Yeah, any actor who has the balls to say "I want them to put this on my tombstone -- PLEASE DON'T STAND ON ME!" has my respect! LOL Seriously, he supposedly made a joke like that! Great narrator. I also remember him from his Disney films and as Inspector Poirot. He did 1 or 2 animated films for Disney (double role as King Richard and Prince John in Robin Hood) as well as the lead/title role in Blackbeard's Ghost.
frankly, today you can't expect a US channel to make a program like this on a foreign project -- polished, informative and almost neutral. Kudos, DIscovery channel of the 90's.
@M.r. Moon Not the case if the Soviets were always trying to catch up with American technology, so the aggressor in this case turns out to be - America, surprise surprise!
@@mtsenskmtsensk5113 well then, let us see whta countries Soviet Russia attacked during her years after WW2, and lets compare the figures with countries having been attacked by US? Ready, Steady, Go!!!... you moron
As to the narrator, the late, great, Sir Peter Ustinov I agree with CaptainLumpyDog, below. I was lucky enough to see him doing his 'An Evening with...' on stage at the Melbourne Arts Centre some years back. He held an audience in thrall for nearly 3 hours; no props, no film clips, all by himself using only his intellect, his memory, his wit and his nearly unsurpassed ability to mass-name drop and mean it only to illustrate the truly rich life he had lived. Nearly always the smartest man in the room (not that a room full of actors is much of a challenge ;) ) but certainly the most entertaining. We are lucky to have so much of his work preserved, but it was on the stage that he really shone. His address that night in front of at least 3000 people he transformed into a friendly, intimate chat between old friends after a dinner party. And that's how I think of him, a lost friend although we never met. Of all the 'big names' I interviewed when I was a film journalist, not getting together with Sir Peter was one of my greatest regrets. Regrettably, he did appear in a few awful films so if you want to see him in top form catch as many of the interviews he gave as you can, especially the ones with Sir Michael Parkinson. Cheers, BH
Peter Ustinov adds so much to these episodes. This is a particularly good one. Aside from the interesting aviation history, it's a fairly good review of 1960s Geopolitics.
Damn, I miss the Discovery Wings channel... was my favorite thing to have on in the background while down in the man-cave working on my 1/32 WWII fighters.
I fondly remember this series after I got out of the Air Force. Great series and how can you go wrong with narration by Sir Peter Alexander Ustinov to boot. :)
Outstanding documentary, which provides the full historic context to Backfire bomber development. This context is especially important to understand why the SALT talks almost failed, and depended (in part) on resolving the Backfire issue. Peter Ustinov has a wonderfully rich and elegant narrator's voice, and remains one of my top five favorite actors/actresses. In the Mozart Mystique (?), Ustinov gave a captivating performance as Mozart's stage-managing father/impressario-- basically, he stole the show.
IMHO. With hindsight. SALT talk were peppered by US/UK overestimate of capabilities of TU-22M. With or without re-fuel probe. If TU-22M (M3 were not in service at time) were overestimated, the low availability numbers of TU-160 Blackjack were vastly overestimated including abilities that it shared with then secret B-2A. To some extent, overestimates were intentional. With hindsight. US F-15C and F-106 Delta Darts, F-14s, and F-4 of UK could intercept TU-22M with 80% rate. For anti-NATO work, TU-22M presented a threat only when armed with those huge cruise missiles. Sme for TU-160. A gravity bomb armed Tupolevs's had low to none chance of reaching deep NATO targets.
I have a friend who he and his family moved here from Russia. His father was in the military and was on a Tu-22M Backfire crew, then became a test pilot. He has flew all the awesome USSR planes and flew a few that never made it to production. He has a thick accent, and I love hearing his stories from the military. The US almost didn’t let them in because of his military history. They have been in the country over 25 years they came right after Gorbachev. He said that the MIG 29 was the best plane he hade ever flew.
Great to hear Peter Ustinov narrating this with his mellifluous English voice with the native Russian pronunciation. Very odd to hear him pronounce "missile" in the American way ("missle"). Maybe the Discovery Channel though the US audience wouldn't understand the English pronunciation.
@@thomascreary990BS? I'm not complaining about American pronunciation of English, just pointing out Ustinov would normally have said "missile" the English way. There has to be a reason why he used the American pronunciation.
The ONLY thing I'm going to say is that I LOVE THESE BACK IN THE DAYS DOCUMENTARIES 💯 MORE THAN ANY NEW DOCUMENTARIES NOW...!!! AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT FEELS THIS WAY...??
Tom Upchurch They were afraid he would find out about our most advanced knowledge. How not only to get to the moon, but how we kept all those presidents alive. I understand the CIA wanted to some how to expose the Soviets to It's a Small World so they all would go insane with hearing that song for the rest of their lives. That's when they came up with What Does the Fox Say!
Fact: Although a formable offensive bomber, most of the Soviets offensive air capabilities were not capable to fly round trip except for a few back in the 20th century. The Ilyushin IL-18 being almost as old as the B-52, this as well as other strategic reasons is why the Soviets dominated in building the largest ICBM industry the world has ever seen. Fascinating!
The P38 is my favorite WWII aircraft, I always wondered how well it would have performed with two supercharged Merlin Engines with counterrevolution propellers.
Pretty sure they experimented with that,late in the war. I believe the results were disappointing. No idea why. They would have been the Packard Merlins. Maybe late model RR Merlin choice would have been better. Not sure where you could find out. My memory is from a Challenge publication magazine many years ago. Warbirds,most likely.
It couldnt the P-38 is designed to use turbo-supercharger while the Merlin is supercharged it'll change the center of mass a whole lot th-cam.com/video/oJPGFcXRZZI/w-d-xo.html
Not really. The cost of trying to keep up with the USA bankrupted the soviet union, which was never really efficient in the first place. They played the fear card very well, but as we find out decades later...the fears of their technology being superior...weren't as scary as the actual possibility that the Americans would have deployed our superior technology first and pretty much annhilated the soviet union...which would have caused a massive counter attack, and the end result bringing on the nuclear winter we all feared. I'm glad we didn't then and hope we don't ever use these nuclear weapons in the future.
@Mr. Moon Maybe just in the past they were weak but today is a different story. The US is under a 21 trillion debt, spending the tax payer dollar with sitting ducks like aircraft carriers, Zumwalt shitty ships, poor performance SAM systems, badly made "invisible jets" that will never be combat ready while two thirds of US planes are grounded due to lack of maintenence and spare parts, the combat readiness of the whole army is record low, suicide rates are soaring and hundreds of thousands war veterans dying on the streets without VA care. Thats the result of a military doctrine created for profit, big difference from russian military doctrine of defense. As of today, US is legging behind 20 to 40 years in some strategic fields like ICBMs, deadly submarines, hypersonic missiles, radars, fighter jets, rocket engines and state of art defense systems.
I got a real kick out of Discovery's Wings of the Red Star series when it first came out in the early 1990's. In and of themselves they were historically significant. Two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians were desperate for money, and allowed Discovery to come in and film their aircraft museums. It was telling that the aircraft were all dirty from sitting outside, suffering from neglect.
