a bit confussed here about two Russian bombers

[hacker]

Recently l saw a posting for a couple of Russian bomber. One was the Tu-22 Blinder while the other was for the Tu-26 backfire. Yet l seen the Tu-22 designation used on the Backfire which for me is clearly should be the Tu-26 designation. Why the confusion? Even when l point this out l am told l am wrong.

[Adam Maas]

The Backfire is a Tu-22M (not a Tu-22 or Tu-26). The Tu-26 designation was thought by some to be the designation for production Backfire-B/C's, but that is not correct and all Backfire's are Tu-22M's (M2 and M3 for the B & C respectively)

Edited July 1, 2014 by Adam Maas

[Flankerman]

The Tu-26 designation was thought by some to be the designation for production Backfire-B/C's

I think it was originally the US DoD that incorrectly called it the 'Tu-26' - and it has been repeated by kit manufacturers.

Like you say, the Tu-22 is the Blinder, Tu-22M (0, 1, 2 & 3) is Backfire.

The re-use of the number comes about because Andrei Tupolev pretended that the Backfire was just an upgraded (M for Modified) Tu-22 Blinder - in order to get funding for it.

It was of course a completely new design - and it is currently in RusAF service in its Tu-22M3 Backfire C variant.

Ken

Edited July 1, 2014 by Flankerman

[Jennings Heilig]

We used to call Bears Tu-20s before we knew better. When I was in USAF intel in the 1980s, we called Bear H's Tu-142s, because we didn't know it was actually a Tu-95MS.

I don't know if it's apocryphal or not, but I've read that the Backfire became the Tu-22M because the Soviets wanted the west to believe it was a modified version of the Tu-22. The two have zero in common other than their design bureau.

[XV107]

And there were elements of sleight of hand at work as well, possibly for both internal and external consumption.

The use of the M, implying a modification of the original Tu-22 (Blinder) was a useful ploy for Tupolev in offering an alternative to the Sukhoi T-4; not a new aircraft (which, of course, the Backfire is), but a derivative, implying lower procurement costs, etc. This was, according to Yefim Gordon (IIRC) part of the rationale for the M-suffix.

The Tu-26 came out of the arms reduction talks; the US (rightly) refused to accept that the Backfire was simply a later variant of the Blinder as the USSR seemed to be suggesting - i.e. along the lines of 'But,comrade, our Tu-22M is a variant. Yes, it is different, just like your B-52H is very different from the B-52C, although we accept that the aeroplane the Swedes have taken some photographs of looks a bit different to the original' - and should be treated as such in the framework of the discussion. Remember that in the late 70s when the TU-26 designation emerged, there were very few images of the Backfire available even to intelligence agencies, let alone in public circulation. The assumption was that the use of the Tu-22M designator was the result of Soviet attempts to pretend that they didn't have a new bomber, or that its capabilities were very similar to the Blinder and that it did not present the sort of threat that the US felt it did.

A more recent instance is the argument you sometimes see that although the F/A-18E/F look like the earlier Hornets, they are in fact different aircraft and it would've been more accurate to designate them as the F/A-24 (or F/A-25 given that reference to the YF-24 on a USAF test pilot's biography...), although it could be argued that the Super Hornet at least looks like the original Hornet and has far more similarities than a Tu-22M does to a Tu-22.

Tu-26 therefore got a lot of use in some circles (and books) in the 1980s, and the confusion has continued; yet as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Tu-26 has been used (I am ready to be corrected) by the USSR/CIS/Russia.

As Adam says, you are right to pick up anyone who says that the Backfire is the Tu-22 and fails to use the M suffix when they make this comment.

[hacker]

Sheesh! Nothing like organized confusion! Ok no problem on that

[Flankerman]

Republic and the USAF pulled a similar stunt to get the swept-wing F-84F into production.

Originally designated YF-96A, the Thunderstreak's number was changed to F-84F to get funds that were allocated for Korean War aircraft.

Look - it's just a tweaked F-84E.... honest!

It didn't have much in common with the straight-winged F-84 Thunderjet - but politics is politics!!!

Ken

[Giorgio N]

I was posting about the F-84E/F when Ken's post appeared... yes, it is indeed an old trick to get money more easily.

In "defence" of Republic, the original F-84F was indeed a development of the E and the prototype was closer to the E than the production machines ended up being. The idea was to have as much commonality as possible but things changed quickly. At the end of the development the 2 "versions" had different wings, different fuselages, different tailplanes, different canopy..

Edited July 1, 2014 by Giorgio N

[Procopius]

The US Navy in the late 19th century did a similar dodge, claiming that the new-built USS Puritan (BM-1), was merely the old Puritan, built in 1864, and fixed up, because that way the funds could come out of the repairs budget.

