My grandfather worked at Sukhoi during the T-4 days as the director of the test flights of the Su24/25/27. He knew about the T-4 project quite well and how the built it in full titanium
2:13 Because bombing aircraft carriers to prevent them from reaching your shores is much more sinister than dropping nuclear bombs on land, where civilians and animals are all affected.
Bizzarely, it is not the ones who killed cities are threatening whole humanity with marvelous Sarmat missiles ) Moreover, every bomber of that era was made to kill cities. Even Soviet ones. What an example of wrapped russian mind.
@@iBolitN What an example of the pathetic US education system. The Soviet Union never dropped atom bombs on anyone and had a policy of never using nuclear weapons first. Russia didn't destroy Iraq or Lybia... just for shits and giggles.
I've seen this bird in the flesh at Monino, it's an impressive looking aircraft. Monino is an aviation enthusiast wet dream! Went to MAKS as well and saw the SU-57 fly among many others, visited the Kremlin, Kubinka tank museum and a nuclear bunker. One of the best holidays ever! Moscow is such a beautiful city, and despite what the media tell you, Russian people are lovely!
@@waynee5603. It was always a dream of mine too! Growing up in the 70's I got to see all the western aircraft at airshows, but obviously not the Soviets as it was the cold War. It was far better than I could have ever expected!
@@sovietkrab1871. I absolutely loved Moscow, and the people were lovely and friendly! MAKS & MONINO were the icing on the cake! I recommend a visit to everyone! ❤️ To 🇷🇺 from 🇬🇧
@@tgsgardenmaintenance4627 Thank you so much for your wonderful compliments about us. I am really grateful. these past days, due to various negative news, you just believe in what you want to believe.
So many of these bomber craft in history that went to scraps, with modern tweaks, could've made fantastic small cargo or lesser seating *private SR jets* at least 2/3 their mach speed range. Some even a SR flying *yatche* (the Bartini)!
The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living
@@justinperry2392 "Without raising the standard of living" ?...and to think most of us, as well Vladimir Putin, thought the russian minister pork distribution idea was more funny...🤦♂️
@@Olomana808 no airlines gave up on that dream, the table of negotiation meeting with *reality* has been a *stalled drag* by the same old school concept, just make the aircraft go 'faster and faster,' at such low altitude, until nature & both EPA & FAA gives the thumb, a nose dive (👎) beyond any landing.
seen photos of the prototype and instantly noticed the similarities to the XB-70 Valkyrie but didn't know it was designed for completely different purposes until now, thanks for the video
Really? I don't see it. Best angle is from the front, but the resemblance is only superficial. From any other direction, it looks like a completely different airplane.
@@Tsotha leading edge on wings is constant on the Valkyrie, and varies on Sotka. The T-4 has a tail cone, while Valkyrie doesn't. Both planes have their engines In a bay...but that's not an especially unique feature to both planes.
I don't know what came first, but I agree they are similar in delta/canard configuration and engine location. They differ on tail section. B70 had two canted tail, su only one.
@@FranciscoPartidas B-70 came first. It was already sitting in a museum when T-4 first flew. The canard delta wasn't that new. A canard delta was already tested on Ye8, a modified test flight article of the MiG-21, and that flew in 1962.
This is one of the least-known, least talked about soviet aircraft and I think it's one of the most unique and interesting planes that ever came out of Russia. It didn't live up to everything it was envisioned to do, but it did exist and fly, which is more than can be said for most of these whacky secretive/prototype aircraft from around the time of the cold war.
This is typical Russian Military porn. Looks really cool, looks really powerful but if it ever was called to actually go on a real mission, the landing gear would collapse because no one greased it. Russia is all bling, no substance.
Daaaaang you killed it! As a Russian guy once having made a scenario on a T-4 video I'm gonna admit details were amazing. Basically everything important on the T-4 topic was glued together, love that. Some says that one of the maddest ideas for this aircraft was to place engine nacelles OVER the wing in order to impose gear in prescribed nacelles so in cruise flight phase the Sotka would just fly upside down. No worries for pilots, cockpit section would be meant to return them in adequate position by turning round.
Both US and USSR abandoned mach 3+ bombers as ICBMs were perfected, and nuclear triads were formed. I've witnessed one of the T-4 prototypes on display in a museum.
The issue with icbms is that once launched you cannot stop it. When launched it is armed and cannot be aborted unlike when you carry nuclear missiles aboard a bomber. But supersonic bombers are no longer that useful since interceptor missiles have become much more potent thus stealthier bomber designs are now favoured which is why the Russians are investing heavily in the development of the PAK-DA
@@robert.m6755 America's favorite stealth technology again. Do you know who the founder of this direction is? Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev. In 1954, after graduating from university with a degree in theoretical physics, he was assigned to the Central Research Radio Engineering Institute (TsNIRTI). He was invited to this closed institution in Moscow by Nikolai Pavlovich Emokhonov, who would later become famous for the Siren jamming equipment complex created there (in the future Emokhonov became first deputy chairman of the USSR KGB). As a young specialist, Ufimtsev became interested in the problem of laser beam scattering on bodies of complex shape. Teachers shook their heads - the problem was of no military or any other applied interest. They said about Ufimtsev that he was burying his future. What he was doing was considered so unimportant that he was allowed to openly publish the results of his research. Ufimtsev worked at CNIRTI until 1973. His work was fruitful: in fact, he laid the foundations of the physical theory of diffraction. However, he was not a widely known scientist in the USSR - he did not receive the laurels of Kapitsa or Landau. Until perestroika, he had no idea that his research was being monitored abroad - in the United States, where the military-industrial complex understood that Ufimtsev's theoretical work could be used for military purposes. The path to the creation of "invisible airplanes" began surprisingly modestly: in 1962, Ufimtsev's book with the boring title "Method of boundary waves in the physical theory of diffraction" was published by the Soviet Radio Publishing House with a circulation of 6,500 copies. It outlined the results of the scientist's research on the diffraction of plane electromagnetic waves on ideally conducting bodies, the surface of which has fractures. Radars determine the distance to an enemy aircraft by the time it takes for the radiation they send back to be reflected from the aircraft's hull. The better an aircraft reflects radio waves, the farther it is seen. The task of reducing the reflectivity of aircraft is at the heart of stealth technology (stealth in this case can be loosely translated as "invisible movement"). By scattering electromagnetic waves reflected from the hull of an aircraft, it is possible both to reduce the degree of their reflection and to scatter them, ensuring that the radiation of the radar, "caught" the flying aircraft, does not return back. In this way, airplanes and helicopters will remain invisible to radar. Work on stealth technology in the U.S. had been going on since the early 1950s, but was not very successful. However, in 1971, when Ufimtsev's book was translated into English by the Department of Foreign Technology of the U.S. Air Force, it was immediately noticed by military corporations. The two largest of them, Lockheed and Northrop, were competing for a multi-million dollar government contract opened in 1970 to build a stealth fighter, and Ufimtsev's book was a winner: Lockheed included its text almost entirely in the theoretical justification of its bid for the government contract. You know what the funniest thing is? Back in the early 60s, Ufimtsev reasonably proved that it was IMPOSSIBLE to build an invisible airplane! However, the KGB of the USSR decided to play a game and removed his conclusion from all of its scientific publications. On what the U.S. got caught, having invested hundreds of billions of dollars in vain... So our engineers already knew then that reducing aircraft visibility was a waste of time and money...
