Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tu-16 Badger
Versatile Soviet Long-Range Bomber
Cambat
AIRCPIAFT Bi-monthrv
Enjoy unmatched anatysis of the wortd's military
aircraft and the forces that fly them
Over 100 fabutous action photographs every issue.
taken by some of the best photographers on the ptane'r
o Magnificent cotour artwork, plus detaited cutawavs
o Simpty the best coverage of men, the machines arc :^e
missions that make up today's wortd of mititary a"'a:':-
tK
Tupolev
Tu-l 6 Badger
Versatile Soviet Long-Range Bomber
q-*
y:,rfff*
!,i.'" ,,,'. r'
ffi An impdnt of
lan Allan Publishing
Tupolev Tu-16:
Versatile Soviet Long-Range Bomber
Contents
@ 2004 Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant
Midland Publishing and Aerofax are imprints of Design concept and layout 3 Production & Experimental Bombers
lan Allan Publishing Ltd @ 2004 l,4idland Publishing and Special PurposeVersions . . .. . . . . .23
Sue Bushell 4 TheMissileCarriers ........36
rldw ide d i stri b uti o n (except North Ame
Wo
lvlidland Counties Publications
ri ca) :
Printed in England by
5 Reconnaissance and ECM Versions.58
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, England lan Allan Printing Ltd 6 OtherVersionsandTestbeds ......74
Telephone: 01 455 254 450 Fax: 01 455 233 737 Riverdene Business Park, Molesey Road 7 Structural Description .....89
Hersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve,com
www. midlandcountiessuperstore.com
8 TheTu-l6inService .....103
All rights reserved. No part of this
Appendix
N orth American trade d i str i butt o n : publication may be reproduced,
Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers lnc. stored in a retrieval system, transmitted ProductionList.... ...... ..125
39966 Grand Avenue, North Branch, MN 55056 in any form or by any means, electronic,
Tel 651 277 1400 Fax: 651 277 1203 mechanical or photo-copied, recorded
Tu-l6FamilyDrawings ......... 136
Toll free telephone: 800 895 4585 or otherwise, without the written The Tu-16 in Colour. . . . .145
www.specialtypress.com permission of the publishers.
MWs#
da ".' *, i".
- *s$€f
.r
i'*"*'t'
-#
d'
lntroduction
The second half of the 1 940s found the aircraft at American military bases in Europe and Asia, range bomber, and currently all of them have
industries of the major world powers, the Soviet the political, economic and military centres of been reconverted back to their original role.
Union included, faced with the task of produc- America's allies, and American and British The British V-bombers were soon withdrawn
ing long-range bombers powered by turbojet naval concentrations, particularly aircraft carri- due to design faults like the Valiant or reborn,
and turboprop engines able to fly at cruising ers which presented a particular threat to the until recently retired from service, as in-flight
speeds close to Mach 1 while retaining the USSR. lt would also be capable of attacking the refuelling tankers like the Victor and Vulcan.
load-carrying and range capabilities of aircraft transatlantic supply routes, without which the The French Mirage lV nuclear bomber can, at a
Iike the American Boeing B-29 Stratofortress or ability of America's European allies to fight a stretch, be classified in this way due to its com-
its Soviet analogue, the Tupolev Tu-4. protracted defensive war against the USSR paratively small bomb load and relatively small
This necessity was dictated not only by the would be highly problematical. radius of operation.
cverallthrust of progress in aviation technology These naval and maritime considerations Thus the USSR remained alone among the
ilhe availability of gas{urbine engines and were, it should be said, cruclal for the USSR in world's major powers, designing and bullding
advancements in aerodynamics), the increased developing its long-range bombers and then, aircraft in the long-range bomber category with
potential of fighter aviation (the wide-scale from the late 1950s, equipping them to carry a persistence born of its unique geopolitical and
introduction of jet fighters capable of speeds air-to-surface missiles. The need to counter the techno-mjlitary situation, endowing them with
around 1,000km/h) and air defence systems West's enormous naval superiority, both in size ever new roles, and making them a permanent,
,,vith long-range detection radars, but also by a and expertise, demanded the development of a potent and continually updated response in the
new weapon - the atom bomb - which enabled class of aircraft able to operate effectively ruthless military-political game with the West
a comparatively small number of bombers to against the surface vessels of a potential now known as the Cold War. For many years
rnflict catastrophic damage on an enemy. enemy over the expanse of the world's oceans. one of the most prominent pieces in this game
The United States was the Jirst to produce a It is for this reason that the USSR, and the Rus- of world chess was the Soviet Tu-16 long-range
iong-range bomber powered by gasturbine sia of today, has constantly produced and bomber and its numerous modifications.
engines. The Boeing B-47 Stratojet, on which developed this particular type of aircraft - a The Soviet Air Force Command began to
,,vork was initiated in 1945, made its first flight in Iong-range bomber equipped with air-to-sur- formulate its requirements for a future long-
't947 and achieved initial operational capability face missiles - while its potential enemies in the range jet bomber immediately after the Tu-4
IOC) with the US Strategic Air Command in the West have not. From the 1950s through the began to enter service. The category of long-
early 1950s as a 'medium-range strategic '1980s the Soviet Long-Range Air Force and range bomber powered by gas-turbine englnes
ccmber'. It was followed by Great Britain with Naval Air Forces were equipped with a steady with pressurised crew positions and the follow-
,is trio of V-Bombers - the Vickers Valiant, Avro succession of such aircraft (Tu-.l6, fu-22, ing preliminary specification appeared in its
'./ulcan and Handley Page Victor - also fu-22M), one of whose basic applications was planning tor 1947-48:
nedium-range strategic bombers, which against naval targets, particularly aircraft carri-
served for many years as the basis for the ers with their formidable anti-aircraft defences. Maximum speed at1,000m 900km/h
tsritish nuclear deterrent. ln the West the category of medium-range Service ceiLing 15,000m
Range at optimum speed with
For the USSR the production of a long-range strategic bombers and air-to-surface missile
3,000k9 bomb load 6,000km
comber with an operational radius up to carriers gradually died out: the B-47 was retired
Time to reach 10,000m 10 minutes
3.000km was vitally important. Such an aircraft in the 1960s, the handful of Convair B-58 Hus-
Take-off run 1,200m
,vould form an effective counter, able to strike tler supersonic bombers were quickly with-
Landing run 800m
drawn due to technical and design failings and
Bomb load
The Boeing B-47 Stratojet (illustrated here by
replaced by a Iimited number of General
normal 3,000k9
a 8-478 on take-off) was one of the aircraft that
Dynamics FB-1 11As developed from the F-11 1
maximum 20,000k9
sparked the Tu-16's development. tactical fighter-bomber - but even these inade-
Crew 8
,ane's All the World's Aircraft quately fulfilled the role of the extinct medium-
Tupolev Tu1 6
At the time when the Tu'l6 came into being the
piston-engined Tu-4 (illustrated by a Kazan''built
example, c/n 220605) made up the backbone of
the Soviet long-range heavy bomber force' lt
was built at two ol the three factories which later
produced the Tu-16. TuPolev JSC
sights for the gun positions; overall fire control eras comprising two AFA-33-50 or 75 cameras
Defensive armament was to consist of two
radar; OPB vector-synchronised optical bomb (aerofotoapparaht) with plan and oblique
20mm or 23mm cannon with 200 rounds per power unit based on a
sight (optiche skiy bombardi rovochnyy pritsel) mountings; an auxiliary
gun (rpg) in a remote-controlled turret firing
linked to the autopilot and to the bombardier's generator driven by a petrol engine.
ahead; remote-controlled upper fuselage posi-
panoramic radar; AP-S autopilot; astrocom- It is evident from these specifications for a
tlon with two 20mm or 23mm cannon (a0orpg);
pass; aircraft sextant; ARK automatic radio future long-range bomber that the Soviet Air
ventral turret as for upper fuselage posiiion;
compass; RV-2 low-altitude radio altimeter Force Command was calling for a high-speed
rear gun turret comprising three 20mm or
(rahdiovysotomer); RV-10 high-altitude radio aircraft fitted with the very latest systems and
23mm cannon (400rPg).
altimeter; Meridian short-range radio naviga- able to carry out missions in the teeth of strong
The bomb load was io consist of all types of
tion (SHORAN) system; long-range radio navi- enemy air defences at any time of day or night,
bombs carried by the Tu-4, but, in addition'
gation (LORAN) system; enemy radar in any weather condrtions, and in a variety of
provision was to be made for carrying four of
deteciion and counter-measures equipment; theatres of operation. The early interest in the
the new W-1 000 or TAV-1 000 special bombs in
identificaiion friend-or-foe (lFF) equipment; aircraft's ability to carty a large air-to-surface
the bomb bay and for delivering the forthcom-
radar warning receiver (RWR) aleding the crew missile is also noteworthy.
ing Soviet atom bomb. A variant of the aircraft
of enemy fighter attacks; an 'autonavigator' The new bomber was to replace the obsoles-
was envisaged which would be able to carry a
(that is, navigation computer); RSB-D and cent Tu-4 (the prototype B-29 had first flown in
7.000-kg air-to-surface mlssile.
RSIU-3 communications and command radio fiaz) in Long-Range Aviatlon (the heavy
The following essential radio navigation and
sets; SCR-578 emergency radio; recce cam- bomber arm of the Soviet Air Force) service in
targeting equipment was to be installed: radar
the early 1950s. lt was already obvious, how-
ever, that the chances of breaking through the
ever-developing American air defence system
by the early 1950s were far smaller than they
would have been in 1944-45 This supposition
was soon confirmed when American B-29
bombers encountered Soviet MiG-15 fighters
over Korea in 1 951 -53, putting the further career
of piston-engined long-range and intercontinen-
tal bombers at an end. The future lay with the
turbojet and turboprop. ln both Easi and West
work on piston-engined bomber aircraft was
being wound up - development of the Tu-85 was
terminated in the USSR, and in America fudher
production of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker was
rj' l cui back - while the deployment of the American
B-47 evoked the crash programme to produce
the Tu-16, and accelerated work on the Boeing
; B-52 Stratoforlress intercontlnental strategic
bomber in the USA and the Tu-95 and Mya-
sishchev M-4 in the USSR.
But before a long-range bomber able to fly at
transonic speeds could be created by Soviet
designers, a whole series of theoretical and
practical questions in the fields of aerodynam-
ics, construction and engines had to be
resolved. Without the answers, such an aircraft
could not come into being.
ln the second half of the 1940s the Soviet
Union was able to embark on the design of
sweptback wings for bomber aircraft by draw-
ing on the creation of the first swept-wing jet
fighters and the experience gained during their
testing, the results of aerodynamic tests in the
Tupolev Tu-1 6
This model of the'86'project shows how the
future Tu-16 ('88') began to take shape. The'86'
combines the underwing engine installation of
its precursors with a stepped nose
incorporating side-by-side seating lor the two
pilots. Note the chin radome and the dorsal gun
barbette aft of the llightdeck. Andrey Yurgenson
Tupolev Tu-1 6
At the same time as the factory tests were tak- sitated the introduction of the new concept of lL-30 bomber, a machine similar to the Tupolev
ing place, 'aircraft 82' was being prepared to 'recurrent turbulence' - an effect arising when '82', also remained a purely experimental air-
take part in the traditional flypast at Tushino. an aircraft flies at low altitude over ierrain with a craft.
During the dress rehearsal in the summer of complex relief (for example, plain - river - for- The '82' enabled the research on large air-
1949, while the bomber was flylng low over the est) - into the structural strength calculaiion craft with swept wings to be verified and was
Moskva River, it was caught in a series of ther- norms. After a series of tests, a method of allow- the first practical step towards the creation of
mals of varying intensity causing so-called ing for 'recurrent turbulence' was introduced the Tu-1 6 to be taken.
'recurrent turbulence' which broke the attach- into the practice of aircraft design. After the 'aircraft 82', OKB-156 began work
ments of one of the engines to its nacelle. Test The prototype 'aircraft 82' was really an on its f ully combat-capable version, designated
pilot A D Perelyot was injured when his face experimental machine for developing the con- 'aircraft 83', which possessed a full comple-
struck the instrument panel but managed to cept of swept-wing design and it was not pro- ment of offensive and defensive armament.
shut down the damaged engine and make a duced in series This was because The Soviet This differed from the prototype in having a
single-engine landing atthe airfield of the Flight Air Force had at that time fully effected the ser- longer fuselage measuring 19.925m and a
Research lnstitute named after Mikhail M Gro- vlce introduction of the ll'yushin lL-28 straight- crew of four, which included a gunner/radio-
mov (Lll - Lyotno-issledovatel'skiy institoot) in wing tactical bomber which was already in operator seated behind the pilot and control-
Zhukovskiy near Moscow. This incldent neces- series production. For the same reason the ling the dorsal gun position. The bomber was
equipped with a PSBN radar sight (pribor sle'
povo bombometaniya i navigahtsii' - 'blind
bombing and navigation device'), with the
option of replacing this with a RYM-S precision
target guidance radar. The configuration of the
fuselage fuel tanks was also revised. An AFA-
BA/40 replaced the AFA-33/75 camera, and the
shape and size of the pilot's canopy were
altered. Construction of the '83' was begun at
plant No 156, but all further work on it was ter-
minated in 1949.
ln mid-1948 OKB-156 began work on swept-
wing medium and long-range bombers pow-
ered by two englnes providing a total thrust of
up to 10,000k9. The first in a series of projects
was 'aircraft 486' (denoting the sixth project
undertaken in 1948 ).
The initial project for the '486' bomber was
based on a modification of the straight-winged
'aircraft 73' with increased engine power. The
original three engines yielding a total static
thrust of 5,600k9 were to be replaced by two
Mikulin AM-TKRD-O2 (AM-02) engines provid-
ing a total thrust of 9,560k9, with the third
engine mounted in the rear fuselage replaced
by a rear gun position. Preliminary design cal-
culations showed, however, that the increased
thrust from the new engines would so increase
the aircraft's speed that ii would reach critical
Mach numbers. Under these conditions, retain-
ing the unswept wing was no longer viable. The
transition to a swept wing was unavoidable.
Added to this, the considerably higher fuel con-
sumption of the new engines necessitated an
increase in the fuel load by up to 10 or 12 met-
ric tons.
The resulting new project, 'aircraft 486' was
a high-speed medium-range bomber with a
bomb bay able to carry large bombs, including
bombs up to three metric tons in weight, The
defensive armament comprised a fixed, for-
ward-firing NR-23 cannon, and three other gun
positions with a total of six G-20 cannon. The
preliminary project for the '486' was assessed
as follows:
Tupolev Tul 6
wing span and wing area were increased and A cutaway drawing of the'491', showing the
22.75m
greater fuel tankage provided. The nose position of the bomb bay aft ot the wing torsion
7.20n box carry-through structure, with luel tankage
-l ::ar became sharper, and the fuselage was recon-
'. 26,00m fore and aft ol it. Note that there were three
-; figured to house additional fuel tanks. The for- separate pressurised cabins; a reconnaissance
.. :'34 83,00m'
,. -;
ward undercarriage leg was fitted with twin camera was to be located ahead of the centre
:,leep 34.5"
- - ::^:^t rrii^ wheels, a single NR-23 cannon installed in the cabin. Tupolev JSC
8.15
tail position, and the PSBN radar replaced by
2.00
the improved PSBN-M. Figures for the revised
- - ^,:^ht
'86' are as follows: their stafting point and made the following
26,000k9
changes:
L:'cad 31,500k9
l---, ,: nht
27.4Bm - increase of the wing sweepback to 45"
B,500kg
1
Height 8,25m - increase of the wing dihedral to 4"
','t. -;lm speed
---^^r^.,^l
:.::1'tsVEl
Wing span 27.49m - a complete revision of the wing centre section
990km/h Wing area 1 00m' - addjtion ol new wingtip fairings
a:6 000m 1,020km/h
::-3e rvith 1,000k9 bomb load
All-up weight - lengthening of the centre fuselage section
3,500-4,000km
-i.3-of run 1,700m
Normal 30,000k9 - increased fuel tankage
Overload 42,000k9 - increasing the sweepback ofthe vertical and
5 Maximum speed at 4,000m 950-1,000km/h horizontal tail from 40" to 50";
Service ceiling 13,000m - lengthening ofthe nose undercarriage leg
,'/ork on the '486' was halted at the initial Range with 2,000k9 bomb Ioad 4,000km - radical changes to the main undercarriage legs
resign stage but served as the basis for the Take-off run 1,000-1,200m (which had single wheels of a new type)
.roject'86' long-range bomber. Landing run 500-600m
At the end of 1948 OKB-156 began work on Crew 6 To improve the aerodynamic shape of the
:'re 86' design - a long-range bomber with two engine nacelles, the cross-section of the
AM-02 gas turbines, each providing 4,7g0kg The research undertaken by OKB-156 in the AM-02's exhaust pipe was altered. The new
sratic thrust. The designers took the layout of course of work on the '86' showed that a viable cross-section (in the form of a figure-8) allowed
aircraft 486' as a starting point, but the '86' dif- long-range bomber could be created just by the nacelles' cross-section area to be reduced
'ered in having a larger bomb bay accommo- increasing the weight and dimensions of the and their aerodynamic qualities enhanced.
oating a normal load of 2,000k9 and a aircraft and by increasing the engine thrust by The project for the '491' bomber did not go
maximum load of 6,000k9, afuel load increased 150-200%, Work on the '86' bomber was dis- beyond the stage of technical consideration.
io between 5.2 and 17.2 melric tons, a greater continued at the preliminary design stage, but Preliminary calculations for the aircraft appear
iiying weight, and a wider fuselage. A second the configuration of the fuselage was subse- below:
pilot was included in the increased crew of six. quently used on the '88' (Tu-16) design to
Length 26.39m
The forward pressurised cabin was com- which the OKB now turned lts attention. The
pletely reconfigured to feature a stepped nose Height 7,50m
unavailability of the AM-02 engines made the
without the predecessor's fighter-type canopy OKB turn to the 4,500k9p TR-3 turbojet Wing span 2250n
covering the pilots' cockpit, and the designed by Arkhip M Lyul'ka's OKB-165. The Wing area 81.7m'
Wing sweepback 45,0"
gunner/radio-operator was repositioned to a new bomber project was known as the '87' and
Wing aspect ratio 6.2
separate station under a blister dome. The hardly differed from the '86'.
All-up weight
nose undercarriage leg was lengthened, the ln April 1949 OKB-156 produced the project
Normal 30,000k9
main undercarriage legs given twin wheels and 'aircraft 491' (denoting the first project for
0verload 42,700k9
speed-brake flaps were installed on the rear 1949), a faster version of 'aircraft 86'. With a
Empty weight 21,920k9
fuselage. Defensive armament was augmented wing sweep of 35' the reserve of power pro-
l\ilaximum speed at 6,500m 1,0B5km/h
by a single NR-23 cannon and a PSBN radar vided by the two AM-02 engines could not be
Service ceiling 1 3,500m
mounted in the nose. used to the fuli; it was therefore decided to use
Range with 2,000k9 bomb load 5,000km
The project for 'aircraft 86' was subsequently wings sweptback at an angle of 45'. The
Crew 6
revised. The fuselage was lengthened, the designers took the first version of the '86' as
Tupolev Tu-16
Chapter One
The'494' Jet Bomber (project) Sergey M Yeger's team joined in the work fol- The research incorporated all the results
The simultaneous quest by TsAGI and lowed by the remaining sections of the OKB. derived from 'aircraft 86', but increased them in
Tupolev's OKB-156 ended in a rational solution While the layout of the aircraft and the pro- the light of the new requirements. The aircraft's
to the many problems involved in the aerody- portions of its assemblies were being resolved, power unit was based on the Lyul'ka TR-3A
namic form of a heavy swept-wing aircraft. The Tupolev visiied S M Yeger's team each day and (AL-S) engine with a static thrust of 5,000k9,
most rapid progress was made in research on studied the progress in detail, he then went to and on OKB-165's projected turbofan engine
the '88' (Tu-16) long-range bomber project his office or to the mock-up shop where a (given the provisional designation TR-5) also
with, as its basis, the preliminary studies car- wooden mock-up of the aircraft was being made. with a static thrust of 5,000k9. Some prelimi-
ried out by TsAGI on the chosen layout with a Kondorskiy's team had the task of setting the nary revisions to 'project 494' were also made
wing possessing an aspect ratio of 7-9 and aircraft's basic parameters (wing area, weights, to accommodate the AMRD-03 engine with an
sweptback at an angle of 35". The prototype and power of the engines) with which, and a estimated thrust of B,200kg on which Mikulin's
was designated E-4 at TsAGl, and windtunnel crew of six, the following data were calculated: OKB-300 was then working.
tests with a model were made between 1947 The aerodynamic characteristics of the new
and 1950. The swept-wing chosen was in many Maximum speed aircraft were identical to those of the '86'
ways identical to that used by German design- at sea level 950km/h bomber, and some versions of the '494'
ers on the Junkers EF 132. at 10,000m 950-1,000km/h bomber were geometrically similar to the '86'.
Time to reach 10,000m 23 minutes The length of the bomb bay corresponded in
When SergeyV ll'yushin's OKB-240was com-
missioned to design a high-speed long-range jet Service ceiling 1 2,000-1 3,000m length to that of the rear bomb bay on the '85' -
Bange with normal bomb load 7,500km
bomber (subsequently designated lL-46), which held 6,000-12,000k9 of bombs - and the
Normal bomb load 6,000k9 weights of the structural elements for various
OKB-156 did not abandon its work on its com-
peting design and work continued with the aim Maximum bomb load 1 2,000k9 versions of the project were provisionally
Unassisted take-off run 1,800m based on their'86' equivalents.
of producing an aircraft with a higher pedor-
Landing run 900m Work on the '494' bomber within the B
mance than the lL-46. The initial research was M
Armament as Jor 'alrcraft 86' Kondorskiy team was the responsibility of I B
carried out by B M Kondorskiy's team, in which
young graduates of the Moscow Aviation lnsti- Babin, G A Cheryomukhin and VA Sterlin. The
tute, such as Andrey A Tupolev, G A Chery- These figures (apart from range and bomb team completed work on the project materials
omukhin, Yu Yu Yudin, I V Babin, and VA Sterlin, load) were essentially in line with those for the in June 1950, when the analysis and research
began their careers and went on to become the earlier '86' proiect, and the dimensions of resulted in a wing sweep of 36" and the follow-
OKB's leading experts and specialists. The first bomber'494' (the fourth project undertaken by ing alternative engine types:
draughting of the layout and the first calculations the Kondorskiy team in 1949) and were based
were done under the close scrutiny of Tupolev on data for the '86' project and on the papers - two AMRD-o3 engines;
who gave this project his particular attention. entitled Research into the Flight Characteristics
- four TR-3A (AL-5) engines;
Subsequently, when the aircraft's layout, dimen- of Heavy Swept-wing Jet Aircralt carried out by
- four TR-5 engines.
length
Fuselage 37.1m
Wing span 34.8m
Wing area 160m'?
Take-offweight 96,000k9
Landing weight 41 ,000k9
Fuel load 48,000k9
Weight of engines B,300kg
Tupolev Tu-16
-ne 49412'featured podded engines and redesigned main gear units with The rather bizarre'49413'combined the main landing gear ol lhe'49412'
':ur-wheel bogies retracting aft into fairings protruding beyond the wing with two engines adhering to the torward luselage underside and two
Tailing edge - a trademark feature ol Tupolev aircraft designed in the more mounted on the wings, B-47 style. Tupolev JSC
'350s and 1960s. Tupolev JSC
-:e 49414' was even more hair-raising - basically the'49413' with two The ultimate cartoon - the'49415'had two engines under the nose and two
:.gines moved from the wings to a position atop the rear fuselage. This is at the wingtips. Tupolev JSC
nrere the unusual engine placement of the later Tu-22 ('105') comes trom,
_,:: :,,,JSC
- --e second version had podded engines with For the TR-3A and TR-5 engines, the following 3. This version had all the engines housed in
:-: main landing gear in separate wing fairings. layouts were proposed: pairs in wing fairings, one above the other,
--rs. for the first time, OKB-156 came up with with the maln undercarriage legs retracting
:- s method of housing the main undercarriage 1. With a wing area of up to 130-160m', two forwards into them. Depending on the type of
::s which became the 'trademark' of Tupolev engines would be located in the forward engines installed, the following date were
:.signs in the 1 950s and 1 960s. lt was based on fuselage and two on the wings between the flaps calculated:
3::man research derived from Gottingen in and the ailerons, with the undercarriage legs in
-
947 which incorporated the results of various separate wing fairings.
TR-34 TR-s
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Length 32.7m This was because the interference of the under- The research precisely defined the parame-
Wing span 31 .3m carriage fairings and ihe pylon-mounted engine ters for the optimum number and type of
Wing area 130m' fairings with the wing was minimal and could noi engines for the subsequent design of a long-
Take-offweight 78,500k9 substantially increase the degree of shock-wave range jet bomber (given the specified perfor-
Landing weight 35,700k9 drag as the angle of attack increased: mance). The following conclusions were drawn:
Fuel ioad 36,000k9
Weight of engines 10,330k9
- engines in pylon-mounted nacelles greatly - the limits within which the specified performance
facilitated maintenance since the engines were could be achieved were significantly extended if
The '495'Jet Bomber Proiect easily accessible from the ground the overall power of the engines was increased
ln addition to the layouts described above, there
- locating the engines in a wing with an area of up - the limits for a twin-engine layout (AMRD-03)
was a version of the '494' with two AL-5 engines to 300m'?without any corresponding increase in were wider than for a four-engine layout (TR-3A)
installed in fairings beside the fuselage (the wing the wing root chord and related thicknesses in and wider for turbofan engines (TR-S) than for
area was to be 140m'). ln this variant the aircraft comparison with the'86' wing was inefficient pure turbojets (TR-3A)
had a highly stressed bicycle undercarriage with
- locating the engines in the fuselage was difficult - given the specified performance for a long-range
wing outrigger struts and auxiliary fuselage due to the inevitable heating of the fuselage bomber, the take-off weight should be within the
struts. Both TsAGI and the Tupolev OKB came structure and interference by exhaust gases with range of 60,000 to 1 00,000k9, the wing area 1 50
up with this method of positioning the engines. the bomb bay doors (if the engines were forward to 250m', and the total thrust available greater
ln OKB-156 this layout, as well as the project of the wing) or with the tailplane and glazing of than 1 2,000-1 4,000k9
for the 'BB' bomber, were proposed by A A the tail gun posltion (if the engines were
Tupolev. Wind-tunnel tests of a model with this mounted behind the wing) This work defined the design, and subsequent
configuration yielded very good aerodynamic development, of a long-range subsonic jet
As was evident from this analysis, the most effi-
results. The right choice of layout contributed bomber. These precepts were essentially vin-
cient layout for a medium-sized bomber (and
a lot to the future success of the Tu-1 6. dicated with the creation of the Tu-16 and other
that chosen by B M Kondorskiy's team) was the
The following conditions governed the prelim- aircraft of its class.
one in which the engines were mounted on
inary layouts developed from the '498' project: ln the summer of 1950 the results of the dif-
pylons and the main undercarriage legs
ferent versions of the future long-range bomber
- the crew, armament and equipment were to retracted into wing fairings. But TsAGI was, at
were discussed at a conference held at
be the same as for the '86' that time, very cautious about the idea of pylon-
OKB-156. The material on the variants of the
- the wing planlorm was to be similar to that of mounted engines and it was, therefore, not '494' project was presented by I B Babin and G
the'86' bomber widely used on Soviet aircraft at this time.
A Cheryomukhin, while A A Tupolev presented
- the stability coefficients derived from the'86' Engines mounted on pylons (or, to use the
his own project. After lengthy consideration
project (the rear fuselage length/wing span ratio Sovietterminology of thetime, on'knives') were
Chief Designer A N Tupolev decided to go
was taken from the '498' project but was close to used only on the Soviet-German '150' bomber
ahead with the bomber which received the in-
the ratio accepted for the '86') designed under the direction of Brunolf Baade,
house code 'aircraft BB'. The bomber was to
- and later on ihe lL-54, although pylon-mounted
the layout of the bomb bay was to be similar to the combine all the best features of the most
engines were also considered during design
rear bomb bay on the'85' bomber, which fixed the advanced versions of the '494' and A A
minimum diameter of the fuselage at 2.5m work on such aircraft as the M-4 and Tu-95.
Tupolev's project (the fuselage layout and the
- The performance data for seven differently
the maximum fuselage fineness ratio was to be wing with undercarriage fairings were to be
of the same order as for the '85'
powered variants of the bomber were exam-
based on the '494', while the location of the
- the maximum permitted tyre pressure was to ined within the confines of the 'wing area/take-
engines was to follow A A Tupolev's project).
be 9-10k9/cm' off weight' ratio (with a bomb load of 6,000k9):
Thus, in this first approximation, the Tu-16 took
- two AMRD-03 engines with and without shape - an aircraft whlch, for a number of
The basic data for the aircraft derived from pre- years, evoked the admiration of the world's avi-
afterburning
liminary layouts for the '494' were as follows: - ation community.
four TR-3A engines with and without afterburning
- four TR-5 engines with and without afterburning
Wing area, m' 100 130 160 200 240 - four non-afterburning AMRD-03 engines The'88' Jet Bomber Prototype
Take-offweighi* 57-60 75-80 93-96 126-132 152-158 OKB-156's pursuit of the optimum version of
Fuel load* 24 36-39 48.s 71 85,6-87.5 The results of this analysis showed that if the the new long-range bomber with a higher per-
maximum range was to be achieved with the formance than that promised by the lL-54 was
* weight
expressed in tonnes
same expenditure of fuel, the twin-engined lay- welcomed not only by the Soviet Air Force but
out using two AMRD-O3 engines was prefer- by the Soviei government as well, and it was
The essential differences between the layouts able to the four-engined layout with TR-3A or decided to commission the new aircraft from
devolved mainly on the type of engines and TR-5 engines (on account of the reduced drag the Tupolev OKB. This decision followed the
their positioning, while, at the same time, the pattern of scientific and technological policy set
and weight of the power plants). The rest of the
configurations for the fuselage were basically performance data for a set range and take-off by the country's leadership in the poslwar
analogous to that of the '86'. run could be deduced, given the following min-
period when new types of weaponry, aircraft
An analysis of the layouts provided a number imum conditions: included, were to be created. For Tupolev it
of practical conclusions. As the dimensions of was an opportunity to redress his failure in the
the aircraft increased, the layout in which the - take-off weight, 60,000-70,000k9 undeclared contest with OKB-240 for the
engines were housed in the same fairing as the - wing area, 150-1 70m' USSR's first taciical jet bomber.
undercarriage became less workable due io - total take-off thrust, 14,000-16,000k9 On 1Oth June 1950 the Soviet Council of Min-
the greater cross-section and surface area of isters issued directive No2474-974, followed
the fairing and the loss of ihrust due to the Given a minimum thrust of 12,000-14,000k9, on 14th June by order No 444 from the Ministry
greater length of the jetpipe. the set range and take-off run could be of Aircraft lndustry (MAP - Ministerstvo aviat-
The layout in which the undercarriage and achieved by increasing the dimensions of the sionnoy promyshlennosti) in which A N
engines were housed in separate fairings offered aircraft: the take-off weight had to be 70,000- Tupolev's OKB-l56 was tasked with designing
less overall drag, primarily shock-wave drag. 80,000k9 and the wing area 190-210m'. and building a long-range jet bomber powered
Tupolev Tu-1 6
{ Fr*-r,1€fl drawing of the Tu-16 bearing this COB. CEXPEMHO
:E5€rria:on, --:3leV JSC
" - = .- :-:aier detail even after the final the first two examples of the AM-3 were to be icing system, and an oilifuel heat exchanger for
:*:-:: a.oui had been decided upon delivered to OKB-156: one for bench trials and cooling the oil, using the engine fuel. The AM-3
-" = ::-= -{ iask of determining the air the second for flight testing on the Tu-4LL (con- possessed a compressor with subsonic high-
- : : -:-: :rs and final aerodynamic and struction number 2301 13). They were to be fol- pressure stages which provided a pressure
-'--: :.:,: ,','as resolved by intense para- lowed by two more intended for the first '88' ratio of 6.2, and for the frrst time compressor
: - -::fr-r^ anc numerous experiments prototype which were scheduled for delivery in adjustment could be effected by air bleed
- : : - --:: ard full-size forms. lt became November 1951 - with a third example in Janu- valves after the first compressor stages. Pin-
: : - - -: ::..;rse of thls work that the total ary 1952 intended as a reserve. At this point the hole disc connection in the drumtype rotor
: :- -- = :,,, : AL-5 engines would be clearly bomber's future depended to a considerable facilitated blade alignment. ln OKB-300 the
. :: : -:-: :: a3hreve the specified perfor- degree on the successful conclusion of tests work on this engine was headed by Prokofiy F
- -. - ..:s ::erefore decided to use two on the world's most powerful turbojet engine. Zoobets.
:- :: :'3.uction designation AM-3) Design work on the AMRD-O3 had begun in The active design work on 'aircraft BB' got
, -=. : .:-s on with four AL-5 engines was 1949 in Aleksandr A Mikulin's OKB-300. ln 1952 under way immediately after a Soviet Council of
::::: :: : cack-up configuration, but in the engine successfully passed its State bench Ministers directive issued in June 1950. The
- - -- weight would be greater. tests and was placed in large-scale production Soviet Air Force issued a specific operational
- -,:-:.=::,:e-cff cecided in February 1951 that as the AM-3. lt was the first Soviet turbojet requirement for the new bomber on 1Oth July,
- - : ::-aentrate on theversion with two with a powerful thrust, and it remained for which was slightly amended on 11th Septem-
- -:s resigned by OKB-300, but the many years the standard power plant for large ber after the decision to use the AM-3 engine
-: =-::: ^:: finally resolved until several military and civil aircraft. The engine had an had been taken. The general design work was
' -: :::- ,',-er OKB-300 built and tested a eight-stage axial compressor, a cannular com- finished on 20th April 1951 with the completion
: 1-: = :':re AM-3. On 24th August 1951 bustion chamber, a two-stage turbine and a of the advanced development project (ADP)
: : '.:: : ,vas issued by the Soviet Coun-
. fixed-area nozzle. Swirl vanes were fitted at the and its submission to the Soviet Air Forces' Avi-
, - :::'s iollowed on 30th August by entry to the combustion chamber. The engine ation-Technical Committee, which signed its
- : : --= - '. : 332. according to which 'aircraft was also fitted with combustion tube cooling confirmation on 29th May. The draft project
: : -: :: o cr.rered by AM-3 engines with a using ribbed plates, a jet fuel starter for auto- with AM-03 engines was finally confirmed on
: :- ---s: cf B.700kg and a specific fuel matic self-contained starting, an adjustable de- Sth July.
" : -:- : ^ SFC) of .0kg/kgp'h. The static
- 1
Tupolev Tu-1 6 11
The following data refer to the draft project The defensive armament to be fitted was: between l Bth and 26th March when matters
bomber'88' with twin AM-03 engines (take-off relating to equipmeni and armament were
thrust B,700kg and nominal thrust 7,000k9): ForwardJiring 1 x Nudelman/Fikhter NR-23 finally agreed with the Air Force, and the earlier
(with 100 rounds) criticisms taken into account.
Fuselage length 33,6m Rear dorsal position 2 x NR-23 (with 250rpg) This prolonged period until agreement was
Wing span 33,0m Rear ventral position 2 x NR-23 (with 250rpg) reached resulted from the large number of orig-
Height from runway B.9m Tail gun position 2 x NR-23 (with 300rpg) inal technical features incorporated in 'aircraft
Wing sweep at quarter-chord J3 BB', which made it rather different from its pre-
Wing area (excluding centre section) 1 59m' decessors.