The Discovery and History Channels ... when they actually passed on interesting history to their viewers and educated then as well - before they went all in for "reality TV" and became the useless channels they are now.... We have to go to scru-tub now to see the same stuff we used to view on TV on a large screen (relative to a laptop, tablet, or heaven for bid a stupid (smart) phone...) and it hadn't been copied 5K times either... Reality TV is unreal....
All the great technology developed and finished by the end of the 80s by Soviet engineers, only to be neglected and left to rust after the dissolution of the USSR, is as bittersweet as history gets. The Buran/Energiya spacecraft is probably the saddest example.
@@davidlanham99 Soviet engineers might have based their design on the american shuttle as far as general shape goes, but other than that the Buran is superior in almost every way (which isn't strange, considering it is a decade more modern than the American shuttle). For example, the Buran was capable of fully unmanned space flight and landing on its first flight 1989, while the American shuttle only got this capability in what, 2007? Read up on it before jumping to conclusions.
Well, you and Putin agree on something: that the end of the USSR was a great tragedy. On the other hand, some in the gulag work camps might be more inclined to cheer the overthrow of the USSR.
Interesting the part about the Backfire being for sale to western nations. Much later a guy here (Australia) called Rosco McLachin was developing jet dragsters, the Aussie Invader series, and wanted to use the Klimov turbofan from the Tu-22M. The RAAF even did the computer modelling and design for an intake for it on his car but then it was subject to embargo, and you couldn't use so much as a sticker off that plane. I believe it was because the whole thing, and every part of it, is considered part of a nuclear weapon system the west objects to. Times change.
Many American aircraft are still in service from that era too. Like c130s and the b52s. B52s from the 60s are supposed to undergo a refit and the us military is planning on using them for another 40yrs. Crazy. That means at the end of their service new soldiers in 2040 will be flying in aircraft almost a hundred yrs old. You can't keep a good designed aircraft down. There was alot of smart people on both sides of the coldwar .
A couple of minor details regarding _The Cuban Missile Crisis:_ The narrator in this video omitted the fact that the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba was response to the US missiles in Turkey. The Soviet leader didn't exactly "Back down". Kennedy also had to remove the missiles from Turkey. Just a little fact that historians and government officials leave out. They're good at that. ...leaving out historical details....
@@lesleyBig Sort of. By the time the missiles in Cuba were discovered, Kennedy had requested that the missiles in Turkey be removed no less than 5 times. Eisenhower had ordered their placement. They would have come out either way, but including it in the agreement allowed Khrushchev to save face at home.
@@lesleyBig It does not get a lot of likes because it is common knowledge. This post is roughly the equivalent of telling everyone how soccer is really called football everywhere else. {shrug}
@@lesleyBig See? You conflate isssues. It was still a huge defeat for USSR. Pulling our missles out of Turkey was a bone. Grace in Victory as it were. Shots were fired then they backed down. That is still defeat to anyone who is not a west hating leftist. {shrug}
Kennedy insisted that the deal remain private as he could not be seen by the US public to remove the US missiles from Turkey under pressure. Very cowardly. The SU should have revealed the facts, but they were too honest.
Actually, I had believed the same thing-- someone finally had developed a rich, human voice with no phrasing or pronunciation mistakes. Until I saw the closing credits, I was ready to research the narrator, to learn more about his considerable talent. For all its faults, the synthesized human voice used for military videos posted by Dung Tran is certainly more bearable than some human voices. Human narrator/celebrities often pronounce even more poorly than a voice synthesizer, and appear to have no idea at all what phrasing and emphasis demand of a narrator.
@@amseek94Ustinov's family WAS Russian, look him up on Wikipedia. He should know the pronunciation. I've at least heard correct formal Russian pronunciation of "Myasichev" and this is the only westerner I've ever heard sound like that.
I love the Soviet's airplane construction techniques that's reminiscent of an Airstream travel trailer. Also the abandoned shopping mall parking lot look of it's airfields.
In retrospect it seems both had no wish to attack each other but were afraid the other did. As an observer from the side they are both so similar, such a shame human nature is so violent.
Am a blue blooded American but man russia makes some good locking jet fighter's and bombers i also like the rough surface landing and how they make there plane smiple to do matanace sorry for the spelling not sure about if it all is a + or - anybody have any input
Holy Shit!!! I clicked on this video and upon realizing it was a genuine episode gasped audibly. The same with Russian Giants and Soviet Rotors. I just powered through these wonderful docs. Now if only Straight Up can be found. I want these on DVD/Blue Ray or just released to the public in some way. Thank you for uploading these. :D
You're Welcome. Let us not forget the "Supersonic Transport" episode too. Anyway, hopefully someone can do an online petition and post a link that allows us to sign up for it in the future.
Oh god, I remember playing a game called Strike Fleet for Dos in the late 80's-early 90's, and the Backfire bomber being a royal pain in the ass. One mission every now and then, formations of like 10 of them would show up and shoot like 2 kingfisher missiles apiece and you'd have to shoot them all down to protect your ships. And you'd never be able to hit them.
@@rayford21 It was actually a game where you were on the bridge of the ship, targeting things as they came into range and having to shoot the right ones.
The turmoil around the early '80s was more than just over who had the best bomber, it was over stealth. When Jimmy cancelled the B-1 program, he was briefed on Lockheed's PAVE BLUE program, which pretty much trumped every defense system threat countries could cook up at the time. Ronald didn't know this and made his promise to reinstate the B-1 program as the B-1b, with some stealth components tossed in, affecting the bomber's performance. The Soviets had no idea how to counter stealth, all their systems was oriented towards the high, fast regime. The low level attacks were similiar, they adopted shoot down tactics and systems, but none of that could deal with the black skinned, faceted "Hopeless Diamond". It is said that stealth helped contribute to the economic fall of the Soviet Union, but that has yet to be revealed.
That's funny my grandmother used to call me the Backfire Bomber after I ate beans and sausages. Everytime she would hear me fart she would warn everyone and say "Here comes the Backfire Bomber". 😂
I noticed that the video is dated 1993 . The comment that the USSR had collapsed and would not be able to develop anything of significance , is historically correct , for that time . But i think it's fair to say that Russia is back in a big way , and should not be ruled out of designing and building significant weapons now .
They also have the same problems they did back then... Their economy is NOT in great shape, they're having problems with territories which do NOT want to be incorporated within Russia anymore, and there are other things going on which I would agree should have nothing to do with the US. What's new?
The Russian economy is growing, but mostly in weapons development for export and energy sales. Note the economy of the CCCP actually failed in 1978, something that the West failed to notice...
Thanks David for your reply . But we agree that Russia is building improved weapons , if only for export . That's a situation that could be changed for domestic needs , when needed , don't you think ?
I think the incident with the "Donald Cook" proves your point. Totally disabled by an early, crude EM weapon. They lost crew members over that. I think many saw the "writing on the wall" While the US was playing in the sands of M.E. for 20 years, Russia LEAPED way ahead in many areas ! Electronic Warfare being ONLY ONE.
Thanks for posting this video - I had not yet seen this episode. Adore this series both for subject, and for the enthusiasm of Sir Peter Ustinov giving this series great gravitas. Thanks again !
You're Welcome. We fans should petition The Discovery Channel to re-release the entire W.O.T.O.R. series on DVD, Blu-Ray and/or Digital Download in the future.
