The Never Built Soviet Stealth Bomber - T-4MS

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 10 січ 2025
  • Need a website? Support the channel and get 10% off your first site and domain!
    www.squarespac...
    NEW CHANNEL:
    • Launched from the bigg...
    Discord: / discord
    My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
    Join this channel to get access to perks:
    / @foundandexplained
    Patreon:
    / foundandexplained

КОМЕНТАРІ • 228

  • @cheekburek6672
    @cheekburek6672 2 роки тому +264

    I swear this T-4MS looks yet so futuristic and cursed at the same time.

    • @dicaspero
      @dicaspero 2 роки тому +12

      the main body looks like a vacuum formed pillow, with swing wings strapped to it.

    • @F.O.U.N.D.E.R
      @F.O.U.N.D.E.R 2 роки тому +4

      @@dicaspero for stability during crusing and Hypersonic gliding speeds

  • @andrewday3206
    @andrewday3206 2 роки тому +140

    Lockheed knows all about Square Space and used it to its advantage
    But Northrop built the B-2 Spirit not Lockheed
    Fantastic video all the same!!

    • @Yuki_Ika7
      @Yuki_Ika7 2 роки тому +5

      Northrup Grumman just does Stealth better

    • @penskepc2374
      @penskepc2374 2 роки тому +1

      @@Yuki_Ika7 also mail trucks

    • @h8GW
      @h8GW Рік тому +1

      I wanted to give you your like, but it was already at 117 and I didn't have the heart to take that away.

  • @BenVaserlan
    @BenVaserlan 2 роки тому +74

    This aircraft is mentioned in Yefim Gordon's Tu-160 book. It was decided to be the best aircraft out of the three in the competition but the Kazan plant said they only build Tupolev aricraft and Sukhoi was busy with the Su-25 and the Su-27.

    • @ravenouself4181
      @ravenouself4181 29 днів тому +1

      Love that "We only build Tupolev Aircraft" bit

    • @BenVaserlan
      @BenVaserlan 29 днів тому

      @@ravenouself4181 The Soviet Union had its own tail wagging the dog military-industrial complex. They had 4 different MBTs in production in the 80s: T-72 (UVZ), T-80 (Leningrad), T-64 (Kharkov), T-80UD (Kharkov) which the Kharkov plant wanted to call the T-84 ... which they later did. UVZ argued the T-7 was a 'mobilization tank' ie was inexpensive to make and run.

  • @TheKulu42
    @TheKulu42 2 роки тому +52

    You do great work. I've learned a lot about Cold War proposals, and I can't help thinking a lot of these designs would be good bases for Star Wars vehicles.

  • @HOTSHTMAN53
    @HOTSHTMAN53 2 роки тому +310

    Imagine being in America, going outside, looking up, and seeing a flying nacho with a red star on it packed with nuclear tipped missiles😮‍💨

  • @peter229
    @peter229 2 роки тому +27

    Actually the tu-160 design is not even original of tupolev but was adopted from the m-20 final version, later adding a mid lifting body feature after recieving data of t-4ms. The tail of tu-160 is slightly less efficient than that of t-4ms and thus shorter range than t-4mс
    Also, t-4ms was not intended to be a stealth bomber

  • @6feetthing
    @6feetthing 2 роки тому +31

    I still remember how Zlatko Buric (playing as Yuri Karpov) in the film 2012 says "it's Russian" proudly when a child states the Antonov 225 is huge.

    • @BARelement
      @BARelement 2 роки тому +6

      I heard it’s all big over there

    • @6feetthing
      @6feetthing 2 роки тому +3

      @@BARelement yeah, literally 😂

    • @Spaced92
      @Spaced92 2 роки тому +5

      Was it supposed to be the unfinished one, because I'm pretty sure the Mriya had the Ukrainian flag on it lol.

    • @BARelement
      @BARelement 2 роки тому +1

      @@6feetthing 👀

    • @6feetthing
      @6feetthing 2 роки тому +6

      @@Spaced92 but the An225 was built during the soviet era, so..