I'm not sure, but I think this bomber was built on the basis of the Tu-144 supersonic passenger aircraft, so it could share some similarities like speed, size and overall dimensions.
Actually the fly by wire doctrine of the USSR was not concerning electromechanic actuation, but of analogue filtering from sensors and enhancement of the actuation response of the control surfaces (e.g. vortex suppression). In the USA at the time were integrating digital circuits while the Soviets were on the time series domain and were making most of the work with analogue circuitry (analogue observers and analogue filters).
And still, Russia is using drones equipped with electronics made in the 1960s. Their modern, multimillion dollar "fourth generation fighter jets" like Su-35 are getting shot out of the skies like flies by stinger missiles that cost less than my rent. This is just cope and deflection. Russia is losing. They have suffered huge casualties, and it's just a matter of weeks before their fake system and perception collapses. Russia is running out of fuel, food, and money. Their people will literally be starving by July. They won't be able to pay rents, bills, and the government will run out of money. Russia is already lost over 70% of their military just on this "special military operation." Russia is literally gonna run out of weapons too and be driven out of Chechnya, Crimea, and Donbass, and Siberia. Yes, Rubles are higher than it was before, but that's due to illegal currency manipulation. Putin has singlehandedly destroyed the perception of Russia as a strong number 2 power, and the big power in Europe. Putin and the Russian people must answer for their crimes.
@@curbowman Good day Alex! Concord was the first commercial aircraft that used an integrated system of fly-by-wire. The word SYSTEM, refers here to many fly-by-wire subsystems. The first fly-by-wire control, probably was the disturbance suppressors in Heinkel 178, back in 1939 September (the year could be 1939 or 1940) which had a first order active low pass filter for blocking the flattering of the control surfaces, in particular ailerons during high speed; that was for the final model that was used, the previous models had direct control by the pilot, mechanic-actuation, then hydraulic and finally hydraulic with analogue electronic control. Take care.
Thanks. I've seen and heard of the T-4 and the T-4MS projects. But didn't know what it was going to be used for. Interesting that they do the droop nose of the Tu-144 Concordeski "Charger", and the Concord. Too bad it failed to go into production. Just as in the XB-70. Can't wait to see about the 200 project.
Never heard of this bomber before. This is just one more reason I love this channel. Of course I had to check the most important detail is there a model kit and there is :).
Besides cost, engine availability was another factor. It used the same engine as the newly developed Mig-23 at that time. They had to chose, 4 Mig-23 interceptors for every 1 T-4. So they chose to have more Mig-23's instead. Just another decision or reason on why it was cancelled.
I read somewhere that one of the many things that killed the program was that the titanium production was being used for other weapons systems and use it for the Sotka was too much taxing on the resource for the then current industrial output. Hope some commenter can shed some more light on this topic
@@darkonojic7494 nay The Sotka is indeed a duck, but they aren't domesticated. Sotka or Aythya genus of diving ducks is a group of ducks of which none are domesticated or the products of domestication at the very least.
Название сотка идёт не от утки. И я не знаю такой утки на русском языке . Сотка это число 100 . Таким планировался взлетный вес самолёта в тоннах. Так его и называли , название прижилось и стало почти официальным.
@@mardikermardiker8514 не совсем так! Пока самолёт не принят на вооружение он именуется по другому в данном случае Т-4 .( Су -24 был Т-6 , Су 27 был Т-10, Су 57 был Т-50)при принятии на вооружение он бы стал Су с каким то номером, но наверняка не 100 . 100 это расчетный вес самолёта в тоннах поэтому и прилипло название сотка.
I'd be curious to see your take on the Sukhoi Su-47. I've loved that particular plane since I first read about it and have often wondered why it never went anywhere and why no one else ever tried to replicate the idea.
Idk if this is how to share an idea for a video but... I think the Abrams P-1 Explorer would be a really interesting one, and you would do a great job with your attention to detail. The plane itself was so ahead of its time but WW2 killed its momentum.
Man this era of innovation was insane, regardless of your political views you have to admit the engineering efforts during the cold war were just astounding on both sides.
The Sukhoi T-4, or "Aircraft 100", or "Project 100", or "Sotka" was a Soviet high-speed reconnaissance, anti-ship and strategic bomber aircraft that did not proceed beyond the prototype stage.
@@jackt6112 and it never went past the prototype stage.At least Russia built the largest and heaviest supersonic military aircraft to ever enter service and managed to keep it in service.You know which one?
Hallochen Gruss aus Köln Kalli. Habe noch vergessen : Das selbe Schicksal erlebte die Nord Amerikan XB-70 VALKÜRE. Der schnellste Bomber der je gebaut wurde.
0:25 Soviets, not just Russians. Also I don't think making a bomber specifically to take out enemy warships is really any more sinister than making a supersonic strategic bomber such as the XB-70, which had it been adopted likely would have included the mission of nuking cities.
