Sukhoi Su-24 'Fencer'

[MolliG]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-003-ptb-3000-fuel-tanks.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-011.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-010-t6-3i-kh-23.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-004.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-022-t6-1.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-026.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-040-upaz-1a.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24m-011.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24m-025.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24m-024.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24mr-001.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24mk-004.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24mr-011.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24mr-013.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-diagram-004.jpg

:D

From www.aeronautics.ru.

[Uninen]

Does anybody have any images of Iraqi Fencers? :) (they had those you know.. many of them now in Iran..)

[Marmot1]

Interesting in Soviet planes Pilot and Navigator sit in a row and in US in a line...

[usa320]

Not all US planes have tandem seating. THe F-111 and A-6 series have side by side.

The Su-24 was merely a rip off of the F-111 (i mean its obvious of that). And it was a ****ty rip off at that.

[Uninen]

The Su-24 was merely a rip off of the F-111 (i mean its obvious of that). And it was a ****ty rip off at that.

:cantbeli:

[Ratamacue]

The Su-24 was merely a rip off of the F-111 (i mean its obvious of that). And it was a ****ty rip off at that.

:cantbeli:

Gotta agree with Uninen here.

[Milkman]

I wouldn't call it a ****ty ripoff but the Fencer was obviously "inspired" by the F-111.

[Uninen]

the Fencer was obviously "inspired" by the F-111.

:roll: What about if you change that F-111 to MiG-23? ;)

[Kingpin]

Why do you think that Soviet constructors had to be inspired by something american??????

Why do you think that Soviet constructors had to rip off every american design??????

You even don't know construction of that plane but always ready to decide that it wasripped off from smth american.

If you think that your scientists, programmers and constructors better than Russian you're idiots. Now most things developed in US are developed by Russian, Chinese and Indian programmers, scientists and constructors.

Example
Now HP people trying to sell to my company IUM system. It costs many million dollars when deployed in large region. It was fully developed by Russian programmers.

Best Russian electronic designers working in Intel and Cisco.

American high tech economy now very much depends from foreign specialists. US economy depends from Russia :) (Also China and others)

[GazB]

The Su-24 was merely a rip off of the F-111 (i mean its obvious of that). And it was a ****ty rip off at that.


Yes, of course. That is why rich Russia can afford to keep them all in service despute them being such crap, and even performing an upgrade on them currently to keep them useful for the next 20 years, while poor old US didn't have the funds to keep the F-111 flying and now the only operational F-111s are in Australian service and will likely be withdrawn by 2006.

Both were primarily nuclear strike aircraft and both would have been very effective. The Fencer wasn't perfect... it had a much shorter range than the F-111, but that was OK... as it had 8 weapons pylons and ECM pods, self defence AAMs and two nuclear bombs don't use up 8 pylons... which leaves room for two 3000ltr fuel tanks. The F-111s main problem is weapons... a tiny weapon bay that is normally carrying a gun and fuel means all weapons much go on the 6 wing pylons. The belly of the Fencer can be covered in weapons in conventional strike roles.

BTW if the Fencer was a copy of the F-111 then why bother with all the experimentation on swing wing design on the Su-7I and the Su-17 series and Mig-23/-27 series?

I personally thought the Su-24 looked more like the failed British TSR... and one model shown above with the fixed wing looks almost identicle... though the dates are wrong too.

[AOCBravo2004]

GazB, umm the F-111 was not yanked because of lack of funds but because the F-15E Strike Eagle was a better and newer platform then the F-111.

[Milkman]

Why do you think that Soviet constructors had to be inspired by something american??????
The Soviet Union needed a new strike fighter to match the F-111, so why not take a good idea and use it.


Why do you think that Soviet constructors had to rip off every american design??????
Erm where else have I stated that everything is a ripoff? Su21, 25, 27, 31 etc and Mig21, 23, 25 etc are all local designs, I have no doubt that those were completly designed by russians.


You even don't know construction of that plane but always ready to decide that it wasripped off from smth american.
And you have? Do YOU have any solid proof to show me?


If you think that your scientists, programmers and constructors better than Russian you're idiots. Now most things developed in US are developed by Russian, Chinese and Indian programmers, scientists and constructors.
Hey man, america is made up of a diverse group of people, ofcourse every group has good scientists. (Lets not forget the germans)


Example
Now HP people trying to sell to my company IUM system. It costs many million dollars when deployed in large region. It was fully developed by Russian programmers.
Good for them.


Best Russian electronic designers working in Intel and Cisco.
Yeah, and not for any russian companies. You know why? Better pay over here with more opportunities to suceed.


American high tech economy now very much depends from foreign specialists. US economy depends from Russia :) (Also China and others)
Never denied that, but you do realise americans have come up with some neat **** too. (For christ sakes we invented the phone!)

[usa320]

umm the F-111 was not yanked because of lack of funds but because the F-15E Strike Eagle was a better and newer platform then the F-111

Very true.

If not for the F-15E comming along, F-111G's would still be slinging GBU-28's towards baghdad.

