TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber • Hacker News Board

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#81

Post by magni- » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 2:20 AM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #68

twoodfin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, there are many reasons why North Korea was left alone while Iraq was considered "safer" to invade. Seoul being with range of massive amounts of North Korean artillery is one. The concern of both China and South Korea about the potential for floods of refugees is another.

The most important thing is that China supports NK for ideological reasons. Sure, China would prefer a communist regime that isn't quite as well suited to parody, but it'll take whatever communist regime it gets for propaganda and ideological reasons.

China doesn't care about ideology. It cares about having a buffer state instead of US troops on its borders.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#82

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 3:13 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #79

anigbrowl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a 3d printing niche opportunity.

Not really. It would NEVER be certified for US commercial operations as the US FAA does not have a reciprocal airworthyness agreement with the Soviets[1]. FAA certification - required for commercial use (but not experimental, which is how old warbirds are generally operated these days) would take years and probably $100M+, fi the FAA would ever even consider it. [1] Ironically, we DO have such an agreement with Polan…

Oh sorry - it was the bit about non-operational/replica parts that caught my eye. I agree that even the best laser sintering is probably way below the mechanical tolerances required for aeronautics applications, but it seems like it would be a great way to build models and do things like engine cutaways etc.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#83

Post by listic » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 3:38 AM UTC

djyaz1200 wrote: post #31

How convenient that one can just post the spoils of war on ebay now.

I know, right? The kind of things they sell on eBay nowadays. Say, some woman sold her virginity http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/after-woman-sell... I thought that would be illegal.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#84

Post by Perdition » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 4:43 AM UTC

sswaner wrote: post #38

454 hours of flight time seems low for a military plane built in the 80's. That is not very many flights from the Soviet Union to off the U.S. coastline.

Many Soviet vehicles and aircraft weren't of great build quality so they tended to have training vehicles that would be used by many crews until they fell apart, and vehicles reserved for combat.

This aircraft was built in '87, by which time the Soviet economy was in serious trouble and training was at reduced levels. The Bear always projected a scarier image than was reality.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#85

Post by Avitas » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 4:48 AM UTC

thearn4 wrote: post #49

Luc wrote: post #17

It took me only a few seconds to find on Google Maps: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=46.921164,32.083704&spn=0.00... Looks like it has a few siblings, so what you're getting is not as exclusive as you might think... That explains the pictures on the eBay auction appearing to be from different fuselages - they actually are (the two rightmost ones on Google Maps). EDIT: Hmmm, maybe not. Perhaps it's the same plane in…

I found the source of the photo: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/27416195 Not convinced that the auction is legit. By the way, the American version (military aviation graveyard) of this is pretty fun to look around at too: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1572109,-110.8374108,4128m/d...

It is even more fun to head over there and get a tour through the graveyard. Actual pilots of some of those birds give the tours and they know many of these planes very well.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#86

Post by sitkack » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 5:48 AM UTC

Perdition wrote: post #84

sswaner wrote: post #38

454 hours of flight time seems low for a military plane built in the 80's. That is not very many flights from the Soviet Union to off the U.S. coastline.

Many Soviet vehicles and aircraft weren't of great build quality so they tended to have training vehicles that would be used by many crews until they fell apart, and vehicles reserved for combat. This aircraft was built in '87, by which time the Soviet economy was in serious trouble and training was at reduced levels. The Bear always projected a scarier image than was reality.

The US manufactured that image for its own purposes.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#87

Post by allochthon » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 6:14 AM UTC

I have a vague sense of playing Eve Online when I see a Soviet bomber for 3M on EBay.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#88

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 6:24 AM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #51

trhway wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is a reason why US and the others were rushing for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons 20 years ago :) See Lord of War too. Interesting how recent developments continue to show the difference between how countries are treated when they have nuclear weapons vs. when they don't have, like North Korea vs. Iraq. Looking at Ukraine i wonder what Iran think :)

To be fair, there are many reasons why North Korea was left alone while Iraq was considered "safer" to invade. Seoul being with range of massive amounts of North Korean artillery is one. The concern of both China and South Korea about the potential for floods of refugees is another.

> To be fair, there are many reasons why North Korea was left alone while Iraq was considered "safer" to invade.

Many reasons why Iraq was considered more important to invaded, and all of those reasons are "barrels of oil", as elucidated in 2003 by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "Look, the primarily [sic] difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil." [1]

[1] http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcrip...

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#89

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 6:27 AM UTC

coin wrote: post #55

ars wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aluminum skin and wings fatigue. It's more a certain number of takeoff and landings rather than flight time. After that the metal is too weak and unsafe. Each time the cabin pressure changes the skin moves. Each time it takes off or lands the wings flex. They probably flex during flight as well. First link I found: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/aircraft_fati...

That still doesn't explain the low total time limit. 5000 hours is low compared to the typical 50000+ hours that modern jets are rated for.

Modern jets aren't prop-driven Soviet strategic bombers. They are typically built for comfortable, cost-effective, long-term operation, not to be a credible threat to deter (or carry out) a life-or-death war with an economically far more advanced adversary.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#90

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 6:30 AM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #86

Perdition wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Soviet vehicles and aircraft weren't of great build quality so they tended to have training vehicles that would be used by many crews until they fell apart, and vehicles reserved for combat. This aircraft was built in '87, by which time the Soviet economy was in serious trouble and training was at reduced levels. The Bear always projected a scarier image than was reality.

The US manufactured that image for its own purposes.

The Soviet Union manufactured that image for deterrence/intimidation/diverting-of-US-energy purposes.

The US military-industrial complex amplified it for pocket-lining purposes.