This book is dedicated to all those who have worked to make certain that strategic

nuclear bombers are never used in their intended role.

 Fonthill Media Language Policy

Fonthill Media publishes in the international English language market. One language edition is published worldwide. As there
are minor differences in spelling and presentation, especially with regard to American English and British English, a policy is
necessary to define which form of English to use. The Fonthill Policy is to use the form of English native to the author. Jason
Nicholas Moore was born and educated in the United States, but prefers to write in British English; therefore, British English
has been adopted in this publication.

Fonthill Media Limited

Fonthill Media LLC
www.fonthillmedia.com
office@fonthillmedia.com

First published in the United Kingdom and the United States of America 2018

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data:

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © Jason Nicholas Moore 2018

ISBN 978-1-78155-597-2

The right of Jason Nicholas Moore to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from Fonthill
Media Limited

Typeset in 10.5pt on 13pt Sabon

Printed and bound in England
 Preface

When thinking of Soviet strategic bombers, the Tu-95 ‘Bear’ is what usually comes to mind. It does
for me, and for good reason: the Bear first went into service in 1956 and shows every sign of
continuing in service until at least 2040. It was the Soviet Union’s first true intercontinental strategic
bomber. Yet the development of Soviet strategic bombers did not start and end with the Bear. With
this book, I hope to open up to the reader, whether they are a devoted historian of Soviet aviation or
just an interested reader, the whole, fascinating world of the development of strategic bombers in the
post-war Soviet Union.
There are, of course, other books on post-war Soviet strategic bombers, including a number of
excellent reference books by the fine Russian air historian Yefim Gordon; these are referenced in the
bibliography. There is also a good, comprehensive overview of the Tupolev jet bombers, which is a
compilation of articles from the periodical World Air Power Journal; this excellent book is also
listed in the bibliography. However, as far as I know, my book is the first book by a native English
speaker to cover all the main post-war Soviet strategic bombers in one reference work, including the
Myasishchev M-4/3M Bison and the piston-engined Tu-4.
As is usual with my works, a term you will not see me use in this book is ‘Russia’ to refer to the
Soviet Union or ‘Russians’ to refer to the Soviets. Although this convention is still used in most
English-language Soviet histories, it is inaccurate and will not be used in this reference work. Russia,
or the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, was the largest and most populous republic, but
still just one of the constituent number that together made up the Soviet Union, or the Union of the
Soviet Socialist Republics, to give its full name translated into English. When I use the term ‘Russia’
in this book, during the period of the Soviet Union’s existence (1922–1991), it is to refer to a specific
geographic region in the Soviet Union, not to the Soviet Union as a whole, and ‘Russian’ will refer to
a person born in Russia, not just any Soviet citizen. When the discussion turns to events after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia will be used to describe that now-independent
country, and Russian will be used to describe its citizens and products.

Jason Nicholas Moore,

Seguin, Texas
1 November 2016
 Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the kind assistance of Viktor Kulikov, Gennadiy Petrov, and especially Ken
Duffey for the fine photographs they have provided. I would like to give a special thank you as
always to Mike Williams of Britmodeller.com (a fine site), who introduced me to the Fonthill Media
editor, Jay Slater; a special thank you goes out to you, Jay, also, and to all the fine folk at Fonthill for
your hard work in turning this manuscript into a presentable book. I would also like especially to
thank Chris Sandham-Bailey. Without Chris’s excellent and accurate work on the colour profiles, this
book would have been very much the poorer. Without the help of the aforementioned people, this
book would have been much harder or even impossible to complete. Moreover, I would like to thank
my family for their moral support, financial assistance, and forbearance as I pursued this literary
work. As always with my humble literary efforts, I hope that I have made them proud with it. Finally,
any mistakes and errors in this book are my own.
 Contents

Preface
Acknowledgements
Glossary
Introduction

1 Post-War Development of Strategic Bombers

2 Tu-4 ‘Bull’
3 Tu-95 ‘Bear’
4 M-4 ‘Bison’
5 Tu-16 ‘Badger’ (‘88’)
6 Tu-22 ‘Blinder’
7 Tu-22M ‘Backfire’
8 Tu-160 ‘Blackjack’
9 Russian Strategic Bombers in the Twenty-First Century
10 Soviet Post-War Missiles and Bombs
11 Soviet/Russian Missile Carrier Tactics
12 Experimental Bombers
13 Comparisons with Non-Soviet Strategic Bombers of the Post-War Era
14 Pilot Interview
15 Survivors

Appendix I: Soviet Strategic Bomber Specifications

Appendix II: Production Figures
Appendix III: Soviet Strategic Bombers in Plastic
Bibliography
Index
The sole preserved Tu-4 in Russia at the Central Air Force Museum at Monino, Russia. Note the low-profile turrets and long 23-mm
cannon barrels found on later Tu-4s. Otherwise, the aircraft is almost identical externally to an American B-29. This aircraft appears as a
colour profile. (Ken Duffey)
Line-up of operational Tu-95Ms. Note the white anti-flash finish on the undersides and how high up the fuselage it goes. (G. F. Petrov
photo archive)

Tu-95RT Bear-D in flight, taken from an American interceptor. (Public Domain)

M-4 Bison-A tanker at Dyagilevo air base, Russia. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-16K-26 Badger-G at Monino. Note the lack of a starboard nose cannon on this version. (Ken Duffey)

Libyan Tu-22B intercepted by a F-4N in 1977. This aircraft appears as a colour profile. (Public Domain)
Tu-22M3s taxiing at Dyagilevo in 2015. (Wikimedia, by Alexander Beltyukov)
Tu-160 at MAKS 2007. (Ken Duffey)

The Tu-4 preserved at Monino. This is the only Tu-4 preserved in its original piston-engined state.
Tu-4 ‘Blue 21’. This is how an operational Soviet Tu-4 bomber appeared in the 1950s.

Tu-95KM ‘Red 35’, preserved at Engels air base, Russia. Note the absence of the nose-refuelling probe and also the large AS-3 (Kh-20)
‘Kangaroo’ missile recessed in the middle of the fuselage.

Tu-95K-22 Bear G ‘Red 1’. Preserved at Dyagilevo, where a ‘Kangaroo’ missile is displayed alongside it.

Tu-95MS Bear H ‘Red 16’, named ‘Velikiy Novgorod’. This aircraft has an overall grey finish. It was still in service as of 2017,
apparently converted to Tu-95MSM standard with the underwing missile pylons. This profile represents it before this change.
Tu-95MS Bear H ‘Red 24’ as it appeared photographed by the RAF off the coast of Scotland in 2014.

Tu-95MS Bear H Ukrainian Air Force ‘Red 01’, preserved at Poltava, Ukraine. Note the trident insignia on the tail.

M-4 Bison tanker ‘Red 60’. This aircraft has been preserved at Dyagilevo. Note that this Bison does not have the red stars on the upper
wing.

3M Bison ‘Red 14’, as it now appears preserved at Engels.

3MD Bison ‘Red 30’, preserved at Monino.

Tu-16A Badger A. This was the original Soviet free-fall nuclear bomber version of the Badger.

Tu-104G Badger flown by Aeroflot. The turrets and other military equipment have been removed.

Tu-16R Badger in spurious Egyptian markings, as flown by Soviet crews in Egypt, c. 1968.
Tu-16 Badger, Egyptian Air Force. This aircraft was flown by Egyptian crews and carries the camouflage scheme the Egyptian Badgers
wore until their retirement in 2000.

Tu-16KS Badger B, Indonesian Air Force. Note the AS-1 (KS-1 Kometa) ‘Kennel’ missile mounted under the wing.

Tu-16 Badger, Iraqi Air Force.

Xian H-6A (Chinese-built Badger) as it would have appeared in the 1980s.

Tu-22KD Blinder ‘Red 23’. This aircraft has had the tail turret replaced by the ECM cone.

Tu-22B Blinder, Iraqi Air Force.

Tu-22B Blinder, Libyan Air Force, initial camouflage scheme and insignia as delivered to Libya in 1977.

Tu-22B Blinder, Libyan Air Force, later camouflage scheme with plain green roundels and fin flash.

Tu-22KD Blinder, Ukrainian Air Force ‘Black 07’ as it appeared in post-Soviet (post-1991) service. It is now preserved at Zhitomir,
Ukraine.
Tu-22MO Backfire preserved at Monino.

Tu-22M2 Backfire-B.

Tu-22M3 Backfire-C ‘Red 23’. Note the AS-4 (Kh-22 Burya) ‘Kitchen’ missile under the wing.

Tu-22M3 Backfire-C, Ukrainian Air Force ‘Blue 96’, preserved at Poltava, Ukraine.
Tu-160 Blackjack ‘Red 10’, named ‘Nikolaiy Kuznetsov’. All production Tu-160s are finished in this all-white scheme.
 Glossary

ADD—Aviatsiya Dal’nego Deiystviya, or ‘Long-range Aviation’ in Russian, which was under the
direct control of the Stavka, the Soviet High Command (see entry further on). The ADD was
dissolved in late 1944 and its aircraft absorbed into the Red Air Force as the 18th Air Army. It is
sometimes referred to as the DA (see entry further on).
ASM—air-to-surface missile. This refers to any missiles launched from aircraft against surface
targets, both on the ground and on water. Many of the ASMs used by Soviet strategic bombers were
anti-shipping missiles, to be used against large surface ships such as American aircraft carriers,
which the Soviets believed would be an existential threat in the event of war.
ASW—anti-submarine warfare. With the development of submarines capable of launching nuclear
missiles, this aspect of naval aviation assumed a great importance in the post-war era, and one of the
Soviet Union’s most important strategic bombers, the Bear, was modified for this important task as
the ‘Tu-142’.
Avionics—a contraction of ‘aviation electronics’, it will be used interchangeably with the term
‘electronics’ in the text when referring to an aircraft’s electronics.
AVMF—Aviatsionniy Voyenno Morskovo Flota (the Soviet Naval Air Force). This term has
continued to be used by the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union’s main successor state.
AWACS—Airborne warning and control system. This refers to aircraft that are used to direct other
aircraft while in flight. These aircraft are equipped with large radars and other electronic
surveillance equipment, to keep track of friendly and enemy aircraft.
Air-to-air refuelling—see entry on IFR.
BAD—Bombardirovochnaya Aviatsionnaya Divisiya (‘Bomber Division’). This refers to bomber
aircraft divisions. A Guards division would be referred to as a GvBAD (in this case, the Gv stands
for Gvardeiyskaya, the Russian adjectival variant of Guards).
BAK—Bombardirovochniy Aviatsionniy Korpus (bomber corps). This referred to a ‘Bomber
Aircraft Corps’. A Guards corps would be referred to as a GvBAK (Gv for Gvardeiyskiy, or
Guards). This was the largest bomber unit, as there were no bomber aircraft air armies designated as
such (the 18th Air Army was composed of bombers, but it was not designated as such).
BAP—Bombardirovochniy Aviatsionniy Polk (‘Bomber Regiment’). This refers to bomber
aircraft regiments. A Guards regiment would be referred to as a GvBAP.
Bort—tactical or aircraft number. Most Soviet bombers bore some sort of aircraft number, very
commonly on the tail, and often on the nose gear door(s). The numbers were typically red, and were
normally two digits. The Russian Federation has continued this practice on their aircraft.
CMF—Black Sea Fleet. One of the Soviet naval fleets, based in Sevastopol. Although the Soviets
did not have aircraft carriers during much of the Cold War, ground-based aircraft units were attached
to all the fleets. The Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol, in the Crimean peninsula, which
was annexed by Russia in 2014 (although this annexation has not generally been internationally
recognised).
Cold War—the period, from 1946 to 1991, when the Soviet Union was in competition with the
United States for global political, military, and economic influence, with both countries being
considered ‘superpowers’. Although the two sides were never actually at war, various ‘proxy’ wars,
where one side was supported by the Soviets, and the other side by the United States, such as in the
Vietnam War (1965–1973), occurred frequently. The term was first employed in 1947, and the Cold
War is considered to have ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Construction number—a number assigned at the factory where the aircraft was built. This number
usually included a number indicating the year the aircraft was built, the batch it was built in, and the
factory or zavod (see entry further on) it was built by. It is sometimes referred to as a ‘serial number’.
DA—Dal’nyaya Aviatsiya (‘Long-range Aviation’). See entry on the ADD.
Dobrynin—this refers either to Vladimir Alekseyevich Dobrynin (1895–1978), or the engine-
manufacturing OKB (OKB-36 at Rybinsk) that he founded. At first a designer of piston engines,
including the powerful VD-4K of the Tu-85, this OKB turned to designing jet engines in the 1950s.
ECM—electronic countermeasures. This refers to equipment and actions that are meant to interfere
with the operation of the enemy’s electronic equipment. It can be used to jam enemy air and ground
communications, radar, or even to defeat the use of ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air
missiles.
ESM—electronic surveillance measures. A means to find targets by monitoring their electronic
emissions. This is passive in nature.
ELINT—electronic intelligence. This is distinguished from ECM in being more of a passive
measure, where information on the enemy’s electronic capabilities and usage is gathered. The same
aircraft can perform both ECM and ELINT (as well as ESM) missions. Many bombers—because they
are long-ranged, large, and can carry a great deal of specialised equipment—have been equipped for
both ECM and ELINT missions. Some have been converted from the bomber role into dedicated
ECM and ELINT platforms. With ELINT, the ‘electronic signature’ of individual ships, for example,
can be determined.
EW—electronic warfare. This is another term for ECM.
FAB—Fugasnaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba (‘General Purpose Aviation Bomb’). For example, a
FAB-500 is a 500-kg aerial bomb. There are other acronyms used for bombs, such as BETAB, but
this is the most common for conventional bombs.
Frontal aviation—used to describe the aviation units that operated close to the front lines in
support of the ground troops. This included fighter, ground attack, and bomber units. This is basically
synonymous with tactical aviation.
GK NII VVS—Gosudartsvenniy Krasnonaziommiy Nauchno-issledovatel’skiy Institut Voyenno-
vozdushnykh seel (‘The Soviet Air Force Research Institute’, located at Akhtubinsk in southern
Russia).
Great Patriotic War—Velikoiy Otechestvennoiy Voiyni in Russian, or BOB in Cyrillic—the
Soviet/Russian term for the war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (22 June 1941–9 May
1945). This normally excludes the August 1945 campaign against the Japanese Kwantung Army in
Manchuria (known by the Soviets as the ‘Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation’).
Guards—a designation for units that had distinguished themselves in combat (Gvardiya in
Russian). In addition to receiving higher pay than normal Soviet military units, they also were the first
units to receive new equipment. Some bomber units were designated as Guards units.
Hero of the Soviet Union—Often abbreviated to ‘HSU’. The highest military honour accorded to
Soviet military personnel. Equivalent to the honour of being awarded the American Medal of Honour
and the British Victoria Cross. This title also came with a medal consisting of a simple golden star
suspended from a small red rectangle. Its civilian equivalent was the Hero of Socialist Labour, which
was bestowed upon some Soviet aircraft designers.
IFR—in-flight refuelling. This is sometimes referred to as air-to-air refuelling. This capability
enables bombers (and other aircraft) to be refuelled by a tanker aircraft while flying to extend their
range beyond that which would be possible on the fuel they carried on take-off. It enables bombers to
have intercontinental range that would otherwise not have had this capability. This ability became
somewhat contentious during arms reduction talks in the 1970s between the Soviet Union and the
United States, especially in regards to the Soviet Tu-22M ‘Backfire’ bomber.
IOC—initial operational capability. In this book, this refers to when an aircraft or other weapons
system is available in its minimum usefully deployable form. This does not mean that the aircraft, for
example, has been fully developed or is fully in service, but that it is capable of being used
operationally. There is often a difference in dates between when a weapon first enters service and it
reaches its IOC, sometimes measured in years. The IOC may also occur years before a weapon is
officially considered or declared fully operational.
Izdeliye—‘Object’ (or ‘Article’, ‘Item’, or ‘Product’) in Russian. Aircraft (and other products)
were assigned an Izdeliye number by their OKB; for example, the Tu-22 was initially the ‘105’, with
‘105’ being the Izdeliye number. Thus, the first Tu-22 was ‘Object 105’.
KBF—Red Banner Fleet (or Baltic Fleet). One of the Soviet naval fleets, based in Leningrad (now
Saint Petersburg).
KGB—Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnostiy (‘The Committee for State Security’). It was
created in 1954 and eventually displaced the MVD as the Soviet Union’s main secret agency. One of
its most important external duties was collecting information on the West’s military equipment and
capabilities.
Kuznetsov—one of the main engine design bureaux under the Soviet Union post-war, founded by
Nikolaiy Dimitriyevich Kuznetsov (1911–1995). His OKB (OKB-276) built both the enormous NK-
12 turboprop, which powers the Tu-95, and the NK-25 turbofan, which powers the Tu-22M3.
LII—Lyotno Isslydovatel’skiy Institut (‘The Flight Research Institute’). This was based at
Zhukovskiy, outside of Moscow. For many years, the West mistakenly referred to this testing facility
as ‘Ramenskoye’, from the name of a nearby town.
Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation—the Soviet name for the August 1945 campaign against
the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria. Although not part of the Great Patriotic War, this
offensive was the last major campaign of the Second World War.
MAP—Ministerstvo Aviatsionnoy Promishlennostiy, the post-war equivalent of the NKAP.
MVD—Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del (‘The Ministry for Internal Affairs’). From 1946, it was the
successor to the NKVD—Narodniy Kommissariat Vnutrennikh Del (‘The People’s Commissariat for
Internal Affairs’—this was largely associated with Stalin’s regime). The MVD was eventually
displaced by the KGB and was abolished in 1960.
Mikulin—a major engine design bureau during the Great Patriotic War (its engines powered the
Pe-2 dive bomber and the Yakovlev fighters), founded by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Mikulin (1895–
1985), it continued to build engines after the war, including the powerful AM-3 turbojet engine. The
AM-3, and its development the RD-3M, powered the M-4/3M and Tu-16 bombers.
Monino—located outside Moscow, this air museum has a large number of both inside and outside
aircraft exhibits, where several of the bombers examined in this book still exist. With the closure of
the nearby Gagarin (Zhukovskiy) Academy, its continued existence has come into doubt, however.
Myasishchev—this refers either to Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev (1902–1978), or the OKB
he founded in 1951, OKB-23, and its products. The OKB itself has had a rather chequered history,
being founded in 1951, dissolved in 1960, and then recreated in 1967. This ‘new’ OKB may exist to
this day as the Myasishchev Design Bureau, Joint Stock Company, although it is possible that it has
been incorporated as of 2014 into the Russian ‘United Aircraft Corporation’, which includes the
Beriev, Ilyushin, and Yakovlev companies, among other historical Soviet design bureaux. Despite
being a joint stock company, the United Aircraft Corporation is owned mostly by the Russian
government and is therefore not the most transparent of organisations in an unwelcome return to Cold
War opaqueness.
NATO—created in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the military alliance organised
after the Second World War to help prevent the spread of the Soviet Union’s military (and political)
influence in Europe. Its membership has changed over the years, and it has expanded beyond its
initially purely military function, but the United States has always been the key member. Its
Soviet/Communist counterpart was the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. NATO has traditionally assigned
reporting names (‘nicknames’) to Soviet/Russian aircraft, such as the ‘Bear’ for the Tu-95 bomber.
These NATO names will often be used in the following text, and will be used interchangeably with
the Soviet/Russian aircraft designations. NATO also assigns reporting names to missiles, such as the
‘Kitchen’ (AS-4 missile) and these names will sometimes be used in the text in place of the Soviet
designation, or sometimes in combination with the Soviet designation, for example ‘Bear’, or ‘Tu-95
Bear’ for the bomber, or ‘Kitchen’, or ‘AS-4 Kitchen’ for the missile.
NII VVS—Nauchno-issledovatel’skiy Institut Voyenno-vozdushnykh seel (‘The Scientific
Research Institute of the Red Air Force’) This was the testing facility for the VVS (‘Red Air Force’).
NKAP—Narkomaviaprom (From Narodniy Kommissariat Aviatsionnoy Promishlennostiy—
Soviet Air Ministry; literally ‘The People’s Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry’). This was the
ministry responsible for aircraft development during the Second World War. It became the MAP post-
war.
NKVD—see entry for MVD.
 OKB—Opitno Konstruktorskoye Byuro (‘Experimental Design Bureau’, OKB being the
acronym). This was a state-run research institute that was something like an engineering company
tasked with the design of prototypes. These organisations were not intended for mass-producing the
aircraft they designed. However, they usually had the facilities and resources to construct prototypes.
Designs accepted by the state were then assigned to factories for mass production (see zavod). A
bureau was officially identified by a number or an acronym (such as ‘TsKB’) and later by initials
from its chief designer’s last name (such as ‘Tu’ for Tupolev). Also known as a ‘design bureau’, they
were a collection of Soviet designers grouped around a single chief designer, with the bureau being
under the name of the chief designer (from mid-December 1940 onwards).
Operation Barbarossa—this operation, named after a twelfth century German king, was the name
the Germans gave for their initial campaign against the Soviet Union in the Second World War.
Opened on 22 June 1941, this operation was designed to defeat the Soviet Union by the end of 1941,
but failed ultimately, although at a huge loss to both sides.
PVO—Protivovozdushnaya Oborona (‘Air Defence Force for the Soviet Union’). This included
aerial assets, such as interceptor aircraft, and ground-based assets, such as anti-aircraft artillery
(flak), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and radar.
Polk—‘Regiment’ in Russian.
RKKA—Red Army (taken from the Cyrillic acronym for the ‘Workers and Peasants Red
Army’—Rabochye-Krestiyanskoy Krasnoy Armiy, PKKA in Cyrillic). The Air Force was the ‘VVS
RKKA’ (BBC PKKA in Cyrillic; see further on for a definition of the VVS).
Radome—a contraction of ‘Radar Dome’, the streamlined outer covering of a radar array. It both
streamlines and protects the radar elements. In order not to interfere with the radar, the radome is
made of non-ferrous materials, such as fibreglass.
Raduga—‘Rainbow’ in Russian, this is the name for the OKB that started out as a division of the
Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau (OKB-155), before becoming a separate design bureau, the ‘MKB
Raduga’. It specialised in missiles, and many missiles carried by Soviet bombers, missiles—such as
the AS-3 ‘Kangaroo’ (Raduga Kh-20), the AS-4 ‘Kitchen’ (Raduga Kh-22), and the AS-6 ‘Kingfish’
(Raduga KSR-5)—were developed by this design bureau. Aleksandr Yakovlevich Bereznyak (1912–
1974) was its chief designer when it was spun off from the MiG OKB in March 1957. While still part
of the MiG OKB, it had developed the AS-1 ‘Kennel’ (KS-1 Kometa) and AS-2 ‘Kipper’ (K-10S)
missiles.
RAF—Royal Air Force. The independent air arm of the British military. It operated strategic
medium jet bombers throughout most of the Cold War, in addition to anti-bomber interceptors.
Red Air Force—Also known as the VVS, this term will be used interchangeably with VVS in this
book. Note that after the war, the official name was the ‘Soviet Air Force’, but the term Red Air
Force continued to be used, as did the term VVS.
Red Army—the main fighting force of the Soviet Union, consisting of rifle (infantry), tanks,
cavalry, and the Air Force (although not until 1944 the long-range bomber force, the ADD, which was
until then under the direct command of the Soviet High Command—the Stavka). The name was
officially changed to the Soviet Army in 1946, although it was still commonly referred to as the Red
Army for a long time after the end of the Second World War.
Russia—this refers to the modern country of Russia, also known as the Russian Federation,
established in very late 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. Both ‘Russia’ and ‘Russian
Federation’ will be used interchangeably in this reference. Russia is the main successor state of the
defunct Soviet Union, and is mostly composed of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic,
with the inclusion of the Crimea, which as of 2014, is under Russian control and administration. This
annexation has not seen wide international recognition. Despite being smaller than the Soviet Union,
Russia is still the largest country in the world by land area. It inherited most of the military assets of
the Soviet Union, including most of its strategic bomber assets. As of 2018, none of the other
successor states of the Soviet Union possess any strategic bombers. It is considered the lone legal
successor state to the Soviet Union.
Russian Air Force—this term will refer to the post-Soviet air force of the Russian Federation.
SAM—surface-to-air missile. Along with air-to-air missiles, these ground-launched missiles have
become the greatest danger to aircraft, and rendered high-flying bombing attacks obsolete. As a
defence against them, most strategic bombers have adopted stand-off weapons (which can be fired far
from the target), low-flying missions, or some combination of these.
SMF—The Soviet Northern Fleet, based near Murmansk, in the Russian Arctic.
SIGINT—signals intelligence. This is distinguished from ELINT by involving specifically
monitoring signals or communications. The same aircraft can be, and often is, used for both duties.
Stalin—Josef Stalin (Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (1879–1953).
Soviet Air Force—this term will be used in the text to refer to the post-Second World War air
force of the Soviet Union. It will be used interchangeably with VVS in this book, although it will not
be used in place of the DA (Long-Range Aviation), which was a separate service in the Soviet
military.
Soviet Union—this term, the shortened version of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, to
give its full name translated into English, will be used throughout this book instead of the commonly
used, but inaccurate in the context of the Great Patriotic War and the Cold War, ‘Russia’. Likewise, in
this context, ‘Soviet’ will be used instead of ‘Russian’. First created in 1922, the Soviet Union came
out of the Second World War (the ‘Great Patriotic War’ to the Soviets and Russians) as one of the
world’s two ‘superpowers’, the other being the United States of America. It engaged in competition
with the US from 1946–1991 in the Cold War. The Soviet Union was officially dissolved late in
1991, and the main (and legal) successor state is the Russian Federation (Russia).
Stavka—The Soviet High Command during the Second World War.
Sukhoi—The OKB named after Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi (1895–1975). Although post-war this
design bureau was known for its fighters, fighter-bombers, and aerobatics aircraft, it also constructed
the experimental Mach 3 T-4 ‘Sotka’ medium strategic bomber in the early 1970s, a rival to the Tu-
22M, and was to build the T-60S, the Tu-22M’s intended replacement. Before the Great Patriotic War,
it had designed the Su-2 light reconnaissance-bomber, which saw service during that war.
TBAD—from Tyazhelo Bombardirovochnaya Aviatsionnaya Divisiya, or ‘Heavy Bomber
Division’ in Russian.
 TBAP—from Tyazhelo Bombardirovochniy Aviatsionniy Polk, or ‘Heavy Bomber Regiment’ in
Russian. A Guards heavy bomber regiment would be a GvTBAP.
Tupolev—this refers both to the man, Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev (1888–1972), and the OKB
that he founded (OKB-156) and was the chief designer for.
Tushino—This Moscow airbase was the site of the traditional Soviet May Day flypast, which
sometimes involved prototypes, experimental aircraft, and newly introduced service aircraft. This
was often the first time an aeroplane was seen by Western eyes, as Western dignitaries and press
were invited to these ceremonial flypasts, part of the May Day celebrations.
UKhO—Unifi-Tserovaniy Khvostovoy Otsek (‘Standardised Tail Bay’). This was a tail cone that
appeared on various bombers, such as the Tu-95 and the Tu-16. It was used to carry ECM suites and
it could carry different suites, which would not be apparent from the external appearance.
USAF—The United States Air Force. Established as a separate military branch in 1947 (it had
been part of the United States Army as the United States Army Air Forces during the Second World
War), the USAF was the main potential adversary of the Soviet Air Force and the development of its
aircraft was closely followed and sometimes emulated by the Soviet Union. In addition, the Soviets
developed aircraft to counter perceived USAF threats, such as creating interceptors to attack
American long-range strategic bombers and strategic bombers to attack USAF air bases and missile
installations.
VVS—Voyenno-Vozdushniye Siliy (‘The Military Air Forces’, BBC in Cyrillic (Военно-
воздушные силы)). This acronym will be used interchangeably with the term ‘Red Air Force’ or
‘Soviet Air Force’ in this book. The head of the VVS from 1942 until after the war was Aleksandr
Aleksandrovich Novikov (1900–1976), who served as its head from 1942 until 1946. From 1946 to
1949, and again from 1957 to 1969, the head was Konstantin Andreyevich Vershinin (1900–1973).
From 1941 to 1942, and then again from 1949 to 1957, the head was Pavel Fedorovich Zhigarev
(1900–1963). From 1969 to 1984, the head was Pavel Stepanovich Kutakhov (1914–1984). From
1984 until 1990, the head of the VVS was Aleksandr Nikolayevich Yefimov (1920–2012). The last
head of the Soviet VVS was Yevgeniy Ivanovich Shaposhnikov (b. 1942), from 1990 to 1991. The
term ‘VVS’ is still used by the Russian Federation.
‘V bomber’—this was the unofficial name given to the strategic medium jet bombers that the RAF
first deployed during the 1950s. The name came from the fact that all the bombers had names that
began with ‘V’—the Avro Vulcan, the Handley Page Victor, and the Vickers Valiant. The official
name was the ‘V-force’ or the ‘Bomber Command Main Force’. All of these aircraft were retired
from their bomber role by 1984, having been replaced by submarine-launched Polaris ballistic
missiles as the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent.
Warsaw Pact—created in 1955, this was the Soviet Union’s response to NATO, and included not
just the Soviet Union, but also its client states in Eastern and Central Europe such as Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, among other countries. The Soviet Union was the pre-eminent
member, and the other countries’ forces were organised along Soviet lines, using Soviet-made or
designed equipment. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and some
of its former members, such as Poland, have now joined NATO.
 Zavod (pl. Zavodi)—Russian for ‘Factory’. During the period of the Soviet Union, these factories
were owned by the state, and design bureaux would be directed to use a particular zavod for a
particular aeroplane. Zavodi could and did change which aeroplanes they built, for example, Zavod
381 at Nizhniy Tagil in 1942 went from producing single seater Il-2 attack aircraft (the Shturmovik)
to producing Lavochkin fighters. The zavod an aircraft was built at was usually indicated in the
construction number (see previous entry). After the war, it appears that the zavodi became more
associated with a particular OKB, as the OKBs became more like Western aircraft companies.

Note on transliteration—I have tried to use generally accepted norms for transliteration from Russian
Cyrillic to English language Latin characters throughout this book. You will see the common Russian
adjectival suffix ‘ий’, used both in proper names and adjectives, transliterated as ‘ii’, ‘iiy’, ‘y’, ‘yi’,
or ‘iy’; I have tried to consistently use ‘iy’.
 Introduction

The fact that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers should not come as a
surprise; the first four-engined bomber ever built and used was built by the precursor to the Soviet
state, Imperial Russia. The development of large bombers continued after the First World War, and in
the 1930s, included the first four-engined all-metal bomber in service anywhere, the TB-3. The
development of strategic bombers post-war only increased after stagnating during the Second World
War. Strategic bombers became so associated with the Soviet Union in the post-war period that the
symbol of the Soviet military could well be considered the huge four turboprop engined strategic
bomber, the Tu-95 Bear. For decades, along with the MiG fighters, it was the symbol of Soviet
military might, and its frequent appearances over NATO warships made it one of the most seen and
photographed of all Soviet weapons systems. Nonetheless, for decades, the true story of Soviet
strategic bomber development remained veiled in secrecy, guesses, half-truths, lack of information,
mistakes, and deliberate Soviet misinformation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that veil has
been lifted to a large extent, and the true history of post-Second World War strategic bomber
development in the Soviet Union can now be provided in detail.
It is the aim of this book to provide the English reader with a comprehensive history of the
development and usage of all post-war production Soviet strategic bombers, both in the Soviet Union
and in foreign service, and in the post-Soviet era. To that end, I shall discuss in detail the major
Soviet strategic bombers, such as the Tu-4 Bull, the M-4/3M Bison, the Tu-16 Badger, the Tu-22
Blinder, the Tu-22M Backfire, the Tu-160 Blackjack, and of course that most emblematic of all post-
war Soviet bombers, the majestic Tu-95 Bear. One look at this list will show the predominance of
Tupolev designs (signified by the ‘Tu’ designation); indeed, the development of post-war Soviet
strategic bombers was dominated by the Tupolev Design Bureau (or ‘OKB’), which, from the Tu-4
on, specialised in large, multi-engined designs, both military and civilian.
However, the discussion will not be limited to production bombers, but will also touch upon the
fascinating world of experimental Soviet bombers, both those that actually flew and those that
remained ‘paper’ projects only, destined never to be built or fly. Although Soviet aircraft are often
characterised as rather pedestrian, derivative designs, the experimental bombers were often bold,
cutting-edge designs. One such aircraft was the mainly titanium Sukhoi T-4 ‘Sotka’, capable of speeds
of Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound, or 1,987 mph (3,198 kph)), and another was the enormous
M-50 ‘Bounder’, built to be capable of supersonic speeds, both of which flew, and still exist to this
day as museum exhibits.
Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev in front of an early series Tu-2 at Omsk in 1942. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

In addition, I will also list comparable non-Soviet/Russian bombers, and discuss their abilities
and similarities (and differences) with the Soviet/Russian types. Finally, I include a section on plastic
kits, in which I discuss those kits I am aware of regarding Soviet strategic bombers (and missiles),
including my personal experience with those kits I actually own (which is quite a few and ever
expanding). It is true that not all those interested in aviation history are plastic modellers, but it has
been my experience that all those who are plastic modellers (of which I am one, myself) are
interested in aviation history; this section is devoted to them.
My discussion of these bombers will not stop with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but
will include the continued development and use of bombers in the post-Soviet Russian Federation.
The century-old tradition of large bombers continues in today’s Russia.

Timeline
The list below is a timeline of important or noteworthy occurrences in the development of
Soviet/Russian strategic bombers. It is in strict chronological order:
11 December 1913—First flight of the Ilya Muromets (the world’s first four-engined bomber)
26 November 1925—First flight of the TB-1 (ANT-4, Tupolev’s first all-metal bomber)
1929—The TB-1 enters service
22 December 1930—First flight of the TB-3 (ANT-6, Tupolev’s first production four-engined bomber)
1932—The TB-3 enters service
27 December 1936—First flight of the TB-7 (Pe-8)
1939—The TB-7 enters service
1940—Creation of Tupolev OKB under NKVD control
1940—First Myasishchev OKB founded
1942—First flight of the Myasishchev DBV-102 (Myasishchev’s first bomber)
30 December 1942—First flight of the B-29
September 1943—Initiation of design study for the Tupolev ‘64’
 1944—Initiation of design studies for the Myasishchev ‘M-202’ and ‘M-302’
April 1944—The B-29 enters American service
20 June 1944—First of three B-29s lands on Soviet territory
1946—First dissolution of Myasishchev OKB (OKB-482)
19 May 1947—First flight of the Tu-4 (B-4)
27 November 1947—First flight of the Tu-70 (‘Tu-12’)
May 1949—The Tu-4 enters service—First Regiment Equipped
1 December 1949—First flight of the Tu-80
21 January 1950—First flight of the Tu-75 (‘Tu-16’)
9 January 1951—First flight of the Tu-85
24 March 1951—First reconstitution of Myasishchev OKB (OKB-23)
27 April 1952—First flight of the Tu-16 (‘88/1’)
11 December 1952—First flight of the Tu-95 (‘95/1’)
20 January 1953—First flight of the Bison
February–March 1954—The Tu-16 enters service with the 402nd TBAP at Balbasovo and the 203rd TBAP at Baranovichi
1955—The M-4 Bison enters service
April 1956—The Tu-95 enters service
7 September 1959—First flight of the Tu-22 Blinder
27 September 1959—First flight of an H-6 (Chinese Tu-16) made from Soviet-built parts
27 October 1959—First flight of the M-50
December 1959—The first H-6 is handed over to the PLAAF
1960—Second dissolution of Myasishchev OKB
1962—The Tu-22 Blinder enters service
Early 1960s—The Tu-4 is retired from Soviet service
1967—Second reconstitution of Myasishchev OKB
18 June (or July) 1968—First flight of the Tu-142
24 December 1968—First flight of the Xian H-6 made from Chinese-built parts
30 August 1969—First flight of the Tu-22M Backfire
22 August 1972—First flight of the T-4
December 1972—The Tu-142 enters service
1976—The Tu-22M enters service with the AVMF (M2 version, the first true production variant)
18 December 1981—First flight of the Tu-160
1982—The Tu-95MS enters service
23 (or 17) April 1987—The Tu-160 enters service
The Tu-4 is retired from Chinese service—probably during the 1980s (the exact date is unclear; one source mentions fifteen still being
on strength as of 1991, although these may have been in storage and not still in operational service; operational service at this late date
seems unlikely)
26 December 1991—Dissolution of the Soviet Union
1994—The Tu-16 is retired from Russian service
1994—The Bison Tanker is retired from Russian service
1997—The Tu-22 Blinder is retired from Russian service
17 August 2007—Russia resumes long-range bomber patrols
15 November 2015—First time the Tu-160 and Tu-95 are used in combat—against targets in Syria
August 2016—The first Tu-22M Backfires operate against Syria from Iranian bases

What is a Strategic Bomber?

The short (and obvious) answer is that a strategic bomber is a bomber that bombs strategic targets,
not tactical targets. This is a rather circular statement of course so the question then shifts to ask what
makes a target strategic or tactical in nature. Although there are (and probably always will be)
arguments over where tactical targets stop and strategic targets begin, there are some targets that are
clearly one or the other. For example, if you bomb a single locomotive, this is a tactical target; if you
bomb the factory where the locomotive is made, this is a strategic target. As an example of a grey
area, take the case of airfields—if you bomb a small, forward airstrip, this would be considered a
tactical target. However, if you bombed a large strategic bomber base, this would be considered a
strategic target, yet both are technically the same type of target, namely an airfield. In the middle area
between tactical and strategic targets are operational (or logistical) targets, such as an army group
headquarters or a large railhead.
Today, we have bombers that can destroy whole cities with a single nuclear bomb or nuclear-
tipped missile; these are clearly strategic bombers and cities are clearly strategic targets. On the other
hand, these same bombers have (thankfully) not found use for this purpose, but instead have been used
for attacking smaller (operational) targets, such as enemy troop concentrations, military training
compounds, or oil facilities, as examples, using conventional bombs or missiles with conventional
warheads. However they are used, true strategic bombers are characterised by a large size and
multiple engines necessary for long-range journeys carrying heavy bomb loads (including large
atomic bombs) and large missiles.
Just as strategic bombers can be used for tactical targets, tactical aircraft—such as light bombers
and fighter-bombers—can be used for strategic purposes. During the Vietnam War, for example, there
was the strange situation where eight-engined Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers were
used to bomb Viet Cong tunnel complexes in South Vietnam, which were tactical targets or at most
operational targets, while single-engined Republic F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers were used to
attack power plants and important bridges in Hanoi, which could be considered strategic targets. As
seemingly the case with everything military, there are grey areas and exceptions.
Although this book focuses on Soviet and Russian strategic bombers, in the section on non-
Soviet/Russian strategic bombers of the post-war era, aircraft that are not strategic bombers in the
strictest sense are mentioned, in the interests of completeness. Even here, though, the discussion is
limited to multi-engined bombers, despite the fact that fighters and fighter-bombers are now able to
carry nuclear bombs that are much more powerful than the devices that devastated Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, due to the miniaturisation of these devices, and these aircraft could be used to attack
strategic targets. Indeed, the relatively small size of fighters and fighter-bombers might enable them to
penetrate the defences of some strategic targets more easily than large strategic bombers. That
possible usage, however, lies outside the scope of this book.

DA—Long-Range Aviation (ADD)

Now would be a good time to discuss the use of strategic aviation, or long-range aviation (DA or
ADD), by the Soviet military, both during the Great Patriotic War, and after a brief period of
dissolution (1944–1946), after the war.
The ADD was first created in 1942, when the Soviets were still locked in a desperate struggle
with Nazi Germany and its Wehrmacht. The ADD was under the direct control of the Stavka, the
Soviet High Command. Despite supposedly being the strategic arm of the Soviet military, most of the
bombers were twin-engined medium bombers such as the Il-4, the American lend-lease B-25
Mitchell, and the Li-2NB (the bomber version of the Soviet licence-built DC-3) and were used on
mostly nocturnal missions against operational and tactical targets, such as Wehrmacht troop
concentrations. The ADD saw heavy use in these missions throughout 1943 and 1944, but the ADD
was dissolved in November 1944 and its aircraft absorbed into the Red Air Force as the 18th Air
Army.
In 1946, with the commencement of the Cold War, long-range aviation was re-established as an
independent arm of the Soviet military, and now known officially as the DA (Dal’nyaya Aviatsiya or
‘Long-Range Aviation’), as distinct from the Soviet Air Force, or VVS proper.
On 1 August 2015, the Russian Armed Forces were reorganised, with the Russian Air Force, the
Russian Aerospace Defence Forces, and the Air Defence troops all being merged as a new branch of
the Russian Armed Forces, with this new branch being called the Russian Aerospace Forces. This
new branch includes all of the Russian strategic bomber assets. As of 2018, the head of the Russian
Aerospace Forces is Colonel General (four-star general) Sergeiy Vladimirovich Surovikin (b. 1966).
 1

Post-War Development of Strategic Bombers

During the Second World War, Soviet Premier Josef Stalin had asked America for Boeing B-29
Superfortresses through lend-lease but was rebuffed as the United States had correctly surmised that
the allied status of the two countries might not survive the war and did not want to deliver the
Americans’ most advanced bomber to the Soviet Union. Undeterred, Stalin set about having his agents
find out all the information they could about the B-29 and tasked Andrey Tupolev (and Vladimir
Myasishchev) with the job of designing an aeroplane that was the equal of the B-29 in capabilities;
this project was known internally in the Tupolev OKB as the ‘64’.
By the end of the Second World War, the only indigenous four-engined bomber design that the
Soviets possessed was the obsolete Pe-8, though they also had a few Lancasters, B-17s and B-24s
that had been abandoned by the Western Allies on Soviet soil and rebuilt to flying status, and the three
B-29s that had been interned. Stalin recognised the need for a modern strategic bomber that was also
capable of carrying the nuclear bomb then being developed, and directed Andrey Tupolev and
Vladimir Myasishchev to develop such an aeroplane. The Tupolev aircraft was designated as the
‘64’, while the Myasishchev designs were designated as the ‘M-202’ (‘DVB-202’) and ‘M-302’
(‘DVB-302’).

‘64’
Before the fortuitous arrival of the three force-landed B-29s in the Soviet Far East (see further on),
the Soviet Union, in the form of the Tupolev OKB, had begun development on a four-engined bomber
that would have similar capabilities to the B-29.
The Soviets first became aware of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber in 1943, at about the
same time that development of the Soviet nuclear weapon began. It was apparent that a new, capable
bomber was needed to deliver this new weapon, so the Soviets, recognising the capabilities of the B-
29, set about creating a bomber of their own that mirrored its abilities. It was also at this time that the
Tupolev OKB began developing the ‘64’ as just such a bomber. The OKB was directed in September
1943 to develop a mock-up and preliminary design for this high-altitude, long-range heavy bomber,
which was to be powered by Shevtsov M-71TK-M engines. In addition, the bomber was to have
remote-controlled turrets, and pressurised cabins, as with the B-29.
This aircraft was to have the following specifications: a range of 3,107 miles (5,000 km) with a
full bomb load of 22,046 lb (10,000 kg) at 249 mph (400 kph), a maximum speed of 311 mph at
32,808 feet (500 kph at 10,000 m), and a bomb bay capacity of 22,046 lb (10,000 kg). It was also to
have a range of 3,728 miles (6,000 km) with a bomb load of 15,432 to 17,637 lb (7,000 to 8,000 kg).
 Drawing upon what he knew about the B-29 (and what Soviet spies were able to determine) and
his own considerable engineering capabilities, by August 1944, Tupolev had readied the preliminary
design of the Soviet B-29 ‘analogue’ (analogous in capability to the American B-29). Again, it was
not to be a direct copy, but was to be capable of the same missions and with a similar overall
performance. The aircraft was to be a long-range four-engined bomber capable of carrying a
maximum bomb load of 39,683 lb (18,000 kg), with bombs of up to 11,023 lb (5,000 kg) in calibre.
One can see that this bomb load was much greater than what had initially been called for—22,046 lb
(10,000 kg). The pressurised cabins were to allow the crews to fly in comfort up to an altitude of
26,247 feet to 32,808 feet (8,000 m to 10,000 m).
Defensive armament was to consist of turrets armed with either two or four cannons, with the
cannons being of either 20-mm or 23-mm calibre. The turrets were to be remote-controlled, except
for the manned tail turret, which was to have one or two cannons.
Multiple engines were considered, such as the Shvetsov ASh-82FN radial (which powered the
Soviet Tu-2 tactical bomber), the Mikulin AM-42TK or AM-43TK-300B turbo-charged inline
engines, or the diesel ACh-30BF (a version of which powered some of the strategic Yer-2 bombers
of the Great Patriotic War). The majority of the systems were to be electrical, with the exception of
some hydraulically powered systems.
What eventually emerged was a very large four-engined aircraft with twin tails (unlike the B-29)
and two separate (‘bug-eyed’) canopies for the pilot and co-pilot, much like the near-contemporary
Douglas C-74 Globemaster American transport. The aircraft featured a tricycle landing gear and
remote-controlled defensive armament, as with the B-29. The service designation would have been
the ‘Tu-10’, which in the event was actually used for a post-war development of the Tu-2. The mock-
up of the ‘64’ was ready for inspection by September 1944 and the mock-up was approved on 27
April 1945.
The specifications for the aircraft were approved on 7 April 1945, and consisted of a maximum
speed of 391 mph (630 kph), and a range with a bomb load of 11,023 lb (5,000 kg) of 3,107 miles
(5,000 km). In addition, the aircraft was to have a service ceiling of 36,089 feet (11,000 m) and a
range with a bomb load of 30,865 lb (14,000 kg) of 1,243 miles (2,000 km). These were impressive,
even ambitious figures, and it became evident that Tupolev, due to various problems with receiving
the proper equipment from subcontractors (such as the remote-control turret system, and radio and
navigation equipment), would not be able to finish the ‘64’ in a timely manner. Thus, the decision was
made, apparently by Stalin himself, to instead build a bomber directly copied from the B-29s that had
landed on Soviet territory and been interned.
Work evidently continued on the ‘64’ for some time, probably as a backup in case the reverse-
engineering of the B-29 proved impossible. This ‘new’ version of the ‘64’ featured a low-wing
configuration, the ‘bug-eyed’ canopies mentioned previously, and 2,300 hp AM-46TK-3PB engines.
The low-wing configuration would have made it easier to turn the aircraft into a passenger aircraft,
but in the event, no version of the ‘64’ ever passed beyond the mock-up stage, as the reverse-
engineering of the B-29 proved successful, rendering the ‘64’ redundant.
‘M-202’ (‘DVB-202’)
This was the first of the Myasishchev OKB’s analogues to the B-29 and design work began in 1944. It
is obvious from the extant drawings of the design that it drew heavily on what was known of the B-
29, which the DVB-202 very strongly resembled. It also drew upon experience from Myasishchev’s
earlier attempt at a modern long-range bomber, the DVB-102.
Like the B-29 (and the Tu-4), the M-202 was to be a large, four-engined monoplane with a non-
stepped flush cockpit, and a retractable tricycle landing gear. Again, as with the B-29, it featured a
heavy defensive armament, in the form of four remote-controlled turrets and a manned tail turret. The
first variant of the M-202 had the turrets arranged in the same way as the B-29, with two dorsal
turrets fore and aft on the fuselage, two ventral turrets fore and aft on the fuselage, and a tail turret.
Another variant had both of the dorsal turrets mounted in the forward fuselage, with the ventral turrets
being mounted fore and aft, and a tail turret being included.
The following specifications were issued for the M-202: a maximum speed of 373 mph at 32,808
feet (600 kph at 10,000 m), a ceiling of 39,370 feet (12,000 m), and a range of 3,728 miles (6,000
km) at a height of 32,808 feet (10,000 m) with a bomb load of 8,818 lb (4,000 kg).
Development of the M-202 was stopped in favour of the improved M-302.

‘M-302’ (‘DVB-302’)
The second of Myasishchev’s B-29 analogues, it was a development of the M-202. Using the same
basic layout of the M-202, the M-302 was designed to use four of the Shvetsov ASh-72TK turbo-
charged radial engines.
The M-302 lost out to the Tu-4 and was not proceeded with, even in prototype form. The DVB-
402 was a development of the DVB-302 that had a raised cockpit, instead of the flush B-29-type
cockpit. Likewise, it was not proceeded with.
 2

Tu-4 ‘Bull’

The Tu-4 ‘Bull’ (its NATO reporting name) was the Soviet Union’s first modern post-war bomber and
its history, including its development, is an interesting one. It can be considered the ‘father’ of all the
Tupolev bomber designs that came after it.

An Unexpected Gift
Although Stalin had been unable to procure B-29s through lend-lease, he was still presented with
intact B-29s in the form of three B-29s that landed in the Soviet Far East because of mechanical
trouble, damage, or a lack of fuel after raids against the Japanese home islands. An additional aircraft
also crashed, and the parts were salvaged and dismantled for examination. As the Soviet Union was
not at the time at war with Japan, Stalin returned the crews to the Americans (eventually), but interned
and kept the B-29s.
The first of the American B-29s landed at Tsentralnaya Uglavaya airfield near Vladivostok on 20
July 1944. Since the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan at the time (the B-29 was involved in a
bombing raid against the Japanese), it was interned per international law regarding combatant aircraft
landing in neutral countries, and the crew eventually handed back over to the Americans, little worse
for wear. The same fate befell the crews and aircraft of the other two B-29s that landed in Soviet
territory.
Realising his great fortune, Stalin now tasked the Tupolev OKB with the enormous undertaking of
building a Soviet B-29 by reverse-engineering the American B-29s they now possessed. Tupolev
reluctantly ended the development of the ‘64’ (although some design work continued), which he,
perhaps not surprisingly, considered to be a superior design to the B-29, and began the mammoth task
of replicating the most complex production aircraft in the world at that time: the Boeing B-29
Superfortress.

Development of the B-29 into the Tu-4 (B-4)

After Stalin’s decision to copy the B-29, decree 8934 of the State Committee on Defence was issued
on 6 June 1945 to produce the ‘B-4’ at Zavod No. 22 in Kazan’; B-4 was the Soviet designation for
the B-29 copy. Tupolev estimated that it would take him three years to complete the B-4; Stalin gave
him two. Stalin did, however, make it clear that Tupolev was to have whatever resources he needed,
and that NKVD Chief Lavrentiy Pavolvich Beria (1899–1953) was available to make this so.
 Nevertheless, converting the B-29 into a Soviet warplane was not an easy task. In fact, it was an
extraordinarily difficult task and probably the greatest feat of reverse-engineering the world has yet
seen. To start with, the imperial measurements used for the B-29’s components had to be ‘translated’
into their closest metric equivalents. The B-29 was also built with advanced manufacturing
techniques, which Soviet industry did not possess at the time, but had to develop just to create their
copy of the B-29. Therefore, not just the B-29’s components, but the way that they were manufactured
and the manufacturing equipment itself had in effect to be reverse-engineered.
Some frankly ridiculous statements have been made in the past regarding this reverse-engineering
effort. One of the most absurd has the engineers so obsessed with Stalin’s desire to have the B-29
copied as closely as possible that they reproduced a metal patch covering a bullet hole in the
horizontal stabiliser of one of the interned B-29s. This is nonsense; neither the engineers nor Josef
Stalin were idiots, and although Stalin wanted the Tu-4 to be as close a copy of the B-29 as possible,
he (and the engineers) realised that changes had to be made to the Soviet version of the B-29. For
example, the engines were not copies of the Curtiss-Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclones, but original
Soviet designs from the Shvetsov Design Bureau—the ASh-73TK (though both designs could trace
their ancestry back to the famous Wright R-1820 Cyclone). The skinning was also thicker in some
areas, as the nearest metric equivalent was thicker. Despite this, the Tu-4 was only marginally heavier
and slower than the American B-29 (a maximum speed of 347 mph (558 kph) compared to 357 mph
(575 kph)) because of the Tupolev Design Bureau’s stringent weight-control measures (a loaded
weight of 122,577 lb (55,600 kg) for the Tu-4 compared to 120,000 lb (54,431 kg) for the B-29).

Despite the less than perfect quality, this photograph is invaluable as it shows one of the B-29s interned by the Soviets, in this case the B-
29 nicknamed ‘Ding Hao’, with the American serial number ‘42-6358’. This aircraft had landed at Vladivostok on 21 November 1944.
(Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

The interned B-29s were not given back to the Americans; instead, they were dismantled and sent
to Moscow to begin the arduous task of reverse-engineering them. Of the three complete B-29s, one
was kept intact as a reference, one was sent to the LII in order to prepare operational manuals, and a
third B-29 was sent to the Tupolev OKB for complete disassembly, in order to produce drawings, to
study it, and to copy it.
In order to accomplish the enormous task of copying the B-29, over 900 different organisations
were involved in the work. Tupolev appointed D. S. Markov to head up the Tupolev team. The B-29
slated specifically for parts copying was carefully disassembled, with each part photographed,
weighed, and described. The parts were even subjected to spectral analysis to determine their exact
composition.
During this analysis, a major problem cropped up—the aluminium alloy covering of the B-29 was
1/16th of an inch (1.5875 mm), which no extant Soviet equipment could reproduce. If this was
rounded up to 1.6 mm, it would have resulted in too much weight. If it were rounded down to 1.5 mm,
it would be too weak. The expedient the Soviets adopted was to change the thickness where
appropriate, which resulted in the thickness of the metal sheets covering the fuselage ranging from 0.8
to 1.8- mm thick.
No attempt was made to copy the B-29’s engines as a perfectly suitable analogue existed—the
ASh-73TK engine, which had a similar size and power to the B-29’s Curtiss-Wright Duplex-
Cyclones. However, the turbo-chargers of the American engines were copied, as well as the
carburettors, and the bearings. In addition to new engines, the B-4 had a different IFF (identification
friend or foe) system, as it made no sense to use a system designed to be used with American aircraft
(which were now the foe). The shortwave communication system of the B-29 was also replaced with
a superior ultra-shortwave Soviet-designed system. Despite Stalin’s admonition that nothing be
changed from the B-29, convenience and engineering demands necessitated it in some circumstances.
If the Soviets found the original shortwave system of the B-29 lacking, they copied the radar
bombsight, compass, and autopilot, as these were superior to anything the Soviets possessed at the
time.
One complicated system that was copied closely was the defensive armament system, which in the
B-29 consisted of four remote-controlled turrets and one manned turret in the tail, all equipped with
.50-calibre (12.7-mm) machine guns. The remote-controlled turrets were controlled by a
sophisticated system of sighting stations equipped with gunsights, where the movement of the
gunsights was transmitted to the appropriate turret; it was even possible (in theory) for one gunner to
control all the turrets. The one change the Soviets made was to substitute heavier armaments, first in
the form of Berezin B-20 20-mm cannons, then in later production versions with NR-23 23-mm
cannons in shallower, more streamlined turrets. It can again be seen that the Soviets made changes to
the B-29’s design where they deemed it appropriate.

The ‘Exhibit Hall’

An innovative method that Andrey Tupolev utilised to keep the project on course was to create a kind
of ‘exhibit hall’ at the Tupolev OKB, where all the systems being copied were displayed and the
progress of their copying or replacement was monitored. The zavodi or OKBs responsible were
listed, as well as the status; it was a clever way for Tupolev (or any Soviet VIP) to make certain that
everyone was kept accountable for the overall progress of the project; even the people in charge of
the copying process were listed, to further encourage their rapid progress.
Tu-70
In the Tu-4/B-29, Andrey Tupolev saw an aeroplane that could serve not just as a strategic bomber,
but also as the basis for a modern transport (an idea that also occurred to the Americans). At the time
of the end of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviets still relied heavily on the Li-2, their licence-built
version of the Douglas DC-3/C-47. However, with its tail wheel landing gear and a top speed of only
around 200 mph (322 kph) in its Li-2 version, a larger, faster, longer-ranged, and more modern
aircraft was needed for the post-war Soviet Air Force and Soviet civilian airline, Aeroflot.
From the basic Tu-4 airframe, on his own initiative, Tupolev developed a dedicated civilian
transport: the Tu-70. This was at first designated the Tu-12 (not to be confused with the jet-engined
development of the Tu-2 bomber, which also used the same designation—reusing designations was
not uncommon with OKBs, and is the bane of aviation historians). Although utilising the same outer
wings, tail planes, engines, and main landing gear of the Tu-4, it had a larger circular section
fuselage, designed to house passengers in considerable comfort. Due to the larger fuselage, it had a
new nose landing gear. As the wings were now mounted higher up on the larger fuselage, the Tu-70
featured a different centre section than the Tu-4, with the wings butting up against the fuselage, instead
of the outer portions being attached to a centre section that also included the central portion of the
fuselage, as was the case with the Tu-4/B-29.
In parallel, the Americans had also developed the B-29/B-50 Superfortress into the civilian
Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser and the military C-97 Stratofreighter transports, which turned out to
be quite different in design from the Tu-70, featuring very different fuselage designs. The Boeing
transport derivatives featured a ‘double bubble’ arrangement of two circular cross-sections
intersecting, as opposed to the simpler single circular cross-section of the Tu-70.
In something of an oddity, the Tu-70, which was supposedly a development of the Tu-4, actually
flew on 27 November 1946, while the first Tu-4 first flew on 19 May 1947. This apparent anomaly
can be explained by the fact that the Tu-70 actually incorporated parts of one of the B-29s, such as the
wings, thereby greatly speeding up development and construction.
In the end, aircraft that had been designed completely from the start as transports (such as the Il-12
and the Il-12’s development, the Il-14) were used as civilian transports, and the Tu-70 did not go into
production. These aircraft, although smaller and with less range than the Tu-70, were judged to be
sufficient for the relatively light passenger requirements of Aeroflot, the Soviet civil air carrier.

Tu-75
Another transport version of the Tu-4 became the Tu-75, this time designed as a military transport.
Although similar in appearance to the Tu-70, the Tu-75 was not just a straight adaptation of the Tu-70
for military use. As an example, the Tu-75 was to feature three turrets, equipped with two guns each,
although in the event only the manned tail turret position was fitted to the prototype, it was never
armed with guns, and the two remote-controlled turrets were never fitted.
 Although the Tu-75 design was a sound one, the Soviet military decided that a more expedient (and
cheaper) route to go was to directly modify the Tu-4 into the Tu-4D transport, 300 of which were
modified from the Tu-4 bomber version. As a result of this, the Tu-75 did not enter into production.
Another designation for the Tu-75 was the Tu-16, which was later re-used for the Tu-16 Badger
bomber (described further on). As mentioned previously, re-using aircraft designations was a not
uncommon (and confusing to the air historian) Soviet practice.

Service Use
The first three Tu-4s flew in the May Day flypast in 1947; it was initially assumed by Western
observers that these were the repaired American B-29s. It was only when they were followed in the
flypast by the transport version of the Tu-4 (the Tu-75) that the truth became clear—the Soviets now
possessed a modern four-engined strategic bomber. With the detonation of the first Soviet nuclear
device in 1949, this now meant that the Soviets had an aircraft capable of dropping a nuclear bomb
on the United States on a one-way mission, thereby creating a grave potential threat to America.
The first production Tu-4s were sent to DA units in 1949, units in the western part of the Soviet
Union being the first to be equipped with the new bomber. In addition to DA units, the Tu-4 was also
used to equip AVMF units, with Baltic Sea Fleet units being the first to be equipped with the new
bomber.
One of the most important uses of the Tu-4 during Soviet service was to allow the Soviet crews to
become experienced in using and dropping nuclear bombs, with the Tu-4A Bull version being the first
production Soviet bomber capable of nuclear bombing. Dummy nuclear bombs were used to simulate
the weight of the real weapons. On 18 October 1951, a Tu-4A dropped an actual nuclear bomb, the
RDS-3. More tests took place in 1952. In 1953, nuclear bombs were dropped from Tu-4s in three
tests with the RDS-5 atomic bomb.
The Soviets also gained experience in the use of stand-off missiles with the Tu-4K version of the
Bull. This aircraft carried the KS-1 (AS-1) Kometa cruise missile (or ‘Kennel’ in NATO parlance).
The Tu-4K was used in naval exercises and gave the Soviets an ability to menace Western shipping
that did not go unnoticed in the West.
An interesting mission involving the Tu-4, which almost turned into a combat mission, occurred
during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which began in late October. A flight of Tu-4s, armed with
FAB-250 and FAB-500 conventional bombs, took off from Borispol air base on 4 November 1956.
This flight was on its way to Budapest when the bombing mission was thankfully called off and the
aircraft returned to the Soviet Union. Some accounts mention nuclear weapons, but it is highly
unlikely that the Soviet Union would have used nuclear bombs on the capital of its erstwhile ally and
puppet state, Hungary. If nothing else, the use of nuclear weapons would certainly have made the
reoccupation of Budapest by Soviet troops rather problematical. Some of the Soviet troops sent to
Hungary to quell the rebellion were carried by transport versions of the Tu-4, the Tu-4D. Although
encountering some ground fire from the Hungarian rebels, no Tu-4Ds were lost in the operation.
A production Tu-4, still with the B-29 type turrets, and with the 20-mm cannons. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

A line-up of operational Soviet Tu-4s. These are still armed with the B-29 type turrets and 20-mm cannons. (Viktor Kulikov’s
collection)

By the time construction of the Tu-4 ended in 1952, some 847 had been built. These continued in
service until the mid-1950s in the bomber role, when they were replaced by the Tu-16 and Tu-95, and
into the 1960s in Soviet service as transports, trainers, and flying test beds (or ‘flying laboratories’).
Chinese Use
Since the Communist Chinese were still close allies of the Soviet Union in the 1950s, the Soviets
made the choice of providing them with the Tu-4. Twenty-five were handed over to China in 1953. In
addition to being used as bombers, the Chinese Tu-4s were used as transport aircraft and for maritime
reconnaissance. As it turned out, the Chinese Tu-4s continued in service long after the Soviet versions
had been retired; the last Chinese versions were not retired until the 1980s, after having been re-
engined with Chinese-built versions of the Soviet Ivchenko AI-20 turboprops in the 1960s.

Combat Versions
Tu-4
This was the main production version of the Tu-4, and was produced at Kazan’ until 1952. Early
versions had B-20 20-mm cannons mounted in turrets that retained the rounded profile of the B-29’s
turrets. Later Tu-4s had NR-23 23-mm cannons, which were mounted in more streamlined turrets with
a lower profile. Otherwise, there was little external difference between the early production Tu-4s
and the later production examples.

Tu-4A
Ten of the Tu-4s were converted for use as atomic bombers and designated as the ‘Tu-4A’ (the ‘A’
was for Atomiy, ‘Atomic’ in Russian). The bomb bays were specially modified for the atomic bombs,
being climate-controlled to protect the rather delicate early atomic bombs. These were the Soviet
Union’s first nuclear bombers, and were used to drop nuclear devices over test grounds at
Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, and the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Soviet Arctic—for example,
a 30-kiloton bomb was dropped at Semipalatinsk on 18 October 1951.

Tu-4D
As the Tu-4D (‘D’ for Desatniy, Russian for ‘Paradropping’), 300 Tu-4 bombers were converted into
transports. The bomb bays were modified to be able to accommodate up to twenty-eight paratroopers,
if not in great comfort. These aircraft were used in the Soviet Union into the 1960s, when they were
replaced by purpose-built military transports such as the An-12 ‘Cub’.

Tu-4K (Tu-4KS, ‘Bull-B’)

The Soviet Council of Ministers issued a resolution calling for the development of the Kometa
(‘Comet’) weapons system in June 1948, which was to consist of air-to-surface missiles and Tu-4s
able to carry them.
Also known as the Tu-4KS, or ‘Bull-B’ by NATO, this variant of the Tu-4 was the first Soviet
missile carrier in service. Although originally the ‘K’ in Soviet missile carriers may have stood for
the ‘K’ in Kometa, the first Soviet stand-off missile, it is now usually interpreted as standing for
Kompleks (Voruzheniya) or ‘Weapon Complex (Weapons System)’ in Russian. The ‘K’ referred to the
bomber being part of an entire complex, involving not just the basic bomber, but the missile, the
tracking and radar systems on the bomber, and even radar and tracking systems on the ground or other
aircraft. In this case, the missile was the AS-1 (KS-1 Kometa) Kennel, the first production Soviet
missile to be launched from large bombers (‘KS’ stood for Krylatiy Snaryad, ‘Winged Missile’ in
Russian). Acceptance trials continued until January 1953 when the Tu-4K was deemed suitable for
service. Some fifty Tu-4s were modified at Z.23 in Fili (Moscow) into this missile-carrying version,
and were used by the AVMF in two regiments, one with the Northern Fleet and the other with the
Black Sea Fleet.

Although not of the best quality, this photograph shows a Tu-4KS in flight, with KS-1 Kometa missiles mounted under each wing. (Viktor
Kulikov’s collection)

The Tu-4KS was equipped with the Kobalt (‘Cobalt’) radar as part of the K-3 targeting and
missile guidance system. The Kobalt radar was developed from the B-29’s AN/APQ-13 radar. The
Kobalt was able to search through 360 degrees, and was used for detecting, locking on, and tracking
the missile’s intended target. The Kometa missile itself was under the radio control of the WSO
(Weapons System Operator), who guided the missile to the target until the missile’s radar took over.
The missile’s radar, the K-1, was a passive system which homed in on the radar waves from the
Kobalt radar reflecting from the target. The target was continuously illuminated or ‘painted’ by the
carrier aircraft’s Kobalt radar.

Non-Combat and Experimental Versions

AWACS
As mentioned previously, the Chinese also used the Tu-4, and as with the Soviets, they used this
aircraft for experimental purposes. Perhaps the most unusual Tu-4 ever developed was a Chinese
early warning aircraft, known as the Kong Jing No. 1, which equipped with its large round fairing for
the revolving radar, and its long, narrow turboprop engines represented a rather startling appearance.
This singular aircraft still survives in China at the museum at Datangshan as an outdoor exhibit,
apparently a bit the worse for wear as being displayed outside can do unkind things to aircraft.

Arctic/Polar Exploration
In the 1950s, some Tu-4s were stripped of their armament and used for oceanographic studies in the
Arctic, where they were operated from landing fields on the ice.

Engine Testbeds
With its large size and four engine positions, the Tu-4 lent itself for use as an engine test-bed, with
various engines taking the place of one of the normal Shevtsov engines. The advantage of this type of
installation was that if the experimental engine failed, the Tu-4 was still able to fly on the three
remaining engines.
Certainly, one of the most bizarre-looking test versions of the Tu-4 was the variant in which the
inboard starboard radial engine and front nacelle were replaced by the entire front end of the Tu-91
‘Boot’ experimental turboprop ASW aircraft. This installation involved placing the entire front half of
the Tu-91, complete with canopy glazing, onto the Tu-4’s starboard wing. It is not recorded how well
the tests went or how well this Tu-4 flew, but with the counter-rotating turboprops of the Tu-91’s
engine going along with the radial engines of the Tu-4, it must have been an impressive sight to see it
running and flying. Evidently, the tests went well enough as the Tu-91 was ordered into production,
before being cancelled after only a handful had been produced, when it was decided not to build the
large aircraft carrier that the Tu-91 was designed to operate from.
There were other engines tested on the Tu-4; one example featured the huge 2TV-2F turboprop
(used on the ‘95/1’, the first Tu-95 prototype) complete with counter-rotating propellers in its number
three engine position (the inboard starboard position).

Tu-4 testbed for 2TV-2F engine. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Missile Testing
Tu-4s were used experimentally to test missiles, carrying and firing them. The tests were successful
enough that a small number of Tu-4s were converted (or possibly built new) as the Tu-4K missile
carrier and entered service.

Tanker
The unique Tupolev method of wingtip-to-wingtip refuelling was first tested on the Tu-2, but
perfected on the Tu-4. This unusual method involved having the tanker and receiver aircraft lined up
in an echelon formation, with the receiver aircraft to the starboard side of the tanker. The tanker
deployed the refuelling line, which the receiver aircraft then moved to ‘catch’, using its port wingtip,
which the hose slid along until it reached a fitting under the wing tip. Once the hose was captured, it
was reeled in by the tanker until it engaged the receiver’s refuelling receptacle. Refuelling could then
proceed, with the tanker moving slightly ahead of the receiving aircraft. Once the refuelling was
completed, the hose was released by the receiver and wound back into the tanker.
This may all sound a bit dodgy and complicated. It was, and dangerous because the aircraft were
flying side-by-side in close formation. It is notable that the Tu-16 Badger was the only aircraft, even
in the Soviet Union, to use this refuelling method on a large scale, as only a relative handful of Tu-4
tanker and receiver aircraft, perhaps ten, were converted to use this method.