Wing area (including centre section) 164.59m' The crew positions were armour-protected The central podion of the airframe (compris-
Empty weight 32,760k9 from behind, from below and from the sides. ing the fuselage/wings/air intakes/engines/
Normal take-off weight 64,500k9 The overall weight of the armour on the aircraft undercarriage), which gave the aircraft its high
Payload (normal) 14,190k9 was to be 545k9. aerodynamic qualities, corresponded in fact to
Payload (overload) 31,740k9 An original form of undercarriage was the concept of 'area ruling'first introduced into
Maximum speed designed for the aircraft. The main undercar- the world aircraft design practice in 1954. On
* riage legs with four-wheel bogies (1 ,000 x the 'aircraft 88' bomber this was expressed in
at sea level 840km/h
at 5,000m 988km/h 300mm wheels with a tyre pressure of 8.5- the form of 'squeezing' the engine fairings in
at 10,000m 918km/h 9kg/cm') retracted into fairings on the wings, the area of the wing/fuselage joint, and the
Time to height (normal / max AUW) while the nose unit had twin wheels measuring slender wing fairings housing the main gear
to 5,000m 3.6 / 5,5 mins 900 x 275mm. Additional retractable outrigger units. These and other aerodynamic measures
to 10,000m 9,0 / 14,5 mins legs were fitted to the wingtips, each with a sin- subsequently contributed to the aircraft's
Service ceiling gle wheel measuring 265 x BOmm. speed of 1,040km/h (Mach 0.92) when the RD-
with normal weight 1 2,800m According to the ADP documents, the aircraft 3M engines were fitted.
with maximum weight 1 2,000m was to carry the following basic equipment: The engines were located in the wing roots
Range / endurance t aft of the second spar, with lateral air intakes
with a luel load ol 28,500k9 6,000km i 7,5 hours - electrical equipment: 4 x GSR-1800 generators, ahead of the wings. Air was fed to each engine
with a luel load ol 27,500k9 5,750km / 7,3 hours 2 x 1254-65 DC batteries along two ducts, one passing through the wing
wjth a luel load ol 25,500k9 5,300km i 6,7 hours - communications equipment: 2x lRSB-70 torsion box and the other passing beneath it.
with a luel load ol 21,500k9 4,380km / 5,5 hours command link radios, RSIU-3 communications This placement of the engines solved the prob-
Take-of{ runitake-olf distance radio, AVRA-45 emergency radio, SPU-10 lem of interference at the point where the wing
lu th maximum all-up weight 1,500 / 3,650m intercom met the fuselage - the most difficult junction in
Landrng run wrth a - navigation equipment: 2 x ARK-5 automatic aerodynamic terms. This particular problem
landing weight of 37,000k9 670-750m direction finders, Materik instrument landing was solved by introducing an 'active fillet': the
system, Meridian SHORAN, RV-2 and RV-10 jet exhaust sucked away the air flowing round
. lirnrted to an altitude of 3,600m by a dynamic pressure radio altimeters the wing and fuselage, at the same time direct-
limit of 3,400kg/m':,1rom 3,600m upwards - maximum - radar: Rubidiy-MM bomb-aiming radar with a ing the air flow in that zone. Those who took
permissible |\Iach 0.86; t with a take-off weight o1
FARM photographic adapter, Argon gun-laying part in the design work recalled that, at the out-
64,500k9, flying at 1 1 ,200-1 4,400m and a cruising speed radar in the tail, Bariy-M and Magniy-M2 IFF set, there was an inherent desire to minimise by
of 780-840km/h. transponders all means possible the cross-section at the
- photographic equipment for opportunity and point where the fuselage, fairing and wing met
The aircrew was to consist of six. The following planned reconnaissance: AFA-33i50, AFA-33/75 (for that reason the engines were located as
ordnance combinations could be carried: and AFA/33/1 00 day cameras or NAFA-3s night deeply as possible). Tupolev himself insistently
cameras for verlical photography; AFA-33/75 advocated and monitored this solution. He
Type/quantity Total weight and AFA-33i55 for oblique photography constantly inspected the proposed layout for
- oxygen equipment: 6xKP-24 breathing the bomber and demanded that the designers
Bombs apparatus, SMhU-50 Iiquid oxygen converter 'compress, compress, and compress again'.
24 x FAB-250 lt/-46 HE bombs 6,000k9 - autopilot: AP-5M When the model of the aircraft was tested in the
1B x FAB-500 M-46 9,000k9 TsAGI wind{unnel after allthese compressions
6 x FAB-1 500 [/-46 9,000k9 Work on the full-scale mock-up was begun in its specialists could not understand how the
2 x FAB-3000 M-46 6,000k9 June 1950 and completed on 20th April the fol- drag had been so drastically reduced, and it
1 x FAB-5000 M-46 5,000k9 lowing year. lts first inspection by Soviet Air took them a long time to report the conclusion
1x 0GAB-6000 6,000k9 Force representatives on 16th February of their findings to the OKB.
1 x FAB-9000 M-46 9,000k9 resulted in a list of 101 items to be corrected, As the bomber was designed to fly at high
and the second inspection on Bth March pro- subsonic speeds, its tail surfaces had a greater
Mines
duced a further 25. All these were taken into degree of sweepback than the wings. Thanks
1 2 x AMD-500 6,000k9
account during subsequent work on the air- to this, the phenomena associated with 'shock
4 x A[/D-1 000 4,000k9
craft. Officially the mock-up, together with the stall' affected the tail later than the wing. ln
4 x A[/D-M 4,800k9
ADP, was shown to Air Force representatives practical terms, this allowed the machine to
4 x Desna 3,000k9
on 20th March 1951 . The mock-up review com- retain its stability and handling at high speeds.
4 x Serpei 5,000k9
mission chaired by Soviet Air Force Comman- The bomber was further distinguished by a
4 x Lira 4,000k9
der-in-Chief S I Rudenko worked between 2nd number of other special features. A high wing
Torpedoes June and 7th July, approving the mock-up on aspect ratio (about 7) was chosen. The spar
3 x 45-36-AVA 3,000k9 the latter date. The installation of additional webs of the two spars and the upper and lower
3xTAV 3,800k9 equipment in the aircraft and work on the sec- wing panels between the spars formed its basic
3 x A-2 (RAT) 1,830k9 ond protoiype (called dooblyor, lit. 'under- structural element - the torsion box. The
study', in Soviei terminology of the time) led to strong, rigid box made the wing of the '88' quite
ln some cases a bomb load of up to 1 2,000k9 could be canied. another mock-up review commission which sat different from those of the long-range American
12 Tupolev Tu-16
::-.:rs. the B-47 and B-52. These machines and reduce the risk of shimmy oscillations. The crew have to take over control of the aircraft?
-:: ' wings, which facilitated the damp- method of retracting the main undercarrjage Particular attention had to be paid to the effect
-"- :'=xible
.,ertical gusts due to their considerable Iegs backwards into the wing fairings was later of the heat generated by the flash on the
::-:'-arion. The more rigid wing of 'aircraft BB' patented (somewhat later and completely inde- relatively weak duralumin alloy. (Later, those
:: :ss subject to deformation in flight due to pendently of the Tupolev OKB, this method was who took part in dropping nuclear test
. -::-ced stress. The wealth of operational used on the British Vickers Valiant B.Mk.2). A weapons from the Tu-16 affirmed that after-
::-:.ce later amassed with the Tu-16, the brake parachute was provided for emergency wards you couid push your finger through the
-'- l: arrliner in the USSR and the American landings. duralumin skin covering the aircraft's belly.)
'
-.': 707. Douglas DC-8 and Convair 880 ln the course of design work on the aircraft. These questions necessitated co-operation
:': -aro airliners proved that the more rigid a number of disagreements arose between with specialists lrom TsAGl, from other organi-
- ::^struction was more robust, especially leading specialists in OKB-156 and TsAGI sations and from the Soviet Air Force Research
--
, - :^: coint of view of structural fatigue. The about the use of irreversible power-assisted lnstitute named after Valeriy P Chkalov (GK Nll
-:- ::.s had to overcome many operational controls, and their use on large high-speed air- WS - Gosoodarstvennw krasnoznamyonnyy
-: :-s involving the wings of the B-47 and craft was insistently recommended by the spe- n aooch n o- i ssl ed ov ate I'skiy i n stitoot Voye n n o -
:: ':: rue cracks and, as a result, repeated ciailsts at TsAGl. But the poor reliability of the vozdooshnykh see/). An experimental base
= . : - ard reinforcement of the structure). first Soviet hydraulic actuators for aircraft made was built to simulate the complex effects pro-
- -::
^c the engines in the wing roots close them unsuitable for the new machine in the duced on the aircraft during a nuclear explo-
: '-: ',selage required
an unusual design opinion of the OKB's specialists (A N Tupolev's sion, and by the second half of the 1950s a
' -: .-: ne are intake ducts, which had spe- dictum that 'the best hydraulic actuator is the range of effective measures to protect the new
: -:-.s (at first made up from a number of one on the ground' is well-known). The design- nuclear weapons carriers in the air and on the
. -:: :-a iater comprising a single stamped ers had therefore to frnd some way of providing airfields where they were based had been
:- ':-'.^= main air flow fitted in the root area acceptable loading for the controls, which, on devised and introduced.
-: -'s: and second spars, with auxiliary air an aircraft of this size flying at high speed, had The structural design of the bomber, the
:.:: ,-ier the wing. This arrangement to have very small hinge moments. The difficult materials used, its equipment and systems as
: .: :^e necessary alrflow for the AM-3 problem was solved after numerous model and well as the manufacturing technology involved,
- - -: :: ,,,crk normally at the cost of a rela- full-size tests had been carried out in TsAGI's were chosen and developed with due regard to
: :-: rcrease in weight in the wing root wind tunnels. the actual capabilities of the Soviet aircraft
- : .- a '.- a wing centre section structure. As 'aircraft 88'was to become the first Soviet industry. This enabled an airborne strike sys-
| -
= =-:.' sJie of the bomber was its extensive nuclear weapons carrier to become opera- tem, which was to become one of the funda-
.. ,:: ::rb bay located behind the centre tional in large numbers (the ten examples built mental aspects of the Soviet deterrent, to be
,:-.:- ! -:af spar. Thanks to this the bomb of the Tu-4A could not provide a relrable 'deter- created within the shortest possible time.
:. - =_. :a.r.ed close to the centre of gravity rent shield'), the Tupolev OKB, as well as other The blueprints for the first prototype desig-
- : --: :a.. :self did not intrude into the wing's organisations working to provide the 'nuclear nated 'BB/1 ' (and referred to in internal corre-
::
- .:z- ^r siructure. The strength and rigidity shield', were faced with the task of ensuring the spondence as zakaz 881, 'order BB1') were
-- --:: a3e in the area of the bomb baywere delivery aircraft's safety once its nuclear prepared and delivered to the experimental
,':: :. ery strong longitudinal beams.
: . weapon had exploded. Such new phenomena construction facility at plant No156 between
--; :':,', ,',,as accommodated in two pres- as the spread of the powerful nuclear shock February 1951 and January 1952 - actually in
. ::: :=3 :ts with e.jector seats for all wave in a heterogeneous atmosphere, taking parallel with the machine's construction; work
. ---::'s The rear (tail) pressure cabin into account the effect of wind and its altitude went on in 'live update' mode, so to say, with
_:=: :,',: gunners - unlike earlier heavy variations, and the flash, either diffused or reciprocal onthe-spot correction of both the
-::": -:croving their combat co-ordina- refiected, as it passed through an atmosphere actual airframe and the drawings. Work on
. - .-: :::sling morale (the tail gunner was charged with various particles, had to be setting up the jigs began in April 1951, and
- - - l=- a :re out there'). explored. The parameters of the effect of a in May the front part of the fuselage was
-- : : : -:3 r- s defensive armament consisted nuclear explosion on the aircraft had to be already assembled. By the end of 1951 the first
"-'- ':-::3-controlled turrets with twin can- determined. This essentially involved issues of prototype was completed and a static test air-
- : '.;: 'onvardJiring cannon, four optical aerodynamics and structural strength. Would frame was built in parallel. On 26th December
-
-- -,- ::::: ard an automatic rear sight. This the shock wave destroy the bomber? Would A N Tupolev signed order No 27 for the
.:- :- -croved the bomber's defensive the aircraft be crushed by the pressure differ- machine's transfer to the flight test centre in
: : :: . ^ :.:l fiight, and was greatly superior ential following the shock wave? Would the Zhukovskiy.
'-: ::':-:: systems of comparable contem-
:- ::-::'s. it was intended to use either
: - -:--:--:: Topaz (which has only ceased
: : : : -:-: -e:ently) or the shorler-range
.-
- --:- ::,rg readied for series manufac-
: :: : :: :;n ranging radar.
--= :'l -:. rndercarriage design with two
- -:a:: ccg;es, whrch rotated through
: - =. :-:_, '::.acted. enabled the aircraftto be
-: :-:: '':- Jcncrete. earth or snow sur-
:: --a':-,,,ard unoercarriage leg had. for
: ":- - -i :- a Scviet aircraft, a pairof wheels
- : -: a ::-Tcn axle to reouce vibration
=
The 'aircraft 88' static test article (izdeliye 4 x FAB-1 000 M-43 4,000k9
Pedormance data derived from the factory
'88/0' or 'order 880') was also completed by the B,000kg
tests of the '88/1 ' are given below:
4 x FAB-2000 lV-43
end of 1951 and delivered to TsAGI on 26th *
Mines
December. Static tests at TsAGI were held lVaximum speed
12 x AMD-500 6,600k9 at sealevel 690km/h
between 1Sth January and 28th November
4 x AMD-I 000 4,500k9 at 5,000m 1,020km/h
1952. At the end of March that year OKB-156
4xAMD-2M&6xAMD-500 7,560k9 at 7,000m 1,002km/h
completed the structural strength calculations.
Bx AMD-2M 8,560k9 962km/h
The static tests and strength calculations pro- at 1 0,000m
8 x IGD-|\.4 B,560kg at 1 2,000m 930km/h
duced the following initial planning data:
6 x Serpei B,700kg Range t 6,050km
Wing span 33,0m B x Llra 7,600k9 Service ceiling over the targel 12,300m
Payload Rubidiy-MM and Argon radars and the Merid- Take-off weight
normal 1 6,670k9 ian SHORAN were still not ready for flight test- normal 61,500k9
maximum 37,300k9 ing they were not fitted. lt was decided to install maximum 77,430k9
Fuel load them when they became available during the Payload
maxlmum 32,1 00kg The '88/1 ' underwent its first taxying trials for maximum 36,490k9
The crew consisted of six. The first prototype was test took place the next day, and on 27th April normal 1 6,070k9
designed to carry the following ordnance loads: the aircraft made its 12-minute maiden flight. maximum 32,000k9
14 Tupolev Tu'16
The '88' static test airframe undergoing
destructive testing at TSAGl. The blocks glued
to the wings' upper surface are designed to pop
qfl as the stress increases, indicating critical
d€{ormation. Tupolev JSC
:: : constant height of 1 0,000m 5 hours 44 minutes Tu-1 6 the choice of powerplant was not yet finalised -
-:e'a: cnal range t - series production of theTu-16 commence in July aircraft had to be designed for either four AL-Ss
::'0 000-13,100m 1953 according to the following schedule: one or two AM-3s, - which also added unnecessary
,r :n 595 fuel reserves) 5,200km example in July, one in August, two in weight. As a consequence, there was more
,r:: :rdurance t September, three in October, three in November than enough excess weight that could be shed -
::'0,000m 8 hours 15 minutes and five in December and this was done on the second prototype of
--, :e ceiling 1 2,200-1 3,1 00m - before 1 st August 1 952 the first prototype was to the'88'.
--: :c height: perform an additional maximum-range test flight The second prototype, designated '88/2'
: -'l0m 5.7 mins - a new gun ranging radar capable of detectlng ('order BB2'), was built in accordance with the
'- ii00m 16,2 mins fighter-type targets at no less than 1 5-1 7km same Council of Ministers directive by and MAP
-i. :-cil run/take-off distance range be developed for the Tu-16 (this project order but without any set deadlines. Originally
,r: a 77,430-kg TOW 2,320/4,000m bore the codename Topaz) it was regarded merely as a 'duplicate' of the
-=-: :g run/landing dislance - MAP and the Tupolev OKB were to submit for first prototype; however, by the late summer of
a: a 50,200-kg landing weighl 1,540/2,480m State trials in September 1952 a Tu-1 6 with a '1951, when the '88/1 ' was almost completed, it
take-otf weight of 48,000-55,000k9, a bomb load became obvious that the machine was over-
' ., --^ a 57,500-kg AUW limited by a dynamic pressure of of 3,000-9,000k9, a technical range of 6,000- weight. Tupolev charged his OKB with the task
- i i!<g/rn'? up to 7,000m; t with a 77,430-kg TOW, a 3,000- 7,000km, a service ceiling of 13,000m, a take-ofi of reducing the aircraft's empty weight as much
. :,:mb load and a 32,000-kg luel load; with a 77,430-kg
: + run of 1,500-1 ,800m and a defensive armament as possible. This in itself involved redesigning
-l,i a 9,000-kg bomb load and a 26,000k9 luel load of seven 23mm cannon (in accordance with the much of the structure and OKB-156 organised
amendments to Council of Ministers directive a 'weight-trimming diet' in the course of which
-
spite of the reasonably good performance No 31 25-1 469 of 24th August 1 951 ) it was planned to 'slim down 'the machine.
';ures, thefirst prototypefailed its State accep- - production of theTu-4 at plant No22 be This work focused on three major areas.
trials for the following fundamental rea- terminated Firstly, the non-stressed structural elements
=rce
:lns: - series production of the AM-3 turbojet be had to be lightened. Secondly, it was neces-
organised at aero engine factory No 16 in sary to reduce the weight of the load-bearing
- :he mission equlpment did not function Kazan', with 70 engines to be supplied in 1953 elements as much as possible without com-
satisfactorily - state trials of the Tu-1 6 be concluded in promising their structural strength by reducing
- ihe lull complement of defensive armament December 1 953 the number of manufacturing joints and fasten-
was not fitted - service evaluation be carried out with the first 15 ers (for example, the multi-part duct frames
- the radar equipment was missing examples built at plant No 22 were replaced by integral units made of AK-8
aluminium alloy, and the D-16 duralumin used
As well as this, the aircraft had to be repaired. The'BB'gained its excess weight in the course in several parts of the aidrame was replaced by
fhe State commission decided to continue the of the first prototype's design and construction. V95 high-strength aluminium alloy). ln addition,
rials with the lightened second prototype - The primary reason for this had been the con- single-piece pressed profiles with variable
,zdeliye 88/2', built at an accelerated tempo at stant over-cautiousness of
the structural cross-sections were incorporated together with
experimental plant No 156. The repaired '88/1 ' strength department and the designers' con- large pressed parts, large sheets and the like.
,,ras subsequently used for testing and refining cern both for the aircraft and their own fates. (lt Thirdly, it was agreed with the Soviet Air
:he special equipment and the engines. should be borne in mind that the Tu-16 came Force that the flight manual would impose a
Series production of the'88'was decided on into being during the ultimate years of the Stalin speed limit up to an altitude of 6,250m, at which
:ven while the State trials were in progress. regime when any kind of mistake could result in altitude the aircraft would not normally be
3ouncil of Ministers directive No3193-1214 imprisonment - or worse.) Everyone wanted to involved in combat operations. The calculated
ri 10th July 1952 and MAP order No804 be on the safe side. Designers at the 'grass dynamic head pressure below this height was
:structed that: roots' level added an extra 10% - just in case, reduced lrom 2,7 00k91m'? to 2,200k9/m'?.
Tupolev Tu-16 15
The second prototype ( '88/2') at Zhukovskiy
during trials, with several Tu-4s in the
background. The old control tower visible
just aft of the tail in the three-quarters tront
view is still in existence, as are the huge
hangar and olfice building to the left.
Tupolev JSC
from July to October 1953. by a formal note in his employment certificate Fuselage Iength 34.8m
Design work on the dooblyor began in and personal record. Height (theoretical) 1 0.355m
August 1951 , with construction of the aircraft at Apart from the revisions mentioned above, Height (practical) 9.85m
OKB-156's prototype factory taking place Ihe dooblyor was also refined in the course ol Wrng span 32,989m
simultaneously. The blueprints which included its design and construction. A number of criti- Wing area 164,65m'?
all the corrections aimed at lightening the air- cisms made during the first tests flights of the Wing aspect ratio 6.627
craft were prepared by the OKB between May 'BB/1 ' were taken into account, and some Wing taper 2.6416
and December 1952. The second prototype changes made when equipment not available Wing sweep at quader-chord JJ
('BB/2') was finished in early 1953 and trucked earlier was eventually fitted. ln particular: Landing gear track 9,775m
Zhukovskiy on 13th February. - the fuselage nose was lengthened by 0.2m to Empty weight 36,81 0kg
On 2nd March MAP issued order No272 increase crew comfod and accommodate All-up weight
'legalising' the lightened prototype. This docu- equipment more easily normal (in max-range llight) 52,500k9
ment contained provisos about the take-off - the fuel capacity was increased from 38,200 maximum 71 ,040k9
16 TupolevTu-16
r€d-on view of the second prototype, showing
'Fe 3rr intakes and the original design of the
r.an gear doors with one.piece quasi.triangular
i*Enents at the lront of the oleos. The hangar
ils,o",le beneath the starboard wingtip is the rival
Fr?sishchev OKB's experimental shop and
t!€rl test facility. Tupolev JSC
1 5,690k9
35,230k9
1 1 ,490k9
30,030k9
"--n 1 1,6m/sec
Wrng aspect ratio 6.627
with a 71,560-kg take-off weight 45,0 secs
-ilm 7.2mlsec
Wing taper 2.6416
Landing run $
:: :rde wilh 56,000-kg AUW oE) without brake parachute 1,655-2,785m
Wrng sweepback at qi.rarter-chord
-,:m 6.7 m ns
Landing gear track 9,775m
with brake parachute 1 ,050-2,1 B0m
::crn 13.8 mins
Landing gear wheelbase 10,913m
'- :: :: 'ng Over the target
*
i
Dry weight 36,600k9
with a 55,000k9 a1l-up weight; t with a 3,000-kg bomb
:;':': ccmb release 12,900m
Empty weight
load; t (take-off distance to 25m) at take-off power with
:-:'::1b release 13,200m
(wlth trapped fuel, starter fuel and oi 37.040k9
20' flap; S with a 44,000-kg landing weight and 35' f ap:
: '::'1 Cal range
A 1-up weight
)
-- a 71,040-kg AUW
*
6,01 5km The 'BB/2' prototype passed its trials with GK
normal for technical range 55,000k9
- a 72,000-kg TOW f 5,760km Nll WS purely in its bomber form. Tests of the
maximum
-...-:' run/take-ofl distance +
71 ,560k9
mine and torpedo armament were deferred to
maximum for exceptrona occasions 72,000k9
- a 56,200-kg TOW 1,220 12,215n jtted landrng weight be carried out on a specially modified produc-
Perm 48,000k9
- a 71,000-kg TOW 1,700m / n.a. tion machine which would serve as the 'stan-
Pay oad
'-: -j run/landing distance S
normal 1 7,960k9
dard' for the Tu-16 torpedo bomber/minelayer.
:-: :g weight 43,600k9 1 ,200 / 1,840m overload 34,520k9
During the trials the Tu-16 was loaded with the
:-: rg weight 47,000k9 1,360m
Fuel ioad
following types of bombs:
'-: -j r,in/ianding distance ti normal 1 3,660k9
:-: ng weight 48,470-kg 1,760-2,553m
overload 30,220k9
- Normal bomb load (3,000k9) 24 x FAB-100
- -- maximum for exceptronal occasjons 30,660k9
- Maximum bomb load (9 000k9) 24xFAB-250
a 3,000-kg bomb load (flying a hi-hl-hi' mission prof 1e)
or 18 x FAB-500
Crew weight 600k9
.-: a 30,030-kgfuel load; i (flying a'hi-hi-hi mission prof le)
or 6 x FAB-1500
Bomb load 3,000k9
=-: : 3.000-kg bomb load; + to 25m at take"off power and
Weight of ammunrtron for cannon 700k9 or 2 x FAB-3000
--' 'ap: S with brake parachute deployed and 35" flapt * or 1 x FAB-9000
lVax speed at take"off power
' , :-iut brake parachute with 35' flap
at sea level 675km/h
at 6,250m 992km/h During the course of the trials 12 TSOSAB-10
l: 16th September 1953 'aircraft BB/2' was at 10,000m 93Bkm/h coloured flare bombs were carried.
: :ared for renewed State trials and was [/ax speed at nominal power * After receiving approval Jrom the State com-
::cepted by GK Nll WS two days later. The tri- a1 sea level 675km/h mission 'aircraft 8B/2' was recommended for
=s. held between 26th September 1953 and al 6,250m 95Bkm/h series production and operational service with
' 3th April 1954, were heid almost exactly a year the Soviet Air Force.
at 1 0,000m 91 5km/h
aler the dooblyof s first flight. Sixty{ive test Maximum L4ach number 0.876 Subsequent production machines differed
',ghts with a total flying time of 154 hours and Unslick speed outwardly from the two prototypes ('BB/1 ' and
33 minutes were made in the course of the trials with a 57,000-kg take-off weight 250km/h 'BBi2') as follows, A different type of aerial was
3y a test crew captained by A K Starikov (who with a 71,560-kg take-off weight 280km/h installed atop the extreme nose (above the nav-
ater pedormed the greater part of the Tu-104 Landing speed igator's station forward of the flightdeck); two
arrliner's test programme) Apart from the tests with a 44,000-kg landing weight 223knlh 'towel rail' aerials were added on the upper
cf the aircraft itself, its systems underwent trials Service cei rng, at nom nal power fuselage sides aft of the flightdeck. The shape
3oncurrently - in particular, the AM-3 engines, w th 57,000-kg take-off weight 12,800m of the dorsal antenna ahead of the navigator/
:he experimental Rubidiy MM-2 bombing radar, w th 71 ,560-kg take-off weight 1 1,300m dorsal gunner's observation/sighiing blister
:he PS-4BM optical sighting stations and the Time to reach service cerling (serving the SPI-1 radio) was also different, and
experimental Argon gun ranging radar. with a 57,000-kg take-off weight 31 mins the pitot tubes were repositioned. Finally, the
Data derived from these trials of 'BB/2', which with a 71 ,560-kg take-off weight 38 mins small one-piece doors of quasi{riangular
served as the yardstick for the first production [/aximum technical range ( hi-hi-hi'): shape hinged at the front of the majn under-
Tu-16 bombers and were used as standards in wirh a 57.000-kg take'of{ we gntT 5,640km carriage oleos gave place to rectangular
their manuals, are given beiow: wrth a 71 ,560-kg take-otf we,gntt 5,760km clamshell doors.
Tupolev Tu-16 17
Chapter Two
18 Tupolev Tu-16
r :r of Tu.16 variants was often operated by
:'E same unit. Here, Kazan'-built Tu-l6K-11.16
- ied' (c/n 5202009) with the characteristic
nrsried-T antenna array on the nose shares the
{iE:: Iine with a Kuibyshev-built basic bomber
=€,Ed 09 Blue' (c/n 1880904), a Tu-l6E 'Azaliya'
3ltrl aircraft with the characteristic boattail
Br:g housing an active iammer ('29 Blue') and
n: rtheraircraft in bomber and EGM
=rigurations coded'30 Blue','26 Blue',
= 3;ue'.'24
---22M3
Blue','22 Blue' and'34 Blue'. A
bomber/missile strike aircraft is visible
sFrEnd. along with two seemingly non-airworthy
-,-:5s banished to the grass verge to avoid
Eupying apron space. Note the open entry
'fi:r]es. Yefim Gordon archive
ffiM
:-: --s. but in the prevailing climate of thought ?ii
-: --:: aircraft nor their intended engines went '-J'
-- - croduction. An |FR-capable version
:: - :3ed with a refuelling probe did not reach
-::-aiional status, as it was not considered
:: . io convert the existing fleet of Tu-16s.
: second reason was that the prototype
: :: :o meet the specified technical or perfor-
-:- le target. A case in point was the Tu-16 fit- Many Tu-16s ended their days as remote- Tu-16E ECM version. ln 1958 the factory initi-
:: ,',,:h RD-3MR engines equipped with thrust controiled target drones. A limited number ated series production of the Tu-104B airliner;
:.:'sers; the aircraft did not see series pro- were built in China which developed a few ver- a year later it launched production of the Tu-22
:_::3n. sions of its own. supersonic bomber - at which point Tu- 1 6 pro-
: :hird reason involved the prototype's cre- duction was temporarily suspended. ln 1957-
.- :- for a specific purpose only. Some Tu-16 59 several experimental and pre-production
:-: converted into airborne command posts The Tu-16 was built in quantity between 1953 examples of missile strike versions (earlier pro-
: , - ^g tests of a certain cruise missile, but were and late 1963. Early production examples duction machines refitted as Tu-16K-10s) were
-=::rfigured back into their original guise once lacked IFR equipment. Only eleven versions of produced for the Soviet Naval Air Arm (AVMF -
'-: iests were over. This, however, did not the Tu-16 (the Tu-16, Tu-164, Tu-16KS, Aviahtsiya voyenno-morskovo flota). ln 1959
: ays happen: the Tu-16 Tsiklon-Ns served in
.', Tu-16K-10, Tu-16T, Tu-16R with SRS-1 or plant No 1 completed the first production
'- -i form until the end of their service lives. SRS-3 communications intelligence (COMINT) Tu-16K-10; however, in 1961 , when the Kuiby-
=,:errmental versions were used for important sets, the Tu-16 Romb (Rhombus) with the shev factory switched to missile production,
:::3cts of technical research. They were usu- SRS-3 COMINT suite in the bomb bay, the series production of this version was reinstated
: ., custom-built at production factories but a Tu-16E and Tu-16 Yolka with the ASO-16 auto- at plant No 22, with the last example leaving the
':," were converted from 'second-hand' exam- matic chaff dispenser, the Tu-16P and the factory in December 1963.
: :s requisitioned from the Air Force. Some- Tu-165PS with SPS- 1 or SPS-2 active jammers) Until the late 1980s, Tu-l6s had the con-
--es the research involved another type of were built as such at three factories. The struction numbers stencilled on the forward
:'oraft. For example, tests of the 'jump strut' numerous other versions were refits of earlier fuselage and on the fin in large digits; later,
::',/eloped for the nose gear unit of Mya- production models. Thus the Tu-16R and however, they were not carried visibly for secu-
: shchev's M-50 bomber were carried out on a Tu-16P were built only at plant No 1 in Kuiby- rity reasons. The c/ns of Kazan'-built examples
---16. Testbeds were used for verifying and shev (now renamed back to Samara), although are deciphered as follows. For instance, a
:=veloping new systems, assemblies, equip- Kazan'-built examples of these versions (iden- Tu-1 6KS with the tactical code '25 Blue'was c/n
-:ent and engines, as well as for multifarious tifiable by their construction numbers) can be 6203125 - that is, year of manufacture 1956,
:<perimental and research purposes. For encountered. The exception is the single exam- plant No 22 (the first digit is omitted to confuse
-stance, the Tu-16 was used for testing the ple built with the Sl/lkat (Silicate) experimental would-be spies), batch 03 1 , the 25th aircraft in
fK-20 cannon-equipped tail turret, Ihe K-22 ECM system; while not officially listed as a pro- the batch. Batches 1 through 10 consisted of
-SM system, the PN navigation/attack radar duction machine, this aircraft was not a refit five aircraft each; the number was increased to
:reated forthe Tu-22K missile strike aircraft and (subsequently this Tu-16 had the Srlkat system ten per batch from Batch 1 1 onwards, then to
:re like, as well as for aerodynamic research. replaced by aFonar'(Lantern) ECM set. 20 from per batch from Batch 26 onwards and
'.lost prominently, the Tu-16LL was used as a Over its entire manufacturing period the finally to 30 per batch from Batch 31 onwards.
:eslbed for many Soviet jet engines. Tu-1 6 was built at three factories in 1 05 batches OKB-156, Lll or GK Nll WS documents
The sixth course of development concerned covering all versions (apart from the sometimes quote abbreviated c/ns. For exam-
:he adaptation of the Tu-1 6 for the Civil Air Fleet Tu-16K-10). Production rates varied over the ple, 'Tu- 1 6 No 1 01 ' was a reference to the air
IGVF - Grazhdahnskiy vozdooshnyy flot), or years when the Tu-16 was in production. Most craft whose c/n was 32001 01 (unfortunately the
Aeroflot (the sole Soviet airline). There were examples were built in 1955-1957; more than a abbreviated form cannot be used to recon-
only a few of these adaptations: for aerial pho- thousand were produced in the course of these struct the complete c/n unless you know when
iography, weather research and for carrying three years. and where the aircraft was built). Additionally,
the matrices of national newspapers. They Between 1953 and 1959 plant No22 named some Kazan'-built Tu-16s carried a four-digit
were also used to train GVF aircrews during after S P Gorbunov at Kazan'-Borisoglebskoye number on the tail below the c/n, the first digit
their conversion to the Soviet Union's first jet produced the following versions: the baseline likewise matching the year of production; for
airliner, the Tu-104. These adaptations were Tu-1 6 bomber, the Tu- 1 64 nuclear weapon car- instance, Tu-16KS'49 Red'(c/n 7203608) was
specially fitted out and lacked armament. rier, the Tu-16KS missile strike aircraft and the marked 7124,whilefu-16K-1 1-16'54 Red' (c/n
Tupolev Tu-1 6
The experimental Tu-16P 'Rezeda' ECM aircraft
('17 rcd' cln 52O2SO7) heads a long line of sister
ships at Vladimirovka AB, Akhtoobinsk,
including a missile strike aircraft coded'14 Red'
(c/n 6401208). All of these aircraft were
eventually converted into M-16 target drones by
GK Nll WS. Yefim Gordon
19 19* 3*
both by the OKB and the by principal manufac-
Tu-1 6 1
45 189 103 57+46* 1Q* turer of the type, Plant No 22. Of lhe ten exam-
Tu-1 64
6 10 29 23+23' 16*
ples assembled in Kuibyshev in 1954, three
Tu-1 6KS
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-.::re machines produced in Kazan', some of Tu-15 Production at Plant No 1
-= "st Tu-16s produced at Plant No1 were
Version 954 956 957 1958 959 960
-::: as prototypes for later versions. The wing- 1 1 1 1 1
--.. :g IFR system was tested on Nos 001 (c/n Tu-1 6 10 BO 35 46*
:::101), 101 (c/n 1880101) and 301 (c/n Tu-1 6 SPS (with SPS-1) 22 20
:::3C1); Tu-16 No202 (c/n 1880202) was 28 70
Ty-16 SPS (with SPS-2)
-::: rn developing the RBP-6 Lyustra (Chan- Tu-16 Romb 5
:: :' radar and the SRS-3 Romb-1 (Rhom- Tu"16 Silikat (Fonar') 1
14d."
,&
;*
.{ii- tu n
TW i,f;,'f;irilr,;*n:lt+i;.