  • @TheRealHoltzy
    @TheRealHoltzy Рік тому +3

    It really is a good thing that no one running the show in Russia during the cold were had any idea what they were doing

  • @DrFluffy
    @DrFluffy 2 роки тому +9

    6:00 that dude needs more medals

    • @keithw4920
      @keithw4920 2 роки тому +6

      Bomber cant take off if you add more.

    • @Argentvs
      @Argentvs 2 роки тому +2

      WWII veteran. But the oditty of having that many medals is that they were given not only as proper medals, but also as anniversaries, merits, service condecorations, units served, posts taken. , Etc. Things that in western militaries we usually do with a paper like diplomas or commendations.

    • @haroldjedrzejczyk9449
      @haroldjedrzejczyk9449 2 роки тому

      In Amerika officer's wear medals. In Soviet Union, medals wear officers!

    • @3333-d2z
      @3333-d2z 2 місяці тому

      Этот человек легенда Вооруженных сил Советского Союза.7 боевых орденов во время Второй Мировой Войны,больше 300 боевых вылетов,был сбит 2 раза,в 27 лет командовал авиаполком,прожил 103 года.

  • @Satvik_3334
    @Satvik_3334 2 роки тому +25

    I thought this video is going to be about the legendary carrier killer T4 Sotka but forgot that he already has a video on it and it is MS not Sotka.😁😁

  • @GodittoC
    @GodittoC 2 роки тому +39

    Fun fact: they're still flying today, you've just haven't seen since they're quite stealthy

    • @AaronShenghao
      @AaronShenghao 2 роки тому +6

      That reminds me that funny picture of a pilot trying to climb in an “stealth” jet. (It’s just a wet hanger with a F22 shaped dry patch)

    • @ArtyMars
      @ArtyMars 2 роки тому +1

      Sneaky plane sneaking 😌

  • @georgeovel6423
    @georgeovel6423 2 роки тому +7

    Two Soviet designers are talking to Soviet AF general about how small radar cross section is. Es so small only one angel can dance on its cross section. Soviet General: Comrade, we don’t believe in angels in soviet union. Second designer. That’s okay, cross section isn’t that small!

  • @sebastianucero7535
    @sebastianucero7535 2 роки тому +3

    The renders are absolutly amazing!! great video man

  • @alimzazaz
    @alimzazaz 2 роки тому +22

    US usual guys = Lockheed martin, northrop grumman, boeing
    Soviet usual guys = Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Tupolev

  • @gemmabutterworth1208
    @gemmabutterworth1208 2 роки тому +2

    I have been waiting forever to see this video
    Thanks for making it

  • @Rybo65
    @Rybo65 2 роки тому +3

    rip bro 6:39 that stutter ;-;
    first time to

  • @imsomewhatcertain1024
    @imsomewhatcertain1024 2 роки тому +12

    Two years later, and Found and Explained is still better than the History Channel.

    • @Eddy1938-b
      @Eddy1938-b 2 роки тому

      History channel died a long time ago

  • @orue5499
    @orue5499 2 роки тому +2

    i wish this stuff was on tv

  • @lundsweden
    @lundsweden 2 роки тому +2

    With that flat underside, it looks to be a lifting body design.

    • @JFrazer4303
      @JFrazer4303 2 роки тому +1

      It was called a "flying wing".

  • @lightspeedvictory
    @lightspeedvictory 2 роки тому +4

    In the title, you call this a stealth bomber but make no mention of it in the video itself. Me confused
    Requesting videos on the following:
    -switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise (the concept, not the actual fighters I mentioned)
    -Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14
    -the NATF program as a whole
    -early ATF proposals
    -Sea Apache
    -F-20 Tigershark
    -Bae SABA
    -Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal
    -Northrop’s proposal for what would become the F-117 Nighthawk
    -Interstate TDR

  • @edhikurniawan
    @edhikurniawan 2 роки тому +7

    I wonder if controlling that bird would be like a brick. Probably need differential thrust from one side engines to actually turns decently. Also the vertical tail probably need to be slightly slanted to improve the stealth.

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 2 роки тому

      Guessing Pavel Sukhoi missed you back then?