Come on guys, its obvious that the Russians got the idea for the Su-24 from the F-111.

Just as they got the idea of the Blackjack from the B-1A.

[rob]

the iorony in all this is that the russians also want to replace this plane with a strck version or their air superiority fighter, the su-27.

but unlike the f15e it was modified to feature side by side seating.

[Uncle Chô]

Does anybody have any images of Iraqi Fencers? They had those you know.. many of them now in Iran...
The Iraqi Air Force had a single Squadron of 10 Su24 Fencer delivered in 1989. According to some sources, only 2 or 3 flew to Iran during Desert Storm.

The Sukkhoi engineers had a good experience of swept wings fighter/bombers with the Su7 / Su17 and Su22 line but they had access to some US sources ;) to develop a side by side cockpit similar to the F-111...

BTW you can't beat the F-111 flying at low level, high speed :D This was a true efficient tactic bomber, not a modified fighter à la F-15E ;)

[Russian Texan]

There is one problem with Su 24 being "inspired" by F111, well, actually there are several problems: Su 7/17, Mig 23/27...
So why don't you do some research on those aircraft and their influence on a development of a "variable wing" technology and decide for yourself on "inspiration theory".
Also I can recommend you to watch Discovery Wings episode about Su 24 and F111, it is suprisingly good: well researched( not typical of the Discovery Wings channel) and lots of rare/interesting footage.
Differences are everywhere" airframe, landing gear(Su 24 has the most complicated landing gear ever apparentelly), weapons load, etc.
Basically their is only one distinct similarity - similar missions....

Just bcause they might appear somewhat similar it doesn't necessarilly mean that one was "inspired" by another, although all of the aircraft were inspired by the Wright brothers flyer...

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24m-026.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24mr-013.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-003-ptb-3000-fuel-tanks.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-023-t6-1.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-026.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24m-007-fab-100.jpg

http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/su2427.jpg

http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/su2422.jpg

http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/su2425.jpg

[Flagg]

A couple of facts to keep in mind:

First F111 flight: 1964

First F111 to enter active service: 1967

SU 24 design work began: 1964

First Su 24 flight: 1970

Here's an interesting photo:

http://www.f-111.net/combat/moscow-1.jpg

F111 ejection capsule located in a Russian aviation museum...acquired(amongst other bits and pieces) from the North Vietnamese after it was shot down......2 years AFTER first SU 24 flight.

Also, here's a photo of a TSR prototype next to an F111.

http://website.lineone.net/~roling49/Jetbombers/TSR2-1a.JPG

GazB stated he thought the Su 24 looked more like a TSR than an F111, I think the F111 made a distinct impression on the Soviet design bureau Sukhoi, not the TSR, you decide...

In my opinion, Sukhoi took a distinctly parallel design path to the F111 with the Su 24.....imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Also, GazB made some noise about the F111 being taken out of service for lack of funds......

Maybe it was because replacing a capable, yet expensive to maintain platform(F111) with a new, more flexible and capable platform(F15 E Strike Eagle) that shared 90%+ commonality with the existing F15 fleet results in fewer maintenance, training, cross-training, spare parts, logistics, and distribtuion dollars spent.

I have the upmost respect for Soviet/Russian designers also, but I don't let it affect my judgement.

I found and posted this in about 5 minutes...I suggest you do some research before you start arcing each other up.

[GazB]

GazB, umm the F-111 was not yanked because of lack of funds but because the F-15E Strike Eagle was a better and newer platform then the F-111.

Yeah.. the F-15E was a better platform just like the F-18 is better than the F-14...

The entire decision was based on cost. The enormous wing of the F-15E means that it cannot perform the low and fast role that the F-111 does. Imagine sitting on a ride that moves vertically 8ft down and then 6ft straight back up in 1 second... your eyeballs would be poking out your butt. That is the effect of a gust at near mach 1 at near sea level with a large wing.

The only improvement of the F-15E over the F-111 is that the F-15E can be covered with weapons... including AAMs for self defence.


the iorony in all this is that the russians also want to replace this plane with a strck version or their air superiority fighter, the su-27.

The reality is that no one can afford a specialised strike aircraft any more. The Su-34 will be multirole with land strike and maritime strike as well as secondary air to air capabilities and probably long range patrol interception type uses too as it has a microwave oven for heating food and a toilet. There is room to stand up and actually lie down if needed.

If the Su-34 is therefore a copy of the F-15E then the Bradley is a copy of the BMP. And the Striker is a copy of the BTR-60.


Just bcause they might appear somewhat similar it doesn't necessarilly mean that one was "inspired" by another, although all of the aircraft were inspired by the Wright brothers flyer...


No they weren't. As far as I know no one has been able to replicate the Wright brothers flight, and the design layout with a canard surface at the front has only become possible since WWII (the Mig-8) due to the control problems associated with a forward mounted control surface. (controlling an aircrft using a canard has been compared to sitting on the front of a car holding the handle bars of a bike that is facing the car and moving forward moving the handle bars to control the bike and keep it straight...)