It is the valkyrie. Noticed how the pro soviet/russians in the chat trynna denied it just make it even funnier🤣. Soviet/russians have always had a strong tradition of copying us technology. I can easily name at least 20 aircrafs copied by the soviet without even mentioning submarines, ships, etc... I even saw a comment earlier call this plane soviet engineering😂😂🤣
Really? I don't see it. Best angle is from the front, but the resemblance is only superficial. From any other direction, it looks like a completely different airplane.
@@R005t3r americans ripped off the mig 25? 🤣 that's a good one😂. If you are referring to the f15, i can guarantee you that you are an internet myth victim. The f15 is clearly very different in every way from the mig25. Just look at the earlier model of the mig 25 and you'll understand. The f15 design comes from the a5 vigilante design, the f14, etc... You pro soviet/russians are very funny cause you like to say shit on the internet but don't want to live in your wonderland🤣🤣
Yeah, agree as well. Each time he appeared it took me out of the video and was distracting. This kind of material doesn’t need a visible narrator. Veritasium, Practical Engineering, Smarter Every Day, and others often appear on screen because their channels involve demonstrating something. But documentary style channels like F&E aren’t doing that. So it’s not necessary for the narrator to appear. Kind of distracting and unnecessary. Great video otherwise. 👍🏼
The hypersonic missiles were new, but let's not forget even the V2 missile was hypersonic. A lot of air to air missiles are hypersonic for at least part of the flight. For instance the AIM-54 of F14 fame.
Hypersonic speeds are supposed to start above 6,100 km/hr. Sources I've seen for the V-2 are 3,600 km/hr at impact. Astronautix gives the AIM-54A a top speed of about 5,600 km/hr.
Interesting, this machine's mission profile is still feasible today since only China has the advanced anti-ship missiles to do away with the plane entirely when targeting a carrier
The mystique about "hypersonic" missiles is usually reserved for missiles that use an air-breathing engine which extends their range. We've had missiles that have traveled at hypersonic speeds for a long time, just not air-breathing ones. The V2 in WWII was almost hypersonic, its top speed was about Mach 4.5. The rocket that carried Sputnik into space in 1957 attained orbital speed above Mach 20, which is well over the lower-end limit of hypersonic speed (Mach 5).
The USSR was always trying to figure out how to combat a U.S. carrier task force, when they couldn’t even figure out how to even build a decent carrier for themselves!
Too bad that you couldn't figure out that carriers were against Soviet military doctrine, called "a tool of imperialism", because they are only good as mobile bases for threatening underdeveloped nations.
A carrier isn't useful against a carrier. Not to mention that Russian naval doctrine is defensive in nature prioritizing submarines. While American doctrine is offensive, prioritizing surface vessels.
Fear of the bomber carried cruise missiles is why the US Navy developed AEGIS to defend the fleet. The F14 was also in response to USSR cruise missiles
@@devonquesada6869 We don't have those stupid debts and loans and we can openly criticize our leaders and government, though we love our PM Narendra Modi 💖, welcome to India 🇮🇳
@@sagnikbhowmik744 yeah how’s the corruption over there? How’s the literacy rate coming along? Or how about yalls sanitation? Or hows yalls access to healthcare (for the vast majority who aren’t wealthy?) or hey, how’s the pollution going? América ain’t perfect; but there’s a reason everyone’s end goal is in America.. not per se China, India etc.
@@devonquesada6869Everyone has access to healthcare it is a socialist country, maybe, you can't expect to have 1 billion+ people and no pollution. And that wasn't the point. The thing was about debts and loans vs democracy.
Once I saw the intro I thought the design was stolen from the XB-70 Valkyrie, but I remembered This is Russia we're talking about Edit: welp he called it the Soviet Valkyrie in the intro nevermind
Well hell did you research this? The T-4 was primarily a strategic/reconnaissance bomber - I've just spent an hour looking for the "anti-shipping" reference. All I've found is a vague mention of it in its (very) brief wiki-page and another on a Thai site that also states it carried the R-7 Molynia(!?) which was "specially developed for it". Er, no it wasn't - the R-7 an enlarged version of the massive pad-launched 300 ton R-7 Semyorka, which took the first men into space & flew 5 years earlier in 1967! So much for that sources reliability. Moreover - ALL Soviet strategic bombers carried anti-shipping missiles from the Tu-16 onwards, so it seems very unlikely this was a primary mission. Although the Kh-45 was to be initially tested on the T-4, the requirements changed & it was to be launched from the T-4MS instead, meaning the T-4 was never meant to carry it! Don't be mislead by the designation: T-4MS was a completely new supersonic, even more radical, swing-wing strategic bomber. As for the Tu-22M, this had, virtually, nothing in common with the original Tu-22. Tu-22 was so poor that the Air Force & Tupolev passed off the 22M as an update of the Tu-22 in order to save face with the Soviet government - probably to avoid time in jail! I've only watched a few of you vids & they all have glaring errors in them. Maybe you should spend less time on flashy graphics & click-bate titles & more on checking your facts.
It truely is strange how soviet military vehicles often look similar to the creations of other nations around the same time or previous. Truely strange how the world has such frequent coincidences ;)
@@VictorKiithsa well in military case it makes sense to be "inspired" of or even directly copy other countries' designs. I mean here's the requirements and here's the ressources. Do whatever you want just make it deadly enough. Remember that Buran was initially a military purpose vehicle. But when it reaches civil machines it all becomes much less obvious. Like when you discuss Tu-4 originality it's all pretty clear - a damaged B-29 once landed in Soviet lands, they took it, reverse engineered and directly copied. But speaking of Tu-144...well there's some rumours, hypotheses...some says some said that it was in some aspects probably copied, there is also an article (who wrote it - a bunch of British journalists while making cunning faces?) about the doubtful Brunhilde operation etc.
@@VictorKiithsa The interesting thing about the Soviet Space Shuttle was that once *NASA* got wind of the stolen Shuttle plans they fed them bogus heat tile specks So when the Braun finnally returned from space they found the heat damage to it was so great that it was unflyable.. Thats why you never saw another Soviet Shuttle launch again. - The US is not as dumb as most people think.