The F-111's problem was Defense Secretary McNamara's attempt to combine a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all the services to use even though they all had different priorities concerning air combat. The F-111 was a nice try, but no cigar aircraft dream. McNamara should have stayed at Ford, preferably the Edsel division, instead of trying to win a war with whiz kids and telephones.
I was watching a wings show about cargo planes the narrator said could be loaded from the front and the rear at the same time.I heard my girlfriend say from the front and rear at the same time. Then she laughed
His musical foundation was a determined effort to use Russian musical roots, rather than compete with German or Italian traditions. Accordingly, Moussorgsky made use of liturgical music of the Orthodox church.
"Its ironic that the Soviet Union laboured so long to develop a genuine supersonic intercontinental bomber only to collapse soon after it entered service." How apt then is its Nato codename, Backfire.
Cuban missiles were in response to American missiles being set up in Turkey. Cuban missiles were withdrawn. At the same time, the Turkish locations were dismantled. History made simple (and logical)
Horse shit. The Soviets knew damn well we were never going to launch those missiles at them, and so did the rest of the planet. They just used it as a pretext. But hey, contrary to what many Americans would say, the Soviets won that round. Consider: before the crisis, there were American missiles in Turkey, but no Soviet missiles in Cuba. After the crisis, there were no missiles in either country. It was a wash for them, but a draw-down for us. See, if I were Kruschev, seeing that that worked, I'd have continued with similar moves. Park some subs off of England, and demand that America remove her subs from the Kola Peninisula...they don't want a nuclear war, so they cut a deal. Deploy some bombers to North Korea, and demand that America draw down her forces in South Korea. They don't want a nuclear war, so they cut a deal. Then I move some MRBMs into East Berlin...see how this works? Kennedy's approach was appeasement. Fortunately, it turned out okay, but at what cost? It was a stupid move, and left us in a mess that it took Reagan to rectify.
@@gta4haterhq , love to know how except they wouldnt trust me with such knowledge , perhaps another will know the secret,,, actually I was thinking if this was a stereo recording maybe could separate the tracks,
@Chris Longski - Jona von Ustinov died in the ancient Gloucestershire village of Eastleach and not in London(source = wiki). According to Peter Wright in his book 'Spycatcher', von Ustinov's MI5 pension had been overlooked and was in the process of being rectified just before he died (source = wiki) . As for the relationship between father and son, who can say. There are many examples in history where they can become estranged for reasons that never come to light.
The Convair B-58 Hustler? Fast, beautiful, medium payload, not really intercontinental and very maintenance-heavy. Maybe the XB-70 fit the bill but SAM's would have been waiting for it.
Even the XB-70 really wouldn't have the range. Very, very aerial refueling dependent. Maybe a 4000 mile range at its most economical speed. Would have been retired for maintenance and impracticality like the B-58 was but it would cost way more than the B-58, too. There were a lot of problems with the XB-70 that they found during testing. They couldn't even keep the paint on the thing and one of the planes had to be restricted in top speed (the #1, surviving prototype; I've seen the plane in Dayton) because of a structural defect. The second XB-70 really wasn't identical; the wing tips folded through a greater range than the first plane's and it was a more efficient flyer but still not a true intercontinental bomber. It doesn't seem like supersonic speed makes for a very good intercontinental strategic bomber. Even the B-1 can't match the B-52's range. The USAF is planning to phase out its B-1s and B-2s by 2035 if they get the funding to build the B-21, a more advanced version of the B-2. Not holding my breath! They don't have a good history of funding replacements for the B-52. They've built far more fighter types than bombers since the B-52 was commissioned. Frankly, we spend way too much on military for questionable operations and get too little in return for the buck. More money should be going to practical industrial research that we actually KEEP in the US and NOT give away for a song (illegal campaign donations) as well fixing the problems with the rotting infrastructure. They not only have to fix a ton of bridges of roads but also harden the power grid against possible solar EMP. We lose the power grid for months, a bunch of people will die. It'll be like Puerto Rico but 2000 times worse with way more deaths...
The Hustler was simply the most attractive aircraft ever put into military service in history. Too bad it had to give up payload and range to be that sexy. And it was a maintenance nightmare. Absurdly complicated. However, it had escape pods!
The Soviets had the Myasishchev M-55 "Bounder," which was capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2 and first flew in the mid-'50s. It flew before the B-58 Hustler and had a larger payload and more range. The only novelty the M-55 Bounder lacked compared to the B-58 Hustler were ejection capsules as opposed to ejection seats.
AvengerII The XB-70 program had all its gremlins worked out by the time it was ceased in 1969. It would have worked exceptionally well nowadays as a reconaissance or high-altitude, high-speed bomber capable of carrying a four-crew complement, aerial refueling, multifunctional hardpoints underneath and above the wings and fuselage, and it also would have had an extended-sized multifunctional cargo bay which had doors that slid open for operation even at very high speeds. It could carry 50,000 pounds (25 tons) in its original prototype versions, and it likely would have been able to increase that by up to 50% (75,000 pounds/37.5 tons), which would put it on par with the B-52's payload capacity.
Great footage. Remember the Russians learned a great deal from the failure of the F-111. They realized pivoting wings should pivot from a center section, not from the root.
The Backfire's top speed was 2.3M, and the engines were computer-controlled for optimum performance. The design of the nose-section hints at that low level flight was also planned for, which made it, with a nuclear-tipped missile, a strike aircraft against aircraft carrier-groups. The crew compartment was very crammed, but the Soviets had no problem finding pilots (and tank crews) from their many Far-Eastern Republics who required less space than the Western designs called for. This made the deadly low profile design of the T-72, for example, possible.
Nope, it's less than Mach 2. It's Mach 1.88 for the latest version of the TU-22M(mark 3). There's a difference between "record speeds" and in-service speeds for longevity. The Concorde WAS capable of Mach 2.2 but was restricted to Mach 2.02 in-service because of airframe heating considerations and fuel-economy. A few Concordes flew over 20,000 flight hours, most of that time at supersonic speeds which is something very rare for most military types, btw. There still haven't been many planes built that can supercruise for any considerable length of time.
"The crew compartment was very crammed, but the Soviets had no problem finding pilots (and tank crews) from their many Far-Eastern Republics who required less space than the Western designs called for." Like the poor electronics operator of the US Striker Armored Car. Unfortunately if the Striker Crashes, the electronics operator has his spine broken by the shelf in front of him, supporting the computer...
" SHIT FOR BRAINS " spews forth again. The latest "DASH" speeds for that Very Same model, Tu-22M Mk3 are 2.23M, not your "creative" 1.88M. You are Full of Shit, and "another Lying Liberal".
David James Guess he must have triggered you something fierce, eh? Go back to your conspiracy theories, simpleton. Some of us are trying to discuss military science.
CaptainLumpyDog, ANOTHER CIA SHILL exposed. Sorry boys, your BULLSHIT doesn't WORK anymore ! Welcome to the 21st Century. The real life of your Government LIES can be timed on an egg timer.
