The Largest Fighter Ever Built - And You've Never Heard of It
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 08. 2023
- In the early 1950s, the threat of an all-out war loomed over the Soviet Union. If the nation was to protect itself from hostile nuclear-capable bombers incoming from the West, it needed a mighty fighter in its arsenal. But in the early 1950s, the USSR had no such aircraft.
Specifically, the Soviet Military was in search of a highly attuned type that could primarily intercept larger, slower, and high-flying heavy bombers. Not only that, but the new aircraft was to take off and reach the intruders in a matter of minutes.
As a result of the specialized development requirements, the Tupolev OKB dusted off an old design for a supersonic aircraft and created the largest and heaviest fighter ever in service…
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Had a possibility to see these things in real life.
I served my military service in USSR '83-'85 at Taimyr peninsula in support group of spare airfield for TU-128. Actually, most airfields in peninsula had support forces and missile warehouses for these. Usually flew in 3 planes for 1week trainings, once was 5 planes.
Big and thursty beast, had 22tons of fuel onboard fully loaded, carried 4 missiles. As i understood, their home airfield was in Semipalatinsk
Thats a really cool story, thank you for sharing with us Sir
Well, thank you!
After rereading my post i understood that i am damn old. FCS, '83 was 39 years back!😒
If anyone wants to dig deeper into these times of military aviation history, here are some things which for me are facts:
I served at Khatanga military/civil airfield
our airfield had theoretically capacity to serve 9pcs TU-128
other airfields nearby were: Alykel (HQ), Tiksi, Dickson, isl. Srednii, maybe some more which i wasn't aware of
I am pretty sure the same pattern was along all northern coast of Siberia, but i don't have any evidence of that
One of my responsibilities was to work on telephone connections, systems in mil use back then were manual telephone stations, where listening-in to phone conversations wasn't a possibility but a must, that is how i know about these airfields
BTW, from about 200 TU-128-s built one crashed in Khatanga. It was before my time, from what i heard engine failure at take-off. Remains of plane were on field at 20-30meters from the end of runway
@@FishFlys
This comment is more worthwhile to me than the video itself. Thanks, matey!
Happy to help!
Maybe there are some things which i forgot to mention, please fire away!
I'll claim directly if this-or-that info is something i know or something i've heard of.@@stevewatson6839
@@marguskivilaan5369 I love insights into history through the eyes of a person who was there for themselves, this helps me to better understand the way in which the jet was thought of at home as well as how well known or not it was. I really appreciate the time you put into sharing! And don't feel bad about being being older, how else would you be yourself!
In the huge distances of the USSR and Russia, you need interceptors that can go very far and very fast without depending on air refueling in combat conditions. Up to this day, they always have a heavy fighter able to fulfill this role.
The Yak-25, Su-9, SU-11, and SU-15 are also PVO interceptors usually over shadowed by Frontal aviation, and would be worthy subjects for a series like this.
By the middle 1980's, the main interceptor was the Su-15, the Soviet equivalent of the F-106 Delta Dart.
@@Sacto1654 the F106 was still serving the air national guard until 1988, so comparing an su15 to the delta dagger isn't too bad
Su-15 - best known for shooting down Korean 007
@@johnlewins5023The Su-15 was the Soviet PVO's primary air defense interceptor.
@@johnlewins5023 Yeah that is part of why I think more needs to be said. One - a plane should be known for more than one tragedy (Sure, there is a reason why people remember the dehavland comet - but it was important for other reasons too) and the background of the 007 incident is important to know as well. The interceptors were on high alert due to Abel Archer and other close calls that year.
I actually have heard of the Fiddler, but then I grew up with a combat fighter pilot for a father. He knew stuff.
My grandfather (retired Army CSM) worked at an Army learning center when I was a kid and would bring me aircraft recognition manuals. I could ID any Soviet aircraft when everyone else was watching Michael Jordan win all his rings lol
@@drumbass3263 LOL!!! I was more into American aircraft with Dad, but there were the oddball foreign aircraft he enjoyed bitching about. "Leave to the damn Rooskies to fuck up an airchine" was one of his favorite phrases.