    • @JFrazer4303
      @JFrazer4303 2 роки тому +3

      Not true. It was designed using same avionics and systems & technology as the T-4 "Sotka". utterly conventional flight controls. Huge fins and rudders and the wings had the roll controls.
      It was not at all intended to be stealthy.
      It would have greater range, speed and payload than the TU-160.

  • @RR-us2kp
    @RR-us2kp 2 роки тому +1

    I always love your transition to the sponsor. 🤣🤣

  • @morskoykotik
    @morskoykotik 2 роки тому +2

    What is the name of this music? 0:40

  • @OliverSchroeder
    @OliverSchroeder Місяць тому

    🙏Thank you for confirming that the final design is NOT that wedge-shaped one shown by each and every media but the aerodynamically stable (?) one with the elongated nose and tailfins (5:32 ).
    Now I wonder whether the colour scheme of this beast would have been like: Anti-flash white? Infrared-emitting black (SR-71)? Some kind of low-vis light grey? All-metal Titanium?Or just an ordinary camouflage pattern?

  • @jaredyoung5353
    @jaredyoung5353 2 роки тому +1

    Super weapons like this are really something else

  • @BlastGamingWT
    @BlastGamingWT 2 роки тому +5

    Your videos about Soviet aircrafts are the best

    • @BaSiC47
      @BaSiC47 2 роки тому +1

      Try Skyships Eng

    • @BlastGamingWT
      @BlastGamingWT 2 роки тому +1

      @@BaSiC47 i love this channel, but i prefer russian skyship

  • @nitroxide17
    @nitroxide17 2 роки тому +2

    Stealth design with straight vertical stabilizers? Doesn't seem very stealthy.

  • @pramusetyakanca1552
    @pramusetyakanca1552 2 роки тому +2

    If the DarkStar from Maverick was a big boy and had variable-geometry wings:

  • @millugaming133
    @millugaming133 2 роки тому +3

    Love all your Videos.
    The amount of Time and work consumed to produce such a video.
    You deserve a Great respect

  • @shauncoulson4588
    @shauncoulson4588 23 дні тому +1

    that plane be skipping legs

  • @badisdahmane761
    @badisdahmane761 Рік тому

    I am a big fan of military aviation, not sure why I missed the T4MS, but you just brought to my attention how similar the PAK-DA (at least what we know now and what is advertised everywhere) to the T-4MS, at least we know from where Tupolev Design Bureau got the concept from.

  • @wilomica
    @wilomica 2 роки тому

    I like this channel a lot. I knew when I watched the Orion video I had to subscribe! Super interesting!

  • @aviation_mv
    @aviation_mv 2 роки тому

    this new 3d artist is amazing

  • @afterlife697
    @afterlife697 2 роки тому +6

    I love your work so much the animations are absolutely beautiful and I love it when you cover secret military projects, especially the ones from the bad guys like the Soviets, the Nazis ECT. You have quickly become one of my absolute favorite, UA-cam channels, and I hope you never change especially those gorgeous flying animations with those beautiful clouds, fantastic sky and amazing sun features.

  • @TheDaltonius
    @TheDaltonius 2 роки тому +1

    That is certainly one blurssed design

  • @argonaut_aero
    @argonaut_aero 2 роки тому +1

    Soviet Onion had some really rad aircraft

  • @mikedrop4421
    @mikedrop4421 2 роки тому +1

    It looks like a penguin after a steamroller accident

  • @Desire123ification
    @Desire123ification 2 роки тому

    Awesome Video! 💯

  • @Sukhoi_Aviation
    @Sukhoi_Aviation 2 роки тому +5

    Imagine going outside to see a flying triangle with a red star firing missiles the size of your house

  • @ArtyMars
    @ArtyMars 2 роки тому +2

    I really wish we’d just stop bombing each other 😢

  • @Animboyexe
    @Animboyexe Рік тому

    Mom?
    Yes?
    Look flying nachos
    Son, flying nachos don’t exist, they’re just birds
    Oh and they dropped something shaped like rockets

  • @lyric-992
    @lyric-992 2 роки тому +1

    Someone must build this in simpleplanes.

