Or perhaps based on the Heinkel 274
It was built in France, its design work (Heinkel He 177 progenitor) was based in France, and I do not see how the Russians get their hands on a live one with an American army sitting on top of it.
If they could get the plans for the Atomic Bomb, a bomber is child's play.
Building an atomic bomb, once the fissile materials and basic physics work is solved is "child's play" (and I see the Russians being able to do that without Manhattan Project input. I mean they got to the H-bomb without US help and got theirs ahead of the Americans. They just did not test it first.) Building a 2500 kWatt piston engine that will operate at 12,000 meters altitude without blowing apart, and designing a pressurized balloon cigar shaped machine with wings with four such engines, with a big set of doors in it to carry a 10 metric tonne load at 150 m/s for 15 hours endurance in the air is what is extremely tough. Look at the problems the nations who attempted it had, and I don't just mean the Americans, British, Germans and the French.
Actually not. They already had the basic research for atomic research, the breakthrough was getting the math right for 'explosive lenses' and realising how that improved the power of a small amount of fissile material. That combined with some basic chemical engineering processing on a massive scale (something the Soviets had proven themselves good at) provided the bomb. The spying helped focus them on the paths that were successful instead of having to figure them out by making mistakes.
Building a B-29 involved taking thousands of drawing of very precise parts and having them made and assembled to very strict tolerances by factories spread across the country. The Soviets usually solved the problem of coordinating production by having large centralized factories such as 'tankograd' that took raw materials and converted it into a finished weapon. COnverting detailed schematics to Soviet standards, making machine tools and production jigs to make the parts and assemblies and then having all the components fit together was either at the very edge or beyond the capabilities of the Soviet Union at the time. The weapons the successfully built were designed to optimize the Soviet production methods.
When they had the B-29 as a reference they could literally take it apart measure and diagram the components then have them built by factories that were given soviet style plans to use. As it was a few components gave them major problems. The landing gear was such a problem that they did attempt to steal the plans of the subassemblies as well as acquire working examples in the late 1940s and early '50s AND WERE CAUGHT trying to get them out of the country.
(^^^) Case in point.
Dealing with UF6 isn't basic chemical engineering.Separating Plutonium from irradiated Uranium isn't basic Chemical Engineering.
by 1942, the US had made more Uranium Metal than Germany would do in the entire War
And look at what it took? Hanford and plutonium was the choice path the US picked (and the Russians in their own effort for similar reasons.) because it was "simpler, quicker, and easier".
Basically looks like this Soviet aircraft was 'inspired' by the Me 264...
Wish it had been. The Me-264 was a dog of a plane that had severe drawbacks. Let's just say the wing-loading and yaw stability problems were "interesting pilot killing events waiting to happen."
About the Tu-4 duplication? It actually took about 4 years to prototype (1945-1949 initial date of service; though first flight was 1947.). The B-29 first flew in 1942 and was in service 1944. Comparable time, though the Americans SOLVED the problems first that the Russians could then short cut by reverse engineering. Looking at the Tu-16... proposed 1950 as soon as the Russians had "decent" turbo-jet engines of a type to build a 4 engine limited endurance jet bomber. They had the basics for a high altitude bomber (Tu-4) solved; so it was applied engineering to introduce their jet. How did they do? Ever hear of the H-6? Still flying. So they did well.
How about the standard comparison, Tu-16 to B-47? About equal with the American carrying a heavier payload slightly farther albeit at marginally slower speed. B-47 was 4 years (1947 first flight-1951 being year of introduction to service). The Badger was 1950 to 1954 (first flight ~1952 with service by 1956) Hard to tell them operationally apart.
Russians and Chinese built a combined ~1500. Boeing built ~2100 of theirs.
I never underestimate anybody. (Current example: the Chinese. They are doing some very interesting things in fusion that people asleep at the wheel will find will surprise them. ITER wake up!). I simply offer this information to keep everything in perspective and to remind people that people who underestimate human beings, whoever, and wherever they are for whatever foolish reasons, deserve the consequences for their blinkered opinions and viewpoints.