The largest fighter/interceptor was the YF-12. It was the fastest, largest and heaviest interceptor built. It was intended to replace the F-106. The Air Force ordered 96 of them before budget constraints ended the program. Three were built, one survives today.
I guess that doesn't count since it didn't go into service. Yeah the reconnaissance blackbird did but not the fighter conversion of it the YF-12.
Vintagethrifter as much is I love the YF-12A it was never had an operation aircraft hence the YF prefix which denotes a prototype fighter. The TU-28 Fiddler on the other hand was put into operational service. The YF-12A had a direct competitor in the North American XF-108 which was a deriverative of the XB-70
Fun fact when it was first observed in photo's the CIA and NATO thought it was a new type of bomber and not an interceptor. Not until it was shown with AA-5 Ash AA missiles did they then realize that it was an interceptor and not a intermediate bomber.
Not such a bad analysis considering it was originally designed as a medium bomber the design for which was converted to the interceptor role.
When it was originally thought a bomber, it was codenamed "Blinder" and the TU-22 was "Beauty". When the TU-128 complex was identified as a fighter, it became Fiddler" and the TU-22 became "Blinder". Something of a prejudice in the reporting names
@@MrCateagle Goodness no. Number one the TU-22 Blinder is a completely different airframe and more than double the max takeoff weight of the TU-128. It is not a derivative of the TU-128. The engines are mounted on the tail of the TU-22. As for the naming convention, NATO assigned Soviet fighter aircraft with recognition names beginning in the letter F ( Flagon, Fitter, Fishbed, Foxbat, Foxhound, Fulcrum, Flanker, etc.) while bombers received recognition names beginning in the letter B ( Bison, Badger, Blinder, Blackjack, Bear, etc. )
@@philsalvatore3902 Oh, I quite understand that they are totally different airframes. What I am saying is that, circa 1961 when both were thought to be bombers, the TU-128 (carrying no missiles but with a large under-fuselage bulge) was originally given the NATO codename "Blinder" while the Tu-22 was given the NATO codename "Beauty". When the TU-128 was determined to be a fighter/interceptor and redesignated "Fiddler", the Tu-22 was redesignated "Blinder". Rumor has it that the general assigning codenames did not want a favorable codename assigned to a Soviet aircraft.
@@MrCateagle Interesting story. I didn't know that. Thanks. I just remember the Bears with their distinct sound and May maritime patrol planes coming out to keep tabs on our battle group. I never realized the Mays were painted Crest toothpaste green (with big visible red stars) until I saw them circling our ship.
In depth comparison between B 17/24 side by side would be kinda cool.
Not an unknown fighter at all. It's in all the aviation books that document Soviet aircraft.
I remember hearing about this aircraft in the 1970's. It intrigued me as the largest fighter / interceptor ever in service, and I wanted to add a model of it to my collection ever since. But there would be no 1/72 scale injection molded kit of the Tu-128 Fiddler until Trumpeter brought it out in 2018. When I finally get around to building it, I plan to display it next to the smallest fighter in service, the Folland Gnat / HAL Ajeet. That should be quite a contrast . . . .
@@modelermark172 At 66, I am still a modeler too. This bird should make an awesome model! 😎👍
You proved the point. It's only known If you're an aviation enthusiast
What’s the unknown thing in my hand?
@@modelermark172I’ve known about for years as well👍
It is in all the good aircraft books and in the Encyclopedia of Aircraft.
Thanks for shedding extra light on this design.
:)
Exactly, its far from unheard of.
Yes, this channel is ridiculous for its sensationalism, which introduces errors into the text.
I believe this aircraft was profiled in the old Naval strategy game “Harpoon”.
Lol what, I just opened Wikipedia to read up on the plane and the first 2m40s is basically Wikipedia's "Background" paragraph very slightly rewritten.
Almost plagiarism
Actually, I knew of the "Fiddler"... I spent my junior H.S. and H.S. years reading Janes at our different base's library's. Yes, I was a serious nerd...