  • @Irish_Chirpo
    @Irish_Chirpo 2 роки тому +5

    hey man, love your videos. they keep me and my dad very entertained. keep up the increadible effort as it really pays off
    edit: didn't this end up becoming the TU-144 strategic longrage super sonic bomber? the TU-144 is the aircraft that found keeps showing that looks like the concorde

  • @Elbarbercio
    @Elbarbercio 2 роки тому +1

    Could you make a vídeo about THE su-41?

  • @UlandaBailey
    @UlandaBailey 2 роки тому

    Bro looks and is as efficient as a paper aeroplane

  • @SparkPluggUwU
    @SparkPluggUwU 2 роки тому +1

    Your models always look so amazing

  • @muck8601
    @muck8601 2 роки тому

    Cool that your thumbnail looks like my 3d model design I feel watched. This comes up to my fy ? I only watch some game content on UA-cam

  • @abdulmateenahmed4339
    @abdulmateenahmed4339 2 роки тому

    just when I thought I was going to have a boring afternoon

  • @Simon.15
    @Simon.15 2 роки тому +1

    Bro sneaked to kremlin to find the docs to make video 🤣🤣

  • @scottwolf8633
    @scottwolf8633 2 роки тому

    Low observable with those vertical stabilizers?

  • @leezinke4351
    @leezinke4351 2 роки тому

    great video!

  • @mignik01
    @mignik01 2 роки тому +2

    Yes I also have a stealth bomber that I drew that was never built as well. it had the exact chance of being fielded into the Airforce as this one when I drew it.

  • @foodclubbing3705
    @foodclubbing3705 Рік тому

    Amazing video who does this 3D renders and animation ? looks stuning...

  • @starwarsheros9245
    @starwarsheros9245 2 роки тому +2

    Would be so cool if someone made those
    For a flight sim

    • @lyric-992
      @lyric-992 2 роки тому

      I wish someone will make them in simple planes

  • @ErkanVural0
    @ErkanVural0 2 роки тому

    can you make a video about 5.Gen Turkish Fighter Jet MMU(TF-X)?

  • @cliffwoodbury5319
    @cliffwoodbury5319 2 роки тому

    I have never heard of any of these never built Soviet projects and you chouls cover them all

  • @jensenthegreen6780
    @jensenthegreen6780 Рік тому

    One of those tragic cases where its not the plane's fault, God this thing just looks too damn cool and unusual...

  • @rockerlalee
    @rockerlalee 2 роки тому +1

    Man, I really like your channel. Nicely edited, informative, subjects are almost always interesting and exciting. But these fcking sponsor segments.. I know it's not your "fault", man gotta earn some to be able to do this full-time. I understand that's how UA-cam is, and it's fcking sad that people have to litter their videos with these half-assed products, oftentimes totally unrelated to the topic.
    Anyways, as far as content itself goes, I love it, keep it up, man! :)

    • @FoundAndExplained
      @FoundAndExplained  Рік тому

      Well, thank you. The team works hard to produce every single video.
      please understand that each video takes time and money to produce. there is a team now employed by the channel an they all need to support their families. Squarespace is our longest supporting sponsor with over 30 integrations now. They along with many other sponsors allowed us to produce about a dozen sponsor free videos at Christmas time.
      Squarespace is also quite relevant to a wide range of people. Most people at some point need a website. Unfortunately Airline, and other transport companies have yet to agree to sponsor the channel, so until then, we will have to take sponsors that allows us to keep making 3D animated mini-documentaries at least once a week.

  • @Karl-cg9cv
    @Karl-cg9cv 2 роки тому +3

    So another video about a remarcable "bommer"😂

  • @Gavanater7
    @Gavanater7 2 роки тому

    Wait Lockheed uses squarespace?

  • @tedsmith6137
    @tedsmith6137 8 місяців тому

    45 tons is a lot of ornaments. Better with carrying ordinance, I think.

  • @ChristIsKing4ever-l9w
    @ChristIsKing4ever-l9w 2 роки тому

    Can you make a video about the Tupolev Tu-45M ? (Or also called Tu-22MM) thanks

  • @ris.sin2020
    @ris.sin2020 Рік тому

    Very good this toy. How much unit price?