In my humble opinion the B-1 and the B1-b are the most beautiful aircraft ever built by the USA, and are not far from being the most beautiful in the world, however that title is reserved for the Avro Vulcan and the Lancaster bombers, two completely different eras but from the same thoroughbred stable, Russia has never, again my opinion, built a good looking aircraft, let alone a beautiful one, they might as well have been designed by a farm equipment supply bureau in Outer Mongolia, but they do have an advantage over western aircraft, they were built to be rugged, unlike our technology packed super fighters that went, and still do, go wrong if you sneezed to loudly near them, oh well, never mind, my aircraft engineer days are long gone, I will just keep watching TH-cam videos. Thanks Thanks for sharing this excellent and informative documentary, big thumbs up 👍😀🇬🇧🏴
I wonder why the producers forget to mention, about Cuban crisys, that U.S. had nuclear missiles in Turkey in that time 600km from CCCP. Hruschov agreed to backdown only after U.S. also agreed to withdraw nukes from Tukey. Cuban crisys was provoked by U.S. nukes in Turkey.
Khrushchev got a bad deal on that one, those missles in Turkey were obsolete due to the advancements in US missle technology and were scheduled to be removed anyways, he got a prize he was going to get anyway, but he didn't really care as long as he came out looking good, I guess politics are the same no matter where you go.
@SoulArtSound maybe because they are competent enough to understand US missiles in Turkey are almost completely irrelevant to a documentary focusing on Soviet aviation history? The Cuban missile crisis had no baring on the development of the Tu22m so i’m Not sure why you think that needs to be included.
@@matthew22nz or maybe because "U" think u are competent to say, that nuclear bombers have nothing do with politics!?We all made bombers because different views, on how this reality should be ordered. According to threat we asses, we project all means of countering it. Every action have his opposite. Tu 22m is direct result of war politics against CCCP in this particular case.
I get that you have to establish a back story to bring everyone up to speed but I'm half way into this and he's only been talking about space, Gary Powers, the Berlin wall and the Cuban missile crisis. ALL of which have their own documentaries.
The NATO codename for the Tu-22 was the "Backfire" and once Tu-22 bomber-crews found out the Russian translation of "Backfire" they adopted it on the account of it having highly unreliable engines prone to failing;-). I'm not referring to the Tu-22M version but the earlier tannic fixed-wing versions that first flew in the late 1950s.
The music really makes these Red air videos. If American and USSR had pooled their resources, we would have men on Mars by now. Now we just have junkyards filled with a trillion dollars worth of old weapons. One day maybe Russia will retake it's traditional place in Western civilization.
@@robinswamidasan the established rules for orbiting the globe was that you land in the vehicle. Just like having the pilot jump out of a perfectly functioning airplane because you couldn't figure out how to build landing gear doesn't count when trying to make a viable airplane. The Soviets, unsurprisingly, *lied* about it. The West eventually learned the truth, but kept their mouths shut.
Absolutely love this series. Ustinov is the perfect narrator.
There will never be another Sir Peter Ustinov. He was simply the greatest.
Richard Weed Definitely a very funny man, and an extremely talented actor, but he lacks Ustinov’s glorious baritone!
Sir.peter ustinov. Plz
VENUS HALO Good point.
Yeah, any actor who has the balls to say "I want them to put this on my tombstone -- PLEASE DON'T STAND ON ME!" has my respect! LOL
Seriously, he supposedly made a joke like that!
Great narrator. I also remember him from his Disney films and as Inspector Poirot. He did 1 or 2 animated films for Disney (double role as King Richard and Prince John in Robin Hood) as well as the lead/title role in Blackbeard's Ghost.
AvengerII That's incredible!
When discovery channel and history were not garbage.
Discovery can rerelease this series on Digital Download, DVD and/or Blu Ray as a way to be on better terms with us Fans in the future.
History remains the same - its just how its interpreted - or do you mean discovery and History channel have gone downhill??
Dom Douse the tv channels
Agree. Now everything on TV is just all PC garbage.
you mean propaganda for the far left communist bastards
frankly, today you can't expect a US channel to make a program like this on a foreign project -- polished, informative and almost neutral.
Kudos, DIscovery channel of the 90's.
@M.r. Moon Not the case if the Soviets were always trying to catch up with American technology, so the aggressor in this case turns out to be - America, surprise surprise!
@M.r. Moon which is non-existing anymore, if you have not noticed...
@@mtsenskmtsensk5113 well then, let us see whta countries Soviet Russia attacked during her years after WW2, and lets compare the figures with countries having been attacked by US? Ready, Steady, Go!!!... you moron
@Mr. Moon and there was no way for you to know, but also world health
If it were the 90's you'd have a problem with these shows too for some other reason. People like you never change.
The Real Discovery Channel, back then. This was Excellent.
Garbage today.
Made back when there was a channel called discovery wings. Loved that channel and the shows like this. Aviation junky/nerd talking here.
I miss Discovery Wings!😔 favorite episode was the Harrior jump jet.
This is one of those very episodes. Wings of the red star. Great television, and one of the world's greatest narrators; Sir Peter Ustinov
I loved it. But my parents wouldn't pay for the documentaries package :-(
Proud aviation nerd gere as well
Brings back great memories of watching this show with my dad when I was a kid.
As to the narrator, the late, great, Sir Peter Ustinov I agree with CaptainLumpyDog, below. I was lucky enough to see him doing his 'An Evening with...' on stage at the Melbourne Arts Centre some years back. He held an audience in thrall for nearly 3 hours; no props, no film clips, all by himself using only his intellect, his memory, his wit and his nearly unsurpassed ability to mass-name drop and mean it only to illustrate the truly rich life he had lived. Nearly always the smartest man in the room (not that a room full of actors is much of a challenge ;) ) but certainly the most entertaining.
We are lucky to have so much of his work preserved, but it was on the stage that he really shone. His address that night in front of at least 3000 people he transformed into a friendly, intimate chat between old friends after a dinner party. And that's how I think of him, a lost friend although we never met.
Of all the 'big names' I interviewed when I was a film journalist, not getting together with Sir Peter was one of my greatest regrets. Regrettably, he did appear in a few awful films so if you want to see him in top form catch as many of the interviews he gave as you can, especially the ones with Sir Michael Parkinson. Cheers, BH
Enjoying watching these "Wings of the Red Star" episodes, especially these rarer pieces.
You're Welcome 🙂
The background music is awesome and motivated
Peter Ustinov adds so much to these episodes. This is a particularly good one. Aside from the interesting aviation history, it's a fairly good review of 1960s Geopolitics.
Damn, I miss the Discovery Wings channel... was my favorite thing to have on in the background while down in the man-cave working on my 1/32 WWII fighters.
Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising brought me here, the Backfire is always used in that storie
Great to listen to Peter Ustinov
Dance of the Vampires
Fabulous book !!
Just got the audiobook - thanks!
Outstanding book,surprised it was never made into a motion picture…
Backfires smashed the Nimitz battle group. Damaging Nimitz and sinking the French carrier Foch.
I miss the good old days of the discovery channel pre-reality TV everything. I watched every episode of wings....of any kind.
I fondly remember this series after I got out of the Air Force. Great series and how can you go wrong with narration by Sir Peter Alexander Ustinov to boot. :)
Outstanding documentary, which provides the full historic context to Backfire bomber development. This context is especially important to understand why the SALT talks almost failed, and depended (in part) on resolving the Backfire issue.