Good for you!
Yes, and good for you for feeling the need to waste 30 seconds of your life to belittle my quip...
@@Wolverines77 I see that my tone was not communicated. As a fellow serious nerd who spent his JHS/HS years doing very much the same thing, I was sincerely congratulating you for time well spent. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Ditto, but Observers Book of Aircraft in my case. And yes, that's why I'd heard of the Fiddler.
Minor note for the 4:00 mark While "Pound" is a measure of force, kilogram is not. It is a measure of mass. We equate them when talking about what something weighs, but they aren't strictly interchangeable. The "Newton" is the metric system's measure of force
Given the differences in quality of living (and life) and the looming scrutiny from above, what was concieved and accomplished will always amaze me.
Do an Antonov An-26 episode please? A fine piece of engineering.
How was it a fine piece of engineering? These are bad aircraft that would never be approved in the West, but you glamorize because you fall 4 Putin's military propaganda
Oh, Your Russian that's why you think that. You were the first crowd to fall for Putin's propaganda rubbish.
Always Great. Thanks.
Fun fact, I heard of it. Airplane nut though lol
Heard of it too.history nut
Heard of it too. I read.
@dark skies On a side note have you done a video on the Euro Fighter Typhoon yet?
TU-128 Fiddler had a longer length but in shear max take of weight the F-111 had a higher mtow at 100,000 lbs and longer wing span by a few feet when in forward extended position. but for its day the TU-128 was a serious and impressive piece of design and workmanship
If you haven't yet, a YF-23 video would be much appreciated.
Thanks for this
Great research, content and production again Dark Skies. I had never heard of this prototype from the old USSR. I do now...! Cheers
Great, and dangerous looking aircraft. Thanks for all your research and superb presentation. Your Dark series are always well done.
Like a pumped up Phantom.
Dangerous looking? Oh yeah, it scared away allied aircraft at first sight. Add to a long list of OVERHYPED Soviet aircraft that were supposed to be formidable but saw no action, or got clobbered when they did. DARK SKIES sucks.
@@clintfalk if the series “sucks” why are you even here ?
The Tu-128 had only one useful mission: intercept B-52's at long ranges. But it was just too expensive to run, and when the MiG OKB developed the MiG-31, that was the end of the Tu-128 in operational service.
You mean the Mig-25
@@robertjames302 I really do mean the MiG-31. The MiG-25 had too limited a capability and didn’t carry the really long range missile needed for frontier air defense. The MiG-31 initially carried the R-33 missile, which had a range of nearly 100 miles. It eventually got the R-37 missile, which had a range twice that of the R-33.
200 miles ? What was it's speed was it jamming capable to protect itself ?
@@jerrywatt6813I kid you not. That 200 mile range was so the MiG-31 could intercept incoming B-52's without have to come anywhere close to the plane.
@Sacto1654 That's why it's pointless giving Ukraine a single engined 'light' fighter like the F-16, MiG-31s can just take these out with its extreme long range radar and AAMs from well within Russian airspace.
Thanx, Dark.
I thought the F-111 was big but the Fiddler was a full 25 feet longer than the Aardvark.
This thing was as long as a B-29.
Due to Russian extremely primitive technology, there wasn't that much miniaturization as with western technology, so everything in general had to be larger, clumsier and clunkier.
@@willc1294 The reason why this was so big wasn't electronics but the fuel tanks needed to cover the entire Soviet Union. You can't miniaturize fuel.
@@iumbo1234actually you can use super cold fluids to help shrink fuel to get more in, but it is still limiting.
Hey, I'd love to see you guys cover the HAL Marut. It's one of the most fascinating stories on how a promising military aviation industry fell off for political reasons and didn't make progress for about 40 years.
Designed by Focke Wulf FW190 man Kurt Tank
I had read about it many years ago as a kid.
