Talk:Tupolev Tu-22M/Archive 1

Mixing designations
Folks, it's incorrect to mix the "Tu-XXX" designations assigned to the aircrafts which have entered service and internal OKB's project numbers, which are ancestors of the antient "ANT-XXX" developments of A.N.Tupolev and his bureau.

Actually, Tu-22s was named just "aircraft 103, aircraft 105, etc" within the OKB.

Yes, there are exceptions. For instance, Tu-95 exactly match its development name "aircraft 95". The reason was simple: all the documentation was passed to the production facility with title Tupolev "95" and the governmental regulatory decided to leave it intact to preserve time and money on re-printing of all the docs. --jno 11:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Tu-22 vs Tu-22M*
NOTE: The image showing the aircraft at the outdoor museum is NOT a Tu-22M Backfire. It is a Tu-22 Blinder bomber which was a completely different aircraft. The Backfire was heavily based off of its design so the two aircraft are often confused. An easy way to tell the difference between them is the engine intake shape. The Tu-22M has forward-slanting intakes, whereas the Tu-22 has vertical intakes.


 * Why not to visit Tupolev Tu-22 and see the actual Tu-22? Original "Blinder" has engines near the tail! And fixed wing. Good thing to know: Tu-22 and Tu-22M (or Tu-22M0) have in common the two things only: the fore leg of gear and bomb bay cover. The reason why a completely different design has taken the name from an elder one is political (N.S.Khruschev want not assign money for new aircraft developments, while VVS needed a new aircraft. Hence, the new aircraft was developed as "deep upgrade" of Tu-22).
 * Visual differences:
 * Tu-22 (not "M", original) -- fixed wing, engines at the tail
 * Tu-22M (or "M0") -- round shape intakes (shown in upper photo)
 * Tu-22M2 -- box shape intakes (vertical)
 * Tu-22M3 -- forward slant intakes
 * --jno 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. If you are referring to the image of the aircraft at the Riga Aviation Museum, it's not a "Blinder". The "Blinder" (or Tupolev TU-22) had cylindrical engines on each side of the tail. The plane at the Riga museum has it's engines along the fuselage. According to the museum director, Victor Talpa, to whom I spoke with two weeks ago, it's a TU-22M1 "Backfire-A". The M1 was a pre-production version, produced in a quantity of 9, just as the other pre-production model, the M0. I will stand corrected if anyone can prove me wrong on this. TomEG (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft lost in 2008 South Ossetia war
I cannot make sense of the paragraph about this incident as it is currently written. First it states that the Russian military definitively reported the loss of a Tu-22M3 bomber. Then it mentions that some news article, which is not cited, does not specify whether the aircraft was a Tu-22M or a Tu-22, but "it is assumed" (by whom?) that it was a Tu-22M. Next it says RIA Novosti is reporting the aircraft as a Tu-22, not a Tu-22M. So, which is it? Ketone16 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a Tu-22M. The Tu-22 was already retired more than a decade ago (Cjwon348 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)).

Comparable Aircraft Section - B-1B comparison vs F-111
There seems to be a edit war going on - with some believing Tu-22M to be comparable to B-1B. My personal thought is to look at the history itself. Tu-22M was designed in 1960s, as response to the American F-111, which was designed and first flied in 21st of December 1964 and introduced in 18th of July 1967. The Tu-22M by comparison had its first flight in 30th August 1969, and introduced in 1972. They are clearly designed in the same era and technology. They also share unmistakable similarity.

The B-1B on the other hand was designed in 1970s, had its first flight in 23rd of December 1974, and introduced in 1st of October 1986. The Russian clearly responded to the B-1B with their own similar Tu-160 which had its first flight in 18th of December 1981, and introduced in 1987.

Just looking at the time line, it clearly shows the relevance of the comparison.