Peter Ustinov has a wonderfully rich and elegant narrator's voice, and remains one of my top five favorite actors/actresses. In the Mozart Mystique (?), Ustinov gave a captivating performance as Mozart's stage-managing father/impressario-- basically, he stole the show.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. 🙂
IMHO. With hindsight. SALT talk were peppered by US/UK overestimate of capabilities of TU-22M. With or without re-fuel probe. If TU-22M (M3 were not in service at time) were overestimated, the low availability numbers of TU-160 Blackjack were vastly overestimated including abilities that it shared with then secret B-2A. To some extent, overestimates were intentional. With hindsight. US F-15C and F-106 Delta Darts, F-14s, and F-4 of UK could intercept TU-22M with 80% rate. For anti-NATO work, TU-22M presented a threat only when armed with those huge cruise missiles. Sme for TU-160. A gravity bomb armed Tupolevs's had low to none chance of reaching deep NATO targets.
I have a friend who he and his family moved here from Russia. His father was in the military and was on a Tu-22M Backfire crew, then became a test pilot. He has flew all the awesome USSR planes and flew a few that never made it to production. He has a thick accent, and I love hearing his stories from the military. The US almost didn’t let them in because of his military history. They have been in the country over 25 years they came right after Gorbachev. He said that the MIG 29 was the best plane he hade ever flew.
Did he every get to fly western jets as well?
*Thank goodness none of these Planes were used in Anger*
*Here's to continued Peace for all.*
The TU-22 bombs syria everyday!
Pretty much all of them have been used in anger, just not between the U.S. and Russia.
@@aliceshaw8265 who said that, Jesus?
@@bobmar9239 yep, peace through superior firepower.
@@aliceshaw8265 Looking at history, I'd say you're wrong. When has there ever been global peace among men? Never, ever.
Great to hear Peter Ustinov narrating this with his mellifluous English voice with the native Russian pronunciation. Very odd to hear him pronounce "missile" in the American way ("missle"). Maybe the Discovery Channel though the US audience wouldn't understand the English pronunciation.
B.s.the English also muck the language
@@thomascreary990BS? I'm not complaining about American pronunciation of English, just pointing out Ustinov would normally have said "missile" the English way. There has to be a reason why he used the American pronunciation.
Is there nothing the Sir Peter Ustinov couldn't elevate with his talents?
I really wish that History Channel would stop playing American Butt Pickers...
They dont want to inform true history anymore. How else can you change the history books?
Women are the majority of the television audience, thus shows about interpersonal drama abound on every television network.
Loved all these on Discovery Channel even with the funeral music
You know the name of the music?
The ONLY thing I'm going to say is that I LOVE THESE BACK IN THE DAYS DOCUMENTARIES 💯 MORE THAN ANY NEW DOCUMENTARIES NOW...!!! AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT FEELS THIS WAY...??
I think all of us feel this way
We all feel the same way
From The Discovery Channel...back when you would actually "Discover" something & it wasn't wall to wall "Reality Show" crap.
💯 FACTS...!!!
Along with several other cable networks I use to watch from the 1990s that are unwatchable these days.
So... If they had let Khrushchev go to Disneyland there may not have been a Cuban Missile Crisis?
😀🔫
Tom Upchurch
They were afraid he would find out about our most advanced knowledge. How not only to get to the moon, but how we kept all those presidents alive. I understand the CIA wanted to some how to expose the Soviets to It's a Small World so they all would go insane with hearing that song for the rest of their lives. That's when they came up with What Does the Fox Say!
@@jerrynewberry2823 They'd have used it to bring back Lenin, and then the west would've been doomed!
The US not installing Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey would have done a much better job...
@@RonJohn63 Removal of the missiles in Turkey was a major bargaining chip to get the Soviet weapons out of Cuba.
@@rayford21 you dummy. Russia put the missiles in Cuba *because* we put missiles in Turkey!!
Fact: Although a formable offensive bomber, most of the Soviets offensive air capabilities were not capable to fly round trip except for a few back in the 20th century. The Ilyushin IL-18 being almost as old as the B-52, this as well as other strategic reasons is why the Soviets dominated in building the largest ICBM industry the world has ever seen. Fascinating!
The P38 is my favorite WWII aircraft, I always wondered how well it would have performed with two supercharged Merlin Engines with counterrevolution propellers.
Pretty sure they experimented with that,late in the war. I believe the results were disappointing. No idea why. They would have been the Packard Merlins. Maybe late model RR Merlin choice would have been better.
Not sure where you could find out. My memory is from a Challenge publication magazine many years ago. Warbirds,most likely.
It couldnt the P-38 is designed to use turbo-supercharger while the Merlin is supercharged it'll change the center of mass a whole lot
th-cam.com/video/oJPGFcXRZZI/w-d-xo.html
I enjoy the classic old school Russian Cold War military aircraft. They were a worthy adversary
Not really. The cost of trying to keep up with the USA bankrupted the soviet union, which was never really efficient in the first place. They played the fear card very well, but as we find out decades later...the fears of their technology being superior...weren't as scary as the actual possibility that the Americans would have deployed our superior technology first and pretty much annhilated the soviet union...which would have caused a massive counter attack, and the end result bringing on the nuclear winter we all feared. I'm glad we didn't then and hope we don't ever use these nuclear weapons in the future.
One thing is beyond doubt: The Russkies built the prettiest planes.
@Mr. Moon Maybe just in the past they were weak but today is a different story. The US is under a 21 trillion debt, spending the tax payer dollar with sitting ducks like aircraft carriers, Zumwalt shitty ships, poor performance SAM systems, badly made "invisible jets" that will never be combat ready while two thirds of US planes are grounded due to lack of maintenence and spare parts, the combat readiness of the whole army is record low, suicide rates are soaring and hundreds of thousands war veterans dying on the streets without VA care. Thats the result of a military doctrine created for profit, big difference from russian military doctrine of defense. As of today, US is legging behind 20 to 40 years in some strategic fields like ICBMs, deadly submarines, hypersonic missiles, radars, fighter jets, rocket engines and state of art defense systems.
@@itinensanzen you're so full of shit, your eyes are brown...
I got a real kick out of Discovery's Wings of the Red Star series when it first came out in the early 1990's. In and of themselves they were historically significant. Two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians were desperate for money, and allowed Discovery to come in and film their aircraft museums. It was telling that the aircraft were all dirty from sitting outside, suffering from neglect.
The Discovery and History Channels ... when they actually passed on interesting history to their viewers and educated then as well - before they went all in for "reality TV" and became the useless channels they are now.... We have to go to scru-tub now to see the same stuff we used to view on TV on a large screen (relative to a laptop, tablet, or heaven for bid a stupid (smart) phone...) and it hadn't been copied 5K times either... Reality TV is unreal....
Don't forget that TLC was the Learning Channel, and you actually learned things worth knowing.
Usti! So nice to hear his voice again. I watched many of these narrated by him.
MOMMY! *sucks thumb*
All the great technology developed and finished by the end of the 80s by Soviet engineers, only to be neglected and left to rust after the dissolution of the USSR, is as bittersweet as history gets.
The Buran/Energiya spacecraft is probably the saddest example.
They just copied us.
@@davidlanham99 Soviet engineers might have based their design on the american shuttle as far as general shape goes, but other than that the Buran is superior in almost every way (which isn't strange, considering it is a decade more modern than the American shuttle).
For example, the Buran was capable of fully unmanned space flight and landing on its first flight 1989, while the American shuttle only got this capability in what, 2007?
Read up on it before jumping to conclusions.