Love that airport, Can confirm conspiracy, I miss flying in and out of it
Counter to the B-58, the threat was overestimated, still not fast enough
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the problem with these planes was their range. The engines simply weren't efficient enough. They ran into the problem that they could use more fuel efficient engines which would have provided them with the range they wanted, but would have made it impossible for them to actually achieve the speeds required to intercept their targets given the range they needed to cover, or they could use engines which would give them the speed needed to intercept, but they didn't have the range because the engines burned through too much fuel. It's kind of a catch 22, they couldn't make the aircraft bigger in order to increase fuel capacity, as it would have added more weight to the point that it would have slowed it down too much. This is why the best defensive weapon the Soviet Union had were the mobile ICBM launchers. Static locations can be targeted but mobile ICBM launchers are impossible to completely eliminate, with the technology in existence during the cold war. Mutually assured destruction was the only defense needed.
Proably correct. In the Vietnam war 97% of air combat took place below Mach 1. Nothing above Mach 1.3. There were two reasons: 1 the turn rate of fighters was greater at subsonic speeds and 2 turning on the afterburners consumed so much fuel for so little gain in speed that it effectively made most missions impossible.
Any chance of a video on the A-5 Vigilante?
In the 60’s some sources attributed it to the Yakovlev design Bureau. ‘Yakovlev Fiddler’
Thanks for a great video!
Do an episode about the Su-15
Oh, what about the Trainer Version: The Tu-128U 'Pelican'..That was something to see.
Cool film.
Well before the advert finishes, the biggest fighter ever built was the Nimrod, ft Aim-9ls, so lets see...
MiG-31 and F-111 are heavier than Tu-128 (more than 50 tons in some modifications)
I love that we aren't sure how all the crew even entered the aircraft I propose that the navigator enters the plane via magic and nothing more.
I remember reading about his jet.
I like how the video took over six minutes to name the aircraft that most aviation enthusiasts will have identified in the first couple of seconds.....
5:14
TU-24 was the BOMBER version.
The interceptor version was the Tu-28 / Tu-128 (it was changed by the Soviets during the work on the aircraft design).
You are a bit unclear about this in the video - and that it was specifically the Tu-24 was "canceled and only one prototype made".
Weight was almost identical to the F-111 - debateable if the Tu was "the" heaviest fighter to ever enter service.
@bricefleckenstein9666 Reading is clearly an issue for you, the video is about the *Largest* fighter ever built.
@@alexander1485 Reading and comprehension is clearly far more of an issue with YOU, as I was addressing a mistake the VIDEO made.
And you appear to have no clue what the difference between a fighter and an interceptor is.
Heaviest/ biggest fighter…? Look at the Nimrod!!
You have a great narrating voice
Thank you 😃
I have no doubt it had some very real flaws. Every aircraft they built after the MiG 17 had at least one big one,
Good one
Merci :)
The Avro Arrow was bloody big!
My dude loves to say “moreover” and “thus” 😂……if I had a nickel every time he said either….
Wikipedia is amazing. It can even form the basis of CZcams video scripts!
Looks quite a bit like a B-58 Hustler.
Saya suka pesawat tempur 😊❤🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨👍👍👍
That's why it's called dark skies for a reason forgotten aircraft
Forgotten wars and forgotten ships
Forgotten spacecraft
Love all the dark series franchises here on CZcams it's keeps you entained with forgotten knowledge and history
Let's keep our history alive for many more generations to learn about it
Shalom dove 🕊️ of peace ✌️
I must agree.
I looks like the Soviets tried to do what the USA tried with the F 105 and F 111, try to get one aircraft to be both a fighter and a bomber. This was a little like designing a sports car/18 wheeler in one vehicle. Strangely enough the F 105 and F 111 and the Tu 128 did have some success.
From what I've read the 105 was a handful I've seen film of the death dance spooky !!
@@jerrywatt6813
I don't know much about
this stuff, but didn't the
F-100 have a similar strange
"Dance" flaw?
Ok, got it..... The Sabre Dance.
That's what I heard.
Nevermind.