Transport
As discussed previously, 300 Tu-4 bombers were converted into transports as the Tu-4D.

Further Soviet Development

Tu-80
Although the Tu-4 provided the Soviets with a relatively modern strategic bomber, they looked for
ways to improve it; the Americans had the same idea, and the result was the B-50, also named the
‘Superfortress’ as the B-29 had been. The Soviet result was the Tu-80, which was quite different from
the B-50, the Americans’ development of the B-29. Although based upon the Tu-4, the Tu-80 looked
quite different from the Tu-4/B-29, whereas the B-50 looked very similar to the B-29. The Tu-80
featured a conventional stepped cockpit replacing the flush nose-mounted installation used by the Tu-
4 (which had been adopted directly from the B-29 and continued to be used by the B-50).
The engines were more powerful (2,360-hp ASh-73TKFNs, fuel-injected versions of the Tu-4’s
engines), and the armament system was revised, with the upper turret behind the cockpit now being
retractable, although the turrets retained the 23-mm cannon armament of the later Tu-4s. The turrets
were also slightly recessed, a feature which was repeated on the later Tu-95 (along with the
retractable turret) and the Tu-16. The gun sighting domes on the fuselage sides were now recessed for
better aerodynamics, a feature that was borrowed from the Tu-8, a long-range development of the
wartime Tu-2 bomber, and would reappear on some early design studies for what became the Tu-16.
The outer wing dihedral was decreased, and the bomb bays were lengthened, which resulted in a
longer fuselage.
The radar was moved from the retractable position under the fuselage to a position under the nose,
or a ‘chin’ position; the chin radar was another feature that would reappear in the Tu-95 and the Tu-
16. In addition, the vertical tail planes were enlarged, to compensate for the greater length of the Tu-
80, as it was nearly 4 m (13.1 feet) longer. The Tu-80 could carry the massive FAB-9000 (9,000-kg
or 19,842-lb) bomb externally under the centre fuselage.
Although an improvement on the Tu-4, the Tu-80 remained a one-off, unlike the B-50, and did not
enter into production, however, as Andrey Tupolev turned his attention to a much larger and more
capable development, the truly intercontinental Tu-85 bomber. It is interesting to note that the Tu-80
nose design was used not just on the Tu-85, but continued to be used on the Tu-95. Indeed, the nose
profile on glass-nosed pre-Tu-142/Tu-95MS Bears was almost identical to that of the Tu-80, even
down to the chin radome.

The Tu-80. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Tu-85 ‘Barge’
Although using a similar fuselage to the Tu-80 with the same cross-section, suitably strengthened and
lengthened to accommodate longer bomb bays, the Tu-85 used new long-span, high aspect ratio
wings, with more powerful engines than the Tu-80, giving it a much greater range and altitude. It was
the Soviet Union’s first truly intercontinental bomber, with a maximum range of over 7,000 miles
(11,265 km). The first prototype flew 7,469 miles (12,013 km) on a test flight on 12 and 13
September 1951.
Two prototypes were built, both utilising four 4,300-hp Dobrynin VD-4K turbo-compound piston
engines. The first prototype, the ‘85/1’, made its first flight on 9 January 1951 and was piloted by
Tupolev’s chief test pilot Aleksey D. Perelyot (sometimes spelled ‘Perelet’). The second prototype
first flew on 28 June 1951. The second prototype, or ‘85/2’, differed from the 85/1 in having a
revised tail gunner’s position with more glazing, reduced wing area, and changes to improve the
engines’ reliability, among other modifications. On one flight the 85/2 carried the enormous FAB-
9000 bomb internally. The 85/2 flew a total of twenty-five times.
Were it not for the relatively poor showing of the B-29 in the Korean War against the jet-powered
MiG-15 fighter, the Tu-85 might well have gone into production and indeed plans for its production
had been made before the Tu-85 programme was cancelled. What the production of the Tu-85 would
have meant for the development of the Tu-95 one can only guess. As it was, the Soviets decided that
the age of the piston-engined bomber was over, and attention now turned to turbojet and turboprop-
powered bombers. However, the Tu-85 was a very important stepping-stone between the piston-
engined Tu-4 series and the later turbine-powered bombers, as the Tu-95 owed much to the Tu-85
design, including its fuselage, crew arrangement, and armament.

The Tu-85 Barge. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

The Tu-4 in Detail

General Description
As described above, the Tu-4 was a reverse-engineered B-29. As such, like the B-29, it was a mainly
aluminium alloy cantilever monoplane, powered by four radial engines, with a retractable tricycle-
type landing gear.

Fuselage
The fuselage was a slim structure of a mainly circular cross-section, with pressurised sections at the
front and the back of the aircraft, separated by two unpressurised bomb bays, bulkheads dividing the
pressurised sections from the bomb bays. In addition, there was a small pressurised section for the
tail gunner. The fuselage was circular as in the original B-29 as this was easier to pressurise than a
fuselage with any kind of corners.
The aluminium alloy skin was made out of D16AT duralumin sheets of from .03 to .07 inches (.8 to
1.8 mm) in thickness. This thickness grew to .08 inches (2 mm) in stressed locations. The skin was
mainly flush-riveted. The maximum diameter of the fuselage was 9.51 feet (2.9 m), the same diameter
as the Tu-95.
The fuselage was divided into six main sections: the cockpit glazing frame, the forward
pressurised section, the centre fuselage, the centre pressurised section, the aft fuselage, and the tail
section. The forward and centre pressurised sections were connected by a pressurised crawl way that
passed above the bomb bay. As mentioned previously, the tail gunner also had a pressurised section,
but this was not accessible to the other pressurised sections in flight.
 The forward pressurised section housed six crew members: the pilot (or ‘captain’), the co-pilot,
the bombardier (bomb-aimer), the navigator, the radio operator, and the flight engineer. The centre
pressurised section housed three gunners and the radar operator. The tail gunner was alone in the
pressurised tail section for a total of ten crew members.
The centre fuselage section, which was unpressurised, incorporated the two bomb bays that were
separated by the wing carry-through structure.
Besides enjoying the luxury of pressurisation, the crew were also protected by armour glass and
steel armour plating. Bunks were provided for long-range flights, although it appears that the toilet
facilities consisted only of buckets for the crew—Soviet strategic bombers never were characterised
by great crew comfort.

Wings
The wings were of a straight mid-mounted cantilever high-aspect ratio type, which enabled the
aircraft to have good high-altitude performance. The wings were of two-spar all-metal construction,
built in three sections; two outer sections and a centre section that was built integrally with the mid-
fuselage.
Besides being the main load-carrying structure for the wings, a torsion box consisting of heavy
skinning, spars, ribs, and stringers carried the main fuel tanks, in addition to the main landing gear and
the engine nacelles. The slotted flaps were of two sections and were of all-metal construction. The
ailerons were one-piece, and of all-metal structure but mainly fabric covered. Each aileron had a trim
tab.

Nose of the Tu-4 preserved at the Central Air Force Museum at Monino, Russia. (Ken Duffey)
Cabin interior of a Tu-4. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Drawing of the Tu-4 interior showing the pressurised sections of the fuselage. (G. F. Petrov photo archive)
Tail Planes
Like the wings, both the vertical and horizontal tail planes were cantilevered, and of all-metal
construction. They were conventional, with a fixed fin and moveable rudder for the vertical tail
plane, and fixed stabilisers and moveable elevators for the horizontal tail planes. The horizontal tail
planes had no dihedral, and the elevators were of all-metal structure with fabric covering and a trim
tab on each elevator. The elevators were connected to each other and moved in tandem. The rudder
was also of all-metal structure with fabric covering and a single trim tab.

Engines
The Tu-4 utilised four Shvetsov ASh-73TK eighteen-cylinder turbocharged radial engines. Despite
their similar size, horsepower, and general configuration with the Curtiss-Wright R-3350 Duplex-
Cyclones of the B-29, they were of indigenous design. Like the Duplex-Cyclone, it was a twin-row
engine, with nine cylinders in each row. The ‘TK’ in the name was for ‘Turbokompressor’, or
‘Turbo-charger’ in Russian. The ASh-73TK had two first-stage TK-19 exhaust driven turbo-chargers
and produced 2,400 hp at take-off. In addition to the first-stage turbochargers, the ASh-73TK also
featured a second supercharging stage, with PTsN single-speed centrifugal blowers driven by the
engines. The engine was carburetted, not fuel-injected. Although the ASh-73TK was not based upon
the Duplex-Cyclone, the turbo-chargers apparently were, with the magnetos and bearings, for
example, copied from the Curtiss-Wright engine. The engines were started electrically, but could be
started manually if necessary.
Close-up of a Tu-4 engine cowling. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)
Engine exhaust of the Tu-4 at Monino. This exhaust is different from that used on the B-29. (Ken Duffey)

The ASh-73TK engine was chosen because of its similarity in size (and power) to the B-29’s
engines, which enabled it to be fitted into the Soviet copies of the B-29’s cowlings and nacelles. The
ASh-73TK had been developed from the unsuccessful M-71 radial engine of the Second World War
and like the R-3350, could trace its ancestry back to the Wright R-1820 Cyclone.
The propellers were four-bladed V3-A3 or VDB-A5 constant-speed units, with a diameter of 16.6
feet (5.06 m).

Fuel System
The fuel system consisted of twenty-two flexible fuel cells, or bladders, divided into four sets, one
set for each engine. The total amount of fuel was 5,331 US gal (4,439 Imp gal or 20,180 litres). The
fuel cells were accommodated in the wing centre section; for long-range missions, three additional
tanks could be fitted into the forward bomb bay.

Controls
The controls were dual, with the pilot (port side) and co-pilot (starboard side) having fully
duplicated controls. The controls were mechanical and manual, consisting of cables and pulleys. An
AP-5 autopilot was fitted to help with the flying workload.

Landing Gear
The landing gear were of a conventional retractable tricycle arrangement, with a nose landing gear
equipped with two wheels, retracting backwards into the nose of the aircraft. The main landing gear
also had two wheels each, and retracted into the forward portion of the extended inboard engine
nacelles. A retractable tail bumper under the tail protected the rear fuselage from over-rotation on
take-offs and landings. All the landing gear were electrically operated.
The tyres on the nose wheel unit were 950 × 350 mm in size, while the main units had 1,450 × 520
mm size tyres. The main wheels were equipped with hydraulic brakes while the nose wheels did not
have brakes.

Electronics
The radar fitted was the Kobalt radar, housed in a retractable cylinder in the centre of the underside
of the fuselage. The radar was developed from the American AN/APQ-13 fitted to the B-29. This
radar and type of installation was carried over for the Tu-16KS, the first of the Tu-16 missile
carriers. An OP-48 automatic bombsight was fitted.
As mentioned previously, an AP-5 autopilot was fitted to ease the pilots’ workload.

Defensive Armament
The defensive armament consisted of four remote-controlled turrets and a manned tail turret, as with
the B-29. The remote-control system for the Tu-4’s turrets was based upon the B-29’s, and utilised
PS-48 sighting stations. However, the guns were different, being Berezin B-20 20-mm cannons in
early Tu-4s and Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 23-mm cannons in later versions. The B-29 had utilised
smaller and much less powerful 50-calibre (12.7-mm) M-2 Browning machine guns. The Tu-4 turrets
mounting the 23-mm cannons were also lower in profile, lessening their drag. Turrets similar to these
23-mm-armed turrets would be used in future Tupolev designs, such as the Tu-95 and Tu-16 (see
further on). The turrets were arranged as on the B-29 with two forward, one on the top of the fuselage
and one on the bottom, and two aft, again with one on the bottom and one on the top. The tail turret
was mounted in the extreme rear of the fuselage. All the turrets were electrically operated and could
all be operated from just one of the gun sighting stations.

Offensive Armament
As with the B-29, the Tu-4 normally carried its offensive load, consisting of free-fall bombs, in
internal bomb bays. There were two bomb bays, separated by the large carry-through structure for the
mid-mounted wings. The missile carrier version of the Bull, the Tu-4K (Bull-B), could carry two AS-
1 (KS-1 Kometa) Kennel missiles on pylons, one each mounted on a pylon located between the inner
and outer engines. It was the first Soviet bomber to be equipped with true stand-off missiles.

Camouflage and Markings

Like most of their American counterparts, the Soviet Tu-4s were left in a natural metal finish, with
only the red stars and the tactical number for a little colour. With the Chinese Tu-4s, the later
examples were finished with a white underside, probably a nuclear anti-flash paint as sometimes
appeared on Soviet bombers.

Conclusion: Influence of the Tu-4 on Subsequent Soviet Bombers

The Tu-4 proved a useful and successful bomber for the DA. It served as a front-line bomber into the
mid-1950s and with the Soviets into the 1960s in non-combat roles. It gave the DA a modern strategic
bomber to carry their bombs—in the case of the Tu-4A, their nuclear bombs—which greatly added to
the strength of the Soviet military and created problems for American (and Western) defences. In
addition, the Tu-4 had a tremendous influence on the subsequent development and production of
Soviet bombers, especially Tupolev-designed bombers. Elements of its design even continue to be
used to the present in the Russian Tu-95 and the Chinese Xian H-6 (Tu-16) bombers. Its defensive
armament system of remote-controlled turrets influenced the entire first generation of turbine-
powered Soviet bombers, as did its long, pressurised circular-section fuselage, which directly
influenced the design of the Tu-95 and the Tu-16.
Although it did not go into production, a development of the Tu-4, the Tu-85 Barge, led directly to
the Soviet Union’s first truly intercontinental production bomber, the Tu-95, given the reporting name
of ‘Bear’ by NATO. The Tu-85 itself was based upon the Tu-80, but was in fact a much larger aircraft
than the Tu-80, although not as large as the American Convair B-36 Peacemaker. The B-36 was in
some ways the American analogue to the Tu-85, with both being the largest piston-engined bombers
built by either country, and their first true intercontinental bombers. Unlike the Barge, however, the B-
36 went into production and served the USAF for a decade.

Rear dorsal turret of the Tu-4 at Monino. (Ken Duffey)

Drawing of the Tu-4 interior. Note the low-profile turrets with the 23-mm cannons. (G. F. Petrov photo archive)

Rear bottom turret of the Tu-4 at Monino. (Ken Duffey)

An important point to remember in assessing the lasting importance of the Tu-4 is that the success
of the Tupolev OKB in reverse-engineering the B-29 into the Tu-4 established them as the most
important design bureau when it came to designing large bombers. This dominance has continued to
the present day.

Note About Soviet and NATO Designations

The following Soviet bombers are listed in the order of their development, and not necessarily their
entry into service; for example, although the Tu-16 went into service before the Tu-95, the Tu-95
traces its ancestry and development back to the Tu-4/B-29 of the mid-1940s. The aircraft are then
grouped under their heading according to their alphanumeric Soviet military or service designation
(transliterated from the Cyrillic), such as Tu-95K-22, not their NATO designation, such as ‘Bear-G’,
as sometimes the NATO designations were out of sequence alphabetically to the corresponding
Soviet designations. This disconnect between the NATO designations (reporting names) and the
Soviet designations may seem a bit confusing; this is because it is. The Soviet Union did not consult
with NATO when designating their aircraft (or vice versa) and were no doubt pleased when their
designations confused the West.
The NATO designations were assigned when NATO actually became aware of the aircraft, and not
necessarily when the aircraft first appeared, or according to the Soviet designation. As an example,
the Tu-95K-22 (‘Bear-G’) comes before the Tu-95M (‘Bear-A’), alphanumerically (using the Soviet
designations), but the NATO designation ‘Bear-A’ comes before ‘Bear-G’ alphabetically. The
Soviets, at times, deliberately tried to confuse NATO when it came to their internal OKB and service
designations. This sometimes led to spurious Western designations such as the ‘Tu-20’ (for the Bear)
and the ‘Tu-26’ (for the Backfire). Some of these spurious designations, such as the Tu-20, had
surprisingly long lives, and were used for many years before they were abandoned as incorrect.
Growing up, I always thought of the Bear as being the ‘Tu-20’ Bear.
There was (and is) a system to the NATO designations, with one-syllable names signifying
propeller-driven aeroplanes, such as the ‘Bear’ for the turboprop-powered Tu-95, and two-syllable
names for the turbojet and turbofan-powered aircraft, such as the ‘Badger’ for the turbojet-powered
Tu-16. Bombers have the initial letter of ‘B’, ‘C’ signified transports (for cargo), ‘F’ for fighters, and
‘M’ for miscellaneous, which can include everything from early warning aircraft to flying boats to
training aircraft. Missiles always start with ‘K’, as with the AS-4 ‘Kitchen’ rocket-propelled missile.
 3

Tu-95 ‘Bear’

As unlikely as it may seem, this most iconic of all Soviet bombers is a direct descendant of the
American Boeing B-29 Superfortress, as detailed previously. Its fuselage cross-section, for example,
is the same as the B-29’s, at 9.51 feet (2.9 m). The first of the truly intercontinental-production Soviet
bombers, the Tu-95 seems destined to remain in service with Russia until at least 2040. It could
possibly end up being Russia’s last manned intercontinental bomber, even as it was its first.

Development
Prompted at least partly by the apparent obsolescence of the piston-engined bomber as indicated by
the B-29’s vulnerability to the MiG-15 during the Korean War, the Soviet Union stopped development
on large piston-engined bombers. Even before the Korean War, the Soviets were not unaware of
developments in the United States regarding jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47. This meant that
the Tu-85, which was already slated for production, was cancelled. In its place, the Soviet Union
realised it needed a turbojet or turboprop-powered long-range bomber with more speed. In 1950,
Myasishchev presented his idea for a long-range jet-powered bomber that became the M-4. Tupolev,
aware of the Myasishchev design, responded with a design of his own.
The design that became the Tu-95 had a convoluted genesis, descending as it did from the B-29,
then the Tu-4, then by way of the developments of the Tu-4, the piston-engined Tu-80 and the Tu-85
Barge. Indeed, the Tu-95 can be thought of as a turboprop-powered development of the Barge, largely
utilising that aircraft’s fuselage, coupled with new swept-back wings and tail planes, and with very
powerful turbo-props replacing the piston engines of the Tu-85. The swept-back wings were the
result of design studies conducted as far back as the spring of 1948, with input from TsAGI, who had
done research on German designs that utilised large swept wings. In order for the new bomber to
have sufficient speed and range, a wing with a sweep-back of 35 degrees was needed.
Obviously, the new design also needed engines, and two designs were actually looked at—one
equipped with turbojets and one equipped with turboprops. The turbojet design was estimated to have
a top speed of 559 mph (900) kph and a range of 6,214 miles (10,000 km); this range was considered
insufficient (these numbers are perhaps not coincidentally similar to the actual performance of the
Myasishchev design, the M-4 Bison). On the other hand, with suitably powerful engines, the
turboprop Tupolev design was estimated to have a top speed of 497 mph (800 kph), which was
considered sufficient, and a range of over 8,078 miles (13,000 km), which met the range requirement.
The work of the Kuznetsov Design Bureau on very powerful turboprop engines, based upon Second
World War German designs, seemed to offer a suitable engine for the turboprop design. When these
engines were used with the new swept-back wings, mated to what was basically the Tu-85 fuselage,
the Tu-95 was born.

Tu-95 Bear-A. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

It may seem strange to have used a swept wing on a subsonic, propeller-driven bomber, but after
studying TsAGI’s analyses of German wartime research on swept wings, it was decided that a swept
wing was the optimal aerodynamic solution, even at the speeds the Tu-95 would be operating at (with
a maximum speed of greater than 550 mph (885 kph)). An additional advantage of the swept wing
was that it put the large wing carry-through structure ahead of the bomb bay, so the bomb bay did not
have to be divided, as it was on the Tu-4, with its straight wing passing through the middle of the
fuselage.
Tupolev presented his bomber design to the government, and the government was impressed
enough for the Soviet Council of Ministers (COM) and the MAP to issue on 11 July 1951 an order for
Tupolev to build his bomber in two versions. One version was to be powered by four Kuznetsov
2TV-2F coupled turboprops, which became the first prototype, with the other version powered by
four Kuznetsov TV-12 engines, which became the second prototype. The final design work started on
15 July 1951 and a full mock-up was finished by November 1951. Construction of the first prototype
had already begun in October 1951. By November 1952, the first prototype, designated the ‘95/1’,
was ready to fly.

‘95/1’ (‘Izdeliye V’)

As per the COM order of 11 July 1951, the first prototype of the Tu-95 had four Kuznetsov 2TV-2F-
coupled turboprop engines installed instead of the Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop engines, which have
powered every other Tu-95 (and Tu-142) ever built. It first flew on 12 November 1952, piloted by
head Tupolev test pilot A. D. Perelyot. On 11 May 1953, during its seventeenth flight, the gearbox of
the number three engine failed, and the aircraft crashed, with four of the crew perishing, including
pilot A. D. Perelyot. Seven crew bailed out successfully and survived (one of those who died bailed
out successfully, but unfortunately landed in the middle of the crash’s fire). Not surprisingly, this crash
led Tupolev and Kuznetsov to go back to the drawing board to make sure that the second prototype’s
engines worked properly.

‘95/2’
This second prototype of the Tu-95 was the first version to fly with the NK-12 turboprop engines (at
that time still designated the ‘TV-12’), versions of which have powered every subsequent Bear. It
first flew on 16 February 1955 with M. A. Nyukhtikov at the controls. By this time, despite the crash
of the first prototype, production had already been authorised for the Bear. This second prototype was
later modified into the ‘Tu-95LL’, a flying test-bed for testing jet engines (described further on).

Tu-95 ‘Bear-A’
This was the very first Tu-95 to enter service, first undergoing tests in August 1955. It differed from
the second prototype in being longer, with the fuselage having had a 6.56 feet (2 m) section inserted
into the fuselage to house more fuel for the NK-12 engines, as these engines used more fuel than
anticipated. Thirty-one Tu-95s were built.

Tu-95A ‘Bear-A’
Developed as a variant of the Tu-95, specifically designed for dropping free-fall nuclear bombs, with
a climate-controlled bomb bay, the Tu-95A entered service in 1956, and along with the Tu-16 Badger,
it progressively replaced the Tu-4 in the strategic bomber role. Its entry into service gave the Soviets,
for the first time, a truly intercontinental nuclear bomber, a fact that greatly complicated American
defences. The ‘A’ stood for Atomniy, meaning ‘Atomic’ in Russian. The Tu-95As were painted with
white undersides to reflect the nuclear flash. There were also visors fitted to the transparencies to
protect the crew from the nuclear flash.
Although the Tu-4 Bull was capable of reaching the continental United States, it would have been
essentially a one-way suicide mission. The Tu-95A was capable of attacking continental American
targets via two-way unrefuelled missions. This made the mainland United States now vulnerable to
Soviet nuclear attack, a fact that was not lost on American defence planners. Billions of American
dollars would be spent countering this new threat, in the form of new radars and interceptor
aeroplanes. This was all money that could have gone towards the development and production of
American offensive weapons. The Tu-95 helped the Soviet Union to reach a sort of rough military
parity with the US, at least in terms of nuclear weapons.
Tu-95M Bear-A taking off. Note the extensive white anti-flash finish on the undersides. (G. F. Petrov photo archive)

Tu-95K Series
Specifically designed to carry large air-to-surface missiles, the Tu-95K was the heavy bomber
analogue to the smaller medium bomber Tu-16K Badger and Tu-22K Blinder missile carriers
(described further on). Distinguished from the free-fall bomber Bear-A, the ‘K’ variants featured a
large ‘duck-billed’ radome covering the radar system in the nose, dispensing with the clear, glazed
nose of the earlier free-fall bomber versions. This large radar unit was the A-336Z YaD ‘Crown
Drum’ (its NATO reporting name) target illumination radar in the Tu-95K, Tu-95KD, and Tu-95KM.
This radar system consisted of the main radar, which was used for searching, and another radar for
guidance. In the Tu-95K-22, the YaD radar was replaced with the PNA-B radar (with the NATO
designation of ‘Down Beat’), although it was housed in the same radome as the earlier radar.
The early missile-carrying Bears were equipped to carry the supersonic turbojet-powered AS-3
(Kh-20) Kangaroo cruise missile. This missile was very large, nearly 50 feet (15 m) long, so it had to
be carried semi-recessed in the fuselage of the Bear missile carriers, fitting partly into what had been
the bomb bay. As a result of the missile’s size, each Bear could only carry one Kangaroo missile. The
Kangaroo could be armed with up to a 3-megaton nuclear warhead (in the Kh-20M version).
The first Tu-95 converted to the ‘K’ configuration flew for the initial time on 1 January 1956. The
second aircraft followed in the summer of 1956. Tupolev’s tests of the Tu-95K and K-20 Kompleks
took place between 4 August 1956 and 24 January 1957. During tests, the Kangaroo missile was
found to be effective against both non-moving ground targets and against large ships.
The first of the Tu-95Ks were produced in the spring of 1958 with the aircraft becoming
operational in September 1959 (one source states that the K-20 system itself was declared
operational on 9 September 1960). Like most Bears, they were produced at Z.18 in Kuibyshev
(today’s Samara). Forty-seven new build Tu-95K production examples were built, with production
ending in 1962. Twenty-eight of the Tu-95Ks that were modified into Tu-95KDs were then modified
to the Tu-95KM. Twenty-three of the Tu-95KDs were new-build aircraft, constructed from 1962–65;
these were also modified into the Tu-95KM. The unconverted Tu-95Ks were used into the early
1980s. Some were converted into trainers as the Tu-95KU. The total number of new-build Tu-
95K/KDs was seventy (or seventy-one aircraft). All of the Tu-95KMs and Tu-95K-22s were
converted from earlier versions and were not new-build aircraft.

Tu-95K (Tu-95K-20) ‘Bear-B’

This first version of the Bear missile carriers could be distinguished from other ‘K’ versions by the
absence of a refuelling probe in the nose. It was equipped to carry the AS-3 Kangaroo missile, as part
of the K-20 system, the AS-3 also bearing the designation of ‘Kh-20’. The ‘K’ in Soviet missile
carriers’ designations referred to Kompleks, the Russian word for ‘Complex’, as the bomber was just
one part of the complex. This complex consisted of the missile carrier (the bomber), the missile, and
the radar and other guidance systems in both the air and on the ground that guided the missile to its
target. A Kompleks can be thought of as the equivalent of a ‘weapons system’. Since it was the second
variant of the Bear identified by NATO, it was assigned the reporting name of ‘Bear-B’, with the
earlier glass-nosed free-fall bomber versions retroactively becoming the ‘Bear-A’.
The AS-3 (Kh-20) Kangaroo missile was partially accommodated in the bomb bay, with the lower
half extending into the airstream. A fairing was fitted over the nose of the turbojet-powered missile to
prevent the slipstream from causing the jet’s turbine blades to windmill in flight. Before launching,
the missile was lowered into the airstream.
The Tu-95Ks first became operational in 1959, but testing of the AS-4 (Kh-20) Kangaroo missile
continued. Between January and October 1962, nineteen Kangaroo missiles carried by Tu-95Ks
based at Mozdok were launched, with fifteen considered to have hit their (theoretical) targets. This
gave a success rate of 79 per cent, which was considered good, especially taking into account that
this was still a new, complicated weapons system.
Those Tu-95Ks that had not been converted into the later ‘K’ variants were retired from the
missile-carrying role in the 1980s, due partly to their shorter range (they did not have the refuelling
probe), and were converted into trainers (the Tu-95KU—see further on). One Tu-95K has been
preserved at Dyagilevo, and is apparently the only original airframe Tu-95 with all three turrets still
present and armed. A Kangaroo missile has also been preserved, and rests underneath it.

Tu-95K-22 ‘Bear-G’
It became clear to the Soviets that the large Kangaroo missile was obsolete by the late 1960s, so
work began towards developing a Bear that would use the smaller, faster (with a top speed of Mach
4.6), rocket-powered AS-4 (Raduga Kh-22 Burya) ‘Kitchen’ (its NATO name) missile, which had
been developed originally for the Tu-22 Blinder. It was decided to upgrade the Tu-95KM missile-
carrying Bears in 1973-74 to carry the Kitchen, pursuant to a Council of Ministers decision in
February 1973. The first converted aircraft had its initial flight on 30 October 1975. Development
was very protracted, and the Tu-95KMs were not converted into the Kitchen-carrying variant until
1981, and did not become fully operational until 1987, being the last of the original airframe Tu-95s
to go into service (by contrast, the heavily redesigned new-build Tu-95 variant, the Tu-142 Bear-F,
had already become operational in late 1972).
The variant that emerged was the Tu-95K-22, designated ‘Bear-G’ by NATO. Dispensing with the
K-20 system (which included the Kh-20 (AS-3) Kangaroo missile), the Tu-95K-22 was a part of the
K-95-22 Kompleks or weapons system, which consisted of the Kh-22 (AS-4) Kitchen missile, the
radar system of the Bear, and the Bear itself. The YaD radar of the earlier ‘K’ variants was replaced
by the PNA-B Rubin radar (‘Ruby’ in Russian; the same radar as used by the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B),
although it was housed in the same radome as used by the YaD radar.
This version differed externally from the earlier missile carrier versions of the ‘K’ by the small
fairing protruding from the tip of the nose, and especially by the large streamlined fairing that
replaced the tail gunner position. This ECM fairing was occupied with the SPS-153 Rezeda
(‘Mignonette’) jamming equipment and retained windows and the original clear blisters on each side,
so this position was apparently still manned. The fairing itself was called the UKhO, for Unifi-
Tserovaniy Khvostovoy Otsek, for ‘Standardised Tail Bay’. As a general caveat, please note that
there seems to be some confusion and contradiction between different sources over which bombers
carried which ECM suites, and that there were at least two distinct tail cones, a narrower tail cone
normally associated with the UKhO designation, and a larger, more compressed tail cone that
appeared on some Tu-16s.
The small thimble-shaped fairing at the very tip of the nose housed the SPS-141 Sirena (‘Lilac’,
sometimes spelled as Siren’ or Siren) jammer. In order to carry up to three Kitchen missiles (which
was seldom done, a more normal load being one or two missiles), two BD-45K racks were installed
under the inner portions of the wing, between the Nos. 2 and 3 engines and the fuselage, with one BD-
45F installed on the fuselage centreline. These racks were the same as those used on the Tu-22M
Backfire to carry these missiles. Some Tu-95K-22s were equipped with small pods under the wing to
sample for radiation in the air. These were RR8311-100 pods and were evidently used to keep track
of nuclear tests in China.
The Bear-G’s service life was rather short; this version started to be withdrawn in the 1990s and
was the last of the Tu-95s with the original airframe to be in active first-line service. Indeed, it was
the last of the original airframe Tu-95s to go into service, not entering service until 1987, its
development being a rather long and protracted affair (as described previously). The Tu-95K-22s,
along with the other ‘K’ variants of the Bear, were mostly scrapped in the 1990s as part of arms
reduction agreements. At least one Tu-95K-22 escaped the chop and is preserved at Engels air base,
along with its Kitchen missiles, with one still mounted on its rack under the port wing root. It is not
clear if any of the missile-carrying early airframe Bears were put into storage.
Tu-95K-22 Bear-G. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Tu-95K-22 Bear-G from the front. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Tu-95KD ‘Bear-B’
Otherwise outwardly similar to the earlier Tu-95K, these aircraft were distinguished from them by the
presence of a nose probe, and was apparently the first Bear to be equipped with one. The telescoping
probe was mounted just above the YaD radome. The ‘D’ in the name was evidently for Dalniy, or
‘Long-Range’ in Russian. This ‘D’ commonly appeared in a bomber’s service designation whenever
it was re-equipped with a refuelling probe.
One problem with the K-20 system was that the weight and drag of the huge Kangaroo missile
lessened the range of the Tu-95K by nearly 1,243 miles (2,000 km). On 28 April 1959, the Council of
Ministers approved a proposal for Tupolev to equip the Tu-95 for aerial refuelling. At first, the
wingtip refuelling method used on the Tu-16 was considered, but the flexing of the Bear’s long, thin
wings made this impractical (although frankly the wingtip refuelling method always seemed a bit
impractical to begin with). It was then decided to go with the probe-and-drogue system, which had
been developed by the British in the 1940s, and was called the Konus (‘Cone’ in Russian). A long
refuelling hose, with a cone-shaped ‘drogue’ at the end of it (which led to the Russian name of Konus,
or ‘Cone’ for the probe-and-drogue system), was extended behind the tanker, with the drogue being
engaged by the probe of the aircraft to be refuelled. Once the aircraft was fuelled up, it disengaged
from the drogue, and the hose was reeled back into the tanker. Accordingly, a Council of Ministers
decision dated 10 May 1960 directed Tupolev to equip a Tu-95 with this system.
Tests conducted between 5 July 1961 and 30 January 1962 with the probe-and-drogue system were
successful. The Bear, refuelled by a Bison tanker, could take up to 50 tons of fuel in flight. In addition
to the probe, radio equipment was installed to enable the bomber to communicate with the tanker.
Numbers differ slightly from different sources, but apparently, around two dozen Tu-95KDs were
built new from 1962–65, with some older Tu-95Ks converted to this standard with the refuelling
probes added. According to Russian historian Yefim Gordon, twenty-three were built new, with
twenty-eight converted to this standard, totalling fifty-one Tu-95KDs built or converted.

Tu-95KM ‘Bear-C’
Upgrades of the Tu-95KD, the Tu-95KM Bear-Cs, were converted in the late 1960s. Like the other
versions of the ‘K’ missile-carrying Bear variants, the Bear-C featured a large ‘duck-billed’ radome
in the nose. Like the Tu-95KD (all of which were converted into the Bear-C), it featured a nose probe
to provide IFR capability. It could be distinguished externally from the Tu-95KD by two fairings on
each side of the rear fuselage (as with the Bear-E and Bear-D), these housing the SRS-6 Romb-4A
electronic surveillance system. This system was used to locate targets by their electronic emissions. It
was used in conjunction with an improved version of the AS-3 Kangaroo, the ‘Kh-20M’, which now
carried a 3-megaton warhead in place of the 800-kiloton warhead it had carried in its earlier
incarnation. The tail turret radar was upgraded from the PRS-1 Argon to the PRS-4 Krypton (with the
NATO reporting name of ‘Box Tail’).
NATO assigned this modernised version of the Tu-95K the reporting name of ‘Bear-C’. Like the
Tu-95KD Bear-B, some were modified into the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G. As with a number of the Tu-95K-
22s, several Bear-Cs were equipped with small pods under the wing to sample for radiation in the
air, in order to monitor nuclear tests.
Apparently, all the Tu-95KMs were conversions from Tu-95KDs, which would give a figure of
fifty-one Tu-95KMs (if no Tu-95KDs had been lost since they were built or converted). Only the Tu-
95KDs were converted—the Tu-95Ks that had not been converted to Tu-95KDs were not converted
to Tu-95KMs (at least not completely, as some never received the refuelling probe), going straight
from this version to the training version: the Tu-95KU.

Tu-95KU
These training aircraft were Tu-95Ks that were converted into training aircraft in the 1980s after their
operational days were over. As with the Tu-95Ks, they were converted from, they did not have the
refuelling probe. It is unclear if any probe-equipped Tu-95Ks (Tu-95KMs or Tu-95K-22s) became
trainers; most of them may have been scrapped as part of arms limitation treaties.

Tu-95LAL
One of the most interesting conversions of the Bear was this variant, which was a one-off Tu-95
equipped with a live nuclear reactor housed in the middle of the aircraft. All armament and
extraneous military equipment was removed from the Bear to enable it to carry the heavy reactor. The
reactor did not power the aircraft, and the aircraft was designed to test the effect of nuclear radiation
on the airframe and determine ways to protect the airframe and the crew from the resulting radiation,
in case a nuclear-powered aircraft was designed and built.
The aircraft was actually flown in 1961 with the reactor functioning. The Tu-95LAL was fitted
with several radiation detectors, around the crew and the reactor. It flew over thirty missions from
May to August 1961, with the reactor being both on and off. Due to effective protection, the radiation
received by the crew (no doubt much to their relief) was minimal, and that part of the testing was
considered successful. However, work towards any nuclear-powered aircraft was seen as
impractical, probably because of the great expense involved, and so was not seriously pursued.
Evidently, the designation of ‘Tu-119’ was even reserved for a nuclear-powered Bear, but nothing
else came of this.

Tu-95LL
Due to its tall landing gear and good weight-lifting capabilities, the Bear was a natural for testing jet
engines, with the engine suspended from the bomb bay. The Tu-95LL was the first Bear to be used as
a flying laboratory (‘LL’ standing for Letayushchaya Laboratoriya, or ‘Flying Laboratory’ in
Russian, this being a common designation for any aircraft modified for aerial testing purposes). This
first Bear ‘LL’ was converted from the 95/2, the second Bear prototype, modified to be able to
accommodate a large engine mounted on a trapeze-like assembly in the bomb bay, which would then
lower the engine in flight into the airstream. The Tu-95LL continued in use for engine testing for
fifteen years until it was damaged in an accident. It was replaced by the Tu-142LL, described further
on.

Tu-95M ‘Bear-A’
Like the Tu-95A, this was a bomber variant of the Bear that was meant to drop free-fall bombs.
Despite the different Soviet designation (‘M’ as opposed to ‘A’, or no suffix at all), these aircraft
shared the same NATO designation of ‘Bear-A’, as did the first version of the Tu-95 to bear the
designation of ‘Tu-95MA’ (see further on). The ‘M’ stood for Modifitsirovanniy or ‘Modified’. These
aircraft featured 15,000 shp NK-12M turboprops, which were more fuel-efficient and powerful than
earlier versions of the engine. The Tu-95M prototype completed trials in 1958. It had a top speed of
560 mph (902 kph), and a range of 8,202 miles (13,200 km). The Tu-95M was equipped with RBP-4
Rubin ‘Short Horn’ (its NATO reporting name) and Rubin-1KV attack radars. Despite the
improvement it showed over the earlier versions of the Bear-A, only eighteen were produced,
probably because the DA had decided that the free-fall bomber was obsolete, and that it needed to
concentrate on missile carriers. After their bomber service had concluded, as with the Tu-95A, they
were converted into Tu-95U training aircraft.

Tu-95MA ‘Bear-A’
This was apparently the designation for those Tu-95Ms that were optimised for carrying nuclear
bombs, with the climate-controlled bomb bays. These aircraft differed from the nuclear optimised Tu-
95As in incorporating the improvements of the Tu-95M over the original Tu-95. This version is not to
be confused with the single Tu-95, also designated as the ‘Tu-95MA’ that was used in the
development of the Tu-95MS ‘Bear-H’. This ‘Tu-95MA’ is described further on in the section on the
Tu-142/Tu-95MS.

Tu-95M-5
In October 1976, a Tu-95M was modified to carry the AS-6 (KSR-5) Kingfish missile on underwing
pylons. These were the same missiles that were carried by some of the Tu-16K missile carriers
(described further on). This aircraft was also modified to carry the same radar used by the Tu-16K-
26s, the Rubin-1KV. In addition, it carried an SPS-153 jammer in an elongated fairing (the UKhO
fairing), like those fitted to the Tu-95K-22s. The aircraft was tested until 21 May 1976, when testing
was ended. The programme was dropped as the Tu-95K-22, with the K-95-22 system and its larger
(and longer-ranged) AS-4 (Kh-22M) Kitchen missile seemed to be more promising.

Tu-95M-55 (Prototype)
The development of the missile carrier that became the Tu-95MS Bear-H began in July 1977. As part
of this development, the Tu-95M-55 was converted from the Tu-95M-5 to test the Kh-55 Granat
missile, which became the AS-15 ‘Kent’ (‘Kent’ is its NATO reporting name). Different launch
systems were tested, using both pylons and a rotary launcher (the MKU-6-5, the ‘MKU’ standing for
Mnogozaryadnaya Katapultnaya Ustanovka, or ‘Multi-round Catapulting Device’) in the bomb bay.
The converted aircraft first flew on 31 July 1978. During the ensuing three and a half years various
versions of the Kh-55 were tested. Unfortunately, on 28 January 1982, the aircraft crashed on take-off,
killing all aboard, which may have occurred due to icing on the wings and the stabilisers.
Nonetheless, this Tu-95 contributed a great deal to the development of the Tu-95MS.

Tu-95MR ‘Bear-E’
As a result of its immense range, the Bear lent itself to the role of maritime reconnaissance. To this
end, four (although one source states twelve) Tu-95MRs were converted from Tu-95M bombers for
this role, with additional radar as compared to the bomber versions, and with the bomb bay full of
cameras in place of bombs. Besides being capable of photographic reconnaissance, the Bear-E was
also capable of gathering electronic intelligence (ELINT).
Despite their small numbers, the Bear-E was a fairly common site as it shadowed various fleets,
and was sometimes photographed by Western aircraft as a result. The Bear-E retained the normal
defensive armament of three turrets. These aircraft went into service in December 1964 and were
heavily used into the late 1980s. During the 1960s, they often flew in pairs with the missile-carrying
Tu-95KM Bear-C. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Bear-Es usually flew alone.
The Bear-E was superseded by the Tu-142, which was designed at least partially as a replacement
for it and the Tu-95RTs Bear-Ds. The few Bear-Es were relegated to the training role under the ‘Tu-
95U’ designation by the terms of the START I agreement, which seems a bit curious to this author as
the Bear-E was clearly not a bomber version of the Bear, nor was it directly involved with missile
guidance, unlike the Bear-D, which was. Perhaps it had something to do with the number of ‘possible’
missile carriers allowed under the agreement.

Tu-95N
This version was intended to carry a manned, ramjet-powered supersonic aircraft (the Tsybin ‘RS’
reconnaissance aeroplane). This reconnaissance aircraft was to be powered by two ramjet engines
and have a top speed of 1,864 mph (3,000 kph). The modifications on the Tu-95N were completed by
1958. It is not clear what the ‘N’ stood for, but an alternate designation was ‘Tu-95SRS’. This Tu-95
was converted from the very first production Tu-95. All armament, including the dorsal turret (very
probably) and ventral turret (definitely), were removed from the Tu-95N aircraft, although the tail
turret position remained, albeit without its cannons.
In the event, the experimental ‘RS’ aircraft was never built, as the Council of Ministers decided to
stop all work on the ‘RS’ system. The Tu-95N languished at the Tupolev flight test facility for several
years, and then was donated to the Air Force Museum at Monino. The sole Tu-95N survives to this
day at the museum at Monino, one of the few examples of the original Bear airframe that still exists.

Tu-95RTs ‘Bear-D’
The Tu-95MR Bear-E was not the only dedicated reconnaissance version of the original Bear design.
Another variant saw much service, the Tu-95RTs, where the ‘RTs’ stood for Razvedchik
Tseleukahzatel, ‘Reconnaissance-target Designator’ in Russian (note that the ‘Ts’ is transliterated
from a single Cyrillic letter that represents this sound). This version of the Bear was an over-the-
horizon targeting and maritime reconnaissance aircraft that was the result of a Council of Ministers’
request. Development took place over the period of 1959–1963. The aircraft was intended to help
guide submarine-launched P-6 anti-shipping missiles for over-the-horizon targeting, as the submarine
was incapable of guiding the missile once it had reached the horizon. The aircraft also had the
capability to perform radar observation, photographic reconnaissance, and electronic surveillance of
surface ships.
It was characterised by the huge teardrop-shaped radome on the underside of the fuselage,
covering the large radar unit that now occupied the bomb bay. This radar was the MTsRS-1 Uspekh
radar (‘Success’ in Russian, with the rather appropriate NATO reporting name of ‘Big Bulge’), which
had a revolving dish with a 360-degree search capability. It was an X-band acquisition and guidance
radar. In addition, there was a smaller but still sizeable fairing under the nose which housed the
transmitter antenna, part of the Arfa (‘Harp’ in Russian) data link system, which relayed information
about the target to the missile launching submarine. This fairing was much larger than that fitted to the
earlier bomber variants of the Bear, which had housed the Rubidy-MM bombing radar.
The nose was still glazed as with the early bomber versions. Besides its huge under fuselage
radome, one of the identifying features of the Bear-D was its cigar-shaped fairings on the tips of the
horizontal stabilisers. The fairings contained elements of the Arfa data link system. Like the Tu-95MR
(and Tu-95K-22), the Tu-95RTs also featured long tear-dropped shaped fairings on either side of the
aft fuselage, which contained ECM equipment.
The Tu-95RTs first started its state tests on 21 September 1962. These tests revealed problems
with the Uspekh radar system, and the final portion of the acceptance trials were not completed until
more than two years later in December 1964. Despite the initial problems with the Uspekh radar,
production had started at Kuibyshev in 1963, with a total of fifty-three new-build aircraft being
produced. The production aircraft differed from the converted prototype in having the in-flight
refuelling nose probe installed. Since these probes were installed from the start on the production
examples, there was never such a thing as a ‘Tu-95RTsD’ designation. Although the acceptance trials
were not completed until December 1964, the Tupolev OKB considered the aircraft to have achieved
initial operational capability (IOC) by August 1964 with the AVMF, which all the Bear-Ds were
delivered to. As well as the official NATO reporting name of ‘Bear-D’, these aircraft were
sometimes known in the West by the nickname of the ‘Eastern Express’.
As it often shadowed American (and other Western) fleets, it was very commonly photographed in
flight, often with an accompanying Western fighter escort; indeed, one of the duties of these fighter
‘escorts’ was to photograph the Bears for later examination. Although it did not carry any offensive
armament, as the Uspekh radar now occupied the former bomb bay, it still retained its full defensive
complement of six turret-mounted AM-23 23-mm cannons. As part of the etiquette that developed
around shadowing American fleets and being intercepted by American fighters, the cannons were not
supposed to be trained on their American (and other Western) ‘escorts’, although how often this was
honoured in the breach is not known to this author; I have seen at least one photograph where the
dorsal turret, normally retracted, has been raised, as if ready for action. Likewise, American aircraft
were not supposed to target or ‘paint’ the Tu-95 with their radar, but this courtesy was not always
followed. It was at times like these that the Cold War seemed rather like an elabourate game, albeit a
very dangerous one.
The Bear-D served with the AVMF from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s. During the 1970s and the
1980s, Bear-Ds operated to and from the former US bases in Vietnam at Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay.
They also operated out of Cuba, Angola, and Guinea; these bases helped to give the Bear-D a
worldwide range. Like the Tu-95MR Bear-E, the Tu-95RTs was superseded in the 1980s by the Tu-
142, which it had served as the basis for. Its operational service was also rendered redundant by
increasing reliance on satellites for locating and tracking ships.

Tu-95RTs Bear-D being intercepted by an F-4 Phantom II in September 1973. (Public Domain)

Tu-95U
When the early Tu-95A and Tu-95M had reached the end of their useful lives as operational bombers,
they were converted into trainers, with the bombing equipment removed. The ‘U’ in the designation
Tu-95U stood for Uchebniy, or ‘Trainer’. A red band around the fuselage indicating they had been
demilitarised distinguished them from the bomber versions (a note to modellers: this red band was
not always painted perfectly neat). Interestingly, some of the Tu-95Us retained the armed turrets;
perhaps so armourers could be trained. These trainers were used into the 1990s, when they were
finally retired, and were some of the last of the original airframe Tu-95s in service in any capacity,
along with the Tu-95K-22s.

Tu-95V
Specially modified, this Bear was designed to carry the enormous AN602 Tsar Bomba (‘King Bomb’
in Russian) hydrogen bomb, the heaviest and most powerful bomb ever built. The bomb was too large
to fit into the Tu-95’s normal bomb bay, so a Tu-95 was modified into the Tu-95V to carry the Tsar
Bomba semi-externally. The Tu-95V was apparently designated with the ‘V’ for Vanya (‘Little Ivan’,
basically ‘Johnny’), ‘Ivan’ being the official name of the Tsar Bomba (its unofficial and more well-
known nickname, at least in the West). It is also possible that the ‘V’ stood for Vodorodnaya Bomba,
or ‘Hydrogen Bomb’.
The Tu-95V was ready to carry and drop the bomb by late 1959. However, this was delayed for
political reasons, as Premier Khrushchev was going to visit the United States, and it was not
considered to be a good idea to have the Soviet Union drop an enormous nuclear bomb during his
visit. As a result, the drop was put off.
By 1961, conditions had returned to what passed for normal in the Cold War, and the Tu-95V was
refurbished so it could drop the Tsar Bomba to overawe the West. The Tu-95V dropped this immense
bomb over Novaya Zemlya, an island archipelago in the Soviet Arctic, where the bomb detonated in
the air on 30 October 1961. The Tu-95V was damaged by the resultant enormous blast, but both it and
its crew survived.
Not only did the Tu-95V survive the blast, after sitting derelict for some time at Vayenga in the
northern Soviet Union, it was repaired and used to transport parts of the Tu-144 ‘Charger’ supersonic
transport. After its retirement from these duties, it survived as a ground instruction airframe until the
mid-1980s when it was presumably scrapped. One wonders if those working on this instructional
airframe knew of its history and worried about any residual radiation.

Tu-96
This development of the original Bear design was intended as a high altitude bomber and featured
longer-span wings (similar to those fitted to the Tu-114 transport development of the Tu-95). It was
also intended to equip it with different engines from production Tu-95s, but the prototype was
completed with the standard production NK-12 turboprops. In external appearance, it differed little
from a standard early version of the Tu-95, such as a Tu-95M. It was designed to operate at altitudes
of from 52,493 feet to 55,774 feet (16,000 m to 17,000 m).

The Tu-96 prototype. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Development started in 1952, and it was intended that the TV-16 turboprop engines designed by
the Kuznetsov OKB would power it. These engines were designed to deliver 12,000 shp (shaft-horse
power) up to an altitude of 45,932 feet (14,000 m). As it was, the engines were not ready in time for
the initial tests, so the Tu-96 made its first flight in the summer of 1956 utilising the NK-12 engines
used by the normal Tu-95. Only one Tu-96 was built, as it was becoming increasingly apparent that
the appearance of better interceptors and surface-to-air missiles had rendered even high altitude
bombing over a strategic target too dangerous.

The Bear Redesigned—The Tu-142 and Tu-95MS

Tu-142 (‘Bear-F’ and ‘Bear-J’)
Only a handful of Tu-95MRs had been built, but the Soviet Union still desired an extremely long-
range dedicated maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft, something for
which neither the Tu-95MRs nor the Tu-95RTs were designed for. The Tu-142 was developed
specifically for these roles for the AVMF (the Soviet Naval Air Force), and was different enough
from the original Tu-95 design to be re-designated as the ‘Tu-142’.
The Tu-142 was based upon the Tu-95RTs reconnaissance and targeting aircraft, one of the aircraft
it was designed to replace. This redesign stemmed from a Council of Ministers’ resolution dated 28
February 1963 directing Tupolev to build a long-range ASW aircraft. The Tu-142 differed from the
Tu-95RTs in quite a few ways. One involved the defensive armament, with the two remote-controlled
turrets of the Tu-95RTs being deleted, freeing up space in the fuselage to house additional avionics.
The tail turret was retained for self-defence and was equipped with two of the AM-23 23-mm
cannons in early versions of the Tu-142, in the same installation they had had in the early Tu-95s,
complete with the clear side blisters. As with later versions of the Tu-95MS, in later versions of the
Tu-142, these AM-23 cannons were replaced by two twin-barrelled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 23-
mm cannons in a hemispherical turret and the side observation blisters were removed, with additional
sensors such as two rear warning radar pods added underneath the fuselage tail section.
One of the most important changes involved the replacement of the Bear-D’s Uspekh main radar
with the Berkut search and targeting radar (‘Golden Eagle’ in Russian, with the rather odd NATO
reporting name of ‘Wet Eye’). This radar had been used by the smaller Il-38 ‘May’ ASW aircraft.
Still mounted on the underside of the central fuselage, this radome, although still quite substantial,
was smaller than the huge fairing fitted to the Bear-D. The Berkut system relied upon four channels to
detect submarines—magnetic, thermal, radar, and hydro acoustic (sonar). Unlike the Bear-D, the
Bear-F had a bomb bay mounted aft of this radar installation to house ASW weapons. Aft of this was
a bay for sonobuoys.
Besides its main role as an ASW aircraft, the Tu-142 was also to function as an electronic
surveillance aircraft, and towards that end was equipped with the Kvadrant-2 (‘Quadrant’) and Kub-
3 (‘Cube’) SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) systems. The Tu-142 could even act in the unglamorous but
important role of a meteorological reconnaissance aircraft. As an ASW aircraft, the Tu-142 is the
largest production aircraft ever built for that role.
 The wings were changed from the early Tu-95 versions, with a different aerofoil shape and a
larger wing area with two-segment flaps. The rubber wing fuel tanks were replaced by rigid metal
tanks. The elevators were also increased in size by 14 per cent and in addition, the rudder area was
increased. Irreversible hydraulic boosters, replacing the mechanical units that had been favoured by
Andrey Tupolev, now operated the control surfaces. Although retaining the cigar-shaped fairings at
the ends of the horizontal tail planes (as with the Bear-D), these now housed elements of the Lira data
link system (‘Lyre’ in Russian); this replaced the Arfa system used on the Tu-95RTs Bear-D.
One controversial change concerned the main landing gear—the Tu-142 was initially intended to
be able to operate from rough, unprepared airfields so the main landing gear consisted of huge
twelve-wheel bogies as opposed to the four-wheel bogies standard on the Tu-95 (and later versions
of the Tu-142). This necessitated that the inner nacelles be lengthened and broadened to accommodate
these much larger units. It was soon realised that the original requirement to be able to operate from
unprepared airfields was unrealistic, and the larger landing gear and nacelles added weight and drag
to the aircraft. Therefore, only the first series of the Tu-142s were equipped with the twelve-wheel
bogies; all the subsequent Tu-142s returned to the four-wheel bogies.
The first flight of the Tu-142 prototype occurred on 18 June (or July) 1968. The second prototype,
which first flew on 3 September 1968, featured a fuselage extension of 5.6 feet (1.7 m) to help
accommodate all the new systems that had been fitted. This fuselage extension was to be present on
all subsequent Tu-142s.
The first Tu-142s were delivered to the AVMF in May 1970 to the Northern Fleet. The Tu-142
was declared operational on 14 December 1972 by the Council of Ministers.
More than a hundred Tu-142s of all versions were built at the Kuibyshev and Taganrog plants, and
the Tu-142M and Tu-142MZ continue in their role of maritime reconnaissance and ASW with the
Russian AVMF. The Tu-142-MKE served with the Indian Navy, but was replaced with the American-
built Boeing P-8I Poseidons, with the last three Indian Tu-142s being decommissioned on 29 March
2017.

Tu-142 ‘Bear F’
In this first version of the Tu-142, the landing gear were different from those of Bears before (or
since). In order to meet a requirement for operation from unprepared airfields (questionable in
retrospect, or perhaps even at the time), this version featured twelve wheels mounted four apiece on
three axles on each of its main landing gear, instead of the normal four wheels mounted two apiece on
two axles for all the other Bear versions. This necessitated larger nacelles to house the larger gear.
This feature was not a success, however, as the added weight of the landing gear assembly and the
added weight and drag of the larger nacelles negatively affected performance. As a result, only
twelve or so Tu-142s were built with the twelve-wheel bogies, the later Tu-142s reverting to the
standard four-wheel arrangement. These Tu-142s with the twelve-wheel bogies apparently earned the
nickname of Sorokonozhka (‘Centipede’) in Soviet service.
An early Tu-142 Bear-F (‘Centipede’) preserved at Poltava in Ukraine. Note the AS-5 (KSR-2) Kelt missile in front of the aeroplane.
(Ken Duffey)

Tu-142 ‘Bear-F Mod 1’

In this version of the Tu-142, the twelve-wheel bogies were exchanged for strengthened versions of
the original four-wheel bogies (evidently based upon those of the Tu-114, a transport development of
the Tu-95). In addition to problems with the landing gear on the initial Tu-142s, there were problems
with the avionics, as the avionics had not been tested together before being installed into the Tu-142,
with the result that some of the avionics interfered with each other. This was partly solved by deleting
the infrared equipment (part of the Berkut system, the infrared portion of which proved of little use,
and simplifying the ECM suite). As the infrared equipment had been housed in a fairing under the
nose, this fairing was now deleted. Additionally, bunks were now added to allow the crew to rest on
long sorties.
This was the last version of the Tu-142 to be built at Kuibyshev, with production from then on
being transferred to Z.86 at Taganrog, on the Sea of Azov in southern Russia. Evidently, keeping the
factory at Taganrog engaged entered into the decision. Including the ‘Centipede’, Z.18 at Kuibyshev
produced eighteen Tu-142s, twelve aircraft with the twelve-wheel bogies and six aircraft with the
four-wheel bogies (the Tu-142 ‘Bear F Mod 1’).

Tu-142LL
With the crash of the Tu-95LL and resultant irreparable damage, the Soviets needed a replacement
aircraft to test engines in the air. The replacement chosen was the prototype Tu-142, which was
converted into the ‘LL’ configuration in the early 1970s. This aircraft was used until the airframe was
time-expired in the mid-1980s. Its replacement was the first Tu-142MK, which was still being used at
Zhukovskiy as late as the mid-1990s. It is not clear from the record what either aircraft’s ultimate fate
was.

Tu-142M ‘Bear-F Mod 2’

The zavod at Taganrog did not just produce the Tu-142 without making changes. The Tu-142s
produced at Taganrog were the first versions of the Tu-142 that introduced a redesigned flight deck,
with a taller cockpit roof and lengthened cockpit (by 0.3 m or roughly 1 foot) for more room and
greater crew comfort, changing the profile of this part of the glass-nosed Tu-95s for the first time. The
Tu-95 nose section could trace its ancestry through the Tu-85 Barge back to the Tu-80, an enhanced
version of the Tu-4 Bull. This Tu-142 version still retained the glazed nose. The ‘M’ in the
designation probably stood for Modifitsirovanniy or ‘modified’.
Production at the Taganrog zavod took some time to get underway, and the first production
examples from here were not rolled off the production lines until 1975, with production of this
version continuing for two years. Although the AVMF did not distinguish this version from the
previous Kuibyshev-built version, NATO bestowed upon it the designation of ‘Bear-F Mod 2’, with
the Kuibyshev version with the four-wheel bogies becoming retroactively the ‘Bear-F Mod 1’. Once
again, we can see the confusing disconnect between Soviet designations and NATO designations, an
unfortunately recurring theme when dealing with post-war Soviet aircraft.

Tu-142MK ‘Bear-F Mod 3’

A resolution was made by the Council of Ministers on 14 January 1969 to build the Tu-142M version
of the Bear, with the Korshun radar (‘Kite’ in Russian, referring to the small hawk) replacing the
Berkut radar, which had been found lacking in its ability to detect submarines. The first flight was not
made until 4 November 1975 by V. I. Vedernikov, indicating the time it took to make this version
ready. There were further delays and the aircraft was not officially fielded by the AVMF until a
resolution was issued by the government on 19 November 1980. Thus, over ten years elapsed from
the issuance of the resolution until this version of the Bear became officially operational, indicating
the problems with getting the avionics and other equipment to function properly.
In order to handle the new equipment, the cockpit crew increased from eight to nine members. To
provide more comfort, the seats were angled back, and the pilot and co-pilot could move their seats
back and forth by 6.3–8.7 inches (160–220 mm) using an electrical drive. The cockpit was widened
at the pilots’ position by 7.1 inches (180 mm). One immediate visual difference from the earlier Tu-
142s was a long cylindrical fairing protruding back from the top of the tail fin and angled slightly
upwards. This housed the MMS-106 Ladoga (‘Ladoga’ being a large lake in Karelia, near Finland)
magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) device for detecting large metal masses under the water—
submarines. It was not immediately successful as several systems had to be turned off for it to work,
and the metallic mass of the aircraft beneath it also limited its usefulness (installing it at the very top
of the aircraft was probably not the optimum placement for it).
The Tu-142MK replaced the Tu-142M on the production lines at Taganrog, and forty-three aircraft
were built from 1974–86. It continues to serve alongside the later Tu-142MZ with the AVMF as of
2018.

Tu-142MP (Prototype)
This was the designation of a single Tu-142 that was modified to test the Atlandida (‘Atlantis’) ASW
suite. It underwent tests in 1976 but did not go into production.

Tu-142MR ‘Bear-J’
This version of the Bear is used to communicate via low-frequency radio with submerged Russian
submarines, and is equipped with an extremely long and flexible wire antenna for this purpose. It is
equivalent to the US Navy’s Boeing E-6 Mercury TACAMO (‘Take Charge and Move’) aircraft. It is
characterised not just by the thimble nose radome (housing the Groza-134VR radar) replacing the
nose glazing of earlier Tu-95s and Tu-142s, but also by the large reel structure mounted underneath
the fuselage necessary to reel in and stow the miles-long antenna. It is this antenna, which is
reportedly 25,197 feet long (4.77 miles or 7.68 km), that is used to communicate with submarines via
VLF (very-low-frequency) radio frequencies. The Bear-J also has a distinctive long forward-facing
fairing on top of the fin, somewhat like the MAD stinger carried by most versions of the ASW Tu-
142s, but facing in the opposite direction. This fairing does not carry MAD equipment, but an HF
(high-frequency) aerial.
The Bear-J is still equipped with the twin-cannon manned tail turret position, with the GSh-23 23-
mm cannons (the same installation as that used on the Tu-142MZ). The long antenna can become
twisted and kinked with usage, and has to be replaced from time to time. The ‘R’ in the designation
stands for Retranslyator, roughly meaning ‘Communications Relay Installation’.
The first prototype retained the glazed nose of earlier Tu-142s, and served operationally alongside
the Tu-142MRs with the solid nose, although the prototype retained its glass nose.
It is thought that around ten were built, and they continue in service with the Russian AVMF. As of
2018, they operate from the Fedotovo air base at Kipelovo, located in the north of Russia, north of
Moscow and roughly due east of Saint Petersburg.

Tu-142MRTs (Prototype)
This was a one-off conversion of a Tu-142 to a dedicated maritime reconnaissance role. However,
due to changing operational requirements (and the increasing reliance on satellites for
reconnaissance), it remained a sole prototype.

Tu-142MZ ‘Bear-F Mod 4’

An enhanced version of the Bear-F, this version features the Nashatyr-Nefrit (‘Ammonia-Jade’)
ASW suite, which was part of the new Korshun-KN-N suite. One source has the new avionics more
than doubling the efficiency of the search and targeting system. Sometimes, this aircraft is seen
designated as the ‘Tu-142M3’, as the Cyrillic ‘Z’ looks exactly like the number ‘3’; this is an
incorrect transliteration of the Russian name for this Bear variant. To distinguish it from the ‘Bear-F
Mod 3’, NATO assigned it the reporting name of ‘Bear-F Mod 4’.
In addition to the improved avionics, this version also received improved versions of the NK-12
engines, the NK-12MP replacing the NK-12MV. Externally, this version can be identified by the small
‘thimble’ radome at the very tip of the nose (similar to that fitted to the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G) and the
fairing under the nose, which contains several antennae.
The defensive armament was also improved. Where the earlier Tu-142s had the original airframe
style tail turret with the AM-23 23-mm cannons, the Tu-142MZ featured the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B
type turret with two twin-barrelled GSh-23 23-mm cannons.
The Tu-142MZ prototype started state trials in late 1987, with the production version becoming
fully operational with the AVMF in 1993. The production run of this version was a short one, with
only eighteen being produced, as production ended in 1994. This was, perhaps, premature, and
perhaps due at least partly to the dire economic conditions in Russia at the time, although it had been
intended that only 100 Tu-142s were to be produced and at least 100 had been produced by then.
When the last Tu-142MZ rolled off the production lines at Taganrog in 1994, the production of the Tu-
142, and indeed the whole Bear family had finally come to an end.
As with the Tu-95MS, the Tu-142MZ shall undoubtedly continue in service with the AVMF for
some time, as there is no real replacement in sight. It still remains a capable ASW aircraft, with a
long range (the longest of any current ASW aircraft), and continuously upgraded avionics and
detection capabilities.

Tu-142MZ Bear-F preserved at Poltava. (Ken Duffey)

Nose of Tu-142MZ Bear-F preserved at Poltava. (Ken Duffey)

Three-quarters frontal view of Tu-142MZ Bear-F preserved at Poltava. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-95MA (Prototype)
Not to be confused with the earlier Tu-95MA, this aircraft was a Tu-95MS (the Tu-95MS is
described below) that was modified in 1993 to test new missiles. Two pylons were fitted under the
wing, apparently to carry the large experimental AS-19 Meteorit (‘Meteorite’) missile. The aircraft
was tested at Akhtubinsk at the Russian Air Force’s State Test Flight Centre. As the missile
programme ran into difficulties, the testing was suspended, then eventually ended. Information on both
this Tu-95 and the missile it tested is rather uncertain, and the missile tested might have been the AS-
X-21 (Kh-90), which, like the AS-19, was cancelled.

Tu-95MS ‘Bear-H’
By the 1960s, the Soviet Union were looking for a new long-range missile carrier, as it became
apparent that this was a much more practical and safer way for a bomber to deliver its payload than
level bombing over the target, which due to advances in defensive technology—such as surface-to-air
missiles—had become prohibitively dangerous. What was needed was a long-range bomber that
could carry so-called ‘stand-off’ missiles—missiles that could be fired hundreds of miles from their
target, thereby sparing the bomber, or missile carrier aircraft from having to survive the heavy
defences around the target.
Although the Tu-16 had proved amenable for development into a missile carrier (the Tu-22
Blinder had also been developed into a missile carrier), the Soviets likewise wanted a longer ranged
aircraft, in part to provide greater coverage of the world’s oceans. The obvious choice was the Tu-
95, with its range and load-carrying capability; this led to the development of the Tu-95K series of
missile-carrying aircraft, some of which were new-build aircraft, but some of which were
conversions of older ‘K’s as new missiles systems were introduced (as with the Tu-95K-22, all of
which were conversions). The development of the ‘K’ series has been discussed previously, but by
the 1970s, a new missile carrier was needed.
Instead of continuing to convert existing Tu-95Ks to this evolving role of missile carrier, the
decision was also made to reinstate production of the Tu-95, based upon the Tu-142 airframe, to
provide completely new-build Bears for this role. This new-build variant was designated the ‘Tu-
95MS’, with NATO giving it the reporting name of ‘Bear-H’.
Instead of being based upon the original airframe Tu-95s like the Tu-95Ks were, the Tu-95MS was
based upon the redesigned Bear airframe of the Tu-142MK ASW aircraft. It utilised a similar
fuselage and the redesigned wings of the Tu-142. Unlike the Tu-142, it dispensed with the glass nose,
instead housing the Obzor radar (‘Survey’ in Russian, or ‘Clam Pipe’ to use its NATO reporting
name) in a radome that was reminiscent of that fitted to the Tu-95K versions, but smaller. This is the
same radar that is utilised on the Tu-160 Blackjack, and on the Ka-25 ‘Hormone’ ASW helicopter.
Production began at the Taganrog plant in 1981 before being transferred to Kuibyshev in 1983, and
totalled thirty-one Tu-95MS-6s and fifty-seven Tu-95MS-16s for eighty-eight of all Tu-95MS
versions produced. The Tu-95MS achieved its IOC at Semipalatinsk air base in 1982. As of 2017,
sixty of these aircraft were still in frontline operational service, and it appears they will continue to
be so for quite some time.
The Tu-95MS continued in production until 1992, when production was stopped, thus ending the
production of new-build Tu-95s. By contrast, the production of new-build B-52s (the B-52H being
the last version) stopped in 1962.
The Tu-95MS can carry up to eight of the Kh-101 supersonic cruise missiles on underwing pylons.
These were reportedly used against targets in Syria in late 2015. Due to its size, the Kh-101 cannot be
carried internally.

Tu-95MS6
This version of the Tu-95MS is capable of carrying six cruise missiles on a MKU-6-5 rotary launcher
in the bomb bay. It can carry the subsonic AS-15 (Kh-55) Kent on these launchers. As noted
previously, the Kh-101 cannot be carried internally on the rotary launcher because of its size.

