Did America copy the mig 25 design ?

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by iced vodka, Apr 15, 2006.

  1. "The Soviets stole 90% of the ideas and technology they ever used." What a load of BS!

    Edit : Spelling
  2. Thank you.
  3. Why? It's entirely true. Perhaps they didn't outright steal all their ideas, but quite alot of their designs were/are very similar to western designs. Which isn't a bad thing, considering western planes kick ass.
  4. Take a look in the mirror, you look pretty similar to a Russian don't you? They stole your design too.
  5. Many of their designs like wester planes, yes.
    But to say that 90% of everything they done is copied is wrong.

    Oh and by the way to be honest, all designs tested and/or used today on aeroplanes, was tested by the Germans in the 1940's, So I guess all aeroplane designs are stolen from nazi-germany. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
  6. Nonsense. They were innovators par excellence. They did steal alot of tech, but they came up with just as much.
  7. The First bit was hypebole, obviously...

    Anyhow it is certainly true that the soviets gained far more technology through espionage during the period from 1946-1989 than did any NATO power.

    The rest of the reasoning stands. Denying yourself all the benefit from a supposedly compromised project is stupid. It means the enemy has the technology that you just deprived yourself of.
  8. They must have copied the space program too because... no wait, that's right they were ahead in that one. Infact apparently they thought it was simply too dangerous to fly to the moon, whether they could have done it or not is debatable.
  9. They did not go to the moon because thier moon rocket exploded on the launch pad killing lots of people.
  10. No, actually it did'nt, that was another rocket, they never built a moonrocket.
  11. The what was that gigantic rocket for, it was pretty close to that of Saturn V.
  12. I think it was a prototype.

    The real rocket was supposed to have 30 rocketengines in the first stage.

    That rocket that exploded had fewer engines.

    Edit : I stand corrected, they did build ,not one but two different moonrockets, and they used them to put stuff on the moon.
    The accident you mentioned was only one of many reasons to why the Sovietunion scraped their moonprogram, that involved a base on the moon at the end of the 1970's.
  13. Apparently you can...

  14. During the fifties and early sixties the Soviet was ahead in the space race, but they were eventually passed by the US. After the soviets had got the first satellite and man in space it was in the US decided that putting a man on the moon was something that could give a final win for the US. There were other options too, such as building a space station but it was though that would have ended up like a heavy lifting contest instead.

    Both Soviet and USA used technology developed in Germany during WW2. In the US they first used this technology to develop weapon launching systems which later was used during the space race. One such rocket was the Redstone, basicly a decendant from the german V-2. It was designed to carry a nuclear warhead, but it also ended up in the Mercury program carrying for example Ham the Chimp and Alan Shepard to space.
  15. Mercury-Redstone 1 was quite possibly the funniest thing in the history of space travel.
  16. #41 Yourallfullofit, Apr 27, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    sorry yeah, thats right, diefenbaker ordered it, (prime minister)

    Also, the space launched module from the avro arrow was supposed to be an amazing prototype, because of the capability of the arrow, it was able to ascend to below space, and throw a satellite out there.

    I read the engine it used was also a deep issue to the american military, because it was way more advanced than anything they had at the time (very very powerful engine) Face it, the Iroquois motor delivered more thrust than the Pratt+Whitney, making it the most potent powerplant in North America. For starters, it produced the same amount of power w/o afterburner, as the P+W did WITH afterburner.

    I have the book written on both the canadian space project and Avro Arrow project. Good read, ill have to find the name of it.

    edit: Here is the book in detail http://www.space.com/spacelibrary/books/library_gainor_020125.html

    my moms, friends husband wrote this, its great if your into old history.
  17. The f15 was never a copy of the Mig 25 a foxbat. It also integrated the ultimate next generation radar at that time: the hugues/raytheon agp63 as well as some of the most reliable and most powerful engines: the pratt & whitney f100 pw 100. It was also designed to be extremely manoeuvrable and offer the pilot a perfect rear/front visibility.The f15 prototype flew very successfully in 1972 with Lt Irving J Burrows.
  18. Sorry to burst your bubbles mate, but F-15 did copy the MiG-25 they copied the air-frame design, double vertical tail and the air Intakes.

    Russians and USA both copied from Germans back in ww2.

  19. Last time I looked this up (yesterday), the 'F15 project' was already scheduled and started but the Americans obtained spy photo's of the Foxbat early into the process. Based on its shape and the understanding of the time they though the Russians were building the Jesus of multirole aircraft so they beefed up the F15 to give it parity against the new 'super Mig'.

    Then they got one themselves and realised it was a heap of shit and not much use for anything except flying fast in a straight line.
  20. Claiming that the Soviets stole 90% of the ideas and tech is just about as true as saying that the Americans copied the MiG-25.

    Of course they won the espionage game because the USSR was a closed society, they were very paranoid and secretive about their own military tech (unlike the US & its #%[email protected]) and the soviet industry wasn't nearly as advanced in many areas linked to basic research and civilian technology (which aren't as well protected against espionage).

