It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TU-128 the most pointless plane ever?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
the link: en.wikipedia.org...

Well to start with it's MASSIVE 89foot long and only carries 4 missiles, is it me or is that pointless?

RAB




posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I think given the size of Russia/USSR, their range/loiter requirement and the then amount and quality of their radar coverage the Tu 128 probably made a lot of sense to them back then.......but even then it's not like they made them by the thousand.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Not so pointless when you consider the era this thing was flying in.
Presumably it would have been used to intercept long range bombers, in which role it probably would have been quite good given it's speed, range and service ceiling.
What aircraft of that era are you comparing it to?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
nah the most useless aircraft in history has to ne the Hughes Hercules ( the spruce goose)



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

What aircraft of that era are you comparing it to?


Even though the F-14 came out 10 years later it could do what the Tu-128 was deigned for, the F-14 was faster, could fly higher carry 6 Phoenix missiles and had a very powerful radar, the Tu-128 had a 2000mile range the F-14 had a 1600 mile range.

But I do not think it was pointless if it was mass produced it could have been affective.


[edit on 2-7-2005 by WestPoint23]


RAB

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
to be fair I think that it's impressive for the era but then I really miss the logic of building a plane that's that large to carry just 4 missiles. Given the ground based rader detection and the standard air to air missiles of the day maybe the MIG 23/27 would have been up to the job.

The bases that cover the crossing points would have been take out by the usa's first ICBM strike so I really cannot see the point in this plane!

Sorry

RAB



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
No in its day it served its purpose, realize just how big the USSR was, range was its sweetspot....



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
your right

they sacrificed payload and speed so they could achieve a incredible range

it increased the versitility of the russian airforce *that was the plan im sure*

sure those migs can hold plenty of bombs/missles
but during the early 1960s i doubt they had a decent range

so they drew up this bad boy lol

even tho the jet sucks for the most part; it only takes one missle to ruin your entire life.....



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Well, pointless and pointless... It depends from wich angle you are looking from...



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
This aircraft was more of a last ditch nuke thrower.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
It's like the YF-12 project. They wanted to make the SR-71 into an interceptor. Not a bad idea, just not feasable. For the time they built this plane, it was a good idea, it just suffered from technical issues and other problems and bad timing.


SOC

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
This aircraft was more of a last ditch nuke thrower.


No, the Tu-128 was a strategic interceptor designed to patrol over Siberia. There's a really good book which goes into a lot of detail on the FIDDLER. Check it out here: www.amazon.com...=1121050008/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/002-1339480-4114413?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Do note that if you go to Amazon.co.uk, you can order books like this well before they are published in the US as they are published a good deal earlier in the UK. I've got this one sitting on my shelf right now.

Anyway, FIDDLER wasn't pointless. It's job was to cover the massive amount of airspace over Siberia and the rest of Northern Russia. That's why the aircraft was so large; it needed a good deal of fuel to achieve the necessary range and loiter time.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's like the YF-12 project. They wanted to make the SR-71 into an interceptor. Not a bad idea, just not feasable. For the time they built this plane, it was a good idea, it just suffered from technical issues and other problems and bad timing.


How was the YF-12 project a bad idea? The problems it had were political; production funds were approved twice in Congress, but McNamara withheld them each time. The weapon system worked just fine in testing. And for the record, the YF-12 was an interceptor version of the A-12, not the SR-71



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I said the YF-12 was NOT a bad idea, just not feasable at the time. They would have either had to make entirely new airframes for it or heavily modify the existing airframes for it.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Zaphod58]


SOC

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I said the YF-12 was NOT a bad idea, just not feasable at the time. They would have either had to make entirely new airframes for it or heavily modify the existing airframes for it.


I must have misread that, sorry. Regardless, had the project continued, 93 new F-12Bs would have been produced. McNamara just kept holding onto the money approved for beginning production (apparently this was done three times, not two, as I stated before), as he was a supporter of the F-106X concept. When the F-12B was cancelled, all production tooling was ordered to be destroyed. End of story.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
It attempted to fill the same role that the Avro Arrow was meant to fill, long range intercepter. Very similar aircraft, actually. But remember that this was an era where a long range air-to-air missle was sometimes nuclear tipped. The Soviet Union has soo many failed aircraft designs in this period, most due to poor engines. The M-50 bounder comes to mind.


SOC

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
But remember that this was an era where a long range air-to-air missle was sometimes nuclear tipped.


The 0.25 kiloton warhead for the GAR-9/AIM-47 was dropped at an early stage, production missiles would have carried conventional warheads.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   


I said the YF-12 was NOT a bad idea, just not feasable at the time.


The F-12B was ready for production, there was nothing "not feasable" about it, the basic airframe was a proven production design, the sensors and weapons systems had passed all tests with flying colors.

Congress had actually ordered 95 of them already, when MacNamara (a man whose name is synonymous with the phrase "big mistake") cancelled it, because it threatened to take $$ from his pet projects.


SOC

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Congress had actually ordered 95 of them already, when MacNamara (a man whose name is synonymous with the phrase "big mistake") cancelled it, because it threatened to take $$ from his pet projects.


Just to nitpick, the order was for 93 F-12Bs


As for McNamara, don't get me started...



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I think we've all learned from mistakes(I.E. McNamara).

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Tupelov is better at making bombers and civvie planes.

Edit: oh and there are some versions of the Il-2 Sturmovik (an attack aircraft like A-10) that are also turned fighter, dedicated to intercepting bombers.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Taishyou]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join