And Flagg, those F-111s from Vietnam probably weren't shot down... they lost a few to a faulty tail design but I don't think any were shot down.


line but they had access to some US sources to develop a side by side cockpit similar to the F-111...

Those poor dumb Ruskies... the only way they can design a side by side seating aircraft is by copying American designs.

BTW if it is a copy what sort of Electro Optical weapon sighting system does the F-111 use? A real copy can't be done overnight you know. First of all you have to get a hold of an example... unlikely considering the dates given by Flagg. Next you disassemble the captured example and examine the parts noting their function, design and the materials they are made of. Equally difficult if you don't have an example.

It couldn't possibly be that two organistations with the job to design an aircraft that had very similar roles... the Su-24 didn't need to be able to self deploy to Europe from the US of course... with similar levels of technology and similar design history resources and testing knowledge might come up with similar but slightly different solutions... Nah... org x must have copied because they have done so in the distant past... and org y never copies... well never admits to copying, even though it does... it is not by accident that the F-15 and Mig-25 look similar you know...

[Uninen]

Russian Texan,

http://www.aeronautics.ru/sukhoi/su-24_fencer/su-24-023-t6-1.jpg
What is this? Delta wing Su-24? A prototype?

Flagg,

Whats your point? F-111 uses escaped pod.. Su-24 DOES NOT. SU-24 has ejection seats. :lol:
Btw, USA has plenty of captured Russian planes of almost everykind, so that must mean that USA in fact copied them? Right? :lol:
And you also have that Horten Ho 229.. Captured from Germany in 1945.. B2 is copy it.. right? :lol:
Frankly, you kids are pathetic, claiming that ANY RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT IS COPY OF ANYTHING "American". :bash:

--

http://www.europa1939.com/luftwaffe/proyectos/go229-1.jpg
1940s Horten Ho 229 of which USAF B-2 is copy of..

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshows99/b2.jpg
USA copied B-2 from Horten Ho 229.

--

:lol:

[SeanAshi]

ripped it off like the Soviets ripped off the flying fortress ?

USA has plenty of captured Russian planes of almost everykind, so that must mean that USA in fact copied them? Right? Uninen..I believe that JohnDavid would call that Russian propaganda ;)

[Uninen]

You fail to see the irony? Oh well.. but your right.. Tu-4 was mostly B-29 rip off, but that was the last..

Su-24 and F-111 however, arent related.

[Flagg]

Su-24 and F-111 however, arent related.

Right...

Let's see:

Identical cockpit configuration

Identical Variable Geometry wing, single vertical tail configuration

Identical twin engine configuration with almost identical thrust engines

Overall dimensional data, extremely high percentage commonality

Identical tactical roles

F111 first flew in 1964, SU 24 design work began in 1964

Do I believe the Su 24 was "ripped off", no

Do I believe the Soviets decided to blatantly replicate the F111 design's capability in terms of high speed, low level tactical interdiction.....hell yeah!

Why re-invent the wheel when a capable(but extremely expensive and difficult to maintain one) design already existed?

You're deluding yourself if you think their "similiarity" is a coincidence.

[Flagg]

Tu-4 was mostly B-29 rip off, but that was the last..

Was it?

How about the Soviet VK-1 engine in the MIG 15? Blatant copy of Pommie Nene engine.

The airframe was Kurt Tank's TA-183

How about the TU160.......it's a super-sized and improved B1 prototype...if you doubt this..compare underside photos of the Tu160 and the B1B(updated B1 prototype)...a blind man could see the similiarity.

How about the Buran?

http://www.meniscus.net/buran/images/comparis.gif

Can you say, seriously improved but blatant design theft?

Come on......the fact the Soviet and Warsaw Pact intelligence services blatantly stole a number of western designs is well known and documented(including the A Bomb).

After WWII the Soviet nation was devastated from war.....the US wasn't touched.....that fact combined with a much faster growing economy about to absorb more R&D expenditure meant the Soviets were playing technology catch up from day one.

The strange thing is how BOTH countries played such stupidly expensive and embarrassingly blatant "one-upmanship" games throughout the entire cold war.

[juhae]

How about the Buran?
The visual similarity is quite clear, however an interesting difference between the US shuttles and Buran (apart from the logical differences in rocket construction philosophy) is the fact that Buran was designed to function as an unmanned shuttle as well.

[Kingpin]

How about the Buran?

http://www.meniscus.net/buran/images/comparis.gif


Look at the bottom of booster. Do you see difference? This is key difference.

[Flagg]

http://www.europa1939.com/luftwaffe/proyectos/go229-1.jpg

Wow ...the similiarity is scary......I reckon you might be right....those German designers at the end of WWII had some weird and some incredibly advanced design ideas.

I'm amazed that an aircraft prototype from 50+ years ago is a dead ringer in rough proportion to the most expensive aircraft ever built....maybe Rockwell really ripped off the US government ;)


Frankly, you kids are pathetic, claiming that ANY RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT IS COPY OF ANYTHING "American".