  • @doodooswirl
    @doodooswirl 2 роки тому +1

    Hardly stealthy with those twin vertical stabilizers, exposed rivets, lack of RAM, should I go on? 😅

    • @JFrazer4303
      @JFrazer4303 2 роки тому +1

      Blame the content provider for hyping it as "stealth", when it used the same technology as the "Sotka" in a "flying wing".

  • @heroovereurope4556
    @heroovereurope4556 2 роки тому

    Can i ask for the intro song? Sounded awesome with awesome video thx for all great content.

  • @dannesgrek
    @dannesgrek 2 роки тому +1

    Дизайн интересный, но ту160 и в правду красивый😁

  • @Ahmad-og9qk
    @Ahmad-og9qk 2 роки тому +1

    my thoughts after watch TOP GUN MAVERICK...... that's DarkStar

  • @Crispy_Crisp
    @Crispy_Crisp 2 роки тому

    what do you use to make these animations

  • @trainanimator8150
    @trainanimator8150 2 роки тому

    found and explained if you or someone else hasn't can you talk about the lockheed L-2000

  • @glennac
    @glennac 2 роки тому +1

    “Ornaments”? 😉

  • @Landoggo_The_Dufus
    @Landoggo_The_Dufus 2 роки тому

    How does it feel to go outside and see a SU 27 flanker bussing by?

  • @lenadams854
    @lenadams854 2 роки тому

    Will you do the MBB Lampyridae?

  • @disketa25
    @disketa25 2 роки тому

    What about "M-19", 360 ton lifting body hypersonic bomber project by Myasishchev? If built, it could have been the first operable hypersonic military aircraft, by using six powerful liquid hydrogen-fueled ramjets... Although at a cost, since paying $2 billion equivalent per plane (estimated cost was about 2.5 billion rubles per plane) was considered to be, like, way too much...
    But hey, that could have been first hypersonic plane in actual military service, capable of sustained Mach 5 flight. And definetely a good story to tell.
    P.S. It was also considered as a potential spaceplane, by adding a nuclear rocket motor, but that's a whole another story to tell.

  • @emilmlodnicki3835
    @emilmlodnicki3835 2 роки тому

    Is that the Gunpoint3D model? From the now long gone website?

  • @district5198
    @district5198 2 роки тому +5

    Russia needs to revive and modernize it and build it. Absolutely love Russian engineering.

  • @CodeS7-w4t
    @CodeS7-w4t 2 роки тому +1

    It looks like the dsb lk brother

  • @FOX-3
    @FOX-3 2 роки тому

    damn what was that starting music that was fire!

  • @adamfrazer5150
    @adamfrazer5150 2 роки тому +9

    The production quality of your content RIVALS that of Russian military ! Yes, the CG work is as amazing as the latest tech.......trailers.
    Multi-million trailers.
    Multi-part Wish orders in reality.

  • @joshflugel
    @joshflugel Рік тому

    Expectations: T4
    Reality: B2

  • @CausticLemons7
    @CausticLemons7 2 роки тому

    Almost like an airplane version of the Battlestar Galactica.

  • @ЭллаКожанова-п1о
    @ЭллаКожанова-п1о 2 роки тому

    Молодец, как всегда интересный ролик ! Keep on going !

  • @ThomasHaberkorn
    @ThomasHaberkorn 2 роки тому

    How many lost Soviet military aircraft projects are left? There are so many

  • @jimsvideos7201
    @jimsvideos7201 2 роки тому +1

    The landing speed on that thing would have been _bananas._

    • @jimsvideos7201
      @jimsvideos7201 2 роки тому

      @JZ's BFF Imagine an arrested landing on that thing, you'd need a hook like a tree trunk.

  • @abdulmateenahmed4339
    @abdulmateenahmed4339 2 роки тому

    You always come through

  • @HellenicWolf
    @HellenicWolf 2 роки тому

    back in the future with the crazy soviets

  • @Rockstone1969
    @Rockstone1969 2 роки тому +1

    Not a stealth bomber, too many right angles on the fuselage, wings and vertical stabilizers.