Tupolev Tu-1 6 21
Tu-16 Production in Voronezh Tu-16 Versions Production Totals
Version 1 956 1957 Version Plant No22 Plant No 1 Plant No64 Total
Kazan Kuibyshev Voronezh
Tu-1 6 B 49 22*
Tu-1 6T 17 29 30* Tu-1 6 44 171 79 294
Tu-1 6T 76 76
All three production factories were also
Tu-l6R (with SRS-1 and SRS-3) 70 70
involved in various refit and upgrades pro- 5 5
Tu-1 6 Rornb
grammes and in producing spares for the 5t B9
Tu-1 6E 3B
Soviet Air Force's operational and mainte- Tu-1 6 Yolka (with ASO-16) 42 52
nance units. An immense amount was done 42 42
Tu-16SPS (wlth SPS 1)
through the combined efforts of the Soviet Air 102 102
Tu-16SPS (wlth SPS-2)
Force and OKB-156 since, in addition to the 1 1
Tu-1 6SPS Sil kat/Fonar' 1 1
165 at Plant No 64. The tables list the quantities Kazan Kuibyshev Voronezh
b4 137
reconnaissance versions by Naval Air Arm 1 958 73
959 2 30 32
units, Testbed examples were often converted 1
960 42 42
by the organisations wishing to use them, either 1
'1961 30 30
with the parlicipation of OKB-156 or under its
70 70
supervision. It would be impossible to give a 1 962
963 50 50
precise list of all the versions and modifications 1
since some aircraft were subject to more than 543 165 507
Totals I
one refit or upgrade. The following chapters,
drawing on existing documents and archive
material, contain more detailed information on A Tu-l6KSR-2-5 coded'18 Red'photographed from an escorting NATO fighter, Note the slits in the
the various versions of the Tu-16 as well as on a wing flaps to accommodate the lins of the KSR-s missiles and the camera window immediately aft
series of projects which never materialised. of the bomb bay. Yefim Gordon archive
s, .;$"
r;i"
,o- ,' *. , ij
..---,ff.ffi'
{,"'**
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Chapter Three
:-:-:rrfrom the Soviet occupation zone in There were still many new problems to be lVax speed*
:=.-any in 1948 together with their German overcome. The swept-wing configuration with at 6,250m 992km/h
: ::'::rves. The three Schliemann presses (two the jet engines tucked into the fuselage and fed at 10,000m 93Bkm/h
:- :ai presses delivering pressures of 30,000 by ducts through the wing spars demanded a Service ceiling / time to reach it t 12,900m / 31 mins
.-: '5,000 tons and a horizontal press of special degree of care and accuracy from the lVaxlmum range { 5,760km
:'---:c full power by 1952, butwere still almost assemblies and integral parts meant the need Landlng run with a
: : :Je to lack of any orders from the aircraft for meticulous attention in their manufacture and landing weight of 44,000k9 1 ,655k9
-:-::ry. Designers were still thinking in out- assembly. A pafiicular problem was caused by Bomb load
:=::: technological terms. The Tu-16 was, the delivery of imperfect wing sparframes. Close normal 3,000k9
-.':icre, the first Soviet aircraft built in series inspection was needed before these could be maximum 9,000k9
: -s= large pressed parls. Soon afterthis, sim- passed for assembly, and in some instances Cannon armament
:- spars were pressed at Kamensk-
,,,'lng frames with deep incisions had to be scrapped. 0ne fixed lorwardiiring 23mm cannon with 100 rounds
-': sKiy for the M-4 built at plant No23 in There were also many teething problems in fit- Dorsal turret with 2 x 23mm cannon (250rpg)
':s3cw; later orders included wings for the ting equipment, in pafiicular the defensive arma- Ventral turret with 2 x 23mm cannon
:-:tr surfaceto-air missile (SAM) system. By ment and the PRS-1 Argon gun laying radar. (normally 250rpg, but up to 350rpg possible)
-: :nd of the 1950s a hydraulic press of com- The first Kazan'-built production bomber (c/n Tail turret with 2 x 23mm cannon
:;':cle power, but now built in the USSR, was 3200101) was rolled out on 29th October 1953, (normally 350rpg, but 500rpg posslble)
-
-.:a,led at plant 1 in Kuibyshev and later used with production being extended to Kuibyshev in
-: lroduce parts for the R-7 intercontinental 1954 and to Voronezh the following year. The * in level flight at max power and a normal AUW of 55,000k9
:: slic missile (ICBM). These advances put empty weight of the production bomber varied t at nominal power and normal a1l-up weight
- = iSSR among the world's leading aero and from 37,200 to 37,520k9 (due to the variations t at optimum cruising speed with a 72,000-kg TOW (hi-hi-hi
.:a:e technologies. in the bomb racks to suit different bomb loads). mission profile) and a 3,000-kg bomb load
as already mentioned, plant No 22 in Kazan' The Tu-16 was officially authorised for Soviet Air
-:rame the pilot production factory for the Force service by Council of Ministers directive MAP ordered a production aircraft (cln 4201002)
---:6 in accordance with Council of Ministers No1034-43 of 28th May 1954 amd MAP order to be modified to increase its range. lts maxi-
: '3ctive No3193-1214 of 1Oth July 1952. lts No355 of 4th June, with the Ministry of Aircraft mum overload weight of 75,800k9 included
=,lerience in the large-scale production of lndustry stipulating that a production machine greater fuel tankage. Monitored trials by Nll WS
---4 bombers enabled it to implement produc- should be available for checkout trials by GK Nll of the aircraft's take-off and landing characteris-
tics and range with the overload weight given
above yielded the following results:
Tupolev Tu-16 23
I
l
llliiirii',lr&
xl;l
#
"*t -:__. " ffiffiffi'"
^fu*\
rit,ilili:rif
-k"$Ai,tlt:.'j
,rr;ri ;.1r,,,r,j;l':ll
'r 'atrriil,
"tii{lFs,!ur,q c;',: r rrtlu, r
After these trials, Tu-1 6 cln 4201002 was used eject, and was the first to do so. However, the '65 Red' (c/n 5201308), another example of the
as the 'standard-setter' for production exam- young co-pilot A I Kazakov stayed with the air- 'conventional'Tu-16 bomber (as distinct from
ples for 1955. craft and trjed to recover from the spin, but the nuclear-capable Tu.16A). The use of such
.1954 large tactical codes on the forward tuselage was
ln production was initiated at Plant No 1 could not do so due to the high control forces later discontinued. Note the early.model 'towel
at Kuibyshev. Tests of the first production as speed increased. A G load of 4.2 was rail'aerial on the forward fuselage, This aircraft
example (c/n 1880001) demonstrated that a reached and the destruction of the aircraft and was later transferred lo another unit and
large aircraft like the Tu-16 did require power- its crew seemed imminent. But fortune was on recoded'17 Red'. Yefim Gordon archive
assisted controls, and that, despite its weight Kazakov's side: the G force wrenched the
One more early-model Tu-16 bomber,'70 Red'
reduction, the Tu-16 was of robust construc- undercarriage legs loose, forcing them into (c/n 5201406), taxies out lor take.off past a trio
tion. These conclusions resulted from a test extended position, and the extra drag slightly of Lisunov Li-2 transports. Yefim Gordon archive
flight on 28th September 1954 in which reduced the speed. By pulling the control col-
factory teslpilot Molchanov was instructed to umn back with a force of no less than 100k9
determine the machine's G limits. At an altitude Kazakov recovered from the spin just before From the second aircraft of the third Kuiby-
of 9,000m the machine was put into a dive, reaching the ground. The aircraft remained, to shev-built batch (c/n 1880302) onwards the
pulling of 3.2 Gs when recovering from the all intents and purposes, undamaged and a forward-hinged quasitriangular forward seg-
dive; however, the mission objective was to month later Kazakov was awarded the Hero of ments of the mainwheel well doors were
achieve a G load of 3.47. When the pilots the Soviet Union title. The strength of the air- replaced by twin lateral doors. This eliminated
reached a critical angle of attack, the aircraft craft evoked real interest, since it had signifi- vibration in the undercarriage fairing caused by
began to vibrate, then stalled and went into a cantly exceeded its G limit and still stayed in the stalled airflow from the door when the legs
tight spiral. The captain ordered the crew to one piece. were lowered.
{41+fu
t
w
e
j'
;*r.fr*#*trfl*-.. -,.
jl;,ifi#llffimffifl#u+#,,hr
"l
@ry.= 1
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-" , '::" , ;h oi Tu-16'32 Blue'(c/n 5201510)
rii;ir" -/: 1:-3ss a wintry airfield shows
the
.ilr':.:',:,- ':cs and the tail guns in the lully
r,p, :" :: :csrtion. Note that the rear fuselage is
:i i,: r u -: s3ot: the AM.3 was a smoky engine.
Tupolev Tu-16 25
by sealing or narrowing the gaps on the aircraft's When the Tu-164 entered service iis empty sides), it was likewise referred to by NATO as
exterior (hatch covers, doors and the like), using weight of 37,700k9 was 1 85kg greater than the lhe Badger-[.
overlapping tape basic bomber's. ln the late 1950s all opera- The data below refer to the Tu-1 64 with two
by fitting blinds to glazed areas which could be tional Tu-164 bombers were modified to RD-3M-500 engines (each providing a maxi-
closed or put in place before the bomb was ensure greater resistance to the nuclear flash, mum thrust of 9,500k9) in the closing days ol
dropped with those areas of the metal skinning mosi its service career:
by encasing some equipment and wiring in exposed to the flash made as resistant as pos-
insulating materials sible. From 1962 onwards the aircraft was fitted Empty weight 39,720k9
by applying special white reflective paint to the with the ASO-16 chaff dispenser. Since the All-up weight
underside of the aircraft (this was known as the Tu-164 had no external differences from the normal 75,800k9
'atomic' colour scheme) baseline bomber (apart from the white under- maximum 79,000k9
lVlaximum bomb load 9,000k9
*
lVaximum speed
up to 500m 670km/h
at 6,250m B90km/h
at 10,000m 960km/h
Maximum permissible lVlach number 0,9
Service ceiling with a TOW of 62,000k9 1 2,800m
Service range f 5,800km
Tupolev Tu-1 6
03
ffi.{lrFff'Wiwr *,"
-""1
tr
---aA N uclear-Capable Bomber
1
--.
ir r?r3ft '88A', 'order 557')
---i 6A was again upgraded in the 1 970s
-:- ::der 657' brought revisions to the elec-
#*9
-: ,',:,ng forthe nuclear bomb release sys- I
Tupolev Tu-l 6
Tu-1 6B Experimental Long-Range Bomber differed only in the shape of the engine fairings. Long-Range Bomber with TR-3F Engines
On 28th March 1956 the Council of Ministers Unlike the AM-3, which was started by a so- (aircraft'90/88' project)
issued directive No 424-261 followed by MAOP called turbostarter (a small gas turbine engine During the design work on the '88', project
order No194 on 6th April. These documents spinning up the main engine's spool), the work on an alternative configuration continued
ordered OKB-156 to develop a version of the M-16-15 (RD16-15) had electric starting; hence as an insurance policy in case of problems with
Tu-16 powered by Zoobets M16-15 (RD16-15) additional DC batteries had to be carried and AM-3 engine. This project, the '90/88', had four
turbojets developed by the Rybinsk Engine the engine fairings lacked the usual exhaust 5,000-kg thrust Lyul'ka TR-3F engines, but with
Design Bureau (RKBM), each with a take-off ports for the turbostarters. The Tu-168 was to a different configuration. Two engines were
thrust of 11,000k9. These were to give the air- offer vastly improved performance - especially located in the same positions as on the 'BB',
craft a range ot7,200km and a maximum speed range - thanks to its more powerful and fuel- while the other two were carried under the
of 1,03Q-1,050km/h. Two examples were to be efficient engines and greater fuel load. lt was wings between the flaps and ailerons. Two ver-
ready for State acceptance trials in the first planned to use it as an intercontinental bomber sions were prepared: one had main gear fair-
quarter of 1 957. 28th May 1 956 saw the appear- but, although the basic objectives were ings like the 'BB' while on the second version
ance of MAP order No 295 instructing OKB-156 achieved and the engines proved reliable and the main gear units retracted into fairings
to supply the necessary conversion documen- troublejree, the cutbacks in the Sovlet bomber blended smoothly with the wing engine
tation to plant No 22 in Kazan' in preparation for force meant that neither the Tu-168 nor its nacelles. ln both cases the main undercarriage
series production before 1st July. Plant No22 engines entered series production. leg had twin wheels, and single-wheel outrig-
itself was ordered to produce two prototypes Along with the Tu-168 project, OKB-156 gers were fitted to the wingtips (in a similar way
with the new engines, one to be ready for man- worked on a number of others relating to the to that originally proposed for the 'BB'). The
ufacturer's tests in October and the second in bomber's engines; these included an attempt fuselage was virtually identical to the Tu-16.
November 1956, while OKB-16 was to supply to equip the RD-3M with thrust reversers (on Further development was terminated once the
four RD16-15 engines with a life of 200 hours in both the Tu-16 and the Tu-104) and the use of success of the Tu-1 6 was assured.
September. Two versions of the resulting jet-assisted take-off (JATO) boosters to reduce
Tu-168 were proposed, one with additional the take-off run when the bomber was fully Long-Range Bomber with TV-12
external fuel tanks and one without. The esti- loaded. None of these were adopted for pro- Turboprop Engines (aircraft'90' proiect)
mated data for the two versions are given duction machines. Later projects in 1965 ln 1954 OKB-156 engineer Sergey M Yeger
below: included replacing the RD-3M-500 with more proposed a version of the Tu-l6 powered by
fuel-efficient Kuznetsov NK-8-2 or NK-B-4 tur- two 12,000-ehp Kuznetsov TV-12 turboprops
no external with external bofan engines, but these were frustrated by (known as the NK-12 in production form and
fuel tanks luel tanks problems with modifying the engine housings. already fitted to the four-engined Tu-95
ln the mid-1970s the issue of installing bomber). The turboprop derivative of the Tu-1 6
1 65rn' I 84m' Solov'yov D-30P turbofans was raised but was designated 'aircraft 90'. Yeger's project
38,1 00kg 39,440k9 received no backing from the Soviet Air Force called for the wing of the '88'to be modified, the
Take-oi lrergh'i 76 B00kg 90,200k9 Command. air intakes eliminated, and the new engines
llaximum range 9,780km The 'inflexible' character of the bomber's mounted on the wings between the flaps and
0perat onal range engine installations had been a matter of con- ailerons in fairings which also housed the main
no in{light refuell ng 7,200-7,500km B,950km cern for the aircraft's designers for some time. undercarriage legs. The more fuel-efficlent tur-
1 in-flight refuelling 1 0,000-1 0,500km 1 1,900km As early as the beginning of the 1950s an alter- boprop engines were seen as a means of
2 in-flight refuellings 1 3,200krn 1 5,200km native configuration Jor the bomber included extending the bomber's range, but the associ-
new wings featuring leading-edge root exten- ated redesign of the wings, undercarriage and
sions (LERXes) with 45" leading-edge sweep at fuselage looked set to be protracted; also, the
The Tu-168 prototype was modified from a pro- the roots; the leading edges incorporated slot Soviet Air Force was satisfied with the perfor-
duction machine (c/n 6203330) built in Kazan', air intakes similar to those of the British V- mance of the Tu-16 with AM-3 engines. The
Testing at Lll got under way in March 1957, bombers. The engine fairings were to be under project was therefore shelved, although a ver-
initially with M-16-15 and then with RD16-15 the wing trailing edge close to the fuselage. sion of the Tu-104 airliner fitted with either NK-B
engines which had a longer service life. The Such a layout would have provided far more turbofans or Kuznetsov TV-2F turboprops was
second prototype Tu-168 underwent trials at options on the type of engines fitted as the later considered as project '1 1B'.
GK Nll WS until 1961. Outwardly the Tu-168 bomber was upgraded.
Long-Range Bomber with VD-5 Engines
(aircraft'97' proiect)
ln the mid-1950s OKB-156 explored the idea of
converting the Tu-16 into a supersonic bomber
(izde liye'97'). Two Dobrynin VD-S afterburning
turbojets designed by OKB-36 were to be fitted,
together with a new wing swept back 45' at
quarter-chord. These measures were designed
to increase the bomber's top speed by at least
150-200km/h. Work on designing entirely new
supersonic long-range aircraft made the pro-
ject unviable.
28 Tupolev Tu-1 6
-.--i 3€ Black'(c/n 4200303) was modilied for
Err€ the SNAB-3000 Krab homing bomb; two
*rcr lombs were carried on special underwing
sms-s- -,colev JSC
- :: ::s fitted;
the engines were to be paired
i-:2 y a /a English Electric Lightning and release. Guidance was effected through the speeds. ln August 1955 experimental Condor
' :--:: in enlarged fairings. Further investiga- sight by a juxtaposition of the bomb's image bombs were again tested from the Tu-4 using
: - :' ihe project, however, indicated that the with an indicator registering the angles of diver- TV guidance and with the navigator using a con-
-:: - -e would not be able to reach supersonic gence derived from calculating the bomb's tra- trol joystick. Not only could this system be used
:-: ;n its existing configuration even with jectory and generated by a special computer. in less favourable weather conditions, it also
:: :'le engine power. However, the '103' did lnJlight control by the bombardier was obviated the need for the bomber to fly over the
.;- : :s the precursor to the work on the '105' effected by a 4A-Nl data link system transmit- target. Tests using an adapted Tu-16 (as 'order
supersonic bomber which ultimately ting on three wavebands simultaneously to 251' began in March 1956, but although suc-
' -:':=d as the Tu-22 (in 1954 the possibility of frustrate jamming. The bomb's receiver passed cessful the system was not accepted lor opera-
-: -: :re Tu-16 for a first essay in this direction the signals to the AP-59 autopilot which acti- tional service. The large bomb carried externally
:: =iamined). vated the bomb's guidance mechanism and increased drag to the detriment of both speed
made the necessary corrections to keep the and range. Work on guided bombs carried
irperiments with Guided Bombs bomb level. The bomber's height dictated the externally was therefore terminated.
-r€ Tu-16 Chaika required speeds for releasing the bomb, and
:: =: development work on guided bombs, these varied between 550km/h at 5,000m and Tu-16 with the UBV-5 Guided Bomb
-- over 900km/h above 6,500m. As the bomb's Work on a more sophisticated guided bomb,
= ,i based on World WarTwo German types
- - : - as the Fritz X, for tactical and long-range speed was lower than that of the bomber, the the 5,150-kg UBV-S fitted with a 4,200-kg war-
: :-3ers began in the early 1950s. The Tu-16 pilot was obliged to pull his machine up and head, began in the summer of 1956. The bomb
:s seen as a suitable delivery vehicle for the lose speed so that both the bomb and its target was to have a high-explosive or an armour-
'::-kg UB-s Condor (aka UB-5000F; UB = remained visible. The UB-2F (UB-2000F) had a piercing warhead with either TV guidance (like
: -'atlyayemaya bomba - guided bomb) with high-explosive warhead (F = foogahsnaya - the Condor) or an autonomous heat-seeking
:200-kg warhead or the 2,24j-kg UB-2F high-explosive), but the use of the U8-20008 system (like the Chaika-2). Two variants were
-:-2000F) Chaika (Seagull) with a 1,795-kg armour-piercing version (B = broneboynaya - designed: one to be carried internally and the
:--:ad. Radio control or television guidance armour-piercing) was also envisaged. other semi-recessed (the latter was rejected by
:::ms were used. The Tu-16 equipped to During the latter years of the 1950s the the Soviet Air Force). The drawback to all the
: =--.' a guided bomb was fitted with a KRU-UB improved Chaika-2 (with infra-red homing) and Soviet guided bombs was that the carrier air-
:: l control
transmitter, ihe operator eitherfol- the Chaika-3 (with passive radar homing for use craft was obliged to release the bomb only a few
: the marker flare attached
', 19 the course of against enemy radar and ECM sites) were kilometres from the target, increasing the risk of
': :^e bomb through an OPB-2UP optical sight developed, although only Ihe 4A-22 Chaika was enemy interdiction. This problem could be over
:- ;sing images transmitted to a monitor actually tested and accepted for operational come by the use of solidJuel rocket motors on
. :':en from a TV camera (a 'bomb's eye view') use in December 1955. The UB-2F was the first the bombs, so that they resembled ASMs, but
-: -rake course corrections through the linked Soviei guided bomb. Tests results showed that the advantages of guided bombs in their sim-
-:: o control system. The latter method proved only two or three such bombs were needed to plicity and low production costs as compared
- :'e accurate and less reliant on weather con- hit a target measuring 30 x 70m as against 168 with ASMs began to wane. The emphasis
:: rns. The bombs were carried under the FAB-1 500 conventional freejall bombs. shifted to air-launched cruise missiles able to
-, -:lage or under the wings. strike enemy warships while the launch aircraft
- small number of Tu-16 bombers were Tu-16 Condor Guided Bomb Carrier was still some distance away. This brought an
::-ipped with the 4A-22 Chaika system which ('order 251') end to work on the 7,500-kg UPB rocket-pow-
::rirolled the UB-2F guided bomb against Preliminary tests of the UB-s (UB-5000F) Con- ered guided bomb which was to be released at
:-allbut impodant targets such as railway dor guided bomb were carried out using the a range of 300-350km from its target.
:-oges, storage depots and administrative Tu-4. The Condor was intended for use against
:, idings from high altitude. Two UB-2F bombs large surface ships and was essentially an Tu-16 with the SNAB-3000 Krab
',:re carried under the wings on special pylons enlarged Chaika with a high-explosive war- Homing Bomb
--i the bomber was fitted with an electric sys- head. Two versions were developed, one using On 14th April 1957 the Council of Ministers
::r for arming and guiding the bomb. The sys- line-of-sight radio command guidance (like the passed directive No1175-440 giving guide-
:::r could only be used in good visibility Chaika) and the other TV guidance. The radio lines for guided weapons development untilthe
::nditions when both the bomb and the target command system was used during tests with mid-l950s. Among other things, the All-Union
::uld be observed through the special the Tu-4, but its accuracy proved significantly State Research lnstitute No642 (GSNll-642)
l"B-2UP periscopic synchronised sight used poorer than the Chaika's since the heavier Con- was tasked with developing a 3,000-kg homing
'::dropping free{all and guided bombs in levei dor reached speeds in the order of Mach 1.1 bomb designated SNAB-3000 (samon-
' Eht. This automatically signalled proximity to and in{light control proved more difficult. These avodyashchayasya aviabomba - homing
:cmb release, the time when the bomb bay problems were eventually overcome and satjs- bomb) which was also known under the code-
:gors were to be opened, and the moment of factory results obtained through he range of name Krab (Crab).
Tupolev Tu-16 29
Development of the SNAB-3000 proceeded service introduction of the 3M revealed serious Some aircratt were equipped with ECM gear,
under the leadership of D V Svecharnik. The problems with the VD-7 which were not including the Buket jammer. Externally the
design was strongly infiuenced by the German resolved until series production of the Tu-16 Tu-16T differed little from the bomber version
Fritz X, featuring the same four large fins in a was drawing to a close. except in the weapons bay doors.
squashed-X arrangement and cruciform tailf ins lntended for low- and high-altitude torpedo
within a rhomboid-shaped rudder arrange- Tu-16 with Unguided Rocket Defensive attack and mine-laying, the Tu-16T had a top
ment. Unlike the German prototype, however, Armament ('otder 227') speed of 992km/h at 6,250m wlth an all-up
the SNAB-3000 had swept wings. The bomb Trials of this tail defence system using TRS weight of 55,000k9. With the same flying
featured an AP-55 autopilot for initial guidance unguided rockets housed in a launcher that weight, the top speed was 938km/h at
and an infra-red seeker head for terminal guid- could be elevated vertically through 30" were '10,000m. lts range at optimum altitude
with a
ance. The lR seeker was activated by a timer, scheduled for the autumn of 1956. The system take-off weight of 72.000k9 and a 3,000k9 load
allowing the bomb to zero in on large targets was developed in accordance with Council of torpedoes or mines was 5.760km. lts service
with a high heat signature, such as factories. of Ministers order No 2253-1069 of 3rd Novem- ceiling with the engines at nominal power was
The warhead weighed 1,285k9. ber 1954 and MAP order No693 of 13th 12,800m, an aititude the Tu-16T reached in 31
Trials began in 1951 , initially using Tu-4 car- November. A production Tu-16 was made minutes. lts take-off run with a 71 ,560-kg AUW
rier aircraft and 'dumb' versions of the bomb available for trials but development was appar- was 1,900m. and the landing run with a44,000-
without the homing system. The fully equipped ently then terminated. kg landing weight was 1.655m. Like the
'smart' version entered test at the GK Nll ws bomber version of the Tu-1 6. the Tu-16T was
facility in Akhtoobinsk in late 1952. The bomb Tu-16T Torpedo.Bomber known to NATO as the Badger-A. By the early
showed promising results at first, accurately ('order 21O', izdeliye NTI 1960s the more formidable anti-aircraft
homing in on pans with burning kerosene used The use of the Tu-16 as a torpedo-bomber by defences employed by naval vessels made the
as simulated targets; out of the 1 2 inert and live the Naval Air Arm (AVMF) was an inherent fac- use of torpedo-bombers impractical, and the
bombs dropped in 1953-54, eight fell within tor in the aircraft's design, and all Tu-16 Tu-1 6T f leet was converted into Tu- 1 6PLO ASW
47m of the target. bombers were to be capable of carrying mines aircraft or Tu-16S SAR aircraft. Six examples of
However, the piston-engined Tu-4 was slow or torpedoes. CofM instruction No7501 to this the Tu-16T were supplied to Egypt.
and hopelessly outdated, so the decision was effect was issued on 12th July 1954, followed
taken to use the state-of-the-art Tu-16 as the by MAP order No 432 on 1Sth July. The relevant Tu-16 Mine-Layer
delivery vehicle. Hence a Kazan'-bullt Tu-16 manufacturer's tests and staie trials were made Some versions of the Tu-16, particularly the
serialled '36 Black' (c/n 4200303) was fitted in 1954 on Kazan'-built Tu-l6 c/n 4200501 Tu-16P (SPS). the Tu-16 Yolka and the Tu-16R
with special pylons under the wings for carry- which thus became the torpedo-bomber proto- (these versions are described later) in AVMF
ing two SNAB-3000 bombs. lt was then that type produced as 'order 210' and designated service were refitted as mine-layers in accor-
problems began; the jet-powered Tu-16 turned Tu-16T or izdeliye NT in naval service. The air- dance with 'order 699'with the option of revert-
out to be too fast for the bomb which became craft was ordered into production by CofM ing to the bomber version if required. Some
unstable when dropped at high speeds, the directive No 163-97 of 2nd February 1955 and Tu-16s in service with the Red Banner Baltic
accuracy dropping dramatically. The strong MAP order No 127 of 1st March. Fleet Air Arm were thus modified in the early
drag generated by the bombs reduced the air- Possible weapons loads to be carried con- '1970s. Superfluous equipment was removed
craft's range to 3,620km with two SNAB-3000s sisted of four RAT-52 torpedoes, or six 45-52 W and cassette{ype racks for mines fitted in the
and 4,500km with one bomb versus 5,430km torpedoes, or eightAMD-500M (orAPM), tGDM weapons bay.
with a 9,000-kg freeJall bomb carried internally, or AGDM-2M Lira (Lyre, pronounced /eera)
To top it all, the reliability of the guidance sys- mines. Tu-16PLO (Tu-16PL)
tem was all too low; of the 32 test missions Production of the Tu-16T (based on the pro- Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft
flown by Tu-16 '36 Black', 16 ended in failure totype) began at plant No 64 in 1955, with orders Stafting in 1962, a number of Tu-16T torpedo-
due to various malfunctions of the bombs. for 25 new-build examples in that year and for bombers were convefted for anti-submarine
Hence on 26th August 1956 the Council of Min- the conversion of 20 bombers. Production con- warfare (ASW) as the Tu-16PLO (or Tu-16P1).
isters' Scientific & Technical Board convened tinued until 1957, by which time 76 examples of These were intended for ASW operations using
to assess the results of the trials, cancelling all the Tu-16T had been built at Voronezh, apart the Baku sonobuoy system within a range of
further work on the SNAB-3000. from the conversion of Tu- 1 6 bombers operated 1,00Okm (without in{light refuelling) from their
by the AVMF. The Tu-16T was refitted to carry bases. The system comprised the SPARU-SS
Tu-1 6V High-Altitude Bomber mines and torpedoes with a revised electric airborne automatic detection set (samolyot-
Work on the Tu-16V high-altitude bomber weapons release system and additional control noye preeyomnoye avtomaticheskoye
project (V = vysotnyy - high-altitude) with two panels in the navigator's station. Special secur- rahdioustroysfvo), sonobuoys (each one trans-
VD-7 engines was carried out by OKB-156 in ing chains were also fitted to prevent the torpedo mitting on its own frequency), an ANP-18 auto-
the late 1950s. The VD-7 engine rated at being inadvertently released. matic navigation instrument, a RPB-4 radar
1 1,000k9 thrust for take-off and 8,600k9 thrust Production examples of the Tu-16T had bombsight and a PP-1 panoramic receiver/djs-
at nominal power was more fuel-efficient, revised weapons bays to carry two RAT-52 play. The sonobuoys were dropped in a pattern
lighter and smaller than the RD-3M and it was rocket-powered torpedoes, six high-altitude around the submarine's presumed location,
estimated that the bomber's range could be 45-54W or low-altitude 45-56NT torpedoes. picked up its sound and relayed information
increased by about 15% with the same fuel two BV-20 depth charges, 12 AMD-4-500 bot- on its position and characteristics to the aircraft.
load. The project drawings show revised tom mines or four AMD-4-1000 mines. Rocket- A decision as to an attack method could then
engine fairings to accommodate extra batter- propelled RM-1 and RM-2 surface mines, UDM be taken, or the information received relayed t
ies, as the VD-7 used electrical starting. Project universal bottom mines, IVDM-3, MDM-4 and o other aircraft. The search version carried
work took place at the same time as V M Mya- MDM-S bottom mines, the Serpei and Lira either 36 RGB-NM or 24 RGB-N buoys, the
sishchev's OKB-23 was working on the 3M anchored mines, AMD-2M, IGD-M and Desna search/attack version either 18 buoys and
four-engined bomber powered by the same mines, UPAMB-100/80 practice mines and 45- two AT-1 torpedoes or 12 buoys and one
engines, but was terminated with the cutbacks 36MAV torpedoes could also be carried. The nuclear depth charge, and the attack version
in the bomber development programmes at the overallweapons load was 8.7 tons. The Tu-167 was armed with either two AT-1 torpedoes, 25
end of the 1960s. Another factor was that the could also carry a full 9,000k9 bomb load. PLAB-S0 depth charges or six RM-1 rocket-
30 Tupolev Tu-16
*TE *i I from the late 1980s Soviet motion
ilt=:r-e i-he Incident in Grid Square 36-80 r -':i
rritl'Ers :he Tu.165 SAR aircraft taking off with ,i
llrllf i.eglat liteboat suspended under the
rureiD.aE!€. -:oolev JSC
Tupolev Tu-16 31
Close-up of the starboard wingtip ol a
decommissioned Tu-15(Z) tanker ('30 Black', c/n
1882801), showing the conduit through which
the fuel transler hose exits and the horizontal
'winglet'whose purpose is to minimise the
destabilizing eflect of the wingtip vortex on the
hose; red and white stripes are applied to this
'winglet'to make it more conspicuous' The slits
immediately ahead are the de-icing system hot
air outlet, Yefim Gordon archive
Tupolev Tu-1 6
- - 'a(Z) tanker coded '34 Red' (background)
-: s a Tu-16K-11-16'radar killer' aircratt
:;: 8s Blue' (c/n 6203310/3060?) flying over
- : ( : rercast. Note the stabilising drogue
., : : r ute at the end of the hose iust visible
*-: :ih lhe receiver aircraft's wingtip.
: -':cn archive
Tupolev Tu-1 6 JJ
i: :3nker coded'34 Red'(background)
: --.16K-l 1-16'radar killer' aircralt a
: :: 3iue' (c/n 6203310/3060?) llying over
: :'::st. Note the stabilising drogue
' --: :t the end of the hose iust visible
- - --: receiver aircraft's wingtip.
j -:':alVe
d'-
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-lio the SM-10 and its Tu-16 tanker were years of practice by the Soviet Air Force the transferable fuel load of 19,500 litres. Refuelling
=-::C over to Lll for further testing with a drawbacks of this combination became appar- took place at a speed of 630kmih and at an alti-
-.:C hose. This had a more reliable attach- ent, as did the advantages of using a lighter tude of 6,000m. With improved drogue-and-
-:-: rnechanism, was less prone to folding, tanker able to use the same or similar airfields hose equipment the Tu-16N served on into the
:: .ss affected by the tanker's wingtip vortex as the Tu-22. Being based solely at Engels-2 AB 1980s. The Tu-16N was yet again referred to by
: ,',as shorter. Factory tests of the new fuel in southern central Russia, the 3MS-2s had to fly NATO as lhe Badger-A.
::: croved favourable, but the verdict of the across almost the whole extent of European
: -:- :rg State trials was that the method was Russia to reach the rendezvous zone, whereas Experimental Tu-1 6 (Tu-1 5D?)
: : nicult. Work on IFR for fighters was there- the Tu-16 tanker could operate from neighbour- Probe-and-Drogue Refuelling Receiver
': shelved, resuming only in the 1970s. ing airfields in the Ukraine or Belorussia. ln the late 1950s a single Tu-16 was converted
::cording to OKB-156, 1 14 Tu-16 bombers The refuelling system in use on the 3MS-2 was into a receiver aircraft using the probe-and-
=': converted to serve as wingtipto-wingtip adapted and developed on suitably modified drogue IFR technique. Although the trials were
.--3rs (other sources give a total of 46), and Tu-16 c/n 1882401. From 1963 several Tu-16 successful the method was not adopted. This
:-' aircraft - over a third of all the Tu-16 built - were convefted as 'order 358' at Kazan and des- modified Tu-16 was used, however, in devel-
, :': equipped as receivers. Tanker aircraft gnated the Tu- 1 6N or izde I iye N N in service. The
i oping IFR equipment for the Tu-95KD and
::- c be reconfigured as bombers by field tanker could revert to bomber configuration if Tu-22KD long-range ASM carriers. The desig-
-i ltenance units by removing the extra fuel necessary. ln '1966 a Tu-16N (c/n 1882314) nation Tu-16D has been reported for this ver-
:- -,s from the aircraft's weapons bay, although underwent refuelling trials with aTu-22RD (cln sion, although it was not officially used during
:::: the OPB-1 1R sight was also removed, 3083012) reconnaissance aircraft as the the trlals.
-:<ing reversion impossible. The pedormance receiver aircraft. The success of these prompted
:- 'eceiver aircraft was not affected by the addi- the conversion of 23 Tu-16 bombers to Tu-1 6N Tu-16NN Tanker
::i of the IFR receptacle to its wing. standard at the Kazan'factory between 1968 Several standard Tu-l6(2) tankers were con-
and 1970. With a single top-up from the Tu-16N verted to probe-and-drogue tankers in 1969
Tu-16N ln-Flight Refuelling Tanker Ihefu-22 had an increased range ot7,200km, along the lines of the bombers converted to
'order 358', rzdefiye NN) increasing to B,000km with two top-ups. Using Tu-16N standard. Although designated
.', :n the introduction of the supersonic IFR once on the outbound leg and again on the that
Tu-1 6NN, they were so similar to the Tu-1 6N
---22RD, Iu-22KD, fu-22PD and Tu-22UD return flight further extended the range to they were referred to as the Tu-16N in Soviet Air
::mbers equipped with refuelling probes (D = 8,500km. The Tu-1 6N itself had a normal take-ofi Force service. ln all, some 20 Tu-16(Z)s were
J a h I' n iy - long-ran ge) nto Lon g-Ran ge Aviation
i weight of 76,670k9, but could carry a maximum conveded into Tu-1 6NN tankers.
=rd Naval Air Arm service in the 1960s, the con-
,:rsion of the Tu-16 into a probe-and-drogue
=R tanker was again considered. ln{light refu-
: ng of Ihefu-22 had been carried out using
f
Tupolev Tu-16
Chapter Four
Tu-16KS as an air-to-surface missile (the KS-1), as a sile). ln 1 950 the ASM was ready for testing as
('order 187', izdeliye NKSI shipto-ship missile (the KSS) and as a surface- the diminutive izdeliye K proof-otconcept air-
Work on the first Soviet long-range air-to-sur- to surface missile (the KS-7). All three missiles craft (a manned version of the actual KS-1 with
face missile system began in 1947, involving were very similar and varied only in their provi- a bicycle landing gear and a cockpit instead of
development of the missile by a section of sion for their specific funciion. the explosive charge), and in 1 952 the f irst true
Mikoyan's OKB-155 (Mlkhail I Gurevich was ln June 1948 the Soviet Council of Ministers missiles were tested and placed in series pro-
project chief, wlth Aleksandr Ya Bereznyak in issued a directive on the creation ollhe Kometa duction. The production KS-1 was 8.29m long.
charge ofthe actual design). The carrier aircraft (Comet) weapons system, which involved It featured wings swept back 55', with a span of
was developed byTupolev's OKB-156 (underA adapting Tu-4 bombers to enable them to 4J72m. The missile was powered by a RD-
V Nadashkevich) and the missile's control and launch air-to-surface missiles against surface 500K turbojet engine with fuel load of 330 litres
guidance system by SKB-1 (under Sergey L vessels over an operational range of up to and carried a 1 ,000-kg warhead over a range of
Beria, son of the infamous KGB chief Lavrentiy 2,000km from their bases. The missile to be 70-90km at a maximum speed of 1,050-
P Beria); the latter design bureau bore overall used was the KS-1 'winged missile' (izdeliye E) 1,100km/h.
responsibility for the system as a whole. which resembled a scaled-down MiG-15 fighter The guidance system devised by SKB-1 for
The missile was developed in three versions: (KS stood for krylahtyy snaryad winged mis- the KS-1 consisted oI aK-2 radio control unit
with a receiver antenna on the fin, plus a K-1
passive radar homing set for terminal guidance
installed rn the nose, both linked to an APK-S
autopilot. The carrier aircraft's K-3 target illumi-
lli I'iil'liri
.,:l*i
lh
;l
Tupolev Tu-1 6
:- r missile guidance system comprised
:.- f Cobalt) 360" search radar which pro
::arch, detection, lock-on and target
-: Cnce the target had been detected, it
-=:<ed by the Kobal't radar; the missile
--.n launched and radio-controlled
-=: by the weapons systems operator
-ntil the missile's own homing radar
-g reflected echoes from the target
:- .',as continuously illuminated by the
'adar) could take over
--= -r-4KS (alias Tu-4K) made the first suc-
",.-- cractice launch on 21 st November
.:- ::stroying a decommissioned ship used
: -:-jet; the Kometa system became opera-
-: ^ September '1953. The KS-1 missiles
,,
= -anufactured at Dubna and some 50
- , ::nbers
- were modified as Tu-4KS missile
. : rcraft at plant No 23 in Fili, then a west-
=
- .-:rrb of Moscow (now a part of the city).
*- ':mained
= the sole Soviet ASM carriers for
: :-:. years.
--: availability of the Tu-16 immediately
--':r a better air-to surface missile carrier
: .:: reach high subsonic speeds, an altitude
'2300-13,000m and possessing a large
--:ai radius. The bomber was immediately
:::::d to take the Kometa system; the result-
-
: : ':raft received the designation Tu-16KS (it
:: : so known in service as izdeliye NKS and
- -: croduction plants as'order 187').
- {azan'-built Tu-16 with no tactical code
- - :200305) was the first to be modified to
-:: :.ght: Front view of the Tu.16KS prototype, showing how the pylons'
=taining arms tit around the fuselages of the saucily
grinning missiles.
- :::r right: The same aircraft with two torpedoes on the missile pylons;
:pparently it was used lor development work which led to the appearance
:f the Tu-16T torpedo-bomber. The torpedoes appear to be dummies.
-: r,'e left: This view shows to good eflect how the KS-1 missiles were lifted
:]to position lrom their ground handling dollies, using hand-driven hoists,
\ote the windows for the landing lights in the main gear doors.
::lve right: Close-up of a KS-1 in position on the prototype's port pylon.
ihe weight ol two missiles and the resulting compression of the main gear
3leos caused the Tu-loKS to assume a nose-up attitude on the ground.
: :it:The port BD-187 missile pylon of the Tu-16KS prototype. The retaining
3rms folded away to reduce drag after the missile had been launched. The
suspension lock is located closer to the rear pair, Note that the pylon has
3 cutout closed by a metal fairing; this was a provision lor carrying the
:nanned test version of the KS-l (lhe izdeliye K). All Tupolev JSC
Tupolev Tu1 6
]
I
I
Above: A view through the open bomb bay doors of the Tu-16KS
prototype, showing the missile launch operator's selt'contained
pressure cabin, Note the dorsal escape hatch at the top of the
picture. Tupolev JSC
"ntiitt"
Tupolev Tu-1 6
The KS-I missile under the starboard wing of
Tu.16KS'18 Red' ignites its engine prior to
launch. Yefim Gordon archive
Tupolev Tu-16 39
J*itffir*h
.{
a* ! i
'i
E**-,ri,.*,"'l-
The Tu-1 SKSR-2 prototype, '49 Red' (ci n
72036081'7124'), seen during trials; note the
phototheodolite calibration markings on the
forward fuselage. This aircralt survived the
break-up of the Soviet Union, becoming
,g, Ukrainian Air Force'25 Blue'. Tupolev JSC
. JF*.F'X
*'ffi: Tu-1 SKSR-2'65 Blue' (cln 72038201'7164') was
converted from a Tu-16KS. Note the open exhaust
doors for the engine's S-300M turbostatters on
the engine housings. Tupolev JSC
i ;*. il-,s:,j+'r'1..1
Front view of Tu-1 6KSR-2 c/n 7203820 during
State acceptance lrials at GK Nl WS.