I get the impression that national pride and honour are warping your perception of the facts.

During the cold war the flow of technological espionage went both ways.....but it was a lopsided affair.

Just two examples:

Precision industrial tooling equipment

Semiconductor manufacturing equipment

When's the first/last time you heard of the west being embarrassed getting cuaght trying to smuggle such equipment out of the former USSR?

It didn't happen because the Soviet technology was generations behind.

The west developed it, and attempted to prevent the Soviets from smuggling it....period.

The flawed Soviet system seriously hindered innovation and competition...this contributed to the need for espionage to "keep up".

I'm not insulting the ability of the engineers who created some incredibly remarkable machines...it's the flawed foundation of the Soviet system that resulted in what was an unfair competition.

[Flagg]

Yeah.. the F-15E was a better platform just like the F-18 is better than the F-14...

It's true...with the inclusion of one word...compromise....as I'm sure you well know...all design results in some sort of compromise


The entire decision was based on cost. The enormous wing of the F-15E means that it cannot perform the low and fast role that the F-111 does. Imagine sitting on a ride that moves vertically 8ft down and then 6ft straight back up in 1 second... your eyeballs would be poking out your butt. That is the effect of a gust at near mach 1 at near sea level with a large wing.

Yup...F15E doesn't have the same high-speed low-level ride comfort, therefore effectiveness as F111....but it's still got MOST of it.

But the F15E can also fulfill the air-superiority/interception role......unlike the F111.

Effectively filling two roles with one aircraft, minus some low-level ride comfort


The only improvement of the F-15E over the F-111 is that the F-15E can be covered with weapons... including AAMs for self defence.

Not just self-defense.......fully capable air-superiority/interceptor when required

[Uninen]

Flagg,

My national pride or loyality isnt with Russia / Russians..

Its just sad how you seem to see all these "copies" all around, when there arent anything alike.. :)

[RuSoKaR]

Even if the soviets did rip off all those technologies, then I can't even imagine how really ameican security SUX rofl rofl rofl rofl

US couln't even keep their projects well protected in house. rofl rofl rofl rofl

[tomcat1974]

Flagg,

My national pride or loyality isnt with Russia / Russians..

Its just sad how you seem to see all these "copies" all around, when there arent anything alike.. :)

Well he see copy all around because he doesn't know **** about engineering. Heck it toock Israel a truckload full with blueprints to be able to produce a copy of Mirage 5(Nesher, and later Kfir).
Seing a plane doesn't mean nothing to actualy building it.
He said something about Mig15. Does he actually know that until NorthAmerican receive german blueprints and solution the Sabre programe was in deep trouble?

After all he use an avatar from MASH..the dude was a nut paranoid one :)

[Flagg]

Even if the soviets did rip off all those technologies, then I can't even imagine how really ameican security SUX

US couln't even keep their projects well protected in house.

Think about it:

During the cold war, US aircraft design information could be easily found:

closeup inspections at airshows

many open source periodicals providing accurate information

Easy access to 1st,2nd,and 3rd tier manufacturing and integration companies with its hundreds of thousands of employees was probably the most vulnerable intelligence collection point

It's not about protecting "blueprints" it's about protecting manufacturing equipment and processes......an impossible task in a free and open society.

If a foreign government wants to learn about the F22 Raptor for example, it's not about sneaking onto a base and stealing one in some "blackops" BS.......it's about infiltrating the supply chain from the ground up.

[Flagg]

Well he see copy all around because he doesn't know **** about engineering.

What do you know about my background?

Nothing......

I have an extensive engineering and aviation background


Heck it toock Israel a truckload full with blueprints to be able to produce a copy of Mirage 5(Nesher, and later Kfir).

And it takes more than "blueprints" to build a plane

An excellent example of industrial espionage....

Think about it.....the Israelis had very limited aviation manufacturing and engineering experience, infrastructure, and resources.....yet they were able to produce a reasonably capable aircraft out of necessity......the Soviet effort was much greater in scale


Seing a plane doesn't mean nothing to actualy building it.

Agreed.......photos can only provide a limited amount of information to atempt to reverse engineer a complex system.


He said something about Mig15.

Yes...what I said was the engine was a direct ripoff of the UK's Nene engine

and the aircraft design was a design copy of Kurt Tank's Ta152


Does he actually know that until NorthAmerican receive german blueprints and solution the Sabre programe was in deep trouble?

Wasn't aware of that...do you have a source?



After all he use an avatar from MASH..the dude was a nut paranoid one

The character was a complete lunatic.....that's why I chose him.....he was quite funny

[Flagg]

you seem to see all these "copies" all around, when there arent anything alike..

right..... :roll:

You base this on your professional opinion?

Copying, reverse-engineering, and modeling has gone on and will continue to go on.....hell....the Soviets even ripped off such simple items as Western calculators as they weren't able to do it themselves without "borrowing" western designs and technology:

http://www.taswegian.com/MOSCOW/b3-04.html

It is well documented that the Soviets devoted considerable resources to industrial espionage against the West during the Cold War and they had considerable success......

