Tu-128 | Defender of the infinite sky 

Same, but I also love Rex's Hangar, AllthingsWW2, Ruairidh MacVeigh and Found and explained

@@emaheiwa8174 Rex's hangar is great. At that point so is Spookston, and also Calum

Agreed mate!

@@BismuthOxide Spookston = HTVL

Same here. Pilot Photog as well. His stuff is always superb.

Hope, you'll like it

@@SkyshipsEng you gonna do the mbb Lampyridae?

I know what you mean! I started off with pickles and worked my way up to bananas, cucumbers and im onto the butternut squash now! All it takes is gentle persuasion and something water based and your good to go. I have a great book on it if you want i can send it to you? Keep squattin' brother

I "Instantly though of the "Hustler" built a model of one as a kid in the early 70's, forgot the Hustler's details, but I feels this is a little late and not as Much on the table? While still losing ground.

I thought the same thing. One of my grad school professors was on the Hustler's radar design team at Raytheon. More than twenty years later, he could not stop talking about the greatness of the B-58.

@@RevMikeBlack one of My Family worked in detection and was in Palm Dale and on Kwajalein Atoll along with every other place on God's Green Earth! doing same.

@@johnredcorn2476 degenerate

Am i the only one thinking how these resembled atleast looks wise modern day larger interceptors

I agree I don't like soviet designs typically there usually not a good as the west but the 50s have the soviets done rant cool planes.

@@michaelpelzek8882 another witness of inequality of aerodynamic designs and dominance of not defined West.

I think of the Tu-128 a bit like the F-14, though of course with significant differences.

We absolutely thought of it, we just didn't build it. This is the Soviet version of the XF-103/XF-108/YF-12

It would not have been your favorite aircraft to fly... it had, um, rather poor handling and (especially) landing characteristics, and killed many highly skilled and experienced pilots. Over its service lifetime, something like seventy airframes (and their crews) were lost to accidents. Aerodynamic heating tended to distort control linkages. This, and the tendency to exhibit reverse aileron effects as a result of heating, made it a very difficult aircraft to fly and land safely. It's definitely a cool-looking aircraft, but it was just an ugly duckling to fly.

@@horusfalcon Much like the B-58, it was a design ahead of available technology. Still beautiful, though.

@@LOLHAMMER45678 No, we never really considered or designed a "patrol-interceptor". We didn't need to, since we were able to build bases anywhere within our borders.

I bought this book too when I was a kid with paper route money. Loved it and this was one of the aircraft that caught my attention due to the immense size and what it was meant for.

I had this book too, absolutely incredible!

Me too , got it at the holiday inn bookshop in Karachi

@@garypolsinelli6033 Same here! Tell young people now about a paper route and get blank stares.

I actually just found this book off of eBay, great book

he is russian, i can't even imagine how hard is it for him to record audio for 16 mins in english. It's really great job

@@nickymouse1617 luckily english is damn easy compared to russian but his vocabulary is impressive

@@bigd5899 did you see your cavemen paintings? I mean the spelling system of English. You say Russian is hard? At least it isn't artificially hard, it's hard only because it's old language with very small amount of changes to proto Slavic and proto Indo-European. Its written version isn't an objective obstacle since it has a letter for each phoneme, compared with digraphs and the letters which are jack of all trades - masters of none. Also, what's fun for me is that I don't see there people with "infinite" boldness and audacity to mock and laugh at this man for all his, who'd think, imperfections in speech. Due to some reason, my practice of English on internet wasn't any near pleasant as his. Seems like when people come for business they tend to not behave like immatures.

@@nickymouse1617 some people operate, not just speak, in a learned language, possible English. I, for example, do that and completely switch the language. I don't understand where it is hard. Seems like another somewhat truthful yet false ethnical stereotype.

@@worldoftancraft well if thats the case im sorry. I never tried to mock him. Im german, i’ve been trying to learn russian for years from a russian and it doesn’t work out for me. Meanwhile i was fluent in english when i was like 16 and its not like i tried hard to learn it. So for me english feels way easier than russian. i thought it should be the same for you since english grammar is much simpler in many ways than russian or german.

Man, this channel is russian

Greg's channel is also a great resource when it comes to understanding piston engine performance. I always learn something new that's applicable to cars in every one of his aircraft videos

@@jimjamauto facts

Interesting trivia: The Tu-22 was originally code named 'Beauty' by NATO's NASCC. Because this name was considered too complimentary by the USAF, it was then designated a second time as 'Bullshot'. Since this name was obviously too similar to a certain slang term for 'nonsense', it was finally re-designated a third and final time as 'Blinder'. 😉

Yup - and that book is almost like the bible a-a combat

K-80 that the Tu-128 carried could transverse overload to 21G's. Also you forgot besides the difference of head on ranges and chase pursuit ranges one also has to take into account one would not firer said missiles to their maximum range limit as they would be out of energy out to their maximum limit range.

Those big Russian missiles weren't meant for dogfights or small, dodgy targets, but rather for engagement of big bombers.

