Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#21

Post by chiph »

arethuza wrote: post #13
atemerev wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were _really_ preparing for nuclear war. While US military adopted the MAD doctrine, considering their nuclear weapons just the ultimate deterrent, Soviet generals thought that nuclear war can actually be fought — and won. I am quite surprised that we are not living in Fallout by now.

Pretty sure the US and NATO had "flexible response" where they would have options other than MAD. NB I'm having a binge of reading novels about WW3 scenarios in Europe at the moment, my favourite being "Chieftans" by Bob Forrest-Webb, mind you it doesn't end well. [NB Rather hoping WoT gets to Challengers/Chieftans/M1s vs T-80s at some point...]

Their tank expert is an actual tanker:

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/best-for-vets/20...

He's got a Youtube channel that has fascinating reviews of WW-II era tanks, Watching him try and fit his over-6' height into some of them is hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChieftainWoT

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#22

Post by adrianm »

nikcub wrote: post #18

One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war. Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0]. I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane…

What about B-52s, T-38s, and come to think of it, isn't the F-16 pushing 40?

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#23

Post by hx87 »

nikcub wrote: post #18

One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war. Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0]. I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane…

> Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying.

That's more because post-Soviet military establishments were more willing to sell surplus aircraft to private buyers than because of any quality of the aircraft themselves.

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#24

Post by arethuza »

rangibaby wrote: post #12
jkot wrote: post #10

> The Soviets had not built the ‘super-fighter’ the Pentagon had feared, says Smithsonian aviation curator Roger Connor, but an inflexible aircraft built to do a very particular job. There is no mention what MiG-25 was designed for. Its task was to intercept nuclear bombers flying over Soviet Union and it did this task pretty well. Because it used steel it was cheap and easy to service. At that time soviets had lot o…

I think a good lesson to learn is that primitive doesn't mean archaic. Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain over using the latest or rare technology. The best example is of course the AK-47, but the same philosophy is seen throughout all of their designs. Their planes are all designed to use poorly maintained or damaged airfields, or even just dirt strips.

"Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain"

I think it was Max Hastings who pointed out in the context of WW2 that there isn't much point in having tanks that are six times better than your enemies if they have ten times as many tanks as you do!

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#25

Post by yaakov34 »

ptha wrote: post #9

Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors In hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did, however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts). The huge engines required so much f…

The factoid about resistance to EMP gets repeated endlessly online and in print, but it doesn't really make sense, and I doubt it's true. EMP damages electrical connections which are:

a) long. b) thin. c) far from a ground plane.

In more detail: the induced current depends directly on the length of the conductor; a thin is more easily overheated and damaged than a thick one; and conductors running near ground planes make poor antennas for picking up pulses.

Now, all three of these factors describe vacuum tubes more than solid-state electronics. Vacuum tubes have to have very thin heated cathode wires, and the dimensions of vacuum tubes result in a substantial distance to the ground plane and in long conductors. Compared with solid-state electronics, which, especially in modern design, can practically live on or between ground planes, this makes for a lot of sensitivity to EMP and external interference.

One sanity check is to consider electromagnetic noise emitted by the device. Any device which is emitting substantial RF noise from its internal components is also going to be vulnerable to external EMP or interference, since antennas work both ways - anything which is good at emitting will also be good at receiving. Now, vacuum tube devices emit more RF noise than modern solid state devices, and generally need more shielding.

The components in the MiG-25 radar had more to do with what was available to the Soviet designers in the 1950s. The radar of the MiG-25 came from the Tu-128 interceptor which first flew in 1961, which means that the radar was designed in the mid-1950s at the latest. Wouldn't surprise me if the US radar of the same vintage also used vacuum tubes.

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#26

Post by vilhelm_s »

ptha wrote: post #9

Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors In hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did, however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts). The huge engines required so much f…

It might not be extremely out of date. According to some random wiki[0],

"In 1963 Westinghouse was awarded a US Navy contract for the AN/AWG-10 to provide fire control for guns and Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow and Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on the F-4B Phantom II. The first radars were delivered in 1966 and became standard equipment. The AN/AWG-10 was claimed to be the first interceptor radar to feature transistorised circuitry."

Meanwhile, the MiG-25 first flew in 1964, which would suggest that at that time it was developed western interceptors used tube-based radars too.

[0] http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Westinghouse_AN/APQ-72

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#27

Post by batbomb »

yaakov34 wrote: post #25
ptha wrote: post #9

Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors In hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did, however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts). The huge engines required so much f…

The factoid about resistance to EMP gets repeated endlessly online and in print, but it doesn't really make sense, and I doubt it's true. EMP damages electrical connections which are: a) long. b) thin. c) far from a ground plane. In more detail: the induced current depends directly on the length of the conductor; a thin is more easily overheated and damaged than a thick one; and conductors running near ground planes…

The difference is that tubes saturate differently and they won't die due to high instantaneous voltages.

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#28

Post by rangibaby »

arethuza wrote: post #24
rangibaby wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a good lesson to learn is that primitive doesn't mean archaic. Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain over using the latest or rare technology. The best example is of course the AK-47, but the same philosophy is seen throughout all of their designs. Their planes are all designed to use poorly maintained or damaged airfields, or even just dirt strips.

"Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain" I think it was Max Hastings who pointed out in the context of WW2 that there isn't much point in having tanks that are six times better than your enemies if they have ten times as many tanks as you do!

Their battle strategy (slow the enemy down for as long as possible) and weapons were informed by their experience in WW2. At the beginning of Barbarossa the USSR had many wacky, complex vehicles and arms that were prone to breaking down, if they even worked at all.

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#29

Post by greedo »

nikcub wrote: post #18

One big difference between Soviet technology and American - the former was designed to be cheap, rugged and to survive a nuclear war. Unlike similar American jets, you can find Mig-25's in private hands today being maintained and flying. It is one of the only private experiences where you can break Mach 2 and get close to 90,000' feet[0]. I love the Mig-25 - like the AK-47 there is something very admirable in a plane…

Soviet jets and technology wasn't really meant to survive a nuclear war. That would have increased complexity and cost. Everything was really designed more around being disposable.

Re: A pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet

#30

Post by PerfectDlite »

jkot wrote: post #10

> The Soviets had not built the ‘super-fighter’ the Pentagon had feared, says Smithsonian aviation curator Roger Connor, but an inflexible aircraft built to do a very particular job. There is no mention what MiG-25 was designed for. Its task was to intercept nuclear bombers flying over Soviet Union and it did this task pretty well. Because it used steel it was cheap and easy to service. At that time soviets had lot o…

> Its task was to intercept nuclear bombers flying over Soviet Union and it did this task pretty well.

Really? It _did_ this task? When that'd happen?

Post reply on HN