It's not a question of not being able to see it, it's a question of your refusing to see it....it's as clear as day.

[Flagg]

The visual similarity is quite clear, however an interesting difference between the US shuttles and Buran (apart from the logical differences in rocket construction philosophy) is the fact that Buran was designed to function as an unmanned shuttle as well.

From what I understand the Buran's single flight was unmanned, fully automatic.

I think I read somewhere that the flight profile the Buran made was incredibly precise......quite impressive

[Longbranch]

You guys are cracking me up.:D

Anyone of you design these airplanes? Any Mig/Su designers online here? Any F-111 designers? No? Then what's this "we" business? "We" invented this and "we" invented that? It was other people doing those things. Other people designed those planes, not you. Other people designed jet engines, space shuttles, telephones, tv's, vodka, aluminum wheels, wah-wah pedals, toasters, etc… not you. Riding the coat-tails of the accomplishments of others by using the word "we" only illustrates what "YOU" haven't done yet with your own life.

Just because Tommy Lee had *** with Pamela Anderson doesn't mean that "we" had *** with Pamela Anderson. Go find your own girl and get laid, and quit going through life holding other people's ****s in your hands.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/shortstories/shortstoryscans/RussianB-29.jpg
http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/shortstories/russianclone.htm

The b-29/Tu-4 was indeed a "rip-off". It's happened since as well - didn't the Chinese recently have a go at reverse engineering an F-16?

We recognize similar design elements & often call them a "rip-off". I'm of the opinion that if this were art, it would be a rip off. But it's not art, it's engineering.

Aircraft design is dictated by the intended mission of the airframe, cost, budget, and technology. Engineers don't need to reinvent the wheel every time. Engineering is built upon the work of others - otherwise it would take 100 years every time a new design came to the drawing board.

But there's a difference between design influence & theft.

[Kingpin]

The b-29/Tu-4 was indeed a "rip-off". It's happened since as well - didn't the Chinese recently have a go at reverse engineering an F-16?


BTW some history from Soviet Union times. Stalin ordered design of new bomber as good as American B-29. Soviet spies quickly get blueprints of B-29 and transfered them to Tupolev design bureau. After that designers asked Stalin: this is good aircraft but we think we could improve its design her and here and in number of ther placed.
No, answered, Stalin, do everything exactly like Americans did... :)

[GazB]

What is this? Delta wing Su-24? A prototype?

It was one of the potential designs. The design requirement was for supersonic speed and rough runway capability. This resulted in the swing wing design being chosen over the fixed wing design even though the fixed wing design promised better performance it needed a long runway for takeoffs and landings.

Of course if it really was a copy I don't know why they'd bother with prototypes... they could have just put the F-111 straight into production... :roll:

The requirement for a two seat aircraft, and a large ground mapping radar made the fuselage quite wide. Side by side seating was a more efficient use of the space available. The Tornado has quite a different radar type that allowed a lower drag tandem crew layout, but the new phased array radar used on the Su-34 means side by side seating will be used again. They also found that crew interaction was better with side by side seating and that by makig the cockpit quite large an area to have a lie down and a toilet could be fitted for comfort... 10 hour + missions are possible.


ripped it off like the Soviets ripped off the flying fortress ?

The Soviets needed a strategic bomber as they hadn't needed any during WWII so they used what was at hand... 4 B-29s. The complication of converting them from imperial measurements to metric mean they vowed never to directly copy any western aircraft again.


Identical cockpit configuration

The seating layout was the same. The instruments, decor, and even ejection systems were completely different. Is the F-111 the same as a B-52... the pilot and copilot have the same seating arrangements too.



Identical Variable Geometry wing, single vertical tail configuration

The Su-24 got a variable geometry wing becasue it was a supersonic at low level strike aircraft that had to be able to take off from short gravel strips. Swing wing or VSTOL were the only options and VSTOL meant no payload and short range. Did they pick swing wing because the F-111 has it or because it was the only arrangement that would get them what they wanted?



Identical twin engine configuration with almost identical thrust engines

And such differing performances. The F-111 is much faster at high altitude and has a much longer range. the Su-24 is designed to fight in Europe but the F-111 is designed to deploy from the US if needed. The f-111 was originally intended as a carrier based aircraft but was too heavy.
Also you are making a little mistake here... the F-111 originally had no where near the thrust of the Su-24... the Su-24 had 2 x 11,200kg thrust engines while the first variants of the F-111 had two 8,000kg thrust engines. It was only the F-111F that got the 11,250kg thrust engines... so it copied the Su-24... wouldn't you say?
Equally as it was designed as a fighter originally the F-111 is quite fast at high altitude... supposed to be over mach 2, while the Fencer was always a strike aircraft with fixed air inlets and can fly at 1,320km/h at sea level and 1,550km/h at altitude. The fencer is bigger by a metre or so in every dimension.


Overall dimensional data, extremely high percentage commonality

Identical tactical roles

Do you think these two points might be related?


