Tupolev Tu-22M ??

[Evan]

Flying over eastern/middle Russia last night standing at the back on a BA777 with the lerger windows in the emergency hatches i was talking to a fellow passanger and done a double take "**** look at that !" as something some thousands of feet below us and off to the left zooms past, really really fast ! a big grey/black bomber at a guess, did nit look like a fighter but could have been.

At a guess a Tupolev Tu-22M, the Tu-160's are huge and white so it was not one of them.

Sure we always see lots of commercial aircraft and living in Singapore i see lots of military jets like F-16's (Every day if i want) and growing up near the Evan's head bombing range also saw the AU F-111's but for me its not that often you see Russian military aircraft (Except the heavy lift A/C parked at many airports around the world).

Anybody else seen anything interesting in the air on a commercial flight ?

Sorry my description is not great of the plane as we really did only see it for a short time, it was going significantly faster than we were.

E

 

[NM]

Are the Russians still flying TU-22s? Can't be many left operational.

 

[straitman]

Are the Russians still flying TU-22s? Can't be many left operational.

Quote: Warfare.ru

Total number (active): 162
Inventory:
AF/AD: Tu-22M "Backfire", 117, 93 in reserve
Navy: Tu-22M "Backfire", 45

 

[Evan]

Well it went by so fast and at a distance and the guy i was talking to could not tell the difference between a Cessna 172 and a boeing 747 so he was no use, i don't have much to go on.

Well into Russian airspace, darker in colour, Jet of swept wing type design, not small like a fighter (although some fighters are rather large), I assume that the fuel the Russians use is nothing exitic but the vapour trail disappeared quickly unlike a normal jet. (I assume just due to the altitude and not any other reason)

I wonder what the pilots thought (going other direction and well out of the way so not close by any means)

NM, seems the Russians are pulling all sorts of things back into operational duty just to play games with the western countries at the moment.

As you can imagine 13+ hours in a 777 in whY and a hard flight 150+ km/hr head winds all the way makes for a boring flight, this was the most interesting thing about it....

Except maybe the drunk (from the night before) Irish guy sitting next to me and the cute German exchange student beside him, we all got along well and passed the time also talking a lot. I wonder how the German girl managed to get home, i turned upto flight transfered and all BA flights full, i was put on a LH flight at i am sure great expense to BA but cheaper than a hotel for the night.

E

 

[dot]

Apart form a bright yellow Gulftream G450 or G500 wizzing past in the opposite direction a few weeks ago in the US, I haven seen too much of interest in the air.

One of the most interesting Aircraft I have seen recently though was in Nanjing, China. The site I was working at was about 1.5kms from the end of a PLAAF base, where they stationed the Hong-6 (A Chinese version of the TU-16 Badger) These things were loud and they dont take off like a current commercial airliner. The Hong-6 was much lower, at an estimate 400-800ft - and they really shook the building as they flew overhead. Given tha age of the design (mid 50's) it is hardly surprising that they should be so sluggish. The building I was working in was originally supposed to be a hotel, but was never opened as such. Hardly a surprise that it never 'took off' as a hotel - I could imagine the complaints when guests are shaken from their beds at 3am when the PLAAF decide they want to practice some night missions. :shock:

 

[simongr]

The only excitement I have had (aside from when I lived on an RAF Base in Germany) has been driving into touristy Paphos airport to be greeted by the sight of ground-to-air missiles new purchased and based at the airport...

 

[NM]

Quote: Warfare.ru

Total number (active): 162
Inventory:
AF/AD: Tu-22M "Backfire", 117, 93 in reserve
Navy: Tu-22M "Backfire", 45

Thanks Bill. I guess we should not be surprised as we can still see F111 flying around Aus .

 

[NM]

Well it went by so fast and at a distance and the guy i was talking to could not tell the difference between a Cessna 172 and a boeing 747 so he was no use, i don't have much to go on.

In that case he had better be good at reading boarding gate numbers or he could in for a very long trip to London next time .

 

[NM]

Navy: Tu-22M "Backfire", 45

At 120,000kg take-off weight, I'd like to see it carrier operated :shock: ? That would be one heck of a steam catapult.

 

[straitman]

At 120,000kg take-off weight, I'd like to see it carrier operated :shock: ? That would be one heck of a steam catapult.

Remember that the F111 had a carrier version also though it never made it into production.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

At 120,000kg take-off weight, I'd like to see it carrier operated :shock: ? That would be one heck of a steam catapult.

<G>
One of the oddities about the way the Soviets were (are) set up was that the Navy got to operate bombers whose primary targets were enemy shipping. It's as if the RAN got a dozen F111s to go after ships only. Though I'm sure they'd prefer a carrier or two...

mt

 

[straitman]

<G>
One of the oddities about the way the Soviets were (are) set up was that the Navy got to operate bombers whose primary targets were enemy shipping. It's as if the RAN got a dozen F111s to go after ships only. Though I'm sure they'd prefer a carrier or two...

mt

.... or a strike force of any sort :!:

.. as would the Kiwi's, but that's a another story :!:

 

[stryker]

Remember that the F111 had a carrier version also though it never made it into production.

Don't forget that C130's have landed on USN carriers.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Don't forget that C130's have landed on USN carriers.

and taken off again, sans catapults!

mt

 

[NM]

Don't forget that C130's have landed on USN carriers.

I think it is singular. A C130 landed on USS Forrestal in a trial to prove it could be done. JATO used to get it back off. There is video of this landing and takeoff on the web if you search.

 

[rwatts]

I think it is singular. A C130 landed on USS Forrestal in a trial to prove it could be done. JATO used to get it back off. There is video of this landing and takeoff on the web if you search.

There was a whole series - more than twenty landings and take-offs on both the angled and straight runways. They needed a significant number of cycles to get a meaningful idea of the practicality under various conditions. I dont recall any mention of JATO or (more likely) RATO being used - there was a lot of detail about the techniques used. Eg a special signal when just short of the deck at which time the props were reverse-pitched.

The trials were considered a success but C130 was never actually used as a re-supply means. The elevators could not handle the C130 so it was stuck on the flight deck effectively stopping air operations for the duration.

Richard.

 

[NM]

There was a whole series - more than twenty landings and take-offs on both the angled and straight runways. They needed a significant number of cycles to get a meaningful idea of the practicality under various conditions. I dont recall any mention of JATO or (more likely) RATO being used - there was a lot of detail about the techniques used. Eg a special signal when just short of the deck at which time the props were reverse-pitched.

Sorry, I was meaning to apply the singular characteristic to the word carrier, not to the number of landings.

Actually, I think my memory of seeing a video of a C130 using RATO was not from te Forrestal, but part of a Blue Angels air show display. Makes for a prety impressive climb!. The only video I can find of the Forrestal take-off is not clear enough to see if they were used.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Sorry, I was meaning to apply the singular characteristic to the word carrier, not to the number of landings.

Actually, I think my memory of seeing a video of a C130 using RATO was not from te Forrestal, but part of a Blue Angels air show display. Makes for a prety impressive climb!. The only video I can find of the Forrestal take-off is not clear enough to see if they were used.

If memory serves (this is from a AA article I read about 20 years ago), they didn't use RATO. Simply trials with and without catapults. Obviously was another one of those "cool but utterly impractical' ideas the US Military seemed to produce in spades during the Cold War.

mt