Tupolev JSC
carry the KSR-2 and equipped with the Rubicon carry two KSR-2 missiles began in DA and rocket motor burning TG-02 hypergolic (that is,
guidance system. lt was also suggested that AVMF maintenance units. A total of 50 exam- self-igniting) fuel (called TT-S2 in some docu-
the viability of adapting the supersonic Tu-22 ples was refitted with the K-16 system. Such air- ments) and AK-20F oxidiser which provided up
bomber to carry the KSR-2 should also be craft were known as order 352E' in production to 1,200k9 initial thrust and up to 700k9 thrust at
explored. (the E denoting a modified Tu-16KS which, as normal cruising speed. An 840-B50kg high-
On 4th February 1961 the Soviet Council of mentioned earlier, was the delivery vehicle for explosive warhead was fitted, but provision was
Ministers issued directive No117-49 spelling the KS-1 , aka izdeliye E), The service designa- made for fitting a nuclear warhead. Production
out the performance specification for the K-16 tion was Tu-16KSR-2 or izcieliye NKSR-2: KSR-2s were 8,62m long, with a wingspan of
weapons system. This document ordered addi- sometimes this version was referred to as the 4,52m and an all-up weight of 4,077-4,100k9. A
tional development work and testing to be car- Tu-16K-16 or izdeliye NK-3 (although some maximum speed of 1,260km/h was reached
ried out on the guidance system - particularly sources call it Tu-1 6KS-KSR 2 ). over a flight distance of 120-140km. One or two
the KSR-2's KS-PM radar which was given a Also in 1962, the first two operational KSR-2s could be carried and launched either
larger antenna dish. Atter passing State trials in Tu-16KSR-2s, '65 Red' (cln 72038201'7164') simultaneously or individually. Preparations
July-August 1961 the K-16 system was cleared and '66 Red' (c/n 5202010), converted from a for launch were the responsibility of the naviga-
for service with the Long-Range Aviation and Tu-16KS and a Tu-16A bomber respectively) tor, the automated processes carried out by
the Naval Air Arm pursuant to Co{M directive underwent checkout trails at GK Nll WS. The the Rubicon system making the provision
No 1 1 84-51 4 of 30th December 1 961 . two aircraft differed from those tested in 1960 in of a WSO (as on the Tu-16KS) unnecessary.
40 Tupolev Tu-16
,',ien Tu-164 bombers were converted to Tu-1 6KSR-2A (Tu-1 6A-KSR-2) Tu-16KSR-2
---16KSR-2 standard, they retained the capa- ('order 352A', izdeliye NKSR-2 and NK-Z) (modified under'order 68412')
: iyto carryfree{ali nuclear bombs. ln parallel with the modification of the Tu-16KS As mentioned above, initially the Tu-16KSR-2
The Rubicon-1 K radar could detect and and Tu- 1 6KS (ZA) into the Tu-1 6KSR-2, ref its of could not carry bombs. However, after modifi-
::rect a target at a range of 300-350km. lt then the Tu-164 and Tu-16 (ZA) were also carried cations under 'order 68412', tree-tall bombs
::ssed the information to the missile's own out but their capability as bombers was could be carried in the bomb bay as on the
'SPM radar which had been locked on to the retained. In this aspect the Tu-16KSR-2A (con- Tu-16KSR-2A and the two sub-variants
.-get prior to launch. Once the KSPM was versions from the Tu-164 under 'order 3524') became identical in their capabilities.
-::eiving a clear signal from the target, the nav- difiered from the Tu-16KSR-2. Subsequently
;ator switched over to the missile's own track- this difference disappeared when the Tu-16KSR-2A
- g and
homing system. Missiles were launched Tu-16KSR-2 was again modified to carry (modified under'order 6841 1')
=: altitudes between 4,000 and 10,000m at bombs. The first Tu-164 to be refitted in this The Tu-16KSR-2A was able carry a limited
::3eds between 700 and Bookmih. After way was '66 Red' (c/n 5202010) which, as bomb load internally, but it was further modif ied
:-rching its missiles, the Tu-16KSR-2 could already mentioned, took part in the checkout under the terms of 'order 684/1 ' to carry bombs
-,'r away from the target thus reducing its vul- State trials in 1962. Under the terms of 'order externally, bringing its maximum bomb load to
-='ability to enemy anti-aircraft defences. No 3524' 155 examples of the Tu-164 were modi- 1 0,000k9,
=i system was initially fitted to the Tu-1 6KSR-2. fied as Tu-16KSR-2A (they were also some-
The following data refers to the K-16 air-to- times referred to as the Tu-16A-KSR-2). Tu-16KSR-lS
:-:ace missile system: Comparatively few Tu-164 and Tu-16KS were ln the early 1970s some Tu-16KSR-2s were fit-
converted to Tu-16KSR-2 (Tu-16KSR-2A) con- ted with ECM equipment to prevent detection
-: - lat radrus ot the Tu-1 6KSR-2* 1 ,900km figuration in the f irst half of the 1 960s due to the by enemy radars - either for individual protec-
: ;-: alt tude of carrier aircraft 4,000-1 1,000m decision to develop the K- 1 1 -1 6 combined sys- tion, using the SPS-S Fasol' (String bean)
--,: "g speed with launch at 10,000m 750-B00km/h tem able to use the KSR-2 with active radar active jammer, or for operations as a group,
-:'::: detection range homing and the KSR-1 1 with passive radar using the SPS-I00 Rezeda (Mignonette, pro-
':,',rs and large targets 320-340km homing. ln the 1970s the Tu-16KSR-2 and nounced rezedah) jammer. The latter was
:-;: b'idges 250-280km Tu-16KSR-2A were again refitted as the housed in a UKhO ECM fairing. Aircraft
:'g: surface vessels 200-220km Tu-16KSR-2-5 ('order 386A') as part of the K-26 equipped with these were designated
:--aL range of KSR-? 120-140km ASM system. Tu-16KSR-lS.
:, *!rn range of KSR-2 i 140"150km
:-:''rtyofTu-16KSR-2totarget 110-130km
' :.obabilty B0%
39.200-39,500k9
., rum TOW with two KSR-2 79,000k9
: - ^.i 29.500.30,300k9
'r, rum operational range
*
3,900km
i-:":ance at maximum range 5 hours 20 mins
::-, ce ceiling t 1 1,900m
Above: Tu-l6KSR-24 '25 Blue' (c/n 5201604) shows oft its multiple eiector racks carried on the wing
- -: to service ceilrng
stations. Note Each MER carried eight 250-kg bombs. Tupolev JSC
,r :r a 62,000-kg take-otf weight 37 mins
--: to 10,000m with 62,000-kg TOW 21 mins Below: Front view of a Tu-l6KSB-2A showing the high-drag external stores. Tupolev JSC
-:.:-ol1 run with two KSR-2s:
,r :h a 75,800k9 take-off weight 2,200m
,', :h a 79,000k9 take-off weight 2,400m
.-r ng run +
Tupolev Tu-l6 41
lfr,
ii iitifl
]. I litl rrit,
.r1i1i
flti, i,'"
*j'l'ot"''
.-
'iriliss
Tu-16K-1 1 ('order 285') The design work on the K-1 1 system took The K-11 was the first Soviet air-to-surface
Work on the K-1 1 weapons system was carried two years. By the end of 1959 the basic issues missile with passive radar homing for use
out in parallel with the K-16, the KSR-2 being of radar detection and target indication, as against enemy radars. radar-controlled anti-air-
given a passive radar homing system for use well as passive homing, had been solved (the craft defences and surface-to-air missiles. The
against the enemy's ground or shipborne former by the Ritsa system named after a lake in Tu-16K-1 1 modified from production Tu-164
radars and becoming the KSR-1 1 anti-radiation the Caucasus region) and the first models and Tu-l624 bombers could, like the
missile (ARM). Preliminary design work on the of the eniire system were ready for testing. Tu- 16KSR-2, also be used as a bomber. lt was
K-l 1 and its Tu-16KS carrier was initiated by Two examples of the Tu-16 were adapted at outwardly identifiable by an inverled T-shaped
Council of Ministers directive No902-41 1 of the Kazan' aircraft factory and designated directionJinder antenna on the extreme nose
20th July 1957 and MAP order No2BB of 31st Tu-16K-1 1 (in production they were referred (on the navigator's siation glazing frame). ln
July 1957, with project completion scheduled to as 'order 285'). The first Tu-16K-11 made order to accommodate the Ritsa radar detec-
for early the following year, manufacturer's its first flight from Kazan'-Borisoglebskoye in tion/homing system, save weight and keep the
tests in the spring of 1959 and final trials of the January 1960 and underwent flight testing at CG within prescribed limits the PU-88 fixed for-
whole complex in the autumn of 1959. The Zhukovskiy the following month. ln April it ward{iring cannon installation and the PKI gun-
question of updating the K-10 anti-shipping was joined by the second Tu-16K-1 1 and man- sight were removed. The KSR-1 t hardly
system (see later) with passive radar homing ufacturer's tests of the K-11 began in May. differed from the KSR-2 in its design and car-
was also to be examined. OKB-156 was to be Despite the Jundamental design complexity ried a high-explosive or explosiveJragmenta-
responsible for work on the Tu-16, the Ministry of the system's components, the tests were tion warhead. At 4,000k9 its all-up weight was
of Defence's Central Research lnstitute No 108 concluded successfully in the spring of 1962 '1
00kg less than the KSR-2's due to its lighter
(TsNll-108) for the search and target marking and the Tu-16K-1 1 was passed for operational guidance system (a 2PRF-10 passive homing
system, OKB-155 for the missile and Nll-648 for use by CofM directive No314-157 of 13th April radar in a nose radome which increased the
the guidance and passive homing system. that year. missile's length to 8.6m and an AP-72-11 mis-
sile autopilot which maintained course
between launch and impact). The missile was
launched once its radar had locked-on. After
launch and ignition, the KSR-11 climbed to
the same height as the Tu-16 and maintained
that altitude before finally entering a 30' dive
to impact. The Tu-16 could carry out any
Tupolev Tu-1 6
i .,*. .qr"
i*-... :i€"+''
: .
",#iiJ;"ed.*'
Left: A technician screws a cover plate into place on a Tu-l 6K-1 1 -1 6 coded '73' where
the fixed lorward-firing cannon used to be. This aircraft has had its bomb carrying
capability restored under the terms of 'order 68412', as revealed by the open bomb
bay. Sergey and Dmitriy Komissarov archive
Above: Sorties were sometimes flown with only a single missile, as this Tu-16K-11-16
illustrates. Yefim Gordon archive
-::oeuvre after launch, including U-turns; Under the terms of'order 497A' 155 Tu-164 nose gun turret and gunsight. The missile
-: :arget tracking information was retained by and Tu-l64 (ZA) bombers were converted to pylons could be used for either KSR-2 ASMs or
-= KSR-1 1. Tu-16KSR-2-1 1 configuration and the KSR-1 1 ARMs. Outwardly the Tu- 1 6K-1 1 -1 6 dif-
-1e K-11 complex had a 2,000-km combat Tu-16KSR-2As were modified. ln service the fered from the Tu- 16KSR-2 in having extra skin
.:: rs with the aircraft flying at altitudes Tu-16KSR-2-1 1 was known as izdeliye'NK-1 1- panels on the weapons bay doors closing the
:::,'/een 4,000 and 11,000m. Missile launch at 16' or izdeliye'NK-2'. access hatch to the former WSO's cabin and
-- l00m was effected at a cruising speed 750- the cutout for the deleted Kobal't-P radar. ln
:-l<m/h. The radar detection range was 270- Tu-16K-1 1-16 addition, the undersurfaces of the machines
:: lxm, with the KSR-1 1 possessing a range of ('order 497E',izdeliye NK-l1-16 and NK-2) lacking bomber capability were natural metal.
-:lkm and a 'kill' probability of 80-90% (the 15 Tu-16KS missile carriers and a number of The designation Tu-16K-1 1-16KS was also
-:ading memory feature meant that the radar Tu- 1 6KSR-2s, as well as some Tu-1 65 SAR air- sometimes used where the conversion had
: rld in all probability be destroyed even if the craft which lacked bomb-carrying capability, been from a KS-1 ASM carrier.
:-:my switched it off). were also upgraded to Tu-16K-1 1-16 standard A total of 441 Tu-164, Tu-16 (ZA), Tu-16KS
lithough the K-11 system was accepted, it under the terms of 'order 497' (or 'order 497E' and Tu-16S aircraft were refitted to take the
=s decided to use the combined K-1 1 and if they carried KS-1 missiles). lnitially their abil- K-1 6 and K-1 1 - 1 6 weapons systems. Of these,
'-'6 for operational use. ity to carry bombs was not restored, but this 211 aicraft served with the Air Force and 230
was subsequently done on many of these air- with the Navy. The main delivery vehicle was
Tu-16KSR-2-11 craft. ln such cases, the underside of the the Tu-16K-11-16 which was equipped with
'order 497A', izdeliye NK-11-16 and NK-2) machine was painted white either completely SPS-5 and SPS-100 ECM sets. Refits were
--e high degree of commonality between the or partly. Conversion of the Tu-16KSR-2 into done at maintenance factories in the 1960s.
'SR-2 and KSR-1 1 suggested that they could the Tu-16K-1 1-16 entailed installation of the Later, in the 1970s, the Tu-16K-1 1-16 was mod-
:::h be fitted to the same carrier. Therefore, in Ritsa radar homing system and removal of the ified yet again to Tu-16K-26 configuration.
-352 the K-1 1-16 complex was accepted for
:.erational use, its Tu-16KSR-2-1 1 carrier air-
:'aft (equipped with Rubicon 1K and Ritsa
:-idance systems) carrying either two KSR-2s
: - KSR-1 1 s, or one KSR-2 and one KSR-1 1. The
-aximum range of the KSR-11 was 85km if
:rnched from 4,000m and 120km if launched
-:m 10,000m, with detonation between 4 and
'2m above the target. The KSR-2 (with either a
-E or a nuclear warhead) had a maximum
-:nge of 150km if launched from 10,000m and
: minimum range of 70km. The Tu-16KSR-2-1 1
Tupolev Tu-1 6
A small number of Tu-16K-1 1-16 were sup- K-26 long-range stand-off ASM System surface missiles. With a length of 10.56m, a
plied to Egypt and lraq, taking part in the armed Design work on the new K-26 air-to-surface wing span of 2.6m and a launch weight of
conflicts in the Middle East in the early 1970s missile system bullt around the improved Rubi- 3,900k9, the KSR-5 had a maximum speed of
and 1980s (the 1973 Arab-lsraeli war and the con-1 KV radar and the new KSR-S ASM was ini- 2,500-3,000km/h and a flight altitude of 22,000-
lran-lraq war). tiated by Council of Ministers directive 25,000m. lts range Jrom low-altitude launch
The performance of the Tu-1 6K- 1 1 -1 6 barely No838-357 of 1 lth August 1962. The system was 200-240km, but up to 500km if launched at
differed from the Tu-16KSR-2, although the was to comprise either the Tu-16K-26 or a higher altitude. The KSR-5 could carry either
need to carry two guidance systems increased Tu-16KSR-2-5 or Tu-16KSR-2-5-1 1 as a carrier, a high-explosive warhead which detonated on
the former aircraft's empty weight to 40,600k9, two KSR-S (with conventional or nuclear war- impact with the target or a nuclear warhead set
necessitating a reduction of the fuel load to heads), KSR-2 or KSR-1 1 ASMs, and the Vzlyot for a predetermined height Later developments
29,000k9. The Tu-16KSR-2-1 1 and Tu-16K-1 1- (Take-off) guidance system. included the KSR-SP, KSR-SM, KSR-SB and
16, as well as the Tu-16KSR-2, were all known The KSR-S was developed by OKB-2-155 KSR-sN, as well as the D-sNM ([/V) target drone.
by the NATO reporting name Badger-G. (the missile branch of the Mikoyan OKB) during Flight tests and State trials of the K-26 com-
the late 1950s and early 1960s; its design plex were held between October 1964 and Dec-
Tu-1 6K-1 1-16 benefited from the experience gained with ember 1967, using two machines, a Tu-16K-26
(modif ied under'order 684 l2') the KS-1, KSR-2 and KSR-1 1 missiles, as well and a Tu-16KSR-2-5, modified from Tu-16K-1 1-
At first the Tu-16K- 1 1-16 lacked bomber capa- as with the Kh-22 for the supersonic Tu-22K. 16KS'54 Red' (cln 8204022i'8191') and
bility, but after modification under the terms of It was devised as a highly accurate delta-wing Tu-16KSR-2A'66 Red' (c/n 5202010) respec-
'order 68412' it could carry a full bomb load of 'fire-and{orget' missile for use against ground tively. During this first stage 82 flights and ten
up to 13,000k9 comprising 40 FAB-100 or or maritlme targets. The missile was powered Iaunches of the KSR-5 were made, five of these
FAB-250 bombs, or 26 FAB-500s, or four by a 55.35 three-chamber rocket engine to test the missile's active homing system. Data
FAB-1500s, or two FAB-3000s, or eight torpe- designed by the lsayev OKB and equipped derived from the tests recorded that the K-26
does (four in the bomb bay and four on under- with a VS-K active radar homing system, prov- system had an operational radius of 2,100km
wing pylons). ing superior to all preceding Soviet air-to- with two KSR-S; the missiles were launched
with the carrier cruising at 750-800km/h at an
altitude of 10,000m. The maximum range of the
KSR-5 was between 200 and 240km.
A second round of state trials began in Jan-
uary 1968 and went on for almost eleven
months. The Tu-16K-26 and Tu-16KSR-2-5
made 87 flights totalling 2BB hours; in order to
speed up the trials they were later joined by
Tu-16K-26 cln 4200703 and Tu-16K-10-26'15
Red' (c/n 1793014). A total of 13 KSR-Ss were
launched at ground and maritime targets.
The K-26 system was accepted by the Long
Range Avlation and Naval Air Arm pursuant to
CofM directive NoBB2-315 of 12th November
1969. The Tu-16K-26, Tu-16KSR-2-5 and
Tu-16KSR-2-5-1 1 were all known by the NATO
reporting name Badger-G Mod.
I
Tu-16K-26 ASM Garrier
('order 386', izdeliye NK-26 and NK-4)
Fifteen examples of the Tu-16K-11-16KS were
modified into Tu-16K-26 missile-carriers. ln ser-
vice they were referred to as izdeliye NK-26 or
izdeliye NK-4, and during conversion as 'order
386'. The Tu-16K-26 differed from the
only in its new ASMs and the
Tu-16K-1 1-16
equipment and adaptations required to carry
them. The prototype was converted from a
Tu-16K-1 1-16 coded '54 Red' (cin
::*; - ':"_ 82040221'8191'). Conversion work ln air force
B*--- repair and maintenance units began in 1969.
Tupolev Tu-1 6
---
-aF ':,-rard fuselage of the Tu-16K-25
il[:::f;:r.Be: the aircraft received white
ilrrcEF:rrfaces late in its llying career. The
il{r--e */as probably taken at the Air Force
w,r:--:e in Kiev where the aircratt ended up
h i :-3und instructional airlrame.
' : -'::n
ffi.@>^,'
archive
39,480k9
''
*-'o;*i;'r--1*
-a 75,800k9
:. -::: cnal combat condtttons) 79,000k9
..:-.
43,800 litres
550km/h
720knlh
B20km/h
900km/h
- - - ::rm ssible lVach number 0,88
12,300m
-: :-: 'afge+ 4,B00km
-
-.' ':: :s vrith a speed
'..::-:ing to [/ach 0,72 2,1 50-2,1 B0km
Tupolev Tu-16 45
!',
|r
:;,ii
i-:1T"1-":-:i:::
Above left: A'production' Tu'16KSR'2-5
I
retained their OPB-1 12 bombsight which came greater detection range. lt was therefore quite and hence the distinctive aerial of on the nose
into use once more when they were recon- different in appearance from the other Tu-16 glazing. Like the Tu-16K-26 'Rubin-1 M', it also
verted to bomber capability under the terms of missile-carrier versions, being readily identifi- lacked the PU-88 nose gun installation. This ver-
'order 68412').fhe version had the same defen- able by the large teardrop radome under the sion subsequently served as the basis for the
sive armament as the Tu-164. centre fuselage and the lack of the usual chin Tu-16 Tsiklon-N weather research aircraft.
Externally the Tu-16KSR-2-5 differed from radome whose position was faired over. This
the Tu-16KSR-2-5-1 1 in lacking the Ritsa radar was because the Rubin-1M was too large and Tu-16K-26M
homing system's inverted-T aerial on the navi- heavy and would have caused CG problems if (izdeliye NK-26M)
gator's station glazing and in possessing a installed under the nose. The new radar instal- ln the late 1970s the KSR-s ASM was updated
PU-BB nose gun mounting, and it differed from lation necessitated the removal of the No 3 fuel as the KSR-SM or KSR-SB with new guidance
the Tu-16K-26 in lacking the panels on the tank, causing a reduction in the fuel capacity by systems designed to strike smaller more diffi-
bomb bay doors. lt also had a different kind of 31 50 litres, but the range of the KSR-5 ASM was cult targets. Several Tu-16K-26 were modified
antenna above the pilots' cockpit from that on increased to 450km. On this version the PU-BB for this complex, known as the K-26M.
the Tu-'1 6KSR-2A. nose gun installation was deleted.
Tu-16K-26N
Tu-16K-26 with the Rubin'1M Radar Tu-16KSR-2-5 with the Rubin-1M Radar ('order 2226', izdeliye NK-26N)
From 1973 onwards some Tu-16KSR-2-5-11s This version did not carry Ritsa radar homlng The K-26N system was based on the KSR-SN
were fitted with the Rubin-1 M combirred radar equipment and therefore could not use anti- low-level air-to-surface missile, its Tu-1 6K-26N
and optical sighting system. This was an radar missiles. Externally it differed from the ver- carrier having its Rubin-1 KV radar replaced by
upgraded version of the Rubin-1KV with a sion detailed above in lacking ARM compatibility a new radar under the centre fuselage opti-
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-::.= eft and right: '44 Red',
r -u-16K-26 with a Rubin-lM
'rriar. rests between
mssions. Note the open
rnb bay. Yelim Gordon
: l' ,2
Tupolev Tu-1 6 47
carried out at Naval Air Arm repair and mainte-
nance bases. The following data refer to the
t K-26P system:
2.240Kn
2 400km
2.130km
2 330km
9 000-1 1,000m
330km
100km
3 000km/h
,i50m,/sec
mised for low-level operations. A small number It used a Tu-16KSR-2-5-11 equipped with the
of Tu-16K-26s, Tu-16K-26Ps, Tu-16KSR-2-5s Plot (Raft) compatible passive radar homing/
'T"_-e{,24: ::.-, -;:,,,: iS:.:r AS"ls ai opt mum
and Tu-16KSR-2-5-1 1s were updated to Tu-16- guidance system as the carrier aircraft which
received the designation Tu-16K-26P. The two
a::,::s,',:':,: ::,',:- -:: : a.';-:t'atadistance
26N configuration in accordance with 'order .iaa'
u!--. -:,^- - :.:-:.
2226' and served with the Naval Air Arm in the missiles could be launched against the same
1980s. lJ the KSR-SN was used by the already target or different targets (one of which, how-
mentioned versions without modification, it ever, had to be in line with the aircraft's line of Tu-16K-26PM
was launched ai the same altitude as the flight), after which the aircraft was able to turn (izdeliye NK-26PM)
KSR-S, subsequently descending to its desig- away. The standard K-26 equipment fit was Aircrafi brougiri ,rc :o K-26PM standard and
nated flight altitud€ to enable stealthy retained so that KSR's, KSR-2 or KSR-1 1 mis- carrying KSR-5i'.i and KSR-1 1 missiles were
approach to the target. siles could be carried. Only the Siren' jammer oesignatec Tu-16K-26PNl or rzde\iye NK-26PM
was omitted. and vrere ec;rpceC ',','rin ine AMP-IV communi-
Tu-16K-26P The experimental Tu-16K-26P ('order 397 ) cator iinKing ihe ai:cra;1 and missile radars.
('order 397', izdeliye NK-26P) began its factory tests in the summer of 1967
Developed in accordance with Council of Min- with State trials commencing in April 1972. On Tu-1 6K-268 (izdeliye NK-26B)
isters directive No 123-43 of 7th February 1964, 4th September '1973 the K-26P system was This vras a srrb-\,a:;an: o: the Tu-l6K-26 modi-
this system was designed around the KSR-SP cleared for Soviet Navy service by Council of fied under the ier,.ns ci order 684i2' 1o carry
anti-radiation missile with passive radar hom- Ministers directive No643-205. Conversions ol a greaier ioac of cornbs or mines carried
ing (P = ptotivolokatsionnayalraketal -ARM). Tu-16KSR-2-5-1 1s to the new standard were both internaliy and extefnally. The B referred to
the bomb arrnarnent (bombardirovochnoye
vo oroozhentye).
Tu-16K-25-07
One more suD-variant of the Tu-16K-26 fitted
with an L007 actrve lammer for individual pro-
tection was designated Tu- 16K-25-07.
ii.,#fl5*
T u-16K-22 Development Aircraft
('order 29413')
This was a service example of a Tu-16 ASM car-
rier fitted with test instrumentation and used to
carry and launch the Kh-22 ASM during tests of
the Kh-22 complex designed by KB-1 . lt served
successfully for several years during the devel-
opment of the Kh-22 ASM and its Tu-22K.
fu-22M and Tu-95K-22 carriers.
48 Tupolev Tu-1 6
-----
! cair of fully armed Tu-l6K-26Ps led by'71 Red'
: n 7203605) makes a demonstration flypast.
:=r Gordon
*
'
..'.lj]
-:; . .-- Ail|
Tupolev Tu-1 6
The tirst prototype Tu'16K'10 (c/n 7203805)
during manufacturer's llight tests' The huge
'snout' is plainly visible. Tupolev JSC
50 I uoolev I u- tt)
:tis view of the first prototype Tu-16K-10 shows
row the missile is lowered clear of the fuselage
refore engine starting and launch. Tupolev JSC
: .u-16K-10 prototype in autonomous mode defects in the guidance system. Constant prob- duction soon; it was planned to replace the
.1 inout using the guidance and homing sys- lems with the YeN radar and YeS receiver, as Tu-16 with lhe Tu-22 at plant No22 and the
-:11s) was made
on 28th May 1958, and on 21st well as with the missile's engine, resulted in all An-10 at plant 64 Voronezh. Nevertheless,
'.lvember the Tu-1 6K-1 0 prototypes were sub- five test launches at a range of 1 30-1 50km end- series production of the Tu-16K-10 was
- :ied for State trials. ing in failure. There were also problems with the initlated in Kazan'. The first production
Combined state trials of the Tu-16K-10, the aircraft's fuel system when subjected to G Tu-16K-10 (c/n 8204010) was rolled out at plant
' -: 0S missile and the K- 1 0 system as a whole loads for prolonged periods. Thus, by early No 22 in April 1958, and a mere five Tu-16K-10
.3re conducted by GK Nll WS over almost 1960, only six hits had been recorded. (ZA) aircraft featuring the wing{o-wing IFR
---ee years over various phases of develop- Council of Ministers directive No1475-685 system were built in 1958-59, whereupon
-:nt and with interruptions for further modifi- ordering the K-10 system into production was Tu-16 production in Kazan' was suspended
:::ions and trials of the system's components. issued on 31st December 1958, wlth produc- to free up production capacity for the Tu-22.
-^e last phase involved its operation in an tion of the K-10S missile allocated to aircraft Later, in October 1 959, the Tu- 1 6K-1 0 entered
=::ive ECM environment. After the first test factory No31 in Tbilisi. However, by this time production at plant No 1 at Kuibyshev in
:.:nch in May, five more were made between lhe K-22 complex based on the supersonic accordance with CofM directive No 709-337 of
--ne and September 1958 against small radar- 'aircraft 105' bomber (Tu-22) and lhe Kh-22 2nd July 1958. During production the
-:'lecting ground targets over a range of 96km ASM seemed to offer more promise. The K-10S Tu-16K-10 was designated 'order 238' and
:., a test crew headed by Hero of the Soviet was thus intended mainly for the obsolescent laier, in operational service, as Zdelrye NK-10
,"ion Lt Col V V Zentsov. Four hits were Tu-16 which looked set to be taken out of pro- or izdeliye NK-1 .
:lhieved. Overall in 1958, during manufac-
:-'er's tests and joint State trials, six missiles
,r:re fired, four of which hit their targets.
Ten more K-10S were launched in 1959 as
:^e joint State trials continued. These con-
'-med the safety of missile separation; the abil-
:,' of the aircraft to land with the missile still in
: ace was also verified.
The trials also revealed the impossibility of
=chieving any substantial increase in the mis-
: Ie's range (compared to the KS-1) due to
Tupolev Tu-16 51
,.'''..,,#'-1iF
t
,F
i'
24
L
-:: :: An inert K'10S missile bedecked with
photo calibration markings on a ground
handling dolly. -,:: :. ,30
Opposite oage:
I
I
i Top: Maintenance day in a Soviet Navy unit as a
gtc\ Tu-16K-10 is iacked up lor a wheel change and
possibly landing gear operation checks' The
iispersal area has a central taxiway and a guard
lower. Yefim Gordon archive
q) Tupolev Tu-1 6
Nikita S Khrushchov's preoccupation with
'eplacing strategic bombers by ICBMs raised
:uestions about the viability of persevering with
:re K-10 system, and the Kuibyshev factory
,vas instructed to terminate Tu-16 production in
'avour of manufacturing the R-7 ICBM. Only a
.cint letter to the Communist Party's Central
lommittee sent by the Deputy Chairmen of the
lcuncil of Ministers, Dmitriy F Ustinov and
3oris M Ryabikov, GKAT Chairman Pyotr V
)ement'yev and Soviet Air Force Commander-
"-Chief Air Marshal K A Vershinin, pointing out
:re inadequacy of the USSR's air-to-sudace
-issile carrier resources (a mere 90 Tu-16KSs)
.rd the comparative shortcomings of their
,',eaponry averted this. The instruction was
-:voked and an order for another 173 Tu-16s
: aced. Thanks to this, plant No 1 in Kuibyshev 4ii;,riirlliili' , lili
-ad provided the Naval Air Arm with 59
---16K-10s by July 1960 when it was ultimately
-:assigned to building rockets and missiles.
ln June 1961 series production of the
-r-16K-10 was reinstated at plant No22.
^cluding the first seven examples, the Kazan'
'=otory had supplied 157 Tu-16K-10s by the
=rd of 1963 when the type was finally phased
--t of production. ln all, 210 examples of thb tor' testbeds and 34 K-10S missiles, three of 50 or 60km. Although special maximum-range
-.l-1 6K-10 were built. which had live warheads. Out of the 20 tests on the missile had not been performed,
Dry launches of the K-10 were practised, launched, only 10 hit their targets. Failures were after one miss a K-l0S had carried on to cover
-sing ships of the Black Sea Fleet as targets, due to crew errors (one missile destroyed an ice 245km in ten minutes and ten seconds and
:rd live launches carried out against decom- floe instead of the target vessel), failures of the splashed down with some fuel still left. ln 1959
-ssioned vessels between September 1959 radars and one failure of the missile's engine. the K-10 achieved initial operational capability
:rd November '1960. The old tanker M/y' According to the system's designers there was with the Soviet Navy as the first highly effective
iakalov specially fitted with a tall wire mesh a71.4% chance of the K-10S hitting itstarget; in supersonic air-to-surface missile system.
:rntraption by way of a superstructure to the opinion of the Naval Air Arm it was only The K-10 had a maximum combat radius of
-srease the radar signature was used to simu- 62.4/o. Anolher unpleasant fact emerged during 2,400km; the carrier aircraft's cruising speed
a cruiser-sized target; if a missile hit the wire the trials; the location of the weapons systems was 700-B00km/h, and a target (a cruiser-sized
":e
-esh, this was considered a 'kill'. In the course operator's pressurised cabin in the forward part vessel) could be detected at 240-360km. The
:' ihe joint State trials, Tu-16K-10 missile-carri- of the equipment bay where the air temperature K- 1 0S missile was launched at 1 70-200km f rom
='s made 184 flights. Problems encountered was somewhat higher than elsewhere in the air- the target at altitudes between 5,000-1 1,000m.
: -nng the trials delayed their official completion craft meant that he was subjected to tempera- the aircraft approaching within 110-150km of
-rtil the second quarter of 1960, although in tures over 40'C in the summer. the target by the time the missiie switched to
-=ality they were not completed until the end of There were, however, positive aspects to the active homing mode and flew on with an B0% 'kill'
- year. Only four launches were made in 1 960.
e trials. Large ships could be detected at dis- probability. The K-10S weighed 4,418-4,550k9
The trials program involved both Tu-16K-10 tances close to the theoretical radar horizon and with a normal warhead weighing B35kg. lts
:'ctotypes, the two Mic-lgSMK 'missile simula- a lock-on was achieved after closing by a further maximum speed was 1,700-2,000km/h.
Tupolev Tu-16 53
r
'::in'l
22acn
'3i0m
' 75Cm
]]JU I
54 Tupolev Tu'1 6
-l
Lil'jl
llriliitlr,riii, i
-;-16K-10, apart from its longer range thanks to airborne and missile radars. The resulting and 11,000m.
:re more fuel-efficient new engines. At the same
: ne GVF tested two prototypes of the Tu-104E
- a derivative of the Tu-1 048 f itted with the same
:ngines. Although the tests of the Tu-16K were
sJccessful it was not placed in production,
Tu-1 5K-1 0D
(izdeliye NK-10D, izdeliye NK-1D)
3ne of the items of the said CofM directive
i6ts#fjHbEn%
fi 'sffi**"*--
\o742-315 of 12th August 1961 clearing the
-u-1 6K-1 0 for service ordered the K-1 0 system
as a whole to be updated; within three months
:.re organisations involved were to suggest
,vays of extending the K-10 missile's range to
300-350km. Studies carried cut by the Naval Air
Arm's 33rd Combat & Ccnversion Training
-=E;: l-. t
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Hea!-r i'tr 3' :u -- ':il.":-26 Prototype with
a :: r€:,-a:\:n: rH:-
- -: :
56 Tupolev Tu'16
-his aircratt coded'63 Red'represents the
-u-16K-10-268 version featuring conventional
iomber capability; note the MBDU.46-68N MERs
-nder the fuselage. Yefim Gordon archive
*nese
Tu-16K-10-268s are equipped with single
3D4-16-52 bomb racks under the fuselage.
:'
'.r Gordon archive
*q**;
**uuryr**r,,,$ffffif'l
il;13-l',"*,,,*.,,, *
'w-*---
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Chapter Five
Reconnaissance and
Electronic Gountermeasures Verstons
Tu-16R & Tu-16RN (aircraft'92' project) - a new Apatit (Apatite) active jammer with a 2-
1Ocm waveband for jamming enemy ground ar:
OKB- 1 56 began work on a reconnaissance air-
craft based on the Tu-1 6 bomber in 1 953' From shipborne detection, guidance and target
marking radars. This was again the respons:bt :i
the outset, the resulting aircraft was conceived
of TsNll-106 which was to co-operate with
as combining photographic reconnaissance,
OKB-1 56 in installing this on a Tu-16 during tr:e
electronic intelligence (ELINT) gathering and
autumn of 1 954,
the resources to jam enemy air defence radars'
Much depended on the design and production - anew Avtomaht2 (Automatic device) airborr-
of the crucial electronic equipment. automatic chaff dispenser to scatter radar-
The Council of Ministers directive No 1659- reilecting strips of metal-coated glassfibre 1c'a'
657 of 3rd July 1953 and the corresponding at three- to five-second intervals, working in i'=
Minisiry of Defence lndustry order No521 of 0,6-12cm waveband. The equipment was tc ::
l Bth July called for the creation of the following: designed by I I Toropov's OKB-134 and reac, ':'
state trials on a Tu-16 in the late summer alc
- a new RBP-6 lyustra (Chandelier) bomb-aiming autumn o1 1954.
radar developed {rom the production Rubidiy-
MM-2 (Rubidium), able to overcome enemy ECM
- a new SRS-3 Romb-l (Rhombus) automai:c
ELINT set (SRS = stanhtsrya ranredki svyaz'-
by means of an ECM-resistant high-frequency -s:
head, a 2-cm waveband antenna/feeder array and communications intelligence set) for use aga
enemy ground, shipborne and aircraft raca's
an antenna with a wider scanntng arc. Two sets ol
the new equipment were to be provided by which registered the working frequencres oi:-:
TsNll-108 and OKB-253 by'1954, while OKB-156 radars it detected over the bandwidih 2 9 io
was to carry out the installation of one set on a 30cm. This was to be supplled by OKB-483 a^:
TsNll-108 and installed on a Tu-1 6 with the c:-
production Tu-1 6 in the autumn of that year'
operation of OKB-156.