  • @coreyandnathanielchartier3749
    @coreyandnathanielchartier3749 3 місяці тому

    Doesn't look all that stealthy, with the weapons and wing root seal areas, and probably had the thermal signature of Mt. St. Helens.

  • @aaronlillard3880
    @aaronlillard3880 2 роки тому

    Who else noticed how there was no relationship with Nazi Germany with this bonkers idea

  • @b.griffin317
    @b.griffin317 2 роки тому

    So it was actually supposed to be built? Not just a design study?

    • @JFrazer4303
      @JFrazer4303 2 роки тому +1

      It was the competitor to the Tupolev design which became the "Blackjack". It used the same technology as the T-4 "Sotka, but was faster with more range and payload than the TU-160.
      Sukhoi didn't have enough factory space and was busy with other things, so the Tupolev was built.

  • @mrrolandlawrence
    @mrrolandlawrence 2 роки тому

    indeed tupolev did scupper the plans. worth noting that in the USSR the design bureau is just that... where they do the design. they then take the plans & go make it in a factory. Mig 21s for instance used to be made in a mega factory where they also made washing machines. in the end the tu160 was massively expensive & luckily for the west - in tiny numbers. i wish they had built the T4MS but also glad living in the uk they didnt :)

    • @redsun9261
      @redsun9261 2 роки тому +1

      It is ICBM's that you should be scared off, not some overly expensive bombers. For a price of a single B2 you can have dozens of them, perfect means for delivering nuclear warheads.

    • @Argentvs
      @Argentvs 2 роки тому

      @@redsun9261 the reason of bombers is that they can approach from unexpected directions over areas not defended or with low cover and attack from distance with multiple missiles before you can intercept them and giving no response time to reinforce that airspace/deploy anti air defenses. But mostly it is a insurance card. In case of nuclear war, ICBM silos, which are most of the nuclear offensive strategic arsenals, would be destroyed on the first strike. So ICBMs are good,. It they are a single use card, you use it at the start and you either consume or lose them to enemy ICBM strikes. So bombers and submarines stay as a strategic reserve for a third strike or deterrence post war.

    • @redsun9261
      @redsun9261 2 роки тому

      @@Argentvs In case of nuclear war all strategic objects will be destroyed on a first strike, including airbases. All submarines will shoot their missiles immediately, as well as cruise missiles on bombers.
      At the time those cruise ones arrive, there will be not much left to destroy and nowhere to land/repair/rearm.

    • @Argentvs
      @Argentvs 2 роки тому

      @@redsun9261 not how it works. Nuclear Armageddon is exaggerated. The nuclear bombers can operate on thousands of km of distributed highways and makeshift mobile airdromes. Nuclear subs would not shoot all, just a few at short range to achieve surprise.
      A nuclear war would be more like a normal war than people believem they just shoot big bombs. There is no magic "radiation" end of the world turning into a yellow filter movie desert. ICBMs would be shot first to command centers and enemy silos on first strike. Mobile nuclear forces are held in reserve. After a few hours of first exchange satellite inteligente would check enemy damage and a second strike with surviving ICBMs and submarines would hit strategic targets. Mainly industrial centers, logistic hubs, major military bases and ports. The objective of nuclear war is to take out fast enemy strike capabilities, communication, logistics and the ability to deploy and sustain forces outside it's territory. Civilian casualties would be somehow limited, the better outcome is to destroy the country capacity to supply cities and produce food, hence leaving dozens of millions of people without basic services and supplies creating a humanitarian disaster that would make impossible for surviving authorities to ignore, denying them the oportunyof sustaining a war effort. Thus is why US forces in Europe have autonomy to carry combat operations for months cut off from the US without comms nor supplies and Soviet forces were made similar, able to roll over Europe independently. At the end the objective is to degrade the enemy combat capacity and gain advantageous positions for negotiations. A third strike is possible with surviving nuclear weapons, directed to the biggest civilian infrastructure that is tending to it's population to make s recovery harder.
      Nuclear war stopped to be civilian mass genocide in the 1960s with the ICBMS securing MAD. Then it turned to a total war with them just as another weapon in case of war. In the 1950s as the US had most of nukes and bomber supremacy the plan indeed was to hit cities to cause the major civilian killings as possible. But it ended when the soviets launcher Sputnik and showed the US they could also suffer that, then nuclear war became s strategic targets hit first, not cities ( though cities would be collateral on major targets). Such as command and control. Major sir bases, ports industrial hubs, railroad hubs, etc.
      After a 3rd strike both countries would still have s minimal reserve of nuclear weapons for defense. Since both would be weak and devastated opening the world to second powers to fill their positions. Specially big populated, enough industrialized and food producer countries like India, Iran, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Brazil. Which would be the primary source of reconstruction supplies entering a boom of food and industrial output demand while the northern hemisphere is destroyed and it's infrastructure unable to feed an industrial recovery.

