Forum: Technology

I'm seeing comments supporting the idea that Russian tech peaked in the Soviet era, around 1980. After this time, they started their economic and social collapse. With this in mind, we should be more concerned with Chinese technology, because they have the funds to do their own research and apparently steal ours (F-35).

F-16.net Sponsor

eleanordriver wrote:

I'm seeing comments supporting the idea that Russian tech peaked in the Soviet era, around 1980. After this time, they started their economic and social collapse. With this in mind, we should be more concerned with Chinese technology, because they have the funds to do their own research and apparently steal ours (F-35).

And maybe some comments could be kept in mind too, that massive Govt sponsored and controlled 'Nano-tech' development program is core to a future tech leadership objective? Besides that, wide-spanning technology-migration (or if not, then competitive-tech) will naturely only accelerate?

What kind of leadership objective? Migration, only to the most advanced nations, competition, yes.

Hi everybody,

Code3 wrote:

It doesn't really matter if the info was public or not, the point is that Russia couldn't design it on their own, they had to copy an American design.

Russia could make its own design, actually there were many designs evolving since the 50's. Just take a look at [url=[Link pending approval]]one of them[/url], it was in the works in 1970's and was stopped in favor of "STS" design. Designs like this are quite popular now, they have a lifting body aerodynamics and the thing sits on top of the rocket. Similar vehicles are deemed to make lunar flights and landings in the future.

The reason of "copying" was in the strategic balance doctrine, which required to have symmetrical systems. When USA develops a new means of warfare, USSR has to match it, and the easiest way here for a weaker economy is to go by a blazed trail. It doesn't mean there were no truly indigenous and blazing designs.

In case of the Space Shuttle program, there was a straight directive of the Ministry of machine building industry and Ministry of defence "...to exclude a probable technical and military unexpectedness achieved with the presence of the space shuttle vehicle of a new design, available to the potential adversary". The Soviet system had to do the same, and by the reasons explained above, it looked the same. It happened many times, concerning weaponry. That's where your point is true.

The first Buran prototype looked much like Shuttle, except it had the emergency rescue system rockets, which would allow the vehicle to separate from the faulty fuel tank and rocket boosters. The latter prototypes had more serious differences.

Quote:

Flying an unmanned flight doesn’t count, that’s not what it was designed to do, orbiting the Earth and bringing a payload with it was the goal.

Actually Space Shuttle was the first NASA manned space vehicle to be *tested* with man aboard, since it couldn't make it other way. And the first test flight of Buran is still the only one example of an automatic landing of a reusable space vehicle. Regardless if you count it or not.
And it had a test payload in the flight.

---
This "symmetric response" doctrine led to canceling of [url=[Link pending approval]]T4[/url] program in favor of "B1ski" design. That 3M+ bomber plane was flying already, but none the less.

There were quite the opposite examples, like Su-27. Its first design looked much like an F-15+F-18 combo, and the plane was to go into production, but it was stopped and fully redesigned. And let me not put MiG-25 and F-15 pics here, side by side, to make assumptions if one was inspired by another.

In general, Soviet airspace industry was behind the US, but the Russians always had their ability to make nice surprises, as they did from time to time.

I wonder if there was actually some 'symmetrical system' influence on the Mig-25 program, based from US A-5 vigilante (and apparently the early designs even had twin vert fins on A-5, crazy). Even though the US never ran with the A-5 in a major scope, perhaps the headfake of raw capabilities and intent was enough to seek a superior counter-part model?

Engineers were carefully studying designs "from the other side", it's just a professional interest at least, so mutual influence was involved in a natural way, whether those results were acquired by the military or not. For example, aerodynamic solutions found in MiG-29 and Su-27 family could well be influenced by research studies performed in US in 70's, when 4-gen fighter designs were in the works. Still we can't really say that they look like copies of anything. We could presume there was a similar thing with Vigilante-MiG25-F15 layouts.
IMHO, we will definitely see Raptor and Black Widow to have influenced [Link pending approval] The intriguing question is - How.

geogen wrote:

I wonder if there was actually some 'symmetrical system' influence on the Mig-25 program

F-15 Eagle is often being declared as an U.S. answer to Mig-25. However, Mig-25 though achieving numerous test world records and unconfirmed cease of SR-71 Blackbird development, initially proved itself inferior to Eagle during 1982 Israeli Bekaa valley air campaign. Some Mig-25s were jammed by Israeli electronic warfare systems and then downed.

gmaximus wrote:

Russia could make its own design, actually there were many designs evolving since the 50's. Just take a look at one of them, it was in the works in 1970's and was stopped in favor of "STS" design.

'305-11' was in fact real contender to Buran design choosen, being promoted by Lozino-Lozinsky, it was dropped as one that needed much more time for development

Which in turn looked remarkedly like the research the US was doing on lifting bodies back in the 60's, with the shuttle designed and flown in the 70's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

The Soviet shuttle flown in the late 80's, owes it's lineage to the BOR-4 flown in the early 80's,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOR-4

Conclusion being they copied or design/tested these concepts only to find out they were wanting and/or not cost effective. Only to settle on a conservative approach that happened to resemble the US shuttle program. It would not be unreasonable to assume they for the sake of time and money decided to modify the US design to thier specs.

This could be said about other designs,also. Doh

well, it can be said of re-reverse engineering in the case of BOR-4 -> HL-20 PLS (have a bunch of Langley WT photos with BOR-4 shaped model studied), but finally PRIME/SV-5 shape was choosen for ISS CRW ( X-38 )

I Know that reality is far from this kind of dreaming, but on the pure principal of 'wow..imagine that'.....I couldn't help but post these pics I found, what a beautiful design[/img]

From Ace Combat series of games.

Looks like there's an update from RussiaToday - claims that:
1. 3 ground-test airframes exist
2. 1 flight test a/c under construction
3. test flight by end Nov / Dec 2009

For whatever it's worth. The mention is at the end of the article found here:
http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/200 ... ussia.html

...Some problems with engines:
http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3815/Russia-Air-Force-admits-problems-in-5th-generation-jet-engines.html

AESA A050 for PAK-FA.
10 million dollars each.

Forum: Technology

Sukhoi PAK FA