@@walter.ekurtz6973: Correct, and I didn't forget about the max range issue, that was actually my point in how the missile stats are arrived at that they publish, which are impressive, but the reality of how they will actually be employed makes what is stated an exercise in eyewash. Having been in the business and actually have asked intel what the ranges are against a subsonic maneuvering aircraft employing ECM -Like the B-52 (I was a Gunner on D/G/H models) - the answer they came back with after putting the question up the chain, was quite surprising. The distance for successful launch drops like a rock, of course temperature and air density figure into the equation also. A tactic of interceptors was to launch a "beam rider" to give you something to play hot potato with, while they get into an aspect to make money with a heater (IR seeker), since they weren't banking on the success of the beam rider or semi-active missile due to ECM: Though home on jam was a nasty twist with the semi-active systems. you had to be careful with ECM employment. Transverse loading, as I understand it, is the loading the actual structure of the missile can take, that doesn't mean the G rating of the guidance system can take that. Transverse load of 21Gs on a Guidance rating of 17Gs, missile takes a 20G turn the missile is in one piece but the missile has gone stupid, it's a issue with the gyro not the structure. If I've got that wrong, let me know. Also, older systems required a launch envelope to be achieved that is much more restrictive compared to missile used now, they had to have a fairly stable platform, not launching while pulling a lot of Gs and or edge of aspect limitation was much more an issue than latest generation stuff, couldn't pull turns of the rail like missile can now, which is pretty amazing in relation to how is was in the past.

Your are right. Yet in going up against a B-58 Hustler, which was a player when the TU-128 was deployed, vs a B-52... The game changes quite a bit. I get more into that in my reply to Walter.E.Krutz.

A Russian designer compared Soviet and American aircraft to watches. "American like fine watch; drop watch, watch break. Russian planes like MickeyMouse watch; drop watch, shake, watch works." I'm trying to remember which book, probably the one I referenced in a comment.

Ugly planes don't fly well So...there are beatiful) Straight and metallic

@@ronjon7942 There's a NOVA documentary on American pilots vs Russian. The AMerican pilot says pretty much what you said. That AMerican planes are built like swiss watches, precise but delicate. Russian planes are like tanks, brute but gets the job done.

@@stingingmetal9648 Ees plane. Eet fly high and fast and shoot down enemies of Motherland. Vhat more you vant?

@@stingingmetal9648 they aren't anynear brute and they are also sophisticated enough. What you say or quoted really sounds like a cheap offense

*largest fighter in service, since the YF-12 is definitely bigger but was really only a prototype while the Tu-128 was in serial production

@@kennethreyes7859 in length, yf is longer only by 1 meter and the TU's wingspan is 2 feet wider than yf's. I would say tu-128 is larger.

well the US boss didnt want a servant to have better plane.

It was exciting for the short time it lasted.

@@altergreenhorn Pure interceptors were a redundant dead end, with the Arrow overly costly for that simple task. Canada needed a multi role jet (eventually the CF18, but soon the F35) that can perform various NATO strike or air missions in Europe or other locations (in addition to occasional interceptions around Canada). Phantom was probably the plane Canada should have got, it was the best of the generation once it got a gun (as missile technology wasn’t fully reliable yet). F106 was better than Arrow would have been at a much lower cost, it had a long but dull life and wasn’t effective in combat in Vietnam.

The British looked at it, by declined it and remained using the lightning, and what a fantastic aircraft that really was. So much about the Lightning was kept secret for years and years, but it consistently blew away anything the US had to offer.

Has anyone else noticed this? But all I ever read from the Americans, is them always trying to run down other countries military hardware, (while it’s actually much better than their own), they always just assume so much, and the truth is, they never really understand what it is they're really talking about anyway. I read them all, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the "Russian rubbish". Really?, is it, indeed? Only whenever they're asked what they've ever seen the F-22 actually do, (other than flying over a beach on a RU-vid Video), that would allow them to make and hold that opinion? Well, obviously, they can't ever answer that? LOL. But what we read from them most of all, shows us very clearly, they have any idea that neither the F-22 nor the F-35, can detect, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range). This is that stupid assumption we always see from them all, with their propaganda claims that can't ever back up with a single fact. The reality, however, is nothing at all like they all think, because stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave), radar. So, obviously, to detect, track, and target other stealth aircraft, you must have long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the APG-77 radar, used in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar, used in the F-35, can detect any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar). This obvious fact, the US Air force must know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, really, how can these US stealth aircraft really be seen, or even considered any sort of real threat to either Russia or China, who both have these US stealth aircraft technically beaten today, they can detect and target the US stealth jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even detect them from BVR. And that's simply a hopeless situation. Russia's new Byelka (2band) radar, used in the SU-57, is a modern real 5th generation fighter radar, that does have an enhanced long-wave radar. Russia have designed, and they've developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. This new L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, meaning it can detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. The reality today is, that this new technology, along with its impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. Rubbish, Indeed! They also interact in ''real-time'' with each other squadron member (auto selecting) the best placed BVR missile being carried by any of them, that can be fired by anyone of them. They can also take full control of surface-to-air (SAM) missile defence systems - (that alone is lethal), they can detect and track all enemy stealth fighters long before they hit Russian airspace, from much greater distances today, with "real-time" data from all the massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system. The Russian jets will always know exactly where any enemy stealth fighter aircraft are, so they'll always approach them head on, and stealthily, the US fighter jets would never even see them coming! Result = you're doomed! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar also covers all frequencies across all channels, that's used for tracking, targetting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia also tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's, seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. Although the SU-35 can be detected and targeted from BVR by the US fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar would be just as able to detect and target the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky. This new Russian radar design has a very clear potential to provide a genuine shared multifunction aperture with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection. This new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radar, is a very important strategic development, and it's a technology, which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and some, if not many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars. Russian crap, indeed.

Hello, Toronto

Amazingly clever reply

IAR-99 and J22 orao too