Tu-95MS16
Utilising not just the rotary launcher in the bomb bay, but also pylons under the wings, this version is
capable of carrying up to sixteen cruise missiles, with ten missiles on three racks under the wing
roots, and a double rack between the engines, in addition to the six carried on the rotary launcher in
the bomb bay. It no longer carries the AS-15 Kent cruise missiles it was intended to carry on the
underwing pylons, as these pylons were removed under the terms of the START I treaty. It can,
however, carry the Kh-101 cruise missile, externally, on racks.

Tu-95MS Bear-H at the Moscow Air Show (MAKS) in 2007. (Ken Duffey)
Tu-95MS Bear-H at the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force celebrations in 2012. (Ken Duffey)

Not only was the offensive armament changed, but the defensive armament was changed. Where
the earlier Tu-95MS had the early airframe style tail turret with the AM-23 23-mm cannons, the Tu-
95MS16, like the Tu-142MZ, features the Tu-22M2 type turret with two twin-barrelled GSh-23 23-
mm cannons.

Tu-95MSM
A modernised Tu-95MS, this version features improved avionics, presumably including a ‘glass
cockpit’, with electronic displays replacing most of the old-fashioned analogue dials. As of August
2017, some fifteen Tu-95MS had been updated to this version. Like the Tu-95MS16, it is equipped to
carry the Kh-101 (and apparently the Kh-102) cruise missile on external racks. A pair of external
racks are mounted between the fuselage and inner engines, with another pair of racks mounted
between the inner and outer engines. A Tu-95 fully equipped with eight of these missiles is a very
impressive sight indeed. It is likely that these were the cruise missiles that were used against targets
in Syria in 2015, with conventional warheads, of course, although it is not clear if these were fired by
the Tu-95MS or the modernised Tu-95MSM. Going forward, it is possible that eventually all existing
Tu-95MS will be converted to this standard, as no replacement for the Tu-95 is going to go into
operation any time soon.

Tu-126 ‘Moss’
The Tu-126 was in essence the Tu-114 transport (a transport derivation of the Tu-95) converted for
use as an early warning aircraft. For this role, it was equipped with a large rotating radar housed in a
disc-shaped aerodynamic fairing (a ‘rotodome’). It was the first Soviet AWACS (Airborne Warning
and Control System) aircraft, and was replaced by the turbofan-powered Beriev A-50, a development
of the Il-76 ‘Candid’ transport, with the last example of the Moss being retired in 1988. Perhaps
surprisingly (and unfortunately), no Tu-126s have been preserved.

Soviet Use
The first Tu-95s, the Tu-95A free-fall nuclear bomber, went into service with the Soviet Union in
1956, at about the same time as the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, its American counterpart entered
service. In service it (and the Tu-16 Badger) replaced the piston-engined Tu-4 Bull, which it had
supplanted by the end of the 1950s, and because of the range deficiencies of the Bison, became the
main intercontinental strategic bomber of the Soviet Union. The Tu-95 was seen by the West for the
first time at the Aviation Day flypast in 1955. The big turboprop bomber was assigned the NATO
reporting name of ‘Bear’, which proved to be singularly appropriate as the Bear was the symbol of
the Soviet Union (and Russia), and the Bear became a symbol of the Soviet military.
What was not so appropriate was the designation of ‘Il-38’, which was also initially bestowed
upon the Bear by the West, under the mistaken belief this was a product of the Ilyushin OKB. This
was actually the designation that was used by the Soviets for the Il-38 May ASW aircraft, which had
been developed from the Il-20 ‘Coot’ transport (apparently, ‘Il-38’ was also used initially for the M-4
Bison, the West seeming to have a fixation with this designation). In time, the West realised it was a
Tupolev design, but still incorrectly designated it as the ‘Tu-20’, a designation that persisted for many
years until the proper designation of ‘Tu-95’ replaced it in Western accounts. The ‘Tu-20’ designation
may have resulted from confusion with the ‘K-20’ missile complex that some of the Tu-95Ks carried
(some of the Tu-95Ks were referred to as the ‘Tu-95K-20’).

Tu-95MSM Bear-H at Engels in 2016. Note the Kh-101 missiles on the underwing pylons. The original colour photograph shows the
missiles to be red, indicating that these are unarmed practice rounds. (Wikimedia, by Dmitry Terekhov)

Tu-126 Moss AEW aircraft in service. Since the wing was low-mounted instead of shoulder mounted on the fuselage as on the Tu-95,
thereby raising the fuselage, the nose landing gear was taller than that used on the Tu-95. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Other interesting ‘facts’ were published about the Bear during the Cold War era. For example, one
book in my possession reported that several Bears were lost on patrol over the ocean due to their
disintegrating in flight because of the vibrations of the propellers. This is total rubbish; the Soviets
generally built their aircraft like battleships; if anything, the Soviets tended to overbuild their aircraft.
The Bear was no exception, and the Tu-95s were regularly examined for any evidence of metal
fatigue. Still, this is the sort of nonsense that was sometimes circulated about Soviet aircraft during
the Cold War, and accepted at face value. Thankfully, we now have access to much better information,
and stories such as these would be treated now with the scepticism they deserve.
At first, the Tu-95 was intended to drop free-fall nuclear bombs on its targets, but the development
of enemy defences, especially of high-altitude surface-to-air missiles and better interceptors in the
1950s, rendered this an ever more dangerous mission. Therefore, the decision was made to turn the
Soviet Union’s bombers into stand-off missile carriers, where the missiles could be fired from a
distance, enabling the bomber to remain outside the target’s defensive zone. This decision was made
for all of the Soviet Union’s bombers, and the Bear was not excluded. Although the Soviet Union, as
with the United States, relied more and more upon their missile-carrying submarines and ground-
launched ballistic missiles, the missile-carrying aircraft still had a place as unlike submarine and
ground-launched missiles, the aircraft could be scrambled, and then be called back, if necessary. At
least that is the logic that both militaries have used over the decades to keep nuclear-capable bombers
in service.
The first missile-carrying Tu-95 was the Tu-95K, which was equipped to carry a single AS-3 (Kh-
20) Kangaroo missile. The Tu-95KM carried an improved version of the Kangaroo missile (the Kh-
20M), and the Tu-95K-22 was equipped to carry up to three of the AS-4 (Kh-22) Kitchen missiles.
The Tu-95K-22 was the last of the original airframe Bears to enter service, in 1987, and served until
the mid-1990s. It was supplemented, then replaced by the Tu-95MS, which was based upon the
redesigned Tu-142 airframe; this achieved its IOC in 1982, and continues in service as of 2018, along
with the Tu-142 ASW aircraft. The Tu-142 first entered service in December 1972. It appears that
both the Tu-95MS and Tu-142 will continue in service for some time, until at least 2040.

Combat Use
For its first half-century plus of use, the Bear was never used in combat, not even in Afghanistan,
where several other Soviet strategic bombers saw use, such as the Bison, the Badger, and the
Backfire. This changed in 2015 with Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war, which has raged
since 2011.

Syria
As of November 2015, the Tu-95 Bear (Tu-95MS Bear-Hs) was used for the first time ever in actual
combat, as it took part in launching missiles against anti-government forces in Syria. The Bears were
flown from Russian bases. They flew into Iranian air space, and apparently fired their missiles from
there, with the consent of the Iranian government. I have even seen a photograph and footage of a Bear
being escorted by an Iranian Grumman F-14A Tomcat fighter, although it is unclear when this was
taken. On 17 November 2016, Tu-95MSMs were used for the first time against targets in Syria.
It is possible that as the conflict in Syria continues (as of 2018), the Bear will continue in use
there, perhaps even being used as a conventional free-fall bomber, as the Tu-22M3 has been.
However, it is not clear that the Russian government would be willing to risk their nearly
irreplaceable Tu-95s flying over enemy airspace, unless they were convinced that that enemy was
incapable of any effective air defence.
As with the American use of strategic bombers in localised conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan,
this may have partly been an exercise by the Russian Air Force to show that its strategic bombers
were useful in the conventional role in regional conflicts. Continued relevance for any military arm
means continued funding (and employment for those involved).

Foreign Use
India (Tu-142MK-E Bear-F Mod 3 Izdeliye ‘VPMK’)
Other than successor states of the Soviet Union such as Ukraine, India was the only foreign user of the
Bear. Eight were originally ordered, and it continued in use in small numbers as a maritime
reconnaissance and ASW aircraft until 29 March 2017. It is not clear if these aircraft were built new
for India, or were converted, but when one of the original eight crashed, a replacement was taken
from Russian stocks and sent to India. The first three arrived in India on 30 March 1988. It was
similar to its Russian counterpart, but with simplified avionics. These aircraft had the Korshun-K
complex. The Indian Navy has replaced its Tu-142s with American-built Boeing P-8I Poseidons (an
ASW development of the Boeing 737 airliner). One subtle difference between these Indian aircraft
and their Russian counterparts was that the stencils and labels were done in English using Latin
characters, instead of in Russian using Cyrillic characters.

Ukraine
As part of an agreement dividing the military assets of the now-dissolved Soviet Union among the
newly independent republics, Ukraine inherited some Tu-95 Bears. The Ukrainians had little need or
use for the Bears, and by agreement with Russia, these were soon returned to the Russian Federation
in 1993 in part payment for oil and gas supplies from Russia.

Civilian Use
Tu-114 ‘Cleat’
This transport development of the Bear utilised a completely different, larger diameter fuselage than
the relatively narrow fuselage of the bomber. However, it utilised the same outer wings, engines, and
tail planes of the Tu-95 (rather analogous to the Tu-70 and the Tu-4), although the wings were low-
mounted, instead of shoulder-mounted, necessitating a new wing centre-section. The Tu-114’s long-
range enabled it to be used on extremely long routes, including non-stop flights to and from the United
States. When Soviet Premier Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (1894–1971) visited the United States
in 1959, he flew from Moscow to New York City in a Tu-114, even though at the time it was still in
the testing phase.
The Tu-114 received the NATO reporting name of ‘Cleat’. In service, it proved to be a very
reliable and safe airliner. It served until 1976 as a civilian airliner and until 1991 with the Soviet Air
Force. The Tu-114 formed the basis for the Tu-126 Moss AEW aircraft.
One Tu-114 is preserved at Monino, and another one at Domodedovo airport, near Moscow.
Another Tu-114 may still be present at Krivoy Rog in Ukraine.

Tu-116 (Tu-95D)
Unlike the Tu-114, this transport version of the Bear utilised the same, narrow fuselage of the bomber,
with the military equipment removed, and seating for the passengers added. It was intended as a VIP
transport for Soviet dignitaries, and was well appointed as a result. Only two were converted, and
were not used for their intended purpose (the Tu-114 did quite well in that capacity), being instead
used to transport military officers. The Tu-116 did not receive a NATO reporting name, perhaps
simply because they were not aware of them. One of the two aircraft is preserved at the Ulyanovsk
Aircraft Museum in Russia.
The Tu-95 and Tu-142 in Detail
Due to its long production and continuous evolution, there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ Bear. To
begin with, there were two main versions of the Bear; what could be called the ‘original airframe’
Bear, such as the early free-fall bombers and their ‘K’ series missile carrier derivatives, and the
extensively redesigned ‘Tu-142/Tu-95MS’ series, which include the current AVMF aircraft (Tu-142
Bear-F and Bear-J) and missile carriers (Tu-95MS Bear-H). The following description is mainly for
a Tu-95M, an early free-fall bomber version of the Bear, with differences to the later Tu-142/Tu-
95MS series pointed out where appropriate.

General Description
The Tu-95 (and Tu-142) is a cantilever monoplane, constructed mainly of aluminium alloys, with the
outer surfaces mainly flush-riveted, and powered by four large turboprop engines. The long narrow
fuselage is a circular cross-section and its wings and tail planes are both sharply swept, with its
landing gear being of the retractable tricycle type.

Tu-114 Cleat at Le Bourget airport in Paris in 1959. The Tu-114 has a similar tall nose gear as on the Tu-126, again resulting from the
low-mounted wing. (from Wikimedia)
Tu-116 preserved at Ulyanovsk. (Wikimedia, by Andrey Mosejeev)

Fuselage
As unlikely as it may seem, the Tu-95’s fuselage is a development of the B-29’s fuselage, by way of
the Tu-4, Tu-80, and Tu-85 Soviet bombers. It is this relatively small circular cross-section (9.5 feet,
or 2.9 m), the same as that of the B-29, which gives the Bear fuselage its slim appearance. The
original Tu-95 fuselage was largely based upon the fuselage of the piston-engined Tu-85 Barge, itself
a development of the Tu-80 bomber, which was an improved development of the Tu-4, the Soviet-
built B-29. Indeed, until the later Tu-142s and the Tu-95MS with their redesigned cockpits, the
versions of the Bear with the glazed nose had a nose that was almost identical in profile to that
originally fitted to the Tu-80 back in the late 1940s.
Most of the crew are housed in the front pressurised section, with two crewmembers in the rear
tail turret section on the early Tu-95s and some of the Tu-142s (those that retain the clear blisters on
the sides of the tail section). On the Tu-95MS, the Tu-142MK, and Tu-142MZ, there is only one
crewmember in the tail—the tail gunner.
On the original versions of the Bear, such as the Tu-95M, which included the ventral turret, there
was a small step in front of the ventral turret to better streamline the turret position. This step is
missing on the redesigned Bears, where the ventral turret was deleted, and instead there is a smooth
unbroken under surface from where the fuselage starts to taper.
An interesting feature of all the Bear variants is the lack of ejection seats for any of the crew. In the
event of an emergency, the crew are expected to bail out through hatches. It is a bit surprising that
during the many modifications and improvements of the Bear, ejection seats have never been fitted.
All the crew, except for the tail gunner, enter the aircraft through a hatch in the nose wheel bay; this is
the hatch they would be expected to bail out through. The tail gunner enters his position through a
hatch in the underside of the tail section; this is also his hatch for bailing out. The tail gunner’s section
is pressurised, and cannot be reached from the front pressurised section while in flight, although
communication is possible through the aircraft’s intercom system.
The Tu-95K-22 Bear-G missile carrier differed from the other Bear variants in featuring a
streamlined fairing or tail cone in place of the manned tail gunner position. This fairing, also called
the UKhO, housed the ECM SPS-153 Rezeda jamming equipment. Although there was of course no
tail gunner (logically enough, since there were no tail guns), it appears that this station was still
manned as it retained the original clear blisters on each side, and also had a small window on each
side. If manned, it is not clear from the record how many crewmembers were housed here.

Tu-95N preserved at Monino. This shows well what an early Tu-95 Bear-A bomber would have looked like. (Ken Duffey)
Nose of a Tu-95MS Bear-H at Zhukovskiy. Note the large refuelling probe mounted on top of the nose. (Wikimedia, by Alan Wilson)

Tu-95K-22 Bear-G cockpit. Preserved aircraft at Engels air base. (Ken Duffey)

Wings
Although the fuselage of the original Tu-95 airframe was closely based upon that of the Tu-85, the
wings were completely different, being shoulder-mounted and swept-back compared to the straight,
mid-mounted, high aspect ratio wings of the Tu-85. At 1/3rd chord, the wings are swept back at a 35-
degree angle, and the horizontal tail planes are swept back at 40 degrees. It is this combination of the
turboprop engines, sharply swept wings, and tail planes, which gives the Bear its unique appearance;
no other production aircraft has this combination of propellers and sharply swept wings and tail,
except for Tu-95 derivatives such as the Tu-114 and Tu-116 transports, and the Tu-114 derivative, the
Tu-126 Moss AWACS aircraft. The Bear remains the only production bomber with this unusual
configuration. It is interesting that one of the early designs for what became the B-52 was for a four
turboprop-powered aircraft with 20-degree swept back wings.
The three-spar wing consists of three main parts; a centre section, and outside of this, the outer
wing panels, which consist of three sections on each side. The centre section is attached to the
fuselage just in front of the bomb bay, so the wing carry-through structure does not interfere with the
bomb bay, which is one of the advantages of the swept wing arrangement, besides the aerodynamic
advantages that it offers. The leading edge is a separate part that is attached to each of the three outer
wing sections by screws to the front longeron. A separate trailing edge section is attached to the
wing’s torsion box. A notable feature of the wings are the three prominent wing fences on each side.
These fences are installed to control the air flow and prevent stalling.

Tu-95RTs Bear-D from the top. This photograph shows well the planform typical of all Bears with the long, narrow fuselage and the
swept-back wings and tail surfaces. (Public Domain)

The wings feature long narrow-chord ailerons with trim tabs, and large flaps split in two by the
extended inner nacelles. The aileron’s trim tabs are electrically operated, and are on the inboard
section of the three-part aileron. The flaps are electrically operated.
One significant difference between the wings of the early versions of the Bear and the Tu-142/Tu-
95Ms is in the aerofoil section. The Tu-142 series has the wing leading edges being bent downwards
which leads to a better lift/drag ratio, which then leads to better fuel consumption.
Tail Planes
Unlike the wings, the horizontal tail planes of the Tu-95 are swept at a sharper angle of 40 degrees,
instead of the 35 degrees of the wings. They are of a cantilever all-metal flush-riveted construction
and are conventional in design. As with the wings, they are of a torsion box type construction, joined
to the fuselage with four bolts on each side.
The fin is fixed, with a dorsal extension, and includes a moveable rudder with an electrically
operated trim tab on its lower half. The fin is fixed to the fuselage along the centreline. The horizontal
stabilisers were fixed on the Tu-95M at an incidence of 2.5 inches from the fuselage centreline, with
moveable elevators, which featured trim tabs with both manual and electrical control. The stabilisers
can be adjusted in incidence on the Tu-142/Tu-95MS; this feature was intended for the early Tu-95s,
but was never fitted. The elevators for the Tu-142/Tu-95MS have been increased in area.

Engines
From the second prototype of the Tu-95, the Bear’s four engines have been some version of the
Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop engines, still (as of 2018) the most powerful turboprop engines ever to
go into production. These engines were developed from Jumo designs (specifically the Jumo 109-
022) created in Germany during the Second World War. German engineers employed by the
Kuznetsov Bureau (no doubt with little choice on the engineers’ part), such as Ferdinand Brandner,
helped to design the NK-12 (the ‘NK’ standing for ‘Nikolaiy Kuznetsov’, the chief designer of the
Kuznetsov OKB; initially it was the ‘TV-12’).
The NK-12 has a fourteen-stage axial-flow compressor, driving AV-60 (specifically AV-60Ks in
the Tu-95MS and Tu-142) twin co-axial four-bladed counter-rotating propeller units, for a total of
thirty-two propeller blades on the Bear. The earliest Tu-95s were fitted with the 12,000 shp (shaft
horsepower) NK-12, while all the later Tu-95s were equipped with NK-12Ms and NK-12MVs
(Tupolev’s own site states that the Tu-95MS is equipped with the NK-12MP) of 15,000 shp, although
some sources have this as 14,795 shp. The very earliest Tu-95s were equipped with propellers with
manual feathering. After a Tu-95 was lost in 1956 because the unfeathered propellers on a non-
functioning engine caused the Bear to stall and crash, all Bears were fitted with the NK-12MV engine
with automatically feathering AV-60N propeller units. By the end of the 1950s, all Bears were so
equipped. Power is not distributed to the front and rear propellers equally; 54.4 per cent is delivered
to the front unit, while 45.6 per cent is delivered to the rear unit. The propellers have an electrical
de-icing system, and automatically feather when their engine shuts down. The front propeller unit
rotates clockwise while the rear unit rotates counter-clockwise seen from the back.
Only one-third of the power from the five-stage turbine section is delivered to the propellers; the
rest is delivered to the bifurcated jet exhausts. Therefore, perhaps surprisingly, given those huge
propeller assemblies, the Tu-95 derives most of its propulsion through its jet exhausts, not its
propellers. However, with one look at any Bear that has been in service for any length of time, one
can see the enormous output of the turboprop exhausts from the extensive exhaust stains on the
underside of the wings. The exhaust is so hot that these areas of the wings are sheathed in heat-
resistant titanium, as are the rear of the inboard and outboard nacelles, which also become
extensively coated in heavy exhaust stains.

Fuel System
In the Tu-95M, the fuel was contained in rubber ‘bladders’, or flexible rubber cells, which were
present in the wing centre section, the fuselage, and in the wings’ outer sections. There were four
independent fuel systems, one for each of the engines. In the Tu-142/Tu-95MS, the fuel is mainly
contained in eight sealed metal containers that are part of the wing structure. Some fuel is also
apparently accommodated in the rear fuselage in soft fuel tanks.
The Tu-95M was not equipped for in-flight refuelling, as it had no refuelling probe, but most
Bears, including the Tu-95MS and the Tu-142 have this capability, indicated by the large probe
mounted on the nose on the centreline. This probe is part of the Konus probe-and-drogue system used
by the Soviets (and Russians) and enables the Bear to be capable of flights that are limited only by
crew endurance and the limitations of the airframe. The longest unrefuelled flight ever recorded for a
Tu-95 happened in 1958 that covered 10,657 miles (17,150 km). The flight took a total of twelve
hours and fifteen minutes.

Close-up of a Tu-95MS Bear-H at MAKS 2009 showing the details of the NK-12 turboprop cowling. (Ken Duffey)
Tu-95MS Bear-H at MAKS 2012 showing details of the rear of the cowling. One of the large bifurcated exhausts for the NK-12 engine
is evident (there are two exhausts per engine). One of the wing fences on top of the wing can also be clearly seen. (Ken Duffey)

Controls
Twin control columns with steering wheels or ‘yokes’ are available for both the pilot and co-pilot, as
well as rudder pedals for both. The controls for the original airframe Tu-95s were manual and
mechanical (Andrey Tupolev distrusted the somewhat unreliable hydraulic controls available at the
time), while reversible hydraulic actuators controlled both the ailerons and the rudder for the Tu-
142/Tu-95MS.

Landing Gear
The landing gear is of a conventional retractable tricycle arrangement, with four main wheel bogies
on the main landing gear on all but a few examples of the Bear-F (early Tu-142s featured twelve main
wheels per bogie). The nose landing gear consists of two wheels attached to an aft-retracting strut,
electro-hydraulically actuated, which retracts to lie flat in the nose. The nose landing gear is steerable
using the rudder pedals. The nose wheel tyres on the Tu-95M are 1,100 × 300 mm (43.3 × 13 inches)
in size. The larger nose wheels of the Tu-95MS have necessitated bulged gear doors to accommodate
them, a distinguishing feature of this version. The main landing gear doors are likewise bulged to
accommodate the main wheels, and these bulged doors have been present on all versions of the Tu-
95/Tu-142. The main landing gear retract aft into extensions of the inner engine nacelles that project
beyond the trailing edge of the wings, and are electro-hydraulically actuated. The doors covering the
wheels are retracted while the Tu-95 is on the ground.
In order for the main landing gear fairings to be of a reasonable size, the bogies rotate (they
actually flip over 180 degrees) to lie flat in the engine nacelle extensions. This unusual feature is also
present in other Tupolev designs, such as the Tu-16 Badger and the Tu-22 Blinder. The tyres are
1,500 × 500 mm (59 × 19.7 inches) in size and are equipped with hydraulic disc brakes.
Electronics
Over the course of its long career, the Tu-95 has seen many different avionics fits and upgrades, so
there is no typical suite. As an example of just one upgrade, the Bear-A, the initial version of the
Bear, received a ‘mid-life’ upgrade to its avionics consisting of a new ADNS-4 long-range radio
navigation system (what would be called ‘LORAN’ in American terminology), and a RSBN-2SV
Svod (‘Dome’ in Russian) short range radio navigation system (‘SHORAN’ in American
terminology). In addition, a new bomb-aiming radar, the Rubin-1D, was installed to replace the
original radar, the Rubidy-MM radar. This is just one upgrade of a few systems on one variant of the
Tu-95. The different avionics fits of the Bear variants are discussed in the sections on the different
Bear variants.

Tu-95MS Bear-H—close-up of nose landing gear. Taken at MAKS 2009. (Ken Duffey)
Tu-95MS Bear-H—close-up of main landing gear. Taken at MAKS 2009. (Ken Duffey)

Close-up of retractable twin tail wheel (tail bumper) of the Tu-95K Bear-B at Dyagilevo. (Ken Duffey)
Close-up of twelve-wheeled main landing gear bogie of an early Tu-142 Bear-F. Taken at Poltava. (Ken Duffey)

Defensive Armament
The original version of the Tu-95, before the extensive redesign that led to the Tu-142/Tu-95MS
series, featured six Afanasyev Makarov AM-23 23-mm cannons disposed in three turrets. The turrets
were arranged as a remote-controlled retractable DT-B12 dorsal turret, a remote-controlled DT-N12
ventral turret, and a manned DK-12 tail turret. The remote-controlled turrets were aimed using PS-
153 optical sights. The ammunition was disposed as follows: 700 rounds (or 350 per cannon) for the
dorsal turret, 800 rounds (or 400 per cannon) for the ventral turret, and 1,000 rounds (500 rounds per
cannon) for the tail turret. Both the remote-controlled ventral turret and the manned tail turret were
reminiscent of those fitted to the Tu-4. The tail guns were radar-directed, using a PRS-1 Argon gun-
laying radar on the Tu-95M. The Tu-95MS features a PRS-4 Krypton gun-laying radar for its tail
turret, the same radar as that used by the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C.
With the redesign of the basic Tu-95 design, which led to the Tu-142, the dorsal and ventral turrets
were removed, but the manned tail turret remained. At first, this was the same as that used on the
original Tu-95 airframe, complete with the aiming and observation blisters on either side. Later Tu-
142s (the Tu-142MZ) and later Tu-95MS have featured a redesigned tail turret, with the blisters
removed and the two AM-23 23-mm cannons replaced by twin-barrelled GSh-23 23-mm cannons in a
twin-gun turret (similar to that found on the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B). The earlier Tu-95MS, before the
Tu-95MS16, have a tail gunner position where the tail blisters are not present, but the tail turret is
like the original turret with the AM-23 23-mm cannons. The armoured glass portion of the tail turret
has remained essentially the same even with the revised tail turret position, and is reminiscent of that
originally fitted to the B-29, the great-grandfather of the Tu-95.
Ventral turret of the Tu-95K Bear-B preserved at Dyagilevo. The AM-23 23-mm cannons are well evident. (Ken Duffey)

Tail turret of the Tu-95K Bear-B preserved at Dyagilevo. The tail gunner’s armoured glass has a greenish tint. (Wikimedia, by Vitaliy V.
Kuzmin)
Tail turret of a Tu-95MS Bear-H at MAKS 2012. This aircraft is noteworthy as it features the early-type turret with AM-23 cannons, but
does not have the side blisters normally associated with that turret, and has the under tail sensors typical of Bear-Hs with the Backfire-B
type turret with the GSh-23 cannons. (Ken Duffey)

Tail turret of a Tu-95MS Bear-H at MAKS 2011. This aircraft features the Backfire-B type turret with the two, twin-barrel GSh-23 23-
mm cannons. (Ken Duffey)
UKhO fairing on the tail of the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G preserved at Engels. (Ken Duffey)

The Tu-95K-22 Bear-G missile carrier was unusual in that it retained the remote-controlled
rotating turrets mounted on the fuselage, but replaced the manned tail turret position with an extended
tail cone housing ECM equipment, thus giving it a defensive armament of four AM-23 23-mm cannons
disposed in two turrets; it was apparently the only production Bear equipped in this way.

Offensive Armament
In the original Tu-95A and M versions, the offensive armament consisted of free-fall bombs, both
conventional and nuclear. Subsequent Bear bomber versions have used various stand-off missiles to
enable the bomber to release its payload a safe distance from what would probably be a heavily
defended target. Unlike the Tu-16 Badger, M-4/3M Bison, Tu-22 Blinder, and Tu-22M Backfire, the
Tu-95 has never been used in combat as a conventional bomber dropping free-fall weapons, although
it has fired conventionally armed missiles in combat.
The Tu-95M could carry a 3-megaton nuclear bomb in its bomb bay. This bomb was
comparatively compact and could apparently be loaded without much problem. A problem arose with
loading when larger, 20-megaton bombs were used. These were so large that the Tu-95 had to be
moved over a trench, the bomb then being moved from the trench up into the Tu-95’s bomb bay. The
Myasishchev Bison’s bicycle type landing gear prevented it from being loaded this way, another
factor in the superiority of the Bear over the Bison.
Thought was given to using the Tu-95 as a conventional bomber; as early as the K-22 version in
the 1980s, external pods could be carried on the underwing pylons, with another underneath the
fuselage, the pods each holding fifteen 551-lb (250-kg) bombs. These bombs could be used in attacks
against an airfield, with all of the bombs being dropped at once, for a total load of 24,108 lb
(10,935kg). The pods had fins and could be jettisoned after their load was dropped. Evidently, only a
few aircraft were equipped to carry this load. Conventional bomb pods had even been tested earlier
on a Tu-95K Bear-B, with two carried on the fuselage centreline, although it is not clear if this was
an experimental installation only or could be carried by production Bear-Bs.
In terms of missiles, the Tu-95K, the original missile-carrying version of the Bear, could carry one
AS-3 Kangaroo stand-off missile mounted in the fuselage where the bomb bay was on the free-fall
bomber versions. The Tu-95K still had doors, but these folded upwards to accommodate the
Kangaroo in its semi-recessed position. Once the missile had been fired, the doors closed to improve
the aerodynamics of the fuselage. Due to the heavy beam suspended in the bomb bay necessary to hold
the Kangaroo, it was impossible for the Tu-95K to carry free-fall bombs. The later Tu-95K-22 could
carry up to three of the AS-4 Kitchen missiles, two on pylons under the inner wings, and one semi-
recessed on the centreline of the fuselage. This was not a normal load, as this heavy load would have
shortened the range of the Bear both because of the weight and because of the increased drag, a more
normal load being one or two missiles.

AS-4 (Kh-22) Kitchen missile mounted under the port wing root of the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G at Engels. (Ken Duffey)

At one time, the Tu-95MS-16 could carry up to sixteen of the AS-15 Kent cruise missiles, both in
the bomb bay on a rotating carrier and on underwing pylons. This load was reduced to six missiles by
treaty, although the Tu-95MS retains the ability to carry Kh-101 missiles on underwing pylons, the
Kh-101 evidently not being covered by arms limitation treaties.
All free-fall carrying versions of the Tu-95 with the glass nose have featured both an optical
bombing sight and a bombing radar. On the Tu-95M these were the OPB-11RM optical sight, and the
Rubidy-MM bombing radar, carried in a fairing under the nose. This radar was replaced mid-career
on the Tu-95M by the Rubin-1D radar.
Camouflage and Markings
For most of its life, the Bear has been finished in a natural metal finish, probably with a clear lacquer
coating to protect the metal. Various panels are sometimes painted white, and the main markings are
the red Soviet Stars of the typical red-white-red outline type, first used in 1943 during the Great
Patriotic War. For a short time (2010–13) in the post-Soviet Union period, blue was added as an
inner outline to the stars, but it appears that this practice has now been discontinued on new
(re)paintings as of 2016 (thankfully, in the opinion of this author), and the Russians have apparently
returned to the 1943 type stars.
Some Bears have sported a white under surface, which served as an anti-flash finish to protect
against the effects of a nuclear blast. The Tu-95V, which dropped the Tsar Bomba, not surprisingly,
had an extensive white under surface, which continued some considerable way up the fuselage. A few
of the Tu-95MS’ have appeared in an overall grey finish. Some Soviet/Russian Tu-142s have also
appeared in the all-grey finish, and the Indian Tu-142s were finished in a similar fashion. A practice
has developed of giving some bombers names, either of individuals, both real and legendary, or of
Russian cities. As an example, one of the all-grey Tu-95MS’ has the name ‘Velikiy Novgorod’ (‘Great
Novgorod’, in Russian, referring to the city) on both sides of the nose.
In addition to the tactical number, various small stencils, in red, have also adorned the Bear during
all periods of its long service. Some Bears have coloured spinner tips to distinguish between
squadrons in a regiment. It has to be said that despite its long and colourful career, the Bear has never
been finished in any particularly colourful paint schemes. It certainly would have been interesting to
see a Bear in full camouflage, as with the Egyptian Tu-16s or the Iraqi Tu-22 Blinders.

Conclusion
By almost any criterion, the Bear has to be seen as a very successful aircraft. In service, it has proven
to be a generally dependable, rugged, and safe aircraft, and certainly an adaptable one. In continuous
development over decades, in addition to remaining a formidable weapons system as a missile
carrier and ASW aircraft, it also gave rise to a successful airliner, the Tu-114 Cleat, which in turn
gave rise to the Soviet Union’s first AWACS aircraft, the Tu-126 Moss. Not only has it served for an
extremely long time with the same air force (and naval air arm), from 1955 until the time of writing
(2018), but it shows every indication of serving for many more years to come (along with the ASW
version, the Tu-142 Bear-F), perhaps until 2040 or beyond.
In addition to this impressive service life of over half a century with the same air force, matched
only by the B-52 Stratofortress, with which comparisons are almost inevitable when discussing the
Bear, the Bear has also had an impressively long production run. Although not in continuous
production, the first production Bear rolled off the assembly line in 1954, with the last not leaving its
production line until 1994, for a total of forty-one years of production. The B-52 cannot come close to
matching that, as the B-52 was in production from only 1955–1962.
Indeed, only a handful of aircraft can match this decades-long production run. If the state of the
Russian economy had been better in 1992, then Russian President Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin (1931–
2007) might not have even decided to end Bear production. With the extremely slow production rate
of the Tu-160, it does not appear that any immediate successor to the Tu-95 Bear is on the horizon
either, and I personally would not be completely shocked were production to start up again at some
time, such is the continued usefulness of this remarkable and majestic aircraft.
 4

M-4 ‘Bison’

This aircraft was the Soviet Union’s first production heavy bomber with jet engines to enter service,
and was intended to be intercontinental in unrefuelled range. It was an ambitious design, probably too
ambitious for the jet engines available to the Soviet aviation industry then, and it never came close to
replicating the range of the turboprop-powered Tu-95, although it did go into relatively limited
production. Like the Badger, it was also used as a tanker, and was developed into the Atlant (‘Atlas’)
transport, capable of carrying outsized cargo on top of the fuselage, such as the Buran (‘Snowstorm’)
Soviet shuttle and its components.

Development
At least partly due to the relatively poor showing of the B-29 against modern jet fighters such as the
MiG-15 during the Korean War, the Soviet government realised that a new reaction-powered bomber
was needed. In 1950, Vladimir Myasishchev presented a design for a long-range jet-powered
strategic bomber.
An order from the Soviet government dated 24 March 1951 re-established the Myasishchev OKB,
now as OKB-23 (it had been OKB-482 in its original incarnation), for developing a jet-engined
bomber capable of intercontinental unrefuelled range. The design was to have a maximum speed of
900 kph (559 mph), be capable of carrying 5,000 kg (11,023 lb) over a range of 11,000 to 12,000 km
(6,835 to 7,456 miles). Its maximum bomb load was to be 52,910 lb (24,000 kg). The first proposal
was submitted by Myasishchev in February 1951, for what was then known as the ‘SDB’, for
Strategicheskiy Dalniy Bombardirovshchik or ‘Strategic Long-range Bomber’ in Russian.
Myasishchev was given the go-ahead, and commenced work on this bomber.
Many different configurations were considered for the new long-range bomber before
Myasishchev settled on the final configuration for what became the M-4. One of the studies consisted
of a design with a long, thin fuselage with a butterfly tail, and long, straight, high-aspect ratio wings
like some impossibly large sailplane. Another design retained the butterfly tail, but exchanged the
straight wings for swept-back wings. Another design featured a conventional tail coupled with the
buried engines, the paired engines sharing a single intake, as with the British ‘V bombers’.
Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

One design rather resembled the American Boeing B-52, with swept-back wings and four engines
suspended in pods underneath the wings compared to the eight engines suspended in two pods under
each wing for the B-52. It is interesting to note that the Soviets needed only four engines where the
Americans required eight engines to achieve the performance they desired; although the Soviets
lagged behind the Americans in some areas aeronautically, especially avionics, they were able to
build much more powerful jet engines during the early 1950s.
Eventually, the Myasishchev OKB settled on a design of a swept wing bomber with four engines
buried in the wing roots and a conventional swept tail unit. The most unusual feature was the use of a
bicycle landing gear, which would be a first for a production Soviet aircraft.
Although the Bison is mentioned in some Western sources as being originally equipped with four
remote-controlled turrets on the fuselage (two forward and two aft, along with the manned tail turret,
for a total of nine or ten cannons), I have never seen a photograph showing these extra fuselage-
mounted turrets. These extra turrets may have been present on some early design studies, but never
appeared on any prototypes or production aircraft that were built. I have read where one of the design
studies did have four turrets, arranged as one forward dorsal turret, one forward ventral turret, one aft
ventral turret, and a tail turret. This would still have given a total of only eight cannons, and not the
ten cannons that is often seen in accounts of the Bison. The origin of the myth of the ten-cannon Bison
must remain something of an enigma, a result of the fog of the Cold War.
The wooden mock-up was presented for review on 22 October 1951 and the go-ahead for
construction of the prototype was given on 30 November 1951. The prototype differed from the
mock-up in the design of the engine intakes, which were flush on the mock-up. Construction of the
first prototype began in early 1952.
The first prototype was completed in December 1952 and flew for the first time on 20 January
1953. The flights continued mainly without incident until the fourteenth flight when one elevator tore
off. Due to the skill of the test pilot, Fyodor F. Opadchiy (the pilot on the first flight), the aircraft was
saved with no casualties. It was found that in an effort to lighten what was an overweight aircraft, the
elevator skinning had been made too thin. However, it was also found during trials that the first
prototype was able to fly 6,649 miles (10,700 km) with an 11,023-lb (5,000-kg) bomb load.
The second prototype was completed in December 1953. It differed from the first prototype in
having a kinked wing trailing edge, which accommodated larger flaps. The rear fuselage was
shortened by around 3 feet (1 m) with the arrangement of the rear fuel tanks also being changed. One
important change was the provision for the nose bogie gear to pivot on take-off to increase the angle-
of-attack of the aircraft, thereby decreasing the take-off distance. This feature was adopted for all
production Bisons. The flight-testing of the second prototype commenced on 1 April 1954 and
continued for almost a year. During state trials, it was found that the M-4 was only able to fly 6,089
miles (9,800 km) with an 11,023-lb (5,000-kg) bomb load, which was less than the required 6,835–
7,456 miles (11,000–12,000 km) range.
Despite this major shortcoming, the decision was made to put the M-4 into production and change
it as needed to give it the required performance. This was partly due to a desire to keep up with the
United States in fielding an all-jet bomber, as the United States had the B-52; there were also
problems with the turboprop-powered Tu-95, as the first prototype (the ‘95/1’) had crashed due to a
problem with the 2TV-2F coupled turboprops. These had to be replaced by the TV-12 (NK-12)
turboprop, but that would take time; the re-engined Tu-95 (the ‘95/2’) did not fly until February 1955.
Both Bison prototypes survived their initial testing and were used for various test purposes
afterwards. For example, the first prototype was used to test the VD-7 turbojets and the second
prototype was used to test the systems used on the experimental M-50 bomber (the ‘Bounder’).

Bomber Versions
M-4 ‘Bison-A’
This initial production version of the Bison was designed as a free-fall bomber, and could carry both
conventional and nuclear bombs. It had an extensively glazed nose to enable the bombardier to
conduct optical bombing, if necessary, although it also carried a bombing radar, the RBP-4 radar. It
was equipped with six AM-23 23-mm cannons in two remote-controlled turrets, and one manned tail
turret. In addition, it had a commodious bomb bay that could carry a variety of free-fall bombs, both
conventional and nuclear.
M-4-2 Bison-A preserved at Dyagilevo, from the port side. (Ken Duffey)

M-4-2 Bison-A at Dyagilevo, from the starboard side. (Ken Duffey)

With the development of the 3M, which was given the NATO reporting name of ‘Bison-B’, the M-
4 became retroactively the ‘Bison-A’. The 3M development of the Bison replaced the M-4 in the
bomber role, and the remaining M-4s were converted into tankers from the late 1950s, serving
alongside later tanker versions. One source has thirty-five M-4s being built, and as twenty-eight M-4s
were still in service as tankers in 1962, thirty-five seems to be a reasonable number for the total M-
4s produced.
The Soviets preserved one Bison-A, an M-4-2 tanker, at the Long-Range Aviation Museum at
Engels air base near Saratov, Russia.

3M (M-6) ‘Bison-B’
It was obvious to the Myasishchev OKB and the DA that the M-4 Bison, unmodified, was never going
to meet the range requirements to make it a truly intercontinental bomber. At the same time, the DA
still found it useful to have the Bison complement the Tu-95 Bear, which did have intercontinental
range, because the Bison was faster and carried a greater bomb load. Therefore, Myasishchev
initiated a major redesign of the Bison to create an improved version, one that even though it could
not realistically hope to match the Bear in range, could still improve upon the M-4’s inadequate
unrefuelled range.
To start with, in order to improve the range of the Bison, new engines were needed to replace the
AM-3s. These engines were the VD-7 (or RD-7, with the ‘RD’ standing for Reactivniy Dvigatel or
‘Reaction (Jet) Engine’ in Russian) turbojets. The redesign did not stop with the engines, and the
opportunity was taken to redesign the overall aircraft. The M-4 had been overbuilt, and the 3M was
designed to be lighter, with lower stress areas being built of a lighter structure. The glass visual
bombing nose of the M-4 Bison-A was replaced by a longer, more streamlined solid nose housing a
new radar, with small windows on the side for the bombardier. The wing was extensively redesigned,
with a straight trailing edge eliminating the kink found in the M-4’s wing, which lowered wing drag.
The span was also increased, which improved the Bison’s high-altitude capabilities. In addition, the
flaps were enlarged. In order to further improve the range, some 3Ms could carry two (6,500-l) fuel
tanks, one under each wing root.
The changes were significant enough that this version of the Bison was given a new designation,
‘3M’, in place of ‘M-4’ (another designation of the 3M was ‘M-6’). NATO also noticed the changes,
and named the 3M the ‘Bison-B’, with the M-4 now retroactively becoming the ‘Bison-A’. A total of
seventy-four Bison-Bs were constructed (out of a total of 100 or so Bisons of all versions produced),
making it the main Bison variant. One 3M Bison-B, a 3MS-2 tanker, has been preserved at Dyagilevo
air base, near Ryazan, Russia.

3MD ‘Bison-C’
A final effort was made to update and improve the Bison. This resulted in the Bison-C. It was the
result of a desire to create a missile carrier version of the Bison, with the missiles originally to be the
AS-2 (K-10) ‘Kipper’ turbojet-powered missiles, as fitted to the Tu-16 Badger.
One immediately noticeable difference between the Bison-C and the Bison-B was the pointed
nose, with the IFR probe mounted at the very tip. This upturned, pointed nose earned the Bison-C the
nickname of Stilyaga, or ‘Dandy’ in Russian, for its supposed haughty appearance.
3M Bison-B in flight from the underside. (Public Domain)

3MS-2 Bison-B preserved at Engels. Note all the ordnance to the right of the photograph, including Kitchen and Kelt missiles (which the
Bison did not carry) and various bombs, including the gigantic FAB-9000 bomb, which the Bison could and did carry. (Ken Duffey)
3MD Bison-C in flight. (Public Domain)

3MD Bison-C preserved at Monino. (Ken Duffey)

Only nine 3MDs were produced, and these were mainly used by commanders of the various units
the other Bison variants served with. It is not clear if they ever carried missiles. One 3MD is still
preserved as an outside exhibit in Russia at Monino.
3ME (3M-E)
This experimental Bison was an attempt to improve the aircraft with better avionics and make it more
suitable as a missile carrier. Its nose was similar to that fitted to the 3MD, with the refuelling probe at
the very end.
By 1958, it was apparent that the avionics fitted to the Bison should be improved or replaced; on 7
August 1958, the Soviet Council of Ministers issued a resolution, No. 908 425, requiring that the 3M
Bisons be equipped with new avionics. In addition to the new avionics, the modernised Bisons were
also to have a missile-carrying capability, which by 1958, had already appeared on the Tu-16 Badger
and the Tu-95 Bear. These Bisons were still to be capable of carrying free-fall conventional and
nuclear bombs. This modernised Bison was given the designation of ‘3ME’, although it is not clear
from the record what the ‘E’ stood for.
In addition to the new avionics fit, the 3ME was to feature upgraded engines, Dobrynin VD-7s,
with the time-between-overhaul (TBO) being increased to 200 hours.
Among the avionic changes and upgrades, the RBP-4 radar was replaced by the Rubin-1 radar, the
OPB-11R optical bombsight was replaced by the OPG112 sight, and the PRS-1 Argon-1 gun-laying
radar was replaced by the PRS-3T Argon-2 radar. The new avionics required some structural
redesign, especially with the nose. The refuelling nose probe was fitted to the very end of the nose;
there were also small ‘cheek’ bulges added to the sides of the radome to accommodate the large
Rubin-1 radar and reduce drag; the 3MD also had this radar and cheek bulges. The new radar for the
tail guns was fitted into a larger fairing, which necessitated that the bottom of the rudder be cut away.
Work on the 3ME was proceeding at about the same time that Myasishchev was working on the
3MD missile carriers, and it was projected that the 3MEs would be converted into 3MDs.
It was originally anticipated that two prototype 3MEs converted from 3MN-1s would be made, but
in the event, only one 3ME was converted. This was apparently due to delays in delivering the new
electronics. The sole 3ME was completed in March 1959. The OKB pilots first flew the 3ME on 18
June 1959. In terms of handling and performance, it performed similarly to the production 3MN-1.
The 3ME’s career was cut short in a rather bizarre accident. The enormous M-50 Bounder
experimental bomber jumped its chocks and rolled across a runway, crashing into the 3ME,
unfortunately killing a mechanic and injuring two other people in the process. The 3ME was
damaged, and the decision was made not to repair it, so it was scrapped. The M-50 was repaired,
and flew after this accident, a testament to the M-50’s solid construction.
Although the 3ME was not repaired after its unfortunate accident, some of its changes were
incorporated into the 3MD, such as the redesigned nose with the terminal nose probe and more
importantly the more powerful Rubin-1 radar, and the 3MD was produced in small numbers. The
3ME was never given a NATO reporting name.

3MN-1 (3MN-I, 3M-N) ‘Bison-B’

It was obvious that the Bison would never come close to its planned range with the original AM-3
engines. To counter this problem, it was decided to fit the more fuel-efficient VD-7 (RD-7) to all the
redesigned 3Ms. The VD-7B was a de-rated version of the VD-7 which had the same take-off thrust
as the RD-3M, but had better fuel efficiency. The ‘N’ in the designation stood for Noviy Dvigateli, or
‘New Engines’. In addition to the new engines, they were able to carry two large drop tanks under the
wing roots. Forty-seven of these aircraft were apparently built, and they retained the ‘Bison-B’
designation.

3MS-1 (3MS-I, 3M-S) ‘Bison-B’

Problems with bringing the VD-7 engines into production led to the first 3Ms being equipped with the
older RD-3-M500A, RD-3Ms, or AM-3As. The ‘S’ in the designation stood for Stariye (Dvigateli)
or ‘Old (Engines)’. These aircraft served alongside the 3MN-1s with the VD-7B engines.

3MSR-1, 3MNR-1 ‘Bison-B’

These were versions of the 3MSR-1 and 3MNR-1 fitted with updated avionics (the 3MSR-1 and the
3MNR-1 equipped with the ‘old’ (RD-3M) and ‘new’ (RD-7) engines respectively). The ‘R’ in the
new designation stood for Radioapparatura or ‘Avionics’.

3M-5 ‘Bison-B’ (Prototype)

The Tu-95, the Tu-16, and the Tu-22 Blinder had all been developed into missile carriers by the
1960s due to the obsolescence of the free-fall strategic bomber. The 3M-5 was an effort to turn the
Bison bomber into a missile carrier. As well as wing pylons for the AS-6 (KSR-5) ‘Kingfish’
missiles (the type used on some versions of the Tu-16), the 3M-5 featured a new targeting radar, the
Rubin-1ME, and the tail turret was replaced by the SPS-151 Azaliya (‘Azalea’) ECM suite in a
UKhO tail fairing. Despite successful trials, the obsolescence of the 3M led the Soviet Air Force to
conclude that it would be better to bring into service new missile carriers than convert the 3Ms,
which were approaching the end of their original service life.

Tanker Versions
The disappointing range of the Bison made it inevitable that the Soviets would test ways to improve
that range. The most useful was air-to-air or inflight refuelling. But first the Soviets needed a tanker.
With the Tu-16 tankers being used to refuel other Tu-16s, Myasishchev decided to develop their own
tanker. Unlike the cumbersome wingtip-to-wingtip method introduced on the Tu-4 (described in that
section) and used by the Tu-16, the Myasishchev OKB opted for the probe-and-drogue method, which
has been discussed previously.
Although the Bison was a clear disappointment as a strategic bomber, it gave good and long
service as an aerial tanker. Avoiding the rather cumbersome and difficult ‘wingtip-to-wingtip’
refuelling system adopted by Tupolev for the Tu-16 Badger, Myasishchev instead used the probe-and-
drogue refuelling method. In 1955, the first modification of a Bison, an M-4, was undertaken. The
OKB’s flight tests were completed by February 1957.
The tanker Bisons carried refuelling equipment in the former bomb bay. A long refuelling hose,
with a cone-shaped ‘drogue’ at the end of it (which led to the Russian name of Konus, or ‘Cone’ for
the probe-and-drogue system), was extended behind the tanker aircraft, in this case the Bison, with
the drogue being engaged by the probe of the aircraft to be refuelled. Once the aircraft was refuelled,
it disengaged from the drogue, and the hose was reeled back into the Bison tanker. Other Bisons, the
Tu-95 Bear, the Tu-22 Blinder, the Tu-22M Backfire, and the Tu-160 Blackjack used this probe-and-
drogue system. Other aircraft, such as fighters, fighter-bombers, and light bombers were also
equipped with this probe-and-drogue system, and could also be refuelled by the Bison. The Bison
tankers themselves did not have the probe, so they could not be refuelled in flight.
Despite claims to the contrary, an examination of photographs shows that at least some of the
Bison tankers (perhaps all) retained their turrets and cannon armament. The tail gunner position was
still manned, and beside controlling the tail guns, the tail gunner was very well placed to assist with
the refuelling operation.
The Bison tanker (the last Bison variant in service) was finally retired in 1994, nearly forty years
after it was first modified into a tanker. It has to be said that overall, the Bison tanker gave good and
long service in the tanker role. It was replaced in service by the Il-78 ‘Midas’, a tanker variant of the
Il-76 ‘Candid’ four jet-engined military transport.

M-4-2 (M-4-II) ‘Bison A’ Tanker

This was the tanker variant of the M-4 Bison-A, with the KAZ HDU (hose-drogue unit) refuelling
equipment housed in what had been the bomb bay. One source states that this version was unarmed,
but examination of photographs has led me to believe that most if not all of the Bison tankers were
armed. This makes sense, as with the HDU removed from the bomb bay, the M-4-2 could be
reconverted back into a bomber. The total amount of transferable fuel was 88,180 lb (40,000 kg).
Most of the M-4 bombers were converted into tankers beginning in the late 1950s, and they served
as tankers not just for Bisons, but also for Tupolev bombers such as the Tu-95, the Tu-22 Blinder, and
the Tu-22M Backfires (before their refuelling probes were removed). The M-4-2 tankers were
powered by RD-3M-500A turbojets with 20,940 lb st (static thrust).

3MS-2 (3MS-II) ‘Bison-B’ Tanker

After their bomber careers were nearing their ends in the 1970s and 1980s, 3M bombers were
converted into tankers. By analogy with the converted M-4s, these were designated ‘3MS-2’ (or
3MS-II). As with the M-4-2, they could be easily reconverted back into a bomber by removing the
KAZ HDU unit in the bomb bay. As with the M-4-2 tankers, they retained their gun armament.
As mentioned previously, one 3M Bison-B (a 3MS-2 tanker) has been preserved at Dyagilevo air
base, near Ryazan, Russia. This seems appropriate as this was the last base where the Bison was
used operationally.

3MN-2 (3MN-II) ‘Bison-B’ Tanker

These were Bisons that were converted into the tanker role from the 3MN-1 bombers. As with the M-
4-2 and the 3MS-2, they could be easily reconverted back into a bomber by the removal of the HDU
equipment.

VM-T Atlant Transport

This transport version of the Bison bomber was developed specifically to carry oversized loads on
top of the fuselage, especially those connected with the Buran, the Soviet space shuttle. Since the
large external load would disturb the airflow over the fuselage, the single large vertical tail plane that
characterised earlier versions of the Bison was replaced by a twin-finned unit, with large rectangular
end plates on the ends of redesigned horizontal tail planes, the tail planes featuring considerable
dihedral. Three aircraft were modified (one source has two only being modified). With the
abandonment of the Buran programme after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Atlants were used
to carry other oversized loads on top of the fuselage. One of these aircraft was apparently still flying
as of 2013, when it was displayed at the MAKS air show in Russia. The current status (2018) is that
one is preserved at Dyagilevo air base, and another is at Zhukovskiy. It does not appear that either is
operational.

VM-T Atlant at MAKS 2013 with a fuel tank mounted above the fuselage. (Wikimedia, taken by Hornet Driver)

Service Use
The M-4 bomber version first entered Soviet service in 1955. As is not surprising with a large and
complicated new aircraft, its entry into service was not without various incidents—some of them
extremely serious, some even fatal. In two cases, the skin ripped away from the elevators in flight.
This problem was solved by stiffening the elevator control rods. Other problems continued, and by
the end of 1957, thirty M-4s were undergoing modifications for safety reasons. One modification
involved making the manual backup to the hydraulic controls easier to use, but it was still difficult to
fly the Bison on manual controls, not surprising given its size.
However, not all was doom and gloom, and soon the M-4 Bisons were operating over the ocean,
‘showing the flag’ as an expression of Soviet power. There was also a real purpose in this, in that the
Bisons were able to gather information about Western fleets, using cameras for photoreconnaissance.
The Bison was able to perform both daytime and night-time photography, using flare bombs housed in
a bay aft of the main landing gear. Not only were the M-4s used in these reconnaissance missions, but
also the 3MS and 3MNS were used for overflying Western warships.
By 1962, twenty-four M-4-2 tankers and seventy-eight 3M bombers were in service. In the late
1960s, the Bear had largely taken over the bomber role from 3M bombers, and by the 1980s, most of
the remaining Bisons were converted into tankers. Unlike earlier conversions into tankers, these
Bison tankers could not be reconverted into bombers, as the IFR probes were removed and the bomb
bays partially faired over. These tankers served until the last flight of a Bison tanker on 23 March
1994.
No version of the Bison was ever used by any other country than the Soviet Union, and its main
successor state, Russia. In Russian service, its tanker versions continued in use until 1994. Most
remaining Bisons were disposed of in 1997, although at least four aircraft have been preserved, at
Dyagilevo, Engels, Monino, and Ukrainka, all in Russia.

Combat
Afghanistan
Somewhat remarkably, as it was nearing the end of its service life, some Bison tankers were
converted back into bombers and used in the conflict in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. Carrying large
loads of conventional bombs, they were used to area (or ‘carpet’) bomb mujahidin positions. They
flew high enough to be out of range of any air defences (such as Stinger missiles) that the mujahidin
possessed and there were no losses recorded. With the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, these
Bisons were converted back into tankers. This was the only combat usage of the Bison.

The Bison in Detail

General Description
The Bison was a large all-metal cantilever turbojet-powered monoplane with swept surfaces and a
retractable bicycle landing gear. The metal used was mainly aluminium alloys, with some steel and
magnesium alloys. There were two main bomber variants of the Bison; the M-4 and the 3M bombers
that differed in some important respects. In addition, there were tanker variants of the M-4 and the 3M
Bison. The following description is generally for the M-4, the first bomber version; where the 3M
(and 3MD) differed, this will be noted.
Fuselage
Like the Tu-95 Bear, the Bison featured a long, slim, circular-section fuselage of all-metal
construction. In the M-4, or Bison-A, the nose was extensively glazed for the bombardier. The
bombing radar was contained in a chin radome under the fuselage nose, behind the bombardier’s
glazing. The 3M Bison-B and 3MD Bison-C featured solid radar noses, with windows aft of the
radome to allow the bombardier to see outside the aircraft. In the M-4, the navigator sat above the
targeting radar; in the 3M and 3MD, he sat behind it. The fuselage housed eight crew, which consisted
of a pilot, co-pilot, navigator/bombardier, radar operator/navigator, flight engineer/gunner, radio
operator/gunner, dorsal turret gunner, and a tail gunner in the tail compartment. Other than the tail
gunner, the crew were housed in the forward pressurised compartment, with the pilots in the main
cockpit and the other crew sitting behind the main cockpit. The fuselage consisted of four sections,
described below.
In addition to housing most of the crew, the forward section of the fuselage had two Plexiglas
blisters, one on each side for gun aiming and observation purposes. These blisters could be closed on
the inside with a ‘lid’ or ‘shutters’ to protect the crew from the effects of a nuclear blast. On the M-4,
they appeared to be nearly hemispherical in shape, while on the 3M and 3MD, they were more
elongated lengthwise while retaining the shutters; this more ovoid shape was probably adopted for
better streamlining.
All the crew were seated on ejection seats, unlike the Tu-95 crew; the seats were downward
firing, as the Bison was intended as a high-altitude bomber. There was an interesting arrangement to
the ejection system in that seven crewmembers had to eject through only five hatches. In order to
achieve this, a pneumatic system moved the navigator/bombardier into position to eject through this
common hatch first, then the co-pilot and pilot in sequence. It is not recorded how successful this
arrangement was in practice.
The centre section of the fuselage was 77.76 feet (23.7 m) long, and housed the bomb bay and the
main landing gear. The wing torsion box carry-through structure passed through the centre section
between the nose gear well and the bomb bay. Two doors, one on each side, enclosed the bomb bay;
this section was not pressurised.
The aft fuselage section was 43.31 feet (13.2 m) long. This section incorporated fuel cells, the
strike assessment camera, the tail surface attachments, and the ammunition for the tail turret; it was
unpressurised.
The tail section was only 6.4 feet (1.95 m) long, and accommodated the tail gunner and the tail
turret. The tail turret radar was also housed in this section. This section was pressurised.
Nose of a M-4-2 Bison-A. Note the nearly hemispherical sighting blister on the side and the radome under the nose. (Ken Duffey)

Nose of a 3MS-2 Bison-B. Note the sighting blister on the side of the nose (an identical blister appears on the other side). The sighting
blister is slightly more oval along the horizontal axis than the sighting blister for the M-4. (Ken Duffey)
Nose of the 3MD Bison-C preserved at Monino. The refuelling probe at the very end of the nose is diagnostic for this version of the
Bison. Note the slightly oval observation/sighting blister. The structure on the very right of the blister is part of the shutters that slide
inside the blister to protect the crew from the effects of a nuclear blast. (Ken Duffey)

Wings
With a sweep back of 35 degrees at one-quarter chord, the mid-mounted two spar wings were of all-
metal construction, with large inboard flaps and ailerons outboard. The wings were constructed of
aluminium and magnesium alloys. The ailerons were hydraulically operated and featured trim tabs.
The inner part of the wings housed the engines, which were accommodated in thick wing root fairings
blended-in to the rest of the wings. Unlike the Tu-16, the engines did not impinge on the fuselage, and
were separate from that circular section structure; on the Tu-16, the fuselage was pinched in to
accommodate the engines. The outer wings featured an anhedral (negative dihedral; downward-
drooping) of 1.5 degrees. On the M-4, there was a pronounced kink where the outer wings met the
inner wing sections.
To regulate the airflow over the wings, both wings featured two boundary layer fences on the top
surfaces. The outer wing sections had streamlined fairings on the very ends that served to house the
outrigger landing gears. In addition, these fairings served an aerodynamic purpose as anti-flutter
devices.
The wings of the 3M version (the main production version) were extensively redesigned compared
to the M-4 version, especially the outer wing sections. The kink on the trailing edge that characterised
the M-4 was eliminated and the flaps and ailerons were increased in size. The outer wings were
increased in span, the two wing fences on each wing were moved inboard, and the wing camber was
changed.
All versions of the Bison featured a structure called the krest, or ‘cross’ because of its shape. This
massive structural element consisted of the fuselage centre section built integrally with the inner wing
section. This assembly was constructed separately from the other assemblies and was delivered to the
final assembly line with all the equipment already installed in the krest.
3MD Bison-D at Monino from rear three-quarters. The dorsal turret can be just be made out, with the cannons still in place, as well as
the details of the wings such as the engines in the wing roots and the boundary fence outboard of them. The aileron is very large and
occupies about half of the trailing edge of the wing. The straight trailing edge (present on both the 3M and 3MD) as opposed to the
kinked trailing edge of the M-4 Bison is also notable. (Ken Duffey)

Tail Planes
The tail planes were of a conventional type, with a fixed fin, moveable rudder, fixed stabilisers
(horizontal tail planes), and moveable elevators. The moveable surfaces were hydraulically operated.
The horizontal tail planes featured a marked dihedral of 10 degrees on the M-4, while the 3M and the
3MD featured no dihedral on their horizontal tail planes, with the tail planes parallel to the ground.
The elevators attached to the fixed stabilisers consisted of two sections. The sweepback of the
horizontal tail planes was 33.5 degrees at one-quarter chord, and there was a noticeable dihedral of
10 degrees on the M-4. Besides eliminating this dihedral, the 3M and 3MD Bison featured variable
incidence stabilisers. The vertical tail surfaces consisted of a fin, with a small dorsal extension and a
one-piece rudder with a large trim tab on the lower half. The sweepback at one-quarter chord was 35
degrees.

Engines
Early on, the Bison featured four of the Mikulin AM-3A turbojet engines of 19,290 lb thrust each, but
these were replaced by an improved version, the RD-3M-500 or RD-3M-500A engines of 20,940 lb
thrust (for the RD-3M-500) or 23,150 lb st (for the RD-3M-500A) on the 3MS-1 and the 3MS-2.
Interestingly, although basically the same engine as the AM-3, the name was changed to RD-3M (‘RD’
for Reactivniy Dvigatel or ‘Reaction (Jet) Engine’ in Russian) as Aleksandr Mikulin, who lent his
initials to the original version of the engine, had fallen out of political favour; such were the vagaries
of Soviet designations and politics. The Dobrynin VD-7B powered the 3MN-1, 3MN-2, and the
3MD. It had a thrust of 20,940 lb st.
The AM-3 engines were axial-flow units, with an eight-stage compressor, and a two-stage turbine.
An interesting feature of the engine installation was that the exhausts, or at least the exhaust outlet
fairings, were not the same, with the inboard pair exhausting through an outlet with a much thicker lip,
especially laterally, than that on the outboard exhausts. This gave the appearance of the inboard pair
of engines having an oval exhaust outlet, while the outboard pair exhausted through a circular outlet.
A close examination of photographs shows that both outlets were circular. This thicker lip was a
result of the different fairing that surrounded the inboard engines compared to the outboard engines,
and was no doubt related to the aerodynamics of these inner engine fairings.
The engines were buried in the thickened wing roots, with separate elliptical air intakes for each
engine (early in development, shared intakes for the engine pairs as with the British ‘V bombers’ had
been examined but rejected). The individual air intakes featured centre bodies, and the air inlets
passed through openings in the wing spars. Just as the engine intakes extended for some distance in
front of the wing leading edge, the exhausts extended behind the wing trailing edge for a distance. Due
to the sweepback of the wings, the engines were installed so that the inner engines were installed
further forward than the outboard engines. This showed itself especially in the further aft position of
the outboard intakes and exhausts. The exhausts were tilted downwards at a 4-degree angle, and were
tilted outwards at the same angle. This was done so the exhaust was not aimed directly at the tail
surfaces, which could have caused heat fatigue to those structures.

Fuel System
The fuel in the M-4 was contained in flexible fuel cells or bladders. They were located in the aft and
forward sections of the fuselage and in the wing torsion box. There were eighteen groups in total,
connected in a way that enabled any engine to draw fuel from any group of tanks.
Two fuel tanks could be carried in the bomb bay for very long-range missions. To improve their
range, the 3M and 3MD could carry two large external tanks (1,717 gal (6,500 l)) on pylons located
under the wing roots. The 3MS-1, 3MN-1, and 3MD had IFR capability, with a probe mounted in
front of the windscreen on top of the nose, or the very end of the nose for the 3MD.
As was standard with Soviet aircraft, an inert gas system was used for fire protection, whereby
inert gasses entered into the tanks as they emptied to prevent flammable gas vapours from building up,
thereby reducing the risk of fire in the event of a hit from the enemy.

Controls
Both pilots were provided with control yokes, rudder pedals, and full instrumentation. The controls
were fully powered hydraulically, single redundant, and with a manual backup system. An AP-15
autopilot was fitted to enable automatic control of the aircraft. The ailerons, mounted in the outer
wings, were each in two sections, with the inner sections having mechanically controlled trim tabs.
The single-piece rudder was fitted to the fixed fin, and was provided with a trim tab in the lower half.
As with the ailerons, the elevators consisted of two-sections, with the inner sections having a trim
tab. The ailerons and elevators also featured irreversible hydraulic actuators, while the rudder
featured a reversible hydraulic actuator (in contrast to the mechanical controls on the Tu-95 Bear).
Artificial feel for the controls or feedback was provided by an AU-2 artificial feel unit.
3MD Bison-C at Monino showing details such as the nose probe, the under fuselage windows for the navigator, and the engine inlets.
(Ken Duffey)

3MS-2 Bison-B preserved at Engels showing the engine exhausts. In this photograph you can clearly see the different shapes of the
fairings around the exhausts, the fairing around the inboard exhaust being much thicker than that for the outboard exhaust. (Ken Duffey)

Landing Gear
The landing gear were of a ‘bicycle’ type, where both the ‘nose’ and ‘main’ gear were housed in line
with each other in the fuselage. This somewhat unusual arrangement (which was also used on the
American Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber) was made necessary by the mid-mounted and relatively thin
wing of the Bison, and the desire to keep the weight down on the Bison, this type of landing gear
being lighter than a conventional tricycle landing gear. Small outrigger landing gear were fitted in
fairings on the ends of the wings to keep the wingtips off the ground when the Bison landed and was
parked.
The nose and main gear both consisted of four-wheel bogies, with two wheels mounted on either
side of twin axles, with both units retracting forward into the fuselage. The outrigger landing gear
also retracted forward into their fairings. All the landing gear were electrically operated. Both the
nose wheels and the main wheels were 1,700 × 550 mm in size. The front pair of the nose wheels
were hydraulically steerable. The outrigger wheels consisted of two wheels on each outrigger strut,
with a size of 660 × 160 mm.
One unusual feature of the landing gear was that when the weight was removed from the nose
bogey during take-off, the rear pair extended down, increasing the angle of attack by 3 degrees, which
facilitated take-off. This meant that the pilot did not have to pull back on the control yoke, as was
normally done with aircraft upon take-off—the aircraft could almost take off on its own.
Both of the bogies were enclosed by twin doors, while the outrigger landing gear was enclosed by
three doors, two on each side at the front, with another larger single-piece door attached to the
outboard side of the outrigger fairing.
For braking purposes, the main bogies were equipped with pneumatic brakes; the nose bogies had
no brakes. In addition, four drogue parachutes were deployed upon landing to reduce the landing run.
The parachutes were stowed in a bay on the underside of the aft fuselage and were deployed
automatically; the parachutes were also released automatically to reduce damage to them. The
deployment and release were electro-pneumatically operated.