  • @craigmackay4909
    @craigmackay4909 Рік тому

    Always wondered how many recovered ET craft the ruskies have.

  • @jim2lane
    @jim2lane 2 роки тому +3

    The Russian military, as well as the Soviet one that preceded it, makes weapon systems announcements all the time. But the ratio of announcements to actual deployed systems is actually quite low. It's all about money for procurement and native defense industry capability.

    • @arrant638
      @arrant638 Рік тому

      The military concept may be out of date on the drawing board. The T4MS is not a stealth, but a supersonic bomber at speeds above Mach 3. It has the same usage concept as the Valkyrie. Valkyrie was canceled due to the development of air defense and missile weapons. Valkyrie and T4MS would not have reached the target, even at high speeds. The concept of speed was replaced by the concept of an air defense breakthrough at low altitudes. Therefore, projects B1 and Tu160 came forward. The variable geometry of the wing made it possible to fly at supersonic as well as at low altitudes. Wings tucked in for speed, spread out for low altitude. Therefore, the initial design may differ from the finished product. Well, and most importantly, many designs that have not yet been presented by technology are invented by ordinary amateurs, and not by a designer. For example, the designs of Mig 41 or Pak Da have nothing to do with reality, because these prototypes have not yet been presented. People have false expectations.

  • @artiomvv569
    @artiomvv569 Рік тому

    This thing would have been a real menace is the Russians managed to build it.

  • @diltzm
    @diltzm 2 роки тому

    Big Oof the B2 was designed and built by Northrup not Lockheed.

  • @My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter
    @My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter 2 роки тому

    Nice presentation, but you are getting one fact wrong thru the entire video, Soviet design bureaus (OKB) are just for design and prototyping, production was done separately in a communist planned economy, unlike capitalistic companies who are designing AND producing the aircraft.

  • @Meteorknite
    @Meteorknite 2 роки тому +2

    It would make sense Russia having hypersonics first. The zircon, Avangard glide vehicles look alot like T4-MS designs.

    • @Googlag
      @Googlag 2 роки тому +1

      You don't know what kind of ass the industrial sector in Russia is in. These hucksters have long destroyed the entire technological potential of the former USSR. And these bastards are alive only because the USSR created a nuclear shield. And even so, these scum do not forget to pour mud on the USSR.

  • @bluerallyes2
    @bluerallyes2 2 роки тому

    External stores, reheat, straight propagation gaps in the wing box. 3/10 Ivan, stay after school.

    • @JFrazer4303
      @JFrazer4303 2 роки тому +1

      It was not at all intended to be stealthy. Same technology as the "Sotka".

    • @bluerallyes2
      @bluerallyes2 2 роки тому

      @@JFrazer4303 maybe the video could be re-titled to the ‘never built and not at all stealthy bomber’ then, or just simplified to the ‘never built bomber’?

  • @ioanbota9397
    @ioanbota9397 8 місяців тому

    Its so powerful realy I like it

  • @GrantBacon21
    @GrantBacon21 2 роки тому

    you should make videos on nebula or get a sponsor from them.

  • @laujuntaomoe
    @laujuntaomoe 2 роки тому

    So, why did Soviet never built this Stealth bomber, maybe it was too expensive to build?