- a new Sl/lkaht (Silicate) active jammer with a
21 .8-30.5cm waveband ior jamming enemy - a new electronic counter-countermeasures
(ECCM) highJrequency head and array
ground and shipborne air defence and lighter This cutawaY drawing dePicts two
developed under the P/aneta programme :: configurations of the Tu'15R PHOTINT aircraft
control radars. This was to be supplied by
TsNll-108 which was to co-operate with OKB-156
protect the lzumrood (Emerald) airborne for day (above) and night photography' Note the
intercept radar (developed for the MiG-17P flare boFnb cassettes of the latter configuration'
in installing the set in a Tu-16 in the |ate spring
'1955. interceptor) and Argon gun-laying radar v''ii a
and earlY summer ol
il-
1t
t1
*-1
)'.cl ,
Bapnanl HOLIHOIO 4
PA3BEAT'II4KA
ktftfd lnr lE setlnEnhH!tr
?vr fruNiu! AV 21 4iisr 2l,v 5oMt lFbim/D S.$L- .
'nt
+-F=:V-*-
i, -r r:'-"'!" : t'nntr i0 ] r!ahee trrih$oQ snilmfa I
2osaoeomooNoF!na rAohV5C I s! tuodM. f,M 25 iriusq ll14
'r--:')'rtttrlrAi -$ !;'r i b/
afc Nqiou ootorlttxe
Tupolev Tu-1 6
The design and development of this new installing the ASO-16 chaff dispenser in place vented its submission for State trials. The
equipment involved the close co-operation of of the PR-1 , an estimated service ceiling (with Tu-16R-1 was also tested with various combi-
the aircraft designers, who had to work out the an all-up weight of 55,000k9) of 12,800m and a nation loads of flare bombs for night photogra-
best and most compact ways of installing it. On range of 6,000-6,200km. At 37,765k9, the phy. When the cameras were removed from the
24th June 1953 MAP issued order No405, fol- empty weight of the Tu-16R would have been equipment bay, the machine could be recon-
lowed by Air Force Operational Requirement 259k9 greater than the Tu- 16RN's. verted to bomber configuration.
No 1197989 which was received by OKB-156 on The positive results of the State trials were fol-
9th July; these documents required the OKB to Tu-1 6R-1 Reconnaissance Prototype lowed by an order for series production in
fit the PR-1 and Natriy to production Tu-16 air- Conversion was carried out on a production December 1956 (Council of Ministers directive
craft. After making some preliminary assess- Tu-1 6 bomber (c/n 1880302) built at the Kuiby- No1545-777 of 3rd December and MAP order
ments the Tupolev OKB judged it more shev aircraft factory No1 in December 1954. No601 of 1Oth December). The series produc-
expedient to develop a dedicated reconnais- Re-designated the Tu-16R-1 after modification tion model was to be powered by two AM-3M
sance version, the Tu- 1 6R (lsamolyot-l razved' at plant No 22, with the assistance of the Kazan' engines, and 44 examples were built in 1957 at
chik - recce aircraft) equipped for photographic branch of OKB-156, the first prototype carried a plant No 1 in Kuibyshev after the defects and
and electronic intelligence. This was accepted single AFA-33/20M vertical camera, two shortcomings noted during the prototype trials
cy the Air Force, and on 23rd June 1954 the AFA-33/75M for oblique photography and two had been rectified. The Tu-16R-1 was to
Council of Ministers issued directive No1249- AFA-33/1 0M for 'opportunity en route' photog- become the basis for a series of reconnais-
558 followed by MAP order No 408 of 29th June. raphy. An SPS-1 active jammer was also pro- sance and ECM versions of the Tu-16, including
These documents tasked Tupolev with building vided. The crew consisted of seven members, the Tu-16SPS, Tu-16P, Tu-16 Yolka and so on.
:he Tu-16R powered by two modernised with the radar operator housed in a special
AM-3M-200 engines (rated at 9,500k9 for take- pressurised position at the rear of the equip- Tu-16 Romb Reconnaissance Aircraft
cff and 7,650k9 at nominal power) giving a ment bay (the former bomb bay, that is). ('order 261')
'ange of 6,000-6,200km. The Air Force was to Manufacturer's flight tests began on 30th Although the SRS-3 Romb-1 was not available
clace one of its Tu-16s at the disposal of the OKB November 1955 and were completed by mid- in time for the manufacturer's tests or State tri-
n July 1 954 and supply the necessary radio and May 1955. Sixteen flights were made totalling als, it was still planned to fit it to the Tu-16R-1
chotographic equipment. The Tu- 1 6R was to be 26 hours 16 minutes. The flight test results once it became available. But tests wlth the
'eady for State acceptance trials in March 1955: yielded the following data: intended underwing pods showed that
The advanced development project of the increased drag caused some deterioration in
-iu-16R
or 'aircraft 92' approved in November Empty weight 38,436k9 the aircraft's performance. lt was therefore
:nvisaged two versions: a daylight reconnais- Maximum take-otf weight 75,370k9 decided to accommodate the SRS-3 in the
l\,4aximum speed with TOW of 62,000k9 fuselage, the antenna being housed in a dorsal
sance version (Tu-16R) and a nocturnal recon-
^aissance version (Tu-16RN, razvedchik at an altitude of 6,200m 1 ,000-1,1 00km/h fairing. The urgent need for this long-range
'cchnoy). As most early Soviet ELINT and Service ceillng 1 2,400m reconnaissance aircraft led to plant No 1 at
-CM systems were not automated, the Tu-16R Time to an altitude oJ 10,000m: Kuibyshev producing the first five aircraft
:ad to have a special pressurised crew com- with an all-up weight of 62,000k9 15.1 mins equipped with the SRS-3 (designated Tu-16
.artment (similar to that on the Tu-16KS) for with an allup weight of 75,400k9 24,5 mins Romb) in 1956. ln production they were
:ieir operator, bringing the number of Operational range 6,300km referred to as 'order 261 ', and they are some-
:rewmembers to seven. The operator was to Take-off run 2,290-3,275n times called Tu-16R 'Romb' or simply Tu-16R.
:e given an ejector seat, but shared hls quar- There was, however, little reduction in drag and
::r's with some of the PR-1 (or 'Natriy') equip- Equipment changes were made in the course subsequent production examples had the
-ent and an air conditioning system. The of the tests. SRS-3 (Romb-1) ELINT equipment SRS-3 equipment housed in underwing pylon-
:.rtennas for the PR-1 (or 'Natriy') were housed was mounted in pods on pylons beneath the mounted pods as originally planned.
' fairings above and below the operator's posi- wings and an SPS-1AG set for detailed ELINT Later, all five of these aircraft were retrofitted
: cn as well as in dielectric blisters under the work installed in the fuselage. Delays in the with the SRS-1 ELINT system.
'-selage and wing centre section. lt was also flight tests and the late delivery of electronic
^iended to accommodate the SPS-3 Romb-1 equipment caused the State trials to be post- Tu-1 6R Reconnaissance Aircraft
-:lNT equipment in underwing pylon-mounted poned in accordance with CofM directive ('order 361', rzdeltye NR)
: cds. ln the aircraft's tail section an antenna for No 424-261 of 26th March 1 956 and MAP order ln 1957 plant No 1 produced 44Tu-16Rs and a
:re Sirena-2 radar warning receiver (RWR) was No 194 of 6th April; they took place between further 26 in 1958 with various reconnaissance
:r be fitted above the radome of the Argon gun- 1gth June and 17th August 1956, involving 27 equipment fits in accordance with the above-
:ying radar. The standard Rubidiy-MM-2 radar flights with 97 hours'total time. mentioned directive No1545-777. Of the total
.ras fitted with a special FA-PL-1 camera for The Tu-16R-1 became the prototype for the of 70 Tu-16R reconnaissance aircraft built on
:lotographing images on the radar screen. production Tu-1 6R. The production aircraft was the model of the Tu-16R-1 prototype (with
-con inclusion into the inventory the PR-1 jam- io have SRS-1AG and SRS-3 ELINT and SPS-1 pylon-mounted underwing pods for the SRS-3),
-er was designated SPS- 1 , SPS-2 and SPS-2K. and SPS-3 ECM equipment. ln contrast, the plant No 1 supplied the following variants:
The Tu-1 6R day reconnaissance version was prototype had only the SRS-IAG and four - 18 aircraft with SRS-1 (bands A, B & C) and SRS-6
:: be equipped with four AFA-33/75 or AFA-33/75M and AFA-33/100M cameras for - 1B aircraft wlth SRS-1 (bands D & E) and SRS-3
:FA-33/100 cameras on AKAFU pivoting twotfour-strip photography, for which special - 34 aircraft with the SRS-1 (bands D & E)
-ounts for daylight veftical photography in its apertures (with protective shutters) were cut in
:amera bay. An AFA-33/20 vertical camera was the equipment bay doors. The prototype also (Note: These are purely conventional designations
a so carried for 'opportunity en route' photog- had provision for twin NAFA-6/50 cameras for for wavebands whose frequencies are not known;
-:phy. Behind the forward pressurised cabin an night photography at the rear paft of the equip- this should not be confused with the familiar terms
:FA-33/75 for oblique photography was pro- ment bay and an aperture on the pori side of such as 'J-band' or'S-band'.)
, ced with a rectangular camera window on the the fuselage for an AFA-33M/75 oblique cam-
:lrt side. The night reconnaissance version era. Although underwing pylons were fitted for Examples with the SRS-3 were given the pro-
.,, as to carry two NAFA-6/50 night cameras and the SRS-3 pods, the pods were not fitted as duction designation 'order 361' and were
-
6 flare bombs. Both versions had provision for there were problems with the SRS-3 which pre- known in service as izdeliye NR. The equip-
Tupolev Tu-16 59
Left: Tu-l6R'26 Red'(c/n 1882710) represents
the original produclion version equipped with
the SRS-1 SIGINT system (identiliable by the
ventral dielectric blister ahead ot the bomb bay)
and the SBS'4 SIGINT syslem with a similar but
slightly larger teardrop fairing aft of the bomb
bay. Yefim Gordon archlve
i c0okm/h
930kmlh
6 300km
:3,100m
'800m
610 x 13km
liojrii
iiil
tt, l l:i
60 Tupolev Tu-16
Tu-1 6R-2 Experimental Reconnaissance
Aircraft ('order 455')
On 11th June 1956 the Council of Ministers
ssued directive NoTBB-437 followed by MAP
crder No343 on 23rd June. They required the
Tupolev OKB to equip a Tu-16 with two AFA-40
nigh-altitude cameras, two AFA-33/20M cam-
eras and an AFA-37 wide-angle camera, sub-
mitting it for checkout trials in January 1957.
Conversion work on the original Tu-16R-1
crototype started at plant No22 in November
i956, but the prototype of the new version
Cesignated Tu-16R-2 was not completed until
:he summer of 1957. Apart from the cameras,
i featured SRS-3 ELINT equipment. On 16th
August 1957 the Tu-l6R-2 was ferried from
io the GK Nll WS base at Chkalovskaya AB
rear Moscow, but problems with the camera
system delayed the checkout trials. These
eventually took place between 20th August
i95B and 23rd February 1959. Series produc-
iion, however, was not recommended - again
Cue to problems with the cameras installed;
coded '50 Red', the Tu-16R-2 finally ended up
as an exhibit at the Soviet (now Russian) Air
Force Museum in Monino near Moscow.
Tupolev Tu-1 6 bt
Tu-16R(ZA) '20 Red' (c n 1883408) combines the
ventral blister ol the SRS-4 SIGINT system with
the SRS-3 Romb-1 SIGINT Pods. Jane's Allthe
:ddlEli*+* 1s*
___,1
62 Tupolev Tu-1 6
ihe Tu-16R with the Lyustra Radar Sight
- s:nall number of Tu-16Rs was similarly fitted
:r the new RBP-6 Lyustra ground-mapping
-::ar. These were given the NATO codename
+l
-:derground nuclear weapons testing pro-
:4
l'ammes. Each of these flights counted as an ""
*,,.; I ;i,,h
:cerational mission for the aircraft's crew.
Tu-16RM-1
Maritime Reconnaissance Aircraft
The need for a more specialised maritime
'econnaissance version of the Tu- 1 6R arose in vision of Tupolev's OKB-1 56. The movable mis- pressurised cabin. Conventional AFA-33/20M
:re late1950s and early 1960s, and a spin-off sile pylon and launch equipment was removed, (vertical) and AFA-42175 (oblique) cameras
cf the Tu-16K-10 ASM carrier was chosen as the weapons bay faired over and a specialised were also carried, and some Tu-16RM-1s car-
:he most suitable option for Naval Air Arm YeN-R radar installed in the nose (it was out- ried SPS-1 and SPS-2 ECM sets. The maritime
aeeds. Two examples of the Tu-16K-10 nearing wardly distinguishable from the YeN by the reconnaissance version was accepted for ser-
:he end of their service lives were chosen for slightly enlarged chin radome). Three ventral vice in the early 1960s; since series production
oonversion as the Tu-16RM-1 prototypes teardrop antenna fairings were provided for the of the Tu-16 ended in 1963 and no new-build
trazvedchik morskoy - reconnaissance air- SRS-1 (forward and aft) and the SRS-4 (central aircraft were available, 11 (12, according to
craft, naval), the work being carried out by the and slightly larger than the other two). The some sources) Tu-16K-10s were converted to
Navy's maintenance services under the super- ELINT system was operated from a ventral Tu-1 6RM- 1 configuration.
TupolevTu-16 63
This air-to-air shot of Tu'l6RR (ZA) cln 1883305
at a later date, now upgraded with additional
ELINT/ECM equipment, repainted and recoded
'28 Red', shows the starboard RR831 1-100 air
sampling pod in action. The movable nosecone
is retracted and the rear shutter turned through
90", enabling an unrestricted airflow; compare
with the inactive pod on the port wing station.
Note also the refuelling receptacle under the
port wingtip. Jane s All rhe Waild s Atrcraft
'::iit
iii,irr'
,xi'Ifii
il
, :. il',:;1:l
n: ,r r.ll'ir'
'rl':tl.r.,:
t"
H
I
i-
An upper view of the same Tu'16RM'1 or Tu-I68M-2 cruising over thick Lower view of the same aircraft: its V/estern shadov/er really made an
effort to get a piclure from every possible anglel Note the IFR receptacle'
clouds.Asthehorizontal'winglet'ontheportwingreveals,theaircralt
Jane's Allthe World s Aircrart
used to be an IFR-capable Tu'1 6K'10(ZA). Jane's All the Wotld's Aircraft
64 Tupolev Tu'16
A Tu-16RM.1 or Tu-16RM-2 coded'84 Black'
formates with a Tu-I6(2) tanker, ready to take
on fuel. Yefim Gordon archive
Tu-16RM-2
Maritime Reconnaissance Aircraft Tu-16SPS EGM Aircraft Production of Tu-16s fitted with the SPS-1
-welve (or eleven) Tu-16K-1ODs were also mod- The first SPS-I and SPS-2 active ECM sets and SPS-2 jammers began in 1955. During
'ed as maritime reconnaissance aircraft. They installed in the Tu-16 in the 1950s were 1955-56 plant No'1 in Kuibyshev produced 42
,'rere conveded to carry the same equipment as designed for group protection of strike aircraft aircraft with SPS-1 sets, plus another 102
:re Tu- 1 6RM-1 but designated Tu-1 6RM-2. formations and were relatively unsophisticated, machines with the SPS-2 in 1955-57, including
with low emission power; besides, they were four IFR-equipped examples.
6RTs Experimental Maritime
Tu-1 bulky and heavy. Basically, they were intended Like the Tu-16R, this version designated
Reconnaissance / OTH Targeting Aircraft to jam AA artillery, land, shipborne and air- Tu-165PS (stahntsiya pomekhovykh signalav
r 1956 OKB-52 headed by Vladimir N Chelomey borne radars produced in the 1940s. The = active jammer) had a removable pressurised
:egan preliminary design studies for the P-6 SPS-1 and SPS-2 required an additional compartment in the aft part of the bomb bay for
:.ore-launched anti-shipping cruise missile, lt crewmember to operate them who had first to the electronic warfare officer (EWO), the for
:cpeared in 1962/63, successfully passing its detect the enemy radar, establish its frequency ward section still remaining usable as a bomb
::ate trials, and was accepted for use with Pro- and then tune his ECM set accordingly. All this bay. The two antennas for the SPS-2, covered
:ct651 and 675 submarines. The P-6 could be could take a well{rained operator three min- by teardrop fairings, were housed in the lower
=rnched while the submarine was submerged. utes - too long if the aircraft was flying at low part of the fuselage fore and aft of the bomb
,','crk proceeded in parallel on an airborne target altitude. Added to this was the inability of the bay. The whip aerials for the SPS-1 could be
:3tection and over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting SPS-1 and SPS-2 to jam multi-channel and sited either dorsally (aft of the WSO's blister)
:,'stem able to transmit target data directly to tuneable radars effectively. or ventrally (forward of the bomb bay). Aircraft
'-e submarine. After missile launch, the aircraft
', culd provide mid-course guidance.
*,, **'s*a*lrg&,*+.ffirn
d#
Tupolev Tu-16 65
*
0
fitted with the SPS-1 and SPS-2 were desig- Tu-16P EGM Aircraft (izdeliYe NPI a-: :. ::-: -::-: :' :.'ercoming ECM were
The Buket system of automated active jammers -:-:::,: -= --a".2 - :s:unction, the enemy
nated Tu- 1 65PS - or sometimes Tu-1 6P.
was developed in the late 1950s Unlike the '?=='.. -: :-, :-e-:: :s ooeratingfrequency,
At first the Tu-16SPS was not equipped with
the ASO-1 6 chaff dispenser, and the absence SPS-1 and SPS-2, these new sets could functicn :-: :.s- '--:- ---:-: ,',:'e four Buket systems,
of chaff vents in the bomb bay doors distin- automatically and jam several radars, including :a:- .1 :- :: :,',- ':^:e of frequencies: B-2
guished it from the later Tu-16E. Later, how- multi-channel and tuneable radars, simultane- 2' :-:::- ,',:.::^:.- B'3(12.5-21 Scm), B-4
ously. The system comprised the SPS-22. 9 3-'2 3:- =-: :-j 8 6-9.8cm).
ever, chaff dispensers were fitted to the
SPS-33, SPS-44 and SPS-55 sets, each ofwhich s,.s::- -:: :our generating transmit-
Tu-1 6SPS and the difference disappeared' =::^
During the 1960s, almost all the Tu-16SPS siill could cover a certain waveband. ln its day the :e's ,',:- r-:-:-: ,',ar,'elengths (except the
Buket was the world's most powerful ECM suite. Buite:-3 ,', - :^ -:l s x . enabling it to cover the
in service were refitted with the Buket ECM set'
-:::.:==
--'* T
66 Tupolev Tu-1 6
,,,nole spectrum of wavelengths. The Buket
:ets (B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5) had a range of
-3ception channels (18, 45, 30 and 30 respec-
:,,ely) and ratings of 340-1000 watts, 500-100
,r atts, 440-680 watts and 400-860 watts respec-
Tupolev Tu-1 6 67
The Buket suite was first fitted to the Tu-16 in
1 962. ln the course of the 1 960s, 34 aircraft
had
the SPS-22N installed. nine aircraft received
the SPS-33N, 28 the SPS-44N and 20 the
SPS-ssN. Not only the Tu-16SPS but also the
Tu-16 Yolka was modified to carry ihe Buket
system, as were several other versions. lf the
aircraft undergoing conversion had a mission
equipment operator's pressurised cabin in the
weapons bay, this was deleted - the Tu-16P
with the Buket suite had the normal Tu-16 com-
plement of six crewmembers. The power of the
ECM sets meant that maintenance personnel
on the ground had to observe rigorous safety
measures when they were switched on.
The Tu-16P operational in the 1960s had a
maximum take-off weight of 75,800k9, a top
speed of 1,OO0km/h at an altitude of 6'250m
(and 98Okm/h at 1O,00Om), a service ceiling of
13,100m, an operational range of 5,B00km
(with 5% fuel reserves) and a take-off run of
1,BO0m. With the transition to low-level opera-
tions several Tu-16P were re-equipped with the
SPS-77 jammer optimised for these conditions'
During the 1970s and 1980s the ECM equip-
ment was constantly updated. The Tu-16P car-
ried the SPS-151 , SPS-152 or SPS-153
individual and formation protection ECM sets
belonging to the Siren' series. These were
r located in the equipment bay and in the UKhO
rear ECM fairing replacing the DK-7 tail turret'
The transmitter antennas were mounted along
both sides of the fuselage near the engine air
intakes, and the receiver aniennas in the air-
craft's nose. The Tu-16P had the NATO code-
name Badger-J.
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-:-:3ntal planes and directing its jamming
. :-ai either to port or starboard. The appara-
'-: as handled by the weapons systems oper-
,,,
"li'siwe**-"-*,**'"."8Fnfr..-f-'4!li##']
*,,
,
fr
Tupolev Tu-16 69
**I
,li I tiitl
llilir'rir,
70 Tu1olevTu-16
a
l:ne shot of Tu-16E'45 Red' (c/n 1882411).
:'- Gordon archive
&1 upper view of the same aircraft,
:'-
Gordon archive
i
Tupolev Tu-1 6 71
A head-on view of Tu-l6E Azaliya'69 Red'
GlnA2O4214), YeJim Gordon archive
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Tu.16P'12 Red'(c/n 6400903) was modified by
Nll-131 fortesting the RPZ-59 rockets.
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Chapter Six
TARGET DRONE CARRIERS Tu-16KRME ('order 299E') 4C:::- --: 3--:- ,',: ort of both drones
A variant of the Tu-16E ECM aircraft adapted to ',',3s j j:i.: .' -- : a--:^ altitude between
--
Tu-16KRM ('order 299') carry MV-1 target drones but retaining its 5C::-: -::- --:,. ,',::eabletocarryaddi-
To assist the Air Defence Force (PVO - Pro- SPS-1/SPS-2/Siren' jammers and ASO-16 ic^: ::- :-:-: ::-:- ^ s ngle items or as a
tivovozdooshnaya oborona) in the develop- chaff dispenser was designated Tu-16KRME. se: ':- -:::-' -: :-: :'a ectorY, transmitting
ment of missiles for use against high{lying When the drones were launched, the aircraft ca:::: -=::-' - -: ::a: :-S .''ia data Iink, fecofd-
supersonic aircraft, production Tu-16KS and could simulate enemy ECM against the PVO s '= z -:: :. :- ?:::' ^c nissile and auto-
Tu-16KSR ASM carriers were modified under SAM complexes. Like the Tu-16E, it had a crew -=a -U , :::::: -l:-: a.j-lCh reSUltS.
the terms of 'order 299' in the late 1960s and of seven. --: ^:=-:r,r,' l-:'.',1 Crones were carried
given the service designation Tu-16KRM. They c-, :-. ---'i'.',' -::':i from a Tu-16K-26
carried two MV-1 supersonic high-altitude tar- Tu-16NKRM ('order 332') - ss : -::' .: The modifications
=-.'^j-.
get drones (MV = mlshen' vysotnaya), alias Appearing in 1964, the Tu-16NKRM known as ': -::: ::':-::^:-:1,', rgs. alterationsto the
'order 332' in production, carried two 540-kg ' a= :::"='. -: :. s:=- :ianges in the fuel SyS-
KRM-2 (krylahtaya raketa-mlshen' - cruise
missile used as target), on underwing pylons. high-speed, high-altitude lTs-59 O/en' (Deer) :a- :-: ::.:::-':-:'essurising the drone
The drones were used in the development of drones (lTs = i mitahtor tsell - simulated targel) aa-a=.-=-,. --: iSR-5NM was launched at
the Tu-1285-4 long-range air defence system powered by liquid{uel rocket motors. ln 1980 a- : : :,:: -' :5 --::lir r lvhilethe carrierwas
comprising the Tu-128 heavy interceptor and the improved 1,052-kg lTs-59V Magnit (Mag- : ; -: :i :::-:::-- - Tie Coweredflighttime
the R-4R and R-4T air-to-air missiles. net) with a liquid{uel cruise engine and hvc :':^: :':-= ,',:: :::,',4:^ 75.7 and 379.4 sec-
The MV-1 was a derivative of the KRS-2 solidjuel rocket boosters became available. 3-:s :.:- 7-.-'---'ange of 110.4km. The
cruise missile with a top speed of 2,760kmlh at Both drones were used by the PVO for SA\4 a-:-:s :: - : a :: aa iaunched bY suitablY
an altitude of 22,500m and a maximum range development and troop training, -:: ':: ---'ai-26s Tu-16KSR-2-5s and
of 376km. lt was flown at altitudes between
20,000 and 25,000m with a flight time of 7.2 Tu-16NM
minutes and weighed 4,000k9 at launch. The KSR-SNM (D-sNM; M = mlshen') anc The Tu-16 Target Tug
The modifications on the Tu-16KRM KSR-SMV (D-SMV) target drones were evolvec --. ---'i ,',as : s: -sed by the PVO as a tug
included changes to the flap operating system by MKB Raduga ('Rainbow' Moscow Design
(flap deflection was restricted when the drones Bureau, pronounced rahdooga) from the i-,-s'.-.,2 - shen - glrding target). The tail
were carried) and strengthening of the wing KSR-sN low-altitude cruise missile in the early :u"e:.',as -:'s 's:ance. replaced bythetow-
spars. There were certain alterations to the fuel 1990s. Both drones simulated air-to-surface ,1C 334-
system and special equipment to effect the and anti-shipping air-launched missiles anc
launch of the drones was fitted. The original were used in the development of new SAM sys-
RBP-4 radar was retained. tems. The drones could be programmed to RADIO.CONTROLLED DRONES
simulate high-altitude missiles, strategic or tac-
tical bombers or low-altitude missiles. Depend- ln 19c6 OKB-'aO ,,'ras called upon to provide a
A Tu-16 configured as a drone launcher comes radio-con::cltei versicn of the Tu-16 for the
ing on the programme, the drone could have a
in to land, showing the two target drones
top speed of Mach 4.2, a maximum range of PVO. On 23'c Ncvernber 1956 the Council of
looking like large bombs carried on underwing
pylons, Yefim Gordon archive 400km and a maximum flight altitude ol Mrnisters issuec di:ective No 1528-768 fol-
lowed by lvlAP crder No 592 on 3rd December.
bolh conce:rng development of the Tu-16M
large targei crone (M = mishen'). The aircraft
was to reiain ihe flight performance of the pro-
ouciion Tu-16 and the first three examples were
io be ready for ioint OKB/Air Force trials during
the second quarter of 1958. Development was
to proceed jointly with the Ministry of Electron-
ics (MRP).
Development problems caused delays so
that the f irst three experimental Tu- 1 6M drones
did not reach the Tupolev OKB's f light test facil-
ity at Zhukovskiy until ihe end of 1958, allowing
tests of the remote control system to begin.
Hence on 16th April 1958 the Council of Mlnis-
ters followed up with directive No 419- 198 (anc
MAP with order No 131 of 24th April), postpon-
ing the beginning of the trials until the second
quarter of 1 959.
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-'i ;rri.16 target drone ('61 Red', cln 1882216)
{::r:sumably a convened Tu-l6R with ECM
.:L :ment for selt-protection still in place. Note
-E -etal panels mounting the forward probe
s-: s of the radio control system which replace
:"8 Dwer side quadrants of the navigator's
:=-: cn glazing. Yuriy Kabernik
Tupolev Tu-16
sysiem on the nose and tail. Some aircraft had
fupolev Tu-1 6
lhe tail of M-16-3'77 Red' (c/n A2O42O3), during conversion as 'order 254 Orbita'). lt dif- limitation treaties meant that examples retired
-<howing the rear UKhO ECM fairing which now fered from the other drone conversions in hav- from operational service could, with armament,
iounts the aft pair of radio control system
ing additional antennas replacing the dorsal ECM and other miscellaneous items of equip-
srobe aerials. Yefim Gordon
and ventral gun positions and boxy pods cov- ment removed, be used for crew training as the
ering automatic passive ECM on the lower rear Tu-1 6U (o oc h ebnyy ls am oly otl - trai ner). Vari-
M-16-1 Target Drone fuselage sides. This version did not pass its ous versions of the Tu-16U bomber trainer,
- Khabarovsk various versions of the Tu-16 State trials, so no more were converted. which was to be outwardly distinguished by a
-:derwent conversion into drones. Tu-164 red band round the fuselage forward of the tail
:cmber conversions with Siren' ECM sets were M-16 Target Drone ('order 285K') assembly, were planned.
:esignated M-16-1 . An unconventional version of the target drone The Tu-l6U-1 was to be a dedicated flying
was developed under the aegis of the Air training version for mastering piloting and nav-
M-16-2 Target Drone Defence Force and converted in 1991 under igation techniques, the Tu-16U-2 used for
-nose Tu-16 drones fitted with Siren' active the terms of 'order 2B5K'. lt was given a three- bombing training, the Tu-1 6U-3 for ASM launch
_ammers covering the forward and rear hemi- year service life extension and used to carry tar- training, while the Tu-16U-4 was to be a training
spheres were designated M-16-2. These con- get drones until it reached the end of its service version of the Tu-16K-10-26. For political rea-
. ersions were mainly carried out in Khabarovsk life when it became a target itself . Outwardly the sons none of these versions actually materi-
and based on Tu-164 bombers and Tu-16E aircraft could be recognised by the trapezoidal alised: firstly, the Tu-16 fell outside the strategic
=CM versions which had an UKhO ECM fairing. command link aerials at the wingtips. The can- weapons category; secondly, many examples of
non armament was retained and the crew com- the Tu- 1 6 were already being converted as M-1 6
The M-16-3 Target Drone ('order 254') prised six persons. drones. lt was decided, therefore, to combine
Some drones had the Siren' jammer covering two functions in the M-16: bomber trainer and
cnly the forward hemisphere and were desig- target drone. For that reason the M-16 drones
nated M-16-3. Various versions of the Tu-16, OTHER VERSIONS AND TESTBEDS which underwent conversion in Khabarovsk
rncluding those fitted with ihe Azaliya, Buket and had major overhauls to give them three more
Ficus ECM systems, underwent this conversion Tu-16U Bomber Trainer (project) years of service life. This permitted them to be
at ARZ No 12 under the terms of 'order 254'. As the standard bomber in the Long-Range Avi- used as training aircraft for some considerable
ation (DA) and Naval AirArm (AVMF), the Tu-16 time. As for the training roles described above,
M-16K Target Drone ('order 254K') was also used to train aircrews. The bomber they were assigned to the Tu-95U and Tu-95KU -
Drones converted at Khabarovsk from 'glass- was on strength with the training regiments at decommissioned versions of theTu-95A bomber
nosed' missile-carrying versions of the Tu-16 the Tambov Military Pilot College, the and Tu-95K missile strike aircraft.
with forward-looking Siren' jammers, as on the Chelyabinsk Military Navigator College, the
M-16-3, were known as 'order 254K' during DA's 43rd Combat & Conversion Training Cen- Tu-l6 Development Aircraft with
conversion and as the M-16K in service. The tre at Dyaghilevo AB, Ryazan', and the AVMF's RD-3MR Engines and'Hushkit'
missile pylons were not removed. 33rd Combat & Conversion Training Centre at Between 1957 and 1959 the Flight Research
Kool'bakino AB, Nikolayev. At first machines of lnstitute (Lll) carried out ground and flight tests
M-16 Orbita Target Drone the first production batches were relegated for of Tu-16 c/n 1BB2B0B fitted with new RD-3MR
('order 254 Orbita') training, but they were joined later by examples engines featuring thrust reversers (hence the R
ln 1990 a single retired Tu-16 ('32 Red', c/n of the Tu-164 bomber and even, in small num- for reyers tyagl. fhe new feature reduced the
7203616) was converted into the M-16 Orbita bers, by the 'Tu-16K-something-orother' mis- landing run by some 30-35% (from 1,500 to
(Orblt) experimental target drone (referred to siletoting versions. The signing of arms 950m). At the same time the engines were
TupolevTu-16 77
Tu-'16 Aerial Cinernatography Version
Two exa-: =s :' :-: ---i6K-10 were con-
fcr' - -: --: -_ :^: a : during testing and
verted
develoc:-:-: :' :-: --' ;r: refuelling system.
,Arl ^-:-- :::- - :-:- ,,, ih the fOfmef miS-
pnr.
r,r v9u s
{ffith*
_
:--
-s - :--'. ,',as intended for studY-
, : :. :-=--:dYnamic arlu
:: :-3--3OYnamlC and eleuLllu
electric
:' :-: ::-:schere and cloud for-
rp-42 3E I
t!ff-.{l
78 Tupolev Tu-1 6
: *ake rain (for instance, when it was neces-
::-, io prevent an impending hailstorm which
::- c destroy crops, or to scatter rain clouds
- :n could ruin a public holiday). Accordingly
i armament and military equipment (except
:- :he missile pylons) was removed and
:: aced by R-802V and R-BO2GM radios, a
:-::n-1M wide-scan weather radar with its
n-::nna in a large teardrop radome under the
:.-:r'e fuselage and other special equipment.
--: former weapons bay and wing hardpoints
:'eused for carrying speclal bombs filled with
'= -.naking chemicals (such as silver iodide) or
:::oial pods housing research equipment or
: -:rnical dispensers.
-:ials by GK Nll WS and TsAO lasted from
',: . ember 1978 to April 1980, whereupon both
i':raft were placed on the civil register as
: ICP-42355 (c/n 6203203) and CCCP-42484
: " 6203208). ln keeping with their new mis-
- :r they gained the blue/white 1973-standard
:::cflot livery - save that the type was marked
:^ the nose simply as 'Tu'. Like the other tion at Chkalovskaya AB (its home base) in and armament. Such aircraft were usually
-:search aircraft in the Tsiklon series, the August 1999. Curiously, back in late 1987 the called Tu-1 6LL (letayuschchaya laboratoriya -
-,-16s (redesignated) wore the eye-catching registration CCCP-42355 was reused for a lit.'flying laboratory');this Russian term is used
-s klon emblem on the nose to clarify their Yakovlev Yak-42 short-haul airliner (c/n indiscriminately for any kind of testbed,
::crm chaser' role. 4520424711399) delivered to Aeroflot's research or survey aircraft.
The two Tu-1 6 Tsiklon-Ns served for more Lithuanian Civil Aviation Directorate; thus, con- Most often, however, the designation
--an ten years in a variety of scenarios over trary to all rules there were lwo aircraft with the Tu-161L applied to the nine engine testbeds
::ntral Russia and the Ukraine, including 'sky same registration operational at the same time! operated by Lll from Zhukovskiy. The Tu-1 6LLs
::aning' missions during the 1980 Moscow had the radar and all armament removed and
3 ympics and damage control in the wake of Tu-16 for Spraying Carbonic Acid carried the test engine in a special nacelle
:-e 1986 Chernobyl' nuclear disaster. Two Tu-16N tankers were used for spraying housed in the former bomb bay. The nacelle
carbonic acid in the late 1970s as part of the was semi-recessed during take-off/landing to
Tu-16 Tsiklon-NM Tsiklon research programme. They were based provide adequate ground clearance and
\Yeather Research Alrcraft at Chkalovskaya AB. extended clear of the fuselage by a special
f :r 1gth November '1 gBG the Soviet Council of hydraulic mechanism before the test engine
',linisters ordered that both Tu-16 Tsiklon-N air- Tu-16AFS Photo Survey Aircraft was started. The nacelle featured an emer-
:'aft should be re-equipped to enable them to ln the early 1970s a Tu-16 operated by one of gency jettison mechanism (in case it failed to
:articipate in international weather research the Soviet Air Force units (coded '69 Red', c/n retract before landing or the development
:fogrammes. Eventually only CCCP-42355 unknown) was re-equipped to perlorm aerial engine caught fire); a movable circular cover
:he first aircraft to be thus registered) was so photography along the route of the Baikal-Amur closed the air intake when the nacelle was
rodified, beginning its iests in 1991 which Railway. The Tu-1 6AFS (aerototos"yomshchik - stowed to prevent foreign object damage and
,'rere interrupted by the dlsintegration of the photo survey aircraft) operated from various stop the engine from windmilling. As a rule, test
JSSR that year. The Tu-16 Tsiklon-N and the civilian airports, although it was 'registered' to equipment heat exchangers were mounted on
-u-16 Tsiklon-NM were to have been used for Lll and officially home-based at Zhukovskiy. the upper centre fuselage or on the test engine
:re last time during the First Chechen War in nacelle.
'995-96 but they did not, in fact, take part and Tu-16LL Engine Testbed The first example to be adapted for engine
,vere retired soon afterwards. The fate of Starting in 1954, the Tu-16 was used on a wide testing was a standard bomber (tactical code
CCCP-42484 is unknown, while CCCP-42355 scale for testing new jet engines, structural unknown, c/n 1880403) built in Kuibyshev in
No 1 was last noted in reasonably good condi- components, assemblies, avionics, equipment 1954, which was used to test the Lyul'ka AL-7F
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Left: Another Tu.15LL '01 Blue' (c/n 6401401;
note the differentty aPPtied tactical code),
with a very similar develoPment engine
nacelle - right dohn to the test equipment heat
exchanger placen'lent ln this case, however'
,, : the test engine app€a6 to be an afterburning
turbofan, which required the rear end of the
nacelle to be lengfrened accordingly.