Electronics
The main bombing radar was the RBP-4 Rubidy-MM radar, which was also the navigation radar.
This radar was housed in a fairing under the nose on the M-4. In addition to this radar, the bombardier
could rely upon an optical bombing sight, the OPB-11S. Other avionics included an IFF
(identification friend or foe) system, a radar altimeter, and a Doppler ground speed radar, and UHF
and VHF communications equipment. There was also a camera housed in the rear fuselage to assess
the bombing results. As mentioned previously, an AP-15 autopilot was fitted to enable automatic
control of the aircraft. The radar on the 3M and 3MD was housed in an extended nose cone, as
different from the chin radome of the M-4.
Front bogie of the Bison. (Ken Duffey)

Rear bogie of the Bison. Note the low ground clearance for the rear fuselage. (Ken Duffey)
Outrigger landing gear of the Bison. (Ken Duffey)

Defensive Armament
In all the production versions of the Bison this consisted of Afanasyev Makarov AM-23 23-mm
cannons, two to a turret, carried in remote-controlled dorsal and ventral turrets in the forward
fuselage, and in a manned tail turret position, for a total of six cannons.
In order to direct the remote-controlled turrets, there were three domes, one on top of the forward
fuselage for both turret and navigational sighting, and two domes on either side of the forward
fuselage for turret sighting. As mentioned previously, the side domes each featured a rather unusual
shutter, which could cover the inside of the dome, probably to protect the crew from the flash of a
nuclear blast.
Four different optical sights were provided for the gunners to control the turrets. The VPS-53M
was used in the dorsal sighting position, the LPS-63M was used for the port sighting position, the
PPS-53M was used for the starboard sighting position, and the tail gunner had the KPS-53M. In
addition to the optical sight, the tail gunner had the PRS-1 Argon gun-laying radar to aim the tail
turret.
The turrets were a DB-33A unit for the dorsal turret, a DB-34A unit for the ventral turret, and a
DB-35AM unit for the tail turret. These were all part of the SPV-25 system. The ammunition was 300
rpg for the dorsal and ventral turrets, and 400 rpg for the tail turret. The ammunition was
accommodated in the forward fuselage for the dorsal and ventral turrets, and in the aft fuselage for the
tail turret. The cannons themselves were AM-23 23-mm cannons with a firing rate of 1,250 to 1,350
rpm, and were belt-fed.
 It appears that the tanker versions of the Bison retained the defensive armament of the bomber
versions, which is not surprising since most of them were convertible back into bombers.

Offensive Armament
The Bison always carried its disposable armament in its internal bomb bay. No production Bisons
ever carried missiles, although the 3MDs had originally been designed as missile carriers. It does not
appear that any of the few 3MDs built actually carried any missiles in service. The maximum bomb
load was an impressive 52,800 lb (26.4 tons, 23,950 kg), which could include two of the enormous
FAB-9000 conventional bombs (9,000 kg or 19,842 lb), or up to four FAB-6000 bombs (6,000 kg or
13,228 lb). The Bison could also carry up to four BRAB-6000 armour-piercing bombs. In addition to
conventional bombs, the Bison could carry nuclear bombs, of course. Besides bombs, the Bison could
carry anti-ship mines and air-dropped torpedoes, including the rocket-powered RAT-52 torpedo. It
would appear that the capacious bomb bay and load-carrying ability of the Bison enabled it to carry
just about everything in the Soviet inventory.

Underside turret of the Bison. (Ken Duffey)

Tail turret of the Bison. (Ken Duffey)

Camouflage and Markings

The first Bisons were finished in an overall metal finish, but soon a white underside was painted as a
nuclear anti-flash protection; this was applied to most Bisons. The only markings were normally the
Soviet red stars, the tactical number, and various stencilling, all in red. The Bison was not a very
colourful aircraft, at least in terms of its camouflage and markings.

Conclusion
Although the Bison served for nearly four decades, it could not be said to have been an entirely
successful aircraft, as it failed in its primary goal of providing the Soviet Union with a pure-jet heavy
strategic bomber capable of flying unrefuelled intercontinental missions against the United States.
This relative lack of success shows up in the numbers built—only 100 or so. Nonetheless, the effort
was useful in providing the Soviet Union with experience in designing and producing large jet
aircraft, and the Bison did give long and useful service as an aerial tanker.
 5

Tu-16 ‘Badger’ (‘88’)

A medium twin-engined jet bomber, capable of delivering nuclear weapons, the Badger was
developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s and was in many ways the equivalent of the American
Boeing B-47 Stratojet (described further on). Unlike the B-47, which featured podded jets hung by
pylons underneath thin swept-back wings, the Tu-16 had two large turbojets, one each buried in the
wing roots of the swept-back wings, similar to the design of the British Vickers Valiant and Handley
Page Victor in this respect, although the British aircraft featured four engines. It is interesting to note
that the Soviets were able to accomplish in terms of power what took the British four engines and
took the Americans six engines to achieve. That the Tu-16 was able to match the British bombers in
performance, despite being larger and with only two engines to their four (or the American B-47’s six
engines), is a tribute to the powerful turbojet engines that Soviet industry were able to design and
produce in the 1940s and 1950s.
Unlike the British designs, which had no defensive guns (the B-47 normally featured two 20-mm
cannons in a remote-controlled tail turret), the Badger was equipped with strong defensive armament,
with no less than three rotating turrets, each equipped with two AM-23 23-mm cannons. On some
variants, even the pilot was provided with a fixed AM-23 23-mm cannon on the starboard side of the
nose firing forward, for a total of seven 23-mm cannons. It was partly this heavy defensive armament
that enabled the Tu-16 to beat out the rival Il-46, as Soviet air doctrine of the time stressed all-around
defence for bombers, and with no fully rotating turrets (the Tu-16 had two for full hemisphere
defensive coverage), the Il-46 was found lacking in this respect.
By the time construction had ended, 1,509 Tu-16s were built from 1953–63 at three different
factories, Plants No. 1 in Kuibyshev, No. 22 in Kazan’, and No. 64 in Voronezh. This total includes
the two ‘88’ prototypes, but does not include production in China, which continues as of the time of
writing (2018). The Soviet Tu-16s served until 1994, and the Chinese versions continue in service.
Badger-Cs in flight. AS-2 (K-10S) Kipper missiles can be seen on the fuselage undersides (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)
Badger-Cs in flight. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Development
It was obvious to the Soviets that however sound a design the Tu-4 (B-29) was, it was doomed to
obsolescence by its piston engines. As early as 10 June 1950, a decree from the MAP requested that
the Ilyushin and Tupolev bureaux develop a long-range medium jet bomber. The requirement called
for a swept-wing aircraft to be powered by two Lyulka AL-5 turbojets; it was to have a bomb load of
11,023 lb (5,000 kg) and a range of 4,971 miles (8,000 km).
Ilyushin built the Il-46. This was basically a larger variant of the successful Il-28 Beagle tactical
bomber, and like that aircraft, featured straight wings. This was to be followed by a swept-winged
version, which in the event was never built.
As early as the ‘82’ (‘Tu-82’) design, a distant descendant of the piston-engined wartime Tu-2,
Tupolev had been developing swept-winged bombers. The Tu-82 actually flew, but it was by way of
the unbuilt ‘83’, ‘87’, and especially the ‘86’ projects that the ‘88’ evolved, influenced by the Tu-4 in
some respects, such as the defensive armament and the long slender circular-section fuselage.
The Tupolev Bureau, in contrast to the Ilyushin Bureau, decided to build a swept-wing aircraft
from the start, known as the ‘88’, developed from the ‘86’ project. This was to be powered by two of
the powerful new Mikulin AMRD-03 (produced as the ‘AM-3’) turbojets, which were developing
19,290 lb st (far more than any jet engine in the West at that time). The mock-up of the ‘88’ was
approved in July 1951, and the ‘88’, by now designated as the ‘Tu-16’, first flew on 27 April 1952. It
was unarmed, and was flown by Tupolev test pilot N. S. Rybko. The state trials started in November
1952, ending in March 1953. Evidently, the trials were somewhat disappointing in terms of the
performance of the Tu-16. For example, the range was not considered good, and the aircraft was
overweight, with a take-off weight of 170,528 lb (77,350 kg) as opposed to the estimated weight of
141,096 lb (64,000 kg). In an effort to make certain that the structure was strong enough, the engineers
had overbuilt the aircraft, making it stronger than it needed to be, as failure of the aircraft’s structure
would have carried grave consequences for their careers and, while Stalin was still around, even
their lives.
Notwithstanding the mediocre range, the aircraft was considered to be good enough for
development to proceed, and a second prototype was constructed. This second prototype had a longer
nose, was armed, and had a greater fuel capacity to increase the range. In addition it was subjected to
a strenuous lightening programme. This entailed an extensive redesign of the basic structure, where
low stress areas were lightened in structure. In addition to lightening the structure in low stress areas,
high stress areas were looked at closely to see where the structure could be lightened by lowering the
number of attachments. The aircraft also used a number of single pressed parts, as opposed to heavier
riveted and other joined parts. As a result of this, the second prototype, the ‘88/2’, had its empty
weight reduced from 90,500 lb (41,050 kg) to 78,242 lb (35,490 kg) a rather impressive reduction in
weight. The aircraft was completed in November 1952, and first flew on 6 April 1953, again with
pilot N. S. Rybko at the controls, as with the first prototype. The trials were completed a year later
and production and service were recommended in May 1954. The first production Tu-16 had already
rolled out of Z.22 at Kazan’ on 29 October 1953.

The 88/1, the Tu-16 prototype in 1952 at Zhukovskiy. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

The public was introduced to the Tu-16 when nine flew in the traditional flypast at the May Day
parade in Moscow in 1954. Once NATO was aware of their existence, they gave the new aeroplane
the reporting nickname of ‘Badger’. Given that the badger is a tough and adaptable animal, it proved
to be a good nickname for the durable and adaptable Tu-16.
There were ten Tu-16 versions that were built as such at the factory. These were the Tu-16, Tu-
16A, Tu-16K-10, Tu-16KS, Tu-16R, Tu-16 Romb, Tu-16SPS, Tu-16T, Tu-16Ye (Tu-16E), and the Tu-
16 Yolka. However, there were many conversions. One source mentions that nearly 100 variants and
sub-variants of the Badger were built or converted, while another mentions ‘only’ eighty. I have not
attempted to list or describe in complete detail all these variants, as that would entail a book in its
own right. However, below I list and describe a fair number of them, including the most important or
interesting of the Tu-16 variants. This includes prototypes, but no unbuilt projects. Some versions
will be described in greater detail than others, usually in direct proportion to their importance or the
numbers built or converted.

Tu-16 ‘Badger-A’
The first version of the Tu-16 to enter service, this variant was evidently only capable of carrying
conventional free-fall bombs. Most, if not all, were eventually converted to be able to carry nuclear
bombs, thereby becoming equivalent to the Tu-16A. A total of 294 were built.

Tu-16A ‘Badger-A’
This was the original free-fall nuclear bomber variant of the Badger, and first entered service in
1954, eventually replacing (along with the Tu-95 Bear) the Tu-4 Bull in combat service. The
disposable weaponry consisted of a free-fall nuclear bomb(s) in the internal bomb bay, and
necessitated the bomber flying over its intended target. This would have exposed the bomber to the
target’s undoubtedly heavy defences, both from the ground (in the form of surface-to-air missiles
(SAMs), which were being increasingly used) and in the air (in the form of interceptor aircraft such
as the American Convair F-102 Dagger and Convair F-106 Dart). This was the single most heavily
produced version of the Badger, with some 453 being built; many were converted into the variants
listed further on.
To enable it to carry nuclear bombs, the bomb bay was climate-controlled, with heating for the
nuclear bomb, and there was additional protection to shield the crew and the aircraft from the effects
of a nuclear blast. This protection included strengthening the airframe and providing the crew with
blinds to cover the windows. In addition, the under surfaces were usually painted in a protective anti-
flash white finish.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a few Tu-16As were modified with the Rezeda suite, and the
SPS-100 jammer fitted in the UKhO fairing on the tail, replacing the tail turret. This fairing was
similar to that fitted to the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G missile carriers.

Tu-16B (Prototype)
In an effort to increase the range of the Tu-16, it was decided to fit experimental M16-15 (RD16-15)
engines to two prototypes. Despite the increase in performance (especially range) resulting from the
more efficient engines, the Tu-16B was not put into production because of cutbacks to Soviet bomber
forces.

Tu-16G (Tu-104G)
Three Tu-16 bombers were modified for use by the Soviet air carrier, Aeroflot. All military
equipment was removed and civilian markings applied. This version was used for transporting high-
priority mail, such as newspaper matrices, with the bomb bay being used for containers. The ‘G’
stood for Gruzovoy or ‘Cargo’. Although it was also called the ‘Tu-104G’, it is not to be confused
with another aircraft given this same designation, which were also demilitarised Tu-16s—in this case
used for training crew for the Tu-104, a transport derived from the Badger design (both aircraft are
described further on). The Tu-16G was not given a NATO reporting name, perhaps because of its
patently non-combat, civilian role (although NATO did give reporting names to other civilian
transports), or perhaps NATO were not aware of them.

Tu-16K Series
As free-fall bombers became increasingly vulnerable to enemy defences, the necessity for a bomber
with a ‘stand-off’ capability grew. This capability took the form of a bomber that would serve as a
missile carrier, able to launch conventional or nuclear-armed missiles far from the target, thereby
enabling the bomber to avoid the heavy air defences protecting the target. The Tu-4 Bull was initially
used for this role, as the Tu-4K (Bull-B), carrying the AS-1 Kennel (KS-1, or Kometa) missile, but as
a piston-engined bomber, it was just a stopgap and obsolete by the 1950s; a jet aircraft was needed to
assume this role.
In addition, because of its large size, tractable nature, and good range, the Tu-16 was a natural
choice for such a jet-engined missile carrier. Accordingly, the Tu-16A free-fall bomber was
transformed into the missile-carrying Tu-16K series. Some of these aircraft were built new at the
main production factories, whereas some were conversions, even conversions of earlier ‘K’ variants
(some Badgers were converted more than once during their long service careers). The conversions
were made at the main production factories, other factories, or even in local maintenance and
overhaul facilities.

Tu-16K-10 ‘Badger-C’
Designed originally for the ‘105’ aircraft (what would become the Tu-22 Blinder), the K-10 system
was instead fitted to the reliable Badger airframe because of developmental problems with that
troublesome aircraft.
The K-10’s most important component, other than the carrier aircraft, was the supersonic AS-2 (K-
10S Luga-S) ‘Kipper’ missile (its NATO reporting name), a supersonic jet-powered anti-shipping
missile. The Kipper was equipped with a YeS-1 homing radar system that was engaged once it was
between 6.21 to 9.94 miles (10 to 16 km) from the target. Both conventional and nuclear warheads
could be used on the Kipper. The Kipper was carried on the fuselage centreline of the Tu-16 on a
BD-238 hydraulically moveable adaptor. This adaptor, a large beam, moved the Kipper down into the
airstream, where the jet engine would be started and the missile launched. This system meant that the
Tu-16K-10 could not carry bombs in its modified bomb bay.
For the Tu-16K-10, the basic Tu-16KS (described further on) airframe was fitted with a nose like
the ‘duck-billed’ nose of the Tu-95Ks (Bear-Bs, -Cs, and -Gs). This solid nose replaced the glass
nose of earlier Badger variants and carried the large YeN radar (‘Puff Ball’ in NATO terminology).
Apparently, this large nose actually improved the aerodynamics of the Badger, if not its aesthetics. As
a result of the radar’s placement, the navigator position was moved aft. The YeN radar itself
consisted of two parts: the main search and targeting radar housed in the large nose, and a smaller
radar, used for the command link to the Kipper missile, accommodated in a relatively small teardrop-
shaped radome under the chin. In addition to the large radome, the starboard 23-mm cannon, which
was often fitted to the glass-nosed versions, was deleted as it was displaced by the huge radome. In
other respects, the cannon armament was the same as the earlier Badgers. It was given the NATO
reporting name of ‘Badger-C’. Some Badger-Cs had the SPS-100 Rezeda jammer fitted in the UKhO
tail fairing, while others had the Sirena jammer (SPS-151, SPS-152, or SPS-153) in a similar but
larger fairing.
This version officially entered service with the AVMF in 1961, although it had achieved IOC as
early as 1959. A total of 216 Tu-16K-10s were built new at Z.1 in Kuibyshev and Z.22 in Kazan’ by
the time production ended in late 1963, thereby making it the most numerous of the missile carrier
versions to be produced (as opposed to converted). It was apparently the last Tu-16 version in
production.

Tu-16K-10-26 ‘Badger-C Mod’

This version of the Badger missile carriers could carry up to three missiles as part of the K-26
complex, two of these being the AS-6 ‘Kingfish’ rocket-powered stand-off missiles, with the missiles
mounted on BD-487 pylons, one under each wing. The Rubin-1KV radar (‘Short Horn’) was fitted for
guidance of the Kingfish missiles. The third missile was the turbojet-powered AS-2 (K-10SN)
Kipper ECM drone mounted semi-recessed under the fuselage, as on the Tu-16K-10 Badger-C.
Badger-C in flight. (Public Domain)

Tu-16K-10-26B ‘Badger-C Mod’

The AVMF decided it wanted to retain a free-fall bombing capability despite the difficulty of
conventionally bombing ships, so some Tu-16K-10-26s were modified to carry external BD-4-16-52
bomb racks under the fuselage and an OPB-1RU optical bombsight. Further bomb racks could be
mounted on the underwing missile pylons. It may be that the AVMF wished to be able to
conventionally bomb stationary coastal targets also.

Tu-16K-11 (Prototype)
At the same time that work was proceeding on the ‘K-16’ complex, the ‘K-11’ complex was being
developed. This system involved the KSR-11 missile, the anti-radar variant of the AS-5 (KSR-2)
Kelt. This was basically the KSR-2 equipped with a passive radar unit that allowed it to home in on
enemy ground and shipborne radar signals. It housed a 2PRF-10 homing radar in a lengthened nose,
with the length of the missile increased to 28.22 feet (8.6 m). The Ritsa system was used by the Tu-16
carrier aircraft for target detection. As with other Tu-16s equipped with the Ritsa system, the fixed
starboard cannon was removed. This was done in order to compensate for the weight of this system
and retain the proper centre-of-gravity, so the PU-88 starboard cannon installation and its PKI optical
gunsight were deleted. This version was not produced as it was decided to combine the similar K-11
and K-16 complexes in one aircraft.

Tu-16K-11-16 ‘Badger-G’
This version was distinguished from the Tu-16KSR-2 variant by being capable of operating as either
part of the K-11 complex, or part of the K-16 complex. As part of the K-11 complex, this consisted of
the AS-5B (KSR-2, KSR-11) missile, which was the AS-5 Kelt configured for an anti-radar role.
As part of the K-16 complex, this involved the AS-5 (KSR-2, KSR-11) Kelt rocket-powered
missile configured for the anti-shipping role. In either case, two missiles could be carried underwing
on pylons. Some 441 Tu-16s were so equipped, making it one of the most widely used Badger
versions. This version retained the glass nose of the free-fall bomber versions, and was equipped
with the Rubin-1 radar, which was of pulse design. The KSR-11 Kelt was guided using the Ritsa
system, which externally consisted of an antenna array arranged in an upside-down T-shape on the tip
of the nose.
Some 441 aircraft were converted into this version, of which 211 served with the DA and 230
served with the AVMF. These conversions were made to both bomber versions, such as the Tu-16A,
and earlier missile carriers such as the Tu-16KS, the conversions being carried out in the 1960s at
maintenance factories. A few Tu-16K-11-16s were supplied to Egypt and Iraq. Some of these aircraft
were converted into the Tu-16K-26 configuration in 1969. One Tu-16K-11-16 has been preserved at
Monino.

Tu-16K-11-26P ‘Badger-G’
When the Tu-16K-11-26 was equipped to carry the radar suppression version of the Kingfish (KSR-
5PM) missile, it was designated as the ‘Tu-16K-11-26P’. It carried the Ritsa antenna array above the
glass nose and omitted the fixed starboard nose cannon.

Tu-16K-16 ‘Badger-G’ (see Tu-16KSR-2)

This was another designation for the Tu-16KSR-2, which is described further on.

Tu-16K-26 ‘Badger-G Mod’

This missile-carrying variant of the Badger was characterised by its ability to carry two of the AS-6
Kingfish (KSR-5) rocket-powered missiles. It was part of the K-26 complex, which enabled it to
carry two of the Kingfish missiles on underwing BD-487 pylons. This missile was basically a
smaller version of the AS-4 Kitchen missile (Raduga Kh-22), as the Kitchen was too large for the
Badger.
The Badger-G retained the capability to carry the AS-5 Kelt (KSR-2) missiles in both its anti-
shipping and anti-radar variants, with the anti-shipping variants being carried on the wing pylons, and
the anti-radar variant being carried on the fuselage centreline. A typical load-out for the Badger-G
would have been one of the Kitchens carried underwing. This variant was used from 1969, and over
240 Badgers were converted into this version of the Badger, making it one of the most numerous
Badger variants. Apparently fifteen were converted from Tu-16-11-16s. The basic Tu-16K-26 led to
its own family of variants, some of which are described further on.
Tu-16K-26 Badger-G preserved at Monino. An AS-4 Kingfish missile can be seen mounted on the port underwing pylon. Also note the
T-shaped Ritsa antenna array on the end of the nose. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-16 Badger preserved as a gate guardian outside of Dyagilevo. This aircraft has an electronic jammer installation in a fairing above the
cockpit; this is the Rogovista installation. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-16K-26B
Capable of carrying more bombs and mines (both externally and internally) than the original Tu-16K-
26, this Badger was designated the ‘Tu-16K-26B’, with the ‘B’ standing for Bombardirovochnoye
Vo’oruzheniye, or ‘Bombing Armament’.
Tu-16K-26M
When the Tu-16K-26 was equipped to carry the improved KSR-5B or KSR-5M (AS-6) Kingfish in
the late 1970s, it was given the designation of ‘Tu-16K-26M’. Several Tu-16K-26s were modified as
part of this ‘K-26M’ complex, though it is unclear how many.

Tu-16K-26N
This Badger version was modified to carry the KSR-5N, which was optimised for low-level attack.
Several different types of Tu-16Ks were converted in small numbers into this version; these served
with the AVMF in the 1980s.

Tu-16K-26P
This version of the Tu-16K, converted from the Tu-16KSR-2-5-11, retained the glass nose of the
early Tu-16s but the nose cannon was removed, however, as the nose carried the Ritsa array. The Tu-
16K-26P carried twin pylons (one under each wing), and had the distinctive T-shaped Ritsa antenna
array mounted directly above the bombardier’s clear nose panel in the glass nose. This version was
optimised to carry the anti-radiation version of the Kingfish missile, the KSR-5P, with the ‘P’
standing for Protivolokatsionnaya (Raketa) or ‘Anti-radar (Missile)’. The Tu-16K-26P could also
carry the KSR-2, the normal version of the KSR-5, and the KSR-11. Tu-16KSR-2-5-11s were
converted into this version and the conversions were carried out at maintenance and repair depots.
The Ritsa may have been replaced later (or supplemented) by the VSP-K/L-067 Taifun system.

Tu-16K-26PM
Badgers that were capable of carrying the KSR-5M Kingfish and the KSR-11 Kelt missiles received
this designation.

Tu-16KS ‘Badger-B’
This missile carrier variant was designed to carry two AS-1 (KS-1 Kometa) Kennels underwing on
BD-187 pylons. This was the earliest missile carrier variant of the Badger. In addition to service
with the AVMF, it also served with the air forces of Egypt and Indonesia. It retained the glass nose
and fixed nose cannon of the free-fall bomber version. The Tu-16KS was equipped with a Kobalt-P
guidance radar in a retractable installation on the underside of the fuselage. As a weapons system
operator (or ‘WSO’, who was responsible for the missile operation) was carried in the bomb bay,
this version was incapable of carrying free-fall bombs.
The Tu-16KS carried the Kobalt-P radar (the prototype had carried the K-1M Kobalt-IM radar) as
part of the targeting and missile guidance system. This installation was basically the same that had
been used on the earlier Tu-4K (Tu-4KS) Bull-B missile carriers, and shows the continuing influence
of the Tu-4 on subsequent Tupolev bombers. The Kobalt was a revolving radar able to search through
360 degrees, and was utilised to search for, detect, lock onto, and track the missile’s intended target.
The Kometa missile itself was under the radio control of the WSO, who guided the missile to the
target until the missile’s radar took over. The missile’s radar, the K-1, was a passive system which
homed in on the radar waves from the Kobalt radar reflecting from the target. The target was
continuously illuminated or ‘painted’ by the carrier aircraft’s Kobalt radar.
The OKB’s tests on the prototype Tu-16KS were conducted between August and November 1954
with a total of eighteen flights being made. After passing further tests in 1955, the Tu-16KS was
recommended for production and 107 were built from 1954-58 at Z.22 at Kazan’. These were used by
the AVMF. Sixty-five were converted into the Tu-16KSR-2, which could carry the KSR-2 (AS-5
Kelt) missile, and the Tu-16K-11-16, which could carry the KSR-11 anti-radar version of the Kelt
missile. The ‘KSR’ in the Kelt’s Soviet designation stood for Krylatiy Snaryad Raketniy, or ‘Winged
Rocket-powered Missile’.

Tu-16KSR-2 ‘Badger-G’
The Soviet Union wanted a missile that was faster and had a greater range than the Kometa, as well
as a carrier aircraft to launch it. On 29 April 1957, the MAP issued an order for a new radar system
based on the Rubin-1 radar, and a rocket-powered development of the KS-1 Kometa. The new radar
system became the Rubicon guidance system, and the new missile became the KSR-2 (AS-5) Kelt,
which was equipped with the KS-1M radar. The aircraft to carry them both became known as the ‘Tu-
16KSR-2’, and the entire complex was designated as the ‘K-16’ complex. As a result of its
connection with the K-16 complex, the Tu-16KSR-2 was sometimes referred to in service as the ‘Tu-
16K-16’.
Utilised from 1962, this Badger variant could only carry two of the KSR-2 anti-shipping missiles
on B-352 underwing pylons, unlike the Tu-16K-11-16 described previously. It apparently did not
carry the Kipper. The Tu-16KSR-2 carried the Rubin-1K ‘Short Horn’ radar, part of the Rubicon
missile guidance system, mounted under the nose. It was also equipped with the AP-6E autopilot in
place of the original AP-5-2M autopilot. Fifty of these aircraft were converted from the original Tu-
16KS missile carrier.
Since the guidance of the missile was automated, there was no need for a WSO, and the navigator
was now responsible for launching the missile. The absence of the WSO position in the bomb bay
enabled the Tu-16KSR-2s that had been converted from Tu-16 and Tu-16A bombers to continue to
carry bombs, which enabled it to be both a bomber and a missile carrier, evidently the first aircraft to
be able to be both; aircraft that were converted from the Tu-16A retained the ability to carry nuclear
bombs.
NATO gave this version of the Badger the reporting name of ‘Badger-G’, which was also used for
some subsequent missile-carrying versions.

Tu-16KSR-2-5 ‘Badger-G’
This was the name that was apparently initially used for the Tu-16K-16-26. It was the Tu-16KSR-2A
modified in the 1970s to carry the K-26 complex. It could carry the KSR-2 Kelt and KSR-5 Kingfish
missiles, and also function as a bomber. 110 conversions of this variant were made. Unlike the Tu-
16KSR2-5-11, it did not carry the Ritsa array and retained the nose cannon. As it did not carry the
Ritsa antenna, it could not carry the anti-radar KSR-11. It carried the large Rubin-1M radar in a
teardrop fairing under the fuselage.

Tu-16KSR-2-5-11 ‘Badger-G Mod’

Some 125 Tu-16KSR-2-11s were converted into this example, which featured the K-26 complex. It
could carry the KSR-2 Kelt, the KSR-5 Kingfish, and the KSR-11 anti-radiation version of the Kelt. It
could also function as a free-fall bomber. It had the Ritsa array on the nose.

Tu-16KSR-2-11 ‘Badger-G’
Like the Tu-16KSR-2-5, this Badger version carried the Rubin-1M radar in a large teardrop-shaped
belly radome and gave a greater detection range in order to fully utilise the detection range of the AS-
6 (KSR-5) Kingfish. The Rubin-1M radar had a range of 276 miles (444 km), as opposed to the 150
miles (241 km) range of the Rubin-1K. Since the Rubin-1K radar was no longer carried, its under-
nose fairing was deleted. In addition to the Kingfish, the Tu-16KSR-2-11 could also carry the AS-5
(KSR-2) Kelt missile.

Tu-16KSR-2A (Tu-16A-KSR-2)
Distinguished from the early versions of the Tu-16KSR-2, this version, converted at the same time
(1960s) from the Tu-16 and Tu-16A bomber versions, retained the capability to carry free-fall bombs
from the start. Later, when the Tu-16KSR-2 that were converted from the Tu-16KS acquired this
capability, this distinction disappeared between the two variants.

Tu-16KSR-IS
In order to protect themselves, some Tu-16KSR-2s were fitted with the Fasol (‘String Bean’) ECM
suite. For group operations, the Rezeda ECM suite could be fitted in the UKhO tail fairing. The Tu-
16KSR-IS conversions were done in the early 1970s.

Tu-16KRM
This version of the Badger was equipped to carry and control target drones, and was converted from
Tu-16KS and Tu-16KSRs in the late 1960s. The target drones were the ‘MV-1’ (or ‘KRM-2’),
versions of the AS-5 (KSR-2) Kelt missile. The MV-1 had a top speed of 1,715 mph (2,760 kph).

Tu-16KRME
Similar to the Tu-16KRM drone carrier/controller, this Badger version had Sirena jammers and
ASO-16 chaff dispensers, while still being capable of carrying the MV-1 target drones. This variant
was converted from Tu-16Ye ECM Badgers. The ECM capabilities of this Tu-16 enabled it to
simulate enemy ECM against PVO units as they were trying to engage the drone.

Tu-16LL
At least nine Tu-16s were converted to test engines in flight. Due to the large size of strategic
bombers, they made good flying test beds, as they were able to carry bulky test and monitoring
equipment, as well as being able to test engines in flight. In addition to the Badger, It seems that at
least one example of every large Soviet bomber was converted into an ‘LL’ variant (or variants).

Tu-16M (M-16)
After their active service lives were over, some Tu-16s were converted for use as radio-controlled
drones. The ‘M’ in the designation apparently stood for Mishen, or ‘Target’ in Russian. The first
Badgers were converted to this version in 1965, having most of their military equipment, such as the
gun armament removed. Much of the avionics equipment was also removed, although some avionics
would have still been needed to allow the drone aircraft to fly.
Evidently, in service, the Tu-16 target drones were more commonly known by the designation of
‘M-16’ instead of ‘Tu-16M’. If at this point, the intrepid reader finds herself or himself becoming a
bit confused by the profusion of names and designations given to the Badger by both the Soviets and
NATO then that is certainly understandable. The Badger probably set some kind of record for the
most Soviet designations and NATO reporting names for any Soviet aeroplane, even more than the
impressive number bestowed upon the Tu-95/Tu-142 Bear family. In this instance, it does not appear
that NATO assigned a specific reporting name to the Tu-16M.

Tu-16N ‘Badger-A’
The Bison tankers had originally been used to refuel the Tu-22 Blinders, but as the tankers were
based only at Engels air base, this was not an optimal solution. A lighter tanker able to operate from
more air bases was needed. Therefore, a specialised tanker version of the Badger, the Tu-16N was
specifically developed to refuel the Tu-22 Blinder, and was equipped with the probe-and-drogue
refuelling Konus system developed for the Bison, instead of Tupolev’s earlier wingtip-to-wingtip
system. They were converted from Tu-16 bombers. Perhaps, NATO were just being lazy, but this
version was referred to by the NATO reporting name of ‘Badger-A’, which was used for several
distinct versions of the Badger. The Tu-16N remained in service into the 1980s.

Tu-16NKRM
This Tu-16 version was equipped to carry the Ts-59 Olen (‘Deer’) target drone, and were used from
1964. From 1980, the Ts-59V Magnit (‘Magnet’) drone was also used. These drones were used to
test PVO SAM defences; the Tu-16NKRM carried two of these drones.

Tu-16NM
Another target drone carrier/controller version of the Tu-16, this version was equipped to carry the
KSR-5NM and KSR-5MV target drones. These were high-speed and high-altitude drones, with a top
speed of Mach 4.2 and a very impressive maximum ceiling of 131,240 feet (40,000 m) and were used
to test new SAM defences. These drones were developed in the early 1960s from the KSR-5 (AS-6)
Kingfish stand-off missile, also carried by the Tu-16.
The Tu-16NM was converted from a Tu-16K-26 missile carrier, but the drones could also be
carried by Tu-16K-26s, Tu-16KSR-2-5s, and Tu-16KSR-2-5-11s that had been properly modified.

Tu-16NN
These aircraft were similar to the Tu-16N except that they were converted in 1969 from Tu-16(Z)
tankers (twenty in all) instead of Tu-16 bombers, as was the case with the Tu-16N. Evidently they
were referred to simply as ‘Tu-16N’ in DA service.

Tu-16P Buket ‘Badger-J’

Serving the same jamming purpose as the Tu-16SPS (see further on), the Tu-16P differed by
employing the more sophisticated Buket (‘Bouquet’) system which consisted of SPS-22N, SPS-33N,
SPS-44N, SPS-55N, and SPS-77 jammers. These jammers were able to cover a wide range of
frequencies and enabled the Tu-16P Buket to jam several enemy radars at once.
Ninety Tu-16 aircraft were modified with this system beginning in 1962. The system itself was
placed in the bomb bay, which was now air-conditioned and pressurised to protect this system. The
Buket system showed itself externally by the presence of a long ‘canoe’ fairing along the centreline of
the under fuselage.
Some of the Tu-16P Buket Badgers had the tail turret replaced by the streamlined ECM Rezeda
fairing later in their careers (similar to that used with the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G and some Tu-16Rs),
evidently starting in the 1970s. Interestingly, at least some of these aircraft still retained the fixed nose
cannon installation, thereby giving these aircraft a total of five 23-mm cannons instead of the normal
six or seven (or four normally carried when the ECM tail cone was fitted). It appears that the Tu-16P
usually retained the nose cannon, whether or not it was equipped with the ECM tail cone or the tail
turret.
Some Tu-16Ps used directional antennae as part of the Fikus (‘Ficus’, or ‘Fig Tree’ in Russian)
ECM suite, while late in their careers some were fitted with the Kaktus (‘Cactus’) ECM suite. The
Fikus-equipped aircraft were distinguished by a large ‘canoe’ fairing under the central fuselage, much
larger than that originally fitted to the Tu-16P.

Tu-16PLO (Tu-16PL) ‘Badger-A’

This version of the Badger was outfitted for ASW duties. These were apparently converted from
some of the Tu-16T torpedo bombers starting in 1962, though it is not clear how many were
converted. The converted aircraft was able to carry sonobuoys for locating a submarine, and
torpedoes, mines, and depth charges for attacking it. When configured for the submarine searching
role, the Tu-16PLO could carry up to thirty-six sonobuoys. The combined search/attack configuration
consisted of twelve sonobuoys and one nuclear depth charge, or eighteen sonobuoys and two AT-1
torpedoes. The pure attack configuration consisted of six RM-1 rocket torpedoes, two AT-1 mines, or
twenty-five PLAB-50 depth charges.
 The Tu-16PLO served with the Northern Fleet until 1967 and with the Pacific Fleet until 1968. It
may have been superseded by the Tu-16SP with its stronger radar.

Tu-16R Series
This series comprised a number of different reconnaissance versions of the Tu-16 (the ‘R’ in the
designation was for Razvedchik, or ‘Reconnaissance’ in Russian). Some were built new, and some
were converted from earlier versions. Several different NATO reporting names were used to
designate the various versions. Later in their careers, some Tu-16Rs had the tail turret replaced by a
tail cone containing ECM equipment such as electronics jammers. Some had the Rezeda suite in this
tail cone, while others had the Sirena suite, which was accommodated in a larger, more laterally
compressed tail fairing. The Tu-16R preserved at the air base at Dyagilevo, Russia has the Sirena tail
fairing.

Tu-16R ‘Badger-E’
This reconnaissance version of the Tu-16 was originally fitted with the SRS-1 ELINT system,
although initially it retained the original RBP-4 Rubidy bombing/navigation radar of the bomber
version for use as a search radar. Later, the RBP-6 radar replaced this radar. This first Badger
reconnaissance version was designated by NATO as the ‘Badger-E’. A total of seventy-five Tu-16Rs
were produced new, and were used by both the DA and the AVMF. It retained the glass nose of the
original bomber version and was characterised by having two small radomes mounted under the
fuselage centreline.

Tu-16RP ‘Badger-F’
When new ELINT equipment in the form of the SRS-3 Romb (‘Rhombus’) receivers was fitted to the
Tu-16, they were designated as the Tu-16RP and became known as the ‘Badger-F’ by NATO. This
new equipment was fitted in pods mounted under each wing on small pylons. The ‘P’ in the Soviet
designation stood for Pomekhi or ‘Jamming’.

Tu-16RE
In addition to reconnaissance equipment, this version of the Badger carried SPS-2 ECM equipment
(which replaced the SRS-1 ELINT suite), allowing it to do double duty.

Tu-16RM-1 ‘Badger-D’
As the radar on the missile carrier Badgers improved and increased in range, so the radar on the
reconnaissance aircraft that helped acquire the targets and guide the missiles needed to improve in
range. The Tu-16RM-1 was an example of such an improvement. This aircraft had the solid ‘duck-
billed’ radome nose of the Badger-C, carrying the powerful YeN ‘Puff Ball’ radar of that variant. This
was essentially the Badger-C modified for reconnaissance duties with extra radomes on the underside
of the fuselage. Twenty-four Tu-16K-10 Badger-Cs were converted to this version in 1966–1967.
This distinctive variant was given the NATO reporting name of ‘Badger-D’.

Tu-16R Badger-E preserved at Dyagilevo. Note that the tail turret has been replaced by a large fairing accommodating the Sirena
jammer suite. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-16R Badger-E photographed in flight by a Western interceptor. (Public Domain)

Tu-16RM-2 ‘Badger-K’
With the nose gun removed, and the SRS-4 Romb ELINT suite fitted in two radomes under the
fuselage centreline, this Tu-16 version was designated by the Soviets as the Tu-16RM-2. NATO gave
this version the reporting name of ‘Badger-K’. In addition to the SRS-4 suite, the Badger-K was
equipped with the Rubin-1K radar in place of the RBP-4. Twelve aircraft were converted to this
variant.

Tu-16RR
This was a Badger that was specialised for sampling the air for the presence of radioactive particles.
It was developed under a resolution dated 22 November 1967. This sampling was mainly used to
keep track of Chinese nuclear tests. It carried the air sampling apparatus in two underwing pods,
similar to those fitted to some Tu-95K-22s for the same purpose. Eight Tu-16Rs were converted into
Tu-16RRs in 1970.

Tu-16RTs (Prototypes)
This was the equivalent of the Tu-95RTs Bear-D, and was used to provide mid-course correction to
submarine-launched guided missiles. Three examples were built of this variant, which was used to
test the Uspekh missile guidance radar system. The Uspekh radar was used on the Tu-95RTs Bear-D
OTH missile guidance aircraft.

Tu-16 Romb (Tu-16R)

Instead of the SRS-3 Romb ELINT equipment being mounted in underwing pods, this version was
produced with the equipment housed in a dorsal fairing on the fuselage to reduce the drag of the
externally mounted equipment. Five aircraft were built in 1956, but the reduction in drag was
insignificant and other aircraft that had the Romb suite carried them in underwing pods mounted on
pylons (such as the Tu-16RP Badger-F). The Tu-16 Romb aircraft in service were sometimes referred
to simply as the ‘Tu-16R’.

Tu-16S
The idea of using the Tu-16 as a search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft had been explored as early as
1955. As their usefulness as torpedo bombers was limited, fourteen Tu-16Ts were converted into a
SAR aircraft beginning in 1965, complete with a droppable Fregat (‘Frigate’) lifeboat. The Fregat
lifeboat itself was radio controlled and dropped by parachute. Its engine could be started by radio,
then the boat was directed by televisual control towards the persons to be rescued. The ‘S’ in the
designation stood for Spasatel’niy or ‘Rescue’. The Northern Fleet used the Tu-16S until the late
1980s.

Tu-16SP
Some Badgers, it is not clear from the record how many, were modified in the 1970s to act as ASW
aircraft carrying a search radar similar to that carried by the Tu-142 Bear ASW platform. The Tu-
16SP could carry torpedoes or mines, but the Tu-142 superseded it, with its much superior range.
Tu-16SPS
The Tu-16SPS was a jamming aircraft designed to create electronic ‘noise’ (interference) at certain
frequencies to jam enemy radar. The receiving equipment comprised the SRS-1BV and SRS-1D. The
Kuibyshev zavod (Z.1) built 42 Tu-16SPS equipped with the SPS-1 jammers in 1955–1957, and 102
Tu-16SPS equipped with SPS-2 jammers during the same period.
The jamming equipment operator was housed in a pressurised compartment in the cargo bay. The
compartment was removable. Streamlined radomes on the underside of the fuselage on either side of
the bomb bay housed the jamming antennae.

Tu-16T ‘Badger-A’
Although the concept was probably obsolete by the 1950s, seventy-six Tu-16Ts were built by Z.64 in
Voronezh for the AVMF to fulfil the specialised torpedo bomber role. The ‘T’ in the designation stood
for Torpedonosets or ‘Torpedo Carrier’ in Russian. Externally, the Tu-16Ts looked the same as the
bomber versions. Since these aircraft proved of little use in the torpedo bomber role, at least partly
because the AVMF saw little use in pursuing what they soon realised was an outdated concept, some
were later converted into search-and-rescue aircraft (the Tu-16S). Other Tu-16Ts were converted into
the radar-jamming ‘Badger-H’, where they proved to be of more use. The Tu-16T was the last
purpose-built torpedo bomber used by the AVMF. Perhaps because it did not differ externally from
the normal bomb-carrying Tu-16s, the Tu-16T received no special NATO reporting nickname,
retaining the ‘Badger-A’ name of the bomber version.

Tu-16V
In addition to the Tu-95V, which had been modified to carry the Tsar Bomba, three Tu-16As were
modified for testing nuclear and thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs. These aircraft were given the
designation of ‘Tu-16V’, with the ‘V’ possibly standing for Vodorodnaya Bomba or ‘Hydrogen
Bomb’.
The ‘Tu-16V’ designation was reused for a high-altitude version of the Tu-16 that would have
utilised Dobrynin VD-7 engines. Here the ‘V’ stood for Vysotniy or ‘High-altitude’. This version was
never built.

Tu-16Ye (Tu-16E) ‘Badger-L’

This jamming version of the Badger could be fitted with a variety of jammers, such as the SPS-6 Los
(‘Elk’), and the SPS-61/62/63 Azaliya (‘Azalea’) jammers. NATO assigned this Badger variant the
reporting name of ‘Badger-L’. The Azaliya jammers were fitted in a tail fairing similar to that used
for the Rezeda suite. Eighty-nine were produced.

Tu-16YeR (Tu-16ER) ‘Badger-L’

This was the Soviet designation for Badger-Ls equipped with SRS-1 ELINT equipment.
Tu-16 Yolka ‘Badger-H’
An active ECM aircraft, the Yolka (‘Spruce’ in Russian) was developed at the same time as the Tu-
16SPS jamming aircraft. In addition to the SPS-4 jamming equipment, the Tu-16 Yolka could carry
seven ASO-16 chaff dispensers, which could dispense chaff for up to twenty minutes. This aircraft
has been described in some sources as a ‘chaff bomber’, which seems to be an appropriate name for
it. It received the NATO reporting name of ‘Badger-H’.
Both fifty-two new-build aircraft were built and Tu-16Ts were converted into the Yolka; during
1957–59, the AVMF received seventy-one of the aircraft.
The aircraft were updated; during the 1970s, they received jamming equipment from the Sirena
suite (this was the same suite that appeared in the tail cone that was featured on some Soviet
bombers, such as the Tu-22 Blinder and the Tu-95). I have read this aircraft mis-transliterated from
the Russian as the ‘Tu-16 Elka’; this is incorrect (the Cyrillic ‘Yo’ is an ‘E’ with two dots above it
and is often mis-transliterated as the similar-looking Latin character ‘E’).

Tu-16(Z) (Tu-16Z, Tu-16Yu)

This was a tanker version of the Tu-16, featuring Tupolev’s unique wingtip-to-wingtip refuelling
system, which had been initially developed and tested on the Tu-4 Bull, and described in that section.
At first, the Badger tankers were known as the Tu-16(Z), then later the Tu-16Z, with the ‘Z’ standing
for Zapravshchik or ‘Tanker’ in Russian. Presumably, by the time the designation for the tanker was
changed to ‘Tu-16Z’ the original Tu-16Z, the IFR-equipped version of the Badger-A was no longer
designated as such. Indeed, as many Tu-16s were equipped for inflight refuelling the ‘Z’ suffix, if used
at all, was eventually dropped from use in service. The Tu-16(Z)s were used only to refuel other Tu-
16s, as no other aircraft in the Soviet inventory featured the unusual wingtip-to-wingtip refuelling
system (other than a few experimental Tu-4s). The Tu-16(Z)s retained the gun armament of the
bomber versions. Numbers differ, but as many as 114 Tu-16 bombers may have been converted into
tankers, while 571 of the Tu-16s were configured as receivers; these were distinguished by the port
wingtip, which housed the refuelling receptacle, being larger than the starboard wingtip.
Preserved Tu-16 Yolka Badger-H. Note the small fairing on the end of the nose, which housed jamming equipment. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-16Z ‘Badger-A’
This was the original free-fall conventional bomber version of the Tu-16 equipped with the wingtip-
to-wingtip aerial refuelling system as receiver aircraft.

Tu-16ZA ‘Badger-A’
When the nuclear-capable Tu-16A free-fall bomber was equipped for in-flight refuelling, it was re-
designated as the ‘Tu-16ZA’; fifty-nine were apparently modified with this capability. Like the
original Tu-16As, it retained the NATO reporting name of ‘Badger-A’.

Soviet Use
Even a cursory look at the previous long list of Badger variants shows just how adaptable and useful
the Soviet Union found the Tu-16 Badger; it served with the Soviet Union and Russia from 1954 until
its official retirement by Russia in 1994.
It first entered service in 1954, when it started to replace the Tu-4 Bull. The first Tu-16s in service
were free-fall conventional bombers and simply designated as the ‘Tu-16’. The Tu-16A was
optimised to be able to carry free-fall nuclear bombs. By the end of the 1950s, the Tu-4 had been
replaced as a front-line strategic bomber by the Tu-16 (and the Tu-95).
As it became clear that free-fall nuclear bombers had little chance of surviving to bomb their
targets, the Tu-16 missile carriers replaced them, starting in the late 1950s.
From the late 1950s, the bomber and missile carrier versions were joined in Soviet service by an
increasing number of various reconnaissance and other specialised versions of the Badger—some
new-build, and some conversions.
 Despite the introduction of the Badger’s would-be successor, the Tu-22 Blinder, into service in
1962, the Badger continued in service in large numbers as the Blinder was a troubled aircraft with
many problems and offered few advantages over the older aircraft. Even its supersonic speed was of
less advantage than might be thought, as most of the Blinder’s mission profiles were conducted at
subsonic speed, and its supersonic speed came at the cost of range. Some of the Blinder’s problems
were never solved, and the AVMF rejected it for service, except for a handful of reconnaissance
aircraft, continuing to use the much more reliable Badger in the anti-shipping role. Even the DA,
which did use the Blinder, continued to use the Badger in large numbers throughout the 1960s and
1970s. It was only with the introduction of the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B into service in 1976 that the
numbers of the Tu-16s in service started to drop significantly. However, even by the end of 1981, the
DA still had 487 Tu-16s in its inventory, and the AVMF had 474. By contrast, the entire production of
all versions of the Backfire totalled 497 aircraft.
The tide did finally turn during the 1980s, though, and by end of 1990 and the eve of the Soviet
Union’s dissolution, only 173 Tu-16s were still in service in the European part of the country, with 81
being used by the DA, and 92 being used by the AVMF. The last Tu-16s were officially retired by
Russia in 1994. By 1995, only nineteen were in service as trainers in Ukraine, and there were no
longer any active Badgers in Belarus as the eighteen Badgers they inherited from the Soviet Union
were all eventually scrapped. The Badgers in now-independent Kazakhstan stored at the
Semipalatinsk air base were soon no longer capable of flying. After the mid-1990s, the Badger
continued in service only with mainland China, where its continuing service is described further on.

Soviet Combat Use

Some Tu-16s were used as conventional free-fall bombers during the war in Afghanistan, attacking
Herat and Kandahar, for example, in addition to attacking mujahidin formations, camps, and depots.
They carried a variety of bombs, from the FAB-250 (250 kg, 551 lb) up to the immense FAB-9000
(9,000 kg, 19,842 lb). A normal bomb load consisted of twelve FAB-500s (500 kg, 1,102 lb). One of
the reasons the Tu-16 was used in addition to the much newer Backfire is that the Badger could carry
the FAB-9000 bomb, which the Backfire could not. The FAB-9000 proved quite effective, leaving
suitably large craters wherever it was dropped, obliterating whatever had been there.
The Tu-16s attacked their targets in Afghanistan from bases in the Central Asian Republics of the
Soviet Union, such as Mary (Merv) in Turkmenistan. From these air bases, the Tu-16s flew
conventional bombing missions in daylight, using optical bombsights. Flying at altitudes such as
19,865 feet (6,000 m) put them out of range of the mujahidin’s relatively primitive air defences (and
well out of range of their Stinger SAMs).
Bomber versions such as the Tu-16A, Tu-16KSR-2-5, and Tu-16SR-2-5-11 were used. In addition
to the bombers, support versions such as the Tu-16P Buket ECM aircraft and Tu-16R reconnaissance
versions were also used. The Tu-16P Buket aircraft were used to jam Pakistani radars, both ground
radars and those of any Pakistani aircraft that might prove a threat to the Soviet aircraft.
Foreign Use
China
Xian H-6
The Chinese Badgers are interesting in that they are the only Soviet strategic bombers to be produced
outside of that country and in that they have given rise to a new line of Badger variants—a
developmental path separate from the Soviet variants.
China took delivery of its first Badgers from the Soviet Union in 1956. This was pursuant to an
agreement reached in early 1956, and signed in September 1957 for the Tu-16 to be produced under
licence at the plant at Harbin, in Manchuria, which also produced the Harbin H-5, the Chinese
version of the Il-28 Beagle. These Chinese Tu-16s were designated as the ‘H-6’ (from Hongzhaji-6,
or ‘Bomber Type 6’); the first example to fly, built from Soviet components, did so on 27 September
1959. The Chinese decided in 1961 to begin producing the H-6 at the Xian factory as the Xian H-6,
and have continued to produce them until the present (2018), even coming out with new versions.
The first H-6 built from Chinese manufactured components took to the air for the initial time on 24
December 1968. Apparently, the disruptions of the Cultural Revolution were at least partly
responsible for the length of time it took for the Chinese to begin manufacturing the H-6 from locally
produced components. Up until this time, the Chinese-built examples were built from Soviet-supplied
components, which after the breakdown of Soviet-Chinese relationships in the late 1950s and early
1960s the supply of which had dried up.
Unfortunately, as China is in some respects still a rather closed society, certainly with regards to
aspects of its military hardware such as strategic bombers, some of the information on the H-6
bomber and its developments is conjectural or incomplete, in an unwelcome (to a historian) echo of
Soviet Cold War opacity. China has yet to undergo its Glasnost period.

B-6
This was the designation for the export version of the H-6, and was exported to Egypt and Iraq (see
further on). They served alongside Soviet Tu-16s in these air forces. The missile carrier variants
were designated as the ‘B-6K’, corresponding to the Chinese designation of ‘H-6K’ for their missile
carrier Badgers. Egypt used the B-6 against Libya in 1977, for the only known combat use of any
version of the H-6 to date (2018).

H-6
This was the initial conventional bomber version of the Chinese Badger and was the equivalent of the
initial Soviet bomber version, the Tu-16. One source has the conventional bomber being designated
as the ‘H-6C’. Yefim Gordon has the H-6 version capable of also carrying nuclear bombs in addition
to conventional bombs.

H-6A
Capable of carrying nuclear bombs, this was the equivalent of the Soviet Tu-16A. It included the full
gun armament, including the fixed cannon on the starboard side of the nose. In the 1970s and the
1980s, the H-6A was developed to have updated avionics, and went into production in 1982.

H-6B
This was, or is, apparently a reconnaissance version. They featured underwing pods similar to those
fitted to the Soviet Tu-16Rs.

Xian H-6A preserved in China. This is essentially identical to a Tu-16A Badger-A. (Ken Duffey)
Xian H-6A preserved in China. It retains the extensively glazed nose and starboard fixed cannon of the original Soviet Tu-16s. (Ken
Duffey)

H-6D
This version of the H-6 is designed as a missile carrier and is analogous to the Soviet Tu-16Ks.
Development started in 1975. It is equipped with YJ-61 radar-guided missiles. It initially carried two
HY-2 ‘Silkworm’ indigenous anti-shipping stand-off missiles (developed from the Soviet P-21
‘Styx’). Its first flight was on 29 August 1981, entering service with the People’s Liberation Army
Naval Air Force (PLANAF) in December 1985. Four examples of the H-6D (as the ‘B-6D’) were
supplied to Iraq.
It is characterised by the underwing pylons for the missiles, a larger radome under the nose than
originally fitted to the H-6 housing a Type 245 attack radar, and the deletion of the starboard fixed
cannon on the nose. This version has apparently been developed or converted into the H-6H.

H-6E/I
These aircraft are evidently upgrades of the H-6A bomber with a new low profile chin radome. It has
upgraded engines and avionics, and the fixed gun position of the starboard side of the nose was never
fitted.

H-6G
Apparently similar in mission to the over-the-horizon missile guiding Tu-95RTs (Bear-D), nothing
more is known of this missile-targeting variant.

H-6H
Apparently a new-build development of the H-6D, this variant of the H-6 design is characterised by
the ability to carry two HY-2 Silkworm missiles. All the defensive armament has been removed,
except in some cases the tail cannons, and the former ventral gun position now has a large radome in
place of the turret, and covers the KD-63 missile systems data link antenna. The tail gunner’s position
and the observation blisters on the side of the tail remain. The H-6H carries two of the KD-63 cruise
missiles (a development of the HY-4 ‘Sadsack’). It can also carry the YJ-62 missile, according to
Yefim Gordon.

H-6M
This version is a further refinement of the missile-carrying H-6, and is characterised by two
additional underwing pylons for a total of four (two per wing), the removal of the observation blisters
in the tail, and the removal of the ventral radome. It is not clear if these are new-builds or
conversions, or a combination of both. It is also not clear with what missiles it is equipped. This is
rather reminiscent of Soviet Cold War opaqueness, and reflects the relative secretiveness with which
China treats its strategic bombers.

H-6Y
As it is intended solely as a tanker, this version has a solid nose replacing the glass bombardier’s
nose, and all armament and the chin radome are removed, although the tail turret position appears to
still be manned, no doubt by an observer assisting with the refuelling procedure. It is equipped with
two wing-mounted hose-drogue units (HDU). Some sources have this version designated the ‘H-6U’
or ‘HU-6’.

Xian H-6H in China. This is an in-service aircraft photographed in 2012 at Beijing. Although it still retains the glazed nose of the original
Tu-16s, it has a larger under nose radome, and the defensive armament is no longer fitted, with the ventral turret being replaced by a
radome. (Ken Duffey)

Xian H-6M in flight. In this version, the turbojets are still fitted, and it is equipped with two underwing missile pylons per side. The nose
and the former tail gunner’s position are still glazed, unlike the H-6K, where these are covered. (Japanese Ministry of Defence)

Some naval Badger tankers have been converted from the H-6D and still feature the glazed nose,
and the chin radome, although they have the twin HDUs of the PLAAF tankers. These may be
designated as the ‘H-6DU’.

Further Development of the Xian H-6—the H-6K

Not only have the Chinese continued to use their versions of the Badger, they have continued to update
it, and have even developed a new and heavily modified production version, utilising modern
electronics and turbofan engines, and dispensing with the defensive cannon armament. It has a total of
six pylons under the wings, three under each wing, to carry stand-off missiles. The turbofan engines
are evidently the same as those used on the Il-76 transport.
This new version of the H-6, known as the H-6K, first flew on 5 January 2007, and entered
service in October 2009. It differs from the original Tu-16 with the changes detailed previously, and
includes a modern glass cockpit and a radar nose replacing the original glass nose. As of 2015,
fifteen are said to be in service and production evidently continues at a low rate. It is designed as a
stand-off bomber, capable of carrying up to six cruise missiles externally, perhaps similar to the
Soviet AS-15 (Kh-55) Kent, examples of which were purchased from Ukraine, and apparently both
conventional or nuclear in nature. This missile is designated the CJ-20. The H-6K can also carry the
YJ-12, which may be a development of the Soviet/Russian AS-17 (Kh-31) ‘Krypton’. As of August
2016, the H-6Ks have been used in exercises over the Sea of Japan, near the Senkaku (Diaoyu)
islands that are disputed by both China and Japan.

Xian H-6K in flight. The larger intakes for the new turbofan engines and three of the six underwing missile pylons are evident.
(Japanese Ministry of Defence)

Egypt
The Egyptians used both Soviet-built Tu-16 Badgers and Chinese Xian H-6s (when the supply of
Soviet Tu-16s and spare parts dried up after Egypt’s break with the Soviet Union in the 1970s). The
Soviet Badgers were first sent to Egypt in 1963 in the form of the Tu-16KS. The last Egyptian
Badgers were not finally retired until 2000.
Some of the Badgers that appeared in Egyptian markings in the Middle East were not actually
Egyptian; they were Soviet aircraft operated by Soviet crews, albeit in Egyptian markings operating
out of Egyptian bases. This is exemplified by the six AVMF Tu-16Rs that were operated from Cairo
from 1968; some of this is described in the pilot’s interview further on. The aircraft were apparently
painted in their spurious Egyptian markings while still in the Soviet Union. Some Tu-16SPS jammers
were also used in this way, to support the work of the Soviet-manned Tu-16Rs. In 1967, however,
Egypt did purchase two Tu-16Rs for its own use. All these aircraft were a common sight in the
Eastern Mediterranean during the 1970s, shadowing the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet.

Egyptian Combat Use

During the Six-Day War (June 1967), the Egyptian Badgers were prime targets of the Israeli Air
Force (Hey’l Ha Avir) and all were destroyed on the ground on the first day of the war, and therefore
had no service during this short but intense war. After the war, the destroyed bombers were replaced
by a further twenty-five Soviet Tu-16s, including missile carriers and Tu-16Ts, and Chinese H-6 (B-
6) Badgers. During the Yom-Kippur War in 1973, Egyptian Badgers, now wisely based beyond the
reach of the Israeli Air Force, survived to be used operationally. They fired AS-5 Kelt missiles at
Israeli targets, with the Egyptians claiming five ‘hits’, including a radar unit, out of twenty-five
missiles launched.
The H-6s were used against Libya in 1977 during a short-lived dispute. This was apparently the
only time that the Chinese Badgers were ever used in combat. By 1990, sixteen Badgers, both Soviet
and Chinese-built, remained in service. As mentioned previously, Egypt retired its Badgers in 2000,
making them the last users of Soviet-built Tu-16s, although some of the retired Egyptian Badgers
were, by 2000, Chinese-supplied Badgers.

Indonesia
The Soviet Tu-16s delivered to Indonesia were Tu-16KS Badger-Bs. Twenty-five were delivered in
1961, along with Soviet crews to train the Indonesian crews. The Tu-16s were to be used against the
Dutch forces in Eastern New Guinea (Papua), especially against the Dutch carrier the Karel
Doorman, but in the event, the attack never took place, and the Tu-16 never saw combat with
Indonesia.
As with other communist-supplied aircraft sent to Indonesia (from the Soviet Union or mainland
China), after the break with these countries with the anti-communist Indonesian revolution of 1965 the
Tu-16s were first grounded because of a lack of spares, then were scrapped.

Iraq
Although Iraq’s Tu-16s were already in service by 1967, they did not participate in the Six-Day War
with Israel. By this time, eight Tu-16s had been delivered to Iraq. A further six were delivered in
1970, but neither they nor the earlier Tu-16s participated in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Iraqi Combat Use

The first time that the Iraqi Tu-16s were used in anger was in Kurdistan in 1974. Iraqi Tu-16s were
used in Iraq’s war with Iran (1980–88). By the beginning of that conflict, eight Tu-16s were in
service with Iraq. Among other targets, Iraqi Tu-16s bombed Tehran, and also performed missile
strikes against Iranian targets. In 1987, near the end of the war, Iraq bought four Chinese H-6Ds
(Chinese missile-carrying Tu-16s), complete with C-601 anti-shipping missiles (the C-601 was a
reverse-engineered copy of the Soviet ‘Styx’ missile). The C-601 has the NATO reporting name of the
CAS-1 ‘Kraken’, but it is often known as the ‘Silkworm’, a translation of its Chinese name. Most of
the Iraqi Tu-16s were destroyed on the ground in the 1991 Iraq War, and played no part in that
conflict, other than as targets; they were not replaced.

Civilian Use
Tu-104G (Demilitarised Tu-16s)
Some Badgers were stripped of their military equipment and used as transport trainers, with civilian
codes. They were used for training crews for the Tu-104, which was an airliner derivate based upon
the Badger design. These are not to be confused with the Tu-16G, also designated as the ‘Tu-104G’,
as they were used to transport high priority mail. Once enough Tu-104s were in service, these Tu-
104Gs were remilitarised.

Tu-104 ‘Camel’
In a country as huge as the Soviet Union, the need for a fast airliner just for in-country use was
obvious. That such a fast, jet-powered airliner could also be used to showcase Soviet technological
‘superiority’ abroad was an added incentive for Tupolev to develop a dedicated airliner from the
basic Badger design. It differed from that design mainly in utilising a larger, pressurised fuselage, but
also in having a low-mounted wing, which necessitated some redesign of the wing centre section and
the engine nacelles. The Tu-104 retained the outer wings, tail surfaces, landing gear, and engines of
the Tu-16. In this respect, it was similar in concept to the Tu-70 civilian transport derivative of the
Tu-4 bomber and the Tu-114 Cleat airliner development of the Tu-95 bomber.
The resultant design, the Tu-104 (codenamed ‘Camel’ by NATO), was the second jet airliner in
service, after the British de Havilland Comet. In between the time the Comet fleet was grounded
(1954) and the entry into service of the American Boeing 707 (1958), it was the only jet airliner in
service anywhere in the world, from 1956 (when it entered service) through 1958. Its first scheduled
passenger flight occurred on 15 September 1956, when a Tu-104 flew from Moscow to Irkutsk, in
Siberia. In all, 201 were produced; it was finally retired in 1986.

Tu-104G (Tu-16G)
Described previously, these were demilitarised Tu-16s used by Aeroflot.

Tu-124 ‘Cookpot’
The Tu-124 was basically a downsized Tu-104, with the dimensions reduced by around 25 per cent.
It was the first operational airliner in the world equipped with turbofan engines. It entered service in
1962 and was given the NATO name of ‘Cookpot’. From 1960–66, 165 were produced; it was retired
in 1992.

Projected Versions
‘90’
This was to be a turboprop-powered version of the Badger, but it was never built. This version was
to have had two TV-12 engines (what became the NK-12 turboprops), the same engines used by the
Tu-95. This would have entailed nacelles on the wings housing the engines and the landing gear. The
advantage it would have offered over the jet-powered version of the Tu-16 was an increase in range.
As the DA was satisfied with the range performance of the AM-3-engined Tu-16, the project was not
proceeded with.

‘103’
A supersonic development of the Tu-16, this version would have featured 45-degree sweep back on
the wings, and four RD-7 or AM-13 engines mounted in stacked pairs in the wing roots. Studies
showed that even with the extra power, the design would not have been capable of supersonic flight
so further development was halted. However, the idea of a supersonic bomber embodied by the ‘103’
led to the ‘105’, which became the Tu-22 Blinder, a truly supersonic bomber. Interestingly, the ‘103’
designation had at one time been used for Tupolev’s wartime Tu-2 tactical bomber, the bomber that
saved his career (and life).

The Tu-16 in Detail

Due to its long service, construction by two countries (which still continues in one country), and a
multitude of versions, there have been many variations to the basic Badger design. The following
description details an early bomber (Tu-16A) or early missile carrier version (early Tu-16K) of the
Badger. Some of the differences that appeared with other variants will be noted.

General Description
The Badger was a cantilever mid-winged monoplane powered by two turbojet engines with swept-
back surfaces and an all-metal mainly aluminium construction with a retractable tricycle-type landing
gear.

Fuselage
The fuselage was a slim, all-metal structure with a circular cross-section, similar to that of the Tu-4
(and Tu-95), but smaller in diameter. It was of a semi-monocoque structure, built up in five sections,
and constructed mainly of aluminium alloys, although some magnesium alloys were used. It was 8.2
feet (2.5 m) in diameter, compared to the 9.51 feet (2.9 m) of the Tu-4/B-29, and the Tu-95.
The front most section was the navigator’s glazing in the glass-nosed versions. This section was
much revised in those versions, such as the Tu-16K-10 Badger-C, which carried the radar in this
section.
The next section was composed of the pressurised crew compartment, which housed the pilot, co-
pilot, the navigator, and the weapons system operator (WSO).
The central section of the fuselage contained the bomb bay, with its twin doors; this was mounted
aft of the wing centre section. The engines were mounted adjacent to the fuselage and were an integral
part of the wing, and actually impinged on the circular cross-section of the fuselage, creating an area-
rule effect which lessened drag.
The aft section of the fuselage was unpressurised and housed the ventral turret and the lifeboat for
the tail crew.
Typical nose glazing of a glass-nosed Tu-16. (Ken Duffey)

The tail section consisted of the pressurised compartment for the tail crew, which comprised the
radio operator/gunner, who controlled the ventral turret, and the tail gunner, who controlled the tail
turret.

Wings
The all-metal cantilever wings were swept-back surfaces, with a sweep of 35 degrees on the outer
wing, and a 41-degree sweep on the inner third. The wings were two spar structures, mounted about
halfway up the engine nacelles. The wings were mounted with 3 degrees of anhedral (negative
dihedral) and 1 degree of incidence. The wings consisted of five sections, the centre section that was
built as an integral part of the fuselage, and two inner and two outer wing sections. The centre section
was built as a load-carrying box, with the front and rear spars forming part of the structure, and with
three ribs and upper and lower skin panels completing the structure. The wing roots were thickened to
accommodate the twin jet engines. There were two fences on top of each wing. The control surfaces
consisted of large one-piece flaps and conventional ailerons with trim tabs. Nacelles or pods on the
trailing edges accommodated the main landing gear when retracted. This arrangement has been used
on several Tupolev designs, including the Tu-22 Blinder, and the Tu-104 Camel, the airliner
derivative of the Tu-16. The wings were de-iced by using warm air bled off from the engines.
The entire trailing edge of the wings were occupied by the flaps and ailerons. The flaps were of
the Fowler type; a ‘Fowler flap’ was a flap that is normally a part of the trailing edge of the wing, but
is capable of moving backward and downward to increase lift through greater wing area. It in effect
functions like a small separate wing in this position. The flaps were in two sections, one inboard of
and one outboard of the landing gear nacelles. They could be set to 20 degrees for take-off and 35
degrees for landing. The single-spar ailerons each had a trim tab.
Tail Planes
The tail planes were conventional in nature, and consisted of all-metal construction, except for the tip
of the vertical tail, which was wooden. The vertical tail plane consisted of a two-spar fixed fin, with
a dorsal extension running along the rear fuselage, and a moveable single-piece rudder. The
horizontal tail planes consisted of two-spar stabilisers with moveable elevators. Trim tabs were
present on both the elevators and the rudder. The rudder could move right or left through 25 degrees.
The elevators could move up by 26 degrees and down by 12 degrees. The elevators were of one-spar
construction, as was the rudder (and like the ailerons). The stabilisers’ incidence, which was
normally at -1.5 degrees, could be adjusted on the ground from 0 to -2.5 degrees.
All the tail planes were swept, with the sweep back at one-quarter chord for the stabilisers and fin
being 42 degrees. The tail plane leading edges were equipped with electrical de-icers. Although
smaller, the rear section of the Tu-16 was very similar in design and construction to that of the early
airframe Tu-95s; this was not surprising since they are both Tupolev designs that were designed at
around the same time.