To be honest, almost every soviet aircraft looks nothing like their American counterpart. The closest would be the Tu-160 and B-1, but the B-1 is significantly smaller, has canards and is different in it's mission profile. But for example the MiG and Sukhoi aircraft always looked very different from their American counterparts. The Buran and the Space shuttle look similar because they were designed for an extremely specific task at roughly the same time. Except that I can't think of any other examples. By comparison the F-16 has several Russian inspired cues in its layout, reminding of various MiG models based on its silhouette. The Chinese J-35 is a direct twin engine copy of the F-35, the J-20 takes liberal inspiration from the F-22, the J-10 is basically a license built version of the Israeli Lavi which itself was based on the F-16.
Too nice video with attractive title...during WW2 ,USA appeared as most marine forces powerful country with huge quantitive & qualitative capabilities until today...for any country having competitors tasks against USA 🇺🇸 on the planet...must be focusing on powerful & progressive weapons producing to Neutrality USA fleets capabilities ...today China are focusing on increasing its weapons ranges to reaching US aircraft's carriers.in same times USA challengers this Chinese desires by 1- increasing its missiles ranges, hypersonic weapons, super sonic weapons, laser technology, stealth technology from skies and underwater weapons...too nice video about( Sukho T-4 Sotka ) clearly explained its capabilities during first cold War 🥶...designed by USSR...thisvideo informative aviation challenge in that times...thanks (Found & explains) channel for sharing this video
I got to see this monster plane in the Monino museum when I worked in Russia five years ago. Crazy how the USSR with 10% of the GDP of the US could come so close to parity in military technology!
The microphone you are using (SM58) does not require a wind screen as it already has one built in. Adding an external wind screen only worsens the sound.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
My grandfather worked at Sukhoi during the T-4 days as the director of the test flights of the Su24/25/27. He knew about the T-4 project quite well and how the built it in full titanium
Killer
Badass man, I bet hes got some great stories
Titan build for Eternity
Russian planes kill people and you support it
@Reduwon Siddiki ha ha ha ha ha 😐
2:13 Because bombing aircraft carriers to prevent them from reaching your shores is much more sinister than dropping nuclear bombs on land, where civilians and animals are all affected.
yea killing American servicemen on fighting ships is much more sinister apparently than bombing Russian civilians.
See photos of raped and killed ukrainian kids
Yeah.
Ha I was going to comment the same. How is a carrier killer “much more sinister” than a nuclear bomber?
Yeah, like the yanks did to the innocent Japanese civilians, those yank jarheads
The XB-70 Valkyrie was made to kill cities, but the T-4 mission to kill US carriers is "sinister"?
The us doesn't kill cities, it delivers freedom..
Need to get the views with catchy words
Bizzarely, it is not the ones who killed cities are threatening whole humanity with marvelous Sarmat missiles )
Moreover, every bomber of that era was made to kill cities. Even Soviet ones. What an example of wrapped russian mind.
@@iBolitN
What an example of the pathetic US education system. The Soviet Union never dropped atom bombs on anyone and had a policy of never using nuclear weapons first. Russia didn't destroy Iraq or Lybia... just for shits and giggles.
@@iBolitN I hope you are aware that people are talking directly about you when they mention "brainwashed sheep"
I've seen this bird in the flesh at Monino, it's an impressive looking aircraft. Monino is an aviation enthusiast wet dream! Went to MAKS as well and saw the SU-57 fly among many others, visited the Kremlin, Kubinka tank museum and a nuclear bunker. One of the best holidays ever! Moscow is such a beautiful city, and despite what the media tell you, Russian people are lovely!
Been a long time dream of mine to visit Monino. All of that Soviet - Era aviation history in one place. Must have been amazing.
@@waynee5603 nice to see that some people actually wants to visit our country! greetings from Vladivostok
@@waynee5603. It was always a dream of mine too! Growing up in the 70's I got to see all the western aircraft at airshows, but obviously not the Soviets as it was the cold War. It was far better than I could have ever expected!
@@sovietkrab1871. I absolutely loved Moscow, and the people were lovely and friendly! MAKS & MONINO were the icing on the cake! I recommend a visit to everyone! ❤️ To 🇷🇺 from 🇬🇧
@@tgsgardenmaintenance4627 Thank you so much for your wonderful compliments about us. I am really grateful. these past days, due to various negative news, you just believe in what you want to believe.
So many of these bomber craft in history that went to scraps, with modern tweaks, could've made fantastic small cargo or lesser seating *private SR jets* at least 2/3 their mach speed range. Some even a SR flying *yatche* (the Bartini)!
The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living
@@justinperry2392 "Without raising the standard of living" ?...and to think most of us, as well Vladimir Putin, thought the russian minister pork distribution idea was more funny...🤦♂️
Killer
I believe some American airlines are trying to bring back supersonic passenger air travel again.
@@Olomana808 no airlines gave up on that dream, the table of negotiation meeting with *reality* has been a *stalled drag* by the same old school concept, just make the aircraft go 'faster and faster,' at such low altitude, until nature & both EPA & FAA gives the thumb, a nose dive (👎) beyond any landing.
seen photos of the prototype and instantly noticed the similarities to the XB-70 Valkyrie but didn't know it was designed for completely different purposes until now, thanks for the video
Really? I don't see it. Best angle is from the front, but the resemblance is only superficial. From any other direction, it looks like a completely different airplane.
@@winternow2242 similar silhouette from below, and engines hanging in a bay below the delta wing
@@Tsotha leading edge on wings is constant on the Valkyrie, and varies on Sotka. The T-4 has a tail cone, while Valkyrie doesn't. Both planes have their engines In a bay...but that's not an especially unique feature to both planes.
I don't know what came first, but I agree they are similar in delta/canard configuration and engine location. They differ on tail section. B70 had two canted tail, su only one.
@@FranciscoPartidas B-70 came first. It was already sitting in a museum when T-4 first flew. The canard delta wasn't that new. A canard delta was already tested on Ye8, a modified test flight article of the MiG-21, and that flew in 1962.
