TU-95 vs B-52

[sea vixen]

what is your favorite out of these two legendary aircraft. both types have served there respective countrys for what seems forever now, with still no sign of a replacment. a sure sign of a great design. so who gets your vote.....

[BIGVERN1966]

Seen both types together. B-52 the bigger aircraft with more bombload. B-52 the better by far in my book.

[ink]

B-52 the better by far in my book

Second that. Thats not to say that BEARs aren't damn good at what they do.

[contrailjj]

Anyone have photos of BEARs actually bombing?? I've seen the BUFF doing low-level, high-altitude and ALCMs but never seen anything of the BEARs dropping more than a KERRY (i think)

[Trident]

AFAIK the Russians consider the Tu-95 unsuitable for low-altitude penetration, it is not fitted with a TFR even in its latest version for that reason. While it sure won't be the best low-level bomber this seems to be something the B-52 can do far better, giving it more flexibility. The Bear is practically limited to being a cruise missile launch-platform today. However, it looks much cooler and the Tu-142 has got to be the best MPA airframe ever

[Arthur]

Quote from Trident: "The BEAR is limited to..."

Haven't seen too many B-52s acting as maritime patrol, or C3, or ELINT, or PHOTINT, or VIP transport, or airliner, or AEW system lately.

[GarryB]

The Bear.
That growl...

Personally prefer the Tu-142 version, but then most of the newer Tu-95s are Tu-142s anyway...

[SOC]

Originally Posted by Arthur

Quote from Trident: "The BEAR is limited to..."

Haven't seen too many B-52s acting as maritime patrol, or C3, or ELINT, or PHOTINT, or VIP transport, or airliner, or AEW system lately.

You haven't seen a BEAR doing VIP transport, airliner, or AEW duties either. Nice try, though

The BUFF has performed maritime patrol type duties before, it can carry the AGM-84. And there were a few RB-52s a long time ago.

Regardless, both of them are potent strategic missile carriers. The Russians did, however, typically of them take a good platform and produce variants to perform a number of tasks. The BUFF can't match that, because it hasn't been produced in any other variants obviously, except a few RB-52s.

[GarryB]

You haven't seen a BEAR doing VIP transport, airliner, or AEW duties either. Nice try, though

Perhaps you should google the Tu-114 variant of the Bear?

...the first 747... with turboprops...

Note the Tu-126 AEW is a modification of the Tu-114 airliner, which is a low wing modification of the Tu-95.

Not to mention the Tu-116...
...only way to get from the Soviet Union to Cuba in one hop.

[sea vixen]

i agree that the BUFF is a much more effective conventional bomber, though the Bear is a better all rounder..one thing that suprises me is that they never made a tanker version. saying that with surplus Bison airframes they never needed to. my vote would have to go to the Bear as they just look awesome...

[GoldenDragon]

As far as tons of bombs dropped, combatants (and civilians) killed and the affect on imagination, there is no comparison between the B-52 and the Tu-95.

When you think of B-52, you think of Dr. Stranglove, Arclight, Linebacker and rock band. A military and cultural icon.

[BIGVERN1966]

Originally Posted by GoldenDragon

As far as tons of bombs dropped, combatants (and civilians) killed and the affect on imagination, there is no comparison between the B-52 and the Tu-95.

When you think of B-52, you think of Dr. Stranglove, Arclight, Linebacker and rock band. A military and cultural icon.

No band named the Tu-95's that I know of There is a B-52 cocktail as well, saw it on a med holiday years ago.

[sea vixen]

comon people..they named a animal after the Tu-95 didnt they !!!!!!!!.

[GoldenDragon]

The big-haired bouffant hairstyle (usually a wig because it was a pain to actually create with a natural head of hair) was also called a B-52 -- was probably the inspiration for the rock band.

[BIGVERN1966]

Originally Posted by sea vixen

comon people..they named a animal after the Tu-95 didnt they !!!!!!!!.

other way round mate

[Flanker_man]

Originally Posted by GarryB

Perhaps you should google the Tu-114 variant of the Bear?

...the first 747... with turboprops...

Note the Tu-126 AEW is a modification of the Tu-114 airliner, which is a low wing modification of the Tu-95.

Not to mention the Tu-116...
...only way to get from the Soviet Union to Cuba in one hop.

I think what SOC was saying is that the AEW & Transport variants weren't BEAR's - they were Tu-114 Cleats - a different beast altogether.

Only the Tu-116 was a Bear (read Tu-95) derivative........using the same airframe.

But then again, Bear & Cleat are all western (ASCC) designations anyway, lets call them by their proper names - Tu-95, Tu-114, Tu-126, Tu-116 etc.

Only the early Tu-95's were pure 'bombers' - with an internal bomb load of 12 tonnes of dumb ordnance.