    Actually it's kinda surprising how Soviet OKBs came up with the things they did, given the abysmal inefficiencies in the whole design process. If an American military contractor wanted to design something, they had most of the materials and technologies readily available. If an OKB wanted to design something, they had to go to the Central Academy of Sciences to help complete the basic research, then ask halp from NIIs, something like TsAGI or TsNIIMash. Then they had to wrestle approval from the Kremlin and then there was the small problem of working with old-ass Soviet military commanders who still lived the civil war.

    Many of the OKBs compensated the poor level in some techs like electronics (ever laid your hands on a Soviet clock or a TV?) with ambitious and sometimes a little reckless ideas, which were very different from their American counterparts. Some of them worked, some didn't. There was more loss of human life and environmental damage in the testing process but the Soviet society could cope with that, unlike the American one. The cost of these systems often exceeded the cost of equivalent American systems, too. And I mean the cost at official exchange rates. One of the many reasons why the USSR stumbled on its own stupidity and fell over. Luckily it did that somewhat peacefully. Imagine the kind of war they had in Yugoslavia but with about 10 000 nuclear warheads complete with delivery systems, 3000 of them strategic (read 500kt+) in Ukraine alone. Add to those the ones in Kazakhstan, Belarus, Baltic states and yeah, Russia. The world wouldn't have much of Eurasia to worry about if that scenario happened.

    Srsly, where do you get your information from? "Cold War Explained to Kids" by Sarah Palin?
  21. the realistic answer is yes.

    but probably not evident by whatever this topic is about.

    obviously there was some spying and shit here and there.

    which is to kinda say that the Mig 25 and F15 prolly somewhat influenced each other. Both parties probably knew of each others future planes.
  22. Pretty unlikely since the MiG-25 was designed to shoot down supersonic bombers attempting high-altitude penetration like the B-1A and the XB-70 as well as do some recce and ASAT things. So far they have managed to shoot down a couple of Korean airliners but not much else.

    The F-15 was designed to clear the skies of all kinds of MiGs and Sukhois. It can do the wild weasel thing and drop napalm on babies if asked to but those missions are usually reserved for cheaper planes.

    Both of them are sexy if you ask me.

    Edit: Sorry, those were Su-15s responsible for those KALs. I guess there was some sort of mix-up in my head. Well, that's also a 60's Soviet interceptor operated by PVO so who gives a #$%#.
  23. That's silly. When you discover that you have a mole in your midst, you transfer them to a separate 'department' where they receive nothing but useless and deliberately sabotaged plans and data. Unless you're Canada, in which case you allow the disgraced officer to continue working on real data at HMCS Trinity and send that data to the Russians for two and a half years while CSIS debates (alone) if this is their jurisdiction or the RCMP's until key allies get really pissed off and threaten to cut them off from the intelligence circle. So yeah, that actually does sound like something Canada would do.

    But it's more likely that the driving factor in the Arrow's demise was changing Cold War strategy. Primarily, a warring Soviet overflight of Canada would be conducted with ICBM's rather than bombers. Canada's primary fighter needs thus shifted to two primary roles: nuclear strike aircraft for post in West Germany, and close air support aircraft for post in West Germany. Homeland priorities basically plummeted, because you can't shoot down a missile with an aircraft (or at all, really - it was the 1950s). Pearkes (the Minister of Defense at the time) basically told his American counterparts that Canada could afford the Bomarc/SAGE system OR the Arrow, but not both, and that simultaneous defense against ICBM threats and manned bombers was not possible simultaneously from a financial point of view. These words are on the (now) public record in several meetings that followed the signing of the NORAD agreement. The Bomarc/SAGE system won out, and Canada bought rights to manufacture F-104s and F-5s for the nuclear strike and close air support roles in Europe, respectively. Its worth noting at this point that the contract to manufacture the F-104s and F-5s were BOTH awarded to Canadair - and this is really what put the nail in Avro's coffin, rather than losing the Arrow. The United States, still fearing the manned bomber threat, made more than 100 F-101s available to Canada at immense subsidy (the airframes were made redundant by moving obsolete F-102s into less sensitive NORAD regions). Canada accepted the handout, and armed them with air-to-air nuclear rockets because why the #$%# not?
  24. A war between NATO and the Warsaw pact would have been pretty interesting in the late 50's. ICBMs were still in development, nuclear missile subs were unreliable and had a horrible CEP, missile guidance systems of any kind were pretty crap...

    But there were mach 2 interceptors, intercontinental bombers, rockets and so many tactical and strategic nukes! And the military doctrine on both sides was to use the nukes in somewhat unlimited fashion before RAND said it might not be a good idea.

    The same war 20 years later would have been boring if nukes were used because 30 mins and boom, PLA is the most powerful military force on Earth. A more conventional war, however...
  25. Well the MiG-25 wasn't anything special but the 31 was pretty good. The radar/target acquisition/missile system on that thing was something of a feat, considering the general crappiness of Soviet electronics.

    'Muricans didn't really need an interceptor like that. Soviets were under the threat of American bomber-launched cruise missiles. The Americans only had to worry about long-range ballistic ones.

Share This Page