As some commenters had wrote and then video also does, the therm "Interceptor" is more accurate to describe this craft which hardly would be a fighter
Amazing that so shortly after the WW2 with propeler planes we suddenly had these very modern looking airplanes, imagine if these were available during the war..
Germany developed and flihht tested over 2 dozen types of rocket and jet planes by may 45.
Many designs on the drawing boards were built n tested in the 50s n 60s, like lift-body craft n others. Some of which are still classified.
Jet technology had been trialled by a number of nations before WW2, and Germany and Britain operated fighter jet aircraft during the WW2 - Germany’s jets are better known, in part, because the British used their jets for defence only, fearing that the technology could be captured if they flew them/were shot down over German-controlled territory; the British gave jet technology to the U.S., but none of the U.S.’ designs saw *combat* during WW2
I'd heard of this when I was 9. Over FIFTY years ago.
Was the XF-108 Rapier even more massive?
Do it to it....
What?
Sure I have it's the fiddler. Finally it and the su-15 around that time gave SU a serious interceptor force.
0:37 - "dusted off an old design"? It was an aircraft that made a maiden flight in 1956 and was "dusted off" in 1957.
First time I heard of it I was confuse since the nato name was Fiddler which the F stand for fighter according the nato rules. I had to do some research until I found out it was the biggest fighter ever made
The Yak-28 interceptors the video mentions are the first production variant of a plane that NATO reported as the "Brewer" because it was far better known in its 28B configuration -- as a tactical bomber with intra-theater range
The great irony is that the U.S. was never going to bomb the Soviet Union -- they were more afraid the Russians were going to bomb the U.S. NATO and the U.S. had a difficult enough time fighting the North Koreans and eventually Vietnam. There was nothing to be gained by bombing Russia, other than stopping their military weapons production from supplying weapons to N. Korea and N. Vietnam.
Ronald Reagan's support of SDI ("Star Wars") program was not so much about developing a viable defense system as it was about causing the Russians to spend exorbitantly to find ways to defend and defeat it. Thus both crippling them economically and forcing them to make negotiations leading to weapons concessions.
I think the Soviet leadership needed to induce fear in the citizens to justify military spending and thier cushy privileged jobs in Moscow. Deep down they knew NATO wasn't going to attack.
@@dannydaw59until Ukraine was sold to the highest bidder.
TU-28 lead to or was part the TU-22. By conbining the 2, T-22M was in service. Or that's the way it looked.
The Pocket Encyclopedia of World Aircraft in Colous - Fighters, Attack and Training Aircraft (1966) allready mentioned this aircraft (Nato codename Fiffler) although is was misidentified as "Jakovlev"
Before I wacth yes I have heard of it ! Huge plane
Interesting video. However, a dedicated interceptor shouldn't be referred to as a fighter since a dedicated interceptor lacks the maneuverability of a fighter.
The TU-128 was designed for bomber interception, and had a limit load factor of only 2.5 G. But people attach too much significance to these designations. Planes designed to shoot down other aircraft have been called Scout, Pursuit, Fighter, and Interceptor. The F-106 was a bomber interceptor but didn't lack maneuverability. The F-104 was a fighter but many assume is lacked sufficient maneuverability because of its wingspan. In WWII through the missile age maneuverability was not the most important thing in a fighter.
A reliable Soviet aircraft. Says a lot. Gr8 show as always . Amazes me how little we still know about this aircraft. KGB was serious stuff !!!
The narrative in this video seems to match Wikipedias entry on this plane word for word.
Given that the aviation community on Wikipedia is pretty informed and active and the open license of Wikipedia doesn’t prohibit it…. Why not?
Why didn’t/don’t Wiki make videos then?
So there was a real-world inspiration for Star Wars' ARC-170 starfighter. Hunh.
Heard of it a long time ago.
I WANT ONE!! 'Dear Santa Claus.....'
It has some good looks though
If this aircraft was designed to have a top speed of 1500kph, why does the visual writing at the bottom of the video say: "...a top speed of at least 1,300 kilometers per hour"?
Big assertion...saying I've never heard of this aircraft.
