sea Monster. (Official designations for each escape me at the moment)
Since I just love to muddy the waters, I'll ask this question about parralel design versus copying. Assume you're a Soviet aircraft designer, with a potentially controversial design you'd like some funding for. Is it easier to ask for the funding on the aircraft's own merits, or to make a couple of key cosmetic changes before presenting it to the Politbuero with the statement of "The Americans just this, and they may be on to something. Could we have several billion Ruples to copy it?"
The general planformn was the same in the Bf 109 and the P-51
Originally posted by waynos
do you think I live on Jupiter?
However it seems you have completely missed my point. I was using that example to illustrate how the B-1 and Tu-160 are not copies, in either direction.
Yes, the Bf 109 and P-51 DO have the same general planform, .....
Thats my point about why the Tu-160 doesn't have to be a copy of the B-1 just because its the same general shape.
[edit on 24-3-2006 by waynos]
when did the USSR acquire one or more complete B-1 airframes to strip down, analyse and back engineer?
They are two completely different airframes.
Originally posted by orca71
It wasnt so much conformance as fear and fear leads to reactionary thinking. Fear that the US and the rest of the Western world is going to blow them into oblivion while they sleep. As a result, everything we did, they felt they had to show an equal response or risk appearing weak and vulnerable. As a result of it's far greater economic base, the US was always able to up the ante and hence able to determine the course of the cold war. In their unrelenting efforts to bluff their way through a cold war they could never have won they they showcased their capacity for innovation in technology and design. The Tu-160 is a fine example of this.
How is the weather on jupiter?