[JohnT]

Perhaps not to get cash but this recalls the Royal Navy "through deck cruiser" designation saga

[ROGERD]

The US tried the funding ploy with the A36 apache (P51A)

in 1938/40

[Don McIntyre]

The Russians also did that with ships. The Kiev was called a cruiser (CVHG, helicopter-carrying guided missile-armed cruiser, IIRC) instead of an aircraft carrier because by treaty Aircraft Carriers are (were?) not allowed to transit the Bosporus.

[Adam Maas]

The US tried the funding ploy with the A36 apache (P51A)

in 1938/40

Actually it didn't, in either particular.

Neither the A-36 nor the P-51 existed in 1938/40, the Mustang being a design from 1942 for the RAF.

The A-36 came about because the USAAF lacked funding for another fighter, but had it for a dive bomber, so NAA modified the design to allow it to work as a dive bomber. This resulted in a mix of a Mustang Mk.1 fuselage and a newish wing which was beefed up for bombs, had a new armament fit and dive brakes (this would be the basis of the P-51A wing). It was arguably the USAAF's most successful close support aircraft until the P-47 started operating in the role.

There was never any indication of the A-36 being a different design, merely a variant procured for a different role. The P-51A was actually derived from the A-36 wing and Mustang Mk.1A/P-51 fuselage.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Adam Maas

[Adam Maas]

The Russians also did that with ships. The Kiev was called a cruiser (CVHG, helicopter-carrying guided missile-armed cruiser, IIRC) instead of an aircraft carrier because by treaty Aircraft Carriers are (were?) not allowed to transit the Bosporus.

And the JMSDF's new Helicopter Destroyers use the same ploy, as Japan's constitution prohibits the acquisition or operation of Aircraft Carriers

[Jennings Heilig]

the Mustang being a design from 1942 for the RAF.

Huh? The design specification for the NA-73X was issued to NAA by the British Purchasing Commission in June 1940. The first aircraft rolled out on 9 September 1940, and first flew on 26 October 1940. By mid-1942 the Mustang was in service with the US VIII Fighter Command in Britain.

[Andrew Jones]

Huh? The design specification for the NA-73X was issued to NAA by the British Purchasing Commission in June 1940. The first aircraft rolled out on 9 September 1940, and first flew on 26 October 1940. By mid-1942 the Mustang was in service with the US VIII Fighter Command in Britain.

Not quite , the first USAF Mustangs in Britain didn't arrive until 11th November 1943 with the 354th Fighter Group which was a Ninth Air Force group. The Mustangs were allocated for ground attack since the USAF at this time still considered the Mustangs as unsuitable for escort work , prefering the P47 and P48. The Eight Air Force's first official use of the Mustang didn't happen until 11th february 1944 when the 357th FG took their aircraft on a sweep over Rouen.

[Adam Maas]

Huh? The design specification for the NA-73X was issued to NAA by the British Purchasing Commission in June 1940. The first aircraft rolled out on 9 September 1940, and first flew on 26 October 1940. By mid-1942 the Mustang was in service with the US VIII Fighter Command in Britain.

Brain fart on my part, it was 1938 that was incorrect in the post I was responding to.

[Jennings Heilig]

Not quite , the first USAF Mustangs in Britain didn't arrive until 11th November 1943 with the 354th Fighter Group which was a Ninth Air Force group. The Mustangs were allocated for ground attack since the USAF at this time still considered the Mustangs as unsuitable for escort work , prefering the P47 and P48. The Eight Air Force's first official use of the Mustang didn't happen until 11th february 1944 when the 357th FG took their aircraft on a sweep over Rouen.

Sorry, typo. Should have said 1943. In any event, the Mustang long pre-dates 1942 as a design.

[Hoops]

The two have zero in common other than their design bureau.

Don't they both have the same nose landing gear?

Hoops

[Truro Model Builder]

And in civvie street, the Boeing 707 prototype was designated 367-80 in an effort to persuade the competitors that it was only a modification of the Stratocruiser.

[Adam Maas]

And in civvie street, the Boeing 707 prototype was designated 367-80 in an effort to persuade the competitors that it was only a modification of the Stratocruiser.

Actually, the 367-80 had more in common with the KC-97 Stratotanker (which was the 367, the Stratocruiser was the 377) than it did with the 707 in terms of parts. Boeing maintained the fuselage diameter from the 367 with reuse of some tooling in mind (a waste, since the C-135 would get a larger diameter fuselage and the 707 would get yet again a larger fuselage). Both the production C-135 and 707 used completely different fuselages.

[Jennings Heilig]

And in civvie street, the Boeing 707 prototype was designated 367-80 in an effort to persuade the competitors that it was only a modification of the Stratocruiser.

A commonly held misconception. There was nothing nefarious about it. It simply emerged from a series of design studies that started with a jet powered Stratocruiser. It took a lot of iterations to get to the shape of the Dash-80, but it wasn't done to fool anybody. Everything was completely out in the open about it.