Not even close to being the heaviest.
The YF-12 is by far the heaviest fighter aircraft ever to fly.
It had more than 3 tons over the empty weight of the Tu-128, and a 15-ton difference in gross weight.
That's an entire additional combat-ready MiG-29 in gross weight difference.
The French made a upscaled Mirage to deliver nuclear payloads. I think it was the Super Entendard. Very similar to this plane.
You're thinking of the Mirage IV.
Super Entendard was a naval strike aircraft.
a word of advice- russian airplane names (like Mig and Jak[ or Yak]) are NOT spelled out - they are pronounced as words. So Yak is pronounced as such, so is mig, and "Tu" is pronounced as "Too" (from "Tupolew" with "W" being pronounced a "V").
Ah yes. The Tupolev Jimmy Savile
Quite amusing to listen to the commentary while reading the wikipedia entry for this aircraft...
I've heard of it before this.
The B-58 Hustler would, with proper modifications, have been been good at this. The B-1 would be Great.
Do the Mil Mi-7!!!
Whooooooo!!!!!!!!!! 🤘😝🤘
Oh I've heard of it !
It was not a fighter, but an interceptor. Doh!
Best part is that Great Patriotic Airplane had world largest microprocessor!
The end with the voice change was rather jarring I must say.
Great video though!
Yeah, I'd long heard of and appreciated the power and capabilities of the Tu-128.
The Tu-128 is something of a spiritual equivalent of the F-102/106: a big, fast, brick in the air that used ground radar guidance and crude guided missile technology to deny home airspace to high-altitude penetration missions. Both were products of 1950's thinking, that traditional level bombers would pose the real nuclear threat from the adversary; both proved unadaptable to secondary missions, and both were obsolete before the 1970's. But the Soviets, who never threw anything away without exhausting its usefulness first, kept their big interceptor in second-line duty until the end of the 80's.
F-106 was in service until 1988. ;)
@@VisibilityFoggy yep, typically with ANG units. W. Bush flew Darts while he was staying out of 'Nam in the ANG. And the US literally did exhaust their usefulness in the end, converting many of the airworthy ones into QF-106 target drones :D
Bush supposedly flew F-102 Delta Daggers.
The TU-128 is between 28 and 30 feet longer than F-102 & 106 . That's a huge difference . Not an equivalent in any way.
They needed the CF101 Arrow
Looks like the Avro Arrow
Please tell us what "a mighty fighter" is? There were lots of armored or fast or heavy ge\un aircraft in the USSR in the 1950s
Did it eat its Wheaties?
Just how big was this thing anyways compared to modern planes? Was it as big or hell even bigger than an SR-71?
No, 98 feet vs 107 feet for the SR-71.
Not that unknown. Its one of my favorite cold war birds.
Also, "La" ( from Lavotchkin") is pronounced as "Wa." (the "L" letter is different from a letter "Ł" which is pronounced as a "w" in "water"). So for instance in Polish (with letters similar to Russian), "Lavotchkin" is spelled "Ławoczkin" and pronounced "Wavotchkin." You are welcome.
Anglicised pronunciations. Nothing wrong with that. It's why, in the Anglosphere, we pronounce the capital of France as "Pa-ris" not "Pa-ree"
@@oldcynic6964 Not the same. If you get outside anglosphere, nobody is pronouncing "Brown" as "Brovyn," "Steward" as "Staevard," or "Chicago" as "Hytzago." The name "Yak" comes from the first three letters of a name "YAKovlev," "Mig from "MIkoyan and Gurevich," and "Tu" from "TUpolev." Spelling them makes no more sense than spelling out the name "Pete" rather than using it as a word in a conversation.
Just slightly larger than the Canadian AVRO Arrow
Same requirement
Much of the monolog of this vid was lifted straight off Wikipedia! Verbatim. 😄
was it heavier even than the mig 25?
I wish creators would stop saying "and you've never heard of it!" No, yes i have, especially in this case. There is one on display at Russian airspace museum in Monino.