Overhead view of a Tu-16R. Note the asymmetrical wingtips with the enlarged port wingtip housing the equipment for refuelling. This
aircraft has the extended ECM fairing on the tail in place of the tail turret. (G. F. Petrov photo archive)
Inboard and central wing section of a preserved Xian H-6A. The wing fences and the fairing or pod for the main landing gear can be
seen. (Ken Duffey)

Tail fairing of the Tu-16R preserved at Dyagilevo. This large fairing housed the Sirena jamming suite. Other than the tail fairing, this tail
section is representative of other Badgers. (Ken Duffey)

Engines
The propulsion system consisted of two large turbojets mounted in the thickened wing roots. The
engines themselves were various versions of the Mikulin AM-3 engine. The first version of the AM-
3, used by the prototypes and early production examples, was the AM-3 with 14,880 lb thrust. Most
production Tu-16s featured the RD-3M (a development of the AM-3), with 20,950 lb thrust, a very
considerable improvement in power.
 The extensively modified new-build Chinese H-6K has turbofan engines in place of the turbojets
used by other versions of the Badger. The engines are two D-30KP-2 non-afterburning turbofan
engines of 23,150 lb thrust each. The engines are of Russian design, and are the same engines as used
on the Il-76 Candid transport.

Fuel System
The fuel for the engines was housed in flexible fuel containers, or bladders, most of which were self-
sealing. There were a total of twenty-seven cells, organised into ten groups, with each engine having
five groups. Each group was interconnected and functioned as one fuel source. An inert gas system
was employed to reduce the risk of fire, whereby the inert gas was forced into the emptying bladder
to displace the explosive mixture of oxygen and fuel vapour.

Controls
The Badger featured dual controls for the pilot and the co-pilot. The controls were moved by a
mechanical system of push-pull rods as Andrey Tupolev was doubtful of the reliability of hydraulic
controls. The flaps and trim tabs were operated electro-mechanically. Initially, an AP-5 autopilot was
fitted to help with the flying workload. This was later replaced by the AP-6 autopilot.

Close-up of the engine intake on a preserved Xian H-6A. (Ken Duffey)

Close-up of the engine exhaust on a preserved Xian H-6A. (Ken Duffey)

Landing Gear
The landing gear were of a retractable tricycle type, with the nose gear retracting backwards into the
nose, being covered by twin doors, and the main landing gear retracting backwards into sizeable
fairings on the wing trailing edges, in what became something of a hallmark of large Tupolev
aeroplanes. Besides allowing large landing gear to be accommodated in a rather thin wing, these
fairings may have also served an aerodynamic purpose. The nose landing gear consisted of a pair of
wheels attached to a strut. The main landing gear were of the bogie type, having four wheels per
landing gear strut, with two wheels on each side, similar to the arrangement found on the Tu-95 Bear
and Tu-22 Blinder. A small retractable tail bumper was fitted to the rear fuselage to prevent the tail
from hitting the runway if the aircraft over-rotated on take-off or landing. The tail bumper was
electrically operated.
In order for the main landing gear fairings to be of a reasonable size, the bogies flipped over 180
degrees to lie flat in the fairings, in the manner of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 Blinder. The Tu-16 was the
first production aircraft to feature these type of bogies, which became, along with the trailing edge
main undercarriage fairings, something of a Tupolev hallmark. All the landing gear were
hydraulically operated.

Electronics
Over its long history, stretching over nearly four decades in Soviet/Russian service alone, the Tu-16
has seen many different avionics suites. A full accounting of all the different electronics fits and suites
that appeared on the Badger would warrant a book in itself. The main features of the different
avionics fits are described in the entries on the many different variants of the Badger. However, I will
give a very brief description of the avionics fit of the early bomber versions. The main piece of
avionics was the bombing and navigational radar, the RBP-4 Rubidy-MM radar. The optical
bombsight was the OPB-11R. The autopilot was the AP-5.
The Chinese H-6K features a modern glass cockpit, with electronic multi-function displays
replacing the ‘steam gauges’ of the earlier Badgers. It may very well include electronics designed in
the West.
Some Tu-16s were fitted with the Rogovitsa (‘Cornea’) array, which consisted of a small fairing
on top of the cockpit. This was used for ECM purposes to provide jamming for the forward
hemisphere. This was a mid-life avionics upgrade for the Badger.

Defensive Armament
The defensive armament normally consisted of three turrets armed with twin AM-23 23-mm cannons.
In addition, many versions of the Badger also featured an AM-23 cannon fixed on the starboard side
of the nose in the PU-88 installation, which could be operated by the pilot using the fold-away PKI
gunsight. This nose cannon carried 100 rounds and fired straight forward. The turrets were arranged
in the following manner; one dorsal turret fitted on the forward fuselage, one ventral turret fitted on
the aft fuselage, and a manned tail turret in the extreme tail.

Nose landing gear on a Tu-16. (Ken Duffey)

Main landing gear on a Tu-16. (Ken Duffey)

The mid-upper and ventral turrets were semi-recessed and remotely controlled by a sighting
system similar to that used on the Tu-95 Bear (and developed from that used on the Tu-4 Bull, an
example of the continuing influence of the Tu-4/B-29 on Tupolev designs). The DT-7V dorsal turret’s
cannons could be raised through 90 degrees, be depressed 3 degrees, and could rotate through 360
degrees. It was equipped with 250 rpg. The DT-N7S ventral turret had 350 rpg and was capable of
being depressed 95 degrees, raised 2 degrees 40 minutes, and could also rotate through a complete
360 degrees. The disposition of the turrets was well thought out and provided the Badger with a good
all-around defensive capability, were any enemy fighter foolish enough to approach it at close range.
The tail-gunner’s position was similar to that of the Tu-95 (and the Tu-4/B-29), with armoured
glass panes protecting the gunner. The DK-7 tail turret could move 70 degrees right or left of the
vertical plane, could be elevated 60 degrees, and depressed 40 degrees. It was equipped with 1,000
rpg. The turret was radar-aimed, using a PRS-1 Argon gun-laying radar mounted directly above the
tail gunner’s position below the rudder. The NATO reporting name for this radar was ‘Bee Hind’,
displaying a bit of humour on the part of the ASCC (it must be a bit tiresome to come up with names
for all these aircraft, missiles, and systems, so I suppose a bit of whimsy helps to break up the
monotony).
Some of the missile-carrying and reconnaissance Badgers featured a large streamlined fairing
covering most of the tail gunner’s former position. This fairing was similar to that fitted to the Bear-G
and some of the Blinder-Bs, and was equipped with various electronics, especially jamming
equipment. The jamming equipment was the SPS-100 Rezeda suite, or the Sirena suite. The fairings
differed in shape, with the Sirena fairing being larger in profile and more laterally compressed. As
with the fairing on the Bear-G, windows and the observation blisters were still present, so the
position appeared to have been manned.
The Chinese Badgers that remain in service as of 2018 do not appear to have any armament, but
some still retain the tail gunner’s position. In the H-6K, even this is faired over, with the position
probably now being filled with ECM and other equipment.

Offensive Armament
The Tu-16 could carry both conventional and nuclear free-fall bombs in an internal bomb bay, and
missiles carried semi-recessed on the fuselage underside and hanging from pylons under the wings.
The missiles, like the bombs, could be either conventional or nuclear in nature. For short-range
missions, the Tu-16 could carry up to 19,842 lb (9,000 kg) of bombs, including one of the FAB-9000
bombs (either the M-46 or the M-54 variant), which weighed 19,842 lb (9,000 kg) and was the
largest conventional bomb in the Soviet inventory. The Badger could also carry one BRAB-6000
(6,000-kg or 13,228-lb) armour-piercing bomb.
In addition to bombs, the Tu-16 could carry torpedoes and anti-shipping mines. Indeed one version
of the Tu-16, the Tu-16T was designed specifically as a torpedo bomber and could carry mines, six
45-54 VT, and four RAT-52 rocket-propelled torpedoes (the rocket fired once the torpedo was in the
water).

Close-up of the starboard side of a preserved Xian H-6A showing the fixed starboard 23-mm cannon. (Ken Duffey)
Dorsal turret on a Xian H-6A. (Ken Duffey)

Ventral turret on a Xian H-6A. Note the stencilling in Chinese characters. (Ken Duffey)
Rear view of a Tu-16R Badger-E showing the tail turret. (Public Domain)

As with some of the Tu-16 missile carriers, the Chinese H-6K is incapable of carrying bombs, and
does not even have a bomb bay, instead carrying all of its disposable ordnance in the form of missiles
attached to six underwing pylons. Presumably, bomb racks could be fitted to these pylons, as was
done with some of the Soviet Tu-16 missile carriers, but it is unclear if this has been or will be done.

Camouflage and Markings

In Soviet service, the early Tu-16s were finished in a natural metal finish, although it may have been
protected by a clear lacquer. Later Soviet Badgers acquired a white nuclear anti-flash finish on the
under surfaces. Some of the AVMF Badgers were finished with a grey over white paint scheme. The
Chinese H-6s have been finished in a variety of finishes; natural metal, natural metal with white
undersides, overall grey, and even green over grey or blue undersides. The overall grey scheme
seems to be the present Chinese scheme, as of 2018.
The Iraqi Badgers and Egyptian Badgers were finished in camouflage schemes, with the Egyptian
examples being painted in a brown/green/sand over light blue scheme. The Iraqi Badgers were
apparently originally in the Soviet natural metal finish, then camouflaged with a brown/sand (or
possibly dark green/sand) over light blue scheme. The Soviet Badgers operating under Egyptian
‘markings of convenience’ were left in a natural metal finish. The Indonesian Badgers, during their
relatively short service life, were also left in a natural metal finish.
Egyptian Tu-16KS taxiing. (Public Domain)

Conclusion
The Tu-16 proved to be an amenable and sturdy aircraft, with good range and acceptable handling
characteristics, and provided the Soviet Union with excellent service for four decades. It proved
adaptable into a variety of roles, including free-fall bomber, missile carrier, maritime
reconnaissance, and ELINT duties, among others. It was even developed into a successful airliner, the
Tu-104, the second jet airliner to enter service anywhere in the world, which was then developed into
the Tu-124, the first turbofan-powered airliner to enter service. In some ways, despite being a
bomber, the Tu-16 was similar to the American Boeing C-135 Stratolifter transport, which because of
its size and overall good qualities has also been developed into a very large number of versions.
However, the Tu-16’s story is not even over yet, as it continues to serve and be produced and
developed by mainland China. Taking into account its continuing service with China, it is one of the
few aircraft that has outlasted its erstwhile successor—in this case, the Tu-22 Blinder. Overall, the
Tu-16 Badger can be seen to have been a very successful design, which accomplished what it was
designed for (medium strategic bomber), and then some.
 6

Tu-22 ‘Blinder’

The Tu-22 ‘Blinder’ (‘Blinder’ being its NATO reporting name) was the second supersonic strategic
bomber in the world to enter service; this happened in 1962, after the American Convair B-58
Hustler in 1960. It was substantially larger than the Hustler and relied on two large and powerful
turbojet engines instead of the four jet engines that powered the B-58. Also unlike the B-58, it
featured a large internal bomb bay that could accommodate bombs completely internally, or one large
stand-off missile semi-recessed (the B-58’s bomb load was carried externally and it did not carry
missiles).
A total of 311 production examples of the Blinder were produced at the Kazan’ plant (Z.22) from
1959 to 1969. This included 15 Tu-22Bs, 127 Tu-22Rs, 76 Tu-22Ks, and 46 Tu-22Us. Including the
two prototypes, 313 were built in total. By comparison, 1,509 examples of the Badger, which the
Blinder was supposed to replace, were produced; this number includes the two initial prototypes but
excludes Chinese production, which continues as of 2018. Compared to the Tu-16 Badger, the Blinder
was shorter-ranged, less reliable, and harder to fly. The Blinder appears to have been out of Russian
service by 1997, perhaps earlier.

Development
On 10 August 1954, the Soviet Council of Ministers issued a requirement for the development of a
supersonic strategic bomber. Upon issuance of the requirement, the Tupolev OKB began its
preliminary design (PD) studies.
The first design for what became the Tu-22 Blinder was the ‘103’, which envisaged an aircraft
based upon the Tu-16, but with four engines in the wing roots, stacked one above the other, two to a
side. Wind tunnel tests led to a major redesign, with two engines being moved to the base of the fin,
and the fuselage being strongly area-ruled. In a change from the Tu-16, this design did not feature the
landing gear retracting aft into pods or nacelles at the wings’ trailing edges. This became the ‘105’,
which was developed into a prototype. The configuration of the engines mounted at the base of the fin
was chosen as this meant the air intake could be kept simple, and had the added benefit of keeping the
engines well above the airfield, thereby lessening the chance of ingesting foreign objects.
In-flight photograph of a Tu-22 Blinder. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

As the aircraft was optimised for speed, for the first time, a Soviet bomber was designed without a
glass nose for the navigator, with the streamlined nose used to house the main radar; this meant the
navigator had no forward vision, but had to rely mainly on instruments.

The ‘105’ (Tu-105)

This was the first prototype of what became the Tu-22 Blinder. Construction on it started in late 1955
at Z.156. Due to constant changes due to design problems, the Tu-105 (as it was now designated) did
not make its first flight until 21 June 1958.
It differed in many respects from the production Tu-22s. Unlike all later versions of the Blinder, its
landing gear retracted inwards into the wings and fuselage, much in the manner of the Tu-22M
Backfire. Its fuselage was narrower and lacked the area-rule ‘waisted’ fuselage of the later Blinders,
which was added to enable the Blinder to achieve supersonic speeds.

The ‘105A’ (Tu-105A)

As flown, the 105A, the second Blinder prototype, was a substantially different aeroplane from the
105, incorporating various changes and improvements. It took into account the area rule effect on the
fuselage, which enabled supersonic speeds, and the wings were thinner, which necessitated that the
landing gear retract backwards into trailing edge fairings, as on the Tu-16. The engine nacelles were
extended aft and the fairing flanked by the nozzles was changed. It also accommodated more fuel in
the fuselage, resulting in a rather fatter structure. As we shall see, even these improvements in the end
—unfortunately for the Soviets—did not result in a particularly good aeroplane.
The 105A flew for the initial time on 7 September 1959. Surprisingly (considering the problems
with the production aircraft), the test results were considered good, or at least well enough for
production to be authorised to begin at Z.22 in Kazan’, where it would replace the Tu-16 on the
production lines. Unfortunately, on its seventh flight, the 105A was lost, apparently due to control
surface flutter, with two crew members, including the pilot, Yu. T. Alasheyev dying in the resultant
crash. Nonetheless, production was to continue at Z.22.

Tu-22A ‘Blinder-A’
The initial bomb-carrying variant of the Blinder, this was designated as the ‘Blinder-A’ by NATO,
when further versions of the Blinder were developed. Only fifteen were built, but due to the many
problems encountered with it, it never entered service and it was more of a pre-production
developmental aircraft than a fully operational warplane.

Tu-22B ‘Blinder-C’ (Converted Tu-22Rs)

The ‘B’s were rebuilt aircraft that were exported to Iraq and Libya. They were converted from Tu-
22R to Tu-22B standard and featured the smaller radome of the Tu-22A and Tu-22R versions, as
opposed to the larger radome of the missile-carrying Blinders such as the Tu-22K Blinder-B. Around
twenty Tu-22Rs were modified for export, as well as a few Tu-22Us and Tu-22Rs which were left in
their reconnaissance configuration. As was usual with many Soviet exported aircraft, these aircraft
featured a simplified avionics fit, and had all equipment associated with a nuclear capability
removed. Unlike the Soviet Blinders, these export Blinders saw quite a bit of combat use, which is
described further on.

Libyan Tu-22B Blinder-Cs (converted Soviet Tu-22Rs) in flight in 1977. These were photographed on their delivery flight to Libya.
(Public Domain)

Tu-22K Series ‘Blinder-B’

The development of missile defences during the 1950s had rendered the high-flying free-fall bomb-
carrying nuclear bomber obsolete. What was needed was an aircraft capable of using missiles to fire
at targets from outside their defensive zone. This type of aircraft had already been developed in the
form of the Tu-4K and the Tu-16K series. Even the relatively high top speed of the supersonic-
capable Blinder did not render it immune from anti-aircraft missiles so the decision was made to
adapt the Blinder for the stand-off missile-carrying role. From the Tupolev OKB’s point of view, this
also made it still relevant in an increasingly missile-dominated military environment. Premier
Khrushchev had grown more and more enamoured of missiles, at the expense of strategic bombers.
The move towards the missile-carrying strategy made the Tupolev bombers more to the Premier’s
liking.
The installation of a larger radar, the PN ‘Puff Ball’ radar on the Ks, necessitated a larger nose,
which distinguished it from the free-fall versions, the Blinder-A and Blinder-C. A total of seventy-six
Tu-22Ks were built. This was considerably below what had been planned, and the AVMF rejected
the Tu-22K for use after trials, choosing instead to continue using the slower but reliable Tu-16K
missile carriers.

Tu-22K ‘Blinder-B’
The initial version of the ‘K’ series, it did not have a nose fuel probe and therefore was not capable
of in-flight refuelling, which limited its range. Although it had started entering service while tests
were still ongoing, it was not until 1967 that the Tu-22K was finally formally accepted into service.
This version was equipped to carry the AS-4 (Kh-22) Kitchen missile semi-externally in the bomb
bay. As a result of the lowering mechanism in the former bomb bay for the Kitchen missile, the Tu-
22K could not carry free-fall bombs in the bomb bay.

Tu-22KD ‘Blinder-B’
As opposed to the Tu-22K, the Tu-22KD featured a prominent nose fuel probe, which enabled it to be
refuelled in-flight, thus extending its range. Despite the change in the Soviet service designation from
‘Tu-22K’ to ‘Tu-22KD’, the NATO reporting name remained the same, the ‘Blinder-B’.
In the 1980s, some Blinder-Bs were fitted with an ogival ECM fairing replacing the tail gun
position. This fairing was similar to that fitted to some of the missile carrier Bears and Badgers. In
the Blinder’s case, the electronic jamming fit was the SPS-151, SPS-152, or SPS-153 system (the
Sirena suite).

Tu-22KPD ‘Blinder-B’
This was a defence suppression conversion of the Tu-22K, equipped with anti-radar versions of the
AS-4 (Kh-22) Kitchen, the Kh-22P. One has been preserved at the Poltava Museum of Long-Range
Aviation in Ukraine. This preserved example features the tail turret, although evidently some Tu-
22KPDs had the ECM tail cone fairing.
Tu-22KD Blinder-B in flight. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Tu-22LL
One Tu-22 Blinder, a Tu-22R, was modified for use as a high-speed test bed. It featured a modified
nose, but it is not clear what the nose was designed for, although it probably contained various sensor
equipment, possibly including cameras.

Tu-22P ‘Blinder-E’
The ECM or ELINT variant of the Blinder, this version was equipped with equipment to enable it to
locate ships for the Tu-22K’s Kitchen missiles. The main ELINT equipment was the REB-K system,
which was located on a changeable pallet in the former bomb bay. It could carry five different
configurations on this pallet. It was also equipped with radar-jamming equipment and other ECM
apparatus. It was at first equipped with a tail turret, but this was later replaced on some Tu-22Ps by
the streamlined SDPS-100A Rezeda-A fairing carrying ECM equipment, although Yefim Gordon
states that the Sirena suite was fitted. A total of forty-seven were built at Z.22. Apparently, all went to
the DA, and none to the AVMF. It received the NATO reporting name of ‘Blinder-E’, which was
apparently applied to all the different versions of the Tu-22P.
The Tu-22P had been designed to determine the location of carrier groups by their electronic
emissions, but the Tu-22P also evolved into an EW aircraft that flew alongside the Tu-22K missile
carriers to provide support for them by jamming enemy electronics. Usually a squadron of Tu-22Ps
was attached to a Tu-22K regiment. The Tu-22P was produced from 1960, with over thirty being
built. Evidently, those aircraft that were designated simply as Tu-22P (as opposed to Tu-22P-1 or Tu-
22P-2) were conversions from other versions of the Blinder. Some of the Tu-22PDs may have been
conversions.

Tu-22P-1
This version of the Tu-22P was a new-build aircraft with a different ECM fit from the Tu-22P-2. It is
not clear from the record what the differences were.
Tu-22P-2
A different ECM fit distinguished this from the Tu-22P-1. It was a new-build aircraft.

Tu-22PD
Equipped with the refuelling nose probe and the improved RD-7M2, the Tu-22P became the ‘Tu-
22PD’. In addition to the nose probe, it was also re-engined with the improved RD-7M2 engines.
These improvements took place from 1965 onwards.
The Tu-22PD was the only Blinder to go into action while in Soviet service. During the last stages
of the Afghanistan war, in 1988, they flew alongside bomb-carrying Tu-22M3 Backfire-Cs on
bombing missions, jamming Pakistani radars, thereby preventing Pakistan from employing its fighters
or other air defences, and from alerting Pakistan’s mujahidin allies in Afghanistan of any impending
airstrikes.

Tu-22R
There were 127 examples of this reconnaissance (both photographic and ELINT) version of the Tu-22
built, making it the most numerous of the Blinder variants. This version retained the bombing
capability of the original Tu-22B, and retained the tail turret, but incorporated cameras and other
sensing equipment, some of this in the bomb bay. Some were later converted back into dedicated
bombers as an export version, the ‘Tu-22B’ (not to be confused with the original bomber version of
the Tu-22, also confusingly designated as the ‘Tu-22B’). This version was exported to Iraq and Libya.

Tu-22RD
When the Tu-22R was equipped with a refuelling probe in the nose (some were not so equipped), the
designation changed to ‘Tu-22RD’, with the ‘D’ evidently standing for Dalniy, or ‘Long-range’ in
Russian.

Tu-22RDM
This version of the Blinder was an update of the Tu-22RD that involved equipping it with a new
thermal-imaging system and high-resolution cameras. The conversions were carried out from 1981;
eleven aircraft were converted. They were distinguished by a canoe fairing (as with the Tu-16P
Buket) on the underside of the aircraft. Some went to a naval regiment based in the Crimea, which
made them the only Blinders used by the AVMF.

Tu-22RK, Tu-22RDK
A mid-life update of the Tu-22R, this version of the Blinder was fitted with the SRS-11 Kub-4
(‘Cube’) SIGINT suite. These aircraft were converted from the late 1970s from Tu-22Rs and Tu-
22RDs. When this version was converted from the Tu-22RD (which was fitted with the refuelling
probe) it was known as the Tu-22RDK.
Tu-22RM (Prototype)
This was a one-off conversion of the Blinder which was fitted with a new ELINT suite in 1967 (the
‘M’ in the designation stood for Modifitsirovanniy or ‘Modified’). However, the suite, which
included an infrared unit, was not considered satisfactory so this remained a prototype only, although
it was assigned to an operational unit.

Tu-22P Blinder-E parked on the ground. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Tu-22RD on the ground. Note that this aircraft has a smaller radome than the Tu-22P and Tu-22KD. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)
Tu-22RDM preserved at Engels. This aircraft was sent to Engels from Byelorussia upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
(photograph from Ken Duffey)

Tu-22U ‘Blinder-D’
Since the Blinder was not an easy aeroplane to fly, to put it mildly, it became apparent that a
dedicated trainer version was needed. This trainer version of the Blinder was a new-build aircraft,
which featured a raised rear cockpit canopy over what was now the flight instructor’s position (it had
been the navigator/gunner’s position). The trainee pilot sat in the original pilot’s position. The tail
turret was not installed, with a streamlined fairing now being in its place. The prototype Tu-22U first
flew in 1960 (the ‘U’ stood for Uchebniy or ‘Trainer’ in Russian), the first production example flew
in 1962, and the type entered service in 1963. A total of forty-six Tu-22Us were built. It was given
the NATO reporting name of ‘Blinder-D’.
Since it was intended to help train pilots on how to handle the rather tricky flying characteristics of
the Tu-22, and not as a crew trainer, the Blinder-D did not receive the various avionics upgrades that
the service Tu-22s did. Some Tu-22Us were fitted with refuelling probes, and a few were exported to
Iraq and Libya. At least one Tu-22U has been preserved in Russia, at the Long-Range Aviation
Museum at Engels air base.

Tu-22UD
This trainer version was fitted with a fuel probe in the nose to enable in-flight refuelling.

Soviet Use
The Blinder first entered Soviet service in 1962. To say that its entry into service did not go
completely smoothly is something of an understatement. At first, Tu-16 pilots were used to fly the Tu-
22 Blinder, but as they were used to having their co-pilot do much of the flying, as the only pilot in the
Blinder, they found it to be more than a handful to fly. As a result, pilots were taken from the single-
seater Su-17 ‘Fitter’ fighter-bomber, and these pilots found the transition to the Blinder easier. The
Blinder suffered from various problems, including unreliability and difficulty in maintenance, a high
landing speed, and it suffered at times from rudder reversal, where the rudder reacted the opposite of
how it should have. The wing could also become deformed, and there were problems with the skin
overheating during supersonic flight. The Blinder was definitely not considered a ‘pilot’s aeroplane’.

Tu-22U Blinder-D trainer. The raised cockpit can be clearly seen. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

It has been written in more than one source that, at times, crews actually refused to fly the Tu-22
Blinder. This may or may not be true; I have to admit to being somewhat doubtful that crews would
have risked demotion or even imprisonment over whether or not to fly the Tu-22, unless there were
times when the Blinder truly was a death trap to fly. This may be the Soviet equivalent of an urban
myth, and after decades, it may not be possible to conclusively determine the truth. However, true or
not, this story does reinforce how generally disliked the Blinder was in Soviet service.

Soviet Combat Use

Afghanistan
Although not used as bombers, Blinders (Tu-22PD Blinder-Es) were used to provide ECM cover for
bomb-equipped Backfires during the latter stages of the war in Afghanistan; the Backfires were used
in the bomber role to help cover the Soviet troop withdrawal. Four Blinders from the 341st TBAP
were sent to an air base at Mary (Merv) in Turkmenistan in October 1988. They provided ECM
support for Backfire-Cs that had been sent from Poltava, Ukraine, to the air base at Mary. The
Backfire-Cs flew missions against mujahidin positions near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. There
was concern that the Pakistanis might respond with fighters, or alert the mujahidin so the Tu-22PDs
were to be used to interrupt any electronic traffic, if necessary. The original four Blinders used were
withdrawn in January 1989, to be replaced by four aircraft from the 203rd TBAP. These aircraft were
withdrawn in February 1989, as the fighting moved away from the border. This ended the Blinder’s
activity in Afghanistan.
Foreign Use
Egypt
The Egyptians requested the Blinder from the Soviet Union, but were refused because of Soviet
displeasure over the Egyptian initiation of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the general cooling of
relations between the Soviet Union and Egypt during the 1970s. As a result, the Egyptians continued
to rely upon the older Tu-16 Badger, both in its Soviet version and its Chinese version, the Xian H-6.
Given the greater reliability and better flying qualities of the Badger as opposed to the Blinder, this
may very well have been a blessing in disguise for the Egyptians.

Iraq
Iraq was supplied with around twelve second-hand Blinders—the Tu-22B Blinder-C (converted Tu-
22Rs)—and were also supplied with two Tu-22U Blinder-D trainers.

Iraqi Combat Use

In the initial stages of Iraq’s war with Iran beginning in 1980 (1980–1988, the true, or at least the
original ‘Gulf War’), the Tu-22 was used in conventional bombing strikes against Iranian cities,
including Tehran, the Iranian capitol. For example, on 23 August 1980, Blinders attacked Tehran
International Airport, with the Iranians claiming one Blinder shot down. A week later, Blinders
attacked automobile plants near the airport. In 1982, Blinders attacked troop concentrations and other
targets deep within Iran, and in 1985, renewed attacks against Iranian cities such as Tehran, Isfahan,
and Shiraz, as well as attacking oil facilities on the island of Kharg. In 1988, Blinders took part in the
so-called ‘Tanker War’ when they destroyed two Iranian super tankers.
Five Blinders survived the war but their subsequent fate is uncertain. They may have been
destroyed on the ground during the 1991 war with the United States, but the Iraqis claimed that in
early 1996, the remaining Blinders had been restored to operational status. Whatever their ultimate
fate, it is certain that, as of 2018, no Iraqi Blinders remain.

Libya
As with Iraq, Libya was supplied with around twelve Blinder-Cs, as well as some Tu-22Us. Yefim
Gordon has the numbers as ten bombers and two of the Tu-22U trainers. Six were still counted as
being on strength as of 1996, but as with the Iraqi Blinders, their ultimate fate is unknown. They saw
combat action on several different occasions.

Libyan Combat Use

Chad
Most of the combat that the Libyan Blinders saw took place in Chad, during that country’s long civil
war. Without getting into the extensive and involved details of this conflict, Libya supported the
forces of Gamalee Waday, who were fighting the government of Hissen Habre, who was supported by
the French (Chad had once been a French colony) and the United States. The government forces were
without any effective air defences and the Tu-22Bs were, for the time, able to act at will. They
attacked government troops on 9 October 1980 near the Chadian capital of N’djamena, which
allowed the forces of Wadday to occupy the capital.
Fighting resumed a year later, and in 1983, the Libyan Blinders were once again in action, from
July to September, attacking Habre’s forces. On 17 February 1986, a lone Blinder attacked the airport
at N’djamena and damaged it, causing it to be closed for a day and a half. Later in 1986, Blinders
were used in support of the Libyan Army’s offensive in northern Chad from October 1986 to March
1987. Habre’s forces counter-attacked and took a Libyan air base in Chad, capturing two Blinders.
The Blinders were destroyed in an air raid by Libyan forces, no doubt to prevent Habre from using
them. On 8 August 1987, a Libyan Blinder was shot down by a SAM, perhaps a Soviet-made S-175
Kub (SA-3 ‘Ganaf’) that had been captured from Libyan stocks.
Chadian forces now entered Libyan territory, and in retaliation, Blinders once again attacked the
capital of N’djamena on 6 September 1987. On this occasion, Habre’s French allies were able to
shoot down a Libyan Blinder with a Hawk missile. More raids were mounted against other towns but
the Blinders’ actions in Chad soon drew to an end.

Sudan
As the Sudanese leader at the time, General Nimein had supported the forces of Hissen Habre during
the Chadian civil war, Libya decided that he needed to be taught a lesson. On 15 August 1984, a lone
Blinder bombed the Sudanese capital of Omdurman, killing five people and injuring dozens. It is not
recorded if General Nimein learned his lesson, but he was replaced in 1985 by a pro-Libyan
government. It is reported that in March 1986, the Sudanese government used some Libyan Blinders
(no doubt with Libyan crews) to attack Nimein and his supporters, who at the time were in the
southern Sudan.

Tanzania
The first combat use of the Tu-22 Blinder ever occurred in 1979, when Uganda was involved in a
border dispute with Tanzania. Uganda’s leader, Idi Amin Dada, requested military help from Libya.
This help was forthcoming in the form of two Libyan Blinders, which bombed the city of Mwanza in
Tanzania on the night of 30 March 1979. There were apparently no casualties.

Soviet Successor State Use

Ukraine
As a successor state to the Soviet Union, in 1991, the now independent Ukraine inherited some Tu-22
Blinders. Indeed, Ukraine was probably the last user of the Blinder, not retiring its Tu-22s until as
late as 2000; they were definitely still using them as late as 1997, utilising Tu-22Ks, Tu-22Ps, and
Tu-22Rs. The Ukrainian Blinders were never used in combat. One Ukrainian Blinder is preserved at
the museum at Poltava.

The Tu-22 Blinder in Detail

General Description
The Blinder was a large twin turbojet-powered all-metal cantilever monoplane with sharply swept
surfaces and a retractable tricycle landing gear.

Fuselage
The Blinder’s fuselage was a long, circular-section structure of all metal mainly aluminium alloy
semi-monocoque construction. From aft of the canopy until the tail unit there was a fairly prominent
spine along the centreline of the fuselage which housed communications equipment.
It was the long, pointed fuselage of the Blinder which led to the unofficial nickname in Soviet
service of Sheelo (often spelled ‘Shilo’, but here transliterated phonetically), Russian for ‘Awl’. No
doubt, the troublesome Blinder also attracted other nicknames, some that cannot be printed here.
The fuselage was divided into five sections, with a nose section housing the radar, a section
housing the crew compartment, and a third section housing the nose landing gear and Nos 1 and 2 fuel
tanks. The fourth section consisted of the central fuselage, including the wing carry-through structure
and the bomb bay. The fifth section incorporated the fin-mounted engine nacelles and the tail surfaces,
and included the tail gun position.
Unlike the earlier Tu-95 and Tu-16 bombers, the free-fall bomber version of the Blinder never
featured a glass nose, instead having the nose incorporating its bombing radar in a large, solid cone.
There were windows on the side of the nose for the bombardier, aft of the radome, and an OPB-15
optical bombing sight underneath the nose in a fairing somewhat reminiscent of that fitted to the later
Tu-22M Backfire and Tu-160 Blackjack.

Wings
The wings were sharply swept all-metal two-spar structures with a sweep of 55 degrees, and an
anhedral of 2.5 degrees. The wings featured leading edge extensions, or ‘LERXes’. There were two
large fences on each wing, and fairings on the wingtips that acted as balances. The wing was made up
of five sections; a centre section built integrally with the centre fuselage, and two inner and two outer
portions of the wings. The inner wings carried the landing gear nacelles and inner flaps. The outer
wings carried the outer flaps and the ailerons. The wings featured a torsion box construction.
Instructor pilot’s position on the Tu-22U Blinder-D. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Nose of a Tu-22 Blinder showing the windows for the navigator. (Ken Duffey)
Refuelling probe for a Tu-22 Blinder. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-22 Blinder from above showing the general planform, including the sharply swept wings. (G. F. Petrov photo archive)

Large flaps, split in two by the landing gear fairings, were used to provide lift and lower the
dangerously high landing speed of the Blinder. They had a maximum deflection of 35 degrees and
were electrically operated. Large conventional two-section ailerons were fitted, with trim tabs. From
batch thirty-five on, the so-called flaperons functioned for roll control at speeds above Mach 0.9 and
the wingtip balances were deleted.
Tail Planes
The vertical tail planes (fin and rudder) were constructed of metal and consisted of a conventional
two-spar fixed fin and moveable single-spar rudder, with the rudder having a large trim tab in the
lower half. The rudder could deflect up to 25 degrees in either direction. The fin had a 56-degree
sweep on the leading edge. The fin, unlike the Tu-16’s (and the later Tu-22M Backfire), had no
prominent dorsal extension.
The horizontal tail planes were of all-metal two-spar construction and were of the slab type,
without a fixed portion or a separate moveable elevator, with all-moving surfaces; this type of tail
plane is sometimes referred to as a ‘stabilator’. They did not move differentially (as with the Tu-22M
Backfire), but moved in unison. They had a sharp sweepback of 58 degrees on the leading edge and a
5-degree dihedral.

Engines
The Blinder had an unusual engine configuration, with two large turbojets mounted on either side of
the base of the tail, attached by streamlined fairings. Although this was an aerodynamically efficient
arrangement and decreased the likelihood of debris from the ground being ingested, it complicated
maintenance, as the engines were quite some distance from the ground and required a scaffold-like
device to reach them for servicing. This only added to the difficulty in maintaining this unreliable
aircraft. Additionally, it created centre-of-gravity problems that had to be solved by making the nose
longer, which added to the elongated appearance of the Blinder’s fuselage (which aesthetically at
least, was not necessarily a bad thing).
The engines themselves were initially the Dobrynin VD-7M engines, large afterburning turbojets
that were also fitted to some of the 3M Bisons. The VD-7M had a maximum power with afterburner
of 35,273 lb st.
The last 120 or so Tu-22s were built with the improved RD-7M2 engines, which had a maximum
thrust of 36,375 lb with afterburner. Many of the earlier Tu-22s were re-engined with these more
powerful jet engines. Besides being more powerful than the VD-7M, the RD-7M2s were more
reliable and featured a jet fuel-powered starter compared to the electrical starter of the VD-7M.
For assistance on take-off, the Blinder could be equipped with up to four jet-assisted take-off
(JATO) units. These were mounted on the undersides of the inner wings, two to a side.

Fuel System
The fuel system consisted of seven or eight bladders in the fuselage, and twenty-seven in the wings
divided into two groups, with each group serving one of the engines. There was a valve which
enabled either engine to draw from any tank if necessary. As usual, there was an inert gas system
which filled the emptying fuel bladders to prevent fire in the event of damage. The inert gasses
consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Maintenance work being performed on a Tu-22 Blinder. Note the scaffolding that has to be used to reach the engine, and the protective
covers on the exhausts. (Viktor Kulikov’s collection)

Tu-22 Blinder centre-section. Note how the rear-mounted engines are faired into the base of the vertical tail plane. (Ken Duffey)

Controls
As there was only one pilot, the control system on the Blinder consisted of a single control system;
the trainer version had dual sets of controls. The control input was transmitted from the single control
column and rudder pedals through push-pull rods, with the control surfaces being hydraulically
operated. An AP-7MT autopilot was fitted.

Landing Gear
The landing gear were of a retractable tricycle type, with the nose gear retracting backwards into the
nose, and the main landing gear retracting backwards into large fairings on the wing trailing edges, in
what was a ‘trademark’ for large Tupolev aeroplanes. The landing gear were hydraulically operated.
The nose wheels consisted of a pair of wheels, 1,000 × 280 mm in size, mounted on either side of the
nose gear leg, while the main landing gear had two wheels, 1,160 × 290 mm in size, on each side of
the main landing gear strut for four wheels in total per bogie, similar to the arrangement found on the
Tu-95 Bear and Tu-16 Badger. The nose wheels had no brakes, while the main wheels had disc
brakes.
In order for the main landing gear fairings to be of a reasonable size, the four-wheel bogies rotated
to lie flat in the fairings, as was the case with the Tu-16 and Tu-95, which featured similar bogies.
There was a retractable tail bumper on the underside of the rear fuselage to prevent the tail from
striking the runway during over-rotation on take-offs and landings.

Electronics
The initial radar used was the Rubin-1A (‘Short Horn’) radar, which was mounted in a nose radome.
This was replaced in the missile carrier versions by the larger PN ‘Puff Ball’ radar, which was
mounted in a larger, more rounded nose radome. In addition to these radars, an OPB-15 optical
bombsight was fitted to all Tu-22s. All Tu-22s also featured the Sirena-3 radar warning system. A
SHORAN navigational aid in the form of the RSBN-2S Svod (‘Dome’) system was fitted. An IFF
system consisting of the SRZO-2M Khrom-Nikel (‘Chrome-Nickel’ or ‘Odd Rods’ in NATO
parlance) transponder was installed. An AP-7MT autopilot was fitted.

Defensive Armament
Most Blinders carried a remote-controlled DK-20 tail turret for defence, mounting a single R-23 23-
mm cannon as part of the 9A242 defensive armament system. The Rikhter R-23 revolver cannon was
capable of firing 2,500 rpm (apparently a record for a single-barrel aircraft weapon), and featured an
interesting mechanism whereby the cartridges were loaded in from the front of the revolving
magazine. The R-23 was also shorter than the NR-23 23-mm cannon, which made it easier to move at
supersonic speeds. The Tu-22 Blinder was the only production aircraft to use this cannon.
The turret was electro-hydraulically operated. Above the turret was the gun-aiming PRS-3 Argon-
2 radar, mounted in a streamlined fairing. The turret was also equipped with a TP-1 TV sight for
optical aiming. Sometimes, especially later in the Blinder’s career, this turret was replaced by an
ECM-carrying Rezeda installation featuring a streamlined fairing. This installation left the Blinder
without any defensive guns.

Landing gear nacelle on a Tu-22 Blinder. (Ken Duffey)

Nose landing gear on a Tu-22 Blinder. The green wheels are characteristic of Soviet aircraft. (Ken Duffey)
Main landing gear on a Tu-22 Blinder. (Ken Duffey)

Tail turret on a Tu-22 Blinder showing the radome for the gun-laying radome and the R-23 cannon. Note the adjustable ‘petals’ around
the engine exhausts and again how the engine nacelle is faired into the base of the vertical tail surfaces. (Ken Duffey)

Offensive Armament
As first built, the Blinder was only capable of carrying free-fall bombs, either conventional or
nuclear, internally in a bomb bay closed by two doors. With the obsolescence of free-fall nuclear
bombing, this capability was replaced by an ability to carry a large missile, semi-recessed in the
bomb bay doors. This missile on production Blinders was the AS-4 Kitchen, which could be
equipped with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead, mainly for use against shipping, especially
American carrier groups. The bomb bays could also accommodate cameras of various types for
reconnaissance missions.

Camouflage and Markings

Soviet Blinders were left in a natural metal finish, although it may have had a clear lacquer over it to
protect it. Many of the panels were finished with a gloss white finish. Usually, the aircraft had the red
stars, the tactical number (or bort), and various stencils as their only markings, although the
‘Excellent Aircraft’ badge (signifying the aircraft was kept in top condition) could be added when
appropriate. This badge was also used on other bombers, such as the Bear.
Unlike the Soviet Blinders, the Blinders exported to Iraq and Libya (Blinder-Cs) wore full
camouflage. The Libyan Blinders were finished in a dark green/green over light blue camouflage,
while the Iraqi Blinders were painted in a green/sand or brown/sand over light blue scheme.
Examples of these schemes appear in the colour plates section.

Cross-section drawing of a Tu-22R Blinder showing how both cameras and bombs could be carried. (G. F. Petrov photo archive)

Conclusion
Despite the Blinder’s long service, and its use by five different nations, it could not in all honesty be
said to have been a particularly successful aircraft or a good design; indeed, Andrey Tupolev himself
is said to have referred to it as one of his less fortunate designs. It was plagued by problems from the
start; although some of these problems were lessened or solved, it still remained a demanding aircraft
to fly and maintain, and one that was not liked by its crews, either flying crews or maintenance crews.
It also had a high accident rate with 70 of the 313 built crashing, a loss rate of 22.4 per cent;
however, it must be said that this was the same as the accident rate for the roughly equivalent
American B-58 Hustler, although the B-58 did fly more often.
It failed in one of its most important tasks, that of replacing the dependable and tractable Tu-16
Badger, and indeed the Badger has outlasted the Blinder, still remaining in service with the Chinese,
while the Blinder was retired by 2000 at the latest (by Ukraine).
Nonetheless, the Blinder did give the Soviets a fast bomber that was capable of missile attacks
against land and maritime targets, and it would not have remained in service for so long had it been
completely useless. If nothing else, it gave Western military planners one more nuclear-capable
weapons system to worry about and design defences against. The missile carrier version of the
Blinder, as well as the other missile-carrying Soviet bombers, caused the United States to spend many
billions of dollars on defence, including the development of the very expensive Grumman F-14
Tomcat fighter (and its Phoenix missiles), whose main task was carrier defence.
 7

Tu-22M ‘Backfire’

Since the Tu-22 Blinder had failed in its mission to replace the Badger, the Soviet Union still desired
a supersonic medium bomber to replace the Tu-16. The bomber that resulted was the Tu-22M
Backfire, which although it first entered service in 1974, is still in service as of the time of writing
(2018), and will probably continue in service until at least 2040.

Development
Despite the designation, the Tu-22M Backfire has little in common with the Tu-22 Blinder design
(Project ‘45’), other than the service designation (Tu-22) and being a twin-engined medium strategic
bomber designed by the Tupolev OKB. Its designation may have been an attempt to confuse Western
observers or more likely an attempt to confuse Soviet planners that it was not actually a completely
new aircraft, but an improved Blinder. It may well be that its designation was designed to do both.
At the time that a design for a replacement for the Blinder was first being explored, Premier
Khrushchev, who was still in power, was wary of further bomber development and production,
instead preferring ballistic missiles as being more cost-effective. Andrey Tupolev proposed to the
government that the Blinder and Badger could be replaced by a development of the Blinder. Thus, the
‘Tu-22’ designation of the Blinder was kept. This ‘Tu-22M’, with the ‘M’ standing for
Modifitsirovanniy or ‘Modified’, continued the fiction that this was a modified Blinder. This aircraft
would be a more capable, reliable, and easier to handle aircraft, one without the ‘original’ Blinder’s
numerous problems, and be an aircraft that could finally replace the long-serving Badger, which the
problematic Blinder never came close to doing.
By reusing the ‘Tu-22’ designation, Andrey Tupolev may have also engaged in a bit of
gamesmanship with the Sukhoi OKB, who were designing the T-4 bomber to replace the Blinder and
Badger. The T-4 was undeniably an all-new aircraft, and a complicated and expensive one to boot,
being made largely of titanium and capable of Mach 3 speeds. The ‘Tu-22’ designation implied the
new Tupolev design was a redesign of the established Blinder, and therefore cheaper and easier to
implement than the all-new T-4.
By November 1967 the government had directed Tupolev to begin full-scale development of the
Tu-22M. The government-issued specifications were quite challenging, specifying a top speed of
1,429–1,553 mph (2,300–2,500 kph) and a range of 4,350 miles (7,000 km). The aircraft was to be
able to carry three AS-4 Kitchens and have a bomb load of 52,911 lb (24 tonnes). It is interesting that
it was not until the fourth version of the Tu-22M, the Backfire-C, did the Backfire even come close to
satisfying these challenging requirements.
 At one point, the Tu-22M was referred to as the ‘Tu-26’, although this was apparently never an
official designation, but was used for a time in some Western reports and references. This new
aircraft was given the NATO reporting name of ‘Backfire’, and eventually, the real service
designation was uncovered, so it became the ‘Tu-22M Backfire’.
By the time production ended at Z.22 in 1993, 497 Tu-22Ms of all versions had been produced. If
countries that have expressed interest in the past, such as China, India, and Iran sign agreements with
the Russians, it is possible that the production lines could even be re-opened.

Tu-106 (‘106’)
In defence of Tupolev’s use of the ‘Tu-22’ designation, it must be said that the first step towards what
eventually became the Backfire actually owed something to the Tu-22 Blinder design (which had
originally been designated the ‘105’). It was in effect a Blinder fuselage mated to new, thinner, more
heavily swept back wings (60 degrees at one-quarter chord), and more powerful engines. The new
engines were to be two NK-6s. In the end, it was decided that this heavily revised Blinder offered
little advantage over the original design, and work was abandoned. However, further projects with
the ‘Tu-106’ designation were worked on, which owed even less to the Blinder design.

Project ‘145’
This is the design project that eventually led to the Tu-22M Backfire. Unlike the ‘106’ designs, the
‘145’ featured swing-wings as this was felt to be the only way to meet all the requirements for a Tu-
22 Blinder replacement.

Tu-22M0 ‘Backfire-A’ (Izdeliye ‘45-00’)

This first prototype version of the Tu-22M initially flew on 30 August 1969, and was piloted by V. P.
Borisov. This aircraft and the first Tu-22Ms that followed were designated as the ‘Tu-22M0’. The
flight tests with the prototype continued until February 1970, after which state trials commenced. Due
to problems with wing strength, the take-off weight was limited to 209,439 lb (95,000 kg). The Tu-
22M0 had two NK-144-22 turbojet engines of 44,092 lb st each.
These early versions of the Backfire featured large, streamlined fairings trailing behind the wings
that were interpreted as being ‘typical’ Tupolev landing gear fairings, like those fitted to other large
Tupolev designs. The West did not realise that these were fairings covering the beams that the main
landing gear were attached to, and that the landing gear actually retracted inwards. The West assumed
that it retracted backwards into fairings as with the Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22 Blinder. It carried one
Kitchen missile on the fuselage centreline. Nine or ten were built from 1969–72, but these pre-
production developmental aircraft did not enter operational service. However, in order to prepare
crews for the improved production version, two Tu-22M0s were sent to the 43rd Combat and
Training Conversion Training Centre at Dyagilevo air base in February 1973.
Preserved Tu-22M0 Backfire-A at Monino. Note the AS-4 Kitchen missile laying on the ground underneath the port wing. Also, note the
stub of the refuelling probe on the nose. (Ken Duffey)

The Tu-22M0 was given the NATO codename of ‘Backfire-A’ (it is not clear if the ‘A’ was
applied retroactively with the introduction of the first true production examples, the ‘Backfire-B’). At
least one is preserved at Poltava in Ukraine, and another is preserved at Monino, in Russia. Others
may be preserved at Kiev (Kiyev) in Ukraine, and at Irkutsk, in Siberia, Russia.

Tu-22M1 ‘Backfire-A’
The Tu-22M0 clearly needed to be improved, so Tupolev came up with the Tu-22M1 (Izdeliye ‘45-
01’). This version was 6,500 lb (2,948 kg) lighter, had better aerodynamics, and the wings were
strengthened and the span increased by 60 inches (1.52 m). New NK-22 engines were fitted, which
had a power of 48,500 lb st at full afterburner. The speed brake was also relocated. Two Gh-23
cannons in a tail turret were installed with this version. The first example made its initial flight on 28
July 1971.
Although it was intended to be the initial service version of the Backfire, this version ended up
being more of a pre-production and developmental aircraft, because of its various problems. The
testing programme was ended in 1975. However, it is possible that seven of the nine built did
eventually end up in Naval service after the end of testing. How extensive that service may have been
is unclear from the record, and they may have just been used for conversion training, as was the case
with the Tu-22M0 and the DA. Although at least two of the Tu-22M0s have been preserved, it does
not appear that any examples have been preserved of the Tu-22M1. Like the Tu-22M0, the Tu-22M1
was given the NATO reporting name of ‘Backfire-A’.

Tu-22M1 (Mod)
In the late 1970s the first Tu-22M1 aircraft was fitted with a series of modifications as part of the
performance enhancement programme that led to the Tu-22M3. The nose was given a different profile
by increasing it in length by 2.62 feet (0.8 m) and making it more pointed, and the maximum wing
sweepback was increased from 60 degrees (as on the Tu-22M2) to 65 degrees (as on the Tu-22M3).
It was also given the slanted engine intakes that characterised the Tu-22M3.

Tu-22M2 ‘Backfire-B’
This was first true service version of the Tu-22M Backfire, with the Tu-22M0 and Tu-22M1 series
being basically developmental and evaluation pre-production aircraft; the Backfire-B first officially
entered service in 1976. It was some 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) lighter than the Tu-22M1, and also featured
the NK-22 engines, as with the Tu-22M1. As it had more powerful engines than the Tu-22M0s, the
Backfire-B could carry up to three of the AS-4 Kitchen missiles as called for in the original
specifications, although normally it only carried one. The Backfire-B also featured smaller fairings
for the main landing gear attachment beams.
Another one of the main differences between the Backfire-B and the pre-production Tu-22M0s
concerned the defensive armament. The pre-production Tu-22M0s lacked any, featuring instead a
streamlined fairing under the rudder probably containing ECM equipment, while the Backfire-B
featured twin GSh-23 two-barrelled 23-mm cannons in a hemispherical turret. Not only were the
cannons capable of firing 23-mm rounds, they could also ‘shoot’ rounds containing flares or radar-
defeating chaff, in effect serving as an ECM device.
The DA achieved IOC with the Blinder-B in 1974, with the first production Tu-22M2s being
delivered to the 185th GvTBAP at Poltava and the AVMF receiving their Blinder-Bs in 1976 (or
1973 according to Yefim Gordon). After flying the difficult Tu-22 Blinder, crews who converted to
the Backfire were at first pleased with their new aircraft as they were much easier to fly, and also had
the confidence-boosting upward firing ejection seats, which greatly increased the chances of survival
should anything go wrong at low altitude, such as on take-off or landing. Unlike the Tu-22 Blinder, no
fatal accidents attended its entry into service. Soon, however, the ‘new-car’ euphoria started to wear
off, and numerous problems were noted, not surprising with a new and very complicated aircraft. The
powerful NK-22 turbofan engines proved very unreliable, requiring a thorough overhaul after only
fifty hours of operation, the avionics were also unreliable with compatibility problems between the
various systems, and the hydraulics were leaky. Various fixes were made, but the Tu-22M2 would
never win any contests for reliability.
It has been said that the Soviet crews called the Tu-22M2 the ‘all-weather defect carrier’; a play
on its official description of an ‘all-weather missile carrier’. As with any derogatory term for
weapons during the Soviet period, I am a bit sceptical about how commonly this term was used as it
was never very wise in the Soviet era for military personnel to too openly disparage their equipment;
however, it does indicate that the Tu-22M2 had its problems. It was these problems that led in part to
the development and fielding of the improved Tu-22M3.
Tu-22M2 Backfire-B intercepted in flight by an F-14A Tomcat in 1998. (Public Domain)

Tu-22M2 Backfire-B preserved at Poltava. This aircraft is finished in Ukrainian markings. Where the refuelling probe used to be
attached can just be made out on the top of the nose. Note the two Kitchen missiles underneath the wings. The Backfire-B normally only
carried one semi-recessed in the fuselage. (Ken Duffey)
The same Backfire from another angle. (Ken Duffey)

A total of 211 Backfire-Bs were produced at Z.22 in Kazan’ from 1972–84, at which time
production was switched completely over to the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C. All the Backfire-Bs have now
been retired from service, although it is unclear if they were scrapped or placed in long-term storage
(possibly a combination of both). Since the Soviet Union was permitted 500 Backfires by arms
limitation treaty, and total production did not even exceed 500, they were not required by treaty to
scrap any of the Backfires.

Tu-22M2Ye (Prototype)
This was an engine developmental aircraft, modified from a standard Tu-22M2 in 1974, that helped
lead the way for the Tu-22M3, and featured the new Kuznetsov NK-25 engines which were to be
carried by the Tu-22M3. However, just re-engining the Tu-22M2 was not enough, and more changes
were needed, such as a lighter and more aerodynamic airframe to take advantage of the extra power.
Some of these changes were incorporated on the Tu-22M1 (mod) development aircraft.

Tu-22M3 ‘Backfire-C’
Despite being a capable aircraft and a definite improvement on the Blinder, the Backfire-B was not
without its problems and limitations, which have been described previously. This led to the
development of the Tu-22M3 ‘Backfire-C’ (its NATO reporting name) in an attempt to address these
issues, and otherwise improve the design. One of the most recognisable differences concerned the jet
intakes, which in the Backfire-B were straight up and down, and featured a splitter plate, rather like
those on the American McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II fighter. The Backfire-C featured slanted,
wedge-type intakes, like those on the McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter. The change in intakes
went along with a change in engines. The ECM suite was also upgraded and a new main radar, the
PNA-D radar was fitted in the nose. The nose was extended by 2.62 feet (0.8 m).
The lengthened nose, with its new radar, now had a different profile, with a sharper, upturned tip
(a bit like the 3MD Stilyaga, although without that aircraft’s prominent refuelling probe). At first, the
Backfire-C featured a retractable refuelling probe in the nose, although this was later omitted because
of the START-II arms limitation treaty. The defensive armament was changed also, with the twin GSh-
23 23-mm cannons of the Backfire-B being replaced with a single GSh-23 23-mm cannon, in a
slimmer, more flattened turret than the dome-shaped turret of the Backfire-B, in what was probably a
weight-saving measure. Perhaps the most important change was in the powerplant; two of the more
powerful NK-25 turbofan engines with an afterburning thrust of 55,115 lb were now installed. In
addition to being more powerful, these engines were also more reliable than the Tu-22M2’s
notoriously unreliable NK-22 engines. Some titanium was now used in the structure to cut down on
weight. The maximum wing sweep was changed from 60 degrees to 65 degrees. All these changes
resulted in a faster (a maximum speed of Mach 2.05 as opposed to Mach 1.65 for the Tu-22M2), and
surprisingly, lighter aircraft.
The avionics fit was also updated and improved with an SPS-171/172 Sorbstiya jammer, an
Avtomat 3 radar-warning receiver, and an AG-56 noise generator all being carried. The
incompatibility problems that had plagued the earlier Tu-22Ms’ electronics was also largely dealt
with.
The first prototype of the Tu-22M3 flew for the initial time on 20 June 1977. Production started in
1978 and the Tu-22M3 first attained IOC in 1981 (the same year it completed its state tests), first
equipping the 185th GvTBAP, the first DA unit to receive the Tu-22M2s, also. Evidently, its entry
went smoother than it had for the Tu-22M2, and it was well liked by its crews. However, the Tu-
22M3 was not considered fully operational until 1986.
The Tu-22M3 Backfire-C has completely replaced the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B in Russian service. It
is not clear what has happened to the Backfire-Bs; it is possible that most were scrapped, but it is
also possible that some have been kept in storage. Unfortunately, the record is not clear on this.
It is still in service with the Russian Air Force and AVMF as of 2018, with continued service
being anticipated until at least 2040. The projected Sukhoi T-60S stealth bomber might have replaced
it, although it now appears that this secretive aircraft was never even built and has been cancelled.
By the time production ended in 1993, a total of 268 Tu-22M3s had been produced at Z.22 in
Kazan’, with it sharing the production lines with the Tu-22M2 until it took over production
completely in 1984. The Tu-22M3s were the last Tu-22Ms produced. Additional variants have been
created by way of converting existing airframes. As mentioned above, if there is any export interest, it
is even possible that the production lines may be re-opened.
Tu-22M3 Backfire-C in flight at the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force celebrations in 2012. The angled intakes of this Backfire
version show off to good advantage here. (Ken Duffey)

The same Backfire from another angle. Note how close the red star insignia are to where the wings pivot. (Ken Duffey)
Tu-22M3 Backfire-C preserved at Dyagilevo. This aircraft is interesting in that it was experimentally fitted with NK-32 engines, the
same engines that power the Tu-160 Blackjack. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-22M3 Backfire-C at full afterburner on take-off. The opened auxiliary inlet doors can be seen above the wing-glove leading edge.
The glow from the landing lights on the underside of the aircraft can also be seen. Taken in 2016. (Wikimedia, taken by Dmitry
Terekhov)

Tu-22MP (Prototype)
This was a single Tu-22M2 that was converted into an ECM jamming aircraft in the late 1970s. The
‘P’ stood for Postanovshchik Pomekh or ‘ECM (Jammer) Platform’ in Russian. It was not produced
because of the poor performance of the ECM equipment.
Tu-22M3(R) (or Tu-22MR; ‘Backfire-D’)
The first prototype of this reconnaissance version of the Tu-22M first flew on 6 December 1985 but
crashed during testing. A second prototype was built and testing continued. The Tu-22M3(R) had the
Shompol side-looking airborne radar. Tu-22M3s were converted into this reconnaissance version.
Yefim Gordon, however, states that only two prototypes were built and production was not proceeded
with due to the dire economic situation that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is reported
that a Tu-22MR was downed by Georgian anti-aircraft defences during Russia’s 2008 war with
Georgia, so it is not clear if this was the second prototype (which seems unlikely) or a production
example, or perhaps just a case of misreporting due to the ‘fog of war’.

Tu-22M3-LL
As with most of the Soviet’s large bombers, some Tu-22M3s were converted into flying laboratories
for various tests, with the customary ‘LL’ added to the usual service designation. It is unclear from the
record how many Backfires have been so converted. However, at least one was converted from the
prototype Tu-22M3 and used by the TsAGI and the LII to test laminar-flow aerofoils, with these being
bolted to the wings.

Tu-22M3M
As the Sukhoi T-60S, the would-be Backfire replacement appears to be going nowhere if not indeed
outright cancelled, it has been decided to upgrade some of the Tu-22M3s to the Tu-22M3M standard.
This variant features improved avionics, probably including a modern electronic glass cockpit
replacing the outdated ‘steam gauges’, and the ability to carry advanced long-range missiles. Five are
reported to have gone into service in 2015, with two more in 2017, and by 2020, a total of thirty
Backfires will have been upgraded to this standard.

Tu-134UBK ‘Crusty’
This was a version of the Tu-134 jet airliner (see below) converted for the AVMF. Only one Tu-134
was converted; its final disposition is not known.

Tu-134UBL ‘Crusty-B’
Since the Tu-22M featured no dedicated trainer version, some Tu-134 twin-engined jet airliners
(similar to the McDonnell Douglas DC-9) were fitted with the Tu-22M’s radar nose for training
purposes. Evidently, the flight characteristics of the ‘Tu-134UBL’, as these aircraft were designated,
were similar to those of the Tu-22M with the wings swept forward. Apparently, ninety were built or
converted (it is not clear from the record which). In addition, it serves as a trainer aircraft for the Tu-
160, as it has similar flight characteristics in some respects with that aircraft and is much simpler and
cheaper to operate. Since both the Tu-22M and Tu-160 are still in service, an unknown number of the
Tu-134UBLs are also still in service. The NATO reporting name for the Tu-134 is ‘Crusty’; the Tu-
134UBL version is the ‘Crusty-B’. At least one Tu-134UBL is preserved at the museum in Poltava,
Ukraine, appropriately displayed alongside that museum’s Tu-22M Backfires.

Tu-22M3 Backfire-C ready for take-off at Dyagilevo in 2012. Note that this aircraft appears to be in excellent condition, perhaps freshly
painted, and that it has the under-fuselage bomb racks with bombs. The landing lights are in good evidence here. (Wikimedia, by
Alexander Beltyukov)

Tu-134UBSh ‘Crusty’
This was a version of the Tu-134 that was used for training navigators. Twelve trainees could be
accommodated, and practice bombs could be carried under the wings. It is unclear how many were
converted or how many are still in service.

Soviet/Russian Service
The Tu-22M2, the first true production version of the Backfire, was introduced into service in 1976.
It was known colloquially as the Dvoika, or ‘Deuce’. As is usual with the introduction of any
complicated new aircraft, the introduction into service of the Tu-22M was not without its difficulties,
some of which have been discussed previously. One of the most serious was the unreliability of the
NK-22 engines, which required a complete overhaul after fifty hours of use—a serious maintenance
problem. The Tu-22M2 Backfire-Bs were usually organised into a regiment with eighteen aircraft,
although these regiments could contain as many as twenty aircraft. A squadron of Tu-16P escort
jammers was usually attached to the regiment.
The introduction of the improved Tu-22M3 Backfire-C in the 1980s eased the maintenance
situation at the time, especially with regard to the engines. Not surprisingly, the Tu-22M3 was known
as the Troika, to distinguish them from the Tu-22M2, the Dvoika. The Troika saw its first combat use
in the war in Afghanistan in 1987–88.
There were (and are) two main missions for the Backfire (as was the case with the Tu-22
Blinder), attacking strategic targets on land, and attacking large warship concentrations, specifically
US Navy carrier groups, at sea. However, the greater range of the Backfire as compared to the
Blinder allows it to operate over a greater area of the world’s oceans, covering the Baltic, Black,
North, and Mediterranean seas. In addition, Backfires operating with the Pacific Fleet can cover
significant parts of the Pacific Ocean.
During the early 1990s, due mainly to the difficult financial situation in Russia, the maintenance
situation had become so dire for the Backfire that the entire fleet had to be grounded and Tu-16
missile carriers were taken out of storage to make up for the lack of operational bombers. This was
due mainly to the severe economic problems that Russia and the newly independent former Soviet
republics were undergoing, more so than any inherent problems with the basic Tu-22M design. This
was a situation where supply chains broke down, parts were not delivered, maintenance was not
performed on schedule (or at all), and service members were not even paid. The Backfire is a
complicated machine that needs attention; when that attention is lacking, it does not work.
As Russian priorities shifted under President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (b. 1952), and the
economy improved over the situation of the early 1990s, more money has gone towards the military,
which has greatly eased the maintenance situation for the Backfire.
One indication of the improved capabilities and reliability of the Backfire is that it is now the ‘go-
to’ bomber for the Russians when they need a big bomber for combat missions, such as in Chechnya,
and now (from 2015) in Syria. With the (probably permanent) non-appearance of its intended
replacement, the Sukhoi T-60S, and the uncertain future of the PAK-DA stealth bomber, it appears that
the Backfire will continue to be Russia’s ‘go-to’ conventional bomber for quite some time. As of late
2016, sixty-nine were still in active service, with more no doubt in storage.

Combat Use
Unlike the Tu-22 Blinder, the Backfire has seen extensive combat use with the Soviet Union and its
main successor state, the Russian Federation, participating in three different wars. In these wars, it
has been used against ground targets as a conventional bomber, using both free-fall bombs (often the
FAB-250 250-kg (551-lb) ‘iron’ bomb), and conventionally armed cruise missiles. Its large bomb
load has made the Backfire very valuable when used as a conventional bomber, in the same way that
the B-52 has proven itself as a conventional bomber. It appears that only the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C has
been used in combat, as there are no references to the Backfire-B being used.

Afghanistan
During the last stages of the war in Afghanistan, in 1987–1988, the Backfire-C was used as a
conventional bomber to help cover the Soviet withdrawal from that unfortunate country. The weapons
used were the FAB-250 bombs, with up to sixteen Backfires participating in a single mission, which
added up to quite a bit of firepower. The Backfires were used to bomb mujahidin bases and weapons
stores. Some of the Tu-22P Blinder-Es were used to provide ECM support for the Backfires on these
bombing missions. No Backfires were damaged or lost in these missions, no doubt partly because the
Backfires flew high enough to be out of range of the mujahidin anti-aircraft weapons, including the
American-supplied Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

Chechnya
As in Afghanistan, the Tu-22M3 was used as a conventional bomber to bomb separatist forces in the
Chechen Republic, in 1995, bombing targets near the capital of Grozny. Although these missions have
been described as ‘carpet-bombing’ missions, it appears that in reality they were fairly limited in
scope.

Georgia
During the short-lived 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia, it was reported
that a Tu-22MR reconnaissance aircraft was shot down by Georgian air defences, with one crew
member captured, two killed, and one missing in action. This aircraft may have been a Tu-22M3, not
a Tu-22MR, however.

Syria
It has been reported that on 17 November 2015, twelve Tu-22M3s were used to fire stand-off
missiles at ground targets in Syria. They have also apparently dropped ‘iron’ (unguided) bombs. It
does not appear that any Backfires were stationed in Syria itself, but at that time were being used
from bases in Russia.
From 22 until 31 January 2016, Tu-22M3s are reported to have flown forty-two sorties near the
city of Deir ez-Zor. On 12 July 2016, six Tu-22M3 bombers carried out a raid on IS (‘Islamic State’
or ‘ISIS’) targets east of Palmyra, As Sukhnah and Arak. Six Tu-22M3 bombers took off from Russian
airfields on 14 July 2016 and delivered a raid on recently discovered IS facilities east of Palmyra, as
well as in Arak, Es Sukhne, and the T-3 oil pumping station in the Syrian province of Homs. New
bombing raids were flown on 21 July, 8 August, 11 August, and 14 August 2016.
As of August 2016, further bombings of targets in Syria have been performed, as mentioned above,
this time with the Backfires flying from Iranian airbases and using free-fall bombs. Apparently, the
object of the Russians’ attention this time were targets related to IS. The Tu-22M3 bombers used the
Nojeh air base, which is located near the city of Hamadan in north-western Iran, to fly these bombing
raids against the targets in Syria.
From late January 2017, six Tu-22M3s resumed raids near Deir ez-Zor to prevent the capture of
this city by jihadists and again in late 2017 to support a Syrian government offensive.

Ukrainian Service
Unlike the Tu-160 and the Tu-95MS, which the Ukrainians had no intention of keeping in service, they
did keep the Tu-22M3s they inherited from the Soviet Union in service for some years. It appears that
they went out of service around 2000, probably due to the parlous state of the Ukrainian economy
more than anything else. It is not clear if any are in storage, or they were all scrapped, except for one
or two that have been preserved. None appear to have been sent to Russia.

Attempts at Export
The Tu-22M has been released by the Russian government for export, but as of the date of writing
(2018), no firm deals have been made, or at least carried through with. If deals are made, it is not
clear if these will be new-build aircraft (perhaps unlikely, as the Russian Air Force would probably
have priority on any new-build Backfires) or from existing Russian stocks, although the alleged
Chinese contract apparently involved new-build Backfires-Cs.

China
China has shown interest in the Backfire, dating back to 1993, but to date (2018), apparently nothing
concrete has come of this, even though a contract was allegedly signed for the production and
delivery of thirty-six Tu-22M3s, with the Chinese designation of ‘H-10’. This purchase does not
appear to have gone through, however, and the continued development of the Chinese Badger, the H-
6, might indicate that China may continue to rely upon this aeroplane, as opposed to the Backfire, for
its missile carrier force, at least for the time being. This would appear to be the cheaper option,
although as China continues to flex its military muscle in Asia, it may not be the only option, and
China may revive its interest in the Backfire.

Tu-22M3 Backfire-C preserved at Poltava. As with the Backfire-B preserved here, it is in Ukrainian markings. Note the blue and yellow
insignia on the tail that represents a trident (Tryzub in Ukrainian). Unlike the previous in-service Backfire-C, this preserved example is
quite weathered. (Ken Duffey)
India
It is reported that India signed a ‘lease-to-own’ agreement for four Backfires in 2001. Like the alleged
Chinese contract, it does not appear that these aircraft were ever delivered, although with recent
Russian attempts to expand their country’s military and political influence, this may change.