F111 first flew in 1964, SU 24 design work began in 1964

As a naval fighter prototype...


Do I believe the Soviets decided to blatantly replicate the F111 design's capability in terms of high speed, low level tactical interdiction.....hell yeah!


The Soviets realised the danger to bombers of flying at medium to high altitudes even at high speed... they were making their own high speed interceptors and had good radar coverage by then... they along with everyone in the west realised that flying low and fast was a good idea. To suggest that the F-111 was copied is BS. They don't have a problem with copying and they also don't have a problem admitting when they do copy. They deny the Su-24 is an F-111.


Uninen..I believe that JohnDavid would call that Russian propaganda

You mean like the western propaganda that states if it is Soviet and it is good it must be a copy. The only thing is that when they do copy they tend to improve. I'd like you to point out what feature of the Su-24 is better than the F-111 apart from the fact that it is much easier and cheaper to maintain (even Iran and Algeria have them in service and want to upgrade them).


Why re-invent the wheel when a capable(but extremely expensive and difficult to maintain one) design already existed?

You mean an unproven, risky design that no one knew would perform its intended role or not? The same design that was not made public till well after the Soviet government actually wanted to see their design...



You're deluding yourself if you think their "similiarity" is a coincidence.


It is due to the state of the art in aerospace technology at the time and the laws of physics... ever wonder why ball point pens look so similar?


How about the Soviet VK-1 engine in the MIG 15? Blatant copy of Pommie Nene engine.

The Poms sold the Soviets those engines... if you own a product and you decide to upgrade it and improve it and then make it yourself the that is your business.


The airframe was Kurt Tank's TA-183


No, that is the Sabre you are thinking of. The Tail is wrong for it to be a Mig-15.


How about the TU160.......it's a super-sized and improved B1 prototype...if you doubt this..compare underside photos of the Tu160 and the B1B(updated B1 prototype)...a blind man could see the similiarity.

The Tu-160 is based on work by the TSAGI Bureau. The Tu-160 is a rather different shape and uses stealth technology to have a RCS that is actually smaller than the B-1B (which is much smaller than the Blackjack).

The B-1B has similar power to a Tu-22M3 (about 50 tons thrust). The Tu-160 has twice as much power.


Can you say, seriously improved but blatant design theft?

Look at the wheels on the shuttle... they are round... blatent thieft... can't these NASA designers make anything themselves?

NASA spent billions testing many different shapes and designs. Only a moron would ignore that. But the charge they can only copy is rubbish... they improved the design to the point where it is a much better design.


the fact the Soviet and Warsaw Pact intelligence services blatantly stole a number of western designs is well known and documented(including the A Bomb).


A bomb secrets were freely given. The hydrogen bomb developed by the soviets was a unique design and much more efficient than the first western weapon.


I'm amazed that an aircraft prototype from 50+ years ago is a dead ringer in rough proportion to the most expensive aircraft ever built....maybe Rockwell really ripped off the US government

The great designers or the US that never copy got lots of ideas from the germans... swept wings, swing wings, flying wings, forward swept wings... the whole idea behind stealth technology is based on a Russian physicists paper of radar wave propagation.


When's the first/last time you heard of the west being embarrassed getting cuaght trying to smuggle such equipment out of the former USSR?


Rocket technology, The Mig-31A being compromised, Rocket torpedo technology, the compromise of the Mig-29s systems, repeated attempts to get their hands on S-300 SAMs... the list is very long.


It didn't happen because the Soviet technology was generations behind.

The west developed it, and attempted to prevent the Soviets from smuggling it....period.

Rubbish. Much of the early work on lasers for SDI has been admitted to be based on reading research papers released from Russia.

The world only operational ABM system is currently Russian. The leaders in ABM technology is Russia.

In space technology most of the systems on the international space station are Russian designed, including the toilet and environment control systems. The Current US space suit is based on a Russian design. The next generation of US fighters will probably use a variation of a Russian ejection seat. The F-35 VSTOL fighter will use a jet nozzle designed by Yakovlev. The Russians are still the only major users of supersoinc anti ship missiles and their anti missile systems like CADS-1 are still the best.

The anti aircraft systems of the Russian arned forces are the most complete and comprehensive in the world from MANPADs like SA-7/-14/-16/-18 through vehicle mounted missiles that travel with armoured formations like the Tunguska (30mm cannons and now 20km range SAMs) and SA-15 SAMS to medium range SA-11 and SA-17 missiles up to strategic systems like the S-300 series (SA-10) and Antei-2500 (SA-12)ABM weapons.

The Russians were the first to fit their fighters with phased array radars (MIG-31 in 1977) and their short range AAM the AA11 archer is still considered far more potent that contemporary versions of the sidewinder. All modern Russian fighters have helmet mounted sights... something most western airforces are just introducing.


The flawed Soviet system seriously hindered innovation and competition...this contributed to the need for espionage to "keep up".

There was plenty of competition... we just never saw it. For every design there were competing design bureaus...


