That story is true (there is even a picture on the net showung a F3 with afterburner following a bear) the bear was very fast at the interception alltitude and have great acceleration potential (modification of the angle of the screw) then the tornado F3 is crap at those altitude with poor accelleration and so on the same scenario will not have happens to an other fighter at an other alltitue. it is in fact more a proof of a weakness of the tornado than of the performance of the bear.
here is an extract of an article on the bear vs tornado
Bear Acceleration -
The accounts of Bears out-accelerating western jet fighters are true,
but only in the case of Tornado F.3 intercepts. This is more a measure
of the Tornado's weaknesses at high altitude than the Bear's exceptional
capabilities. The Tornado's high wing-loading and engines optimized for
low altitude make it a slug in the high altitude, subsonic regime. This
performance failing is well known throughout NATO, but Gulf War
experiences and recent accounts of Bear intercepts have brought the
deficiency to public light. The Bear is powerful, fast and efficient
for a subsonic bomber, but most fighters will leave it in the dust
without the mere flicker of an AB plume.
and an other extract
with bear performance
Max. speed at 25,000 ft 575 mph, at S/L 404 mph, nominal cruising speed 442 mph, ceiling 39,370 ft, combat radius with 25,000 lb payload 3,975 miles, with one in-flight refueling 5,155 miles.
It is rumored that Bear is known to be able to out accelerate contemporary western interceptors. This hard to believe fact can be accounted by use of variable-pitch propellers of NK-12M turboprops. Modern jets need to use afterburners to keep up with accelerating Bear. In fact, one of the photo showing Panavia Toronado using reheat on one of the engines while pursuing this remarkable bomber.