Crnm^ I --.::::: -_ _:-' -:
afterburning turbojet developed for the Sukhoi ln the 1970s and 1980s Tu-161L'41 Blue' O33'a::- :: := ::-: =: a^d engine operation
Su-7 fighter-bomber. The other Tu-16LLs were was modified for perlorming an extensive test ): 2- ^ : :--:: -: =-=-/:o be verified. As ln
adapted as test beds, including Voronezh-built and development program on the D-36 turbo- t^: ::s: :' :-= :-:^:: alone. the aircraft
'01 Blue' (c/n 6401 401 ), '03' (c/n 6401 403), '08' lan intended for the Antonov An-72 Coaler shorl ass=-: :: .',:': -:--331 r ihe former bomb
take-off and landing (STOL) light transpod and 3a, :^: :r,:':: : =:-::':'e engine starting.
(c/n 6401408),'41 Blue'(c/n 6401410) and'01
the Yak-42 C/obber short-haul airliner; at Lll this
...---.-^-. .-- .-----:s were used during
Red' (c/n 6401501), Kazan'-built '02 Blue' (c/n
42O1OO2) and '05 Blue' (c/n 8204105), and aircraft was known as the Tu-161L-410 At this c3,: ::-:-: ;,:-- :^ :le equipment and
Kuibyshev-built '10 Red' (c/n 1881110). Some time, too, the Tu-1 6LL found use for testing full- a'-:-:-:':-:-=',' 3-23 =',crum Iaclical fighter
30 engines, including the Dobrynin VD-7 after- size airframe assemblies together with their - -3-:--: - ^- --+ Tu-16: an example
-^ zs LL-88 was used to
burning turbojet, Kuznetsov NK-8, Solov'yov engrnes. For instance, '02 Blue'and '41 Blue
D-20P and D-30 turbofans, Tumanskiy R13-300 carried complete fuselages of the Yak-36M :es: :-: ::::, :l-13 ::e'burning turbofan.
and R158-300 afterburning turbojets, R-27 Forger shipboard vertical/short take-off and 3-=---' :--,',:: :::,',henthetestengineer
landing (V/STOL) attack aircraft incorporating !'- s:::- :-: : :,', :' :-: setting sun on the
afterburning turbofan, R27V-300 thrust-vector-
ing turbofan and R-29 afterburning iurbofan, an R27V-300 lift/cruise engine and a pair of r€.: ::-:-: :-: -: s ^acelte for a fire and the
Lotarev D-36 turbofan, Lyul'ka AL-7 and AL-7F Kolesov RD36-35V lift-jets; '10 Red' (probably e^:': :':,', == ==,-, :-3iherexamplecrashed
turbojets, lvchenko A|-25TL turbofan, Gavrilov called Tu-16LL-1 10 at Lll) and '02 Blue' carried cr -s: =::'-:-, '3-' <,lling the crew of five
a complete fuselage of the Czech Aero L-39 cao:a -:: :-. ---.':-:,ls:est pilot Sultan Amet-
R-95Sh turbofan and so on - in short, nearly all
Soviet second- and third-generation jet Albatros advanced trainer with an AI-25T1 K'z' -a'a :':-: S:. =: Union: the cause was
engines - were tested on these aircraft in the engine, and the like. These tests enabled the :":-::-: ..'-='.:- :'- :ab deflection which
course of some 30 Years. etfect of the air intake design on the engine s 3a-s::'.- = - z:' -: .l tr ve into the ground.
-.rn, T-L-a-{dl-,ll1L!1@*-
-. *i mw!*r**-
ATT@
80 Tupolev Tu-1 6
''- -": ;'::hs on the opposite page::
::-:-',ght: Another view inside the Tu-l6LL's bomb bay, showing the
- ntake shutter in retracted position, All Gromov Flight Research lnstitute
Tupolev Tu-16 81
Lefi: Another air-to'air of Tu-'l6LL '41
Blue'with the D-36 out and running.
ln this configuration the test
equipment heat exchangers had to
be installed on the uPPer centre
fuselage. G:cmov Flighi Research
t-
a_
,€
? t€
-*.33:-
*
ff
:::.= Tu. l6LL'02 Blue' (cln 42O1OO2)
l= with a stowed develoPment engine
#r
t sits in front of one of the PurPose'
buitl ramps at Zhukovskiy in the
199Os. ':'- Gcrcon archive
*{a@
I
l"*;
d. t
i'liijit
t k -:: The same aircraft in an earlier
configuration with a different test
engine taxies at Zhukovskiy' the
nacelle's intake firmly closed by the
shutter. Note the difterence in the
presentation and location of the
tactical code and c/n which changed
in the course of an overhaul.
I
--dd v:'- G:-::r archive
82 Tupolev TuJ 6
-
-: r,- reft and right: Tu-16LL'01 Blue' (c/n 5401401) was part ol a display
;i3ged at Zhukovskiy in May 1991 on occasion of the Flight Research
i-stilute's 50th anniversary. Note that the design of the nacelle's intake
;.rtter varied on individual aircraft, depending on the type of engine fitted
:(. to be precise! its intake diameter). The unusually low position ol the
:: on the nose is also noteworthy. Yefim Gordon
:. :,,, flght: A rear view ol the same turbofan, showing the subsonic nozzle
r''Jr a core/bypass flow mixer; the oblong objects at the nacelle's trailing
:€ge are not adiustable nozzle petals! Note also the open doors ol the
{I{-3 engine's turbostarter exhaust port. Yefim Gordon
l= : ,',, left: Tu-16LL '10 Red' (c/n 1881 1 10) sits forlorn on a rain-drenched
-ardstand close to Lll's main hangars. With no development engine
:stalled, the modified door-less bomb bay creating a concave lower
-;selage contour is readily apparent. Note the open brake parachute bay
:oors. Gromov Flight Research lnstitute
:::.nr left and right: Tu-16LL '05 Blue' (c/n 8204105) caught by the camera
:n short finals to runway 30 at Zhukovskiy after a test tlight. Usually it was
:ll but impossible to guess what type of development engine was
:lstalled, Victor Drushlyakov
fi
14
\{""',
{r,r, xr9i"n
F
IHnb-* I
_,1
Tupolev Tul 6 83
I
84 Tupolev Tu-1 6
: :* Close-up oltheYak-36M
'Essage lowered lor ground tests of
t* rovrerplant as Tu-'l6LL'41 Blue'
rlr Do the special ramps. The open
a-d air intake doors and the ventral
:s.-:shell exhaust doors lor the
ry€d RD36.35V lift-jets are just
'rrbrC in this view. Note the FOD
tgl€frtion wire mesh screens on the
Grd intakes of the lift/cruise engine
rlE *l€ short ogival nosecone tipped
ilif a pitot as incorporated on the
n -l first and second prototypes;
tllg gave place to a longer conical
ese on subsequent aircraft.
r: -:, iiight Research lnstitute
l+ : :i: Again, due to the high
lrcrityof the Yak-36M programme
a recond 'wish I had wings'
rselage/powerplant combination
res built and litted to Tu-16LL'02
*u€' (ch 42O1OO2). The aft fuselage
!1;a9€ of lhe real Yak-36M was,
Ir course, rather diflerent.
- : -: / Flight Research lnstitute
Tu-16 Avionics and Equipment Testbeds Above right: Another view ol Tu-16LL'02 Blue' in 'Forgerised' configuration - probably the lirst in its
- :1e late 1950s and early 1 960s OKB-156 mod- capacity as an engine testbed; note that the standard bomb-aiming radar is still in place. Both nozzles
=:d two Tu-16s to serve as testbeds during ol the R27V-300 lift/cruise engine are visible here, Note that the aft fuselage underside is sheathed in
heat-resistant steel to protect the skin against the jet exhaust, Gromov Flight Research lnstitute
::relopment of the'121 'cruise missile and its
:-lduction derivative, the Tu-123 Yastreb (Hawk) Below: Tu-l6'44 Red' (cln 42OO4O4) was converted by Lll into a de-icing systems testbed with an
: -gersonic reconnaissance drone. Both aircraft aerofoil-shaped test article mounted dorsally on the centre fuselage. The tubular object on top of the
::ionged to Lll; one - obviously one of the starboard engine housing may be a heat exchanger, Gromov Flight Research lnstitute
---1 6LLs listed above - served as a testbed for
:e drone's Tumanskiy RK-15-300 afterburning
.-rbojet (a short-life version of the R-15-300
:cwering the MiG-25 fighter) and the second
::rved for verifying the Tu- 123's data link system.
A Tu-16 coded '44 Red' (c/n 4200404) was
aier used for aerodynamic tests and de-icing
-iystem trials, featuring an aerofoil-shaped test
=rlicle
installed atop the fuselage.
The Flight Research lnstitute also convefied
:ne first Kuibyshev-built Tu-16 ('57 Red', later
'ecoded'24 Red',c/n 18801 01) fortesting mis-
sile guidance systems. A missile seeker head in
a conical metal fairlng tipped by a dielectric
ks tgd}"'
\
ff'
I..*ryrygi
il-h*qe
Tupolev Tul6 85
Left: An air-to-air shol of Lll's Tu-15 de.icing
systems testbed. 3':-:. F rght Research lnstitute
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-s'i*,"
s*
/tn
Tupolev Tu-1 6 87
Top left: Tu-16'46 Red' (c/n 1881907) starred in a Soviet motion picture called Bottom left: Tu-l6'56 Red'was converted into a testbed for the'iump strut'
The barriet of the llnknown, depicting a'mother ship'lor an imaginary nose landing gear devised lor the Myasishchev M'50 bomber. This view
hypersonic rocket-powered research aircraft designated Ts-1' This photo shows the telescopic second nose gear at maximum extension; note the
shows preparations tor a static filming sequence' Yefim Gordon archive auxiliary wheels on the tail bumper. Gromov Fiight Research lnstitute
Top right: A GAZ-69A ieep tows a dolly with the partially assembled full' Bottom right: Close-up of ihe highly modified nose gear unit of Tu-l6'56
scale mock-up of the would-be Ts-l . The Tu-l 6 made high'speed taxi runs Red'. The olficer standing next to the aircraft is holding a control box lor
but did not fly with the Ts-l because the mock'up was not stressed to the 'iump strut' mechanism connected to the aircraft by a cable.
withstand dynamic pressures. Yefim Gordon archive Gromov Flight Research lnstitute
designation. Target drones were also given the technology had two designations: the actual implemented by order numbers. Orders for
common designation M-16, and Tu-16M was one (which was classified) and an unclassified production or modification were issued by the
rarely used. The Tu-16PLO is sometimes designation for everyday use in a service con- aircraft's operators - the Soviet Air Force (WS),
referred to as the Tu-16PL in documents, and text. Thus Tu-16 was the actual designation, the Soviet Naval Air Arm (AVMF) or the Air
the Tu- 1 62 tanker as the Tu-1 6Yu. wilh'izdeliye N' as the unclassified 'cover des- Defence Force (PVO).
When aircraft were refitted, special attention ignation'. ln unclassified documents the desig- Order '684' for the increase in bomb-carrying
was given to lncreasing the bomb-carrying nation Tu-16 was changed to 'N', with the capacity was especially unusual in that several
capacity (under the terms of 'order 684') version designator letters added, when led to versions of the Tu-16 were affected. Some
and in OKB-156 such modifications were given some monstrous ciphers, Thus the Tu-1 64 was versions merely had their capabilities as
the 'B' suffix. But even within the design the 'NA' and the Tu-16R was the 'NR', which bombers enhanced, while others assumed a
bureau itself the designations Tu-1648, was tolerable; but the Tu-16REZA became the bombing capability they had not had before.
Tu-1 6KSR-28, Tu-1 6K-1 1 -1 68, Tu-1 6KSR-2-58 'NREZA', the Tu-16KRMEZA turned into Refits under the terms of 'order 684' began in
and Tu-16KSR-2-118 were hardly ever used, 'NKRMEZA' and the Tu-16K-10 the 'NK-10'. 1972 and involved aircraft previously modified
nor were they used by service squadrons. Even After declassif ication, the izdel iye designations in accordance with 'order 657'. Aircraft which
the aircraft record cards showed no change in for the Tu-16 fell into disuse. had hitherto lacked bomber capability could
designation, with just a note made to the effect Over its many years of service, the Tu-16 was be affected by both orders. These orders
that the machine had been modified to carry a subjected to many kinds of refits and modifica- brought no change in the aircraft's designation.
greater bomb load. Exceptions to this were the tions which were denoted as 'orders' followed Only the Tu-1 6K-11-16 was redesignatec
Tu-16K-26B and Tu-16K-10-268 whose desig- by a series number. Since othertypes of aircraft Tu-16K-26B when it was equipped with the
nations rarely appear in special documents. ln underwent similar alterations, the numbering of K-26 ASM and received an increased bomb
squadron service these designations were the orders was strictly sequential. The degree load. Similar work was carried out in the Navar
hardly ever used. of work involved in these orders varied - from Air Arm when the Tu-16K-10-26 was modified tc
The Tu-16 was also subject to the secrecy replacing a certain item of equipment to a cap- carry bombs, Originally these machines Iackec
imposed on all Soviet military equipment in the ital refit inio an entirely new version. Manufac- bombing capability and were redesignatec
post-war years. Almost every item of military ture of the aircraft at MAP factories was also Tu- 1 6K-1 0-268 after modification.
Itj,'irir
88 Tupolev Tu-1 6
Chapter Seven
--= 'cllowing description relates to the pro- Fuselage fuselage circumference at 10" intervals; auxiliary
:-:::n bomber version of the Tu-l6 ('order Monocoque all-metal structure of basically cir- stringers were used in some places to reinforce
:,: tzdeliye N) built in the mid-1950s, and cular cross-section with a smooth stressed skin the skin in the gaps between the basic stringers
- -:-:cted by subsequent bulletins concerning supported by frames and stringers made of The overall number of basic stringers in the for-
-: : 'craft's systems, armament and equipment. pressed and formed components. Fuselage ward section of the fuselage was 36, wlth fewer
-^e Tu-1 6 was a high-speed long-range jei length 34.6m, fuselage diameter 2.5m, fineness in the aft section. Where the structure was
::-3er (or, in the light of its many modifica- ratio 13.9. The fuselage featured 75 frames set at weakened by cutouts, extra transverse and lon-
: - s a multi-role long-range jet aircraft) intervals of 260-570mm; the cylindrical portion of gitudinal reinforcing beams were provided to
:.: :ned to carry out heavy bombing raids on the fuselage was located between f rames Nos 1 2 absorb the loads from the structure's load-
,--::egic enemy targets. lt could operate singly and 46. The stringers were placed around the bearing elements, equipment and armament.
:' :s part of a formation, in all weather condi-
' : ^s by day or night. lt was equipped with the
-:,rsite means for navigation, radio commu-
- :::rons and radar, possessed a formidable
::':nsive cannon armament, was able to carry I "i;S***
: -:'econnaissance and support missions, and
: =:able of striking enemy surface vessels.
-c improve aerodynamic characteristics at
- _:^ subsonic speeds, the swept wings were
-are up of special high-speed airJoil sections
:^ a small thickness/chord ratio. The engines
proximity to the fuselage
='e sltuated in close
.
Tupolev Tu-1 6
The fuselage skin rvas made of D16ATV
and Dl6ATNV dural.rr-nin and their varieties;
skin thickness ',vas 1-2mm, increasing to
Tupolev Tu-1 6
,;:W$'#, i{,3peww"e
;1
-.::ion F-6) accommodated the radio opera- AFA-33M aerial camera, the dorsal gun posi- Top lelt: The centre luselage underside of the
Tu-l6P Buket ECM aircraft, showing the
:- JUnner (working the ventral gun barbette) tion, the KPZh-3O liquid oxygen converter for
centrally mounted canoe fairing of the emitter
:-: ihe defensive fire commander who oper- the forward cabin, the AC generator and other antenna llanked by three heat exchangers and a
:-:r the tail gun barbette and the PRS-1 Argon equipment. Above the compartment was the cooling air intake. YeJim Gordon
. - ^ r'anging radar. Access to the forward cabln container for the LAS-SM dinghy for the aircrew
:s via a ventral hatchway under the WSO's in the forward cabin. Further back was fuel tank Top right: The llightdeck canopy, showing the
jettisonable upper sections for eiection, the
: ::,iion and to the rear crew cabin via a ventral No 2, the wing centre section with the No 3 fuel
sliding direct vision windows and the dorsal
-:::rway under the defensive fire comman- tank. beneath which the No4 fuel tank was ECM antenna lairing (a mid-life update). Note
::- s seat, lf the aircraft had to put down on located. The weapons bay closed by two doors that the dorsal observation/gun-aiming blister is
::er or make a belly landing, the crew could was situated immediately aft of the wing centre built into an escape hatch. Yuriy Kabernik archive
,::ape from the forward cabin through a hatch section and went back as far as the Nos 5 and
- :re glazing, and from the aft cabin through an 6 fuel tanks. Under the No5 fuel tank was a
:-3rgency exit in the tail gunner's station glaz- compartment for illumination and signalling
-; The aircraft would remain afloat long flare bombs, also closed by twin doors. Aft of
:^cugh to enable the crew to take to their the tanks came the rear equipment bay hous-
- ing the ventral gun barbette, the KPZh-30 LOX
"ghies. Each crewmember was supplied with Bottom left: The centre luselage of Tu-16 '17 Red'
: cersonal first-aid kit, a thermos flask, in-flight converter and dinghy container ior the aft cabin
(cln 52O29O7), showing the open bomb bay
-:: cns, an emergency radio and emergency crew and other equipment. The Argon radar doors, the rear portion of the starboard engine
-::icns. was positioned above the aft cabin. nacelle and the nacelle/fuselage fairing.
lJnder the forward pressure cabin was a The brake parachutes were to reduce the Yefim Gordon
:lmpartment for the RBP-4's antenna closed landing run and were deployed when landing
Bottom right: On some special mission variants,
:; a dielectric fairing. lmmediately behind this on a waterlogged or short runway, an unpaved
including this... um.,. masculine-looking version
.,,as the nosewheel well closed by two doors; airstrip, after an incorrectly executed landing (probably an EGM aircraft ol some sort), the
n3ove it was the No 1 fuel tank. The nosewheel approach or in the case of brake failure. The bomb bay doors are non-functional. Note that
,',ell gave access to the DC batteries and the parachutes were housed in a detachable con- the engine nacelle/fuselage lairing is skinned in
':..ward equipment bay which housed the tainer in the lower rear fuselage. The PT-16 heat-resistant steel. Yefim Gordon
Tupolev Tu-1 6 91
brake-parachute system gave a landing run of The trailing edge section of the wings was The horizontal tail of similar two-spar design
no more than 1 ,535m on a dry concrete runway occupied along the entire span by flaps and had a span of 11.75m and an area of 34.452m':
with automatic wheel braking applied and the ailerons. The slotted Fowler flaps were built in sweepback at quarterchord 42', leading-edge
parachutes opened after touching down at a two sections located inboard and outboard of sweep 45', no dihedral. The tailplanes were
speed no higher than 270kmlh, at a landing the main landing gear fairings; flap settlngs likewise attached to fuselage frames Nos 64
weight no greater than 47,000k9. were 20" for take-off and 35" for landing. The and 69 by bolts at four points (two points at
one-piece ailerons were of single-spar con- each frame). Tailplane incidence was -1 .5' and
Wings struction and carried on five brackets each, could be adjusted on the ground between 0"
Cantilever mid-set wings swept back 35' at featuring internal overhand balances for aero- and -2.5" at 0.5" increments, using the holes in
quarter-chord (leading edge sweep is 37" ftom dynamic compensation; each aileron incorpo- the attachment fittings on the fuselage. The
root to rib No 7 and 36" along the remainder of rated a trim tab. smooth tailplaneifuselage junction was
the span). Anhedral 3", incidence 1", aspect The centre section was the central part of the effected by a fillet which was attached by
ratio 6.627, laper 2.416; wing span 32.98m, wing located between fuselage frames Nos.26 screws to the lower stabiliser skin and to the
wing area 164.65m'. The mean aerodynamic and 33. The inner detachable wing sections side of the fuselage.
chord (MAC) is 5.021m. were attached to it. The centre section was a The one-piece elevators were of single-spar
The wings were built in five pieces: the cen- load-bearing box structure and consisted of a construction and connected on the centreline by
tre section built integrally with the fuselage, front and rear spar, two connecting ribs and one a shaft with a universal joint ensuring simultane-
inner (first) and outer (second) detachable sec- centreline rib, and upper and lower skin panels. ous deflection. Each elevator was carried on five
tions. The centre section is joined to the lnner The centre section skin was smooth and com- brackets and incorporated a trim tab. Maximum
wing sections along the fuselage sides, the posed of aluminium alloy sheets 3-5mm thick. deflection angles were 12" down and 26" up.
outer wing sections being mated to the inner
ones at rib No 7; the engine housings were built Tail Unit Landing Gear
integrally with the inner wings. The wings were Conventional cantilever swept tail surfaces, Hydraulically retractable tricycle type; all three
made of D16T, D164T and Dl6ATNV duralu- utilising symmetrical aerofoil sections. The tail units retracted aft. Wheel track 9.775m, wheel-
min, AK-6, AK-B and V95 aluminium alloy; flush assembly was made of duralumin, except for base 10.913m. All three units had oleo-pneu-
riveting was used throughout. the attachment fittings and bolts (which were maiic shock absorbers and scissor links.
The wings were of all-metal two-spar con- mostly made of steel) and the wooden fairing at The nose unit had twin 900 x 275mm non-
struction. The central portion (the torsion box) the top of the fin. All duralumin parts were elec- braking wheels and a shimmy damper; it was
is made up of panels with thick skinning rein- trochemically coated, the steel parts primed, steerable through +40" for taxylng. The main
forced by stringers. From the fuselage out to rib and the wooden part coated with VIAM-B3 units featured four-wheel bogies equipped
No12 the torsion box structure is utilised to bonding agent to prevent decaY. with KT-16, Kr-1612, KT-16/2M, Kr-1612U or
accommodate flexible fuel tanks. The leading The vertical tail was a two-spar structure with KT-16/2D brake wheels, all measuring 1,100
edge of the inner and outer wings and the an area of 23.305m'; sweepback at quarter- x 330mm. During retraction they are rotated
wingtip fairings were detachable. The wings chord 42',leading-edge sweep 46". The fin was aft through 1S0' by separate hydraulic rams/
were made up of different aerofoil sections (the attached to fuselage frames Nos 64 and 69 by rocking dampers to lie inverted in the stream-
aerofoil varied along the span). A TsAGI PR- bolts at four points (two points at each frame). lined fairings protruding beyond the wing
S-10S-9 symmetrical section with a thick- A smooth fin/fuselage joint was provided by a trailing edge.
ness/chord ratio of 15.7o/o was used at the fillet attached by screws. The one-piece rudder A retractable tail bumper protected the aft
roots, a TsAGI SR-1 1-12 aerofoil with a thick- of single-spar construction was hinged on fuselage in the event of overrotation or a tail-
ness/chord ratio of 15% at rib No 7 and a TsAGI three brackets and a lower support, featuring down landing;itwas extended and retracied by
SR-1 1-12 aerofoil with a thickness/chord ratio aerodynamic balancing and a trim tab. Maxi- an electrical mechanism simultaneously with
oI 12/" aI the tiPS. mum rudder deflection was +25'. gear retraction/extension.
Tupolev Tu-1 6
Ei-----
I
I
Powerplant nozzle. Three accessory gearboxes (Ieft, right There were separate lubrication systems for
-,1c Mikulin AM-3 (RD-3) turbojets with a take- and lower) were provided. Starting was by the engines and the turbostarters; the engines
:- thrust of B,750kg or two RD-3M turbojets means of an S300M turbostarter a small gas featured an engine control system and the
', :.r a take-off thrust of 9,500k9 (later replaced turbine engine housed in the air intake centre- required engine monitoring instruments.
:. RD-3M-500s or
RD-3M-500As with an body and driving the spool directly via a clutch Most aircraft left the factories with RD-3M
-3reased time between overhauls and better (the term 'jet fuel starter' is not applicable, since engines, which were replaced later in squadron
'= rability). Specific fuel consumption (SFC) at the S300M ran on aviation gasoline); there service by its later RD-3M-500 and RD-3M-500A
:'-rse power 0.97k9/kgp'hr; engine pressure were four igniters. derivatives. Eventually all Tu-1 6s remaining in
-a:io 6.4 at maximum powerlT.2 at contingency The engines and their accessories were service were fitted with RD-3M-500 engines.
-::ing, Length overall 5.38m, casing diameter located on either side of the fuselage behind
' .+m, dry weight 3,100k9. the rear wing spar in housings immediately Fuel System
The AM-3 (RD-3) was an axialJlow non-after- adjacent to the fuselage, which were The Tu-1 6 used two types of fuel: a primary f uel
:lrning turbojet with a fixed-area subsonic air 'squeezed' into the centre fuselage sides to (T-1 or TS-1 kerosene) and a starter fuel for the
riake, an elght-stage compressor, an annular minimise the cross-section area in accordance engines' turbostarters (B-70 aviation gasoline).
:cmbustion chamber with 14 flame tubes, a with the area rule. The rear sections of the The aircraft had, therefore, two fuel systems.
:,'/o-stage turbine and a fixed-area subsonic engine housings served as a protection, safe- The primary fuel system consisted of two sep-
guarding the fuselage from the effect of arate subsystems, one for each engine. lf nec-
exhaust gases emerging at high temperatures. essary, both systems could be connected via a
Joposite left: The lin incorporates llush antennas
ior the short.range radio navigation system and The housing consisted of forward and centre cross-feed valve. The system had electronic
has a wooden tip fairing. On aircraft intended to sections, cowling and exhaust section. The automatic controls ensuring a strictly set
operate in a nuclear environment the undersides engine air intakes were located well forward of sequence of fuel consumption and measuring
and the rudder are painted gloss white. '18 Red' the wing leading edge, the air being fed to the the fuel quantity. Provision was made for in-
(c/n 1883701) at Akhtoobinsk is a Tu-I5 Yolka
engines via long ducts which were divided by a flight refuelling of the aircraft's fuselage tanks
ECM aircraft. Yefim Gordon
partition into upper and lower ducts routed and for emergency fuel jettisoning.
Cpposite right: The rear fuselage and tail unit of around the wing spar; these merged again aft The fuel was carried in 27 flexible rubber
the Tu-15R.2 reconnaissance aircrafl'showing of the rear spar at the engines' compressor tanks making up ten groups (five for each
the tail gunner's station and the characteristic faces. Part of the air was diverted for cooling the engine). Within each group the tanks were
lateral observation/sighting blisters of the
engine accessories and the engine housings interconnected and formed one large fuel
defensive lire commander's station. The dark
panel immediately ahead of the port stabiliser is proper, subsequently being ejected together resource. Each group had a supply tank from
the cover of a rescue dinghy bay, Yefim Gordon with the engine efflux. which the fuel was drawn. At the normal all-up
Tupolev Tu'16 93
weight o{ 72,OOOkg the maximum fuel load As a safety measure, the DC supply was The air pressure in the cabins was main-
comprised 34,360k9 (equals 41 ,400 litres of delivered through three circuits: tained by ARD-54 or ARD-50 automatic valves
T-1 or 43,750 litres of TS-1). The full fuel capac- or regulators, one of which was fitted in each
ity of the aircraft was 43,800 litres. The tanks - a normal circuit which could draw on all four cabin. The air temperature in the pressurised
belonging to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and Sth generators in any combination and the DC cabins was maintained automatically by
groups were located in the fuselage, two tanks batteries TRTVK-4s (TRTVK-4sM) air temperature regu-
of the 6th group in the wing centre section; the - an emergency circuit which drew on only one lators. The pressurisation system provided the
tanks of the 7th,Bth, gth, 1 Oth and 1 1 th groups generator and one DC battery following:
were housed in the detachable inner wing tor- - a dual circuit which automatically switched itself
sion boxes, while the tanks of the 12th, 13th, over either to the normal or emergency supply. - lrom an altitude of 7.250m and above a constant
pressure differential of 0.4kglcm'
14th, 1sth and 16th group were accommo-
dated in the outer wing section. Each group of The circuit wiring was mainly BPVL and MGShV - on entering a zone of anti-aircraft fire or combat
tanks had a single filler cap; during ground copper single-strand wire and BPVLA alu- with enemy fighters, the pressure differential was
refuelling, each group of tanks had to be filled minium wire. To reduce radio intederence, part reduced to 0.2kg/cm'by either KKD (manual) or
separately. The supply tank in each group had of the copper wiring was screened (BPVLE) or ARD-54 (automatic) valves in order to avoid a
a ETsN-T electric booster pump, but the supply enclosed in a screened sheath. sudden drop in the cabin pressure when the
tanks for the 2nd and sth groups had two such The interior lighting equipment comprised aircralt s skin was pierced.
pumps to ensure greater reliability. PS-45 and PSM-51 overhead lights, KLSRK-4S
A vent system for the fuel tanks was incor- light fittings, ARUFOSh-45 ultra-violet lights for ln the event that the ARD-54 valves were out
porated. Provision was made for emergency the instrument panels to make the dials glow in of action in both cabins, pressure could be
fuel jettisoning from the tanks of the 1st, 3rd the dark and PL-10-36 movable lamps. The maintained using the KKD manual valves.
and 4th groups. exterior lighting comprised BANO-4S naviga- allowing the pressure differential to be main-
All fuel tanks (apart from the tanks of the 1st, tion llghts on the wingtips, a KhS-39 (or tained at 0.05-0.43k9/cm'. The cabins'temper
2nd and Sth groups, the fuel from which was KhS-57) tail navigation light in the lower part of ature could be automatically regulated within
consumed first) were self-sealing. An inert gas the tail fairing, LFSV-4S or FRS-200 landing set limits between + 15.5 and +26.5"C or man-
pressurisation system using carbon dioxide lights in the lower part of the fuselage at frame ually between + 10 and +30"C.
was provided to minimlse the risk of fire and No 13, FR-100 taxying lights fitted to the nose
explosion if hit by enemy fire. gear strut, PSSO-45 formation/anti-collision Orygen Equipment
lights on the starboard nosewheel well door The Tu-16 was the first Soviet aircraft to carry
Electrical System and the centre fuselage upper surface and an oxygen in liquid form which was then converteo
Two electrical supply circuits. Main 28-28.5 V SMF-1 light for illuminating the tanker's fuel to gaseous form. The use of liquid oxygen
(LOX) achieved a weight and volume saving six
DC power was supplied by four of 1B-kW transfer hose during night contacts.
GSR-18000 engine-driven generators working or seven times greater than that obtained with
in parallel to power a common circuit, each Pressurisation & Air Conditioning System gaseous oxygen.
engine driving two generators. Each generator The Tu-16 had the following equipment The oxygen equipment was provided tc
worked with a RUG-82 carbon voltage regula- enabling high-altitude operation: allow flying at high altitudes and ensure survivar
tor, a DMR-500 differential minimum relay and after ejection in an emergency. The oxyger
a BS-1800 ballast resistor (the latter maintained - a system for heating the pressure cabins using equipment iherefore belonged to two cate-
the voltage of the generator, protected it engine bleed air gories: that supplied to the crew stations anc
against reverse currents and ensured opera- - a ventilation system providing fresh air from
.the
that forming part of the rescue equipment. The
tion in parallel with the other generaior). outside at low altitudes crew station oxygen was administered by the
Backup DC power was Provided bY two - systems for pressurising the entry and escape use of oxygen masks in normal flight condi-
12SAM-53 or 12SAM-55 storage batteries. hatches with compressed air, using rubber seals tions. lt consisted of two KPZh-30 LOX contain-
Ground power supply was provided via a in the hatch frames ers. six KP-24 breathing apparatus (KP-16 ot-
RAP or ShRA-400LK connecior on the porl side early production aircraft) with KM-24 masks, as
located at frame No16. The operation of the Air for warming the pressure cabins was bled well as fixtures. manometers and charging cotr-
electric power sources was monitored with the from the seventh compressor stage of both nectors.
aid of four type A-3 ammeters, a type A-2 (A-1) engines via a TKhU-128 cooling turbine. The The emergency equipment was for uss
ammeter and a switchable V-1 voltmeter. maximum permissible f low of air through each of when ejecting from the aircraft at high altitudes
1 15V/400H2 single-phase AC power was pro- the two cabins was 500m' per hour. The quan- Each crewmember had aKP-23 parachute un :
vided by two type PO-4500 conveders, each of tity of air supplied to the two cabins from both as part of his PLK-45 parachute pack.
which worked with a R-25V carbon voltage regu- engines was 2,000m' per hour, which allowed
lator and an RS-4M rheostat. One conveder was the system to work using only one engine De-icing System
used while the other was a back-up; these oper- At low altitudes the cabin ventilation system The hot air de-icing system comprised two sec-
ationat modes were switched periodically with provided fresh air up to an altitude of 2,000m. lt arate subsystems: one for de-icing the leadin;
the aim of equally sharing the wear on the carbon was mainly used in hot weather when the cabin edges of the wings and one for de-icing ele-
brushes and the converters' service life. Control temperature on the ground could be anywhere ments of the engine housings. The wing leac'
was exercised through a VF-150 voltmeter. between +20 and +40"C. The air for the for- ing edge de-icing system was fed by tv':
ln addition to the main power sources, there ward cabin was induced through an air intake branch pipes which distributed air bled fro-
were various autonomous system and sub-unii on the starboard side of the fuselage at frame the eighth compressor stage, the port wir:
sources of electrical supply to provide the No 13, and for the rear cabin through an intake being supplied from the port engine and ti-=
required power for the control, navigation and in the front of the fin. starboard wing from the starboard engin:
communications systems. These were type The pressurisation system relied on rubber Both main supply plpes were connected so tha:
PAG-1 F, PT-125Ts (later PT-200Ts) three- seals between the hatch covers and hatch if one engine failed the system could still b:
phase AC converters, MA-1 (later PO-500) sin- irames. The cabins themselves were pres- supplied by the other engine. The de-icing sys-
gle-phase AC converters and U-500 and surrsed with compressed air from the onboard tem for elements of the engine housing:
RU-1 lAlV dynamotors/converters . pneumatic system. heated the air intake leading edges, i-:
Tupolev Tu-1 6
-'iG captain's eiection seat, control column and
lsfument panel. The large handwheel on the
dt operates the elevator trim tabs.
1c co-pilot's control column and instrument
rfiFl. The aircraft type is marked on the control
-rEel hubs. The passage on the left leads to the
siJator's station,
fupolev Tu-1 6
The Tu-16 had conventional electromechanical
instruments throughout. Each of the pilots could
deploy and jettison the brake parachute by
pushing buttons on the instrument panel (here,
they are immediately to the right of the bank ol
caulion/warning lights). Yuriy Kabernik archive
96 Tupolev Tu-1 6
-tr€ iiews of the UKhO tail fairing of a Tu-I6E
llca:/a undergoing conversion to an M-l5-2
4€l drone at ARZ No 12 in Khabarovsk.
, ':33rnik archive
-18 Dort underwing pod housing an SRS-3
system on a Tu-l6R. Yuriy Kabernik archive
=-|{T
Tupolev Tu-1 6
The following engine instruments were
installed: TE5-2 electrical remote-controlled
tachometers for the engines and TE-45
tachometers for the turbostarters; TVG-1 1 and
TVG-29 exhaust gas thermometers; a TTsT-13
thermometer; an EMI-3R three-needle electric
indicator showing fuel pressure, oil pressure
and oil temperature; an EDMU-3 electric
remote-controlled standardised manometer:
RTS-16 (later RTS-164) fuel consumption
gauges, and fuel gauges making up part ofthe
SETS-60D fuel metering kit.
The basic flight/navigation and engine
instruments were located on the instrument
panels in the crew cabins and only a few were
positioned elsewhere.