This is one of the least-known, least talked about soviet aircraft and I think it's one of the most unique and interesting planes that ever came out of Russia. It didn't live up to everything it was envisioned to do, but it did exist and fly, which is more than can be said for most of these whacky secretive/prototype aircraft from around the time of the cold war.
and they have lik onli 2 left???? fuckers
This is typical Russian Military porn. Looks really cool, looks really powerful but if it ever was called to actually go on a real mission, the landing gear would collapse because no one greased it. Russia is all bling, no substance.
@@dcdennis7355 so right here. If the Ukraine invasion proves anything it's how much of a paper tiger Russia is.
@@dcdennis7355 .. Then why is NATO unwilling to come together... And eliminate the threat.. 🤔🙄☠️👈
@@dcdennis7355 you misspelled US in 21 century....
Whenever you release a new video it's a good day! Especially when you do it about soviet/russian aircraft!
kinda same
then you shoul watch mustards videos
@@Daniel-eg9wo I watch them both actually
Yup
@@pij_ same
Daaaaang you killed it! As a Russian guy once having made a scenario on a T-4 video I'm gonna admit details were amazing. Basically everything important on the T-4 topic was glued together, love that.
Some says that one of the maddest ideas for this aircraft was to place engine nacelles OVER the wing in order to impose gear in prescribed nacelles so in cruise flight phase the Sotka would just fly upside down. No worries for pilots, cockpit section would be meant to return them in adequate position by turning round.
.-.
Both US and USSR abandoned mach 3+ bombers as ICBMs were perfected, and nuclear triads were formed. I've witnessed one of the T-4 prototypes on display in a museum.
The issue with icbms is that once launched you cannot stop it. When launched it is armed and cannot be aborted unlike when you carry nuclear missiles aboard a bomber. But supersonic bombers are no longer that useful since interceptor missiles have become much more potent thus stealthier bomber designs are now favoured which is why the Russians are investing heavily in the development of the PAK-DA
ICBM's (or SLBMs) can be self destructed in flight via radio or satellite signal or on board programming.
@@robert.m6755 America's favorite stealth technology again. Do you know who the founder of this direction is? Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev. In 1954, after graduating from university with a degree in theoretical physics, he was assigned to the Central Research Radio Engineering Institute (TsNIRTI). He was invited to this closed institution in Moscow by Nikolai Pavlovich Emokhonov, who would later become famous for the Siren jamming equipment complex created there (in the future Emokhonov became first deputy chairman of the USSR KGB). As a young specialist, Ufimtsev became interested in the problem of laser beam scattering on bodies of complex shape. Teachers shook their heads - the problem was of no military or any other applied interest. They said about Ufimtsev that he was burying his future. What he was doing was considered so unimportant that he was allowed to openly publish the results of his research.
Ufimtsev worked at CNIRTI until 1973. His work was fruitful: in fact, he laid the foundations of the physical theory of diffraction. However, he was not a widely known scientist in the USSR - he did not receive the laurels of Kapitsa or Landau. Until perestroika, he had no idea that his research was being monitored abroad - in the United States, where the military-industrial complex understood that Ufimtsev's theoretical work could be used for military purposes.
The path to the creation of "invisible airplanes" began surprisingly modestly: in 1962, Ufimtsev's book with the boring title "Method of boundary waves in the physical theory of diffraction" was published by the Soviet Radio Publishing House with a circulation of 6,500 copies. It outlined the results of the scientist's research on the diffraction of plane electromagnetic waves on ideally conducting bodies, the surface of which has fractures.
Radars determine the distance to an enemy aircraft by the time it takes for the radiation they send back to be reflected from the aircraft's hull. The better an aircraft reflects radio waves, the farther it is seen. The task of reducing the reflectivity of aircraft is at the heart of stealth technology (stealth in this case can be loosely translated as "invisible movement"). By scattering electromagnetic waves reflected from the hull of an aircraft, it is possible both to reduce the degree of their reflection and to scatter them, ensuring that the radiation of the radar, "caught" the flying aircraft, does not return back. In this way, airplanes and helicopters will remain invisible to radar.
Work on stealth technology in the U.S. had been going on since the early 1950s, but was not very successful. However, in 1971, when Ufimtsev's book was translated into English by the Department of Foreign Technology of the U.S. Air Force, it was immediately noticed by military corporations. The two largest of them, Lockheed and Northrop, were competing for a multi-million dollar government contract opened in 1970 to build a stealth fighter, and Ufimtsev's book was a winner: Lockheed included its text almost entirely in the theoretical justification of its bid for the government contract.
You know what the funniest thing is? Back in the early 60s, Ufimtsev reasonably proved that it was IMPOSSIBLE to build an invisible airplane! However, the KGB of the USSR decided to play a game and removed his conclusion from all of its scientific publications. On what the U.S. got caught, having invested hundreds of billions of dollars in vain... So our engineers already knew then that reducing aircraft visibility was a waste of time and money...
It was a dumb idea to drop the Mach 3 concept, as any pilot/aircrew flying B-52s ending in the Hanoi Hilton knows.
The animations, models and production values in your content far outpaces the competition. Many thanks 👍
See photos of raped and killed ukrainian kids
I'm not sure, but I think this bomber was built on the basis of the Tu-144 supersonic passenger aircraft, so it could share some similarities like speed, size and overall dimensions.
Nope. Actually Tu-144 first flew 4 years earlier than Sotka.
@@river_salmon so?
@@georgeantabi6025 So its the other way around
@@dodo3441 he said that the Tu-144 flew 4 years earlier than the Sotka, so why is that not a possibility?
It looks like you are all in agreement. If the TU -144 came before the bomber, it isn't a reach that the bomber leveraged lessons from the 144.
Actually the fly by wire doctrine of the USSR was not concerning electromechanic actuation, but of analogue filtering from sensors and enhancement of the actuation response of the control surfaces (e.g. vortex suppression). In the USA at the time were integrating digital circuits while the Soviets were on the time series domain and were making most of the work with analogue circuitry (analogue observers and analogue filters).