@@davidlanham99 The Buran was twice the shuttle the American shuttle was. It could fly and land completely autonomously.
RIP Ekranoplan as well...
Well, you and Putin agree on something: that the end of the USSR was a great tragedy. On the other hand, some in the gulag work camps might be more inclined to cheer the overthrow of the USSR.
Fantastic video...Peter Ustinov great narrator.
Interesting the part about the Backfire being for sale to western nations. Much later a guy here (Australia) called Rosco McLachin was developing jet dragsters, the Aussie Invader series, and wanted to use the Klimov turbofan from the Tu-22M. The RAAF even did the computer modelling and design for an intake for it on his car but then it was subject to embargo, and you couldn't use so much as a sticker off that plane. I believe it was because the whole thing, and every part of it, is considered part of a nuclear weapon system the west objects to. Times change.
And the TU-22M3 is still in service today. Amazing aircraft considering it's era and mission.
Many American aircraft are still in service from that era too. Like c130s and the b52s. B52s from the 60s are supposed to undergo a refit and the us military is planning on using them for another 40yrs. Crazy. That means at the end of their service new soldiers in 2040 will be flying in aircraft almost a hundred yrs old. You can't keep a good designed aircraft down. There was alot of smart people on both sides of the coldwar .
Been looking for this for ages. Thank you.
You're Welcome 🙂
Thanks Phil for this hard to find episode.
I think it's time we Fans petition The Discovery Channel to rerelease Wings Of The Red Star on to DVD/Blu-Ray and/or Digital Download.
Yeah, that needs to happen. I'll send 'em another email.
if you do i will be the first to sign
A couple of minor details regarding _The Cuban Missile Crisis:_
The narrator in this video omitted the fact that the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba was response to the US missiles in Turkey. The Soviet leader didn't exactly "Back down". Kennedy also had to remove the missiles from Turkey. Just a little fact that historians and government officials leave out. They're good at that. ...leaving out historical details....
@@lesleyBig Sort of. By the time the missiles in Cuba were discovered, Kennedy had requested that the missiles in Turkey be removed no less than 5 times. Eisenhower had ordered their placement. They would have come out either way, but including it in the agreement allowed Khrushchev to save face at home.
@@lesleyBig It does not get a lot of likes because it is common knowledge. This post is roughly the equivalent of telling everyone how soccer is really called football everywhere else. {shrug}
@@lesleyBig See? You conflate isssues. It was still a huge defeat for USSR. Pulling our missles out of Turkey was a bone. Grace in Victory as it were. Shots were fired then they backed down. That is still defeat to anyone who is not a west hating leftist. {shrug}
Kennedy insisted that the removal of the Nike Zeus missiles from Turkey be kept secret as he did not want to be seen to back down.
Kennedy insisted that the deal remain private as he could not be seen by the US public to remove the US missiles from Turkey under pressure. Very cowardly. The SU should have revealed the facts, but they were too honest.
Nothing better than this English narrator and the story of Khruschov protesting against his barring to visit Disneyland in 1959.
A documentary with a human narrating and not a computer-generated voice. How novel.
I don't care about computer generated, are they demon rat propaganda or truth. that is what counts, I hate a damn liar demon rat bastard
Actually, I had believed the same thing-- someone finally had developed a rich, human voice with no phrasing or pronunciation mistakes. Until I saw the closing credits, I was ready to research the narrator, to learn more about his considerable talent.
For all its faults, the synthesized human voice used for military videos posted by Dung Tran is certainly more bearable than some human voices. Human narrator/celebrities often pronounce even more poorly than a voice synthesizer, and appear to have no idea at all what phrasing and emphasis demand of a narrator.
of course the badly faked Russian accent is pretty lame though
"not a computer-generated voice"
Never seen one
@@amseek94Ustinov's family WAS Russian, look him up on Wikipedia. He should know the pronunciation. I've at least heard correct formal Russian pronunciation of "Myasichev" and this is the only westerner I've ever heard sound like that.
I love the Soviet's airplane construction techniques that's reminiscent of an Airstream travel trailer. Also the abandoned shopping mall parking lot look of it's airfields.
@Skeptron 1973 Apparently, you don't sarcasm...
That's hilarious!
Nice to hear the wonderful voice of Peter Ustinov again.
This is the discovery channel I remember watch it nothing like today's junk they putting on
I'm a huge military history fan and I love your channel, keep up the great work!!
Thanks 🙂
In retrospect it seems both had no wish to attack each other but were afraid the other did.
As an observer from the side they are both so similar, such a shame human nature is so violent.
Am a blue blooded American but man russia makes some good locking jet fighter's and bombers i also like the rough surface landing and how they make there plane smiple to do matanace sorry for the spelling not sure about if it all is a + or - anybody have any input
Holy Shit!!! I clicked on this video and upon realizing it was a genuine episode gasped audibly. The same with Russian Giants and Soviet Rotors. I just powered through these wonderful docs.
Now if only Straight Up can be found. I want these on DVD/Blue Ray or just released to the public in some way.
Thank you for uploading these. :D
You're Welcome. Let us not forget the "Supersonic Transport" episode too. Anyway, hopefully someone can do an online petition and post a link that allows us to sign up for it in the future.
Gawd I want to see "Straight Up" so bad
Thank you for this. I have all the episodes on VHS and dvd.
Oh god, I remember playing a game called Strike Fleet for Dos in the late 80's-early 90's, and the Backfire bomber being a royal pain in the ass. One mission every now and then, formations of like 10 of them would show up and shoot like 2 kingfisher missiles apiece and you'd have to shoot them all down to protect your ships. And you'd never be able to hit them.
Sounds like an old coin operated Williams "Defender" video game.
@@rayford21 It was actually a game where you were on the bridge of the ship, targeting things as they came into range and having to shoot the right ones.
This is a very nice historical précis of the Cold War era, from somebody who grew up during this period in the 50s & 60s.
The turmoil around the early '80s was more than just over who had the best bomber, it was over stealth. When Jimmy cancelled the B-1 program, he was briefed on Lockheed's PAVE BLUE program, which pretty much trumped every defense system threat countries could cook up at the time. Ronald didn't know this and made his promise to reinstate the B-1 program as the B-1b, with some stealth components tossed in, affecting the bomber's performance.
The Soviets had no idea how to counter stealth, all their systems was oriented towards the high, fast regime. The low level attacks were similiar, they adopted shoot down tactics and systems, but none of that could deal with the black skinned, faceted "Hopeless Diamond". It is said that stealth helped contribute to the economic fall of the Soviet Union, but that has yet to be revealed.
Thanks for uploading this episode.
You're Welcome. The Discovery Channel needs to re-release this series on to DVD/Blu-Ray and Digital Downloads in the future.
I agree.
That's funny my grandmother used to call me the Backfire Bomber after I ate beans and sausages. Everytime she would hear me fart she would warn everyone and say "Here comes the Backfire Bomber". 😂
Music is Pictures at an Exhibition by Mussorgski.
Peter we miss you.
Actually the B2 is the u.s. is answer to the backfire bomber and is still used today
baron hyatt how is the stealth bomber the answer to the backfire?
I noticed that the video is dated 1993 . The comment that the USSR had collapsed and would not be able to develop anything of significance , is historically correct , for that time . But i think it's fair to say that Russia is back in a big way , and should not be ruled out of designing and building significant weapons now .