The antenna location on the Tu-16s built in
the 1950s were as follows. The 1-RSB-70M
radios and ARK-S ADF used 'towel rail' or
strake aerials on the fuselage; the aerial of
the RSIU-3M radio and the KRP-F localiser
antennawere located atthetop of thefin. Awhip
antenna for the SPI-1 receiver-indicator and
another aerial for the ARK-S were located aft oJ
the flightdeck (the ARK-S antenna was glued to
the dorsal observation blister). The GRP-48
glideslope receiver antenna was mounted on
ffi"'
L-
I
98 Tupolev Tu-1 6
\liiher view illustrating the Tu-l6's bomb bay
i
:aar design. Yelim Gordon
:'aining camera. Aircraft from c/n 7203509 after the hatch covers below the seats had been
:rwards were fitted with an NAFA-MK/75 cam- jettisoned. The G force on ejecting upwards was Armament
:'a for night photography. 15-18 Gs, lasting 0.2 to 0.3 seconds; the initial The Tu-16 had typical bomber armament. The
Until 1957 the set of cameras fitted was ejection speed was 20-22mlsec to ensure that bomb racks, bomb hoists and the release
:ecided in squadron service, depending on the the pilots' seats cleared the vertical tail. The G and locking mechanisms for the bomb load
-eeds of the particular unit. However, that year force for those ejecting downwards was 3-5 Gs. were housed in the bomb bay between fuse-
:re following photographic equipment became Each seat had a pan attached to a movable lage frames Nos 33 and 49. The bomb bay
siandard for the Tu-16. One aircraft in every frame on which it could move along guide rails was 6.702m long. The sights, release mecha-
:hree was fitted with the AFA-34-OK, AFA- firmly secured to the fuselage. Each seat had a nisms and bomb bay door control panels were
3AF-40R and NAFA-6/50 cameras. From July base, a back, a headrest and grab handles. The located in the forward pressurised cabin. ln
:957 onwards each Tu-16 had an AFA-34-OK piston of the ejection gun was rigidly attached addition to the main bomb bay, there was a
and an AFA-42175 camera, and one aircraft in to the seat frame, and its cylinder to the fuse- compartment housing two DYa-SS box{ype
everythree had an AFA-BAF-40R and an NAFA- lage structure. The head of the piston was racks for TsOSAB coloured marker/signal flare
M K75. At the end of the 1 950s the FARL-1 was packed with a cartridge which exploded when bombs or SMAB maritime marker bombs.
replaced by the FARM-2 camera, and the the firing pin was pulled by means of a handle, Depending on the composition of the bomb
PAU-457-4 gun camera was fitted to record the creating high pressure which forced the piston load, the following racks were fitted in the
screen of the PRS-1. out, carrying the seat with it. bomb bay:
Tupolev Tu-16 99
_]
six KD3-488 cassettetype fourshackle racks
with De13-48 shackles
four KD4-3BB two-shackle racks with De14-49
shackles
an MBD6-16 beam{ype rack with Der6-5
shackles
Bombs
SAB-1 00-75 llare tb 1 ,1 52kg
FAB-250M54 24 5,660k9
FAB-500|V46 18 7,686k9
FAB-500|VI54 18 B,sB6kg
FAB-1500M46 6 8,871 kg
FAB-1500|v54 6 9,324k9
FAB-3000|vI46 2 5,963k9
FAB-3000M54 2 6,1 1 6kg
FAB-5000|vl54 1 5,220k9
= the target was not visible, bomb-aiming hydraulic system failed they could be opened FAB-9000|v54 1 9,290k9
:::id be carried out using the RBP-4 Rubidiy- by a spring-loaded mechanism. The opening FAB-250|V43 tb 4,000k9
','t.l-2 (or RBP-6, or R-1) radar. ln these and closing of the bomb bay doors was electri- FAB-5OOM43 12 5,706k9
-rs:ances bombing accuracy was increased cally controlled by the navigator. FAB-10001\i143 4 4,380k9
--:e the OPB-11R (or OPB-112) was linked to When the bombs were released using the FAB-2000N43 4 B,260kg
:-: radar sight and computed the necessary OPB sight, the bomb bay doors were opened BrAB-6000 armour-piercing 1
::-:ameters for it: the slant range, the lateral sta- immediately before release. The emergency
: sation angle and the azimuth stabilisation opening of the bomb bay doors, as part of the Mines
.- 3le. emergency jettisoning of the bomb load, was AMD.5OO 4 and 12
The dropping of bombs, mines and torpe- carried out by the navigator and the co-pilot. At\4D-1000 4
:.es was carried out by the navigator, but The pilots operated the secondary bomb bay A[/D-2tV 6andB
:::uld also be done by the WSO (radar opera- door closing system. Kazan'-built Tu-16s up to IGD-M 8
::'; with the aid of a release switch. ln this and including c/n 5201801 had lights in the Serpei 6
-siance, all parameters for the drop had to be main gear fairings which the lead aircraft used Desna 8
:'awn up by the navigator. The bomb bay to indicate the start of bomb dropping to the Lira 8
Also in the 1970s some Tu-16s were retrofit- station, the PS-53-BL port blister station, the The tail gunner's station, the DK-7 tail turret and
automatic devices for air gunnery (the AVS-53 the associated PRS-1 Argon-1 gun-laying radar.
ted with ASO-21 flare dispensers for releasing
The AM-23 cannon are at maximum depression
infrared countermeasures flares. Three sets automatic correction computer, the DSP-53
on this preserved aircraft, Note the port side
(six 32-round uniis) were fitted in the rear fuse- speed and density sensor, the VSP-53 escape hatch of the tail gunner's station. Only
lage and in both main gear fairings. computers for speed and density. and the the rear halves of the lateral sighting blisters are
For defence against fighter attacks the Tu-1 6 ADP-53 automatic auxiliary parallax, up to and transparencies, the forward halves being made
including c/n 4200603 the PS-48MM sighting of metal. Yefim Gordon
featured the PV-23 cannon system which con-
sisted oJ the following: stations were fitted
- the PRS-1 Argon gun ranging radar for gunnery
- seven remote-controlled Afanas'yev/Makarov under all conditions ol visibility and starboard) blister sighting posts. Auxiliary
AM-23 cannon in four positions, of which three control could be exercised from the rear sighi-
were twin-cannon powered turrets (the DT-V7 The PU-BB cannon installation was intended to ing post by the rear gunner.
dorsal barbette, DT-N7S ventral barbette and fire ahead in the direction of flight and its fixed The DK-7 had a +70'field of fire ln the hori-
DK-7 iail iurret) and one (the PU-BB mount) had cannon with 100 rounds was fitted on the star- zontal plane in the rear hemisphere, an eleva-
a single fixed forward-firing cannon board side of the nose. lt was operated by the tion of 60' and a depression of 40'. The ful
- the components ofthe remote control system for captain who used a PKI sight on a folding ammunition supply was 1,000rp9. The main
the powered turrets synchronising cannon bracket. control was from the rear sighting post by the
movement with that of the sighting position (the The three powered turrets (the DT-7V, DT- rear gunner, who was in charge of all the gur
MA-500 converter, the KS-3 and KS-4 synchro- N7s and DK-7) covered the rear hemisphere; positions. Auxiliary control could be exercisec
sensors and receivers, the SU-3R and EMU additionally, the DT-7V covered the upper part from the dorsal sighting post by ihe WSO, c'
U-700 servo-amplifiers, the DV-1 100A drive of the forward hemisphere. The field of fire of from the ventral sighting post by thE
motors, control panels, AP-10 automatic cocking the DT-7V was 360" in the horizontal plane, with gunner/radio-operator. The PRS-1 radar pe'
devices, round counters and S-13 gun camera 90" elevation and 3" depression. 500 rounds mitted fire in the rear hemisphere within +35" it-
for the PU-88) were provided (250 rounds per gun). The main the horizontal plane with an elevation anc
- the components of the sighting computer unit control of the dorsal posiiion was exercised depression of +35'.
which provided corrections to the lead angle (on from the WSO's dorsal sighting post. Auxiliary
Characteristics oi the AM-23 Cannon
examples up to and including c/n 4200603 the control could be exercised by the rear gunner
PS-48MM sighting computer unit was fjtted, from the rear sighting station.
Calibre 23mm
replaced by the PVB-53 from c/n 4200604 The DT-N7S turret had a +95" field of fire in
Weight of shell 200 grams
onwards) the horizontal plane in the rear hemisphere,
Muzzle velocity 690misec
- the optical sights - the pilot's PKI collimator 2'40' elevation and 90" depression. The full
Rate oJ fire 1,300 rounds per minute
sight for the PU-88, the PS-53-VK dorsal ammunition supply was 350rpg. Main control
Weight 43kg
sighting station, the PS-53-BP starboard blister was from the gunner/radio-operator's two (pod
102 TupolevTu-16
Chapter Eight
--= first production Tu-16 bombers began to the decade had become the DA's standard sharply until, between Mach 0.87 and 0.9, it
;-::: squadron service with the Soviet Air bomber type. lt retained this position until the became neutral, and was then lost as speed
::-:e (WS -Voyenno-vozdooshnyye see/y) in mid-1980s when it was gradually replaced by was increased further. This induced a reverse
=.::uary-March 1954. During the May Day the third-generation long-range supersonic roll reaction to rudder inputs (that is, the aircraft
- i-ade in Moscow that year a formation of nine f u-22M. This dominating position also rolled right instead of left when left rudder was
---:6s passed over Red Square. extended to the Soviet Naval Air Arm for the applied).
-: the beginning of the 1950s the piston- same reasons. The Tu-16 remained in service During squadron service, the following indi-
;-: ned Tu-4 was the backbone of the Soviet until 1994. Several air regiments equipped with cated airspeed limits were imposed:
-:avy bomber force (DA). The introduction of the Tu-16 never made the transition to the
i- aircraft belonging to a new generation - or, f u-22M after the disintegration of the USSR in - 645km/h with an all-up weight of 70 to 75.8
-::e accurately the new jet era - demanded late 1991. tonnes at altitudes up to 7,000m
:-:rges in the Long-Range Aviation's order of The Tu-16 was induced into squadron ser- - 685km/h with an all-up weight of 55 to 70 tonnes
: the fundamentals of its operational train- vice rapidly, successfully and without any at altitudes up to 6,250m
=-re.
- and radical improvements to its airfield net-
3. undue difficulties thanks to the thought which - 700km/h with an all-up weight of 55 tonnes or
::k and supply system. The significant had gone into its design and the shrewd choice less at altitudes up to 6,000m
:=erences between the Tu-4 and Tu-16, par- of stability and handling attributes under differ- - 420kmlh at all altitudes with the undercarriage
:..;larly in speed, called for a modernisation of ent flying conditions. At cruising speeds the extended
.. sting airfields - concrete runways had to be gradient of stick forces was within the accepl
=:'=ngthened and extended, taxying strips and able limits for heavy aircraft (30-1 00kg). At high The maximum permissible IAS with the flaps
:::king areas reorganised. New storage facili- Mach numbers they increased more steeply: at deployed was 400kmih with 20" flap and
-:s were built for fuel and lubricants to cope an altitude of 10,000m with a speed equivalent 340km/h with flaps set at greater angles. The
.r :h the large quantities of kerosene required to Mach 0.9 and a centre of gravity al21%MAC maximum landing gear transition speed was
:-C airbases were provided with new radio the stick forces reached 120-130k9 and han- set at 400km/h lAS.
::mmunications systems and navigation aids. dling became more difficult. The Tu-16 was sta- In its 40 years of service the Tu-16 equipped
lnitially heavy bombers were parked in long ble up to Mach 0.83, with some instability, but many air regiments of the Soviet Air Force and
':,ys on the flightlines. The Tu-16 gained the not causing too much trouble, appearing at the Soviet Navy. Most of these regiments had
: stinction of being the DA's first type to use speeds of Mach 0.83-0.87. At Mach 0.87 the air- previously operated piston-engined aircraft,
: spersed parking in earthen revetments craft became stable once more - in fact signifi- but some were newly organised as jet bomber
,',nich were sometimes covered with camou- cantly more stable than at lower speeds. units. ln the course of theTu-16's service career
'=ge netting) to minimise vulnerability to air The aircraft's highest Mach number deter- some of the units operating it were disbanded,
-ards and missile strikes. The appearance of mined by its longitudinal stability and controlla- others re-equipped with new aircraft, and there
:-e Tu-16 requlred a complete overhaul of all bility was limited to 0,9 at altitudes up to were some which, after operating more mod-
. rlields used by the Long-Range Aviation - all 10,000m. Higher speeds below l0,000m gave ern machines for a while, reverted once more to
,rere upgraded to 1st class, and often to an rise to an inadmissible increase in all control the Tu-16.
: ren higher grade, able to take practically any forces and the machine became to all intents The Tu-16 served in roughly equal numbers
' nd of aircraft, including the main Soviet strate- and purposes uncontrollable. The Tu-16 could with the Long-Range Aviation and the Naval Air
; c bomber, the Tu-95. Civil airfields equipped only exceed Mach 0.9 in a dive from 10,000- Arm. By the early 1960s the Tu-16 completely
:l these standards did not come into being until 13,000m in order to evade SAMs.
:re end ofthe 1950s. As far as lateral stability was concerned, the
The personnel of a Soviet Air Force heavy
ln the mid-1950s the Tu-16 was already aircraft behaved normally at speeds up to Mach bomber regiment equipped with Tu-16s lined up
:eing built in large quantities and by the end of 0.8. At higher speeds lateral stability declined for an inspection, Yefim Gordon archive
Tu-16 regiments could be either part of a against surface vessels and strategic land tar- (two regiments), Machulishchi AB near Minsk
heavy bomber air division IBAD - tyazh- gets ln the European, Asian and Pacific the- and Zyabrovka AB near Gomel'
el o bo m bard i r ovoc h n aya av i ad iveeziy a, rou g hly atres. The later availability of more modern - in the Ukraine: at Belaya Tserkov', Nezhin,
equivalent to a Bomber Group (Heavy) in the versions of the Tu-16 with more sophisticated Priluki. Poltava (two regiments), Ozyornoe AB
US Air Force) or independent (that is, direct and powerful ECM (the Tu-16P Buket and the near Zhitomir. and also at Stryy AB
reporting units not forming part of an air divi- like) enabled the Long-Range Aviation to retain - inthe eastern regions of the USSR: at BelayaAB
-ffi;m
in the lrkutsk Region (Transbaikalian DD, two
regiments). Zavitinsk in the Amur Region,
tF u#ffi:mru.=
Spassk-Dal niy and Vozdvizhensk near
Ussuriysk (all Far Easiern DD).
:-
;
-_)
I cmmand and those in the eastern military dis- The type also saw service with the air compo- The Tu-16 equipped the minelayer and tor-
:'cts one air army. After the dissolution of the nent of the Air Defence Force (PVO) alPriozy- pedo-bomber regiments (MTAP - minno-tor'
orsk, Kazakhstan. pednyy aviapolk) and maritime missile strike air
- SSR there was only a single such formation in
,r estern Russia. ln addition to the airfields listed above, Tu-16 regiments (MRAP - morskoy raketonosnyy avi-
units were based at various times at Mozdok apolk) of the Naval Air Arm which were either
'.aval Air Arm Tu-16s were based as follows: (lngushetia, North Caucaslan DD), Engels-2 components of air divisions (MTAD - minno-
AB. Skomorokhi AB, Oktyabr'skoe AB, and torpednaya aviadiveeziya or MRAD - morskaya
- rvith the Black Sea Fleet at Kool'baklno AB near Vesyolaya AB, as well as at other locations. raketonosnaya aviadiveeziya) or independent.
Nikolayev, plus Novofyodorovka AB near Saki The Tu-16 was also used by two of the These divisions and independent regiments
and Gvardeyskoe AB on the Crimea Peninsula Soviet Air Force's training establishments: made up the fleet air arms of the Soviet Navy.
(all three Red Banner Odessa DD) the Chelyabinsk Military Navigator College ln 1956 the then Soviet Defence Minister
- with the Baltic Fleet at Kaliningrad (Baltic DD), (WAU Sh - Vyss heye voy enn oye av i ats i on n oy e Marshal Gheorgiy K Zhukov signed an order by
Ostrov AB near Pskov (Leningrad DD) and at oochilischche shtoormanov), operating from which the Soviet Naval Air Arm was equipped
Bykhov AB (Belarus', two regiments) Kamensk-Ural'skiy, Shadrinsk and Kustanai, with the Tu-16. These were mainly 'landlubber'
- with the Norlh Fleet at Severomorsk-3 AB near and the Tambov Military Pilot College (WAUL - (that is, not specialised naval) versions, with only
Murmansk, Olenegorsk AB near Arkhangel'sk Vyssheye voyennoye aviatsionnoye oochilis- a few Tu-16KS and Tu-16T aircraft designed
and at Lakhta AB in the Karelian Autonomous chche lyotchikov). lt was also used extensively specifically for naval service at first. lt was
SSR by research and development establishments: intended that they should be flown by aircrew
- with the Pacific Fleet at Knevichi AB (two by the main facility of the Soviet Air Force with some experience of overwater operations.
regiments) and Khorol'AB in the Primor'ye Research lnstitute (GK NIIWS) at Vladimirovka The plan envisaged supplying the North
Region, at Mai-Gatka AB, Mongokhta AB, AB near Akhtubinsk, the Ministry of Aircraft Fleet with 85 Tu-16s in 1956, a further 170
Kamennyy Roochey AB near Sovetskaya Gavan' lndustry's Flight Research lnstitute (Lll) and going to the Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet
(all Khabarovsk region) and Yelizovo airport near by the Tupolev Design Bureau at Zhukovskiy. the following year. The Baltic Fleet was to be
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy on the Kamchatka After their retirement from service, Tu-16 air- the last, receiving 170 Tu-16s in 1958. Thus,
Peninsula craft were kept at the Soviet Air Force storage over the course of three years, the Naval Air
- with the Caspian Sea Flottilla - near Shevchenko base at Chagan, Semipalatinsk Reglon, Kaza- Arm would have 424 Tu-16s, just slightly less
Inow renamed Aktau], Kazakhstan khstan. than the number supplied to the Long-Range
Aviation. ln practice, things worked out some- crews went through an elitensive theoretical had carried out five practice torpedo attacks.
what differently. The first examples were in fact tralning course lasting some 400 to 500 hours, two with RAT-52 practice torpedoes. Alter this.
supplied to the Baltic Fleet. This was because and the flight crews were subjected to a rigorous the Tu-16T was delivered to other naval units:
in 1955 the 57th TBAD comprising two regi- selection process. The Tu-16 was at that time the sth MTAP was equipped: in April 1956, the
ments o1 Tu-4 bombers had been transferred considered the very latest in aviation technology 124th MTAP following suit in June, the 943rcj
from the Long-Range Aviation to the Naval Air and the best aircrew were chosen to fly ii. ln the MTAP in May 1957 and the 574th MTAP in
Arm where it was redesignated the 57th MTAD Naval Air Arm, Tu-16 captains were strictly Pilots November. Gradually, other units of the Naval
The division's aircrews had been well trained, 1st Class (an official grade reflecting experience Air Arm were re-equipped.
but their obsolescent Tu-4 bombers were not and expertlse) with no less than 600-700 hours Unlike the lL-2BT and Tu-l4T, which coulc
suited to Naval Air Arm requirements. Since the on the lL-28 or Tu-14, and for co-pilots the qual- only carry two torpedoes, the Tu-16T coulc
division was stationed in one of the 'hottest' ifying level was no less than 200 hours. take up to six torpedoes. Theoretical studies
sectors of the Cold War, it was decided it The first version to enter service with the indicated that the probability of hitting a surface
should have priority in receiving new aircraft. Baltic Fleet was the baseline bomber, but with ship when four torpedoes were launched was
Some of the Tu-4s were handed down to the the start of production and conversion of the increased by amere2-3/owhen compared witt-
Naval Air Arm training centre at Nikolayev- minelayeritorpedo-bomber version the Baltic a single-torpedo attack. Experience with the
Kool'bakino, others converted into transports, Fleet air regiments began training on the Tu-16T proved that its operational radius was
and some high{ime examples scrapped. The Tu-16T. The Tu-16KS missile strike variant significantly greater and its equipment more
division's command staff, flight and ground joined the Northern and Pacific Fleets, at first sophisticated than that of the lL-28T or Tu-147
crews were sent to factories for Tu-'l 6 conver- augmenting the Tu-4KS and then completely therefore, different tactics could be employec
sion training. replacing it. The Tu-16T was to be used predominantly a:
The Naval Air Arm took delivery of its first four In June-July 1956 the first Tu-16T torpedo- night and in adverse weather to strike selectec
Tu-16s on 1st June 1955 and on 25th June the bombers were supplied to the 57th MTAD, and enemy vessels. The probability of hitting th:
57th MTAD made its first training flights. The by September nine crews of its 240th MTAP target was to be increased by 50-100% b.
launching the torpedoes in a fan-like spreac
although in practice this method of torpec:
attack was not used.
:re K- j 0S ASM had been carried out by the var-tankers with ECM capability while the first two A pair of Tu-16R Badger-Fs coded '02 Red' and
rus fleet air arms. Soon afterwards, exercises squadrOns flew combat versions. '37 Red' make a formation llypast during the
open doors day at Kubinka AB on 1 1th April
:volving groups of the new ASM carriers ln the early 1970s the number of Tu-16 (Z) 1992.'O2 Fed' is additionally equipped with a
against convoys of ships began, and before tankers in squadron service declined as the Siren' jammer in a UKhO tail fairing; missions
cng many naval missile strike air regiments requirement for wingto-wing refuelling were often llown by such mixed pairs of
rad acquired familiarity with the K-l0. Recon- changed and the aircraft reached the end of differently conligured aircraft. Yefim Gordon
ask why the pilot had not carried out his order
io the letter.
,{,i il,.}r, '
Air traffic control incompetence was some- $h, St..qtqr
rd&4r
iimes to blame for accidents. Thus on 24th
August 1 98 1 Tu-1 6K c/n 62031 06 (tactical code
and exact version unknown) belonging to the lli':it'rP
30th VA/ssth TBAD/3O3rd TBAP crashed near
irirjrfl
staff of the polar station and the technician left to
iiitir:
guard it. Meanwhile, pieces kept breaking away
from the ice floe so that by April 1959 it was only
half its original size. lt was only when the winds
Zavitinsk after colliding with an Aeroflot/Far these were not intended for heavy bomber and currents began to cany the polar station
Eastern Civil Aviation Directorate An-24RV twin- operations; on take-ofi and landing, clods of towards the Greenland Sea that the decision
turboprop airliner registered CCCP-46653 (c/n earth or chunks of ice could be ingested bythe was taken to destroy the alrcraft after all sal-
47309204). The collision, which occurred in aircraft's englnes, damaging them. vageable equipment and engines had been
thick overcast (the pilots did not see each ln the second hall of the 1950s it was removed. As early as September 1958 the Tu-1 6
other's aircraft and were unable to take evasive decided to use ice fioe airfields in the Arctic to had been spotted by a Royal Canadian Air Force
action), was due to poor interaction between increase the operational capabilities of the reconnaissance aircraft and the Western press
civil and military ATC authorities which had Long-Range Aviation. This turned out to be no began to make noises about the setting up of
(unbeknownst to each other) cleared both air- easy matter since the landing weight of loaded Soviet strategic bases on neutral tenitory rela-
craft to use the same flight level. The bomber's strategic bombers was around 70-95 tonnes. tively close to the American continent.
crew perished; so did all occupants of the While the bomber's weight could not break While stripping the Tu-16 down, the technl-
An-24 except one. lncredibly, a female passen- through the ice, which was many metres thick, cal crew had to use an LAS-SM inflatable
ger survived a fall from high altitude after being the aircraft could skld off the runway when it dinghy to reach it due to the melting ice. Once
thrown clear of the aircraft as it disintegrated; braked on landing. Added to this, the ice's high the engines and equipment had been recov-
fortuitously, she landed in a deep snowdrift, salt content made lts surface friable, and the ered, the airframe was doused with kerosene
suffering nothing worse than bruises! lnterest- vibration induced on take-off and landing was and set alight. The personnel from the dritting
ingly, at the time of the crash the Tu-16 was so violent that it was impossible to read the polar station, the technician and the disman-
using the ATC callsign CCCP-07514; in reality instruments properly. tling crew were evacuated to the mainland. Fo'
this registration belonged to an An-2TP utillty ln April 1958 A Krotov, Commander of the his 'lengthy secondment' technician R Kagilo',
aircraft (c/n 1G 15242) built ln December 1973. 52nd TBAP, was ordered to prepare his three was given a substantial reward and leave. Afte-
Test pilots managed to save the Tu-16 on best aircrews for Arctic flights, including landing this, no more landings by the Tu-16 were maoe
more than one occasion. ln the mid-1 950s a test on an ad hoc ice airstrip in poor weather condi- on ice strips in the Arctic, although for various
crew from plant No 1 in Kuibyshev was ordered tions. Colonel A Alekhnovich, a Hero of the reasons some unplanned landings on the ic3
to determine the maximum permissible G load Soviet Union and Vice-Commander of the 45th did take place.
for a Tu-16 bomber. At the time, the methodol- TBAD to which the 52nd TBAP was subordi- Altogether between 1954 and 1956 te^
ogy for this lagged behind the skills in handling nated, was appointed to head the mission. Tu-16 were lost in fatal and nonjatal crashes
the aircraft itself and on reaching the prescribed Shortly aftenruards more detailed orders were The worst attrition in the Tu-16's service caree'
G load the aircraft stalled, entering a spin. The issued. Two aircraft (a Tu-16 and a Tu-95) were was between 1957 and 1960 when about te'
commander ejected ahead of the other crew to fly towards the North Pole and effect a landing machines were lost each year. Then the acc -
members, but was killed immediately afterwards on ice in the vicinity of the SP-6 drifting polar dent rate fell sharply; in the 'sixties and 'seven-
when he was struck by a hatch cover released research station; a third aircraft was to remain at ties the average annual attrition was one or twc
by another member of the crew as he exited the Tiksi until further notice. The two aircraft landed On 15th July 1964 a Tu-16R crew reporte:
aircraft The co-pilot, Aleksandr Kazakov, man- safely on the ice. The Tu-16 piloted by sighting an American carrier group 200km i:
aged to recover from the spin, exceeding all Alekhnovich and the Tu-95 piloted by Major N the east ofthe Japanese coast. Afterthis, notr--
speed and G load limits in the process. He had Bazarnyy were the world's first heavy aircrafi to ing more was heard from the aircraft; ther:
thus unwittingly tested the airJrame's strength. land on Arctic ice. But during take-off the Tu-16 were no survivors among the crew of seven. O-
Special tests were carried out on a number veered off the runway; the take-off was aborted 25th May 1 968 another Tu-1 6R reconnaissanc:
of examples. ln 1956 Lt Col G Yaglov landed a but the bomber's starboard wing struck a Polar aircraft was lost near NeMoundland after ove'-
Tu-16 for the first time on an unpaved runway, Aviation lL-1 4transport parked nearby -the pilot flying the aircraft carrier USS Essex. There wa:
after which take-oifs and landings were made only just managed to avert a fatal accident. a suspicion that the aircraft had been shc:
on a regular basis, using sparsely equipped Both aircraft were seriously damaged. The down by the US Navy air defences immediate .
auxiliary airstrips in the tundra and on the Arc- repair crew which arrived two weeks later could after reporting the location of an America-
tic ice without any adverse consequences. not repair the Tu-16 on site - in Arctic field con- destroyer, but this allegation was refuted by th:
ln the mid-1950s only a few aidields in the ditions the job proved to be beyond their capa- Americans. Wreckage from the aircraft cc -
Soviet Arctic, such as Amderma, Severomorsk, bilities. Nor could the machine could be dumped lected during the ensuing search and rescu=
Chekurovka, Wrangel lsland and one or two into the ocean, as the ice floe was ringed by ice operation was transferred to the Sov'::
others, were suitable for heavy bombers. A hummocks some 16 to 20 metres high. destroyer with the tactical number '31 1'.
special operations group was formed in the News of the accident was kept secret; offi- By the end of 1981, 106 examples of t":
early 1960s to co-ordinate the work of the 16 cially the aircraft was 'undergoing repair on the Tu-1 6 had been lostforvarious reasons, inclu:-
airfields in the High North. ln addition to these, mainland'. For almost a year, from 23rd May ing 72 Air Force (DA) aircraft and 34 Navy a -
temporary airfields with hard-packed earth run- 1958 until 16th April 1959, the Tu-16 drifted craft. ln the early years the share of fatal a^:
ways and ice runways were set up, although through the Arctic Ocean, accompanied by the non{atal accidents caused by hardware fa -
1 10 Tupolev Tu-16
!. Tu.'16 coded '04 Red' deploys its brake
after landing on a ice runway near
-rachules
::e North Pole, Krasnaya Zvezda
1 954 3 il
1 955 I 5 5 99 B 25
1 956 4 I t5 2 52 27 44
B 14 38 4 27
1 957 10 21
8 5 29 B
1 958 1
TupolevTu-16 111
The end of the road. lgnominiously dumped, the severed flightdeck
sections at the Hussian Navy's Ostrov AB near Pskov testify that another
12 Tu-l6s have gone the way ol all metal. The second aircraft in the row The savagely hacked rear fuselage of another Tu.1 6 at Ostrov AB, with lhe
was c/n 72o3A2O and was equipped with individual protection ECM gear main gear bogies (probably belonging to the same machine) visible
(note the traces of the nose thimble radome); the seventh aircraft lrom beyond, The number on the remains serves to make sure all parts are
right was a Tu-16K-1 1-16. Yefim Gordon accounted for and nothing is stolen! Yefim Gordon
some 60 machines in service in the Far East with ln Russia the Tu-16 was officially retired from Mujahideen bases and concentrations wher^
the Pacific Fleet Air Arm. After 1991 almost all service in 1994, although there were examples apart from attacking insurgent positions, it car-
surviving Tu-16 were withdrawn from use, a of the Tu-1 6K-10 family built in 1963 which had ried out bombing raids in the vicinity of the
handful remaining with the NavalAirArm, GK Nll not reached the end of their 35 year service life. towns of Herat and Kandahar which were con-
WS and Lll. From the close of 1995 the Tu-16 By this tlme the Tupolev OKB had ceased to trolled by the rebels.
virtually ceased to operate in the Ukraine, work on the Tu-16. The bomber versions were used on th:
although 49 examples were stored at air bases For a long time the two 'Cyclone' weather largest scale - the Tu- 1 64, Tu-1 6KSR-2-5 anc
and 1 9 others continued in serve as trainers with research aircraft stood unused. At Zhukovskiy Tu-16KSR-2-5-1 1 bomber/missile strike ai'
the 540th Air Regiment. By this time not a single only a single Tu-161L was kept in flying condi- craft, as well as Tu-16R reconnaissance aircra:
active Tu-16 remained in Belarus'. tion. Apparently this was the last f lying example and the Tu-16P ECM version. Other varianis
The last Long-Range Aviation regiment to fly of the Tu- l6 on Russian soil. rarely saw action in Afghanistan. A typica
the Tu-16 was the lndependent Long-Range bomb load consisted of 12 FAB-500 bombs
Reconnaissance Air Regiment based at sometimes, in special circumstances, larger c'
the regiment had re-
Spassk-Dal'niy. After The Tu-16 in Action smaller calibre bombs (250-kg, 1,000-kg
equipped with the fu-22M, the remaining 3,000-kg, 5,000-kg and even 9,000-kg bombs
reconnaissance and ECM versions were ferried ln addition to the many exercises, reconnais- of the M-54 or M-46 series) were used. C-
to Belaya Tserkov' AB for mothballing. Sadly, sance flights and other special duties on behalf occasion this was because the bombs wer:
no money could be sourced for even placing of the Soviet Armed Forces, the Tu-1 6 also took nearing the end of their storage life and had ::
the aircraft in storage; the remaining Tu-16s in part in actual combat in other countries. be disposed of.
Russia were scrapped. ln August 1968 the Tu-16P was employed Aparl from the Tu-16, other Long-Range A,, -
At the Chagan storage depot in the Semi- during the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, ation units armed with the f u-22R andTu-221'' :
palatinsk Region, some 100 examples of vari- providing ECM cover during the deploymeni of took part in operations over Afghanistan. Tl-:
ous versions of the Tu-16 stood rusting away tactical aviation and military air transport for- 'veteran'Tu-1 6 was used in this conflict primar .
for a long time. After their 'privatisation' by mations on the day that Warsaw Pact Jorces because of its ability to carry a 9,000-kg bon::
Kazakhstan, they soon became non-airworthy. intervened. The only real war in which SovietAir The FAB-9000 could give the terrain a 'workir:
A similar fate befell the Ukrainian machines Force Tu-16s took part was the Afghan War. over', levelling hills and high ground and pr:-
after the disiniegration of the USSR. The type was used in bombing raids against ducing craters so that the terrain resemblec :
lunar landscape.
Bombing raids were carried out during da.-
light hours, using optical bombsights. T-:
bombers were supported by Tu-16P ECM a-.
craft with Buket sets to jam the Pakistani .'
defence radars, and also to counter the P,-'
istani Air Force fighters which often interven::
and posed a serious threat to the So,' :'
bombers.
The aircraft flew from Soviet territory in srra
groups: a f light of three or four or a squadron :
eight to ten machines. Only experienced a ''
J
crews trained in formation flying were chos:-
-3 and the overall standard for aircraft comma-
- ders and navigators had to be no lower tia-
t- - Pilot 2nd Class.
t
*
A Tu-l6 drops a stick of bombs; the aircraft
I appears to be equipped with the SRS.I SIGINT
G system (note the small blister ahead of the
L bomb bay). Yefim Gordon archive
-:^ a and Karshi in Uzbekistan. From here the ln early 1956 a Sino-Soviet agreement was Harbin and Xian (sometimes spelled Xi'an) for
:-:;,s made training flights over the desert and reached for the licence production, with Soviet Tu-16 production. ln May 1959 the assembly of
--:::ised bombing with the aid of LORAN. assistance, of the lL-28 and Tu-16 bombers in a Tu-16 from the parts supplied from Kazan'
l:re of the biggest raids on the Mujahideen the People's Republic of China (PRC). The began in Harbin (the Harbin factory received
:a:e took place on 22nd April 1984. Twenty- licence agreement for manufacture of the assistance in the form of 200 qualified workers
":-- Tu-16KSR-2-5, each carrying either 40 or Tu-16 was signed in September 1957. Under seconded from the aircraft factory at Shenyang
HE bombs, took part in the raid. the terms of this, China received two produc- which was producing MiG fighters under
-: =AB-250
--: target was located in a mountain valley tion Tu-16 bombers and a further aircraft in the
-::r Kandahar. Two squadrons from the regi- form of a completely knocked-down (CKD) kit,
'10794 Blue', a standard People's Liberation
-:.ri at Bobruisk and one squadron from the essential for mastering the assembly of the first Army Air Force nuclear-capable H-6A. Like the
-=l ment at Belaya Tsekov' were involved; ihe examples, from plant No22 in Kazan'together genuine Tu-16A, it has a'nuclear'colour scheme
. -::aft flew in echelon formation, one squad- with the necessary technical documentation. with white undersurlaces, China Aircraft
:- oehind the other. The first eight machines .
of the
=-e led by Colonel Pachin, Commander
i-.lin GvTBAP.
.i first it was planned to deliver the bombs ',,ffiWffiTr,*;x,:*******r,- i
Tupolev Tu-16 1 13
Above left: A pair of H-6As ('10897 Blue'and
d$*i'rin'tr '10990 Blue') lly in echelon starboard tormation
high above mainland China. The first two digits
of ihe serial may be a code denoting one of
China's eight detence districts, the fourth digit is
:-*J1 -H#''*.o**.,
Fl+#d!"{6j#Jti;ikrt{r; r ' r a unit code, while the third and fifth digits make
s +i$iiwffi!r@'{#,!#*i L t up the individual number ol the aircraft in the
i,tffi unit; thus, '10897 BIue' and '10990 Blue' are the
4;jffidEF'dt I 87th and 90lh aircraft in their Heavy Bomber
*"ffirtr Division. Note the low-visibility presentation ol
ihe 'stars and bars' national insignia, China Aircra:
1.,,,,,,
I
l:r',
Photographs on the opposite page:
l.",'*
ffi
1
i: r - l"4F"l'f
f *", i;nr"11,
_dtr ',fu.#
An H-6D at the factory airfield in Xian, with a Y7
L
*-'
Tupolev Tu-1 6
licence). The first Chinese Tu-16 assembled
from Soviet-supplied parts made its maiden
flight on 27th September 1959 and was handed
over to the People's Liberation Army Air Force
(PLAAF, or Chung-kuo Shen Min Taie-Fang-
Tsun Pu-tai) that December.
ln 1958 the large aircraft factory at Xian was
completed, and to assist in Tu-16 production
there 1,040 skilled technical and engineering
staff and 1,697 other workers were transferred
from Shenyang. ln 1961 the Chinese leaders
decided to concentrate all work on the licence-
built Tu-16 at the Xian factory. The Chinese
have a habit of giving local designations to the
aircraft they build under licence, and the Tu-16
was known locally as the Hongzhaji-6 (Bomber
Type 6), often shortened to Hong-6 or H-6.
Even before production ofthe H-6 had been
fully implemented, the modification of a Tu-16
assembled from Soviet parts into a carrier for
the Chinese atomic bomb started at Xian. The
bomb bay and bomb release system were mod-
ified, a thermal stabilisation system for nuclear
weapons fitted in the bomb bay, and the neces-
sary monitoring and recording equipment for
nuclear testing installed. To all intents and pur-
poses this aircraft was the counterpart of the
Soviet Tu-16A. On 14th May 1966 this aircraft
*,.il; carried out the successful testing of the third
s. .,"11 lriJ Chinese A-bomb over a range in western China.
Work on preparing the jigs for the series pro
-.. erryry; .**fr tu{l t duction of the H-6 began in 1964. ln 1966 the
first airframe assembled from Chinese parts and
intended for static tests was finished. On 24th
December 1 968 the first production H-6 bomber
completely built in China (with Chinese'Wopen-
8' engines - licence-built versions of the Soviei
RD-3M-500 with a take-off thrust of 9,520k91
made iis first flight. The crew were commandec
by test-pilot Li Yu-Anui. After this, full-scale pro-
duction of the H-6 in China got under way.
The reason that it took so long to establish
U
the H-6 in production in China was a result of the
l1i
disorganisation of their aircraft industry causec
:{
by the spread of the Great Chinese Cultura
Revolution. ln all, up to 1987, the London lnstr-
tute for Strategic Studies estimates that some-
thing like 120 H-6 bombers in various versions
were built in China. The standard version was
an analogue of the Soviet Tu-1 64 and intendec
to carry conventional and nuclear bombs.
H-6A
ln 1970 work began on designing a new gener-
ation integrated navigational and bomb-aiming
system for the H-6 with a high degree oi
automation. The system comprised an onboarc
computer, automatic plotter, Doppler naviga
tional radar, a more developed autopilot and a
new bomb-aiming radar.