And still, Russia is using drones equipped with electronics made in the 1960s. Their modern, multimillion dollar "fourth generation fighter jets" like Su-35 are getting shot out of the skies like flies by stinger missiles that cost less than my rent. This is just cope and deflection. Russia is losing. They have suffered huge casualties, and it's just a matter of weeks before their fake system and perception collapses. Russia is running out of fuel, food, and money. Their people will literally be starving by July. They won't be able to pay rents, bills, and the government will run out of money. Russia is already lost over 70% of their military just on this "special military operation." Russia is literally gonna run out of weapons too and be driven out of Chechnya, Crimea, and Donbass, and Siberia. Yes, Rubles are higher than it was before, but that's due to illegal currency manipulation. Putin has singlehandedly destroyed the perception of Russia as a strong number 2 power, and the big power in Europe. Putin and the Russian people must answer for their crimes.
@@f-86zoomer37 Hi. Lets leave politics outside of this forum, there are better and more enjoyful ways to kill ourselves. Have a great Sunday!
J
I think he first plane to use Fly-By-Wire was the Concorde, I'm I right?
@@curbowman Good day Alex! Concord was the first commercial aircraft that used an integrated system of fly-by-wire. The word SYSTEM, refers here to many fly-by-wire subsystems. The first fly-by-wire control, probably was the disturbance suppressors in Heinkel 178, back in 1939 September (the year could be 1939 or 1940) which had a first order active low pass filter for blocking the flattering of the control surfaces, in particular ailerons during high speed; that was for the final model that was used, the previous models had direct control by the pilot, mechanic-actuation, then hydraulic and finally hydraulic with analogue electronic control. Take care.
Thanks. I've seen and heard of the T-4 and the T-4MS projects. But didn't know what it was going to be used for. Interesting that they do the droop nose of the Tu-144 Concordeski "Charger", and the Concord. Too bad it failed to go into production. Just as in the XB-70. Can't wait to see about the 200 project.
Never heard of this bomber before. This is just one more reason I love this channel. Of course I had to check the most important detail is there a model kit and there is :).
See photos of raped and killed ukrainian kids
These stories sometimes get to be way cooler than any sci-fi! Awesome channel.
Besides cost, engine availability was another factor. It used the same engine as the newly developed Mig-23 at that time. They had to chose, 4 Mig-23 interceptors for every 1 T-4. So they chose to have more Mig-23's instead. Just another decision or reason on why it was cancelled.
I read somewhere that one of the many things that killed the program was that the titanium production was being used for other weapons systems and use it for the Sotka was too much taxing on the resource for the then current industrial output. Hope some commenter can shed some more light on this topic
Finally the face behind the voice with the act fully packaged
Nice video mate 🔥
fun fact: Finns called the T-34 tank "Sotka" because its profile reminded of the bird "sotka"
@@oxcart4172 Sotka is actually domestic duck.
@@darkonojic7494 nay The Sotka is indeed a duck, but they aren't domesticated. Sotka or Aythya genus of diving ducks is a group of ducks of which none are domesticated or the products of domestication at the very least.
Название сотка идёт не от утки. И я не знаю такой утки на русском языке . Сотка это число 100 . Таким планировался взлетный вес самолёта в тоннах. Так его и называли , название прижилось и стало почти официальным.
"Sotka" is a jargon came from official name of this bomber Su-100.
@@mardikermardiker8514 не совсем так! Пока самолёт не принят на вооружение он именуется по другому в данном случае Т-4 .( Су -24 был Т-6 , Су 27 был Т-10, Су 57 был Т-50)при принятии на вооружение он бы стал Су с каким то номером, но наверняка не 100 . 100 это расчетный вес самолёта в тоннах поэтому и прилипло название сотка.
Wow, this is great! Nice, nice work. The first time I ever viewed content of this plane. You nailed it.
👏🏻 this is how a good Saturday starts.
I'd be curious to see your take on the Sukhoi Su-47. I've loved that particular plane since I first read about it and have often wondered why it never went anywhere and why no one else ever tried to replicate the idea.
Forward swept wings have a lot more limitations than a similar sized aft-swept wing.
Killer
It traded superior low speed maneuverability for... Everything else
Look up the X-29, which the Russians were replicating in a bigger airframe.
Idk if this is how to share an idea for a video but... I think the Abrams P-1 Explorer would be a really interesting one, and you would do a great job with your attention to detail. The plane itself was so ahead of its time but WW2 killed its momentum.
the visual effects plus his voice is very mesmerizing
In the nutshell :
What they want : "XB-70 Valkyrie counterpart"
What they build : "CVN Nimitz counterpart"
T-4 Was never a response to the XB-70, soviets knew of this plane but dont worried bout it.
@12:08 Wow! Now that thing looks a lot like the Dark-Star plane in the new Top Gun movie! Very cool.
really exited for the Sukhoi stealth bomber .
looks much like the sr 72 the son of blackbird
Yes true! The SR-72 BTW is expected to take a test flight by 2025.
Man i hope i have the same way you speak , a few stuttering and a lot of comfort
I like the video but I would prefer it with narration only, no talking-head shots.
Same..those shots are weird af
Cool to finally see the face to the voice, makes it more professional
Man this era of innovation was insane, regardless of your political views you have to admit the engineering efforts during the cold war were just astounding on both sides.
I truly enjoy these videos, spectacular details. Well spoken and professional. It’s not voiced by a BOT!!! Thanks 🙏🏻
Thumbnail looks fire
Great video. The animation really adds a lot while listening to the information.
The Sukhoi T-4, or "Aircraft 100", or "Project 100", or "Sotka" was a Soviet high-speed reconnaissance, anti-ship and strategic bomber aircraft that did not proceed beyond the prototype stage.
Just like the Valkyrie
@@gumelini1 ...decades earlier.
@@jackt6112 and it never went past the prototype stage.At least Russia built the largest and heaviest supersonic military aircraft to ever enter service and managed to keep it in service.You know which one?
See photos of raped and killed ukrainian kids
Glad to see they preserved one to be displayed.
The book, 'OKB Sukhoi' has a good feature on the T4.
Finally can put a face to ur voice!! Nice vids! 🤙🏼
Trust me, the TU_22 Backfire bomber with AS-4 Kitchen missile was very effective for the job
Or the AS-6 Kingfisher missiles
Or the Ass-69 Dining room missile
Great video 😊📸
Oh hell yeah another good one
Awesome job as always.