I'm not insulting the ability of the engineers who created some incredibly remarkable machines...it's the flawed foundation of the Soviet system that resulted in what was an unfair competition.


The competition may not have been always fair but there was always competition. How often is competition fair in the west?
The Russians may have lagged behind in some areas but don't be fooled. They certainly lagged behind in consumer goods but they were not that far behind in military technology... certainly not so far that the west could feel safe. Some of their jamming systems and ECM equipment is very highly rated... as is their new Sea Dragon ASW systems... both very complex technologies that are expensive and technology intensive.


It's true...with the inclusion of one word...compromise....as I'm sure you well know...all design results in some sort of compromise

The F-15E replaced the F-111 because of cost and certainly no because it was in any way better. Upgraded with fully digital modern systems both the F-14 and F-111 would be very hard to beat... but Boeing make more money building Super Hornets than they do upgrading F-14s.


But the F15E can also fulfill the air-superiority/interception role......unlike the F111.

Effectively filling two roles with one aircraft, minus some low-level ride comfort

A very valid point... if the US was short of interceptors. Few F-15E pilots are fully trained in air to air and rarely carry more than Sidewinders.


many open source periodicals providing accurate information

Which periodicals are you able to access. How many list components and describe materials used and precise performance data? If I told you how fast a plane can fly and how much it weighs can you build it for me?


It's not about protecting "blueprints" it's about protecting manufacturing equipment and processes......an impossible task in a free and open society.

No it isn't. Even with 4 examples of B-29s the copying was a nightmare. Do you not understand the implications? Metric tools have standard sizes. Imperial tools have standard sizes. They are not the same sizes. To actually copy something and convert it to your standard is almost as much work as designing your own. They had the TSAGI design bureau with several state of the art wind tunnels that can simulate airspeeds of up to mach 5 but according to you all they did was wait for the spies to give them the plans. Why bother with fixed and swing wing options for the SU-24 if you are just going to copy?


The character was a complete lunatic.....that's why I chose him.....he was quite funny

MASH was one of my favourite American programs. It does not pull any punches and looked at many issues... All Americans weren't perfect, and neither was the american government. In comparison programs like JAG are BS. If it is set in a foreign country then the story is basically an american has been wrongly accused and framed by an evil foreigner. If it is set in the US then a US military person is accused of something and it turns out they were framed by someone non military...


BTW some history from Soviet Union times. Stalin ordered design of new bomber as good as American B-29. Soviet spies quickly get blueprints of B-29 and transfered them to Tupolev design bureau. After that designers asked Stalin: this is good aircraft but we think we could improve its design her and here and in number of ther placed.
No, answered, Stalin, do everything exactly like Americans did...

Actually they had 4 B-29s in their possession from long range flights that were forced to fly to Russian bases.

Stalin did demand an exact copy... the Russians hadn't needed a strategic bomber during WWII and so no design bureau had wasted any time on it. Nearing the end of the war Stalin realised a strategic bomber woudl be needed and he had 4 given to him. He thought it would be quickest to just copy. In the end it wasn't an exact copy. The engines were more powerful model than the original and the guns were 20mm cannon rather than 50 cal HMG for more firepower.

the problems in copying made Tupolev vow never to directly copy again. (New tools had to be made because the imperial sized tools had no metric equivelents of the same size is one example of the problems).

[Kingpin]

Yes, about spies my mistake.

[tomcat1974]

Wasn't aware of that...do you have a source?


As has been stated, once the data from German research into swept-wing designs became available, North American engineers drew heavily on this material to alter both the shape and ultimate performance of the aircraft.
http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/F86art.html

Two prototype XP-86s were contracted in late 1944, but were not built until after WWII due to the incorporation of several design modifications which were prompted by German research data. The first XP-86 prototype flew on 1 October 1947, powered by a 3,750-pound thrust G.E. J35 engine.
http://www.warbirdalley.com/f86.htm

and lot more :)
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf861.html#m2

BTW RD-45 wasn't a ripoff :) was a perfect licence of the RR Nene ... The VK-1 well was a improvements of the RD45 (RR NENE) so it was sort of rippoff ..


After all he use an avatar from MASH..the dude was a nut paranoid one

The character was a complete lunatic.....that's why I chose him.....he was quite funny[/quote]
Yeap ... he was a funny one... In one episode he broke his arm on purpose :)

Well the Tu4 wasn't actually a 100% copy..:) they couldn't replicate lots of the B29 parts so they replaced them with russian designed ones..:)

BTW did u knew that F16 is a "rippoff" the MiG E-8? :)
The twin tail of the Mig25 whas a russian creation :)

SO it is needed a lot more than a picture of a plane to create another one. And you should know that planes blueprints don't grow on trees:) Are deeply guarded secrets..:)

[Uninen]

He said something about Mig15.

and the aircraft design was a design copy of Kurt Tank's Ta152

What the hell? Stop digging a hole for yourself..