Iran
In 1994, it was reported that Iran was attempting to purchase Backfires from Russia. Nothing appears
to have come of this. As of 2018, any attempt by Iran to procure Backfires from Russia would be
problematical, as United Nations’ sanctions (UN Security Council Resolution 2231) prohibit the sale
of combat aircraft to Iran. How long these sanctions will last is open to question, however, as is
Russia’s willingness to abide by them, so the future sale of Backfires to Iran is certainly not out of the
question. Perhaps Iran’s decision in August 2016 to allow Backfires to operate from Iranian soil
against Syrian targets was a chance for the Iranians to examine the Backfire up close (if they had not
already done so in Russia), and to see it in operation.

The Tu-22M Backfire in Detail

There are two main production versions of the Tu-22M, the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B, and the Tu-22M3
Backfire-C. Both variants are described below, with the differences between the versions noted.

General Description
The Tu-22M Backfire is a swing-wing (variable-geometry) all-metal turbofan-powered monoplane,
with retractable tricycle landing gear. It has a crew of four, housed in an enclosed, pressurised
compartment.

Fuselage
The fuselage is composed of two main, very different sections. The front half is a circular to ovoid
cross section structure, which carries the crew in their pressurised compartment, the bombing radar,
and the nose landing gear. The back half is a roughly rectangular cross section structure, which blends
the engines and the fuselage into a large aerofoil shape. The back half, besides containing the engines,
also accommodates the wing glove attachments, the bogies of the main landing gear, the internal bomb
bay, and the tail section with engine exhausts. Bomb racks can be attached to the underside of the
fuselage to carry conventional bombs.
Another view of this aeroplane, showing the pointed, upturned nose typical of the Backfire-C. Note the bort (the aircraft number, in this
case ‘Blue 96’) prominently displayed on the nose landing gear door. The inside of the cockpit glass appears to have the nuclear anti-
flash shutters deployed, in this case to protect the interior from the sun on this static display example. (Ken Duffey)

The four crew members sit in KT-1 ejection seats, which although they operate at zero altitude,
need a forward speed of at least 186 mph (300 kph) to function, so they are not true zero-zero seats.
Nonetheless, being upward ejecting, they are a definite improvement over the downward ejecting
seats of the Tu-22 Blinder. The crew are seated with the pilot on the front port side, the co-pilot on
the starboard front side, the navigator/bombardier on the rear port side, and the weapons system
operator (WSO) behind the co-pilot, on the starboard rear side. Each crew member has their own
hatch, through which they can enter or leave their compartment, and it is these hatches that are ‘blown’
upon ejection.

Wings
The most notable feature of the wings is that they are of the swing-wing or variable geometry type,
making the Tu-22M look rather like an oversized Su-24 Fencer light bomber or F-111. As with the
Fencer and other Soviet swing-wing designs, the Backfire’s wings feature a large ‘glove’, or fixed
portion of the wing, to which the swinging portion is attached. The main landing gear legs retract into
this fixed portion, with the bogies retracting into wells in the fuselage. Missiles can also be carried
on pylons attached to the outer part of this fixed wing portion. Both the fixed portion of the wing and
the moveable portions are of a two-spar structure.
Tu-22M3 Backfire-C in flight at Zhukovskiy in 2012. Note the aircraft numbers on the nose landing gear doors, and the wings in the fully
forward position. (Wikimedia, by Artem Katranzhi)

Tu-22M with wings swept fully forward and with spoilers and flaps deployed. Note the large piece extending beyond the wing—this is
part of the large beam that supports the main landing gear. (Public Domain)
 The moveable, swinging portions of the wings are characterised by extensive high-lift devices,
such as leading edge slats, and full-length flaps. These are deployed for landing, when the wings are
at their fully forward-swept positions. Spoilers are fitted to both the inner and outer wing sections
and are used for roll control. The outer spoilers have been found to be inefficient and were deleted on
late production Tu-22M3s. No ordnance is carried on the moveable wing portions; all disposable
ordnance is carried on the fixed wing gloves or the fuselage.
The Tu-22M2 Backfire-B featured a maximum sweep back of 60 degrees, while the Tu-22M3
Backfire-C has a maximum sweep back of 65 degrees on its strengthened wings. This greater sweep
back (along with more powerful engines) helps the Backfire-C to attain a higher top speed (Mach
2.05) than the Backfire-B (Mach 1.65).

Tail Planes
The vertical tail planes are conventional, with a fixed fin and a moveable rudder. The fin itself is
very large, with a rather substantial extended triangular dorsal portion that continues to the middle of
the fuselage. Underneath the rudder are various sensors and the PRS-3 Argon-2 gun-laying radar (on
the Tu-22M2), and the gun turret itself. The Tu-22M3 features the PRS-4 Krypton gun-laying radar.
The fixed fin portion of the tail also houses various sensors and antennae. The rudder does not feature
a trim tab.
The horizontal tail planes are of the all-moveable, slab stabilator type, without a fixed portion or a
separate moveable elevator. As stabilators, the tail planes on either side can move independently of
each other to help control roll like conventional ailerons or in concert to control pitch, like
conventional elevators.

Engines
The Tu-22M2 featured two of the Kuznetsov NK-22 two-spool turbofan engines with an afterburning
thrust of 44,090 lb. Although very powerful, these engines at first were very unreliable, requiring a
complete overhaul after only fifty hours of use. The problem was bad enough that the engines were
limited in terms of their maximum thrust. The reliability improved over time, but as noted previously
the Tu-22M2 was not going to set any records for its operational readiness rate. These engines were
fed by long intake trunks, featuring a D-section intake with splitter plates.
The Tu-22M3 features two of the Kuznetsov NK-25 three-spool turbofan engines with an
afterburning thrust of 55,115 lb. These engines, in addition to being more powerful than the NK-22s
of the Tu-22M2, are also more reliable, and are more fuel-efficient at subsonic speeds. As with the
Tu-22M2’s NK-22 engines, the NK-25 engines of the Tu-22M3 are fed by long intake trunks, in this
case featuring slanted, wedge-type rectangular-section intakes like those of an F-15.

Fuel System
The fuel system consists of ten tanks in the fuselage, along with tanks in the wings, and one in the fin.
The tanks themselves are divided into groups and are equipped with an inert gas system to prevent
fire. Originally, the Backfires were equipped with refuelling probes, externally on the Tu-22M2 and a
retractable unit on the Tu-22M3, but these were removed as part of arms limitation treaties to ensure
that the Backfires did not have intercontinental strike capabilities. The probe refuelling system was of
the probe-and-drogue (Konus) type. There is a fuel jettisoning system.

Tu-22M2 Backfire-B preserved at Poltava showing the ‘F-4 Phantom II’ style intakes of the Backfire-B. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-22M3 Backfire-C preserved at Poltava showing the ‘F-15’ style intake ramps of the Backfire-C. (Ken Duffey)
Exhausts of the Backfire-C at Poltava. The tail turret with the single GSh-23 cannon can just be made out at the top. (Ken Duffey)

Controls
The controls are dual, with duplicated controls for the pilot and co-pilot. All the control surfaces are
powered by irreversible hydraulic actuators, and there is no backup manual system. The rudder and
the stabilators are actuated by push-pull linkages, while the wing spoilers are actuated by a fly-by-
wire (FBW) system. The wing sweep can be achieved either manually or automatically, and is done
by FBW. The Tu-22M2 was equipped with an ABSU-145M flight control system that enabled the
pilots to either fly it manually or in autopilot method.

Landing Gear
The landing gear are of a retractable tricycle type and are hydraulically operated. The twin nose
wheel-equipped nose gear retracts backwards into the nose. The main wheels consist of six-wheel
bogies on each side, instead of the four-wheel units fitted to earlier Tupolev bombers, and retract
inwards into the fixed portion of the wing. The second pair of main wheels are further from the third
pair than the second pair is from the front pair. In addition, for the early Tu-22Ms—including the
early Tu-22M2s—the middle pair were spaced more widely apart as seen from the front or back, to
give the Backfire better ability to operate from rougher airfields. This feature was deleted on the later
Tu-22M2s and all of the Tu-22M3s; a simpler, lighter landing gear was fitted with all of the wheels in
alignment as seen from the front or back.
Nose landing gear of the Backfire. (Ken Duffey)

Main landing gear of the Backfire. In this case the wheels have been painted a greenish blue instead of the medium green normally
applied to the wheel hubs. (Ken Duffey)
Main landing gear of the Tu-22M0 at Poltava. Note that the middle pair of wheels are extended out. This arrangement was seen only on
pre-production Backfires and some early Tu-22M2s. (Ken Duffey)

In the Backfire, the Tupolev bureau dispensed with the streamlined main landing gear fairings that
had become something of a trademark of theirs, appearing on both bombers such as the Tu-16 and the
Tu-22 Blinder, and on commercial aircraft such as the Tu-104 Camel and Tu-124 Cookpot.

Electronics
On the early Backfires, including the Backfire-B, the ECM suite had not been tested sufficiently in
operation alongside the other electronic equipment; as a result, there were problems with interference
that actually shut down the automatic flying system, forcing the crew to control the aircraft manually.
This problem has been gradually rectified in the Tu-22M3, with the ECM systems being made more
reliable in service.
On the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C, the PNA-B attack radar of the Tu-22M2 Backfire-B has been
replaced by the superior PNA-D which apparently includes terrain avoidance features for low-level
penetration mission profiles. In addition, the Tu-22M3 features an NK-45 navigation and attack
system. Like the Tu-22M2, the Tu-22M3 retains an optical bombsight, the OPB-15T, which ‘looks’
forward through an under nose fairing.

Electrical System
The electrical system was changed on the Tu-22M3 to AC generators and hydro-mechanical constant-
speed drives, which enabled the clumsy AC converters of the Tu-22M2 to be eliminated.

Defensive Armament
Along with the aircraft, the defensive armament of the Tu-22M has evolved. The pre-production
versions, the M0 and M1, featured no defensive guns at all, but instead had an extended fairing that
housed ECM equipment, somewhat like the Tu-95K-22 and some of the Tu-22KDs and Tu-16Ps. The
Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M1 Backfire-B featured two twin barrel GSh-23 23-mm cannons equipped with
600 rpg in a hemispherical turret, the UKU-9K-502 (UKU-9A-502 on the Tu-22M1). This turret
featured a gun-laying PRS-4 Krypton radar. This was first present in a rounded radome, but it
appears that later Tu-22M2s featured a more squared radome (as does the Tu-22M3). There was also
a TP-1 television system for optical sighting.
The Tu-22M3 Backfire-C features a single twin barrel GSh-23 23-mm cannon in a more laterally
compressed turret, the UKU-9A-802. A gun-aiming radar, the PRS-4KM Krypton ‘Box Tail’, is
present in a fairing above the turret.

Offensive Armament
The Tu-22M is equipped to carry both guided missiles and free-fall bombs. SRAMs (Short Range
Attack Missiles) can be carried on a rotary launcher in the bomb bay, and larger missiles can be
carried on underwing racks, BD-45Ks. The Tu-22M3’s MKU-6-1 rotary launcher in the bomb bay
can carry six AS-15 Kent cruise missiles. The underwing racks are attached to the fixed portion of the
wing, the ‘glove’, but the back end of the racks extend beyond the glove, and there is a gap between
this end part and the retracted wings. Additionally, a rack for the missile, the BD-45F, can be attached
underneath the fuselage centreline. This enables the Backfire-C to carry up to three AS-4 Kitchen
missiles, although this is probably not a common load because of the extra drag and weight of the
missiles and the effect this has on performance, including range. The Tu-22M2 Backfire-B could also
carry up to three missiles, but normally only carried one Kitchen semi-recessed in the fuselage.
The bomb load is an impressive 52,910 lb (24,000 kg), and can consist of a varying assortment of
free-fall bombs including 220-lb (100-kg), 551-lb (250-kg), 1,102-lb (500-kg), 3,306-lb (1,500-kg),
or 6,613-lb (3,000-kg) bombs. Apparently, the Backfire cannot accommodate the huge FAB-9000
19,842-lb (9,000-kg) bomb, but it can accommodate three of the 6,613-lb (3,000-kg) bombs for an
equivalent load. In addition to being carried internally in the bomb bay, bombs can be carried on
MBD3-U9-68 multi-ejector racks (MERs) under the fuselage. FAB-250s (250-kg or 551-lb high-
explosive fragmentation bombs) are commonly carried on these MERs. These appear to be the
weapons of choice on combat bombing missions.
The Backfire carries both a bombing radar and an optical bombsight. The PNA bombing radar is
housed in the nose cone, and the OPB-15T optical bombsight is housed in a small fairing behind the
radar nose. The optical bombsight incorporates a television camera to enable the WSO to use this
sight, with a screen showing what the bombsight sees. The PNA radar is also used for target
illumination in missile attacks. The Backfire-B carried the PNA-B radar, while the Backfire-C
carries the PNA-D radar.
Tail of the Tu-22M0 at Poltava. This shows the ECM fairing that was fitted to the pre-production Tu-22Ms, in place of the tail turrets
fitted to the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3. Although somewhat faded, the trident insignia on the fin can be seen. Also, note the fairing at the
top of the tail—this was not present in the Tu-22M2 and the Tu-22M3. (Ken Duffey)

Although now missing the GSh-23 23-mm cannons, this preserved Ukrainian Backfire-B shows well the general arrangement of the
twin-gun turret of the Tu-22M2, and the radome for the gun-laying radar positioned immediately above. (Ken Duffey)
The tail of a preserved Tu-22M3 Backfire-C showing the smaller single-gun tail turret of the Backfire-C. Note that the GSh-23 23-mm
cannon is twin-barrelled. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-22M with the underwing bomb racks and bombs fitted. The bombs appear to be FAB-500s which are commonly fitted to the Backfire
when it is used for conventional bombing. (Wikimedia, by Pavel Adzhigildaev)

Camouflage and Markings

Some of the pre-production Tu-22Ms were in an all-metal finish, but all production versions of the
Tu-22M, the Tu-22M2, and Tu-22M3 have been painted in a ‘maritime’ scheme of medium grey over
a white underside. This camouflage is applied to both the DA and the AVMF Backfires. The Backfire
has carried both the red star of the Soviet Union and Russia, and the blue and yellow roundels of
Ukraine as national insignia. The red star has been both the 1943 star and the revised Russian star
with blue outlining the inner red star. As is common with modern aircraft, it is covered with numerous
stencils, all in Cyrillic script.

Conclusion
The Tu-22M2 was a rather unreliable aircraft (stemming partly, although not completely from its
engines), although it still proved a great improvement over the Tu-22 Blinder, which it was designed
to replace. The Tu-22M3 was (and is) a considerable improvement on the Tu-22M2, featuring more
powerful and reliable engines, more reliable avionics, and a lighter, more refined airframe.
Despite some severe maintenance problems with all the Backfires during the 1990s due to supply
problems and under-funding, the Backfire-C is still a formidable weapons system as a missile carrier,
and has also proven its usefulness as a conventional bomber. It shows every sign of remaining in
service with Russia until at least 2040, at the earliest. Since it has replaced both the Blinder and the
Badger in Russian use and continues in active service, the Backfire overall has to be considered a
successful design; the fact that it worried the United States to distraction over its abilities at one point
is also a factor in its favour, at least in terms of Soviet/Russian opinion of its usefulness.
 8

Tu-160 ‘Blackjack’

The Tu-160 was the last large bomber designed under the Soviet Union to go into production and
service. Although likened to the American B-1B Lancer at least partly due to their similar
appearance, the Tu-160 is actually a much larger, and possibly more capable aeroplane. In fact, it is
the heaviest warplane to have ever been built.
Some of the early designs for what led to the Blackjack bore little similarity to either the ultimate
version of the Blackjack or the B-1. These will be described in detail below.

Development
Partially as a response to the North American XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 strategic bomber, and also the
development of the Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA—what became the B-1), the Soviet
Union announced a competition for a supersonic strategic bomber on 28 November 1967. The
technical requirements were set to a very high bar, with a supersonic speed of 1,998 to 2,175 mph
(3,200 to 3,500 kph), or Mach 3, and with a maximum range of 9,942 to 11,185 miles (16,000 to
18,000 km). For 1967 (or even now), these were very ambitious figures indeed. The aircraft was to
be equipped with nuclear-armed stand-off missiles.

Myasishchev’s Proposal
The reconstituted Myasishchev OKB, having been revived in 1966, was eager to return to the world
of strategic bombers; therefore, it offered up its own proposals for the projected supersonic strategic
bomber under the ‘M-20’ designation. The M-20 was not just one design, but became four different
proposals. The first proposed design, sensibly named the ‘M-20 variant I’, would have been a fairly
conventional design, albeit featuring swing-wings, and would have resembled an oversized MiG-23
fighter. The ‘M-20 variant II’ was a rather more bold-looking design, and dispensing with the swing-
wings, featured four engines in separate nacelles (or grouped together) under the trailing edge of what
was basically a modified double-delta wing. The fuselage would have featured large canards
(essentially, the ‘tail surfaces’ mounted forward). The ‘M-20 variant III’ started to look something
like what eventually became the Tu-160 and returned to the swing-wings, while keeping the canard
configuration. It featured four or six engines mounted under the fuselage, or in it.
It was the last proposal, the M-20 variant IV, which turned into a design that resembled the
eventual Tu-160. It again featured swing-wings, but dispensed with the canards, instead sporting more
conventional rear-mounted tail surfaces, with the horizontal tail surfaces mounted at the top of the fin
for a ‘T-tail’ configuration. The four engines were mounted underneath the wings in separate nacelles.
The fuselage and wing configuration was conventional, with a slim, round-section fuselage and
distinct wings attached to it. The ‘blended-body’, where the wings and fuselage blended smoothly
together, had not yet made its appearance. This aircraft was to be built largely out of titanium, no
doubt to withstand the extreme temperatures generated by Mach 3 flight.
When the Air Force issued its new requirements in 1972 for a Mach 2.3 capable bomber,
Myasishchev redesigned the M-20 variant IV to feature a mainly aluminium structure, as the titanium
was no longer needed at speeds of Mach 2.3. In addition, the horizontal tail surfaces were moved
from the top of the fin down to a more conventional position on the rear fuselage. This aircraft
became the ‘M-18’. The M-18 was chosen as the winner of this second competition, but Myasishchev
did not have the manufacturing or design capabilities for building it. Thus, Tupolev ‘won’ the
competition by default, and was assigned the task of turning the M-18 design into a flyable aircraft,
which became the Tu-160 Blackjack.

Sukhoi’s Proposal
The Sukhoi OKB’s proposal, ready by 1968, was basically the T-4 design with swing-wings; the
aircraft was named the ‘T-4M’. The design suffered flaws, such as all the armament needed to be
carried externally, which would have adversely affected performance, and the maximum range
specified by the 1967 requirement would only have been achievable via two aerial refuellings.
These shortcomings led to the T-4MS, which bore little resemblance to the original T-4 aircraft
other than its designation. The T-4MS would have featured a broad aerofoil-shaped fuselage, almost a
lifting body design (where all or most of the lift was generated by the fuselage), to which were
attached the relatively small swing-wings. Some of the missile armament would have been housed in
the exceptionally broad fuselage, in internal bomb bays, while some of the armament, in the form of
missiles, would have been carried externally in some configurations, between the engine nacelles.
The missiles would have been the large Kh-45 missiles.
Sukhoi’s T-4MS actually won the competition for the Mach 3 strategic bomber, in 1972, over the
Myasishchev designs, but it was a hollow victory as the aircraft was never built. The Soviet Air
Force realised that its initial requirements were unrealistic and would not be met. Therefore, the VVS
issued new requirements, this time for a bomber capable of a much more realistic top speed of Mach
2.3. The Sukhoi OKB had evidently had enough, and returned to its fighters and fighter-bombers. This
left Myasishchev and Tupolev to fight it out over the new bomber.

Tupolev’s Proposal
Tupolev realised from the outset that the Air Force’s original 1967 requirements were unrealistic in
terms of speed and range; instead, the OKB set about creating a more realistic aircraft from the start.
Its designs took the form of a blended-body aircraft, with double-delta wings, and were designated as
the ‘Tu-160’. The final design, which featured four engines grouped together in two pairs under the
wings, and with a vertical tail but no horizontal tail, bore more than a passing resemblance to the Tu-
244 supersonic transport design.
Despite Tupolev’s best efforts, the Myasishchev design, the M-18, was chosen by the Air Force as
its new Mach 2.3 strategic bomber, at least partly because its swing-wings gave the design greater
flexibility than the fixed wing design of the Tupolev proposal. However, as with the Sukhoi T-4MS
winning the first competition, it proved a rather hollow victory, this time for the Myasishchev OKB,
as the Tupolev OKB, with its vast experience in building large bombers, was given the responsibility
of turning the M-18 design into an operational bomber. The Air Force considered the Myasishchev
design team too small for this considerable task.
In 1973, under the Tu-160 designation (‘Izdeliye K’), Tupolev prepared a design based upon the
M-18, utilising swing-wings as with the Myasishchev proposal. Many different engine configurations
were considered, but in the end, the four engines were grouped in two nacelles under the mid wing,
with a large space in between them to accommodate the internal armament. Although the NK-25
engines of the Tu-22M3 were initially considered, the engines that were chosen were the new
Kuznetsov NK-32 three-shaft turbofans, which were more fuel-efficient than the NK-25s while having
similar power.
Two resolutions of the Soviet Council of Ministers, dated 26 June 1974 and 19 December 1975,
ordered the construction of the Tu-160. The maximum speed was to be from 1,429 to 1,553 mph
(2,300 to 2,500 kph). It was to have a range with two Kh-45 missiles (this missile had not been
cancelled yet) of 8,699 to 9,942 miles (14,000 to 16,000 km). These requirements were still rather
ambitious, but proved to be much more realistic than the original 1967 requirements for the Mach 3
bomber. The Tu-160 was to be capable of carrying two Kh-45 missiles internally and two externally,
if needed.
By 1977, the preliminary design and the mock-up were submitted for approval. After approval, the
construction of three prototypes was begun. The first prototype, designated ‘70-01’, was essentially
an aerodynamic test-bed; it was to be used to test the flight characteristics and be the first to fly. The
second prototype, designated ‘70-02’, was to be used for static tests, while the third prototype, ‘70-
03’, was to be built to a near-production standard. This construction took some time, and the first
prototype, 70-01, was not completed until 1981.

Tu-160—First Prototype
This aircraft, 70-01, was assembled at Zhukhovskiy in January 1981. For several months, the various
systems and equipment were tested on the ground. Taxiing tests took place for the first time on 14
November 1981. This first prototype, 70-01, took to the air for the first time on 18 December 1981,
with Boris Veremey as the pilot. When this initial prototype was first photographed on 25 November
1981 (by a civilian passenger in an airliner), it was given the name of ‘Ram-P’, for Ramenskoye, a
town near the test centre at Zhukovskiy, since the Soviet designation for the aircraft was not known at
the time. Such was the secrecy surrounding Soviet aircraft during the Cold War that the proper name
of the facility, the ‘Zhukovskiy Test Centre’, was not even known, and the name ‘Ramenskoye’
continued to be used for this air base and facility for some time. The Tu-160 was later given the
NATO reporting name of ‘Blackjack’.
The testing did not proceed without incident—on one flight, the nose landing gear refused to
extend for landing, and the aircraft had to be landed with the nose gear still in its retracted position.
However, the damage was relatively slight and after repairs, testing continued. During tests, a
maximum speed of 1,367 mph (2,200 kph) was reached—not quite the 1,429 mph (2,300 kph) of the
1974–1975 requirements, but still impressive enough.

Tu-160—Third Prototype
The first prototype was far from the production standard and was something of an aerodynamic test-
bed, so a third prototype was built; the second prototype was not flown but used for static tests. This
third prototype, much closer to the production standard, first flew on 6 October 1984, nearly three
years after the initial flight of the first prototype.
This time span gives some indication of the many changes that had to be made to the Tu-160, after
its first flight, to bring it up to something approaching production standard, including using the
materials that would be used on the production aircraft. The first production aircraft actually flew
less than a week after the third prototype, on 10 October 1984. However, flying a supposedly
production example, and getting it into full-scale service are two very different propositions, and for
such a complex aircraft as the Blackjack, full operational capability took some time to achieve.

Tu-160 ‘Blackjack-A’
It was not until April 1987 that the Blackjack was finally declared operational by the Soviet Air
Force. The first squadron was not completely equipped until 1988, four years after the first
production example had flown. This is the version that is currently in service with the Russian
Federation, with sixteen being in service as of 2017, with another expected to enter service sometime
in 2018. Until the advent of the Tu-160M2 modernised version, this remains the only version in
service. It appears that all of the Tu-160s now in service will be upgraded to the Tu-160M2 standard.
Tu-160 Blackjack named ‘Vasiliy Reshetnikov’ photographed at Engels in 2007. The white finish of the Blackjack weathers quickly in
service. (Ken Duffey)

This same aircraft as seen from the front. (Ken Duffey)

This same aircraft seen from the left. A Tu-95MS Bear-H in natural metal finish can be seen in the background. (Ken Duffey)

Tu-160M (Project)
The ‘M’ designation was used for this projected version of the Tu-160; it was to have carried the AS-
19 (Meteorit) ‘Koala’ (its NATO reporting name) missiles. The missiles proved unsuccessful, so this
Tu-160 version was not proceeded with.

Tu-160M2
As a supplement or substitute for the projected PAK-DA stealth bomber, the Tu-160 is to be
modernised and production restarted as the Tu-160M2; the ‘M2’ designation may be to distinguish
this version from the earlier ‘Tu-160M’, designed to be used with the unsuccessful AS-19 Koala
missiles. These new-build aircraft will feature new electronics (probably including a glass cockpit
replacing the outdated ‘steam gauges’ (mechanical analogue dials) of the current instrument panel)
and new engines (the NK-32M, an improved version of the current NK-32 engine). This new engine
is supposed to be able to give the Tu-160M2 greater range—as much as 621 miles (1,000 km) more
than the present Tu-160. These aircraft will be able to carry conventional ordnance, either in the form
of free-fall bombs, or conventionally armed missiles, probably versions of the AS-15 (Kh-55) Kent
cruise missile. It is also possible that the Tu-160M2 will carry ‘smart’ or guided bombs. These
modifications will probably be retrofitted to current Tu-160s, in addition to being part of any new-
build aircraft.
As currently projected, design work will not be completed until 2023, which is the earliest the
new PAK-DA could enter service. It is envisioned that the Tu-160M2 would continue in service for
forty years. As an educated guess, but if this new and improved version of the Tu-160 ever enters
service, it just might be designated by NATO as the ‘Blackjack-B’.

Tu-160PP (Project)
In order to provide the Tu-160 bombers with an aircraft that could keep up with them in terms of
speed and range, and provide them with ECM protection, this version was proposed. The ‘PP’ stood
for Postanovshchik Pomekh, or ‘Jammer’. It apparently would have also been equipped with
missiles to more actively protect the Tu-160 bombers, but it was not built.

Tu-160R (Project)
This was a version of the Tu-160 that would have been optimised for reconnaissance. Its huge
carrying capacity and size would have enabled it to carry all types of surveillance equipment, but it
was never built.

Tu-161 (Project)
As unlikely as it may sound, at one time, there was a project to turn the Tu-160 into a long-range
interceptor. It was a development of the Tu-160PP project. The idea was that the Tu-161 would have
patrolled the Atlantic, to intercept transports flying between North America and Europe. The targets
would have been detected by satellite. If it had been built, the Tu-161 (note that the designation was
changed to an odd number for a fighter, in keeping with Soviet naming conventions) would have been
equipped with twelve long-range missiles, and would have been by far the largest fighter aircraft
ever built. Perhaps not surprisingly, this project never made it to the hardware stage.

Soviet Use
The unit chosen to be the first equipped with the Tu-160 was the 184th GvTBAP, at Pryluky, in
Ukraine, a part of the Soviet Union at that time. By the end of 1988, the first squadron of ten Tu-160s
was complete. By the end of 1991, when the Soviet Union was dissolved, there were two squadrons
with a total of nineteen aircraft at Pryluky. There were still no Tu-160s in Russia proper at this time.
Acquired by the 184th GvTBAP in 1984, the Tu-22M3s were initially used as a sort of trainer to
enable the pilots to become used to flying large swing-wing aircraft. However, by March 1991, these
had been replaced by a squadron of Tu-134UBL trainers.
The Soviet public saw the Tu-160 for the first time on 20 August 1989 in a flypast at Tushino. The
first international appearance did not happen until the 1995 Paris Air Show, in June.
The introduction of a large and complex warplane as the Tu-160 into service was not without its
problems. This was compounded by the fact that the Tu-160 started to enter operational service
before the State acceptance trials were even completed, which were not complete until 1989. Due to
problems in starting the engines, the auxiliary air inlet doors on the air intake sides were increased
from five to six. The tail plane structure was also changed somewhat, with metal honeycomb replaced
in places by composite materials. In one instance, the top of the vertical tail plane tore off due to
stress. As a result, all Tu-160s were grounded and the tail plane was strengthened and made 1.64 feet
(0.50 m) shorter.
There were problems with the pilot and co-pilot’s seats. In order to make them more comfortable,
they were moveable to suit the pilots’ needs, but they had to be in the forward most position to be
ejected. This meant that the seat had to be manually moved forward in order for it to be ejected, if it
was not in this position. This problem was solved by having a pneumatic ram that automatically
positioned the seat to its proper position for ejecting when the ejection sequence was initiated. At
first, the aircraft were only partially pressurised, with an equivalent altitude of 16,404 feet (5,000 m)
meaning that oxygen masks had to be used even with the pressurisation system working; this was
corrected on later aircraft. What has apparently never been fixed on the Tu-160 is the extremely high
noise level in the cabin, such that crew members sitting side by side can only communicate through
their intercoms. Given the huge engines, this is probably not easily solvable absent some serious
sound insulation, probably not a great priority for the Tupolev engineers. This is a warplane, not a
luxury business jet after all.
On the plus side, the Tu-160 was found to be easy to control with its fighter-style control sticks
and fly-by-wire control system. It has an abundance of power which makes take-offs easy (and
impressive with a light load and full power). The seats are now equipped with pulsating devices that
give the crew a massage, useful for lowering fatigue on long flights. The Tu-160 is also equipped for
crew comfort in the form of a galley and a toilet, rare luxuries indeed for a Soviet/Russian bomber
crew. The failure rate of the aircraft has come down considerably since its initial introduction as the
various ‘bugs’ have been worked out.
However, the Tu-160 remains a large and complex aircraft that requires a variety of support
personnel and equipment. Up to twenty vehicles are used just to prepare a Blackjack for flight. This
has led to the situation where when a Tu-160 has landed on an emergency airfield, the vehicles have
had to be transported there to enable the Tu-160 to take off. The Tu-160 does not have a great degree
of autonomy away from its home airfield. The runways have to be kept clean for the Tu-160, as the
engines can be damaged by ingesting foreign material—something that the Tu-22 Blinder, for all its
other issues, did not suffer from due to the tail-mounted engines. Although the Russian Air Force does
not make public the operational readiness rates of its individual aircraft, the Tu-160 may be similar to
the B-1B Lancer in that respect. This is not exactly a great achievement, however, as the B-1B has
struggled to be above the 50 per cent mark in terms of operational readiness; the B-2 is even worse,
struggling to be above 30 percentiles, while the old B-52 is much better, regularly being in the 70
percentiles in terms of operational readiness.
Despite entering service in 1987, it was not until 29 July 1992 that a Tu-160 first took off from
Engels air base in Russia, near Saratov on the Volga. The eight Ukrainian Tu-160s that the Russians
were able to procure from the Ukrainians were all sent here, and Engels remains the sole air base that
operates the Tu-160. Before the arrival of the Blackjacks, Engels had been the base for 3M Bison
bombers and then tankers. These aircraft were retired in 1994, with the last flight of a 3MS-2 tanker
taking place on 23 March 1994. These aircraft were then kept in open storage, with scrapping
beginning in 1997.
As of 2018, the operational Tu-160s continue to be operated only from Engels by the 121st
GvTBAP. Given the small number of Tu-160s that are operational—sixteen or so—there is no need
for them to operate from other bases, nor is it really practical, given the heavy maintenance
requirements of the Blackjack and the need for specialised vehicles to ready them for flight. If and
when Tu-160 numbers increase, some may be flown out of other air bases, but that remains to be seen.

Combat Use
Syria
As of November 2015, the Tu-160 Blackjack, along with the Tu-95 Bear, was used for the first time
ever in actual combat, as it took part in launching cruise missiles against anti-government forces in
Syria. Like the Tu-95 Bear, it has operated from bases in Russia for these missions.

Foreign Use
Ukraine
The Blackjacks in Ukraine that were inherited from the Soviet Union were soon grounded due to a
lack of support from Tupolev, lack of spare parts, and appropriate fuel. In addition, most of the pilots
had left for Russia soon after Ukrainian independence. Unlike the Backfire, which the Ukrainians at
first wanted to retain, they felt little need or use for the Blackjack as they were too expensive to
maintain and were not felt necessary for Ukraine’s defence needs. They were really nothing other than
bargaining chips for use with the Russians, and were either scrapped or sold back to Russia as part of
a settlement of their gas bill to the Russians. This agreement, signed in Yalta on 6 October 1999, was
for $285 million USD; this amount was deducted from Ukraine’s gas bill to Russia. In the end, the
Ukrainians scrapped eleven Tu-160s (the first being scrapped in November 1998), and the Russians
bought eight of the others, which were duly delivered to Russia. The first two of the Ukrainian Tu-
160s landed at Engels on 5 November 1998, and they entered service alongside the Russian Tu-160s
at Engels air base. The last two arrived at Engels on 21 February 2000. There are now no Tu-160s
operating outside of the Russian Federation, although Ukraine has retained one as a museum exhibit;
this is the only Tu-160 on public display.
An in-flight photograph of a Tu-160 launching a Kh-101 missile against a target in Syria in November 2015. A Su-30MS multi-role
aircraft escorts the bomber. (Wikimedia, by Mil.ru)

The Tu-160 in Detail

General Description
The Tu-160 is a very large swing-wing cantilever turbofan-powered monoplane made mostly of
aluminium alloys, but with some composite and titanium components for added strength, and a
retractable tricycle landing gear.

Fuselage
The fuselage is of the so-called ‘blended-body’ design, where the wing gradually blends into the
fuselage, and there is no abrupt change from the fuselage to the wings, as was the case with the earlier
Backfire, also fitted with swing-wings. This streamlines the fuselage and allows it to contribute to the
overall aerodynamic lift and lowers the radar signature, as sharp corners are better at bouncing back
radar waves. This also makes the central fuselage on the Tu-160 exceptionally broad, especially
given the bomber’s very large size.
The fuselage is divided into four sections. The nose section accommodates the Obzor-K radar, the
crew compartment, and the nose landing gear. The front section incorporates the forward bomb bay.
The central section of the fuselage carries the aft bomb bay, which is separated from the forward
bomb bay by the central wing stringer. This central fuselage section also accommodates the main
landing gear, which retract backwards, the engine nacelles, and a great deal of the internal fuel. The
rear section includes the tail surfaces, more fuel, and the ECM-filled tail cone (sometimes known as
the ‘Carrot’).
All four crew members are equipped with ‘zero-zero’ K-36LM upward-ejecting ejection seats,
meaning that the crew can safely eject at zero speed and zero altitude—in other words, at a standstill
while the aircraft is still on the ground.
 As befits its long-range and long-endurance flights, the Tu-160 has a galley and a toilet for the
comfort of its crew, in contrast to the Tu-22 Blinder and the Tu-22M Backfire, which did not and do
not feature these amenities.

Wings
The most notable feature of the wings is that they are of the variable geometry, or swing-wing variety.
Like other Soviet swing-wing designs such as the Backfire, they feature a large ‘glove’, or fixed
portion of the wing, to which the swinging portion is attached. These gloves are gradually blended
into the fuselage on the Blackjack, as part of the blended-body design of the Tu-160.

This rather immaculate Tu-160 was photographed in 2012 during the 100th anniversary celebration of the Russian Air Force. (Ken
Duffey)

The wings can be positioned in three different positions, 20 degrees for maximum lift at take-off
and landing, 35 degrees for cruising, and 65 degrees for high-speed flight (or ‘supersonic dash’). An
interesting feature of each wing is a moveable portion that sits vertically when the wing is fully swept
backward and serves to give more directional stability, but lies flat when the wings are fully swept
forward and forms part of the flaps, filling the gap between the wings and the fuselage.
The main structural element of the wing is a stringer made out of two welded halves of milled
titanium alloy, 40.68 feet (12.4 m) long and 6.89 feet (2.1 m) wide. It connects the two pivot points
for the swing-wings. This large and immensely strong structure divides the bomb bays into two.
Each swing-wing has four-section leading-edge slats, six-section spoilers mounted in front of the
three-section flaps, and ailerons. The ailerons are only used for roll control at low speeds. At high
speeds, differential movement of the stabilators is used for roll control. The leading-edge slats extend
almost the entire width of the swing-wings.

Tail Planes
The vertical tail surface is noteworthy in that the portion above the horizontal tail planes is a single
moveable piece, without a rudder; this type of combination of a stabiliser and elevator for vertical
tail planes is sometimes called a ‘stabilator’, so perhaps this combination of the fin and rudder could
be called a ‘fidder’. The portion below the horizontal tail planes is fixed, again with no moveable
rudder. The horizontal tail planes themselves are of the ‘slab’ stabilator type (one source refers to
these as tailerons), being completely moveable, with each side being able to move differentially for
roll control, or in concert for pitch control. They tend to sag backwards when the Tu-160 is on the
ground, perhaps because of a loss of hydraulic pressure.

This not-so-immaculate Tu-160 was photographed in flight during the Victory Day (9 May) celebrations in Moscow in 2013. The engine
intakes show up well, and the twin bomb bays can also be made out. (Wikimedia by Vitaliy V. Kuzmin)
Tail section of a Tu-160. Note that the entire top part of the tail, above the horizontal tail surfaces, is capable of moving. There is no
conventional rudder on the Blackjack. Note the extended tail cone, full of ECM equipment. This tail cone is sometimes referred to as the
‘Carrot’. This aircraft features the three-colour (red/white/blue) star on the tail. (Ken Duffey)

Engines
Four of the NK-32 turbofans are fitted with a thrust of 55,115 lb with afterburner. They are held in
two large fairings under the blended fuselage centre section, two to a fairing. The variable area
intakes are mounted vertically, enabling the Tu-160 to achieve Mach 2 flight, unlike the fixed intakes
of the B-1B, which is limited to Mach 1.2. Early on in the Tu-160’s service, there were five inlets on
the sides of the air intakes for auxiliary air to be admitted at low speeds; there are now six. The
engine nacelles extend some length behind the trailing edge of the wing and end in adjustable nozzles.

Fuel System
Due to its long range and huge engines, it is necessary for the Blackjack to carry an immense amount
of fuel, up to 326,284 lb (148,000 kg) of fuel in thirteen tanks distributed between the central
fuselage/wing section and the moveable portions of the wings. A retractable probe is mounted in the
upper part of the nose for use with the Konus probe-and-drogue system.

Controls
Control is by a fly-by-wire quadruple redundant control system, with a manual backup. The pilots
control the aircraft with two fighter-type control sticks and not the yokes (wheels) traditionally
featured on large Soviet aircraft. The sticks have the added advantage of making it easier to see the
instrument panel’s controls. In combination with the powered controls, the sticks make the aircraft
surprisingly easy to control, especially for such a huge aircraft, and pilots find it an easy aircraft to
fly.

Landing Gear
The landing gear are similar to previous Tupolev bomber designs in consisting of a twin-wheel nose
landing gear, retracting aft, and bogie-type main landing gear. The main landing gear consist of six
main wheels on both landing gear, with the landing gear retracting aft. The nose landing gear is
covered by twin doors when retracted. All the landing gear are hydraulically operated.
Each wheel on the nose gear measures 1,080 × 400 mm (42.52 × 15.75 inches) in size. The main
wheels are each 1,260 × 425 mm (49.62 × 16.73 inches). To assist in reducing the landing run, three
drogue or braking parachutes are stowed in the tail.

Electronics
The main radar of the Tu-160 is the Obzor-K radar (‘Survey’ in Russian), housed in the large nose
cone. It is used for ground targets and detecting aerial targets. The Sopka radar (‘Hill’) is also
installed, which is used as a terrain-following radar. In keeping with Soviet/Russian tradition, an
optical sight is also included, the OPB-15T, which the navigator can utilise, using a video screen on
his instrument panel.

Defensive Armament
At one point in its development, consideration was given for the provision of a 30-mm Gatling-type
cannon in the tail, but the production Tu-160 carries no defensive armament, and is the first post-war
Soviet/Russian production strategic bomber to lack any defensive guns. It does, however, carry an
extensive ECM suite for defence against missile attack, both ground-to-air and air-to-air missiles.
Many of the countermeasures are carried in the tail cone (the ‘Carrot’) of the Blackjack, including the
APP-50 chaff and flare dispensers.

Exhausts of a Tu-160. The nozzle diameter is adjustable. (Ken Duffey)

Nose landing gear of a Tu-160. (Ken Duffey)

Main landing gear of a Tu-160. Unlike most Bears, the Badger, and the Blinder, which feature four-wheel main bogies, the bogies on the
Blackjack consist of six wheels, as with the Backfire. (Ken Duffey)

Offensive Armament
Up to twelve of the AS-15 (Kh-55) Kent air-breathing (jet-powered) subsonic cruise missiles can be
carried by the Tu-160 internally on two MKU-6-5U rotary launchers, one each in the two bomb bays.
The Tu-160 is capable of carrying up to 88,185 lb (40,000 kg) of ordnance, and may be modified to
carry conventional free-fall bombs.

Camouflage and Markings

The prototypes of the Tu-160 were in natural metal and primer, but the production versions have all
featured an overall-white scheme, no doubt a nuclear anti-flash finish. This has led to the unofficial
nickname of the Beliy Lebed or ‘White Swan’ for the Tu-160. To paraphrase Henry Ford, you can
have your Blackjack in any colour, as long as it is white. In service, the white finish becomes rather
dirty, with streaks and stains of various sorts appearing over the finish. Some of the Tu-160s have
appeared with the ‘new’ stars with the blue around the inner red stars. As with some of the Bears,
most (perhaps all) of the Tu-160s have been given individual names, either cities or important Soviet
or Russian people. These names appear in stylised Cyrillic script in red on both sides of the nose. In
addition to the script, a triangular pennant-like banner, in the blue and yellow colours of the VVS is
painted ahead of the names, on both sides of the nose. A ‘fin-flash’ of sorts, with the white, blue, and
red colours of the Russian flag, may also appear on the top and leading surfaces of the moveable
upper vertical tail plane.

Conclusion
Although the Tu-160 has been around since the 1980s, it is still hard to conclude much about the
impact or importance of this aircraft, due to the small numbers produced (less than forty, including
prototypes) and currently in service (only sixteen or seventeen as of 2018). It did not even see action
until late 2015, some twenty-eight years after its introduction into service. If its main goal was to
replace the Bear series, it has certainly failed in that respect, and at its current production rate of a
few bombers per year, if that many, it will take many years to replace the Bear. It certainly appears to
be a formidable weapons system, with a very large payload, good range, and excellent speed; it will
no doubt continue in service for many years (or decades) to come. With the Blackjack, it is definitely
still a story to be continued.
 9

Russian Strategic Bombers in the Twenty-First

Century

It appears that aircraft such as the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M will continue to be used for some time,
perhaps even into the 2040s. In addition, it would seem that the Tu-160 will continue to be produced,
even if only in small numbers, for some time, and could serve well into the middle of this century, or
even longer, if the modernised Tu-160M2 version is proceeded with. Nonetheless, at least two
strategic bomber projects have been mentioned as possibly ongoing for Russia.

PAK-DA
As of the time of writing (2018), the only completely new strategic bomber that Russia appears to be
working on is this stealth bomber design, the equivalent of the projected American Northrop
Grumman ‘B-21’ stealth bomber (and perhaps as likely as that aircraft to ever enter service). Design
work started in 2009, and it apparently is to be a subsonic flying wing, like the current American B-2
Spirit, perhaps with the capability of carrying and firing hypersonic missiles. It will also apparently
use the non-afterburning versions of the NK-32 engine, afterburning versions of which power the Tu-
160. If it does enter service, it will replace the Tu-22M, the Tu-95, and the Tu-160—in other words,
the entire current Russian strategic bomber force.
It is possible that due to current difficult economic conditions in Russia, work on this design may
be slowed or even stopped, in which case, the place of the PAK-DA will be taken by a developed
version of the Tu-160 Blackjack, the Tu-160M2. Even if development is continued, the PAK-DA will
not enter service before 2023 at the earliest, although even this seems to be a very optimistic
estimate, and modernisation programmes on the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS (and the Tu-22M3) will
continue.
It is reported that the PAK-DA is to have a range of 7,756 miles (12,482 km), and a payload of up
to 88,185 lb (40,000 kg), with the first flight now scheduled for 2021. A full-scale mock-up was built
by 1 March 2017.

Sukhoi T-60S
This secretive aircraft was apparently designed as a replacement for both the Tu-22M strategic
bomber and the Su-24 Fencer light bomber. Shrouded in mystery, it is not even clear what the exact
configuration of this aircraft is (or was) or if it was even built. It may have a blended-body fuselage
with swing-wings. One source has the US Department of Defence assigning it the codename of
‘NOVO-C’, after spotting one at Novosibirsk, Siberia. A prototype may have been built, which would
explain the sighting at Novosibirsk. The murkiness surrounding this aircraft is rather reminiscent of
that surrounding Soviet bombers during the Cold War.
If built, this aircraft might be capable of cruising at Mach 2, which would make it a much faster
bomber than the subsonic PAK-DA. The design also apparently incorporates thrust vectoring nozzles
and stealth technology, which, like swing-wings in the 1970s, is all the aeronautical rage now. As of
2018, due at least to financial restraints, it appears that this project has now been deferred, probably
forever. According to one source, the project was cancelled in the 1990s. At this point, the T-60S
appears to be the aeronautical equivalent of what is called in the computer software world
vapourware—something that is promised but never materialises.

Tu-160M2
This is an improved variant of the already in service Tu-160 Blackjack; it will apparently be a new-
build aircraft, although it appears that older aircraft will be brought up to this standard. See previous
entry under the Tu-160 section.
 10

Soviet Post-War Missiles and Bombs

A bomber is nothing without its disposable ordnance, and Soviet development of these weapons
continued alongside the development of the strategic bombers that carried them. Below, the
development and deployment of some of the most important and interesting weapons shall be
discussed, including some notable experimental devices.

Missiles
With the development of surface-to-air missiles and better interceptor aircraft, the role of the high-
altitude free-fall bomber was rendered increasingly obsolete in the 1950s. In an effort to recast the
strategic bomber into a still-effective weapon, stand-off missiles were developed.
Stand-off missiles, whereby a bomber could bomb the target indirectly by firing a missile from
outside of the intended target’s defensive zone, was not a new idea. Guided missiles had been tested
and even used in combat in the Second World War; the Heinkel He 111 bomber had been used to air-
launch the V-1 ‘buzz-bomb’ unguided cruise missile, and the use of the TB-3 Zveno—with what were
essentially piloted ‘cruise missiles’ in the form of I-16SPB fighters carrying bombs. However, it was
only with the increased development of reaction power such as smaller rocket and jet engines did the
guided missile become a more viable weapon.
In order to develop such weapons, a division of the Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) OKB-155 was
formed. This division, headed by aircraft designer Aleksandr Bereznyak (who had designed a rocket
interceptor during the Second World War, the Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1), became a separate design
bureau in March 1957, when it became the MKB Raduga; Raduga is Russian for ‘Rainbow’. It
continues to design and refine missiles to this day in Russia.
Like aircraft, missiles are also normally given a NATO reporting name, in this case beginning with
a ‘K’; why the letter ‘K’ was chosen is not clear to this author. The missiles are listed below
alphabetically by their NATO alphanumeric designation, such as ‘AS-1’, or if this is not available,
then by their Soviet designation, such as ‘Kh-45’.

AS-1 (KS-1 Kometa, KRM-1) Kennel

Known by the Soviets as the Kometa (Russian for ‘Comet’), this was the first of the Soviet guided
air-to-ground missiles to go into production and service, with work commencing on it in 1947 by the
Mikoyan OKB (Yefim Gordon states work commenced in 1948). It was first tested with the Tu-4
Bull, and used in limited numbers on the missile carrier version of the Tu-4, the Tu-4K Bull-B. It was
essentially a scaled-down version of the famous MiG-15 fighter, complete with a turbojet engine, and
featured a 55-degree sweepback on the wings. It was powered by a small turbojet engine, the RD-
500K. The Kometa was guided to its target by the missile carrier’s radar until it was close enough for
its own radar to lock onto the target, using the K-1 passive radar homing system. There was a
receiver unit mounted in a bullet fairing on the fin tip to receive signals from the carrier aircraft.
The first test examples had provision for a pilot and a simple landing gear so they could be tested
and re-used. The production examples were unmanned, had no landing gear, and were designed as
anti-shipping missiles. It was carried by both the Tu-4K and the Tu-16K. As the KRM-1, it was used
as a flying target into the 1980s. There is a profile of the Kometa mounted under the wing of a
preserved Indonesian Tu-16 in the colour plates section.

AS-2 (K-10S Luga-S) Kipper

This large turbojet-powered cruise missile was designed for anti-shipping purposes and was carried
by the Tu-16 Badger semi-recessed under the fuselage. It was part of the K-10 weapons complex. The
AS-2 was a supersonic missile, with 55-degree sweepback on the wings, and capable of nearly Mach
2. It was powered by the M-9FK (RD-9FK) turbojet with afterburning, which was a short-endurance
version of the engine used on the MiG-19 fighter.
Some Kippers, upon their retirement as attack missiles, were used as ECM drones equipped with
Azaliya X-band jammers. These were designated as the ‘K-10SP’.

AS-3 (Kh-20, Kh-20M) Kangaroo

This very large turbojet-powered missile (49 feet long (14.95 m)) was the world’s first air-launched
nuclear-armed missile. It was developed from the Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) experimental I-7U
fighter, was designed to be used with the Tu-95K and Tu-95KD missile carriers, and carried a 800-
kiloton warhead. It went into service in 1959 with the arrival of its Tu-95K missile carriers at Uzin
air base near Kiev, although some sources indicate it was not operational until 1960.
As a result of the amount of time it took to load and arm, it was not intended as a first-strike
weapon, but was intended to be used against targets that had survived an initial nuclear strike, and
against large aircraft carrier groups. The missile had a range of up to 373 miles (600 km), was
capable of Mach 2 and was not retired until the 1980s, when it was finally completely replaced by
the much smaller AS-4 Kitchen (Kh-22, see further on). Because of its size, it had to be carried semi-
recessed by the Bear under the fuselage, and only one was could be carried per aircraft. It was too
large for the Badger to carry.
The Kh-20M was a developed version of the Kangaroo that was able to carry a hydrogen
(thermonuclear) 3-megaton warhead. It was carried by the Tu-95KM and was retired in 1991 as part
of the SALT-1 treaty.

AS-4 (Kh-22 Burya) Kitchen

This is a liquid rocket-propelled anti-shipping missile that was carried by the Tu-95K-22 and is still
carried by the Tu-22M Backfire and Tu-95MS bombers. It was not carried by the Tu-16 because of its
size; the smaller but otherwise very similar AS-6 Kingfish was developed instead for the Tu-16.
Carrying a conventional warhead, evidently some type of shaped-charge, the Kitchen can supposedly
blow a 39.4-foot (12-m) hole in the side of a warship. The latest version of the Kitchen features a
1,984-lb (900-kg) shaped-charged warhead. Despite its having been around for quite some time, the
Kitchen still remains one of the main stand-off weapons for the Tu-95MS Bear-H, and the Tu-22M3
Backfire-C bombers.
A new version of the Kh-22 is being developed by Russia, the Kh-32 cruise missile, which is
designed to operate from the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C, with test installations showing them carried under
the fixed portions of the wings on pylons. Evidently, development started in the 1990s with test
launches taking place in the mid-2000s. Its trials were being finalized by August 2016, and it may
have entered service that year. Its mission profile is supposed to be able to render it incapable of
interception in its terminal dive phase.

AS-5 (KSR-2, KSR-11) Kelt

A more streamlined rocket-propelled development of the jet-propelled AS-2 Kipper, this missile was
designed for and was carried by the Tu-16K-16 and Tu-16KSR-2 variant; it could also be carried by
other missile carrier versions of the Badger. The wings and tail were swept at a 55-degree angle. The
Kelt was equipped with a KS-2M radar with a range of 137–180 miles (220–290 km). The KSR-11
(AS-5B) was its anti-radar version. It could carry both conventional and nuclear (1-megaton)
warheads, with the conventional warhead consisting of a 1,874-lb (850-kg) shaped-charged device
that could penetrate armour up to 11.81 inches (30 cm) thick.
As the MV-1 (or KRM-2), the Kelt was used as a target drone, and was carried by the Tu-16RM
and Tu-16RME drone carriers/controllers.

AS-6 (KSR-5) Kingfish

This was essentially a smaller version of the AS-4 Kitchen missile, which it strongly resembled,
designed to be carried by the Tu-16 Badger. It was developed because the Kitchen missile was
considered too large for the Tu-16, and a smaller missile was needed. The Kingfish was retired in
1994, probably because its main carrier aircraft, the Tu-16, had been retired the same year in Soviet
service. It could also apparently be carried by the Tu-22M Backfire.
This missile was also developed into target drone versions under the designations of KSR-5NM
and KSR-5MV, which were carried and launched by drone controller versions of the Tu-16.
AS-3 Kangaroo missile at Engels air base. Note the Bison in the background. (Ken Duffey)

AS-4 Kitchen missile under the wing of a Tu-22M2 Badger-B at Poltava. (Ken Duffey)
AS-5 Kelt missile at Engels air base under the wing of a Tu-16 Badger. (Ken Duffey)

AS-6 Kingfish missile mounted on underwing pylon on a Tu-16 Badger at Monino. (Ken Duffey)

AS-9 (Kh-28) Kyle

An anti-radar missile, it was like a smaller version of the Kitchen or Kingfish missiles and could be
carried by the Tu-16 and the Tu-22M. It was liquid-fuelled, which made it rather difficult to handle
and maintain. It is no longer in Russian service.
AS-11 (Kh-58) Kilter
This missile is the successor to the AS-9 Kyle. As opposed to the liquid-fuelled AS-9, the AS-11 has
an easier (and safer) to handle solid propellant system.

AS-15 (Kh-55 Granat) Kent

An air-breathing (turbofan-powered) subsonic cruise missile, up to fourteen can be carried on two
MKU-6-5U rotary launchers by the Tu-160. It is similar to the American AGM-86 cruise missile. It
can also be carried by the Tu-95MS on a rotary launcher. The Kh-55M is a version of the Kent with
conforming (conformal) fuel tanks for increased range.
The Kent has small folding wings, which extend when launched, and its small turbofan engine also
extends when it is launched. It carries a 200-kiloton (0.2-megaton) nuclear warhead.

AS-16 (Kh-15) Kickback

These are relatively small short-range rocket-powered hypersonic (Mach 5) attack missiles that can
be carried on rotary launchers in the bays of current Russian bombers, such as the Backfire, which
can carry up to six of these supersonic missiles on one rotary launcher. These are equivalent to the
SRAMs (the now retired AGM-69) that were carried on a rotary launcher in the bomb bays of
American strategic bombers, such as the FB-111A, the B-52, and the B-1B Lancer. The Tu-95MS
Bear-H and the Tu-160 Blackjack can also carry these missiles on rotary launchers, with the
Blackjack being able to accommodate two launchers, one in each of its two bomb bays.

AS-15 Kent missile at the Ukrainian Air Force Museum. (Public Domain)

AS-19 (Meteorit) Koala

At one time, it was intended for this large (42-foot (12.8-m) long) missile to be launched from the Tu-
95. It was powered by a ramjet and had an impressive top speed of 1,864 mph (3,000 kph). This
missile did not go into production after a number of failed launches, and the programme was
cancelled at the end of 1989; however, one source states that work was discontinued in 1992. It may
have been tested by the Tu-95MA test version of the Tu-95MS in 1993 (which means that work was
not stopped in 1989 or 1992), although this aircraft may have been testing the AS-X-21 (Kh-90).

AS-X-21 (Kh-90)
The hypersonic Kh-90 missile was to be carried by the PAK-DA and the modernised Tu-160. It was
tested in the late 1980s with its first flight apparently in December 1987, but work was stopped—
possibly in 1992—because of unspecified problems. It is sometimes confused in reference sources
with the AS-19 Koala, which likewise did not go into production. Indeed, the information about this
missile is quite sketchy.

Kh-45
Originally, this missile was intended as the missile armament of the Tu-160, with the Tu-160 being
able to carry up to four. The record is rather unclear on this missile, for example, the specifications
remain hard to determine. What is clear is that it did not go into production; the Tu-160 was instead
equipped with the AS-15 Kent cruise missiles.

Kh-101 (Kh-5D, Kh-65, Kh-102)

This cruise missile is a long-range missile with a range of 3,417.5 miles (5,500 km), and is capable
of being carried by the Tu-95MS (eight missiles) and the Tu-160 (twelve missiles). The Tu-22M3
may also be able to carry four missiles, and the Su-34 ‘Fullback’ light bomber/multi-role aircraft two
missiles. The nuclear-armed variant is apparently designated Kh-102. The Kh-101 was developed
from the AS-15 (Kh-55) Kent and has a small turbofan engine like that cruise missile. It was the Kh-
101 that was apparently used against targets in Syria by the Tu-95 and Tu-160 in 2015. It has been
used against targets in Syria in 2016 and 2017. It was their long-range that allowed them to be fired
far from the borders of Syria. Perhaps surprisingly, despite being in service and having been used in
combat, the Kh-101 has not yet been assigned a reporting name by NATO as of the time of writing
(2018).

Missile Specifications
Free-Fall Bombs
This is a wide-ranging category that includes conventional, nuclear, bacteriological, and chemical
weapons. Some of the most commonly used and interesting bombs are described below. Many of the
bombs below come with various aeroplane plastic kits (the Trumpeter Tu-22M2 kit comes with the
FAB-250 bombs, for example); others are available as aftermarket resin items, including the giant
FAB-9000.

FAB-250
With a nominal weight of 250 kg or 551 lb, this general-purpose free-fall bomb is widely used in the
Russian Air Force, and has seen use by the Tu-22M Backfire in the conventional bomber role, where
it can accommodate them on two under fuselage racks. The Backfire used these bombs in Afghanistan
and again as recently as August 2016 in Syria.

FAB-500
With a nominal weight of 500 kg or 1,102 lb, this general-purpose high-explosive bomb is widely
used in the Russian Air Force and can be carried by the Tu-22M3 on underwing racks.

BETAB-500 Shp
This bomb is designed to penetrate and destroy reinforced concrete structures, such as runways and
bunkers. It is a free-fall device, dropped from a bomber, after which a parachute deploys to lower the
bomb, then a rocket fires to enable the bomb to penetrate its target before it detonates for maximum
destruction.

FAB-9000
This enormous bomb, with a nominal weight of 9,000 kg or 19,842 lb, is the largest free-fall
conventional bomb currently in the Russian inventory, and one of the largest conventional bombs ever
produced, being nearly as heavy as the 22,000-lb (9,979-kg) British ‘Grand Slam’ bomb of Second
World War fame. Despite its vast size, it looks similar to other Soviet/Russian conventional bombs,
such as the FAB-500. The Czech manufacturer Armory actually make a resin and photo-etched
reproduction of this massive bomb in 1/72nd scale, which is quite nice and impressive. It is just the
bomb you need to put in the bomb bay of your Tu-16 model—just remember to leave the missiles off.

RDS-4
With a yield of 30 kilotons, this was the first Soviet production nuclear bomb. It went into service in
1954 and was intended for the Tu-4A and the Tu-16A. A Tu-4 dropped one at Semipalatinsk on 14
September 1954 during a military exercise. It was apparently not retired until 1966.

Tsar Bomba (AN602, Ivan, Vanya)

The largest bomb ever in weight, and the most powerful weapon of all times in terms of megatonnage
was this very impressive nuclear device. The AN602 weighed around 55,000 pounds (around 25,000
kg), and although there is some disagreement about its total megatonnage, when exploded, it
apparently produced an explosion of around 52 megatons, although it may have been up to 65
megatons. It was designed for 100 megatons, but the megatonnage was dampened to reduce the chance
of damage and fallout to the surrounding areas. It was carried by a specially modified Tu-95 Bear
(the Tu-95V) and dropped and detonated over the Novaya Zemlya (‘New Land’ in Russian)
archipelago in the Soviet Arctic on 30 October 1961. The bomb, of course, was completely destroyed
in the blast, but the Tu-95 (and crew) survived the blast, although they were severely buffeted by the
ensuing shockwave and the Tu-95 dropped quite a bit in altitude. It is reported that the shockwave
circled the world three times.
The bomb was lowered by parachute and detonated at around 13,000 feet (around 4,000 m) above
the ground, and the resulting fireball did not reach the ground because of the shockwave bouncing
back from the ground, but the fireball nearly reached the altitude of the Tu-95V (around 34,000 feet or
10.5 km). Despite its immense power, the bomb was not a practical weapon because of its weight, as
it was not suitable to be carried by either a bomber or an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile),
as it would have severely restricted the range and overall performance of the carrier. Amodel make a
plastic kit of this bomb in 1/72nd scale, and it would be quite interesting to have it sitting next to a
suitably modified Amodel Tu-95M/U model.
In addition to carrying nuclear bombs and missiles, most Soviet strategic bombers could also carry
free-fall conventional bombs, with some of these being described previously. It now appears that the
Tu-160 is being modified to carry conventional bombs. These bombs, unlike the Soviet nuclear
weapons (which have thankfully never seen combat use), have been used in action by the
Soviets/Russians in such places as Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Syria. In addition, Soviet-supplied
bombers have been used conventionally by Egypt, Iraq, and Libya; even Egypt deployed bomber-
launched conventional missiles (Kelts fired by Tu-16 Badgers) against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
This conventional combat usage is described in detail under the appropriate bomber type.

Size of fireball for different nuclear bombs. (Public Domain)

 11

Soviet/Russian Missile Carrier Tactics

As discussed previously, with the obsolescence of the free-fall nuclear bomber during the 1950s due
to the development of new defences, especially interceptors and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) that
were effective at high altitudes, the missile-carrying bomber was designed. Most existing Soviet
bombers were converted into this role in the 1950s and 1960s; the Bison was a notable exception,
with its missile carrier version, the 3MD, never being used as such. With this new role came new
tactics. The missile carriers had two main targets: land targets and naval targets. The land targets
were the same as they had been for the free-fall bombers—cities, strategic air bases, missile bases,
factories, and bridges. The naval targets now mainly concerned what the Soviet Union considered one
of its gravest threats—the United States attack carrier groups, which would have been able to launch
nuclear weapons-armed aircraft from anywhere in the bodies of water surrounding the Soviet Union.
It is these anti-aircraft carrier tactics that will be discussed here.
The great benefit to carrying missiles is that they can be used in a ‘stand-off’ manner; they can be
fired from a considerable distance from the actual target, enabling the bomber to avoid all or most of
the target’s defences, which as the 1950s wore on, became more and more formidable. Not only did
interceptors become more capable, but also SAMs became a great threat to anything within their
combat radius. Therefore, any missile carrier that hoped to effectively attack its target had to release
its payload, in the form of missiles, from outside this radius.
The existing Soviet strategic bombers were the natural vehicle for carrying these stand-off
missiles as they had the range to cover the world’s oceans, and had the ability to carry the large and
heavy missiles that were used, in addition to the heavy radar and other equipment to acquire targets
for the missiles and guide them. The capability to carry the missiles was easy enough to achieve, with
the missiles being carried in the bomb bay, semi-recessed in the fuselage, or on pylons under the
wings, or a combination of these. This was the easy part; the hard part was integrating the various
guidance systems on the bomber, on the missile, and on the ground (or water) that enabled the missile
to hit its target (or at least get within a reasonable distance when a nuclear warhead was involved, as
these stand-off missiles could often carry either conventional or nuclear warheads). Interestingly, the
term ‘bomber’ fell out of fashion as the bombers were more commonly referred to as ‘missile-
carriers’, perhaps a reflection of Premier Khrushchev’s predilection for rockets and missiles, and his
apparent dislike for traditional long-range strategic bombers.
Although the exact tactics differed with each different missile carrier (bomber) and each different
missile, there were some common features. The first order of business was finding the target. That
would seem to be easy with something as big as a carrier task force, but the world’s oceans are very
large places. One of the main tasks of the Soviet Union’s reconnaissance aircraft was to find and keep
track of the American carrier groups. There were ships—such as electronics-equipped Soviet
‘trawlers’—that were used for surveillance, but it was large bombers, or reconnaissance versions of
them, that were the most useful for tracking warships from the 1950s into the 1980s, when satellites
largely took over the task.
Once a carrier task force was found, it was the job of the missile carrier to acquire the targets for
the missiles and track them. The missile carriers, such as the Tu-95K versions and the Tu-16 Badger-
Cs, carried large and powerful radars, such as the YaD ‘Crown Drum’ target illumination radar in the
Tu-95K, Tu-95KD, and Tu-95KM, and the YeN ‘Puff Ball’ radar for the Tu-16K-10 Badger-C.
The mission profile of the Tu-16K-10 Badger-C will be examined, as an example of a missile
attack. The large YeN radar was used for searching for the specific target and tracking the target.
After the missile was launched (in this case the AS-2 (K-10) Kipper), the missile carrier’s radar was
used to illuminate the target for the missile to home in on. The missile itself, after launching at a
distance of 111.85–124.27 miles (180–200 km) from the target, went through three phases of flight.
The first involved it dropping by up to 1,969–4,921 feet (600–1500 m) after it left the carrier aircraft.
Then, the missile climbed up to its cruise altitude and began flying horizontally towards the target.
While at a distance of around 62.14 to 68.35 miles (100–110 km) from the target, the missile was
commanded by the carrier aircraft to dive to its target at a dive angle of from 12 to 17 degrees. It was
at this angle that the missile achieved its maximum speed of 1,261 mph (2,029 kph). Once the missile
had reached the altitude of 6,562 feet (2,000 m), the dive angle changed to 5 to 6 degrees and the
missile levelled out to fly at an altitude of 3,937 feet (1,200 m). When the missile was within 4.04
miles (6.5 km) of its target, it began its terminal dive at 15 to 18 degrees after which the missile
exploded upon contact with its target, if it was carrying a conventional warhead. If it was carrying a
nuclear warhead, it could be set to detonate at a predetermined altitude.
Some 100 seconds after launch, the carrier aircraft executed a turn of up to 60 degrees from the
line of the missiles flight path, while still guiding the missile and keeping track of its progress. One of
the advantages of the YeN radar over earlier, less powerful radar was that the aircraft did not have to
be in line with the missile in order to guide it, but could turn away and start heading away from the
target area before the missile had reached its target. This lessened the chances that the carrier aircraft
would be detected by the enemy.
To counter this Soviet threat, the United States developed defences such as the carrier-borne
Grumman F-14 Tomcat interceptor in the 1960s and 1970s. The Tomcat carried four large, long-
ranged radar-guided Phoenix AM-54 rocket-powered missiles that were designed to destroy not only
aircraft, but also missiles. Neither the Tomcat, nor its Phoenix missiles, were the most reliable of
weapons, and it remains an open question whether they, along with other defences such as the close-in
anti-missile Phalanx system (consisting of a rapid-fire cannon), would have been able to defeat the
Soviet saturation missile attacks. The problem is simple; the defence of the aircraft carrier group
needed to be 100 per cent effective, while only one Soviet missile (if nuclear-armed) needed to
penetrate the defences in order for the Soviet strike to be successful. Thankfully, this problem was
never put to the test.
 12

Experimental Bombers

Not all the experimental bombers developed by the Soviet Union in the post-war period will be
discussed here, as that warrants a book of its own, but some of the most important or interesting
examples will be described here.