They also have the same problems they did back then...
Their economy is NOT in great shape, they're having problems with territories which do NOT want to be incorporated within Russia anymore, and there are other things going on which I would agree should have nothing to do with the US. What's new?
The Russian economy is growing, but mostly in weapons development for export and energy sales. Note the economy of the CCCP actually failed in 1978, something that the West failed to notice...
Thanks David for your reply . But we agree that Russia is building improved weapons , if only for export . That's a situation that could be changed for domestic needs , when needed , don't you think ?
I think the incident with the "Donald Cook" proves your point. Totally disabled by an early, crude EM weapon. They lost crew members over that. I think many saw the "writing on the wall" While the US was playing in the sands of M.E. for 20 years, Russia LEAPED way ahead in many areas ! Electronic Warfare being ONLY ONE.
David James Dave, I know you adore Russia. Why don’t you move there?
Thanks for posting this video - I had not yet seen this episode. Adore this series both for subject, and for the enthusiasm of Sir Peter Ustinov giving this series great gravitas. Thanks again !
You're Welcome. We fans should petition The Discovery Channel to re-release the entire W.O.T.O.R. series on DVD, Blu-Ray and/or Digital Download in the future.
You're Welcome. Let's hope that this series can be re-released by Discovery on DVD, Blu Ray, and/or Digital Download in the future.
Back when we didn't know so much about the Soviet military programs
We once had the FB-111A, which was a strategic version of the F-111 Aardvark. I considered this the counter to the Backfire
The F-111's problem was Defense Secretary McNamara's attempt to combine a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all the services to use
even though they all had different priorities concerning air combat. The F-111 was a nice try, but no cigar aircraft dream.
McNamara should have stayed at Ford, preferably the Edsel division, instead of trying to win a war with whiz kids and telephones.
@@rayford21 another F35 then
Anyone else detect a sense of pride in Peters voice at his countries technological achievements?
The TU-22 M3 Russian Backfire bomber is a formidable supersonic bomber and can compete with the USAF B1B Lancer
Interesting. They sent Yuri up on a Vostok/Soyuz type rocket and the balloon was a Proton. Such disinformation
I like how he says BACKFIRE.
Damn.
The Tu-160 production line has resumed at two aircraft per year.
41:35 that’s genius. Take the cockpit of a bomber and slap it on a business jet and you’ve got a trainer aircraft
I was watching a wings show about cargo planes the narrator said could be loaded from the front and the rear at the same time.I heard my girlfriend say from the front and rear at the same time. Then she laughed
Mussorrgsky goes surprisingly well with this, doesn't it?
His musical foundation was a determined effort to use Russian musical roots, rather than compete with German or Italian traditions. Accordingly, Moussorgsky made use of liturgical music of the Orthodox church.
All the time
"Its ironic that the Soviet Union laboured so long to develop a genuine supersonic intercontinental bomber only to collapse soon after it entered service." How apt then is its Nato codename, Backfire.
I loved that channel discovery wings that was my drug of choice I was addicted to that channel this program was on that channel DISCOVERY WINGS
Cuban missiles were in response to American missiles being set up in Turkey. Cuban missiles were withdrawn. At the same time, the Turkish locations were dismantled.
History made simple (and logical)
Horse shit. The Soviets knew damn well we were never going to launch those missiles at them, and so did the rest of the planet. They just used it as a pretext.
But hey, contrary to what many Americans would say, the Soviets won that round. Consider: before the crisis, there were American missiles in Turkey, but no Soviet missiles in Cuba. After the crisis, there were no missiles in either country. It was a wash for them, but a draw-down for us.
See, if I were Kruschev, seeing that that worked, I'd have continued with similar moves. Park some subs off of England, and demand that America remove her subs from the Kola Peninisula...they don't want a nuclear war, so they cut a deal. Deploy some bombers to North Korea, and demand that America draw down her forces in South Korea. They don't want a nuclear war, so they cut a deal. Then I move some MRBMs into East Berlin...see how this works?
Kennedy's approach was appeasement. Fortunately, it turned out okay, but at what cost? It was a stupid move, and left us in a mess that it took Reagan to rectify.
@@fubaralakbar6800 Then Reagan destroyed the 2nd Amendment..
@@OGPatriot03 I'm sorry, what?
@@fubaralakbar6800 What happened to fully automatics?
when I was in Turkey with the USA, I saw sputnik 3 (my claim to fame)
For anyone interested, the actual Tu-22M part starts @ 17:48.
who ever figures out how to mute the music more and amp the text should get a medal
lol just tell how
@@gta4haterhq , love to know how except they wouldnt trust me with such knowledge , perhaps another will know the secret,,, actually I was thinking if this was a stereo recording maybe could separate the tracks,
Man I love the music 🎶 😎
In a giant album ''Our Gagarin'' put out in the 70s, the sovs deleted every view of Mr. K.
This is a awesome aircraft, The sum of all fears shows it attacking a aircraft carrier and causing all sorts of kaos, very capable and deadly
Commentator, Peter Ustinov, a great human, greatly missed.
What a great voice he had. Every word is so clearly enunciated.
@Chris Longski - Jona von Ustinov died in the ancient Gloucestershire village of Eastleach and not in London(source = wiki). According to Peter Wright in his book 'Spycatcher', von Ustinov's MI5 pension had been overlooked and was in the process of being rectified just before he died (source = wiki) . As for the relationship between father and son, who can say. There are many examples in history where they can become estranged for reasons that never come to light.
@Chris Longski They seem to correlate closely. ...also the Eastleach village website.
Born in '58 i found this video extremely interesting.
Mach 2 nuclear intercontinental bomber in 1970. We had that in the late 1950's - the Consolidated B-58 Hustler.
The Convair B-58 Hustler? Fast, beautiful, medium payload, not really intercontinental and very maintenance-heavy.
Maybe the XB-70 fit the bill but SAM's would have been waiting for it.
Even the XB-70 really wouldn't have the range. Very, very aerial refueling dependent. Maybe a 4000 mile range at its most economical speed.
Would have been retired for maintenance and impracticality like the B-58 was but it would cost way more than the B-58, too.
There were a lot of problems with the XB-70 that they found during testing. They couldn't even keep the paint on the thing and one of the planes had to be restricted in top speed (the #1, surviving prototype; I've seen the plane in Dayton) because of a structural defect. The second XB-70 really wasn't identical; the wing tips folded through a greater range than the first plane's and it was a more efficient flyer but still not a true intercontinental bomber.
It doesn't seem like supersonic speed makes for a very good intercontinental strategic bomber. Even the B-1 can't match the B-52's range.
The USAF is planning to phase out its B-1s and B-2s by 2035 if they get the funding to build the B-21, a more advanced version of the B-2.
Not holding my breath! They don't have a good history of funding replacements for the B-52. They've built far more fighter types than bombers since the B-52 was commissioned.
Frankly, we spend way too much on military for questionable operations and get too little in return for the buck. More money should be going to practical industrial research that we actually KEEP in the US and NOT give away for a song (illegal campaign donations) as well fixing the problems with the rotting infrastructure. They not only have to fix a ton of bridges of roads but also harden the power grid against possible solar EMP. We lose the power grid for months, a bunch of people will die. It'll be like Puerto Rico but 2000 times worse with way more deaths...