Refueling probe image removal


I see that quite a while ago (in 2011) someone (Sp33dyphil) removed the closeup image of the refuelling probe, stating that it had no value at that moment. I find that explanation quite surprising, considering it was put there in regard to the pharagraph talking about the removal of the refuelling probes, as a part of the SALT negotiations. Furthermore, none of the other pictures on the page shows that fuel probe. I suggest that the picture is reinstated, as it's highly relevant to what's written in the text. TomEG (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the image you seem to mean above. One can't really tell that is on a Tu-22M with that close-up view. I suggest looking on Wikipedia or Commons for a similar probe image that shows more of the aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I know it's from a Tu-22M1, as I shot it my self at the Riga airport museum. TomEG (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never doubted that. But the point was that the average reader can't tell. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to show a close-up of what was written about in the article, to make it more interesting to the readers. That's the point of a close-up, to show an item in question up close in more detail. Maybe it's just me, but such detailed pictures are what I like to see in articles, especially together with the story it has. You can find gazillions of pictures showing Tu-22M's, but hardly any that shows the refuelling probe (because they're all removed), and no one with such detail.TomEG (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm siding with TomEG on this. The picture does raise one question, however - if the probe was removed, why is it still there? Or is the hardware in the image just an empty shell? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nearly a two-year old comment! but the image is from a museum example in Latvia rather than an operational Russian aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Boom reducation
I was just watching the news an noticed that the nose of the Tu22 has a similar profile to the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration, has anyone been able to measure the boom these airaraft produce. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Undisclosed Operators??
India is listed under undisclosed operators, as far as a democratic and relatively free country is concerned, they have no reason to hide the plane being used. There's a proposal to buy those planes but that should be put under the category potential operators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed it as we have no evidence that any have actually been leased yet. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The source for this was a book from 2008 and stated it was a planned lease. There's nothing there to support actually happening. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Speed?
The performance specifications section seems to give two different maximum speeds, which one of them is true and at what altitudes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDestroyer111 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Mach 1.88 speed at altitude seems to be the right (or more right) one. There was one convert template using Mach 1.88 and a second convert template using 2,000 km/h.  I removed the second template and added an altitude (in feet) so it will convert the Mach speed more accurately.  I'll need to check my book sources at home to double check this. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claim regarding START I
Currently the article says, under 'Operational history' -> 'Russia': "With the deletion of the aircraft's in-flight refueling capability due to the START I treaty, the Tu-22M's internal fuel capacity limits its operational range […]" But there is no reference for that. Having looked at the treaty text I found (https://media.nti.org/documents/start_1_treaty.pdf) and looking for, e. g., "refuel" or even just "fuel" found nothing. So what is the explanation that the aircraft, capable of delivering nuclear weapons, is allowed to continue to operate, just not with mid-air refueling capability? If there is no source the claim should be removed. --77.180.72.204 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image dispute
Even though I do not feel obligated to make a case for someone else's edits (and especially the ones referencing to a non-existent Wikipedia guidelines and relying on value judgements as a justification), I am curious as to what the editorial consensus would be on the matter. The proposed change was the replacement of with the, which has a lower resolution and is taken from a greater distance, and hence has a lesser degree of detail. Is the proposed change justified or not, in your opinion? Are there any guidelines explicitly pointing towards the necessity of this replacement? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 8:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why do assume the guidelines are non-existent? Why would we lie to you about that? Why would Fox spend his time finding inward-facing photos if it weren't recommended? Do you really think accusing fellow editors of making up guidelines is condusive to good-faith discussions? - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, it was not an assumption, but rather a fact, since the guideline on the "article-facing images in the infobox" is nowhere to be found. And if it does exist, then providing a link to it in an edit summary seems like a common sense, don't you think so? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 8:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps no guideline exists with that exact wording, but the principle does exist. You'll eventually find it, and then you can do with it what you will. - BilCat (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you're pretty much admitting that previously you had pointed to a guideline you are not familiar with. Q.E.D. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I'm admitting that previously I had pointed to a guideline that you are not familiar with. Until such time as you're willing to admit such a guideline might exist, I don't think anything else can be said. - BilCat (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are familiar with it, it certainly shouldn't be problematic for you to link it. As I said in the edit summary, a link to it would be appreciated. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The guideline's existence was never the problem, as it does exist. A bad memory that could not remember where it was at the time of the initial and sole revert was the problem. - BilCat (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All right then. If you remember where it was, please, let me know, but most likely we shouldn't look any further than this. This contains the recommendation the other editor was referring to for some reason: "In-flight images are preferred for aircraft". But not a word about the "facing" thing. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep looking. You'll eventually find it, because it does exist. BBL. - BilCat (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly shouldn't be the one actively looking for it, since justification of edits lies entirely on an editor, and it is not me who is bringing the change to the article. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the Wikipedia image guideline pages says that portrait images should face the center of the page (or it did in the past maybe). WP:Manual of Style/Images is the main image policy page. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with it, but I can certainly imagine such a recommendation for portraits. Maybe this is the root of this confusion. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft): "Though not a requirement, the aircraft in images should preferably face the text. That is, it is preferred for aircraft facing the right to be aligned to the left, and vice versa." - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, it is there, thank you. The "image quality is more important than this rule" part finally settles the dispute. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't settle the dispute - the dispute changes to which is the better photo - one with a background of trees or one with a background of sky - In my opinion the photo with the sky background is better for the infobox because the background is less distracting and it is easier to see the shape of the aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It does, because the proposed new image is lower resolution. This is an objective parameter and is not a matter for discussion. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia article - the images with the highest encyclopedic value to the article are needed- not merely the one with the highest resolution. Resolution is only observable when someone clicks on the photo anyway - and both photos have sufficient resolution. And I notice that one editor has had breached 3rr here. Please revert your edit until the discussion has reached a conclusion.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So currently the consensus is for this image supported by, , as opposed to this image by . - Unless there are no other suggestions, the preferred image should be placed back in. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of in-flight images in Commons, most (but not all) of which are in -  lets consider what is the best image to use in the infobox.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, the guideline explicitly speaks of "image quality", and it just so happens that the image quality is determined by its objective parameters, not by what you personally perceive as "beautiful", "suitable for an encyclopedia", "what is needed for the article" and all that great stuff you've just brought in. In addition to it being lower resolution, the newly proposed image is taken from a greater distance, which in combination with it being of lower resolution inevitably gives a lower degree of detail no matter how you observe it - either from a thumbnail or not. With all this in mind, it would be wise for you to abstain from further discussion. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, have it your way, but what you're doing is disgusting. At first, you appeal to a guideline you haven't read (because otherwise you'd know about the quality requirement and wouldn't want to change the image in the first place), then, when another guy finds the guideline for you and cites the part of it which suits your needs and omits the part which doesn't (the quality one), you proceed to edit justifying it with nothing but consensus. And there, ladies and gentlemen, we're taking a pause and asking ourselves, consensus on what? And the answer to this question is quite funny - consensus to contradict the very guidelines you were standing by from the beginning. This stinks. There's no better way to put it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a photo of the aircraft fully in flight (rather than taking off or landing)? - like the following?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether it is a takeoff/landing or not, the aircraft on all of these images is airborne. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)