Ta152 is/was verion of FW 190.. :D

But BOTH F-86 Sabre (had also lots to do with Messerschmitt P.1101..) and MiG-15 were COPIES of Focke-Wulf Ta 183 "Huckebein".. and also SAAB J-29 Tunan was such copy.. :D

--

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/focke-wulf/ta152.jpg
Focke-Wulf Fw Ta 152, very much like FW 190 D-9..

--

http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/luftwaffe3945/Imagens/ta183.jpg
Focke-Wulf Ta 183 "Huckebein"..

--

[16 OBr SpN]

BTW, wasn't there an American guy, Edmond Pope who was put in jail for trying to steal our technology??
I guess we "stole" the "Squall" rocket-torpedo from Americans, and they decided to steal it back! :lol:

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[He219]

You fail to see the irony? Oh well.. but your right.. Tu-4 was mostly B-29 rip off, but that was the last..

Su-24 and F-111 however, arent related.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.48specialmodels.com/48pics/DFS346pic/dfs346-8.jpg
Actual B29 (captuired after an emergency landing in Vladivostock, 1944) used in testing the German DFS 346 supersonic testbed

http://www.48specialmodels.com/48pics/DFS346pic/dfs346-7.jpg
The Russians dubbed it the Samolyot 346-1
http://www.48specialmodels.com/48pics/DFS346pic/dfs346-6.jpg


German experimental aircraft with two 4400kg Walter 509B-1 rocket engines, swept wings and a ****e pilot position. It had an estimated top speed of Mach 2.6 at 30500m. The incomplete prototype was captured by the USSR in 1945 and flown in 1947, with one of the original interned B-29s as launch aircraft, and a German pilot. On 14 September 1951 the DFS 346 exceeded Mach 1, but then it broke up in the air.
The German pilot, Wolfgang Ziese, survived using the DFS 346's emergency ejection system. Teams of captured Germans, headed by Brunolf Baade (OKB-1)and Hans Rössing (OKB-2) headed this immediate post-war Russian aerospace R&D ..

Source (http://www.48specialmodels.com/en-seiten/e5ge.html)



But BOTH F-86 Sabre (had also lots to do with Messerschmitt P.1101..) and MiG-15 were COPIES of Focke-Wulf Ta 183 "Huckebein".. and also SAAB J-29 Tunan was such copy..

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-x5-01.gifhttp://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-x5-02.gif
Messerschmidt Me P1101 / Bell X-5 (http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-p1101.htm)

An extract from NASA papers: "The X-5 (1950 - 1954) was the first aircraft capable of sweeping its wings in flight. (Note by the editor: The Me P1101's wingsweep angle could only be changed on the ground) It was a single-place jet-powered aircraft measuring 30 ft in length with a wingspan of 19 feet (with the wings swept back 60 degrees). The wings could be swept back 20 to 60 degrees. The X-5 weighed 10,000 pounds when fully fueled.
"Its mission was to study the effect of wing-sweep angles of 20, 45 and 60 degrees at subsonic and transsonic speeds. Results from these tests provided some of the design background for the F-111 and the Navy F-14 tactical aircraft.

Kurt Tank, Hans Multhopp and Alexander Martin Lippisch were remarkable designers.


After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15.
Meanwhile, Kurt Tank (head of the Focke-Wulf design department) had left Germany to go to Argentina in 1947 at the invitation of President Juan Perón. There Tank was to build a tubojet powered fighter for the Argentine Air Force, and he decided to build the Ta 183. Tank made several changes to Multhopp's original design, mainly the wing being changed to a shoulder mounted position. The first flight of the "Pulqui II" was made on June 27, 1950. Although the flight was without mishap, test pilot Captain Edmundo Weiss did not like it's flight characteristics. Changing the wing location disturbed the wing-lift aerodynamics, and after six aircraft were completed, the Pulqui II program was canceled in 1954.
http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html

[Uninen]

He219,

Thanks is tryed to find some info on the DFS 346 but didnt find anything..

When i said "last" i ment copies of US aircraft.. :P Its known fact that even every plane in service today has had some influence from German desings of 1940s.. be that in USA or Russia, also like you see i posted a pic of Soviet Ta 183 landing there.. ;)

[He219]

Wing sweep is quite an innovation ...

http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/bsu24_vl.jpg

http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/bsu24_r.gif

WALK AROUND - Su-24 (http://www.samolet.co.uk/su24.html)

[Uninen]

Wing sweep is quite an innovation ...

Like you already said, sweep wing is from Germany, not from USA. :roll:

[He219]

I think we are mis-communicating, Uninen! :D

You brought up some great information that I happen to take interest in.

My view is that technology is built on the improvement of previous efforts and developments. I certainly don't think the Su-24 is a copy of any particular aircraft, though it may incorporate similar features. That is all ...
;)

[Uninen]

Uhm.. ok.. You was just being so neutral about it so i didnt really get your meaning, so i felt that i need to restate my stance on the matter.. ;)

And the things you introduced, interesting indeed.. i also im interested in same kinds of things.. :)

Like i said: I just another day tryed to find info on "DFS 346" but didnt find any, and that post of yours certainly made my day.. woot