What a stunning design.
Hallochen
Gruss aus Köln Kalli.
Habe noch vergessen : Das selbe Schicksal erlebte die Nord Amerikan XB-70 VALKÜRE. Der schnellste Bomber der je gebaut wurde.
0:25 Soviets, not just Russians. Also I don't think making a bomber specifically to take out enemy warships is really any more sinister than making a supersonic strategic bomber such as the XB-70, which had it been adopted likely would have included the mission of nuking cities.
I like this new style where we see your face. Great video!
This plane suspiciosly looks exactly like the xb70 valkyre
It is the valkyrie. Noticed how the pro soviet/russians in the chat trynna denied it just make it even funnier🤣. Soviet/russians have always had a strong tradition of copying us technology. I can easily name at least 20 aircrafs copied by the soviet without even mentioning submarines, ships, etc... I even saw a comment earlier call this plane soviet engineering😂😂🤣
Really? I don't see it. Best angle is from the front, but the resemblance is only superficial. From any other direction, it looks like a completely different airplane.
It's a cheap knock off of our XB-70 Valkyre
Ending was awesome "Hey Boy"
Do a vid on the Sukhoi T-12!
Can't wait for the T-4MS video!
your videos are outstanding. these slow zooms on your face though are really creepy
Yes, they are, and totally unnecessary
You have a good narrating voice sir
and good face
Reminds me of the XB-70
That's right more unoriginal thinking. At least the Foxbat was cool and the Americans ripped off and perfected that design.
@@R005t3r americans ripped off the mig 25? 🤣 that's a good one😂. If you are referring to the f15, i can guarantee you that you are an internet myth victim. The f15 is clearly very different in every way from the mig25. Just look at the earlier model of the mig 25 and you'll understand. The f15 design comes from the a5 vigilante design, the f14, etc... You pro soviet/russians are very funny cause you like to say shit on the internet but don't want to live in your wonderland🤣🤣
The tu22m is not a modernization of the tu22. It's an entirely different aircraft, just sharing the designation
My favorite fly-guy!
My 7 year old son...
nice airplane dad but where's the window?
🤣.
The TU-135, YAK-35 and T-4 all look as if they are evolved from the T-144. Or implemented lessons learned from the TU-144.
Great video!
Great video but I prefer faceless documentaries
Yeah, agree as well. Each time he appeared it took me out of the video and was distracting. This kind of material doesn’t need a visible narrator. Veritasium, Practical Engineering, Smarter Every Day, and others often appear on screen because their channels involve demonstrating something. But documentary style channels like F&E aren’t doing that. So it’s not necessary for the narrator to appear. Kind of distracting and unnecessary. Great video otherwise. 👍🏼
I understand what you mean what @glennac has said and it nothing to do with him being ugly, just kidding 😜! No hate, peace!
Another great and informative video. Thanks. More!
It would not of changed the cold war like you suggested. The ussr fell because economic and social reasons NOT war power.
I can't wrap my head around as to how did the pilot knew what's in front without looking out from the front window when flying super sonic.
sources I've read said that the pilot used a periscope. during supersonic flight, they were probably going to rely on instruments, and ground control.
The hypersonic missiles were new, but let's not forget even the V2 missile was hypersonic. A lot of air to air missiles are hypersonic for at least part of the flight. For instance the AIM-54 of F14 fame.
Hypersonic speeds are supposed to start above 6,100 km/hr. Sources I've seen for the V-2 are 3,600 km/hr at impact. Astronautix gives the AIM-54A a top speed of about 5,600 km/hr.
At last we see you real face ! Great to humanize the great video
Interesting, this machine's mission profile is still feasible today since only China has the advanced anti-ship missiles to do away with the plane entirely when targeting a carrier
I do wish they could adopt the prototype, how would be like if they could-
OH WAIT, TU-160 EXIST!! Here we go
@@bocahdongo7769 yeah, they can definitely refit existing aircraft in their inventory, especially now that they have hypersonicd
The mystique about "hypersonic" missiles is usually reserved for missiles that use an air-breathing engine which extends their range. We've had missiles that have traveled at hypersonic speeds for a long time, just not air-breathing ones. The V2 in WWII was almost hypersonic, its top speed was about Mach 4.5. The rocket that carried Sputnik into space in 1957 attained orbital speed above Mach 20, which is well over the lower-end limit of hypersonic speed (Mach 5).
The USSR was always trying to figure out how to combat a U.S. carrier task force, when they couldn’t even figure out how to even build a decent carrier for themselves!
Lol lol
Soviets had to Wage a Huge Land army
Too bad that you couldn't figure out that carriers were against Soviet military doctrine, called "a tool of imperialism", because they are only good as mobile bases for threatening underdeveloped nations.
A carrier isn't useful against a carrier.
Not to mention that Russian naval doctrine is defensive in nature prioritizing submarines. While American doctrine is offensive, prioritizing surface vessels.
We had the X-15 program in the 1960's and it was hypersonic by halfway through.
If it doesn’t explode on take off, which is more likely
Fear of the bomber carried cruise missiles is why the US Navy developed AEGIS to defend the fleet. The F14 was also in response to USSR cruise missiles
No worries. This is how America gets a trillion dollars a year for our military budget. 😄 🇺🇸
No worries, that's why they have student debt and medical loans 😃🇨🇳
@@shinchan-F-urmom and that’s why we can critique our leaders without our family getting slaughtered :)
@@devonquesada6869 We don't have those stupid debts and loans and we can openly criticize our leaders and government, though we love our PM Narendra Modi 💖, welcome to India 🇮🇳
@@sagnikbhowmik744 yeah how’s the corruption over there? How’s the literacy rate coming along? Or how about yalls sanitation? Or hows yalls access to healthcare (for the vast majority who aren’t wealthy?) or hey, how’s the pollution going?
América ain’t perfect; but there’s a reason everyone’s end goal is in America.. not per se China, India etc.
