Another vote for space. Some version of the Soyuz has been in use for nearly 50 years. It’s up there with the B-52, albeit with continuous updating of various bits for both.
It’s not the sexiest technology, but it is the most reliable, safest space vehicle ever made. I guess that makes it engineer sexy.
I think you are referring to Radial Keratotomy, but the procedure is quite different from your description. I had this surgery in the 1980’s, and my (American) doctor was trained by the pioneering doctor in Russia.
It was a stop gap solution to the mach 3 Valkrie, while it could exceed slightly, mach 3. That slagged the engines, but then all it really had to do was to get up to altitude and fire off a couple of missiles. The pilot either glided back, nursed the bird home, or rode the silk , but to stop a bomber with nukes, it would have been more than a fair trade.
Its been relegated to photo recon now.
Declan
Maybe it had a bigger warhead, but what about the probability of a hit? The Soviets were not well known for having reliable firmware or good computers at any point during the existence of the Union.
I personally am impressed with their relatively low costs. Well, sort of - the Russians have started charging NASA a bundle per Soyuz seat, but the cost of a launch of that thing to the Russians in terms of materials and labor is probably a tiny fraction what they are charging. Instead of paying some lineup of semi-corrupt contractors, they actually pay for space hardware that mostly works, ish, and for a bargain price.
And the F-15 was built in response to the percieved threat from the Mig-25. So the Soviets built the SU-27 to counter the F-15 and the US responded with the F-22.
Each of these aircraft were the best fighters in the world until the other side countered with a better one.
They have the longest trans-country roads and railway …
In addition to radial keratotomy, there was pioneering work in orthopedics (Ilizarov- bone lengthening) and in anti-microbial use of viruses (bacteriophage). The first is now widely used in the West. The second, not so much, but this may have a rebirth as antibiotic resistant microbes become more prevalent.
The Russians were very heavily into Ground Effects Vehicles (GEVs), and built the largest ones in the world, the ekranoplans. I’d read about GEVs as a kid, but what I read confused them with hovercraft, which they’re not. I wouldn’t have known about the ekranoplan had it not featured prominently in Foulkes’ latter-day Bond adventure, Devil May Care.
There certain ly was work done in the US, but even the Wikipedia articles on the topic point out how the work was sold to a German company. They don’t seem to have become very popular. In Russia, though, they built a lot of them, including one that weighed 550 tons and could reach a top speed of 460 mph. They’ve scaled back in number and size, but they’re still making them.
I think there’s a distinction to be made between technological and engineering superiority and a device’s eventual success.
For example, the AK-47 is very reliable. Partially this is due to its design, which is simple and robust, partially because it doesn’t call for particularly tight clearances, and partially because Soviet and Chinese industry wasn’t even too good at meeting those clearances.
So you end up with a well designed rifle, with loose clearances and somewhat sloppily made. This means that it’s unlikely to jam, even in the worst conditions, and that it also is pretty inaccurate. Which isn’t a big deal when you have a half-trained conscript army or insurgents firing full-auto, but is kind of problematic when you have a professional force of trained riflemen, or a well-trained conscript army.
So comparing say… the M16 or the FAL to the AK-47 and saying that the AK is either superior or better engineered is not at all accurate as a blanket statement. It is the case if you’re talking about the insurgents or the half-trained conscripts, but if you’re talking about US Marines or British Paras, then it’s not at all accurate. They’d be better served with the M16 or FAL, as they’re much more accurate, even if they require a bit more care and feeding than the AKs do. Right tool for the job and all that.
That’s really the story with most Soviet-era technology; their planes are great, but they’re typically engineered for rough wartime conditions, not for extended peacetime use and the accumulation of thousands of flight hours, like Western planes are. So if you want a plane that’ll perform like crazy, be maintainable by conscripts, take off from rough runways, and get limited peacetime flight hours, then the Russian planes are your ideal. If you plan to seriously fly the things in peacetime, even if they require more specialized and highly trained maintenance personnel and a higher cost, then Western ones are what you want.
We’re completely reliant on Soyuz to get people into space TODAY. The Russians are no slouch when it comes to aerospace.
An interesting piece of engineering went into some of their utility vehicles I saw in a display once upon a time. They included a pre-filter before the air filter on the air intake. It basically was the equivalent of the cyclonic vacuum cleaners you can see on TV. Air being pulled in to the engine got pulled through the chamber where centripetal force removed a good chunk of the dust and dirt. You just had to unlatch and dump out the catch basin at the bottom every so often. It meant not having to replace the air filter as often both saving some operational cost and reducing the logistical burden of supplying spare parts when operating in rough, dusty, terrain.
Board ate my longer reply, but Russian ejection seats, helmet-IR tracking systems (link discusses MiG-29’s/R-73 (AA-11) system, and success in exercises v. NATO fighters in the early 1990s), and target pistols and rifles (throw E. Germany’s Suhl in there too), were all very well thought of once the West had an opportunity to examine them. I have no personal experience with it, but I have read accounts of US servicemen speaking favorably of the PKM GPMG vs the M240/FN MAG, not that they disliked the M240 at all.
Does “slagging” mean overheating?
Means the engine is effectively dead, or specific components inside the engine.
Declan
Yet western missiles have shot down incoming missiles, which is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. The USSR has not done that. I’m talking about the missile intercepts where missile hits missile, not the airburst.
It was commonly said before the end of the Cold War that the Soviets, because their bombs were heavier than ours, built more powerful rockets to carry them and thus had an advantage.
In mathematics, yes. I’m not aware of a lot of fundamental advances in computer science made by the Soviets. There is only so much you can do without computers to implement your algorithms on.
Limits on the spread of information hurt also. It was common during that era to get postcard requesting a copy of a paper from Eastern Europe, because either they were not allowed journal subscriptions or access to copiers.
There was also a lot of effort to steal or copy western technology. I met a guy who worked in a secret Soviet lab who used some of my papers to try to connect modern peripherals to their copied and cloned 360 class computer.
When the Soviet Union broke up, and they could submit papers outside, I saw several on microelectronics. They were uniformly pitiful since they showed no understanding at all of the state of the field in the West.
None of this has anything to do with the intelligence of researchers, just the restrictions put on them.
Obligatory link to the 1989 Paris Air Show crash. The right engine of a MiG-29 dies at 500 feet from earlier bird strike damage, the pilot ejects from the plane semi-inverted at 300 feet; the parachute only fully deployed when he was feet above the ground. He walked away from the crash.
The Katyusha was great for area saturation bombardment, particuarly when used in mass numbers but was wildly inaccurate, so that’s all it was good for; it was hardly par excellence. It was hardly a novel concept either; when Germany invaded Poland it had three battalions of nebelwerfers.
You mean aside from the M20 Super Bazooka, M72 LAW, AT4 and SMAW?