‘150’
After the Second World War, the Soviet Union found itself in control of hundreds of German scientists
and engineers who had been captured. The Soviets found use for this new ‘talent’, and put many of
them back to work on various projects. One group assisted with the development of what became the
NK-12 turboprop engines, which powered the Tu-95 Bear and its variants and developments.
Another, under the designation of ‘OKB-1’, worked on a medium twin-engined jet bomber. This
bomber became known as the ‘150’, after its Izdeliye number. Although officially headed by Semyon
Mikhailovich Alekseyev (1902–93), who had worked for Semyon Lavochkin, the chief designer was
a German, Dr Brunolf Baade (Carl Wilhelm Brunolf Baade (1904–69)).
Development on the 150 started in 1948. As flown, the 150 was a rather large aircraft (87.74 feet
(26.74 m) long), with two Lyulka TR-3A engines mounted on pods suspended by pylons under the
wings, as with many large American jet aircraft. It had sweptback shoulder-mounted wings, with a
sweep of 35 degrees and a slight anhedral to the outer surfaces. The tail surfaces were also swept,
with the horizontal surfaces mounted at the top of the vertical surfaces in a ‘T-tail’ configuration. The
landing gear were of the bicycle type, with the gear retracting aft into the fuselage, and with small
outrigger wheels housed in fairings at the wingtips. This aircraft is notable in that it featured an early
version of ‘fly-by-wire’ controls, where the controls were electrically signalled and electrically
powered.
There were two turrets: a remote-controlled dorsal turret behind the cockpit with two cannons,
and a manned tail turret with two cannons. In addition, the pilot operated a fixed cannon on the
starboard side. All the cannons were of the Sh-23 23-mm type. The aircraft featured a pressurised
cabin for both the forward crew and the tail gunner, who had his own pressurised compartment. It
first flew on 5 September 1952. On 9 May 1953, the aircraft suffered damage on a hard landing. The
damage was reparable, but it was decided not to repair the aircraft.
The 150 did not go into production and Dr Baade and the German engineers under him were
repatriated to East Germany after OKB-1 was dissolved. However, this was not the end of this
design, as the 150 was developed into the 152 airliner by Dr Baade in East Germany, and was one of
the first jet airliners designed. Like the bomber, this design also did not go into production, and only
two were built.

Il-22
The Il-22 was the first Soviet jet bomber to fly—on 27 July 1947, five days before the Tu-12; it was
designed from the outset as a jet bomber (the Tu-12 was based on the piston-engined Tu-2). It was
also the first four-engined Soviet jet bomber to fly.
The Il-22 was designed in response to a Soviet Council of Ministers’ request for the Ilyushin OKB
to build a bomber using four TR-1 jet engines. The resulting design featured a thin, straight wing, with
the engines mounted underneath in four separate nacelles. The flattened oval-section fuselage housed
all the landing gear. Gun armament was in the form of a fixed Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 23-mm
cannon for the pilot, a remote-controlled dorsal turret with two Berezin B-20E 20-mm cannons, and a
manned tail turret with a single NS-23 23-mm cannon.
The aircraft made its first flight on 24 July 1947, and showed good handling qualities. It was
underpowered, however, as the TR-1 engines failed to deliver the promised thrust. As the aircraft
failed to meet the original requirements, Ilyushin chose not to submit the prototype for state trials and
the programme was cancelled on 22 September 1947.

Il-46
Although the Tu-16 was put into production as the Soviet Union’s standard medium strategic jet
bomber, it was not without competition. Its most serious competition came from the Ilyushin Design
Bureau, the designers of the famous Il-2 Shturmovik attack aircraft of Great Patriotic War fame.
As it was initially envisioned, the Il-46 was an up-scaled version of the Il-28 Beagle light bomber,
complete with that design’s straight wings. It was developed from the Il-42 project, and the only
example of the Il-46 first flew on 3 March 1952. It was much larger than the Il-28, with a length of 83
feet 1 inch (25.325 m) compared to the Il-28’s length of 57 feet 11 inches (17.65 m), with a wingspan
of 95 feet 1 inch (29 m) compared to the Beagle’s 70 feet 4.25 inches (21.45 m). The Il-46 was still
considerably smaller than Tupolev’s entry into the competition, the ‘88’ (which became the Tu-16).
The first prototype, the 88/1, had a length of 113.52 feet (34.6 m) and a wingspan of 108.2 feet (32.98
m), with swept wings.
While the straight-winged example was being designed, a swept-winged version, designated the
‘Il-46S’ was also being developed. It had been Ilyushin’s intention to first build the more modest
straight-winged version, then to build the more technologically and aerodynamically challenging
swept-winged variant. As it was, this version was never built, however, and ultimately the swept-
winged Tu-88 (which had been designed from the beginning as a swept-winged aircraft) won the
competition and went into production as the Tu-16 Badger. Given the long and reliable service of the
Badger, it would appear that the right decision was made.
Il-54 ‘Blowlamp’
Built as a possible replacement for the straight-winged Il-28 Beagle light bomber, the Il-54 featured
heavily sweptback wings and tail planes with 45 degrees sweep. It carried a crew of three. Like the
Il-28, it featured a manned tail turret, but it was also capable of low supersonic speeds, making it the
first supersonic Soviet bomber. It also featured a bicycle landing gear arrangement, similar to that
used on the American B-47 Stratojet and the Bison. This landing gear arrangement was necessitated
by the thin, high-mounted wings, with an anhedral angle.
The Il-54 first flew on 3 April 1955 with Ilyushin chief test pilot Vladimir K. Kokkinaki at the
controls; he had flown the TsKB-55, the prototype of the Il-2 Shturmovik. Production was not
proceeded with and only two prototypes were completed. Instead of the Il-54, the Soviet Union
decided to go with Yak-25 bomber derivatives such as the Yak-28 Brewer.
The Il-54 was used as part of a disinformation campaign by the Soviets, who gave it the spurious
designation of ‘Il-49’. This campaign was effective enough that NATO assigned it the reporting name
of ‘Blowlamp’, even after its testing programme had already ended and it had been decided not to
produce it.

M-50 ‘Bounder’
A product of Myasishchev’s OKB-23, the enormous Bounder was designed to travel in excess of
Mach 1. It was, like the earlier Myasishchev Bison, a probably overly ambitious design, and
apparently never exceeded Mach 1 because of inadequately powerful engines. The design utilised a
large delta wing, with an unusual engine configuration—two engines were suspended from pods
under the wings as with American bombers, and two engines were also fitted to the wing tips, for a
total of four. It had a ‘bicycle’ type landing gear configuration reminiscent of the Bison and the
American B-47 Stratojet, with small outrigger gear at the wingtips; this bicycle arrangement with the
very long nose gear gave the aeroplane a strikingly ‘nose-up’ attitude while on the ground.
The M-50 first took to the air on 27 October 1959, flown by Nikolay Goryainov. For initial tests,
all of the engines were of the non-afterburning VD-7BA type. In April 1961, the inner engines were
upgraded to the afterburning VD-7MAs. Despite the increase in power, it does not appear that the M-
50 ever exceeded supersonic speed in flight, much less approach its designed speed of 1,212 mph
(1,950 kph). Its maximum recorded speed was only 652 mph (1,050 kph). The M-50 made twenty-
three flights.
A development of the M-50, designated the M-52, was also designed. It featured a small T-type
tail in addition to the M-50’s conventional tail, and twin cannons mounted in a tail turret. It was to
have carried two AS-4 Kitchen missiles. The construction of the prototype M-52 had even been
partially completed when the Myasishchev OKB was dissolved (again) in 1960, with the partially
built M-52 scrapped, and the M-50 sent off to pasture at the Central Air Force Museum at Monino.
However, the sole M-50, as with the T-4, still survives as an outside exhibit at Monino, where its
huge size and immensely long fuselage serve to impress visitors, even if it did not apparently impress
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev quite enough.

Su-10
One of the first Soviet multi-engined jet bombers, the Su-10 was intended as a medium bomber.
Design work was begun on the aircraft in April 1946. Many different designs were looked at, but the
design that was settled on was interesting in that the four Lyulka TR-1A engines were stacked in a
staggered fashion, hung under the straight wings. The crew consisted of four people—the pilot, the
navigator/bombardier, the radio operator/gunner, and the tail gunner. The crew were equipped with
ejection seats, except for the tail gunner, who was supposed to bail out after jettisoning the tail turret.
Although the aircraft was completed by 1947 and was ready for flight-testing, it never flew as the
Soviet post-war aviation industry was just then suffering from a serious downsizing, with Sukhoi
being one of the victims. The aircraft ended up as an instructional airframe at the Moscow Aviation
Institute.

T-4 ‘Sotka’
The Sukhoi T-4 ‘Sotka’ was designed to the same specification for a high-speed bomber that led to the
Tu-22M Backfire. Not only were operational considerations involved in this requirement, but as so
often happens with expensive defence acquisitions, politics also played a large part.
It is surprising that Sukhoi was tasked with building a bomber to meet this specification as the
Sukhoi OKB had previously specialised in fighters and fighter-bombers, such as the Su-7 and Su-9,
and had never attempted anything as ambitious or large as the T-4, which dwarfed their previous jet
bomber, the Su-10. This is where politics came into play; Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet
Union at the time (late 1950s, early 1960s) was no fan of Andrey Tupolev and his large bombers,
clearly preferring intercontinental ballistic missiles instead, believing that the large bombers were
expensive and unnecessary.
Although smaller in size and considered by the Soviets to be a ‘medium’ bomber, the Sukhoi T-4
can be thought of as the Soviet equivalent of the very large North American XB-70 Valkyrie heavy
bomber at least in performance, with a top speed of three times the speed of sound; the XB-70 also
topped out at Mach 3. It also physically resembled the XB-70, featuring a tailless delta wing design
(a double-delta in the case of the T-4), with the engines in a large common fairing under the wing. It
was built largely out of titanium and stainless steel, to withstand the heat stress caused by the aerial
friction of travelling at high supersonic speeds. With this construction, it differed from the XB-70,
which used an aluminium alloy honeycomb structure sandwiched in between two thin sheets of
aluminium (as did the Convair B-58 Hustler).
In a feature that was the same as that found in the Tu-144 ‘Charger’ and Concorde supersonic
transports, the T-4 featured a drooping nose to enable the pilot to see on take-off and landing. When
the nose was raised for high-speed flight, the pilot could not see forward and was basically flying on
instruments, being only able to see out windows on the sides of the nose. Evidently, this arrangement
worked well on the T-4 and there were no especial difficulties on take-offs and landings, and in
general, the T-4 handled well. It featured a fly-by-wire system as the aircraft was inherently unstable.
Although a very ambitious design, in the end, it lost out to what became the Tu-22M Backfire
bomber, a rather more conservative design, although featuring the relatively novel (at the time)
variable-geometry swing-wing. The T-4 itself survives as an outside exhibit at Monino, where it still
has the power to impress the viewer. Having been built largely out of that nearly indestructible metal
titanium, even being displayed outside in central Russia, the T-4 may survive for quite some time.

Tu-98 ‘Backfin’
This was the second supersonic Soviet bomber to fly after the Il-54, taking flight for the first time in
1956. It was designed as a replacement for the subsonic Tu-16. It was the last Soviet bomber to
feature extensive nose glazing, but also the first to mount an unmanned remote-controlled tail turret,
with two 23-mm cannons. The aircraft first flew on 7 September 1956. It was known in the West
initially, and inaccurately as the ‘Yak-42’. In service, it would actually have been designated as the
‘Tu-24’.
Although it did not enter production, this design eventually led to the Tu-28 ‘Fiddler’ long-range
interceptor, which beat out the Lavochkin La-200 Anakonda, the last aircraft designed by the
Lavochkin OKB of Great Patriotic War fame. The Fiddler was the largest fighter ever to go into
production, and continued in service into the 1980s. Although the fuselage was different, the wings of
the Fiddler were based upon those of the Backfin.

‘Paper’ Bombers (Projects)

In this section, I describe a few of the most interesting post-war Soviet bomber projects that were
never completed, although some made it to the mock-up stage, and one was partially completed.

Aircraft ‘64’
Described previously in detail in the section on the Tu-4 Bull, this bomber was designed by the
Tupolev OKB to replicate the performance of the B-29. As a result of the successful reverse-
engineering of the B-29 into the Tu-4, the ‘64’ was never constructed, although a mock-up was built.

M-52
This aircraft, a development of the M-50 Bounder that was partially completed, is described
previously under the M-50 entry.
T-4M
A proposed development of the T-4 Sotka, this project featured swing-wings. A further project,
designated ‘T-4MS’ despite having very little in common with the original T-4, also featured swing-
wings. The T-4MS was an unusual-looking design, featuring a broad, triangular shaped forward
fuselage and flattened rectangular aft fuselage, with the fuselage being aerofoil-shaped, rather like a
‘lifting-body’ aircraft where the fuselage provides the lift. Neither project made it to the hardware or
even mock-up stage. This aircraft was designed as part of the competition for a supersonic bomber
that led to the Tu-160.

Specifications of Experimental Soviet Bombers and Bomber Projects

Tsybin ‘RS’
This was a design for a ramjet-powered supersonic strategic bomber designed by Pavel Tsybin in
1954. Ramjets have always held a fascination for aircraft and engine designers because of their
simplicity. Unlike conventional turbojets, the ramjet features no turbine blades, no shaft, no
compressor, indeed no moving parts. The air is compressed by the forward movement of the aircraft,
which means that ramjet-powered aircraft cannot take off using their ramjets, as they need to be
moving at a certain speed for the ram effect to work in compressing the air. The Second World War V-
1 ‘buzz-bomb’ was equipped with a ramjet, also called a pulse-jet.
The ‘RS’ design was far ahead of its time—too far as it turned out; it was deemed impractical and
development stopped. At one time, it was proposed to have the Tu-95 carry the reconnaissance
version of this aircraft; a Tu-95, the Tu-95N, was duly converted, but like the bomber version of the
‘RS’, the reconnaissance version was never built.
 13

Comparisons with Non-Soviet Strategic Bombers

of the Post-War Era

The Soviet Union was not the only country interested in strategic bombers in the post-war period;
thus, in the section below, I will compare the Soviet strategic bombers with the strategic bombers of
other countries where appropriate. Only actual production aircraft that entered service will be
discussed; experimental bombers will not be discussed, with the sole exceptions of the BAC TSR.2,
a fascinating aeroplane in its own right, and one that many people feel should have gone into service,
and the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which influenced not only Soviet bomber development, but
interceptor development. The bombers are listed alphabetically by their country of origin first, then
alphabetically by their manufacturer under the country heading.

France
Dassault Mirage IV
Conceptually a larger version of their delta-winged Mirage III fighter, the Mirage IV was equipped
with two jet engines, two crew members and the capability to carry nuclear weapons. Development
started in the 1950s, when France decided to pursue its own strategic deterrent force. As a part of this
Force de Frappe, the Mirage IV was one of the reasons that France felt it could leave the military
component of NATO in 1966.
The Mirage IV first entered service in October 1964. A total of sixty-two were built, and they only
served with the French Air Force, although at one time it appeared that a jointly produced version
(with BAC) might be adopted by the RAF to replace the cancelled BAC TSR.2. The Mirage IV had a
top speed of 1,454 mph (2,340 kph), and could carry either free-fall conventional or nuclear bombs,
or in the enhanced Mirage IVP, a single nuclear-armed missile. Its nuclear bomber versions were
retired in 1996, although its reconnaissance versions were not retired until 2005.

United Kingdom
Avro Lincoln
A development of the Avro Lancaster of Second World War fame, the Lincoln was at first designated
the ‘Lancaster Mk.IV’. Compared to the Lancaster, the Lincoln featured its Merlin engines in semi-
circular cowlings, a revised armament, a longer fuselage with a redesigned nose, and longer wings. It
was just too late for the Second World War, but formed the main heavy bomber for the RAF’s Bomber
Command in the immediate post-war era. With an ancestry that stretched back to the late 1930s design
of the Avro Manchester, the Lincoln was not nearly as advanced as its American contemporary, the B-
29, and featured a tail wheel landing gear, manned turrets, and no pressurisation. Crews who flew
both the Washington B.I (the B-29 in RAF service) and the Lincoln remarked upon how much more
comfortable it was to fly in the pressurised and relatively capacious Washington as compared to the
Lincoln. The British crews would no doubt have found the Tu-4 to be similarly advanced compared
to the Lincoln. The Lincoln was the last British piston-engined strategic bomber, and the last to
feature defensive guns.
Alongside its use by the RAF, the Lincoln was used and produced by the RAAF (Royal Australian
Air Force), and used by the Argentine Air Force, who did not retire it until as late as 1967. Argentina
used the Lincoln in bombing missions during an unsuccessful coup against the government in 1951,
and was used by both sides during the 1955 coup that successfully overthrew the Argentine
government. The RAAF used it to bomb Communist insurgents in the 1950s in Malaya during the
Emergency. The RAF used it against the Malayan Communists also and against the Mau-Mau in
Kenya in the 1950s. It remained in use in second-line duties with the RAF until 1963, and with the
RAAF until 1961. In RAF service, it was replaced by the Canberra and by the ‘V bombers’. It was
developed into the ASW Avro Shackleton (at first designated the Lincoln ASR.3), which served with
the RAF and the SAAF (South African Air Force), serving with the RAF until 1991.

Avro (Hawker Siddeley) Vulcan

With its enormous delta wing, nearly 100 feet in span (99 feet 5 inches (30.3 m)), the Avro Vulcan
was one of the most impressive aircraft to ever take to the skies, and it was the last of the ‘V
bombers’ to remain in service in its original bomber role. As with the other ‘V bombers’, the Vulcan
was equivalent to the Tu-16 Badger in terms of role. The Vulcan was the second of the ‘V bombers’ to
fly, taking to the air for the first time on 30 August 1952.
Notably, the Vulcan was used on extremely long-range missions against Argentine forces during
the Falklands War in 1982. At the time, these were the longest-range missions ever to be flown by a
bomber, and would not be eclipsed until 1991, with the American B-52 flying missions against Iraqi
forces from an air base in the continental United States.
The last examples in service were tanker versions, the K.2, which served until March 1984. The
bomber versions were capable of carrying 21,000 lb (9,525 kg) of ordnance, including nuclear
bombs. This was more than the 19,852 lb (9,000 kg) carried by the Tu-16 Badger.

BAC (British Aircraft Corporation) TSR.2 (Prototype)

Although intended for tactical roles (indeed, the ‘T’ in the designation stood for ‘Tactical’, as in
‘Tactical Strike Reconnaissance’), the two-seater twin-engined TSR.2 jet aircraft was quite capable
of carrying a nuclear weapon, and if the need arose, would have been used in the nuclear role.
Indeed, the nuclear bomb that the TSR.2 was designed to carry—the Red Beard—was much more
powerful than the nuclear bombs that devastated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the
Second World War (the Red Beard had a yield of from 15 to 20 kilotons). An even more powerful
weapon, with a yield of up to 300 kilotons was also envisioned for the TSR.2, the OR.1177, of which
the TSR.2 was to carry up to four. This was later changed to four of the lower yield (10 kilotons)
WE.177 bombs. The TSR.2 was capable of Mach 2 flight, and was designed to fly over Mach 1 at
very low altitudes, using advanced terrain-following radar and equipment. Its rather complicated
landing gear would have enabled it to fly from and land on unprepared airstrips.
Though a very advanced aircraft for the period (late 1950s to mid-1960s), the TSR.2 may have
been too ambitious a design for the state of the British aeronautical industry (and economy) at that
time. It was very expensive, and it is still controversial whether the United Kingdom could (or
should) have afforded such an advanced and costly weapons system. It is also an open question
whether the foreign sales, which were supposed to have recouped some of the costs, would have
materialised (the equivalent American F-111 was hardly an export success, serving with only the
Royal Australian Air Force in addition to the US Air Force). As it was, the decision was taken to
cancel the programme in 1965, and to purchase the F-111 in its place, although in the end, even the F-
111 was not purchased, and it was not until the arrival of the Panavia Tornado in the 1980s did the
UK possess an aircraft of similar capabilities to the TSR.2. The TSR.2 remains one of the great
‘might-have-beens’ of aeronautical history. Only one prototype ever flew, although several airframes
were completed or started. Two examples, including the prototype that was flown, have been
preserved.

English-Electric Canberra
If the TSR.2 was not a success, the Canberra twin-engined jet-powered light bomber was one of the
true success stories of the post-war British aircraft industry, with the aircraft being used not just by
the Royal Air Force, but was exported to over a dozen other countries. The United States even built
its own version of the Canberra under licence, as the Martin B-57 Canberra, this version of the
aircraft also enjoying considerable success, seeing extensive action in the Vietnam War with the
USAF, and with the Pakistani Air Force in two wars with India.
Although not normally thought of as a strategic bomber, the Canberra could be equipped with
atomic weapons, and could have been used to strike strategic targets, and it replaced not only the
twin-engined de Havilland Mosquito in service, but the four-engined Lincoln. If the TSR.2 had gone
into service, it would have replaced the Canberra.
In terms of performance, size, and length of service, the Canberra can be thought of as the
equivalent of the Soviet Il-28 Beagle tactical bomber.

Handley Page Victor

The last of the ‘V bombers’ to enter service, in 1958, it was also the last to leave service, and was
used as a tanker until 1993, seeing use during the war with Iraq in 1991. It was characterised by its
unusual crescent-shaped swept wings, which were based at least partially upon research the Germans
had conducted on such wings during the Second World War. It also featured a T-tail, with the
crescent-shaped horizontal tail planes mounted at the top of the vertical tail plane. As with the other
‘V bombers’, the Victor was powered by four jet engines buried in the wings.
Although roughly the same size as the Valiant and the Vulcan, the Victor could carry much more in
the way of ordnance, 35,000 lb (15,876 kg) to the 21,000 lb (9,525 kg) of the Valiant and the Vulcan.
It was this load carrying capability that also made the Victor a better tanker than the Vulcan. This
bomb load was also substantially more than the 19,852 lb (9,000 kg) carried by the Tu-16 Badger.

Vickers Valiant
The first of the United Kingdom’s so-called ‘V bombers’ (also seen as ‘V-bombers’ or ‘V-Bombers’),
the Vickers Valiant was not surprisingly the least ambitious in design, being thoroughly conventional,
with four jet engines buried in the roots of moderately swept wings. The paired jet engines shared a
common engine intake, similar to what had been proposed at one point for the Bison bomber. It was
comparable in size and basic design to the Tu-16 Badger, although slower than that Soviet design, and
with no defensive armament; it also did not have that aircraft’s long service life, which, in its Chinese
version, still continues as of 2018. The Valiant was used operationally in 1956 during Operation
Musketeer, the unsuccessful Anglo-French attempt to regain control of the Suez Canal, when Valiants
dropped conventional bombs on Egyptian airfields. Like the Vulcan, the Valiant could carry 21,000 lb
(9,525 kg) of conventional bombs. It could also carry one 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) Blue Danube nuclear
bomb.
The Valiant was retired in early 1965 after examination of the wing spars in 1964 had found
serious metal fatigue in the spars, caused by the low level role to which it was then assigned, a role
for which it had not been designed. It was decided that it would have been too costly to repair the
spars, especially with two other ‘V bombers’, the Vulcan and the Victor, then already in service, so
the Valiant was retired from service and most of them quickly scrapped.

United States of America

As can be seen from the following list, the US has been in the forefront of strategic bomber design
and development, and has developed everything from the largest piston-engined warplane ever
produced (the B-36) to Mach-2 penetration bombers (FB-111A). As of the time of writing (2018), the
US has three large strategic bombers in service, the B-52, the B-1, and the B-2.

Boeing B-29 Superfortress

As discussed in some detail previously, the B-29 led directly to the first modern Soviet strategic
bomber, the Tu-4 Bull. The B-29 had first flown on 30 December 1942, and entered service in 1944
operating from bases in India. It was used against the Japanese, never seeing service in Europe during
the Second World War, where the B-17 and the B-24 continued in use until the end of the war in
Europe. When it first flew, the B-29 was the most modern bomber in the world, featuring four of the
powerful new 2,100-hp Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engines, tricycle landing gear, remote-
controlled gun turrets (except for the manned tail-turret), and pressurised crew compartments.
Capable of speeds in excess of 350 mph (563 kph), long-ranged, with a normal maximum range of
3,250 miles (5,230 km), and capable of flying at high altitudes (a service ceiling of 31,850 feet
(9,708 m)) it clearly outclassed any other large bomber then in service.
The B-29 saw extensive service in Korea, where it was the USAF’s heavy bomber, neither the B-
36, B-47, nor B-50 seeing combat use in that war. Although it did great damage to North Korea’s
infrastructure, losses at the hands of Soviet-built (and sometimes Soviet-manned) fighters, especially
the MiG-15, forced it from 1951 to be only flown on night-time missions. Indeed, it has been
postulated that it was the vulnerability of the B-29 against the jet-powered MiG-15 that spelled the
death knell for the piston-engined strategic bomber, not just in the US, but in the Soviet Union, where
the Soviet copy of the B-29 (the Tu-4) was used.
In its weather reconnaissance role (the WB-29), the B-29 was not finally retired from USAF
service until 1960. In addition to its use by the USAAF and USAF, the B-29 also served with the
RAF, who utilised it from 1952 until 1958 as the Washington B.1. As discussed previously, the Soviet
Union also used its own unlicenced-built version of the B-29, the Tu-4 (which was also exported to
the Communist Chinese).
Unlike its Soviet ‘twin’, the B-29 (and its development the B-50) was successfully converted into
a transport aircraft, the civilian B-377 Stratocruiser and its military version, the C-97 Stratofreighter.
The tanker version of the C-97, the KC-97, continued in US service into the 1970s, and a few heavily
modified versions of the C-97 (the ‘Super-Guppies’) are still used for carrying outsized cargo.

Boeing B-47 Stratojet

With its thin wings swept back at 35 degrees and jet engines suspended in pods underneath the wings,
the B-47 not only influenced bomber design, but generations of civilian jet airliners. It was the first
production aircraft with this now standard configuration for large multi-engined jet aircraft, and was
a state-of-the-art aircraft when it first appeared in the late 1940s; it first flew on 17 December 1947,
and was faster than most production fighter aircraft. It entered service in June 1951. It was the
American equivalent of the Soviet Tu-16 Badger. Like the Badger, it was used as more than a bomber,
seeing use as an ECM aircraft, a reconnaissance aircraft, the RB-47, and a weather reconnaissance
aircraft, the WB-47. Other variants were produced as well, including test vehicles and dedicated
trainer versions.
Although it served as a bomber until 1965, and as a reconnaissance aircraft until 1969, the B-47,
unlike the equivalent Tu-16, was never used operationally by another air force and destined to never
see any wartime use, although at one time a version with a turret mounted underneath the fuselage was
actually considered as a ‘gunship’ for use in the Vietnam War. However, by this time, the B-47 was
nearing retirement and the idea was not taken up. Up to twenty-five B-47s survive as exhibits.

Boeing B-50 Superfortress

Initially designated the ‘B-29D’, this aircraft was a development of the B-29 Superfortress, with a
larger vertical tail, strengthened wings with the ability to carry underwing fuel tanks, and the much
more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major radial engines replacing the Wright R-3350
Duplex-Cyclone engines. The gun armament remained the same, although the four-gunned forward
upper turret was larger and more streamlined; later B-29s also had used a four-gunned forward upper
turret. As an improved development of the B-29, it was the American equivalent of the experimental-
only Soviet Tu-80. In addition to its role as a bomber, it was also used in the reconnaissance role as
the RB-50, a weather reconnaissance aircraft as the WB-50, and as an aerial tanker, the KB-50. As
the KB-50J tanker, equipped with auxiliary turbojets under the wings, this version of the
Superfortress served until 1965. All versions of the B-50 served only with the United States.
As with the B-36 (see further on), more B-50s might have been produced had not the Korean War
shown the vulnerability of large piston-engined bombers to jet fighters, and it was progressively
replaced by the jet-engined B-47 in the bomber role, with the last B-50 bombers being retired in
1955.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

The history of the B-52 mirrors that of the Tu-95 in so many ways that it is sometimes difficult to think
of one without thinking of the other. Both are designs with roots that date back to the mid-1940s, both
went into service in the mid-1950s, and both may well be flying for many years more. The Tu-95 even
resembles one of the early design studies for the B-52, which envisaged a four-engined turboprop
aircraft with swept-back wings. The design of the B-52 did not stop there, but eventually evolved into
what was essentially an enlarged B-47, with eight engines instead of six, as on the B-47, but with the
same thin wings with a 35-degree sweep back. It was these high-mounted thin wings that necessitated
the usage of a ‘quadricycle’ landing gear, where the four main gear were located in the fuselage, and
small outrigger landing gear were accommodated near the wing tips. The B-52 first flew on 15 April
1952 and entered service on 29 June 1955.
For defensive purposes the B-52 was originally equipped with four 50-calibre machine guns in a
manned tail turret (in the ‘A-F’ versions), then a remote-controlled turret with the same armament in
the ‘G’ version, and finally a 20-mm Vulcan Gatling gun in the ultimate version, the ‘H’. The RB-52B
was equipped with two 20-mm cannons in a manned tail turret, and was the only version so equipped.
For offensive purposes, the B-52 has an internal bomb bay that can accommodate 40,000 lb (18,144
kg) of bombs, either conventional or nuclear. The B-52 can also carry weapons on underwing racks
that were originally intended for the short-lived Hounddog stand-off missile. With these racks fitted
with conventional bombs, the B-52 can carry up to 75,000 lb (34,019 kg) of bombs. The B-52H, the
only version remaining in service as of 2018, is now equipped solely with electronic
countermeasures, flares, and chaff for defensive purposes; the gun turret was removed in 1991,
shortly after the end of the first war with Iraq.
Unlike some of the Soviet bombers, the B-52 has seen intensive use as a conventional bomber,
starting in the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s. It saw action there, then in America’s first war with
Iraq (where it flew the longest non-stop bombing mission in history, from Barksdale Air Force Base
in Louisiana to Iraq and back), America’s second war with Iraq, and in Afghanistan. It has also seen
use in Iraq and Syria in 2016. In addition to conventional bombs, the B-52 could carry stand-off
short-range missiles (SRAMs) and can carry longer-ranged cruise missiles, carried on a rotary
launcher like that used on modern Russian bombers. As with modern Russian bombers, it can also
carry anti-shipping missiles, in this case the ‘Harpoon’ missile.
In its ultimate ‘H’ version, equipped with relatively fuel-efficient turbofans, the B-52 is the
longest-ranged production aircraft ever, with a range of 10,145 miles (16,327 km) and is the only
variant remaining in service. Indeed the B-52H is the only production aircraft with a longer range
than the Tu-95 Bear. The B-52, like the Tu-95, may continue flying into the 2040s.

Convair B-36 Peacemaker

The largest piston-engined bomber ever produced, and still the production bomber with the largest
wingspan ever (230 feet, 70.12 m—longer than the Wright Brothers’ first flight), the B-36 grew out of
an attempt to make a bomber that could strike targets in Europe, and then return to the United States. It
was felt that a bomber with this capability was needed, in the case of the UK falling or becoming
allies of Nazi Germany. When the UK did not fall, the need for such an intercontinental bomber was
greatly lessened, and the first B-36 prototype did not initially fly until after the Second World War, on
8 August 1946.

B-52H at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, USA in 2004. (Public Domain)

As first flown in 1946, the B-36 prototype featured a traditional stepped cockpit canopy and
enormous single main wheels. The production versions differed in having a circular canopy that
offered all-around vision, and the main wheels were changed to a bogie type, with two wheels in
front of the main strut, and two behind, for a total of four main wheels per side (similar to the style
used by most versions of the Tu-95). The change from the single main wheels was necessitated by the
fact that only a few airfields could handle the weight of the aircraft with the single wheels. The four-
wheel bogies spread the weight out to a more acceptable extent and enabled the B-36 to operate from
more airfields. The production aircraft also normally featured the extremely heavy defensive
armament of sixteen 20-mm cannons, with twelve of them arrayed in six retractable turrets, in
addition to a nose turret and a tail turret. All the turrets were remotely controlled, in the manner of the
B-29, although the tail turret was also remote-controlled, unlike the B-29 and most versions of the B-
52, from the ‘A-F’, which had manned tail turrets. The huge bomb bay was capable of
accommodating 86,000 lb (39,009 kg) of bombs, including one of the enormous Mk 17 thermonuclear
(hydrogen or fusion) bombs, which weighed 42,000 lb (19,051 kg).
At first powered only by six of the twenty-four-cylinder R-4360 Wasp Majors, from the B-36D
onwards four jets (J-47s) were also added in underwing pods, two engines per side, to give the B-36
additional power for take-off, and speed over the target.
When the B-36 went into service in 1949, it gave the USAF its first truly intercontinental strategic
bomber, capable of bombing targets in the Soviet Union and returning to bases in the United States.
However, the experience of the B-29 during the Korean War showed the vulnerability of piston-
engined bombers to jet fighters and the B-36 was progressively replaced by the B-52 from 1955 on
and was finally retired from service in 1959. A one-off transport version, called the XC-99, was
built, and served with the USAF until 1957. The XC-99 still exists, along with at least five of the
bomber versions. The B-36 never saw any combat and was used only by the USAF.

Convair B-58 Hustler

This was the first supersonic strategic bomber to enter service anywhere, when it entered service
with the USAF in 1960. It was powered by four J79 turbojet engines in pods suspended under the
delta wing. Despite its high top speed (1,321 mph (2,126 kph)), it was still equipped with defensive
armament in the form of a remote-controlled General Electric T-171E3 Vulcan 20-mm six-barrelled
Gatling-type cannon in the tail. All the disposable armament, including nuclear weapons, was carried
underwing in droppable pods, the large central pod carrying both fuel and a nuclear weapon in
separate detachable sections. In service, the B-58 needed quite a bit of maintenance and was
expensive to keep flying. Some 22 per cent of the total were lost in accidents; the high accident rate
was similar to that of the Soviet’s first supersonic bomber, the Blinder, although the B-58 had a lower
loss-per-sortie rate. The B-58 was also faster than the Blinder, at 1,321 mph (2,126 kph) to the
Blinder’s 994 mph (1,600 kph).
Unlike the Blinder, the B-58 was never equipped for dropping conventional stores and was retired
in 1970, having never once been used in combat or used by another air force. It was replaced by the
FB-111A.

Douglas A-3 Skywarrior

This twin-engined aircraft was the all jet-engined replacement for the Savage, and like that aircraft,
was capable of carrying a nuclear bomb. The bomber variants were at first equipped with a remote-
controlled turret in the tail, with two 20-mm cannons; this was later replaced by a blunt fairing
equipped with avionics. The A-3 proved to be a versatile aircraft and was used as a bomber, for
reconnaissance, as a tanker, and as an ECM aircraft. It only served with the US Navy and was not
retired until 1991. Early in the Vietnam War, it was used as a bomber, but saw more usage as a
reconnaissance aircraft and aerial tanker. In Navy service, it earned the unofficial nickname of the
‘Whale’, due to its large size.
An interesting note about the Skywarrior is that it did not carry ejection seats for any of the crew,
in an attempt by the Navy to save weight. Instead, the crew were to bail out of the aircraft through a
tunnel that started in the cockpit and exited under the aircraft; a similar system had been used on the
earlier Douglas F3D (F-10) Skyknight night fighter. The B-66, the USAF equivalent, on the other
hand, did have ejection seats for all the crew as weight considerations when operating from land
bases were not as paramount as they apparently were with carrier-based aircraft.

Douglas B-66 Destroyer

Although supposed to be the twin of the A-3, the B-66 emerged as a quite different aeroplane
redesigned to meet the needs of the USAF for a tactical (light) bomber. Like the A-3, it could carry
nuclear weaponry. It saw considerable service in the Vietnam War as an ECM aircraft, under the EB-
66 designation. Like the A-3, it was initially armed with two M 24 20-mm cannons in a remote-
controlled turret, although it was later equipped with an extended tail section loaded with electronic
countermeasures equipment on the ECM EB-66 variant. The Destroyer was retired from USAF
service in 1973, the USAF being the only service to employ it.

General Dynamics FB-111A

When in the mid-1960s the USAF started to consider retiring the B-58 Hustler, thoughts turned
towards adapting the F-111 tactical bomber into a strategic bomber. The result was the FB-111A
aircraft; unusually for an American warplane, the FB-111A never had an official nickname, and the
unofficial nickname of ‘Aardvark’ used for the F-111 only became official upon its retirement. The
FB-111A had both a longer fuselage and longer wings than the standard F-111.
The FB-111A first entered service on 8 October 1969 but did not achieve IOC until January 1971.
The FB-111A could carry two of the AGM-69A SRAM attack missiles in its bomb bay, with another
four carried on underwing pylons. The FB-111A was also equipped to carry conventional free-fall
bombs or nuclear bombs; a total payload of 35,500 lb (16,103 kg) could be accommodated. A total of
seventy-six production FB-111As were built.
With the appearance of the B-1B Lancer, the FB-111A was no longer considered necessary as a
strategic bomber and most were converted into ground attack aircraft, with the designation of F-111G.
The conversions took place in 1989; the thirty-four aircraft that were converted were mostly used for
training. The FB-111A was retired in 1991, and the F-111G was retired in 1993, although fifteen of
them were bought by the RAAF, who used them until 2007.

Grumman Northrop B-2 Spirit

The B-2 arose out of the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) programme, initiated under the
administration of James Earl (Jimmy) Carter Jr (b. 1924). It was the promise of this bomber which
led President Carter to cancel the B-1A. Under President Reagan, continuing problems with the ATB
programme led him to reinstate the B-1 programme, which led to the production B-1B, but
development still continued on the ATB. Because if its great cost, it was a controversial aircraft and
unsuccessful attempts were made to cancel it. Despite these attempts, a prototype was constructed,
which first flew on 17 July 1989.
Due to its great cost, only a relative handful of B-2 Spirits (twenty) have entered service with the
USAF, achieving IOC on 1 January 1997. Its flying wing shape was chosen to give it stealth
capabilities; this, along with a special coating, was supposed to reduce its radar signature. It is
capable of dropping both nuclear and conventional bombs, as well as missiles and precision-guided
ordnance.
In service it has proven to be an unreliable aeroplane, and very costly to maintain, and one has
been lost due to an accident caused by system failure. Nonetheless, it has seen combat in Kosovo and
both wars with Iraq, perhaps to demonstrate its continuing relevancy as the Russians have recently
done with the Tu-160 attacking targets in Syria, in November 2015. It appears that it will continue in
service for quite some time with the USAF.

North American A-5 Vigilante

The Vigilante was the supersonic replacement for the A-3 Skywarrior as a bomber capable of
carrying a nuclear bomb from a carrier. The bomb, along with fuel tanks, was to be carried in an
unusual linear bomb bay that lay between the twin jet engines, with the bomb and fuel tanks ejected
out of the back of the aeroplane during the bombing run. Due to a change in operational requirements,
it only served for a short period of time as a bomber before being converted into the RA-5, a
dedicated reconnaissance platform. As the RA-5, it saw service in Vietnam. It served only with the
US Navy, until being retired in November 1979.

North American AJ (A-2) Savage

Despite the ‘A’ for ‘Attack’ designation, the Savage was in actuality an aircraft carrier-based bomber
designed to carry a nuclear bomb to deliver on strategic targets. It was an attempt by the Navy to stay
relevant in the nuclear world of the post-war era, when having a nuclear capability was the way to
keep the defence money coming your way. The purpose-built Savage replaced the nuclear-bomb
capable version of the P2V Neptune, the P2V-3C. The P2V-3C was designed to take off from an
aircraft carrier, drop its bomb, and ditch near a US naval vessel where the crew would hopefully be
rescued or land at a friendly land airbase, as it was unable to land on an aircraft carrier—it could
only take off from one. That this absurd adaption of the Neptune (an otherwise excellent aeroplane)
even went into service shows how desperate the US Navy were to be a part of the nuclear ‘game’.
The Savage went into service in 1950.
The Savage itself was an interesting aircraft, combining two Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double
Wasp piston-engines for reasons of range, mounted on the wings, and an Allison J33 jet engine in the
tail, to provide it with speed over the target. It was never a particularly popular aircraft with carrier
commanders, as it took up quite a bit of space, and was something of a ‘hangar queen’, requiring
extensive maintenance, and was notorious for leaking oil and other fluids. A turboprop-powered
development, the A2J, was tested, but did not go into production, as the turbojet-powered A-3
Skywarrior was preferred as the Savage’s replacement.
Some Savages were used as tankers, and others, the AJ-2P, were used as reconnaissance aircraft,
with some being used during the Korean War over North Korea. The last Savages were retired from
US Navy service in 1960.

North American B-45 Tornado

The first jet-engined bomber in use by the US, the B-45 was solidly conventional, with straight wings
and tails, and incorporated a manned gunner position in the tail with twin 50-calibre machine guns for
defence. It first flew on 17 March 1947, and was introduced into service with the USAF on 22 April
1948.
Although it did not see combat service during the Korean War, its reconnaissance version, the RB-
45C, was used for some missions in Korea during the Korean War flying both daytime and night-time
missions. In addition, the RB-45 was used by the RAF, in British markings for reconnaissance
missions in Europe, even overflying the Soviet Union.
The B-45 first went into service in 1948, and was retired in 1958. In terms of Soviet aircraft it
was most comparable to the Il-28 Beagle. However, unlike the Beagle, it did not enjoy that aircraft’s
very long service life (a few Il-28s may still be in service with North Korea as of 2018), nor was it
widely used, being used only by the United States and in a very limited role by the RAF.

North American XB-70 Valkyrie (Prototype)

One of the most impressive bombers ever built, the Valkyrie was designed to cruise at high altitudes
at speeds up to Mach 3. It was similar in overall shape to the Soviet Sukhoi T-4 bomber, although it
was quite a bit larger. Unlike the T-4, which used a great deal of titanium in its construction, the XB-
70 used aluminium honeycomb construction, where a honeycomb-like layer of aluminium was
sandwiched between two thin sheets of aluminium.
Although the XB-70 possessed remarkable performance, it did not go into production as the
continuing development of interceptors and SAMs had rendered the high-altitude bomber obsolete.
One of the prototype XB-70s has been preserved, the other having crashed after colliding with a
chase aircraft during a test flight.

Rockwell International (North American-Rockwell) B-1 Lancer

The B-1’s journey from Mach 2-capable bomber to a Mach 1.2 production aircraft was a long and
tortuous one, and it became a very controversial aircraft in its time, with some (including this author)
questioning to this very day the need for it.
In its original form, as the retroactively named ‘B-1A’ (to distinguish it from the much-revised ‘B-
1B’, which became the production version), it was a Mach 2-capable bomber, able to fly this speed
at high altitude and capable of high subsonic speeds at very low altitudes.
After the original B-1 (the B-1A) was cancelled in 1977, it was reworked into a ‘simplified’
version, and is now no longer capable of Mach 2 flight, but more optimised for low-level penetration
duties and with more stealth qualities. It features simpler fixed intakes for the engines, which limits
its top speed, but are stealthier than the adjustable air intakes of the B-1A (and cheaper). It was this
version that entered production and service as the B-1B, later given the official name of ‘Lancer’. In
appearance, it resembles the Tu-160 Blackjack, although it is quite a bit smaller than that huge
warplane. The B-1B first entered service in 1986.
The B-1B has seen much combat use as a heavy conventional bomber, and has been used in
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. As of 1995, the B-1B was no longer considered a
nuclear bomber, as the equipment to carry nuclear weaponry was removed, thus making the B-1B
solely a conventional bomber (although I rather suspect it could be reconverted into a nuclear bomber
relatively quickly and easily).
The B-1B can carry 75,000 lb (34,019 kg) of ordnance internally in two bomb bays, including
precision guided weapons, such as laser-guided bombs in addition to free-fall bombs. Its bomb bay
configuration is similar to that of the Tu-160, with two separate bomb bays separated by the wing
carry-through structure. The B-1 also features the blended-body design and swing-wings of the Tu-
160, leading to inevitable comparisons between the two, although the Tu-160 is quite a bit larger as
mentioned previously and remains a nuclear bomber. Given its heavy use as a conventional bomber, it
would appear that operationally, at least, the B-1B is more similar to the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C than
the Tu-160.
Whatever its shortcomings (such as a generally poor operational readiness rate compared to the B-
52), the B-1B Lancer (or ‘Bone’ as it is sometimes called, from ‘B-One’) continues in USAF service,
and it appears it will do so for some time, perhaps into the 2030s or beyond.

Select Non-Soviet Bombers Specifications

 14

Pilot Interview

HSU Minakov Vasilii Ivanovich

Interview and editing by Galina Vabischevich and Oleg Korytov Translation and
English version editing by Oleg Korytov and Ilia Grinberg

[The portion covering General Minakov’s Great Patriotic War service is here omitted, and the
spelling has been changed to match British spelling conventions and a few minor typos corrected
from the original translation.]

My life was long and full of interesting moments! I wrote 18 books. I flew 206 combat missions. I
sunk a lot of ships, 46,000 tons worth of displacement. No one else in the Soviet Union was credited
with such displacement sunk. Even submarine commander Marinesko from the Baltic Fleet had
27,000.
In 1944, I was awarded with a title of the HSU. I had become a deputy squadron commander, then
the squadron commander. I was just 23 years old. Then I finished Higher Officer’s Courses and the
Naval Academy. I was the Deputy Regiment Commander at the Baltic Fleet, then moved to the
Pacific. I was the commander of the Guards Division. Graduated from the Academy of General Staff.
Then I became First Deputy Aviation Commander of the Northern Fleet. Then for 15 years I was a
Chief of the Research Institute. I left the service in 1985.

It is a quite interesting theme, your work in the Research Institute.

That’s a separate story! Briefly, I was not under Navy Commander Admiral Gorshkov, but under
Chief Marshal of Aviation Kutakhov. That was very unpleasant, since I worked for the Fleet Aviation,
for Gorshkov! I had to see Gorshkov at least twice a month, while I met Kutakhov no more than 8
times in 15 years. He was interested in the Air Force, not in the Naval Aviation. At first I was
warned:
‘You should report directly to me about all scientific research and development (R&D). Our
Institute had about 150—180 projects a year, some took half a year to complete, some took several
years.’
I wrote the first report and was waiting for them to get back to me. I was waiting for a month, two
months, half a year. Then I gave up and stopped reporting (to Kutakhov). I reported to Gorshkov. And
if there is a problem to be solved, I got in the car, crossed the Neva River—there were seven
Scientific-Research Institutes: the 1st, the 4th, the 16th, the 31st, etc. So that’s how it lasted for 15
years.
I believe that our 30th Institute has to be acknowledged. What did we do? First of all, we provided
high quality R&D. We actively interacted with our clients from the military in Moscow, proving them
that results of our work should not be shelved; design work, so that designers will decide what fits,
so we participated in the design process.
Then there were two stages: the first was to evaluate and report on the design and the second was
to build a mock-up of a plane and see how it all fits, to participate in building the aeroplane. The
third stage was testing when the hardware was sent to test facilities.
That’s how it was. As a result we created 5 aeroplanes: the strategic Tu-142 (they are based at 2
airfields now—1 at the Pacific and another at the Northern Fleet), ASW aeroplane, which flew over
the Atlantic and Indian oceans as well; Su-27 modification for the Navy—Su-33 and MiG-29K—
that’s a separate story; a flying boat, which is currently used by the Ministry of Emergency Response
and firefighters …

Be-200.

Yes, Be-200; then an ASW and general-purpose aeroplane built at Taganrog. And helicopters: Ka-27,
Ka-29, Ka-31 with radar and others. I made a report on the Ka-27 in America and scared the
Americans. I went there for a conference.

Generally, it is clear. Can you tell us in more detail what was done for development and series
production of these aircraft and helicopters?

First of all, when I first came, I was instructed by the Deputy Commander-in Chief General-Colonel
Mishuk, he was overseeing production: ‘Tell me what is required from you?’ I was not there yet and
he is asking what is needed from me.
What is needed from me is to know the foreign hardware: fighters, bombers, what systems they
have; to know well our aircraft designers and capabilities of the industry. We will justify everything,
first mathematical models, develop specifications, coordinate with designers—they will start the
design process based on our data. After the design we participate in everything, then check it out on a
mock-up.

So your task was to develop a concept of new armaments, assigning tactical and technical
characteristics based on objective necessity.

Exactly, tactical and technical characteristics. They are sent to designers and when they provide their
feedback and corrections, we develop specifications. Their it is specific: what engines, what speeds,
what masses, we all correct that.
It is clear that you studied the state of affairs abroad, compared it to the state of affairs here and
tried to develop prospective hardware that would …

Yes, that would be better in flight and combat capabilities than what a potential adversary has.

To counteract the threats. I would also like to ask about Egypt.

If you are interested, I’ll tell you about Egypt. In 1968, an order came to the Northern Fleet to send a
squadron of our aeroplanes to Egypt. Two days later the Deputy Commander General-Lieutenant
Naumov came from Moscow with some other people. They picked the crews. Each crew was
crosschecked: who, when, where, in which conditions they fly, who was the instructor, and so on.
When everything was over, they left for Moscow. An order came when they should fly to Egypt. That
was in April, I believe.
I was the deputy commander, the commander was Yuri Kuznetsov. We were dressed warmly, and
stood near the runway and waved farewell as they took off.

That was the 90th spetsnaz long-range reconnaissance squadron from the 967th ODRAP SF
[Northern Fleet]? Which aeroplanes and how many?

The Tu-16. Mostly Tu-16s in reconnaissance versions. They were capable of flying bomber missions
as well, but they were reconnaissance.
They landed at Cairo-West, 17 km away from Cairo. The largest airfield. Daily flights began from
that airfield over the Mediterranean. The heat was terrible—almost 50 degrees centigrade! The first
that they saw was a small lake near the airfield, so they went swimming there. The local man came:
‘What are you doing? You have to pay for that.’ That was the first time when they were told that they
should pay. Later they were issued special sums of money in change to pay for everything!
It was hot. There was a HQ building, where commanders sat, and there was a bar—cantina. Our
boys, not used to high temperatures, after 6–7 hours of flying over the sea, before going to the bar
drunk a bit of cognac. Some were stricken so hard; they couldn’t understand where they were. Not in
the air, of course. They simply thought that everything was fine.
A few months had passed, maybe a year. Naumov ordered the squadron commander to rebase to
another airfield—Cairo-West was about to go for reconstruction.
The next day Naumov came to the airfield—all the aeroplanes are in hideouts, covered in tarps,
and no one around. Can you imagine? The General gave the order … It was a free day, so he found
somebody and asked where to find the personnel. There is a restaurant near the pyramids. ‘Comrade
General, they should be there—celebrating something.’
He came to the restaurant, and found the personnel drunk. He was angry. He sent a telegram to
Moscow to 8 addressees: to the Government, to each Supreme Commander, Minister of Defence,
Head of the KGB, Minister of Foreign Affairs—virtually, to everybody! And they all got information
that our officers are drinking instead of performing their duty.
 By alarm, we were summoned to Moscow. We came in by aeroplane—Kuznetsov, Member of the
Military Council Novikov, the new regiment commander, because the old one was already relieved
from his post, and I. We addressed the Military Council. The Supreme Commander was so angry and
upset!
‘How could that happen? What the hell is going on? Why haven’t you prepared them!’
‘We haven’t seen them for over a year. We can say nothing.’
We were questioned for thirty minutes. Then the Captain 1st Rank comes in:
‘The Minister of Defence is on the line.’
The Supreme Commander left the room. His deputy was asking us now. Then, suddenly, very
loudly:
‘Minakoooov!’
I stood up.
‘I will give you ten men the day after tomorrow and you will fly to Egypt and settle things there.’
‘It is impossible! We will have no time to arrange for visas, and we have to return to the Northern
Fleet for clothing, at least.’
‘Execute the order!’
That’s how the military council ended. The HQ of the Naval Aviation assigned ten men. Then the
Commander of Naval Aviation was Ivan Borzov.
We flew to the Northern Fleet, changed our clothes. There was also the General-Engineer Mironov
and the new squadron commander Colonel Miroshnichenko. At night, we arrived at Moscow. From
Izmailovo airfield we and ten officers from the HQ had to fly to Egypt. However, that was the exact
day when our troops were sent to Czechoslovakia. This airfield was open for incoming aeroplanes,
but closed for take-off. Only on special permission. I was a General already, and went to investigate
the situation. At the commanding tower there were Naval officers:
‘Vassilii Ivanovich, what can we do?!’
‘I have to fly out.’
‘We will let you fly out. Go to your aeroplane. When you reach it, an order will be given.’
I returned to the aeroplane, and in fifteen minutes permission was given. We landed in Budapest,
but it was also in a mess—troops were moving in and out. We hardly got permission to take off again,
even though Moscow gave an order to fly ASAP. I called Moscow from Budapest, Moscow arranged
permissions and notified Egypt. It was a mess. For three hours, we watched how pilots there were
suffering … Fighters taking off … Such a mess. At 19.00 hours we took off. It was getting dark in
Egypt. I gave an order to the An-12 pilot—he was a squadron commander. He replies: ‘I haven’t
flown at night lately.’
‘I flew a lot! If you have trouble, I will get to the second seat and help you.’
‘Well, I had to warn you.’
So, we took off. We crossed Yugoslavia at daylight. It was so beautiful! The dark caught us over
the Mediterranean Sea. We arrived at Cairo at 00.00 hours. Four hours in flight. We were met at the
airfield, and each of us received a handful of coins.
‘What for?’
 ‘You will understand it later. Everybody will ask you: “Baksheesh”—and you have to give
something. If you do not give—you are a bad person.’
At about 01.00 hours we reached Cairo. It appeared as a sea of light! A huge town all in light! I
thought: how did these poor Egyptians fight the Israelis here?! Total ignorance! Everything was in
lights. Restaurants overcrowded. Dancing. We went to the central avenue and as we just stopped, a
door was opened from the outside, suitcases were taken out of the trunk:
‘Baksheesh!’
I walked to the door, they opened it:
‘Baksheesh!’
They filled all the forms out, we were escorted to the eighth floor, where there was a skinny man:
‘Baksheesh!’
This ‘baksheesh’ was virtually everywhere! On the next day, we went to the chief military advisor
—General-Colonel.

Weren’t they responsible for drinking in the squadron?

They were there to teach the Egyptian forces how to fight, how to cross the Suez Channel.

So, there was no one to look after our violators?

There was a commander and a political officer [commissar]. There was an advisor from the VVS, but
he didn’t look after them. There were Egyptian fighters, so he taught them how to fight. A road was
built to Alexandria with some houses nearby. Inside those buildings were hidden aeroplanes. They
would taxi out of them straight to the runway and take off.
In the morning I woke up in the hotel. Dirt everywhere, crap. It was common for people to walk on
the main street, and take a shit right where they wanted to. I was definitely not excited about all this.
We were standing in the backyard, when some Russian approached us.
‘Why such dull faces?’
‘We just came in. It’s a mess here. And we don’t like the hotel.’
‘Do you have bread with you?’
‘Yes, we were told to take five loaves each.’
‘Go there, give them one, and you will get the best hotel.’
I sent one colonel there, he returned in four minutes: ‘They did!’
The best hotel on the Nile, at the King Farouk’s villa. Each one got a room. We gave the bread, and
we went further. I said: ‘You should stay, while I’ll go visit the chief military advisor.’
I was warned in advance not to have shirtsleeves rolled up (it was 55 degrees centigrade), or else!
I came in as ordered, but only in a shirt. I came in and reported: ‘General Minakov, my task is …’
‘Yes, there is a mess, you have nothing in order here. Put everything in order, General!’
I asked: ‘Can you brief me on the situation?’
He began talking: ‘Can you imagine, I have a game with maps. Yesterday we spoke about how to
cross the Suez Channel. In a week’s time it would be another game, another situation, but they still act
as they did one week ago.
Egyptians were dumb ... He said that there were many radar stations.’
‘How long do you plan to work here?’
‘I was told that I could return only after everything was in order.’
‘Remember! Not a single telegram without my signature!’ Naumov also sent telegrams with his
signature.
Everything was in order. I went to the hotel, to issue tasks to the subordinates. In the evening there
were concerts, there was no alcohol, they drank only water. There were blue pools, cottages nearby.
Every day belly dancing. I haven’t even heard about belly dances before!
There were conditions to work and rest there. To avoid ‘baksheesh’ we began parking our car a bit
away from the hotel. There was intense heat, flies … While we had to go to the airfield each day by 8
o’clock in the morning and returned at midnight. Work, work, and more work.
First thing. They all knew me, because I was in command of this regiment, it was subordinated to
me as well as another reconnaissance regiment and one transport regiment there. I walked in civilian
clothes—they didn’t even bother to stand up. There is a general walking, and a sergeant didn’t even
bother to lift his ass! I understood the problem. On the next day I ordered everybody to line up in
Egyptian flight gear. It was like our summer flight overalls except for the sandy colour …
Everybody had to be dressed in uniforms. Every morning—line up! Check all personnel for
presence! I had to tighten-up the discipline. In a short period of time discipline came into order.
Once I came to the Chief Advisor. I visited him from time to time, so that he wouldn’t feel
neglected. I told him what we did, and which goals we achieved. Therefore, I came to him.
‘Comrade Minakov, I cannot understand, what is the disposition of the Jewish troops? Where are
their stations?! Could you fly a reconnaissance mission?’
‘I can do that. I will prepare the plan for tomorrow.’
I had a plan that I checked in Norway. Very simple and effective. On the next day, I had shown him
this plan on the map. If you take off from that airfield and gain 300 metres of altitude, the Israelis will
see you.
Six aeroplanes took off and at 50 metres of altitude they flew 500 km towards Libya, turned
around and raced towards the Suez Canal, where the Israelis placed their radar stations. Since they
did not know that six aeroplanes took off, they did not expect incoming bombers. At about 150 km
away from the Suez our aeroplanes jumped up with a steep climb!
The Israelis couldn’t understand what was going on. Six aeroplanes gain an altitude of 4,000
metres rapidly. At 30–35 degrees. At an order, one aeroplane stays in the centre, the rest dive steeply
with some ‘twists’. Oh, my God! The Israelis switched all their stations on! They are smart people,
but still fell to the temptation to switch them on all at once. Our aeroplane, that stayed above only had
to record all the data. They were like a crow that cried with its mouth open! If not more. We had all
the data needed—which stations, where, which bands used! The whole plan was relayed to me. We
passed the information to the Egyptians, so that they could use it if they decided to cross the Suez.
The Chief Military Advisor was so pleased, that he gave me permission to send telegrams without
other signatures. Telegrams! Cyphered data. Usually one had to have eight signatures. He told me:
‘I trust you. You are a decent man, a true General, I can see it. It’s a pity that you are not going to
stay here with me.’
As a result I began sending my own telegrams. Before that it was a real torture—go there, sign, re-
write and sign again. We finished our business and flew away. It took us about eighteen days or so!
What is interesting is that at the beginning, I had a Russian driver, then he was changed to an
Egyptian. He knew the Russian language well, but tried to conceal it. A day before we left, I decided
to buy a present for my daughter—she was a pretty girl then. I had a translator and guards with me all
the time. We came to the shop, which was owned by an Armenian, who spoke Russian well and sold
jewellery. I was looking for cheap rings.
‘How much?!’
‘So and so.’
I liked one, but the price was still too high for me, and decided to leave.
‘Don’t worry, I’ll make a discount.’ So I bought that small golden ring for my girl. On the next day,
our advisors came to me:
‘Vassilii Ivanovich, my wife is here with a kid, she can’t return home. Turkey and Czechoslovakia
won’t allow air traffic to overfly their territory.’
It happened to be a daughter of the famous aircraft designer Polikarpov. We took her to Moscow
with us. At night, we landed in Moscow, reported to Borzov, and got a commendation. I said:
‘Comrade Commander! Every armed force has its representative in Egypt, except Aviation …’
‘What do you suggest?’
‘An advisor!’
‘We will arrange an order today.’
‘We need to send there such and such aeroplanes …’ Everything was done.
Our new commander was introduced, and the true work had begun. Our aeroplanes flew a lot
there, but the replacement was sent from the VVS ChF [Black Sea Fleet]. Mironenko, CiC of VVS
ChF did all the changes then.

You mentioned Borzov. What is your opinion about Ivan Ivanovich?

Borzov was a smart man. He had a God’s gift. He wasn’t highly educated, even though he graduated
from the Naval Academy with honours. But he was too prone to drinking, and when he did drink, he
could do many mistakes. He would demote people and then promote them back. He was a moody
man, so to say.

Was he a good man?

He was a good pilot! I taught him to fly in 1948. He was about to graduate from the Academy, where
he studied for three years, and had to have some practice to re-qualify. Borzov came to me, to
Klopitsy, because our regiment was just 60 km away from Leningrad. The regiment commander said
to me: ‘Make observation flights with him.’
I flew three observation flights with him. Then he was an instructor at the Naval Academy. Like
many other pilots, there was no need for him after the war. He went to Moscow and asked for an
audience with Vassilii Stalin [Josef’s Stalin’s son, and a pilot]. Stalin called Preobrazhenskiy [Josef
Stalin’s deputy]: ‘Borzov is a real gem!’
Preobrazhenskiy sent Borzov as a division commander to the Pacific fleet. There he got a rank of
General. I came there as a regiment commander, when he was there as a chief of staff of the division.
After that, he was appointed as a deputy commander of aviation for the 5th Fleet. There was a tragedy
with the Americans … Then the Northern Fleet, then Riga, and then Commander of the Baltic Fleet
Aviation. From there he went as a deputy for Preobrazhenskiy …

And what about Chief Air Marshal Kutakhov?

They were alike. Kutakhov would always find something to punish.

He looks very soft on the portraits.

Once, I was in Moscow. It was Friday, 19.00 hours. I was caught and informed: ‘Tomorrow, on
Saturday, at 09.00 hours you will report to the Commander-in Chief of Aviation, your deputies are to
be there as well. Bring them from Leningrad with the documents and schemes of ships …’
Can you imagine?! 19.00 hours, hot weather, everybody is leaving out of town to their dacha
[country house or cottage]. I began solving this problem. I called Borzov immediately, told him about
everything.
‘What is he thinking?’ And then swearing, he was famous for bad words.
‘He’s gone nuts?! He needs a visit to a psychiatrist!’
‘Please, give me an aeroplane, so that it will fly to Leningrad at 03.00 hours, collect my men at
05.00 hours, so that they will be in Moscow at least half an hour before 09.00.’
Borzov gave an order, and everything worked out well. At 09.00 we were there. Everybody was
surprised, that we managed to be on time. Kutakhov came in, then his Deputy twice HSU Marshal of
Aviation, then his deputy for aviation weapons Mishuk. When he was going past me, he said: ‘You
seem to have lost some weight.’
‘We have to work on Saturdays and Sundays.’
‘It’s good.’
He went and sat at his place. A commission began its work. One made his report, another one, and
so on until the last one finished reporting. Then Kutakhov stood up and walked behind me. I sat at the
table, while he stood behind me silently. I sat. Maybe, he expected that I would stand up or turn
around? I sat—no orders were issued. And everybody sat silently.
‘Minakov! Why in February, on such date didn’t you meet me in Leningrad?’
I stood up: ‘Comrade Commander-in Chief, I considered it impossible.’
‘Why?’
 ‘The Minister of Defence was present, five other ministers, CiCs of different branches of the
Armed Forces. I decided it to be incorrect to bother you.’
‘And how does the Communist Party teach us? You could have found time, even at midnight, you
could have come to my hotel, we would have a cup of tea together and a chat.’
‘I will consider it next time, comrade Commander!’
‘Yes, you will!’ And he went back to his seat, pleased how he caught me.
During the break everybody began praising him: ‘What a great man your Commander is! How open
hearted he is! How he cares about you!’
Well, that’s about everything. If you will have more questions, call me later.
 15

Survivors

The Tu-95 Bear, the Tu-22M Backfire, and the Tu-160 Blackjack all remain in service with the
Russian Federation and in all probability will for some time. The Xian H-6, the Chinese licence-built
Tu-16 Badger, also continues in service (and production) with China. All the other Soviet strategic
bombers such as the Bison, the Blinder, and the Soviet-built Badgers—even those in foreign service
—have now been retired. Museum examples of the retired bombers and of some experimental Soviet
bombers have been preserved; the M-50 Bounder and the T-4 Sotka are notable among the
experimental bombers, preserved at the Central Air Force Museum at Monino outside of Moscow.
The lone preserved Soviet Tu-4 Bull is also displayed at Monino.
Unfortunately, it now appears that many of the large bombers will no longer be protected, and most
of the smaller exhibits and aircraft may be moved to a new ‘museum’, Patriot Park, at Kubinka, near
Moscow, which opened in 2016. This means that the remaining large aircraft, including the unique M-
50 Bounder and the T-4 Sotka will be allowed to become derelict, with no protection and no
maintenance, no doubt leading to their eventual demise, unless measures are taken to protect them.
Below is a semi-comprehensive list of survivors of the retired bombers that are still in existence as
of the time of writing (2018). Many photographs of these aircraft have already appeared in this book,
and more are in the colour plates section.

Belarus
A Tu-16KS has been preserved at Orsha.

China
One of the most interesting, if not downright bizarre adaptations of the Tu-4 is still preserved in
China, at the air museum at Datangshan. It is a turboprop-powered AWACS version of the Tu-4,
complete with a large circular fairing (roto-dome) mounted above the fuselage, which covered the
revolving radar. Another turboprop-engined Tu-4 is preserved at Datangshan, carrying a target drone
under each wing (the drones are copies of the American Firebee drones, the Chinese acquiring the
Firebees during the Vietnam War). In both examples, the original radial piston engines have been
replaced by Chinese-built copies of the Soviet Ivchenko AI-20 turboprops.
Not surprisingly, given that it is still an active bomber with the PLAAF, some older Badgers have
been preserved, photographs of one of which appear in the text.
Indonesia
At least one Badger, a Tu-16KS, is on display at the Air Force Museum, in Yogyakarta. This example
has the AS-1 (KS-1 Kometa) Kennel missiles under the wings.

Russia
Surprisingly, only one Tu-4 has been preserved in Russia, and now resides at Monino. Unlike the
Chinese examples, it has preserved its original 23-mm cannon armament and Shevtsov piston engines
and gives a good idea of what an operational Tu-4 bomber would have looked like. In addition to the
Tu-4, two Tu-16s (a Tu-16K-11-16 and a Tu-16R), an early Tu-95 (the experimental Tu-95N), the
first Tu-95MS, a Tu-22 Blinder-A, a Tu-22M0 Backfire-A, and a 3MD Bison-C have all been
preserved and are on exhibit outside due to their size.
Although the Russian museum at Monino contains examples of most of the post-war bombers
described in this book, the future of these aircraft at the time of writing remains unclear (2018). The
Gagarin (Zhukovskiy) Air Force Academy next door, whose guards protect the outdoor aircraft at
Monino, is apparently closing. The smaller aircraft are scheduled to be moved to a new site, the new
Patriot Park (which opened in 2016) at Kubinka, near Moscow, which is apparently more of a
military-themed amusement park than a museum. However, the important point is that at least the
smaller aircraft will be preserved. Unfortunately, due to their size, the larger outdoor exhibits, such as
the M-50 Bounder, Tu-4 Bomber, and the T-4 Sotka are to remain in situ at Monino, to be left to an
uncertain future. Those of us, such as this author, who are fascinated by Soviet aviation can only hope
that a solution is found that will preserve these important aerial and historical artefacts.
In addition to the bombers preserved (for the moment at least) at Monino, other bombers have been
preserved at the air base at Dyagilevo (near the city of Ryazan) and the Museum of Long-range
Aviation at Engels (near the city of Saratov). An early missile-carrying Tu-16 has been preserved at
the Togliatti Technical Museum at Togliatti, Russia, and a Tu-16R has been preserved as a gate
guardian at Akhtubinsk, the site of the GK NII VVS, the Soviet Air Force’s test facility. A Tu-16A has
been preserved at Smolensk.
Among the aircraft preserved at Engels are a Tu-95K, a Tu-134UBL, and a 3MS-2 Bison tanker.
The museum at Engels has preserved no less than five Tu-22 Blinders on the base (with one at least
featuring the ECM tail fairing), including a Tu-22U trainer, a Tu-22KD, a Tu-22PD, and a Tu-22RDM
with another Tu-22 serving as a gate guardian. The Tu-134UBL, the trainer for Backfires, is
preserved here also. Just outside the air base, a Tu-16 is preserved; another Tu-22 Blinder
(apparently a Tu-22KD Blinder-C) is preserved in the nearby town of Saratov. Besides the aircraft,
some missiles, such as the AS-3 (Kh-20) Kangaroo, AS-4 (Kh-22) Kitchen, and the AS-5 (KSR-2)
Kelt are also preserved at Engels.
The aircraft preserved at the air base at Dyagilevo include a Tu-22M2 Backfire-B, a Tu-22M3
Backfire-C that was experimentally fitted with the NK-32 engines, and a M-4 Bison tanker (perhaps
the only M-4 surviving). Also preserved are a Tu-22PD, a Tu-95K-22, a Tu-16R with the ECM
Sirena tail fairing, a VM-T Atlant, and a Tu-16K-22 as a gate guardian. In addition, some missiles,
such as the AS-3 (Kh-20) Kangaroo, AS-4 (Kh-22) Kitchen, and the AS-5 (KSR-2) Kelt are
displayed outside along with the bombers. The AS-15 (Kh-55 Granat) Kent and the AS-16 (Kh-15)
Kickback missiles are exhibited inside the small indoor museum.