The Hustler was simply the most attractive aircraft ever put into military service in history. Too bad it had to give up payload and range to be that sexy. And it was a maintenance nightmare. Absurdly complicated.
However, it had escape pods!
The Soviets had the Myasishchev M-55 "Bounder," which was capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2 and first flew in the mid-'50s. It flew before the B-58 Hustler and had a larger payload and more range. The only novelty the M-55 Bounder lacked compared to the B-58 Hustler were ejection capsules as opposed to ejection seats.
AvengerII The XB-70 program had all its gremlins worked out by the time it was ceased in 1969. It would have worked exceptionally well nowadays as a reconaissance or high-altitude, high-speed bomber capable of carrying a four-crew complement, aerial refueling, multifunctional hardpoints underneath and above the wings and fuselage, and it also would have had an extended-sized multifunctional cargo bay which had doors that slid open for operation even at very high speeds. It could carry 50,000 pounds (25 tons) in its original prototype versions, and it likely would have been able to increase that by up to 50% (75,000 pounds/37.5 tons), which would put it on par with the B-52's payload capacity.
Great footage. Remember the Russians learned a great deal from the failure of the F-111. They realized pivoting wings should pivot from a center section, not from the root.
There was a preceding aircraft, the Su-17, with a similar layout. That was more clearly the parent here rather than the F-111.
The Backfire's top speed was 2.3M, and the engines were computer-controlled for optimum performance. The design of the nose-section hints at that low level flight was also planned for, which made it, with a nuclear-tipped missile, a strike aircraft against aircraft carrier-groups. The crew compartment was very crammed, but the Soviets had no problem finding pilots (and tank crews) from their many Far-Eastern Republics who required less space than the Western designs called for. This made the deadly low profile design of the T-72, for example, possible.
Nope, it's less than Mach 2.
It's Mach 1.88 for the latest version of the TU-22M(mark 3).
There's a difference between "record speeds" and in-service speeds for longevity.
The Concorde WAS capable of Mach 2.2 but was restricted to Mach 2.02 in-service because of airframe heating considerations and fuel-economy. A few Concordes flew over 20,000 flight hours, most of that time at supersonic speeds which is something very rare for most military types, btw. There still haven't been many planes built that can supercruise for any considerable length of time.
"The crew compartment was very crammed, but the Soviets had no problem finding pilots (and tank crews) from their many Far-Eastern Republics who required less space than the Western designs called for."
Like the poor electronics operator of the US Striker Armored Car. Unfortunately if the Striker Crashes, the electronics operator has his spine broken by the shelf in front of him, supporting the computer...
" SHIT FOR BRAINS " spews forth again. The latest "DASH" speeds for that Very Same model, Tu-22M Mk3 are 2.23M, not your "creative" 1.88M. You are Full of Shit, and "another Lying Liberal".
David James Guess he must have triggered you something fierce, eh?
Go back to your conspiracy theories, simpleton. Some of us are trying to discuss military science.
CaptainLumpyDog, ANOTHER CIA SHILL exposed. Sorry boys, your BULLSHIT doesn't WORK anymore ! Welcome to the 21st Century. The real life of your Government LIES can be timed on an egg timer.
Backfire is first mentioned at 18:08...before that, it’s all backstory.
Wtf??? This should be called the blackjack bomber!!!
The rocket balloon is very cool.
So was the transit bus based Airplane...
I saw your comment at literally the same second I saw the rocket balloon lol
The tune being played on the cello sounds a lot like the national anthem from Borat.
In my humble opinion the B-1 and the B1-b are the most beautiful aircraft ever built by the USA, and are not far from being the most beautiful in the world, however that title is reserved for the Avro Vulcan and the Lancaster bombers, two completely different eras but from the same thoroughbred stable, Russia has never, again my opinion, built a good looking aircraft, let alone a beautiful one, they might as well have been designed by a farm equipment supply bureau in Outer Mongolia, but they do have an advantage over western aircraft, they were built to be rugged, unlike our technology packed super fighters that went, and still do, go wrong if you sneezed to loudly near them, oh well, never mind, my aircraft engineer days are long gone, I will just keep watching TH-cam videos. Thanks Thanks for sharing this excellent and informative documentary, big thumbs up 👍😀🇬🇧🏴
Exquisite narration. Incredible footage also.
I wonder why the producers forget to mention, about Cuban crisys, that U.S. had nuclear missiles in Turkey in that time 600km from CCCP. Hruschov agreed to backdown only after U.S. also agreed to withdraw nukes from Tukey. Cuban crisys was provoked by U.S. nukes in Turkey.
Khrushchev got a bad deal on that one, those missles in Turkey were obsolete due to the advancements in US missle technology and were scheduled to be removed anyways, he got a prize he was going to get anyway, but he didn't really care as long as he came out looking good, I guess politics are the same no matter where you go.
@SoulArtSound maybe because they are competent enough to understand US missiles in Turkey are almost completely irrelevant to a documentary focusing on Soviet aviation history? The Cuban missile crisis had no baring on the development of the Tu22m so i’m Not sure why you think that needs to be included.
Russia outnumber nato
@@larimadunaldo9814
Soviet Union no longer exists, NATO still does.
@@matthew22nz or maybe because "U" think u are competent to say, that nuclear bombers have nothing do with politics!?We all made bombers because different views, on how this reality should be ordered. According to threat we asses, we project all means of countering it. Every action have his opposite. Tu 22m is direct result of war politics against CCCP in this particular case.
A shockingly small amount of the video is about the Backfire.
Thanks for not changing the ratio.👍👏
*You forgot the 'upgraded' model...the one with built-in 'potato-launchers' and stored oars for 'water-landings'*
Dang, i miss that show. I'd never miss a showing. Now, I don't watch TV at all due to the disposable trendy junk.
I get that you have to establish a back story to bring everyone up to speed but I'm half way into this and he's only been talking about space, Gary Powers, the Berlin wall and the Cuban missile crisis. ALL of which have their own documentaries.
The NATO codename for the Tu-22 was the "Backfire" and once Tu-22 bomber-crews found out the Russian translation of "Backfire" they adopted it on the account of it having highly unreliable engines prone to failing;-). I'm not referring to the Tu-22M version but the earlier tannic fixed-wing versions that first flew in the late 1950s.
The Soviets were always interested in their NATO reporting names, they liked fencer, flanker and fulcrum, disliked frogfoot.
I’m old enough to remember when there was history on the History Channel and discovery on the Discovery Channel
The music really makes these Red air videos. If American and USSR had pooled their resources, we would have men on Mars by now. Now we just have junkyards filled with a trillion dollars worth of old weapons. One day maybe Russia will retake it's traditional place in Western civilization.
The Backfire was an induced-dragged monster.
9:40 also Gagarin had to jump out from his aircraft and land with a parachute.
That was part of the design. It worked as intended.
@@robinswamidasan the established rules for orbiting the globe was that you land in the vehicle. Just like having the pilot jump out of a perfectly functioning airplane because you couldn't figure out how to build landing gear doesn't count when trying to make a viable airplane.
The Soviets, unsurprisingly, *lied* about it. The West eventually learned the truth, but kept their mouths shut.
all those planes and now they just are sitting there collecting dust
Love this narrator.