@@devonquesada6869Everyone has access to healthcare it is a socialist country, maybe, you can't expect to have 1 billion+ people and no pollution. And that wasn't the point. The thing was about debts and loans vs democracy.
With the nose up, that thing is gorgeous. It's a giant cruise missile
Once I saw the intro I thought the design was stolen from the XB-70 Valkyrie, but I remembered
This is Russia we're talking about
Edit: welp he called it the Soviet Valkyrie in the intro nevermind
Best angle is from the front, but the resemblance is only superficial. From any other direction, it looks like a completely different airplane.
I have seen this plane in person at Moscow's Central Air Force museum. At first glance i was not even sure of its purpose, but now i am
After watching russia struggle in Ukraine, I have serious doubts about their ability to do anything other then posture.
Well hell did you research this? The T-4 was primarily a strategic/reconnaissance bomber - I've just spent an hour looking for the "anti-shipping" reference. All I've found is a vague mention of it in its (very) brief wiki-page and another on a Thai site that also states it carried the R-7 Molynia(!?) which was "specially developed for it". Er, no it wasn't - the R-7 an enlarged version of the massive pad-launched 300 ton R-7 Semyorka, which took the first men into space & flew 5 years earlier in 1967! So much for that sources reliability. Moreover - ALL Soviet strategic bombers carried anti-shipping missiles from the Tu-16 onwards, so it seems very unlikely this was a primary mission. Although the Kh-45 was to be initially tested on the T-4, the requirements changed & it was to be launched from the T-4MS instead, meaning the T-4 was never meant to carry it! Don't be mislead by the designation: T-4MS was a completely new supersonic, even more radical, swing-wing strategic bomber. As for the Tu-22M, this had, virtually, nothing in common with the original Tu-22. Tu-22 was so poor that the Air Force & Tupolev passed off the 22M as an update of the Tu-22 in order to save face with the Soviet government - probably to avoid time in jail! I've only watched a few of you vids & they all have glaring errors in them. Maybe you should spend less time on flashy graphics & click-bate titles & more on checking your facts.
Have enough commercials?
Nice to see the person behind the voice
It truely is strange how soviet military vehicles often look similar to the creations of other nations around the same time or previous. Truely strange how the world has such frequent coincidences ;)
- You mean like the Soviet Space Shuttle?
@@mydogbrian4814 yes, among many, many others
@@VictorKiithsa well in military case it makes sense to be "inspired" of or even directly copy other countries' designs. I mean here's the requirements and here's the ressources. Do whatever you want just make it deadly enough. Remember that Buran was initially a military purpose vehicle. But when it reaches civil machines it all becomes much less obvious. Like when you discuss Tu-4 originality it's all pretty clear - a damaged B-29 once landed in Soviet lands, they took it, reverse engineered and directly copied. But speaking of Tu-144...well there's some rumours, hypotheses...some says some said that it was in some aspects probably copied, there is also an article (who wrote it - a bunch of British journalists while making cunning faces?) about the doubtful Brunhilde operation etc.
@@VictorKiithsa The interesting thing about the Soviet Space Shuttle was that once *NASA* got wind of the stolen Shuttle plans they fed them bogus heat tile specks So when the Braun finnally returned from space they found the heat damage to it was so great that it was unflyable.. Thats why you never saw another Soviet Shuttle launch again.
- The US is not as dumb as most people think.
To be honest, almost every soviet aircraft looks nothing like their American counterpart. The closest would be the Tu-160 and B-1, but the B-1 is significantly smaller, has canards and is different in it's mission profile. But for example the MiG and Sukhoi aircraft always looked very different from their American counterparts. The Buran and the Space shuttle look similar because they were designed for an extremely specific task at roughly the same time. Except that I can't think of any other examples. By comparison the F-16 has several Russian inspired cues in its layout, reminding of various MiG models based on its silhouette. The Chinese J-35 is a direct twin engine copy of the F-35, the J-20 takes liberal inspiration from the F-22, the J-10 is basically a license built version of the Israeli Lavi which itself was based on the F-16.
This aircraft would look right at home on Captain Scarlet!
Dammit! I want to see the video of the T-4MS!!! I better subscribe right now!
Excellent video
Too nice video with attractive title...during WW2 ,USA appeared as most marine forces powerful country with huge quantitive & qualitative capabilities until today...for any country having competitors tasks against USA 🇺🇸 on the planet...must be focusing on powerful & progressive weapons producing to Neutrality USA fleets capabilities ...today China are focusing on increasing its weapons ranges to reaching US aircraft's carriers.in same times USA challengers this Chinese desires by 1- increasing its missiles ranges, hypersonic weapons, super sonic weapons, laser technology, stealth technology from skies and underwater weapons...too nice video about( Sukho T-4 Sotka ) clearly explained its capabilities during first cold War 🥶...designed by USSR...thisvideo informative aviation challenge in that times...thanks (Found & explains) channel for sharing this video
how is a anti ship bomber more sinister than a supersonic nuclear bomber
Stupidity 😂
I got to see this monster plane in the Monino museum when I worked in Russia five years ago. Crazy how the USSR with 10% of the GDP of the US could come so close to parity in military technology!
i have seen it up close in the museum of monino..i wish i could post photos...it is just enormous
I have to be honest your videos are great and you look such a sweet guy to talk to
It's... It's *BEAUTIFUL.*
The microphone you are using (SM58) does not require a wind screen as it already has one built in. Adding an external wind screen only worsens the sound.
Having done both, there is significant difference to my ears before and after. With the after with the screen being better.
@@FoundAndExplained That's like saying I can see better in the house with my sunglasses on. lmao
Keep up the great videos!
i love your vids and i rly love your rate vid on the tank(from srebia)
Thanks for sharing mate. Keep up the good work :)
Never knew this plane existed. Thank you
I have actually seen it in Monino and I even have a photo of that T-4
I've seen it in person, I have to say it's quite a nice bird
Nice video once again , I wish to learn the 3D modelling used in your videos , kindly comment how to learn or from where to learn
I will try my best. I want to make a course!
@@FoundAndExplained Can we get in touch through email , coz your work inspires me , mine is
I hope it's coming back soon we all need it.
Keep going Sotka !!!