Ukraine
As its legacy as a successor state to the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited some of the Soviet bombers
still in service at that time, in 1991. Among these were the Tu-22 Blinder, the Tu-22M Backfire, the
early Tu-142 (a ‘Centipede’), the Tu-142MZ, and the Tu-160 Blackjack. Examples of all these have
been preserved, some at the museum at Poltava, and some at the State Aviation Museum at Kiev.
Ukraine inherited some Badgers from the Soviet Union, but it is unclear how many have been
preserved there. The Poltava Museum of Long-Range Aviation does have a Tu-16K-11-16 in its
collection. In addition, the museum at Poltava also has a Tu-22KPD Blinder, a Tu-22M3 Backfire-C,
a Tu-95MS Bear-H, and a Tu-160 Blackjack. The State Aviation Museum at Kiev has in its collection
a Tu-22M0 Backfire-A, a Tu-22M2 Backfire-B, a Tu-22M3 Backfire-C, a Tu-134UBL bomber
trainer, and a Tu-142MZ Bear-F.

Soviet Strategic Bomber Bases

At the beginning of the 1970s, there were five main strategic bomber bases in the Soviet Union; these
were Engels, Mozdok, Semipalatinsk, Ukrainka, and Uzin. These were located in the western or
southern parts of the Soviet Union, including Ukrainka, which was located in the southern portion of
the Soviet Far East. For most of these bases, these would not seem to be the best places to locate
bombers whose mission, among others, was to attack the United States, but there were so-called
‘jump’ bases that the aircraft could operate from, putting them closer to this potential target. It should
also be remembered that objectives in Europe and China were also included in the mission profiles
of the Soviet strategic bombers, so these bases were well-placed for these potential targets.
These bases, and others (some of which are still in use by Russia and other Soviet successor
states), are described below.
Soviet strategic bomber air bases. Base names added by the author. (Courtesy of the University of Texas Libraries, The University of
Texas at Austin)

Baranovichi (Byelorussia)
This base, now home to Belarusian MiG-29 fighters, was a strategic bomber base during the Soviet
era and housed Tu-16 Badgers.

Dyagilevo (near Ryazan)

Like Engels, some bombers, such as Tu-95K-22s, were sent here for scrapping. This base is
apparently used for training purposes now, and is the main training centre for strategic bombers. In
addition, some bombers may be stored here. Some of the bombers sent here for disposal have been
preserved and are listed in the Survivors Section.

Engels (near Saratov)

During the Soviet period, this was one of the main strategic bomber bases, located near Saratov on
the Volga. As of the present (2018), it is still a major air base, and the Tu-160s are based here. As of
2007, it was reported that twenty Tu-95MS Bear-Hs, fourteen Tu-160s, and an unknown number of
Tu-22M3s were based here.
Engels was also the place where the scrapping of strategic bombers took place, using equipment
supplied by the United States under the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Programme. The bombers
were destroyed either because of arms limitation treaties, because they were obsolete, or both. Over
a hundred bombers, including Bears, Blinders, and Backfires have been scrapped here.
Engels is also the site of the Museum of Long-Range Aviation and has among other aircraft a 3MS-2
Bison tanker. As with Dyagilevo, some of the bombers sent to Engels for disposal have been
preserved, such as the Tu-95K-22 Bear-G.

Mozdok (Caucasus)
At one time a strategic bomber base, the bombers have been moved from here because of its
proximity to the persistent trouble spot of Chechnya (Mozdok is located in the Caucasus region), and
the bombers were probably considered too tempting a target for would-be saboteurs.

Poltava (Ukraine)
The DA used this air base, located in Ukraine, as a strategic bomber base until 1991, when the Soviet
Union was dissolved. It was used for some time afterwards by the Ukrainian Air Force, who based
Tu-22M3s there, but it now appears to no longer be in military use. There is a museum located here,
with some Soviet aircraft displayed, including bombers, with the only Tu-160 Blackjack on public
display (and apparently the only Ukrainian Tu-160 to survive).

Semipalatinsk (Kazakhstan)
This air base, also known as Dolon, was a major strategic air base during the Soviet period. Not only
were strategic bombers based here, but also nuclear tests were undertaken near the base during the
1950s into the early 1960s, before aboveground nuclear testing was banned under the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the strategic bombers were flown
from here to Russia (Ukrainka air base) by 1994, ending its use as a strategic bomber base.

Ukrainka (Soviet/Russian Far East)

This air base, located just north of the border with Manchuria, China, was one of the Soviet Union’s
main strategic air bases, and is still one of Russia’s largest strategic bomber bases. Tu-95MS are
currently based here, although in the past, it has housed Tu-22 Blinders, Tu-95K Bear-Bs, and Tu-
95K-22 Bear-Gs. When Kazakhstan became independent with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Tu-
95s from the former Soviet air base at Semipalatinsk (Dolon) were transferred here. At least one
source indicates a Bison may be preserved here.

Uzin (near Kiev)

During the Soviet period, this was one of the main strategic bomber bases. With the independence of
Ukraine, and the decision of Ukraine to dispense with the strategic bombers it inherited from the
Soviet Union, no strategic bombers are based here anymore, although it is now a Ukrainian Air Force
base.
Disposition of Soviet Strategic Bombers as of 1990

Disposition of Russian Long-range Strategic Bombers as of 2017 (Does

not include Tu-22M3s nor Tu-142s)

As discussed previously, the Russian armed forces were reorganised in 2015. As of 2016, Russian
Long-range Aviation Command consisted of six divisions, of which two are heavy bomber divisions
equipped with Tu-95MS and Tu-160s (presumably, the other four divisions are Tu-22M3 Backfire-C
equipped divisions). In addition to the missiles, the Tu-95s can carry conventional free-fall bombs,
and modifications are being made to the Tu-160 to enable them to carry free-fall bombs. Please note
that the Tu-22M3 Backfire-Cs, which are capable of carrying nuclear-armed missiles, are not
included in the above table, and neither are the Tu-142 Bear-F ASW aircraft, which are operated by
the Russian Navy, although these can also carry nuclear-armed missiles.
As compared to the table for the Soviet bombers in 1990, one can see that several of the bombers
are not included in the table for the Russian bombers in 2017; the M-4/3M Bison, the Tu-16 Badger,
and the Tu-22 Blinder, all of which are no longer in service. It is unclear from the record if any of
these aircraft remain preserved in storage, as opposed to preserved in museums (or scrapped). The
Tu-22M3 is also not included, as it is a medium-range strategic bomber, not a long-range strategic
bomber. The Tu-142 Bear-F is not included in either table, as it is technically a long-range ASW
aircraft, not a long-range strategic bomber.
 APPENDIX I

Soviet Strategic Bomber Specifications

Tu-4 Bull

Tu-95 Bear
M-4/3M Bison

Tu-16 Badger
Tu-22 Blinder

Tu-22M Backfire
Tu-160 Blackjack
 APPENDIX II

Production Figures

Tu-4 Bull
Total 847

Production notes
Production numbers on the Tu-4 vary considerably, and it is not possible to construct a complete
production table. For example, the numbers I have seen for total production are: 847; nearly 1,000;
1,195; 1,296; and around 1,300. Based upon MAP sources, the figure is 847, which is the figure I
have quoted in the Tu-4 section, and in the abbreviated table above, as this seems to be the most
authoritative number.
The Tu-4 was produced at three plants—Z.22 at Kazan’, Z.18 at Kuibyshev (Samara), and Z.23 at
Fili, in Moscow. Z.22 began producing the Tu-16 Badger in 1953, Z.18 began producing the Tu-95
Bear in 1955, and Z.23 began producing the M-4 Bison in 1954. Production started with the first
production aircraft in 1947 until the Tu-95 replaced the Tu-4 in production, which would give a
production run of from 1947 to possibly as late as 1955 (large-scale production did not start until
1948, and at least two sources have production ending in 1952, which seems more probable than
1955). By comparison, the Tu-4’s ‘twin’, the B-29, was produced from 1943 to 1946, and was
produced in much larger numbers, with some 3,970 being produced.

Tu-95 Bear

Production Notes
The Tu-95 was produced from 1954 until 1994 at two plants only—Z.18 at Kuibyshev (Samara) and
Z.86 at Taganrog. The Tu-95MS Bear-H was produced at Taganrog from 1981–83, when production
shifted to Kuibyshev, where production ended in 1992. Only eighteen Tu-142s were produced at
Kuibyshev before production shifted to Taganrog, where production ended in 1994—the end of all
Bear production. Note that the Tu-95K-22, or Bear-G, is not included in the production table as these
were all conversions from earlier Tu-95Ks. The Tu-95K first flew in 1956 and was produced until
1962 at Z.18, but it is unclear from the record how many were built.

M-4/3M Bison

Production Notes
Note that the three VM-Ts were conversions, and not new build aircraft. The Bisons were built at
Z.23 in Moscow (Fili), where they replaced the Tu-4 from 1954. Production continued until 1960,
when the Myasishchev OKB was closed.

Tu-16 Badger

Production Notes
The Tu-16 was produced from 1954–62, at three different plants. The main plant was at Kazan’, Plant
No. 22, located on the lower Volga, where some 800 were produced until production stopped in 1962
(after which production of the Tu-22 Blinder began). Plant No. 1 in Kuibyshev (today’s Samara), on
the upper Volga, built 543 Tu-16s. Plant No. 64 at Voronezh, on the upper Don, produced 166 Tu-16s
by 1957, when production was stopped there.
The above table shows the production of the new-build Tu-16s. It should be kept in mind that the
Tu-16 was converted into many more variants than is indicated by this table. For example, many Tu-
16s were converted into other Tu-16 variants both in the factory, and sometimes in the field. Some
Tu-16s were converted more than once, and bore multiple designations over their lifetimes.

Tu-22 Blinder (Figures Taken from ‘Tu-22 Blinder’)

Production Notes
A total of 311 Blinders of all types were built at Z.22 in Kazan’. This was the only plant that
constructed new-build production Blinders.

Tu-22M Backfire

Production Notes
All of the Tu-22M Backfires were built at Z.22 in Kazan’, from 1972–1993 for the production
examples (the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3). The Tu-22M2 was built from 1972-84. The Tu-22M3 was
built from 1978–93. The Backfire succeeded the Blinder on the production line at Z.22.

Tu-160 Blackjack

Production Notes
As with the earlier Tu-22 Blinder and Tu-22M Backfire, all the Blackjacks have been built at Z.22 in
Kazan’.
 APPENDIX III

Soviet Strategic Bombers in Plastic

Due to their size, there are no 1/32nd scale injection-moulded kits specifically of Soviet strategic
bombers except for the Tu-4 (as the B-29), and only the Tu-4 (as the B-29) exists in 1/48th scale. The
situation in the smaller scales is much better (1/72nd scale and smaller), as there are now good kits of
all the major types, and this also includes some experimental versions such as the M-50 Bounder and
the T-4 ‘Sotka’. Below, I describe some of the kits available in 1/72nd scale and larger.
1/32nd Scale—as mentioned above, there are none specifically produced in this large scale, due
to their size. The only exception is the Combat Models/ID Models vacuform kit of the B-29, which
could be modified into a Tu-4 Bull, for those ambitious enough to build this rather basic and gigantic
kit, and who happens to have the space to display the resulting immense model.
Combat Models/ID Models B-29 Superfortress—this is a very basic vacuform kit of the B-29,
with no propellers, interior, landing gear (other than the wheels), etc. It consists of the main parts of
the airframe, all in fairly thick vacuformed plastic, and includes clear parts. With a great deal of
effort, it can be built, possibly to represent an early Tu-4 Bull, if suitably large Soviet markings could
be sourced or made. Not for the faint of heart, it would make for a very impressive (and enormous)
model of a Soviet bomber; just the model to place next to your Trumpeter 1/32nd scale MiG-15.
1/48th Scale—There is only one mainstream injection-moulded kit that can be made into a Soviet
strategic bomber, the Monogram (now Revell or Revell/Monogram) B-29.
Monogram B-29 Superfortress—with some modifications, such as bigger guns for the turrets,
lowering the profile of the turrets, and using Soviet markings, this kit could be made into a very
reasonable facsimile of the Tu-4 Bull; if you used the kit turrets but added longer guns, it could be
made to represent an early Tu-4. The kit itself is a good one, with a more than acceptable amount of
detail, including a detailed cockpit interior and bomb bay, although it does have raised panel lines.
Be forewarned that this is a very large model when built, one of the biggest mainstream injection-
moulded plastic kits ever manufactured. Nonetheless, it would look very impressive next to a 1/48th
scale MiG-15 model, for example.

1/72nd Scale
Aircraft in Miniature Tu-95 Bear—for years, this kit was the only kit of the Tu-95 available in this
popular scale (my preferred scale). The kit represents a Tu-95MR Bear-E. This is a vacuform kit, and
although it has a pre-cut vacuform fuselage and wing mouldings, and some resin parts, such as the
engine nacelles and the horizontal tail planes, it is still mainly a vacuform kit, with all the effort that
that entails in building and finishing. In particular, the plastic parts need rescribing, as the engraved
panel lines present are quite soft and somewhat uncertain in execution and need to be redone.
However, the vacuform plastic is rather thick and sturdy, and the fuselage features an internal ‘keel’ to
give it rigidity.
A nice feature is that both the fuselage and the wings have already been separated from their
vacuform backing sheet, although additional sanding will need to be done to the parts, especially the
wing trailing edges. The rather extensive white metal parts, although needing some cleaning up, are
for the most part well done (the landing gear legs and wheels are quite nicely done), although the
propellers should probably be replaced by aftermarket items as the blades are too narrow in chord.
The decals appear to be well done, and even contain silver decals to represent the metal frames on
the clear parts. While with a not inconsiderable effort it can be made into a reasonable representation
of the Tu-95, it has been superseded by the Amodel Tu-95 Bear kit in terms of a kit of the early Tu-95.
Due to the poor quality of the engraved panel lines, and the rescribing that this necessitates, in
addition to its vacuform nature, this kit is suitable only for those modellers experienced with
vacuform kits and who like a challenge.
Amodel Myasishchev 3M Bison—an ‘Amonster’ kit, it is one of Amodel’s early ventures in this
format, so it appears to be a bit rougher than some of their later examples. The large Amodel kits with
the main components in fibreglass-resin are sometimes referred to as ‘Amonster’ kits, and with good
reason, as they are very large or, indeed, ‘monstrous’ kits. The polyurethane resin used with most
resin kits is often rather soft, and prone to warping (even over time, straight pieces can become
warped); the fibreglass-resin used in the Amonster kits is very hard and strong with little chance of
warping with age (I truly believe you could build a house with this stuff). If you wish to model the
most important bomber version of the Bison, this kit is the only game in town. As with all of the
Amonster kits, with some patience and some filler, it can no doubt be built into an accurate and
imposing representation of this aircraft.
Amodel Myasishchev 3MD Bison—similar to the 3M Bison kit, with which it shares some
components; if you wish to build a Stilyaga in 1/72nd scale, this is your choice, period. As with all
the Amonster kits, with a little patience (and perhaps a bit of filler), in the end it will give you a
striking, and large addition to your collection of Soviet models.
Amodel Myasishchev M-50 Bounder—this kit is of the enormous (intended to be) supersonic
experimental six-engined Bounder jet bomber. As with most large Amodel kits, this kit has its main
components in a hard fibreglass-resin—with most of the fuselage and the wings in fibreglass-resin—
with the front part of the fuselage and detail parts, such as the cockpit and landing gear, in injection-
moulded plastic. When built up, this is a huge model, so make sure you have plenty of space, time,
patience, and superglue before tackling this kit. Still, it is an extremely impressive model that would
be the centrepiece of any collection.
Amodel Sukhoi T-4 Sotka—another of the Amonster series, I have this kit, and have seen it built
up; it is very impressive, looking very much like a somewhat downscaled North American XB-70
Valkyrie. The kit consists of two large fibreglass-resin parts for the one-piece delta wing and the one-
piece engine mounting, with the rest of the parts, including the fuselage, being done in Amodel’s
typical slightly soft, medium grey injection-moulded plastic. As with most limited-run kits, it is a bit
rough around the edges, but with a little care, it should build up into a very nice model. The resulting
model will be large, but not as large as the XB-70, and would make a striking addition to any Soviet
post-war model collection.
Amodel Tu-95M/U Bear—this is a mixed-media kit (another of the Amonster kits), with the largest
parts such as the two wings, and the one-piece centre and rear fuselage being moulded in fibreglass-
resin, while the rest of the kit is injection-moulded in polystyrene plastic, including the front and
rearmost parts of the fuselage. The only other kits of an early Tu-95 are the Aircraft in Miniature
vacuform Tu-95 (see previous entry) and the ancient Contrail vacuform kit (see further on).
Unlike the Aircraft in Miniature kit, which depicts a reconnaissance version of the Tu-95, the Tu-
95MR (Bear-E), the Amodel kit depicts the free-fall bomber version, the Tu-95M (Bear-A), and its
training version, the Tu-95U, which it was used as after its active bomber service days were over. As
such, it is lacking in some of the lumps and bumps, and noticeably the refuelling probe, present in the
Aircraft in Miniature kit. If you wish to do a non-free-fall bomber version of this kit, you will have to
provide the various bits and bobs yourself, as I am not aware of any conversion sets for this kit.
However, an interesting version to do would be a ‘K’ or ‘KD’ version, with an AS-3 Kangaroo
missile, which is available as a stand-alone kit from Amodel. You would have to build the ‘duck-
billed’ radar nose yourself, and the IFR probe, if you wished to build the ‘KD’ version.
As with all of the Amonster series, the fibreglass-resin parts are very hard, generally with good,
delicate engraving. Sometimes the engraving is a little too delicate and occasionally disappears
altogether, and should be deepened a bit with a scribing tool. The bomb bay is not open, so if you
wish to do an opened bomb bay, you will have to cut the parts out and detail it yourself, no easy task
given the hardness of the fibreglass-resin and the lack of photographs of the bomb bay. Unfortunately
for the modeller, the Soviets were not usually in the habit of photographing (or allowing
photographing of) the bomb bays of their nuclear bombers.
The cockpit area is detailed, however, and better than the sparse cockpit on the Trumpeter Bear.
Strangely, despite this being a glass-nosed Bear, the bombardier station is absent. The rear fuselage,
which contains the stations for the observer/gunner, and the tail gunner, is nicely detailed. All these
parts, including the entire front fuselage, are provided in a relatively soft, grey polystyrene plastic
that is easy to work with. Overall, the moulding on the plastic parts is reasonably good, with not too
much flash, although sometimes the engraving is a little uncertain (as with the fibreglass-resin parts),
and would benefit from a going over with a scribing tool in places, such as a good, sharp hobby knife.
The landing gear, done in plastic, are rather complicated, so it is recommended that you follow the
well-illustrated instruction sheet, which also includes a decal placement guide for two versions of
this aircraft, depicted at different times in its service.
The fibreglass-resin wings are attached to the fuselage by a simple butt join, but Amodel have
provided two holes on each wings, which line up with two holes on each side of the fuselage (the
fuselage holes on my kit did not go all the way through, and had to be drilled out). These holes are
there no doubt with the intention that the modeller will use spars to strengthen the join. My model will
feature two sturdy brass tubes passing through the fuselage, connecting both wings to the fuselage,
which along with generous amounts of superglue that I intend on using, should give a strong enough
join—that is the plan, at any rate.
The injection-moulded clear parts are certainly usable, although they would probably benefit from
a dipping in your clear gloss coat of choice, such as Future floor polish, or some equivalent.
There is a small decal sheet, with some aircraft numbers, Soviet stars, and stencilling, all in red.
Soviet bombers of this era (60’s—80’s) were very plainly adorned. The register of the decals looks
good, although I will probably give them a good coating of a clear gloss just to strengthen them. I
often do this with my decals, whatever their provenance, just to be on the safe side.
Other than the guns for the turrets, no armament is provided, such as bombs or missiles. However,
since the Tu-95M dropped free-fall bombs carried in its bomb bay, these would not be visible
anyway, absent an open bomb bay, which this kit lacks. It would be possible to convert this into a
missile carrier, such as one of the ‘K’ versions, but the conversion would have to be done by the
modeller, there unfortunately being no commercial conversion sets for these variants.
I can recommend this kit if you wish to do an early (pre-Tu-142/Tu-95MS) Bear version, with the
three gun turrets. This should definitely not be your first kit, due to its size and the fibreglass-resin
construction of the large parts (which involve using cyanoacrylates or ‘superglues’), but it should be
within the abilities of any reasonably experienced modeller, especially any who have worked with
large models before, and resin kits. It almost goes without mentioning, but as a 1/72nd scale
representation of a rather large four-engined strategic bomber, this kit will build into a large model,
and also an extremely impressive one, with its thirty-two counter-rotating propellers. Whenever I get
around to finishing mine, it will certainly be the centrepiece of my collection.
Amodel Tu-95MS Bear H—as with the above kit, this is a mixed media kit from the Amonster
series. This represents the later version of the Tu-95 developed from the Tu-142 maritime
reconnaissance version. It represents the same Bear version as one of the Trumpeter kits (see further
on), and has been superseded by that kit. This kit is very hard to find, and now, with the availability
of the easier-to-build (and cheaper) Trumpeter kit, probably only suitable for collectors.
Amodel Tu-114 Cleat—this kit is similar to the Tu-95M/U kit, but with some different parts,
notably the larger fuselage to allow the airliner derivative of the Bear to be constructed. The same
comments generally apply.
Amodel Tu-116—basically the same kit as the Tu-95M/U, except representing the VIP passenger
variant of the Bear. The same comments generally apply.
Amodel Tu-126 Moss—another in the Amonster series, this kit represents the AWACS aircraft
developed from the Tu-114 airliner, itself developed from the Tu-95 bomber.
Amodel Tu-134UBL Crusty-B—believe it or not, our friends at Amodel (who seem intent on
kitting every Soviet aircraft ever made regardless of size, bless them), have an all-plastic kit of this
bomber trainer. It is based upon their transport kit of this aircraft, with the distinctive Backfire-C type
radar nose added. If it is like other Amodel kits, it probably needs a bit of work, but should turn into
an accurate and impressive model. Just the model to have sitting alongside your Trumpeter Tu-22M
Backfire model. At 1/72nd scale, it should be a good-sized model.
Amodel Tu-160 Blackjack—this is another kit from the Amonster series. Although it would be a
more difficult build than the Trumpeter kit because of the presence of the large fibreglass/resin
pieces, it is probably a bit more accurate than the nonetheless fine Trumpeter kit, as Amodel
specialise in Soviet/Russian subjects, and have more access to actual examples. Still the Trumpeter
example probably supersedes this kit because of cost, and ease-of-assembly (and availability).
Contrail Tu-20 Bear—As an indication of how old this vacuform kit is it still has the Bear
labelled with the long-obsolete (and inaccurate) designation of ‘Tu-20’. At the time of its introduction
in the 1970s, it was the only kit of the Bear in 1/72nd scale (and apparently the first). It had most of
the parts in vacuform plastic, which needed to be freed from their backing sheets, with the landing
gear and propellers moulded in injection-moulded plastic, and it included the large Kangaroo stand-
off missile, also in vacuform plastic. It contained a basic decal sheet. Now suitable only for
collectors of rare kits, if you can even find this kit.
ESCI Tu-22 Blinder—although the ESCI brand stopped production some years ago when the
company unfortunately failed, this kit has been re-released by Italeri and Revell. I have built one, and
it went together well, with good surface detail, and it looked very impressive when built. What was
not so impressive were the many inaccuracies which I learned of after I had built the model, which
plagued the basic design of the kit. This was not entirely ESCI’s fault, as this kit was designed in the
1980s during the Cold War, when access to Soviet strategic nuclear bombers was not exactly easy (or
safe) for Western kit manufacturers (ESCI was an Italian manufacturer).
As a result of its inaccuracies that are not present in the new Modelsvit kit, which is based on an
extant Tu-22 Ukrainian museum aircraft, this kit cannot be recommended, unless you are prepared to
do a considerable amount of work to correct the inaccuracies. These include a fuselage that is too
short by no less than ten scale feet, inaccurately done engine nacelles (they would be more accurate if
they were turned around), an inaccurate nose cone (inappropriate for the missile-carrying version that
this kit represents), just to name a few of its shortcomings. Strangely enough, the Kitchen missile that
is provided with the kit is not too bad of a representation.
There was a resin correction kit, manufactured by L&M; I do not know if it is produced anymore,
but it can still be found on such sites as eBay. This kit corrects some of the most glaring inaccuracies,
such as the nose, the horizontal tail planes, and the short fuselage (it includes a resin insert to make
the fuselage the correct length). I have this conversion kit, and it is quite nice with well-moulded
resin, but it would probably be easier (and in the end, cheaper) just to buy the Modelsvit kit.
Therefore, I have to recommend the Modelsvit kit over the ESCI kit and its rebrandings.
ESCI Tu-22M Backfire—as with the Tu-22 Blinder, this was a brave endeavour by ESCI,
considering the size of the kit and the general lack of knowledge regarding the exact layout and details
of Soviet strategic bombers in the 1980s, when this kit was designed and produced. During the Cold
War, the Soviets did not normally allow Westerners to get very close to their strategic bombers. As an
indication of the age of this kit, it even includes the spurious ‘Tu-26’ designation as an alternate
designation for the Tu-22M. Like the Blinder, it could be built into an impressive-looking model; like
the Blinder kit, it suffered from inaccuracies.
These inaccuracies were not to quite the same extent as with the Blinder kit (for example, it was
not a scale 10 feet short), perhaps as better aerial photographs were apparently available for the
Backfire, but there were still quite a few shape and moulding errors. However, this kit, if you can find
it (I do not believe that Revell or any other manufacturer ever re-released this kit), has been
superseded by the far superior Trumpeter kit. Although long out of production, you can still find it on
eBay, however. As far as I know, there was never a correction kit made for this. Another one for the
collector, only, I am afraid.
Hobbycraft Tu-16 Badger—this is the Trumpeter Badger kit rebranded with markings for a
camouflaged Iraqi version. It can be purchased for a quite reasonable sum online, such as on eBay.
Unfortunately, this kit does not appear to be in production anymore and can be difficult to find.
Modelist (and Maquette?) Tu-4 Bull—this is the Academy B-29 Superfortress (a very nice kit)
with some additions, such as different turrets (low profile and with the 23-mm cannons) and Soviet
markings, to turn it into a good approximation of the Tu-4 Bull. I do not believe the engine
installations have been changed (the Tu-4’s Shvetsov engines featured different exhausts than the B-
29), so it is not an entirely accurate representation of the Bull, but built-up and with Soviet markings
it certainly looks the part. If early Soviet cruise missiles such as the AS-1 Kennel (available as stand-
alone kits from Amodel) are added to the model, it can be made into a very interesting variation on
the basic B-29 design, the Tu-4K (Bull-B). If you wished to do this conversion yourself, you could
use the Academy B-29 kit with the Olimp Models resin Tu-4 armament set, which includes the low
profile turrets and 23-mm cannons. Olimp Models also make a Tu-4 powerplant set for those who
want to make an exact replica of a Tu-4. At one time, there was even a conversion kit to make the
Academy B-29 kit itself into the Chinese turboprop-powered AWACS version. I have seen this
conversion built up, and it is certainly remarkable-looking. This AWACS conversion kit can still be
found occasionally, but be prepared to pay a premium price for it.
Modelist Tu-16 Badger—rebrandings of the Trumpeter Badger-K kits. The same general
comments apply.
Modelsvit Tu-22KD Blinder—with the fairly recent release of this kit (November 2015), the
modeller is finally presented with an accurate model of this rather attractive supersonic Soviet
bomber, in this case the Tu-22KD Blinder-B missile carrier. This Ukrainian company have based
their kit on a still extant Ukrainian museum example, which has enabled them to avoid the
inaccuracies of the earlier ESCI kit. The kit is a limited edition kit and therefore something of a short-
run affair, which means no locating tabs, but there is little flash and the surface detail is good, and so
is the cockpit detail with each ejection seat consisting of no less than thirteen parts.
Unfortunately, little of the interior detail can be seen on the finished model, but some judicious
scribing and cutting on a separate lower fuselage piece would allow the more experienced modeller
to display the lower hatches open, which would allow the seats to be displayed, lowered down, as
they were on the actual aircraft. In addition, there is an upper hatch above the navigator’s position,
which could be posed in the open position, to allow a view of the detail in the navigator’s
compartment, although it does not appear that this hatch was posed open on the actual aircraft. The
cockpit section is too wide for the fuselage, so some sanding and cutting is necessary to make it fit,
but it can certainly be done. For those who are not familiar with short-run kits, a little sanding and
cutting is almost inevitable, but then again, this kit should not be your first short-run kit anyway, due to
its size and complexity.
 Unlike the ‘Amonster’ kits by Amodel, this kit is done entirely in a grey polystyrene plastic—
actually very similar to the plastic used in the Amodel kits; it appears that at some level Amodel and
Modelsvit are related concerns. The fuselage is divided into two main parts, with a front section and
the central and back section. The extreme end of the tail section containing the turret is moulded
separately. The wings are provided as two pieces for each side, an upper and a lower piece, and the
horizontal tail planes are also provided in two pieces for each side. The vertical tail plane is
provided in two pieces. The engine pod, which is rather inaccurate in the ESCI kit, is also provided
in two pieces, with an upper and a lower part, and appears to be quite accurate in shape, although it
apparently takes a bit of work to get it to fit to the tail.
In terms of armament provided, an accurate representation of the tail turret is included, and a
single Kitchen missile is included, which can be displayed semi-recessed, lowered down on its beam
in the bomb bay, or displayed completely separately on its own dolly, which is also supplied with the
kit, a rather nice touch. No unguided, conventional bombs are provided, but then, none were used on
the Tu-22KD. Although the bomb bay bulkheads are detailed, as is the beam for the Kitchen missile,
the bomb bay is not otherwise detailed.
The full-colour instructions are clearly illustrated and easy to follow and the decals look to be in
good register, with quite a bit of stencilling present, some even for the missile. You can do the model
as one particular airframe appearing in three different periods, although all in natural metal; first in
Soviet service, then in active Ukrainian service, then as the aircraft now appears at the Museum of
Long-Range Aviation at Poltava, Ukraine. Although finished in natural metal (or clear lacquer over
natural metal), there are considerable areas painted in gloss white which serve to break up what
would otherwise be a rather monotonous natural metal finish.
This kit, as of 2018, has already attracted some aftermarket sets, such as a metal set for the intakes
and exhausts from Mini World (nice, but not cheap, though), a flexible plastic and resin wheel set
from Equipage (also not cheap), and from Barracuda Studios a resin set for the engines, and one for
the wheels. Any of these sets will only serve to enhance what is already a good kit. Hopefully more
aftermarket sets will ensue, such as a detailing set for the bomb bay, and perhaps even a new nose, so
the export version (the Blinder-C) can be modelled, with its interesting camouflage schemes.
Whatever its operational shortcomings, I have always felt that the Blinder was a sleek and
imposing-looking aeroplane, more like a huge fighter than a bomber and this kit should build up into
an impressive addition to any model collection. I have seen it built-up by other modellers and it is an
impressive model indeed, and the work I have done on mine has not deterred me from being able to
recommend it. Highly recommended if you have done a few large kits and limited-run kits. Let us
hope that Modelsvit continue with their large 1/72nd scale Soviet kits—now how about an all
injection-moulded plastic early Bear, say a Bear-A, Bear-D, or Bear-E?
Modelsvit Tu-22KDP Blinder—this is basically the same kit as the Tu-22KD, but with the
extended ECM tail cone, replacing the tail turret. Otherwise, the same comments apply.
Red Star Tu-16 Badger—until the Trumpeter kits appeared on the market in the 1990s this kit was
the only Tu-16 in injection-moulded plastic in this scale. I have never owned this kit, but from
perusing reviews it was evidently something of a struggle to build, with nothing fitting particularly
well, as befitted its short-run nature, but perhaps a bit more so with this kit. The photo-etched set that
went with the kit was apparently very extensive, but given the poor fit, and the newish Trumpeter kits,
this kit is really only suitable for collectors or those who enjoy a (great) challenge, if you can even
find the kit.
Trumpeter Tu-16 Badger—a well-moulded kit, it comes in different versions, including the Xian
H-6 Chinese-built version and the missile-carrying ‘K’ versions (K-10 Badger-C and K-26 Badger-
G; the K-26 kit can also be built as a Xian H-6). The moulding is quite good, as is the fit, and the
detail is also good, having much more interior detail than this manufacturer’s Tu-95 Bear. It includes
a nicely detailed cockpit, and detail in the tail section, which is missing entirely on the Trumpeter
Bears. It also has bomb bay detail, which is also completely missing from Trumpeter’s Tu-95 kits,
and a full set of three different sized bombs.
The ‘K-10’ (Badger-C) version kit comes with three cruise missiles, of two different variants,
with one under the fuselage (the AS-2 Kipper, although it is not the most accurate representation) and
two carried under the wings (the AS-6 Kingfish), and has the bulbous radar nose associated with this
Badger version. None of these kits should prove beyond the capability of any reasonably competent
modeller who has a few large kits under their belt. Unlike Trumpeter’s other large Soviet bomber
kits, this kit can be picked up at a reasonably low price, and has been rebranded by Hobbycraft with
Iraqi markings and also by Modelist.
Trumpeter Tu-22M Backfire—as seems to be usual for Trumpeter’s large Soviet bombers, the
same basic moulding is available as more than one kit. For the Backfire these are the Tu-22M2
Backfire-B with the two-gun tail turret and the F-4 Phantom II-like engine intakes and the later Tu-
22M3 Backfire-C with the one-gun tail turret and the F-15-like wedge engine intakes. As with the Tu-
16 kit, the interior detail is good (including a detailed bomb bay), the fit is good, and it comes with
full weaponry including six Kh-15 SRAMs (short-range attack missiles) on a rotary carrier in the
bomb bay. In addition, a missile (the AS-4 Kitchen) can be fitted under each wing and external
‘dumb’ (unguided) bombs carried on two MER racks under the fuselage. I somewhat doubt if a
service aircraft would ever be equipped with all this armament at once, but it is still nice to have the
choice of weapons. Trumpeter kits can sometimes be a bit of a hit or miss affair (even on the same
kit), but this is a hit, and definitely recommended by this author (who is currently building his
Blinder-B kit and has plans to purchase the Blinder-C kit).
Trumpeter Tu-95 Bear—the same basic mould comes in two kits, the Tu-95MS Bear-H, and the
Tu-142MR Bear-J. I have the Tu-95MS version, and it is a very-well moulded kit, as all Trumpeter
kits are, with little or no flash present and good, crisp surface detail. It has surprisingly little in the
way of a fuselage interior, however, with only a basic cockpit and no bomb bay detailing at all
(unlike the Backfire and Badger kits by this same manufacturer), and the tail gunner’s position has no
detailing at all, not even a seat for the gunner. Curiously, the bomb bay doors are moulded separately,
despite the lack of any bomb bay detail. Surprisingly, the aftermarket manufacturers have not exactly
fallen over themselves to correct this lack of interior detail. The only aftermarket bits, other than
decals, seem to concern the landing gear, including the wheels. Nonetheless, it appears to be an
accurate kit, and when built up (I have not finished my Bear-H yet), it should be an extremely
impressive (and large) model indeed and a standout in any collection. Recommended for anyone
wishing to have a late-model Bear in their collection.
Trumpeter Tu-160 Blackjack—if you have quite a bit of room for displaying your models, then this
may just be the kit for you. Since there is at present only one version of the Tu-160 in service, this kit
comes in one variant only. Do not let the resemblance to the B-1B Lancer mislead you; as has been
previously discussed in the text, the Blackjack is a considerably larger aircraft, which of course leads
to a considerably larger model. The kit is well detailed, with a complete cockpit, and both bomb bays
are represented, along with the two MKU-6-5U rotary launchers and no less than fourteen Kh-55
cruise missiles (although it appears that the Kh-55s have been moulded as too long). For those who
enjoy spending days decalling their models, there is a decal set from Authentic Decals that includes a
complete stencil set, with the different stencils numbering well over a hundred. Just the thing to keep
you occupied and out of trouble.
This is not a cheap kit (which is not too surprising considering the size), but still, this model
would make a very impressive addition to any collection of Soviet bomber models, or indeed any
collection and can be recommended.
 Bibliography

Baybrook, R., Soviet Combat Aircraft: The Four Postwar Generations (London: Osprey Publishing Limited, 1991)
Bock, R., Tu-16 in Action (Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc., 1990)
Burdin, S. and Dawes, A., Tu-22 Blinder (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Aviation, 2006)
Buttler, T., and Gordon, Y., Soviet Secret Projects—Bombers since 1945 (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2004)
Donald, D. (ed.), Tupolev Bombers (Norwalk: AIRtime Publishing, 2002); World Air Power Journal, Volume 33 Summer 1998
(London: Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1998)
Duffy, P., and Kandalov, A., Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft (Warrendale: SAE International, 1996)
Franks, R. A., The Avro Lancaster: A Comprehensive Guide For The Modeller: Manchester and Lincoln (Pilgrim Centre: SAM
Publications, 2000)
Gordon, Y., Myasishchev M-4 and 3M: The First Soviet Strategic Jet Bomber (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2003); Red Star Volume
9 Tupolev Tu-160: Russia’s Answer to the B-1 (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2003); Red Star Volume 17 Early Soviet Jet
Bombers, (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2004); Soviet Air Power in World War 2, (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2008); Tupolev Tu-
22 ‘Blinder’ Tu-22M ‘Backfire’ (The Hollow: Midland Publishing Limited, 1998); Tupolev Tu-22M (New York: IP Media Inc.,
2003); Tupolev Tu-95/Tu-142 (New York: IP Media Inc., 2003)
Gordon, Y., and Davison, P., War Tech Series Volume 43 Tupolev Tu-95 Bear (North Branch: Specialty Press Publishers and
Wholesalers, 2006)
Gordon, Y., and Rigmant, V., Tupolev Tu-4: Soviet Superfortress, (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2002); Tupolev Tu-16: Versatile
Soviet Long-Range Bomber, (Hersham: Midland Publishing, 2004)
Grzegorzewski, J., Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia (TBU)—Somolot bombowy Tu-16 (Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Bellona i Agencja
Wydawnicza CB, 2000)
Gunston, B., Aircraft of the Soviet Union: The encyclopaedia of Soviet aircraft since 1917, (London: Osprey, 1983); Osprey
Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft 1875-1995 (General Aviation) (London: Osprey, 1995)
Gunston, B., Tupolev Aircraft Since 1922, (Naval Institute Press, 1995)
Kotelnikov, V. R., Strategicheskiy Bombardirovshchik Tu-95, (Moscow: Aviakollektsiya ‘Modelist-Konstruktor’, 2013)
Kulikov, V., Tu-4 Bomber By Tupolev (Moscow: unpublished manuscript)
Moore, J. N., Lavochkin Fighters of the Second World War, (Stroud: Fonthill Media, 2016); Il-2 Shturmovik: Red Avenger, (Stroud:
Fonthill Media, 2015); Tupolev Tu-2: The Forgotten Medium Bomber, (Stroud: Fonthill Media, 2016)
Taylor, M., Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft, (Greenwich: Bison Books Corp., 1987); Jet Bombers, (Greenwich: Bison
Books Corp., 1983)
Thetford, O., Aircraft of the Royal Air Force Since 1918, (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968)
Tu-16 Raketno-Bomboviy Udarniy Kompleks Sovyetskikh VVS Voiyna V Vozdukhe Magazine, Vol. 26 (2005)
Yakubovich, N. V., Bombardirovshchik Tu-22 (Moscow: Aviakollektsiya ‘Modelist-Konstruktor’, 2004)
Wagner, R., American Combat Planes (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968)

Further Reading
Donald, D. (ed.), Tupolev Bombers. Although not up-to-the-moment comprehensive (it was published in 2002), this book presents a very
good overview of the Tupolev jet bombers that saw service post-war. The Tu-16 Badger, Tu-22 Blinder, Tu-22M Backfire, Tu-95 Bear,
and Tu-160 Blackjack are all covered in considerable detail, with many photographs, some of them in colour.
Gordon, Y., Early Soviet Jet Bombers. An excellent look at the Soviets’ initial attempts at creating jet-powered bombers.
Gordon, Y., and Rigmant, V., Tupolev Tu-4: Soviet Superfortress. This is a good and comprehensive reference work on the Tu-4, the
aircraft that led to all the post-war Tupolev Soviet strategic bombers, and it describes in detail the intense reverse-engineering effort
that turned the American B-29 into the Soviet Tu-4.

Internet Resources
www.airwar.ru—an excellent Russian-language resource for aviation-related material, of all eras. It has much textual information on
 Great Patriotic War and post-war aircraft, including Soviet strategic bombers, and also has many plans, drawings, and photographs,
again, including Soviet strategic bombers.
www.armoryhobbyshop.com—an excellent site featuring Russian and Ukrainian kit manufacturers. The prices are very good, but it
appears that much of their listed inventory is not in stock and has to be back-ordered.
www.arcforums.com—not specifically for the VVS, but contains threads and posts regarding VVS aircraft and colours.
www.ausairpower.net—this site, which concerns Australian defence, contains some good information about current Russian (and
Chinese) stand-off weapons and missile carriers (aircraft).
www.aviapress.com—a good site for Soviet aircraft kits, accessories, and books. The prices are not cheap, however, but the selection is
good.
www.britmodeller.com—a good site for modelling in general, and contains some threads and posts concerning Soviet aircraft, some from
this very author.
www.ebay.com—if it was once available in kit form, there is a good chance you can (eventually) find it on this online auction house. The
prices can sometimes vary widely (and wildly) for the same item, so it pays to shop around for the lowest price. Many of my Soviet
(and other) kits have been purchased online this way.
www.fas.org—this is the website of the Federation of American Scientists. It contains some interesting information on the nuclear
capability of the Russian Federation, including its current bombers and missiles. In addition, it contains historical information on Soviet
weapons and bombers no longer in use.
www.flankers-site.co.uk/modl_home.htm—master modeller Ken Duffey’s website, full of build articles of his Soviet/Russian models.
Ken kindly supplied many of the photographs used in this book, of the actual bombers described herein. All these photographs, and
many, many more are available on his site. I highly recommend this site.
www.fonthillmedia.com—the publisher of my humble books. Although specialising more in British subjects, there is a growing selection
of Soviet/Russian aviation books, contributed to in some small part by this author.
www.hannants.co.uk—an excellent British online ordering house. They have Soviet/Russian bomber kits and accessories.
www.hobbyterra.com—a good site for Soviet/Russian aviation subjects, and includes some Soviet/Russian bomber kits and accessories. I
obtained my kits of the Modelsvit Tu-22 Blinder and the Amodel Tu-95M/U Bear from this site, at good prices.
www.iremember.ru—a site that has interviews with veterans of the Great Patriotic War. The interviews are available in both Russian
and English. Recommended not just for aviation historians, but also for anyone interested in the experiences of Soviet military men and
women during the Great Patriotic War. Some of the people interviewed also served into the post-war era, and their post-war memories
are also included.
www.lindenhillimports.com—a good Internet store for all things concerning Soviet/Russian aviation, including VVS and modern Russian
subjects.
www.modelism.airforce.ru—an excellent site that describes and reviews various aircraft models and accessories. In Russian, but with
plenty of helpful photographs.
www.ScaleModels.ru—a very good site for reference material on VVS aircraft. In Russian with automatic English translation available
(with all the interesting translation artefacts and peculiarities that entails). This site includes reviews and builds of some of the kits
mentioned in this book. It also includes photographic walkarounds of some of these bombers, with many detailed photographs taken
with the plastic modeller in mind.
www.sovietwarplanes.com—an excellent website for all things VVS and run by the illustrator of my books on the Il-2 Shturmovik and
wartime Lavochkin fighters, Massimo Tessitori. Highly recommended for all those interested in Soviet Great Patriotic War aircraft,
and accurate representations of the colour schemes that they wore. This site should also be of great interest for the plastic modeller of
VVS aeroplanes. Although it does have information on post-war Soviet aircraft, it is geared more towards aircraft of the Great
Patriotic War.
www.squadron.com—a very good online ordering house with a good selection of aeroplane kits, including Soviet subjects. Offer quick
delivery in the United States of America.
www.tupolev.ru/en/aircrafts—Tupolev’s own site; it has information about some of the aircraft that have been constructed by this
OKB/company, including an interesting history of the Tu-4.
 Index

3M Bison 5, 14, 19, 90, 97-99, 101-105, 107-109, 113, 171, 210, 270-271, 276-277, 282, 287, 295
3MD Bison 97-98, 100-101, 105, 107-110, 113, 183, 231, 266, 277, 282, 287
3ME (3M-E) Bison 100-101
‘64’, (Tupolev strategic bomber project) 21, 25-28, 240

ADD 11-12, 16, 23

AEW (Airborne Early Warning) 73, 76
AN602 (Tsar Bomba) 61, 91, 133, 230-231
ASM (Air-to-Surface Missile) 10, 34, 51
ASR (Air-Sea Rescue) 243
ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) 11, 36, 62-64, 66-67, 70, 72, 74-75, 91, 129, 132-133, 243, 257, 271
AVMF 11, 22, 32, 35, 59-60, 62-66, 76, 121-123, 125-126, 130, 133-136, 142, 155, 160-162, 180, 183, 186, 202
AWACS 11, 35, 72, 80, 92, 265-266, 290-291
Aircraft Carriers 10-11, 36, 222, 232-234, 251
America, see United States of America
Atomic Bombs, see Nuclear Bombs
Avionics (Aviation Electronics) 11, 62, 64-67, 71, 75, 84, 94, 100-101, 111-113, 128, 137, 139, 150, 159, 164, 180, 183, 186, 202, 249
Azaliya (SPS-61/SPS-62/SPS-63, Azalea) 101, 133, 222

B-1 (Rockwell International) 215, 227, 245, 251, 253, 255, 295; Comparison with Tu-160 Blackjack 202, 210, 253, 294; Comparison with
Tu-22M Backfire 253
B-29 Superfortress (Boeing) 20, 25-28, 31-32, 34, 38, 42, 44, 48, 78, 90, 118, 145, 151, 240, 243, 246-247, 249, 272, 281, 286, 291, 296;
Internments in the Soviet Union 25-26, 28-29; Landings in the Soviet Union 20, 25-26, 28; Reverse-engineering of 26, 28-31, 36, 40,
44-45, 47; Use in the Korean War 39, 48, 93, 246, 249; Washington B.1 (RAF version) 243
B-36 Peacemaker (Convair) 47, 245-249, 254; Equivalence to Tu-85 Barge 47
B-47 Stratojet (Boeing) 48, 111, 237, 246-247, 254; Equivalence to Tu-16 Badger 116
B-50 Superfortress (Boeing) 31, 38, 246-247, 254
B-52 Stratofortress (Boeing) 23, 70, 80, 94-95, 188, 210, 227, 243, 245, 247-249, 252, 255; Equivalence to Tu-95 Bear 72, 92
Backfire, see Tu-22M
Badger, see Tu-16
Baranovichi (Air Base) 21, 268
Bear, see Tu-95, Tu-142
Belarus (Byelorussia) 265, 268; Use of ex-Soviet bombers 136
Bison, see 3M, 3MD, 3ME, M-4
Blackjack, see Tu-160
Blinder, see Tu-22
Bomber comparisons 242-255
Bombers, experimental 9, 17, 19-20, 58, 95, 100-101, 120, 135, 185, 242-255, 265-267, 286-288
Bombers, scrapped by treaty 55, 57, 183, 268-269
Bombs, Soviet (conventional) 12, 26, 32-34, 45, 50, 57, 74, 90, 95, 98, 100, 104, 113, 119, 121, 125-127, 136-137, 152, 155, 157, 160, 175-
176, 187-189, 191, 199, 201, 208, 217, 221, 228-231, 271, 289, 292-294
Bull, see Tu-4
Buket (Bouquet) 129, 136, 162
Byelorussia, see Belarus

Central Air Force Museum, see Monino

China 34, 36, 53, 116, 136-142, 156, 178, 265-266, 268, 270; Break with Soviet Union 137; Export of Soviet bombers to 34, 137; Interest in
Tu-22M Backfire 178, 190-191
Cold War 12, 14, 16-17, 23, 60, 62, 74, 94, 137, 139, 206, 220, 290, 291
Council of Ministers (COM) 35, 49, 53, 55, 58-59, 62-63, 66, 100, 157, 205, 236

DA 11, 16, 23, 32, 45, 56, 97, 123, 129-130, 135-136, 144, 161, 179-180, 183, 202, 269
DVB-202 (Myasishchev) 27
DVB-302 (Myasishchev) 27
Dobrynin (Engines) 12, 39, 100, 109, 133, 172, 273
Dyagilevo (Air Base) 52, 86-87, 96-97, 103-104, 124, 130-131, 148, 179, 185, 187, 266-269

ECM (Electronic Counter-Measures) 12, 65, 78, 90, 101, 122, 127-130, 134, 136, 147, 150, 152, 160-162, 165, 175, 180, 183, 186, 189,
198-200, 209, 212, 214, 217, 222, 246, 250, 267, 280, 293
ELINT (Electronic Intelligence) 12, 16, 58, 130, 132-133, 156, 161-162
Egypt 92, 123, 125, 137, 142, 155, 166, 231, 245, 258-262
Engels (Air Base) 55, 73, 80, 89, 91, 97-98, 104, 110, 128, 164, 207, 210, 212, 224-225, 266-269

FAB-9000 (Bomb) 39, 98, 113, 136, 152, 199, 228, 230
Flying Laboratories (Testbeds) 34, 56-57, 186

Georgia (Republic of), War with Russia 186, 189

Great Patriotic War 13, 14, 17, 23, 26, 31, 91, 236, 239, 256, 296-297

High-altitude Bombers 26, 97, 105, 133; Obsolescence of 74, 221, 253

Il-28 Beagle 118, 137, 236-237, 244, 252

Il-38, misuse of designation 72-74
Il-38 May 63, 72
Ilyushin OKB 72, 118, 236-237
Imperial Russia 19
Interceptors 15-17, 50, 209, 233-234, 239, 242; Increasing ability to intercept bombers 62, 74, 120, 221, 232, 253
Iran 22, 75, 178, 189, 191; War with Iraq (Original ‘Gulf War’) 143, 166
Iraq 75, 231, 243, 245, 248, 251, 253; Use of Tu-16 and H-6 Badger 123, 137, 139, 143, 155, 291, 293; Use of Tu-22 Blinder 92, 159, 162,
164, 166, 175; War with Iran (Original ‘Gulf War’) 143, 166

KGB 13, 14, 258

Kazakhstan 269; Nuclear tests in 34, 269; Use of ex-Soviet bombers 136
Kazan’ (Zavod 22) 28, 34, 116, 119, 121, 126, 157, 159, 182-183, 281, 284
Korean War 39, 48, 93, 247, 249, 252
Khrushchev, Nikita 61, 75; Dislike of strategic bombers 160, 177, 233, 238

LII (VVS) 14, 30, 186

Libya 137, 142, 231, 253, 261; Use of Tu-22 Blinder 159, 162, 164, 166-167, 175
Long-Range Aviation 11-12, 16, 23, 97, 164, 266-267, 269, 271, 292
Long Range Patrols, resumption of 22
Los (SPS-6 Elk) 133

M-4 Bison 6, 14, 21, 90, 95-97, 270-271, 276, 282

M-50 Bounder 20-21, 95, 100, 237-238, 240-241, 265-266, 286-288
MAP 14-15, 49, 118, 126, 281
MiG-15, attacks against B-29s in Korean War 39, 48, 93, 246
Maritime Reconnaissance 34, 58-59, 62, 64, 67, 75, 156, 289
Mines (air-dropped) 113, 125, 129, 130, 133, 152, 155
Mirage IV 242
Missiles, Soviet: Kh-45 (experimental missile) 204-205, 221, 227; Kh-101 70, 72-73, 91, 211, 227, 229, 280; Kh-102 72, 227, 229;
Kangaroo (AS-3, Kh-20, Kh-20M) 15, 51-53, 55-56, 74, 90, 222-224, 228, 267, 274, 288, 290; Kelt (AS-5, KSR-2, KSR-11) 64, 98,
122-123, 125-127, 142, 223, 225, 229, 231, 267, 277; Kennel (AS-1, KS-1 Kometa, KRM-1) 16, 35, 45, 120, 125, 222, 228, 266, 273,
 291; Kent (AS-15, Kh-55 Granat) 57-58, 70, 91, 141, 199, 208, 217, 226-227, 229, 267, 275; Kingfish (AS-6, KSR-5) 15, 57, 101, 121-
125, 127, 129, 223, 225-226, 229, 279, 293; Kipper (AS-2, K-10S Luqa-S) 16, 97, 117, 121-122, 126, 222-223, 228, 233, 277, 293;
Kitchen (AS-4, Kh-22 Burya) 15, 47, 53-55, 57, 74, 90-91, 98, 123, 160-161, 175, 178-181, 190, 199, 222-224, 226, 228, 238, 267, 274,
279, 290, 292, 294; Koala (AS-19) (experimental missile) 208, 227
Missile-carriers (Missile-carrying bombers), Soviet 35, 51-55, 58, 70, 73-74, 90-91, 100, 117, 121, 123-124, 126, 139, 140-141, 143, 152,
155, 159-160, 211, 225, 232-234, 290, 293
Monino, Central Air Force Museum 14, 41, 43, 46, 58, 76, 79, 100, 104, 107-108, 110, 123, 179, 225, 238-239, 265-266
Mozdok (Air Base) 52, 267-268; Withdrawal of bombers from 269
Museum of Long Range Aviation (Russian) 266, 269
Museum of Long Range Aviation (Ukrainian) 267, 292
Myasishchev OKB 14, 21, 27, 49, 93-94, 97, 100-102, 203-205, 237-238, 282
Myasishchev, Vladimir 14, 25, 48, 93-94

NATO 13, 18-19, 47, 242

NATO Reporting Names 28, 32, 35, 45, 47, 51-53, 56-57, 59, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 76, 97, 101, 119-121, 126, 128, 130, 132-135, 143-144, 152,
157, 159-161, 164, 173, 178-179, 182, 187, 206, 208, 221, 227, 237
NII VVS 15, 266
NKAP 14-15
NKVD 14-15, 21, 29
Nuclear bombs, Soviet 25, 32, 34, 45, 50, 57, 61, 74, 90, 95, 100, 113, 119-120, 126, 135, 175, 230-231
Nuclear disarmament (strategic arms limitation) treaties 56, 70, 91, 182-183, 194-196, 223, 268, 269
Nuclear missiles, Soviet, see Missiles, Soviet

Operational (Logistical) targets 22-23

PAK-DA 188, 208, 219-220, 227

Passive radar 36, 122, 126, 222
Pe-8 (Petlyakov) 21, 25
Perelyot, Aleksey D. 39, 50
Poltava (Air Base) 64, 68-69, 86, 160, 165, 168, 179-181, 187, 190, 195-196, 198, 200, 224, 267, 269, 292
Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich 188

RAF (Royal Air Force) 16, 18, 242, 243, 246, 252
RAF nuclear bombers, see ‘V Bombers’
RDS-3 (first Soviet nuclear bomb) 32
RDS-4 (first production Soviet nuclear bomb) 230
Radars, Soviet: Argon (PRS-1, ‘Bee Hind’) 56, 87-88, 100, 113-114, 152, 154; Argon-2 (PRS-3T) 100, 174, 175, 194, 200; Berkut (Golden
Eagle, ‘Wet Eye’) 63-66; Kobalt (Cobalt) 33, 36, 44, 46; Korshun (Kite) 66-69, 75; Krypton (PRS-4, ‘Box Tail’) 56, 87, 89, 194, 199,
201; Obzor (Survey, ‘Clam Pipe’) 70-71, 73, 79, 207-208, 211-215; PN 160, 173; PNA-B (‘Down Beat’) 51, 53-54, 181-182, 198-199,
202; PNA-D 183-185, 187, 190, 192-193, 198-199, 202; Rubidy 49, 59, 84, 91, 106, 111, 119, 130, 150; Rubin (Ruby, ‘Short Horn’) 51,
53, 57, 84, 91, 100-101, 122-123, 126-127, 132, 173; Uspekh (MTsRS-1, Success, ‘Big Bulge’) 59, 60, 63, 132; YaD (A-336Z ‘Crown
Drum’) 51, 53, 55, 233; YeN (‘Puff Ball’) 121-122, 130, 233
Red Air Force 10, 15-17, 23
Red Army 15-16
Rezeda (SPS-153, Mignonette) 53-54, 78, 89, 120-121, 127, 129-130, 133, 152, 161, 175
Rogovitsa (Cornea) 124, 150
Royal Air Force, see RAF
Russia (Russian Federation) 5, 11-13, 16-20, 22, 48, 65, 67, 72, 75-76, 97, 100, 103-104, 130, 135-136, 164, 179, 188-191, 202, 206, 210-
212, 219, 221, 223, 239, 266-267, 269, 296
Russian Aerospace Forces 23
Russian Air Force 16, 23, 75, 183, 190, 210, 228, 230
Russian Armed Forces, reorganisation in 2015 23, 271
Russian Empire, see Imperial Russia
Russian Strategic Bomber Air Bases, see Soviet Strategic Bomber Air Bases
Ryazan, see Dyagilevo
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) Treaties, see Nuclear disarmament (strategic arms limitation) treaties
SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile) 16, 128, 129, 167, 189; Increasing ability to intercept bombers 16, 62, 69, 74, 120, 222, 232
SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) 16, 63, 162
SRAM (Short Range Attack Missile) 199, 226-227, 248, 250, 294
Su-10 238, 241
Saratov, see Engels
Search Radar 130, 132-133
Second World War 14-17, 19, 25, 44, 49, 82, 221, 230, 235, 241, 243-246, 249, 295
Semipalatinsk (Air Base) 34, 70, 136, 230, 267, 269
Shvetsov (Engines) 26-27, 29, 42-44, 291
Sirena (SPS-141/SPS-151/SPS-152/SPS-153, Lilac) 53, 121, 127, 130-131, 134, 148, 152, 160-161, 173, 267
Soviet Air Force 13, 16-17, 23, 31, 76, 101, 204, 206, 266
Soviet Anti-Aircraft Carrier Tactics 232-234
Soviet Army 16
Soviet Strategic Bomber Air Bases 267-269
Soviet Union (USSR) 5, 11-20, 22, 25, 28, 32, 34-35, 37, 39, 45, 47-48, 50, 61-62, 69, 72, 74-75, 91-93, 103-104, 115, 126, 135-137, 142-
143, 156, 164, 166, 168, 177, 182, 186, 188, 190, 202, 204, 209, 211, 232-233, 235-238, 242, 246, 249, 252, 256, 267, 268-269, 295
Stalin, Josef (Iosif) 14, 25-26, 28-30, 118, 263
Strategic Targets 22-23, 62, 188, 244, 251
Submarines 12, 18, 59, 62, 74, 129-130, 132, 256
Sukhoi OKB 17, 177, 204-205, 238
Sukhoi, Pavel 17

T-4 Sotka (Sukhoi experimental bomber) 17, 20-21, 177, 204, 238-241, 252, 265-266, 286, 288
T-4M (Sukhoi project) 240
T-60S (Sukhoi) 17, 183, 186, 188, 220
TsAGI 48, 186
TSR.2 (BAC) 242, 244, 255
Tu-2 20, 26, 31, 37-38, 118, 144, 236, 295
Tu-4 Bull 19, 21-22, 27-48, 50, 65, 72, 76, 78, 87, 101, 118-120, 126, 134-135, 144-145, 152, 222, 230, 240, 243, 246, 265-266, 272-273,
281-282, 286, 291, 295-296; Development of 28-31; Export to China 34; Variants: Tu-4 34; Tu-4A 32, 34, 45, 230, 272; Tu-4D 32, 34-
35, 37; Tu -4K (Tu-4KS, Bull-B) 32, 35, 37, 45, 120, 125-126, 160, 222, 273, 291; Tu-16 Badger 14, 17, 19, 21-22, 32, 34, 37-38, 44-45,
47, 50-51, 53, 55, 57, 69, 72, 84, 90, 92, 97, 100-102, 107, 116-160, 162, 164-166, 168, 171, 173, 176-178, 188, 198-199, 222-223, 225-
226, 230-231, 233, 236-237, 239, 243, 245-246, 258, 265-268, 270-271, 276-277, 282-284, 291, 293-296; Belarusian (Byelorussian) use
of 136, 265, 268; Chinese use of: H-6 Badger (Xian, Chinese Tu-16) 21, 45, 136-143, 152, 155, 166, 191, 265, 293; H-6 21, 137; H-6A
137-138, 147, 149, 153-154, 277; H-6K 140, 141, 148, 150, 152, 155, 277; Combat use 136, 142-143; Development of 118-119;
Variants 119-135
Tu-20, spurious designation for Tu-95 Bear 47, 74, 290
Tu-22 Blinder 19, 21-22, 51, 53, 69, 84, 90, 92, 101-102, 121, 128, 134-135, 144, 146, 150, 152, 156-178, 180, 182, 188-189, 192, 198, 202,
210, 212, 250, 265-267, 269, 271, 278-279, 284-285, 290-296; Combat use 165-167; Development of 157-159; Iraqi use of 166; Libyan
use of 166-167; Ukrainian use of 168; Variants: Tu-22A Blinder-A 159, 278, 284; Tu-22B Blinder-C (Converted Tu-22Rs) 159, 162,
166-167; Tu-22K Blinder-B 51, 158-163, 168-199, 267, 279, 284, 292-293; Tu-22P Blinder-E 161-163, 165-166, 168, 189, 267, 279,
284; Tu-22R 157, 159-164, 166, 168, 176, 267, 279, 284; Tu-22U Blinder-D 157, 159, 164-166, 169, 267, 279, 284
Tu-22M Backfire 13, 17, 19, 21-22, 53, 90, 102, 158, 168, 171, 177-202, 212, 219-220, 223, 226, 228, 238-240, 266-267, 284-285, 290-291,
293, 295-296; Combat use 188-189; Development of 177-183; Possible export of 190-191; Ukrainian use of 190; Variants: Tu-22M0
Backfire-A 178-180, 198, 200, 266, 267, 278, 284; Tu-22M1 Backfire-A 179-180, 182, 199, 278, 284; Tu-22M2 Backfire-B 53, 67, 72,
87, 135, 177-202, 224, 228, 267, 270, 279, 294; Tu-22M3 Backfire-C 14, 75, 87, 162, 177-202, 205, 209, 219, 223, 227, 230, 253, 267-
271, 279, 294
Tu-26, spurious designation for Tu-22M Backfire 47, 178, 291
Tu-70 21, 31-32, 76, 143
Tu-75 21, 32
Tu-80 21, 38-39, 45-48, 65, 78, 247, 273
Tu-85 Barge 12, 21, 38-39, 45-49, 65, 78, 80, 273
Tu-95 Bear 4, 14-15, 17, 19, 21-22, 34, 36, 38-40, 45, 47-93, 95, 97, 100-102, 105, 111, 119-121, 128-129, 132-135, 139, 143-146, 150, 152,
168, 173, 190, 199, 208, 211, 219, 222-223, 226-227, 230-231, 233, 235, 241, 247-249, 265-271, 274-275, 281-282, 287-290, 293-297;
Combat Use 74-75; Development of 48-50; Variants: Tu-95A Bear-A 49-50, 57, 61, 73, 90, 274; Tu-95K Bear-B 51-52, 55-56, 70, 74,
 86-88, 90, 222, 233, 266, 269-270, 282; Tu-95KM Bear-C 51-53, 55-56, 58, 74, 223, 233, 274, 282; Tu-95K-22 Bear-G 47, 52-57, 59,
67, 70, 74, 78, 80, 89-91, 120, 129, 199, 223, 267, 269, 274, 282; Tu-95M Bear-A 51, 57-58, 61, 76, 78, 81-82, 84, 87, 90-91, 231, 270,
275, 282, 288-290, 297; Tu-95MR Bear-E 58-60, 275, 282, 287-288; Tu-95MS Bear-H 22, 29, 57-58, 62-63, 67, 69-76, 78-79, 81-85,
87-89, 91-92, 190, 208, 219, 223, 226-227, 266-271, 275, 282, 289, 294; Tu-95MSM Bear-H 72-73; Tu-95N 59, 79, 241, 266; Tu-95RTs
Bear-D 58-60, 62-63, 81, 132, 139, 275, 282; Tu-95U 57-58, 61, 288-289; Tu-95V 61, 91-92, 133, 230-231
Tu-96 61-62
Tu-114 Cleat 61, 65, 72, 76-77, 80, 92, 143, 275, 290
Tu-116 76-77, 80, 290
Tu-119 56
Tu-126 Moss 72-73, 76, 80, 92, 290
Tu-142 Bear-F 11, 21-22, 39, 50, 53, 57-58, 60, 62-70, 72, 74-76, 78, 81-82, 84, 86-87, 92, 128, 132-133, 257, 267, 270-271, 275, 282-283,
289, 294-295; Development of 62-63; Indian use of 64, 75, 92; Tu-142 Bear-J 66-67, 76, 294
Tu-160 Blackjack 19, 22, 70, 92, 102, 168, 186-187, 190, 203-220, 226-227, 231, 240, 251, 253, 265, 267-271, 280, 285, 290, 294-296; Tu-
160M2 208, 219-220, 280, 285; Combat use 211; Development of 203-205; Ukrainian scrapping of 211-212
Tu-161 (project) 209
Tactical Targets 22-23
Taganrog (Zavod 86) 64-67, 70, 257, 282
Torpedoes (air-dropped) 113, 129-130, 132-133, 152-155
Tsar Bomba, see AN602
Tupolev, Andrey 17, 20, 25-26, 28-31, 38, 48-50, 55, 62-63, 84, 118, 148-150, 176-179, 205, 238, 295
Tupolev OKB 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 28-30, 47, 58-59, 118, 158, 160, 177, 198, 205, 211, 240, 295, 297

USAF (United States Air Force) 17, 47, 244, 246, 249-253
USAAF (United States Army Air Forces) 246
Ukraine 75-76, 136, 141, 160, 165, 179, 187, 202, 209, 267, 269’ Tu-95 Bear bombers for gas deal 75; Tu-142 Bear-F bombers for gas
deal 75; Tu-160 Blackjack bombers for gas deal 211-212; Use of ex-Soviet bombers 75, 136, 168, 176, 190, 202, 210-212, 267, 269,
290, 292; Ukrainka (Air Base) 104, 267-269
United States of America (United States, USA) 12-14, 17, 26, 32, 48, 50, 61, 74, 76, 95, 115, 166-167, 176, 202, 232-233, 243-245, 247,
249, 252, 268
United States bombers 245-255
USSR, see Soviet Union
Uzin (Air Base) 222, 267-269

VMT Atlant 93, 103, 267

VVS 13, 15-18, 23, 204, 218, 260, 262, 266, 296-297
‘V Bombers’ 18, 94, 109, 243, 245; Valiant (Vickers) 18, 116, 245; Victor (Handley-Page) 18, 116, 245; Vulcan (Avro) 18, 243, 245, 255

Warsaw Pact 14, 18

Washington B.1, see B-29

Yeltsin, Boris 92

Zhukovskiy (Air Base) 14, 65, 79, 103, 119, 193, 206, 266