Military Tupolev Tu-144s

[famvburg]

I've always been fascinated with the Tu-144, mainly the production version but also the smaller, more Concorde-like prototype and and a couple of bomber proposals. About 20ish years ago I scratchbuilt one bomber version in 1/72 and recently had started scrounging materials to make a couple of more Tu-144s and then Modelsvit announced and then released their 1/72 kits. I just received 2 of them last week. Anyway, some real, what-if questions. Tupolev proposed a long range interceptor version, The -144PP, which looked like your basic Charger-B but with a large nose radome like for a Su-27 or MiG-25 or -31 and missiles under the wings. AA-10s maybe. It may have had some ECM pods under the engines but I may be confusing another proposal. The artist concepts in a Tu-144 book I have shows Aeroflot - like markings, but I want to do mine in more military markings, like gray or maybe bare metal and of course red stars. There was also an ECM / Recon proposal that looked essentially like a standard Charger-B. Lastly, there was a cruise missile carrier version, and IIRC, other than some lumps and bumps, looked like the standard airliner with large cruise missiles underneath. In addition to the interceptor version, I might do the cruise missile version. I think I'd do it in the gray upper, white lower scheme of the Backfires. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery? Also, I've wondered, any thoughts in the interceptor version, would it have been give an "F for fighter" code and would the cruise missile version been given a "B for bomber" code. My guess is they would since they wouldn't be transport Chargers. I have a spare Airfix/Heller 1/72 Concorde in my stash to shorten and and new engine nacelles and other mods to make the Charger -A. I've had that thought in the works for a while but now I'd have leftover Modelsvit decals to adapt to the Charger-A.

[McGreig]

I've wondered, any thoughts in the interceptor version, would it have been give an "F for fighter" code and would the cruise missile version been given a "B for bomber" code.

If you're referring to the NATO reporting names, my guess is that the "Charger" code name would definitely have been - - - err - -  uhm - - -  changed or -- - uhm  - - - left the same. One or the other 

NATO doesn't seem to have been totally consistent on reporting names.

For example, the two seat training versions of the Yak-17 (NATO: Feather), MiG-15 (Fagot), Su-7 (Fitter), Yak-28 (Brewer) and Il-28 (Beagle) were allocated the separate "M" class reporting names of Magnet, Midget, Moujik, Maestro and Mascot respectively.

However the two seat versions of the MiG-23 (Flogger), MiG-25 (Foxbat), MiG-29 (Fulcrum) and Su-27 (Flanker) retained their original "F" class names and become Flogger-C, Foxbat-C, Fulcrum-B and Flanker-C.

Similarly the Il-20/22/24 ELINT versions of the Il-18 transport retained the "Coot" code name but the Il-38 maritime reconnaissance version was given the reporting name "May". Admittedly the Il-38 looks different from the Il-18, having its wing mounted much further forward on the fuselage, but the MiG-25U and the Su-27UB have significantly different profiles from their single seat ancestors.

Again, while the Yak-28 interceptor and bomber versions are Firebar and Brewer respectively, the MiG-25 interceptor, reconnaissance and bomber versions are all Foxbats and the MiG-23/27 series are all Floggers regardless of the significant differences in appearance between the interceptors and the ground attack variants.

And when NATO was convinced in the late Sixties/early Seventies (look at old copies of Janes or Observers from that era) that the Tu-28 (Fiddler) was being replaced by an interceptor version of the Tu-22 (Blinder) supersonic bomber they don't seem to have created a new code name  - I can't find the references just now but I'm sure that I remember seeing the rumoured Tu-22 interceptor referred to as Blinder-D or Blinder-E.

Unless the bomber and interceptor versions look significantly different from the airliner, I would stick with "Charger" but, given the above, new "F" or "B" reporting names are probably just as likely.

[scooter]

I've wondered, any thoughts in the interceptor version, would it have been give an "F for fighter" code and would the cruise missile version been given a "B for bomber" code.

Unless the bomber and interceptor versions look significantly different from the airliner, I would stick with "Charger" but, given the above, new "F" or "B" reporting names are probably just as likely.

If you're going for an "F" name, why not (DeSoto) Firedome, Fireflite, or Firesweep? (In keeping with the Mopar name theme)

[rickshaw]

Too similar to existing names.  IIRC the idea was that you couldn't mistake one name for another if it was only partially heard.  Nor were the names intended to be flattering.   Which is why there was no "Beauty" (which was assigned and withdrawn IIRC).

[Gondor]

The reporting names for Soviet aircraft were designated "F" for Fighters; "B" for Bombers; "C" for Civilian and "H" for Helicopters. Trainers used to be given reporting named that started with "M" but may have been dropped with more trainers being combat capable.

Gondor

[famvburg]

It wasn't only trainers that had M names. May, Moss, Mainstay, Madcap, Mystic, and Midas are quite far from being trainers. I believe M was to indicate a miscellaneous type.

[Dizzyfugu]

It wasn't only trainers that had M names. May, Moss, Mainstay, Madcap, Mystic, and Midas are quite far from being trainers. I believe M was to indicate a miscellaneous type.

Correct.

Besides, if it is a jet airplane, the code has to have two syllables (and only one if it's propeller aircraft).

[AS.12]

Bizarrely just found a reference in Flight for 1969 stating that at least two British companies were involved with the Tu-144:  electrical generators from English Electric and hot-air valves from Plessey.  Cossor's SSR transponders were probably also fitted but weren't supplied specifically for that type.