Tests of the H-6A fitted with the new syster:
were held betvveen 1 975 and 1 981 . The systen:
in many of its essentials, was based on Wester:
components and whatever other parts wer=
available. Production of the new version with th:
updated avionics began in 1982. The aircra:
could carry conventional and nuclear bombs
1 16 Tupolev Tu-16
A Chinese-built llatbed lorry with a crane tows a whole train of trailers
loaded with general-purpose bombs due to be loaded in a squadron
r
of H-6Es. '50778 Blue' wears the 'nuclear' colour scheme'
The H-6D missile strike aircraft evolved into the H-6H identifiable by
lhe ventral dielectric teardrop fairing alt of the bomb bay, probably
associated with ECM. Here, H.6Hs are lined up at a PLANAF base; the
serials have been covered lor security reasons.
]r 'rlii,r,, 4
r'"" 1,,,';'1
Photographs on the opposite page:
F;'
{@ Crews run towards their aircraft as a squadr: -
*,:
ol HY-6s prepares to scramble. This view shc r:
well the tanker's redesigned nose with a wea:-'i
radar mounted in front of the navigator's stat :i
" whose glazing is reduced to a narrow ring of
transparencies, China Aircraft
t:
H-6E Bomber
, The H-6E is a modernised version of the H-:-
, r,+-, ''
'*''l with upgraded onboard equipment, up-grac::
. lr,
,"j.:i '
engines and a new ECM system. Externarl.
differs from the H-6A in lacking the latter's nc.=
dF
ar '\g
gun position and in its grey/sky-blue fir
which makes it less visible from below.
,.-
14;
a gi4. H-6H Anti-Shipping Missile Carrier
frc-
Developed from the H-6D, the H-6H differs
its predecessor in possessing a dielect' :
teardrop fairing aft of the bomb bay. All defe'
sive armament has been removed. lt seer:-.
lay mines and drop smoke markers. Most Chi- The YJ-6L ASM (export designation C-601 , likely that the aircraft is provided with ne,',
nese bombers were produced in this version. given the NATO codename Sl/kworm) was equipment, in particular a modernised raca-
developed in the PRC from the Soviet P-15 anti- target detection and guidance system, and :
Reconnaissance and ECM Versions shipping missile supplied to China at the end of new ECM set, the antenna for which is pos-
As in the USSR, recce and ECM versions were the 1950s. The missile had a range of 120km tioned in the ventral blisterfairing. lt seems als:
developed from the basic H-6. Their precise and a speed of Mach 0.8. likely that its main armament is the new YJ-62
designations are still unknown, but they differ The first flight of the experimental H-6D took ASM with a 150-km range developed from th:
externally Jrom the bomber version in having place on 29th August 1981 , with the first launch YJ-6, using a global positioning system or Tt.
underwing pylon-mounted pods (similar to of a YJ-61 following on 6th December. The test guidance. The H-6H and the H-6D are the
those on the Soviet Tu-1 6R) program for the aircraft and the ASM complex PLANAF's standard strike aircraft.
as a whole concluded at the end of 1983. ln
H-6D Anti-Shipping Missile Carrier December 1985 the new anti-shipping complex H-6H (Modernised Version)
ln 1975 work began on an anti-shipping version entered service with the People's Liberation A video showing tests of a new ASM carrie:
of the H-6A armed with two underwing anti- Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF). based on the H-6H was made public at Airshov'
shipping missiles. The carrier, given the desig- ln May 1985 the H-6D with its C-601 missiles China-2002 held at Zhuhai-Sanzao airport. This
nation H-6D (or H-6 lV), was equipped with a was exhibited at the Paris Air Show. development was characterised by four under-
missile guidance system, an automated Recently, the YJ-61 (C-601 ) has been replaced wing pylons (two under each wing) with air-to-
onboard navigational system and a new sur- by the more modern YJ 61 (C-61 1) which has a surface or anti-shipping missiles. lt seems likely
veillance radar (type 245) in a much-enlarged range of 200km. that the new aircraft will be armed with the new
flat-bottomed radome linked to the missile ASM in the YJ-B series similar to the US
guidance system. The wings were strength- B-6D (Export Version of the H-6D) AGIV-84E SLAM (Stand-off Land Attack Missile)
ened to carry the missiles which were sus- A version of the H-6D for export was designated or AGM-142 Popeye missiles. lt is also Iikely to
pended on pylons like those on the Tu-16R. B-6D (B for bomber). Four were supplied to lraq. have all-weather day/ni ght capability.
118 TupolevTu-16
*-#-{
F,'.-.-:
'ffiti';in,ffif+ dlit'
TupolevTu-16 119
;",iffrf* *
unknown at present. Weight of aircraft empty 37.729k9 38,530k9 craft. Atotal of 25Tu-16swas delivered. Awh =
lVax take-off weight 72,000k9 72,000k9 later, on 26th January 1966, the Soviet Coun:
H-6 Target Drone Carrier Version lVax speed with two C-601 SAMs 786km/h of Ministers authorised the delivery of s '
This is an H-6 bomber speclally modified to Tu-16T torpedo-bombers to Egypt. ln Septer-.
Servrce ceiling 12,000m
launch high-speed, high-altitude target drones. ber 1967 aircrews of the Black Sea Fleet Nar:
Maximum range 4,300km
The exact designation is likewise unknown. Air Arm ferried these machines to Cairo-We:'
n\
M 1618, one ol 25 Tu-16KS missile carriers
delivered to the lndonesian Air Force, with a lull
complement of missiles and a sister ship visible
beyond. The ZiS-150 lorry in the background
was likewise Soviet-supplied. Yefim Gordon archive
i r,rii"i1l "'ri'lii1i
ilru
.ia;rr 'i
ffi,*-
f,r,lri
riF
,,;tl
sffi .i
#
ts
sr. w$.
d'*tb%*.ft'
,, *",,.,,,.++
"m*r,,"
airfield where Egyptian crews were trained had provided. ln an endeavour to maintain their
under the supervision of Soviet instructors. machines in operational condition, the Egyp-
Hosni Mubarak, the future president of Egypt, tians turned to China. ln April 1976 an agree- ln the 1970s, the lraqi Air Force (al Quwwat al-
was taken for a flight in one of them. These air- ment was signed between the two countries by Jawwiya al-lraqiya) acquired eight Tu-1 6KSR-2-
craft equipped two squadrons which took an which the PRC furnished Egypt with spares for 11s and some examples of the Tu-22 whicr-
active part in operations during the Yom Kippur their H-6s. The Western press claimed that were used to form two bomber squadrons
War of October 1973. ln the course of this 'sec- China acquired several examples of the latest These aircraft were used during the lran-lrac
ond round' of hostilities Egyptian Tu-'1 6 ASM Soviet military technology in exchange, includ- war of 1980-BB to bomb lranian positions, as
carriers launched some 25 missiles against ing a Mikoyan MiG-238N ground attack aircraft. well as military and civilian targets in lran. Ir
lsraeli targets on the Sinai Peninsula, destroy- At the beginning of 1990 the Egyptian Air particular, Tu-16KSR-2-1 1 aircraft bombec
ing two radar sites and a field supply depot. The Force operated 16 examples of the Tu-16 Teheran airport. The lraqi Tu-16 ASM carriers
Tu-16R was also used for recce missions which formed a bomber brigade based in the also carried out several missile launches
Mindful of the experience gained from the Six- south of the country. against lranian objectives.
Day War, the Egyptian Tu-16 aircraft were Subsequently, lraq purchased four H-6D fror-
based on airfields south of Sinai beyond the the PRC with a large number of C-601 ASMs
reach of the lsraeli Defence Force/Air Force. Above: Quasi-Egyptian Tu-16R Badger-F'4380' After the disintegration of the USSR, China suc'
According to the Egyptians, their Tu-16 aircraft shows otf the SRS-3 SIGINT pods and the plied lraq wlth spares for its Tu-16 and H-6 flee:
suffered no losses - although the Israelis camera port in the forward fuselage. At the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1991 virlu'
Jane's All the World's Atrcraft ally all lraqi Tu-16s had come to the end of the -
claimed one destroyed
After the break between Egypt and the USSR lraqi Air Force Tu-16 in flight. service lives and were grounded. Some we:=
Below: An
in the spring of 1976, the Soviets cut off the sup- Examples delivered to the lraq wore this damaged in Allied air strikes and son'=
ply of spares for all the military equipment they sand/green camouflage. Yefim Gordon archive destroyed on the ground.
Production List
-.-l6produciionispresentedinconstructionnumberorderforeachfac. Foreachaircraft,theversionsaremarked'inorderofappearance'
rrr. with all identities worn consecutively by each aircraft. The four-digit to show how this or that aircraft was converted in the course of its
-urrbers given after a slash with the c/ns of some Kazan'-built aircraft serviceliJe.,Deceased'(thatis,crashed)examplesaremarkedwitht
*e,e carrild on the tail below the c/n; the first digit is again the year of (RlPcrosses)followedbythedateandlocationoftheaccident;thelet-
'non-fatal
of the iers in parentheses following this mean 'fatal accident' (f) or
-anufacture, followed by what is probably the sequence number
a-::aft built as a missile carrier. accident'(nf),
]--.:25Red.'c/n7'2'039'20=rnanufacturedinlg5T,planlNo22,Batch39.20thallclaftinthebalch
| 4200905 Tu-16A
t::19
llllli il:191ldllo'r'illilllll'
?-9-19s4
?.9-1954
{t::2:') Tu-'16 no code ?-2-1954
?-2-1954
203rd TBAP, Baranovichi
'| +ZOtOOt Tu-16KS
4201002 Tu-16A ? ?-11t954 Produciion standard lor 1955; Lll
{':::2 Tu.16 402nd TBAP, Balbasovo AB
'| 6-41954 Balbasovo (l) , tu'tOLt- 02 Blue
--lr:rl& Tu-16 ?-4-1954 203rd TBAP, Baranovichi I +ZOttOg Tu-16A ?-1 1-1954
no code ?-4-1954
,4201109 Tu-16A ?-1 1.1954 t 15-21955 Tartu (f)
-:r:r!5 Tu-16
: 4201110 Tut6A (ulTll:oll 251$ TBAP
l't:'up' :..... 11Y:'!: I'I:llln
'i lull : qZOtzol T!164 ?-1 1 t954
72 Red ?-51954 ?? TBAP, Engels-2 AB
J':.101
$tt12
Tu-16
Tul6 To plant No 1 as CKD kit : 42U2A2 TUIOA 21 11954
:2:0303
Tu-16A
71 Red {Ukraine AF) ?-6-1954
:'.'..''.'..'..'''''''..
Tul6
Tul6A 251stTBAP , qZOtSO1 Tul6A ?-12-1954
Tu-16V
| 4201302 Tu'16A ?-12 1954
:5201305 ?-2-195s
::'11505 To plant No 1 as CKD kit,
18800!l i 5201306 ?'21955
::::'l ': 5201307
?-21955
:5201403 ?-2-1955
13$701 Tu-16A ?-7.1954
63 Red ?.2-1955
!2&702 Tu-16A ?-7-1954 ?? TBAP, Kiev-BorisPol'
', SZO1qO+
?-2-1955
?-8-1954 5201405
:2,10703 Tut6A ?
TupolevTu-16 125
Consfruction Yersion factical codel Manufactwe Notes Conskuctlon Yersion Tacticalcodel Manulactwe Notes
numbet Registrction date' nunbet Regisl/ation date
Tu-'16A
'!lllu Il11n:l0
?,9-1955
:'ol:]:
21
l9illl olo'"9'il'l:19:l::T?l
lf9:u?l 'f l9l 1 19 lntf
5202001 ?-6-1gss 5202701 Tul6A ?-10-1955
126 TupolevTu-16
Ycrs,on Tacticalcodel Mandactue Notes Conslructi'tn Yersion Tacti@lco&l Manulactwe Notes
:.......... li l9lll i l
, ozogzot Tu-16KS ?-&1956
.tiluo l_1?l*i : 6203202 Tu-16KS ?-6.1956
T$16A ?-12"1955
t24.8r95i 0
Tul6KSR-2 l7 Red/17 Black ?.12-1955 GK NIIWs/Akhloobinsk i ozogzos Tu-16A ?.&1956
i ozosztg ?{.1956
li:l91 11IT : 6203220 Tu-16KS ?.10-1956
Tul6A
Tul6A
1-2-19ffi
?-2-1956
: OemZgO
:.......... lilTl ll IT
Tu-l64 ?-2-1956 260lhTBAP,Stryy. i ozmgot ?-8"1956
?-2.1 956
t 31t-1e57 (0
Tu-16A
EX6 Tu-16A ?-3-1 956 , OZOS3OZ ?-$1956
: Tu-tsK-tt'tot 85 Blue?
1li l llll 11 :6203311 ?-9.1956
Tu-16K-26 18 Blue
, 62m314 ?.9-1 956
Tu-16K- .. ? (ATC callsign t 24+1 981 nr Zavitinsk (0 , i ozmgts Tu-16KS ?-1 0-1 956
6200122 Tu-16A ?-5"1 956 I OZOeqOe Tu-16A ?-1 2-1 956 Black Sea Fleet, Gvatdeyskoye AB.
t 31{-1957 nrAnapa (0
6C00123 T!-16A ?-5-1956 :
TupolevTu-16 127
Construction Version Taclical codel Manufaclurc Notes Conskuctlon Version Tacticalcodel Manufacturc Notes
nunber Registrction datel nunbet Regiskation date
7203423 ?-2-1957 t 12-2-1958 Ostrov AB {0 7203712 i3 Red (Ukralne AR ?-71957 251$ TBAP
7203424 ?-2-1957 7203713 ?.8.1957
7203514 Tu-16Awilh'EC[.4tall' 34 Red ?-3t957 SPS-100 & SPS-s refit 7203803 ?.8-1957
7203522 ?-3-'i957 7203810 1 06 Red ?-9-1957 RBP-6 Lyustra & PFS-2 Argon-2
128 TupolevTu-16
Tactical codel Manufacture lvotes
Consfuction Velsion
Tacticalcodel Manutacture Notes
flegistration datel
Regislration datet
nunfp.t
1-12-1937
| 82M217 ?-8t958
| 8204?21 ?-91958
?.12-1957
?-12-1 7 t $e1958 (nl)
i B2Mnz Tu-16K-10(Zq)
?-12-1958
99 Red
?.+1958 I st production aircraft 5101 Tu-16K-10(ZA) ?-6-1961: Damaged20€'196'llepaired
Tul6K-10 54 Red
?-1 -1 958
?-121961 andredelivered!
Tu-16K'26
GIA Kiev Air Force ln$itute 5302 Tu''16K-10 ?-$1961
?-3r958
?-31958 550'1 Tu-16K'10 ?-10-1961
9x104
Tu-16K-10(zA)
?4.1958 'order 261' : 5503 Tu'16K-10 ?-1 1-1961
gt{106 ?-4-1958
gx'r07 ?4.1958 I seol Tu'16K'10 ?-12-1961
Tu-l6KRM
5702 Tu-16K-10 1-2.1962
&04113
?.4-1958 5704 Tu-16K-10 1-2-19f,2
t2041 18
?-5.1 958 5803 Tu'16K'10 ?.3-1962
t204120
?-5t958 5805 Tu'16K'10 ?.3-1962
e04121 ?.5r958
5901 Tu-16K-10 ?-3-1962
?.5-1 958
w41n Tu-1 6K-1 0 ?-31962
?-5-1958 5902
EA041 23 ?-3-1962
?-5-1958 5903 Tu-16K-10
lflfr'.124 ?-3{962
?.5-1958 5904 Tu-16K-10
E2041 25 ?-3-1962
82041m
?-5-1958
?.&1958
:e05 li ff ll
w4127 ?.4.1962
?-5t958 6001 Tu-16Ki0
8A04128 ?-4-1962
?+1958 6002 Tu-16K-10
u04129 ?.4.1962
?.s1958 6003 Tu-16K-10
8204130 Tu-16P
Tu-l6K-10 ?-4-1962
6004
?.+1962
t sl 360 Zyabrovka (0
li lll ll
-1 6005
?{-1958 1
8204201
?-6-1958
8'f/.202
8204203 Iul6E Azaliya/'Ecltl tail' 90 Red ?-6-1958 6101 Tu-16K-10 ?.+1962
?-5r962
M-1S2 77 Red (Russian AF) GK NIWs/Akhtoobinsk 61
6103
02 Tu-l 6K-1 0
Tu-16K-10 ?.$1962
?-6-1958
u04204 ?-51962 Pacific Fleet t nr Khorol' AB
?+1958 61 04 Tu-l6K-10
8204205 ?.$1962
?-6-1958
8204206 9i9: l: lli 19
wml ?+1958
?-s1958 6201 Tu-16K-'10 ?.$1962
8e04208 ?-5-1962
?+1958 6202 Tu-l6K-10
820420S
8204210 Tu-16SPS 39 Red (Ukraine AF) ?-7-1958 251st TBAP 6203 Tu-16K-10 ?.s1962
1cl0-1959 (0 Tu-16Kt0 ?{-1962
v04211 ?-7'1 958 t 6204
M.1G3
TupolevTu-16 129
Conshucron Fuse/age Version factical codel Manulactwe Notes Constuction Fuse/age Version Tactical codel Manufactwe Notes
nunber number date' nunber nunbet dale'
4651034? 6503 Tul6K-10 41 Red ?-8-1962 Flrst digii misslng on a rcrafl 8002 Tul6Kl0 ?.'10.1 963
'f ll* 19
6601 Tu-16K1 0 ?-9.1962
6602 Tu-16K1 0 ?-9-1962
6603 Tu-16K10 ?-9.1962
6604 Tu-16K-1 0 ?-9.1962 Kuibyshev Aircraft Factory No 1
u9o: T::]:K:]O ?€:1e:2
'10 Red', c/n 1.88.1 1.10 = planl No 1, /zderye 88, Balch 1 1, 1oih aircraft in the batch
6701 Tu-16Ki0 ?-9-1962
6702 Tu-16K-10 ?-10-1962 Consfruction Yersion Tacticalcodel Manulacturc Notes
6703 Tu-16K-10 ?-10-1962 nunbet Regrskalion date
6704 Tu-1 6Kl0 ?-10-1962
1880001 954
'i ll* ll
Tu-16 ?-1 0-1 Built from components of c/n
:ro: I i9Tl? Tu-16{Z) 4200505i Tupolev oKB
6801 Tu-16K-10 ?-10-1962
6802 Tu-16K-10 ?.10-1962 l9lool' I1 19 ' 1l lnll
6803 Tu-16K10 ?-10-'1962 1880101 Tul6 57 Red, 24 Bed ?.101954 TupolevOKB
6804 Tu-l6K-10 ?.11-1962
'i:19!11 l'lll''ili:9lb'd
:to: l"lu* lo IitI?? 1880201 Tul6 ?-1 1-1954
6901 Tul6K-10 ?-12-1962 Tur6(Z) GK NII WS
Tut6K-1 0 ?t 11962
6902
6903 TUJ6K-1 0 ?-12-1962 l::::9' Ii:lu i'i ll,1
6904 Tu-16K-10 ?-121962 1880301 Tul6 ?-12-1954
6905 ti:luo:19 ?-12-1962 Tu-16(4
1880302 Tul6 50 Red ?-12-1954
7001 Tul6K.1 0 ?-12-1962 Tul6B-1 Preserved Busslan AF Museum
70Q2 Tul6K.1 0 ?-12-1962
7003 Tul6K.1 0 ?-12-1962 lY t9l l
7044 Tu-16K1 0 ?-12-1962 1880401 Tu-16 ?-12-1954
ti 1880402 Tu-16 ?121954 ??TBAP,Kiev-Borispol'
1i9: l!* lo 1',^.',.*.',
1880403 Tu-16 ?-12-1954
7101 Tu-1 6Kl0 ?t.1963 Tu-1611 Lll
7142 Tu-16K10 ?tt963 1880404 ?-2.1955
7103 Tu-16K10 ?.1-1963 ?21:::
7104 Tu-1 6Kt0 ll'910:
7105 t 1-2-1955
'i llf ll
1880501
1 l',u' 1880502 ?-2-1955
7201 Tu-1 6Kl0 ?-2-1963 '1880503 ?-2-1955
72Q2 Tu-16K-'10 ?-2-1963 1880504 ?-3-1955
7203 Tu-16K10 ?-2-1963 ?+le5l
7204 Tul6Kl0 l9l9:ou
T::l:1:l! 1880601 ?-3-1955
!^: I 1 1n9i
1880602 76 B ack ?-3-1955 ?? TBAP, oyaghilevo A8.
7301 Tul6K-10 ?-21963 i 20-21 958 (0
7302 Tul6K-1 0 ?-31963 1880603 ?.3-1955
7303 Tu-16K-10 ?,3t963 1880604 ?-3t955
7304 Tu-16K-10 ?,3-1963 ?'3:1e:5
7305 t::::::
l'- lll ll I l lnul 1880701 ?-3-1955 lSsthTBAP,Poltava.
7401 Tu-16K.10 ?-4-1963 t?6"1956 (0
1880801 ?.4.1955
'f ll^ ll 1? 1880802 ?-4-1 955 185th TBAP, Poltava.
7501 Tu-16K-10 ?-4t963 t 1e-8-1e55 (0
7502 Tul 6Kl0 ?-5-1963 1880803 Tu-l6SPS ?-4-1955
Tu-16K10 ?-5-1963 1880804 01 ?-4t955
7503
7504 Tu-16K10 ?-6-1963
l9:9'9:
tl nuu
7505
I: lll ll l' 119? 1880901 14 Bed ?-51955
7601 Tu{6K-1 0 ?-6"1963 1 880902 ?.5t955
7602 Tul6K-1 0 ?-6-1963 1 880903 ?.5.1955
7603 Tu-16K-10 ?-6.1963 1880904 Tut6SPS 09 Blue ?-5-1955
7604
i905
Tul6K-1 0 ?-6.1963
I:o:9: l. llll
'i lll ll 'l i?91 1881001 ?-5-1955
7701 Tu-16K-10 ?.7-1963 1881002 ?-5-1955
77Q2 Tu-1 6Kl0 ?.7-1963 1881003 ?-5-1955
7703 Tu-16K-'10 ?.7-1963 1881004 ?-5-1955 402nd TBAP, Balbasovo AB
7704 Tu-1 6Kl0 ?-7-1963 t 8-1 2-1959 (0?
?t 1-1955
rloli ?-6.1955 :1881803
ifilE ?.s1955 t 23-12-1958 {f)? :1881804 ?.1 1-1955
nliF
IIEEE
?.7-1 955
?-7.1955
:1881910
:
Iti illi
,1882001 2.1955
f,r2F ?.7-1955 t 15-71957 (0
?-1
il(D{ 58 Red ?-91 955 GIA Kiev lnstitute of Civil Aviation ?.12.1955
?-12-1955
Engineers :1882009
lfiF Tu-16SPS 42 Red ?.7-1955 i teozoto ?-2.1956
,1882011 ?.2-1956
Tun0P BukeV'ECM tail'
?-2t956
r-lim ?.9t955 :1882012
[rflI/ ?-9r955 , tagzots ?-2-1956
*r9 :"i:::
: 1882016
: raszotr
?.?-1 956
?.2-1956
:1882104 ?.3-1956
lGt1{B ?.9.1 955
:1882105 ?.3t956
lGt{{B ?-9"1955
1G1410 TuloSPS 34 Blue ?-9t955 :1882106 Tul6 Fonar'
: 1882107 ?3r956
lYlillll :1882108 Tu-16(4 26 Red ?-3r956
G|501
t o to<< : taaztog ?.3-1956
, taSzttg ?.3n956
188t608 ?-1 0-1 955 i 1882205 Tu-16P Buket 28:0l Red ?-4-1956 Gate guard Shaikovka AB
1881704 Tu-16 ?-1G1955 l,lfd this dale as Tu-16 :1882213 ?-91956 'ord€r'198'; '184th TBAP, Priluki.
t
17.8-1957 (0
Tu-16SPS ?-11-1955 MldthisdateasTu-16SPS
188t705 Tu-16 ?-1 0-1 955 iltfd this date as Tu-1 6 : 1882214 ?-9-1956 'order 198'
Tu-16SPS 40 ?-'1 11955 Mfd this date asTu-'16SPS :1882219 ?-5.1 956
TupolevTu-16 131
Corskucfion Yerslon Tactical codel Manulactwe Notes Const/rclion Ve/sion Tactical codel Manufaclure Notes
nunbet Registration dete nunbet Registration date'
132 TupolevTu-16
Tactiaal codel Manufactute Notes : Construction Version factcalcodel i,lanufacture lrotes
?-3-1 958
50ned ?-8-1957 Pres Long-RangeAvialion :1883510
i re$vt Tu-16R(zA)/'EcMtail' 29 Red ?-31958 SPS-100MMal'vajammel
lVuseum, DYaghilevo AB
04 Bed/04 Black Pres€rved Dyaghilevo AB
?-81957
?.81957
i tgs3srz Tu-16R ?-3-1958
?-8-1957
: 1883516 ?-3-1958
:1883517 ?-3-1958
?.8-1957
?-8.1 957 : tgosstg ?.3t958
?-3r958
?-8-1957
:1883519
Tl}16 ?-3-1958
:1883520
Tu-16P(ZA) Fikus
?-8-1 957
?-8r957 :1883601 69 Bed ?-3r 958 irr'lr,roo.oii**o
:1883602 ?-4.t958
?-'1Gl957
i ta$oos ?4.1958
?-s1957
: M-16-2
: M-16
Tu-16R(ZA)
?3'1959
ttgp ?-1 1-1957 :1883706 Tul6Yolka
llB10 Tul6R 21 Black ?-1 1 -1 957 :
:1883707
M-16
Tu-16 Yolka ?.+1959
3311 ?.1 1-1957
Mt6
tst2 28 Blue ?.1 1-1957
: '16Red(RussianAF) ?-4-1959 GKNIIWs/Akhtoobinsk
re13 Tu-16R(ZA) 35 Red, 23 ?-1 1.1957
-1957
1883708 Tul
M-16
6 Yolka
?-12-1957 M.16
!31{12 23
?.9-1959
G100 Tu{6R 25 1-12-1957 :1883714
:1883715
Tu-16K-10(ZA)
Tu-16K-10(zA) ?.1S1959
18404 ?-12-1957
Tu-16R8(ZA)
: 1883808 Tu-16K-10(ZA) ?-11n959
1883508 ?-2-1958
r883509 ?-2-1958
TupolevTu-l6 133
Construction Vercion Tactical codel Manufactwe Notes I Constuction Vercion Tactical codel Manufacture Notes
numbet Registration datel : numhet Reglskafion date'
5400501
]::l9T
Tu-167 ?-11-1955
l'9llll Ii 19' l i?li?
5400502 Tu-167 ?-12t 955 6401601 Tu-16 ?-1 1-1955
-400701
If
Tul6T
19' II
?-2-1956
illu
9'?tit9 Ii 19 l1,Iuu. ... .
134 TupolevTu-16
Known Xian H-O Bombers
:.-::-:::. VersJon Iaclicalcodel Manulacturc Notes
Registraflon date Conslruclion Yerslon
nunbet
- :- ?-2-1957
?-2-1957 H.6 Engine testbedi later serialled '86 Blue'
086 B ue
- :_: ?-2-1957 10791 Blue H-6A
i 61224 ue outlife?
B H.6D?
several aoviet Air Force Antonov An-2TD utility biplanes and a single :1 210401 H-6H
:1 a4404 H.6H
Aeroflot An-2P. Yefim Gordon archive
ffi
#t-*4'ffi&'
TupolevTu-16 135
Tu-l6 Family Drawings
Port side view ol a standard Tu-16 bomber, This particular aircraft ('50 Fed"
c/n 1880302) later became the Tu-16F-1 prototype and then the Tu-l6R'2.
Schtncb sler lowe,a ae,a Ta bumpeletacled) Srk€camerapoil Land.!!h[ FBP4 Fub dy Fxed.annon
I 10
-
Cross-sections.
DA
D"
tr F
b
G
G
J
D b
D"
136 Tupolev Tu-l6
Upper view of a standard Tu-l6 bomber.
Tu-16A bomber.
;zo:l:u ;
14O TupolevTu-16
Tu-16K-10 with no missile.
-fr;-t= 1__
Tu-16 Tsiklon-NM.
engine'
Tu-16LL'10 Red' (c/n 1881110) with unknown development
engine'
Tu-16LL,41 Blue'(c/n 6401410) with Lotarev D-36 development
TupolevTu-16 1€
Tu-1 6 missile guidance system testbed ('24 Red' , c/n 1 8801 01 ).
16LL '02 Blue' (c/n 42O1OO2) with the L-39 fuselage deployed.
I
i
I
l
ffisFe-
{
i * "rs!h
148 Tupolev Tu 16
A blue-coded Tu'16K-11'16 moments before
:ouchdown. Yelim Gordon archive
A Tu-1 6KSR-2 at
:ngine cowling panel open for inspection'
='m Gordon
.*
Tupolev Tu-16 1 49
Above: Coded'17 Black'on the nose gear doors and'17 Red'on lhe tail' Bottom lefi: Close-up of the tail unit and UKhO tail fairing of the Tu'16P
the Tu-l6P Rezeda ECM aircralt (cin 5202907) shows obvious signs ot Bezeda. Note that the dielectric cap concealing the actual emitter antenna
being converted from a Tu-16KSR-2; the missile pylons are still there. is localed at the alt extremity of the fairing, unlike some other versions
Yefim Gordon where two antennas were placed laterally. The c/n and tactical code have
been all but obliterated by the elements. Yef m Gordon
Centre left and r ght: Three-quarters rear views of the Tu'16P Rezeda at Bottom right: The nose of Tu-16K-26'20 Red' (cln7203620), showing the
Akhtoobinsk in 1993, showing the UKhO ECM fairing supplanting the tail assorted electronic appendages the aircraft has gained in the course of its
turret. This aircraft later underwent yet another conversion, ending its long service career. The nose cannon is gone and its tairing is damaged'
days as an M-16-3 target drone. Ye{im Gordon Yefim Gordon
\* I
\
\
*"# .,trrtF
-{i
1 50 Tupole,,t Tu-16
: --:iri; Another view of Tu'16K'26
zo n"O' 1"/n 7203620)" Yef m Gor.don
$,,'::.,j,:t.,::.li4t..,i.r i
...
1:'
./'
Tupolet,Tu ie i5
Close-up of the forward fuselage of Tu-16R
'12 Red' in 1992 (note that the cannon are still
in place). The hardstands at Akhtoobinsk are
equipped with a centralised power supply
system obviating the need for ground power
units, and one ot the ground power outlets (the
little pale green enclosure) is visible between
the aircraft and the other Tu-16 parked next to it.
Yefim Gordon
T
i, ,€.IlU.il
I **r
.gh_r.*n *F
s.\
*ril{1"-:
:'a +.e
h*:j.4nia*j*;s
EA'
,. ;, a
t"ry
iI
i,4rl!r&
I UpOleV t LJ' t ta :j
$\
s
is"
n
'aff
r's
?.
t
,&,.+#i ,' 4i
**q
\
\
Above and right: A retired Tu-16
coded'29 Black'lies on the
scrap dump at Ostrov AB, seat
of the Russian Navy's 33rd
x*.*-***"r*fffi,& combat & Conversion
Training Centre. The airlrame
has been dismembered into
three large portions and
awaits lurther demolition.
Victor Drushlyakov
arft., -la
-:ul i i
I
F,i
This H-6 represents an ELINT version with underwing pods and a hemispherical
the
dielectric blister ahead of the bomb bay. The pods are slightly smaller than those of
SRs-3equippedTu.l6Randleatureasmallbulgeundertherearend.ChjnaAircrall
A trio of H-6As dropping HE bombs during an
exercise. China Ai rcraft
1 58 Tupolev Tu-16
{r*;1";*..**
rr1re:
For a copy 0l the appropriate catalogue, How the Soviet Union's most polent The story oJ the Soviet Union's first After WW2 the Soviet Union benef ited
0r to 0rder further copies o{ this book, strategic bomber was designed, built intercontinental jet bomber, the Soviet from German technology and the men
and any of many other lvlidland and put into service. C0mparison is answer to the Boeing B-52. The new behind it. Thus, the first jet bomber to
Publishing titles, please write, made between the Tu-1 60 and the bomber had many innovative features fly in the USSR was the Junkers EF1 3 1 ,
telephone, fax or e-mail to: Sukhoi T-4 ('aircraft 1 00', a bomber (including a bicycle landing gea0 and followed by the EF1 40 and the equally
which was ahead ol its time), the was created within an unprecedentedly unusual T{ailed, bicycle-gear'aircraft
Midland Counties Publications
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, variable-geometry'aircraft 200' - shod period 0f just one year; observers 1 50' lrom Brunolf Baade. The first
and the Myasishchev M-1 8 and M-20. were stunned when the aircraft was wholly indigenous Soviet jet bomber
Leics, LE10 3EY, England
lncluded are copies of original formally unveiled at the 1953 l\4ay was the lL-22 of 1 947. Other
Tel: (+44) 01455254450 factory drawings of the Tu-1 60, M-l B, Day parade. The IM-4 and the much- experimental llyushin bombers - the
Fax: (+44) 01455233737 M-20 and several other intriguing improved 3M remained in service Ior lL-30, lL-46 and lL-54 are described,
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com projects. Richly illustrated in colour, 40 years. as are the Tupolev'aircraft 77',
www.midlandc0untiessuperstore.com 'aircrafr B2 and the 72l73l78 series.
many shols taken at Engels.
Softback, 280 x215 mm, 1 28 pages,
1 85 b/w, 1 4pp ol colour photographs, Sbk, 280 x 215 mm, 128pp, 116 b/w
US distribution by Specialty Press - Sbk, 280 x 21 5 mm, 1 28pp, 1 93 col &
plus line drawings photos, 57 biw illustrations, 1 4pp dwgs
see page 2. b/w photos, dwgs, colour side views
1 85780 147 4 t18.99 1 85780 152 0 t18.S9 1 85780 181 4
t18.9S
Dmitriy Komissarov Bill Norton Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov irrir e oroon ino vrioirir nig;rnt
- >l
r. l
f€ -.
-qr
Ih I
a-{xr
AilrNotton Y.tld Oordon.nd fr dlnr. ilgn.nl
/€!F\
The Tu-1 34 has seen passenger service This technol0gically challenging tiltrotor The lL-1 B four-turboprop airliner first During the 'Cold War' Tupolev's Tu-95
for 0ver 35 years in 42 countries. lts prolect established in 1 982. A transp0rt flew in 1957 and was supplied t0 many 'Beaf strategic bomber provided an awe-
multifarious other activities include VIP -aircraft style fuselage, able to carry 24 'friendly nations' in Eastern Europe, Asia, some spectacle. lt was the mainstay of
transportation, support of Air Force, troops, is topped by a wing with two Africa, N4iddle East and the Caribbean, the USSR's strike force, a reliable and
Army and Navy headquarters and swivelling pods housing Rolls-Royce Its uses included passenger and cargo, adaptable weapons platform. Additi0nal
research and test work. The type has engines, each driving three-bladed VIP transp0rtation, supp0rt oi Antarctic roles included electronic/photographic
helped train th0usands ot military pilots prop-r0t0rs, The USAF should receive research stations, electronic espionage rec0nnaissance and maritime patrol,
and navigators for the Soviet Air Forces' the CV-228 for special missions, the and various research programmes, All AEW and command and control.
tactical and long-range b0mber forces. US Marines the l\4V-228 assault versions are described, as are many test The author has had unparalleled
Compiled from lirst-hand Russian transports and the Navy the HV-228 and development aircraft, the lL-20M access to the Tupolev 0KB archives.
sources, the book gives a full account CSAHifleet logistics versi0n, but the ELINT, lL-20RT space tracker, lL-22 taking the lid off a story previously full
of the Tu-134 and the type's design, program suffered setbacks, with initial airborne command post, lL-24N for ice ol speculation to produce the most
tesl and operational hislory. 0perating capability now set Jor 2005. reconnaissance and lL-38 ASW aircrafi comprehensive study to date.
Sbk, 280 x 21 5 mm, 1 B4pp, 204 col, Softback, 280 x 215 mm, 1 28 pages Softback, 280 x215 mm, 160 pages Softback, 280 x 21 6 mm, 1 28 pagss
95 b/w photos, Spp of drawings
.1
74 colour, 60 b/w photos, 33 dwgs 1 84 b/w, 67 colour photos, 1 6pp dwgs 236b|w,24 col photos, 12 diagrams
1 85780 159 B f19.S9 1 8s780 165 2 t16.S9 I 85780 157 1 t1S.99 1 85780 046 X t1 4.95
Made in England Top: This Tu-16P Rezeda ECM alrcralt (c/n 5202907) shows
obvlous signs of being converted from a Tu'16KSR-2; the ISBN 1-85780-177-6
missile pylons are still there. Yelim Gordon
Above: Tu-l6LL'01 Blue' (c/n 6401401) at zhukovskiy in
1991. Yefim Gordon
ililrilililllilil1ililtilIllll
Front cover illustration: g tt781g57rrg0 177111
'06 Red', a Soviet Air Force Tu-l6KS' llies with a single
KS-i missile on the port pylon. The bright red colour of the usA $36.95 UK €19.99
misslle identifles it as an inert round. Av,atsiya i Kosmonavtika