The Tu-95MS-16 had provision for 16 x X-55 cruise missiles.

Max speed of a Tu-95MS is 525mph - not far short of the B-52's 560mph (the -K variant of the Tu-95 could reach 547mph).

Ken

[Flanker_man]

Anyway, enough of this 'my planes better than your plane' nonsense - we're all friends now.....

and just to prove it, here is a pic of a B-52 and Tu-142 sharing the ramp at RAF Fairford....

....and being 'refuelled' with Liquid Oxygen - from the B-52's LOX cart....

(the Tu-95/142 have NATO-standard fittings for fuel, electrical, etc connections).

Ken

[Trident]

Only the Tu-95? If so, why?

[ink]

....and being 'refuelled' with Liquid Oxygen - from the B-52's LOX cart....

Kinda like plane sex .

[GoldenDragon]

Plane sex is when a USAF K-135 plugging a F-15's receptacle. Two aircraft.

This is more like bestiality since the cart is a different mechanical species.

[contrailjj]

Originally Posted by Trident

Only the Tu-95? If so, why?

All Soviet aircraft we built like that... call it wishful thinking or forward planning - in the eventuality of conflict with the West, any quickly over-run/occupied territory and hence equipent could be used to service the Soviet aircraft... Fuel, Oxygen, tow-bars etc

Apologies for the off-topic pics - they're just to illustrate...
Russian Il-76, Ottawa 1990... Canadian Forces cart - hiding under wing (although they did bring their own tow-bars for the MiGs)
Ukraine MiG-29, Trenton 1992.... Canadian Forces cart

[J Boyle]

With all due respects to the TU-95, I'll say the B-52.

I've flown in a Stratofortress, an awesome ride 500ft above Montana
-by being a pure jet, it skipped over turboprops technologically..a more daring design at the time?
-not a bad looking airplane (before the EVS "nose bumps" anyway...)
-and finally...
it was never pointed in my direction with nukes... there is something to be said for that....

[SOC]

Originally Posted by GoldenDragon

Plane sex is when a USAF K-135 plugging a F-15's receptacle. Two aircraft.

This is more like bestiality since the cart is a different mechanical species.

That is officially the funniest thing I've heard all weekend

Anyway, the Tu-95MA deserves honorable mention here. It tested the baddest missile design of the Cold War...the Meteorit.

[Berlusconi]

from the standpoint of the crews actually flying the things.. definitely the B-52.. and I'm sure the Bear crews would wish they were in those too.

[GarryB]

How many planes were derived from the B-52 design?

The Tu-95/-142 is the fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world and is not that much slower than comparable jet bombers.

Who cares if the B-52 can carry a heavier load of dumb bombs... if that were important sling 250 tons of bombs in the back of an AN-225.

[Flanker_man]

Originally Posted by Trident

Only the Tu-95? If so, why?

No, not only the Tu-95 - most Soviet-era - and now Russian - aircraft had/have NATO-compatible connectors.

The intention being to use NATO facilities when they swept across Europe and occupied NATO airfields !!

Ken

[jackehammond]

Dear Members,

In the high altitude and medium altitude the B-52 is the king. But at low altitude the TU-95 has the advantage big time. The B-52 can't equal the TU-95 in either range or speed at low altitude. It is actually far more payload/range efficent over the B-52 because of its engines.

TU-95s use to do reconn missions in the UK-Iceland Gap and were intercepted by RAF Lightenings and Phantoms. The TU-95s would just put the metal to the floor and the Lightenings and Phantoms had a hard time keeping up if at low altitude and to keep an eye on the TU-95s both RAF aircraft had to have tanker support if shadowing a TU-95 at low altitude.

Today, the TU-95 would by far be the more cost effective JDAM platform for use over Afghanistan on standing watch patrols. It is just far more efficent in fuel use.

Either way, the TU-95 forced the US to spend BILLIONS on air defense. It was one of the few weapons that the Russians developed that put the US into a spending spiral. Eisenhower was shocked when U-2 photos discovered that the TU-95 was the main strategic bomber and not the Bison.

Jack E. Hammond

[Trident]

Thanks for clarifying contrailjj and Ken. It's just that the post made it sound like the Tu-95 family might be the only ones which would have been weird.

[BIGVERN1966]

Another thing in the Bear's book, the biggest bomb ever? however you may have been able to fit this thing inside a B-52, which you could not do with a Bear.

[Flanker_man]

Originally Posted by BIGVERN1966

Another thing in the Bear's book, the biggest bomb ever? however you may have been able to fit this thing inside a B-52, which you could not do with a Bear.

Don't forget that the Tu-95 had the same fuselage diameter as the B-29 - it being a direct lineal descendant via the Tu-85, Tu-80 and Tu-4.

Ken